[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 141 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37848-37865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37849]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
[Docket No. S-778]
Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry and Construction
Standards; Proposed Paperwork Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this document, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) is continuing the process of removing or revising
standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or
inconsistent in response to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the
President. This document proposes substantive changes to both health
and safety standards to reduce regulatory requirements while
maintaining employee protection. Changes proposed include reducing
chest x-ray frequency and eliminating sputum cytology examinations for
the coke oven and inorganic arsenic standards, changing the emergency-
response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard, eliminating public
safety provisions of the temporary labor camp standard, eliminating
unnecessary OSHA standard references in the textile industry standards
and others.
DATES: Written comments and requests for a hearing on this proposal
must be postmarked by September 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original
(hardcopy) and 1 diskette (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\ inch) in WordPerfect 5.0,
5.1, 6.0 or 6.1, or ASCII to: Docket Office, Docket No. S-778, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2634, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210
(telephone (202) 219-7894). Any information not contained on disk
(e.g., studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Written
comments limited to 10 pages in length also may be transmitted by
facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided an original and 3 copies are sent
to the Docket Office thereafter.
Requests for a hearing should be sent to: Mr. Tom Hall, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210
(telephone (202) 219-8615).
Comments on the reduction of paperwork burden and renewal of
paperwork authorization for inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions
should be sent to the OSHA docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 10235, 725
17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn. OSHA Desk Officer.
For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the
Labor News Bulletin Board at (202) 219-4748; or OSHA's WebPage on the
Internet at http://www.OSHAgov. For news releases, fact sheets and
other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per
minute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical inquiries should be directed
to Mr. Pat Cattafesta, Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical
Safety Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Room N3609, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210 [telephone (202)-219-7202; FAX (202)-219-7477].
Requests for interviews and other press inquiries should be
directed to Ms. Ann Cyr, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs,
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210
[telephone (202) 219-8148].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In March 1995, the President directed Federal agencies to undertake
a line-by-line review of their regulations to determine where they
could be simplified or clarified. OSHA initiated such a review, and as
a result completed a document on May 31, 1995, entitled ``OSHA's
Regulatory Reform Initiatives.'' That document detailed the Agency's
findings as to which regulations could be deleted or revised without
reducing employee health and safety, and which by clarifying
requirements might improve compliance by employers and, consequently,
provide enhanced occupational safety and health protection to
employees. This regulatory improvement process involves revocation of
outdated and obsolete provisions, elimination of substantive
requirements which do not appear to be effective, consolidation of
repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language. The
Agency began this process with an administrative notice which made
minor clarifications and technical amendments (61 FR 9228, March
7,1996). This document proposes substantive changes to standards which
the agency believes are unnecessary or ineffective in protecting worker
health or safety. As these changes are substantive, notice and comment
is required. Final decisions on carrying out the proposed revisions
will depend on the record after considering public comment.
II. Summary and Explanation
Amendments to Part 1910
A. Explosives and Blasting Agents (Sec. 1910.109)
When Sec. 1910.109 was first promulgated, Table H-21 (American
Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives) specified the distances
that must be maintained between stored explosives and inhabited
buildings, passenger railways, and public highways. It also specified
required distances between stored explosive magazines. Table H-21 also
applied to the manufacture of explosives to the extent that it
specified distances between an explosive manufacturing building and
inhabited buildings, passenger railways, public highways, and
magazines.
In 1978, OSHA published a final rule (43 FR 49726) which revoked
certain requirements that were called ``nuisance standards'' because
they did not deal directly with workplace safety and health or were the
jurisdiction of some other regulatory agency. Among the requirements
revoked were the three columns of Table H-21 that specified distances
to inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public highways because
they dealt with public and property protection-not employee protection.
As a result, the current Table H-21 specifies only the distances
between magazines.
Because Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Sec. 1910.109 was inadvertently
overlooked during the 1978 rulemaking, this paragraph still makes
reference to ``inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public
highways.'' Consequently, OSHA is proposing to remove this phrase.
Also, the first sentence of footnote number 5 of Table H-21 reads:
``This table applies only to the manufacture and permanent storage of
commercial explosives.'' OSHA is proposing to remove the words
``manufacture and'' from the first sentence of footnote number 5 of
Table H-21.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 states that blasting caps or
electric blasting caps shall not be transported over the highways on
the same vehicles with other explosives. However, DOT
[[Page 37850]]
regulations at 49 CFR 177.835(g)((3)(i) provide an approved method for
the transport of detonators (blasting caps) on the same vehicle with
other explosives.
OSHA believes that blasting caps can be safely transported on the
same vehicle with other explosives if such transport is done in
accordance with the method specified in the Department Of
Transportation (DOT) regulations.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to
permit the transportation of blasting caps or electric blasting caps on
the same vehicle with other explosives if they are transported in
accordance with the method specified in DOT regulations at 49 CFR
177.835(g)(3)(i).
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 states:
Empty boxes and paper and fiber packing materials which have
previously contained high explosives shall not be used again for any
purpose, but shall be destroyed by burning at an approved isolated
location out of doors, and no person shall be nearer than 100 feet
after the burning has started.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any boxes or
packing material that may have been contaminated by leaking explosives
do not present a hazard to employees. Consequently, all boxes and
packing material, contaminated or not, may not be reused and must be
disposed of by burning at an approved outdoor location.
However, environmental agencies often will not permit the burning
of such materials. In addition, DOT permits the reuse of packaging
materials if such reuse is accomplished in accordance with the
requirements of 49 CFR 173.28. Thus, employers are confronted by a
conflict between the standards of two Federal agencies. OSHA believes
that such containers and packing materials should be permitted to be
reused if uncontaminated, and if accomplished in accordance with DOT
regulations.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing that paragraph (e)(2)(i) of
Sec. 1910.109 be amended to read as follows:
Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which
have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of
in a safe manner, or reused in accordance with Department of
Transportation requirements at 49 CFR 173.28.
B. Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (1910.110)
Paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(vii) of Sec. 1910.110 contain requirements
for the location of backflow check valves, excess-flow valves, and
shutoff valves on tank cars and transport trucks. Paragraph
(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for locating tank
cars and transport trucks during loading and unloading operations.
The design of transportation vehicles and the safe location of such
vehicles during loading and unloading operations are under the
jurisdiction of DOT and not OSHA. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to
delete paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(viii) of Sec. 1910.110. OSHA is also
proposing to redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as new paragraph
(b)(15)(v) of Sec. 1910.110.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv) of Sec. 1910.110 contain specifications
for the marking of LPG cylinders. These marking specifications are
duplicative of DOT requirements. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to
delete them.
Paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 contains limitation requirements
on the capacity of LPG containers that are used to fuel passenger
carrying vehicles. As requirements pertaining to passenger carrying
vehicles are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing to delete
the text of paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.
Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for the
installation of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles. The installation
of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles is under the jurisdiction of
DOT. OSHA, therefore, is proposing to delete the text from paragraph
(g) of Sec. 1910.110 and to reserve the paragraph designation.
C. Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)
Paragraph (f)(7) of Sec. 1910.111 contains safety requirements for
full trailers and semitrailers that transport ammonia. Paragraph (f)(8)
of Sec. 1910.111 contains requirements pertaining to the protection of
such vehicles against collision. As full trailers and semitrailers that
transport ammonia are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing
to delete the text of paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.
D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
OSHA proposes to delete the definition for ``lavatory,'' given in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141. This definition states that
``lavatory means a basin or similar vessel used exclusively for washing
of hands, arms, faces, and head.'' OSHA believes that the meaning of
the term is self-explanatory in the context of the section. OSHA
specifically seeks comment as to whether, in fact, deletion of this
definition may diminish the health of employees in affected workplaces.
E. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)
Section 1910.142 (a)(4) provides regulations for the closing of
temporary labor camps. Upon the closing of a camp site, the regulations
require the employer to collect all refuse, garbage, and manure, to
fill all privy pits, to lock and secure any remaining privy buildings,
and to have all buildings in a clean and sanitary condition.
Because this paragraph deals with closing the site, which occurs
after the employees have left, this paragraph essentially provides not
for worker safety, but for public safety, which is outside the Agency's
mission. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to remove
Sec. 1910.142(a)(4). OSHA does note, however, that employers may be
responsible for adhering to other standards regarding public health and
safety in the locality or State in which the camp site is located.
F. Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards (Sec. 1910.144)
Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark
physical hazards. These colors were required so that emergency devices
and physical hazards could be identified quickly by employees. Because
removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have minimal
effect on employee safety and health, the Agency has decided not to
provide this standard. For employers desiring guidance in this area,
the American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z535.1-91, Safety Color
Code is available. OSHA, therefore, proposes to remove Sec. 1910.144.
G. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
Section 1910.151 states the obligation of employers to have medical
services available to provide advice on workplace health matters, and
for use by employees if needed.
Paragraph (b), in particular, requires the availability of first
aid services for workplaces that do not have medical providers nearby.
This paragraph also requires that first aid supplies approved by the
consulting physician be on hand.
OSHA proposes to amend Sec. 1910.151(b) so that the approval of
first aid supplies by the consulting physician is no longer required,
although the standard would continue to require that adequate supplies
be available. Commercial first aid kits are readily available and will
meet the needs of most employers and most worksites. If the workplace
has unusual hazards or poses special problems that would require
modification of a commercial first aid kit, or the
[[Page 37851]]
development of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer
will provide those special items. If the employer is unsure whether a
commercially available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be
obtained. Such advice, however, would not be required by OSHA as a
matter of course. These changes will allow the employer more
flexibility in meeting the Agency's first aid requirements, without
affecting employee health and safety.
H. Fire Brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
Section 1910.156 contains requirements for the organization,
training, and provision of personal protective equipment for fire
brigades. Requirements for negative-pressure self-contained breathing
apparatus are listed in Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii). These requirements
were intended to remain mandatory for 18 months after the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified a
positive-pressure breathing apparatus with the same or longer service
life as the currently required negative-pressure breathing apparatus.
The 18-month period was to allow employers to phase in the new
apparatus.
NIOSH has since certified a positive-pressure breathing apparatus,
and the 18 month phase-in period has ended. This paragraph is therefore
unnecessary, and OSHA proposes to remove it.
I. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
Section 1910.183(a) states that helicopter cranes are expected to
comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Since OSHA does not have the statutory authority
to enforce FAA regulations for helicopters, (found at 14 CFR part 133),
it is proposed that Sec. 1910.183(a) be revoked.
J. Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills (Sec. 1910.261)
Section 1910.261 contains requirements that apply to establishments
where pulp, paper, and paperboard are manufactured and converted.
Certain standards in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j),
(k), and (m) of Sec. 1910.261 require these establishments to comply
with a number of standards of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). The inclusion of these standards in Sec. 1910.261 duplicates
other standards in part 1910 which apply to general industry as a
whole. Many of the other general industry standards cover the same
hazards, and in many cases, they share the same source materials as the
provisions in Sec. 1910.261.
All but one of the ANSI standards referenced in Sec. 1910.261 were
source documents for OSHA standards that have general application
without regard to any specific industry. For example, ANSI Standard
A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings,
and Toeboards is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also the
source standard for Sec. 1910.23, Guarding Floor and Wall Openings and
Holes.
OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, codified in Section 1910.23,
provides equivalent or better protection for workers in this industry
than the ANSI standard, A12.1-1967, which is referenced in
Sec. 1910.261. OSHA proposes, therefore, to revoke
Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii).
Similarly, there are a number of other OSHA standards that OSHA
believes can provide equivalent or better protection for pulp and paper
workers than the ANSI standards referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k) and (m) in Sec. 1910.261. For this reason,
OSHA proposes to revoke many provisions of Sec. 1910.261 and to apply
the corresponding provisions found elsewhere in part 1910. The
following table lists the OSHA standards proposed for revocation, the
referenced ANSI standards and the OSHA standards that will provide
equivalent or better protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard proposed for Referenced ANSI Equivalent OSHA
revocation standard standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.261(a)(3)(ii).......... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(a)(3)(iv).......... A14.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.25
1910.261(a)(3)(v)........... A14.2-1956.......... Sec. 1910.26
1910.261(a)(3)(vi).......... A14.3-1956.......... Sec. 1910.27
1910.261(a)(3)(ix).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(a)(3)(xi).......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179
B30.5-1968.......... Sec. 1910.180
1910.261(a)(3)(xii)......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179
1910.261(a)(3)(xiii)........ B30.2-1943.......... Sec. 1910.179
B30.5-1968.......... Sec. 1910.180
1910.261(a)(3)(xv).......... B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(a)(3)(xvii)........ 01.1-1954........... Sec. 1910.213
Sec. 1910.214
1910.261(a)(3)(xviii)....... Z4.1-1968........... Sec. 1910.141
1910.261(a)(3)(xix)......... Z9.1-1951........... Sec. 1910.94
1910.261(a)(3)(xx).......... Z9.2-1960........... Sec. 1910.94
1910.261(a)(3)(xxiv)........ Z35.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.145
1910.261(a)(3)(xxv)......... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi)........ Z88.2-1969.......... Sec. 1910.134
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii)....... Z89.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.135
1910.261(b)(1).............. B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(b)(2).............. Z24.22-1957......... Sec. 1910.132
Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133
Z88.2-1968.......... Sec. 1910.134
Z89.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.135
1910.261(b)(3).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(b)(6).............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(c)(2)(vi).......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179
1910.261(c)(3)(i)........... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
A14.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.25
A14.2-1956.......... Sec. 1910.26
A14.3-1956.......... Sec. 1910.27
1910.261(c)(8)(i)........... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179
[[Page 37852]]
1910.261(c)(11)............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.30
1910.261(d)(1)(ii).......... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(e)(3).............. B15.1-1955.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(e)(7).............. O1.1-1961........... Sec. 1910.213
1910.261(e)(9).............. B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(g)(15)(vi)......... Z4.1-1968........... Sec. 1910.141
1910.261(h)(2)(iii)......... K13.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.134
Z88.2-1967..........
1910.261(j)(1)(iv).......... B15.1-1958.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(j)(3).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(j)(4)(ii).......... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(j)(5)(iv).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(j)(6)(ii).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(k)(2)(i)........... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(k)(4).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(m)(2).............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(m)(4).............. Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(m)(5)(i)........... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.132
1910.261(m)(5)(ii).......... B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, Sec. 1910.95,
Occupational Noise Exposure, provides worker protection that is at
least equivalent to that provided by the ANSI standard, Z24.22-1957,
Method of Measurement of Real-Ear Attenuation of Ear Protectors, that
is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii). OSHA, therefore, proposes
to revoke Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this duplicative
coverage.
Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 requires specific procedures to
be followed and personal protective equipment to be worn by workers in
the pulp, paper and paperboard industry who enter closed vessels,
tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment. This standard, however, does
not provide the necessary requirements for monitoring, testing, and
communication that are critical when working in a confined space.
OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 for two
reasons. First, Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces,
provides better protection for workers who are required to work in a
confined space. Section 1910.146 provides a comprehensive regulatory
program within which employers can effectively protect employees who
work in confined spaces. This program addresses the ongoing need for
monitoring, testing and communication at these workplaces. Second,
employers are required to comply with Sec. 1910.146 when a specific
industry standard does not completely address the known hazards of
working in a confined space, a principle noted in paragraph (c)(2) of
Sec. 1910.5, which means that employers must already comply with
Sec. 1910.146 rather than paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261.
Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to
provide personal protective equipment to workers on a job basis. Since
employers are required to comply with the general requirements for
personal protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132, OSHA proposes to revoke
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this duplication of requirements in
a way that will not decrease worker protection.
Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261 require
employers to provide workers with personal protective equipment and ear
protection when the noise level may be harmful. Since employers are
required to comply with the general requirements for personal
protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132 and the general requirements for
occupational noise exposure in Sec. 1910.95, OSHA proposes to revoke
paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) to eliminate this duplication of
requirements.
Paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 are specific
electrical standards prescribed for the pulp, paper and paperboard
industry that require compliance with subpart S, Electrical, in OSHA's
standards. Since all of general industry is required to comply with all
of subpart S for electrical standards, OSHA proposes to revoke
paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 to eliminate this
duplication.
Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to provide
employees working in the acid department with gas masks. Since
employers are required to comply with the general requirements for
respiratory protection in Sec. 1910.134, OSHA proposes to revoke
paragraph (g)(2)(i) to eliminate this regulatory duplication.
Paragraph (g)(15)(iv) of Sec. 1910.261 is a standard prescribed for
the pulp, paper and paperboard industry that addresses lead dust
exposure, and requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1000, Air
Contaminants, in OSHA's standards. Since employers are required to
comply with all of Sec. 1910.1000, including paragraph 1910.1025 which
addresses lead exposure, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (g)(15)(iv)
to eliminate this duplication.
K. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
Paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of Sec. 1910.262 require employers in
textile establishments to provide guards for equipment that conform to
the requirements of Sec. 1910.219. Since all of general industry is
required to comply with all of the general requirements of
Sec. 1910.219, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of
Sec. 1910.262 to eliminate this regulatory duplication.
Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards
coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke a number of other standards in
Sec. 1910.262 that reference occupational safety and health standards
of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards
proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which
will continue to apply to the Textile industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Proposed for Revocation Referenced OSHA Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.262(c)(3)......................... 1910.219.
1910.262(c)(4)......................... 1910.141.
1910.262(gg)........................... 1910.219.
1910.262(ll)(1)........................ 1910.23.
1910.262(qq)(1)........................ 1910.132.
1910.133.
1910.134.
1910.262(qq)(2)........................ 1910.134.
1910.262(rr)........................... 1910.1000.
1910.94(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37853]]
Paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 requires employers to identify
physical hazards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1910.144.
Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark
physical hazards. As noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA
is proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, since the Agency believes that
sufficient guidance on this matter is given by the American National
Standards Institute standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and
that removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have no
discernible effect on employee safety and health. Since OSHA is
proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in
Sec. 1910.262(c)(8), OSHA also proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
L. Sawmills (1910.265)
Section 1910.265 contains safety requirements for sawmill
operations including, but not limited to, log and lumber handling,
sawing, trimming, and planing; waste disposal; operation of dry kilns;
finishing; shipping; storage; yard and yard equipment; and for power
tools and related equipment used in connection with such operations.
Certain paragraphs of this section incorporate and apply occupational
safety and health standards of general application which apply to all
employment covered by part 1910. As required in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, such standards apply to sawmill operations in accordance
with the rules of construction set forth in Sec. 1910.5. For example,
the general standard regarding mechanical power-transmission apparatus
in Sec. 1910.219 is applicable to employment in sawmill operations
covered in Sec. 1910.265, and yet it is also incorporated by reference
in paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. OSHA believes that worker safety
is not enhanced by repeating the application of Sec. 1910.219 in
Sec. 1910.265, and proposes to revoke paragraph (c)(22) of
Sec. 1910.265. Also, since Sec. 1910.5 applies to all industries,
including the sawmill industry, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph
(a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265 which merely references Sec. 1910.5.
Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards
coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke various provisions currently found in
Sec. 1910.265 which reference occupational safety and health standards
of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards
proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which
will continue to apply to sawmills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Proposed for Revocation Referenced OSHA Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.265(c)(3)(i)...................... 1910.23.
1910.265(c)(10)........................ 1910.25-27.
1910.265(c)(14)........................ 1910.110.
1910.265(c)(16)........................ 1910.106.
1910.265(c)(17)(i)..................... 1910.1000.
1910.265(c)(17)(ii).................... Subpart I.
1910.265(c)(17)(iii)................... 1910.94(d).
1910.265(c)(22)........................ 1910.219.
1910.265(c)(26)(i)..................... 1910.219.
1910.265(c)(30)(vi).................... 1910.219.
1910.265(c)(30)(x)..................... 1910.178.
1910.265(e)(3)(ii)(d).................. 1910.219.
1910.265(f)(9)......................... 1910.219.
1910.265(g)............................ Subpart I.
1910.265(h)............................ 1910.141.
1910.265(i)............................ Subpart L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c)(11) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to mark
physical hazards as specified in Sec. 1910.144. Section 1910.144
provides guidance on the colors to use to mark physical hazards. As
noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA is proposing to
revoke Sec. 1910.144 since the Agency believes that sufficient guidance
on this matter is given by the American National Standards Institute
standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and that removal of these
requirements from 29 CFR Part 1910 would have no discernible effect on
employee safety and health. Since OSHA is proposing to revoke
Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.265(c)11), OSHA also
proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.265(c)(11).
Paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to
inspect slings daily when in use, and to remove a sling from service if
it is found to be defective. In addition, paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of
Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to provide suitable protection between
the sling and the sharp unyielding surfaces of the load to be lifted.
These provisions duplicate some of the general requirements for the use
of slings in Sec. 1910.184 which also include provisions for sling
inspection, removal and protection. OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs
(c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c), to eliminate the duplication of requirements
for slings in Sec. 1910.265.
M. Agricultural Operations (Sec. 1910.267)
Section 1910.267 previously contained part 1910 requirements
applicable to agricultural operations. These requirements were moved to
Sec. 1928.21 in 1975 (40 FR 18268). Since that time, Sec. 1910.267 has
been used simply to refer employers to Sec. 1928.21 to locate these
requirements. OSHA believes that Sec. 1910.267 is now unnecessary and
proposes to revoke it.
N. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
Paragraph (f) of 1910.268 contains requirements for rubber
insulating equipment (gloves and blankets) used at telecommunications
centers and field installations. As discussed below, OSHA has
determined that these requirements are now outdated, and that they
should be deleted.
OSHA believes that the provisions of paragraph (f) are unnecessary
for several reasons. First, the general industry standard found at 29
CFR 1910.137, Electrical Protective Equipment, addresses all rubber
insulating equipment, and revocation of paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268
would eliminate this duplication of standards and related compliance
problems. Second, Sec. 1910.137 provides more comprehensive employee
protection, since it covers requirements for manufacture and marking,
electrical proof tests, voltages, test intervals, workmanship and in-
service care and use. Third, Sec. 1910.137, is written in performance-
oriented language that provides employers with flexibility in meeting
the standard. Thus, OSHA believes that paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268
can be revoked without diminishing employee safety and health.
O. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
OSHA is proposing to delete paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of
Sec. 1910.1017, vinyl chloride, which was promulgated in 1974. These
paragraphs address entry into unknown and hazardous vinyl-chloride
atmospheres. Paragraph (g)(5)(i) allows entry into unknown
concentrations of vinyl chloride or concentrations greater than 36,000
ppm (lower explosive limit) only for purposes of life rescue. Paragraph
(g)(5)(ii) allows entry into concentrations of vinyl chloride of less
than 36,000 ppm, but greater than 3,600 ppm only for purposes of life
rescue, firefighting, or securing equipment which will prevent a
greater release of vinyl chloride.
In 1989, OSHA promulgated industry-wide provisions addressing
emergency response with respect to entry into unknown or hazardous
atmospheres under Sec. 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (54 FR 9317, Mar. 6, 1989).
Included in the scope of the HAZWOPER standard are requirements for
``Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats
of releases of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of
the hazard.'' Thus, vinyl chloride, which is a ``hazardous substance''
as defined under the
[[Page 37854]]
HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the emergency response provisions in
both the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER rules. In regard to overlapping
provisions in two applicable standards, the HAZWOPER standard
specifically states in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that ``If there is a
conflict or overlap [between emergency-response provisions in
Sec. 1910.120 and provisions in substance-specific standards], the
provision more protective of employee safety and health shall apply * *
*.''
OSHA believes that the emergency-response provisions in
Sec. 1910.120 are more protective overall than the relevant provisions
in the vinyl chloride standard. Further, the provisions of
Sec. 1910.120, which require development of a broad program to
appropriately respond to any potential emergency situation, may be
viewed as giving more flexibility to employers to tailor and implement
effective comprehensive emergency-response programs to suit their
needs. Key provisions in Sec. 1910.120(q) that would apply where there
is a potential emergency associated with the release of vinyl chloride
address the following: Development and implementation of an emergency
response plan, paragraph (q)(1); elements required to be included in
the emergency response plan, paragraph (q)(2); procedures for handling
emergency response, paragraph (q)(3); use of skilled support personnel,
paragraph (q)(4); use of specialist employees, paragraph (q)(5);
training of emergency personnel, paragraph (q)(6), (7), and (8);
medical surveillance and consultation for emergency-response personnel,
paragraph (q)(9); use of chemical protective clothing, paragraph
(q)(10); and procedures for post-emergency-response operations,
paragraph (q)(11).
OSHA believes, therefore, that deletion of Sec. 1910.1017(g)(5) (i)
and (ii), in favor of Sec. 1910.120, will not result in an increased
risk to the safety or health of employees engaged in vinyl chloride
emergency response operations. The Agency solicits comment on the
question of the sufficiency of Sec. 1910.120 to address the protection
of vinyl chloride emergency response employees if, as proposed here,
the emergency response provisions currently in the vinyl chloride
standard are deleted.
P. Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018)
OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance
requirements in paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018, that address
inorganic arsenic, with respect to sputum-cytology examinations and
chest x-rays. The requirement in paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C) of
Sec. 1910.1018 that provides for a semi-annual sputum-cytology
examination for employees 45 years of age or older or with 10 or more
years of exposure over the action level is proposed to be deleted.
Sputum-cytology examination was included originally under medical
surveillance programs for arsenic workers based on OSHA's belief that
such examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer.
In reevaluating this provision, the Agency has found no studies
that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a
screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to
inorganic arsenic. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2],
however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology
examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in another high-risk
group, namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. The two studies
included the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National
Cancer Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program.
Together, the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were
assigned at random to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent
an annual chest radiograph, and sputum-cytologic study every 4 months)
or to a single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic
screening was performed).
For both studies, there were no significant differences between the
dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung-cancer
cases, the number of late-stage lung-cancer cases, the number of
resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns
Hopkins) survival rates and the number of lung-cancer deaths.
Therefore, sputum cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer
screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.
False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent
in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5].
False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and
anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest
x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the
pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible,
fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this examination is negative, then the
lower respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic
bronchoscopy; bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In
addition, imaging studies may be done, including computed tomography
(CT scan) and magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of
these procedures have inherent risks, including death [Ex. 1-6].
The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection
of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-
cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. The Society's decision in this regard
was based on the lack of epidemiological evidence that would support
the use of sputum-cytology screening, and the risks and costs
associated with false positive exams [Ex. 1-8]. Therefore, since
available data do not indicate that sputum-cytology examination adds
any benefit to a lung-cancer screening program that already includes
annual chest x-rays, and since false-positive results can lead to
unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up procedures, OSHA is proposing
that sputum-cytology examinations be deleted from the medical-
surveillance requirements of the inorganic arsenic standard.
OSHA solicits comments on these conclusions with respect to the
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data
and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and
conclusions.
Exhibits
1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory
Disease 130:545-49, 1984.
1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a
screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-
25S, 1986.
1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: Results
of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study in New York. Chest 86:44-53,
1984.
1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology.
Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.
1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic
bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72,
1974.
1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of
Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.
1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of
Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.
OSHA is also proposing to revise the requirement in paragraph
(n)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic standard, that
provides for a semiannual chest x-ray for employees who are 45 years of
age or older or who have 10 or more years of arsenic exposure over the
action level. OSHA is proposing that the required frequency of chest x-
ray for these employees be changed from
[[Page 37855]]
semiannual to annual. OSHA originally adopted the provision for
semiannual x-rays based on the belief that such semiannual examinations
were valid for screening for lung cancer.
OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide
employees exposed to inorganic arsenic with a medical surveillance
program, including chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung
cancer. However, the Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing
chest x-rays semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by
a large, randomized, and controlled scientific study.
Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1,1-2], were
conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely,
male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with
respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. These studies, which
included the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak Study
[Ex.1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of chest
x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of this
group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental
groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic
intervals (4 months in the Mayo Lung Project and 6 months in the
Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic,
or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the
experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the
beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung
tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)
These studies found that periodic chest x-rays led to enhanced
detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence, higher
rates of respectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a
subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific
survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed
cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower
fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of
overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung
Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were
found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in
the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.
The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the
outcomes for the few experimental group participants who did not
undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either
because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This
analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which
combined the outcomes for experimental group participants in the Mayo
Lung Project with similar experimental group participants from two
other groups (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns
Hopkins Lung Project). The 5 year fatality rate for the nonsurgery
participants was about 90 percent, compared with a 30-percent fatality
rate for those participants who underwent cancer surgery. This
comparison provides strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in
detecting early-stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those
participants who undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected
tumor. Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and
lead-time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate
differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the
Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.
Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to
inorganic arsenic continue to need medical surveillance to detect lung
cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung
cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the
frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annually.
This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in
Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35
percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the
experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which
administered chest x-rays every 4 months, and the experimental-group
participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns
Hopkins Lung Project, which performed chest x-rays once a year. [See
also Exs. 1-12 and 1-13] This analysis demonstrates that fatality rates
did not differ in any practical or statistically significant fashion
across these three major studies. OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual
chest x-ray satisfies the purpose of the medical surveillance program
required under the standard.
In summary, large randomized controlled studies indicate that
semiannual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual
screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of
high-risk individuals, including workers exposed to inorganic arsenic,
should continue since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-
rays for detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in
lowering lung cancer fatality rates.
Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for
high-risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data
to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate.
OSHA, therefore, believes that an annual x-ray provision is reasonable.
Moreover, if the Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on
the side of over-protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the
value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and
views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and
conclusions.
Exhibits
1-1. Strauss GM, et. al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
1-2. Berlin NI, et. al. The National Cancer Institute
cooperative early lung cancer detection program. American Review of
Respiratory Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.
1-9. Fontana R, et. al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program.
Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.
1-10. Fontana R, et. al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique
of the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.
1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a
randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37,
1986.
1-12. Kubik A, et. al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual
screening for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized
controlled trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia.
International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.
1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical
Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169
Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.
Q. Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. 1910.1029)
OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1029, coke oven emissions, with respect to
sputum-cytology examinations and chest x-rays. The requirement in
paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.1029 that provides for a semiannual
sputum-cytology examination for employees 45 years of age or older or
with 5 or more years employment in the regulated area is proposed to be
deleted. Sputum-cytology examination was included originally in the
medical surveillance programs for coke oven workers based on OSHA's
belief that such
[[Page 37856]]
examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer. (Note: Much of
the following discussion of sputum-cytology examinations duplicates the
discussion on that topic provided under ``P. Inorganic Arsenic''
above.)
In reevaluating this provision, the Agency found no available
studies that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a
screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to coke
oven emissions. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2]
however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology
examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in a high-risk group,
namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. Two of these studies
were the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National Cancer
Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program. Together,
the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were assigned
randomly to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent annual
chest radiograph and sputum-cytologic study every four months) or to a
single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic screening was
performed).
For both studies, there were no significant differences between the
dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung cancer
cases, the number of late-stage lung cancer cases, the number of
resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns
Hopkins) survival rates, and the number of lung cancer deaths.
Therefore, sputum-cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer
screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.
False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent
in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5].
False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and
anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest
x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the
pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible
fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this is negative, then the lower
respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy;
bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In addition, imaging
studies may be done, including computed tomography (CT scan) and
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of these procedures
have inherent risks including death [Ex. 1-6].
The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection
of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-
cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. This decision was based on the lack of
epidemiological evidence that would support the use of sputum-cytology
screening, and the risks and costs associated with false positive exams
[Ex. 1-8].
Therefore, since available data do not indicate that sputum-
cytology examination adds any benefit to a lung cancer screening
program that already includes annual chest x-rays, and since false-
positive results can lead to unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up
procedures, OSHA is proposing that sputum-cytology examinations be
deleted from the medical surveillance requirements of the coke oven
emission standard.
OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data
and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and
conclusions.
Exhibits
1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcomein
lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory
Disease 130:545-49, 1984.
1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a
screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-
25S, 1986.
1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: results
of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering study in New York. Chest 86:44-53,
1984.
1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology.
Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.
1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic
bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72,
1974.
1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of
Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.
1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of
Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.
The requirement in Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the coke
oven emissions standard, which provides for a semiannual chest x-ray
for employees 45 years of age or older or with 5 or more years
employment in a regulated area, is proposed for revison. OSHA is
proposing that this requirement be revised to require an annual chest
x-ray in the medical surveillance program for the group of employees
noted above. OSHA adopted the provision for semiannual x-rays
originally in the belief that semiannual examinations were valid for
screening for lung cancer.
OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide
coke-oven employees with a medical surveillance program, including
chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung cancer. However, the
Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing chest x-rays
semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by a large,
randomized, and controlled scientific study.
Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2], were
conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely,
male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with
respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. Two of these studies,
referred to as the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak
Study [Ex. 1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of
chest x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of
this group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental
groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic
intervals (four months in the Mayo Lung Project and six months in the
Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic,
or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the
experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the
beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung
tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)
The results of these studies found that periodic chest x-rays led
to enhanced detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence,
higher rates of resectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a
subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific
survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed
cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower
fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of
overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung
Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were
found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in
the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.
The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the
outcomes for the few experimental-group participants who did not
undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either
because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This
analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which
combined the outcomes for experimental-group participants in the
[[Page 37857]]
Mayo Lung Project with similar experimental-group participants from two
other studies (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung
Projects). The 5-year fatality rate for the nonsurgery participants was
about 90-percent, compared to a 30-percent fatality rate for those
participants who underwent cancer surgery. This comparison provides
strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in detecting early-
stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those participants who
undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected tumor.
Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and lead-
time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate
differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the
Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.
Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to
coke-oven emissions continue to need medical surveillance to detect
lung cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung
cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the
frequency of chest x-rays from semi-annually to annually.
This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in
Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35
percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the
experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which
administered chest x-rays every four months, and the experimental-group
participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung
Projects, which performed chest
x-rays once a year. [see, also, Exs. 1-12, 1-13]. This analysis
demonstrates that fatality rate did not differ in any practical or
statistically-significant fashion across these three major studies.
OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual chest x-ray satisfies the purpose
of the medical surveillance program required under the standard.
In summary, Large randomized controlled studies indicate that semi-
annual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual
screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of
high-risk individuals, including coke oven workers, should continue
since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-rays for
detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in lower lung
cancer fatality rates.
Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for
high risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data
to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate.
OSHA believes an annual x-ray provision is reasonable. Moreover, if the
Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on the side of over-
protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the
value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and
views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and
conclusions.
Exhibits
1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory
Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.
1-9. Fontana R, et al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program.
Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.
1-10. Fontana R, et al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique of
the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.
1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a
randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37,
1986.
1-12. Kubik A, et al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual screening
for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized controlled
trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia.
International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.
1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical
Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169
Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.
Amendments to Part 1926
A. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 1926.31)
Based on its ongoing review of compliance and enforcement
activities and recommendations from its Advisory Committee on
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA is aware that difficulties
have arisen regarding certain provisions of part 1926 that were adopted
under sections 6(a) of the Act. Many of the standards adopted under
section 6(a) were American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards which
were incorporated by reference and contained advisory provisions (e.g.
use the word ``should'' rather than ``shall'').
In the past, OSHA maintained that all standards, regardless of
whether the term ``should'' or ``shall'' is used, created mandatory
compliance responsibilities. Employers consistently challenged this
position on the basis that section 6(a) of the Act only gave OSHA the
authority to adopt ANSI standards verbatim. In ANSI standards, use of
the term ``should'' means that the provision is only advisory.
Therefore, employers maintained that ANSI ``should'' standards could
only be advisory when adopted or incorporated by reference by OSHA
under section 6(a).
Enforcement of ``should'' standards has been denied by the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and by most of the
appellate courts in which contested cases have been heard. For example,
in Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-
44 (1978), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that
``should'' standards were merely advisory because the consensus
organization had reached ``substantial agreement'' that these
provisions be viewed only as recommendations, and not as mandatory
standards.
The courts have also ruled that failure to adopt an ANSI provision
verbatim renders the resulting OSHA Section 6(a) provision invalid and
unenforceable (see Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corporation, 577 F.2d
1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 1977)).
Although the ``should'' standards have not been enforceable in and
of themselves, OSHA has employed them to demonstrate the existence of
``recognized hazards'' under the general duty clause (section 5(a)(1))
of the Act. However, the Review Commission has ruled that, as long as
the ``should'' provision remains in effect as a OSHA standard, OSHA may
not issue a general duty clause citation for the hazard it addresses
(see A. Prokosch & Sons Sheet Metal and Mid Hudson Automatic Sprinkler,
1980 CCH OSHD para.24,840). Based on the fact that OSHA cannot enforce
these provisions either directly or indirectly, the Agency proposes to
revise Sec. 1926.31(a) to clarify that only the mandatory requirements
of incorporated consensus standards are adopted as OSHA standards. The
removal of the advisory provisions will also serve to simplify and
streamline existing part 1926 standards.
In 1984, OSHA conducted a rulemaking for 29 CFR part 1910 (General
Industry Standards) that was similar to the one described above for the
construction standards in part 1926. That is, paragraph (a) of
Sec. 1910.6 was revised to clarify that only the mandatory provisions
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as OSHA general
industry standards (49 FR 5318).
[[Page 37858]]
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.31 currently provides that ``the
specifications, standards and codes * * * to the extent they are
legally incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and
effect as other standards in this part.'' OSHA is proposing to add a
sentence at the end of Sec. 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ``Only the
mandatory provisions (that is, provisions containing the word ``shall''
or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are
adopted as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.''
This amendment will effectively eliminate ``should'' standards
incorporated by reference into part 1926.
B. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1926.50)
Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50 states that ``First-aid supplies
approved by the consulting physician shall be easily accessible when
required.'' Since first-aid kits that are commercially available will
meet the needs of most employers, it is unnecessary for most employers
to have a physician approve the contents of a first-aid kit. However,
if the workplace has unusual hazards or special situations that would
require modification of a commercial first-aid kit, or the development
of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer will provide
these special items. If the employer is unsure whether a commercially
available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be obtained.
Such advice, however, would not be required as a matter of course.
Accordingly, OSHA proposes to revise paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50
to eliminate the requirement for physician approval of first-aid
supplies. The Agency believes that this change will allow the employer
more flexibility in meeting the first-aid requirements without
affecting employee safety.
Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 states that the ``telephone numbers
of the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously
posted.'' This outdated requirement places an unnecessary burden on the
employer. Since the 911 emergency number is nearly universal, OSHA
proposes to revise this paragraph to limit the requirement for posting
these numbers to those areas where the 911 emergency number is not
available.
C. Flammable and Combustible Liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.152 states that ``only approved
containers and portable tanks shall be used for storage and handling of
flammable and combustible liquids. Approved metal safety cans shall be
used for the handling and use of flammable liquids in quantities
greater than one gallon * * *.'' While approved metal safety cans are
still acceptable, OSHA notes that various nationally recognized testing
laboratories have also approved the use of plastic safety cans for
flammable liquids. OSHA proposes to revise this paragraph to allow the
use of approved plastic safety cans in addition to approved metal
safety cans.
A ``safety can'', by definition, is a container with a capacity of
5 gallons or less that is equipped with a spring-closing lid and spout
cover, a means to relieve internal pressure, and a flash-arresting
screen. The Agency has determined that Department of Transportation
(DOT)-approved containers of 5-gallon capacity or less, that are not
equipped with a spring-closing lid, spout cover and flash-arresting
screen can be used to transport relatively small quantities of
flammable liquids safely. OSHA thus proposes to make DOT-approved
containers of 5-gallon capacity or less also acceptable for the
storage, use, and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.
OSHA is also proposing to revise Sec. 1926.152(a)(1) to allow the
use of the original container for quantities of flammable liquids that
are one gallon or less. Where the original container is available, the
employer may choose to use it, instead of an approved safety can for
quantities of one gallon or less. If the original container is not
available, an approved safety can must be used.
D. Initiation of Explosive Charges--Electric Blasting (Sec. 1926.906)
Paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 states that ``Blasters, when testing
circuits to charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers
equipped with a silver chloride cell especially designed for this
purpose.'' This provision specifically requires the use of silver
chloride dry cells as a power source for testing electric blast caps.
By contrast, paragraph (e)(4)(vii) of Sec. 1910.109, Explosives and
blasting agents, states that ``Blasters, when testing circuits to
charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers designed for this
purpose'' and does not specifically require the use of silver chloride
cells. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration currently
allows for the use of a blasting galvanometer or other instruments that
are specifically designed for testing blasting circuits (30 CFR CH.1
Sec. 56.6407). Therefore, OSHA proposes to correct this inconsistency
by revising paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to allow the use of other
types of instruments, in addition to those equipped with silver-
chloride cells, when testing circuits to charged holes.
III. Summary of the Preliminary Economic, Feasibility and Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses
Preliminary Economic Analysis
The Agency is proposing to eliminate a number of provisions in its
standards that are duplicative, unnecessary, or potentially in conflict
with the rules of other Federal agencies. All of the changes OSHA is
proposing to make are expected to benefit the regulated community by
reducing confusion, enhancing utility, and increasing readability. Only
four of the proposed changes, however, have quantifiable economic
benefits. Although the extent to which employers currently comply with
these provisions is not known, economists generally assume full
compliance when assessing the costs of regulations. The same compliance
baseline is also used to evaluate benefits. By eliminating these
``problem'' provisions for its standards, OSHA will lessen the burdens
employers currently experience to comply with them, which will, in
turn, generate cost savings. First Aid Kits
The proposed rule would eliminate the requirements in
Sec. 1910.151(b) and Sec. 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must have first
aid supplies approved by a consulting physician. This requirement does
not apply to all facilities; instead it depends on whether an
infirmary, clinic, or hospital is nearby and would be used by the
employer to treat all injured employees, i.e., the requirement applies
only in cases where no such facilities are in close proximity and the
employer intends to treat first aid injuries on site. Although the
number of establishments meeting these criteria is uncertain, the
Agency believes it is reasonable to assume that 10 percent of
establishments would do so. How the physician is to provide this
consultation is not specified in OSHA's provisions. OSHA assumes that,
at most, five minutes of a physician's time, valued at $100/hr,1
would be required to approve the contents of the first aid kit at these
establishments. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA also assumes that
the physician provides 5 minutes of his or her time at an hourly wage
rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Opportunity cost as measured by the market price for
occupational physical exams. Agency estimates for the cost of exams
suggest a rate of about $100 an hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis further assumes that the physician needs to approve
the first aid supplies once every 10 years, after which time the
development of new
[[Page 37859]]
kinds of medical supplies and the possibility of new hazards in the
workplace would require a new consultation. The cost of 5 minutes of a
physician's time annualized over 10 years is $1.19.
The Agency estimates that approximately 6.4 million employers fall
under OSHA jurisdiction and would be affected by this change (County
Business Patterns, 1993). Therefore, the annualized cost of satisfying
these provisions is currently estimated to be $761,600 ((6.4 million
x 10%) x $1.19). By eliminating this requirement, OSHA will reduce
this burden, as well as the paperwork burden associated with obtaining
and recording the physician's approval.
Coke Oven Emissions
The proposed revision to Sec. 1910.1029(j) would eliminate the
requirement for semiannual sputum cytology tests and reduce the
required frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annual for
workers who are 45 years of age or older or who have 5 or more years of
employment in regulated areas. Regulated areas encompass the coke oven
battery, including topside and its machinery, pushside and its
machinery, coke side and its machinery, and battery ends; the wharf;
the screening station; and the beehive oven and its machinery.
The Inflationary Impact Statement developed for OSHA in support of
Sec. 1910.1029 (Inflationary Impact Statement: Coke Oven Emissions,
1976) estimated total employment in coke ovens at 29,600. The same
analysis estimated that 75 percent of these employees worked in
regulated areas. The 1992 Census of Manufacturers (Industry Series)
indicated total employment in SIC 33121 (Coke Oven and Blast Furnace
Products) at 8,600 and total production manhours at 15.7 million. A
separate Census Industry Series count specific to coke ovens indicates
a total of 11.2 million production manhours, which constitutes
approximately 71 percent of SIC 33121's productive manhours, suggesting
a total employment count in coke ovens of 6,135.
Assuming that the proportion of coke oven employees in regulated
areas has remained constant, approximately 4,600 employees work in
regulated areas at the present time. Approximately 30 percent of the
workforce in 1994 was over 45 years of age (BLS data presented in
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, p. 402). Turnover
rates in SIC 33, which includes coke ovens, are estimated at 5 percent
annually (National Occupational Exposure Survey: Analysis of Management
Interview Responses, 1988). A simple probability calculation suggests
that approximately 77 percent of the regulated area workforce will have
been exposed to coke oven emissions for 5 years or more.2
Adjusting this percentage to reflect the assumption that 30 percent of
employees are over 45 years of age results in an estimate of 84 percent
3 of coke oven employees (3,864 workers) potentially affected by
the proposed revocation of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ (1-.05)\5\=.77 This calculation assumes equal probability of
turnover in each year thereafter.
\3\ ((.77) x (1-.30))+(.30)=.84 All other things equal, at least
30 percent of those with 5 or more years of exposure would be over
45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 data obtained from the Physician Payment Review Commission (e-
mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC, to Tom Mockler, OSHA) indicate a
national average x-ray charge of $54.40 and an average lab charge for
cytology examination of bodily fluids of $51.90. There is also the
potential for an additional charge averaging $19.00 for sputum specimen
collection, but this is assumed to be contained within the fee for a
medical exam. Therefore the savings for eliminating one chest x-ray and
two sputum cytologies annually would be $158.20 per worker ($54.40 for
one x-ray, plus $103.80 for two sputum cytology tests). For the group
of 3,864 employees, the annual savings would be $611,285.
Inorganic Arsenic
As in the case of the coke oven standard, OSHA is proposing to
eliminate the requirement for sputum cytology and reduce the frequency
of chest x-ray exams from semiannual to annual for workers exposed
above the inorganic arsenic action level of 5 g/m \3\ (29 CFR
1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1910.1018 currently requires
employees exposed above the action level for 30 days per year to
receive these medical surveillance elements semi-annually if they are
45 years of age or older, or if they have had more than 10 years of
exposure above the action level.
The Federal Register notice for the inorganic arsenic rulemaking
[(May 5, 1978), p. 19585] indicated that of 660,000 workers exposed,
7,400 were exposed above 4 g/m \3\, i.e., close to or above
the action level. Although arsenic uses and related exposures have
shifted over time, the level of inorganic arsenic use in the U.S.
appears to be approximately the same as it was at the time of the
original rulemaking 4. Therefore, for the purposes of this
analysis, the Agency assumes that the exposed population size is also
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic trioxide
consumed in U.S. (Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental
Perspectives, 1983, p. 7; Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity
Summary, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the original rulemaking, the Inflationary Impact
Statement (Inflationary Impact Statement: Inorganic Arsenic, 1976)
estimated that 50% of employees above the action level would need the
semi-annual exams, based on OSHA's analysis of age, job tenure and
turnover. Applying the same assumptions, the Agency estimates that
approximately 3,700 workers would be affected by the proposed revisoin
to this provision. This change will eliminate the need for testing
valued at $158.20 (see the explanation above for coke ovens for cost
details) for 3,700 employees, for an annual savings of $584,340.
Pulp and Paper
The existing pulp and paper standard, Sec. 1910.261, contains
paragraph (b)(5), ``vessel entering'', which states:
Lifelines and safety harness shall be worn by anyone entering
closed vessels, tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment, and a
person shall be stationed outside in a position to handle the line
and to summon assistance in the case of emergency.
Paragraph (b)(5) also prescribes other safety precautions applying to
similar confined spaces in pulp and paper mills.
OSHA proposes to eliminate these specific separate requirements for
confined space entry in pulp and paper mills, and instead reference
Sec. 1910.146, OSHA's generic confined spaces standard. In other words,
employers in the pulp and paper industry will no longer have to comply
with Sec. 1910.261(b)(5), but with Sec. 1910.146. Section 1910.146
requires that employers assess the hazards of their confined spaces and
employ the appropriate safety precautions to deal with the relevant
existing or potential hazard. Although Sec. 1910.146 may require
employers to complete additional checklists, conduct training, and plan
for rescue, depending on the hazard present, employers will in many
cases no longer need to require employees to wear lifelines or provide
for outside ``attendants'' 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, Sec. 1910.146(c)(5) indicates that if an
employer can certify that ventilation alone can reliably control
atmospheric hazards in a space, and that is the only hazard posed by
the space, they are exempt from many requirements of the standard,
including the need for an outside attendant. Similarly, in
Sec. 1910.146(k)(3), employers are expressly exempt from using a
lifeline if such usage is either valueless or counterproductive from
a safety standpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37860]]
The costs of complying with Sec. 1910.146 in the pulp and paper
industry were included in OSHA's supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis
(Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
of the Final Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard, December 1992].
They were estimated to be approximately $4 million. No economic or
technological feasibility problems were indicated.
By deleting the more rigid confined space requirements of the pulp
and paper industry-specific standard and requiring employers to comply
with a more performance-oriented requirement for attendants and
lifelines, OSHA is simultaneously relieving a burden and enhancing
safety. Based on the underlying analysis used by OSHA in producing the
RIA for Sec. 1910.146, a comparison of the costs associated with the
requirement that an attendant be present (Sec. 1910.261(b)(5)) with the
more flexible requirements in Sec. 1910.146 indicates a savings to
employers of approximately 450,000 manhours annually. Given the hourly
compensation rate of $17 used in the RIA, this represents an annual
savings of $7.7 million.
In summary, by revoking these four unnecessary or duplicative
requirements, the Agency is reducing annual employer burdens related to
first aid kits ($761,600), medical surveillance for coke oven emissions
($611,285) and inorganic arsenic workers ($584,340), and confined space
entry in pulp and paper mills ($7.7 million), for a total annualized
employer savings of $9,656,625.
Technological Feasibility
OSHA could not identify any requirement in the proposed revision
and modification of OSHA standards that raises technological
feasibility problems for employers. OSHA, therefore, has preliminarily
concluded that technological feasibility is not an issue for the
proposed changes in the standards.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended, requires that the Agency examine regulatory actions to
determine if they would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As indicated elsewhere in this
analysis, these modifications to existing regulations are expected to
reduce the regulatory burden on all affected employers, large and
small. For that reason, the Agency hereby certifies that these changes
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
V. Environmental Assessment
The proposed rules have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures
(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has concluded that
the rules will have no significant environmental impact.
VI. International Trade
This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards is not
likely to have a significant effect on international trade, since the
changes involve the revocation of obsolete provisions, consolidation of
repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information Collection Requirements
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice
serves two purposes: (1) Solicit public comment on the changes that are
proposed in this rule pertaining to the Inorganic Arsenic and the Coke
Oven Emissions standards and (2) solicit public comment on the existing
Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions information collection
requests for their extension.
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 for public comment in the Federal Register
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposed
rule impacts two active Information Collection Requests: Inorganic
Arsenic (OMB Number 1218-0104) and Coke Oven Emissions (OMB Number
1218-0128).
The title, description, and respondent description of the
information collection are described below with an estimate of the
annual reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. 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 including the validity of
methodology and assumptions used accurately;
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 ofinformation technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Title: Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry andConstruction.
Description: The purpose of these standards and their information
collection requirements is to provide protection for employees against
the health effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven
emissions and inorganic arsenic. These standards require employers to
monitor employee exposure, to provide medical surveillance and to
maintain employee exposure monitoring and medical records. If exposure
levels are above the standards' Permissible Exposure Levels (PEL), then
employers must establish and implement a written control plan to reduce
exposures below the PELs. Employers are also required to notify OSHA
area offices of regulated areas and changes to regulated areas. The
proposed rule would delete the requirement for employee sputum cytology
exams contained in the medical surveillance provisions of the Coke Oven
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic Standards. The proposed rule would also
change the frequency of x-rays from semi-annual to annual in these
standards. Description of Respondents: Employers whose employees may be
exposed to coke oven emissions and inorganic arsenic. Estimate of
Burden Hours and Cost: OSHA estimates that the total burden for Coke
Oven Emissions will be 95,060 burden hours, a reduction of 2,945 hours
(from employee medical examinations), at a cost savings of $611,285.
For Inorganic Arsenic, the agency estimates the total burden to be
24,615 burden hours, a reduction of 3,663 hours (from employee medical
examinations), at a cost savings of $584,340. Employee exposure
monitoring and medical records required by both standards must be
maintained for at least 40 years, or for the duration of employment
plus 20 years whichever is longer. The agency has submitted a copy of
the proposed rule to OMB for its review and approval
[[Page 37861]]
of the information collections. Interested persons are requested to
submit comments on the paperwork reduction regarding the proposed
deletion of sputum cytology and frequency of x-rays 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. Comments should also be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office
for this proposal at OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number S-778, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(a), this notice also
solicits public comment on the existing Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven
Emissions information collection requests for their extension. Persons
interested in commenting on the existing information collection
requirements contained in the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions
standards are requested to submit comment including suggestions for
reducing burden to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number (ICR 96-7
Inorganic Arsenic orICR 96-8 Coke Oven Emissions), U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
(Note that this is a different docket number than the Docket for
proposal which poses to remove the sputum cytology and decrease the
frequency of the chest x-rays) Comments submitted in response to this
comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for
Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection
request; they will also become a matter of public record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avgerage time
Cite reference Total Frequency Total per response Total cost Burden
respondents responses (hours) (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions...................... 22 On occasion.................. 101,977 1.01 $1,363,900 95,060
Inorganic Arsenic........................ 42 On occasion.................. 58,763 1.06 2,017,684 24,615
Total.............................. .............. ............................. 160,740 .............. 3,381,584 119,675
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the referenced information collection requests are
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will
be mailed immediately to persons who request copies by telephoning
Vivian Allen at (202) 219-8076. For electronic copies of the Coke Oven
Emissions and the Inorganic Arsenic requests, contact the Labor News
Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784, or OSHA WebPage on the internet at
http://www.osha.gov/. Copies of these information collection requests
are also available at the OMB Docket Office.
VIII. Federalism
This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards has been
reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October
30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to
the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options,
consult with States prior to taking any actions which would restrict
State policy actions, and take such actions only when there is clear
constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of national
scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only if there is
a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any such
preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)
expresses Congress' intent to preempt state laws relating to issues on
which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health
standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption in issues
covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal
approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their
enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such
Plan states must, among other things, be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards.
The proposed revision and revocation of standards is meant to
reduce the volume and complexity of OSHA standards, and to improve
compliance by employers, without diminishing worker safety and health.
Those States which have elected to participate under Section 18 of the
OSH Act are not preempted by this proposal, and will be able to address
any special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while
ensuring that the State standards are at least as effective as the
Federal standard. State comments are invited on this proposal and will
be duly considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.
IX. Public Participation
Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked
by September 20, 1996, and submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket
Office, Docket No. S-778, Room N2624, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20210.
All written comments received within the specified comment period
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.
The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven
Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require
the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance
requirements.
Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, interested
persons may request an informal hearing by filing a request for such a
hearing including objections to the proposal which warrant a hearing.
Persons who have objections to the proposal but do not wish to request
an oral hearing, may submit their objections in their comments where
they will be fully considered. The objections and hearing requests
should be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA, U.S. Dept.
of Labor, Rm. N-3647, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210
(tel. 202-219-8619) and must comply with the following conditions:
1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;
2. The objections must be postmarked by September 20, 1996;
3. The objections must specify with particularity grounds upon
which the objection is based;
4. Each objection must be separately numbered; and
5. The objections must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the
evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing.
The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven
[[Page 37862]]
Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require
the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance
requirements.
OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through
their knowledge of safety or health or their experience, would wish to
endorse or support the proposed actions set forth in this notice. OSHA
welcomes such supportive comments, including any related information
which may be available, so that the record of this rulemaking will
present a balanced picture of the public response on the issues
involved.
X. State Plan Standards
The States with their own approved occupational safety and health
plans must adopt comparable standards within 6 months of the
publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Virgin Islands, Washington and
Wyoming. Until such time as State standards are promulgated, Federal
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in
those States.
List of Subjects:
29 CFR Part 1910:
Business and industry, Occupational safety and health, Hazardous
materials, Fire protection.
29 CFR Part 1926:
Construction industry, Occupational safety and health, Fire
protection, Explosives
XI. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
20210.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), section 107 of
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 29 CFR parts 1910 and
1926 are proposed to be amended as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15 day of July 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
A. It is proposed to amend Part 1910 of 29 CFR as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED]
Subpart H--Hazardous Materials
1. The authority citation for subpart H is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.109 Explosives and blasting agents [Amended]
2. Remove the phrase, ``from inhabited buildings, passenger
railways, and public highways and'' from paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of
Sec. 1910.109.
3. Remove the words, ``manufacture and'' from the first sentence in
footnote number 5, of Table H-21, of Sec. 1910.109.
4. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Blasting caps or electric blasting caps shall not be
transported over the highways on the same vehicles with other
explosives, unless packaged, segregated and transported in accordance
with the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations
(49 CFR parts 177-180).
5. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which
have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of in a
safe manner, or reused in accordance with the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 177-
180).
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.110 Storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases
[Amended]
1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110, and
redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as (b)(15)(v).
2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1910.110, and
redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(i) as (c)(2).
3. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.
4. Remove and reserve paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110.
Sec. 1910.111 Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia [Amended]
Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.
Subpart J--General Environmental Controls
1. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Sec. 1910.141 Sanitation [Amended]
2. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141 and all paragraph
designations for the definitions within paragraph (a)(2) of
Sec. 1910.141.
Sec. 1910.142 Temporary labor camps [Amended]
3. Remove paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 1910.142.
Sec. 1910.144 Safety color code for marking physical hazards
[Removed]
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.144.
Subpart K--Medical and First Aid
1. The authority citation for subpart K is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.151 Medical Services and first aid [Amended]
2. Revise the final sentence in paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 to
read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.
* * * * *
Subpart L--Fire Protection
1. The authority citation for subpart L continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.156 Fire brigades [Amended]
2. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.156.
[[Page 37863]]
Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage
1. The authority citation for subpart N is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.183 Helicopters [Amended]
2. Remove and reserve paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.183.
Subpart R--Special Industries
1. The authority citation for subpart R is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.261 Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills [Amended]
2. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3): (ii),
(iv) through (vi), (xi) through (xiii), (xv), (xvii) through (xix),
(xx), (xxii), (xxiv) through (xxvii).
3. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(3)(ix) of Sec. 1910.261.
4. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ii),
b. Paragraph (a)(3)(vii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iii),
c. Paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iv),
d. Paragraph (a)(3)(x) as paragraph (a)(3)(v),
e. Paragraph (a)(3)(xiv) as paragraph (a)(3)(vi),
f. Paragraph (a)(3)(xvi) as paragraph (a)(3)(vii),
g. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxi) as paragraph (a)(3)(viii),
h. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxiii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ix).
5. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of
Sec. 1910.261.
6. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph
(b)(7) as paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1910.261.
7. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(c): (2)(vi),
(2)(vii), (6)(ii), and (7)(ii).
8. Remove and reserve the following paragraphs of Sec. 1910.261(c):
(3)(i), (8)(i), and (11).
9. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. Paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph (c)(2)(vi),
b. Paragraph (c)(6)(i) as paragraph (c)(6),
c. Paragraph (c)7)(i) as paragraph (c)(7).
10. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
11. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(7), and (e)(9) of
Sec. 1910.261.
12. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261.
13. Remove and reserve paragraphs (g)(15)(iv) and (g)(15)(vi) of
Sec. 1910.261.
14. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. paragraph (g)(1)(v) to paragraph (g)(1)(iv),
b. paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to paragraph (g)(2)(i),
c. paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to paragraph (g)(2)(ii).
15. Remove and reserve paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261.
16. Remove paragraphs (j)(4)(ii), (j)(5)(iv) and (j)(6)(ii) of
Sec. 1910.261.
17. Remove and reserve paragraphs (j)(1)(iv) and (j)(3) of
Sec. 1910.261.
18. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. Paragraph (j)(4)(iii) through paragraph (j)(4)(vi) as paragraph
(j)(4)(ii) through paragraph (j)(4)(v),
b. Paragraph (j)(6)(iii) as paragraph (j)(6)(ii).
19. Remove paragraph (k)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261, and redesignate
paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) through (k)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (k)(2)(i)
through (k)(2)(v), respectively.
20. Remove and reserve paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(16) of
Sec. 1910.261.
21. Remove and reserve paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4) of
Sec. 1910.261.
22. Remove paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
23. Redesignate paragraph (m)(5)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261 as paragraph
(m)(5), and add a heading to paragraph (m)(5) to read as follows:
``Unloading Cars''.
Sec. 1910.262 Textiles [Amended]
24. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), and (gg) of
Sec. 1910.262.
25. Remove paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 and redesignate
paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(8).
26. Remove and reserve paragraph (gg) of Sec. 1910.262.
27. Remove paragraphs (ll)(1), (qq)(1), (qq)(2), and (rr) of
Sec. 1910.262.
28. Redesignate paragraph (ll)(2) of Sec. 1910.262 as paragraph
(ll).
Sec. 1910.265 Sawmills [Amended]
29. Remove paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265.
30. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1910.265 as paragraph (a).
31. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (c)(10), (c)(11),
(c)(14), and (c)(16) of Sec. 1910.265.
32. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(17) of Sec. 1910.265.
33.-34. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265.
35. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 and
redesignate paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(b) as paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a).
36. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of Sec. 1910.265.
37. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(26)(i), (c)(30)(vi),
(c)(30)(x), and (e)(3)(ii)(d) of Sec. 1910.265.
38. Remove paragraphs (f)(9), (g), (h), and (i) of Sec. 1910.265.
Sec. 1910.267 Agricultural operations [Removed]
39. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.267.
Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications [Amended]
40. Remove and reserve paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
1. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
All of subpart Z issued under sec. 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The
latter were issued under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
Section 1910.1018 is also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
Sec. 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride. [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1910.1017, remove paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (g)(5)(ii).
3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) of Sec. 1910.1017 as
paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively.
Sec. 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic. [Amended]
4. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); revise the reference in
paragraph (n)(3)(i) that reads ``(n)(2)(ii)(A)(B) and (D)'' to read
``(n)(2)(ii)''; and revise paragraph (n)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) ``The employer shall provide the examinations specified in
paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least
semi-annually, and the x-ray requirement specified in paragraph
(n)(2)(ii)(A) at least annually, for other covered employees.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(F),
(q)(2)(iii)(G), and (q)(2)(iii)(H); and insert the word ``and'' after
paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(D).
[[Page 37864]]
6. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix A, in the middle of paragraph VI,
revise the sentence beginning ``The medical examination must include *
* *.'' to read as follows: ``The medical examination must include a
medical history, a chest x-ray, a skin examination, and a nasal
examination.'' Remove the sentence which begins ``The cytology exams
are only included * * *.'' from paragraph VI.
7. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix C, Section I, General, remove the
words ``(4) A Sputum Cytology examination;'' redesignate paragraph (5)
as paragraph (4); and remove the entire section entitled ``III. Sputum
Cytology.''
Sec. 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions. [Amended]
8. In Sec. 1910.1029, remove paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and redesignate
paragraph (j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii).
9. In paragraph (j)(3)(i) 0f Sec. 1910.1029, the reference
``(j)(2)(i)-(vi)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
10. In paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
11. In paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
12. In Sec. 1910.1029, redesignate paragraph (j)(3)(iv) as
paragraph (j)(3)(v), and add a new paragraph (j)(3)(iv) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The employer shall provide the x-ray specified in paragraph
(j)(2)(ii) of this section at least annually for employees covered
under paragraph (j)(3).
13. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix A, paragraph VI is revised to read
as follows:
* * * * *
VI. If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year,
your employer is required to provide you with a medical examination
every year. The medical examination must include a medical history,
a chest x-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison, skin
examination, a urinalysis and a urine cytology exam for early
detection of urinary cancer. The urine cytology exam is only
included in the initial exam until you are either 45 years or older
or have 5 or more years employment in the regulated areas when the
medical exams including this test, but excepting the x-ray exam, are
to be given every six months; under these conditions, you are to be
given an x-ray exam at least once a year. The examining physician
will provide a written opinion to your employer containing the
results of the medical exams. You should also receive a copy of this
opinion.
14. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, paragraph A is
revised to read as follows:
A. General
The minimum requirements for the medical examination for coke
oven workers are given in paragraph (j) of the standard. The initial
examination is to be provided to all coke oven workers who work at
least 30 days in the regulated area. The examination includes a
14'' x 17'' posterior-anterior chest x-ray reading and a ILO/UC
rating to assure some standardization of x-ray reading, pulmonary
function tests (FVC and FEV 1.0), weight, urinalysis, skin
examination, and a urinary cytologic examination. These tests are
needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the employee's future
test results. Periodic exams include all the elements of the initial
exams, except that the urine cytologic test is to be performed only
on those employees who are 45 years or older or who have worked for
5 or more years in the regulated area; periodic exams, with the
exception of x-rays, are to be performed semi-annually for this
group instead of annually; for this group, x-rays will continue to
be given at least annually. The examination contents are minimum
requirements; additional tests such as lateral and oblique x-rays or
additional pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed
necessary.
15. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, the paragraphs
entitled ``C. Sputum Cytology,'' are removed. B. It is proposed to
amend part 1926 of 29 CFR as follows:
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart C--General Safety and Health Standards
1. The authority citation for subpart C is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1926.31 Incorporation by Reference. [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1926.31, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government and
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect
as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e.,
provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language)
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1926.50 Medical services and first aid [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) First-aid supplies shall be easily accessible when required.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(f) In areas where 911 is not available, the telephone numbers of
the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Fire Protection and Prevention
1. The authority citation for subpart F is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1926.152 Flammable and combustible liquids [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1926.152, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
(a) * * * (1) Only approved containers and portable tanks shall be
used for storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.
Approved safety cans or Department of Transportation approved
containers shall be used for the handling and use of flammable liquids
in quantities of 5 gallons or less, except that this shall not apply to
those flammable liquid materials which are highly viscid (extremely
hard to pour), which may be used and handled in original shipping
containers. For quantities of one gallon or less, the original
container may be used for storage, use, and handling of flammable
liquids.
* * * * *
[[Page 37865]]
Subpart U--Blasting and Use of Explosives
1. The authority citation for subpart U is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1926.906 Initiation of explosive charges--electric blasting
[Amended]
2. In Sec. 1926.906, revise paragraph (q) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(q) Blasters, when testing circuits to charged holes, shall use
only blasting galvanometers or other instruments that are specifically
designed for this purpose.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18268 Filed 7-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
