1112 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. S–778–A] 

RIN 1218–AB 81

Standards Improvement Project-Phase 

II

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) through 

this final rule is continuing to remove 

and revise provisions of its standards 

that are outdated, duplicative, 

unnecessary, or inconsistent, or can be 

clarified or simplified by being written 

in plain language. The Agency 

completed Phase I of the Standards 

Improvement Project in June 1998. In 

this Phase II of the Standards 

Improvement Project, OSHA is again 

revising or removing a number of health 

provisions in its standards for general 

industry, shipyard employment, and 

construction. The Agency believes that 

the changes streamline and make more 

consistent the regulatory requirements 

in OSHA health and safety standards. In 

some cases, OSHA has made substantive 

revisions to requirements because they 

are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, 

or inconsistent with more recently 

promulgated health standards. The 

Agency believes these revisions will 

reduce regulatory requirements for 

employers without reducing employee 

protection.

DATES: The final rule becomes effective 

March 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 

U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 

the Associate Solicitor of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Office 

of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S–4004, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, to receive petitions for 

review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Seymour, Director, Office of 

Physical Hazards (202) 693–1950. For 

additional copies of this Federal 

Register document: OSHA, Office of 

Publications, Room N–3101, U. S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 

(telephone: (202) 693–1888). Electronic 

copies of this Federal Register

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant documents, are available 

at OSHA’s homepage at http://

www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: References 

to comments and testimony in the 

rulemaking record are found throughout 

the text of the preamble. Comments are 

identified by an assigned exhibit 

number as follows: ‘‘Ex. 5–1’’ means 

Exhibit 5–1 in Docket S–778–A. For 

quoted material in the preamble, the 

page number where the quote can be 

located is included if other than page 

one. The transcript of the public hearing 

is cited by the page number as follows: 

Tr. 59. A list of the exhibits, copies of 

the exhibits and transcripts of the 

hearing are available in the OSHA 

Docket Office under Docket S–778–A 

and at OSHA’s homepage. 

I. Background 

OSHA has made a continuing effort to 

eliminate confusing, outdated, and 

duplicative standards and regulations. 

In 1978, 1984, and again in 1996, the 

Agency conducted revocation and 

revision projects that resulted in the 

elimination of hundreds of unnecessary 

provisions. 

In 1996, OSHA proposed Phase I of 

the Standards Improvement Project 

which set forth changes to a number of 

provisions in regulations and standards 

that were outdated, duplicative, 

unnecessary, inconsistent, or could be 

clarified or simplified by being 

rewritten in plain language (61 FR 

37849, July 22, 1996). In 1998, OSHA 

published the final rule, Phase I of the 

Standards Improvement Project (63 FR 

33450, June 19, 1998). Substantive 

changes were made under section 6(b) 

generally and under 6(b)(7) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 which provides that:

The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

may by rule promulgated pursuant to section 

553 of title 5, United States Code, make 

appropriate modifications in the 

requirements relating to the use of labels or 

other forms of warning, monitoring or 

measuring, and medical examinations, as 

may be warranted by experience, 

information, or medical or technological 

developments acquired subsequent to the 

promulgation of the relevant standard.

The Agency believed that the 

revisions to its health and safety 

standards in that final rule reduce the 

regulatory burden of employers 

enhancing compliance while 

maintaining the safety and health 

protection afforded to employees. 

In a related effort in 1996, OSHA 

published a proposal to revise Means of 

Egress, subpart E of part 1910 (61 FR 

47712, September 10, 1996). OSHA 

proposed to rewrite the existing 

requirements in plain language so that 

the requirements would be easier to 

understand by employers, employees 

and others who use them. The proposal 

did not intend to change the regulatory 

obligations of employers or the safety 

and health protection provided to 

employees, only to simplify the 

standard. The final rule was published 

on November 7, 2002 (67 FR 67949). 

OSHA believed it accomplished the 

goals of maintaining the safety and 

health protections provided to 

employees without increasing the 

regulatory burden on employers, 

creating a regulation that is easily 

understood, and stating employers’ 

obligations in performance-oriented 

language to the extent possible. As a 

consequence of these changes, the 

Agency believes it has made subpart E 

more user-friendly to employees and 

employers. Compliance is generally 

improved when employers and 

employees fully understand a 

regulation. 

As a result of the Phase I Standards 

Improvement Project rulemaking, the 

Agency identified itself or through 

public comment other regulatory 

provisions that could be removed or 

revised to reduce regulatory burdens 

without diminishing employee safety 

and health. Those included amending 

provisions addressing notification of 

use, frequency of exposure monitoring 

and medical surveillance, and others 

that it believed were outdated, 

duplicative, unnecessary, inconsistent 

or could be clarified or simplified by 

being rewritten into plain language. 

On October 31, 2002, OSHA 

published the proposed Phase II of the 

Standards Improvement Project which 

would remove or revise a number of 

health and safety standard provisions 

(67 FR 66494). Also, OSHA requested 

comment from the public on any other 

similar provisions to those in the 

proposal that interested parties believed 

to be outdated, duplicative or 

unnecessary that could be included in a 

subsequent Phase III Standards 

Improvement Project. 

The Agency made a preliminary 

finding in the Phase II proposal that the 

proposed revision to the health 

standards would reduce the regulatory 

burden of employers without reducing 

the health protections the standards 

currently provide to employees and that 

some revisions would simplify and 

clarify requirements. These revisions 

would facilitate employer compliance 

and improve employee protection. 

OSHA also expressed its belief that the 

removal or revision of standards would 

in some cases reduce unnecessary 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1113

collection of information burdens (e.g., 

paperwork burdens) on employers. 

In addition to affecting part 1910 

standards in general industry, the Phase 

II proposed rule also affected a number 

of standards included in parts 1915, 

shipyard employment, and 1926, 

construction. In accordance with 

Agency procedures and requirements, 

the Advisory Committee on Maritime 

Safety and Health and the Advisory 

Committee on Construction Safety and 

Health were advised of the revised 

standards that affected their industries 

prior to the publication of the proposed 

standard. This information was 

presented to the Advisory Committee on 

Construction on September 2, 2000, and 

the Advisory Committee on Maritime on 

December 6, 2000. 

The comment period for the Phase II 

Standards Improvement Project 

proposal was to end on December 30, 

2002. However, on January 6, 2003, in 

response to several requests the 

comment period was extended until 

January 30, 2003 (68 FR 1023). OSHA 

received 35 comments in response to 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Also, in response to several requests to 

hold a public hearing to discuss the 

proposal, OSHA announced a public 

hearing on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 

19472). OSHA held the public hearing 

on July 8 in Washington, D.C. OSHA 

staff testified and responded to 

questions and several members of the 

public testified. The administrative law 

judge scheduled the receipt of post 

hearing evidence on August 8, 2003, 

and post hearing briefs for September 

10, 2003. The judge received the post 

hearing documents and closed the 

hearing record on February 26, 2004. 

The hearing resulted in 59 pages of 

testimony. No post-hearing comments or 

briefs were received. However, OSHA 

inserted some post-hearing material in 

response to questions asked at the 

hearing (Ex. 9).

II. Summary and Explanation of the 

Final Rule 

This section contains an analysis of 

the record evidence and policy 

decisions pertaining to the various 

provisions of the final rule. 

In the proposed rule, changes to 

provisions included: Methods of 

communicating illness outbreaks in the 

temporary labor camps standard (29 

CFR 1910.142); first aid kits for general 

industry in the medical services and 

first aid standard (29 CFR 1910.151) and 

the telecommunications standard (29 

CFR 1910.268); laboratory licensing in 

the vinyl chloride standard (29 CFR 

1910.1017); periodic exposure 

monitoring in the vinyl chloride (29 

CFR 1910.1017), 1,2-dibromo-3-

chloropropane (DBCP) (29 CFR 

1910.1044), and acrylonitrile (29 CFR 

1910.1045) standards; reporting the use 

of alternative control methods in the 

asbestos standards for shipyards (29 

CFR 1915.1001) and construction 

(1926.1101); evaluating chest x-rays for 

inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018) 

and coke oven emissions (29 CFR 

1910.1029) standards; signing medical 

opinions in the asbestos standard for 

general industry (29 CFR 1910.1001) 

and the cadmium standards for general 

industry (29 CFR 1910.1027) and 

construction (1926.1127); and 

semiannual medical examinations in the 

vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, and 

coke oven emissions standards. 

Also included were proposed changes 

to the requirements to notify OSHA of 

certain events (e.g., a substance specific 

release or emergency) in the standard 

for 13 carcinogens (29 CFR 1910.1003), 

the vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, 

DBCP, and acrylonitrile standards; 

semiannual updating of compliance 

plans in the standards for vinyl 

chloride, inorganic arsenic, lead for 

general industry (29 CFR 1910.1025) 

and construction (29 CFR 1926.62), 

DBCP, and acrylonitrile; and employee 

notification requirements in general 

industry standards for asbestos, vinyl 

chloride, inorganic arsenic, lead, 

cadmium, benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028), 

coke oven emissions, cotton dust (29 

CFR 1910.1043), DBCP, acrylonitrile, 

ethylene oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047), 

formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048), 

methylenedianiline (29 CFR 1910.1050), 

butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051), and 

methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), 

and construction standards for 

methylenedianiline (29 CFR 1926.60), 

lead, asbestos, and cadmium. 

Finally, although OSHA did not 

propose to delete the requirement to use 

social security numbers in a number of 

its exposure-monitoring and medical 

surveillance records, it requested 

comment on whether there was a need 

to continue to include an employee’s 

social security number in these records. 

In the proposal, OSHA emphasized 

that the scope of the rulemaking was 

limited to removing or revising 

provisions that were outdated, 

duplicative, unnecessary, or 

inconsistent with similar provisions in 

other standards. In regard to 

‘‘inconsistent,’’ the Agency specifically 

proposed to revise a number of OSHA’s 

older standards (vinyl chloride, 

acrylonitrile, coke oven emissions, 

arsenic, and DBCP) to be consistent with 

the frequencies of exposure monitoring, 

medical surveillance, and compliance 

plan updates established in the majority 

of more recently promulgated standards. 

Comment was solicited on whether it 

would be appropriate to revise these 

older standards to be consistent with the 

newer standards. 

OSHA also noted that certain sections 

in part 1910 that were being addressed 

in the proposal are incorporated by 

reference in parts 1915, shipyard 

employment, and 1926, construction. 

Therefore, any changes to referenced 

sections in part 1910 would also apply 

to parts 1915 and 1926. 

Many commenters expressed their 

views on the approach taken by OSHA 

in its Phase II Standards Improvement 

Project. Most commenters supported 

OSHA’s approach and its efforts to 

remove or revise standards because they 

are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, 

or inconsistent (Exs. 3–5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29; 

4–11, 12). For example, Phelps Dodge 

Corporation (Ex. 3–7) remarked that 

‘‘We support OSHA’s continuing effort 

to remove or revise provisions of its 

standards that are outdated, duplicative, 

unnecessary, or inconsistent, and we 

welcome the opportunity to share our 

comments and suggestions.’’ The 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Ex. 3–9) 

noted its support for OSHA’s efforts to 

‘‘reduce regulatory requirements for 

employers while maintaining worker 

safety and health by removing or 

revising provisions of standards that 

may be outdated, duplicative, or 

unnecessary.’’ Another commenter, 

Organization Resources Counselors (Ex. 

3–22), stated in its discussion regarding 

OSHA’s elimination of collection of 

information (in this case, paperwork) 

requirements that:

If OSHA no longer has need to collect the 

type of information required to be reported, 

or finds that the information provides no 

useful benefits for either enforcement of the 

standard or protection of employee health, 

the requirements should be deleted.

On the other hand, some commenters 

expressed their concern with the 

manner in which OSHA was 

streamlining standards and in some 

cases on the use of its resources for this 

type of project (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18; 4–

13; Tr. 38, 39, 46). The AFL–CIO (Tr. 29) 

observed that ‘‘Throughout this 

proposal, the Agency has consistently 

sought to streamline [standards] by 

reducing [them] to the lowest common 

denominator.’’ The United Steelworkers 

of America (Ex. 3–16) stated that while 

‘‘this may reduce some administrative 

burdens on OSHA and industry, it is 

hard to see how worker protection has 

been improved by any of the changes.’’

The Union of Needletrades, Industrial 

1114 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

and Textile Employees (UNITE) (Ex. 3–

18) remarked that it ‘‘strongly opposes 

expenditures of agency staff time and 

other resources on so-called 

‘improvements’ to OSHA’s standards 

when urgent action on clear regulatory 

gaps remain unattended.’’

However, based on the rulemaking 

record and experience from the Phase I 

Standards Improvement Project, OSHA 

continues to believe that the removal or 

revision of outdated, duplicative, 

unnecessary, or inconsistent 

requirements and rewriting 

requirements into plain language will 

simplify and clarify regulatory 

requirements, facilitate compliance, and 

will lead to improved safety and health. 

In finalizing the proposal, OSHA has 

been careful to ensure that the 

protections afforded employees are not 

weakened. With respect to these goals, 

the American Industrial Hygiene 

Association (AIHA) (Ex. 3–6) stated:

AIHA applauds OSHA’s latest decision to 

move forward with Phase II of the project 

through this proposed rulemaking. As was 

the case with the first phase of this process, 

completed in 1998, we are confident that the 

latest proposed health standard revisions will 

meet with success in terms of reducing the 

regulatory burden of employers without 

reducing the health protection that these 

standards currently provide to employees. 

AIHA wishes to publicly go on record as 

supportive of OSHA’s efforts to modernize 

these standards using a common sense 

approach. Not only will the proposed 

revisions simplify and clarify the 

requirements of the current health standards, 

but they will also facilitate employer 

compliance, improved employee protection 

and reduced regulatory burden—a ‘‘win-win’’

situation for health and safety advocates, 

employers and employees.

Additionally, Dow Chemical Company 

(Ex. 3–13) observed:

Dow supports OSHA’s efforts to streamline 

its existing standards and to remove 

unnecessary or inconsistent provisions. 

Improvements in consistency and practicality 

not only assist the regulated community in 

its compliance efforts but also benefit OSHA 

and all employees as the rules are easier to 

enforce and because employers can better 

identify what they need to do to comply. 

Thus, Dow applauds OSHA’s continuing 

efforts to improve their standards. Dow 

believes that this same philosophy of 

improvement for consistency and practicality 

without compromising safety or health 

protections can also be made in other areas 

of standards addressed in the proposed rule.

OSHA appreciates the time and effort 

expended by commenters in this 

rulemaking. The following is a 

provision by provision discussion of the 

changes OSHA has made in Phase II of 

the Standards Improvement Project. 

A. Temporary Labor Camps, 29 CFR 

1910.142

Paragraph 1910.142(l)(2) of the 

temporary labor camp standard requires 

camp superintendents to report 

immediately to local health authorities 

‘‘by telegram or telephone’’ the outbreak 

of specific illnesses and medical 

conditions among employees. With 

respect to this requirement, OSHA 

viewed the limitation to use a telegram 

or telephone to notify health authorities 

as too restrictive in this age of 

computers and the internet, and that 

other forms of communication should 

be permitted. In the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, OSHA proposed to delete 

the requirement to use a telegram or 

telephone for notification, but retain the 

requirement that camp superintendents 

immediately notify local health 

authorities of the outbreak any of the 

illnesses or medical conditions 

specified by the provision. 

OSHA received six comments 

regarding this proposal. All of the 

commenters (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 22, 27; 4–

11) agreed that telegrams and 

telephones unnecessarily limit the 

method of reporting. A few commenters 

(Exs. 3–17, 27) expressed concern, 

however, that if there was no 

specification of the means of 

communication, slower means of 

notification such as by mail might be 

used. For example, the United 

Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 

Implement Workers of America (UAW) 

(Ex. 3–17) opposed the removal for fear 

that employers would use fourth class 

mail for reporting. The AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–

27) expressed a similar concern that the 

proposed change leaves the provision 

entirely too vague and that employers 

could even use mail. 

In response to this concern, OSHA 

has decided rather than deleting the 

means of communication in the final 

rule, it would instead add additional 

language that would eliminate the 

possibility of using a slower means but 

permit equally fast means. OSHA 

concludes that any ‘‘fast method’’ is 

appropriate. The final rule now states 

‘‘by telegram, telephone, electronic mail 

or any method that is equally fast.’’

B. Reference to First Aid Supplies in 

Appendix A to the Standard on Medical 

Services and First Aid, 29 CFR 1910.151

In the 1998 Phase I of the Standards 

Improvement Project (63 FR 33450), 

OSHA revised paragraph 1910.151(b) of 

OSHA’s standard for medical services 

and first aid to require that adequate 

first aid supplies be readily available at 

the workplace. To assist employers in 

meeting this requirement for what 

would be adequate first aid supplies, 

OSHA added a nonmandatory 

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.151, 

entitled First Aid Kits, that references a 

national consensus standard, the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) Z308.1–1978 standard, 

‘‘Minimum Requirements for Industrial 

Unit-Type First-aid Kits.’’ The Agency 

believed that the information and 

reference to the ANSI standard in 

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.151 would 

provide employers with helpful 

information in selecting first aid 

supplies and containers appropriate to 

the medical emergencies and 

environmental conditions encountered 

in their workplaces. 

OSHA pointed out in the Phase I 

Standards Improvement Project 

preamble that ANSI was developing a 

revision of the Z308.1–1978 consensus 

standard (63 FR 33461) and that OSHA 

planned to propose to revise Appendix 

A in Phase II to include the 1998 edition 

as long as the revision was as effective 

in protecting employees. In Phase II of 

the Standards Improvement Project, 

OSHA solicited comment and 

information on whether the revised 

ANSI Z308.1–1998, Minimum 

Requirements for Workplace First-aid 

Kits, consensus standard would provide 

equivalent or better protection to 

employees than the 1978 edition. OSHA 

also inquired whether there were any 

other consensus standards or guidelines 

available for first aid kits that might be 

included in Appendix A. 

At the time of the Phase II of the 

Standards Improvement Project 

proposal, OSHA preliminarily found 

that the 1998 edition increased 

compliance flexibility by emphasizing 

performance-based requirements. OSHA 

also found that the 1998 edition 

provided employers with the 

information they needed to select first 

aid containers and fill items appropriate 

to the unique hazards in particular 

workplaces. OSHA believed that the 

ANSI 308.1–1998 edition would protect 

employees at least as well as the 

requirements of the 1978 edition. 

OSHA received 13 comments 

regarding this proposed change (Exs. 3–

3, 16, 17, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29; 4–6, 7, 8, 

11, 13). Most commenters supported the 

Agency’s updating of the ANSI 308.1–

1978 edition to the 1998 edition in the 

nonmandatory Appendix A. For 

example, Verizon Communications, Inc. 

(Ex. 3–24) supported the revision to the 

1998 edition because employers would 

have more flexibility and, therefore, 

would improve protection to employees. 

The Pinnacle West Capital Corp. (Ex. 4–

7) observed that there have been 

changes in the medical profession since 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1115

1978, and agreed that the 1998 edition 

provides equivalent to better protection 

to employees. One commenter, the 

AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27), even suggested 

that OSHA update the reference but 

make Appendix A mandatory or enforce 

the ANSI standard under the general 

duty clause. 

In the final rule, the Agency has 

changed nonmandatory Appendix A to 

reference the ANSI 308.1–1998 

standard. After reviewing the record 

evidence and based on OSHA’s review 

of both the 1978 and 1998 editions, the 

Agency feels that the update to the 1998 

edition will provide more compliance 

flexibility to employers while being as 

effective, or more effective, in the 

protection of employees. In its review of 

the 1998 edition, the Agency found that: 

• Regarding container requirements, 

the 1998 edition permits more 

compliance flexibility than the 1978 

edition. For example, the 1998 edition 

identifies three types of first-aid 

containers, types I, II, and III, designed 

for stationary indoor use, mobile indoor 

use, and mobile outdoor use, 

respectively, while the 1978 edition 

includes only two types of containers, 

(standard and special purpose, with 

special-purpose containers designed for 

use under extreme conditions such as 

example, corrosive, nonsparking, 

nonmagnetic, or dielectric conditions. 

• Requirements for the three types of 

containers identified in the 1998 edition 

are performance based, while the 1978 

edition provides extensive 

specifications for each type of container. 

• Unlike the 1978 edition, the 

conditioning and drop-test procedures 

described in the 1998 edition for types 

II and III containers, and the procedures 

for testing type III containers for 

corrosion and moisture resistance, 

specify the minimum number of 

containers required for testing. 

• The 1998 edition specifies that each 

type III container subjected to drop 

testing must also undergo corrosion and 

moisture-resistance testing to ensure the 

structural integrity of the container 

under severe moisture conditions. The 

1978 edition appears to allow testing of 

different special-purpose containers 

under the drop- and moisture-testing 

conditions. 

• Corrosion and moisture-resistance 

testing of type III containers under the 

1998 edition requires exposure of the 

containers to simulated salt spray for 20 

days in accordance with the provisions 

of American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) consensus standard 

B117 (‘‘Operating salt spray (fog) 

operations’’). The 1978 edition only 

requires exposure of a special-purpose 

container to fresh water for 15 minutes. 

• Regarding the content (fill items) of 

the containers, the 1998 edition 

provides a short list of basic items 

needed to disinfect and cover wounds, 

including special items for treating 

burns. However, the 1998 edition lists 

optional fill items for use if an employer 

identifies workplace hazards that may 

inflict injuries not covered by the basic 

fill items. The 1978 edition has a single 

list of fill items, some of which are 

unnecessary for many emergencies (for 

example, forceps, metal splints, 

tourniquets). Additionally, the 1978 

edition is missing several important fill 

items (for example, medicalexamination gloves, cold packs). 

• The 1998 edition requires color 

coding of unit packages that contain 

specific types of fill items (for example, 

yellow for bandages, blue for 

antiseptics), while the 1978 edition has 

no such requirement. 

• The 1998 edition, more often than 

the 1978 edition, identifies fill items 

according to standardized testing and 

quality-control methods. For example, 

the 1998 edition requires that absorbent 

compresses meet the water-absorbency 

criteria of ASTM consensus standard 

D117 (‘‘Nonwoven fabrics’’), and that 

antiseptics conform to the requirements 

specified by the Food and Drug 

Administration in 21 CFR 333 (‘‘Topical 

antimicrobial drug products for overthe-counter human use’’). The 1978 

edition provides no absorbency criteria 

for absorbent gauze compresses, while 

the antiseptic solution used for 

antiseptic swabs is required only to be 

‘‘acceptable to the consulting 

physician.’’

The Agency’s review of the two 

editions demonstrated that, compared 

with the 1978 edition, the 1998 edition: 

Increases compliance flexibility by 

emphasizing performance-based 

requirements, including a choice of 

three containers and a list of basic and 

optional fill items; improves the 

procedures for conditioning and testing 

first-aid containers; and ensures the 

reliability and efficacy of the fill items 

by basing the selection of these items on 

standardized testing and quality-control 

methods. Based on this review, OSHA 

preliminarily found that the provisions 

of the 1998 edition would provide 

employers with the information they 

needed to select first-aid containers and 

fill items appropriate to the hazards in 

their workplaces that could injure 

employees. Consequently, the 1998 

edition would protect employees at least 

as well as the requirements of the 1978 

edition. 

The Agency believes that the 1998 

edition of the ANSI standard is as 

protective to employees but increases 

compliance flexibility and, accordingly, 

has replaced the reference to the 1978 

edition in Appendix A of § 1910.151 

with a reference to the 1998 edition. 

OSHA believes that appropriate 

guidance is contained in the 1998 

edition for a variety of workplaces with 

different needs. 

Finally, although OSHA solicited 

information about other available 

consensus standards, no suggestions 

were received. 

C. First Aid Supplies in the 

Telecommunications Standard, 29 CFR 

1910.268

Paragraph 1910.268(b)(3) of OSHA’s 

telecommunication standard requires an 

employer to: Provide first aid supplies 

(fill items) recommended by a 

consulting physician; ensure that the fill 

items are readily accessible and housed 

in weatherproof containers if used 

outdoors; and inspect the fill items at 

least once a month and replace 

expended items. In the proposal, OSHA 

proposed to revise paragraph 

1910.268(b)(3) to read, ‘‘Employers must 

provide employees with readily 

accessible, and appropriate first aid 

supplies. An example of appropriate 

supplies is listed in non-mandatory 

Appendix A to § 1910.151.’’

In Phase I of the Standards 

Improvement Project, OSHA removed 

from paragraph 1910.151(b) of the 

medical services and first aid standard, 

the requirement that a consulting 

physician approve first aid supplies 

because it determined that commercial 

first aid kits are readily available and 

would meet the needs of most 

employers (61 FR 37850). OSHA noted 

that employers may have to enhance 

their first aid kits if unique or changing 

first aid needs exist in their workplaces. 

OSHA advised employers in Appendix 

A that if they had unique needs to 

consult with the local fire/rescue 

departments, appropriate medical 

professionals, or a local emergency 

room for help. Also, OSHA advised 

employers that they should assess the 

specific needs of their worksite 

periodically and augment the first aid 

kit accordingly. 

In this proposal, the Agency 

preliminarily concluded that revising 

the telecommunication standard to 

reflect the general industry first aid 

requirements would be appropriate. The 

Agency received ten comments (Exs. 3–

4, 16, 17, 22, 24, 27, 29; 4–6, 8, 11) 

concerning this proposed revision to the 

telecommunications standard. A few 

commenters (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 27) 

indicated that they believed the revision 

would reduce employee protection. For 

example, commenters believed that 

1116 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

deleting the requirement to inspect kits 

monthly to replace used items would 

increase the likelihood of deficient kits. 

Another commenter was concerned that 

there would no longer be a requirement 

for weatherproof kits. 

However, other commenters 

supported the proposed changes (Exs. 

3–22, 24, 29; 4–6, 8, 11). For example, 

the American Chemistry Council (Ex. 3–

29) indicated that it supported the 

change to reflect present-day realities in 

the first aid supplies market and also 

supported the removal of the 

requirement for a physician’s approval 

for supplies. 

The Agency has concluded that 

substituting the guidance of 

nonmandatory Appendix A to 29 CFR 

1910.151 for the requirements specified 

in paragraph 1910.268(b)(3) will reduce 

the regulatory burden on employers in 

the telecommunication industry by 

increasing their flexibility in meeting 

OSHA’s requirements for first aid kits, 

allow employers to purchase off-theshelf first aid kits, and will facilitate 

compliance by making the requirements 

to provide first aid kits consistent across 

the general industry standards. The 

Agency believes that the revision affords 

telecommunication employees at least 

the same level of protection they 

currently receive because Appendix A 

to 29 CFR 1910.151 provides more 

extensive guidelines for selecting 

appropriate medical first aid supplies 

than paragraph 1910.268(b)(3) and 

further, provides the recommendation 

that these supplies include personal 

protective equipment to prevent 

employee exposure to bloodborne 

pathogens. Finally, OSHA believes that 

deleting the requirement for a monthly 

inspection and weatherproof first aid 

kits does not reduce employee 

protection. First aid kits must be 

complete and contain the supplies 

necessary for the worksite. If upon 

inspection by an OSHA compliance 

officer, a first aid kit was found to be 

deficient because the supplies were 

depleted or water damaged, a citation 

could be issued because the first aid 

supplies would not be considered 

adequate or ‘‘appropriate.’’ OSHA has 

concluded that the mandatory 

requirement to have appropriate and 

accessible first aid kits maintains 

employee protection. 

D. 13 Carcinogens, 29 CFR 1910.1003

In the 13 Carcinogens standard, 

paragraph 1910.1003(f)(2) requires 

employers to provide the nearest OSHA 

Area Director with two separate reports 

on the occurrence of any incident that 

results in a release of any of the 13 

carcinogens into any area where 

employees may be potentially exposed. 

The reports consist of (1) an abbreviated 

preliminary report submitted within 24 

hours of the carcinogen release and (2) 

a detailed report submitted within 15 

calendar days of the incident. In the 

proposal, OSHA expressed its belief that 

these reports were of little or no value 

to OSHA and were therefore creating an 

unnecessary burden on employers. More 

recent substance-specific standards 

including carcinogenic chemicals such 

as methylene chloride developed by the 

Agency do not contain any such 

reporting requirements. Because of these 

reasons, OSHA proposed to delete the 

requirement from the standard to reduce 

reporting requirements because the 

reports were unnecessary. OSHA 

requested comment on the extent to 

which the revision would reduce the 

reporting burden on employers and the 

effect the deletion would have on 

employee health. 

OSHA received nine comments in 

response to the proposal to eliminate 

the carcinogen standard reporting 

requirements (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18, 22, 

27, 29; 4–11, 13). Three commenters 

agreed with the removal of the 

requirement (Exs. 3–22, 29; 4–11). The 

other commenters (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18, 

27; 4–13) objected to the removal of the 

reporting requirement. These 

commenters opposed the removal 

because: (1) The deletion would reduce 

worker protection because reporting 

gives useful information to OSHA by 

alerting it to workplace deficiencies; (2) 

the information helps management 

avoid future spills, and; (3) the 

information induces managers to take 

spills more seriously. 

At the hearing OSHA was asked by a 

representative from the AFL–CIO (Tr. 

16) about how many reports on spills 

OSHA had received under the current 

regulations. Responses from the OSHA 

regional offices indicated that few 

reports are received and those that are 

received are not used for inspection 

purposes (Ex. 9). Although a few OSHA 

staff believed that incidence reports 

might be useful, that has not been the 

case. Further, OSHA has a general 

requirement to report incidents that 

cause death or serious injury (29 CFR 

1904.39). That provision is used by 

employers and OSHA and it does trigger 

compliance inspections. 

The purpose for collecting these 

reports was to assist OSHA in 

identifying workplaces for inspection. 

OSHA has not used these reports over 

the years for this purpose and relies on 

other means to identify establishments 

to inspect. Further, the commenters 

provided no evidence that the reporting 

requirements serve to help management 

avoid future spills or to entice managers 

to take spills more seriously. In 

addition, the substances covered by this 

requirement are primarily chronic 

toxins and a single spill does not 

necessarily indicate a severe hazard 

requiring notification. Therefore, OSHA 

continues to believe that the reports 

have not proven to be useful and are an 

unnecessary employer burden since 

OSHA does not use them for identifying 

workplaces for inspection. In addition, 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

agencies need to review their 

requirements to identify those that serve 

no purpose and if they do not serve any 

purpose, then consider removing them. 

Therefore, OSHA has eliminated the 

reporting requirements. OSHA is not 

aware of any reason that the elimination 

of the reports will reduce employee 

safety since OSHA does not use the 

reports. 

E. Vinyl Chloride, 29 CFR 1910.1017

Paragraph 1910.1017(k)(6) of the vinyl 

chloride standard specifies that clinical 

laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public 

Health Service under 42 CFR part 74, 

must analyze biological samples 

collected during medical examinations. 

However, 42 CFR part 74 is outdated, 

and the Public Health Service now 

addresses laboratory-licensing 

requirements under 42 CFR part 493, 

laboratory requirements. Therefore, the 

Agency proposed to delete the reference 

to 42 CFR part 74 from the vinyl 

chloride standard. In the proposal, 

OSHA asked for comment on: (1) The 

need to specify a licensing or qualitycontrol requirement; (2) the extent to 

which the requirements specified by 42 

CFR part 493 would be a substitute for 

the outdated requirements; and (3) 

whether any other reference or criteria 

were available that could serve this 

purpose. 

OSHA received eight comments on 

the proposed deletion of the 

requirement for a Public Health Service 

licensed laboratory to analyze biological 

samples collected during medical exams 

relative to vinyl chloride exposure (Exs. 

3–4, 8, 16, 17, 27, 29; 4–11, 13). The 

Vinyl Institute (Ex. 3–8) supported the 

deletion of the provision entirely 

because they saw no current need for 

specifying licensing or quality-control of 

laboratories. The other seven 

commenters expressed their belief that 

paragraph 1910.1017(k)(6) should not be 

changed without either adding language 

offering equal or greater protection to 

workers or updating the reference to the 

new Public Health Service laboratory 

requirements (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 27, 29; 

4–11, 13). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1117

One commenter (Ex. 3–16) observed 

that this type of requirement, laboratory 

licensing, was an example of the kind of 

requirement that would be best dealt 

with by a generic medical monitoring 

standard which could address 

laboratory certification for all standards. 

Based on the comments OSHA does 

not believe in this case that it is 

appropriate to reference outdated 

regulations, or that it would be 

appropriate to reference the new PHS 

standards. However, it is appropriate for 

OSHA to require employers use 

qualified laboratories for required 

medical tests. Other OSHA health 

standards have assured that qualified 

laboratories are used by requiring that 

employers use accredited laboratories. 

For example, the Bloodborne Pathogens 

standard [1910.1030(f)(iii)], the Benzene 

standard [1910.1028(i)(1)(ii)], the 

Cadmium standard [1910.1027(l)(1)(iv)] 

and the Lead standard for General 

Industry [1910.1025(j)(2)(iii)] require 

that medical tests be performed by 

accredited laboratories. There are 

several organizations that accredit 

laboratories. Each requires that 

laboratories implement quality control 

procedures to maintain accreditation. 

Therefore, OSHA has changed 

paragraph 1910.1017(k)(6)of the vinyl 

chloride standard to require the use of 

accredited laboratories for the medical 

tests required in paragraph (k)(1) of the 

standard.

F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure 

Monitoring 

Several of the Agency’s older 

standards have provisions that require 

employers to monitor employee 

exposures either monthly or quarterly, 

depending on the level of a toxic 

substance found in the workplace. 

Paragraphs 1910.1017(d)(2)(i) and 

(d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride standard 

require employers to conduct exposure 

monitoring at least monthly if employee 

exposures are in excess of the 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) and 

not less than quarterly if employee 

exposures are above the action level 

(AL). 

Paragraphs 1910.1044(f)(3)(i) and 

(f)(3)(ii) of the DBCP standard specify 

that employers perform exposure 

monitoring at least quarterly if 

employee exposures are below the PEL 

and no less than monthly if employee 

exposures exceed the PEL. 

Paragraphs 1910.1045(e)(3)(ii) and 

(e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard 

requires employers to conduct exposure 

monitoring at least quarterly for 

employees exposed at or above the AL, 

but below the PEL, and at least monthly 

for employees having exposures above 

the PEL. 

The preambles to these older 

standards do not clearly explain the 

basis for adopting these monitoring 

frequencies. This absence of clear 

explanation suggests that OSHA likely 

relied on prevailing practice at the time 

for these older standards in establishing 

the frequencies. In substance-specific 

standards promulgated after these 

standards, exposure monitoring is 

required: (1) No more often than 

semiannually if employee exposures are 

at or above the AL and (2) no more than 

quarterly if employee exposures are 

above the PEL. 

OSHA proposed to amend the 

exposure monitoring requirements 

specified in the vinyl chloride, 

acrylonitrile, and DBCP standards 

because they are inconsistent with the 

exposure monitoring protocols 

established by OSHA in its later 

substance-specific standards. OSHA 

believes that consistency among 

standards would increase compliance 

and because the Paperwork Reduction 

Act directs agencies to reduce 

paperwork burdens, OSHA therefore 

proposed to revise these paragraphs to 

make them consistent with the similar 

requirements pertaining to exposure 

monitoring in more recently 

promulgated health standards. That 

exposure monitoring is: (1) At least 

quarterly if the results of initial 

exposure monitoring show that 

employee exposures are above the PEL; 

and (2) no less than semiannually if the 

results indicate exposures that are at or 

above the AL. OSHA asked for comment 

on the extent, if any, to which the 

revision would reduce the protection 

afforded by the existing standards to 

employees exposed to vinyl chloride, 

acrylonitrile, and DBCP. OSHA also 

requested comment on the extent to 

which the proposed revisions would 

reduce employer burdens, including 

cost and collection of information (i.e., 

paperwork) reductions. 

OSHA received 14 comments on 

modifying the exposure monitoring 

requirements (Exs. 3–4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 

16, 17, 18, 27, 29; 4–11, 12, 13). Seven 

commenters supported consistency in 

exposure monitoring for one or all of the 

substances (Exs. 3–8, 10, 13, 14, 29; 4–

11, 12). Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 3–

13) observed that ‘‘Consistency in 

monitoring requirements reduces 

employer burdens and enhances 

compliance while maintaining 

employee health protections.’’ The 

American Chemical Council (Ex. 3–29) 

stated:

ACC concurs that exposure monitoring 

should be consistent among the Agency’s 

standards. The proposed revisions to 

§ 1910.1044 and § 1910.1045 will help to 

unify the requirements for exposure 

monitoring. Further unification of the 

exposure monitoring requirements will 

enable employers to have one monitoring 

strategy that can be applied for all 

substances, rather than keeping track of the 

differences between the varying standards.

The American Society of Safety 

Engineers (Ex. 4–11) remarked that the 

‘‘revision will assist companies in 

implementing more uniform industry 

hygiene programs. Also, there is no 

demonstrated need for more frequent 

exposure monitoring these substances.’’

The American Foundry Society (Ex. 

3–12) expressed its view that the 

exposure monitoring change does not go 

far enough. The commenter stated:

The proposed revision * * * to go from 

monthly to quarterly and from quarterly to 

semiannual does not go far enough. While 

monitoring of potential employee exposure is 

essential to maintain employee health and 

exposure monitoring as part of an 

engineering study may be necessary to 

determine the source and magnitude of 

exposure, periodic monitoring for its own 

sake imposes an unnecessary and possibly 

punitive burden on employers and 

employees unless there is some benefit to 

employee safety and health. 

Once it has been determined that 

employees are exposed above an Action 

Level or Permissible Exposure Level, 

additional monitoring provides no additional 

useful information, unless it is part of an 

engineering study. Simply conducting 

exposure monitoring for its own sake wastes 

valuable health and safety resources and 

builds resentment among employees who 

must wear sampling equipment without 

justification. 

We strongly urge OSHA to modify the 

requirement in all health standards, now and 

in the future, to base the frequency of 

exposure monitoring on the need to establish 

employee exposure levels or to achieve some 

other useful safety and health objective. Of 

course, additional exposure monitoring 

should be conducted when work processes or 

practices change or there are good industrial 

hygiene or engineering reasons to conduct 

such monitoring.

Six commenters disagreed with the 

proposed changes (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18, 

27; 4–13). For example, the Paper 

Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 

Workers Union (PACE) (Ex. 3–4) stated:

* * * For these selected agents which 

have well-established toxicity, it is wholly 

inappropriate to ask employees whose 

exposure monitoring shows that they are 

exposed at levels above the permissible 

exposure limit to wait an addition 3 months 

to find out whether these exposures have 

been reduced. Likewise for employees whose 

exposures are above the action level, they 

should not have to wait six months to learn 

1118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

whether their exposures have been reduced 

below that level.

The United Steel Workers of America 

(Ex. 3–16) remarked:

When the three standards in question were 

written, it was assumed that most employers 

would come into compliance in a reasonable 

amount of time. Indeed, most have—by better 

controls in the case of vinyl chloride and 

acrylonitrile, by a phase-out of the chemical 

in the case of DBCP. Now OSHA proposes to 

reward those employers who have not 

achieved compliance. These changes will 

impair worker protection, and are not 

supported by evidence in the record.

Also, the International Chemical 

Workers Union (Ex. 4–13) observed:

We do not believe that a change to these 

standards is justified. Each rule and 

requirement went through the rulemaking 

process at the time, weighing all available 

evidence. Again, just because later rules, for 

different chemicals with different hazards, 

controls and/or toxicities have different 

requirements, do not provide adequate 

justification for a change in monitoring 

frequencies. OSHA needs to provide 

additional information which gives a valid 

justification for change before proposing such 

changes.

The standards for vinyl chloride, 

acrylonitrile, and DBCB are among the 

oldest of OSHA health standards. As the 

United Steel Workers of America noted, 

most employers have come into 

compliance. Those employers who have 

not been able to achieve compliance 

through feasible engineering controls 

are required to protect their employees 

by using personal protective equipment. 

Those employers who have not been 

able to reduce worker exposures have 

collected hundreds of samples since the 

effective dates of these standards. Very 

high monitoring frequencies will not 

add appreciably to the statistical 

confidence an employer will have in the 

conclusion that employees’ exposures 

exceed a permissible exposure limit or 

action level. Monitoring quarterly and 

semiannually will protect employees by 

allowing time to improve the workplace, 

while still producing suitably current 

information to employers and 

employees. When employers are over 

the action level or exposure limit, 

periodic monitoring is required to 

assure that proper respirators and 

personal protective equipment are worn. 

Moreover, OSHA concludes, after 

reviewing the comments, that 

uniformity of monitoring frequency is 

beneficial for employers and employees 

(unless there are specific reasons for 

different frequency) because uniformity 

permits an employer to develop a more 

efficient and thus, better, industrial 

hygiene program and to increase 

compliance by improving 

understanding of health standards. In 

addition the Paperwork Reduction Act 

requires OSHA to consider reduction in 

paperwork burden when that will not 

interfere with worker protection. 

OSHA notes that two of its standards, 

29 CFR 1910.1028 and 1910.1051, 

benzene and 1,3-butadiene respectively, 

provide for exposure monitoring 

frequencies different from the quarterly 

and semiannual monitoring contained 

in other standards. The Agency is not 

revising benzene or 1,3-butadiene with 

respect to monitoring frequencies 

because the exposure monitoring 

provisions in those standards have 

specific bases in their rulemaking 

records that preclude changing them for 

consistency under this standards 

improvement action. (See e.g. 52 FR 

34533–41, September 11, 1987.) 

G. Alternative Control Methods for Class 

I Asbestos Removal 

Provisions in OSHA’s asbestos 

standards for shipyard employment and 

construction, paragraphs 

1915.1001(g)(6)(iii) and 

1926.1101(g)(6)(iii), respectively, 

address alternative control methods 

used to perform Class I asbestos work. 

Specifically, the paragraphs require an 

employer to send an evaluation and 

certification of alternative control 

methods to OSHA’s Directorate of 

Technical Support before removing 

more than 25 linear feet or 10 square 

feet of thermal-system insulation or 

surfacing material respectively. 

The purpose of this collection of 

information was for OSHA to develop a 

database of alternative control methods 

for use in future rulemaking. However, 

OSHA has not developed a database of 

alternative control methods nor does 

OSHA plan a future rulemaking to do 

so. Therefore, OSHA in the proposal 

said that these requirements are not 

useful and are not in keeping with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Current 

OSHA regulatory policy requires that 

paperwork provisions, such as this, be 

a benefit to employee health or serve 

some other useful regulatory purpose. 

Since certification of alternative control 

methods does not meet this 

requirement, the Agency proposed to 

delete it from the shipyard and 

construction asbestos standards. OSHA 

invited comment on any regulatory 

benefit or purpose that removal of this 

requirement would jeopardize. 

Eight commenters addressed the 

removal of these paragraphs (Exs. 3–4, 

16, 17, 24, 25, 27; 4–7, 11). Some 

commenters (Exs. 3–24; 4–7, 11) agreed 

with their deletion because OSHA has 

never used the information to develop a 

database. Other commenters (Exs. 3–4, 

16, 17, 27) suggested rather than simply 

deleting the requirements, OSHA 

should enforce the requirement and 

start a database of alternative control 

methods which could be useful in 

rulemaking and to employers and 

employees seeking methods of 

abatement. Finally, the Associated 

General Contractors of America (Ex. 3–

25) expressed concern that the change 

would eliminate contractors’ abatement 

options and lead to increased delays to 

contractors and building owners 

because no simple substitution process 

would be available to submit 

alternatives. In response to this concern, 

OSHA would like to make it clear that 

the removal of these requirements does 

not disallow the use of alternative 

control methods since the submission of 

alternative control methods to OSHA 

did not constitute approval of the 

methods. 

As stated, the intent of this collection 

of information was for OSHA to develop 

a database of alternative control 

methods, but no such database was 

developed. Further, OSHA has no future 

plans to expend its limited resources on 

developing a database. As to 

development or availability of 

alternative control methodologies, there 

are many competent asbestos abatement 

contractors and consultants available to 

employers so it is not necessary for 

OSHA to research these issues or collect 

information on them. Therefore, OSHA 

has deleted the requirement in the 

shipyard employment and construction 

standards, because it is an unnecessary 

and burdensome collection of 

information. 

H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the 

ILO U/C Rating 

OSHA proposed to amend paragraph 

1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A) of the inorganic 

arsenic standard and paragraph 

1910.1029(j)(2)(ii) of the coke oven 

emissions standard that require 

employees’ chest x-rays receive an 

International Labor Office UICC/

Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. Subsequent 

to the promulgation of these provisions, 

the Agency received information from 

two physicians that the ILO U/C rating 

is not suitable to evaluate chest x-rays 

for lung cancer, the possible outcome of 

exposure to these chemicals. Regarding 

the use of the ILO U/C ratings specified 

by the inorganic arsenic standard, 

Stephen Wood, MD, MSPH, Corporate 

Medical Director for the Kennecott 

Corporation, states in a letter to OSHA 

(Ex. 1–1):

This method of x-ray interpretation was 

designed specifically for use in 

pneumoconiosis or dust related disease. 

Arsenic does not cause pneumoconiosis. This 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1119

classification system is unnecessary for 

cancer surveillance and represents a 

substantial cost and logistical burden to 

industry.

Later, Steven R. Smith, MD, Director of 

Occupational Health and Occupational 

Medicine, Community Hospitals 

Indianapolis, wrote to the Agency (Ex. 

1–2) addressing the ILO U/C rating 

required by the coke oven emissions 

standard:

I am sure you know that the main 

pulmonary problem with coke oven emission 

exposure is carcinoma of the lung and not 

pneumoconiosis. The main merit of the ILO 

U/C rating system is that it standardizes the 

reading of films where there are parenchymal 

opacities either round nodules or linear 

densities. For the problem of carcinoma of 

the lung this system really has little to add 

over the proper interpretation of films by 

skilled radiologists. I think it is of much more 

importance that the chest films done as part 

of the coke oven emissions exposure 

surveillance be interpreted by expert 

radiologists who are aware of the fact the 

films are being done primarily for pulmonary 

carcinoma. To require that an ILO U/C rating 

system be employed as well seems to me as 

though it is going to necessitate an additional 

expense as well as to greatly limit the 

number of radiologists who are able to 

interpret such films.

Based on these letters and on the 

opinion of OSHA’s Office of 

Occupational Medicine, the Agency 

believed that the ILO U/C rating is not 

a suitable method to use in evaluating 

chest x-rays for lung cancer. Therefore, 

the Agency proposed to remove the ILO 

U/C rating requirements specified in the 

inorganic arsenic and coke oven 

emissions standards, thereby permitting 

the examining physician to determine 

the most effective procedure for 

evaluating the chest x-rays. This 

approach is similar to that taken in 

recent Agency standards that require the 

evaluation of chest x-rays for cancer 

(e.g., paragraph 1910.1027(l)(4)(ii)(C) of 

the cadmium standard). As part of the 

cadmium rulemaking, OSHA solicited 

comment and other information 

regarding the suitability of the ILO U/C 

ratings for evaluating chest x-rays for 

cancer, the identity of any other 

available method or procedure that 

could effectively substitute for ILO U/C 

ratings, and the safety and efficacy of 

the proposed elimination of the 

requirement.

OSHA received nine comments in 

response to this proposed change (Exs. 

3–7, 9, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29; 4–7, 11). Some 

commenters agreed (Exs. 3–7, 28, 29; 4–

7, 11) that the rating requirement should 

be deleted because the method was not 

appropriate to evaluating chest x-rays 

for lung cancer. The American Coke and 

Coal Chemical Institute (Ex. 3–28) 

stated:

ACCCI concurs with the Agency’s research 

and rationale that the ILO–U/C rating is not 

suitable for proper evaluation of standard 

posterior-anterior chest x-rays, as this 

designation does not promote proper lung 

cancer surveillance. In addition to the 

additional cost burden it imposes on 

employers, the requirement also delays the 

reading response time, due to the extremely 

limited number of radiologists qualified to 

render such an interpretation.

Pinnacle West Capital Corp (Ex. 4–7) 

indicated that its medical consultant 

saw no detriment to employee 

protection if the requirement was 

deleted. 

Some commenters (Exs. 3–9, 16, 17, 

27) whether they agreed with or 

opposed the removal of the rating, 

believed substitute language should be 

added and suggested what that language 

might be. For example, the United Steel 

Workers of America (Ex. 3–16) agreed 

that the rating is of little use for 

carcinogens but suggested that OSHA 

substitute the rating requirement with 

one that the radiologist be certified by 

the American Board of Radiologists to 

ensure qualified radiologists are used. 

The AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27) observed that 

the use of the rating provided some 

quality control. To remedy the problem, 

the AFL–CIO suggested that x-rays be 

read by NIOSH certified B readers. 

OSHA has decided to eliminate the 

part of the provisions in arsenic and 

coke oven emissions requiring the ILO 

U/C rating because the rating is 

appropriate only for pneumoconiosis 

and is not useful for lung cancer. OSHA 

agrees with commenters who noted that 

the rating method is not appropriate for 

diagnosing cancer, its intended purpose. 

First, it is clear that the specified rating 

method is inappropriate because it 

addresses dust inhalation and resulting 

pneumoconiosis, a problem unrelated to 

arsenic and coke oven emissions. The 

rating is not appropriate for identifying 

cancer, the primary concern with 

respect to these substances. Second, 

OSHA has no reason to believe that the 

elimination of an inappropriate rating 

method will result in the use of 

unqualified radiologists under the 

medical surveillance programs of 

employers and does not believe it is 

necessary to add any other language to 

the provision. OSHA has decided based 

on the rulemaking record, to delete the 

requirement and does not believe that 

the deletion will decrease employee 

health since the method is not even 

appropriate to diagnosing the 

substances’ likely disease outcome, 

cancer. 

I. Signed Medical Opinions 

OSHA proposed to remove several 

requirements for medical opinions to be 

signed. (The requirement that a medical 

opinion be obtained by the employer 

was not affected by the proposed 

revision concerning a signature.) 

Paragraph 1910.1001(l)(7)(i) of the 

asbestos standard, and paragraphs 

1910.1027(l)(10)(i) of the general 

industry cadmium standard and 

1926.1127(l)(10)(i) of the construction 

industry cadmium standard, require that 

the examining physician sign the 

written medical opinion provided as 

part of the medical-surveillance 

requirements of these standards. The 

preamble to the cadmium standards 

states that the purpose of requiring the 

physician to sign the opinion is to 

ensure that the information that is given 

to the employer has been seen and read 

by the physician and that the physician 

has personally determined whether the 

employee may continue to work in 

cadmium-exposed jobs (57 FR 42366). 

No other substance-specific standards 

promulgated by OSHA requires that the 

physician sign the medical opinion. 

The Agency expressed its belief in the 

proposal that the requirement for a 

physician to sign a medical opinion is 

unnecessary, precludes electronic 

transmission of the opinion from the 

physician to the employer, and provides 

no additional benefit to employees. 

Accordingly, OSHA proposed to remove 

the requirement from these standards. 

The Agency requested comment on 

whether a signed medical opinion is 

necessary to ensure that the examining 

physician has reviewed it prior to 

submitting it to the employer. 

OSHA received 11 comments 

concerning the elimination of the 

requirement for a physician’s signature 

on a medical opinion (Exs. 3–3, 4, 7, 16, 

17, 22, 24, 26, 27; 4–7, 11). Seven 

commenters saw no need or reason for 

the signature (Exs. 3–3, 7, 22, 24, 26; 4–

7, 11). For example, Phelps Dodge Corp. 

(Ex. 3–7) agreed that the requirements 

provide no added benefit and given 

current communication techniques, 

requiring signed medical opinions 

actually slows the process of completing 

the medical evaluation. The American 

Society of Safety Engineers (Ex. 4–11) 

stated that it ‘‘supports this change 

because it permits the use of new 

technology, which is generally accepted 

in the business and medical field, and 

will minimize paperwork burdens and 

reduce delays receiving such reports, 

thereby enhancing safety and health.’’

Four commenters objected to deleting 

the requirement for a physician’s 

signature on the medical opinion (Exs. 

1120 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

3–4, 16, 17, 27). The views expressed by 

these commenters include: (1) 

Physicians should take responsibility 

for their opinions; (2) employees place 

greater weight on opinions signed by 

physicians; and (3) providing signed 

opinions requires minimal effort. These 

commenters generally agreed that if 

OSHA wanted to allow for electronic 

transmission, then the provision should 

be revised to allow electronic 

signatures.

OSHA does not believe that requiring 

a physician’s signature on the required 

comprehensive medical opinion has any 

impact on the validity of the medical 

opinion. With or without a signature, 

the opinion is given by a physician 

through the physician’s office leaving 

no doubt about responsibility for the 

opinion. Employees receiving the 

physician’s opinions will see that the 

physician’s name on his or her 

stationery sets forth the legitimacy of 

the report and the identify of the 

responsible physician. Further, OSHA 

believes that an actual physician’s 

signature or a physician’s electronic 

signature does not guarantee that the 

physician has read the opinion, making 

these signature requirements ineffective. 

The important part of the requirement is 

that a medical opinion is given. OSHA 

does not believe a signature establishes 

any greater validity to the medical 

opinion whether it is signed personally 

or electronically and has concluded that 

deleting the signature will not decrease 

employees’ health protections. 

J. Providing Semiannual Medical 

Examinations to Employees 

Experiencing Long-Term Toxic 

Exposures 

Three of the Agency’s oldest health 

standards specify that employers 

provide semiannual medical 

examinations to employees having longterm exposures to the toxic substances 

regulated by these standards. However, 

these standards, which regulate 

employee exposures to vinyl chloride, 

inorganic arsenic, and coke oven 

emissions (29 CFR 1910.1017, 

1910.1019, and 1910.1029, 

respectively), require employees, 

exposed for lesser periods, be given 

annual medical examinations. 

Under paragraph 1910.1017(k) of the 

vinyl chloride standard employers must 

institute a medical surveillance program 

including a physical examination for 

employees exposed in excess of the 

action level. For employees exposed 

above the action level and who have 

been employed in vinyl chloride or 

polyvinyl chloride manufacturing for 10 

years or longer, employers must provide 

a semiannual medical examination 

(paragraph 1910.1017(k)(2)(i)). The 

preamble to this standard provides no 

rationale for this requirement. 

Paragraph 1910.1018(n)(3)(i) of the 

inorganic arsenic standard requires that 

employers offer semiannual medical 

examinations to employees who are 45 

years or older who have been exposed 

above the action level for 30 days per 

year or who have been exposed above 

the action level to inorganic arsenic for 

at least 10 years. In justifying this 

requirement, the Agency indicated in 

the preamble to this standard that:

Long-term employees who have exposures 

now or in the near future below the action 

level, but have had exposure above the action 

level now or in the recent past, are quite 

likely to have had substantially greater 

exposures in the more distant past. The 

epidemiological studies indicate that risk 

increases with both degree and duration of 

exposure (43 FR 19620).

OSHA notes that this statement 

addressed high exposures that occurred 

prior to the 1970’s. 

Paragraphs 1910.1029(j)(3)(ii) and 

(j)(3)(iii) of the coke oven emissions 

standard require employers to provide 

semiannual medical examinations for 

employees who are at least 45 years of 

age, or have five or more years of 

employment in a regulated area, and for 

an employee in this age/experience 

group who transfers or is transferred 

from employment in a regulated area, 

for as long as that employee is employed 

by the same employer or a successor 

employer. In the preamble to this 

standard, the Agency explains this 

requirement by stating that the high risk 

population requires more frequent and 

more comprehensive testing than the 

remainder of the population (41 FR 

46779, October 22, 1976). 

OSHA believes that the available 

evidence does not support the 

requirements for semiannual medical 

examinations offered to employees with 

long-term exposures to vinyl chloride, 

inorganic arsenic, or coke oven 

emissions. Based on a review of the 

existing medical research literature in 

Phase I of the Standards Improvement 

Project, the Agency amended the 

inorganic arsenic and coke oven 

emissions standards by reducing the 

frequency of chest x-rays from 

semiannual to annual and by removing 

the requirement for sputum cytology 

entirely from these standards (63 FR 

33450). This review indicated that 

semiannual chest x-rays and sputum 

cytology did not provide additional 

protection to employee health over and 

above that provided by an annual chest 

x-ray. Semi-annual medical exams 

provide little if any benefits when x-rays 

are only justified on an annual basis. 

Further, other health standards 

promulgated by OSHA, e.g., the 13 

Carcinogens, benzene, ethylene oxide, 

etc., only require annual medical 

examinations. 

Based on the available evidence, at 

the time of the proposal, the Agency 

believed that semiannual medical 

examinations for these three substances 

were unnecessary, and that annual 

medical examinations would be 

sufficient to detect cancer and other 

medical impairments caused by 

exposure to vinyl chloride, inorganic 

arsenic, or coke oven emissions. Also, 

aside from these three standards, no 

other substance-specific OSHA standard 

requires semiannual medical 

examinations. OSHA also believed that 

current medical practice with regard to 

employees occupationally exposed to 

toxic substances is to screen them 

annually. Therefore, the Agency 

proposed to revise these three standards 

to be consistent with its other 

substance-specific standards that 

require employers to provide annual 

medical examinations for covered 

employees regardless of the duration of 

their exposures. OSHA requested 

comment and other information on the 

effectiveness of annual versus 

semiannual medical examinations in 

detecting cancer and other medical 

impairments caused by exposure to 

vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, or 

coke oven emissions. 

OSHA received 13 comments 

concerning semiannual versus annual 

medical examinations (Exs. 3–4, 7, 8, 

10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29; 4–7, 11). 

Most of these commenters supported the 

change from semiannual to annual 

medical examinations (Ex. 3–4, 7, 8, 10, 

13, 14, 28, 29; 4–7, 11). OxyChem (Ex. 

3–10) supported OSHA’s rationale that 

semiannual medical examinations do 

not offer any more or better disease 

identification than annual 

examinations. Further, OxyChem noted 

that annual examination is the medical 

profession’s standard, and is consistent 

with all recent OSHA medical 

examination requirements. The Vinyl 

Chloride Health Committee of the 

American Chemistry Council (Ex. 3–14) 

stated:

OSHA recognizes in the preamble that 

semiannual examinations are not necessary, 

because annual medical examinations are 

sufficient to detect any material adverse 

health effect caused by vinyl chloride 

exposure. The Health Committee supports 

the proposal and notes that, more than any 

other proposed change, this will reduce 

significantly employer cost burdens without 

affecting worker health adversely.

Further, Pinnacle West Capital 

Corporation (Ex. 4–7) remarked:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1121

These standards promulgated in the 70s 

took a very conservative view in regard to 

medical monitoring requirements. In view of 

today’s knowledge and OSHA’s mediating 

this ultra conservative stance, we agree that 

annual exams are adequate to protect 

employee health. We believe it will enhance 

compliance with OSHA standards by making 

these rules consistent in requiring annual 

exams for all substance specific standards.

Two commenters did not support 

eliminating the semiannual medical 

examinations (Ex. 3–17, 27). The UAW 

(Ex. 3–17) noted that increasing the 

frequency of examinations with 

increasing latency from first exposure to 

carcinogens is logical and based on 

science. The AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27) 

expressed a similar opinion:

In the view of the AFL–CIO, the current 

language requiring semiannual exams should 

be retained. Workers with long term 

exposures to any of these three substances 

are likely to be at increased risk of 

developing lung and liver cancer. The time 

since first exposure is also increased among 

this subset of exposed workers. More 

frequent screenings will assist these workers 

in identifying or diagnosing their cancers 

earlier than with an annual examination 

frequency.

OSHA continues to believe based on 

available evidence resulting from its 

Phase I Standards Improvement Project, 

discussed above (that semiannual x-rays 

and sputum cytology do not improve 

survival rates), that annual medical 

examinations are sufficient to detect 

cancer and other medical impairments 

caused by exposure to vinyl chloride, 

inorganic arsenic, or coke oven 

emissions. The majority of commenters 

also believed that requiring annual 

medical examinations would be as 

effective as semiannual. OSHA finds 

that current medical practice to screen 

annually, makes it administratively 

advantageous especially when the 

medical examination may cover 

potential adverse health effects from 

other chemicals. Finally, OSHA’s 

experience with other substance specific 

standards requiring annual medical 

examinations, persuades OSHA that the 

three standards can be changed without 

a decrease in employee health. 

A second issue was raised in the 

proposal addressing the medical 

examination in the coke oven emissions 

standard. OSHA sought comment on 

whether the urinary cytology 

examination was a useful test. OSHA 

indicated it might include its removal in 

the final rule if warranted, based on 

comments. The coke oven emissions 

standard requires, in paragraph 

1910.1029(j)(2)(vii), that employers 

provide urinary cytology examinations 

as part of the medical examination to 

exposed employees. OSHA had adopted 

this requirement based on its belief that 

the urinary cytology examination would 

serve as a useful tool in screening for 

bladder cancer for those exposed to coke 

oven emissions.

However, at the time of this proposal, 

the Agency believed that the use of 

urinary cytology in the coke oven 

emissions standard as a screening tool 

for cancer should be reexamined based 

on more recent scientific literature. 

OSHA’s Office of Occupational 

Medicine (OOM) reviewed data 

pertaining to the benefits of urinary 

cytology in the detection of bladder 

cancer (Ex. 1–3). The literature indicates 

that the sensitivity of urine cytology, 

that is, its ability to detect bladder 

cancer, is not very powerful and, thus, 

not a particularly effective screening test 

for this disease. OOM recommends that 

urinary cytology testing be eliminated 

from the coke oven emissions standard. 

However, OOM does recommend 

retaining dipstick urinalysis as an 

inexpensive means of maintaining the 

urologic screening program until more 

effective technology is developed, 

despite its low sensitivity for detecting 

cancer. Comment was requested on the 

issue and on the OOM recommendation 

of retaining dipstick urinalysis. 

OSHA received five comments on the 

urinary cytology examination in the 

coke oven emissions standard (Exs. 3–

4, 16, 17, 27). None of the commenters 

believe that OSHA should eliminate the 

urinary cytology examination at this 

time. For example, the United Steel 

Workers of America (Ex. 3–16) 

remarked:

We agree with OSHA that urinary cytology 

should be thoroughly examined. While we 

have respect for OSHA’s Office of 

Occupational Medicine, the evaluation 

should be based on more than their opinion. 

In addition, the Agency should consider 

newer methods for detecting overexposures, 

such as 2-hydroxypyrenol. Until that analysis 

is complete, the requirement for urinary 

cytology should be retained.

The AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27) stated:

While we have no objection to OSHA 

reexamining the utility of using urinary 

cytology as a screen for cancer, we are 

opposed to removing it merely because the 

sensitivity of the screening tool ‘‘is not very 

powerful’’. If another screening method can 

be shown, with scientific substantiation, to 

be more powerful then it may be appropriate 

for the agency to require a different method 

to be used. Until such time as this analysis 

has been completed and a more powerful 

method identified, the AFL–CIO believes the 

requirement for urinary cytology should be 

retained. To eliminate the screening test 

altogether would weaken worker protection.

Based on comments, OSHA has been 

persuaded to retain the requirement to 

conduct urinary cytology testing as part 

of the medical examination required by 

the coke oven emissions standard until 

such time that the Agency more fully 

examines alternatives to the test. 

However, also based on the information 

in the record and comments, OSHA is 

requiring the test be conducted on an 

annual basis as part of the annual 

medical examination, the same time the 

other tests are required (urinalysis), 

rather than every 6 months. OSHA has 

found no compelling reason that the 

cytology test should be conducted more 

frequently than the other tests required 

as part of the medical examination and 

it is important to be consistent with the 

annual frequency of other required 

medical examinations and tests so that 

it can be reviewed by the physician. 

K. Notifying OSHA Regarding the Use of 

DBCP or the Establishment of Regulated 

Areas for Certain Substances 

The Agency proposed to delete 

paragraph 1910.1044(d) of the 1,2-

dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 

standard. This standard is the only 

OSHA substance standard that requires 

employers to submit a report to the 

nearest OSHA Area Office that describes 

the employer’s use of the chemical 

within 10 days of introducing the 

substance into the workplace. The 

preamble to the DBCP standard does not 

provide a rationale for the requirement. 

Further, OSHA has not found this 

requirement useful either for research or 

to assist in compliance activities. 

OSHA believed that the provision had 

little use in practice and thus, it might 

be appropriate to remove this provision 

consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act mandates. OSHA 

requested comment on the proposed 

deletion of paragraph 1910.1044(d) of 

the DBCP standard. 

One commenter specifically disagreed 

with the deletion of paragraph (d) of the 

DBCP standard. The commenter, the 

United Steel Workers of America (Ex. 3–

16) stated:

The DBCP standard requires employers to 

notify OSHA if they introduce the substance 

into the workplace. No known employers 

currently use or produce DBCP. If any do so 

in the future, it would be useful for the 

Agency to know it. Therefore, there is no 

reason to delete this provision. The deletion 

would not even reduce any current 

paperwork burdens.

At the request of the public, OSHA 

queried its regions on the notification of 

use and establishment of regulated area 

provisions. The regions said that very 

few notifications have been received 

with regard to any chemicals (e.g., 

arsenic) and that the reports are not 

used for targeting inspections (Ex. 9–1–

1). (For example, one region stated it has 

1122 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

received 2 to 3 reports over 28 years 

regarding reporting for vinyl chloride.) 

In any case, OSHA has other provisions 

for targeting inspections. 

OSHA has decided to delete this 

requirement. It has not been used by 

OSHA and no other OSHA health 

standards have such provisions. At the 

time of this proposal, OSHA was aware 

that DBCP is no longer produced or 

used, and therefore no reduction in 

burden hours was projected for the 

deletion. Nonetheless, if DBCP was used 

again, OSHA still considers the 

provision an unnecessary burden under 

the Paper Work Reduction Act and 

unnecessary for purposes of targeting 

inspections. Moreover, if DBCP were to 

be used again, the standard would 

protect employees. 

A number of other OSHA standards 

dating from the 1970s require employers 

to notify the nearest OSHA Area 

Director/Office if they are required to 

establish regulated areas in their 

workplaces. The following standards 

have such a requirement: Paragraph 

1910.1003(f)(1) of the 13 carcinogens 

standard; paragraph 1910.1017(n)(1) of 

the vinyl chloride standard; paragraph 

1910.1018(d)(1) of the inorganic arsenic 

standard; and, paragraph 

1910.1045(d)(1) of the acrylonitrile 

standard. 

The preamble to the vinyl chloride 

standard explains that the purpose of 

this notification requirement is to 

enable OSHA to obtain information on 

control technology (39 FR 35896, 

October 4, 1974). The preamble to the 

acrylonitrile standard notes that the 

requirement is designed to enable 

OSHA to be aware of facilities where 

substantial exposure exists (43 FR 

45762). 

In the years since these standards 

were promulgated, OSHA has not found 

the notification provision useful for the 

purposes described in the two 

preambles nor have these requirements 

been useful for compliance inspection 

targeting purposes. No other substancespecific standards promulgated by 

OSHA require such notification. The 

Agency proposed to delete the 

notification requirement from the 

standards to reduce unnecessary 

collections of information (paperwork 

burdens) required by OSHA but not 

used by OSHA. OSHA invited comment 

on the effect this deletion would have 

in general, and specifically on employee 

protection, employer burden, and 

paperwork reduction. 

OSHA received 14 comments on the 

OSHA notification provision concerning 

regulated areas (Exs. 3–8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 

17, 18, 22, 27, 29; 4–7, 11, 12, 13). Nine 

commenters supported deleting 

notifying OSHA of regulated areas (Exs. 

3–8, 10, 13, 14, 22, 29; 4–7, 11, 12). Dow 

Chemical (Ex. 3–13) observed:

Dow agrees with OSHA that it is 

appropriate to revise the requirement that an 

employer notify the Agency when it has 

established a ‘‘regulated area.’’ OSHA does 

not find the information useful and we 

believe that the information serves no 

purpose and should be eliminated. The 

requirement to notify places a burden on the 

employer that does not appear to be 

necessary. Conditions in an area that might 

require reporting can change quickly. While 

these changes are being monitored, it does 

not appear to be a useful exercise to 

determine how many days the employer has 

to postmark a letter detailing the information 

to OSHA, particularly when OSHA does not 

utilize the information anyway. Further, 

there are many tasks that potentially might 

trigger establishing a regulated area, where 

other tasks involving the same chemical do 

not. Thus, it does not seem particularly 

helpful or necessary to notify OSHA when 

establishing a regulated area which only 

exists when certain tasks, done at a variety 

of different frequencies (rather than a 

permanent arrangement), exists. Dow 

supports OSHA’s efforts to eliminate this 

unnecessary regulatory burden.

Organization Resources Counselors (Ex. 

3–22) indicated it agreed with the 

elimination of the provisions on the 

principle that if OSHA no longer has a 

need to collect information or finds that 

the information provides no useful 

benefits for enforcement or protection, 

then the requirements should be 

deleted. 

Five commenters did not agree that 

the regulated area notification 

provisions were unnecessary or should 

be deleted (Exs. 3–16, 17, 18, 27; 4–13). 

The UAW (Ex. 3–17) observed that the 

stronger argument would be to extend 

the requirement to other standards. This 

would enable OSHA to target health 

inspections more efficiently. The AFL–

CIO (Ex. 3–27) stated:

We are also opposed to removing the 

requirement to notify OSHA whenever 

regulated areas are established for the 16 

carcinogens. This information can be 

extremely helpful in protecting worker health 

by identifying effective methods to control 

exposure and targeting OSHA inspections. 

Instead of eliminating this requirement, the 

agency should improve all its health 

standards by incorporating this provision 

into all of its health standards.

Also, the ICWU (Ex. 4–13) believes the 

rule at least encourages employers to 

investigate and institute corrective 

actions. 

OSHA concludes that the notification 

requirements are not adding to worker 

protection and eliminating them will 

reduce the collection of information 

(paperwork) burden and overall 

improve compliance with OSHA health 

standards by making them more 

consistent. OSHA has not been using 

these reports for enforcement purposes. 

(See Ex. 9.) These are older standards 

with a high degree of compliance and 

where technology was long ago 

developed to achieve compliance. 

OSHA has other methods for targeting 

inspections. OSHA therefore has 

decided to eliminate these reporting 

requirements. 

L. Reporting Emergencies to OSHA 

Paragraph 1910.1017(n)(2) of the vinyl 

chloride standard and paragraph 

1910.1045(d)(2) of the acrylonitrile 

standard require employers to report the 

occurrence of emergencies involving 

these substances to the nearest OSHA 

Area Director/Office. The preambles to 

these standards are silent on the reason 

for this reporting requirement and 

OSHA has not found such reporting, 

which has occurred only rarely, useful. 

In addition, other Agency substancespecific standards do not have such a 

requirement. Accordingly, OSHA 

proposed to delete these reporting 

provisions as unnecessary and a way to 

reduce unnecessary collections of 

information (paperwork burdens). 

OSHA asked for comment on the 

proposed deletions and for information 

on any impact such an action might 

have. 

Thirteen commenters addressed the 

deletion of the provisions requiring 

notifying the OSHA Area Director/

Office of an emergency (Exs. 3–4, 8, 10, 

13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 27, 29; 4–11, 13). 

Of those, seven commenters supported 

the modification (Exs. 3–8, 10, 13, 14, 

22, 29; 4–11) and six commenters did 

not (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18, 27; 4–13). 

Generally, commenters that supported 

the modification believed that if OSHA 

does not use the information, then it 

should not be collected.

The commenters who did not agree 

with the modification indicated that the 

information could be very useful to 

OSHA and employers if it was collected 

and evaluated properly. The AFL–CIO 

(Ex. 3–27) argued:

The AFL–CIO is opposed to the deletion of 

this requirement because it will weaken 

worker protection. Information from 

emergencies can be used to identify hazards 

and inform other employers using these 

substances about control procedures that can 

eliminate similar emergencies from occurring 

in the future. The fact that such reporting has 

been rare is irrelevant and not sufficient 

justification to delete it from these two 

standards. Furthermore, it is our position that 

this emergency reporting requirement should 

be extended to all of OSHA’s health 

standards. To do so, in our opinion, would 

genuinely result in the improvement of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1123

agency’s standards and increase worker 

protection.

OSHA remains unconvinced by these 

arguments that it should retain the 

requirement to report emergencies for 

these two substances. OSHA regions 

have not been utilizing the few reports 

which have been filed, though several 

regional staff felt they conceivably could 

be useful. However, that the plans could 

be useful is not very persuasive when 

they have not been used. OSHA has 

other regulations for reporting deaths 

and serious injuries (see 29 CFR 

1904.39). 

Speculation that employees may be 

protected by these emergency reporting 

requirements does not outweigh the fact 

that emergency reports required by 

these standards are rare and OSHA has 

found them not to be useful. Finally, no 

evidence in the rulemaking records for 

OSHA’s more recent health standards 

compelled the Agency to include 

emergency reporting requirements. 

Thus, OSHA had concluded that the 

requirements are unnecessary and create 

a needless paperwork burden. 

Therefore, the requirement to report 

emergencies to OSHA contained in 

these two standards is being deleted in 

this final rule. 

M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance 

Plans 

The Agency’s substance-specific 

standards typically require employers to 

develop compliance plans to meet the 

exposure-control objectives of the 

standard. Most of these standards 

specify that employers must update 

these plans at least annually because 

OSHA believed that annual updating 

was sufficient to ensure the continued 

effectiveness of the plans. However, a 

few of the substance-specific standards 

promulgated by the Agency require 

semiannual updating. These standards 

include: the standard for vinyl chloride, 

paragraph 1910.1017(f)(3); the inorganic 

arsenic standard, paragraph 

1910.1018(g)(2)(iv); the lead standard, 

paragraph 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv); the coke 

oven emissions standard, paragraph 

1910.1029(f)(6)(iv); the DBCP standard, 

paragraph 1910.1044(g)(2)(ii); the 

acrylonitrile standard, paragraph 

1910.1045(g)(2)(v); and, the lead in 

construction standard, paragraph 

1926.62(e)(2)(v). 

The preambles to these standards, 

vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, lead, 

coke oven emissions, DBCP, 

acrylonitrile and lead in construction, 

contained no evidence pointing to the 

need for a semiannual update of 

compliance plans in facilities handling 

these substances. Further, OSHA 

believed that current industry practice 

with respect to health issues is annual 

updating, which is consistent with other 

OSHA health standards. Based on these 

reasons, the Agency proposed to revise 

those substance-specific standards that 

contain semiannual updating to annual 

updating. The revision would make the 

compliance plan update requirements 

consistent across health standards 

without diminishing employee 

protection and would also reduce 

unnecessary paperwork. The Agency 

solicited comment on any impact, 

particularly on employee health, that 

the proposed revision might have. 

Many commenters addressed the 

proposed change to an annual update of 

compliance plans (Exs. 3–4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 

14, 15, 16, 17 18, 22, 27, 28, 29; 4–7, 11, 

12, 13). Most of these commenters 

supported the revision as well as 

OSHA’s reasons (Exs. 3–7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 

15, 22, 28, 29; 4–7, 11, 12). However, 

some commenters disagreed with the 

proposed change (Exs. 3–4, 16, 17, 18, 

27; 4–13). 

Of those commenters that endorsed 

the change, OxyChem (Ex. 3–10) stated:

The VCM standard requires a written 

compliance plan whenever employees’

exposures exceed the Permissible Exposure 

Limit (‘‘PEL’’). The compliance plan is 

intended to help reduce employee exposures 

to or below the PEL through use of 

engineering and work practice controls. The 

written plan is required to be updated semiannually. Like several other proposed 

revisions affecting the VCM standard, OSHA 

proposes to revise this regulation to require 

an annual update of the written plan. This 

will make these rules consistent with recent 

occupational health standards. While semiannual plan updating may have been 

important when the VCM standard was 

published, it is no longer needed due to the 

reduced potential for exposure to VCM in the 

manufacturing and user industries. OxyChem 

supports this proposal.

Additionally, the American Coke and 

Coal Chemicals Institute (Ex. 3–28) 

noted:

ACCCI supports this revision, as it would 

have no diminishing effect on employee 

safety and health. Engineering controls are 

well established and maintained throughout 

the industry, and work practice controls 

remain regimented within individual coke 

making facilities. Furthermore, employee 

protection is ensured through related 

compliance with other applicable standards 

such as Respiratory Protection (1910.134) 

and Personal Protective Equipment 

(1910.132).

Finally, the American Society of Safety 

Engineers (Ex. 4–11) recommended 

‘‘this change to encourage uniformity in 

industrial health recordkeeping.’’

In contrast, the AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27) 

remarked:

The AFL–CIO is opposed to OSHA’s 

proposed change. The semiannual 

requirement applies to a significant number 

of chemicals and is an important provision, 

particularly in circumstances where changes 

in the workplace occur that may increase the 

potential for worker exposures. Furthermore, 

in the interest of increasing worker 

protection, we believe this requirement needs 

to be added to all of the agency’s health 

standards.

After reviewing the comments, OSHA 

concludes that annual updates are 

sufficient. Uniformity among standards 

is advantageous for improving 

compliance. Semi-annual updating of 

compliance plans was most useful in 

the years immediately following the 

promulgation of these standards. In 

those years, employers were installing 

engineering controls, evaluating their 

effectiveness and making modifications 

to increase their effectiveness. Now that 

many years have passed and 

engineering control strategies have been 

well established, the need to evaluate 

twice each year is diminished and does 

not outweigh the benefits of consistency 

among OSHA’s health standards. 

Employees continue to be fully 

protected by the substantive provisions 

of these standards. Consequently the 

revisions will make compliance plan 

updates more consistent without 

diminishing employee protection. The 

revisions will also reduce employers’

collection of information burdens 

(paperwork) which the Paperwork 

Reduction Act requires OSHA to 

consider. Therefore, OSHA is revising 

these standards to allow for an annual 

compliance program review. 

N. Notifying Employees of Their 

Exposure Monitoring Results 

Many of OSHA’s substance-specific 

standards require employers to notify 

employees of their exposure monitoring 

results. The manner of notification 

varies. (See Table 1) Some standards 

require the employer to provide written 

notification to each employee in a 

monitoring program and also post the 

monitoring results. Other standards 

require the employer to only notify the 

individual of exposure monitoring 

results. Still other standards require that 

monitoring results be posted. 

Obviously, the reason for employee 

notification of monitoring results is for 

employees to be aware of their 

exposures to regulated substances. 

However, the preambles to these 

standards do not identify the reasons for 

the differences in the manner in which 

employees are informed of their 

exposure results. Also, there was no 

evidence to suggest that the timing 

differences were based on effects on 

1124 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

employee health. Therefore, OSHA 

believed that making the notification 

and timing requirements consistent 

across standards would reduce 

regulatory confusion and facilitate 

compliance without diminishing 

employee protection. 

The Agency proposed to allow 

employers to provide employees with 

their exposure monitoring results either 

individually in writing, or by posting 

the results in a readily accessible 

location, or by both. There were a 

number of considerations identified by 

OSHA with regard to the manner in 

which employees are notified. For 

example, individual notification gives 

employees a permanent record and they 

may take individual notification more 

seriously. Individual notification also 

avoids possible privacy concerns that 

may be associated with posting results. 

However, individual notification 

increases the paperwork burden on 

employers. On the other hand, posting 

monitoring has advantages. When 

monitoring results are posted, all 

employees, not just those monitored, 

will have knowledge of overall exposure 

related trends in their workplace. 

Posting monitoring results, however, 

might pose privacy issues that will be 

discussed under section O, Additional 

Issues for Comment. OSHA requested 

information on the impact the proposed 

revision might have on employee 

protection.

TABLE 1.—METHOD OF NOTIFICATION AND TIME PERIOD FOR NOTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE RESULTS

Standard Method of notification Maximum period

for notification 

Part 1910—General Industry

Asbestos: Paragraph 1910.1001(d)(7)(i) .............................. Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Vinyl Chloride: Paragraph 1910.1017(n)(3) .......................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 10 working days. 

Inorganic Arsenic: Paragraph 1910.1018(e)(5)(i) ................. Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Lead: Paragraph 1910.1025(d)(8)(i) ..................................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Cadmium: Paragraph 1910.1027(d)(5)(i) .............................. Individually in writing and posting ........................................ 15 working days. 

Benzene: Paragraph 1910.1028(e)(7)(i) ............................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 15 working days. 

Coke Oven Emissions: Paragraph 1910.1029(e)(3)(i) ......... Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Cotton Dust: Paragraph 1910.1043(d)(4)(i) .......................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 20 working days. 

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane: Paragraph 1910.1044(f)(5)(i) Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Acrylonitrile: Paragraph 1910.1045(e)(5)(i) .......................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Ethylene Oxide: Paragraph 1910.1047(d)(7)(i) .................... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Formaldehyde: Paragraph 1910.1048(d)(6) ......................... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Methylenedianiline: Paragraph 1910.1050(e)(7)(i) ............... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Butadiene: Paragraph 1910.1051(d)(7)(i) ............................. Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 5 working days. 

Methylene Chloride: Paragraph 1910.1052(d)(5)(i) .............. Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Part 1915—Shipyard Employment

Asbestos: Paragraphs 1915.1001(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) ......... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... As soon as possible. 

Part 1926—Construction

Methylenedianiline: Paragraph 1926.60(f)(7)(i) .................... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... 15 working days. 

Lead: Paragraph 1926.62(d)(8)(i) ......................................... Individually in writing only .................................................... 5 working days. 

Asbestos: Paragraphs 1926.1101(f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) ......... Individually in writing or posting ........................................... As soon as possible. 

Cadmium: Paragraph 1926.1127(d)(5)(i) .............................. Individually in writing and posting ........................................ 5 working days. 

In addition to the notification 

requirements, these standards contain a 

variety of different time limits between 

receipt of employees’ exposure 

monitoring results and notification of 

employees. Employee notification time 

for exposure results range from ‘‘as soon 

as possible,’’ to 5, 10, 15 or 20 working 

days after the employer receives the 

monitoring results. See Table 1 for the 

amount of time permitted by 15 

substance-specific standards for general 

industry, one for shipyard employment, 

and four for construction. 

OSHA proposed to require employers 

regulated by the 15 substance-specific 

standards for general industry to notify 

employees of their exposure monitoring 

results within 15 working days of 

receiving the results. OSHA believed a 

consistent time-period would simplify 

employer compliance and found no 

reason to believe that 15 days is an 

unreasonable time frame or would in 

any way compromise employee 

protection. 

For construction employers covered 

by the methylenedianiline, lead, 

asbestos, or cadmium standards, and 

shipyard employers covered by the 

asbestos standard, OSHA proposed to 

require notification as soon as possible 

but no later than five working days after 

the employer receives the results of 

exposure monitoring. 

The asbestos and cadmium standards 

established different time periods for 

notification based on the industries 

affected. Although the general industry 

asbestos standard requires employee 

notification within 15 working days, 

both the construction and shipyard 

employment asbestos standards require 

notification ‘‘as soon as possible.’’

Construction and shipyard employers 

were believed to have employees that 

were involved in more short-term and 

intermittent activities. Also, the general 

industry cadmium standard requires 

employee notification within 15 

working days while the construction 

cadmium standard requires notification 

within five working days. Again, the 

preamble to the construction cadmium 

standard states that the five working-day 

notification period is appropriate 

because of the short term nature of 

many construction jobs (57 FR 42383). 

OSHA requested comment on the 

appropriateness of the different 

notification time periods. The Agency 

believed that factors such as short-term 

or intermittent projects might justify 

retaining the shorter notification periods 

for construction and shipyard 

employment activities, although some 

health standards allow 15 working day 

time periods standards for these 

industries. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1125

OSHA invited comment and 

information on the proposed revisions 

to the notification requirements in 

OSHA health standards, particularly on 

the differences proposed for employers 

in different industries and any 

reduction in employee protection that 

may result from the proposed revisions. 

OSHA received 24 comments on the 

means of employee notification and the 

time period to inform employees the 

results of exposure monitoring (Exs. 3–

1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4–7, 11, 

12, 13). Of these comments, the majority 

addressed OSHA’s proposal to allow 

informing employees of their exposure 

individually in writing, by posting the 

results, or by both (Exs. 3–1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 

15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4–12, 

13) and most supported the proposal 

(Exs. 3–1, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; 

4–12, 13). 

For example, Phelps Dodge 

Corporation (Ex. 3–7) remarked:

We support OSHA’s proposal to allow 

employers to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily accessible 

location. We agree with OSHA’s preliminary 

finding that the goal of ensuring that 

employees are aware of their exposures can 

effectively be met either by individual 

written notification or by posting results in 

a location that is readily accessible to all 

employees whose results are being posted. 

Posting results for general observation is 

efficient and provides a large number of 

people access to the exposure monitoring 

results. However, in some cases, individual 

written notification may be the preferred 

method of communication if the notification 

involves sensitive information. We ask OSHA 

to provide employers with the flexibility to 

choose the best method to notify employees 

and make this notification an effective 

communication tool.

The United Steelworkers of America 

(Ex. 3–16) stated that ‘‘We agree that 

these standards should be harmonized, 

and we agree that exposure results 

could be provided individually or by 

posting.’’

One commenter that supported 

employer choice of individual 

notification or posting, expressed 

concern about employee privacy with 

respect to posting monitoring results. 

OxyChem (Ex. 3–10) observed that 

‘‘employers should not be forced to 

utilize employee identifiers that invoke 

privacy concerns when performing the 

notification of monitoring’’ such as 

social security numbers. OSHA 

absolutely agrees that employers should 

not use employee identifiers when 

posting monitoring results and does not 

require such identification and 

emphatically recommends that 

employers not use such identifiers. 

Several commenters did not support 

allowing employers the latitude in 

choosing the method of informing 

employees about their exposures (Exs. 

3–4, 17, 26, 27). The Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical & Energy Workers 

International Union (PACE) (Ex. 3–4) 

remarked:

PACE sees no need or rationale for OSHA 

to change the requirement that employees 

receive their own test results on an 

individual basis. The proposed change is 

highly objectionable. In fact, OSHA should 

required that employers provide written 

notification of such results to individuals 

and, in addition, should require employers to 

post such results on an anonymous basis in 

a conspicuous place in the workplace. Many 

workers do not pay much attention to 

bulletin boards in the workplace and, 

therefore, use of such a communication 

method would likely not be effective. Also by 

being provided a written copy of exposure 

monitoring results, the employee has a record 

of exposures to toxic substances in a form 

that they can take with them, should they 

change employers.

OSHA concludes that its proposal to 

permit employers to either post or 

individually provide monitoring data to 

employees is justified. There is a 

substantial health benefit to employees 

to posting. They will be able to know 

exposures in all parts of the workplace, 

to know whether the employer is 

keeping exposures below the PEL, 

where in the workplace they need to 

wear a respirator and overall exposure 

trends. Individual notification may have 

some privacy benefits and employees 

may take the notification more 

seriously. Balancing these factors, and 

the reduced collection of information 

(paperwork) burden and increased 

flexibility at giving the employer the 

option, OSHA concludes that the 

proposal is justified. If an employee 

wants a copy of the record, then the 

employee can request the record under 

the 29 CFR 1910.1020, Access to 

Employee Exposure and Medical 

Records standard. 

Of the 24 comments that addressed 

employee notification and the time 

limits for informing employees of 

exposure results, 21 commented on the 

number of days employers should have 

before notifying employees of exposure 

(Ex. 3–1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4–1, 7, 11, 13). 

Although commenters generally agreed 

that it would be beneficial to have a 

consistent timeframe across standards, 

some commenters believed that 5 days 

should be the reporting time for general 

industry rather than the proposed 15 

days (Exs. 3–4, 16, 26, 27; 4–13). For 

example, PACE (Ex. 3–4) remarked:

OSHA’s proposal to standardize the 

reporting period for employee monitoring 

results is fine, but the period should be a 

maximum of five days. There is really no 

need for a longer period of time. Providing 

for a longer period of time for notification 

communicates the lack of importance of such 

monitoring. In addition, use of a one week 

period will allow workers to remember what 

kinds of activities they were engaged in on 

the day of monitoring, which, in turn, may 

have lead to excessive exposure. Hence, the 

utility of exposure monitoring would be 

enhanced with a short notification period.

The United Steelworkers of America 

(Ex. 3–16) observed:

We agree that these standards should be 

harmonized, and we agree that exposure 

results could be provided individually or by 

posting. But there is no reason for an 

employer to hold monitoring results for up to 

three weeks before passing them on to the 

employee, especially when the employer can 

do so by posting. These standards should be 

harmonized upwards, to a maximum 

notification period of five working days.

Finally, the AFL–CIO (Ex. 3–27) stated 

that:

The AFL–CIO fully agrees that it is 

reasonable to establish consistency in the 

notification period. However, it is our 

position that, in order to be genuinely 

consistent in protecting workers from 

exposures to all of these substances, a 5 day 

notification period should be applicable 

across all industries and not just construction 

and shipyard industries. Again, OSHA’s 

proposed 15 day period for general industry 

is the lowest common denominator. 

Reducing, uniformly, the notification period 

to 5 days increases worker protection by 

reducing the period of time between 

notification of the results and the subsequent 

implementation of responses to reduce 

worker exposure where overexposures have 

been identified.

On the other hand, the majority of 

commenters agreed with the 15 day 

uniform reporting proposal for general 

industry (Exs. 3–1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 

22, 28, 29; 4–1, 7, 11). A commenter 

from Phelps Dodge Corporation (Ex. 3–

7) observed:

We support OSHA’s proposal to make the 

requirements for notifying employees of 

exposure monitoring results in the 15 general 

industry standards consistent at 15 working 

days. This time interval ensures timely 

communication of results to employees, 

while giving employers sufficient time to 

adequately evaluate and communicate 

exposure-monitoring results. In addition, 

many standards require that the employer 

communicate a corrective action plan to the 

employee when exposures exceed the 

Permissible Exposures Limit. It is often 

impossible to develop an effective and 

realistic plan in less than 15 working days.

Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 13) 

remarked:

Having consistency in this area will greatly 

reduce administrative burden as well as 

1126 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory confusion. This, in turn, will 

facilitate better compliance without 

diminishing employee protection.

The American Coke and Coal Chemicals 

Institute (ACCCI) (Ex. 3–28) also 

supported the proposal by stating:

ACCCI is in agreement with the proposal 

revisions, as they would facilitate regulatory 

compliance without adversely affecting 

employee health. By increasing the 

notification period to 15 days, it not only 

provides consistency with other standards 

but also provides employers with the leeway 

to work through periods when employees 

may be away from work and to coordinate 

any remedial testing that may be warranted 

by the initial results.

Finally, the American Chemistry 

Council (Ex. 3–29) noted:

The wide variety of existing requirements 

creates confusion and an unnecessary burden 

on employers to keep detailed records on 

individual employees’ different potential 

exposures. ACC recommends OSHA establish 

a uniform reporting timeframe (e.g. fifteen 

days).

A few commenters urged OSHA not to 

limit the maritime shipyard proposal 

(Ex. 3–1) or the construction proposals 

(Exs. 3–5, 7, 13, 24; 4–7) to a 5-day 

notification rather than a 15 day 

notification. Northrop Grumman 

Newport News (Ex. 3–1) indicated that 

it:

Does not agree with the proposal to require 

notification ‘‘as soon as possible but no later 

than five working days’’ after shipyard 

employers receive exposure-monitoring 

results. The shipyard employee population is 

as non-transitory as general industry in spite 

of short-term and intermittent projects and 

that those employees will receive exposure 

notification as effectively as in general 

industry.

With respect to the construction 

industry, Phelps Dodge Corporation (Ex. 

3–7) stated:

We believe that the construction industry 

should also be allowed 15 working days to 

communicate the results of exposure 

monitoring. While some employees in these 

fields are employed for only short periods of 

time, the employer would still be able to 

reach them to communicate their results in 

the vast majority of cases. Interaction 

between employers and transient employees 

continues to take place when paychecks or 

tax documents are mailed. We believe that 

the proposed five-day time limit in the 

construction standard effectively prohibits 

any meaningful employee involvement in 

developing action plans.

Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 3–13) 

remarked:

While we understand the premise for the 

difference in report times (namely, that the 

transient nature of construction work and the 

construction workers may lead to difficulty 

in communicating results), this has not been 

our experience. Construction workers must 

still provide addresses to their employer and 

this information can still be channeled to the 

individuals accordingly. Moreover, 

employees in general industry as well as 

construction are advised of their rights to 

access this information. To have inconsistent 

notification requirements will be confusing 

for General Industry employers that may 

have extensive construction work on their 

sites, as they may have to comply with both 

standards. Dow believes that both the 

General Industry and Construction Standards 

should follow the proposed 15 working day 

requirement for employee notification.

Finally, Pinnacle West Capital 

Corporation (Ex. 4–7) observed:

We see no reason to have a shorter period 

for construction workers. Our experience is 

that when we monitor a contractor’s 

employee, we provide notice to the 

construction company, who is then required 

to provide it to their employee. The 15 

working day period would allow enough 

time to complete the notification. Even when 

the worker has left the construction 

company’s employment, they usually have 

either his/her home address or know for 

which union he/she works. This notification 

can be made to either place. Less than 15 

working days almost make this almost 

impossible.

OSHA has concluded that a uniform 

time limit for notifying employees in 

general industry has substantial 

benefits. It will improve employer 

understanding of standards and improve 

compliance. As a practical matter it will 

reduce employers paperwork burdens 

because their compliance program will 

be simpler and uniform. There will be 

no reduction in employee protection 

and probably improvement because of 

improved compliance. The 15 working 

day period is a reasonable time for 

notification in general industry with its 

more stable workforce and is the time 

frame OSHA adopted in most of its 

health standards for general industry. 

Employment at a particular location is 

often brief in construction and 

sometimes brief in shipyards. Therefore 

OSHA is finalizing the proposal ‘‘as 

soon as possible but not more than 5 

working days’’ requirement for asbestos 

in shipyards and MDA, lead, asbestos, 

and cadmium in construction. 

O. Additional Issue for Comment 

Social Security Numbers 

OSHA’s substance-specific standards 

require that exposure monitoring and 

medical-surveillance records that the 

employer is required to retain, include 

the employee’s social security number 

(SSN). In the preamble to the final 

methylene chloride standard (62 FR 

1598, January 10, 1997), OSHA justified 

the requirement for employers to 

document social security numbers by 

observing that the numbers are 

correlated to employee identity in other 

types of records and that they are a more 

useful differentiation among employees 

since each number is unique to an 

individual for a lifetime and does not 

change as an employee changes 

employers. In a letter of interpretation 

regarding the use of social security 

numbers in the asbestos standard for 

construction (April 16, 1999), the 

Agency provided the following 

response. Many employees have 

identical or similar names and that 

identifying employees solely by name 

makes it difficult to determine to which 

employee a particular record pertains. 

The use of SSNs avoids this problem 

because they are unique to an 

individual. 

In addition, epidemiologic studies of 

employee health from workplace 

exposures to toxic substances require 

that social security numbers be attached 

to employee medical and monitoring 

records. Only in that way can employee 

health end points be compared to 

employee exposures over many years, 

over changes in employers and 

ultimately be compared to death 

certificates. 

However, OSHA has examined 

alternatives to requiring SSNs in its 

requirements for employee 

identification due to growing concerns 

about individual privacy. In Phase II of 

the Standards Improvement Project, 

OSHA requested public comments on: 

the necessity, usefulness, and 

effectiveness of SSNs as a means of 

identifying employee records in 

exposure monitoring and medicalsurveillance records. Further, OSHA 

asked whether there were privacy 

concerns or issues raised by this 

requirement. Finally, the Agency 

inquired about the existence of other 

equally effective methods of uniquely 

identifying employees for OSHA 

exposure and medical-surveillance 

records.

The Agency received 14 comments 

with respect to OSHA’s requirements to 

use employee SSNs in records (Exs. 3–

1, 7, 9, 16, 17, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4–6, 

7, 11, 13). Seven commenters believed 

that SSNs needed to be retained in 

OSHA standards (Exs. 3–9, 16, 17, 24, 

27; 4–6, 13). NIOSH (Ex. 9) strongly 

believes in the use of SSNs. NIOSH 

stated:

In NIOSH’s experience, the SSN is the 

most practical identifier when studying large 

workplace populations. Any other unique 

and unchanging individual identifier that 

would accompany a worker throughout his or 

her life would essentially serve as an SSN 

surrogate. This alternative identifier would 

also have to be a unique personal identifier 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1127

and would thus share any privacy concerns 

associated with the use of SSNs.

NIOSH listed a number of shortcomings 

concerning the use of employergenerated identifiers. They include: 

1. Use of non-unique identification 

numbers or codes across employers; 

2. Re-issuance of previously used 

identification codes to different 

individuals; 

3. Periodic changes in identification 

codes with changes in company 

ownership or organization; 

4. Introduction of new or revised data 

management systems; 

5. Changes in product lines; 

6. Elimination of functions or 

activities; 

7. Implementation of new payroll or 

other administrative systems; 

8. Revision of job titles; 

9. Abbreviations following personal 

names (e.g., Jr., Sr., Esq.) 

10. Variations in spelling of names or 

name changes (for example, through 

marriage). 

The United Steel Workers of America 

(Ex. 3–16) remarked:

Employers currently use social security 

numbers on virtually all employee records. 

Almost all health care institutions and 

insurance companies identity individuals by 

social security number. We understand 

OMB’s privacy concerns, but employee 

exposure records are an insignificant part of 

the problem of workplace privacy. Deleting 

requirements for social security numbers 

would complicate record handling. It would 

also complicate epidemiological studies, 

which depend on social security numbers to 

ascertain vital status.

Also, Verizon Communications, Inc. 

(Ex. 3–24) offered its opinion on why 

SSNs should be retained in OSHA 

health standards:

Anytime a SSN is used as an identifier on 

paperwork, one might raise the issue of 

privacy. However, one should try to balance 

these privacy issues against the need to have 

a unique identifier that can be used to track 

individuals. Certainly, a SSN is unique and 

follows the person for a lifetime. There is no 

ambiguity when such an exclusive number is 

used. In work-related exposure situations, it 

is desirable to track individuals for the short 

term and the long term. There is a strong 

emphasis within the public health arena to 

follow and protect workers, especially over a 

working lifetime with multiple employers. 

Verizon believes that this need outweighs the 

potential privacy issues involved in using a 

SSN for tracking purposes. Verizon is not 

aware of anything comparable to a SSN that 

could serve a similar purpose. Even if there 

were, privacy issues might also be raised 

with its use. In summary, it is Verizon’s 

opinion that if one balances the uniqueness 

of SSN and the strong public health policy 

to follow and protect these individuals 

employees against the public’s interest in 

maintaining adequate privacy, the scales are 

tipped in favor of retaining the current 

system.

Four commenters disagreed with 

continuing the use of SSNs (Exs. 3–1, 7, 

28; 4–7) and suggested that some other 

identification system should be 

developed to identify employees for the 

purposes of exposure monitoring or 

medical-surveillance. Northrup 

Grumman Newport News (Ex. 3–1) 

expressed:

OSHA should not continue to require that 

social security numbers be used as identifiers 

in employee exposure records. Widespread 

personal security concern associated with 

using them to identify individuals and 

records makes this practice unpopular and 

unnecessary in today’s environment. 

Many companies, including Northrop 

Grumman Newport News, have already 

implemented alternative employee 

identification systems to allay employee 

security concerns and are in the process of 

phasing-out routine use of social security 

numbers as identifiers. If OSHA were to 

continue to require the use of social security 

numbers, employers using alternative 

numbering systems would be forced to 

maintain redundant and more secure social 

security number systems. This would be 

unnecessarily cumbersome, would not 

provide added benefit to OSHA, employers 

or employees and would be a continued 

concern to employees worried about personal 

security issues.

Another commenter, Pinnacle West 

Capital Corporation (Ex. 4–7), stated:

We see no value in requiring monitoring 

records to include the social security number 

(SSN). Most employees, either ours or 

contractors are reluctant to give their SSN for 

privacy reasons. The only reason we were 

ever told that SSNs were necessary was for 

use in future epidemiological studies. We use 

our unique employee numbers for our 

workers. If needed for an epidemiological 

study, we could cross-reference the SSN from 

our employee numbers. That should be 

adequate to meet this need.

Finally, a few commenters recognized 

the need to identify employees for 

exposure monitoring and medicalsurveillance but suggested that some 

other identification system might be 

developed in the future (Ex. 3–26, 29; 4–

13). The American Chemistry Council 

(Ex. 3–29) indicated that it believed 

SSNs are the most effective means of 

tracking lifetime exposures to 

employees. ‘‘However, we also 

recognize potential privacy concerns 

within individual companies that may 

warrant further discussion and 

consideration. ACC would be interested 

in discussing alternatives with other 

stakeholders should OSHA convene 

such a group.’’ The International 

Chemical Workers Union (Ex. 4–13) 

indicated that it is concerned about 

identity theft and that a means must be 

found to both protect employees privacy 

and ensure continuity of records across 

time and across employers. 

Finally, the American Society of 

Safety Engineers (Ex. 4–11) remarked 

that employers should have the 

flexibility to use any system that enables 

accurate identification and tracking of 

employees for medical purposes. 

OSHA health standards require 

employers to keep social security 

numbers with monitoring and medical 

records which employers are required to 

retain. All employers have access to 

employee social security numbers for 

tax purposes. OSHA’s Access to 

Employee Exposure and Medical 

Records standard, 29 CFR 1910.1020, 

grants access to employee medical 

records only to the employee, those who 

the employee authorizes in writing to 

have access and to OSHA in 

circumstances requiring OSHA to 

rigorously protect the employee’s 

privacy. So there is no additional 

privacy concern created by having 

social security numbers included in the 

medical records beyond that already 

existing in the employers use of the 

social security numbers for payroll and 

tax purposes. 

Access to employee exposure records 

is similar except that a collective 

bargaining agent for an employee does 

have access to the monitoring data for 

employees. That assists collective 

bargaining agents to negotiate on 

employee health protection issues. 

However, there is no requirement and 

no need for an employer to attach social 

security numbers to employee exposure 

records it intends to post or provide to 

anyone other than the employee whose 

record it is. 

OSHA is not taking action in this final 

rule concerning the use of SSNs in the 

various health standards. OSHA 

believes that all commenters have raised 

significant concerns and that it will 

need to investigate this issue in greater 

detail. 

First Aid 

One commenter (Ex. 3–20), the 

American Heart Association, responded 

to the proposal with a request to 

eliminate or revise the OSHA Directive 

CPL–2–2.53, Guidelines for First Aid 

Training Programs. The request to revise 

the OSHA Directive is not a part of 

rulemaking and therefore has not been 

considered in this final rule. 

III. Legal Considerations

The Agency concludes that the final 

rule does not reduce the employee 

protections put into place by the rules 

being revised. There is no change in 

exposure limits or action levels. There 

1128 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

are no reductions in respiratory 

protection, personal protective 

equipment or industrial hygiene 

provisions. There is therefore no change 

in risk and no need to determine 

significant risk, or the extent to which 

the proposed rule would reduce or 

increase that risk, as would be required 

by Industrial Union Department, AFL–

CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 

448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court 

ruling applying to standards addressing 

new hazards, setting more stringent 

standards, or reducing employee 

protection. Accordingly, no further 

analysis of significant risk is necessary 

as that has already been determined 

when OSHA issued the underlying 

standards. 

A number of the amendments made 

by this rule change medical and 

monitoring provisions. These changes 

are covered by Sect. 6(b)(7) of the OSH 

Act. 

IV. Final Economic Analysis 

OSHA has determined that this final 

rule is not an economically significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866. E.O. 12866 requires 

regulatory agencies to conduct an 

economic analysis for rules that meet 

certain criteria. The most frequently 

used criterion under E.O. 12866 is that 

the rule will impose annual costs on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Neither the benefits nor the costs of this 

rule exceed $100 million. OSHA has 

provided OMB’s Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs with this 

assessment of the costs, benefits and 

alternatives, as required by section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866. 

OSHA has also determined that the 

final rule is not a major rule under the 

Congressional Review provisions of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996, 

requires OSHA to determine whether 

the Agency’s regulatory actions will 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

OSHA’s analysis, based on the analysis 

in this section of the preamble as well 

as the later section ‘‘OMB Review Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below, 

indicates that the final rule will not 

have significant impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities. Indeed, the 

final standard reduces the costs and 

paperwork on all affected entities, 

including small businesses. The rule 

benefits small entities by reducing costs 

and paperwork. 

The final standard deletes or revises 

a number of provisions in existing 

OSHA standards. The reasons for these 

changes are presented and discussed in 

subsections A through N in the 

Summary and Explanation of this 

preamble above. Most of the provisions 

delete requirements that the Agency has 

concluded are unnecessary to protect 

employee health. Some of the 

provisions provide greater flexibility in 

complying with requirements or reduce 

reporting requirements that have proved 

to have little if any value in protecting 

worker health. One provision updates a 

reference to a current consensus 

standard (for first aid kits) and another 

corrects a technical error in 

requirements for evaluating x-rays for 

lung cancer. 

The final rule is technologically 

feasible because it reduces or eliminates 

current requirements on employers. The 

Agency considered regulatory and nonregulatory alternatives to the final rule. 

Because every final provision reduces 

requirements or provides flexibility to 

employers by revising current 

standards, non-regulatory alternatives 

are not an appropriate remedy to affect 

those changes. As discussed in the 

Summary and Explanation section 

above, the Agency considered 

alternatives to amending the several 

ancillary provisions. In most cases, the 

Agency chose to revise older ancillary 

provisions to make them consistent with 

standards more recently promulgated by 

the Agency. In some cases, the final 

standard provided more flexibility in 

the way information is communicated to 

employees or the Agency. All of the 

final provisions were intended to reduce 

burden on employers—or provide 

flexibility—while maintaining necessary 

protections for employee health. 

This Final Economic Analysis 

provides estimates of the cost savings 

resulting from the final standard. All of 

the changes OSHA is making are 

expected to reduce employers’ costs of 

compliance. The revised standard 

eliminates or reduces requirements for 

many ‘‘ancillary’’ provisions, provides 

greater flexibility for compliance for 

others, or reduces paperwork/reporting 

requirements. For most of these 

changes, economic benefits can be 

quantified. Where revisions have only 

provided greater flexibility for 

compliance, the Agency has not 

calculated any cost savings. 

The Agency received several 

comments in response to the proposal 

that asserted that the proposed 

standards would weaken employee 

protection (e.g., AFL–CIO, Ex. 3–27). 

However, as discussed above in the 

Summary and Explanation section, the 

Agency has concluded that the final 

standards do not reduce protection for 

employees. Amending the ancillary 

provisions of older standards will make 

them consistent with the industrial 

hygiene and surveillance practices of 

more recent standards. 

The Agency received only a few 

comments on the estimates of cost 

savings from the proposed standards. A 

comment from the International 

Chemical Workers Union (Ex. 4–13) 

asserted that some cost savings were 

‘‘minimal’’ or that some of the 

provisions were only a ‘‘minimal 

burden on employers,’’ but did not offer 

any corrections to the Agency’s 

estimates or provide new estimates.

The AN [Acrylonitrile] Group said 

that the Agency had ‘‘grossly 

underestimated the time and costburden [savings]’’ resulting from the 

final standard. As an example, the AN 

Group cites the costs of reporting an 

emergency to OSHA [29 CFR 

1910.1045(d)(2)]. OSHA estimates the 

cost that will be saved by the final 

standard as an hour’s time each for a 

manager and a secretary to prepare the 

notification of an emergency. But the 

AN Group suggests that actual 

paperwork costs should include 

assessing whether an event qualifies as 

an emergency, including time for groups 

of professionals to meet. The Agency 

has concluded that its existing 

regulation does not require such a 

complex determination. Although that 

saving may be real for some employers, 

it is not required or necessarily implied 

by the standard and the Agency is not 

revising the cost saving estimate for that 

provision in the final standard. 

Dow Chemical (Ex. 3–13) stated that 

the Agency’s estimates of cost savings 

for reduced sampling frequencies was 

underestimated. According to Dow, the 

Agency should include the cost of ‘‘prework time’’ it takes for exposure 

monitoring. Pre-work time would 

include: identifying employees at work 

that day; setting up times for 

monitoring; determining the number of 

samples to be taken; ordering badges 

(for vinyl chloride, in this instance); 

internal analysis of the sampling results; 

and written reports. Accordingly, the 

Agency has revised the model in 

‘‘Provision F’’ below, which estimates 

the cost [savings] for exposure 

monitoring for vinyl chloride and 

acrylonitrile. 

The Agency estimates that the final 

standard will result in total annual cost 

savings of $6.8 million (see table below). 

(The estimates in this Final Economic 

Analysis may differ slightly from the 

estimates in the Paperwork Reduction 

Analysis below because of rounding.) 

Because this rule provides only cost 

savings, and no new costs on employers, 

it is economically feasible. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1129

The following paragraphs discuss the 

methodology of the analysis and the 

estimates of cost (saving) for specific 

provisions.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST SAVINGS DUE TO THE STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT—PHASE 2 

Provisions A through N (as set out in the Summary and Explanation) Annual cost

savings ($) 

A § 1910.42, Temporary Labor Camps ............................................................................................................................................... 0 

B § 1910.151(b), Reference to First Aid Supplies in Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 0 

C § 1910.268, First Aid Supplies Telecom .......................................................................................................................................... 5,618 

D § 1910.1003(f)(2) Incident Reports, 13 Carcinogens ....................................................................................................................... 27,286 

E § 1910.1017(k)(6), Vinyl Chloride ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 

F: 

§ 1910.1017(d)(2)(i), Exposure Monitoring, Vinyl Chloride .......................................................................................................... 66,024 

§ 1910.1017(d)(2)(ii), Exposure Monitoring, Vinyl Chloride ......................................................................................................... 17,554 

§ 1910.1044(f)(3)(i) & f(3)(ii), Exposure Monitoring, 1,2–DBCP .................................................................................................. 0 

§ 1910.1045(e)(3)(ii), Exposure Monitoring, Acrylonitrile ............................................................................................................. 160,455 

F Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 244,033 

G: 

§ 1915.1001(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods, Asbestos Removal ................................................................................................. 39 

§ 1926.1101(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods, Asbestos Removal ................................................................................................. 39 

G Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................................. 78 

H: 

§ 1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A), ILO/UC Rating, Inorganic Arsenic ......................................................................................................... 0 

§ 1910.1029(j)(2)(ii), ILO/UC Rating, Coke Oven Emissions ....................................................................................................... 0 

I: 

§ 1910.1001(1)(7)(i), Signed Opinion, Asbestos. ......................................................................................................................... 0 

§ 1910.1027(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium Gen. Industry ................................................................................................. 0 

§ 1926.1127(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium Con. Industry ................................................................................................. 0 

J: 

§ 1910.1017(k)(2)(i), Semiannual Medical Exams, Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................... 31,064 

§ 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), Semiannual Medical Exams, Inorganic Arsenic ........................................................................................ 157,005 

§ 1910.1029(j)(3)(ii–iii), Semiannual Medical Exams, Coke Oven emissions .............................................................................. 621,053 

J Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 809,122 

K: 

§ 1910.1044(d), Notifying OSHA Regarding Regulated Areas, 1,2–DBCP ................................................................................. 0 

§ 1910.1003(f)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding Regulated Areas, 13 Carcinogens ...................................................................... 5,457 

§ 1910.1017(n)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding Regulated Areas, Vinyl Chloride ........................................................................ 671 

§ 1910.1018(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding Regulated Areas, Inorganic Arsenic ................................................................... 117 

§ 1910.1045(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding Regulated Areas, Acrylonitrile ............................................................................ 647 

K Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6,892 

L: 

§ 1910.1017(n)(2) Reporting Emergencies, Vinyl Chloride .......................................................................................................... 22,504 

§ 1910.1045(d)(2) Reporting Emergencies, Acrylonitrile .............................................................................................................. 2,588 

L Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25,091 

M: 

§ 1910.1017(f)(3) Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, Vinyl Chloride ................................................................................ 7,614 

§ 1910.1018(g)(2)(iv), Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, Inorganic Arsenic ................................................................... 2,284 

§ 1910.1029(f)(6)(iv), Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, Coke Oven Emissions ............................................................ 1,332 

§ 1910.1044(e)(3)(iv), Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, 1,2–DCBP .............................................................................. 0 

§ 1910.1045(g)(2)(ii), Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, Acrylonitrile ............................................................................. 448 

§ 1926.1025(e)(2)(v), Semiannual Updating Compliance Plans, Lead, Con ............................................................................... 4,210,054 

M Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4,221,732 

N: 

§ 1910.1017(n)(3) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Vinyl Chloride .................................................................... 2,741 

§ 1910.1018(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Inorganic Arsenic ........................................................... 9,393 

§ 1910.1025(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Lead, Gen Ind ................................................................ 891,293 

§ 1910.1027(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Gen Ind ........................................................ 50,341 

§ 1910.1029(e)(3)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Coke Oven ..................................................................... 25,765 

§ 1910.1043(d)(4)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Cotton Dust .................................................................... 68,102 

§ 1910.1044(f)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, 1,2–DBCP ....................................................................... 0 

§ 1910.1045(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Acryonitrile ..................................................................... 8,255 

§ 1926.62(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Lead Construction .............................................................. 494,063 

§ 1926.1127(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Con ............................................................... 27,189 

N Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,454,431 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6,794,283 

1130 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Methodology 

This section describes OSHA’s 

development of the annual cost 

(savings) for the provisions of the final 

standard. For the purposes of this Final 

Economic Analysis, one-time or 

intermittent costs have been annualized 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, as 

required by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

[Reference 1], over a specified period of 

time using the formula:

a = (i × (1 + i)\n\)/((1 + i)\n\¥1), [‘‘\n\’’

in the formula means raised to the 

nth power], where 

a = annualization factor, 

i = discount rate, and 

n = economic life of the one-time or 

intermittent investment

OSHA uses average hourly earnings, 

including benefits, to represent the cost 

of employee time. For the relevant 

occupational categories, mean hourly 

earnings from the Year 2000 National 

Compensation Survey by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics have been adjusted to 

reflect the fact that fringe benefits 

comprise about 27.1 percent of total 

employee compensation in the private 

sector (Reference 2). (Straight-line 

hourly wages and salaries were 

estimated to be 72.9 percent of total 

compensation in 2000. Total 

compensation including benefits for 

workers with hourly wages of $13.41 

would be $13.41/.729 = $18.40). The 

costs of labor used in this analysis are 

therefore estimates of total hourly 

compensation. These average hourly 

costs are: $38.92 for managers; $27.39 

for production supervisors; $24.68 for 

chemical technicians; $18.40 for 

production workers; and $17.34 for 

clerical workers. 

Estimates of the number of 

establishments and the number of 

employees affected by the final standard 

are from a statement in support of 

information collection requirements 

(ICR) or from an economic analysis. The 

number of employees affected and their 

hourly total wages are used to calculate 

costs. The changes in existing standards 

made by the final Standards 

Improvement Project-Phase II pertain to 

approval of equipment, reporting 

incidents, exposure monitoring, 

laboratory analysis, medical 

examinations, and employee 

notification requirements. 

Most of the provisions in the final 

standard reduce costs related to a 

percentage of affected employees in the 

industry and the number of labor hours 

required to monitor a specific activity. 

Usually, the frequency of an activity, the 

number of employees requiring the 

activity, and the cost of the activity per 

employee were used to arrive at the 

estimated costs. In some instances, the 

costs of the activity were calculated 

according to the number of affected 

establishments. 

A. Temporary Labor Camps 

Paragraph 1910.142(l)(2) requires that 

the camp superintendent immediately 

report the outbreak of certain diseases to 

the local health authority ‘‘by telegram 

or telephone.’’ OSHA believes that 

because other forms of communication 

are readily available, the requirement 

for notification via ‘‘telegram or 

telephone’’ is unnecessarily restrictive. 

Thus, the Agency proposed deleting the 

requirements specifying notification by 

telegram or telephone. The final 

standard does not delete the language as 

proposed, but allows other means, thus 

permitting more flexibility in reporting. 

The Agency has not calculated the value 

of such savings. 

B. Reference to First Aid Supplies in 

Appendix A to the Standard on Medical 

Services and First Aid 

Paragraph 1910.151(b) in the Agency’s 

standard regulating medical services 

and first aid supplies, requires 

employers to ensure that adequate first 

aid supplies be readily available in the 

workplace. OSHA added a nonmandatory appendix to this standard in 

a recent rulemaking (63 FR 33460) to 

help employers meet this requirement. 

OSHA proposed to update this 

appendix. OSHA has updated the 

appendix in the final rule. This revision 

would not impose any additional cost 

on employers because Appendix A is 

non-mandatory. 

C. First Aid Supplies in the 

Telecommunications Standard 

The final rule revises paragraph 

1910.268(b)(3) of OSHA’s 

telecommunications standard that 

requires an employer to: provide first 

aid supplies recommended by a 

consulting physician; ensure that the 

items are readily accessible and housed 

in weatherproof containers if used 

outdoors; and inspect the items at least 

once a month and replace expended 

items. The Agency is revising the 

paragraph to read, ‘‘Employers must 

provide employees with readily 

accessible, adequate, and appropriate 

first aid supplies. A non-mandatory 

example of appropriate supplies is 

listed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 

1910.151.’’

The final rule eliminates the existing 

requirements in paragraph 

1910.268(b)(3) that employers must 

have certain first aid supplies approved 

by a consulting physician before they 

are used. This requirement applied only 

in cases where no infirmary, clinic, or 

hospital was in close proximity to the 

worksite and the employer intended to 

treat first-aid injuries at the site. OSHA’s 

analysis here relies on the assumptions 

in the Final Economic Analysis in an 

earlier rulemaking (63 FR 33461). Based 

on the ICR to that rulemaking, the 

Agency estimates that 10 percent of the 

establishments would meet these 

criteria. OSHA also estimates that 5 

minutes of a physician’s time, valued at 

$100/hr ($8.33 for five minutes), would 

be required to approve the contents of 

the first aid kit at these establishments. 

The opportunity cost is estimated by the 

market price for occupational physical 

exams; i.e. at the rate of about $100 per 

hour. 

OSHA assumes that the physician 

would need to approve the first aid 

supplies once every 10 years, 

considering the possibility of the 

development of new kinds of medical 

supplies and of new hazards at the 

worksite. The cost of 5 minutes of a 

physician’s time annualized over a 10-

year period at 7 percent interest is $1.19 

per year (5/60 × $100 × annualization 

factor of 0.1424). The Agency estimates 

that there were approximately 47,217 

employers in the telecommunications 

industry in 1998 [County Business 

Patterns, 1998]. The major sector in the 

telecommunications industry is 

telephone communications, which 

consists of establishments that operate 

both wireline and wireless networks. 

The wireline networks use wires and 

cables to connect customers’ premises to 

central offices maintained by the 

telecommunications companies. The 

wireless networks on the other hand 

operate through the transmission of 

signals over networks of radio towers 

and communications satellites [Career 

Guide to Industries 2000–01 Edition, 

Telecommunications (SIC’s 481, 482, 

489)]. Since first aid supplies have to be 

approved once every 10 years, each year 

approximately 10 percent of the 

establishments incur costs to comply 

with the current requirement. Thus, 

current annualized cost is 

approximately $5,618 ((47,217 × 10 

percent) × $1.19). Eliminating the 

requirement for a physician’s approval 

of an establishment’s first aid kit would 

eliminate this annual burden of $5,603. 

D. 13 Carcinogens 

The final rule deletes paragraph 

1910.1003(f)(2) that requires reporting of 

releases of a regulated carcinogen to the 

nearest OSHA Area Director. Deleting 

this provision results in a savings in 

burden hours and associated costs. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1131

Based on the ICR, the Agency 

estimates that reportable incidents occur 

once per year at each facility and that 

about 97 employers fall under OSHA 

jurisdiction and will be affected by the 

rule. A manager and a clerical worker 

will each take 5 hours to collect 

information and to report a release of a 

regulated carcinogen to the nearest 

OSHA Area Director, for a total of 10 

hours per employer. Thus, 970 burden 

hours are attributed to this provision 

(485 burden hours each by a manager 

and a clerk), at an annual cost of 

$27,286. Annual cost savings are 

obtained by multiplying 485 burden 

hours by each wage rate and adding the 

products [485 hours × ($38.92 + $17.34 

per hour)]. By eliminating the 

requirement to report releases of a 

regulated carcinogen to the nearest 

OSHA Area Director, OSHA will 

eliminate annual cost burdens to 

employers of $27,286. 

E. Vinyl Chloride 

Paragraph 1910.1017(k)(6) of the vinyl 

chloride standard specifies that 

laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public 

Health Service (PHS) under 42 CFR part 

74 (‘‘Clinical laboratories’’) must 

analyze biological samples collected 

during medical examinations. However, 

42 CFR part 74 is outdated, and the PHS 

now addresses laboratory licensing 

requirements under 42 CFR part 493 

(‘‘Laboratory requirements’’). The 

Agency proposed to delete the reference 

to 42 CFR part 74 from paragraph (k)(6) 

of this standard. However, the Agency is 

replacing this outdated requirement 

with a requirement that employers use 

accredited laboratories for the medical 

tests required under the vinyl chloride 

standard. This change should provide 

employers with greater choice in 

laboratories while ensuring that 

qualified laboratories are used for 

required medical tests. The Agency had 

made no estimates of cost savings for 

this revision in the existing standards. 

F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure 

Monitoring 

Several of the Agency’s older 

standards retain provisions that require 

employers to monitor employee 

exposures either monthly or quarterly, 

depending on the concentration of the 

toxic substance found in the workplace. 

These include: paragraphs 

1910.1017(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of the 

vinyl chloride standard, requiring 

employers to conduct exposure 

monitoring each month if employees’

exposure are above the permissible 

exposure limit (PEL), and quarterly if 

employee exposures are above the 

action level (AL); paragraphs 

1910.1044(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the 1,2-

dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 

standard, requiring exposure monitoring 

quarterly if employee exposures are 

below the PEL, and monthly if 

employee exposures exceed the PEL; 

and paragraphs 1910.1045(e)(3)(ii) and 

(e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard, 

requiring quarterly monitoring for 

employees exposed at or above the AL, 

but below the PEL, and each month for 

employees exposed above the PEL.

For substance-specific standards 

published more recently by the Agency 

subsequent to these three standards, the 

most frequent exposure monitoring 

requirement is semiannually if 

employee exposures are at or above the 

AL, and quarterly if they are above the 

PEL. OSHA is amending the exposure 

monitoring requirements in the older 

standards because they are inconsistent 

with the exposure monitoring protocols 

established by OSHA in its later 

substance-specific standards. OSHA 

believes consistency among standards 

will improve compliance levels thereby 

improving worker protection. OSHA is 

requiring that employers conduct 

exposure monitoring quarterly if the 

results of initial exposure monitoring 

show that the employee exposures are 

above the PEL, and semiannually if 

these results are at or above the AL. 

OSHA has concluded that revision of 

paragraphs 1910.1044(f)(3)(i) and 

(f)(3)(ii) of the standard regulating 

DBCP, would have no effect on cost or 

burden hours since no U.S. employers 

currently produce DBCP-based end 

products. 

For purposes of the below analysis, 

the Agency assumes that exposure 

monitoring is done with an active 

sampling method; that is, with typical 

industrial hygiene sampling pumps and 

collection tubes. Passive vapor badges 

are available for the two substances in 

question, and the PEA referred to 

sampling with them, but the Agency has 

not been able to ascertain that passive 

monitoring meets the standards’

requirements for accuracy for single 

samples. To be conservative—to not 

underestimate the potential burden—the 

Agency assumes sampling with a 

method whose accuracy is known. This 

economic analysis relies on the 

following assumptions of employee 

exposure to vinyl chloride and 

acrylonitrile: the Agency estimates, 

based on OSHA sampling data in its 

IMIS database, that 1 percent of all 

employees are exposed between the AL 

and the permissible exposure level 

(PEL), and another 1 percent are 

exposed above the PEL; sampling of 

employee exposures is conducted with 

active sampling methods, i.e. personal 

air pumps and cassettes with 

appropriate collection media for the 

substance; and laboratory analysis of 

collected samples is performed by a 

commercial laboratory. 

In its Preliminary Economic Analysis 

(PEA), the Agency estimated that a 

supervisor, who earns $27.39 per hour, 

will spend 5 minutes to administer, and 

5 minutes to collect, each vapor badge, 

for a total of 0.17 hour; and a clerical 

worker, earning $17.34 per hour, will 

spend 5 minutes (.08 hour) to maintain 

each record of a monitoring event. In a 

written comment on this rulemaking, 

Dow Chemical (Ex. 3–13) pointed out 

that there are significant other activities 

needed to perform exposure monitoring 

besides these identified by the Agency. 

In addition, the Agency, in concurrence 

with the Office of Management and 

Budget, currently includes all costs of 

exposure monitoring as paperwork 

costs, viewing the entire activity as a 

‘‘collection of information’’—not just 

the function of recordkeeping. The 

existing paperwork burden is based only 

on gathering the information to form a 

permanent record, as noted at the 

beginning of this paragraph. In contrast, 

the new estimate here includes an 

average of 1 hour for a technician to 

collect, process, and record sampling 

data. 

The final rule revises paragraph 

1910.1017(d)(2)(i) of the vinyl chloride 

standard to require quarterly rather than 

monthly exposure monitoring if past 

employee exposures have been above 

the PEL. In the PEA, the Agency 

estimated that there are 131 employees 

who are currently monitored monthly 

who will now be monitored quarterly. 

The Agency estimates that a technician 

spends, on average, 60 minutes for each 

employee sampled, which includes 

planning activities, affixing pumps, 

gathering sample cassettes, sending 

tubes or cassettes for laboratory 

analysis, and recording the results into 

a permanent record. The Agency doesn’t 

believe there is any significant loss of 

employee time from production 

activities. Thus, for each employee 

sampled, the cost of the collection 

media and analysis and technician’s 

time is about $67 ($43 for the collection 

media and lab analysis, about $24 in 

technician’s time). When an estimated 

131 employees are sampled monthly the 

annual cost is $105,324. When sampled 

quarterly the estimated annual cost is 

$39,300. The final standard will reduce 

annual employer costs by $66,024. 

The final rule also revises paragraph 

1910.1017(d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride 

standard to require semiannual rather 

than quarterly exposure monitoring if 

exposure is at or above the AL. In the 

1132 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

PEA the Agency estimated that there are 

131 employees who must be monitored 

twice a year rather than 4 times. Under 

the existing standard, using the same 

unit cost and time estimates from the 

paragraph above, employers currently 

expend an estimated $31,618 on 

quarterly exposure monitoring that 

would be reduced by one-half to 

$17,554 under the final standard. Cost 

savings would also be $17,554. 

The final paragraphs 

1910.1045(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the 

acrylonitrile standard parallel the 

changes in exposure monitoring 

requirements to vinyl chloride, above. 

The final standard requires semiannual 

monitoring if employee exposures were 

at or above the AL, and quarterly 

monitoring if these exposures were 

above the PEL. The existing standard 

requires monthly monitoring if above 

the PEL and quarterly monitoring if 

above the AL. In the PEA, the Agency 

estimated that there are 314 employees 

who require monitoring and that each 

exposure monitoring sample represents 

the exposures of 2 employees (i.e. on 

average, there are 2 employees involved 

in the same or similar tasks). These 

estimates are based on the Supporting 

Statement for the Information Collection 

Requirements of the Acrylonitrile (AN) 

Standard (29 CFR 1910.1045), OMB 

#1218–0126 (2000), p. 16. The Agency 

estimates that a technician (wage 

$24.68) spends, on average, 60 minutes 

for each employee sampled, which 

includes planning activities, affixing 

pumps and cassettes, gathering and 

sending cassettes for analysis, and 

recording the results into a permanent 

record. The Agency doesn’t believe 

there is any significant loss of employee 

time from production activities. Tubes 

or cassettes and laboratory analysis cost 

$64 each. (The Agency neglected to 

include the costs of collection media 

and laboratory analysis for acrylonitrile 

in the PEA.) Thus, for each employee 

sampled, the cost is estimated to be 

about $88 (tube and laboratory analysis 

$64 and technician’s wage $24.68). 

When one-half of the estimated 314 

employees are sampled monthly, the 

cost is $165,792; when sampled 

quarterly the estimated cost is $55,264. 

The final standard will thus reduce 

employer costs by $110,528 by requiring 

quarterly rather than monthly sampling 

where employee exposures are over the 

PEL.

Where the final standard reduces 

exposure monitoring from quarterly to 

semi-annually for employees above the 

AL but below the PEL, the Agency 

estimates that the current burden for 

563 employees to be sampled is $99,854 

and will be reduced to $49,927, thereby 

reducing the current burden by $49,927. 

The total reduction in burden due to the 

final acrylonitrile standard is $160,455. 

G. Alternative Control Methods for Class 

I Asbestos Removal 

OSHA is deleting provisions in 

OSHA’s asbestos standards for shipyard 

employment and for construction 

(paragraphs 1915.1001(g)(6)(iii) and 

1926.1101(g)(6)(iii), respectively) that 

require that employers submit, to the 

Directorate of Technical Support, 

alternative control methods used to 

perform Class I asbestos work. OSHA 

has concluded that this requirement is 

unnecessary because it has not been 

used and that both the private sector 

and OSHA have substantial expertise in 

this area. Current OSHA regulatory 

policy requires that paperwork 

provisions such as this requirement, 

demonstrate a benefit to employees or 

serve some other useful regulatory 

purpose. 

To submit alternative control methods 

to the Directorate of Technical Support, 

OSHA estimates would require 1 hour 

and cost $39. These estimates are based 

on the assumption that OSHA would 

receive 7 notifications from employers 

who choose new or modified control 

technology to reduce exposure in Class 

I asbestos for shipyards. A manager, 

earning $38.92 per hour, would spend 

on average 10 minutes to develop and 

transmit the information to the Agency 

for each employer. Thus removing this 

requirement would result in annual cost 

savings of $39. 

For the construction asbestos 

standard, OSHA again assumes the 

Agency would receive 7 notifications 

from employers who choose new or 

modified control technology to reduce 

exposures in Class I asbestos work. 

OSHA estimates a manager, earning 

$38.92 an hour, would need 10 minutes 

to develop and transmit the information 

to OSHA. Thus, 1 burden hour would be 

spent, at a cost of $39, to submit 

alternative method information to 

OSHA. 

H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the 

ILO U/C Rating 

OSHA is amending paragraph 

1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A) of the inorganic 

arsenic standard and paragraph 

1910.1029(j)(2)(ii) of the coke oven 

emissions standard. These provisions 

require that employees’ chest x-rays 

receive an International Labor Office 

UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. 

Subsequent to the promulgation of these 

provisions, the Agency received 

information from two physicians that 

the ILO U/C rating is not the most 

appropriate standard for evaluating 

chest x-rays for lung cancer (discussed 

above). Based on this information, 

OSHA believes that the ILO U/C rating 

is not a suitable method to use in 

evaluating chest x-rays for lung cancer. 

Therefore, the Agency is removing the 

ILO U/C rating requirements specified 

in the inorganic arsenic and coke oven 

emissions standards, thereby permitting 

the examining physician to determine 

the most effective procedure for 

evaluating these chest x-rays. Deleting 

the ILO/UC rating would provide cost 

savings since it allows the examining 

physician to determine the most 

effective procedure for evaluating chest 

x-rays. However, the Agency has not 

calculated the value of such savings. 

I. Signed Medical Opinions 

Paragraph 1910.1001(l)(7)(i) of the 

asbestos standard and paragraphs 

(l)(10)(i) of the cadmium standard for 

general industry, 29 CFR 1910.1027, and 

for construction, 29 CFR 1926.1127, 

require that the examining physician 

sign the written medical opinion 

provided as part of the medical 

surveillance requirements of these 

standards. The preamble to the 

cadmium standards states that ‘‘the 

requirement that the physician sign the 

opinion is to ensure that the information 

that is given to the employer has been 

seen and read by the physician and that 

the physician has personally 

determined whether the employee may 

continue to work in cadmium-exposed 

jobs’’ (57 FR 42366). No other 

substance-specific standard 

promulgated by OSHA requires a signed 

medical opinion. 

The Agency believes that the 

requirement to sign a medical opinion 

written by a physician is unnecessary, 

precludes electronic transmission of the 

opinion from the physician to the 

employer, and provides no benefit to 

employees. Accordingly, OSHA is 

removing this requirement from these 

paragraphs. 

Removal of the requirement that a 

physician sign the written medical 

opinion provided as part of the medical 

surveillance requirement of these 

standards provides more flexibility. 

OSHA has not estimated the cost 

savings. 

J. Semiannual Medical Examinations 

The Agency’s final standard replaces 

a requirement for semiannual medical 

exams in three standards (vinyl 

chloride, arsenic, and coke ovens) with 

a requirement for an annual medical 

examination. This analysis presents the 

burden hours and costs associated with 

the current provisions and the estimates 

of cost savings of the final standard. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1133

The final standard’s revision of a 

semiannual requirement for medical 

examinations to annual one would 

generate annual cost savings from 

several sources: less employee time; 

fewer medical examinations; and less 

clerical time providing the physicians’

opinions to the affected employees and 

maintaining medical records.

Based on estimates in the vinyl 

chloride ICR of the number of facilities, 

the number of employees per facility, 

and the distribution of employee 

exposures, OSHA estimates that 890 

burden hours are incurred for medical 

surveillance under the semiannual 

examination requirement, with 183 

employees monitored twice a year for 2 

hours and 79 employees once a year for 

2 hours at a cost of $16,376 (890 hours 

× $18.40, the wage rate of a production 

worker). With annual examinations, 

OSHA estimates that 324 burden hours 

would be required, as 262 employees 

would be monitored only once a year, 

taking 2 hours. The cost would be 

$9,642 (524 hours × $18.40). Annual 

savings of $6,734 would result. 

The revision from semiannual to 

annual medical examinations would 

result in annual savings of $23,790 in 

the cost of the medical examinations 

themselves, at $130 per examination, as 

183 employees would have only one, as 

opposed to two, medical examinations 

per year. The change in frequency from 

semiannual to annual medical 

examinations also reduces the number 

of hours of clerical time required from 

76 to 45, resulting in annual savings of 

$539. 

When annual savings are summed for 

the cost of employees’ time ($6,734), 

medical examinations ($23,790), and 

clerical costs of medical records ($539), 

the revision of the vinyl chloride 

standard generates annual savings of 

$31,064. 

The final rule revises the semiannual 

medical examination to an annual 

requirement in the arsenic standard, 

paragraph 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), for 

employees who are 45 years old or older 

with 10 or more years of exposure to 

inorganic arsenic above the AL. OSHA 

assumes each examination would take 

one hour and forty minutes and that 50 

percent of the 1,900 employees who 

now would require two examinations 

per year would undergo only one. 

Requiring only one annual medical 

examination would save about 1,587 

hours in employee time away from the 

job. Thus, replacing semiannual medical 

examinations with annual medical 

examinations would result in annual 

savings of about 1,662 burden hours and 

$29,192 (about 1,587 burden hours at 

$18.40/per hour). 

The change in frequency from 

semiannual to annual contributes 

$123,500 in annual cost savings for the 

medical examinations themselves, at 

$130 per exam. Semiannual medical 

examinations cost $413,920 while 

annual medical examinations would 

cost an estimated $284,570. In addition, 

the clerical costs of medical records 

would drop by $4,313 (from $13,803 to 

$9,489). Total annual savings resulting 

from revision of the inorganic arsenic 

standard would be $157,005 ($123,500 + 

$29,192 + $4,313) and would consist of 

savings in costs of employees’ time, 

medical examinations, and clerical time 

for medical records. 

The final rule revises the semiannual 

medical examinations requirement to 

annual medical examinations in the 

coke oven standard, paragraph 

1910.1029(j)(3)(i), for employees who 

are 45 years of age or older with five or 

more years of exposure in regulated 

areas. Employees will receive annual 

urinary cytology examinations as part of 

the annual examination. The final 

standard would generate annual cost 

savings in employees’ time, medical 

examinations, and physicians’ medical 

opinions. Based on the ICR, medical 

examinations currently require 14,903 

burden hours as 84 percent of the 4,600 

employees who work in regulated areas 

require semiannual medical 

examinations, 16 percent require an 

annual medical examination, and 10 

percent require an additional medical 

examination per year. Each examination 

requires an employee to be away from 

his or her job for 1 hour and 40 minutes, 

at $18.40 per hour, for a total annual 

cost of $274,217. Under the final 

standard, annual medical examinations 

would require 8,450 burden hours at a 

cost of $155,484. Cost savings in 

employees’ time would thus be 

$118,733. 

At a cost of $130 per medical 

examination and $50 for urinary 

cytology examinations per employee, 

replacing semiannual medical 

examinations (estimated cost of 

$1,425,384) with annual medical 

examinations (estimated cost of 

$933,064) would result in annual cost 

savings of $502,320. There would be no 

savings in clerical costs of medical 

records. OSHA estimates that revision of 

the coke oven standard would result in 

annual cost savings of $621,053. 

K. Notification of Regulated Areas 

The final rule deletes the ‘‘13 

carcinogens’’ provision, paragraph 

1910.1003(f)(1), that requires employers 

to notify the nearest OSHA Area 

Director of newly established regulated 

areas. Deleting this provision results in 

savings in burden hours and associated 

costs. As in the ICR, OSHA assumes that 

changes in operations requiring a report 

to the nearest OSHA Area Director 

currently occur once a year per facility 

and require 1 hour each of managerial 

and clerical time, a total of 2 hours per 

employer, to report the necessary 

information. OSHA estimates that 97 

employers would be affected. Burden 

hours are thus estimated to total 194 

hours to report the information. The 

cost is estimated to be $5,457 (97 

employers × ($38.92 × 1 hour + $17.34 

× 1 hour)), where $38.92 is the wage rate 

of a manager and $17.34 is the wage rate 

of a clerical worker. Thus, savings due 

to deleting this provision are estimated 

to be 194 burden hours and $5,457. 

The final rule would eliminate the 

vinyl chloride provision, paragraph 

1910.1017(n)(1), that requires employers 

to notify the nearest OSHA Area 

Director of the establishment of 

regulated areas. Based on the ICR, the 

Agency estimates that 13 new regulated 

areas are established each year and that 

a manager, at an hourly rate of $38.92, 

takes 15 minutes (0.25 hour) to notify 

the Area Director of the address of the 

establishment and the number of 

employees in a new regulated area. 

Thus, for new regulated areas, OSHA 

estimates a current burden of 3.25 hours 

at a cost of $126. 

For existing facilities, OSHA assumes 

that each employer experiences one 

change in a regulated area each year, 

and that a supervisor requires 10 

minutes (0.17 hour) to inform the Area 

Director of this change. OSHA estimates 

that there are 80 affected facilities, 

resulting in 14 burden hours and a cost 

of $545 (14 burden hours × $38.92). 

Total burden of the current rules, for 

new and existing facilities, is 17 hours, 

costing $671. 

The final rule deletes the requirement 

in the inorganic arsenic standard, 

paragraph 1910.1018(d)(1), that 

employers notify the nearest OSHA 

Area Director of the establishment of 

regulated areas. An OSHA report titled 

‘‘Sampling Activity by Substance’’

determined that 14.1 percent of 

establishments had inorganic arsenic 

exposures that exceeded the PEL. Based 

on the Agency’s estimate that 42 

facilities are covered by the standard, 

six facilities would have employees 

with inorganic arsenic exposures that 

exceed the PEL (14.1% × 42 = 6). OSHA 

assumes that these six employers have 

already notified the Agency about 

establishing regulated areas; therefore, 

only significant changes to existing 

regulated areas or establishments of new 

regulated areas must be reported to 

OSHA. The Agency assumes that one 

1134 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

significant change occurs in, or a new 

regulated area is added to, each of these 

facilities annually, and that a manager, 

earning $38.92 an hour, will take 30 

minutes (0.5 hours) to notify the Agency 

of the significant change or addition. 

Thus, OSHA estimates it would require 

three burden hours for six employers to 

notify the Area Director about 

establishment of regulated areas. 

Estimated cost would be $117 (three 

burden hours × $38.92 an hour). By 

deleting this provision, savings of three 

burden hours and $117 would be 

realized. 

The final rule deletes the provision in 

the acrylonitrile standard, paragraph 

1910.1045(d)(1), that requires employers 

to notify the nearest OSHA Area 

Director of the establishment of 

regulated areas. Since there are no new 

establishments, OSHA assumes that 

employers will not establish new 

regulated areas during this clearance 

period, and estimates that each of the 23 

facilities will make 1 significant change 

annually in a regulated area. The 

Agency estimates that reporting a 

significant change to the nearest OSHA 

Area Office currently takes a manager 

0.5 hour and a clerical worker 0.5 hour 

each, for a total of 1 hour for each of the 

23 facilities. Thus, it costs $647 for the 

23 facilities to report a significant 

change, at $38.92 an hour for a manager 

and $17.34 an hour for a clerical. 

Savings due to deleting this provision 

would thus be 23 burden hours and 

$647. 

L. Reporting Emergencies and Incidents 

The final rule deletes the provision in 

the vinyl chloride standard, paragraph 

1910.1017(n)(2), that requires employers 

to report emergencies and available facts 

regarding each emergency to the nearest 

OSHA Area Director. On request of the 

Area Director, the employer must 

submit additional information in 

writing describing the nature and extent 

of employee exposures and measures 

taken to prevent similar emergencies in 

the future. OSHA estimates that each 

employer experiences one reportable 

emergency per year and that a manager 

and a secretary will each spend five 

hours, for a total of 10 hours, reporting 

the emergency. OSHA assumes there are 

80 affected employers; a manager and a 

secretary would each spend 5 hours to 

report an emergency for a total of 800 

burden hours. The cost to the employers 

would be $22,504 (80 employees ×

($38.92 × 5 hours + $17.34 × 5 hours)), 

since a manager earns $38.92 an hour 

and a secretary earns $17.34 an hour. 

Hence, there would be savings of 800 

burden hours and $22,504 by deleting 

this provision.

The final rule deletes the provision in 

the acrylonitrile standard, paragraph 

1910.1045(d)(2), that requires employers 

to report an emergency to OSHA within 

72 hours and to provide additional 

information in writing to the nearest 

OSHA Area Office if requested to do so. 

OSHA estimates that 2 emergencies will 

occur in each facility annually, and that 

a professional and a secretary each 

require 1 hour for a total of 2 hours to 

compile and report the necessary 

information for each emergency. OSHA 

estimates 92 burden hours would be 

attributed to this provision because 23 

facilities would report two emergencies 

per year and a manager and a secretary 

would each spend 1 hour to compile 

and report the necessary information. 

The cost of this provision would be 

$2,588, since a manager earns $38.92 

per hour and a secretary earns $17.34 an 

hour. Savings due to deleting this 

requirement would be 92 burden hours, 

worth $2,588. 

M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance 

Plans 

The Agency’s substance-specific 

standards typically require employers to 

develop compliance plans to meet the 

exposure-control objectives of the 

standard. Most of these standards 

specify that employers must update 

these plans at least annually, and OSHA 

believes that annual updating is 

sufficient to ensure the continued 

effectiveness of the plans. However, 

several older substance-specific 

standards promulgated by the Agency 

require semiannual updating, including: 

vinyl chloride, paragraph 

1910.1017(f)(3); inorganic arsenic, 

paragraph 1910.1018(g)(2)(iv); lead, 

paragraph 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv); coke 

oven emissions, paragraph 

1910.1029(f)(6)(iv); 1,2-dibromo-3-

chloropropane (DBCP), paragraph 

1910.1044(g)(2)(ii); acrylonitrile, 

paragraph 1910.1045(g)(2)(v); and lead 

in the construction industry, paragraph 

1926.62(e)(2)(v). 

OSHA has concluded that for those 

older standards with a high degree of 

compliance, updating compliance plans 

semi-annually does not increase worker 

protection. Therefore, the Agency is 

revising its older substance-specific 

standards to require annual, instead of 

semiannual, updating of compliance 

plans. OSHA believes that making this 

requirement consistent across its 

standards, will further improve 

employer compliance. Accordingly, the 

final standard eliminates a significant 

paperwork requirement without 

reducing employee protection. The 

following discussion estimates the cost 

savings of this amendment. 

The final rule revises the vinyl 

chloride standard to require that 

employers update compliance plans at 

least annually, instead of semiannually. 

As in the ICR, the Agency estimates that 

semiannual updates require 480 burden 

hours (20 facilities, each needing eight 

hours from a manager and four hours 

from a secretary) to update the 

compliance plans, at a cost of $15,229. 

On average, a manager earns $38.92 an 

hour while a secretary earns $17.34 an 

hour. Annual updates on the other 

hand, would require 240 burden hours 

at a cost of $7,614. Thus, revising the 

standard to allow for annual updates of 

compliance plans instead of semiannual 

updates would result in savings of 

$7,614. 

Modifying the inorganic arsenic 

standard, 29 CFR 1910.1018, to require 

that employers update compliance plans 

at least annually likewise would reduce 

burden hours and cost. OSHA estimates 

there are six employers affected by this 

standard and that a manager and a 

secretary need 8 hours and 4 hours, 

respectively, to update the compliance 

plans. With semiannual updates, the 

standard would require 144 burden 

hours at a cost of $4,569. Revising the 

standard to require annual compliance 

updates would entail 72 burden hours at 

a cost of $2,284, thereby resulting in 

savings of $2,284. 

The final revision of the lead standard 

for general industry, paragraph 

1910.1025(e)(3)(iv), would reduce the 

frequency for updating the compliance 

plan from semiannually to annually for 

areas with exposures over the PEL. 

OSHA’s information on areas over the 

PEL in general industry is relatively old 

and the standard is almost 25 years old. 

Therefore, a substantial amount of time 

has gone by to achieve exposures below 

the PEL. Accordingly, OSHA has not 

assigned a cost saving for this provision 

at this time. Instead, OSHA requested 

comments on the approximate number 

of general industry lead facilities that 

still have areas over the PEL, but 

received none in the record. OSHA’s 

estimate of the cost savings from this 

provision remains unchanged from the 

PEA. 

Revision of the coke oven standard, 

paragraph 1910.1029(f)(6)(iv), would 

allow employers to update their 

compliance plans annually instead of 

semiannually. OSHA estimates that 

each of the 14 plants takes 3 hours to 

review and update its compliance plan 

semiannually for a total of 84 burden 

hours. OSHA estimates that a manager 

earning $32.92 takes 2 hours to update 

the compliance semiannually; and that 

a clerk earning $17.34 will take 1 hour 

semiannually to update the plans. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1135

Therefore the cost for the 14 plants to 

update their compliance plans 

semiannually is $2,665. Revising 

semiannual updating to annual the 14 

plants would take 42 hours annually 

costing a total of $1,333. The burden 

hour savings would be 42 hours and 

cost saving would be $1,332.

The final revision of the 1,2-dibromo3-chloropropane (DBCP) standard, 29 

CFR 1910.1044, would have no cost or 

burden hours to employers since no 

U.S. employers currently produce 

DBCP-based end products. 

Revision of the acrylonitrile standard, 

paragraph 1910.1045(g)(2)(v), would 

require that employers update 

compliance plans annually instead of 

semiannually. OSHA assumes that a 

manager earning $38.92 an hour would 

devote 0.5 hour to update a compliance 

plan at each facility. With semiannual 

updating of compliance plans, 

employers would require 23 burden 

hours at a cost of $895 (23 hours ×

$38.92). Revision of the standard to 

require annual updates would lower 

this to 11.5 burden hours at a cost of 

$448 (11.5 × $38.92). Savings due to this 

revision would thus be $448. 

The revision of the lead in 

construction standard, paragraph 

1926.62(e)(2)(v), requires employers to 

update compliance plans annually 

instead of semiannually. Based on the 

Lead in Construction Paperwork 

Package, which in turn drew upon the 

Economic Analysis for that standard, 

OSHA estimates the standard now 

requires 216,344 employer burden hours 

at a cost of $8,420,108 (216,344 hours ×

$38.92) to update compliance plans 

semiannually. The Agency estimates 

that the revision of the standard to 

require annual updates would simply 

cut the burden in half, to 108,172 hours 

at a cost of $4,210,054 (108,172 hours ×

$38.92). Thus, the savings due to 

changing from semiannual to annual 

compliance updates would be 

$4,209,657. Although the burden 

reduction from this revised standard is 

the largest among the standards being 

revised in this rulemaking, the Agency 

has consistently applied simple 

adjustments to its current paperwork 

model of burden on employers for each 

of its calculations. The Agency did not 

receive any comment about either the 

number of affected employers or unit 

costs for estimating the burden. The 

Agency’s final estimate of the reduction 

in paperwork burden for this standard is 

thus unchanged from the proposal. 

N. Notifying Employees of Their 

Exposure Monitoring Results 

Many of OSHA’s substance-specific 

standards require employers to notify 

employees of their exposure monitoring 

results. However, the standards specify 

several different methods for providing 

this notice. The standards state that an 

employer must provide such 

notification to employees individually 

in writing or by posting the results in a 

readily accessible location, or both. In 

addition, the maximum period for 

notifying employees of their exposure 

monitoring results after the employer 

receives them varies across the 

standards. These periods range from ‘‘as 

soon as possible’’ to 20 working days 

after receipt of the monitoring results. 

A review of the preambles to each of 

the above standards indicates that the 

final choice of notification method and 

maximum period for notification was a 

matter of convenience; none of the 

preambles provided objective evidence 

that the final requirements were the 

only effective or even most effective in 

protecting employees. The record 

developed during this rulemaking 

supports this view. OSHA has 

concluded that making the requirements 

consistent among the standards would 

reduce confusion and facilitate 

compliance without diminishing 

employee protection. As a result, the 

Agency is revising the standards by 

requiring employers to provide 

employees with their exposure 

monitoring results individually in 

writing or by posting the employees’

results in a readily accessible location. 

Although the posting option would 

reduce employers’ paperwork burden to 

some extent, they must still maintain 

individual exposure monitoring records 

for employees under §§ 1910.1020, 

1915.1020, and 1926.33—OSHA’s 

records-access standards for general 

industry, shipyard employment, and 

construction, respectively. Thus, 

employees could still get subsequent 

access to their exposure monitoring 

results. 

OSHA proposed to standardize the 

period of time for notifying employees 

of their exposure monitoring results 

after the employer receives them across 

20 pertinent standards. Currently, the 

notification period ranges from ‘‘as soon 

as possible’’ to 20 working days after 

receipt of the monitoring results. The 

Agency proposed to standardize the 

notification period to 15 days for 

general industry and 5 days for one 

shipyard and several construction 

standards on which OSHA made 

specific findings. Making these 

requirements consistent will reduce 

confusion and facilitate compliance 

with the provisions. However, it will 

not result in any significant cost 

savings. 

OSHA assumes that the employers 

will choose to post the employees’

results in a readily accessible location 

for all the standards that give the option 

of providing the results individually in 

writing or by posting. This would 

generate savings in burden hours and 

costs. 

The final rule would revise the vinyl 

chloride standard, paragraph 

1910.1017(n)(3), to require employers to 

provide employees with their exposure 

monitoring results individually in 

writing or by posting the employees’

results in a readily accessible location. 

Based on the ICR, under the present 

standard for exposure above the AL, but 

below the PEL, 42 burden hours are 

required at a cost of $727 as 131 

employees would be notified quarterly 

by a secretary earning $17.34 an hour 

who would spend 5 minutes per 

notification. For exposures above the 

PEL, 126 burden hours at a cost of 

$2,181 are required, as the same number 

of employees would be notified monthly 

by the secretary. Additional monitoring 

involves another 6 burden hours, at a 

cost of $111. Thus, the present vinyl 

chloride standard requires a total of 174 

burden hours and a cost of $3,019. 

With the revised standard, for 

exposure above the AL but below the 

PEL, 3 burden hours at a cost of $55 

would be incurred as a secretary of each 

of 20 employers would post monitoring 

results semiannually at a readily 

accessible location. For exposure above 

the PEL, a secretary would quarterly 

post monitoring results at 20 facilities in 

a readily accessible location, requiring 6 

burden hours at a cost of $111. 

Additional monitoring would require 6 

burden hours at a cost of $111. Thus, 

the revised standard would require 15 

burden hours at a cost of $277. Cost 

savings would amount to $2,741. 

The final rule revises the inorganic 

arsenic standard, paragraph 

1910.1018(e)(5)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. OSHA assumes the 

employers would prefer to post the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location as that would be less 

costly. 

The present inorganic arsenic 

standard requires employers to notify 

employees individually in writing of 

their exposure monitoring results. As in 

the Inorganic Arsenic Paperwork 

Package, OSHA estimates that 7,400 

employees are exposed to inorganic 

arsenic, 14.1 percent or 1,043 of these 

are exposed above the PEL and will be 

monitored quarterly, 12.8 percent or 947 

1136 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

of these employees are exposed above 

the AL but below the PEL and will 

receive semiannual monitoring, while 

the employers must provide 10 percent 

or 740 of these employees with the 

results obtained to meet the additional 

monitoring requirement. OSHA 

estimates that a secretary, earning 

$17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 

hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 

545 burden hours estimated to cost 

$9,444 are attributed to the present 

inorganic arsenic standard. 

With the revised standard, employers 

would be allowed to post monitoring 

results in a readily accessible location, 

which is cheaper than writing to 

employees individually. For estimating 

the burden, the assumptions would 

remain the same as under the present 

standard except employers or facilities 

would post monitoring results. OSHA 

estimates there are 42 facilities: 14.1 

percent or 6 of these have employees 

exposed above the PEL and will be 

monitored quarterly; 12.8 percent or 5 of 

these have employees that are exposed 

above the AL but below the PEL and 

will be monitored semiannually, and an 

additional 10 percent or 4 facilities will 

be monitored yearly. Thus, the revised 

standard would require 3 burden hours 

at a cost of $51. Cost savings due to 

changing from writing employees 

individually to employers posting 

monitoring results in a readily 

accessible location would amount to 

$9,393. 

The final rule revises the lead 

standard for general industry, paragraph 

1910.1025(d)(8)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. OSHA assumes the 

employers would post the employees’

results in a readily accessible location. 

Currently, monitoring is required 

initially to determine if any employees 

are exposed to lead at or above the 

action level, and every 6 months if 

employees are exposed above the AL 

but below the PEL and quarterly if 

employees are exposed to lead above the 

PEL. OSHA assumes zero burden hours 

for quarterly monitoring based on the 

assumption in the paperwork burden 

analysis that no industry sectors have 

working conditions in which employees 

are being exposed above the PEL. The 

Agency has estimated that about 11,508 

employees would receive initial 

monitoring and 377,859 employees may 

be exposed to lead at levels between the 

AL and the PEL, which would require 

periodic monitoring at 6-month 

intervals. OSHA estimates that a 

secretary earning $17.34 an hour will 

require 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare 

each of 767,226 employee notifications 

(11,508 initial notifications and 377,859 

employees × 2 semiannual 

notifications).

The paperwork burden for employee 

notification of monitoring results under 

the existing standard is as follows: 

11,508 employees are notified once 

annually of initial monitoring results 

and 377,589 employees receive results 

twice a year. Notifying employees of 

767,226 sampling results requires 0.08 

hours each for a total of 61,378 hours, 

which, at an hourly secretarial wage of 

$17.34, costs $1,064,296. Employee 

notification under the revised standard 

will reduce the paperwork burden 

considerably: 62,357 employers will 

post sampling results twice a year, 

taking 0.08 hours for each, or 9,977 

burden hours, which will cost $173,001 

at the same secretarial wage. Cost 

savings would amount to 51,401 burden 

hours, or $891,293. 

The final rule revises the cadmium 

standard for general industry, paragraph 

1910.1027(d)(5)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. As posting the 

monitoring results is cheaper than 

individually writing employees, OSHA 

assumes the employers would prefer to 

post the monitoring results. 

The present standard requires 

employers to notify employees 

individually in writing and to post in a 

centralized location their exposure 

monitoring results. As in the Cadmium 

General Industry Paperwork Package, 

the Agency estimates that 71,306 

employees may need periodic 

monitoring when exposed to cadmium 

above the AL. Under the existing 

standard, OSHA estimates that a 

secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will 

take 5 minutes (.08 hour) semiannually 

to individually inform the employees in 

writing of exposure monitoring results 

and to also post a copy of the results in 

a centralized location. The Agency also 

estimates that 143 additional samples 

will be taken in 143 plants when raw 

materials, process, personnel, or work 

practices change. Thus, under the 

existing standard, 11,420 burden hours 

would be required at a cost of $198,030 

as 71,306 employees are notified 

individually in writing and 143 plants 

post notices of the employees’ exposure 

monitoring results in centralized 

locations. 

Under the final standard, 8,517 

burden hours at a cost of $147,685 

would be required (secretaries at each of 

the 53,161 employers, and for posting 

143 additional samples spending five 

minutes, at $17.34 per hour, to post 

monitoring results). Cost savings due to 

changing from individually writing 

employees and posting notices in 

centralized location to employers 

posting notices in a readily accessible 

location would amount to $50,341. 

The final rule revises the coke oven 

emissions standard, paragraph 

1910.1029(e)(3)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

monitoring results individually in 

writing or by posting the employees’

results in a readily accessible location. 

OSHA assumes the employees would 

prefer to post the employees’ results in 

a readily accessible location. 

The present standard requires 

employers to notify employees 

individually in writing of their exposure 

monitoring results. As in the ICR, the 

Agency estimates that 4,600 employees 

receive exposure measurements (i.e., are 

‘‘covered employees’’ because they work 

in regulated areas). These measurements 

include 18,400 quarterly measurements 

(4,600 employees × 4 measurements) 

and 230 resamplings (5% of 4,600 

employees), for a total of 18,630 

samples. The Agency also assumes that 

a secretary, at a wage rate of $17.34 per 

hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to 

notify each employee of his or her 

sampling results. Thus, 1,490 burden 

hours would be required at a cost of 

$25,844 as 4,830 employees would be 

notified individually in writing of their 

exposure monitoring results. 

With the final standard, 5 burden 

hours at a cost of $79 would be 

attributed to secretaries, who earn 

$17.34 per hour, at each of the 14 

employers and would spend 5 minutes 

each to post monitoring results at a 

readily accessible location. Cost savings 

would amount to $25,765. 

The final rule revises the cotton dust 

standard, paragraph 1910.1043(d)(4)(i), 

to require employers to provide 

employees with their exposure 

monitoring results individually in 

writing or by posting the employees’

results in a readily accessible location. 

OSHA assumes the employers would 

prefer to post the employees’ results in 

a readily accessible location. 

OSHA estimated the numbers of 

exposed employees and the number of 

facilities in the industry by utilizing 

data from Employment and Earnings 

and County Business Patterns. The 

Agency estimates that 49,628 employees 

would be notified in writing of their 

exposure monitoring results. OSHA 

estimates that a secretary, earning 

$17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 

hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 

3,970 burden hours are required at a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1137

cost of $68,844 as 53,938 employees are 

notified individually in writing of their 

exposure monitoring results. 

Under the final standard, 43 burden 

hours at a cost of $742 would be 

required (a secretary at each of the 535 

plants, earning $17.34 per hour, would 

spend 5 minutes (.08 hour) to post 

monitoring results). Cost savings would 

amount to $68,102. 

The final rule would revise the 1,2-

dibro-3-chloropropane, paragraph 

1910.1044(f)(5)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. No cost or burden 

hours accrue to employers under this 

standard since OSHA has determined 

that no U.S. employers currently 

produce DBCP or DBCP-based end-use 

products. 

The final rule would revise the 

acrylonitrile standard, paragraph 

1910.1045(e)(5)(i), to require employers 

to provide employees with their 

exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. OSHA assumes the 

employers would prefer to post the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. 

The Agency estimates that under the 

present standard, 923 employees must 

be informed of sampling results in 

writing. OSHA estimates that a 

secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will 

take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare 

each notification. Thus, 485 burden 

hours are required at a cost of $8,415. 

Under the revision, 9 burden hours at 

a cost of $160 would be attributed to 

secretaries at each of the 23 plants, 

earning $17.34 per hour, spending 5 

minutes (.08 hour) each to post 

quarterly monitoring results and one 

additional monitoring result. Cost 

savings would amount to $8,255. 

The final rule would revise the lead 

standard for the construction industry, 

paragraph 1926.62(d)(8)(i), to require 

employers to provide employees with 

their exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. OSHA assumes the 

employers would prefer to post the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location.

As in the Lead in Construction 

Paperwork Package, the Agency 

estimates that under the present 

standard, 177,194 employees are 

notified two times a year in writing of 

their exposure monitoring results. 

OSHA estimates that a secretary, 

earning $17.34 per hour, will take six 

minutes (.10 hour) to prepare each 

notification. Thus, 38,678 burden hours 

are required at a cost of $670,671. 

The revised standard would require 

that employers post monitoring results 

at readily accessible locations at each 

facility. Thus, 10,185 burden hours at a 

cost of $176,608 would be required in 

the lead standard for construction as 

secretaries of each of 147,073 firms, 

earning $17.34 per hour, would spend 

six minutes (.10 hour) to post 

monitoring results two times a year. 

Cost savings would amount to $494,063. 

The final rule revises the cadmium 

standard for the construction industry, 

paragraph 1926.1127(d)(5)(i), to require 

employers to provide employees with 

their exposure monitoring results 

individually in writing or by posting the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. OSHA assumes the 

employers would prefer to post the 

employees’ results in a readily 

accessible location. 

The Agency estimates that under the 

present standard 7,500 employees need 

monitoring when exposed to cadmium 

above the AL three times per year. 

OSHA estimates that a secretary, 

earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 

minutes (.08 hour) to individually 

inform the employees in writing of 

exposure monitoring results and to also 

post a copy of the results in a 

centralized location. The Agency 

assumes that the time associated with 

posting a copy of the result is minimal 

after already completing the individual 

notification; thus no additional time is 

assumed. Included in this 5 minutes is 

the time to maintain the record as 

required in paragraph (n)(1). The 

present standard requires 1,720 burden 

hours at a cost of $32,044. 

With the final standard, 280 burden 

hours at a cost of $4,855 would be 

required (secretaries at 1,000 employers, 

earning $17.34 per hour, would spend 5 

minutes each to post monitoring 

results). The revision would result in 

cost savings of $27,189. 

References 

1. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs,’’ Circular No. A–94 Revised 

(Transmittal Memo No. 64). October 29, 

1992. 

2. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employees.’’

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as 

amended), OSHA examined the 

regulatory requirements of the proposed 

rule to determine if they would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

indicated in section IV (‘‘Economic 

Analysis’’) of this preamble, the 

proposed rule is expected to reduce 

compliance costs and regulatory burden 

for all employers, large and small. The 

reduction in compliance costs is under 

$100 million. Accordingly, the Agency 

certifies that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

VI. Environmental Impact Assessment 

OSHA has reviewed the proposed rule 

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 on 

Environmental Quality (40 U.S.C. 1500), 

and the Department of Labor’s NEPA 

procedures (29 CFR part 11). The 

Agency finds that the revisions included 

in the final rule do not directly involve 

the control of hazardous materials. 

Therefore, the final rule would have no 

additional impact on the environment, 

including no impact on the release of 

materials that contaminate natural 

resources or the environment, beyond 

the impact imposed by the existing 

requirements these proposed revisions 

would amend. 

VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) of 1995, agencies are required to 

seek the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for all 

collections of information (paperwork). 

As a part of the approval process, 

agencies are required to solicit comment 

from affected parties with regard to the 

collection of information, including the 

financial and time burdens estimated by 

the agencies for the collection of 

information. The paperwork burdenhour estimate and cost analysis that an 

Agency submits to OMB is termed an 

‘‘Information Collection Request’’ (ICR). 

In the October 31, 2002, proposed 

rule, OSHA requested the public to 

comment on the 13 ICRs that the 

Agency submitted to OMB. These ICRs 

requested OMB to approve revisions to 

the current collections of information. 

In December 2002, OMB approved the 

proposed burden hour and cost 

reduction contained in the 13 ICRs. 

OMB stated on the approvals: ‘‘DOL will 

resubmit this package as a revision if 

changes are made based on comments to 

the Standards Improvement Project 

Proposed Rule.’’

The final rule does not change any of 

the proposed revisions to the collections 

1138 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

of information contained in the 13 ICRs. 

Table 4 lists the 13 ICRs, their OMB 

control number, expiration date, and 

changes to the collections of 

information contained in the ICRs. 

However, based on public comment (Ex. 

4–13), the Agency did increase the 

amount of time employers take to 

conduct exposure monitoring from 10 

minutes to 1 hour. OSHA has submitted 

documentation to OMB, PRA Change 

Worksheet (OMB 83–C form), for Vinyl 

Chloride (OMB Control number 1218–

0010 ) and Acrylonitrile (OMB Control 

number 1218–0126) to reflect the 

increased time employers take to 

conduct exposure monitoring, and the 

larger burden hour reduction from 

reducing the frequency of exposuremonitoring.

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTS EXPIRATION DATES & FINAL REVISIONS

OMB Control Number; expiration 

date ICR provision Final changes to ICR Burden hour changes 

1218–0010 ....................................

Exp. Date: 9/30/2005

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(d)(2) 

(i)).

Reduced the frequency employers must conduct periodic exposure-monitoring from monthly to quarterly 

monitoring.

¥1,048

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(d)(2) 

(ii)).

Reduced the frequency employers must conduct periodic exposure-monitoring from quarterly to semi-annual monitoring.¥262

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(d)(2) 

(iii)).

Increased the time to conduct additional exposure 

monitoring.

66

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(f) (3)) Reduced the frequency employers must update their 

compliance plans from every six months to annually.

¥240

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(k)(2) 

(i)&(ii)).

Reduced the number of medical examinations from 

semi-annually to annually.

¥366

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(k) 

(4)).

Reduced the number of physician’s written opinions 

employers must provide to their employees.

¥15

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(m) 

(2)).

Reduced the number of exposure records employers 

must develop and maintain.

¥105

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(m) 

(2)).

Reduced the number of medical records employers 

must develop and maintain.

¥14

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(n) 

(1)).

Removed burden hours for employers to notify OSHA 

when establishing a regulated area.

¥17

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(n) 

(2)).

Removed burden hours for employers to report emergencies to OSHA area director.¥800

Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017(n) 

(3)).

Allows employers to post exposure monitoring results 

and increase time to inform employees of their exposure-monitoring results from 10 to 15 working 

days.

¥159

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥2,960

1218–0061 ....................................

Exp. Date: 9/30/2005 

Cotton Dust (§ 1910.1043 (d)(4) 

(i)).

Allow employers to post exposure monitoring results .. ¥3,927

1218–0085 ....................................

Exp. Date: 11/30/2005 

13 Carcinogens (§ 1910.1003(f) 

(2)).

Removed burden hours for employers to report spills 

to local OSHA area offices.

¥970

13 Carcinogens (§ 1910.1003(f) 

(1)).

Removed burden hours for employers to notify OSHA 

when establishing a regulated area.

¥194

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥1,164

1218–0092 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Lead in General Industry 

(§ 1910.1025(d)(8)(i)).

Allow employers to post exposure-monitoring results .. ¥51,401

Lead in General Industry 

(§ 1910.1025(e)(3) (iv)).

Revise required compliance plan update from every 

six months to annually. No information on areas 

over the PEL in general industry, and the standard 

is almost 25 years old.

0

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥51,401

1218–0101 ....................................

Exp. Date: 11/30/2005 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chlorpropane 

(DBCP) (§ 1910.1044 (d)(4)).

Removed burden hours for employers to report when 

DBCP is introduced into workplace to OSHA.

0

DBCP (§ 1910.1044(f)(3)(i), (ii)) ... Reduced the frequency employers must conduct periodic exposure monitoring.0

DBCP (§ 1910.1044(f) (5)) ........... Allow employers to post exposure monitoring results 

and increase time to inform employees of their 

exposure- monitoring results from 5 working days to 

15 working days.

¥0

DBCP (§ 1910.1044(g)(2)(ii)) ....... Reduced the frequency employers must update their 

compliance plans from every six months to annually.

0

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... 0

1218–0104 ....................................

Exp. Date: 9/30/2005 

Inorganic Arsenic 

(§ 1910.1018(d)(1)).

Removed burden hours for employers to notify OSHA 

when establishing a regulated area.

¥3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1139 

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTS EXPIRATION DATES & FINAL REVISIONS—Continued 

OMB Control Number; expiration 

date ICR provision Final changes to ICR Burden hour changes 

Inorganic Arsenic (§ monitoring 

results 1910.1018(e)(5)(i)).

Allow employers to post exposure-monitoring results .. ¥541 

Inorganic Arsenic 

(§ 1910.1018(g)(2)(iv)).

Reduced the frequency employers must update their 

compliance plans from every six months to annually.

¥72 

Inorganic Arsenic 

(§ 1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A)).

Revise the x-ray rating procedure; no significant 

change.

0 

Inorganic Arsenic 

(§ 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii)).

Reduced the number of medical examinations from 

semi-annually to annually.

¥1,661 

Inorganic Arsenic (§ 1910.1018(n) 

(5)).

Reduced the frequency employers must provide information to the physician.¥80 

Inorganic Arsenic (§ 1910.1018(n) 

(6)).

Reduced the frequency employers must provide the 

physician’s written opinion to their employers.

¥80 

Inorganic Arsenic (§ 1910.1018(q) 

(6)).

Reduced the number of medical records employers 

must develop and maintain.

¥79 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥2,516 

1218–0126 ....................................

Exp. Date: 9/30/2005 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045(d)(1)) ... Removed burden hours for employers to notify OSHA 

when establishing a regulated area.

¥23 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045(d)(2)) ... Removed burden hours for employers to report emergencies to OSHA area director.¥92 

Acrylonitrile (§ conduct 

1910.1045(e)(3)(ii).

Reduced the frequency employers must periodic exposure monitoring from monthly to quarterly and 

from quarterly to semi-annually.

¥1,819 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045(e)(4)) ... Increased the time to conduct additional monitoring .... +11 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045(e)(5)) ... Allow employers to post exposure-monitoring results .. ¥476 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045(g)(2) 

(ii)).

Reduced the frequency employers must update their 

compliance plans from every six months to annually.

¥11 

Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045) (q)(2)) Reduced the number of exposure monitoring records 

employers must develop and maintain.

¥291 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥2,701 

1218–0128 ....................................

Exp. Date: 9/30/2005 

Coke Ovens 1910.1029(e)(3)(i)) .. Allows employers to post exposure-monitoring results ¥1,486 

Coke Ovens (§ 1910.1029(f)(6) 

(iv)).

Reduced the frequency employers must update their 

compliance plans from every six months to annually.

¥42 

Coke Ovens (§ 1910.1029(j)((2) 

(ii)).

Revise the x-ray rating procedure; no significant 

change.

0 

Coke Ovens (§ 1910.1029(j)(3) 

(iii)).

Reduced the number of medical examinations from 

semi-annually to annually.

¥2,898 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥4,426 

1218–0134 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Asbestos (§ 1926.1101(f)(5)(i)) .... Modified time to inform employees of their exposuremonitoring results from ‘‘as soon as possible’’ to no 

later than 5 days after receipt.

0 

Asbestos (§ 1926.1101(g)(6)(l) ..... Remove burden hours for employers to submit alternative control methods to OSHA.¥1 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥1 

1218–0185 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Cadmium in General Industry 

(§ 1910.1027(d)(5)).

Allows employers to post exposure-monitoring results ¥2,903 

Cadmium in General Industry 

(§ 1910.1027(l)(10)(l)).

Removed the requirement that the physician’s written 

opinion be signed.

0 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥2,903 

1218–0186 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Cadmium Construction 

(§ 1926.1127(d)(5)(i)).

Allow employers to post exposure-monitoring results .. ¥1,440 

Cadmium Construction 

(§ 1926.1127(l)(10)(i)).

Remove the physician’s written opinion ....................... 0 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥1,440 

1218–0189 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Lead in Const. (§ 1926.62 9(d) 

(8)).

Allow employers to post exposure-monitoring results .. ¥28,493 

Lead in Const. (§ 1926.62(e) 

(2)(v)).

Reduce the frequency of updating written compliance 

programs.

¥108,172 

1140 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTS EXPIRATION DATES & FINAL REVISIONS—Continued 

OMB Control Number; expiration 

date ICR provision Final changes to ICR Burden hour changes 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥136,665 

1218–0195 ....................................

Exp. Date: 12/31/2005 

Asbestos (§ 1915.1001(f)(5)) ........ Modified time to inform employees of their exposuremonitoring results from ‘‘as soon as possible’’ to no 

later than 5 days after receipt.

0 

Asbestos (§ 1915.1001(g)(6)(iii)) .. Remove burden hours for employers to submit alternative control methods to OSHA.¥1 

Subtotal .................................. ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥1 

Total Burden Hour Reduction ....................................................... ....................................................................................... ¥210,105 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates 

OSHA has reviewed the final rule in 

accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq., and Executive Order 

12875. As discussed above, OSHA has 

determined that the final rule is likely 

to reduce the regulatory burdens 

imposed on public and private 

employers by the existing requirements 

these final revisions would amend. The 

final rule would not expand existing 

regulatory requirements or increase the 

number of employers who are covered 

by the existing rules. Consequently, 

compliance with the final rule would 

require no additional expenditures by 

either public or private employers. In 

sum, the final rule does not mandate 

that state, local, and tribal governments 

adopt new, unfunded regulatory 

obligations. 

IX. Federalism 

The Agency has reviewed the final 

rule in accordance with the Executive 

Order on Federalism (Executive Order 

13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

which requires that Federal agencies, to 

the extent possible, refrain from limiting 

state policy options, consult with states 

before taking actions that restrict state 

policy options, and take such actions 

only when clear constitutional authority 

exists and the problem is of national 

scope. The Executive Order provides for 

preemption of state law only when 

Congress expresses an intent that a 

Federal agency do so. The Federal 

agency must limit any such preemption 

to the extent possible. 

With respect to states that do not have 

occupational safety and health plans 

approved by OSHA under Section 18 of 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

of 1970 (the ‘‘Act’’) (29 U.S.C. 667), the 

Agency finds that the final rule 

conforms to the preemption provisions 

of the Act. These provisions authorize 

OSHA to preempt state promulgation 

and enforcement of requirements 

dealing with occupational safety and 

health issues covered by Agency 

standards, unless the state has a state 

occupational safety and health plan 

approved by the Agency. (See Gade v. 

National Solid Wastes Management 

Association, 112 S.Ct. 2374 (1992).) The 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. 667 prohibit 

states without such programs from 

issuing citations for violations of 

requirements covered by Agency 

standards. The final rule would not 

expand this limitation. 

Regarding states that have OSHAapproved occupational safety and health 

plans (‘‘State-plan states’’), the Agency 

finds that the final rule complies with 

Executive Order 13132 because it 

addresses a problem (i.e., health 

hazards) that is national in scope. 

Adoption of these final revisions, 

section 18(c)(2) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 

667(c)(2)) would not preempt any 

alternative revisions made by State-plan 

states if these revisions are at least as 

effective as the final revisions. 

X. State-Plan States 

The 24 states and two territories with 

their own federally-approved 

occupational safety and health plans 

must develop revisions that are at least 

as effective as the final revisions 

adopted by the Agency within six 

months after publication of the final 

rule. These states and territories are: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut 

(State and local government employees 

only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 

Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Nevada, New Jersey (State and local 

government employees only), New 

Mexico, New York (State and local 

government employees only), North 

Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, 

and Wyoming. 

XI. Authority 

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, directed the preparation of 

this document. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on the 20th day 

of December 2004. 

John L. Henshaw, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor. 

List of Subjects 

29 CFR Part 1910 

Hazardous substances, Occupational 

safety and health, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

29 CFR Part 1915 

Hazardous substances, Occupational 

safety and health, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Shipyard 

employment, Vessels. 

29 CFR Part 1926 

Construction industry, Hazardous 

substances, Occupational safety and 

health, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ In accordance with sections 4, 6, and 

8 of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 

657)), section 41 of the Longshore and 

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 

U.S.C. 941), section 107 of the Contract 

Work and Safety Standards Act (40 

U.S.C. 333), section 4 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 

553) and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

3–2000 (65 FR 50017), the Agency is 

amending 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 

1926 as follows: 

PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

AND HEALTH STANDARDS 

Subpart J—General Environmental 

Controls 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart J 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1141

(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 

FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 3–2000 (65 

FR 50017), as applicable.

Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 

1910.146, and 1910.147 also issued under 29 

CFR part 1911.

§ 1910.142 [Amended]

■ 2. In § 1910.142, remove the words 

‘‘telegram or telephone’’ at the end of 

paragraph (l)(2) and add in their place, 

‘‘telegram, telephone, electronic mail or 

any method that is equally fast.’’

Subpart K—Medical and First Aid

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart K 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 

(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 

FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 3–2000 (65 

FR 50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 

1911.

■ 4. In the first paragraph of Appendix 

A to § 1910.151, remove the words 

‘‘American National Standard (ANSI) 

Z308.1–1978, ‘‘Minimum Requirements 

for Industrial Unit-Type First-aid Kits’’

and add, in their place, ‘‘American 

National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1–1998 

‘‘Minimum Requirements for Workplace 

First-aid Kits.’’

Subpart R—Special Industries

■ 5. The authority citation for subpart R 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 

(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 

FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 3–2000 (65 

FR 50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 

1911.

■ 6. In § 1910.268, revise paragraph 

(b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 1910.268 Telecommunications.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Employers must provide 

employees with readily accessible, 

adequate, and appropriate first aid 

supplies. A non-mandatory example of 

appropriate supplies is listed in 

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.151.

* * * * *

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances

■ 7. 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, and 657; 5 U.S.C. 553; 

Secretary of Labor’s Orders No. 12–71 (36 FR 

8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 

35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 

and 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable, and 

29 CFR part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) 

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970, except those substances that have 

exposure limits in Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–

3 of 29 CFR1910.1000. The Agency issued 29 

CFR 1910.1000 under section (6)(a) of the Act 

(29 U.S.C. 655(a)). 

Section 1910.1000, Tables Z–1, Z–2, and 

Z–3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not 

under 29 CFR part 1911, except for the 

inorganic arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust 

listings. 

Section 1910.1001 also issued under 

section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and 

Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5 

U.S.C. 553. 

Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 

29 CFR part 1911. 

Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, 

and1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 

653.

■ 8. In § 1910.1001, revise paragraph 

(d)(7)(i) to read as set forth below, and 

remove the word ‘‘signed’’ from the first 

sentence of the introductory text of 

paragraph (l)(7)(i).

§ 1910.1001 Asbestos.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(7) Employee notification of 

monitoring results. (i) The employer 

must, within 15 working days after the 

receipt of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this sections, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to affected 

employees.

* * * * *

§ 1910.1003 [Amended]

■ 9–10. Section 1910.1003 is amended 

by removing and reserving paragraph (f).

■ 11. Section 1910.1017 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), 

(d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of paragraph 

(f)(3) and paragraphs (k)(2), (k)(6) and 

(n)(3);

■ b. Removing paragraphs (n)(1) and 

(n)(2) and redesignating paragraph (n)(3) 

as new paragraph (n) and revising it. 

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) * * * (i) Must be repeated at least 

quarterly for any employee exposed, 

without regard to the use of respirators, 

in excess of the permissible exposure 

limit. 

(ii) Must be repeated not less than 

every 6 months for any employee 

exposed without regard to the use of 

respirators, at or above the action level.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) * * *Such plans must be updated 

at least annually.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(2) Examinations must be provided in 

accordance with this paragraph at least 

annually.

* * * * *

(6) Laboratory analyses for all 

biological specimens included in 

medical examination shall be performed 

by accredited laboratories.

* * * * *

(n) Employee notification of 

monitoring results. The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

and the steps being taken to reduce 

exposures within the permissible 

exposure limit either individually in 

writing or by posting the results in an 

appropriate location that is accessible to 

affected employees.

* * * * *

■ 12. Section 1910.1018 is amended by:

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d);

■ b. Revising paragraphs (e)(5)(i), 

(g)(2)(iv), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(i);

■ c. Removing paragraph (n)(3)(ii) and 

redesignating paragraph (n)(3)(iii) as 

new (n)(3)(ii); and

■ d. Removing in Appendix C Section I, 

second paragraph, item (2), the words 

‘‘and an International Labor Office UICC/

Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating.’’

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(5) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to affected 

employees.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The plans required by this 

paragraph must be revised and updated 

at least annually to reflect the current 

status of the program.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

1142 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(A) A standard posterior-anterior 

chest x-ray;

* * * * *

(3) * * *(i) Examinations must be 

provided in accordance with this 

paragraph at least annually.

* * * * *

■ 13. In § 1910.1025, revise paragraphs 

(d)(8)(i) and (e)(3)(iv) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1025 Lead.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(8) * * *

(i) The employer must, within 15 

working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to affected employees.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) Written programs must be revised 

and updated at least annually to reflect 

the current status of the program.

* * * * *

■ 14. In § 1910.1027 revise paragraph 

(d)(5)(i) to read as set forth below and 

remove the word ‘‘signed’’ from the first 

sentence of the introductory text of 

paragraph (l)(10)(i).

§ 1910.1027 Cadmium.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(5) * * * (i)The employer must, within 

15 working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 15–16. In § 1910.1028 revise paragraph 

(e)(7)(i) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1028 Benzene.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(7) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 17. Section § 1910.1029 is amended by:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i), 

(f)(6)(iv), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii);

■ b. Removing paragraph (j)(3)(iv);

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (j)(3)(v) as 

(j)(3)(iv); and

■ d. Removing the words ‘‘14′′ by 17′′’’

and the words ‘‘and a ILO/UC rating to 

assure some standard of x-ray reading’’

from the third sentence of Appendix 

B.II.A. 

The revision read as follows:

§ 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(iv) Written plans for such programs 

shall be submitted, upon request, to the 

Secretary and the Director, and shall be 

available at the worksite for 

examination and copying by the 

Secretary, the Director, and the 

authorized employee representative. 

The plans required under paragraph 

(f)(6) of this section shall be revised and 

updated at least annually to reflect the 

current status of the program.

* * * * *

(j)* * *

(2)* * *

(ii) A standard posterior-anterior chest 

x-ray;

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) The employer must provide the 

examinations specified in paragraphs 

(j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(vii) of this section 

at least annually for employees 45 years 

of age or older or with five (5) or more 

years employment in the regulated area. 

(iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 

years of age or older or with five (5) or 

more years employment in a regulated 

area transfers or is transferred from 

employment in a regulated area, the 

employer must continue to provide the 

examinations specified in paragraphs 

(j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(vii) of this section 

at least annually as long as that 

employee is employed by the same 

employer or a successor employer.

* * * * *

■ 18–19. In § 1910.1043, revise 

paragraph (d)(4)(i) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1043 Cotton dust.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 20–21. In § 1910.1044 remove and 

reserve paragraph (d), and revise 

paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), (f)(5)(i) and 

the last sentence of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to 

read as follows:

§ 1910.1044 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) * * * (i) If the monitoring 

required by this section reveals 

employee exposures to be at or below 

the permissible exposure limit, the 

employer must repeat these 

measurements at least every 6 months. 

(ii) If the monitoring required by this 

section reveals employee exposures to 

be in excess of the permissible exposure 

limit, the employer must repeat these 

measurements for each such employee 

at least quarterly. The employer must 

continue quarterly monitoring until at 

least two consecutive measurements, 

taken at least seven (7) days apart, are 

at or below the permissible exposure 

limit. Thereafter the employer must 

monitor at least every 6 months.

* * * * *

(5) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * * These plans must be revised 

at least annually to reflect the current 

status of the program.

* * * * *

■ 22–23. In § 1910.1045 remove and 

reserve paragraph (d), and revise 

paragraphs (e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iii), (e)(5)(i) 

and (g)(2)(v) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) If the monitoring required by this 

section reveals employee exposure to be 

at or above the action level but at or 

below the permissible exposure limits, 

the employer must repeat such 

monitoring for each such employee at 

least every 6 months. The employer 

must continue these measurements 

every 6 months until at least two 

consecutive measurements taken at least 

seven (7) days a part, are below the 

action level, and thereafter the employer 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 1143

may discontinue monitoring for that 

employee. 

(iii) If the monitoring required by this 

section reveals employee exposure to be 

in excess of the permissible exposure 

limits, the employer must repeat these 

determinations for each such employee 

at least quarterly. The employer must 

continue these quarterly measurements 

until at least two consecutive 

measurements, taken at least seven (7) 

days apart, are at or below the 

permissible exposure limits, and 

thereafter the employer must monitor at 

least every 6 months.

* * * * *

(5) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) The plans required by this 

paragraph must be revised and updated 

at least annually to reflect the current 

status of the program.

* * * * *

■ 24. In § 1910.1047, revise (d)(7)(i) to 

read as follows:

§ 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(7) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 25. In § 1910.1048, revise (d)(6) to read 

as follows:

§ 1910.1048 Formaldehyde.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(6) Employee notification of 

monitoring results. The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees. 

If employee exposure is above the PEL, 

affected employees shall be provided 

with a description of the corrective 

actions being taken by the employer to 

decrease exposure.

* * * * *

■ 26. In § 1910.1051, revise paragraph 

(d)(7)(i) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(7) * * * (i) The employer must, 

within 15 working days after the receipt 

of the results of any monitoring 

performed under this section, notify 

each affected employee of these results 

either individually in writing or by 

posting the results in an appropriate 

location that is accessible to employees.

* * * * *

PART 1915—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR 

SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

■ 27. The authority citation for Part 1915 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Section 41, Longshore and 

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 

U.S.C. 941); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(‘‘the Act’’), 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 

8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 

35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 

and 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable.

Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also 

issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 

Section 1915.1001 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 553.

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances

■ 28. In § 1915.1001, revise paragraph 

(f)(5) to read as set forth below and 

remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).

§ 1915.1001 Asbestos.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) Employee notification of 

monitoring results. The employer must, 

as soon as possible but no later than 5 

days after the receipt of the results of 

any monitoring performed under this 

section, notify each affected employee 

of these results either individually in 

writing or by posting the results in an 

appropriate location that is accessible to 

employees.

* * * * *

PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart D—Occupational Health and 

Environmental Controls

■ 30. The authority citation for subpart 

D is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Section 107, Contract Work 

Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 

333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (‘‘the Act’’), 29 

U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 5 U.S.C. 553; 

Secretary of Labor’s Orders No. 12–71 (36 FR 

8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 

35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 

and 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 

29 CFR part 1911.

■ 31. In § 1926.60, revise paragraph 

(f)(7)(i) to read as follows:

§ 1926.60 Methylenedianilene.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(7) * * *(i) The employer must, as 

soon as possible but no later than 5 

working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 32. In § 1926.62, revise paragraphs 

(d)(8)(i) and (e)(2)(v) to read as follows:

§ 1926.62 Lead.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(8) * * * (i) The employer must, as 

soon as possible but no later than 5 

working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) Written programs must be revised 

and updated at least annually to reflect 

the current status of the program.

* * * * *

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances

■ 33. The authority citation for subpart 

Z is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Section 107, Contract Work 

Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 

333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (‘‘the Act’’), 29 

U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 

9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), and 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sections 1926.1101 and 1926.1127 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. 

Section 1926.1102 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 

29 CFR part 1911.

■ 34. In § 1926.1101, revise paragraph 

(f)(5) to read as set forth below and 

remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).

§ 1926.1101 Asbestos.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

1144 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) Employee notification of 

monitoring results. The employer must, 

as soon as possible but no later than 5 

working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

■ 35–36. In § 1926.1127 revise paragraph 

(d)(5)(i) to read as set forth below and 

remove the word ‘‘signed’’ from the first 

sentence of the introductory text of 

paragraph (l)(10)(i).

§ 1926.1127 Cadmium.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(5) * * * (i) The employer must, as 

soon as possible but no later than 5 

working days after the receipt of the 

results of any monitoring performed 

under this section, notify each affected 

employee of these results either 

individually in writing or by posting the 

results in an appropriate location that is 

accessible to employees.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–28221 Filed 12–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P