33450 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

[Docket No. S–778]

RIN 1218–AB 53

Standards Improvement

(Miscellaneous Changes) for General

Industry and Construction Standards;

Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven

Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) is

removing from the Code of Federal

Regulations or revising provisions in its

standards that are out of date,

duplicative, unnecessary, or

inconsistent. The Agency is making

these regulatory changes to reduce the

burden imposed on the regulated

community by these provisions and to

respond to a March 4, 1995

memorandum from the President. In

this document, substantive changes are

made to both health and safety

standards that will revise or eliminate

duplicative, inconsistent, or

unnecessary regulatory requirements

without diminishing employee

protections. Changes being made to

health standards include reducing the

frequency of required chest x-rays and

eliminating sputum-cytology

examinations for workers covered by the

coke oven and inorganic arsenic

standards, and changing the emergencyresponse provisions of the vinyl

chloride standard. Changes being made

to OSHA safety standards include

eliminating the public safety provisions

of the temporary labor camp standard,

eliminating unnecessary crossreferences in the textile industry

standards, and others. OSHA estimates

that these changes will result in

annualized savings for employers of

over $9,600,000 and in reducing

paperwork burden of 6600 hours

annually.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes

effective August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of

this final rule to the Associate Solicitor

for Occupational Safety and Health,

Office of the Solicitor, Room S–4004,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20210.

For additional copies of this rule

contact U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Office of Publications,

Room N–3101, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 219–9667.

For an electronic copy of this Federal

Register notice, contact the Labor News

Bulletin Board at (202) 219–4748; or

OSHA’s Web Site on the Internet at

http://www.osha.gov. For news releases,

fact sheets, and other short documents,

contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555–3400 at

$1.50 per minute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of

Information and Consumer Affairs,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Room N–3637, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 219–8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Distribution Table

III. Summary and Explanation

Amendments to Part 1910 that received no

comments or positive comments only

A. Explosives and blasting agents

(§ 1910.109)

B. Storing and handling of liquefied

petroleum gases (§ 1910.110)

C. Storing and handling of anhydrous

ammonia (§ 1910.111)

D. Sanitation (§ 1910.141)

E. Temporary labor camps (§ 1910.142)

F. Safety color code for marking physical

hazards (§ 1910.144)

G. Fire brigades (§ 1910.156)

H. Helicopters (§ 1910.183)

I. Pulp, paper, paperboard mills

(§ 1910.261)

J. Textiles (§ 1910.262)

K. Sawmills (§ 1910.265)

L. Agricultural operations (§ 1910.267)

M. Vinyl chloride (§ 1910.1017)

N. Inorganic arsenic (§ 1910.1018) and

Coke oven emissions (§ 1910.1029)

Amendments to Part 1910 that

received varied comments

O. Explosives and blasting agents

(§ 1910.109)

P. Medical services and first aid

(§ 1910.151)

Q. Telecommunications (§ 1910.268)

Amendments to Part 1926 that

received no comments or positive

comments only

A. Incorporation by reference (§ 1926.31)

B. Flammable and combustible liquids

(§ 1926.152)

C. Initiation of explosive charges—Electric

blasting (§ 1926.906)

Amendments to Part 1926 that

received varied comments

D. Medical services and first aid

(§ 1926.50)

IV. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

VI. Environmental Assessment

VII. International Trade

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. Federalism

X. State Plan Standards

XI. Authority and Signature

References to the rulemaking record

are provided in the text of the preamble.

References are identified as ‘‘Ex.’’

followed by a number to designate the

reference in this rulemaking docket, S–

778. For example, ‘‘Ex. 3’’ means exhibit

three in Docket S–778. Exhibit 3 is a

copy of the ‘‘Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Changes

to General Industry and Construction

Standards; Proposed Paperwork

Collection, Comment Request for Coke

Oven Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic’’,

the first step in the rule-making action

being completed today, which was

published in the Federal Register on

July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37849).

A list of exhibits and copies of the

exhibits are available in the OSHA

Docket Office, Room N–2625, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 219–7894.

I. Background

OSHA has made a continuing effort to

eliminate confusing, outdated, and

duplicative requirements from its

standards and regulations. In 1978 and

again in 1984, the Agency conducted

revocation and revision projects that

resulted in the elimination of hundreds

of unnecessary provisions. In response

to the President’s Memorandum of

March 4, 1995, which requested

Agencies to review and stream-line their

regulations, the Agency continued this

effort by conducting a line-by-line

review of its regulations to determine

where they could be eliminated,

simplified or clarified. As a result of this

review, OSHA completed a document

on May 31, 1995, entitled ‘‘OSHA’s

Regulatory Reform Initiatives’’ (Ex. L–5).

That document detailed the Agency’s

findings as to which regulations could

be deleted or revised without reducing

employee health and safety. OSHA

stated in that document that clarifying,

deleting, or revising these regulations

would improve employer compliance

and, consequently, enhance safety and

health protection for employees.

The Agency began the rulemaking

process that would implement the

changes identified in the review with an

administrative notice that made minor

clarifications and technical amendments

to OSHA standards (61 FR 9228, March

7, 1996). In a second notice, duplicate

health provisions from the shipyard and

construction standards were eliminated

and replaced with cross-references to

the identical text in the general industry

standards (61 FR 31427, June 20, 1996).

Eliminating these duplicate provisions
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33451

has reduced the number of pages

devoted to OSHA rules in the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) without

changing the substantive requirements

of the standards.

On July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37849),

OSHA proposed substantive changes to

certain standards that the Agency

believed are unnecessary to, duplicative

of, or inconsistent with the protection of

worker safety and health. OSHA

requested comments and set 60 days for

their receipt. The final changes

supported by the public record, and

reflected in the Federal Register notice

being published today, complete the

regulatory action initiated with the July,

1996 Federal Register notice. OSHA is

also reducing paperwork burden by

deleting the requirements for sputumcytology examinations and reducing the

frequency of chest x-rays for workers

covered by the arsenic and coke oven

emissions standards.

II. Distribution Table

For the convenience of the public,

OSHA is providing a distribution table,

below, which shows the section

designations of those existing OSHA

General Industry rules that are being

removed, removed and reserved, and

redesignated in this rulemaking action.

Old Section (29 CFR 1910) New Section (29 CFR 1910)

110(b)(15)(vi) ............................................................................................ Removed.

110(b)(15)(vii) ........................................................................................... Removed.

110(b)(15)(viii) ........................................................................................... Removed.

110(b)(15)(ix) ............................................................................................ 110(b)(15)(vi).

110(c)(2)(i) ................................................................................................ 110(c)(2).

110(c)(2)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

110(c)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

110(c)(2)(iv) .............................................................................................. Removed.

110(e)(10) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

110(g) ........................................................................................................ Removed and Reserved.

111(f)(7) .................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

111(f)(8) .................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

141(a)(2)(i) ................................................................................................ Removed.

141(a)(2)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(iii) .............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(iv) .............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(v) ............................................................................................... Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(vi) .............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(vii) ............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(viii) ............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(ix) .............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(x) ............................................................................................... Removed Paragraph Designation.

141(a)(2)(xi) .............................................................................................. Removed Paragraph Designation.

142(a)(4) ................................................................................................... Removed.

151 ............................................................................................................ Added Appendix A.

156(f)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

183(a) ........................................................................................................ Removed and Reserved.

261(a)(3)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(iii) .............................................................................................. 261(a)(3)(ii) .

261(a)(3)(iv) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(v) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(vi) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(vii) ............................................................................................. 261(a)(3)(iii).

261(a)(3)(viii) ............................................................................................. 261(a)(3)(iv).

261(a)(3)(ix) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(x) ............................................................................................... 261(a)(3)(v).

261(a)(3)(xi) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(xii) ............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(xiii) ............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(xiv) ............................................................................................ 261(a)(3)(vi).

261(a)(3)(xv) ............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(xvi) ............................................................................................ 261(a)(3)(vii).

261(a)(3)(xvii) ............................................................................................ Removed.

261(a)(3)(xviii) ........................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(xix) ............................................................................................ Removed.

261(a)(3)(xx) ............................................................................................. Removed.

261(a)(3)(xxi) ............................................................................................ 261(a)(3)(viii).

261(a)(3)(xxii) ............................................................................................ Removed.

261(a)(3)(xxiii) ........................................................................................... 261(a)(3)(ix).

261(a)(3)(xxiv) ........................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(xxv) ........................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(xxvi) ........................................................................................... Removed.

261(a)(3)(xxvii) .......................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(1) ................................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(2) ................................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(3) ................................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(4) ................................................................................................... 261(b)(1).

261(b)(5) ................................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(6) ................................................................................................... Removed.

261(b)(7) ................................................................................................... 261(b)(2).

261(c)(2)(vi) .............................................................................................. Removed.
33452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Old Section (29 CFR 1910) New Section (29 CFR 1910)

261(c)(2)(vii) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(c)(2)(viii) ............................................................................................. 261(c)(2)(vi).

261(c)(6)(i) ................................................................................................ 261(c)(6).

261(c)(6)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(c)(7)(i) ................................................................................................ 261(c)(7).

261(c)(7)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(d)(1)(i) ................................................................................................ 261(d)(1).

261(d)(1)(ii) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(e)(3) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(e)(7) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(e)(9) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(g)(1)(iv) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(g)(1)(v) ............................................................................................... 261(g)(1)(iv).

261(g)(2)(i) ................................................................................................ Removed.

261(g)(2)(ii) ............................................................................................... 261(g)(2)(i).

261(g)(2)(iii) .............................................................................................. 261(g)(2)(ii).

261(g)(15)(iv) ............................................................................................ Removed.

261(g)(15)(v) ............................................................................................. 261(g)(15)(iv).

261(g)(15)(vi) ............................................................................................ Removed.

261(h)(2)(iii) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(h)(2)(iv) .............................................................................................. 261(h)(2)(iii).

261(j)(1)(iv) ............................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(j)(3) .................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(j)(4)(ii) ................................................................................................ Removed.

261(j)(4)(iii) ................................................................................................ 261(j)(4)(ii).

261(j)(4)(iv) ............................................................................................... 261(j)(4)(iii).

261(j)(4)(v) ................................................................................................ 261(j)(4)(iv).

261(j)(4)(vi) ............................................................................................... 261(j)(4)(v).

261(j)(5)(iv) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(j)(6)(ii) ................................................................................................ Removed.

261(j)(6)(iii) ................................................................................................ 261(j)(6)(ii).

261(k)(2)(i) ................................................................................................ Removed.

261(k)(2)(ii) ............................................................................................... 261(k)(2)(i).

261(k)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................... 261(k)(2)(ii).

261(k)(2)(iv) .............................................................................................. 261(k)(2)(iii).

261(k)(2)(v) ............................................................................................... 261(k)(2)(iv).

261(k)(2)(vi) .............................................................................................. 261(k)(2)(v).

261(k)(4) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

261(k)(16) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

261(m)(2) .................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

261(m)(4) .................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

261(m)(5)(i) ............................................................................................... Removed.

261(m)(5)(ii) .............................................................................................. Removed.

261(m)(5)(iii) ............................................................................................. 261(m)(5).

262(c)(3) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

262(c)(4) ................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

262(gg) ...................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

262(ll)(1) .................................................................................................... Removed.

262(ll)(2) .................................................................................................... 262(ll).

262(qq)(1) ................................................................................................. Removed.

262(qq)(2) ................................................................................................. Removed.

262(rr) ....................................................................................................... Removed.

265(a)(1) ................................................................................................... 265(a).

265(a)(2) ................................................................................................... Removed.

265(c)(3)(i) ................................................................................................ Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(10) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(14) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(16) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(17) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(22) ................................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(24)(iv)(a) ........................................................................................ Removed.

265(c)(24)(iv)(b) ........................................................................................ 265(c)(24)(iv).

265(c)(24)(iv)(c) ........................................................................................ Removed.

265(c)(26)(i) .............................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(30)(vi) ............................................................................................ Removed and Reserved.

265(c)(30)(x) ............................................................................................. Removed and Reserved.

265(e)(3)(ii)(d) ........................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

265(f)(9) .................................................................................................... Removed.

265(g) ........................................................................................................ Removed.

265(h) ........................................................................................................ Removed.

265(i) ......................................................................................................... Removed.

267 ............................................................................................................ Removed and Reserved.

268(f) ......................................................................................................... Removed and Reserved.

1017(g)(5)(i) .............................................................................................. Removed.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33453

Old Section (29 CFR 1910) New Section (29 CFR 1910)

1017(g)(5)(ii) ............................................................................................. Removed.

1017(g)(6) ................................................................................................. 1017(g)(5) .

1017(g)(7) ................................................................................................. 1017(g)(6).

1018(n)(2)(ii)(C) ........................................................................................ Removed.

1018(n)(2)(ii)(D) ........................................................................................ 1018(n)(2)(ii)(C).

1018(q)(2)(iii)(F) ........................................................................................ Removed.

1018(q)(2)(iii)(G) ....................................................................................... Removed.

1018(q)(2)(iii)(H) ....................................................................................... Removed.

1018 App C, Section I, General ............................................................... Removed ‘‘(4) A sputum cytology examination;’’.

1018 App C, Section I, General ............................................................... Redesignated paragraph 5 as paragraph 4

1018 App C, Section I, General ............................................................... Removed entire section entitled ‘‘III. Sputum cytology’’.

1029(j)(2)(vii) ............................................................................................. Removed.

1029(j)(2)(viii) ............................................................................................ 1029(j)(2)(vii). Added new 1029(j)(3)(iv).

1029(j)(3)(iv) ............................................................................................. 1029(j)(3)(v).

III. Summary and Explanation

In this section, OSHA explains the

changes made to each regulatory

provision being removed, revised, or

redesignated. First, the changes that

were proposed in the July 1996 Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and

the reasons for proposing those changes

are discussed. Next, any comments that

OSHA received about the proposed

changes are identified and addressed.

Finally, the action that OSHA is taking

with regard to the proposed changes is

explained.

The proposed changes to Part 1910

standards are listed first, followed by

those for Part 1926. Within this

framework, provisions that received

either no comments or positive

comments only are listed first, in

numerical order, followed by the few

provisions for which minor varied

comments were received.

Amendments to Part 1910 That

Received No Comments or Positive

Comments Only

A. Explosives and Blasting Agents

(§ 1910.109)

Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of § 1910.109

prohibits the transporting of blasting

caps on a vehicle that is carrying other

explosives. However, The Department of

Transportation (DOT) has issued

regulations that provide an approved

method for safely transporting blasting

caps on the same vehicle with other

explosives. Therefore, OSHA proposed

to amend paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of 29 CFR

1910.109 to permit transporting blasting

caps on the same vehicle with other

explosives if they are transported in

accordance with the method specified

in the DOT regulations at 49 CFR

177.835(g)(3)(i).

OSHA received supporting comments

(e.g. Ex. 4: 1,10) on the proposed

provision, and no commenter opposed

the proposed action. As a result, OSHA

is amending paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of

§ 1910.109 as proposed.

Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of § 1910.109

requires that boxes and packaging

materials that have previously

contained explosives not be used again

and be destroyed by burning at an

approved outdoor location. However,

environmental agencies often will not

permit the burning of these materials.

Additionally, DOT permits the re-use of

such packaging materials if such re-use

is accomplished in accordance with

certain criteria contained in 49 CFR

173.28.

OSHA proposed to amend paragraph

(e)(2)(i) to permit reusing

uncontaminated containers and

packaging materials if such re-use is

accomplished in accordance with DOT

regulations.

All of the comments OSHA received

on this provision supported the

proposed action. For example, the

Institute of Manufacturers of Explosives

(IME) (Ex. 4: 10 pp. 1–2) stated:

In addition, IME supports OSHA’s

amendment to § 1910.109 (e)(2)(i). The

amended regulation will allow

companies to reuse, rather than burn,

uncontaminated packaging materials. As

a result, companies will not be forced to

violate state or local prohibitions against

burning in order to comply with OSHA,

or vice versa.

Accordingly, OSHA is amending

paragraph (e)(2)(i) of § 1910.109 as

proposed.

B. Storing and Handling of Liquefied

Petroleum Gases (§ 1910.110)

Paragraphs (b)(15)(v)–(vii) of

§ 1910.110 contain requirements for the

location of backflow check valves,

excess-flow valves, and shutoff valves

on tank cars and transport trucks.

Paragraph (b)(15)(viii) of § 1910.110

contains requirements for locating tank

cars and transport trucks during loading

and unloading operations.

OSHA had proposed to delete

paragraphs (b)(15)(v)–(viii) of

§ 1910.110, because the design of

transportation vehicles and the safe

location of such vehicles during loading

and unloading operations are under the

jurisdiction of DOT and not OSHA.

Upon further review of these

paragraphs, OSHA has concluded that

paragraph (b)(15)(v) is not under the

jurisdiction of DOT, since it addresses

valves associated with storage tank

piping located at a worksite.

Accordingly, OSHA is retaining

paragraph (b)(15)(v) and deleting

paragraphs (b)(15)(vi)–(viii). OSHA is

also redesignating paragraph (b)(15)(ix)

as new paragraph (b)(15)(vi) of

§ 1910.110.

Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)–(iv) of § 1910.110

contain specifications for marking LPG

cylinders. OSHA proposed deleting

these marking specifications because

they duplicate DOT requirements. No

comments were received on the

proposed changes, and OSHA is

deleting the text of paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)–

(iv). OSHA is also redesignating

paragraph (c)(2)(i) as new paragraph

(c)(2).

Paragraph (e)(10) of § 1910.110

contains limitation requirements on the

capacity of LPG containers that are used

to fuel passenger carrying vehicles.

OSHA proposed deleting these

requirements pertaining to passenger

carrying vehicles because they are under

the jurisdiction of DOT. No comments

were received on the proposed changes,

and OSHA is deleting the text of

paragraph (e)(10) of § 1910.110 and

reserving the paragraph designation.

Paragraph (g) of § 1910.110 contains

requirements for installing LP-gas

systems on commercial vehicles. OSHA

proposed deleting these requirements

because the installation of LP-gas

systems on commercial vehicles is

under the jurisdiction of DOT. No

comments were received on the

proposed changes. OSHA, therefore, is

deleting the text from paragraph (g) of

§ 1910.110 and reserving the paragraph

designation.
33454 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

C. Storing and Handling of Anhydrous

Ammonia (§ 1910.111)

Paragraph (f)(7) of § 1910.111 contains

safety requirements for full trailers and

semitrailers that transport ammonia.

Paragraph (f)(8) of § 1910.111 contains

requirements to protect such vehicles

from collision. Because full trailers and

semitrailers that transport ammonia are

under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA

proposed deleting the text of paragraphs

(f)(7) and (f)(8) of § 1910.111 and

reserving the paragraph designations.

OSHA received no comments on the

proposed changes, and the text of

paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of § 1910.111

is therefore being deleted and the

paragraph designations are being

reserved.

D. Sanitation (§ 1910.141)

OSHA proposed deleting the

definition of ‘‘lavatory’’ given in

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of § 1910.141. This

definition stated that ‘‘lavatory means a

basin or similar vessel used exclusively

for washing of hands, arms, faces, and

head.’’ OSHA believes that the meaning

of the term Lavatory is self-explanatory

in the context of the section and that

deleting this definition will not

diminish the health of employees in

affected workplaces. No comments were

received in opposition to the proposed

deletion of the definition of ‘‘lavatory’’

in § 1910.141. The definition of

‘‘lavatory’’ is, therefore, being deleted

from § 1910.141. Further, to conform to

the format typically found in other

OSHA standards, all paragraph

designations for the definitions within

paragraph (a)(2) of § 1910.141 are also

being removed.

E. Temporary Labor Camps (§ 1910.142)

Paragraph 1910.142(a)(4) provides

regulations for closing temporary labor

camps. Upon closing a camp site, the

regulations require the employer to

collect all refuse, garbage, and manure,

to fill all privy pits, to lock and secure

any remaining privy buildings, and to

leave all grounds and buildings in a

clean and sanitary condition.

Because this paragraph deals with

closing the site, which occurs after the

employees have left, this paragraph does

not relate to worker safety but to public

safety, which is outside the Agency’s

mission. For these reasons, OSHA

proposed removing paragraph

1910.142(a)(4). No comments were

received on this issue, and paragraph

1910.142(a)(4) is accordingly being

removed. OSHA notes, however, that

employers may be responsible for

adhering to other standards related to

public health and safety in the locality

or State in which the camp site is

located.

F. Safety Color Code for Marking

Physical Hazards (§ 1910.144)

Section 1910.144 provides guidance

on the colors to use to mark physical

hazards. These colors were required so

that emergency devices and physical

hazards could be identified quickly by

employees. OSHA proposed removing

these requirements from 29 CFR part

1910 because they have relatively

narrow scope and for employers

desiring guidance in this area, the

American National Standards Institute

standard ANSI Z535.1–91, Safety Color

Code is available. No comments were

received on this issue. However on

reconsideration, OSHA has decided to

retain this section to indicate that

proper color coding is necessary for

worker protection in emergencies.

G. Fire Brigades (§ 1910.156)

Section 1910.156 contains

requirements for organizing, training,

and providing personal protective

equipment for members of fire brigades.

Requirements for negative-pressure selfcontained breathing apparatus are listed

in § 1910.156(f)(2)(iii). These

requirements were intended to remain

mandatory for 18 months after the

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified a

positive-pressure breathing apparatus

with the same or longer service life as

the then required negative-pressure

breathing apparatus. The 18-month

period was to allow employers to phase

in the new apparatus.

NIOSH has since certified a positivepressure breathing apparatus, and the 18

month phase-in period has ended. This

paragraph is therefore unnecessary and

OSHA proposed removing it. There

were no comments on the proposed

change, and OSHA is therefore

removing § 1910.156(f)(2)(iii) as

proposed.

H. Helicopters (§ 1910.183)

Paragraph 1910.183(a) states that

helicopter cranes are expected to

comply with any applicable regulations

of the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA). OSHA does not have the

statutory authority to enforce FAA

regulations for helicopters (found at 14

CFR part 133) and therefore proposed

removing this paragraph. There were no

comments on the proposed change and

OSHA is therefore removing paragraph

1910.183(a) and reserving the paragraph

designation as proposed.

I. Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills

(§ 1910.261)

Section 1910.261 contains

requirements that apply to

establishments where pulp, paper, and

paperboard are manufactured and

converted. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),

(e), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (m) of § 1910.261

require these establishments to comply

with a number of standards of the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI). Including these ANSI standards

in § 1910.261 duplicates other standards

in part 1910 that apply to general

industry as a whole, cover the same

hazards, and in many cases, share the

same source materials as the provisions

in § 1910.261.

All but one of the ANSI standards

referenced in § 1910.261 were source

documents for OSHA standards that

have general application without regard

to any specific industry. For example,

ANSI Standard A12.1–1967, Safety

Requirements for Floor and Wall

Openings, Railings, and Toeboards is

referenced in paragraph

1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also the source

standard for Section 1910.23, Guarding

Floor and Wall Openings and Holes.

OSHA believes that the OSHA

standard, codified in Section 1910.23,

provides equivalent or better protection

for workers in this industry than the

ANSI standard, A12.1–967, which is

referenced in § 1910.261. Accordingly,

OSHA proposed deleting paragraph

1910.261(a)(3)(ii).

Similarly, there are a number of other

OSHA standards that OSHA believes

can provide equivalent or better

protection for pulp and paper workers

than the ANSI standards referenced in

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h),

(j), (k), and (m) in Section 1910.261. For

this reason, OSHA proposed deleting

many provisions of § 1910.261 and

applying the corresponding provisions

found elsewhere in part 1910. The

following table lists the OSHA

standards that were proposed for

deletion, the referenced ANSI standards,

and the OSHA standards that will

provide equivalent or better protection.

Deleted standard Referenced

ANSI standard

Equivalent

OSHA standard

1910.261(a)(3)(ii) ................................................................................................................................................ A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

1910.261(a)(3)(iv) ............................................................................................................................................... A14.1–1968 § 1910.25
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33455

Deleted standard Referenced

ANSI standard

Equivalent

OSHA standard

1910.261(a)(3)(v) ............................................................................................................................................... A14.2–1956 § 1910.26

1910.261(a)(3)(vi) ............................................................................................................................................... A14.3–1956 § 1910.27

1910.261(a)(3)(ix) ............................................................................................................................................... B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(a)(3)(xi) ............................................................................................................................................... B30.2–1967 § 1910.179

B30.5–1968 § 1910.180

1910.261(a)(3)(xii) .............................................................................................................................................. B30.2–1967 § 1910.179

1910.261(a)(3)(xiii) ............................................................................................................................................. B30.2–1943 § 1910.179

B30.5–1968 § 1910.180

1910.261(a)(3)(xv) .............................................................................................................................................. B56.1–1969 § 1910.178

1910.261(a)(3)(xvii) ............................................................................................................................................ 0.1–1954 § 1910.213

§ 1910.214

1910.261(a)(3)(xviii) ........................................................................................................................................... Z4.1–1968 § 1910.141

1910.261(a)(3)(xix) ............................................................................................................................................. Z9.1–1951 § 1910.94

1910.261(a)(3)(xx) .............................................................................................................................................. Z9.2–1960 § 1910.94

1910.261(a)(3)(xxiv) ........................................................................................................................................... Z35.1–1968 § 1910.145

1910.261(a)(3)(xxv) ............................................................................................................................................ Z87.1–1968 § 1910.133

1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi) ........................................................................................................................................... Z88.2–1969 § 1910.134

1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii) .......................................................................................................................................... Z89.1–1969 § 1910.135

1910.261(b)(1) .................................................................................................................................................... B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(b)(2) .................................................................................................................................................... Z24.22–1957 § 1910.132

Z87.1–1968 § 1910.133

Z88.2–1968 § 1910.134

Z89.1–1969 § 1910.135

1910.261(b)(3) .................................................................................................................................................... A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

1910.261(b)(6) .................................................................................................................................................... B56.1–1969 § 1910.178

1910.261(c)(2)(vi) ............................................................................................................................................... B30.2–1967 § 1910.179

1910.261(c)(3)(i) ................................................................................................................................................. A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

A14.1–1968 § 1910.25

A14.2–1956 § 1910.26

A14.3–1956 § 1910.27

1910.261(c)(8)(i) ................................................................................................................................................. B30.2–1967 § 1910.179

1910.261(c)(11) .................................................................................................................................................. B56.1–1969 § 1910.30

1910.261(d)(1)(ii) ................................................................................................................................................ Z87.1–1968 § 1910.133

1910.261(e)(3) .................................................................................................................................................... B15.1–1955 § 1910.219

1910.261(e)(7) .................................................................................................................................................... O1.1–1961 § 1910.213

1910.261(e)(9) .................................................................................................................................................... B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(g)(15)(vi) ............................................................................................................................................. Z4.1–1968 § 1910.141

1910.261(h)(2)(iii) ............................................................................................................................................... K13.1–1967 § 1910.134

Z88.2–1967

1910.261(j)(1)(iv) ................................................................................................................................................ B15.1–1958 § 1910.219

1910.261(j)(3) ..................................................................................................................................................... A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

1910.261(j)(4)(ii) ................................................................................................................................................. A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

1910.261(j)(5)(iv) ................................................................................................................................................ B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(j)(6)(ii) ................................................................................................................................................. B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(k)(2)(i) ................................................................................................................................................. B15.1–1953 § 1910.219

1910.261(k)(4) .................................................................................................................................................... A12.1–1967 § 1910.23

1910.261(m)(2) ................................................................................................................................................... B56.1–1969 § 1910.178

1910.261(m)(4) ................................................................................................................................................... Z87.1–1968 § 1910.133

1910.261(m)(5)(i) ............................................................................................................................................... Z87.1–1968 § 1910.132

1910.261(m)(5)(ii) ............................................................................................................................................... B56.1–1969 § 1910.178

Similarly, OSHA believes that the

OSHA standard, § 1910.95,

Occupational Noise Exposure, provides

worker protection that is at least

equivalent to that provided by the ANSI

standard, Z24.22–1957, Method of

Measurement of Real-Ear Attenuation of

Ear Protectors, that is referenced in

§ 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii). OSHA, therefore,

proposed removing

§ 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this

duplicate coverage.

Paragraph (b)(5) of § 1910.261 requires

workers in the pulp, paper and

paperboard industry who enter closed

vessels, tanks, chip bins, and similar

equipment to follow specific procedures

and wear personal protective

equipment. This standard, however,

does not provide the necessary

requirements for monitoring, testing,

and communication that are critical

when working in a confined space.

OSHA proposed deleting paragraph

(b)(5) of § 1910.261 for two reasons.

First, § 1910.146, Permit-Required

Confined Spaces, provides better

protection for workers required to work

in a confined space. Section 1910.146

provides a comprehensive regulatory

program within which employers can

effectively protect employees working

in confined spaces. This program

addresses the ongoing need for

monitoring, testing, and communication

at these workplaces. Second, employers

are required to comply with § 1910.146

when a specific industry standard does

not completely address the known

hazards of working in a confined space,

a principle noted in paragraph (c)(2) of

§ 1910.5. This means that employers

must already comply with § 1910.146

rather than paragraph (b)(5) of

§ 1910.261.

Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of § 1910.261

requires employers to provide personal

protective equipment to workers on a

job basis. Since employers are required

to comply with the general requirements

for personal protective equipment in

§ 1910.132, OSHA proposed removing

paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this
33456 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

duplication of requirements in a way

that will not decrease worker protection.

Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) of

§ 1910.261 require employers to provide

workers with personal protective

equipment and ear protection when the

noise level may be harmful. Since

employers are required to comply with

the general requirements for personal

protective equipment in § 1910.132 and

the general requirements for

occupational noise exposure in

§ 1910.95, OSHA proposed removing

paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) to

eliminate this duplication of

requirements.

Paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of

§ 1910.261 are specific electrical

standards prescribed for the pulp,

paper, and paperboard industry that

require compliance with subpart S,

Electrical, in OSHA’s standards. Since

all of general industry is required to

comply with all of subpart S for

electrical standards, OSHA proposed

removing paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and

(k)(16) of § 1910.261 to eliminate this

duplication.

Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of § 1910.261

requires employers to provide gas masks

to employees working in the acid

department. Since employers are

required to comply with the general

requirements for respiratory protection

in § 1910.134, OSHA proposed

removing paragraph (g)(2)(i) to eliminate

this regulatory duplication.

Paragraph (g)(15)(iv) of § 1910.261 is a

standard prescribed for the pulp, paper,

and paperboard industry that addresses

lead dust exposure and requires

compliance with § 1910.1000, Air

Contaminants. Since employers are

required to comply with all of

§ 1910.1000, including paragraph

1910.1025 which addresses lead

exposure, OSHA proposed removing

paragraph (g)(15)(iv) to eliminate this

duplication.

All of the proposed changes to

§ 1910.261 adopted by this notice were

supported by two commenters,

American Forest & Paper Association

(AFPA) and the Pacific Coast

Association of Pulp and Paper

Manufacturers (PCAP&PM) (Exs.4–15,

4–24). The AFPA stated that ‘‘AFPA

wishes to commend OSHA for the

substantial efforts which the Agency has

made to remove or revise standards that

are obsolete, duplicative, unnecessary,

or inconsistent for maintaining

employee protection’’. There were no

comments opposing these changes and

OSHA is therefore removing the

paragraphs listed above and shown on

the table from § 1910.261, for the

reasons stated above and given in the

proposal.

AFPA also recommended that OSHA

delete a number of other provisions.

OSHA believes these suggestions

require additional study and there needs

to be more extensive opportunity for

comment on them. Rather than holding

up the deregulatory changes in this

document, OSHA will consider

including those suggestions in its next

proposal to eliminate unneeded

provisions.

J. Textiles (§ 1910.262)

For the purpose of eliminating

duplicate standards coverage, OSHA

proposed to delete a number of

standards in § 1910.262 that reference

general occupational safety and health

standards. The following table lists the

standards OSHA proposed to delete.

The referenced general OSHA standards

will continue to apply to employers in

the Textile industry.

Deleted standard Referenced OSHA

standard

1910.262(c)(3) ............... 1910.219

1910.262(c)(4) ............... 1910.141

1910.262(gg) ................. 1910.219

1910.262(ll)(1) ............... 1910.23

1910.262(qq)(1) ............. 1910.132;

1910.133;

1910.134

1910.262(qq)(2) ............. 1910.134

1910.262(rr) ................... 1910.1000;

1910.94(d)

No comments were received on this

issue, and OSHA is therefore deleting

the standards listed in the table above.

Paragraph (c)(8) of § 1910.262 requires

employers to identify physical hazards

in accordance with the requirements of

§ 1910.144. Section 1910.144 provides

guidance on the colors to use to mark

physical hazards. As noted earlier in

Section F of this preamble, OSHA has

decided to retain this provision to

indicate that proper color coding is

necessary for worker protection in

emergencies. Because OSHA is retaining

§ 1910.144, which is referenced in

§ 1910.262(c)(8), OSHA will also retain

§ 1910.262(c)(8).

No comments were received on this

issue, and OSHA is therefore retaining

§ 1910.262(c)(8).

K. Sawmills (§ 1910.265)

Section 1910.265 contains safety

requirements for sawmill operations

including, but not limited to, log and

lumber handling, sawing, trimming, and

planing; waste disposal; dry kiln

operation; finishing; shipping; storage;

yard and yard equipment; and for power

tools and related equipment used in

connection with such operations.

Certain paragraphs of § 1910.265

incorporate and apply general

occupational safety and health

standards that apply to all employment

covered by 29 CFR part 1910. As

required in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, such standards apply to

sawmill operations in accordance with

the rules of construction set forth in

§ 1910.5. For example, the general

standard regarding mechanical powertransmission apparatus in § 1910.219 is

applicable to employment in sawmill

operations covered in § 1910.265, but it

is also incorporated by reference in

paragraph (c)(22) of § 1910.265. OSHA

believes that this repetition does not

enhance worker safety, and therefore

proposed removing paragraph (c)(22) of

§ 1910.265. Also, since § 1910.5 applies

to all industries, including the sawmill

industry, OSHA proposed removing

paragraph (a)(2) of § 1910.265, which

merely references § 1910.5.

Similarly, to eliminate duplicate

standards coverage, OSHA proposed

deleting various provisions currently

found in § 1910.265 that reference

general occupational safety and health

standards. The following table lists the

standards OSHA proposed deleting and

the referenced general OSHA standards

that will continue to apply to sawmills.

Deleted standard Referenced OSHA

standard

1910.265(c)(3)(i) ............ 1910.23

1910.265(c)(10) ............. 1910.25–27

1910.265(c)(14) ............. 1910.110

1910.265(c)(16) ............. 1910.106

1910.265(c)(17)(i) .......... 1910.1000

1910.265(c)(17)(ii) ......... Subpart I

1910.265(c)(17)(iii) ........ 1910.94(d)

1910.265(c)(22) ............. 1910.219

1910.265(c)(26)(i) .......... 1910.219

1910.265(c)(30)(vi) ........ 1910.219

1910.265(c)(30)(x) ......... 1910.178

1910.265(e)(3)(ii)(d) ...... 1910.219

1910.265(f)(9) ................ 1910.219

1910.265(g) ................... Subpart I

1910.265(h) ................... 1910.141

1910.265(i) .................... Subpart L

Paragraph (c)(11) of § 1910.265

requires employers to mark physical

hazards as specified in § 1910.144.

Section 1910.144 provides guidance on

the colors to use to mark physical

hazards. As noted earlier in Section F of

this preamble, OSHA is retaining

§ 1910.144 since the Agency believes

that proper color coding is necessary for

worker protection in emergencies. Since

OSHA is retaining § 1910.144, which is

referenced in § 1910.265(c)(11), OSHA

will also retain § 1910.265(c)(11).

Paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of § 1910.265

requires employers to inspect slings

daily when in use, and to remove a sling

from service if it is found to be

defective. In addition, paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33457

(c)(24)(iv)(c) of § 1910.265 requires

employers to provide suitable protection

between the sling and the sharp

unyielding surfaces of the load to be

lifted. These provisions duplicate some

of the general requirements for the use

of slings in § 1910.184, which also

includes provisions for sling inspection,

removal, and protection. OSHA

proposed deleting paragraphs

(c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c)(24)(iv)(c) to

eliminate the duplication of

requirements for slings in § 1910.265.

The American Forest & Paper

Association (AFPA) (Ex. 4–15)

supported the changes to the provisions

in Section 1910.265 that had been

proposed by OSHA and that are now

made final by this notice. There were no

comments opposing these changes, and

OSHA is therefore deleting the

standards as proposed. The AFPA (Ex.

4–15) also suggested several other

changes. OSHA concluded that they

need further study, and rather than

delaying this final rule, OSHA will

consider including them in the next

proposal to eliminate unnecessary

provisions.

L. Agricultural Operations (§ 1910.267)

Section 1910.267 previously

contained part 1910 requirements

applicable to agricultural operations.

These requirements were moved to

§ 1928.21 in 1975 (40 FR 18268). Since

that time, § 1910.267 has been used

simply to refer employers to § 1928.21

to locate these requirements. OSHA

believes that § 1910.267 is now

unnecessary and proposed removing

and reserving this section.

No comments were received on this

issue, and OSHA is therefore removing

§ 1910.267 and reserving this section.

M. Vinyl Chloride (§ 1910.1017)

OSHA proposed deleting paragraphs

(g)(5) (i) and (ii) of § 1910.1017, vinyl

chloride, which was promulgated in

1974. These paragraphs addressed entry

into unknown and hazardous vinylchloride atmospheres. Paragraph

(g)(5)(i) allows entry into unknown

concentrations of vinyl chloride or

concentrations greater than 36,000 ppm

(lower explosive limit) only for

purposes of life rescue. Paragraph

(g)(5)(ii) allows entry into

concentrations of vinyl chloride of less

than 36,000 ppm, but greater than 3,600

ppm, only for purposes of life rescue,

firefighting, or securing equipment that

will prevent a greater release of vinyl

chloride.

In 1989, OSHA promulgated industrywide provisions addressing emergency

response with respect to entry into

unknown or hazardous atmospheres

under § 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response

(HAZWOPER) standard (54 FR 9317,

Mar. 6, 1989). Included in the scope of

the HAZWOPER standard are

requirements for ‘‘Emergency response

operations for release of, or substantial

threats of release of, hazardous

substances without regard to the

location of the hazard.’’ Thus, vinyl

chloride, which is a ‘‘hazardous

substance’’ as defined under the

HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the

emergency response provisions in both

the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER

rules. With regard to overlapping

provisions, the HAZWOPER standard

specifically states in paragraph (a)(2)(i)

that ‘‘If there is a conflict or overlap

[between emergency-response

provisions in § 1910.120 and provisions

in substance-specific standards], the

provisions more protective of employee

safety and health shall apply. * * *’’

At the time it proposed to revoke the

vinyl chloride provisions, OSHA

believed that the emergency-response

provisions in § 1910.120 were more

protective overall than the relevant

provisions in the vinyl chloride

standard. Further, the provisions of

§ 1910.120, which require employers to

develop a broad program to respond

appropriately to any potential

emergency situation, were viewed by

the Agency as giving employers more

flexibility to tailor and implement

effective, comprehensive emergencyresponse programs to suit their needs.

Key provisions in § 1910.120(q) that

would apply where there is a potential

emergency associated with the release of

vinyl chloride address the following:

development and implementation of an

emergency response plan, paragraph

(q)(1); required elements of the

emergency response plan, paragraph

(q)(2); procedures for handling

emergency response, paragraph (q)(3);

using skilled support personnel,

paragraph (q)(4); using specialist

employees, paragraph (q)(5); training

emergency personnel, paragraphs (q) (6),

(7), and (8); medical surveillance and

consultation for emergency-response

personnel, paragraph (q)(9); using

chemical protective clothing, paragraph

(q)(10); and procedures for postemergency operations, paragraph

(q)(11).

OSHA continues to believe that

deleting § 1910.1017(g)(5) (i) and (ii) in

favor of § 1910.120 will not result in an

increased risk to the safety or health of

employees engaged in vinyl chloride

emergency response operations. The

Agency solicited comment on the

question of the sufficiency of § 1910.120

to address the protection of vinyl

chloride emergency response

employees, if the emergency response

provisions currently in the vinyl

chloride standard were deleted.

Comments were received which fully

supported the proposed action. The

Vinyl Institute (Ex. 4–11) commented as

follows:

In the event of a vinyl chloride incident

during transportation, storage, or

manufacture, it is necessary to respond

quickly to stop or minimize any release and

prevent the situation from escalating.

Because of the quantity of material that

potentially could be involved, such an

incident or leak, if not quickly corrected,

could create a cloud of explosive gas within

a relatively short time. The emergency

response provisions contained in the

Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency

Response (HAZWOPER) standard would

enable the emergency responders to

appropriately respond to the incident. In

contrast, the vinyl chloride standard can be

interpreted to prevent action if the exposure

concentration is unknown or if it is expected

to exceed 36,000 ppm and life rescue is not

necessary.

Following good emergency response

practices and acting consistently with the

HAZWOPER standard should produce the

optimum results while protecting the life and

safety of employees and other potentially

exposed individuals. In addition, eliminating

the emergency response provisions of the

vinyl chloride standard clarifies which

standard should govern in the event of such

an emergency incident.

OSHA’s proposal to delete two specific

emergency response provisions in the vinyl

chloride standard and rely on the emergency

response provisions in HAZWOPER will

result in optimal responsive action. The

HAZWOPER standard is flexible enough to

allow responders and companies to develop

comprehensive emergency response

programs that can be adapted to the

particular factual circumstances of a vinyl

chloride incident.

The Vinyl Chloride Panel

Transportation Committee of the

Chemical Manufacturers Association

(Ex. 4–12A) commented that:

The Committee agrees with OSHA’s

proposal, and believes that the emergency

response criteria in the HAZWOPER standard

are more appropriate than the relevant

provisions of the current vinyl chloride

standard. HAZWOPER recognizes that entry

into an unknown concentration or a confined

space may be necessary for reasons other

than life rescue, in order to avoid

catastrophic human or environmental threats.

Unlike the current vinyl chloride standard,

the HAZWOPER provisions are flexible

enough to allow responders and companies

to develop comprehensive emergency

response programs that suit their individual

needs.

OSHA received no comments

objecting to this proposed action.

Based on the reasoning set forth in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
33458 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), the

discussion of the issues in this notice,

and on supporting comments submitted

to the record, OSHA has determined

that deleting paragraphs (g)(5) (i) and (ii)

from the vinyl chloride standard (29

CFR 1910.1017) is appropriate, and this

final rule accomplishes that action.

N. Inorganic Arsenic (§ 1910.1018) and

Coke Oven Emissions (§ 1910.1029)

OSHA proposed to revise the existing

medical surveillance requirements in

paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018 that

address inorganic arsenic and paragraph

(j) of 29 CFR 1910.1029 that address

coke oven emissions exposure with

respect to sputum-cytology

examinations and chest x-rays.

Those changes are being made in

accordance with Section 6(b)(7) of the

OSH Act which provides that ‘‘The

Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of Health, Education and

Welfare, may by rule promulgated

pursuant to Section 553 of Title 5,

United States Code, make appropriate

modifications in the foregoing

requirements relating to the use of labels

or other forms of warning, monitoring or

measuring, and medical examinations,

as may be warranted by experience,

information, or medical or technological

developments acquired subsequent to

the promulgation of the relevant

standard’’.

Specifically, OSHA proposed to

delete the requirement in paragraph

(n)(2)(ii)(C) of § 1910.1018 (the

inorganic arsenic standard) that

provides for sputum-cytology

examination, as well as the requirement

in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of § 1910.1029

(The coke oven emission standard) that

provides for sputum-cytology

examination. Sputum-cytology

examinations were originally included

in the medical surveillance programs for

inorganic arsenic and coke oven

workers based on OSHA’s belief that

such examinations were useful in lung

cancer screening. Subsequent studies

indicate that sputum-cytology does not

improve survival.

OSHA also proposed to revise the

requirement in paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of

§ 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic

standard that provided for a semiannual chest x-ray for employees who

are 45 years of age or older or who have

10 or more years of arsenic exposure

over the action level. OSHA also

proposed to change the required

frequency of chest x-rays for these

employees from semi-annual to annual.

Likewise, OSHA proposed to amend the

requirement in § 1910.1029, paragraph

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

standard, which provides for a semiannual chest x-ray for employees 45

years of age or older or with 5 or more

years of employment in a regulated area.

OSHA proposed to amend the coke oven

standard provision to require an annual

chest x-ray in the medical surveillance

program for the group of employees

noted above. OSHA originally

promulgated the provision for semiannual x-rays in the belief that semiannual examinations were appropriate

for certain coke oven workers for lung

cancer screening. Subsequent studies

indicate that annual screening is equally

effective.

The basis for OSHA’s final

determinations with respect to its

proposed treatment of the relevant

sputum-cytology provisions is given

below, followed by a discussion

addressing the relevant x-ray provisions.

Sputum-cytology. When OSHA issued

its coke oven emission standard in 1976

and inorganic arsenic standard in 1978,

it included sputum-cytology as a

medical screening technique for lung

cancer. Medical opinion at the time

believed that this would improve lung

cancer survival rates for those at higher

risk, such as arsenic and coke oven

emission exposed workers.

Two subsequent studies of persons at

high risk of lung cancer did not indicate

any improved survival from sputumcytology screening. Therefore, OSHA

proposed to delete the requirements.

Two randomized controlled studies

evaluated the benefits of sputumcytology examinations as a screening

tool for lung cancer in a high-risk group,

male smokers 45 years of age and older.

The two studies included the Johns

Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1–3] and the

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Lung Project

[Ex. 1–4], both part of the National

Cancer Institute Cooperative Early Lung

Cancer Detection Program. Together, the

studies included 20,427 male smokers.

These men were assigned at random to

a dual-screen group (in which subjects

underwent an annual chest radiograph,

and sputum-cytologic study every 4

months) or to a single-screen group (in

which annual chest radiographic

screening was performed).

For both studies, there were no

significant survival differences between

the dual-screen and single-screen

groups in the total number of lungcancer cases, the number of late-stage

lung-cancer cases, the number of

resectable lung cancers, five year (Sloan

Kettering) and eight year (Johns

Hopkins) survival rates and the number

of lung-cancer deaths. Therefore,

sputum-cytology did not add any

benefit to a lung cancer screening

program that already included annual

chest x-rays. Other evaluations of the

same studies, (Chest X-ray Screening

Improves Outcome in Lung Cancer, A

Reappraisal of Randomized Trials on

Lung Cancer Screening) (Ex. 1–1), and

(The National Cancer Institute

Cooperative Early Lung Cancer

Detection Program) (Ex. 1–2), reached

the same conclusion.

There are no controlled studies on the

impact of sputum-cytology directly on

inorganic arsenic and coke oven

emission exposed workers. But

inorganic arsenic and coke oven

emission exposed workers are similar to

the smokers studied in that both groups

include older males that are placed at

higher risk of lung cancer through

inhalation.

The American Cancer Society’s

recommendations for early detection of

cancer in asymptomatic persons do not

include the use of sputum-cytology

examinations [Ex. 1–7]. The Society’s

decision in this regard was based on the

lack of epidemiological evidence that

would support the use of sputumcytology screening, and the risks and

costs associated with false positive

exams (Ex. 1–8).

OSHA solicited comments on these

conclusions with respect to the value of

sputum-cytology exams, and requested

submission of other data and views that

would support or dispute the Agency’s

proposed findings and conclusions.

OSHA received no comments

objecting to this proposed action.

Comments were submitted which

support the Agency’s proposal and

conclusions with respect to the

questionable value of sputum-cytology

as a useful lung cancer screening

technique (Exs. 4–2, 4–7, 4–17, 4–22, 4–

27).

James Craner, MD, MPH, and a BoardCertified Occupational Medicine

physician stated:

I fully concur with the proposal to

eliminate sputum cytology examinations for

the reasons that OSHA has cited. In my

experience, I have also found this test to be

inaccurate with a significant false positive

rate, particularly in smokers. The test is

expensive for employers, uncomfortable for

employees, and generates unacceptable costs

and anxiety for all involved in chasing (false)

positive results. [Ex. 4–17]

Newport News Shipbuilding’s

Director of Environmental Health and

Safety (Ex. 4–27) commented that:

In the 17 years since this regulation was

established there has been considerable

further experience with cytology and

screening techniques in general. This

experience and the scientific literature

published since 1978 established that

bronchial cytology is of no added value in

the protection of industrial workers against

the health hazards of arsenic.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33459

An analysis of the NNS experience of

bronchial cytology revealed that since

inception of the program well over 1000

cytological examinations have been done. No

case of dysplasia has been detected. This

contrasts with the 16 per 1000 found in the

Mayo lung project which used multiple

screening techniques for cancer in high risk

persons.

Also in support of OSHA’s proposal, The

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)

commented that:

As OSHA points out, sputum cytology

examinations were originally included in the

[coke oven emissions] standard based on the

belief that they ‘‘were useful in screening for

lung cancer.’’ See 61 Fed. Reg. at 37855–56.

Studies and information that have become

available since the standard was promulgated

show this belief to have been incorrect. Two

large-scale studies (the Johns Hopkins and

Sloan-Kettering Lung Projects) of male

smokers 45 years of age or older (a high risk

group) found that sputum cytology had no

significant value as a screening tool for lung

cancer when used in addition to annual x-ray

screening. [Ex. 4–22]

AISI further indicated that:

Experience in the steel industry is

consistent with the results of the Johns

Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering Studies. From

1977 through 1990, the cytology laboratory at

Shadyside Hospital in Pittsburgh, PA,

performed almost 71,000 sputum cytology

examinations of coke oven workers from

various steel companies. Only two definite

malignancies were detected in all of these

examinations, for a detection rate of 0.000028

[Ex. 4–22]

Based on their experience, AISI

asserts that ‘‘* * * sputum cytology has

not been of any more benefit in terms

of lung cancer screening under the Coke

Oven Emissions Standard than it was in

the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering

studies.’’ (Ex. 4–22)

The studies indicate the sputumcytology screening does not appear to

improve survival rates of groups at

higher risk of lung cancer beyond that

which would be accomplished through

annual chest x-rays. Arsenic and cokeoven emission exposed workers fit in

this category. The commenters support

this analysis and have provided

additional data which tends to support

these conclusions. Since the studies and

analysis do not indicate survival

benefits, OSHA is deleting the

requirements for sputum-cytology in the

inorganic arsenic and coke oven

emission standards as proposed.

X-Rays. As noted above, OSHA

proposed to revise the requirements in

the inorganic arsenic and coke oven

standards for chest x-rays from semiannual to annual for higher risk workers

covered by those standards. The basis

for the proposal was studies that

indicate that semi-annual x-rays did not

improve lung cancer survival rates over

annual x-rays.

This evidence continues to show that

employees at a higher risk of lung

cancer from exposures to inorganic

arsenic and coke oven emissions profit

from a medical surveillance program,

including annual chest x-rays, for the

early detection of lung cancer.

As discussed in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), two

recent randomized controlled studies

were conducted on a group at high risk

for developing lung cancer (namely,

male smokers 45 years of age or older),

and were evaluated with respect to the

utility of periodic x-rays. These studies,

which included the Mayo Lung Project

[Ex. 1–9] and the Czechoslovak Study

[Ex. 1–10], were designed specifically to

assess the efficacy of chest x-rays in

detecting early-stage lung cancer among

the members of this group. The studies

compared a number of outcomes

between experimental groups that were

assessed using chest x-rays

administered at periodic intervals (4

months in the Mayo Lung Project and 6

months in the Czechoslovak Study) and

control groups receiving less infrequent

or, in some cases, no chest x-rays.

(Participants in both the experimental

and control groups were administered

chest x-rays at the beginning of each

study to ensure that they had no

detectable lung tumors that would bias

the research outcomes.)

These studies (Exs. 1–9, 1–10) found

that periodic chest x-rays led to

enhanced detection of early-stage lung

cancer and, consequently, higher rates

of resectability for this cancer. As

demonstrated by a subsequent analysis

of these studies (Lung Cancer Detection,

Results of Randomized Prospective

Study in Czechoslovakia) (Ex. 1–11),

lung-cancer-specific survival based on

fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per

diagnosed cases) improved significantly.

This analysis also showed that the lower

fatality rate among the experimental

groups was not the result of over

diagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time

bias. For the Mayo Lung Project and the

Czechoslovak Study, respectively,

fatality rates of persons diagnosed with

lung cancer were found to be 59% and

78% in the experimental groups, and

72% and 95% in the control group.

The efficacy of chest x-rays was also

demonstrated by analyzing the

outcomes for the few experimental

group participants who did not undergo

surgery when diagnosed with earlystage lung cancer, either because they

refused surgery or surgery was

contraindicated. This analysis was part

of the research described in Exhibit 1–

11, which combined the outcomes for

experimental group participants in the

Mayo Lung Project with similar

experimental group participants from

two other groups (the Memorial SloanKettering Project and the Johns Hopkins

Lung Project). The 5 year fatality rate for

the nonsurgery participants was about

90 percent, compared with a 30-percent

fatality rate for those participants who

underwent cancer surgery. This

comparison provides strong support for

the efficacy of chest x-rays in detecting

early-stage lung cancer and enhancing

the survival of those participants who

undergo subsequent surgery for removal

of a detected tumor. Additionally, this

comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and lead-time biases did not

contribute significantly to the fatalityrate differences obtained between the

experimental and control groups in the

Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak

Study.

Based on this discussion, OSHA

concludes that employees exposed to

inorganic arsenic and coke oven

emissions continue to need medical

surveillance to detect lung cancer, and

that periodic chest x-rays are a

necessary part of the medical

surveillance to improve detection and

survival from lung cancer. OSHA

proposed reducing the frequency of

chest x-rays from semi-annually to

annually for older persons with higher

risk exposures.

This frequency is based, in part, on an

analysis described in Exhibit 1–11

showing that the 5-year fatality rate

(about 30–35 percent) for persons

diagnosed with lung cancer was the

same for the experimental-group

participants in the Mayo Lung Project,

which administered chest x-rays every 4

months, and the experimental-group

participants in the Memorial SloanKettering Project and Johns Hopkins

Lung Project, which performed chest xrays once a year. [See also Exs. 1–12 and

1–13] This analysis demonstrates that

fatality rates did not differ in any

practical or statistically significant

fashion across these three major studies.

Frequent chest x-rays very slightly

increase cancer rates from radiation and

therefore should not be given more

frequently than necessary from a health

perspective.

In summary, large randomized

controlled studies demonstrate that

semi-annual chest radiography

screenings show no benefit over annual

screenings. The studies also

demonstrate that annual chest

radiography screening of high-risk

individuals, including workers exposed

to inorganic arsenic and coke oven

emissions results in earlier detection of

lung cancer and improved survival.

Several commenters (Exs. 4–17, 4–22)

suggested that intervals between x-rays
33460 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

for high-risk workers could be longer

than 1 year; however, the Agency is

aware of no data to demonstrate with

reasonable confidence what longer

interval, if any, would not reduce

survival rates. In addition, no such data

were received by OSHA in response to

the proposal. OSHA therefore concludes

that an annual x-ray provision is

reasonable for the reasons set forth in

the proposal and this final notice.

Moreover, if the Agency has erred in

this instance, it has done so on the side

of over-protection rather than underprotection, as sanctioned by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Industrial Union

Department v. American Petroleum

Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).

OSHA solicited comments and data in

the proposal to reduce the frequency of

chest x-rays from semi-annual to annual

for certain workers exposed to inorganic

arsenic and coke oven emissions. OSHA

received no comments objecting to this

proposed action. Comment was received

supporting the proposal (Exs. 4–7, 4–17,

4–22, 4–27).

AISI commented that:

* * * the requirement for semiannual xrays originally was included in the Coke

Oven Emissions Standard ‘‘in the belief that

semiannual examinations were valid for

screening for lung cancer.’’ See 61 Fed. Reg.

At 37856/2. Since then, the results of several

large randomized control studies have

become available. These studies, the Mayo

Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study,

indicate that periodic chest x-rays do lead to

enhanced detection of early-stage lung

cancer. See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/3.

However, when the results of the Mayo Lung

Project (where chest x-rays were taken every

four months) were compared to the results of

the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering

studies described above (where chest x-rays

were taken only once a year), it was found

that the fatality rates ‘‘did not differ in any

practical or statistically-significant fashion

across these three major studies.’’ See 61 Fed.

Reg. At 37856/1.

What this demonstrates, as OSHA correctly

points out, is that ‘‘semiannual chest

radiography screenings show no benefit over

annual screenings.’’ Id. That being the case,

OSHA clearly is justified in finding that ‘‘an

annual chest x-ray satisfies the purpose of the

medical surveillance program required under

the standard.’’ See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/1.

A contrary conclusion not only would

impose unjustified burdens on coke oven

employers, it also would continue to expose

coke oven employees to an increased risk of

cancer associated with the performance of

unnecessary diagnostic x-rays. For that

reason, the Energy Technology Committee of

the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine has cautioned

against the routine administration of chest xrays and stated that for individuals at

increased risk of lung disease or cancer, such

as persons exposed to pulmonary irritants or

carcinogens, ‘‘a chest x-ray every 12–24

months may be justified.’’ (See American

College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine Guidelines for Use of Routine XRay Examinations in Occupational Medicine;

ACOEM Membership Directory 1995/1996:

Addendum at 517.)

The semiannual chest x-rays currently

required under the standard do not provide

a significant benefit over annual chest x-ray

screening in terms of early lung cancer

detection...Chest x-rays under the Coke Oven

Emissions Standard should, therefore, be

required no more often than annually.’’ (Ex.

4–22)

With respect to the arsenic standard,

James Craner, MD, MPH stated that

‘‘* * * I agree with the proposal to

reduce the frequency of chest x-ray

examinations’ (Ex. 4–17).

In summary, available data do not

indicate that semi-annual x-rays provide

additional protection than do annual xrays in improving the detection of and

survival from lung cancer for higher risk

persons. The record strongly supports

this analysis and OSHA’s proposal to

reduce the x-ray frequencies from semiannual to annual for certain workers

exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke

oven emission. OSHA concludes that

this final action will not reduce the

health of affected workers and

accordingly finalizes the changes

proposed.

Amendments to Part 1910 That

Received Varied Comments

O. Explosives and blasting agents

(§ 1910.109)

In 1978 OSHA published a final rule

(43 FR 49726) which revoked certain

requirements that were called ‘‘nuisance

standards’’ because they did not deal

directly with workplace safety and

health or were within the jurisdiction of

some other regulatory agency. Among

the requirements revoked were the three

columns of Table H–21 (American Table

of Distances for Storage of

Explosives)(ATD)that specified

minimum distances between explosive

storage magazines and inhabited

buildings, passenger railways, and

public highways because they dealt

with public and property protection and

not employee protection. Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of § 1910.109 was

inadvertently overlooked during the

1978 rulemaking and still makes

reference to the three columns of Table

H–21 which were revoked. Therefore,

OSHA proposed to delete the phrase in

paragraph (c)(1)(vi) which made

reference to these three revoked

columns. OSHA also proposed to delete

the word ‘‘manufacture’’ from footnote

number 5 of Table H–21 to clarify that

the Table applies only to the storage of

explosives in magazines. In response to the proposal, the

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)

objected to OSHA making changes to

Table H-21, which is a revised version

of the American Table of Distances

(ATD) that is published by the IME. The

IME (Ex. 4–10) asserted that the portion

of the ATD published as Table H–21

comes from an outdated version of the

ATD; 1991 is the current publication

date for the ATD. This commenter also

stated that Table H–21 only provides the

distances applicable to barricaded

magazines, and that OSHA fails to

provide the unbarricaded distances,

which are significantly greater, and

which are necessary to fully protect onsite workers.

In expressing its concern, the IME (Ex.

4–10, pg.2) stated:

The ATD, in its entirety, provides anyone

storing explosives with all of the key

parameters for maintaining sufficient

distances between magazines and buildings

on-site, as well as between on-site magazines

and inhabited buildings, passenger railways,

and public highways. IME is adamant that an

understanding of, and adherence to, all of the

distances is necessary to maintain the safety

of every explosives manufacturing and

storage site. IME thus requires that those who

use the copyright protected ATD must

publish the entire ATD, with all its footnotes

and columns, verbatim. In the interest of

promoting overall safety, the IME suggests

that OSHA publish the entire ATD.

OSHA is appreciative of the comment

expressed by IME; however, after a

careful evaluation of this issue, OSHA

has concluded that IME’s suggestion to

publish the entire ATD will require

additional study. In addition, the

public, and specifically the user

community has not had notice or an

opportunity to comment on this

suggestion. Therefore, more extensive

opportunity is needed for public

comment to be expressed on this issue.

Rather than holding up the deregulatory

changes in this document, OSHA will

consider this suggestion in its next

proposal on technical amendments to

the OSHA standards. However OSHA

will make the minor corrections

proposed so the existing language will

be consistent and correct.

P. Medical Services and First Aid

(§ 1910.151)

Section 1910.151 states the

employer’s obligation to have medical

services available to provide advice on

workplace health matters, and for use by

employees if needed.

Paragraph (b), in particular, requires

the availability of first aid services for

workplaces that do not have medical

providers nearby. This paragraph also

requires that employers have on hand

first aid supplies approved by the

consulting physician.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33461

OSHA proposed amending

§ 1910.151(b) so that the approval of

first aid supplies by the consulting

physician is no longer required,

although the standard would continue

to require that adequate supplies be

available. Commercial first aid kits that

meet the needs of most employers and

most work sites are readily available. If

the workplace had unusual hazards or

posed special problems that would

require modifying a commercial first aid

kit or developing a specialized kit, the

Agency expected the employer to

provide those special items. An

employer who was unsure whether a

commercially available kit was

sufficient could seek professional

advice. Such advice, however, would

not have been required by OSHA as a

matter of course.

Two commenters, Occupational

Health Network and Gundersen Clinic

Ltd. (Exs. 4–18, 4–23) opposed this

amendment. One of the commenters

(Ex. 4–23) said:

While indeed commercial first aid kits are

readily available and often meet the needs of

many employers and many work sites, such

first aid kits have been available for many

years. We find that employers need improved

first aid attention and protocols for use of

specific first aid supplies that are in tune

with the types of problems identified on their

incident reports and OSHA 200 logs.

American Pulpwood Association,

Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone

Company, Bell Atlantic, and Nynex (Ex.

4–5, 4–6, 4–19, 4–20, respectively)

urged OSHA to adopt the proposed

amendment. For example, Southwestern

Bell Telephone Company said:

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

provides employees’ vehicles and work

locations with the most up-to-date and wellstocked first aid kits available. We

continually monitor their use and revise the

kits accordingly.

Nynex stated:

The wide variety of commercially available

first aid kits have proven to be adequate for

occupational settings.

After a review of the comments,

OSHA concludes that workers will

continue to be well protected after the

change. Employers still must provide

adequate first aid supplies for their

workplace and can be cited if they fail

to do so. As discussed below, there are

many sources of information on

appropriate supplies such as that

provided by the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) and the

American Society For Testing and

Materials (ASTM). The employer may

also consult with appropriate medical

professionals, emergency rooms, and

local fire/rescue departments if the

employer prefers. If there are unique

hazards in the employer’s workplace,

the requirement for providing adequate

first aid supplies means that the

employer must provide adequate

supplies for those professionals who

would determine what additional

supplies are needed. Accordingly,

OSHA is adopting the proposed

amendment to § 1910.151(b).

Since some employers may find it

useful to refer to a list of basic first aid

supplies, OSHA is providing a reference

to this information in a new nonmandatory Appendix A to § 1910.151.

The Appendix refers to ANSI standard

ANSI Z308.1–1978, ‘‘Minimum

Requirements for Industrial Unit-type

First-aid Kits.’’ OSHA is aware that

ANSI Z308.1 is currently under

revision. When ANSI issues its revision

to the Z308.1 standard, OSHA may

revise Appendix A to reference the

revised ANSI standard, if the Agency

determines that the new edition is as

effective as the earlier edition. In

addition, at that time OSHA will

consider adding other consensus

standards on first aid kits as references

in the Appendix.

In providing references to applicable

voluntary consensus standards, OSHA

is complying with Section 12(d)(1) of

the National Technology Transfer Act of

1995 (P.L. 104–113) which states that all

Federal agencies shall use applicable

technical standards that are developed

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies as a means to carry out their

policy objectives or activities.

Q. Telecommunications (§ 1910.268)

Paragraph (f) of existing § 1910.268

contains requirements for rubber

insulating equipment (gloves and

blankets) used at telecommunications

centers and field installations. In the

notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA

presented several reasons why it

believed that § 1910.268(f) was

unnecessary. First, the general industry

standard found at 29 CFR 1910.137,

Electrical Protective Equipment,

addresses all rubber insulating

equipment, and removing § 1910.268(f)

would eliminate this duplication of

standards and the associated

compliance problems. Second,

§ 1910.137 provides more

comprehensive employee protection,

since it covers requirements for

manufacture and marking, electrical

proof tests, test and maximum use

voltages, test intervals, workmanship,

and in-service care and use. Third,

§ 1910.137 is written in performance

language that provides employers with

flexibility in meeting the standard.

Thus, OSHA believed that paragraph (f)

of § 1910.268 could be removed without

diminishing employee safety and

health.

OSHA received seven comments from

the telecommunications industry

objecting to the proposed removal of

this paragraph (Exs. 4–4, 4–6, 4–8, 4–9,

4–14, 4–19, 4–20). These commenters

argued that applying § 1910.137 to their

rubber gloves would increase the

frequency with which the gloves had to

be tested from every 9 months under

§ 1910.268(f) to every 6 months under

§ 1910.137. The commenters stated that

this would increase the cost of testing

rubber gloves without a commensurate

increase in safety. Mr. James M. Degen

of NYNEX (Ex. 4–20) worded the

industry’s arguments as follows:

NYNEX does not agree, however, with

OSHA’s proposal to revoke the requirements

for rubber insulating equipment used at

telecommunications centers and field

installations [29 CFR 1910.268(f)] . . .

Specifically, 1910.268(f) requires the

electrical testing of rubber insulating gloves

on a nine month interval, while 1910.137

requires that these tests be conducted on a

six month interval. NYNEX finds that the test

interval in 1910.268(f) is adequate for the

telecommunications industry and should be

maintained for the following reasons:

1. In contrast to the electric utility

industry, telecommunications workers do not

work with or otherwise handle live electric

lines. Rubber insulating gloves are used as a

precautionary measure against an

unintentional contact with energized

conductors or equipment.

2. The national consensus standard that is

referenced as a source of the requirements of

1910.137, ASTM F496–93b, Standard

Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating

Gloves and Sleeves, recognizes this

difference between the electric utility

industry and telecommunications in

paragraph 7.3, which states:

‘‘Industries, such as telecommunications,

that utilize insulating gloves as precautionary

protection against unintentional contact with

energized conductors, may increase the

maximum interval between issue and retest

to nine months.’’

3. NYNEX has not experienced any workrelated injuries or fatalities as a result of the

failure of rubber insulating gloves.

4. Finally, shortening the retest interval

from nine months to six months would result

in a fifty percent increase of direct costs to

NYNEX amounting to $165,000 per year, as

well as a fifty percent increase of indirect

costs attributed to the administrative and lost

productive time associated with exchanging,

testing and reissuing of insulating gloves.

These increased costs to NYNEX, as well as

the rest of the telecommunications industry,

will not result in any demonstrable

improvement in employee safety.

OSHA agrees with this commenter’s

rationale. Paragraph (f)(5) of § 1910.268

reads as follows:

(5) The employer is responsible for the

periodic retesting of all insulating gloves,
33462 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1The testing intervals for synthetic rubber

insulating blankets would also be shorter. However,

the commenters did not object on that basis.

Additionally, the national consensus standard for

this equipment, American Society for Testing and

Materials F479 Specification for In-Service Care of

Insulating Blankets, which formed the basis for the

test intervals in § 1910.137, provides a maximum

interval of 12 months between tests, regardless of

whether the rubber is natural or synthetic.

blankets, and other rubber insulating

equipment. This retesting shall be electrical,

visual and mechanical. The following

maximum retesting intervals shall apply:

Gloves, blankets,

and other insulating equipment

Natural rubberSynthetic

rubber

Months

New ................... 12 18

Re-issued .......... 9 15

By contrast, Table I–6 in § 1910.137

sets intervals for testing rubber

insulating equipment that differ from

the intervals for such equipment in the

telecommunications. Table I–6 requires

rubber blankets to be tested before first

use and every 12 months thereafter. It

requires rubber insulating gloves to be

tested before first use and every 6

months thereafter. No distinction is

made between natural and synthetic

rubber.

As noted by the commenters,

removing § 1910.268(f) in its entirety

would effectively increase the amount

of testing performed by

telecommunications employers on

rubber gloves.1 This would

consequently increase the industry’s

testing costs.

Employees performing

telecommunications work wear rubber

insulating gloves to protect them against

accidental contact with energized parts.

These employees use specific work

practices required in § 1910.268,

including maintaining minimum

approach distances from energized

parts, to protect them against electric

shock hazards. The gloves provide

secondary protection in case the work

practices are not followed. This

contrasts with the way rubber insulating

gloves are used for other types of

electrical work, such as electric power

transmission and distribution work. In

this type of work, employees wearing

rubber insulating gloves handle

energized conductors directly, and the

gloves provide the primary form of

protection for the worker.

All the commenters on this issue

maintained that they had experienced

no injuries as a result of the failure of

rubber insulating gloves. For these

reasons, OSHA has decided not to

remove § 1910.268(f)(5).

OSHA is also retaining paragraph

(f)(6) of Section 1910.268 because of its

connection with paragraph (f)(5). This

paragraph requires that rubber gloves

and blankets be marked to indicate

compliance with the test schedule

required under paragraph (f)(5) and that

rubber gloves be destroyed if they fail

the tests or if they are otherwise found

to be defective.

OSHA continues to believe that the

remaining provisions contained in

existing § 1910.268(f) unnecessarily

duplicate requirements in § 1910.137.

None of the interested persons who

commented on § 1910.268(f) presented

reasons why any paragraphs other than

§ 1910.268 (f)(5) and (f)(6) should be

retained. Therefore, the Agency is

revising paragraph (f)(1), removing

paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(4) and (f)(7)

through (f)(9) and redesignating

paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) as (f)(2) and

(f)(3) of § 1910.268. Paragraph (f)(1) as

revised explains that 1910.137 applies

to telecommunications except for Table

I–6.

Amendments to Part 1926 That

Received No Comments or Positive

Comments Only

A. Incorporation by reference

(§ 1926.31)

This final rule amends § 1926.31 to

clarify that only mandatory provisions

of standards incorporated by reference

are adopted as OSHA standards.

As stated in the proposal, based on its

ongoing review of compliance and

enforcement activities and

recommendations from its Advisory

Committee on Construction Safety and

Health (ACCSH), OSHA is aware that

difficulties have arisen regarding certain

provisions of part 1926 that were

adopted under section 6(a) of the Act.

Many of the standards adopted under

Section 6(a) were American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) or National

Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

consensus standards which were

incorporated by reference and contained

advisory provisions (e.g., use the word

‘‘should’’ rather than ‘‘shall’’).

In the past, OSHA maintained that all

standards, regardless of whether the

term ‘‘should’’ or ‘‘shall’’ is used,

created mandatory compliance

responsibilities. Employers have

consistently challenged this position on

the basis that Section 6(a) of the Act

only gave OSHA the authority to adopt

ANSI standards verbatim. In ANSI

standards, using the term ‘‘should’’

means that the provision is only

advisory. Therefore, employers

maintained that ANSI ‘‘should’’

standards could only be advisory when

adopted or incorporated by reference by

OSHA under Section 6(a).

OSHA’s ability to enforce ‘‘should’’

standards has been denied by the

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission and by most of the

appellate courts in which contested

cases have been heard. For example, in

Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel

Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643–44 (1978),

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

determined that ‘‘should’’ standards

were merely advisory because the

consensus organization had reached

‘‘substantial agreement’’ that these

provisions be viewed only as

recommendations, and not as

mandatory standards.

The courts have also ruled that failure

to adopt an ANSI provision verbatim

renders the resulting OSHA Section 6(a)

provision invalid and unenforceable

[see Usery v. Kennecott Copper

Corporation, 577 F.2d 1113, 1117 (10th

Cir. 1977)].

Although the ‘‘should’’ standards

have not been enforceable in and of

themselves, OSHA has used them to

help demonstrate the existence of

‘‘recognized hazards’’ under the general

duty clause [Section 5(a)(1)] of the Act.

However, the Review Commission has

ruled that, as long as the ‘‘should’’

provision remains in effect as an OSHA

standard, OSHA may not issue a general

duty clause citation for the hazard it

addresses (see A. Prokosch & Sons Sheet

Metal and Mid Hudson Automatic

Sprinkler, 1980 CCH OSH ¶ 24,840).

In order to address these issues, the

Agency is revising § 1926.31(a) to clarify

that only the mandatory requirements of

incorporated consensus standards are

adopted as OSHA standards. The

removal of the advisory provisions will

also simplify and streamline the existing

Part 1926 standards.

In 1984, OSHA conducted a

rulemaking for 29 CFR part 1910

(General Industry Standards) that was

similar to the one described above for

the construction standards in part 1926.

At that time, paragraph (a)(1) of § 1910.6

was revised to clarify that ‘‘only the

mandatory provisions * * * of

standards incorporated by reference are

adopted as standards under the

Occupational Safety and Health Act’’

(49 FR 5318).

In the present rule making, OSHA

proposed to revise paragraph (a) of

§ 1926.31 to read the same as § 1910.6

by adding a sentence to existing

§ 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ‘‘Only

the mandatory provisions (i.e.,

provisions containing the word ‘‘shall’’

or other mandatory language) of

standards incorporated by reference are

adopted as standards under the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33463

2For example, the Duke Power Company [Ex. 4–

2] applauded OSHA’s elimination of a provision

(§ 1926.152) on storage cans for flammable and

combustible liquids that conflicts with a DOT

requirement on the same topic. Unfortunately, the

Agency does not have sufficient data to estimate the

apparent cost savings from this change.

Occupational Safety and Health Act.’’

No comments were received on the

proposed revision, and this paragraph

(§ 1926.31(a)) is therefore being revised

as proposed.

B. Flammable and combustible liquids

(§ 1926.152)

Paragraph (a)(1) of § 1926.152 requires

employers to use a safety can, which is

defined as a container with a capacity

of 5 gallons or less that is equipped with

a spring-closing lid and spout cover, a

means to relieve internal pressure, and

a flash arresting screen, for the storage,

use, and handling of flammable and

combustible liquids. As stated in the

proposal, while approved metal safety

cans are still acceptable, various

nationally recognized testing

laboratories have also approved the use

of plastic safety cans for flammable

liquids. The Agency has determined

that Department of Transportation

(DOT) approved containers of 5 gallon

capacity or less that are not equipped

with a spring closing lid, spout cover,

and flash-arresting screen are also

acceptable for the storage, use, and

handling of flammable and combustible

liquids because they sufficiently reduce

the risk from fire, spills and explosions.

Furthermore, the Agency has

determined that it is sufficient to require

the use of the original container only for

quantities of flammable liquids that are

one gallon or less because that will

adequately protect against the risk of

fire and explosion. Where the original

container is available, the employer may

choose to use it instead of an approved

safety can for quantities of one gallon or

less. If the original container is not

available, an approved safety can must

be used.

One comment was received on the

proposed revision to § 1926.152(a)(1),

(Ex. 4–2). This commenter supported

the proposed revision as written. Based

on the reasons stated above, OSHA is

revising § 1926.152(a)(1) as proposed.

C. Initiation of explosive charges—

Electric blasting (§ 1926.906)

OSHA proposed revising paragraph

(q) of § 1926.906 to allow the use of

other types of specifically designed

instruments, in addition to those

equipped with silver chloride cells,

when testing circuits to charged holes.

The general industry standard,

§ 1910.109(e)(4)(vii), Explosives and

Blasting Agents, states that ‘‘Blasters,

when testing circuits to charged holes,

shall use only blasting galvanometers

designed for this purpose.’’ The

standard does not specifically require

using silver chloride cells. In addition,

the Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA) currently

allows for the use of a blasting

galvanometer or other instruments that

are specifically designed for testing

blasting circuits (30 CFR CH.1

§ 56.6407). The revision of § 1926.906(q)

will correct the inconsistency with the

above mentioned standards.

One comment was received on the

proposed revision to § 1926.906(q). This

commenter (Ex. 4–10) substantially

supported the proposed revision to

§ 1926.906(q). OSHA is therefore

revising § 1926.906(q) as proposed.

Amendments to Part 1926 That

Received Varied Comments

D. Medical services and first aid

(§ 1926.50)

OSHA proposed revising paragraphs

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of § 1926.50 to

eliminate the requirement for physician

approval of first aid supplies. As stated

in the proposal, since first aid kits that

are commercially available will meet the

needs of most employers, it is

unnecessary for most employers to have

a physician approve the contents of a

first aid kit. However, if the workplace

has unusual hazards or special

situations which would require

modification of a commercial first aid

kit, or the development of a specialized

kit, the Agency expects that the

employer will provide these special

items. If the employer is unsure whether

a commercially available kit is

sufficient, professional advice should be

obtained. Such advice, however, would

not be required as a matter of course.

The Agency believes that this change

will allow the employer more flexibility

in meeting the first aid requirements

without affecting employee safety.

No comments were received on this

proposed revision; however, nine

comments were received addressing the

proposal to revise the identical

provision in the General Industry

standard § 1910.151(b) (Exs. 4–5, 4–6,

4–18, 4–19, 4–20, 4–23, 4–26, 4–28 and

4–30). Those comments are discussed in

the General Industry section above. In

addition, as stated in the § 1910.151(b)

discussion, OSHA is providing a

reference for basic first aid supplies and

their use in a new non-mandatory

Appendix A to § 1910.151. In order to

be consistent with the General Industry

standards, and for the reasons stated in

the discussion of the General Industry

standard, this final rule revises

§ 1926.50 in the same manner as

§ 1910.151 with the addition of a nonmandatory Appendix A to § 1926.50.

Appendix A for § 1910.151 includes a

statement that employers are to follow

the provisions of § 1910.1030(d)(3) of

the OSHA standard on occupational

exposure to blood borne pathogens (56

FR 64175). As that standard is not

applicable to employers in the

construction industry, this statement is

not repeated in Appendix A to

§ 1926.50. Additional First aid supplies

(other than those referenced in

Appendix A) may be necessary to

address specific work hazards and

prevalent injuries.

OSHA is revising Paragraph (f) of

§ 1926.50 to limit the requirement for

posting the telephone numbers of

physicians, hospitals or ambulances to

those areas where the 911 emergency

number is not available. OSHA believes

that requiring all employers to post the

numbers where the 911 emergency

number is available could lead to

confusion and might slow emergency

response, and would place an

unnecessary burden on the employers.

IV. Summary of the Final Economic

Analysis Introduction

Based on the record of this

rulemaking, this final rule eliminates a

number of provisions in OSHA

standards that are duplicative,

unnecessary, or potentially in conflict

with the rules of other Federal agencies.

All of the changes OSHA is making are

expected to benefit the regulated

community by making the rules clearer,

simple and easier to understand and

apply. Quantifiable economic benefits

can be estimated only for four of these

changes, however.2 By eliminating these

‘‘problem provisions’’ from its

standards, this Standards Improvement

rule will lessen the burden employers

currently experience, and will, in turn,

generate cost savings. No commenters

disputed these findings, reported by

OSHA in the Preliminary Economic

Analysis that accompanied the

proposed rule. The following

paragraphs discuss the Final Economic

Analysis in detail.

First Aid Kits

The final rule eliminates the

requirements in § 1910.151(b) and

§ 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must

have certain first aid supplies approved

by a consulting physician before they

are used. This requirement applied only

in cases where no infirmary, clinic, or

hospital was in close proximity to the

worksite and the employer intended to

treat first aid injuries at the site.
33464 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

3Opportunity cost measured as the market price

for occupational physical exams, i.e., at the rate of

about $100 an hour.

4 (1¥0.05)5 = 0.77 This calculation assumes an

equal probability of turnover in each year thereafter.

5 ((0.77) × (1¥0.30)) + (0.30) = 0.84 All other

things equal, at least 30 percent of those with 5 or

more years of exposure would be over 45.

6 Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic

trioxide consumed in the U.S. [Arsenic: Industrial,

Biomedical, Environmental Perspectives, 1983, p. 7;

Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summary,

1995].

Although the number of establishments

meeting these criteria is not known, the

Agency believes that its estimate of 10

percent of establishments is reasonable,

and no commenter disagreed with this

estimate. The provisions being

eliminated did not specify how the

physician was to provide this

consultation, but OSHA assumed that,

at most, five minutes of a physician’s

time, valued at $100/hr,3 would be

required to approve the contents of the

first aid kit at these establishments. For

purposes of this analysis, OSHA also

assumed that the physician provided

five minutes of his or her time at an

hourly wage rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.

The analysis further assumed that the

physician would need to approve the

first aid supplies once every 10 years,

after which time the development of

new kinds of medical supplies and the

possibility of new hazards at the

worksite would make a new

consultation necessary. The cost of five

minutes of a physician’s time

annualized over 10 years is $1.19 per

year.

The Agency estimates that

approximately 6.4 million employers

fall under OSHA jurisdiction and will

be affected by this change [County

Business Patterns, 1993]. Of these, 10%

would be affected by the change; the

annualized cost for employers to

comply with these provisions in the

past was approximately $761,600 ((6.4

million × 10%) × $1.19). By eliminating

the requirement for a physician’s

approval of an establishment’s first aid

kit, OSHA will eliminate this burden.

Coke Oven Emissions

The final rule will eliminate the

requirement at § 1910.1029(j) for

employers to conduct semiannual

sputum cytology tests and will reduce

the frequency at which they must

supply chest x-rays from twice a year to

once a year for workers who are 45 years

of age or older or who have five or more

years of employment in areas defined by

the standard as regulated areas.

Regulated areas encompass the coke

oven battery, including topside and its

machinery, pushside and its machinery,

cokeside and its machinery, and battery

ends; the wharf; the screening station;

and the beehive oven and its machinery.

The Inflationary Impact Statement

developed by OSHA in support of the

Coke Oven standard (§ 1910.1029),

[Inflationary Impact Statement: Coke

Oven Emissions, 1976] estimated total

employment in coke ovens at 29,600

workers. The same analysis estimated

that 75 percent of these employees

worked in regulated areas. The 1992

Census of Manufacturers (Industry

Series) indicated total employment for

SIC 33121 (Coke Oven and Blast

Furnace Products) at 8,600 and total

production person-hours at 15.7

million. A separate Census Industry

Series count specific to coke ovens

indicates a total of 11.2 million

production person-hours, which

constitutes approximately 71 percent of

SIC 3312’s productive person-hours,

suggesting a current total number of

6,135 coke oven workers.

Assuming that the proportion of coke

oven employees working in regulated

areas has remained constant,

approximately 4,600 coke oven

employees currently work in regulated

areas. Approximately 30 percent of the

workforce in 1994 was over 45 years of

age [BLS data presented in Statistical

Abstract of the United States, 1995, p.

402]. Turnover rates in SIC 33, which

includes coke ovens, are estimated at 5

percent annually [National

Occupational Exposure Survey:

Analysis of Management Interview

Responses, 1988]. Thus, approximately

77 percent of the current regulated area

workforce will have been exposed to

coke oven emissions for five years or

more.4 Adjusting this percentage to

reflect the assumption that 30 percent of

employees are over 45 years of age

yields an estimate of 84 percent 5 of coke

oven employees (3,864 workers)

potentially affected by the revocation or

revision of these requirements.

Data for 1994 obtained from the

Physician Payment Review Commission

[E-mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC,

to Tom Mockler, OSHA] indicate that

the average x-ray charge nationally is

$54.40 and the average lab charge for

cytological examination of bodily fluids

is $51.90. (OSHA assumes that the

additional average charge of $19.00 for

sputum specimen collection is included

in the fee for the medical exam required

by the standard.) Therefore the savings

associated with the elimination of one

chest x-ray and two sputum cytologies

annually is $158.20 per worker ($54.40

for one x-ray, and $103.80 for two

sputum cytology tests). For the group of

3,864 employees, the annual savings is

thus $611,285.

The American Iron and Steel Institute

(AISI) [Ex. 4–22] agreed with the

Preliminary Economic Analysis’s

finding that this change would save

employers money. AISI’s analysis,

which assumed higher wage rates and a

larger affected population than OSHA’s

analysis, estimated a cost savings of

$925,000 per year. Thus, the Agency’s

cost savings estimate for this regulatory

action may be understated.

Inorganic Arsenic

As in the case of the coke oven

standard, OSHA is eliminating the

requirement for sputum cytology and

reducing the frequency of chest x-ray

exams from semi-annual to annual for

workers exposed above the inorganic

arsenic action level of 5μg/m3 (29 CFR

1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of § 1910.1018

formerly required employees exposed

above the action level for 30 days per

year to receive these medical

surveillance elements semi-annually if

they were 45 years of age or older or had

had more than 10 years of exposure

above the action level.

The Federal Register notice for the

inorganic arsenic rulemaking [May 5,

1978, p. 19585] indicated that, of

660,000 workers exposed to inorganic

arsenic, 7,400 were exposed above an 8-

hour TWA 4μg/m3, i.e., close to or above

the action level. Although arsenic uses

and related exposures have shifted over

time, the level of inorganic arsenic use

in the U.S. appears to be approximately

the same as it was at the time of the

original rulemaking. 6 Therefore, for the

purposes of this analysis, the Agency

assumes that the size of the exposed

population is unchanged.

At the time of the original rulemaking,

the Inflationary Impact Statement

[Inflationary Impact Statement:

Inorganic Arsenic, 1976] estimated that

50% of employees exposed above the

action level would need the semiannual x-ray exams, based on OSHA’s

analysis of age, job tenure and turnover.

Using the same assumptions, the

Agency estimates that approximately

3,700 workers will be affected by the

final rule’s revision to this provision.

This change will eliminate the need for

x-ray and sputum cytology testing

valued at $158.20 (see the explanation

above for coke ovens for cost details) for

3,700 employees, for an annual cost

savings of $584,340.

Pulp and Paper

OSHA’s existing pulp and paper

standard, § 1910.261, contains

paragraph (b)(5), ‘‘vessel entering,’’

which states:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33465

7For example, § 1910.146(c)(5) states that, if an

employer can certify that ventilation alone can

reliably control atmospheric hazards in a space, and

that is the only hazard posed by the space, the

employer is exempt from many requirements of the

standard, including the need for an outside

attendant. Similarly, in § 1910.146(k)(3), employers

are expressly exempt from using a lifeline if such

usage is either valueless or counterproductive from

a safety standpoint.

Lifelines and safety harness shall be worn

by anyone entering closed vessels, tanks,

chip bins, and similar equipment, and a

person shall be stationed outside in a

position to handle the line and to summon

assistance in the case of emergency.

Paragraph (b)(5) also prescribes other

safety precautions for similar confined

spaces in pulp and paper mills.

OSHA is eliminating these specific

separate requirements for confined

space entry in pulp and paper mills and

instead is cross-referencing § 1910.146,

OSHA’s generic permit-required

confined space standard. In other

words, employers in the pulp and paper

industry will no longer have to comply

with § 1910.261(b)(5) but will instead be

required to comply with § 1910.146.

§ 1910.146 requires employers to assess

the hazards associated with their

confined spaces and take appropriate

safety precautions to deal with those

hazards. Although § 1910.146 may

require employers under certain

circumstances to complete additional

checklists, conduct training, and plan

for rescue, depending on the hazard(s)

present, pulp and paper mill employers

will in some cases no longer need to

require employees to wear lifelines or

provide for outside ‘‘attendants’’, 7 as

was required by § 1910.261.

The costs of complying with

§ 1910.146 in the pulp and paper

industry were included in OSHA’s

supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis

[Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the

Final Permit-Required Confined Spaces

Standard, December 1992]. They were

estimated to be approximately $4

million. No economic or technological

feasibility problems were identified.

By deleting the more rigid confined

space requirements of the pulp and

paper industry-specific standard and

requiring employers to comply with the

more performance-oriented requirement

for attendants and lifelines of the

permit-required confined spaces

standard, OSHA is simultaneously

relieving a burden and enhancing safety.

Based on the underlying analysis used

by OSHA in producing the RIA for

§ 1910.146, a comparison of the costs

associated with the requirement that an

attendant be present (§ 1910.261 (b)(5))

with the more flexible requirements in

§ 1910.146 indicates a savings to

employers of approximately 450,000

person-hours annually. Given the

hourly compensation rate of $17 used in

the RIA, this represents an annual

savings of $7.7 million.

In summary, by revoking or revising

these four unnecessary or duplicative

requirements, the Agency is reducing

annual employer burdens related to first

aid kits by $761,000, to medical

surveillance for coke oven emission

workers by $611,285 and inorganic

arsenic workers $584,340, and to

confined space entry in pulp and paper

mills by $7.7 million, for a total

annualized employer savings of

$9,656,625.

Technological Feasibility

OSHA could not identify any

provision of the final rule that raised

technological feasibility problems for

employers. OSHA therefore concludes

that technological feasibility is not an

issue for the changes made to these

standards in this regulatory action.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended,

requires that the Agency examine its

regulatory actions to determine if they

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As stated at the time of the proposal,

and confirmed by this final economic

analysis and comments to the record,

these modifications to existing

regulations are expected to reduce the

regulatory burden on all affected

employers, large and small. No

commenters disputed this conclusion.

For that reason, the Agency hereby

certifies that the final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

VI. Environmental Assessment

The final rule has been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),

the regulations of the Council of

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR

part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures

(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this

review, OSHA has concluded that the

rule will have no significant

environmental impact.

VII. International Trade

This revision and revocation of OSHA

standards is not likely to have a

significant effect on international trade,

since the changes involve the revocation

of obsolete provisions, consolidation of

repetitious provisions, and clarification

of confusing language.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in the

final ‘‘Standards Improvement For

General Industry and Construction

Standards’’ standard. OMB has

approved the collections of information

contained in the Inorganic Arsenic

standard and has assigned the OMB

Control Number of 1218–0104 to these

collections. OMB has also approved the

collections of information contained in

the Coke Oven Emissions standard and

has assigned the OMB Control Number

of 1218–0128 to them. Both approvals

expire on 3/31/2000. Under 5 CFR

1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct or

sponsor a collection of information

unless: (1) the collection of information

displays a currently valid OMB control

number; and (2) the agency informs the

potential persons who are to respond to

the collection of information that such

persons are not required to respond to

the collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

IX. Federalism

This revision and revocation of OSHA

standards has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12612

(52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987),

regarding Federalism. This Order

requires that agencies, to the extent

possible, refrain from limiting State

policy options, consult with States prior

to taking any actions which would

restrict State policy actions, and take

such actions only when there is clear

constitutional authority and the

presence of a problem of national scope.

The Order provides for preemption of

State law only if there is a clear

Congressional intent for the Agency to

do so. Any such preemption is to be

limited to the extent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act (OSH Act) expresses

Congress’ intent to preempt State laws

relating to issues on which Federal

OSHA has promulgated occupational

safety and health standards. Under the

OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption

in issues covered by Federal standards

only if it submits, and obtains Federal

approval of, a plan for the development

of such standards and their

enforcement. Occupational safety and

health standards developed by such

Plan States must, among other things, be

at least as effective in providing safe and

healthful employment and places of

employment as the Federal standards.

The revision and revocation of

standards is meant to reduce the volume

and complexity of OSHA standards, and
33466 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

to improve compliance by employers,

without diminishing worker safety and

health. Those States which have elected

to participate under Section 18 of the

OSH Act are not preempted by the

revocation and revision of these

standards and will be able to address

any special conditions within the

framework of the Federal Act while

ensuring that the State standards are at

least as effective as the Federal

standard.

X. State Plan Standards

The States with their own approved

occupational safety and health plans

must have at least as effective standards

in place within 6 months of the

publication date of the final standard.

These States are: Alaska, Arizona,

California, Connecticut (for State and

local government employees only),

Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,

Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,

Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for

State and local government employees

only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto

Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,

Washington, and Wyoming.

XI. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under

the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

Business and industry, Coke oven

emission, Explosives, Fire prevention,

Hazardous substances, Inorganic

arsenic, Occupatioal safety and health.

29 CFR Part 1926

Construction industry, Electric power,

First-aid, Fire prevention

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day

of June 1998.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4,

6, 6(b) (7) and 8 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

653, 655, 657), section 107 of the

Contract Work Hours and Safety

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

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 6–96 (62

FR 111), 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 are

amended as set forth below.

PART 1910—[AMENDED]

Subpart H—Hazardous Materials

1. The authority citation for subpart H

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

111), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

1a. Remove the phrase, ‘‘from

inhabited buildings, passenger railways,

and public highways and’’ from

paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of § 1910.109.

2. Remove the words, ‘‘manufacture

and’’ from the first sentence in footnote

number 5, of Table H–21, of § 1910.109.

3. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and

(e)(2)(i) of § 1910.109 to read as follows:

§ 1910.109 Explosives and blasting

agents.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Blasting caps or electric blasting

caps shall not be transported over the

highways on the same vehicles with

other explosives, unless packaged,

segregated, and transported in

accordance with the Department of

Transportation’s Hazardous Materials

Regulations (49 CFR parts 177–180).

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Empty containers and paper and

fiber packing materials which have

previously contained explosive

materials shall be disposed of in a safe

manner, or reused in accordance with

the Department of Transportation’s

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR parts 177–180).

§ 1910.110 [Amended]

1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(vi)

through (b)(15)(viii) of § 1910.110, and

redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as

(b)(15)(vi).

2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)

through (c)(2)(iv) of § 1910.110 and

redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(i) as (c)(2).

3. Remove and reserve paragraph

(e)(10) of § 1910.110.

4. Remove and reserve paragraph (g)

of § 1910.110.

§ 1910.111 [Amended]

5. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(f)(7) and (f)(8) of § 1910.111.

Subpart J—General Environmental

Controls

1. The authority citation for subpart J

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

111), as applicable, 29 CFR Part 1911.

§ 1910.141 [Amended]

2. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(i) of

§ 1910.141 and all paragraph

designations for the definitions within

paragraph (a)(2) of § 1910.141.

§ 1910.142 [Amended]

3. Remove paragraph (a)(4) of

§ 1910.142.

Subpart K—Medical and First Aid

1. The authority citation for subpart K

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

111), as applicable, 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Revise the final sentence in

paragraph (b) of § 1910.151 to read as

follows:

§ 1910.151 Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *

(b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies

shall be readily available.

* * * * *

3. In § 1910.151, add Appendix A to

read as follows:

Appendix A to § 1910.151—First aid

kits (Non-Mandatory)

First aid supplies are required to be readily

available under paragraph § 1910.151(b). An

example of the minimal contents of a generic

first aid kit is described in American

National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1–1978

‘‘Minimum Requirements for Industrial UnitType First-aid Kits.’’ The contents of the kit

listed in the ANSI standard should be

adequate for small worksites. When larger

operations or multiple operations are being

conducted at the same location, employers

should determine the need for additional first

aid kits at the worksite, additional types of

first aid equipment and supplies and

additional quantities and types of supplies

and equipment in the first aid kits.

In a similar fashion, employers who have

unique or changing first-aid needs in their

workplace may need to enhance their firstaid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200

log, OSHA 101’s or other reports to identify

these unique problems. Consultation from

the local fire/rescue department, appropriate

medical professional, or local emergency

room may be helpful to employers in these

circumstances. By assessing the specific

needs of their workplace, employers can

ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies

are available. Employers should assess the

specific needs of their worksite periodically

and augment the first aid kit appropriately.

If it is reasonably anticipated that

employees will be exposed to blood or other

potentially infectious materials while using

first aid supplies, employers are required to

provide appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE) in compliance with the

provisions of the Occupational Exposure to

Blood borne Pathogens standard,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33467

§ 1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This

standard lists appropriate PPE for this type

of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, face

shields, masks, and eye protection.

Subpart L—Fire Protection

1. The authority citation for subpart L

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

111) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

§ 1910.156 [Amended]

2. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of

§ 1910.156.

Subpart N—Materials Handling and

Storage

1. The authority citation for subpart N

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

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

§ 1910.183 [Amended]

2. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)

of § 1910.183.

Subpart R—Special Industries

1. The authority citation for subpart R

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

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

§ 1910.261 [Amended]

2. Remove the following paragraphs

in § 1910.261: (a)(3) (ii), (iv) through

(vi), (ix), (xi) through (xiii), (xv), (xvii)

through (xix), (xx), (xxii), (xxiv) through

(xxvii).

3. The following paragraphs in

§ 1910.261 are redesignated as follows:

a. paragraph (a)(3)(iii) as paragraph

(a)(3)(ii),

b. paragraph (a)(3)(vii) as paragraph

(a)(3)(iii),

c. paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph

(a)(3)(iv),

d. paragraph (a)(3)(x) as paragraph

(a)(3)(v),

e. paragraph (a)(3)(xiv) as paragraph

(a)(3)(vi),

f. paragraph (a)(3)(xvi) as paragraph

(a)(3)(vii),

g. paragraph (a)(3)(xxi) as paragraph

(a)(3)(viii),

h. paragraph (a)(3)(xxiii) as paragraph

(a)(3)(ix).

4. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of § 1910.261.

5. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as

paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph (b)(7) as

paragraph (b)(2) of § 1910.261.

6. Remove the following paragraphs

in § 1910.261: (c) (2)(vi), (2)(vii), (6)(ii),

and (7)(ii).

7. Remove and reserve the following

paragraphs of § 1910.261: (c) (3)(i), (8)(i),

and (11).

8. The following paragraphs in

§ 1910.261 are redesignated as follows:

a. paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph

(c)(2)(vi),

b. paragraph (c)(6)(i) as paragraph

(c)(6),

c. paragraph (c)(7)(i) as paragraph

(c)(7),

d. paragraph (d)(1)(i) as paragraph

(d)(1).

9. Remove paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of

§ 1910.261.

10. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(e)(3), (e)(7), and (e)(9) of § 1910.261.

11. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and

(g)(2)(i) of § 1910.261.

12. Remove paragraphs (g)(15)(iv) and

(g)(15)(vi) of § 1910.261.

13. The following paragraphs in

§ 1910.261 are redesignated as follows:

a. paragraph (g)(1)(v) as paragraph

(g)(1)(iv),

b. paragraph (g)(2)(ii) as paragraph

(g)(2)(i),

c. paragraph (g)(2)(iii) as paragraph

(g)(2)(ii),

d. paragraph (g)(15)(v) as paragraph

(g)(15)(iv).

14. Remove paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of

§ 1910.261, and redesignate (h)(2)(iv) as

(h)(2)(iii).

15. Remove paragraphs (j)(1)(iv),

(j)(4)(ii), (j)(5)(iv) and (j)(6)(ii) of

§ 1910.261.

16. Remove and reserve paragraph

(j)(3) of § 1910.261.

17. The following paragraphs in

§ 1910.261 are redesignated as follows:

a. paragraph (j)(4)(iii) through

paragraph (j)(4)(vi) as paragraph (j)(4)(ii)

through paragraph (j)(4)(v),

b. paragraph (j)(6)(iii) as paragraph

(j)(6)(ii).

18. Remove paragraph (k)(2)(i) of

§ 1910.261, and redesignate paragraphs

(k)(2)(ii) through (k)(2)(vi) as paragraphs

(k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(v), respectively.

19. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(k)(4) and (k)(16) of § 1910.261.

20. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(m)(2) and (m)(4) of § 1910.261.

21. Remove paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and

(m)(5)(ii) of § 1910.261.

22. Redesignate paragraph (m)(5)(iii)

of § 1910.261 as paragraph (m)(5), and

add a heading to paragraph (m)(5) to

read ‘‘Unloading Cars.’’

§ 1910.262 [Amended]

23. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(c)(3) and (c)(4) of § 1910.262.

24. Remove and reserve paragraph

(gg) of § 1910.262.

25. Remove paragraphs (ll)(1), (qq),

and (rr) of § 1910.262.

26. Redesignate paragraph (ll)(2) of

§ 1910.262 as paragraph (ll).

§ 1910.265 [Amended]

27. Remove paragraph (a)(2) of

§ 1910.265.

28. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1) of

§ 1910.265 as paragraph (a).

29. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(c)(3)(i), (c)(10), (c)(14), and (c)(16) of

§ 1910.265.

30. Remove and reserve paragraph

(c)(17) of § 1910.265.

31–32. Remove and reserve paragraph

(c)(22) of § 1910.265.

33. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of

§ 1910.265 and redesignate paragraph

(c)(24)(iv)(b) as paragraph (c)(24)(iv).

34. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of

§ 1910.265.

35. Remove and reserve paragraphs

(c)(26)(i), (c)(30)(vi), (c)(30)(x), and

(e)(3)(ii)(d) of § 1910.265.

36. Remove paragraphs (f)(9), (g), (h),

and (i) of § 1910.265.

§ 1910.267 [Removed and Reserved]

37. Remove and reserve § 1910.267.

§ 1910.268 [Amended]

38. Revise paragraph (f)(1), remove

paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(4) and (f)(7)

through (f)(9) and redesignate

paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) as (f)(2) and

(f)(3) as follows:

§ 1910.268 Telecommunications.

* * * * *

(f) Rubber insulating equipment. (1)

Rubber insulating equipment designed

for the voltage levels to be encountered

shall be provided and the employer

shall ensure that they are used by

employees as required by this section.

The requirements of § 1910.137,

Electrical Protective Equipment, shall be

followed except for Table I–6.

* * * * *

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous

Substances

1. The authority citation for subpart Z

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

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

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), or 6–96 (62 FR

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

All of subpart Z issued under sec. 6(b) of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act,

except those substances that have exposure

limits listed in Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 of

29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued

under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
33468 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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

3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, Section

1910.1000 Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 not

issued under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the

arsenic (organic compounds), benzene, and

cotton dust listings.

Section 1910.1001 also issued under

section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and

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

U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29

U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911; also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and

1910.1200 are also issued under 29 U.S.C.

653.

§ 1910.1017 [Amended]

2. In § 1910.1017, remove paragraph

(g)(5).

3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and

(g)(7) of § 1910.1017 as paragraphs (g)(5)

and (g)(6), respectively.

4. In § 1910.1018, remove paragraph

(n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate paragraph

(n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); add the word

‘‘and’’ after paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(B); and

revise the reference in paragraph

(n)(3)(i) that reads ‘‘(n)(2)(ii)(A) (B) and

(D)’’ to read ‘‘(n)(2)(ii)’’; and revise

paragraph (n)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *

(n) * * * *

(3) * * * *

(ii) The employer shall provide the

examinations specified in paragraphs

(n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this

section at least semiannually, and the xray requirement specified in paragraph

(n)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at least

annually, for other covered employees.

* * * * *

§ 1910.1018 [Amended]

5. In § 1910.1018, remove paragraphs

(q)(2)(iii)(F), (q)(2)(iii)(G), and

(q)(2)(iii)(H); and insert the word ‘‘and’’

after paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(D).

6. In Appendix A to § 1910.1018,

revise paragraph VI to read as follows:

Appendix A to § 1910.1018—Inorganic

Arsenic Substance Information Sheet

* * * * *

VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

If your exposure to arsenic is over the

Action Level (5 mg/m3)—(including all

persons working in regulated areas) at least

30 days per year, or you have been exposed

to arsenic for more than 10 years over the

Action Level, your employer is required to

provide you with a medical examination. The

examination shall be every 6 months for

employees over 45 years old or with more

than 10 years exposure over the Action Level

and annually for other covered employees.

The medical examination must include a

medical history; a chest x-ray; skin

examination and a nasal examination. The

examining physician will provide a written

opinion to your employer containing the

results of the medical exams. You should

also receive a copy of this opinion. The

physician must not tell your employer any

conditions he detects unrelated to

occupational exposure to arsenic but must

tell you those conditions.

Appendix C—[Amended]

* * * * *

7. In Appendix C to § 1910.1018,

Section I, General, remove paragraph (4)

which reads ‘‘(4) A Sputum Cytology

examination;’’ redesignate paragraph (5)

as paragraph (4); and insert the word

‘‘and’’ after paragraph (3).

8. In Appendix C to § 1910.1018,

remove the entire section entitled ‘‘III.

Sputum Cytology’’.

9. In § 1910.1029, remove paragraph

(j)(2)(vii) and redesignate paragraph

(j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and

insert the word ‘‘and’’ after paragraph

(j)(2)(vi).

10. In paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of

§ 1910.1029, the reference ‘‘(j)(2)(i)–

(viii)’’ is revised to read ‘‘(j)(2)(i) and (j)

(2)(iii) through (vii).’’

11. In paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of

§ 1910.1029, the reference ‘‘(j)(2)(i)–

(viii)’’ is revised to read ‘‘(j)(2)(i) and

(j)(2)(iii) through (vii).’’

12. In § 1910.1029, redesignate

paragraph (j)(3)(iv) as paragraph (j)(3)(v),

and add a new paragraph (j)(3)(iv) to

read as follows:

§ 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) The employer shall provide the xray specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of

this section at least annually for

employees covered under paragraph

(j)(3) of this section.

13. In Appendix A to § 1910.1029,

paragraph VI is revised to read as

follows:

Appendix A to § 1910.1029—Coke Oven

Emissions Substance Information Sheet

* * * * *

VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

If you work in a regulated area at least 30

days per year, your employer is required to

provide you with a medical examination

every year. The medical examination must

include a medical history, a chest x-ray,

pulmonary function test, weight comparison,

skin examination, a urinalysis, and a urine

cytology exam for early detection of urinary

cancer. The urine cytology exam is only

included in the initial exam until you are

either 45 years or older, or have 5 or more

years employment in the regulated areas

when the medical exams including this test,

but excepting the x-ray exam, are to be given

every six months; under these conditions,

you are to be given an x-ray exam at least

once a year. The examining physician will

provide a written opinion to your employer

containing the results of the medical exams.

You should also receive a copy of this

opinion.

14. In Appendix B to § 1910.1029,

Section II, paragraph A is revised to

read as follows:

Appendix B to § 1910.1029—Industrial

Hygiene and Medical Surveillance

Guidelines

* * * * * *

II. Medical Surveillance Guidelines

A. General. The minimum requirements for

the medical examination for coke oven

workers are given in paragraph (j) of the

standard. The initial examination is to be

provided to all coke oven workers who work

at least 30 days in the regulated area. The

examination includes a 14′′ × 17′′ posterioranterior chest x-ray reading and a ILO/UC

rating to assure some standardization of x-ray

reading, pulmonary function tests (FVC and

FEV 1.0), weight, urinalysis, skin

examination, and a urinary cytologic

examination. These tests are needed to serve

as the baseline for comparing the employee’s

future test results. Periodic exams include all

the elements of the initial exams, except that

the urine cytologic test is to be performed

only on those employees who are 45 years or

older or who have worked for 5 or more years

in the regulated area; periodic exams, with

the exception of x-rays, are to be performed

semiannually for this group instead of

annually; for this group, x-rays will continue

to be given at least annually. The

examination contents are minimum

requirements; additional tests such as lateral

and oblique x-rays or additional pulmonary

function tests may be performed if deemed

necessary.

15. In Appendix B to § 1910.1029,

Section II, the paragraphs entitled ‘‘C.

Sputum Cytology,’’ are removed.

PART 1926—[AMENDED]

Subpart C—General Safety and Health

Standards

1. The authority citation for subpart C

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours

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

secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);

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

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

35736), or 6–96 (62 FR 111), as applicable;

and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Revise paragraph (a) of § 1926.31 to

read as follows:

§ 1926.31 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The standards of agencies of the

U.S. Government, and organizations

which are not agencies of the U.S.

Government which are incorporated by

reference in this part, have the same
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33469

force and effect as other standards in

this part. Only the mandatory

provisions (i.e., provisions containing

the word ‘‘shall’’ or other mandatory

language) of standards incorporated by

reference are adopted as standards

under the Occupational Safety and

Health Act. The locations where these

standards may be examined are as

follows:

(1) Offices of the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Frances Perkins

Building, Washington, DC 20210.

(2) The Regional and Field Offices of

the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, which are listed in the

U.S. Government Manual.

* * * * *

Subpart D—Occupational Health and

Environmental Controls

1. The authority citation for subpart D

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours

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

secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);

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

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

35736), or 6–96 (62 FR 111), as applicable;

and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Revise paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and

(f) of § 1926.50 to read as follows:

§ 1926.50 Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *

(d)(1) First aid supplies shall be easily

accessible when required.

(2) The contents of the first aid kit

shall be placed in a weatherproof

container with individual sealed

packages for each type of item, and shall

be checked by the employer before

being sent out on each job and at least

weekly on each job to ensure that the

expended items are replaced.

* * * * *

(f) In areas where 911 is not available,

the telephone numbers of the

physicians, hospitals, or ambulances

shall be conspicuously posted.

* * * * *

4. In § 1926.50, add Appendix A to

read as follows:

Appendix A to § 1926.50—First aid Kits

(Non-Mandatory)

First aid supplies are required to be easily

accessible under paragraph § 1926.50(d)(1).

An example of the minimal contents of a

generic first aid kit is described in American

National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1–1978

‘‘Minimum Requirements for Industrial UnitType First-aid Kits’’. The contents of the kit

listed in the ANSI standard should be

adequate for small work sites. When larger

operations or multiple operations are being

conducted at the same location, employers

should determine the need for additional first

aid kits at the worksite, additional types of

first aid equipment and supplies and

additional quantities and types of supplies

and equipment in the first aid kits.

In a similar fashion, employers who have

unique or changing first-aid needs in their

workplace, may need to enhance their firstaid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200

log, OSHA 101’s or other reports to identify

these unique problems. Consultation from

the local Fire/Rescue Department,

appropriate medical professional, or local

emergency room may be helpful to employers

in these circumstances. By assessing the

specific needs of their workplace, employers

can ensure that reasonably anticipated

supplies are available. Employers should

assess the specific needs of their worksite

periodically and augment the first aid kit

appropriately.

If it is reasonably anticipated employees

will be exposed to blood or other potentially

infectious materials while using first-aid

supplies, employers should provide personal

protective equipment (PPE). Appropriate PPE

includes gloves, gowns, face shields, masks

and eye protection (see ‘‘Occupational

Exposure to Blood borne Pathogens’’, 29 CFR

1910.1030(d)(3)) (56 FR 64175).

Subpart F—Fire Protection and

Prevention

1. The authority citation for subpart F

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours

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

secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);

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

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

35736), or 6–96 (62 FR 111) as applicable;

and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. In § 1926.152, revise paragraph

(a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 1926.152 Flammable and combustible

liquids.

(a) * * * (1) Only approved containers

and portable tanks shall be used for

storage and handling of flammable and

combustible liquids. Approved safety

cans or Department of Transportation

approved containers shall be used for

the handling and use of flammable

liquids in quantities of 5 gallons or less,

except that this shall not apply to those

flammable liquid materials which are

highly viscid (extremely hard to pour),

which may be used and handled in

original shipping containers. For

quantities of one gallon or less, the

original container may be used, for

storage, use and handling of flammable

liquids.

Subpart U—Blasting and Use of

Explosives

1. The authority citation for subpart U

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours

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

secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);

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

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

35736), or 6–96 (62 FR 111), as applicable;

and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Revise paragraph (q) of § 1926.906

to read as follows:

§ 1926.906 Initiation of explosive

charges—electric blasting.

* * * * *

(q) Blasters, when testing circuits to

charged holes, shall use only blasting

galvanometers or other instruments that

are specifically designed for this

purpose.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–15936 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P