[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24501-24515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11797]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. H-71]
RIN 1218-AA95
Methylene Chloride; Notice of Motion for Reconsideration;
Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of motion for reconsideration; proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
received a motion for reconsideration of certain provisions of its
standard regulating occupational exposure to methylene chloride (MC),
62 FR 1494 (Jan. 10, 1997). The motion, filed jointly by the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Halogenated Solvents Industry
Alliance, Inc., and others asks OSHA to amend the methylene chloride
standard by adding to the medical surveillance provisions of the
standard a provision for temporary medical removal protection benefits
for employees who are temporarily removed or transferred to another job
because of a medical determination that exposure to methylene chloride
may aggravate or contribute to the employee's existing skin, heart,
liver, or neurological disease; and modifying certain startup dates for
employers in certain identified application groups, i.e., who use MC in
certain work operations. The standard currently requires employers with
fewer than 20 employees to complete installation of engineering
controls by April 10, 2000 and larger employers to do so by earlier
dates. The motion asks that the April 10, 2000 startup date for
engineering controls be applied to some additional small- and medium-
sized employers in the identified application groups. Shorter startup
date extensions are requested for the larger employers in those same
application groups. The parties to the motion further request that
respirator use to achieve the 8-hour time-weighted-average permissible
exposure limit not be required before the engineering control startup
dates for the employers covered by the motion.
OSHA tentatively concludes that the amendments are appropriate and
are supported by the rulemaking record. Accordingly, OSHA is hereby
proposing to amend the MC standard with the
[[Page 24502]]
modifications the parties have recommended. OSHA is reopening the
rulemaking record for the methylene chloride standard for 30 days for
the limited purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed
amendments.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed rule must be postmarked or
transmitted by fax on or before June 3, 1998. Comments concerning the
collection of information requirements must be postmarked or
transmitted by fax on or before July 6, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to: The Docket
Office, Docket No. H-71, Room N-2625, United States Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202) 219-7894. Comments of 10 pages or fewer may be transmitted by fax
to (202) 219-5046, provided the original and three copies are sent to
the Docket Office thereafter. The hours of operation of the Docket
Office are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of Public Affairs, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS: This proposed rule contains
collection of information requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1052, ``Methylene
Chloride,'' in paragraphs (j)(11)(B) and (j)(14)(i), (ii), and (iv).
Under these requirements employers must provide certain employees with
additional medical examinations beyond those now required under the
standard. The proposed rule would not change the requirement in the
existing standard that employers provide the employee with a copy of
the written medical opinion for each medical examination required by
the standard. Because it requires additional medical examinations than
does the current rule and, for some of those examinations, the
provision of more information about the results, the proposed rule
imposes additional collection of information requirements on employers
than the current standard. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11 require Federal agencies to submit
collections of information contained in proposed rules to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. OSHA has submitted the
appropriate request to OMB for approval. OSHA currently has approval
for the collection of information requirements in the existing
Methylene Chloride standard under OMB Control Number 1218-0179.
OSHA invites comments on whether the proposed collection of
information:
1. Ensures that the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of OSHA, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
2. Estimates the projected burden accurately, including whether the
methodology and assumptions used are valid;
3. Enhances the quality, utility and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
4. Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques,
or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Title: Methylene Chloride (MC) (29 CFR 1910.1052).
Description: The purpose of this standard and its information
collection requirements is to protect employees from adverse health
effects associated with occupational exposure to MC. The current
standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure to MC, inform
employees of monitoring results, and notify employees of corrective
action to be taken. Employers are also required to provide medical
surveillance to employees who are exposed to MC above the action level.
Employers must also provide information and training to employees on
the following: health effects of MC, specifics regarding use of MC in
the workplace, the content of the standard, and means the employees can
take to protect themselves from overexposure to MC.
In response to a motion for reconsideration by the United Auto
Workers (UAW), the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., and
others, the Agency is proposing to add paragraphs (j)(9)(i) (A) and
(B), (j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14), dealing with
medical removal protection, medical removal protection benefits,
voluntary removal or restriction of an employee, and multiple health
care professional review to the MC standard.
Respondents: The respondents are employers whose employees have
occupational exposure to MC, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
75-09-2, in general industry, construction and shipyard employment,
approximately 92,000 respondents.
Estimate of Burden Hours: OSHA estimates that the total burden for
the proposed MC collection of information provision will be 619 burden
hours.
Estimate of Costs: OSHA estimates that the total cost for the first
year will be $60,515 for the collection of information provision.
Interested parties are requested to send comments regarding this
information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn. OSHA Desk officer, OMB New Executive Office Building,
725 17th Street, NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are
encouraged to send a copy of their comments on the collection of
information to OSHA along with their other comments.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget
approval of the final information collection request: They will also
become a matter of public record. Copies of the referenced information
collection request are available for inspection and copying in the OSHA
Docket office and will be mailed immediately to any person who requests
copies by telephoning Adrian Corsey at (202) 219-7075 extension 105.
For electronic copies of the MC information collection request, contact
OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and click on
``Federal Register Notices''. Then click on ``Type of Publication'',
then ``Notices'', and lastly ``1998''. Copies of the request are also
available at the OMB docket office.
I. Background
On January 10, 1997, OSHA issued a standard regulating occupational
exposure to methylene chloride (MC). 62 FR 1494. The standard was
designed to reduce both the risk that worker exposure to MC will cause
cancer and the risk that MC will cause or aggravate certain other
adverse health effects. The standard reduced the prior 8-hour time-
weighted-average permissible exposure limit (8-hour TWA PEL) to MC from
500 parts per million (ppm) to 25 ppm. It also set a short term
exposure limit (STEL) of 125 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period.
The 8-hour TWA PEL was set at 25 ppm to reduce, to the extent
feasible, the risk that workers exposed to MC would contract cancer.
Data showing that MC exposure presents a risk of cancer included animal
bioassay data, studies detailing the metabolism of MC to carcinogenic
products in humans, and epidemiological studies suggesting an elevated
risk of biliary cancer and astrocytic brain cancer in MC-exposed
workers. The agency used a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic
[[Page 24503]]
(PBPK) model to estimate the cancer risk. OSHA's final risk assessment
estimated that, at the prior 8-hour TWA PEL of 500 ppm (a level that
the Agency found was considerably higher than the level at which most
affected workers were currently exposed, see 62 FR 1565), lifetime
occupational exposure to MC could result in approximately 125 cancer
deaths per 1000 exposed workers. 62 FR 1563, Table VII. At the new 8-
hour TWA PEL of 25 ppm, OSHA estimated that the excess cancer risk
would be reduced to approximately 3.6 deaths per 1000 workers. Id. OSHA
concluded that a significant risk to workers remains at an exposure
level of 25 ppm but set the 8-hour TWA PEL at that level because it was
the lowest level for which OSHA could document feasibility across all
the affected application groups. 62 FR 1575.
The STEL was set at 125 ppm to minimize the adverse health effects
caused by acute exposure to MC. Central nervous system (CNS) depression
has been observed at MC concentrations as low as 175 ppm. CNS
depression is characterized by fatigue, difficulty in maintaining
concentration, dizziness, and headaches. These consequences of MC
exposure constitute material impairments of health and, by reducing
workers' coordination and concentration, can lead to workplace
accidents. Also, MC is metabolized to carbon monoxide (CO) and
therefore causes health impairment similar to that caused by direct
exposure to CO. Carbon monoxide blocks the oxygen binding site on
hemoglobin, producing carboxyhemoglobin, or COHb. Elevated COHb levels
reduce the supply to oxygen to the heart and can aggravate pre-existing
heart disease and lead to heart attacks. Physical exertion increases
the concentration of COHb in MC-exposed workers and thus increases the
risk of a heart attack, particularly to persons with silent or
symptomatic cardiac disease, who may be susceptible to very small
increases in COHb due to an already impaired blood supply to the heart.
The liver and skin are also susceptible to acute effects from MC
exposure. Chlorinated hydrocarbons as a class (of which MC is a member)
are generally toxic to the liver. However, animal studies indicate that
MC is among the least hepatotoxic of this class of compounds. The
limited amount of human data that are available is inconclusive but
supports the hypothesis that MC is toxic to the liver. 62 FR at 1515.
Prolonged skin contact with MC also causes irritation and skin burns.
62 FR at 1609.
Employers must achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL and the STEL, to the
extend feasible, by engineering and work practice controls. If such
controls are unable to achieve the exposure limits, and during the time
they are being implemented, employers must provide, at no cost to
employees, and ensure that employees use, appropriate respirators. The
standard does not permit the use of air-purifying respirators to
protect against MC exposure because MC 1uickly penetrates all currently
available organic vapor cartridges, rendering air-purifying respirators
ineffective after a relatively brief period of time. Therefore, when
respiratory protection is required, the standard provides that
atomsphere-supplying respirators must be used.
The standard requires employers to provide medical surveillance to
employees who are exposed to MC either (1) at or above the action level
on 30 or more days per year or at or above the 8-hour TWA PEL or STEL
on 10 or more days per year; (2) at or above the 8-hour TWL Pel or STEL
for any time period where an employee who has been identified by a
physician or other licensed health care professional as being at risk
from cardiac disease or from some other serious MC-related health
condition requests inclusion in the medical surveillance program; or
(3) during an emergency. The medical surveillance must include a
comprehensive medical and work history that emphasizes neurological
symptoms, skin conditions, history of hematologic or liver disease,
signs or symptoms suggestive of heart disease (angina, coronary artery
disease), risk factors for cardiac disease, MC exposures, and work
practices and personal protective equipment used during such exposures.
The standard's medical surveillance procedures focus on MC's
noncarcinogenic health effects because a medical surveillance program
cannot detect cancer at a preneoplastic state. 62 FR at 1589. However,
the standard's medical surveillance provisions can lead to early
detection of cancer and to higher survival rates from early treatment.
OSHA found that the standard was both technologically and
economically feasible in all of the industrial applications that use
MC. However, the Agency recognizes that larger employers are better
able than smaller ones to absorb or pass through the costs associated
with compliance with the standard. To avoid placing an undue economic
burden on small businesses, OSHA provided for later startup dates for
small employers. Larger employers were given until April 10, 1998 (one
year after the standard's effective date) to complete installation of
engineering controls to achieve the PEL and STEL, while employers with
fewer than 20 employees were given a total of three years, or until
April 10, 2000, to do so. Employers with fewer than 20 employees were
also given more time than larger employers to comply with the other
provisions of the standard. In addition, intermediate startup dates
were established for polyurethane foam manufacturers with 20-99
employees because OSHA anticipated that firms in that group could have
somewhat higher capital expenditures to meet the requirements of the
standard.
II. The Motion for Reconsideration
The motion filed by the parties asks OSHA to reconsider two aspects
of the standard: (1) The agency's decision not to include medical
removal protection benefits in the medical surveillance provisions of
the standard; and (2) the start-up dates for engineering controls and
for use of respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL for employers
using MC in certain specific applications.
Those applications are:
Polyurethane foam manufacturing;
Foam fabrication;
Furniture refinishing;
General aviation aircraft stripping;
Formulation of products containing methylene chloride;
Boat building and repair;
Recreational vehicle manufacture;
Van conversion;
Upholstery; and
Use of methylene chloride in construction work for
restoration and preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal,
cabinet making and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing.
The motion requests that the standard's current final engineering
control startup date of April 10, 2000, which now applies to employers
with fewer than 20 employees, be applied also to employers in the
specified application groups with 20-49 employees and to foam
fabricators with 20-149 employees. (In referring to an employer's
number of employees, the parties to the motion explain that they intend
for the number of employees to refer to the total number or workers
employed by the particular employer, not the number who work at a
particular facility or the number that use methylene chloride in their
work.) The motion requests shorter extensions of the engineering
control dates for larger employers in these application groups. The
parties further request that respirator use to achieve the 8-hour TWA
PEL not be required before the
[[Page 24504]]
engineering control startup dates for the employers covered by the
motion.
In evaluating the motion, OSHA notes that the parties are not
seeking to modify the fundamental protections provided to workers by
the standard. They are not challenging the 8-hour TWA PEL or the STEL
or the requirement that those limits be met, to the extent feasible,
through engineering and work practice controls. Nor are the parties
seeking modifications of the provisions in the standard for regulated
areas, protective work clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities,
hazard communication, employee information and training, and
recordkeeping. Moreover, the extensions of the startup dates that they
seek would not change the standard's current final compliance deadline
of April 10, 2000 but would merely give additional employers the
benefit of that startup date. The parties suggest that their proposed
changes to startup dates will enhance long-term worker protection by
enabling employers to use their resources effectively and efficiently
in developing permanent engineering solutions to reduce MC exposures in
their workplaces. The parties' proposed addition to the medical
surveillance provisions of the standard--a provision for medical
removal protection benefits--is also designed to enhance worker
protection by encouraging worker participation in medical surveillance.
Thus, the parties believe that the amendments they seek will promote
worker protection while minimizing employers' compliance burdens.
III. Medical Removal Protection Benefits
OSHA set the permissible exposure limits for methylene chloride to
eliminate significant risk, to the extent feasible, to workers exposed
to MC. However, individuals vary in their response to chemical
exposures. Some may see their health impaired, or preexisting medical
conditions aggravated, at an exposure level that does not provoke such
effects in most workers. Medical surveillance can identify those
workers who exhibit signs or symptoms of illnesses that could be
aggravated by exposure to a toxic substance and lead to treatment or
reduction in exposure. OSHA has therefore provided for medical
surveillance whenever it has issued a new standard for a single toxic
substance.
Medical surveillance can result in a medical opinion that
particular workers should be removed from their present jobs have their
work activities otherwise restricted. This can lead to concern among
workers that participation in medical surveillance could cost them
their jobs. A worker who fear that medical surveillance may endanger
his or her livelihood may be reluctant to consent to medical tests or
to provide complete and accurate information during a medical
examination. If employees whose health could be significantly impaired
by continued MC exposure withhold their full cooperation, they might
continue to be exposed to MC without being aware that such exposure
poses a risk to their health. To avoid having the potential loss of a
job act as a disincentive to workers participating in the standard's
medical surveillance program, OSHA has, in certain of its toxic
chemical standards, provided for medical removal protection benefits
(MRPB). MRPB provisions require that an employer who must remove an
employee from continued exposure to a chemical or otherwise restrict an
employee's exposure to that chemical must maintain the employee's
earnings and other employment rights and benefits for a specified time.
When it has included MRPB provisions in earlier standards, OSHA has
delineated as specifically as possible the medical conditions that
trigger removal. Where possible, the Agency has specified objective
removal criteria. For example, the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025)
requires that an employee be removed from exposure above the action
level when an employee's blood lead concentration exceeds a certain
value. Similarly, the cadmium standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) lists
objective biological monitoring criteria that trigger medical removal.
OSHA has also, however, recognized that medical removal is
sometimes appropriate without regard to specific biological markers
when, in the judgment of a physician or other licenses health care
professional, removal is necessary to protect the health of the
employee. Thus, in addition to objective removal criteria, the lead and
cadmium standards provide for medical removal based on the discretion
of a health care professional. The lead standard requires medical
removal ``on each occasion that a final medical determination results
in a medical finding, determination, or opinion that the employee has a
detected medical condition which places the employee at increased risk
of material impairment to health from exposure to lead.'' Under the
cadmium standard, an employee must be removed if a written medical
opinion determines that removal is justified by ``biological monitoring
results, inability to wear a respirator, evidence of illness, other
signs or symptoms of cadmium-related dysfunction or disease, or any
other reason deemed medically sufficient * * *.'' The formaldehyde
standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) contains no objective criteria for medical
removal but provides for removal ``if the physician finds that
significant irritation of the mucosa of the eyes or of the upper
airways, respiratory sensitization, dermal irritation, or dermal
sensitization result from workplace formaldehyde exposure and
recommends restrictions or removal.''
In the proposed MC rule, OSHA solicited comment on whether it
should provide for medical removal protection benefits in the final
rule. 56 FR at 57043 (Nov. 7, 1991). A number of commenters urged the
Agency to do so on the basis that MRPB would encourage employee
participation in medical surveillance. In the final rule, OSHA found,
as it had in the earlier standards discussed above, that MRPB would
increase employee participation in medical surveillance. However, the
Agency declined to include such a provision in the standard because it
did not believe it could offer substantive guidance to medical
professionals as to when it would be appropriate to remove an employee
from further MC exposure or to return a removed employee to the
workplace. 62 FR at 1595.
The parties to the motion for reconsideration believe they have
drafted a provision that is narrowly tailored to diseases that MC
exposure may aggravate and that limits the scope of the provision in a
way that avoids any undue economic burden on small employers. Under
their proposal, MRPB would be required only when a physician or other
licensed health care professional (PLHCP) determines that the
employee's exposure to MC would contribute to or aggravate the
employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke),
or skin disease. The parties note that the heart, liver, central
nervous system, and skin are the organs and systems that OSHA
identified in the standard as being particularly susceptible to MC-
induced noncarcinogenic health effects. They believe that physicians
and other licensed health care professionals will be able to render an
informed judgment as to whether MC exposure will contribute to or
aggravate an existing disease affecting these systems or organs.
The parties further propose, in paragraph (j)(10), that the
standard require the PLHCP to presume that MC exposure below the 8-hour
TWA PEL
[[Page 24505]]
will not aggravate an existing disease of the heart, liver, central
nervous system, or skin. Under the proposal, a PLHCP who recommends
removal of an employee who is exposed below the 8-hour TWA PEL must
cite specific medical evidence to support the recommendation. Absent
such evidence, the employer need not remove the employee.
When a medical determination indicates removal, the parties'
proposal requires the employer to either transfer the employee to
comparable work where MC exposures are below the action level or remove
the employee from MC exposure. For each employee thus removed or
transferred, the employer must maintain the employee's earnings,
seniority, and other employment rights and benefits for up to six
months. The employer may cease paying MRP benefits before the end of
the six-month period upon receipt of a medical determination that the
employee's exposure to MC will no longer aggravate any existing
cardiac, hepatic, neurological, or dermal disease, or upon receipt of a
medical determination concluding that the employee can never return to
MC exposure above the action level.
The parties also propose inclusion of provisions that OSHA has
routinely included in previous standards that provided for MRPB. These
provisions (1) allow an employer to condition an employee's receipt of
MRPB on participation in follow-up medical surveillance; (2) provide
for a diminution of MRP benefits to offset any workers' compensation
indemnity payments the employee receives for the same period of time;
(3) provide an offset of such benefits against compensation from a
publicly or employer-funded compensation program or income the employee
receives from other employment that is made possible by virtue of the
employee's removal, and (4) require the employer to pay MRP benefits if
it voluntarily removes or restricts an employee due to the effects of
MC exposure on the employee's medical condition.
The current standard provides for the employer to select the PLHCP
who conducts medical surveillance. Under the parties' proposal, the
health care professional selected by the employer would make the
medical determination whether to recommend that an employee be removed.
The parties also, propose to include a provision that allows employees
the option to have the recommendation of the employer-selected health
care professional reviewed by a health care professional or the
employee's choice. If the two health care professionals disagree, they
jointly designate a third, who must be a specialist in the field at
issue and whose written opinion is the definitive medical determination
under the standard. The parties note that, in previous standards that
have provided for MRPB, OSHA has included similar provisions for multi-
step review to strengthen the basis for medical removal determinations
and to increase employee confidence in those determinations.
The parties have also recommended a provision designed to avoid an
undue burden that could result if a small business would need to
provide medical removal protection benefits to more than one employee
at the same time. Paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B) of their proposal states that
if the employer receives a recommendation for medical removal of an
additional employee and comparable work that does not involve exposure
to MC at or above the action level is not available, the employer need
not remove the additional employee if the employer can demonstrate that
removal and the costs of MRP benefits to that employee, considering
feasibility in relation to the size of the employer's business and the
other requirements of this standard, make further reliance on MRP an
inappropriate remedy. In such a case, the employer may retain the
additional employee in the existence job until transfer or removal
becomes appropriate, provided: (i) The employer or the PLHCP informs
the additional employee of the risk to the employee's health from
continued MC exposure; and (ii) the employer ensures that the employee
receives medical surveillance, including a physical examination, at
least every 60 days.
OSHA has carefully considered the parties' proposal in light of its
earlier concern that a MRPB provision must provide sufficient guidance
to licensed health care professionals as to when medical removal is
indicated. OSHA concludes that the MRPB provision recommended by the
parties delineates with sufficient specificity the circumstances that
can trigger medical removal protection benefits. First, the provision
requires MRPB only if the PLHCP finds that the employee has an
identifiable disease of one or more specific organs that are known to
be susceptible to MC exposure. Second, by providing for a rebuttable
presumption that such a disease will not be aggravated by exposure to
MC below the 8-hour TWA PEL, the parties' proposal ensures that the
physician or other health care professional will take into account the
level of methylene chloride to which the worker is exposed. OSHA
believes that, with these constraints, the parties' proposal will
improve employee confidence and participation in medical surveillance
while providing adequate guidance to the physicians and other licensed
health care professionals who will be conducting medical surveillance
and making recommendations for medical removal under the standard.
OSHA also believes that the ancillary provisions of the MRPB
program recommended by the parties are appropriate. The parties have
patterned their recommendation on the existing OSHA standards that
provide for MRPB. OSHA agrees that provisions it has routinely included
as part of a MRPB program, including those providing for a multi-step
review process, should be included in the methylene chloride standard.
OSHA continues to believe that multi-step review is vital to ensuring
employee confidence in medical removal determinations and is a
necessary part of any standard that provides for medical removal
protection benefits.
The one provision in the parties' proposal with no direct
counterpart in earlier standards that provide for MRPB is the provision
in proposed paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B) that would allow an employer who
has already removed one or more employees under paragraph (j)(11) to
retain an additional employee in the existing job despite a removal
recommendation if removal would result in undue economic burden. In
such a situation, the parties propose that the employer must provide
enhanced medical surveillance to the employee and must ensure that the
employee who is not removed is fully informed of the health risk
presented by continued MC exposure.
OSHA agrees with the parties that, in the limited circumstances
specified in this provision, it is appropriate to allow an employer to
retain an employee in his or her present job, even when the PLHCP has
recommended removal, provided the employer ensures that the employee
receives the more frequent medical surveillance specified in the
proposed provision and is fully aware of the health risk. Frequent
medical surveillance and full information will enable the employer and
employee to take steps to minimize the risk under exiting workplace
conditions, by, for example, implementing those controls that are in
place and strictly following work practices that are designed to
minimize the employee's MC exposure. Thus, the parties' proposal
provides additional protection to those workers who would be retained
in their current jobs under paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B).
[[Page 24506]]
IV. Extensions of Startup Dates
The motion for reconsideration requests that the standard's current
final engineering control startup date of April 10, 2000, which is
limited in the final standard to employers with fewer than 20
employees, also apply to employers in the specified application groups
who have 20-49 employees and to foam fabricators who have 20-149
employees. According to the parties employers in these application
groups and size categories, like those with fewer than 20 employees,
have limited resources with which to develop and implement engineering
controls and will be able to use those resources more efficiently if
given additional time to develop and install effective controls and to
take advantage of the compliance assistance that OSHA plans to offer.
The motion requests shorter extensions of the engineering control dates
for larger employers in these application groups.
The parties further request that respirator use to achieve the 8-
hour TWA PEL (currently required by Aug. 31, 1998 under a partial stay
issued by OSHA on Dec. 18, 1997, 62 FR 66275) not be required before
the engineering control startup dates for those employers covered by
the motion. They contend that workers would be better protected if
these employers can concentrate their limited resources on implementing
effective engineering controls rather than diverting part of those
resources to interim and expensive respiratory protection that would no
longer be needed a short time later, once full compliance with the 8-
hour TWA PEL and STEL is achieved by engineering controls.
The following chart shows the startup dates requested by the motion
for reconsideration. Where the startup date for a provision has already
passed, the chart lists that provision as being ``in effect.'' For the
reasons discussed below, OSHA is now proposing to adopt the startup
dates requested by the parties to the motion.
Proposed Startup Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected applications
Selected applications \1\ with 50 or more
Employers with fewer Polyurethane foam \1\ with 1-49 employees and foam All other employers
than 20 employees mfrs. with 20 or more employees and foam fabricators with 150 with 20 or more
employees fabricators with 1- or more employees employees
149 employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering controls to achieve 8- April 10, 2000 October 10, 1999 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.
hour TWA PEL and STEL. (unchanged from
current standard).
Respirators to achieve 8-hour TWA April 10, 2000 \2\.... October 10, 2000 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.
PEL.
Respirators to achieve STEL........ In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.
All other provisions............... In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As described earlier, the selected applications are furniture refinishing; general aviation aircraft stripping; product formulation; use of MC-based
adhesive for boat building and repair, recreational vehicle manufacture, van conversion, or upholstery; and use of MC in construction work for
restoration and preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making, or floor refinishing and resurfacing.
\2\ Under a partial stay issued on December 18, 1997 (62 FR 66275) these dates are now December 10, 1998 for engineering controls and August 31, 1998
for respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL.
OSHA generally agrees that worker protection against MC exposure
will best be achieved if employers develop and install effective
engineering controls as soon as practicable. OSHA has long recognized
that engineering controls are superior to respiratory protection as a
means of protecting workers against inhalation of toxic chemicals.
Engineering controls protect workers by reducing the airborne
concentrations of methylene chloride to or below permitted limits.
Their effectiveness does not, unlike respirator use, depend on the
respiratory protection functioning as designed or on employers
effectively supervising employees to ensure that they use and maintain
respiratory equipment consistently and properly. Respirators also may
present safety hazards by limiting workers' mobility, vision, and
ability to communicate.
The agency also recognizes that employers require a reasonable
amount of time to develop and install engineering controls. Engineering
controls, such as local exhaust ventilation, must be properly designed
and installed if they are to work efficiently. The parties request that
OSHA help employers in the application groups for which relief is
sought to develop effective engineering controls by offering compliance
assistance that will give those employers guidance as to appropriate
engineering controls and avoid the uncertainty and expense that would
result if each employer were to attempt to design and implement its own
controls. OSHA agrees that compliance assistance would help employers
use their resources more efficiently and plans to offer such
assistance. Already, OSHA has developed Fact Sheets for a number of
applications that identify engineering controls and work practices that
employers can use to protect their employees against MC exposure. OSHA
has also developed a small entity compliance guide and has started
conducting a series of outreach seminars on the MC standard in various
cities around the country. OSHA intends to add to this information base
to further help employers to develop engineering controls that would be
both effective and feasible to implement in their facilities.
Although OSHA has long recognized the superiority of engineering
controls, respirator use is necessary when engineering and work
practice controls cannot achieve the required exposure levels. The
Agency has consistently required that respirators be used when feasible
engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve permissible
exposure limits. OSHA also requires the use of respirators for interim
protection while engineering controls are being developed and
installed. For most toxic chemicals, air-purifying respirators, which
are relatively inexpensive, provide effective protection at most
workplace exposure levels. However, air-purifying respirators do not
provide effective protection against MC exposure because MC quickly
penetrates all currently available organic vapor cartridges. Therefore,
when respirators are required under the MC standard,
[[Page 24507]]
atmosphere-supplying respirators must be used.
Atmosphere-supplying respirators are a relatively expensive type of
respiratory equipment, requiring the employer not only to purchase the
respiratory equipment itself but also to install an air compressor and
associated ductwork or rent cylinders containing breathing air. In
light of the relatively high cost associated with the atmosphere-
supplying respirators required by the MC standard, OSHA agrees with the
parties that the standard should permit employers in the identified
application groups to concentrate their limited resources on developing
permanent engineering solutions rather than diverting part of those
resources to interim respiratory protection to achieve the 8-hour TWA
PEL.
OSHA further notes that the parties' proposal will provide workers
with significant interim protection before the final compliance
deadline of April 10, 2000 or by whatever earlier date controls are
required. First, under the parties' proposal, the STEL will go into
effect as scheduled, and employers will be required to ensure that some
combination of engineering controls, work practice controls, and
respiratory protection reduce exposures below that level. Workers will
therefore be protected against acute health effects associated with
high short-term exposure to MC. Moreover, reduction of short-term
exposures to below the STEL will, in many cases, help reduce 8-hour
time-weighted average exposures as well and will thereby provide
workers with some interim protection against the chronic effects of MC
exposure.
The parties' proposal will also not delay compliance with the
requirement that employers implement feasible work practices to reduce
MC exposures. Such controls can achieve significant reductions in MC
exposures in many workplaces at low cost. Early implementation of work
practice controls will also enable employers to evaluate the extent to
which exposures can be reduced by such controls and will enable them to
better determine the nature and extent of the engineering controls they
will need to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL and STEL. Furthermore, the
remaining protections of the standard (regulated areas, protective work
clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities, hazard communication,
employee information and training, and recordkeeping) will take effect
as currently scheduled for all employers.
In many workplace situations, adherence to careful work practices
will achieve substantial reductions in MC exposures. In its Fact
Sheets, OSHA has identified feasible work practices for several of the
application groups (furniture refinishing, polyurethane foam
manufacturing, construction work) for which the parties seek relief.
Many of the identified work practices would be feasible for and useful
to facilities in other application groups as well. To facilitate
widespread dissemination of the information on work practices in the
Fact Sheets, OSHA is listing them below.
A. Furniture Refinishers
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Keep the door to mixing/storage areas closed at all times.
Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep solution containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of stripping
solutions.
Keep dip tanks and reservoir tanks covered when not in
use.
Keep the stripping solution at the appropriate temperature
(often around 70 deg. F). At this temperature, wax in the solution will
form a vapor barrier that prevents the solution from evaporating too
quickly. If the temperature is too high or too low, the wax will not
form a vapor barrier.
Do not let sludge dry on the stripping table. Place the
wet sludge in sealed containers for later recovery or disposal, or dry
it using proper engineering controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation)
to capture the MC vapors.
Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Turn on the dip tank or stripping table ventilation system
at least an hour before work begins or leave it on overnight.
Avoid breathing air directly above the stripping solution
and dip tank. Do not lean over the tank when working.
Avoid breathing the air directly above the furniture
during manual stripping. Do not lean over an area covered with
stripper.
Do not work or stand between solution-covered furniture
and the exhaust system.
Turn the solution-recycling system off when it is not
being used.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can
quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow your facility's procedures for
detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill
control devices.
Frequently inspect process equipment, holding tanks, and
spill control devices for cracks, loose parts, and other possible
sources of leaks.
Where spills occur, follow procedures for containing them.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces such as tanks and maintenance pits.
Do not enter or lean into a storage tank, dip tank, or
low-lying confined area until it has been completely aired out and
tested. Wear proper PPE and follow the appropriate confined space entry
procedures outlined in OSHA's Permit Required Confined Spaces standard
(29 CFR 1910.146).
Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop
into a confined space or low-lying area.
B. Polyurethane Foam Manufacturers
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Keep the doors to the pouring and cooling areas closed at
all times.
Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep MC containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC.
Keep the openings on the sides of the tunnel closed when
it is not in use.
[[Page 24508]]
This keeps MC vapors from escaping and ensures that the makeup air
system at the end of the tunnel runs well.
Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Turn on local exhaust ventilation systems in the tunnel
and cooling rooms at least an hour before work begins or leave them on
overnight.
Turn on the general ventilation system in the cooling room
at least an hour before work beings or leave it on overnight.
Avoid breathing air directly above cooling foam.
When possible, minimize the amount of time spent near the
cooling foam and tunnel openings because these areas are likely to have
the highest levels of MC vapors.
Do not work or stand between cooling foam and the exhaust
system.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can
quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow your facility's procedures for
detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill
control devices.
Frequently inspect the tunnel and other equipment for
cracks, loose parts, and other possible sources of leaks.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces.
Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until
it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow
the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's
Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).
Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop
into a confined space or low-lying area.
C. Construction Work
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Store and transport MC products only in approved safety
containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep MC product containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC products.
Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Avoid breathing the air directly above areas covered with
MC. Do not lean over an area covered with MC.
Do not work or stand between MC-covered areas and the
exhaust system.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm.
Also, your sense of smell can quickly get used to the odor of MC so
that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow procedures for containing MC spills or
leaks.
Frequently inspect MC product containers for cracks or
other possible sources of leaks.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces.
Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until
it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow
the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's
Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).
Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop in
area where MC is being used.
V. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (j), Medical Surveillance, of
the final rule governing occupational exposure to methlylene chloride
(MC) (29 CFR 1910.1052) to add medical removal protection benefits to
the rule. This preliminary economic analysis estimates the costs of
complying with the proposed MRP provisions and then assesses the
economic feasibility and potential economic impacts of these costs on
firms in the affected sectors. The information used in this analysis is
taken from the exposure profile, industry profile, and economic impacts
analysis presented in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) that
accompanied OSHA's final rule for methylene chloride (Federal Register
Vol. 62, 7, pp. 1494 to 1619). Relying on the data developed for the
analysis to support this proposed revision to the final rule ensures
analytical consistency and comparability across the two economic
analysis documents.
OSHA's final MC rule did not contain medical removal protection
provisions. The revisions being proposed today respond to a motion for
reconsideration filed by the United Auto Workers (UAW), the Halogenated
Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., and others. As requested in that
motion, OSHA is proposing to add paragraphs (j)(9)(i) (A) and (B),
(j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14), dealing with medical
removal protection, medical removal protection benefits, voluntary
removal or restriction of an employee, and multiple health care
professional review, respectively, to the final rule. Medical removal
protection (MRP) would apply only under certain limited circumstances,
i.e., medical removal protection would be required only if a physician
or other licensed health care professional finds that exposure to MC
may contribute to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac,
hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or dermal disease. The
proposed rule instructs the physician or other licensed health care
professional to presume that a medical condition is unlikely to require
removal form exposure to MC,
[[Page 24509]]
unless medical evidence indicates to the contrary, if the employee is
not exposed to MC at concentrations above the 8-hour TWA PEL of 25 ppm.
The physician or other licensed health care professional may also
recommend removal from exposure to MC for any other condition that
would, in the health care professional's opinion, place the employee's
health at risk of material impairment from exposure to MC, but MRP
would only be triggered by a finding that exposure to MC may contribute
to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological
(including stroke), or dermal disease.
Any employee medically removed must (1) be provided with comparable
work where MC exposures are below the action level, or (2) be
completely removed from MC exposure. The employee's total pay, benefits
and seniority must be maintained throughout the period of medical
removal protection, even if the only way to remove the employee from MC
exposure is to send him or her home for the duration of the medical
removal protection period. The employer may reduce the amount paid to
the removed worker to the extent that the worker's previous pay has
been offset by other compensation (such as worker's compensation
payments) or by wages from another job made possible by the medical
removal.
The proposal would require employers to maintain medical removal
protection benefits for up to six months. Medical removal protection
may be terminated in less than 6 months if a medical determination
shows that the employee may return to MC exposure, or a medical
determination is made that the employee can never return to MC
exposure.
In situations in which no comparable work is available for the
medically removed employee, the proposal would allow the employer to
demonstrate that the medical removal and the costs of medical removal
protection benefits, considering feasibility in relation to the size of
the employer's business and the other requirements of this standard,
make reliance on medical removal protection an inappropriate remedy. In
such a situation, the employer may retain the employee in the existing
job until transfer or removal becomes appropriate, provided that the
employer ensures that the employee receives additional medical
surveillance, including a physical examination at least every 60 days
until removal or transfer occurs, and that the employer or PLHCP
informs the employee of the risk to the employee's health from
continued MC exposure.
In conducting this economic analysis, OSHA has estimated the number
of workers with the four listed types of conditions (neurological,
hepatic, cardiac, and dermal disease) that can trigger MRP. OSHA has
assumed that medical removal protection would be extended only to
employees exposed above the PEL, as reflected by the presumption. This
analysis also assumes that all employers will provide medical removal
protection whenever a physician or other licensed health care provider
recommends removal, i.e., OSHA has not quantified the number of times
small firms may retain an employee for whom a removal recommendation
has been made in the employee's existing job due to the employer's
financial inability to remove the employee. Because some very small
firms may find that medical removal protection is infeasible in their
circumstances but this cost analysis assumes that all such employees
will be removed, OSHA believes that this analysis is likely to
overestimate the costs associated with MRP.
Cost of Medical Removal Protection Provisions
OSHA's estimates of the costs of the proposed medical removal
protection provisions are calculated based on the number of workers
eligible for medical removal protection times the frequency of the
medical conditions that would trigger medical removal protection in the
exposed population times the costs of medical removal protection for
each type of medical condition.
Number of Workers Eligible for Medical Removal Protection Under the
Proposal
Because of the presumption stated explicitly in the proposed
revisions, medical removal protection will be limited in almost all
cases to employees exposed to MC at concentrations above the PEL of 25
PPM as an 8-hour TWA. The Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) estimated
that approximately 55,000 employees in all affected application groups
are currently exposed above 25 ppm. This estimate is used here to
calculate the number of employees potentially eligible for medical
removal protection during the year in which medical removal protection
would be in effect but the engineering control requirements of the rule
would not yet be in effect for some of the application groups. Once the
implementation of engineering controls is required, OSHA assumes, for
the purposes of this analysis, that 10 percent of those employees
previously exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm (5,500 employees)
would continue to be exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm.
OSHA believes that reliance on these assumptions will lead to an
overestimate of the number of employees eligible for medical removal
protection because some firms will have implemented controls and lower
the exposure of their employees well before the final standard requires
them to do so. Once the standard requires employers to implement
engineering controls, OSHA's Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129)
estimated that the exposure of almost all employees would be reduced to
MC levels below 25 ppm as a 8-hour TWA. To capture all costs
potentially associated with the proposed medical removal protection
provisions, OSHA has assumed for this analysis that some employees will
continue to be exposed above 25 ppm.
Frequency of Medical Removal Protection Under the Proposed Provisions
The proposed changes to the occupational exposure to methylene
chloride standard allow for medical removal protection in the event
that exposure to methylene chloride ``may contribute to or aggravate
existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or skin
disease.'' Medical removal protection does not apply if the condition
is such that removal from MC exposure must be permanent.
OSHA believes that MC-induced or aggravated neurological symptoms
(other than stoke) occur infrequently and that when such protection is
triggered by neurological manifestations (other than stroke), the
period of time involved in the removal will be relatively brief. OSHA
also believes that MC-induced or aggravated heart conditions or strokes
are likely to result in permanent medical removal, and thus that
employers will not incur the costs of medical removal protection in
these cases. This analysis therefore focuses on medical removal
protection for MC-induced or aggravated dermatitis or abnormal hepatic
conditions. Each of these conditions is likely to resolve with time,
proper treatment, or both, and these are therefore the conditions
likely to result in a determination that temporary medical removal
protection, rather than permanent removal, is needed.
Because the proposal would provide for medical removal protection
in situations where exposure to MC contributes to or aggravates the
listed condition, this analysis focuses on the frequency with which
each covered
[[Page 24510]]
condition occurs in the working population, and not simply on the
frequency with which MC causes these conditions. For the first year
after the MRP provisions are in effect, OSHA has no evidence that
hepatic conditions are more prevalent in workplaces that use MC than in
the general working age population and therefore assumes that the
prevalence of hepatic conditions will be the same as in the general
working age population (18-65). OSHA estimates that 5 percent of the
working population will be found on evaluation to have hepatic
conditions sufficiently abnormal to trigger medical removal.
For dermatitis, which is seldom a lasting condition, OSHA similarly
assumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the
prevalence in the MC-exposed workforce is the same as the rate in the
general working age population. For dermatitis, Vital and Health
Statistics (National Center for Health Statistics, 1995) reports that,
in 1993, the prevalence of dermatitis was 2.93 percent for persons
between 18 and 45 and 2.18 percent for persons between 45 and65.
Weighting using the BLS data cited above, OSHA finds that 2.7 percent
of the MC-exposed workforce will be found on the first required medical
evaluation to have dermatitis and will be medically removed.
After the proposed standard has been in effect for the first year,
OSHA assumes that the prevalence of dermatitis will continue at the
same rate. For liver conditions, OSHA assumes that most of the
conditions that triggered removal in the first year will have been
resolved and that the number of older cases that flare up and have to
be treated again, combined with new cases that trigger medical removal,
will occur at a combined rate \1/5\ that of the initial rate.
Costs of Medical Removal Protection
Employers incur three kinds of costs for medical removal
protection: costs for medical evaluations not already required; costs
resulting from changing the employee's job, such as those related to
retraining and lost productivity; and, where alternative jobs that do
not involve MC exposure are not available, the costs of keeping a
worker who is not working on the payroll.
Employers may incur costs for medical evaluations (over and above
those already required for medical surveillance) for two reasons: to
determine if the employee can return to work, and to determine, using
multiple PLHCP review, whether the initial medical determination was
correct. Because the proposal allows employees to be removed from
medical removal protection status only on the basis of a new medical
determination, every instance of medical removal protection will
require one additional examination. OSHA estimated the cost of a
medical examination at $130 in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129).
Every case of medical removal protection would require at least one
additional medical evaluation. In addition, OSHA estimates that 10
percent of all removed cases will require a second medical evaluation
either for the purpose of multiple health care professional review or
because the first examination showed that the employee could not yet be
returned to normal duty.
The largest MRP-related costs in almost all cases will be the cost
of paying for time away from work for the removed employee. OSHA
estimates that the typical dermatitis case will involve 6 days away
from work. BLS (BLS, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts,
Rates, and Characteristics, 1994) reports that, in 1994, the typical
lost worktime case of dermatitis involved 3 days away from work. OSHA
allowed an additional three days to allow time for a return-to-work
determination to be made. For medical removal for hepatic conditions,
OSHA estimates that a 4-week period of medical removal will normally be
sufficient to provide for stabilization and a return to the normal
range for the typical case of elevated liver enzymes. Because almost no
cases will be resolved in less than 4 weeks and a small number of cases
(such as those involving serious liver disease) may take much longer to
resolve, OSHA's cost estimate estimates 5 weeks as the average period
of medical removal for these cases.
For the short-term medical removal associated with dermatitis, OSHA
has conservatively assumed that the employee will be paid full wages
and benefits even though not at work. For the longer term medical
removal associated with hepatic conditions, OSHA estimates that, in
firms with more than 20 employees, alternative jobs not involving
exposure to MC will be found for affected employees. OSHA estimates the
costs of moving employees to alternative jobs as equivalent to the loss
of 20 person hours in lost productivity and/or retraining expenses. For
firms with fewer than 20 employees, OSHA expects that there may be more
difficulty finding alternative positions both because fewer alternative
positions are available and because more positions in the establishment
are likely to involve exposure to MC.
For the very small firms in furniture stripping, where all jobs may
involve exposure to MC, OSHA has assumed that all cases of medical
removal will involve removing employees from work entirely, and thus
that employers will incur the full costs of the employee's wages and
benefits for the five weeks the employee is medically removed. Firms
with fewer than 20 employees in other application groups tend to be
somewhat larger than in furniture stripping and will therefore be more
likely to have work that does not involve exposure to MC at levels
above the action level. For example, in such small-business-dominated
application groups as printing shops, and in small cold cleaning and
paint stripping operations, exposure to MC tends to involve only a
single employee and is commonly intermittent even for that employee.
For establishments with fewer than 20 employees in application groups
other than furniture stripping, OSHA estimates that 50% will be able to
find alternative employment and 50% will need to send the employee home
because alternative jobs without MC exposure cannot be found.
Annualized Cost Estimates
Table 1 shows OSHA's estimated annualized costs for firms in each
application group. The total annualized costs for medical removal
protection are estimated to be $920,387 per year for all affected
employers. The greatest costs are in the cold cleaning application
group, the all other industrial paint stripping application group, the
construction application group, and the furniture stripping application
group. All of these application groups have annualized MRP costs in
excess of $100,000 per year.
Table 1.--Annualized Costs of MRP for Methylene Chloride Application
Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Application group costs ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene Chloride Manufacturing........................... 70
Distribution/Formulation of Solvents....................... 6,597
Metal Cleaning:
Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning................ 307,216
Open-Top Vapor Degreasing.............................. 2,709
Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing.......................... 378
Semiconductors......................................... 1,147
Printed Circuit Boards................................. 0
Aerosol Packaging.......................................... 2,875
Paint Remover Manufacturing................................ 593
Paint Manufacturing........................................ 823
Paint Stripping:
Aircraft Stripping..................................... 9,662
[[Page 24511]]
Furniture Stripping.................................... 80,579
All Other Industrial Paint Stripping................... 206,619
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing................... 4,296
Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use............... 52,639
Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing.......................... 182
Ink Solvent Use............................................ 53,298
Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation.................... 541
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing............................... 3,576
Solvent Recovery........................................... 0
Film Base Manufacturing.................................... 0
Polycarbonate Manufacturing................................ 0
Construction............................................... 115,297
Shipyards.................................................. 18,652
------------
Total, All Application Groups.......................... 920,387
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor.
Table 2.--Screening Analysis To Identify Possible Economic Impacts of the Proposed MC Standard's Medical Removal
Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized costs of compliance
Number of -------------------------------
Application group affected as percent of as percent of
establishments sales profit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacture of MC............................................... 4 0.0000 0.0004
Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 320 0.0003 0.0046
Metal Cleaning:
Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 23,717 0.0001 0.0021
Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 278 0.0001 0.0016
Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 45 0.0001 0.0014
Semiconductors.............................................. 239 0.0000 0.0002
Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 141 0.0000 0.0000
Aerosol Packaging............................................... 50 0.0001 0.0012
Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 80 0.0001 0.0015
Paint Manufacturing............................................. 49 0.0001 0.0027
Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping):
Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 300 0.0001 0.0017
Furniture Stripping......................................... 6,152 0.0154 0.2977
All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 35,041 0.0000 0.0010
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 100 0.0003 0.0093
Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 3,487 0.0000 0.0000
Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 15 0.0000 0.0003
Ink Solvent Use................................................. 11,869 0.0004 0.0098
Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 60 0.0001 0.0018
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 108 0.0000 0.0004
Solvent Recovery................................................ 35 0.0000 0.0000
Film Base....................................................... 1 0.0000 0.0000
Polycarbonates.................................................. 4 0.0000 0.0000
Construction.................................................... 9,504 0.0027 0.0705
Shipyards....................................................... 25 0.0025 0.0655
-----------------------------------------------
All Application Groups.................................... 91,624 0.0014 0.0296
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor
Economic Impacts
Table 2 combines the cost data from Table 1 and the economic
profile information provided in the Final Economic Analysis for the
Methylene Chloride rule (Ex. 129) to provide estimates of the potential
impacts of these compliance costs on firms in affected application
groups. The proposed medical removal protection is clearly economically
feasible: on average, annualized compliance costs amount only to 0.0014
percent of estimated sales and 0.03 percent of profits. For all but one
application group--furniture stripping--compliance costs are less than
0.07 percent of profits, and less than 0.003 percent of the value of
sales. Even in furniture stripping, the annualized costs of medical
removal protection are still only 0.015 percent of sales and 0.3
percent of profits. Impacts of this magnitude do not threaten the
economic feasibility of firms in any affected application group. If
highly unusual circumstances were to arise that pose such a threat, the
proposed standard allows specifically for the cost impact to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
OSHA's cost methodology for this proposal tends to overestimate the
costs and economic impacts of the standard for several reasons. First,
OSHA has not taken into account cost savings that employers will
realize from the extended startup dates that are being proposed. As
discussed above, by extending the startup date for the use of
respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL, this proposal will enable
some employers to avoid using respirators at all because they will
achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL by means of engineering controls before the
date that respirator
[[Page 24512]]
use is required. Such employers will achieve significant cost savings
as compared to the current standard. OSHA has not, however, attempted
to quantify those savings.
Other aspects of OSHA's methodology also tend to result in cost
overestimates. OSHA's use of general population prevalence data to
estimate the prevalence of conditions that might lead to medical
removal overestimates costs by ignoring the possibility that workers in
MC establishments may be healthier than the general population, i.e.,
it ignores the ``healthy worker'' effect. OSHA has also assumed that
all unusual hepatic conditions will lead to medical removal, when in
many cases no medical removal protection will be necessary. Finally,
OSHA has also included in its cost estimate all cases involving medical
removal, when it is in fact likely that some smaller firms would be
able to argue that the cost of extending MRP benefits to an additional
employee would make reliance on MRP an inappropriate remedy and thereby
avoid removing that additional employee, as allowed by the proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
Tables 3 and 4 provide a regulatory flexibility screening analysis.
As in the analysis for all firms in Table 2, OSHA used the cost data
presented in Table 1 in combination with the data on small firms
presented in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129). Table 3 shows
annualized compliance costs as a percentage of revenues and profits
using SBA definitions of small firms for each relevant SIC code within
each application group. This analysis shows that costs as a percentage
of revenues and profits are slightly greater than is the case for all
firms in the SIC, but still average only 0.0017 percent of revenues and
0.035 percent of profits. The most heavily impacted industry is
furniture stripping, but the impacts in this group are the same for all
firms in the group because all furniture stripping firms are small
using the SBA definition.
Table 3.--Screening Analysis of Potential Economic Impacts on Smaller Firms (Small Establishments and Firms as
Defined by SBA Under Section 3 of The Small Business Act)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Costs as a Costs as a
small percentage of percentage of
Application group establishments profits for sales for
affected small firms small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacture of MC............................................... 0 NA NA
Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 278 0.0005 0.0072
Metal Cleaning:
Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 22.365 0.0003 0.0067
Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 262 0.0003 0.0051
Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 42 0.0002 0.0044
Semiconductors.............................................. 185 0.0000 0.0002
Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 109 0.0000 0.0000
Aerosol Packaging............................................... 47 0.0002 0.0019
Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 77 0.0001 0.0026
Paint Manufacturing............................................. 62 0.0002 0.0045
Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping)............................. 77 0.0001 0.0026
Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 173 0.0004 0.0088
Furniture Stripping......................................... 6,152 0.0154 0.2977
All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 33,044 0.0001 0.0029
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 49 0.0001 0.0034
Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 3,281 0.0002 0.0031
Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 11 0.0000 0.0004
Ink Solvent Use................................................. 9,210 0.0005 0.0106
Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 49 0.0001 0.0034
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 15 NA NA
Solvent Recovery................................................ 24 0.0000 0.0000
Film Base....................................................... 0 NA NA
Polycarbonates.................................................. 0 NA NA
Construction.................................................... 9,086 0.0033 0.0866
Shipyards....................................................... 0 NA 0NA
All Application Groups.................................... 84,573 0.0017 0.0352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA=No small firms in this application group.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor.
Table 4.--Screening Anaylsis of Potential Economic Impacts on Firms With Fewer Than 20 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Costs as a Costs as a
small percentage of percentage of
Application group establishments profits for sales for
affected small firms small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacture of MC............................................... 0 NA NA
Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 139 0.0018% 0.0322%
Metal Cleaning:
Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 9,223 0.0005 0.0110
Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 0 NA NA
Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 11 0.0005 0.0132
Semiconductors.............................................. 0 NA NA
Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 20 0.0000 0.0000
Aerosal Packaging............................................... 10 0.0006 0.0072
Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 34 0.0003 0.0114
[[Page 24513]]
Paint Manufacturing............................................. 7 0.0006 0.0194
Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping)............................. 34 0.0003 0.0114
Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 75 0.0011 0.0335
Furniture Stripping......................................... 5.900 0.0155 0.3034
All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 25,441 0.0002 0.0042
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 8 0.0010 0.0386
Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 498 0.0013 0.0264
Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 3 0.0002 0.0022
Ink Solvent Use................................................. 5,395 0.0011 0.0237
Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 40 0.0010 0.0386
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 0 NA NA
Solvent Recovery................................................ 17 0.0000 0.0000
Film Base....................................................... 0 NA NA
Polycarbonates.................................................. 0 NA NA
Construction.................................................... 9,085 0.0044 0.1596
Shipyards....................................................... 0 NA NA
-----------------------------------------------
All Application Groups.................................... 55,907 0.0026 0.0644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA=No small firms in this application group.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis: OSHA; Department of Labor.
As noted in the discussion of costs, firms with fewer than 20
employees are much more likely to incur greater costs for medical
removal protection because such firms may have difficulty in finding a
job that does not involve exposure to MC at levels above the action
level. OSHA therefore examined annualized compliance costs as a
percentage of sales and profits for firms with fewer than 20 employees.
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. For the typical
affected firm with fewer than 20 employees, the annualized costs of
medical removal protection represent 0.0026 percent of sales and 0.064
percent of profits. Furniture stripping has the greatest potential
impacts--annualized costs are 0.016 percent of sales and 0.3 percent of
profits for firms in this application group. These impacts do not
constitute significant impacts, as envisioned by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. However, because unusually prolonged medical removal
without an alternative job within the establishment might present
problems for these very small firms, the proposed standard includes a
provision requiring special consideration of the economic burden
imposed by medical removal protection when an employer would otherwise
need to provide MRP benefits to more than one employee. This provision
ensures that impacts are not unduly burdensome even in rare and unusual
circumstances. Therefore, based on its analyses both of impacts and
small firms using the SBA definitions, and of very small firms with
fewer than 20 employees, OSHA certifies that the proposed MRP
provisions will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
VI. Public Participation
Comments should be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office by June 3,
1998.
Note: OSHA is only reopening the record for comments on the two
issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration: the compliance dates
and medical removal protection. It is not reopening the record or
requesting comments on any other issues pertaining to the methylene
chloride standard.
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, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 1998.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
1. The general authority citation for subpart Z of CFR 29 part 1910
continues to read, in part, as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable;
and 29 CFR Part 1911.
* * * * *
2. Section 1910.1052 would be amended by revising paragraphs
(j)(9)(i) (A) and (B) and paragraph (n)(2), and by adding paragraphs
(j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14) as follows:
Sec. 1910.1052 Methylene Chloride.
* * * * *
(j) Medical surveillance.
* * * * *
(9) Written medical opinions.
(i) * * *
(A) The physician or other licensed health care professional's
opinion concerning whether exposure to MC may contribute to or
aggravate the employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological
(including stroke) or dermal disease or whether the employee has any
other medical condition(s) that would place the employee's health at
increased risk of material impairment from exposure to MC.
(B) Any recommended limitations upon the employee's exposure to MC,
including removal from MC exposure, or upon the employee's use of
respirators, protective clothing, or other protective equipment.
* * * * *
(10) Medical Presumption. For purposes of this paragraph (j) of
this section, the physician or other licensed health care professional
shall presume,
[[Page 24514]]
unless medical evidence indicates to the contrary, that a medical
condition is unlikely to require medical removal from MC exposure if
the employee is not exposed to MC above the 8-hour TWA PEL. If the
physician or other licensed health care professional recommends removal
for an employee exposed below the 8-hour TWA PEL, the physician or
other licensed health care professional shall cite specific medical
evidence, sufficient to rebut the presumption that exposure below the
8-hour TWA PEL is unlikely to require removal, to support the
recommendation. If such evidence is cited by the physician or other
licensed health care professional, the employer must remove the
employee. If such evidence is not cited by the physician or other
licensed health care professional, the employer is not required to
remove the employee.
(11) Medical Removal Protection (MRP). (i) Temporary medical
removal and return of an employee.
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (j)(10) of this section, when a
medical determination recommends removal because the employee's
exposure to MC may contribute to or aggravate the employee's existing
cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or skin disease, the
employer must provide medical removal protection benefits to the
employee and either:
(1) Transfer the employee to comparable work where methylene
chloride exposure is below the action level; or
(2) Remove the employee from MC exposure.
(B) If comparable work is not available and the employer is able to
demonstrate that removal and the costs of extending MRP benefits to an
additional employee, considering feasibility in relation to the size of
the employer's business and the other requirements of this standards,
make further reliance on MRP an inappropriate remedy, the employer may
retain the additional employee in the existing job until transfer or
removal becomes appropriate, provided:
(1) The employer ensures that the employee receives additional
medical surveillance, including a physical examination at least every
60 days until transfer or removal occurs; and
(2) The employer or PLHCP informs the employee of the risk to the
employee's health from continued MC exposure.
(C) The employer shall maintain in effect any job-related
protective measures or limitations, other than removal, for as long as
a medical determination recommends them to be necessary.
(ii) End of MRP benefits and return of the employee to former job
status.
(A) The employer may cease providing MRP benefits at the earliest
of the following:
(1) Six months;
(2) Return of the employee to the employee's former job status
following receipt of a medical determination concluding that the
employee's exposure to MC no longer will aggravate any cardiac,
hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or dermal disease;
(3) Receipt of a medical determination concluding that the employee
can never return to MC exposure.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph (j), the requirement that an
employer return an employee to the employee's former job status is not
intended to expand upon or restrict any rights an employee has or would
have had, absent temporary medical removal, to a specific job
classification or position under the terms of a collective bargaining
agreement.
(12) Medical Removal Protection Benefits. (i) For purposes of this
paragraph (j), the term medical removal protection benefits means that,
for each removal, an employer must maintain for up to six months the
earnings, seniority, and other employment rights and benefits of the
employee as though the employee had not been removed from MC exposure
or transferred to a comparable job.
(ii) During the period of time that an employee is removed from
exposure to MC, the employer may condition the provision of medical
removal protection benefits upon the employee's participation in
follow-up medical surveillance made available pursuant to this section.
(iii) If a removed employee files a workers' compensation claim for
an MC-related disability, the employer shall continue the MRP benefits
required by this paragraph until either the claim is resolved or the 6-
month period for payment of MRP benefits has passed, whichever occurs
first. To the extent the employee is entitled to indemnity payments for
earnings lost during the period of removal, the employer's obligation
to provide medical removal protection benefits to the employee shall be
reduced by the amount of such indemnity payments.
(iv) The employer's obligation to provide medical removal
protection benefits to a removed employee shall be reduced to the
extent that the employee receives compensation for earnings lost during
the period of removal from either a publicly or an employer-funded
compensation program, or receives income from employment with another
employer made possible by virtue of the employee's removal.
(13) Voluntary Removal or Restriction of an Employee. Where an
employer, although not required by this section to do so, removes an
employee from exposure to MC or otherwise places any limitation on an
employee due to the effects of MC exposure on the employee's medical
condition, the employer shall provide medical removal protection
benefits to the employee equal to those required by paragraph (j)(12)
of this section.
(14) Multiple Health Care Professional Review Mechanism. (i) If the
employer selects the initial physician or licensed health care
professional (PLHCP) to conduct any medical examination or consultation
provided to an employee under this paragraph (j)(11), the employer
shall notify the employee of the right to seek a second medical opinion
each time the employer provides the employee with a copy of the written
opinion of that PLHCP.
(ii) If the employee does not agree with the opinion of the
employer-selected PLHCP, notifies the employer of that fact, and takes
steps to make an appointment with a second PLHCP within 15 days of
receiving a copy of the written opinion of the initial PLHCP, the
employer shall pay for the PLHCP chosen by the employee to perform at
least the following:
(A) Review any findings, determinations or recommendations of the
initial PLHCP; and
(B) Conduct such examinations, consultations, and laboratory tests
as the PLHCP deems necessary to facilitate this review.
(iii) If the findings, determinations or recommendations of the
second PLHCP differ from those of the initial PLHCP, then the employer
and the employee shall instruct the two health care professional to
resolve the disagreement.
(iv) If the two health care professionals are unable to resolve
their disagreement within 15 days, then those two health care
professionals shall jointly designate a PLHCP who is a specialist in
the field at issue. The employer shall pay for the specialist to
perform at least the following:
(A) Review the findings, determinations, and recommendations of the
first two PLHCPs; and
(B) Conduct such examinations, consultations, laboratory tests and
discussions with the prior PLHCPs as the specialist deems necessary to
resolve the disagreements of the prior health care professionals.
[[Page 24515]]
(v) The written opinion of the specialist shall be the definitive
medical determination. The employer shall act consistent with the
definitive medical determination, unless the employer and employee
agree that the written opinion of one of the other two PLHCPs shall be
the definitive medical determination.
(vi) The employer and the employee or authorized employee
representative may agree upon the use of any expeditious alternate
health care professional determination mechanism in lieu of the
multiple health care professional review mechanism provided by this
paragraph so long as the alternate mechanism otherwise satisfies the
requirements contained in this paragraph.
* * * * *
(n) Dates.
* * * * *
(2) Start-up dates.
(i) Initial Monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section
shall be completed according to the following schedule:
(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees, within 300 days
after the effective date of this section.
(B) For polyurethane foam manufacturers with 20 to 99 employees,
within 255 days after the effective date of this section.
(C) For all other employers, within 150 days after the effective
date of this section.
(ii) Engineering controls required under paragraph (f)(1) of this
section shall be implemented according to the following schedule:
(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees: within three (3)
years after the effective date of this section.
(B) For employers with fewer than 150 employees engaged in foam
fabrication; for employers with fewer than 50 employees engaged in
furniture refinishing, general aviation aircraft stripping, and product
formulation; for employers with fewer than 50 employees using MC-based
adhesives for boat building and repair, recreational vehicle
manufacture, van conversion, and upholstering; for employers with fewer
than 50 employees using MC in construction work for restoration and
preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making
and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing: within three (3) years after
the effective date of this section.
(C) For employers engaged in polyurethane foam manufacturing with
20 employees or more: within thirty (30) months after the effective
date of this section.
(D) For employers with 150 or more employees engaged in foam
fabrication; for employers with 50 or more employees engaged in
furniture refinishing, general aviation aircraft stripping, and product
fabrication; for employers with 50 or more employees using MC-based
adhesives in boat building and repair, recreational vehicle
manufacture, van conversion and upholstering; and for employers with 50
or more employees using MC in construction work for restoration and
preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making
and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing: within two (2) years after
the effective date of this section.
(E) For all other employers: within one (1) year after the
effective date of this section.
(iii) Employers identified in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) (B), (C), and
(D) of this section shall comply with the following requirements listed
in this paragraph by the dates indicated:
(A) Use of respiratory protection whenever an employee's exposure
to MC exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the 8-hour TWA
PEL, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1) and (g)(1) of
this section: by the applicable dates set out in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)
(B), (C) and (D) of this section for the installation of engineering
controls.
(B) Use of respiratory protection whenever an employee's exposure
to MC exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the STEL in
accordance with paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(1), and (g)(1) of this section:
by the applicable dates indicated in paragraph (n)(2)(iv) of this
section.
(C) Implementation of work practices (such as leak and spill
detection, cleanup and enclosure of containers) required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this section: by the applicable dates indicated in paragraph
(n)(2)(iv) of this section.
(D) Notification of corrective action under paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of
this section: no later than (90) days before the compliance date
applicable to such corrective action.
(iv) Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (n), all other
requirements of this section shall be complied with according to the
following schedule:
(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees, within one (1) year
after the effective date of this section.
(B) For employers engaged in polyurethane foam manufacturing with
20 to 99 employees, within 270 days after the effective date of this
section.
(C) For all other employers, within 255 days after the effective
date of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-11797 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
