Document ID: OSHA-2011-0183-0004
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-12-05T05:00Z

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0183]

RIN 1218-AC64

Revising Standards Referenced in the Acetylene Standard

AGENCY:  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

SUMMARY:  In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency is proposing
to revise its Acetylene Standard for general industry by updating a
reference to a standard published by a standards developing organization
(“SDO standards”).  OSHA also is publishing a direct final rule in
today’s Federal Register taking this same action.  This rulemaking is
a continuation of OSHA’s ongoing effort to update references to SDO
standards used throughout its rules.

DATES:  Submit comments to this proposed rule (including comments to the
information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the
section titled PROCEDURAL DETERMINATIONS), hearing requests, and other
information by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS
NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  All submissions must bear a postmark
or provide other evidence of the submission date.  (The following
section titled ADDRESSES describes methods available for making
submissions.)

ADDRESSES:  Submit comments, hearing requests, and other information as
follows:

	•  Electronic:  Submit comments electronically to  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov , which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal.  Follow the instructions online for
submitting comments.

•  Facsimile:  OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments).  Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents.  Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit
these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.  These attachments must clearly identify the
sender’s name, date, subject, and docket number (OSHA-2011-0183) so
that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate document.

•  Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service:  Submit comments and any additional material (e.g.,
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2011-0183 or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1218-AC08,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:  (202)
693-2350.  (OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 889-5627.)  Note that
security-related procedures may result in significant delays in
receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.  Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures
concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and
messenger service.  The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.

•  Instructions:  All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0183).  OSHA will place comments and other
material, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at 
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov . 
Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting statements
they do not want made available to the public, or submitting comments
that contain personal information (either about themselves or others)
such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.

•  Docket:  The electronic docket for this NPRM established at 
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/" http://www.regulations.gov 
lists most of the documents in the docket.  However, some information
(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or
download through this website.  All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket
Office.  Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating
docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Press inquiries:  Contact Frank
Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
 (202) 693-1999.

General and technical information:  Contact Ted Twardowski, Office of
Safety Systems, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:  (202) 693-2255; fax:  (202) 693-1663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Copies of this Federal Register notice:  Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. 
This notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information,
also are available at OSHA’s webpage at http://www.osha.gov.

Table of Contents

I.	Background

II.	Direct Final Rulemaking

General

Relationship Between this Direct Final Rule and the Companion Proposed
Rule

Request for Comment

III.	Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Acetylene Standard

IV.	Procedural Determinations

	A.  Legal Considerations

	B.  Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification

	C.  OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

	D.  Federalism

	E.  State Plan States

	F.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

	G.  Public Participation

V.	Authority and Signature

I.  Background

This action is part of a rulemaking project instituted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or “the
Agency”) to update OSHA standards that reference or include language
from outdated standards published by standards developing organizations
(“SDO standards”) (69 FR 68283).  A SDO standard referenced in
OSHA’s Acetylene Standard (29 CFR 1910.102) is among the SDO standards
that the Agency identified for revision.

OSHA adopted the original Acetylene Standard in 1974 pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29
U.S.C. 651, 655).  This section allowed OSHA, during the first two years
after passage of the OSH Act, to adopt existing Federal and national
consensus standards as OSHA safety and health standards, including the
Acetylene Standard.

On August, 11, 2009, OSHA published a direct final rule (DFR) and an
accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that updated
references to recognize the latest edition of the Compressed Gas
Association standard, CGA G-1-2003, in the Acetylene Standard.  See 74
FR 40442 and 74 FR 40450, respectively.  OSHA received no adverse
comments on the DFR, and it became effective on November 9, 2009.  See
74 FR 57883.

The Compressed Gas Association published a new edition of CGA G-1 in
June 2009.  OSHA did not include the CGA G-1-2009 in the DFR because
that edition was not available to OSHA prior to publication of the DFR. 
However, three of the eight comments received on the DFR (Exs.
OSHA-2008-0034-0017, -0010, and -0022) recommended that the Agency
reference CGA G-1-2009 instead of the 2003 edition.  This NPRM would
remove CGA G-1-2003 from the existing Acetylene Standard and replace it
with CGA G-1-2009.

II.  Direct Final Rulemaking

A.  General

	In a direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a DFR in the Federal
Register along with a statement that the rule will become effective
unless the agency receives a significant adverse comment within a
specified period.  An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it
anticipates the rule will be non-controversial.  The agency concurrently
publishes a proposed rule that is essentially identical to the DFR.  If
the agency receives no significant adverse comments in response to the
DFR, the rule goes into effect.  If, however, the agency receives
significant adverse comment within the specified period, the agency
withdraws the DFR and treats the comments as submissions on the proposed
rule.

	OSHA is using a DFR in this rulemaking because it expects the rule to: 
be noncontroversial; provide protection to employees that is at least
equivalent to the protection afforded to them by the outdated standard;
and impose no significant new compliance costs on employers (69 FR
68283, 68285).  OSHA used DFRs previously to update or, when
appropriate, revoke references to outdated national SDO standards in
OSHA rules (see, e.g., 69 FR 68283, 70 FR 76979, and 71 FR 80843).

	For purposes of this rulemaking, a significant adverse comment is one
that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges
to the rule’s underlying premise or approach.  In determining whether
a comment necessitates withdrawal of the DFR, OSHA will consider whether
the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment process.  OSHA will not consider a
comment recommending an addition to the rule to be a significant adverse
comment unless the comment states why the DFR would be ineffective
without the addition.  If OSHA receives a timely significant adverse
comment, the Agency will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing
the DFR no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

OSHA preliminarily determined that updating and replacing the SDO
standard in the Acetylene Standard is appropriate for direct final
rulemaking.  First, the revision made to the Acetylene Standard will not
compromise the safety of employees, and instead enhances employee
protection.  As described below, the revision will make the requirements
of OSHA’s Acetylene Standard consistent with current industry
practices, thereby eliminating confusion and clarifying employer
obligations, which will increase employee safety by encouraging
compliance.  Furthermore, bringing the Acetylene Standard in line with
industry practice will not produce additional costs for employers, and
may reduce compliance costs.  Finally, the revision is non-controversial
because it merely updates the SDO standard referenced in the rule to the
most current version of that standard.

B.  Relationship Between this Proposed Rule and the Companion Direct
Final Rule

This NPRM is the companion document to a direct final rule (DFR) also
published in today’s Federal Register.  If OSHA receives no
significant adverse comment on the DFR, it will publish a Federal
Register document confirming the effective date of the DFR and
withdrawing this NPRM.  The confirmation may include minor stylistic or
technical corrections to the DFR.  For the purpose of judicial review,
OSHA considers the date that it confirms the effective date of the DFR
to be the date of issuance.  However, if OSHA receives significant
adverse comment on the DFR, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
DFR and proceed with this NPRM, which addresses 

C.  Request for Comment

OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this rulemaking,
including economic or other regulatory impacts of this action on the
regulated community.  OSHA will consider all of the comments, and the
comments will become part of the record.

the same revisions to the Acetylene Standard.

III. Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Acetylene Standard

This NPRM would update the SDO standard referenced in paragraph
1910.102(a) of the Acetylene Standard.  To ensure that employers have
access to the latest safety requirements for managing acetylene, this
NPRM would adopt the requirements specified in the most recent, 2009,
edition of the SDO standard, CGA G-1-2009.  The following discussion
provides a summary of the revisions OSHA is proposing for paragraph (a)
of the Acetylene Standard.

For paragraph (a) of § 1910.102 (Cylinders), this NPRM would replace
the reference to the 2003 edition of CGA Pamphlet G-1 (“Acetylene”)
(Ex. OSHA-2008-0034-0006) with the most recent (2009) edition of that
standard, also entitled “Acetylene” (Ex. OSHA-2011-0183-0003).  In
reviewing CGA G1-2009, the Agency prepared a side-by-side comparison of
the 2009 and 2003 editions (Ex. OSHA-2011-0183-0004).  OSHA found minor
changes to the titles of CGA reports referenced in paragraph 4 of
section 3.2 (Physical and chemical properties) and section 4.2 (Valves);
these changes are not substantive.  In section 4.5 (Marking and
labeling), CGA also provides additional guidance clarifying Department
of Transportation labeling regulations, and labeling requirements for
transporting acetylene in Canada.  The Agency preliminarily determined
that this information provides guidance only, and, therefore, would
impose no additional burden on employers.  Lastly, OSHA identified an
addition to the note in section 5.2 (Rules for storing acetylene) that
designates as “in service” single cylinders of acetylene and oxygen
located at a work station (e.g., chained to a wall or building column,
secured on a cylinder cart).  The Agency preliminarily determined that
this change is consistent with current industry practice, and,
consequently, would not increase employers’ burden.

OSHA believes that the provisions of CGA G-1-2009 are consistent with
the usual and customary practice of employers in the industry, and
preliminarily determined that incorporating CGA G-1-2009 into paragraph
(a) of § 1910.102 would not add compliance burden for employers.  OSHA
invites the public to comment on whether the revisions proposed for the
Acetylene Standard represent current industry practice.

IV. Procedural Determinations

A.  Legal Considerations

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.), is "to assure so far as possible every working man and
woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources."  29 U.S.C. 651(b).  To achieve this goal,
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards.  29 U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b).  A
safety or health standard is a standard "which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide
safe or healthful employment or places of employment."  29 U.S.C.
652(8).  A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of material harm
exists in the workplace and the standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk.

This NPRM would not reduce the employee protections put into place by
the standard OSHA is proposing to update under this rulemaking. 
Instead, OSHA believes this rulemaking likely would enhance employee
safety by clarifying employer obligations.  Therefore, it is unnecessary
to determine significant risk, or the extent to which this rule would
reduce that risk, as typically is required by Industrial Union
Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (448 U.S. 607
(1980)).

B.  Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The proposed standard would not be “economically significant” as
specified by Executive Order 12866, or a "major rule" under Section 804
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(“SBREFA”; 5 U.S.C. 804).  The DFR resulting from this proposed rule
would not impose significant additional costs on any private-sector or
public-sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an
economically significant or major rule specified by Executive Order
12866 and the relevant statutes.  OSHA developed this proposal with
attention to the approaches to rulemaking outlined in Executive Orders
12866 and 13563.

This NPRM simply proposes to update a reference to an outdated SDO
standard in OSHA’s Acetylene Standard.  The Agency preliminarily
concludes that the revisions will not impose any additional costs on
employers because it believes that the updated SDO standard represents
the usual and customary practice of employers in the industry. 
Consequently, the proposal imposes no costs on employers.  Therefore,
OSHA certifies that this rulemaking would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Accordingly,
the Agency is not preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

C.  OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Neither the existing nor updated SDO standard addressed by this NPRM
contain collection of information requirements.  Therefore, this NPRM
does not impose or remove any information-collection requirements for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and 5 CFR 1320.  Accordingly, the Agency does not have to prepare an
Information Collection Request in association with this rulemaking.

Members of the public may respond to this paperwork determination by
sending their written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn:  OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AC08), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.  The Agency encourages commenters to submit these comments to the
rulemaking docket, along with their comments on other parts of the NPRM.
 For instructions on submitting these comments and accessing the docket,
see the sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and
ADDRESSES.  However, OSHA will not consider any comment received on this
paperwork determination to be a “significant adverse comment” as
specified under Section II (“Direct Final Rulemaking”) of this
notice.

	To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd
Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693-2222.

D.  Federalism

OSHA reviewed this NPRM in accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope.

Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(“OSH Act”; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; OSHA refers to
States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan as “State Plan
States.”  29 U.S.C. 667.  Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards.  Subject to these requirements, State Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.  While OSHA drafted this NPRM to protect
employees in every State, Section 18(c)(2) of the Act permits State Plan
States and Territories to develop and enforce their own standards for
acetylene operations provided these requirements are at least as
effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as the final requirements that result from this proposal.

	In summary, this NPRM complies with Executive Order 13132.  In States
without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from this NPRM
would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard
promulgated by OSHA.  In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this
rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy options.

E.  State Plan States

When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States or U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans
(“State Plan States”) must amend their standards to reflect the new
standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary
(e.g., if an existing State standard covering this area is already “at
least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment).  29 CFR
1953.5(a).  The State standard must be “at least as effective” as
the final Federal rule, and must be completed within six months of the
publication date of the final Federal rule.  29 CFR 1953.5(a).  When
OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
State Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although
OSHA may encourage them to do so.

While this proposed rule does not impose any additional or more
stringent requirements on employers than the existing Acetylene
Standard, OSHA believes that the provisions of this proposal would
provide employers with critical, updated information and methods that
will help protect their employees from the hazards found in workplaces
engaged in acetylene operations.  Therefore, if adopted as proposed,
OSHA will encourage the State Plan States to adopt comparable provisions
within six months of publication of the final rule.  The 27 States and
territories with OSHA-approved State Plans are:  Alaska, Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. 
Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have
OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and local government
employees only.  

F.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

	OSHA reviewed this NPRM in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (“UMRA”; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order
12875 (56 FR 58093).  As discussed above in Section IV.B (“Final
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification”) of
this notice, the Agency determined that this NPRM would not impose
additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity. 
Accordingly, this NPRM requires no additional expenditures by either
public or private employers.

As noted above under Section IV.E (“State Plan States”) of this
notice, the Agency’s standards do not apply to State and local
governments except in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a
State Plan approved by the Agency.  Consequently, this NPRM would not
meet the definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (See
Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))).  Therefore, for the
purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this NPRM does not
mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded
regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector
of more than $100 million in any year.

G.  Public Participation

	OSHA requests comments on all issues concerning this NPRM.  The Agency
also welcomes comments on its determination that this NPRM would have no
negative economic or other regulatory impacts on employers, and will
increase employee protection.  If OSHA receives no significant adverse
comment, it will publish a Federal Register document confirming the
effective date of the companion DFR and withdrawing this NPRM.  Such
confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical corrections to the
document.  For a full discussion of what constitutes a significant
adverse comment, see Section II (“Direct Final Rulemaking”) of this
notice.

 	The Agency will withdraw the DFR if it receives significant adverse
comment on the amendments contained in it, and proceed with this NPRM by
addressing the comment(s) and publishing a new final rule.  The comment
period for this NPRM runs concurrently with that of the DFR.  Therefore,
OSHA will treat any comments received under this NPRM as comments
regarding the DFR.  Similarly, OSHA will consider a significant adverse
comment submitted to the DFR as a comment to this NPRM; the Agency will
consider such a comment in developing a subsequent final rule.

	OSHA will post comments received without revision to  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov , including any
personal information provided.  Accordingly, OSHA cautions commenters
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birth dates.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Acetylene, General industry, Occupational safety and health, Safety.

V.  Authority and Signature

David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. 
The Agency is issuing this notice under 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 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 CFR part 1911.

	Signed at Washington, DC on November 22, 2011.

____________________________________________________

David Michaels, PhD, MPH

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to the Standard

	For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1910 as set
forth below:

PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A—[Amended]

1.  The authority citation for subpart A continues 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), 1–90
(55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), and 4–2010 (75 FR 55355), as
applicable. 

Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a,
5 U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106–113 (113 Stat. 1501A–222); Pub. L. 111–8
and 111–317; and OMB Circular A–25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR
38142, July 15, 1993).

2.  Amend § 1910.6 by revising paragraph (k)(3) to read as follows:

§ 1910.6  Incorporation by reference.

*	*	*	*	*

(k)  	*	*	*

*	*	*	*	*

(3)  CGA G-1-2009 Acetylene, IBR approved for § 1910.102(a).  Copies of
CGA Pamphlet G-1, Twelfth Edition, are available for purchase from the: 
Compressed Gas Association, Inc., 4221 Walney Road, 5th Floor,
Chantilly, VA 20151; telephone:  703-788-2700; fax:  703-961-1831;
e-mail:  cga@cganet.com.

*	*	*	*	*

Subpart H—[Amended]

3.  Revise the authority citation for subpart H to read as follows:

   Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor’s Orders
Nos. 12-71(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55
FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR
part 11.

   	Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119,
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.

   	Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 304, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note.

   	Section 1910.120 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 Note, and 5 U.S.C.
553.

4.  Amend § 1910.102 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1910.102  Acetylene.

(a)  Cylinders.  Employers must ensure that the in-plant transfer,
handling, storage, and use of acetylene in cylinders comply with the
provisions of CGA Pamphlet G-1-2009 (“Acetylene”) (incorporated by
reference, see §1910.6).

*	*	*	*	*

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

In its comments to the 2009 DFR revising OSHA’s Acetylene Standard,
CGA made the following statement regarding the addition to this note: 
“CGA does not envision a hardship or economic burden on the industry
nor any reduction in industrial safety as a result of this change.”

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1 

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P