Document ID: OSHA-2012-0007-0783
Agency: osha
Document Type: Rule
Title: Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV
Posted Date: 2019-05-14T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21416-21598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07902]

[[Page 21415]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 93

May 14, 2019

Part II

Department of Labor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, et al.

 Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 21416]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926

[OSHA-2012-0007]
RIN 1218-AC67

Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' and consistent with 
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' OSHA 
is removing or revising outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and 
inconsistent requirements in its safety and health standards. The 
current review, the fourth in this ongoing effort, the Standards 
Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV), reduces regulatory burden while 
maintaining or enhancing worker safety and health, and improving 
privacy protections.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 15, 2019. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2019. There are a 
number of collections of information contained in this final rule (see 
Section VI, Paperwork Reduction Act). Notwithstanding the general date 
of applicability that applies to all other requirements contained in 
the final rule, affected parties do not have to comply with the 
collections of information until the Department of Labor publishes a 
separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the Office of 
Management and Budget has approved them under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the agency 
designates Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20210, to receive petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA 
Office of Communications: telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: 
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
    Technical inquiries: Mr. Vernon Preston, Directorate of 
Construction: telephone: (202) 693-2020; fax: (202) 693-1689; email: 
preston.vernon@dol.gov.
    Copies of this Federal Register document. Electronic copies are 
available at www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register document, as 
well as news releases and other relevant information, also are 
available at OSHA's web page at www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Incorporated Standards

    The standards published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 
required in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z; the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G; the 
International Labour Organization (ILO) required in 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart 
Z; the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) required in 
29 CFR part 1926, subpart W; and the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, are incorporated by 
reference into these subparts with the approval of the Federal Register 
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

Reasonable Availability and Summary of the Incorporated Standards

American Thoracic Society--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec.  1910.6 and 
1910.1043(h)
    The American Thoracic Society (ATS) provides free online public 
access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated 
into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online 
viewing and a printable version of Spirometric Reference Values from a 
Sample of the General U.S. Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, 
Fedan KB. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 
159:179-187, 1999, is available at www.atsjournals.org/.
    Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) required that health care providers 
conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual values to 
the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 
2003), ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) 
all recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Survey (NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for 
assessing spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population. 
OSHA is now revising this provision to specify use of the NHANES III 
reference data set and to replace the values currently in appendix C 
with the NHANES III values, derived from Spirometric Reference Values 
from a Sample of the General U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999).
    The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative 
of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference 
values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians, 
African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old. 
Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal 
accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et 
al., 1999).
Federal Highway Administration--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec.  
1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a)
    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department 
of Transportation provides free online access to view and print a read-
only copy of the materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart 
G, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a printable version of 
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways 
(MUTCD), 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May 
2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov.
    Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part VI of MUTCD, 
1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or 
December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). OSHA is revising subpart 
G to update the incorporation by reference of Part 6 of the MUTCD to 
the November 4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 Edition''), including Revision 1 and 
Revision 2, both dated May 2012. This version of the MUTCD aims to 
expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate 
technology advances in traffic control device application (74 FR 66730, 
77 FR 28455, and 77 FR 28460).
International Labour Organization--IBR Approval for Sec.  1910.6, 
Appendix E to Sec.  1910.1001, Sec.  1915.5, Appendix E to Sec.  
1915.1001, Sec.  1926.6, and Appendix E to Sec.  1926.1101
    The International Labour Organization (ILO) provides free online 
access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated 
into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29 
CFR part 1926, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a 
printable version of the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO 
International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised 
Edition 2011, Occupational safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), is 
available at www.ilo.org.

[[Page 21417]]

    Digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional 
analog film-based systems in medical facilities, and both the ILO and 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
recently published guidelines for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at 
68509). OSHA is updating the version of the Guidelines for the Use of 
ILO Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses to the 2011 version 
(from the 1980 version), and clarifying that classification must be in 
accordance with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a 
professionally accepted Classification system'') in appendix E of each 
of the three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
The International Organization for Standardization and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers--IBR Approval for Subpart W
    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides 
for purchase materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, 
by this rulemaking. ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over 
protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, 
Fourth Edition, Aug. 8, 2008; ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for 
agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--Static test 
method and acceptance conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013; and ISO 
27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object 
protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements, 
First Edition, May 01, 2013, are available for purchase at www.iso.org.
    The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) provides for purchase 
materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, by this 
rulemaking. SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970; SAE J168, 
Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance Requirements, 
approved July 1970; SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-
Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, 
revised July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J334a, Protective 
Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements, revised July 1970; 
SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective 
Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, 
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J395, Minimum 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler 
Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July 1969 (editorial change 
July 1970); SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969; and SAE 
J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of 
Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969, are 
available for purchase at www.sae.org/standards.
    The original source standards for subpart W requirements were 
derived from SAE Standards. The American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and 
develop new equipment, the industry now uses the most recent ISO 
standards. Equipment manufactured after the effective date of this 
final rule must meet the applicable test and performance requirements 
for the ISO standards. Equipment manufactured before the effective date 
of this final rule must meet the former SAE requirements of subpart W, 
or the test and performance requirements for the applicable ISO 
standards that apply to newly manufactured equipment.
    ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective 
structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth 
Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c), specifies performance requirements for 
metallic roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for earth-moving 
machinery, as well as a consistent and reproducible means of evaluating 
the compliance with these requirements by laboratory testing using 
static loading on a representative specimen.
    ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over 
protective structures--Static test method and acceptance conditions, 
Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1002(c), specifies a static test method and the acceptance 
conditions for roll-over protective structures (cab or frame) of 
wheeled or tracked tractors for agriculture and forestry.
    ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling 
object protective structures--Test procedures and performance 
requirements, First Edition, May 01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1003(c), sets forth the test procedures and 
performance requirements for a falling object protective structure, in 
the event such a structure is installed on an agricultural or forestry 
tractor.
    SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection--Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1003(b), establishes requirements of a frame 
including overhead cover for the protection of operators on wheel type 
agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the possibility of 
operator injury resulting from accidental upsets and overhead hazards 
during normal operation.
    SAE J168, Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b), 
specifies test procedures and performance requirements for wheel type 
agricultural and industrial tractors equipped with protective 
enclosures necessary to fulfill the intended purposes.
    SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective 
Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised July 1969 
(editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), 
provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural 
adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
    SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b), 
establishes requirements of a frame for the protection of operators on 
wheel type agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the 
possibility of operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during 
normal operation.
    SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective 
Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, 
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970) IBR approved for 
1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency with a means of testing for 
structural adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
    SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective 
Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July 
1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), 
provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural 
adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
    SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective 
Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial change July 
1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency 
with a means of testing for structural adequacy of a roll-over 
protective structure (ROPS) design.
    SAE J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for 
Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), covers

[[Page 21418]]

characteristics and dimensions of a critical zone to prevent crushing 
of an operator during roll-over.

Dates of Approval and Further Availability

    The incorporation by reference of materials from the ATS, ILO, 
FHWA, and ISO is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
July 15, 2019. The incorporation by reference of the various SAE 
standards in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register before January 6, 2015.
    All approved material is available for inspection at the OSHA 
Docket Office (U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Room N-3508, Washington DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350) and is 
available from the sources listed in 29 CFR 1910.6, 29 CFR 1915.5, and 
29 CFR 1926.6. The material is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis
V. Legal Considerations
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and 
Health

I. Executive Summary

    OSHA is making 14 revisions to existing standards in the 
recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards. 
The purpose of the Standards Improvement Project (SIP) is to remove or 
revise outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent 
requirements in OSHA's safety and health standards, which will permit 
better compliance by employers and reduce costs and paperwork burdens 
where possible, without reducing employee protections. In fact, many of 
the revisions in this rulemaking reduce costs while improving worker 
safety and health or privacy. OSHA is conducting SIP-IV in response to 
the President's Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulations and 
Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821), and consistent with Executive Order 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). The 
revisions include an update to the consensus standard incorporated by 
reference for signs and devices used to protect workers near automobile 
traffic, a revision to the requirements for roll-over protective 
structures to comply with current consensus standards, updates for 
storage of digital x-rays, and the method of calling emergency services 
to allow for use of current technology. OSHA is also revising two 
standards to align with current medical practice: A reduction to the 
number of necessary employee x-rays and updates to requirements for 
pulmonary function testing. To protect employee privacy and prevent 
identity fraud, OSHA is also removing from the standards the 
requirements that employers include an employee's social security 
number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and other 
records.
    SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) to 
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements. The agency 
estimates cost savings and paperwork reductions for SIP rulemakings. 
The agency estimates that one revision (updating the method of 
identifying and calling emergency medical services) may increase 
construction employers' combined costs by about $32,000 per year while 
two provisions (reduction in the number of necessary employee x-rays 
and elimination of posting requirements for residential construction 
employers) provide estimated combined cost savings of $6.1 million 
annually. This final rule is considered an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 
deregulatory action. Details on OSHA's cost/cost savings estimates for 
this final rule can be found in the rule's Final Economic Analysis and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis in this preamble. OSHA has 
estimated that, at a discount rate of 3 percent over 10 years, 7 
percent over 10 years, or 7 percent over a perpetual time horizon, this 
final rule yields net annual cost savings of $6.1 million per year.
    The agency has not estimated or quantified benefits to employees 
from reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to employers for the 
reduced cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-ray films. The 
agency has concluded that the revisions are economically feasible and 
do not have any significant economic impact on small businesses. The 
Final Economic Analysis in this preamble provides an explanation of the 
economic effects of the revisions.

II. Background

    The purpose of the SIP-IV rulemaking is to remove or revise 
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in 
OSHA's safety and health standards. The agency believes that improving 
OSHA standards will increase employers' understanding of their 
obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, improved employee 
safety and health, and reduced compliance costs.
    In 1995, in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve 
government regulation,\1\ OSHA began a series of rulemakings designed 
to revise or remove standards that were confusing, outdated, 
duplicative, or inconsistent. OSHA published the first rulemaking, 
``Standards Improvement Project, Phase I'' (SIP-I) on June 18, 1998 (63 
FR 33450).\2\ Two additional rounds of SIP rulemaking followed, with 
final SIP rules published in 2005 (SIP-II) (70 FR 1111) and 2011 (SIP-
III) (76 FR 33590).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clinton, W.J., Memorandum for Heads of Departments and 
Agencies. Subject: Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. March 4, 1995.
    \2\ Revisions made by the SIP-I rulemaking included adjustments 
to the medical-surveillance and emergency-response provisions of the 
Coke Oven Emissions, Inorganic Arsenic, and Vinyl Chloride 
standards, and removal of unnecessary provisions from the Temporary 
Labor Camps standard and the textile industry standards.
    \3\ In the final SIP-II rule published in 2005 (70 FR 1111), 
OSHA revised a number of provisions in its health and safety 
standards identified as needing improvement either by the Agency or 
by commenters during the SIP-I rulemaking. These included updating 
or removing notification requirements from several standards, 
updating requirements for first aid kits to reflect newer consensus 
standards, updating requirements for laboratories analyzing samples 
under the vinyl chloride standard, and making worker exposure 
monitoring frequencies consistent under certain health standards, 
among other things. The final SIP-III rule, published in 2011 (76 FR 
33590), updated consensus standards incorporated by reference in 
several OSHA rules, deleted provisions in a number of OSHA standards 
that required employers to prepare and maintain written training-
certification records for personal protective equipment, revised 
several sanitation standards to permit hand drying by high-velocity 
dryers, and modified OSHA's sling standards to require that 
employers use only appropriately marked or tagged slings for lifting 
capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the President's Executive Order 13563 (E.O.), 
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' establishes the goals 
and criteria for regulatory review, and requires agencies to review 
existing standards and regulations to ensure that these standards and 
regulations continue to protect public health, welfare, and safety 
effectively, while promoting economic growth and job creation. The E.O. 
encourages agencies to use the best, least burdensome means to achieve 
regulatory objectives, to perform periodic reviews of existing 
standards to identify outmoded, ineffective, or burdensome standards,

[[Page 21419]]

and to modify, streamline, or repeal such standards when appropriate. 
The agency believes that the SIP rulemaking process is an effective 
means to improve its standards.
    OSHA advised the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and 
Health (ACCSH) at a public meeting held on December 16, 2011, that it 
intended to review its standards under the SIP criteria, with 
particular emphasis on construction standards. A transcription of these 
proceedings (ACCSH Transcript) is available at Docket No. OSHA-2011-
0124-0026.
    Recognizing the importance of public participation in the SIP 
process, the agency published a Request for Information (RFI) on 
December 6, 2012 (77 FR 72781), asking the public to identify standards 
that were in need of revision or removal, and to explain how such 
action would reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or increasing 
the protection afforded to employees. The agency received 26 comments 
in response to the RFI. Several of the revisions in this rule were 
recommended in the public comments received in response to the RFI. 
Other revisions were identified by the agency's own internal review and 
by ACCSH.
    On October 4, 2016, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) titled ``Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV'' (81 FR 
68504). The period for submitting comments was originally 60 days and 
was extended by 30 days to allow parties affected by the rule more time 
to review the proposed rule and collect information and data necessary 
for comments. The comment period ended on January 4, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NPRM was also consistent with Executive Order 13777, 
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). That 
Executive Order requires each agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force 
to identify regulations for ``repeal, replacement, or modification'' 
that, among other things, ``eliminate jobs, or inhibit job 
creation;'' ``are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;'' or 
``impose costs that exceed benefits.'' Id. section 3(d). In OSHA's 
view, the regulatory provisions identified in the NPRM met those 
criteria for repeal, replacement, or modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received around 700 submissions on the proposed rulemaking, 
with many of the submissions containing comments on more than one of 
the proposed revisions. The proposed revision to the shipyards standard 
to remove ``feral cats'' from the definition of ``vermin'' received 
over 500 comments in support. The proposed revision to the lockout/
tagout standard in general industry received about 150 comments against 
and seven in favor. The remaining comments cover the other proposed 
revisions. All significant issues raised in the comments are discussed 
in the Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
    OSHA is moving forward with 14 revisions in its recordkeeping, 
general industry, maritime, and construction standards. OSHA is not 
moving forward with proposed revisions to the lockout/tagout general 
industry standard, personal protective equipment fit in construction, 
the excavation construction standard, or the decompression tables in 
the underground construction standard. OSHA received requests for a 
hearing on the proposal regarding the lockout/tagout standard from some 
commenters that were opposed to that proposal. In light of the 
information provided by the comments, OSHA is not in a position at this 
time to make a final decision on this issue. As a result, the agency 
will further consider this issue in light of the overall standard. As 
OSHA is not moving forward with the proposed changes to the lockout/
tagout standard, the agency determined that a hearing was not required. 
OSHA describes the revisions, including changes from the proposal and 
decisions not to move forward on four proposals, in detail in section 
III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

A. Revision in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Recording and 
Reporting Standards (29 CFR Part 1904)

Subpart C--Recording Forms and Recording Criteria, Recording Criteria 
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss in 29 CFR 1904.10
    OSHA proposed to revise Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) of the Recordkeeping 
rule with language that will assist employers to comply with 
requirements for recording hearing loss. Title 29 CFR 1904.5 applies to 
the determination criteria for work-relatedness of all occupational 
injuries and illnesses, including hearing loss. OSHA proposed adding a 
cross-reference to this section to clarify requirements for physicians 
or other licensed health care professionals (PLHCPs) when making a 
determination of work-relatedness for cases of hearing loss. The final 
rule is identical to the proposal.
    The addition of the cross-reference simply emphasizes the pre-
existing requirement that, if an event or exposure in the work 
environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or 
significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss, the PLHCP, just 
as anybody else evaluating a case involving hearing loss, must consider 
the case to be work-related. Ultimately, the employer is responsible 
for ensuring that the PLHCP applies the analysis in Sec.  1904.5 when 
evaluating work-related hearing loss, if the employer chooses to rely 
on the PLHCP's opinion in determining recordability.
    Commenters who opposed the addition of this cross-reference at 
Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) represented employers in manufacturing and 
construction sectors. These commenters stated that if OSHA intended for 
Sec.  1904.5, specifically the presumption of work-relatedness, to 
apply to occupational hearing loss cases, the rulemaking to revise the 
hearing loss provisions in the rule on recording and reporting 
occupational injuries and illnesses in 2002 should have contained this 
explicitly (Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting 
Requirements, 67 FR 44037 (July 1, 2002)). (See discussion of specific 
comments below.) However, OSHA notes that the existing regulatory text 
of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) already confirms this where it states, ``You 
must use the rules in Sec.  1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is 
work-related.'' The addition of the new cross-reference is merely to 
reduce any existing confusion. OSHA has received compelling evidence 
from commenters representing workers' unions and the field of audiology 
that there is confusion about the interpretation of Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) 
and what definition of work-relatedness applies. The agency believes 
that the simple addition of this cross-reference to another existing 
requirement adds clarity for PHLCPs and employers, and after 
considering the comments on this proposal, OSHA has decided to add the 
cross-reference to Sec.  1904.5 in Sec.  1904.10(b)(6).
    Several commenters expressed support for OSHA's proposed cross-
reference to Sec.  1904.5 in Sec.  1904.10(b)(6). The Laborers' Health 
& Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building 
Trades Union (NABTU) stated that hearing loss among construction 
workers is severely underreported (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, -0757). NABTU 
cited the CPWR Center for Construction Research and Training's Fifth 
Edition of the Construction Chart Book which suggests that rates of 
hearing loss in the construction industry are elevated significantly 
beyond the 1,400 cases that BLS reported from 2004 to 2010:

    Since employers have no obligation to test workers' hearing 
(audiometric testing) in construction, even if employees experience 
noise levels at or above OSHA's PEL, hearing loss in construction is 
rarely recognized as an

[[Page 21420]]

occupational disease. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 
numbers reported to the BLS show a very low rate of hearing loss, 
and for this reason hearing loss data for construction are not 
comparable with data for general industry.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0781). The CPWR Chart Book notes that in the 7 years 
between 2004 and 2010, the BLS reported 1,400 cases of hearing loss in 
construction. They contrasted this number with hearing data that are 
collected by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large 
household survey in the U.S. In the NHIS Survey, at least one in five 
(21.4%) construction workers self-reported some hearing trouble in 2010 
(chart 49b). The CPWR Chart Book indicates that this is nearly one-
third higher than the proportion of workers with hearing trouble for 
all industries combined (16.3%). Id.
    NABTU stated that the addition of the cross-reference would clarify 
that a PLHCP has the same responsibilities in evaluating whether 
hearing loss is work-related as in evaluating any other workplace 
injury or illness. NABTU added that OSHA's proposed revision to Sec.  
1904.10 would provide consistency between standards, and that the 
clarification would serve to improve reporting of work-related hearing 
loss (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
    The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 
Energy, and Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union 
(USW) also supported the addition of the cross-reference. USW described 
a case involving USW members in which a health care professional 
consistently ruled that cases of hearing loss were not occupational, 
even though those workers had experienced high workplace noise levels 
for years. Each case was instead attributed to loud music, firing a gun 
while hunting, or some other non-occupational cause (OSHA-2012-0007-
0764).
    The AFL-CIO stated that:

    It appears that many employers are misinterpreting the current 
language in section 1904.10(b)(6) to allow a physician to use 
different criteria for determining work-relatedness than are set 
forth in section 1904.5 of the regulation. This proposal will help 
to make clear that physicians and other health care professionals 
must apply the criteria in section 1904.5 of the recordkeeping rule 
in making determinations whether hearing loss is work-related for 
the purposes of recording the case on the OSHA 300 log. The 
recording of such cases will help identify jobs and operations where 
workers are exposed to excessive levels of noise and assist in 
efforts to control these exposures to prevent further risk to 
workers.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
    Dr. Alice Suter, Ph.D., provided a link to a position paper from 
the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA), ``NHCA Guidelines 
on Recording Hearing Loss on the OSHA 300 Log.'' It states:

    Professional reviewers commonly report pressure by their clients 
to make a determination that an STS [Standard Threshold Shift] is 
not recordable. Some have been questioned and challenged on every 
case they have identified as work-related. Others are unsure of 
their obligations under the OSHA regulations . . . To the extent 
that STSs are minimized because of reluctance to report them, 
workers are not getting the necessary counseling, hearing protector 
checking, and noise control remedies that could prevent further 
hearing loss.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
    In her comments, Dr. Suter stated that (a) the definition of an STS 
is quite lenient--so any STS is already a significant shift in hearing 
threshold level; (b) to qualify for recordability, the hearing loss 
must first exceed a hearing threshold level of 25dB, which is quite a 
significant level itself; and (c) to be in a hearing conservation 
program and to have one's hearing tested, workers are, by definition, 
exposed to levels of 85 dBA or above, where the risk of noise-induced 
hearing loss is well-known (OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
    Several associations representing employer interests in 
manufacturing and construction industries expressed opposition to this 
revision. The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) and the 
Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS) believed that the addition of a 
reference to Sec.  1904.5 at Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) would substantively 
change the requirements for recording occupational hearing loss cases 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756). This cross-reference creates no new 
requirement. In fact, the same cross-reference to Sec.  1904.5 already 
exists in the language of Sec.  1904.10(b), which is adjacent and 
immediately prior to Sec.  1904.10(b)(6). Section 1904.10(b)(5) 
requires the employer to employ the rules of Sec.  1904.5 to ascertain 
if the hearing loss is work related. The provision also states that the 
hearing loss must be considered work related if an event or exposure in 
the work environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, 
or significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.
    The addition of the very same cross-reference in Sec.  
1904.10(b)(6) merely ensures consistency between provisions, provides 
clarity for PLHCPs in the assessment and determination of hearing loss 
cases, and in no way alters interpretation of the existing regulations 
under part 1904.
    Section 1904.5(a) states that an injury or illness is to be 
considered work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment 
either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or 
significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-
relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from 
events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an 
exception in Sec.  1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies. Section 
1904.5(b)(1) defines the work environment as ``the establishment and 
other locations where one or more employees are working or are present 
as a condition of their employment.'' OSHA sometimes refers to this 
presumption for injuries and illnesses that occur in the work 
environment to be work-related as the ``geographical presumption.'' In 
their comments, CISC and CWS noted that in OSHA's 2002 preamble to the 
revision of Sec.  1904.10, the agency stated:

    OSHA agrees . . . that it is not appropriate to include a 
presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases to employees 
who are working in noisy work environments. It is possible for a 
worker who is exposed at or above the 8-hour 85 dBA action levels of 
the noise standard to experience a non-work-related hearing loss, 
and it is also possible for a worker to experience a work-related 
hearing loss and not be exposed to those levels.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756 (quoting 67 FR 44037, 44045)). This 
statement was not addressing the geographic presumption of Sec.  
1904.5, but a different presumption--that of work-relatedness whenever 
the employee was exposed to noise of 85 dBA or greater, as in the 2001 
revision of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5). The current regulations do not contain 
a presumption that hearing loss is work-related when the work 
environment is loud (85 dBA or greater). The clarification to Sec.  
1904.10(b)(6) does not, and could not, create such a presumption.
    OSHA clarified in the 2002 rulemaking that Sec.  1904.5 is to be 
followed when making work-relatedness determinations. 67 FR 44037, 
44045. The 2001 version of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) had created a special 
rule for noise exposure in the workplace, providing that hearing loss 
is presumed to be work-related if the employee is exposed to noise in 
the workplace at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or greater, 
or to a total noise dose of 50 percent, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.95. 
For hearing loss cases where the employee is not exposed to this level 
of noise, the rules in Sec.  1904.5 must be used to determine if the 
hearing loss is work-related.

[[Page 21421]]

Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements, 
66 FR 5916, 6129 (Jan. 19, 2001). But in 2002, OSHA abandoned the 
special rule and reverted to treating the determination of work-
relatedness of hearing loss as it does for any other injury or illness 
under the recordkeeping rule: ``Therefore, the final rule states that 
there are no special rules for determining work-relationship and 
restates that the rule's overall approach to work-relatedness--that a 
case is work-related if one or more events or exposures in the work 
environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or 
significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.'' 67 FR at 44045 
(emphasis added). The text of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) confirms this: ``You 
must use the rules in Sec.  1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is 
work-related.''
    OSHA maintains that indeed it is not appropriate to include an 
outright presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases. For 
example, as stipulated at Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)(ii), if an employee in a 
high-noise work environment meets the recording criteria for hearing 
loss, but a physician discovers that the employee has an inner ear 
infection that is entirely responsible for the loss, the case would not 
be considered work-related. OSHA has consistently interpreted Sec.  
1904.10(b)(6) this way since 2001:

[T]he provisions allowing for review by a physician or other 
licensed health care professional allow for the exclusion of hearing 
loss cases that are not caused by noise exposure, such as off the 
job traumatic injury to the ear, infections, and the like. OSHA 
notes that this presumption is consistent with a similar presumption 
in OSHA's Occupational Noise standard (in both cases, an employer is 
permitted to rebut this presumption if he or she suspects that the 
hearing loss shown on an employer's audiogram in fact has a medical 
etiology and this is confirmed by a physician or other licensed 
health care professional).

66 FR 5916, 6012. The addition of a cross-reference in Sec.  
1904.10(b)(6) adds no new requirement and merely clarifies the existing 
requirements for PLCHPs, and ultimately employers, in hearing loss case 
determinations.
    The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) submitted comments stating that 
the revision, as proposed, would significantly expand the employer's 
responsibility for hearing loss that may have just as easily been 
incurred through workers' off-duty behaviors including the use of ``ear 
buds'' or headphones, power tools, lawn mowers, chain saws, or 
attendance at music or sporting events. GAC stated that this revision 
would negate workers' non-workplace noise exposures, and increase OSHA 
recordables and enforcement actions unfairly (OSHA-2012-0007-0737).
    But for a case to be presumed work-related, there must be a causal 
connection between the injury or illness and an event or exposure at 
work. This does not mean that work factors must outweigh non-work 
factors in causing the injury, or that work factors must be 
quantifiable, e.g., a 10% or 20% cause, or that work factors must be 
``significant.'' Causality for OSHA recordkeeping purposes is 
established if work is a cause. In order to further clarify the issue 
of work-relatedness, in 2001, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement 
with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to resolve NAM's 
challenge to the 2001 recordkeeping final rule. The settlement 
agreement states that ``a case is presumed work-related if, and only 
if, an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause 
of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to pre-
existing condition. The work event or exposure need only be one of the 
discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant cause.'' 
Settlement Agreement: Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and 
Reporting, 66 FR 66943, 66944 (Dec. 27, 2001). As a result, the 
geographic presumption treats a case as work-related if work is one 
cause, even if there are also other non-work causes. However, there 
must be a causal relationship between the injury or illness and a work 
event; there is no presumption that an injury is work-related simply 
because it occurs at work (see Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)).
    GAC and Formosa Plastics also disagreed specifically with the use 
of language from Compliance Directive CPL 02-00-135 in the proposed 
rule preamble, with GAC stating that by incorporating language from a 
compliance directive into the standard, OSHA would in effect be turning 
guidance into a requirement (OSHA-2012-0007-0737, -6333). OSHA 
disagrees. The only revision of the regulatory text is to add the 
cross-reference to the existing regulatory provision at Sec.  1904.5. 
OSHA is adding this cross-reference through the use of notice-and-
comment rulemaking, in this Standards Improvement Project-IV 
rulemaking, which is the proper and appropriate way to make changes to 
the CFR. This cross-reference adds no new requirement for employers, 
removes ambiguity, and adds clarity to OSHA enforcement policy already 
currently in place.
    The Flexible Packing Association and Bemis Company also submitted 
comments that emphasized that to enter a hearing conservation program, 
an employee must be exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound 
level of 85 dBA or higher (OSHA-2012-0007-0765, -6338). That is 
correct, under 29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1), and is not being changed by this 
rulemaking.
    The American Petroleum Institute commented that it had no concerns 
about the proposed cross-reference, but it did have concerns about the 
language of the compliance directive (OSHA-2012-0007-0766). The only 
change being made here is the addition of a cross-reference to Sec.  
1904.5.
    Some organizations that were generally supportive of the cross-
reference felt that it could be improved by the addition of further 
language. The USW suggested that the cross-reference also be included 
in the occupational noise exposure standard at Sec.  1910.95(g)(8)(ii), 
as follows: ``. . . unless a physician determines in accord with 
Section 1904.5 that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or 
aggravated by occupational noise exposure . . . (bolded italics 
added)'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). While OSHA appreciates that suggestion, 
OSHA is not making any changes to the occupational noise standard that 
were not proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM.
    NIOSH felt that consistency may not be accomplished by simply 
cross-referencing to Sec.  1904.5, because Sec.  1904.5 differs in some 
respects from the compliance directive. It is OSHA's regulations that 
are enforceable, and OSHA is only adding the cross-reference to the 
existing regulatory definition of work-relatedness here.
    NIOSH also made the distinction that:

    Sec.  1904.5 states that determination of whether work 
``significantly aggravated'' a pre-existing illness or injury is 
made when the work exposure causes one of the following (which would 
not have occurred simply from the pre-existing condition):

i. Death
ii. Loss of consciousness
iii. One or more days away from work, or days of restricted work, or 
days of job transfer
iv. Medical treatment or a change in medical treatment.

Occupational noise exposure does not cause i-iv and cross 
referencing to Sec.  1904.5 may be confusing.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA agrees that Sec.  1904.5(b)(4), which NIOSH 
cited, is not applicable to hearing loss. However, as explained above, 
Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) already requires analysis under Sec.  1904.5. OSHA 
will not be

[[Page 21422]]

adding language beyond the cross-reference to the text of Sec.  
1904.10(b)(6), and the final text is identical to the proposed text.

B. Revisions in General Industry Standards, Shipyard Standards, and 
Construction Standards (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926)

1. Subpart Z of Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926--Toxic and Hazardous 
Substances, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1910.1001, Inorganic Arsenic in 29 CFR 
1910.1018, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1910.27, Coke Oven Emissions in 29 CFR 
1910.29, Acrylonitrile in 29 CFR 1910.1045, Asbestos in 29 CFR 
1915.1001, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1926.1101, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1926.1127.
    OSHA proposed three revisions. The first revision was to remove the 
requirement in several of its standards that employers provide periodic 
chest X-rays (CXR) to screen for lung cancer. The final rule retains 
that proposed revision without change. The second revision was to allow 
employers to use digital radiography and other reasonably-sized 
standard films for X-rays. The final rule retains that proposed 
revision without change. The third revision was to update terminology 
and references to the International Labour Organization (ILO) 
guidelines included in its asbestos standards (81 FR 68504, 68507-
68511). The final rule's language is nearly the same as that originally 
proposed, but with some minor changes to respond to concerns raised by 
NIOSH.
    Several OSHA standards currently require periodic CXR to screen 
exposed workers for lung cancer. Since these standards were 
promulgated, however, large studies with many years of follow-up have 
not shown a benefit of CXR screening in reducing either lung cancer 
incidence or mortality (see 81 FR at 68507-68511). As a result, OSHA 
proposed removing the requirement for periodic CXR in the following 
standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec.  1910.1029, Coke 
Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045, Acrylonitrile. OSHA did not 
propose to remove the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or any 
other, standards, as baseline CXR at pre-placement or at the initiation 
of a medical surveillance program provides benefits to workers exposed 
to lung carcinogens, their employers, and healthcare professionals 
evaluating these workers (see 81 FR at 68509). OSHA also did not 
propose removing the CXR requirements in standards where CXR is used 
for purposes other than screening for lung cancer. For example, OSHA is 
retaining the CXR requirements in the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to continue screening for 
asbestosis. OSHA proposed adding the text, ``Pleural plaques and 
thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-mandatory 
appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec.  1910.1001), 
as well as the parallel appendices in the Maritime and Construction 
asbestos standards (Sec.  1915.1001, appendix I; Sec.  1926.1101, 
appendix I) (see 81 FR at 68564, 68662, 68684).
    OSHA also proposed updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not 
require, the use of digital CXRs, also referred to as digital 
radiographs, in the medical surveillance provisions of its inorganic 
arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), and 
acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards discussed above, and its 
asbestos (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. Digital radiography 
systems are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-based systems in 
medical facilities, and both the ILO and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently published guidelines 
for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at 68509). In addition, OSHA 
proposed allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as 
the 16 inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 
17 inch film specified in some standards. This proposed change would 
affect the acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045), inorganic arsenic (Sec.  
1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), and asbestos 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) standards. Updating 
this requirement, as proposed, would ensure consistency across 
standards as well as conformance with current medical practice (81 FR 
at 68510).
    Lastly, OSHA proposed replacement of ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-
ray'' to reflect current terminology and corrections to remove 
references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven 
emissions appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), 
as these exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR 
1112). OSHA also proposed making changes to conform to the language 
used in the ILO's ``Guidelines for the use of the ILO International 
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses,'' which refers to a 
classification system as applying to CXR, while interpretation refers 
to the information translated by the physician to the employer. The 
proposed revisions clarified that classification must be in accordance 
with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a professionally 
accepted Classification system'') according to the Guidelines for use 
of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) in appendix E of each of the 
three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
Comments and Responses on Removing the Requirement To Provide Periodic 
CXR To Screen for Lung Cancer
    OSHA received several comments supporting the proposal to remove 
the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer screening from the 
inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  
1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards. These 
comments came from organizations representing labor, industry, and 
NIOSH.
    Among labor unions, the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North 
America (LHSFNA) noted, ``Chest X-rays are of very little value in lung 
cancer cases'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Similarly, the United Steel, 
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial 
and Service Workers International Union (USW) stated, ``There is no 
evidence that ordinary chest x-rays can detect lung cancer in time to 
affect mortality'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW noted that low-dose 
computed tomography (LDCT), unlike CXR, can detect lung cancer while 
treatable, but brings with it the risk of increased radiation exposure 
and false positive results. USW further stated that better equipment 
and protocols have helped with the latter two problems, and that LDCT 
will continue to improve (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW recommended 
that OSHA consider adopting LDCT in the future for high-risk 
populations (OSHA-2012-0007-0764).
    North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) agreed with OSHA's 
proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement, writing, ``We agree 
that it is long past time to remove requirements for CXRs for the 
screening detection of lung cancer, since they have no benefit and 
offer only harm'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). With regard to LDCT, however, 
NABTU stated that OSHA should replace the CXR requirement with a 
carefully-monitored LDCT screening requirement:

[W]hile `OSHA will continue to monitor the literature on [whether to 
continue to require] baseline Chest X-rays', the agency offers no 
similar assurance about other forms of screening for lung cancer 
and, in particular, includes an inadequate assessment of the

[[Page 21423]]

benefits of LDCT. After citing a Cochran review that is 3 years old 
and opining that it may take NIOSH years to come up with 
recommendations, OSHA effectively absolves employers from any 
requirement to offer an intervention that has been demonstrated to 
save lives. This clearly violates the intent of the standards and 
raises the concern that OSHA intends to wait another 30 years before 
making needed updates.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
    NABTU further stated that OSHA is ``repeating the mistakes that 
lead to the CXR requirements and this overdue standard improvement'' 
and should ensure that current medical input is considered in this 
standard improvement (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU asserted that LDCT 
screening for lung cancer has been endorsed by most relevant medical 
organizations, as prospective studies have demonstrated LDCT to be an 
effective lung screening method (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Recognizing the 
potential for unnecessary biopsies and surgical interventions from LDCT 
screening, NABTU advocated for LDCT screening only for workers with 
sufficient smoking history and a history of occupational lung 
carcinogen exposure (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU cited the Building 
Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed) as an example, which 
screens former Department of Energy (DOE) construction workers for lung 
cancer with LDCT if they meet the following criteria: Age between 50 to 
79 years; five years of employment at a DOE site; smoking history of 20 
pack-years (number of cigarette packs per day times number of years 
smoked) or evidence of asbestosis on CXR; and not recently treated for 
cancer. The findings among 1,300 scanned workers have included 15 Stage 
1 lung cancers, two Stage 2 lung cancers, and six Stage 4 lung cancers 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on these data, NABTU urged OSHA to adopt 
an LDCT screening requirement using the criteria from the BTMed 
program, and to collaborate with NIOSH and the National Cancer 
Institute (NCI) to continue to evaluate outcomes and modify LDCT 
screening requirements (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU also submitted to 
the record guidance from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health 
(FIOH) and the Lung Cancer Alliance on LDCT screening for asbestos 
workers (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachments 4 and 5, respectively).
    OSHA acknowledges the concerns of NABTU about not replacing the 
periodic CXR requirement with an appropriate intervention for lung 
cancer screening. OSHA also appreciates the data shared from the BTMed 
Program, which appeared to show LDCT as a useful tool for lung cancer 
detection. However, OSHA believes that the utility of LDCT in 
occupational lung cancer screening remains a complex issue, as the 
agency is not aware of any definitive LDCT screening recommendations 
based upon a large, randomized, controlled study of workers. Instead, 
the screening recommendations have stemmed from a study of smokers 
(i.e., the National Lung Screening Trial), as referenced by NABTU (see 
Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
    The National Lung Screening Trial enrolled asymptomatic men and 
women (n=53,454), aged 55 to 74, that were current smokers or former 
smokers within the last 15 years and had a smoking history of at least 
30 pack-years. The participants underwent annual lung cancer screening 
with either LDCT or chest radiography for three years. The results 
showed a statistically significant 20 percent relative reduction in 
lung cancer mortality with LDCT screening (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). However, the trial also showed that LDCT 
screening results in a high false-positive rate; 24.2 percent of the 
total LDCT screening tests were classified as positive, with 96.4 
percent of these positive results ultimately being false positives. In 
addition, 39.1 percent of the 26,722 (or about 10,450) participants in 
the LDCT screening group had at least one positive screening result 
during the study (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, 
Attachment 3). Given that only 649 cancers were diagnosed after a 
positive screening test, and assuming that each of these cancers was in 
a different participant, it follows that only 6.2 percent of those with 
at least one positive test were ultimately diagnosed with lung cancer. 
This means that 36.7 percent of participants in the LDCT screening 
group had at least one false positive result. Most positive initial 
screening results in the National Lung Screening Trial--many of which 
were false positives--were followed up with a diagnostic evaluation 
that included further imaging and, infrequently, invasive procedures 
(Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). The authors 
noted potentially harmful effects that could result, including 
overdiagnosis and the development of radiation-induced cancer (Aberle, 
et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
    Based on these findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, the 
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent, volunteer 
panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine, 
recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT for adults aged 
55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who either 
currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Under USPSTF's 
criteria, screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked 
for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits 
life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung 
surgery (Moyer et al., 2014) (OSHA-2012-0007-0032). However, given the 
high false positive rate and subsequent imaging and resulting radiation 
dose in the National Lung Screening Trial, the USPSTF also noted that 
lung cancer screening with LDCT is not without harm:

    The benefit of screening varies with risk because persons who 
are at higher risk because of smoking history or other risk factors 
are more likely to benefit. Screening cannot prevent most lung 
cancer deaths, and smoking cessation remains essential. Lung cancer 
screening has substantial harms, most notably the risk for false-
positive results and incidental findings that lead to a cascade of 
testing and treatment that may result in more harms, including the 
anxiety of living with a lesion that may be cancer. Overdiagnosis of 
lung cancer and the risks of radiation are real harms, although 
their magnitude is uncertain. The decision to begin screening should 
be the result of a thorough discussion of the possible benefits, 
limitations, and known and uncertain harms (Moyer, et al., 2014).

(OSHA-2012-0007-0032).
    In addition to the USPSTF, several other organizations have 
recommended similar lung cancer screening protocols for high-risk 
smokers, including the American Cancer Society, American College of 
Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Lung 
Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American 
Association for Thoracic Surgery. Each organization's specific 
screening recommendations are summarized by the U.S. Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf.
    OSHA is not aware of any definitive recommendations based on a 
large, randomized, controlled study examining the benefit of lung 
cancer screening with LDCT among occupationally-exposed workers. NABTU 
supplied a report by the FIOH that recommended LDCT screening in 
asbestos-exposed individuals if their personal combination of risk 
factors yields a risk for lung cancer equal to that needed for entry 
into the National

[[Page 21424]]

Lung Screening Trial (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Similarly, as 
discussed by NABTU, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a 
nonprofit alliance of 27 cancer centers, recommended screening for two 
high risk groups: (1) Current or former smokers within the last 15 
years who are ages 55 to 74 years with a smoking history of 30 pack-
years or more; or (2) individuals age 50 years or older with a smoking 
history of at least 20 pack-years and with one or more additional risk 
factors; these risk factors include a history of chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease (COPD) or pulmonary fibrosis, a history of cancer, a 
family history of lung cancer, radon exposure, or occupational exposure 
to asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (VI), nickel, 
silica, or diesel fumes (see www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf). The former criteria are very similar to those 
recommended by the USPTF for heavy smokers, while the latter criteria 
are similar to those used in the NABTU BTMed program: Age 50 to 79 
years, not recently treated for cancer, with five years of employment 
at a Department of Energy (DOE) site and either a 20 pack-year smoking 
history or evidence of asbestosis on CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
    NABTU submitted to the record a study by McKee et al. (2015, OSHA-
2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2) in which individuals meeting either NCCN 
group 1 or group 2 criteria (see above) were offered an LDCT screening 
scan between January 2012 and December 2013. The authors examined the 
lung cancer detection outcomes between the two groups, as ``[i]nclusion 
of the group 2 population into annual lung screening has generated 
controversy because this group was not formally evaluated in the NLST 
[National Lung Screening Trial] or other CT lung screening trials'' 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2). Of 1,760 persons scanned (1,296 in 
group 1 and 464 in group 2), there were 481 positive results (365 in 
group 1 and 116 in group 2). Follow-up data were available for 1,328 
(75%) scanned individuals (997 in group 1 and 331 in group 2) and 
indicated 23 diagnosed cancers (17 in group 1 and six in group 2). 
Overall, the group 2 results were substantively similar to the group 1 
results, for both the rate of positive results and the annualized 
cancer detection rates. The authors concluded that screening 
eligibility should be expanded to include group 2 (McKee et al., 2015) 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2).
    While the published results of the McKee et al. study are somewhat 
encouraging for the potential future use of LDCT, OSHA notes that no 
information was provided about the false positive rate, subsequent 
imaging or invasive procedures, and cumulative radiation dose received. 
The 481 positive results among 1,760 persons screened indicates a total 
positive rate of 27 percent, the majority of which were likely false 
positives given the 23 diagnosed cancers among the 1,328 persons with 
follow-up data. In addition, it is unclear the extent to which persons 
in Group 2 were occupationally exposed, as only 24% (approximately 129) 
of the 538 persons in Group 2 were reported to have carcinogen exposure 
(see Fig. 3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). The carcinogen itself 
or the amount of exposure was not specified, and the majority of 
persons in Group 2 were instead included in the group based on having a 
history of a chronic lung disease or smoking-related cancer (see Fig. 
3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). It is also unclear if any of the 
six people diagnosed with cancer in Group 2 had exposure to an 
occupational carcinogen. In addition, lung cancer mortality was not 
studied. Thus, OSHA maintains that additional research, specifically 
well-conducted, randomized, controlled studies of occupationally-
exposed workers, is needed to establish the efficacy of LDCT screening 
for lung cancer among workers.
    OSHA's position is further supported by the 2014 FIOH report, 
provided by NABTU (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4), and NIOSH. FIOH 
reviewed the literature on the efficacy of lung cancer screening with 
LDCT in asbestos-exposed workers, and concluded that lung cancer 
screening with LDCT should be considered for those persons with prior 
exposure to asbestos who are at or above the risk threshold (1.34% over 
6 years) set for participation in the National Lung Screening Trial 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). However, FIOH found that none of 
the risk calculators they examined showed a risk approaching the 
National Lung Screening Trial risk threshold for a 50-year-old man with 
a smoking history of 20 pack-years and occupational exposure to 
asbestos; the risk threshold was exceeded in one risk model for a 60-
year-old man with a smoking history of 10 pack-years, asbestos 
exposure, and a family history of lung cancer (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, 
Attachment 4). It should be noted that asbestos exposure was not 
quantified in these risk calculators, with one model based on data from 
subjects with a minimum duration of five years of employment in an 
occupation at high risk for asbestos exposure, and the other model 
based on data from subjects with at least one year of asbestos exposure 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Although FIOH recommended that 
asbestos-exposed individuals be considered for LDCT lung cancer 
screening if their personal combination of risk factors, particularly 
smoking history, yields a risk of lung cancer at or above that needed 
for entry in the National Lung Screening Trial, FIOH also concluded:

    Much work remains to be done related to risk estimation for lung 
cancer screening eligibility, especially the interplay between age, 
smoking history, other exposures to tobacco smoke, and other risk 
factors such as occupational history or genetic predisposition. 
Going forward it is imperative that efforts are focused on answering 
these key questions about lung cancer risk, patient selection, and 
the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in asbestos-exposed 
adults. (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4).

    Industry support for the proposal came from the North American 
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), representing the 
insulation industry (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NAIMA noted that OSHA's 
proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer 
screening would ``remove costly and burdensome requirements for some'' 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0701).
    NIOSH submitted comments to the record supporting OSHA's proposal 
to remove the CXR requirement for lung cancer screening (other than an 
initial, baseline CXR) in various standards, re-affirming that 
``current medical literature does not support the effectiveness of 
screening for lung cancer with periodic CXR'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). 
NIOSH also agreed with OSHA's assessment that existing evidence is 
insufficient to justify using alternative screening methods to CXR, 
that it may be years before research can provide a recommendation on 
the efficacy of LDCT screening, and that further research is needed on 
the risks associated with LDCT-associated radiation exposure occurring 
during a screening protocol for workers exposed to lung carcinogens in 
the workplace (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
    NIOSH encouraged OSHA to track new developments that may eventually 
justify requirements for lung cancer screening with LDCT in various 
standards, and pointed to the FIOH recommendations for asbestos-exposed 
workers, as discussed above (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH suggested

[[Page 21425]]

that it may, in the future, be possible to conduct lung cancer 
screening with ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) with radiation 
doses similar to conventional CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), pointing to a 
recent study by Huber et al. (2016) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment 
3). In this study, the authors examined a lung phantom with multiple 
nodules of different sizes using both standard CT and ultralow-dose CT, 
and found that 93.3% of lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose 
CT, compared with 95.5% with standard CT (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, 
Attachment 3). Additional post-processing of imaging improved the 
detection rate. The authors concluded that lung cancer screening with 
ultralow-dose CT is feasible, but also acknowledged that the use of a 
lung phantom was a ``major limitation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, 
Attachment 3).
    NIOSH suggested that OSHA, in potential future requirements for 
LDCT screening, consider setting different threshold levels of exposure 
to occupational carcinogens that trigger screening in nonsmokers 
compared to smokers (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also noted the 
importance of appropriate counseling in LDCT screening, as results 
often lead to repeat CT scans to evaluate changes in nodules over time 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
    OSHA agrees with NIOSH and its statements regarding the need for 
the agency to stay apprised of developments that may eventually justify 
the use of LDCT or ultralow-dose CT for lung cancer screening in 
workers. There are currently no definitive LDCT lung cancer screening 
recommendations based on a randomized, controlled trial of 
occupationally-exposed workers. Thus, OSHA believes that additional 
scientific study of lung cancer screening with LDCT for workers is 
needed. However, for this rulemaking, the currently available evidence 
on LDCT screening for lung cancer indicates a high rate of false 
positive results (as observed in the National Lung Screening Trial) 
that can lead to unnecessary follow-up and potential harms.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to delete the 
requirement for periodic CXR in 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; 
Sec.  1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045, 
Acrylonitrile. OSHA has also decided not to require the use of LDCT or 
ultralow-dose CT for periodic lung cancer screening in workers at this 
time.
Comments and Responses on Allowing Employers To Use Digital Radiography 
and Other Reasonably-Sized Standard Films for CXR
    OSHA received many comments supporting the proposal to allow, but 
not require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance 
provisions of the inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven 
emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045), asbestos 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101), and cadmium (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards, and to allow the use of other 
reasonably-sized standard X-ray films. Support was received from NAIMA, 
NIOSH, NABTU, LHSFNA, and USW (OSHA-2012-0007-0701; -0726; -0742, -
0757; and -0764). LHSFNA summarized, ``The past few years have brought 
rapid digitization to the medical industry. The proposed change to 
allow digital X-ray storage is a necessary consequence of changes in 
technology'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). There were no comments opposing the 
use of digital CXRs or other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films. 
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to allow, but not 
require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions 
of the standards listed.
Comments and Response on Updating Terminology and References to the ILO 
Guidelines
    OSHA also received comments on the proposals to replace 
``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, remove 
references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven 
emissions appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), 
update language to refer to classification (not interpretation), 
consistent with the ILO Guidelines, and update references to the ILO 
guidelines in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards. NAIMA 
expressed support for updating the terminology and references to the 
ILO guidelines in the asbestos standards (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NABTU 
also expressed support for referencing the updated ILO guidelines 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742). After considering these comments, OSHA has 
decided to finalize its proposals to replace ``roentgenogram'' with 
``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, to remove references to semi-
annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions 
appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), and to 
refer to only classification.
    NIOSH expressed concern that the ILO's 2011 ``Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses'' allows digital CXRs to be printed out 
as hard copies and then classified using the ILO's standard image 
films. NIOSH cited research suggesting that allowing this approach will 
significantly increase the apparent prevalence of small opacities 
(Franzblau, et al., 2009) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment 4). In the 
proposal, OSHA recommended that radiographic facilities and physicians 
``should'' follow the NIOSH Guidelines, ``Application of Digital 
Radiography for the Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis,'' 
and noted that NIOSH does not recommend using film-based ILO reference 
radiographs for comparison with digital chest images or printed hard 
copies of the images (81 FR at 68510). Instead, NIOSH recommended that 
OSHA require the use of the NIOSH Guidelines, which state that only ILO 
digital standard images should be used to classify digital CXRs. NIOSH 
noted that the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations already 
promulgated by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) at 
20 CFR part 718 are consistent with the NIOSH Guidelines (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726).
    OSHA has carefully considered this concern and believes that NIOSH 
has presented compelling evidence, in the research cited and within the 
OWCP regulation, that digital CXRs should not be printed as a hard copy 
and then compared to ILO film standard images. As such, OSHA has 
incorporated the reference to the 2011 ILO guidelines, but has added 
language reflecting NIOSH's concerns. Specifically, in appendix E to 
the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 
1926.1101), OSHA has added a provision requiring that digitally-
acquired chest X-rays be classified using a complete set of ILO 
standard digital chest radiographic images provided for use with the 
Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). The 
classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays must be performed 
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies, and not 
based on the viewing of hard copy printed transparencies of the images. 
OSHA believes these edits to the regulatory language address NIOSH's 
concerns and are consistent with the DOL OWCP regulation.
    In addition, NIOSH expressed concern that the regulatory language 
in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) allows CXR classification by a 
``B-Reader, a board eligible/certified

[[Page 21426]]

radiologist, or an experienced physician with known expertise in 
pneumoconiosis'' (see 81 CFR at 68563, 68661, and 68683). NIOSH 
suggested that OSHA either remove the ``experienced physician'' or more 
specifically define the type of expertise in pneumoconiosis that is 
required to qualify as an ``experienced physician'' and that would 
ensure such a physician is able to accurately classify CXRs using the 
ILO classification system (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA recognizes 
NIOSH's concern, and notes that in the new respirable crystalline 
silica standard, only B-Readers can classify x-rays. See 29 CFR 
1910.1053(i)(2)(iii). However, this change to the asbestos standards 
was not proposed. OSHA will consider making this change in a future 
rulemaking.
Summary of Changes
    As proposed, OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic CXR in 
the following standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec.  
1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045, Acrylonitrile. 
OSHA is not removing the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or 
any other, standards. OSHA is also not removing the CXR requirements in 
standards where CXR is used for purposes other than screening for lung 
cancer; for example, OSHA is retaining the CXR requirements in the 
asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to 
continue screening for asbestosis. OSHA is adding the text, ``Pleural 
plaques and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-
mandatory appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec.  
1910.1001), as well as appendix I of the maritime and construction 
asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively).
    OSHA is also updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not 
require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions 
of the inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  
1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards, and the 
asbestos (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. In addition, OSHA is 
allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as the 16 
inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 17 inch 
film specified in some standards.
    Finally, OSHA is replacing ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to 
reflect current terminology and is also eliminating references to semi-
annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions 
appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), as these 
exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR 1112). In 
appendix E of each of its three asbestos standards, OSHA is updating 
terminology and clarifying that classification must be in accordance 
with the ILO classification system according to the Guidelines for the 
use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). OSHA is also further specifying 
that only ILO standard digital chest radiographic images are to be used 
to classify digital CXRs, and that digital CXRs are not to be printed 
out as hard copies and then classified.
References
Aberle, R., Adams, A., Berg, C., Black, W., Clapp, J., Fagerstrom, 
R., et al. (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose 
Computed Tomographic Screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365(5): 395-409.
[FIOH] Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (2014). Asbestos, 
Asbestosis, and Cancer: Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and 
Attribution 2014. Helsinki: FIOH.
Franzblau, A., Kazerooni, E.A., Sen, A., Goodsitt, M.M., Lee, S-Y, 
Rosenman, K.D., Lockey, J.E., Meyer, C.A., Gillespie, B.W., Petsonk, 
E.L., Wang, M.L. (2009). Comparison of Digital Radiographs with Film 
Radiographs for the Classification of Pneumoconiosis. Acad. Radiol. 
16(6): 669-677.
Huber, A., Landau, J., Ebner, L., Butikofer, Y., Leidolt, L., Brela, 
B., May, M., Johannes, H., Christe, A. (2016). Performance of 
ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer 
screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of 
conventional chest X-ray imaging. Eur. Radiol. 26(10): 3643-3652.
[ILO] International Labour Organization (2011). Guidelines for the 
Use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
McKee B.J., Hashim, J.A., French R.J., McKee A.B., Hesketh P.J., 
Lamb, C.R., Williamson, C., Flacke, S., Wald, C. (2015). Experience 
with a CT Screening Program for Individuals at High Risk for 
Developing Lung Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.12(2): 192-197.
Moyer, V.A. (2014). Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals. Internal Med, 
160 (5).
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2011). 
NIOSH Guideline: Application of Digital Radiography for the 
Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis. DHHS (NIOSH) 
Publication No. 2011-198.

2. Subpart Z of Part 1910--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Cotton Dust 
in 29 CFR 1910.1043
    OSHA proposed to update the lung-function testing requirements of 
its cotton-dust standard to align them with current practices and 
technology. The language of the final rule is slightly changed from 
that originally proposed in response to comments from NIOSH.
    In 1978, OSHA promulgated the standard for occupational exposure to 
cotton dust at 29 CFR 1910.1043 because workers exposed to cotton dust 
are at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis (43 FR 
27350, June 23, 1978). As described in the preambles to the proposed 
and final rules, as well as in the preamble to the SIP-IV NPRM, 
byssinosis is characterized by a continuum of effects (41 FR 56497, 
56500-56501, December 28, 1976; 43 FR 27352-27354; 81 FR 68511). The 
cotton dust standard contains medical-surveillance provisions at 29 CFR 
1910.1043(h). These provisions require initial and periodic medical-
surveillance examinations that include administration of a medical 
questionnaire to determine if workers are experiencing symptoms (Sec.  
1910.1043(h)(2)(ii) and (h)(3)(i)). Medical surveillance requirements 
also include pulmonary function testing (i.e., spirometry testing) to 
objectively measure lung function and to assess changes in lung 
function (Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii)).
    To improve the accuracy and consistency of pulmonary function 
testing, OSHA mandated specific requirements in the cotton dust 
standard based on recommendations from the American Thoracic Society 
(ATS) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) (43 FR 27391; 29 CFR 1910.1043, appendix D). Since 1978, 
pulmonary function testing procedures and technology have evolved 
significantly, and some of the mandates in the cotton dust standard now 
are outdated. OSHA thus proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM (81 FR 68504) to 
update the lung function testing requirements for the cotton dust 
standard to align them with current practices and technology. Three 
commenters supported OSHA's proposed updates to requirements for 
pulmonary function testing in the cotton dust standard (NIOSH, OSHA-
2012-007-0726; NABTU, OSHA-2012-0007-0742; and Change to Win, OSHA-
2012-0007-0759). No comments opposed to these proposed changes were 
submitted to the rulemaking record. After considering these comments, 
OSHA has decided to issue this final rule codifying these updates.
Proposed and Final Revisions
    OSHA based the proposed revisions to the cotton dust standard 
pulmonary

[[Page 21427]]

function testing requirements on current recommendations from the 
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS), 
NIOSH, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine (ACOEM). Each of these organizations is a recognized authority 
on generally accepted practices in pulmonary function testing. As in 
the proposal, references to generally accepted practices in this final 
rule refer to only those practices recommended by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, or 
ACOEM.
    Like other respiratory diseases, byssinosis can slow the speed of 
expired air and/or reduce the volume of air that can be inspired and 
then exhaled. To detect and monitor these impairments, spirometry 
measures the maximal volume and speed of air that is forcibly exhaled 
after taking a maximal inspiration. Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) is 
defined as total exhaled volume after full inspiration. Speed of 
expired air is determined by dividing the volume of air exhaled in the 
first second, i.e., the Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second 
(FEV1), by the total FVC to give the FEV1/FVC 
ratio. Values obtained from accurate and repeatable spirometry testing 
are then compared to reference predicted values, which are averages 
expected for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race as the 
employee being tested. A spirometry result that is 100 percent of the 
predicted value for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race 
indicates that the individual being tested has average lung function 
(OSHA, 2013). Depending upon the race of the individual and the 
reference value group being used, an adjustment may need to be made on 
the basis of race. This issue is discussed at greater length later in 
this section. Values are also compared to the employee's previous 
measurements.
    Currently, Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) requires that health care 
providers conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual 
values to the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. Appendix 
C (29 CFR 1910.1043) contains predicted values derived from equations 
published by Knudson et al. (1976). Currently, NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003), 
ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) all 
recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 
(NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for assessing 
spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population. Therefore, 
OSHA proposed (81 FR 68581) and in this final rule is now revising this 
provision to specify use of the NHANES III reference data set and to 
replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values, 
derived from Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General 
U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999), which are incorporated by 
reference.
    The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative 
of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference 
values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians, 
African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old. 
Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal 
accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et 
al., 1999).
    Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) currently specifies that the 
``predicted FEV1 and FVC for blacks shall be multiplied by 
0.85 to adjust for ethnic differences'' because the Knudson data set 
contains reference values only for Caucasians. However, such an 
adjustment for that race/ethnic group is no longer necessary because 
the NHANES III data set contains reference values for African 
Americans. However, the NHANES III data set does not contain reference 
values for Asian Americans, who typically have smaller lung volumes 
compared to Caucasians of the same age, height, and gender (Pellegrino 
et al., 2005). To obtain Asian American reference values, ATS/ERS 
(Redlich et al., 2014) and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) recommend that 
Caucasian reference values for FVC and FEV1 be multiplied by 
a factor of 0.88. Therefore, OSHA proposed and this final rule requires 
use of a 0.88 correction factor to obtain Asian American reference 
values for the FVC and FEV1. Because race does not appear to 
affect FEV1/FVC (ratio), OSHA did not propose and is not 
requiring to apply a correction factor to Caucasian values to derive a 
ratio for Asian Americans. If the NHANES data set is updated to include 
Asian American values in the future, and generally accepted practices 
endorse that data set for use in the U.S., OSHA will consider revising 
Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) to include that update.
    In comments to the record, NIOSH supported use of the NHANES III 
spirometric reference values instead of the older Knudson 1976 
spirometric reference values and the use of a correction factor of 0.88 
to reference values for FEV1 and FVC in Caucasians to 
determine reference values for Asian Americans (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
    While use of the NHANES III data set will simplify interpretation 
of spirometry results by providing reference values for more race/
ethnic groups, neither the NHANES III nor the correction factor 
addresses every race/ethnic group. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing the 
proposed text indicating that FVC, FEV1, and 
FEV1/FVC values be compared to ``appropriate'' race 
ethnicity specific values. The term ``appropriate'' includes groups 
that are not represented in the NHANES III dataset. For example, using 
Mexican American values for non-Mexican American Hispanic workers may 
be appropriate. Designations of race/ethnicity are self-reported by 
workers, and bi-racial or multi-racial workers should select the race/
ethnicity category that best describes them. OSHA's guidance document 
on spirometry testing provides some additional guidance on this topic, 
including a recommendation to use Caucasian reference values for Native 
American Indians (OSHA, 2013).
    The software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set, 
which is identified as the Hankinson 1999 data set on some spirometers. 
If software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data 
set, users of those spirometers would be able to access the NHANES III 
values online through the NIOSH calculator (CDC/NIOSH, 2010). Tables of 
the NHANES III values are also available in an appendix to OSHA's 
spirometry guidance for healthcare professionals that is available 
online (OSHA, 2013). Therefore, NHANES III values are widely available 
to spirometry providers, including those providers using older 
spirometers.
    Currently, paragraph (h)(2)(iii) requires an evaluation of 
pulmonary function testing values using predicted values of FVC and 
FEV1, which are the only reference values listed in the 
tables in current appendix C. The NHANES III reference data set 
includes the lower limit of normal (LLN) as well as predicted values 
for FEV1, FVC, and the FEV1/FVC ratio. The LLN 
for these spirometry measurements represents the lower fifth percentile 
of a healthy (normal) population. That is, 95 percent of a healthy 
(normal) population should have spirometry values above the LLN, and 
spirometry values below the LLN could be abnormal (OSHA, 2013). 
Generally accepted practices by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM currently 
compare spirometry values to the LLN values to identify impaired 
pulmonary function.
    In particular, ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005) defines airways 
obstruction as an FEV1/vital capacity (VC) below the LLN. 
ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) and

[[Page 21428]]

NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003) define borderline airway obstruction as an 
FEV1/FVC below the LLN, with an FEV1 between the 
LLN and the predicted value; they define airways obstruction as both 
FEV1/FVC and an FEV1 below the LLN. ATS/ERS, 
NIOSH, and ACOEM indicate that an FVC or VC less than the LLN could 
indicate possible restrictive impairment (Pellegrino et al., 2005; 
Townsend, 2011; CDC/NIOSH, 2003).
    Therefore, OSHA proposed and is finalizing (h)(2)(iii) to require 
an evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against 
the LLN and percent predicted values to fully characterize possible 
pulmonary impairment in exposed workers, which is consistent with 
generally accepted current practices and supported by NIOSH (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726). OSHA's requirement to evaluate the FEV1/FVC 
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC will not affect triggers 
for changes in medical surveillance frequency or referral for a 
detailed pulmonary examination, because the standard bases those 
triggers solely on FEV1 values.
    OSHA also proposed and is finalizing a change in the triggers for 
the frequency of medical surveillance. Currently, paragraphs 
(h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of the standard require frequency of medical 
surveillance based in part on whether the FEV1 is above or 
below 80 percent of the predicted value. OSHA proposed that the basis 
for frequency of medical surveillance be changed to whether the 
FEV1 is above or below the LLN. As noted above, generally 
accepted practices currently use the LLN as the basis for classifying 
possibly abnormal lung function. Pulmonary function normally declines 
with age, and the LLN better accounts for age-related declines than the 
current standard (Townsend et al., 2011). There is evidence that the 
cut-off point used by the standard, 80 percent of the predicted value, 
can result in erroneous lung function interpretation in adults 
(Pellegrino et al., 2005). Therefore, OSHA proposed and is now making 
final the use of the LLN to determine the frequency of lung-function 
testing.
    OSHA also proposed and is now making a correction to Sec.  
1910.1043(n)(1). Currently, paragraph (n)(1) specifies that appendices 
B, C, and D of the cotton dust standard are mandatory. Since OSHA in 
this rulemaking is removing the old Knudson values from appendix C and 
reserving the appendix for future use, OSHA is modifying Sec.  
1910.1043(n)(1) to now specify that only appendices B and D are 
mandatory.
    OSHA also makes corrections to Sec.  1910.1043, appendix B-II, B, 
``Occupational History Table.'' The table's column titled ``Tenure of 
Employment'' contains boxes in which dates of employment are entered. 
To allow the entry of dates that occurred later than 1999, OSHA 
proposed to change the dates to ``From 19____ or 20____'' and ``To 
19____ or 20____ .'' After further consideration, OSHA is finalizing 
this change, but with an alternation that will make the date entry even 
more open-ended. The agency is changing the column's two sub-headers to 
read as follows: ``FROM (year)'' and ``TO (year.)''
    In reviewing this appendix, OSHA also noticed additional, minor 
technical variations from current practice and other similar forms in 
other health standards. In appendix B-II, A, ``Identification,'' OSHA 
is removing the ``age last birthday'' question because the form already 
asks for the employee's birthday. Additionally, OSHA is changing the 
measurement for height to inches (in) from centimeters (cm) and adding 
that the weight should be listed in pounds (lbs).
    Section 1910.1043, appendix D, sets standards for spirometric 
measurements of pulmonary function. OSHA based the proposed changes to 
appendix D, which are now finalized, on the most recent spirometry 
recommendations from ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). Many of these 
changes reflect advances in spirometry procedures or methods of 
interpretation.\5\ Other changes reflect technological changes 
associated with the current widespread use of flow-type spirometers, in 
addition to volume-type spirometers, which were in widespread use in 
1978 when OSHA published the current standard, and remain in use today. 
The changes would apply only to equipment purchased one year or more 
after OSHA publishes the final standard in the Federal Register. This 
would give time for distributors to exhaust existing stocks and allow 
medical providers to continue using the older spirometers until they 
buy new ones in the normal course of business. For equipment purchased 
on or before the one year anniversary of the Federal Register 
publication date, the original specifications in appendix D continue to 
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appendix D provides minimal standards that must be employed 
when making spirometry measurements. Users of appendix D should also 
consult generally accepted practices from ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et 
al., 2005; Miller et al., 2005), NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003), and ACOEM 
(Townsend, 2011) for a complete list of current spirometry 
standards. OSHA's spirometry guidance also outlines those practices 
(OSHA, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current appendix D(I)(b) specifies volume capacity for spirometers, 
and this final rule is changing it from seven to eight liters in 
appendix (D)(I)(b)(2). Current appendix D(I)(e) specifies flow rates 
for flow-type spirometers, and the final rule is changing it from 12 to 
14 liters per second in D(I)(e)(2). These revisions to appendix D(I)(b) 
and (e) reflect current recommendations by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 
2005).
    Current appendix D(I)(g) requires either a tracing or display, and 
OSHA is revising this language in appendix D(I)(g)(2) to ``paper 
tracing or real-time display.'' When OSHA published the current 
standard in 1978, a pen linked to a physical strip chart generated 
tracings of expiration curves on graph paper during pulmonary testing. 
In contrast, most current flow-type and volume-type spirometers use 
computer-generated displays of expiration curves projected on the 
spirometer or on an attached computer screen.
    In appendix D(I)(g)(2), OSHA proposed and is adding size 
specifications for computer-generated displays, the technology most 
often used today (Miller et al., 2005). An issue that was critical for 
tracings in 1978, and remains critical for both tracings and displays 
today, is that they be large enough to allow a technician to easily 
evaluate the technical acceptability of the expiration during testing. 
A large real-time display allows the technician to easily view a 
technically unacceptable expiration and coach the worker to achieve 
optimal expirations in subsequent attempts. Current appendix D(I)(g) 
also specifies requirements for paper tracings of the expiration curve, 
and requires that the tracings be of sufficient size for hand 
measurements to conform to appendix D(I)(a). OSHA is revising paragraph 
D(I)(g)(2) to indicate ``If hand measurements will be made.'' OSHA is 
making this change because hand measurements are rarely used, and the 
values currently shown in the expiration curve are usually computer 
generated today.
    Original appendix D(I)(g) also requires the spirometer to display 
flow versus volume or volume versus time tracings. The revision in 
appendix D(I)(g)(2) requires the spirometer to display both flow-volume 
and volume-time curves or tracings during testing. The flow-volume 
curve emphasizes early expiration and allows the technician to detect 
problems early in the maneuver (OSHA, 2013). The volume-time curve 
emphasizes the end of the expiration and allows the technician to coach 
the patient to achieve a complete expiration

[[Page 21429]]

(OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also updating the paragraph to indicate that both 
types of curves or tracings must be stored and available for recall. 
This requirement to store curves will allow the assessment of results 
for acceptability and repeatability, once testing is concluded, and it 
will also make it possible to include the curves in reports to health 
care providers who interpret the results (OSHA, 2013).
    Current appendix D(I)(h) requires that instruments be capable of 
accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and not stop 
accumulating volume before (1) the volume change for a 0.5-second 
interval is less than 25 millimeters, or (2) the flow is less than 50 
milliliters per second for a 0.5-second interval. As noted by ATS in 
1987, these end-of-test criteria, which were first included in the 1979 
ATS statement, caused premature termination of exhalation and FVCs that 
were falsely reduced by as much as 9 percent (ATS, 1987). To avoid such 
falsely reduced FVCs, ATS defined end-of-test criteria only according 
to volume change from 1987 onward (ATS 1987, 1994, 2005). Therefore, 
OSHA is updating the first clause in appendix D(I)(h)(2) by specifying 
the currently recommended volume change of less than 25 milliliters for 
a 1-second interval (Miller et al., 2005) and is also removing the 
latter clause, i.e., that the instrument shall not stop accumulating 
volume before the flow is less than 50 milliliters per second for a 
0.5-second interval. These changes that were proposed and are now final 
make appendix D consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations for 
expiratory end-of-test criteria using volume increment only, since flow 
rate criteria were abandoned in 1987 (ATS, 1987; Miller et al., 2005). 
OSHA is also updating this provision by revising the time for which the 
instrument must be capable of accumulating volume to 15 seconds, the 
maximum time for which an exhalation should be done according to ATS/
ERS (Miller et al., 2005). In 1987, ATS stated that they encourage 
spirometer designs that allowed patients to continue exhaling for as 
long as possible (ATS, 1987).
    Current appendix D(I)(j), (II)(b), and (IV)(b) provide requirements 
for the calibration of spirometers, and the final rule updates several 
of these requirements. Revisions to appendix D(I)(j)(2), (II)(b), and 
(IV)(b) clarify that the technician must always check the calibration 
of spirometers, and recalibrate them only if the spirometer requires 
the technician to do so. That change is consistent with recommendations 
by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). The reason for the change is that 
while technicians cannot recalibrate many spirometer models in current 
use, they nevertheless must check the volume accuracy of all 
spirometers; this ensures that the spirometers are operating within 
calibration limits, i.e., that the spirometers are accurate (OSHA, 
2013). In addition, appendix D(II)(b) was revised to indicate that the 
calibration check is to assess the volume accuracy of the spirometer 
and that calibration checks be done daily, or more frequently if 
specified by the spirometer manufacturer when the spirometer is in use. 
This language, which is more specific than the proposed ``check all 
spirometers regularly,'' was suggested by NIOSH, based on ATS/ERS 
(Miller et al., 2005) recommendations (OSHA 2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also 
commented that OSHA may want to note that when performing calibration 
checks, it is the volume accuracy of the spirometer that is being 
validated (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
    OSHA proposed and is making in the final rule a number of changes 
to appendix D(I)(j): First, it is not including the following text in 
appendix D(I)(j)(2) because it is ambiguous and provides no useful 
information: ``. . . with respect to the FEV1 and FVC. This 
calibration of the FEV1 and FVC may be either directly or 
indirectly through volume and time base measurements.'' The second 
update to appendix D(I)(j)(2) includes the current ATS/ERS requirements 
for calibration-syringe accuracy and volume displacement (Miller et 
al., 2005). As noted above, OSHA is revising the term ``calibration'' 
to ``calibration check.'' Another change to paragraph D(I)(j)(2) is to 
revise the term ``calibration source'' to ``calibration syringe'' 
because a syringe is the only type of calibration source currently 
used, so specifying a syringe instead of a source would clarify the 
requirement.
    In addition, OSHA changed the word ``should'' in D(I)(j)(2) to 
``shall,'' so the new D(I)(j)(2) would read, ``the volume-calibration 
syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at least 3 liters and 
shall be accurate to within 0.5 percent of 3 liters (15 
milliliters).'' The phrase ``should'' sounds advisory, and the current 
practices OSHA is updating are based on the 3 liter size of the 
syringe. There were no comments addressing this point.
    Current appendix D(II)(b) provides that technicians should perform 
calibrations using a syringe or other source of at least two liters. 
The change in the syringe volume to three liters is consistent with 
current practices. OSHA also is changing the term ``syringe or other 
volume source'' to ``syringe'' for the reasons described above in the 
discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Another change to appendix D(II)(b) is 
to delete the phrase ``or method.'' The meaning of that phrase is 
unclear; the sentence is addressing calibration checks of an instrument 
(i.e., spirometer), not a method. OSHA also is updating calibration 
check procedures for flow-type and volume-type spirometers to determine 
whether a spirometer is recording 3 liters (L) of air 3.5 
percent (Miller et al., 2005; OSHA, 2013). The check of flow-type 
spirometers would involve the injection of air at three different 
speeds, and the check of volume-type spirometers would involve a single 
injection of air and a check for spirometer leakage. Users should refer 
to generally accepted practices and other guidance for complete details 
about calibration checks (see, e.g., Miller et al., 2005; Townsend, 
2011; OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also changing the term ``recalibration'' in 
this provision to ``calibration checks'' for the reasons stated above 
in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Finally, OSHA is changing 
``should'' to ``shall'' in the first sentence of D(II)(b) for the same 
reasons as discussed above regarding paragraph D(I)(j).
    Appendix D(II)(a) currently contains requirements for measuring 
forced expirations, including having the patient make at least three 
forced expirations. OSHA is updating this paragraph to have the worker 
perform at least three, but no more than eight, forced expirations 
during testing. This change would clarify that up to eight forced 
expirations can be attempted to obtain three acceptable forced 
expirations (Miller et al., 2005). The same paragraph currently states 
that ``The subject may sit, . . .'' OSHA proposed that ``subject'' be 
changed to ``patient'' primarily because ``subject'' implies someone in 
an experimental trial. OSHA further considered this proposed change 
after NIOSH commented that the term ``patient'' can potentially imply a 
person with an illness and that a term such as ``worker'' or ``testing 
participant'' may be a better term (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA has 
decided that worker is the appropriate term to use since it refers to 
the individual being tested and has updated appendix D(II)(a) to 
indicate ``worker'' instead of ``subject.'' The terms ``patient'' or 
``subject'' were also revised to ``worker'' in appendix D(I)(g)(2), 
D(III)(a) and D(IV)(c). OSHA also is clarifying the text in paragraph 
D(II)(a) to indicate that the expiration must be repeatable. The term

[[Page 21430]]

``repeatability,'' now used by ATS/ERS, would be an update to the 
existing term ``reproducibility''; paragraph D(II)(a)(7) lists the 
criteria for repeatable (formerly, reproducible) results. In addition, 
appendix D(II)(a) lists elements of ``unacceptable'' efforts in 
paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(7); OSHA revises this language to ``technically 
unacceptable'' to make clear that the problem is not with the worker's 
lungs but with the flaws in how the test is conducted.
    Appendix D(II)(a)(3) currently specifies that a worker's efforts 
during testing are unacceptable when the expiration does not continue 
for at least five seconds or until an obvious plateau in the volume-
time curve occurs. The revision to this paragraph clarifies that 
results may be acceptable if the worker attempted to exhale (versus 
actually exhaled) for at least six seconds and the volume-time curve 
shows no change in volume (<0.025 L) for at least one second (Miller et 
al., 2005). The change was made because OSHA agrees with a NIOSH 
comment that OSHA should specify the ATS/ERS (Miller et al. 2005) 
criteria of <0.025 L for at least one second rather than ``an obvious 
plateau'' (OSHA-2012-00070-0726). Therefore, the expiration must meet 
both of these criteria for a spirometry result to be technically 
acceptable. Many workers who are young or have small lung volumes can 
complete an expiration in less than six seconds, and their results may 
be acceptable if the technician observes no change in volume in the 
volume-time curve (OSHA, 2013).
    Current appendix D(II)(a)(4) provides that the results are 
unacceptable when the worker coughs or closes the glottis during forced 
expiration. OSHA is revising the paragraph to clarify that the results 
are unacceptable if coughing occurs in the first second of expiration, 
a condition that is consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations 
(Miller et al., 2005). Coughing in the first second interferes with 
measurement of the FEV1 (Miller et al., 2005), but coughing 
toward the end of the expiration does not affect test results (OSHA, 
2013). Glottis closure at any time may result in premature termination 
of the expiration (Miller et al., 2005).
    Current appendix D(II)(a)(6) provides that the results are 
unacceptable when there is an unsatisfactory start to expiration 
characterized by excessive hesitation, i.e., one with an extrapolated 
volume greater than 10 percent of the FVC on the volume-time curve. As 
noted in the 1987 ATS statement, a criterion of 10 percent could result 
in a falsely elevated FEV1 from a suboptimal effort (ATS, 
1987). The change to appendix D(II)(a)(6) indicates that extrapolated 
volume must be less than 150 milliliters or 5 percent of the FVC, 
whichever is greater, to be unacceptable. This change updates the 
provision to be consistent with the most recent ATS/ERS recommendation 
on criteria for start-of-test so that an accurate time zero is set 
(Miller et al., 2005). All ATS or ATS/ERS statements define acceptable 
start-of-test criteria according to volume, as well as percent FVC, 
using whichever criterion is larger for a given patient (ATS, 1979, 
1987, 1994; Miller et al., 2005), and it is not clear why the volume 
value was excluded from the current cotton dust standard. OSHA is also 
including the 2005 ATS/ERS recommendations for volume, in addition to 
percentage of FVC, for consistency with ATS/ERS. Expressing the values 
as both percentage of FVC and as a volume, and using whichever approach 
gives the larger allowed extrapolated volume, aids in the 
interpretation of results for individuals with very small or very large 
lung volumes. For example, since 5 percent of FVC will be less than 150 
milliliters in individuals with FVC <3.00 L, the 150 milliliter 
criterion would be used for those patients. But 5 percent of FVC would 
exceed 150 milliliters in individuals with FVC >3.00 L, so in that case 
the 5 percent of FVC criterion would be used to evaluate the start-of-
test for these patients.
    As stated above, appendix D(II)(a)(7) contains criteria for 
acceptable repeatability. Editorial changes proposed in appendix 
D(II)(a)(7) are for clarification. Notably, OSHA removed the word 
``three'' because technicians can examine up to eight acceptable curves 
to select the two highest FEV1 and FVC values (Miller et 
al., 2005). OSHA also changed ``variation'' to ``difference'' because 
``difference'' is the more appropriate mathematical term to use when 
comparing only two numbers.
    In appendix D(II)(a)(7), OSHA also revised the maximum difference 
between the two largest FVC values and the two largest FEV1 
values of a satisfactory test to 150 milliliters, a change from the 
current maximum difference of 10 percent or 100 
milliliters, whichever is greater. This revision to the criteria for 
acceptable repeatability reflects current ATS/ERS recommendations 
(Miller et al., 2005). In 2005, ATS/ERS stated that many patients are 
able to achieve repeatability of FEV1 and FVC to within 150 
milliliters (Miller et al., 2005). In 1994, the ATS changed its 
repeatability criterion from a volume and a percentage difference 
between values to a volume difference only, so that the criterion was 
equally stringent for all lung sizes, and also so that it was easy to 
compute during the test if hand-measurements were made (ATS, 1994). 
OSHA is also making editorial changes to make it clear that the 
difference between the two largest acceptable FVC values ``shall'' not 
exceed 150 milliliters and the two largest acceptable FEV1 
values ``shall'' not exceed 150 milliliters. OSHA inadvertently 
proposed that the term ``should not exceed'' be used, and the agency is 
revising the term to indicate ``shall not exceed.'' The change is 
consistent with other changes being made to this regulation because the 
word ``should'' sounds advisory (see, e.g., changes to D(I)(j)(2)).
    The agency discussed final changes to appendix D(II)(b) above.
    OSHA is removing appendix D(III)(b). The paragraph refers to a 
NIOSH guideline that specifies an outdated evaluation criterion of 
FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.75 percent, and OSHA is unaware of an 
updated NIOSH cotton dust guideline that more appropriately compares 
the FEV1/FVC ratio to LLN. As noted above, generally 
accepted practices use the LLN as the basis for classifying possibly 
abnormal lung function because it accounts for age-related declines in 
lung function (Townsend, 2011). Appendix D(III)(b) also refers to a 
table that OSHA never included in the final cotton dust standard. That 
table was most likely Table XII-12 in the NIOSH criteria document for 
cotton dust (CDC/NIOSH, 1974). The lack of the table does not appear to 
be a pressing issue since no user complained about the missing table 
after OSHA promulgated the standard. In addition, the information is 
available to users in the NIOSH criteria document.
    The updates to current paragraphs D(IV)(a) and (d) change 
``reproducibility'' to ``repeatability'' to conform to the terminology 
now used by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). ``Repeatability'' would have 
the same meaning as ``reproducibility.'' OSHA also is changing the term 
``calibration'' in paragraph D(IV)(b) to ``calibration checks'' for the 
reasons stated above in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j).
    A commenting organization, Change to Win, generally supports OSHA's 
revisions of the cotton dust standard; however, it articulates the 
following reservations: (1) The lack of accounting for the ``healthy 
worker effect'' seen in epidemiological studies that results from the 
use of the NHANES population-based data, which may result in ``false 
positives'' (i.e., the worker appears to be normal when in

[[Page 21431]]

fact they only look normal compared to a ``sicker'' general 
population); and (2) the lack of a requirement for the employer to look 
at results of all the exposed workers to see if trends may indicate an 
inadequacy of exposure control (OSHA-2012-0007-0759). OSHA appreciates 
these concerns and acknowledges that some workers may have above 
average lung function. However, paragraph (h)(3)(iv) requires periodic 
medical examinations for some workers, including comparisons of current 
examinations to previous examinations to determine whether significant 
changes have occurred. This might allow a physician to detect a 
significant change from baseline lung function in a worker who 
otherwise has above average lung function compared to a reference 
population. OSHA agrees that evaluating pulmonary function testing 
results of all exposed workers may provide useful information for 
employers and employees; this action is not required by the agency 
because it goes beyond the scope of this effort, which is to simply 
update the standard to make it consistent with current practices and 
technologies.

References

ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association (1979). ATS Statement--Snowbird Workshop on 
Standardization of Spirometry. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 119, 831-838.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association (1987). Standardization of Spirometry--1987 Update. 
Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 136, 1285-1298.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association (1994). Standardization of Spirometry--1994 Update. 
Am. Resp. Crit. Care Med, 152, 1107-1136.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health) (1974). Criteria for a Recommended 
Standard: Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust. Chapter XII: Tables 
and Figures. www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/75-118f.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health) (2003). Spirometry training guide. 
December 1, 2003. www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-154c/pdfs/2004-154c.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health) (2010). Spirometry reference value 
calculator. www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/RefCalculator.html.
Hankinson, J.L., Odencrantz, J.R. and Fedan, K.B. (1999). 
Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general US 
population. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 159, 179-87.
Hankinson, J.H., Kawut, S.M. and Shahar, E. (2010). Performance of 
American Thoracic Society-recommended spirometry reference values in 
a multiethnic sample of adults. Chest, 137, 138-145.
Knudson, R.J., Slatin, R.C., Lebowitz, M.D. and Burrows, B. (1976). 
The maximal expiratory flow-volume curve. Normal standards, 
variability, and effects of age. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 113, 587-
600.
Miller, M.R., Hankinson, J., Brusasco, V., Burgos, F., Casaburi, R., 
Coates, A., Wanger, J. (2005). American Thoracic Society/European 
Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) Task Force: Standardisation of 
Spirometry. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 319-33, www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/pfet/PFT2.pdf.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2013). 
Spirometry testing in occupational health programs. Best practices 
for healthcare professionals. US Department of Labor. www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3637.pdf.
Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R.O., Burgos, F., 
Casaburi, R. . . . Wanger, J. (2005). ATS/ERS standardisation of 
lung function testing. Interpretative strategies for lung function 
tests. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 948-968.
Redlich, C.A., Tarlo, S.M., Hankinson, J.L., Townsend, M.C., 
Eschenbacher, W.L., Von Essen, S.G., Sigsgaard, T. and Weissman, 
D.N. (2014). American Thoracic Society Committee on Spirometry in 
the Occupational Setting. Official American Thoracic Society 
technical standards: Spirometry in the occupational setting. Am. J. 
Respir. Crit. Care Med., 189(8), 983-93.
Townsend, M.C. (2011). American College of Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Occupational and Environmental Lung 
Disorders Committee. Spirometry in the occupational health setting--
2011 Update. J. Occup. Environ. Med., 53, 569-584. www.acoem.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Affairs/Policies_And_Position_Statements/ACOEM%20Spirometry%20Statement.pdf.
3. Subpart F of Part 1915--General Working Conditions, Definitions in 
29 CFR 1915.80
    Existing requirements in the sanitation standard for Shipyard 
Employment, Sec.  1915.88(j)(1) and (2), specify that employers must, 
to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain workplaces in 
a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers detect 
vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-control 
program.
    Paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 defines the term ``vermin'' as 
``insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and feral cats, 
that may create safety and health hazards for employees.'' After 
stakeholders raised concerns about the inclusion of ``feral cats'' in 
the definition of vermin, OSHA proposed to remove the term ``feral 
cats'' from the definition in Sec.  1915.80(b)(33). This final rule 
enacts the proposed removal without change.
    OSHA received over 700 comments in response to the NPRM, over 500 
of which addressed the removal of the term ``feral cats'' from the 
definition of vermin. Each of the comments favored the proposed change. 
Many of these comments (250) were from a mass mail campaign with the 
following comment:

    Just because these cats aren't pets doesn't mean they're not 
cared for. Indeed, many shipyard employers and their employees value 
the cats both for companionship and as a means of controlling rodent 
populations. Classifying shipyard cats as ``vermin'' will likely 
lead to their mistreatment and interfere with the trap-neuter-return 
(TNR) programs used to manage their numbers and keep the cats 
healthy. OSHA is a very influential agency. By removing cats from 
the definition of ``vermin,'' OSHA is setting an important example 
for other government agencies to establish policies that more 
effectively protect cats and promote public health and safety.

    Most of the remaining comments contained similar points, such as, 
OSHA should not classify cats as vermin; cats should be treated 
humanely; and some cats may be mistreated if OSHA left the definition 
as is. In addition, commenters stated that cats in fact assist at 
shipyards in controlling vermin, such as rodents and mice, without the 
hazards associated with the use of pesticides or chemicals.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the 
term ``feral cats'' from the definition of vermin in Sec.  
1915.80(b)(33). Removing the term ``feral cats'' is consistent with the 
general industry sanitation standard provision on vermin, which 
describes vermin as ``rodents, insects, and other vermin'' (Sec.  
1910.141(a)(5)). OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral 
cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and 
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of vermin. To the 
extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular 
shipyard, OSHA will consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under the 
standard. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
4. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental 
Controls, Medical Services and First Aid in 29 CFR 1926.50
    Under 29 CFR 1926.50, employers must provide specified medical 
services and first aid to employees to address serious injuries that 
may occur on the job. Since 1979, OSHA has required the posting of 
telephone numbers of

[[Page 21432]]

physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for worksites located in areas 
where 911 emergency service is not available. OSHA adopted this 
requirement when 911 emergency service was still a relatively new 
concept, and was available only in certain parts of the country. The 
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
    Today, 911 emergency service is available almost everywhere in 
North America. In nearly all locations in the United States and Canada, 
a 911 call over a land-line telephone will link the caller to an 
emergency-dispatch center. In the United States, most localities with 
911 service also have so-called ``Enhanced 911,'' which will not only 
connect the land-line caller to a dispatcher, but also will 
automatically provide the caller's location to the emergency 
dispatcher. This automatic-location information is critical for 
emergency responders in cases when the 911 caller does not know his/her 
exact location, or does not have sufficient time to provide such 
information.
    Although the automatic transmission of location information to 
emergency dispatchers is customary for land-line telephones, the task 
of automatically transmitting location information is more complex when 
the emergency call originates from a wireless telephone. Since 1996, 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been phasing in the 
requirement that wireless carriers adopt technologies that provide 911 
caller-location information. The last phase-in benchmark for wireless 
handsets occurs in January of 2019.\6\ As a result, in some remote 
areas of the country, wireless-telephone carriers still are unable to 
provide accurate information about the location of the 911 caller to 
911 answering centers. OSHA proposed revisions to Sec.  1926.50(f) to 
update the 911 service-posting requirements consistent with the current 
status of land-line and wireless-telephone technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions addressed the problem of locating callers, 
usually cell-phone callers, in remote areas that do not have automatic-
location capability. In such areas, the proposed revisions required 
employers to post in a conspicuous location either the latitude and 
longitude of the worksite or other location-identification information 
that effectively communicates the location of the worksite. Employers 
can obtain information about which counties, or portions of counties, 
are exempted from the 911 location accuracy requirements from FCC PS 
Docket No. 07-114, which is publicly available on the FCC's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS) web page: apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=07-114.
    The proposed revisions also required employers to ensure that the 
communication system they use to contact ambulance service is 
effective. Under Sec.  1926.50(e), employers are required to provide a 
communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper 
equipment for transportation of an injured person. When using wireless 
telephones as a communication system, however, that system's 
availability varies based on the location of the caller. If an employer 
is relying upon a communication system at a worksite, it must be 
effective at the worksite. OSHA did not propose any changes to the 
requirement to post telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or 
ambulances for worksites located in areas where 911 emergency service 
is not available.
    OSHA received two comments on the revision of Sec.  1926.50, from 
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) 
and the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757). Both comments supported the revision. The comment from 
LHSFNA noted that ``[m]any construction sites are in remote locations 
(e.g., pipeline work, highway construction and windmill sites) where 
cell phone coverage is inconsistent. . . .This proposed revision could 
save many lives on remote construction sites.'' After considering these 
comments, OSHA is revising the standard as proposed in the NPRM. The 
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
5. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental 
Controls, Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists in 29 CFR 1926.55
    The provisions of Sec.  1926.55 establish permissible exposure 
limits for numerous toxic chemicals used during construction 
activities. These provisions are the construction counterpart to the 
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.1000. OSHA proposed 
clarifications for several of these provisions, notably paragraphs (a) 
and (c) and appendix A to Sec.  1926.55. The final rule is identical to 
the proposed rule, with the addition of an asterisk and a non-
substantive, formatting change to appendix A to Sec.  1926.55. OSHA 
proposed that the phrase ``threshold limit values'' (TLV) be revised to 
``permissible exposure limits'' (PELs) and that the references to the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), in 
both paragraph (a) and appendix A, be eliminated, as the original 
language was confusing. While OSHA originally adopted these limits from 
ACGIH recommendations, the limits are OSHA, not ACGIH, requirements. 
OSHA received two comments in response to this first proposed revision 
of Sec.  1926.55. The North American Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701) agreed the current language 
in the standard is confusing and the proposed revisions were 
preferable. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 
supported the change to refer to the limits as PELs but requested that 
OSHA include a reference to the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values of 
Airborne Contaminants for 1970 in the standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0734). 
The comment did not state a reason to maintain the reference to ACGIH. 
OSHA acknowledges that these PELs are based on the ACGIH values, but 
these PELs are enforceable OSHA requirements. After considering these 
comments and to avoid possible confusion, OSHA has decided to revise 
the standard as proposed to use the phrase ``permissible exposure 
limits'' and to not include the references to ACGIH in the regulatory 
text and appendix A.
    Second, the phrase ``shall be avoided'' in paragraph (a) is 
confusing as to whether it indicates the provision is mandatory, as 
intended, or advisory and is not appropriate in regulatory text. OSHA 
proposed revising this language to read, ``An employee's exposure . . . 
must at no time exceed the exposure limit given for that substance.''
    Third, the words ``inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or 
contact'' in paragraph (a) are redundant and confusing. In addition, 
the concentrations listed are airborne values, and the standard 
addresses exposure through any route. OSHA proposed to delete these 
words.
    Fourth, appendix A is not an appendix but an integral part of the 
standard. To acknowledge this relationship, OSHA proposed to revise the 
heading to read, ``Table A.''
    Fifth, appendix A has a column labelled ``Skin Designation'' under 
which an ``X'' demarcates certain substances, although the appendix 
provides no definition of ``X.'' The 1970 ACGIH publication, however, 
notes that the ``X'' identifies substances that present a dermal 
hazard. OSHA proposed adding a footnote to appendix A that clarifies 
the meaning of this designation.
    Sixth, appendix A has two footnotes designated by asterisks. 
However, there

[[Page 21433]]

are no asterisks in the body of the table referencing these footnotes. 
The first footnote, designated by a single asterisk, says, ``The PELs 
are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a 
ceiling limit.'' The second footnote, designated by two asterisks, 
states, ``As determined from breathing-zone air samples.'' OSHA 
proposed deleting these two footnotes, and moving the content of the 
footnotes to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.55.
    Finally, OSHA proposed correcting the cross-references to OSHA's 
construction asbestos standard in paragraph (c) and in appendix A. The 
correct cross reference is: Sec.  1926.1101. OSHA also proposed 
deleting footnote 4, which was also a reference to the asbestos 
standard, as footnote 4 does not appear in the body of the table.
    OSHA received two other comments in response to the proposed 
revisions of Sec.  1926.55. North America's Building Trades Unions 
(NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) submitted comments generally supporting 
the revisions. Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0757) supported the revisions but requested that OSHA 
revise appendix A to align them with 2009 NIOSH skin classifications 
and to add a footnote to appendix A stating that these PELs are from 
the 1969 threshold limit values and may not be protective. OSHA 
recognizes that most of its PELs were issued shortly after adoption of 
the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970, and have not been 
updated since that time. However, a standards improvement project is 
not the appropriate vehicle to change appendix A.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the standard as 
proposed with two additions. First, rather than redesignating appendix 
A to Sec.  1926.55 as Table A, OSHA is dividing appendix A into two 
tables and designating them as Tables 1 and 2 of Sec.  1926.55. OSHA is 
also revising the heading for the footnotes to these tables to 
correspond with this change. Appendix A did not conform with criteria 
for presenting tables and footnotes in the Code of Federal Regulations. 
When appendix A was added to the Code of Federal Regulations in 1993, 
OSHA adopted the format used in ACGIH's 1970 TLVs (58 FR 35076; 35089-
35099). This format presented TLVs for most substances in one table and 
TLVs for mineral dusts in a separate table, with footnotes following 
the two tables. Accordingly, OSHA is designating the first table in 
former appendix A as Table 1, with the title ``Permissible Exposure 
Limits for Airborne Contaminants'', and the second table as Table 2, 
with the title ``Mineral Dusts.'' The footnotes are now preceded by the 
heading ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this section'' to make it 
clear that the footnotes apply to both tables. This is a non-
substantive, formatting revision. Second, OSHA is adding an asterisk to 
``Skin Designation'' in Table 1 to Sec.  1926.55, linked to the 
footnote about dermal hazards.
6. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental 
Controls, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals in 29 
CFR 1926.64
    To avoid unnecessary duplication, OSHA proposed replacing the 
entire 31 pages of regulatory text for the Process Safety Management of 
Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) Standard for construction at Sec.  
1926.64 with a cross reference to the identical general industry 
standard at Sec.  1910.119. The final rule is identical to the proposed 
rule. Other construction standards have similar cross references to 
corresponding general industry standards; for example, the Respiratory 
Protection Standard for construction at Sec.  1926.103 refers to the 
general industry Respiratory Protection Standard at Sec.  1910.134. The 
PSM standard has limited applicability to construction, mainly through 
paragraph (h), Contractors.
    OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec.  1926.64: The 
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742), 
the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757), and the North American Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). All three comments supported 
the revision. After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to 
replace the regulatory text of the PSM Standard for construction with a 
reference to the identical general industry standard, as proposed. The 
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
7. Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving 
Equipment, Safety Belts, Lifelines, and Lanyards in 29 CFR 1926.104
    The breaking strength of a lifeline is the maximum load that it can 
carry without failing or breaking. The minimum breaking-strength 
requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards 
standard, Sec.  1926.104(c), has been 5,400 pounds. OSHA proposed 
revising the minimum breaking-strength requirement for these lifelines 
from 5,400 to 5,000 pounds. The final rule is identical to the proposed 
rule.
    As noted by OSHA in the proposed fall protection standard published 
on November 25, 1986 (51 FR 42718, 42726), the agency based the 5,400-
pound requirement on the breaking strength of the then-available \3/4\-
inch diameter manila rope used for body-belt systems and not on the 
forces generated in a fall. The basis for the requirement of a 5,000 
pound minimum breaking-strength for lanyards and vertical lifelines 
adopted in the final fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502(d)(9) 
is the force generated by a 250-pound employee experiencing a force 10 
times the force of gravity, plus a two-fold margin of safety. Id. The 
5,000 pound requirement is also consistent with the most recent ANSI/
ASSE standards Z359.1 2007 and A10.32.
    For consistency, OSHA proposed revising the minimum breaking-
strength requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and 
lanyards standard to 5,000 pounds. OSHA received comments on the 
revision of Sec.  1926.104(c), from the North America's Building Trades 
Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) and the Laborers' Health & Safety 
Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Both of these 
comments supported the revision.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the minimum 
breaking-strength requirement in Sec.  1926.104(c) to 5,000 pounds. 
This revision conforms Sec.  1926.104(c) with the breaking-strength 
requirements in the fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502(d)(9). 
The agency also concludes that identical specifications for the same 
equipment eliminate confusion and, thereby, improve compliance. The 
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
8. Subpart G of Part 1926--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
    Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part 6 of the 
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1988 Edition, 
Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or December 2000 MUTCD 
(``Millennium Edition''). OSHA proposed to revise subpart G to update 
the incorporation by reference of Part 6 of the MUTCD to the November 
4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 Edition''), including Revision 1 and Revision 2, 
both dated May 2012. This version of the MUTCD aims to expedite 
traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology 
advances in traffic control device application (74 FR 66730, 77 FR 
28455, and 77 FR 28460).

[[Page 21434]]

The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
    The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that traffic 
control signs or devices conform to the 2009 Edition (see 23 CFR 
655.601 through 655.603). DOT regulations recognize that the MUTCD is 
the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any 
street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel (Sec.  
655.603(a)). DOT requires compliance with the 2009 Edition for all 
federal-aid construction areas (Sec.  655.603(d)(3)). In addition, each 
State must have a highway safety program that complies with DOT's 
designated national standard, and where State or other federal agency 
MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial 
conformance with the 2009 Edition (23 U.S.C. 402(a); 23 CFR 
655.603(b)(1)). Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or 
supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements 
included in the 2009 Edition (Sec.  655.603(b)).
    The differences between OSHA's standards that reference the MUTCD's 
1988 Edition and the Millennium Edition and DOT's regulations cause 
potential industry confusion and inefficiency, without advancing worker 
safety. Accordingly, in Directive CPL 02-01-054, dated October 16, 
2012, OSHA stated that it would accept compliance with the 2009 Edition 
in lieu of compliance with the 1988 Edition or Millennium Edition 
referenced in Sec.  1926.200(g) through its de minimis policy.
    OSHA reviewed the differences between the 1988 Edition, the 
Millennium Edition, and the 2009 Edition, and has concluded that the 
2009 Edition will provide greater employee safety benefits than the 
older versions. The 2009 revisions to the MUTCD largely make the 
document more accessible and accounts for advances in technology. A 
comparison of the 1988 and 2009 Editions shows few new requirements; 
rather, the document is easier to use, with more guidance and 
supporting material available. The MUTCD is a complex document 
comprised of standards, guidance, and supporting material. Under Sec.  
1926.6(a), OSHA's subpart G provisions incorporate by reference only 
the mandatory provisions of the MUTCD, i.e., those provisions 
containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language, and only 
those provisions that affect worker safety with regard to the use of 
signs, devices, barricades, flaggers, and points of hazard. Previously, 
it was difficult to locate these provisions, but the 2009 Edition 
clearly labels them ``standards.''
    The revisions to the 1988 and Millennium Editions that affect 
worker safety are minimal. DOT identified the following areas as 
significant revisions that relate to work safety in the final rule (74 
FR 66730):
     The needs and control of all road users through a 
temporary traffic-control (TTC) zone apply to all public facilities and 
private property open to public travel, in addition to highways.
     Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allows non-compliant 
devices on existing highways and bikeways to be brought into compliance 
with the current edition of the MUTCD as part of the systematic 
upgrading of substandard traffic control devices (and installation of 
new required traffic control devices) required pursuant to the Highway 
Safety Program, 23 U.S.C. 402(a). If the FHWA establishes a target 
compliance date for upgrading such devices, traffic control devices 
shall be in compliance by that date. (These target compliance dates 
established by the FHWA are shown in Table I-2 of the 2009 Edition.)
     Workers within the public right-of-way must use high-
visibility safety apparel.
     A new section titled ``Automated Flagger Assistance 
Devices'' (AFAD). These optional devices enable a flagger to assume a 
position out of the lane of traffic when controlling road users through 
TTC zones.
     New requirements that flaggers shall use a ``STOP/SLOW'' 
paddle, flag, or AFAD to control road users; the 2009 Edition prohibits 
the use of hand movements alone. In the previous editions, it was not 
clear that hand signals alone were insufficient.
     All devices used for lane channelization (i.e., directing 
vehicles in a particular direction) must be crashworthy (a 
characteristic of a roadside appurtenance that has been successfully 
crash tested in accordance with a national standard such as the 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350, ``Recommended 
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway 
Features.'')
     Temporary traffic barriers, including their end treatments 
(such as an impact attenuator), must be crashworthy.
    There was one major revision to the MUTCD, the 2003 Edition, 
between the Millennium Edition and the 2009 Edition. OSHA is providing 
a list of the changes between the 2003 Edition and the 2009 Edition in 
the record (find 2009 Edition figure changes at www.regulations.gov in 
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007).
    OSHA also proposed to revise Sec. Sec.  1926.200 through 1926.203 
in subpart G to clarify their provisions and eliminate duplication.
    Section 1926.200(g)--Traffic signs. Existing paragraph (g)(1) of 
Sec.  1926.200 states, ``[c]onstruction areas shall be posted with 
legible traffic control signs at points of hazard.'' Accordingly, 
paragraph (g)(1) does not explicitly require protection by traffic 
control devices. However, paragraph (g)(1) requires legible signs at 
points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2) prohibits misuse of both signs 
and devices, by requiring their use to conform to the MUTCD. Not 
requiring employers to use, but prohibiting the misuse of, protective 
devices at points of hazard is an anomaly that causes unnecessary 
confusion.
    OSHA proposed to revise paragraph (g)(1) to explicitly require that 
employers use traffic control devices at points of hazard. OSHA also 
proposed to revise paragraph (g)(2) to clarify that it covers the 
design and use of traffic-control devices, and adds a list of those 
devices: Signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices. 
Consistent with these revisions, OSHA also proposed to revise the 
headings of Sec.  1926.200 and paragraph (g) by adding the term 
``devices'' to these headings. The agency will retain the requirement 
that signs be legible.
    Section 1926.201--Signaling. The agency proposed limiting revisions 
to Sec.  1926.201 to the 2009 Edition update discussed above.
    Section 1926.202--Barricades. OSHA proposed deleting this section 
because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to paragraph 
(g)(1), which require the use of barricades as traffic control devices 
at points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2), which require that the 
design and use of barricades conform to the updated MUTCD.
    Section 1926.203--Definitions applicable to this subpart. OSHA 
proposed deleting this section because the MUTCD defines or describes 
most of the words defined in this section (e.g., barricade, signs, and 
signals). To the extent that other provisions of subpart G use the 
defined words but do not reference the MUTCD, providing definitions for 
these words is unnecessary because the meanings of the words are either 
obvious or defined in applicable consensus standards or in other OSHA 
standards; for example, an adequate description of a ``tag'' is in 
Sec.  1926.200(h).
    OSHA received three comments on the proposed revisions to subpart 
G. OSHA received a comment of general support from Laborers' Health & 
Safety

[[Page 21435]]

Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). A comment from 
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) 
supporting the proposed revisions also and requested that OSHA ``make 
clear that these requirements apply not only to flaggers on road 
construction projects, but also pedestrian employees working in the 
work zone. Pedestrian workers are at risk of being injured and/or 
killed by vehicles inside the work zone. Both flaggers and pedestrian 
workers should be protected by the MUTCD provisions.'' The provisions 
of Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a) protect all workers in 
construction areas with exposure to traffic. The signaling provision, 
Sec.  1926.201(a), instructs flaggers to comply with the MUTCD on 
signaling and on what garments to wear. Following these provisions 
protects all workers, not only flaggers. OSHA does not see a need to 
specifically state in the standard that all workers are protected. OSHA 
also received a comment from American Road & Transportation Builders 
Association (ARTBA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0754). This comment supports the 
revision and states that updating to the newest edition of the MUTCD 
will alleviate uncertainty and confusion caused by OSHA's reference to 
multiple versions of the MUTCD in existing standards. The comment also 
supports OSHA's clarification of the standards related to signage, 
signaling, and barricades in subpart G.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to update the 
references to the MUTCD in subpart G to the 2009 Edition as well as 
revise Sec. Sec.  1926.200 through 1926.203 as proposed. Updating the 
references to the 2009 Edition MUTCD eliminates confusion as to which 
edition employers must comply with, and will inform employers that 
compliance with DOT regulations will not conflict with outdated OSHA 
regulations. The other revisions clarify subpart G's provisions and 
eliminate duplication. The final rule is identical to the proposed 
rule.
    In summary, OSHA is revising the safety and health regulations for 
construction to adopt and incorporate the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD and 
clarify the regulatory text. The revisions delete the references in 
Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a) to the 1988 Edition and 
Millennium Edition of the MUTCD and insert references to the 2009 
Edition. The revisions also revise the regulatory text of paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.200 to eliminate confusion regarding 
OSHA's interpretation of the existing text. OSHA is deleting Sec.  
1926.202 because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to 
Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.203 because the revisions make this 
section unnecessary.
9. Subpart H of Part 1926--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and 
Disposal, General Requirements for Storage in 29 CFR 1926.250
    Subpart H of OSHA's construction standards governs the handling, 
storage, use, and disposal of construction materials on a work site. 
Section 1926.250 addresses safe storage of building materials inside 
buildings under construction, and Sec.  1926.250(a)(2) requires 
employers to post maximum safe load limits of floors in storage areas. 
This requirement is important during the construction of large 
buildings because employers often store heavy building materials in 
these structures on upper floors to accommodate construction staging 
and schedules. If the weight of stored materials and equipment exceed 
the maximum safe load limit of the floor, then there is a risk of a 
localized failure of the floor and structural collapse. However, 
requiring employers to post safe load limits is unnecessary in 
residential construction because employers do not place heavy materials 
in storage areas above floor or slab on grade. Therefore, OSHA proposed 
revising Sec.  1926.250(a)(2) to exclude residential construction from 
the posting requirement. The final rule differs from the proposed rule. 
The final rule uses the term ``all single-family residential structures 
and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' instead of 
``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that are under 
construction.'' The final rule also contains organizational changes to 
the proposed language.
    OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec.  
1926.250(a)(2), from the North American Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701), the National Association of 
Home Builders (NAHB) (OSHA-2012-0007-0747), and the North America's 
Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
    OSHA addresses the comment from NAHB first. The comment supports 
the proposal to exclude detached, single family residences and 
townhouses from the load limit posting requirements in Sec.  
1926.250(a)(2). NAHB suggests the load limits for floors in residential 
construction in the United States are uniform and that the weight of 
materials stored on upper floors are within the safety factor of the 
supporting material. The comment notes that the International 
Residential Code (IRC) ``has been adopted and is generally used as a 
base building code standard throughout most of the United States.'' The 
IRC ``is a comprehensive, stand-alone residential building code 
addressing the design and construction of one- and two-family dwellings 
and townhouses not more than three stories above grade'' and ``has 
specific design requirements for live loads (i.e., weight of occupants, 
furnishings, etc.) placed on floors.'' The comment gives an example of 
what a larger load imposed on an upper floor of a residential home 
under construction might be: ``a stack of 25 (gypsum board or drywall) 
is well within the inherent factors of safety, particularly since it is 
only imposing a short-term load.''
    While this comment supports OSHA's proposed revisions, it requests 
that OSHA change ``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that 
are under construction'' to ``residential home building'' or 
``residential home construction'' to be in line with the language used 
in OSHA's Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction, STD 03-11-
002. ``Residential construction'' means that the end-use of the 
building in question must be as a home or dwelling and must be 
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and 
methods. A comprehensive explanation of OSHA's definition of 
``residential construction'' is in STD 03-11-002, which is located in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    NAIMA submitted a comment in support of the proposed changes, 
stating, ``safe load limit requirements are unnecessary for single-
family home construction as they do not store heavy materials that 
could endanger employees working at lower levels.''
    The agency received a comment opposed to the proposed revisions 
from NABTU. Their comment states that it is possible that during the 
construction of townhouses, ``one unit may be used as a material depot 
during the procurement and construction phase.'' OSHA understands that 
it is possible for excessive loads to be stored on any floor during 
residential construction, but it is not industry practice to store 
loads for extended periods on the upper floors of the types of 
residential buildings excepted by this revision. NABTU's comment goes 
on to say that ``[o]btaining maximum safe loads information is not an 
extra burden on employers.'' The fact that employers no longer will 
need to post signs in storage areas in residential construction does 
not mean they are relieved of their duty to know the safe load limits 
and ensure the safety of workers. As noted above,

[[Page 21436]]

load limit requirements in residential construction are mostly uniform 
in the United States, and materials that are typically stored are well 
within the safety factor. OSHA has requirements that require safe load 
limits not be exceeded without requiring the posting of such limits. 
For example, Sec.  1910.22(b) requires that a walking-working surface 
support the maximum intended load for that surface and does not require 
the posting of the load limit. Finally, this comment correctly notes 
that employers must ensure the weight of stored materials does not 
exceed safe load limits. It also argues that the posting of signs in 
residential construction ``increase awareness'' regarding load limits 
``even if the likelihood is low'' for error or incidents. OSHA does not 
dispute that more information and sign posting in general can increase 
safety on a job-site, but in this case, the posting of load limits in 
storage areas of residential construction sites does not increase or 
decrease the level of safety.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising Sec.  
1926.250(a)(2) to exclude all single-family residential structures and 
wood-framed multi-family residential structures from the posting 
requirement. The final revisions to the regulatory text are somewhat 
different than the revisions in the proposed rule. First, OSHA has 
named the subsection ``Load Limits'' for identification purposes. 
Second, the revision moves the requirement that the weight of storage 
materials not exceed safe load limits from the end of the subsection to 
the beginning. This change makes clear that the duty to ensure that any 
loads placed on floors do not exceed the maximum safe loads of the 
floors exists regardless of whether or not employers are required to 
post the safe load limits. Third, the revision changes the style of 
language used to be more in line with the language used throughout 
subpart H. Finally, OSHA agrees with the first commenter and has 
determined that the use of the words ``all single-family residential 
structures and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' is 
more appropriate than the proposed ``detached single-family dwellings 
or townhouses that are under construction.'' OSHA considered using the 
words ``residential construction'' to be in line with the language used 
in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, and STD 03-11-002, but this would limit 
the exception to structures constructed using traditional wood frame 
construction materials and methods. The revision covers all single-
family residential structures, regardless of the materials or methods 
used during construction, and multi-family residential structures 
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and 
methods.
    OSHA finds that the revision will lessen the compliance burden of 
employers without jeopardizing the safety of employees. While employers 
involved in residential construction do not place heavy loads on the 
floors of these structures, the revision does not relieve employers of 
the duty to ensure that any loads placed on these floors do not exceed 
the maximum safe loads of the floors.
10. Subpart S of Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, 
Cofferdams and Compressed Air, Underground Construction in 29 CFR 
1926.800
    OSHA has required, under Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii), that mobile 
diesel-powered equipment used in ``other than gassy operations'' 
underground be approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA) in accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 32, or that the 
employer can demonstrate that the equipment is ``fully equivalent'' to 
MSHA-approved equipment. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it 
with updated provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, and 30 CFR 75.1909 
Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; \7\ design and performance 
requirements, 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; 
electrical system design and performance requirements, and 75.1911 Fire 
suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel 
transportation units (61 FR 55412). Those sections are rules for coal 
mines. In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067, which permits operators in 
metal and nonmetal mines to use engines that meet Environmental 
Protection Administration (EPA) requirements for engines as an 
alternative to seeking MSHA approval under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 
5706). Under 30 CFR 57.5067, all engines used in underground metal and 
nonmetal mines must have an affixed plate evidencing approval of the 
engine pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or meet or exceed the 
applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA Table 57.5067-1. OSHA 
proposed to update the regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) 
to cross-reference these updated provisions. The final rule contains 
differences from the proposed rule. The final rule requires compliance 
only with Sec.  57.5067, pertaining to underground metal and nonmetal 
mines, and not Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i), 
pertaining to underground coal mines. The final rule also contains 
minor technical changes to the proposed language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Non-permissible equipment may not be used in gassy 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received two comments on the proposed changes. One was from 
Caterpillar Inc. (OSHA-2012-007-0762). That comment supported the 
changes regarding the substitution of 30 CFR 57.5067 for former part 
32, but recommended that OSHA not require compliance with Sec. Sec.  
75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30. The comment 
explained that requiring compliance with Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910, 
and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30, ``would create some conflict or, 
at the least, confusion . . . and inappropriately add underground coal-
mining equipment requirements to equipment used in non-coal 
environments.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSHA hosted a conference call with Caterpillar to discuss 
its comment, a summary of which is found in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caterpillar recommended that OSHA not require compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30 
because those standards apply to equipment used in underground coal 
mines, while 30 CFR 57.5067 applies to equipment used in underground 
metal and nonmetal mines. Caterpillar stated, and the agency agrees, 
that equipment used for underground construction is more closely 
related, and often the same, as equipment used in underground metal and 
nonmetal mines. Caterpillar suggested that OSHA look at alternative 
standards related to equipment used in underground metal and nonmetal 
mines (while maintaining that only requiring compliance with 30 CFR 
57.5067 regarding engines is necessary), such as 30 CFR 57.14100 
through 57.14162--Safety Devices and Maintenance Requirements or 30 CFR 
57.5060 through 57.5075--Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only. 
After review of these MSHA standards, OSHA has determined that 
requiring compliance with either the Safety Devices and Maintenance 
Requirements or Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only standards 
would go beyond the scope of Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) and be in 
conflict with other parts of subpart S. Section 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) is 
in the ventilation subsection and is concerned with diesel exhaust and 
compliance with 30 CFR 57.5067 is sufficiently equivalent to the 
original standard that required compliance with former part 32. 
Further, requiring compliance with 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and 
75.1911(a) through (i) is

[[Page 21437]]

actually inconsistent with 30 CFR 57.5067, as that latter section 
allows engines to be approved pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or 
meet or exceed the applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA 
Table 57.5067-1. Therefore, OSHA agrees that the proposed rule is 
unworkable, and the final rule will require compliance with only 30 CFR 
57.5067 as recommended.
    Further, OSHA solicited comment on whether employers use the option 
in the current standard to demonstrate that equipment is ``fully 
equivalent'' to MSHA-approved equipment. OSHA received no comment on 
this provision, therefore all new engines used that are covered by 
subpart S will have to comply with 30 CFR 57.5067.
    The other comment was from the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of 
North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). This comment supported 
updating the reference to current MSHA regulations, but opposed the 
grandfathering of older equipment. As OSHA explains below, to avoid the 
cost of replacing current equipment, OSHA will grandfather older 
equipment that complies with existing Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii). OSHA 
notes, however, that 30 CFR 57.5067 was issued seventeen years ago, so 
the amount of equipment that would not be in compliance with the 
current requirement is not that large and will continue to diminish.
    Based on available information, OSHA has determined that currently 
manufactured equipment meets the proposed requirements and is generally 
compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission 
requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency concludes that all applicable new 
equipment currently available in the market meets the final rule 
requirements. OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using 
equipment that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA 
requirements referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing 
existing equipment in use that are compliant with the current standard, 
the agency proposes to allow equipment purchased before the effective 
date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms of existing 
Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved by MSHA under 
30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent to such MSHA-
approved equipment).
    Finally, the comment from Caterpillar pointed out that 100 ft\3\ 
equals 2.832 m\3\ (not 28.32 m\3\ as stated in the existing and 
proposed regulatory text) and suggested a reorganization of the 
regulatory text for clarity. The agency agrees with this suggestion and 
has made the applicable change to Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) in the 
final rule.
11. Subpart W of Part 1926--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead 
Protection
    Provisions in subpart W specify minimum performance criteria for 
rollover protective structures (ROPS) and overhead protection on 
construction equipment. The agency proposed to revise the existing 
standards in 29 CFR 1926.1000, 1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003 by 
removing the provisions that specify the test procedures and 
performance requirements, and replacing those provisions with 
references to the underlying consensus standards from which they were 
derived. The substantive differences between the consensus standards 
and OSHA's standards are minimal. The agency also proposed to remove 
irrelevant text from Sec.  1926.1000. The final rule is identical to 
the proposed rule except for the addition of ISO 3471:2008 to Sec.  
1926.1002 and other technical corrections. While reviewing the 
incorporated material for this section OSHA found outdated references 
to former 29 CFR 1926.1501 in Sec.  1926.6. OSHA is removing those 
references in this final rule.
    The original source standards for the current subpart W 
requirements are the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards 
J320a-1970, J394-1970, J395-1970, J396-1970, J334a-1970, J167-1970, 
J168-1970, and J397-1969. The American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and 
develop new equipment, the industry now uses the most recent 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards: ISO 
3471:2008; ISO 5700:2013; and ISO 27850:2013. Though the names of the 
construction equipment covered by the consensus standards have changed 
over time, OSHA believes that all the equipment listed in Sec.  
1926.1001(a) is covered by one of those ISO standards.
    For equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final 
rule, OSHA proposed that it meet the test and performance requirements 
for the applicable ISO standards discussed below. For equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of this final rule, OSHA 
proposed that it meet the former requirements of subpart W, or the test 
and performance requirements for the applicable ISO standards that 
apply to newly manufactured equipment.
    OSHA received five comments on these proposed changes. The 
Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North 
America's Building Trades Union (NABTU) supported the revisions (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757, -0742). The Association of Equipment Manufacturers 
(AEM), NIOSH, and Paul Ayers, a private citizen, were generally 
supportive of these changes and recommended technical changes (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699, -0726, -0740). OSHA appreciates that input and responds 
to specific comments below. After considering these comments, OSHA has 
decided to finalize the proposed revisions to subpart W with the minor 
changes discussed below.
    OSHA is renaming Sec.  1926.1000 as ``Scope'' because this more 
accurately describes what follows in this section. Paragraph (a) lists 
the types of equipment covered by subpart W. The agency is also adding 
compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment manufactured after the 
effective date of the final rule to paragraph (a). The ISO standards 
apply to compactors and skid-steer equipment as well as the other 
equipment included in the standard, and OSHA concludes that all 
compactors and skid steer equipment currently produced meet those 
requirements. Paragraph (b) states which standards apply to equipment 
manufactured before the publication of this final rule. Paragraph (c) 
states which standards apply to equipment manufactured after the 
publication of this final rule. OSHA solicited comment on whether 
paragraphs (d), ``Remounting,'' (e), ``Labeling,'' and (f), ``Machines 
meeting certain existing governmental requirements'' are necessary or 
are obsolete, but received no comment in response. These paragraphs are 
not in conflict with the final revisions and are unchanged in the final 
rule. LHSFNA specifically supported the inclusion of compactors and 
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment in the standard, citing research on 
fatalities associated with compactors (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). LHSFNA 
also recommended that because only equipment manufactured after the 
effective date of the standard will be covered by revised subpart W, 
OSHA should study the prevalence of ROPS on existing older compactors 
and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment and explore the need for a rule 
that would require this older equipment to be retrofitted.
    Section 1926.1000(c) limited the application of the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  1926.1001 and 1926.1002 to equipment manufactured after July 
1, 1969. OSHA is eliminating this limitation because it is OSHA's 
understanding that there are not any

[[Page 21438]]

pieces of covered equipment in operation today that are more than 45 
years old and do not meet the SAE standards. OSHA received no comment 
on this revision.
    Section 1926.1001 provides ROPS requirements for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers, rubber-tired front end loaders, rubber-tired 
dozers, crawler tractors, crawler-type loaders, and motor graders. The 
final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and 
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured 
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J397-1969--
Critical Zone-Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of 
Construction and Industrial Machinery, SAE 320a-1970--Minimum 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-
Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, SAE J394-1970--Minimum Performance 
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structures for Rubber-Tired Front End 
Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, SAE J395-1970--Minimum Performance 
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and 
Crawler-Type Loaders, and SAE J396-1970--Minimum Performance Criteria 
for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor Graders, as applicable. 
The final rule requires equipment manufactured after the effective date 
of the final rule (including compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer 
equipment) to meet the requirements of ISO 3471:2008, Earth-moving 
machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and 
performance requirements. This standard contains specifications for 
ROPS to protect employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that 
covered equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of 
ISO 3471:2008, the final rule provides the option for equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with 
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
    Section 1926.1002 provides ROPS requirements for wheel-type 
agricultural equipment and industrial tractors used in construction. 
The final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and 
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured 
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J168-1970--
Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance Requirement and 
SAE J334a-1970-Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirements, as applicable. The final rule requires equipment 
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule meet the 
requirements of ISO 5700:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Roll-over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance 
conditions. This standard contains specifications for ROPS to protect 
employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that covered 
equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of ISO 
5700:2013, the final rule provides the option for equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with 
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards. OSHA solicited comment 
on whether any equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 that complies with 
ISO 3471:2008, the standard for earth-moving machinery, should be 
considered in compliance for ROPS. The comment from AEM noted that ISO 
3471:2008 could be used for equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699). Therefore, because ISO 3471:2008 requires testing at 
higher levels of energy than ISO-5700:2013, compliance with either ISO-
5700:2013 or ISO 3471:2008 for equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 is 
included in the final rule.
    AEM also recommended updating the consensus standard that is used 
in prior Sec.  1926.1002(j)(1) [now Sec.  1926.1002(e)(1)] for the 
definition of ``agricultural tractor.'' OSHA is not changing the scope 
of equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 and believes that the current 
definition does not require a change to be compatible with the 
revisions. OSHA appreciates AEM's recommendations to update this 
definition and to include various other standards as possible options 
for Sec.  1926.1002. OSHA acknowledges that there are other consensus 
standards that may apply to equipment covered by subpart W. However, 
OSHA has chosen to adopt the ISO standards that most closely align to 
the current regulatory structure of subpart W.
    Section 1926.1003 provides design and installation requirements for 
the use of overhead protection for operators of agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction. The final rule deletes the 
current overhead protection specifications for this equipment, and 
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured 
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J167-1970--
Overhead Protection for Agricultural Tractors--Test Procedures and 
Performance Requirements when using overhead protection. The final rule 
requires equipment manufactured after the effective date of the final 
rule meet the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture 
and forestry--Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and 
performance requirements when using overhead protection. This standard 
contains specifications for overhead protection to protect employees. 
Because, as noted above, OSHA concludes that overhead protection, when 
used, is manufactured to the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, the final 
rule provides the option for equipment manufactured before the 
effective date of the final rule to comply with the ISO standard rather 
than the SAE standards. NIOSH noted that ISO 27850:2013 is not the most 
recent industry standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), but AEM recommended 
that OSHA incorporate ISO 27850:2013 in Sec.  1926.1003 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0699). OSHA is finalizing the use of ISO 27850:2013 in Sec.  
1926.1003. AEM also recommended that OSHA incorporate ISO 3449:2005 in 
subpart W but OSHA is not incorporating it because there is no 
equivalent consensus standard in subpart W for this ISO to update.
    The comment from AEM (OSHA-2012-0007-0699) asked that OSHA remove 
the references to the outdated SAE standards. NIOSH also noted that SAE 
J334a-1970 is not the current version of that standard (OSHA-2012-0007-
0726). OSHA is aware that the old SAE standards have been canceled. But 
they were the original source standards for subpart W, and OSHA is 
grandfathering older equipment that met the requirements of the 
original subpart W and thus the original source standards. For these 
reasons, OSHA is retaining these source standards in the final rule but 
it will consider this request for any future rulemaking it undertakes 
on subpart W. AEM also requested that OSHA remove the prescriptive 
tests in subpart W, as proposed, and replace them with the ISO 
standards, which OSHA has done in this final rule. Finally, AEM 
recommended that OSHA ``acknowledge the protective structures compliant 
with the current industry standards incorporated by reference and 
judged to fully comply with OSHA 1926.1002 and 1926.1003.'' The final 
rule does state older equipment that meets the requirements of the 
current standards required for new equipment will be in compliance with 
subpart W. AEM and Paul Ayers also noted that there is a conversion 
error in subpart W, and Ayers notes that the same error is also in 29 
CFR 1928.52, OSHA's rule for agriculture on protective enclosures for 
tractors (OSHA-2012-0007-0699, -0740). That error is eliminated in 
subpart W, as the prescriptive tests are deleted by this final rule. 
Amending the agriculture standard is beyond the scope

[[Page 21439]]

of this SIP-IV rulemaking, but OSHA takes note of the error.
12. Subpart Z of Part 1926--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Coke Oven 
Emissions in 29 CFR 1926.1129
    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in 
construction. In 1993, OSHA incorporated this standard into part 1926 
(58 FR 35256, June 30, 1993) and in 1996 revised it to be just a 
reference to the identical general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.1029; 
61 FR 31428, June 20, 1996). In neither rulemaking did OSHA discuss, in 
particular, the application of the coke oven standard to construction, 
as it was only one of many standards involved in each rulemaking. The 
provisions of the coke oven standard, however, do not fit construction 
work. OSHA thus proposed to delete Sec.  1926.1129. The final rule 
enacts the proposed deletion without any other changes.
    As just stated, the coke oven standard does not fit construction 
work. Much of the standard regulates exposure in the ``regulated 
area.'' (See 29 CFR 1910.1029(d)). But this ``regulated area'' is 
limited, including only ``[t]he coke oven battery including topside and 
its machinery, pushside and its machinery, coke side and its machinery, 
and the battery ends; the wharf; and the screening station [and the] 
beehive oven and its machinery'' (Sec.  1910.1029(d)(2)(i) and (ii)). 
As stated in an interpretation issued nearly contemporaneously with the 
general industry coke oven emissions standard, ``[t]he ground level 
around the base of the coke oven battery is not generally considered in 
the regulated area unless work related to coke oven operations take 
place. The coke oven regulation, 29 CFR 1910.1029, does not apply to 
employees walking past coke ovens or between them.'' (Interpretation 
memorandum to White, May 17, 1977). Any work operating the coke ovens 
is general industry work. OSHA recognized this issue in the 1990s, when 
it stated that the coke oven construction standard was ``invalid,'' and 
that OSHA intended to remove it from the Code of Federal Regulations. 
(Interpretation letter to Katz, June 22, 1999). OSHA also advised its 
Regional Offices in 2005 of this interpretation and that they should 
not enforce Sec.  1926.1129. OSHA's inspection database contains no 
record of a citation under this standard since 1997.\9\ For this 
reason, OSHA proposed to delete Sec.  1926.1129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There were a few citations between 1993 and 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received three comments on the proposed deletion, each asking 
OSHA to retain Sec.  1926.1129. The North America's Building Trades 
Unions commented that, ``there are still 17 coke oven plants, with 54 
batteries, that required industrial construction workers to perform 
tasks such as patching and replacing refractory bricks and other 
maintenance, work that potentially overexposes these workers to coke 
oven emissions'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on this limited 
information about what the workers are doing, the work described in 
this scenario is likely covered by Sec.  1910.1029, even if the work is 
done by ``industrial construction workers.'' The United Steel, Paper 
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and 
Service Workers International Union (USW) describes work covered by 
Sec.  1910.1029 as ``heavy maintenance,'' encompassing ``[r]ebuilding, 
and rebricking ovens, changing doors, rebuilding and replacing 
equipment'' within the regulated area (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). In this 
example as well, based on the limited information about what the 
workers are doing, OSHA thinks it is likely that the work described is 
covered by Sec.  1910.1029.
    The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America commented that 
eliminating Sec.  1926.1129 could cause companies to respond by 
``reclassifying work as construction work, thus exempting them from the 
regulation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). The USW also states that ``OSHA 
should avoid giving [employers] such an incentive'' to reclassify work 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0764). Employers do not determine whether or not work 
is covered by the construction or general industry standards. The work 
itself is used to determine if it will be considered maintenance or 
construction. An employer whose employees are engaged in general 
industry work may not avoid compliance with general industry standards 
by ``classifying'' the work as construction.
    Additionally, the USW commented that construction workers laboring 
near a coke oven would be deprived of ``respirators, protective 
clothing and personal hygiene measures'' if Sec.  1926.1129 were to be 
removed (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). This is not the case. First, Sec.  
1910.1029, as discussed above, only covers the ``regulated area.'' 
Second, 29 CFR part 1926 contains a number of standards that apply to 
construction workers laboring near an active coke oven. For example, 
the provisions of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart C--General Safety and 
Health Provisions, 29 CFR part 1926, subpart D--Occupational Health and 
Environmental Controls, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart E--Personal 
Protective and Life Saving Equipment apply to construction work near 
coke ovens.\10\ Because Sec.  1926.1129 is invalid, employers of 
construction workers who work near coke ovens must follow the 
provisions of the construction standards as a whole, but do not have to 
follow the specific standard Sec.  1910.1029, which applies to general 
industry work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Administrative Law Judge with the Occupational Safety 
and Health Review Commission has upheld a citation for violation of 
Sec.  1926.51(f), requiring washing facilities when construction 
workers in the regulated area were exposed to coke dust, and a 
citation for violation of Sec.  1926.59, requiring employers to 
provide employees with information and training on hazardous 
chemicals. The Review Commission affirmed the violation of Sec.  
1926.51(f) (the other violation was not at issue before the 
Commission). McGraw Construction Co, Inc., 1991 WL 494789 (No. 89-
2220, Jan. 11, 1991) (ALJ Decision), aff'd in part, 15 BNA OSHC 2144 
(No. 89-2220, Feb. 1, 1993),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because, in effect, the standard does not address construction 
worker exposures to coke oven emissions, this removal will not reduce 
the level of protection for workers. To the extent any construction 
workers would in the future be exposed to coke oven emissions and there 
is no applicable construction standard that addresses the specific 
hazard, OSHA could cite the employer under the General Duty Clause (29 
U.S.C. 654(a)(1)). After considering these comments, OSHA is proceeding 
with the removal of Sec.  1926.1129. OSHA is also removing the 
reference to Sec.  1926.1129 in Sec.  1926.55, Table 1.
13. Additional Revisions to Paragraphs and Appendices in 29 CFR Parts 
1910, 1915, and 1926 To Remove Social Security Number Collection 
Requirements
    OMB requires all federal agencies to identify and eliminate 
unnecessary collection and use of Social Security Numbers (SSN) in 
agency systems and programs (see Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, 
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to the 
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Regarding Safeguarding 
Against and Responding to the Breach of Personal Identifiable 
Information (M-07-16), May 22, 2007 (available at: georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf)). Recognizing 
the seriousness of the threat of identity theft and the availability of 
other methods for tracking employees for research purposes, if needed, 
OSHA examined

[[Page 21440]]

the SSN collection requirements in its standards. Based on this review, 
OSHA proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM removing all requirements in its 
standards to include employee SSNs on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, or other records in order to facilitate employers' 
efforts to safeguard employee privacy. Specifically, OSHA proposed 
deleting the requirements to include an employee's SSN from 19 
standards. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
    The 19 standards proposed for revision are as follows:
     Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response--
Sec. Sec.  1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A) and 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A);
     Asbestos--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F), 
(m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D, 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), 
and appendix D, and 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix 
D;
     Vinyl Chloride--Sec.  1910.1017(m)(1);
     Inorganic Arsenic--Sec.  1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D) and 
(q)(2)(ii)(A);
     Lead--Sec. Sec.  1910.1025(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D), 
(n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B and 1926.62(d)(5), 
(n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
     Chromium (VI)--Sec. Sec.  1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F) and 
(m)(4)(ii)(A), 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A), and 
1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A);
     Cadmium--Sec. Sec.  1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(3)(ii)(A), 
and appendix D and 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv), (n)(1)(ii)(B), and 
(n)(3)(ii)(A);
     Benzene--Sec.  1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D) and (k)(2)(ii)(A);
     Coke Oven Emissions--Sec.  1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a) and 
(m)(2)(i)(a);
     Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec.  1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A);
     Cotton Dust--Sec.  1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C), (k)(2)(ii)(A) 
and appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
     1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--Sec.  1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d) 
and (p)(2)(ii)(a);
     Acrylonitrile--Sec.  1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D);
     Ethylene Oxide--Sec.  1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F) and 
(k)(3)(ii)(A);
     Formaldehyde--Sec.  1910.1048(o)(1)(vi), (o)(3)(i), 
(o)(4)(ii)(D), and appendix D;
     Methylenedianiline--Sec. Sec.  1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D), 
(n)(4)(ii)(A), and (n)(5)(ii)(A) and 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F) and 
(o)(5)(ii)(A);
     1,3-Butadiene--Sec.  1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F), 
(m)(4)(ii)(A), and appendix F;
     Methylene Chloride--Sec.  1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F), 
(m)(2)(iii)(C), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
     Respirable Crystalline Silica--Sec. Sec.  
1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G) and (k)(3)(ii)(A) and 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G) and 
(j)(3)(ii)(A).
    OSHA received a total of seven comments in response to this 
proposal, six of which expressed support for deleting the requirements 
to include an employee's SSN from the standards mentioned above.
    The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) 
stated that they ``strongly support'' the deletion of SSN collection 
requirements ``because inclusion of such information on medical 
documents compromises employee's personal information and creates a 
liability scenario for employers.'' The American Foundry Society (AFS) 
also supported removing the SSN collection requirements from OSHA's 
standards. AFS stated that there is no justification for including such 
sensitive information on data sheets or reports that may go to 
analytical laboratories or be seen by dozens of people in non-secure 
environments. AFS recommended that employers could instead use the 
unique employee identification number that employers may use for 
personnel and other records, which can be linked back to an employee's 
SSN without compromising security.
    The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) commented that it 
``wholeheartedly'' agrees with OSHA's proposal and believes that there 
are safer and better alternatives than SSNs to identify employees. CISC 
also supported OSHA's statements in the proposal that employers would 
not be required to go back and delete employee SSNs from existing 
records, would not be required to use an alternative unique employee 
identifier on existing records, and would still be permitted to use 
SSNs if they wish to do so, and encouraged OSHA to specifically 
reference these statements in the final rule to clarify employers' 
responsibilities regarding existing and future records. CISC further 
recommended that OSHA not mandate a specific type of alternative 
identification method for employers to use in lieu of SSNs because 
limiting employers' flexibility to come up with an identification 
system that works best for their unique situations would be burdensome 
and difficult to implement.
    One commenter, an anonymous public citizen, expressed concern that 
removing the SSN collection requirements from exposure monitoring and 
surveillance records would affect employers' ability to identify 
employees on records. The commenter stated that if employers were 
required to remove SSNs from existing records, it ``would be daunting 
and conflict with NARA requirements.'' The commenter also expressed 
concern that using alternative unique employee identifiers could 
complicate employer efforts to secure existing records and/or lead to 
similar employee privacy concerns as those posed by SSNs. OSHA 
appreciates the commenter's concerns; however, OSHA believes that the 
seriousness of the threat of identity theft outweighs the concerns 
raised by the commenter.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the 
SSN collection requirements from the standards listed above, as 
proposed in the NPRM. Consistent with the proposal, OSHA is not 
otherwise altering OSHA's requirements for maintaining records, and 
employers are expected to continue handling previously-generated 
records that contain SSNs as they currently do. Employers are not 
required to delete employee SSNs from existing records, nor are 
employers required to include an alternative unique employee identifier 
on those records. OSHA is not mandating a specific type of 
identification method that employers should use on newly-created 
records, but is instead providing employers with the flexibility to 
develop a system that best works for their unique situations. Although 
the revised standards will no longer require it, employers who wish to 
do so may continue using SSNs on records developed in compliance with 
the standards noted above. Accordingly, removing the SSN collection 
requirements will not increase an employer's compliance burden under 
any of the revised standards.
    Additionally, as noted in the proposal, when reviewing forms to 
remove their SSN collection requirements, OSHA noticed that several 
forms from older standards do not comport with OMB's Standards for 
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity, as updated on October 30, 1997 (62 FR 58782-58790). OSHA 
thus explained that it was considering revising those forms to either 
update the language to ensure compliance with OMB's standards or remove 
the question altogether. The final rule makes those revisions to comply 
with OMB standards. The final rule also effects a minor change to a 
question in a general industry Cadmium standard questionnaire.
    As one example from the proposal, Part 1 (``Initial Medical 
Questionnaire'') of appendix D of the asbestos standard for general 
industry (29 CFR 1910.1001)

[[Page 21441]]

includes a question (currently #15) that states:

Race:
    1. White __
    2. Black __
    3. Asian __
    4. Hispanic __
    5. Indian __
    6. Other __

    To reflect a combined race and ethnicity format (see 62 FR 58782, 
58789), OSHA proposed revising the language to state:

Race:
    1. White __
    2. Black or African American __
    3. Asian __
    4. Hispanic or Latino
    5. American Indian or Alaska Native __
    6. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander __

OSHA requested comments on whether it should revise the forms in this 
manner, and whether doing so would impose any additional burden hours 
or costs on employers.
    The agency only received one comment on this issue. NIOSH 
recommended that OSHA continue to collect race and ethnicity 
information in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) standards. NIOSH stated that, in some cases, this information may 
be necessary to choose the correct reference equation for 
interpretation of spirometry results, and that possessing this 
information may also be useful for documenting disparities. NIOSH 
suggested that OSHA provide instructions to those who provide 
information using the combined format that they should check all 
categories that apply to them, since race and ethnicity are not 
mutually exclusive, and many Americans have mixed racial and ethnic 
backgrounds. NIOSH also pointed out that OMB's standards combine 
``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' into a single category 
and does not separate them, as OSHA appeared to do in the proposal. 
OSHA did not propose to separate those two categories; it only appeared 
that way due to the spacing in the proposal.
    After considering this comment, OSHA has decided to revise its 
older forms to use a combined race and ethnicity format, as 
demonstrated above for Part 1 (``Initial Medical Questionnaire'') of 
appendix D of the asbestos standard for general industry (29 CFR 
1910.1001), in order to bring the forms into compliance with OMB's 
standards. The following forms, which are also impacted by the removal 
of SSN collection requirements, will be revised to use the combined 
race and ethnicity format: Asbestos Standard for General Industry 
(Sec.  1910.1001, appendix D), Construction (Sec.  1926.1101, appendix 
D), and Maritime (Sec.  1915.1001, appendix D); Cotton Dust (Sec.  
1910.1043, appendix B-1, appendix B-II, and appendix B-III); and 
Methylene Chloride (Sec.  1910.1052, appendix B). OSHA is accepting 
NIOSH's recommendation to adhere to the OMB's Standards and is 
inserting a ``Check all that apply'' instruction to all the forms that 
are impacted.
    Additionally, when reviewing forms to remove their SSN collection 
requirements, OSHA noticed that appendix D of the general industry 
Cadmium standard (Sec.  1910.1027) asked workers, ``35. Have you or 
your partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still 
birth or deformed offspring?'' OSHA recognizes that the phrasing of the 
last condition was insensitive and not medically accurate. Therefore, 
OSHA is rephrasing that question to read, ``35. Have you or your 
partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still birth 
or child with malformations or birth defects?''

C. Proposed Revisions Not Being Finalized Today

Subpart J of Part 1910--General Environmental Controls, Control of 
Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147
    OSHA proposed making changes to subpart J of part 1910--General 
Environmental Controls, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/
tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147. According to its terms, the lockout/tagout 
standard applies to servicing and maintenance operations ``in which the 
unexpected energization or startup of the machines or equipment, or the 
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees'' (Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(i) (emphasis in original)). Because OSHA believes the 
word ``unexpected'' has been misinterpreted to exclude some operations 
where employees are subject to injury from startup or the release of 
stored energy, the agency proposed removing the word ``unexpected'' 
from Sec.  1910.147(a)(1) and several other places it appears in the 
standard.
    OSHA made this proposal as a result of a ruling made by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), which was 
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 
Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div. (GMC Delco), 17 BNA 
OSHC 1217 (Nos. 91-2973, 91-3116, 91-3117, 1995); aff'd 89 F.3d 313 
(6th Cir. 1996). Those decisions found that the lockout/tagout standard 
did not apply where a startup procedure for a machine provided a 
warning to a worker servicing it that it was about to start. In that 
case, workers were servicing machines that used an eight-to-twelve-step 
startup procedure, including time delays, and audible or visual 
warnings. The court and OSHRC held that, because these features would 
warn the servicing employees that the machines were about to start, the 
startup would not be ``unexpected.'' OSHA believes that the GMC Delco 
decisions misconstrued the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/
tagout standard by allowing employers to use warning and delay systems 
as alternatives to following the requirements of the standard.
    OSHA received about 155 comments on this issue, though many were 
submitted as part of a mass mailing campaign. All but seven of the 
comments opposed removing the word ``unexpected.''
    As an example, Davies Molding, LCC, a firm that makes moldings, 
commented (as part of a mass mail campaign) that:

    This proposed rule would adversely impact a company's ability to 
utilize certain advances in technology such as automated controls 
that can eliminate the potential for unexpected energization and 
therefore eliminate the need for LOTO. It also contradicts recent 
legal precedent (Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div., 
GMC Delco). In removing the ability of employers to demonstrate the 
absence of exposure to unexpected energization, lockout would become 
a requirement for all energy sources. . . . Regulatory certainty is 
strongly desired, but not every machine is the same and a singular, 
generic fix applied to all equipment is not the solution. OSHA's 
LOTO rule (29 CFR 1910.147) is complex and outdated. A better 
solution to concerns about LOTO and the scope of requirements around 
energization is for OSHA to move forward with its plans to review 
and potentially update the entire rule in a complete and independent 
rulemaking. OSHA has noted review of technological advancements with 
computer-based controls, greater acceptance of such methods 
internationally, increased requests for variances for these devices, 
the utility of understanding new technology and potential hazards to 
workers, and the appropriateness of a potential rulemaking process 
is necessary.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0581).
    Apogee Designs, a manufacturer, commented:

    Removing ``unexpected'' from the term ``unexpected 
energization'' broadens the scope of the rule adding only confusion 
to what is already understood and implemented. We agree with the 
Plastics Industry Association (PIA) in that OSHA should pursue a 
separate rule relating to 29 CFR 1910.147 that would NOT adversely 
impact automated controls that eliminate

[[Page 21442]]

potential unexpected energization. . . . If changes are made to the 
LOTO rule they should be reviewed in their totality in the context 
of modern manufacturing techniques and technology. Much has been 
said of `Advanced Manufacturing' and its ability to provide jobs for 
employees and opportunities for firms who wish to embrace what is no 
longer the future but is `the now'. We submit that OSHA focus on how 
to minimize risk of personnel harm without placing undue burden on 
employees, companies, and regulators. It is not possible to 
eliminate accidents, it is possible to minimize their impact.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0733).
    The American National Standards Institute Accredited Z244 Committee 
for the Control of Hazardous Energy--Lockout, Tagout and Alternative 
Methods also commented that the removal of the word ``unexpected'' 
would be inconsistent with its standard ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0714).
    In favor of removal, the AFL-CIO commented:

    This decision [GMC Delco] totally undermines the original intent 
of the standard and allows warning systems to be used instead of 
following the requirements of the standard. As OSHA points out in 
the preamble of the proposed rule, the exclusive use of warning 
systems subverts the intent of the standard by removing the control 
of the hazardous energy from the individual authorized employee and 
instead placing the burden on exposed employees to recognize 
warnings so they can escape danger zones . . . . Moreover, this 
decision requires OSHA to make a case-by-case determination of 
whether or not such warning systems provide adequate and reliable 
warnings to workers again undermining the application of the rule 
and the protection of workers.
. . . .

    If OSHA choses[sic] to maintain the term ``unexpected'' in the 
standard, we urge OSHA to include a definition of the term 
``unexpected'' in the final version of this rule similar to the 
definition that is included in the OSHA Lockout-Tagout compliance 
directive. That directive states that ``the term unexpected refers 
to any energization or start-up that is not sanctioned (through the 
removal of personal LOTO devices) by each authorized employee 
engaged in the servicing and maintenance activity.'' (CPL 02-00-147)

(OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
    OSHA continues to believe that the GMC Delco decisions misconstrued 
the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/tagout standard. However, 
OSHA also acknowledges the overwhelming opposition to this change and 
agrees with the many comments that cited complications with this issue 
due to technological advancements. Further, the AFL-CIO included in its 
comment a proposal of a path OSHA could follow to uphold the rigor of 
the proposed rule. In light of the information provided by the 
comments, OSHA is not in a position at this time to make a final 
decision on this issue. As a result, the agency will not finalize its 
proposal to remove the word ``unexpected'' from the control of 
hazardous energy standard but will further consider this issue in light 
of the overall standard.
Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment, 
Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment in 29 CFR 1926.95
    Section 1926.95 sets out the requirements for personal protective 
equipment (PPE) in construction. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to revise 
this standard to explicitly require that PPE used in construction 
properly fit each affected worker.
    OSHA received four comments on this proposal. The Laborers' Health 
& Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building 
Trades Unions (NABTU) both supported the revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0757, 
-0742). A third comment from a safety professional supported the 
revision, but mentioned ``significant concerns'' that ``need to be 
addressed'' before finalizing the proposal (OSHA-2012-0007-0696). The 
comment characterized the change as a ``difficult'' and ``bold step'' 
with definite compliance challenges. A fourth comment, from the 
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC), opposed the revision 
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753). CISC, made up of 25 trade associations, stated 
that ensuring that PPE properly fits all affected workers in 
construction would impose significant additional obligations. CISC 
commented in particular that explicitly requiring employers to ensure 
that all PPE properly fits would greatly change the standard and place 
new responsibilities on employers, and warrants a more fulsome 
rulemaking process than that offered in the SIP-IV rulemaking.
    The purpose of SIP-IV is to remove or revise outdated, duplicative, 
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in OSHA's safety and health 
standards. Given that limited purpose and the comments described above, 
OSHA is not finalizing the proposal in this rulemaking. Instead, OSHA 
has determined that such a change to the PPE standard should occur in a 
separate rulemaking outside the limited SIP process. OSHA anticipates 
that this approach would provide the public with broader notice of the 
proposal, encourage robust commentary, and better inform OSHA's 
approach to employer obligations and worker safety in relation to PPE 
used in construction.
Subpart P of Part 1926--Excavations, Specific Excavation Requirements 
in 29 CFR 1926.651
    Paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.651 specify requirements 
for employers to protect employees from (1) loose rock or soil in 
excavations, and (2) excavated or other materials or equipment that 
could fall or roll into an excavation. Similar provisions were part of 
OSHA's subpart P Excavation standard originally issued under the 
Construction Safety Act in 1971 as 29 CFR 1518.651(h) and (i) (36 FR 
7340, 7389, April 17, 1971), and OSHA retained them when it revised the 
standard in 1989 (54 FR 45894, Oct. 31, 1989). The original 1971 
standard placed the burden on employers to ensure employees' safety 
from loose rock and soil, and excavated or other materials, in or 
around excavations (36 FR 7340, 7389). The 1989 revision added to the 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) the phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' when 
referring to loose rock or soil and excavated or other materials or 
equipment (54 FR 45894, 45924-45925).
    In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA proposed to remove the phrase ``that could 
pose a hazard'' from both paragraphs to help clarify that the burden is 
on the employer to ensure employees' safety from loose rock and soil, 
and excavated or other materials, in or around excavations, and that 
OSHA does not have to establish that loose rock or soil or excavated or 
other material or equipment poses a hazard to employees before it can 
establish a violation of Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (2).
    OSHA received six comments on this proposed change. The Laborers' 
Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North American 
Building Trades Union (NABTU) both supported this revision, both 
stating that spoil piles pose a recognized hazard (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, 
-0757).
    Emmanuel Omeike, a safety professional, commented that this 
proposal is unnecessary and does not address the ongoing hazards and 
high rates of injuries and fatalities due to excavation work. He argued 
that the excavations standard is already comprehensive enough, and OSHA 
should focus on enforcing the current standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0696).
    The National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA) and 
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) both expressed opposition 
to this revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0654, -0753). Both argued that the 
1989 revision to the Excavation standard did make a substantive change 
to the standard,

[[Page 21443]]

which was OSHA's intent when it clarified the standard. They also 
argued that the existing language recognizes that loose rock or soil or 
excavated or other material or equipment do not always pose a hazard to 
employees, and it clearly informs employers that they must protect 
employees from loose rock or soil or excavated or other material or 
equipment when it does pose a hazard.
    The National Association of Homebuilders (OSHA-2012-007-0747) 
joined in the CISC comment, and also recommended that OSHA revise the 
excavations standard to add the work practices that are outlined in the 
OSHA memorandum ``Suspension of 29 CFR 1926.652 to House Foundations/
Basement Excavations'' for protecting house foundation/basement 
excavations in either SIP-IV or a separate rulemaking. That 
recommendation is beyond the scope of SIP-IV.
    In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA also proposed removing the language ``by 
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) because that 
language is unnecessary while retaining the term ``excavation face'' in 
the provision. NUCA opposed the removal of this language for the same 
reasons it opposed the removal of ``that could pose a hazard'' (OSHA-
2012-0007-0654).
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided that it needs to 
further consider the possible removal of the phrase ``that could pose a 
hazard'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (2) and the language ``by 
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1). As a result, 
OSHA is not making any changes to these two provisions in this final 
rule.
Subpart S in Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams 
and Compressed Air, Compressed Air in 29 CFR 1926.803
    OSHA proposed to revise subpart S--Underground Construction, 
Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed Air, by replacing the 
decompression tables currently found in appendix A to subpart S with 
the 1992 French Air and Oxygen decompression tables (French). OSHA also 
requested comment on whether the following decompression tables should 
also be permitted as substitutes for the existing tables in appendix A: 
The Edel-Kindwall (NIOSH) tables, the Blackpool (British) tables, and 
the German Standard Decompression (German) tables. After reviewing the 
comments, discussed below, OSHA has determined that while the 
decompression tables need to be updated, SIP-IV is not the appropriate 
mechanism to carry out a broader update of subpart S. In addition to 
the decompression tables, subpart S, as it relates to decompression, 
needs to be updated in its entirety. The agency considered the effect 
of only updating the tables, as proposed, but has determined they would 
conflict with and not solve other problems with the current standard. A 
full explanation of the proposal and discussion of the decompression 
tables is found at 81 FR 68503, 68520.
    OSHA received three comments, each offering support for the use of 
the French tables. The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America 
(LHSFNA) and the North American Building Trades Union (NABTU) stated 
they are ``glad to see OSHA's proposal to update this standard and 
adopt the French tables, which can also be used for oxygen 
decompression and at pressures higher than those in the original OSHA 
standard'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757 and OSHA-2012-0007-0742). This comment 
highlights the difficulty with only updating the tables without 
updating other parts of the standard. While the French tables are 
designed to be used at higher pressures and for oxygen decompression, 
OSHA did not propose in SIP-IV to revise the parts of subpart S that 
limit the amount of pressure an employee can be subjected to or limit 
the use of oxygen. OSHA believes that only updating the decompression 
tables, without updating other parts of the standard, would lead 
employers to believe they can use parts of the French tables that would 
violate the current standard. Both commenters also requested that 
contractors be given the option to use the British, Edel-Kindwall, 
German, or Navy tables. As part of further study of this issue, OSHA 
will continue to consider which tables are acceptable for use in 
underground construction.
    OSHA also received a comment from the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that supported the updating of 
the decompression standard in a manner that goes beyond the scope of 
the proposed rule. NIOSH recommended that OSHA take the following steps 
when updating the decompression tables: ``[r]equire staged 
decompression, allow 100 percent oxygen use during decompression, vary 
the decompression schedule based on exposure time, and allow for 
greater pressures in underground construction projects'' (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726). NIOSH also recommended that OSHA adopt the Edel-Kindwall 
tables, and noted that additional decompression tables exist. Finally 
NIOSH agreed that the standard would need to be updated if an oxygen-
based set of decompression tables were selected.
    Each of the comments were supportive of OSHA's efforts to update 
the decompression standard, including the tables. However, each of the 
comments highlighted the challenges and problems that present 
themselves by only updating to the French tables (or any of the tables 
discussed). OSHA agrees that the limitations on pressure and the use of 
oxygen in the current standard are not compatible with any of the 
modern decompression tables. OSHA acknowledges that these issues were 
discussed in the proposed rule, but has determined that SIP-IV is not 
the appropriate mechanism to update subpart S. While OSHA is not 
updating the tables in this rulemaking as proposed, the agency is 
considering how to best move forward with updating the decompression 
standard. The proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) and appendix 
A to subpart S are not being finalized.

IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the 
benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations. Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) also require 
OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the 
impacts of certain rules that the agency promulgates. Executive Order 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    This rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory action'' 
under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, and it is not a ``major rule'' 
under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The expected 
total cost savings per year are $6,066,000. Given that these are all 
annual cost savings, the final estimate is the same when discounted at 
either 3 or 7 percent. For the same reason, when the Department uses a 
perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 13771, 
the annualized cost savings of the final rule are also $6,066,000 with 
7 percent discounting. This rule has estimated annual costs of $32,440 
and will lead to approximately $6.1 million per year in cost savings to 
regulated entities. Thus, neither the benefits nor the costs of this 
rule exceed $100 million. In addition, it does not meet any of the 
other criteria specified by UMRA or the Congressional Review Act for a 
significant regulatory action or major rule. This Final Economic 
Analysis (FEA) addresses the

[[Page 21444]]

costs, cost savings and benefits of this rule.

Work-Related Hearing Loss

    OSHA is adding a specific cross-reference to 29 CFR 1904.5--
Determination of Work-Relatedness, in Sec.  1904.10--Recording Criteria 
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss, paragraph (b)(6). This 
cross-reference clarifies that employers must comply with the 
provisions of Sec.  1904.5 when making a determination as to whether a 
worker's hearing loss is work-related. This clarification does not 
change any of the requirements in 29 CFR 1904.10. In the Preliminary 
Economic Analysis (PEA), OSHA determined that neither new costs nor 
compliance burdens would result from adding the cross-reference to an 
existing standard. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the 
Final Rule (Summary and Explanation), while some commenters, such as 
the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (OSHA-2012-0007-0753), 
expressed concern that the proposed language may increase their 
required reporting of hearing loss cases, the agency explained in 
detail in that section why this clarification does not impose any new 
obligations on employers.\11\ With that in mind, OSHA retains its 
assessment from the PEA that this provision does not impose new costs 
on employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA has conducted a sensitivity analysis on the 
hypothetical assumption that the clarification will assist some 
employers' compliance with their hearing-loss reporting obligations. 
For instance, in 2016 BLS reported 100 cases of hearing loss for the 
entire construction industry, or 0.2 per 10,000 workers; however, 
hearing loss across all industries was much higher, at 1.7 per 
10,000 workers (BLS, 2017a). If the construction industry were to 
report hearing loss at a rate of 2.0 per 10,000 workers--similar to 
other industries--then it would be reporting an additional 900 
hearing-loss cases. The average case costs $57, so that would result 
in total additional costs of $51,300 ($57 x 900). OSHA assumes that, 
across all industries, the clarification may result in a 10% 
increase in reported hearing-loss cases (with much of that overall 
increase coming from the construction industry). This modest 10% 
increase is based on the assumption that the regulation's hearing-
loss reporting requirement is already clear to nearly all employers. 
A 10% increase would result in additional costs of $107,700 (18,900 
total cases in 2016 x 10% x $57 per case) (BLS, 2017a). (The $57-
per-case estimate is based on the estimated labor costs divided by 
the total number of cases reported to BLS (OSHA, 2018a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chest X-Ray Requirements

    Medical surveillance requirements in health standards are designed 
primarily to detect the early onset of adverse health effects so that 
appropriate interventions can be taken. In certain OSHA standards, the 
agency currently requires periodic chest X-rays (CXRs) as a form of 
early lung cancer detection. At the time these standards were 
promulgated, routine screening for lung cancer with CXR was considered 
appropriate; however, recent studies with many years of follow-up have 
not shown a benefit from CXR screening for either lung cancer incidence 
or mortality. As a result, OSHA is removing the requirement for 
periodic CXR in the following standards: Sec. Sec.  1910.1029--Coke 
Oven Emissions, 1910.1045--Acrylonitrile, and 1910.1018--Inorganic 
Arsenic.
    As OSHA has become increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of CXR 
in reducing lung cancer mortality, the agency has moved to decrease CXR 
requirements to eliminate unnecessary radiation to workers as well as 
reduce the cost to employers to provide CXR as part of medical 
examinations. OSHA previously reduced the frequency of CXRs for workers 
covered by the arsenic and coke oven emissions standards in the first 
phase of the Standards Improvement Process (63 FR 33450, June 18, 
1998). Not only does OSHA conclude that the removal of this requirement 
will result in a cost savings to employers, but the agency also 
believes it will prove to be beneficial to employees by decreasing 
their exposure to radiation as well as decreasing the rate of false 
positive results. OSHA has not attempted to quantify these benefits in 
this final analysis.
    To estimate the annual cost savings to employers for removing the 
requirement for periodic CXRs from the listed standards, OSHA, with the 
assistance of Eastern Research Group (ERG), estimated the number of 
unnecessary CXRs that will be eliminated by this change by drawing on 
estimates of the affected number of workers for each standard addressed 
in the agency's recent Information Collection Requests (ERG, 2017b). 
The numbers presented in this FEA have been revised from the PEA to 
reflect the most recent wage, price and industry profile data. These 
changes are demonstrated in the SIPS-IV Cost Benefits Estimates 
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).\12\ OSHA then analyzed data from the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule. 
Summary CMS survey data from across the United States indicated a 
national average price of $73.11 per CXR (ERG, 2017a).\13\ Finally, the 
agency multiplied the average price of a CXR by the number of CXRs to 
be eliminated, providing an estimate of $265,326 of exam cost savings. 
This information is detailed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition, note that the totals in tables in this 
chapter, as well as totals summarized in the text, may not precisely 
sum from underlying elements due to rounding. The precise 
calculation of the numbers in the FEA appears in the spreadsheet.
    \13\ Exam cost adjusted from PEA to 2017 dollars using the GDP 
deflator as indicated in the SIP-IV Cost Benefits Estimates 
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 2,498 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam = 
$182,636
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 542 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam = 
$39,627
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 589 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam = 
$43,063
Total Reduced Exam Cost:
    $182,636 + $39,627 + $43,063 = $265,326

    Reducing the time of the medical exam, by removing the CXR 
requirement, also saves employers money because the employee is away 
from work for a shorter period of time. Based on information from 
RadiologyInfo.org, the agency conservatively estimates that the time 
employees will be away from work is reduced by 15 minutes when the CXR 
component of the exam is eliminated (ERG, 2017a). As indicated below, 
OSHA estimates this change will save 907 hours of worker time that 
would have been spent during their recurring exams.
    For the calculation of labor-related cost savings for this FEA, 
OSHA included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of 
labor in its primary cost calculation. Overhead costs are indirect 
expenses that cannot be tied to producing a specific product or 
service. Common examples include rent, utilities, and office equipment. 
Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the cost elements that 
fit this definition. The lack of a common definition has led to a wide 
range of overhead estimates. Consequently, the treatment of overhead 
costs needs to be case-specific. OSHA adopted an overhead rate of 17 
percent of base wages. This is consistent with the overhead rate used 
for sensitivity analyses in the 2017 Improved Tracking of Workplace 
Injuries and Illnesses FEA and the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final 
standard on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica. For 
example, to calculate the total labor cost for production work related 
medical exams for production operator (SOC: 51-000), three components 
are added together: Base wage ($18.30) + fringe benefits ($8.49, 46% of 
$18.30) \14\ + applicable overhead

[[Page 21445]]

costs ($3.11, 17% of $18.30). This increases the labor cost of the 
fully-loaded wage (including overhead) for a production worker to 
$29.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Wages are based on data from the May 2017 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Standard Occupational 
Classification Code 51-000--Production Operation (BLS, 2017), which 
lists average base compensation of $18.30. A private industry Fringe 
Benefit rate of 31.70 percent was from Source: Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (BLS 2018). The 
multiplier applied to base compensation to determine loaded wages is 
1.46 [1/(1 - 31.70 percent)]. Applying the multiplier (1.46) to base 
compensation ($18.30) results in loaded wages of $26.79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiplying the reduced exam time by the fully-loaded employee 
hourly wages of $29.90, the agency estimates a cost savings of $27,131. 
This information is detailed as follows:

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Time saved: 2,498 exams x .25 hours = 625 hours \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number here and 
elsewhere for presentation in the Final Economic Analysis. See also 
fn. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduced Cost: 625 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11 
overhead) = $18,675
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Time saved: 542 exams x .25 hours = 136 hours
    Reduced Cost: 136 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11 
overhead) = $4,052
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):
    Time saved: 589 exams x .25 hours = 147 hours
    Reduced Cost: 147 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11 
overhead) = $4,403
Total Employee Time Savings from fewer CXRs:
    625 hours + 136 hours + 147 hours = 907 hours
Total Value of Time Savings plus Overhead from fewer CXRs:
    $18,675 + $4,052 + $4,403 = $27,131

    Combining the value of saved worker time and overhead of $27,131 
with the decreased exam cost of $265,326 nets a total potential cost 
savings to employers of approximately $292,500. OSHA did not receive 
comments questioning the estimates of the cost savings, as presented in 
the PEA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The overhead component was not included in the PEA, but has 
been added to the FEA in fulfillment of Department of Labor policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to removing the requirement for periodic CXR, OSHA is 
updating other CXR requirements in its coke oven emissions, 
acrylonitrile, and inorganic arsenic standards, as well as in its three 
Asbestos standards--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001 asbestos (General Industry), 
1915.1001 Asbestos (Maritime), and 1926.1101 Asbestos (Construction)--
and two cadmium standards--Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 Cadmium (General 
Industry) and 1926.1127 Cadmium (Construction).
    In recent years, innovation in medical technology has allowed for 
screening with digital CXRs. Reflecting this, OSHA is adding the option 
of digital radiography to its existing standards. As a practical 
matter, digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional 
analog film-based systems in medical facilities.
    There are cost savings to using digital CXRs over analog CXRs. 
Traditional analog film-based CXRs are much larger than standard-sized 
office documents and weigh more than a piece of paper of the same size. 
As such, storing traditional CXRs requires an investment in specialized 
storage cabinets, which in turn may require reinforcement of the floor. 
Digital CXRs, however, can be stored on a computer. Due to continuing 
advances in technology and the emergence of inexpensive and large-
capacity storage devices, digital CXRs can be stored for just a 
fraction of a cent each. Digital CXRs also save time and materials 
because they can be instantly processed and ready for use as soon as 
the CXR is taken.
    OSHA believes that digital storage of CXRs is so common that most 
employers are already realizing these cost savings and will thus not 
incur any additional savings as a result of this change. As a practical 
matter, OSHA already allows digital storage of CXRs. In a letter of 
interpretation released on September 24, 2012, entitled ``OSHA's 
Position on the Acceptability of Digital Radiography in Place of 
Traditional Chest Roentgenograms,'' OSHA stated: ``OSHA would allow, 
but would not require, digital radiography in place of traditional 
chest roentgenograms for medical surveillance exams under the asbestos 
standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards.'' \17\ 
Although OSHA has not released interpretations specifically allowing 
for digital storage of CXRs in other standards, it has become the 
agency's practice not to cite or otherwise penalize employers for 
storing CXRs digitally. Because it is now current OSHA enforcement 
practice to waive the formal requirement for employers to keep analog 
copies of CXRs when they store them digitally, the agency concludes 
that there is no realized cost savings by changing this requirement. 
Even so, OSHA also believes that employers will benefit from the 
certainty that comes only from codified regulation. Employers can now 
rely on the regulatory text rather than agency discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretations. 
Asbestos standards, Sept. 24, 2012, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583 (accessed 
November 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revisions in these standards also include replacements of 
antiquated terminology such as ``roentgenogram,'' correction of 
misspellings in the existing standards, an update to the current ILO 
classification guidance, and revisions where inaccuracies exist in 
clinical diagnostic language. OSHA is updating the regulatory text to 
better distinguish between the appropriate uses of ``classification'' 
and ``interpretation'' of CXRs. As indicated in the PEA, the agency 
believes these changes are merely editorial in nature and reflect 
current practices, and therefore do not create new costs or cost 
savings for employers. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, 
while commenters generally approved of the changes OSHA was proposing, 
the agency did not receive comments questioning the PEA's conclusions.
Cotton Dust
    As explained in greater detail in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA 
is making revisions to its medical surveillance program requirements--
more specifically, its pulmonary function testing requirements of the 
cotton dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043). Exposure to cotton dust places 
employees at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis. 
Since the publication of the cotton dust standard in 1978, OSHA has not 
updated its pulmonary function testing requirements to match those of 
current technology and practices. As a result, OSHA in the proposal 
based the proposed revisions on current recommendations from 
organizations recognized as authorities on generally accepted practices 
in pulmonary-function testing: ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM.
    OSHA is revising paragraph (h) and appendix D of its Cotton Dust 
standard. Many of the revisions are simply editorial, to clarify 
existing language, as well as to update pulmonary function 
measurements. However, for those revisions that may suggest a potential 
need to upgrade pulmonary testing equipment, OSHA investigated the 
characteristics of equipment currently available in the United States 
and whether such equipment met the specifications of OSHA's revisions.
    Paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) give instructions 
for pulmonary function testing, measuring Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) 
and Forced Expiratory Volume in One second (FEV1) against 
the Spirometry Prediction Tables for Normal Males and Females (former 
appendix C), adjusting those measurements based on ethnicity, and from 
the outcome of such measurements, determining the frequency of medical 
surveillance provided to employees. OSHA is

[[Page 21446]]

revising this provision to specify use of the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III reference data set and to 
replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values.
    Software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set, 
which is identified as the Hankinson data set on some spirometers. If 
software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data 
set, users of those spirometers will be able to access the NHANES III 
values online through the NIOSH calculator. Tables of the NHANES III 
values are also available online in an appendix of OSHA's spirometry 
guidance for healthcare professionals. Therefore, NHANES III values are 
widely available to spirometry providers, including those providers 
using older spirometers.
    OSHA's use of the NHANES III data set in place of the Knudson 
values currently in appendix C simplifies interpretation of spirometry 
results by providing reference values for more race/ethnic groups, 
thereby reducing the need to adjust values for race/ethnic groups not 
included in the Knudson data set. This revision as to how pulmonary 
functioning should be tested and measured falls in line with current 
generally accepted practices; therefore OSHA does not believe this 
revision will pose a compliance burden to affected employers.
    OSHA is also updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require an 
evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the 
lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/ethnic group, by age. Modern 
spirometers typically provide this information automatically, and no 
one in the record argued that this provision would have costs. 
Similarly, OSHA has decided that the basis for frequency of medical 
surveillance in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) is whether the 
FEV1 is above or below the LLN. This technically changes the 
required triggers for medical surveillance from the existing standard, 
but is consistent with generally accepted current practices. The agency 
believes the changes will reduce confusion and have little other 
practical effect. The revision to evaluate the FEV1/FVC 
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC does not affect the 
triggers for other medical monitoring requirements such as changes in 
medical-surveillance frequency or referral for a detailed pulmonary 
examination because the standard bases those triggers solely on 
FEV1 values.
    Revisions to appendix D address updates to the specifications of 
spirometry equipment used in performing pulmonary functioning tests. To 
assess whether current readily available spirometry equipment met the 
agency's specifications, OSHA investigated the market for spirometry 
equipment, with the assistance of a contractor, Eastern Research Group 
(ERG). OSHA found that the market has been adapting to similar 
consensus standards in this area since as far back as 1994. In its 
research of spirometry product specifications collected through 
internet searches, interviews with manufacturers, and the consultation 
of peer-reviewed literature and voluntary standards published by 
respiratory health groups, the agency found that spirometry models 
currently sold in the United States, Europe, and Australia meet the 
specification revisions of spirometry equipment to be used in the 
cotton dust standard. Upon further investigation, ERG determined that 
out of a sample of 12 spirometry models from various manufacturers, 11 
models were already compliant with the volume, accuracy, and minimum 
duration requirements of the 2005 spirometry specification standard 
jointly published by ATS/ERS (ERG, 2017a).
    The agency estimates that spirometry equipment has a working life 
of approximately ten years. To prevent a potential burden to employers 
from having to prematurely purchase new equipment, OSHA is allowing the 
revised spirometry specifications to apply only to equipment newly 
purchased one year or more after the date of publication of this final 
standard in the Federal Register. Combined with evidence that the large 
majority of the equipment already on the market is already compliant, 
OSHA preliminarily concluded that the revisions to the spirometry 
equipment specifications would not impose additional costs or 
compliance burdens to employers. OSHA received no comments indicating 
substantial costs from these requirements, and therefore stands by its 
preliminary conclusions.
Shipyard Employment: Feral Cats
    As stated in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is removing feral 
cats from its definition of ``vermin'' in paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  
1915.80--subpart F--Shipyard General Working Conditions. 29 CFR 
1915.88--Sanitation, paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), specify that employers 
must, to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain 
workplaces in a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers 
detect vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-
control program.
    OSHA has determined that, although the possibility exists for feral 
cats to pose safety and health hazards for employees, the threat is 
minor as the cats tend to avoid human contact. Further, stakeholders 
and commenters (as discussed in the Summary and Explanation) have 
expressed concern that including the term ``feral cats'' in the 
definition of ``vermin'' encourages cruel and unnecessary 
extermination. OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral 
cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and 
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of other vermin. To 
the extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular 
shipyard, OSHA would consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under 
the standard. Removing a perceived obligation to exterminate feral cats 
does not have any costs to employers; if there is an economic effect, 
it would be a potential cost savings to the extent that anyone is now 
exterminating feral cats on the basis of that perceived obligation.
911 Emergency Medical Services
    OSHA is revising paragraph (f) in 29 CFR 1926.50--Medical Services 
and First Aid. Existing Sec.  1926.50(e) requires employers to provide 
a communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper 
equipment for transportation of an injured person. Existing Sec.  
1926.50(f) requires the posting of telephone numbers of physicians, 
hospitals, or ambulances for work sites located in areas where 911 
emergency service is not available. OSHA is retaining both of these 
requirements. The agency will add to paragraph (f) a requirement that 
when an employer uses a communication system for contacting 911 
services, the employer must ensure that the communication system can 
effectively do so, and, if the system is in an area that does not 
automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude to the 911 
dispatcher, post or otherwise provide to employees the latitude and 
longitude of the work site or other information that communicates the 
location of the worksite.
    OSHA has concluded that this requirement will result in annual 
costs of $32,440 until 2019, when the FCC expects enhanced 911 wireless 
services to be universal, at which time these costs would disappear.
    OSHA calculated the burden hours and wage hour costs for employers 
to post the latitude and longitude of the work site location based on 
the number of new construction projects started in a given year. To 
estimate the number of project sites, OSHA reviewed the most

[[Page 21447]]

recent data provided by request from Dodge Data and Analytics.\18\ The 
Dodge data show a total of 891,712 new construction project starts in 
2016, of which 766,133 were residential buildings, 68,589 were non-
residential buildings, and 56,990 were non-buildings. Of the 766,133 
residential buildings, 735,745 were single-family homes, 9,084 were 
two-family houses, and 21,304 were apartments.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purpose of this section, in conformance with 
previous ICRs on this provision, OSHA deems the Dodge data to be the 
best source of information for new construction projects. This 
stands in contrast to U.S. Census construction data used later in 
the FEA in the context of Load Limit Posting provision because OSHA 
is interested in all construction projects started, but not 
necessarily completed, in a given year. While the Census 
construction data provides more detailed information on residential 
housing starts and completions, and total value of construction put 
in place, it does not provide information on the total number of 
construction projects started in a given year. No commenters 
questioned the use of either data series.
    \19\ Dodge defines single-family homes as single-family 
detached, stand-alone units. Single-family attached structures, 
including such buildings as condominiums and townhomes, are included 
in Dodge's multi-family category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA notes that more than one single-family home may be built at a 
project site. The agency determined that construction contractors build 
approximately one-half of single-family houses at single house project 
sites and the other half at project sites holding multiple single-
family homes. As a result, OSHA estimated the number of single-family 
homes completed at single house project sites in 2016 to be 367,873, 
and 183,936 to be the total of project sites holding two single family-
homes (one-half of single-family houses at single project sites: 
735,745/2 = 367,873; one-half of single-family homes at project sites 
holding two houses: 367,873/2 = 183,936). As shown below in Table IV-1, 
the total number of construction project sites covered by this 
provision is: 707,776.

  Table IV-1--Estimated Total Construction Sites in the United States,
                                  2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total number
                                                                of
                Type of construction site                  construction
                                                             projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Residential Buildings...............................          68,589
Non-Buildings Construction Projects.....................          56,990
Residential Buildings...................................         582,197
  One Single-Family Home Per Site.......................         367,873
  Multiple Single-Family Homes Per Site.................         183,936
  Multi-Family Residential Buildings....................          30,388
      Two-Family Houses.................................           9,084
      Apartments........................................          21,304
                                                         ---------------
    Total Construction Sites............................         707,776
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Safety, based on Dodge Data
  and Analytics, 2016.

    In the United States, when a 911 call is made from a traditional 
telephone or wireline, the call is routed to a Public Safety Answering 
Point (PSAP) that is responsible for assisting people in a particular 
geographic area or community. Depending on the type of 911 service 
available, the telephone number of the caller and the location or 
address of the emergency is either communicated by the caller to the 
emergency dispatcher (Basic 911); or automatically displayed to the 
dispatcher through the use of equipment and database information 
(Enhanced 911). According to a 2001 report produced by the RCN 
Commission and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 
entitled, Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, Accessibility 
and Future of America's 911 Service,\20\ wireline 911 coverage is 
available to 97.8 percent of the U.S. population; however only 93 
percent of all U.S. counties have either Basic or Enhanced wireline 911 
coverage while 7 percent of U.S. counties are without any 911 services. 
NENA reported that these areas without any wireline 911 coverage are 
primarily rural in character with sparse population and generally high 
poverty levels; as well as inclusive of Native American lands and 
military installations (NENA, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Report Card to the Nation (RCN)--An RCN Commission was 
formed by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) to review 
and grade the performance of 911. NENA serves its members and the 
greater public safety community as the only professional 
organization solely focused on 911 policy, technology, operations, 
and education issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 5, 2014, version of the Federal Communications 
Commission's (FCC) 911 Wireless Service Guide, it was estimated that 
about 70 percent of 911 calls were placed from wireless phones (FCC, 
2014). The FCC finds using wireless phones creates unique challenges 
for emergency response personnel because wireless or mobile phones are 
not associated with one fixed location or address. Although the 
location of the cell site closest to the 911 caller may provide a 
general indication of the caller's location, the FCC finds that the 
information is not always specific enough for rescue personnel to 
deliver assistance to the caller quickly (FCC, 2014). As a result, the 
FCC is now requiring wireless service carriers to implement its 
wireless Enhanced 911 program which will provide 911 dispatchers with 
additional information on wireless 911 calls. The FCC is allowing the 
implementation of its wireless Enhanced 911 program in two parts--Phase 
I and Phase II. Phase I requires carriers to provide the PSAP with the 
telephone number of the 911 wireless caller as well as the location of 
the cell site or base station transmitting the call. Phase II however, 
requires carriers to provide more precise information to the PSAP, such 
as the latitude and longitude of the caller whereby the accuracy of the 
geographical coordinates must be within 50 to 300 meters of the 
caller's location (FCC, 2014).
    With the implementation of the wireless Enhanced 911 program, the 
total number of U.S. counties with 911 coverage has increased from 93 
percent to nearly 97 percent. As of August 2017, NENA reported a total 
number of 3,135 U.S. counties, which include parishes, independent 
cities, boroughs, and Census areas. Of these counties, 97.7 percent 
(3,063) are now capable of receiving some \21\ Phase I location 
information and 97.0 percent (3,041) are capable of receiving some 
Phase II. All wireless carriers, however, are expected to comply with 
Phase II of the FCCs requirements by 2019.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The term ``some,'' as defined by the National Emergency 
Number Association, means that some or all wireless carriers have 
implemented either Phase I or Phase II service in the County or the 
PSAPs. In order for any carrier to provide service, the County or 
PSAP must be capable of receiving the service. In most cases, all 
carriers are implemented in a County or PSAP, but one or more may be 
in the process of completing the implementation. See www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics (NENA, 2017).
    \22\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all 911 emergency calls made are routed to a PSAP or call 
center based on the geographic location in which the call was made, for 
the purpose of this analysis, OSHA is interested in those U.S. counties 
where Enhanced 911 is neither available by wireline nor wireless 
device. Using the data provided by NENA, OSHA estimates that of the 
3,135 recorded U.S. counties, 3 percent (87) have neither wireline nor 
wireless Enhanced 911 capabilities. By extension, for this analysis, 
OSHA further assumes that 3 percent of all construction project sites 
(21,233 of 707,776 construction project sites) are located within those 
counties without wireline and wireless Enhanced 911

[[Page 21448]]

capabilities and will therefore be covered by this provision whereby 
employers must either post the latitude and longitude of the work site 
or other location-identification information that effectively 
communicates the location of the work site to the 911 emergency medical 
service dispatcher. The agency believes this is likely an overestimate 
of the number of construction sites affected by this provision of the 
proposal, as construction activity will generally parallel population 
concentration. Enhanced cell service, in turn, is more concentrated 
around population centers. NENA estimates that 98.7 percent of the 
population now has Phase II wireless service; 99.0 percent of PSAPs 
have Phase II service. The agency, however, did not receive any 
comments on this aspect of analysis, nor for the distribution of 
wireline and wireless service at construction sites.
    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee 
affected by this requirement 3 minutes (.05 hour) to obtain the 
latitude and longitude of worksite locations, write the information on 
material, and then to prominently post the information, as required by 
proposed Sec.  1926.50(f). The agency posited in the PEA that this 
would not pose an issue of technological feasibility as the information 
could be easily downloaded from the internet before the crew leaves for 
the site; in the large majority of cases this information should be 
also be available onsite via common applications for smartphones. This 
was not questioned in comments, and OSHA therefore retained this as its 
final assessment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2017 
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data indicate that the most 
common construction occupation is ``construction laborer.'' Partly for 
that reason, the agency believes this occupation is most representative 
of the workers actually posting the latitude and longitude load 
requirements at construction project sites. Consistent with that, OSHA, 
based on the OES data, estimates a wage of $18.70 per hour for the 
average affected construction worker (BLS, 2017). OSHA also estimated, 
based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data, that 
construction employers paid an additional 46 percent in employee 
benefits,\23\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour 
in 2017. In addition, this is estimated to save an additional $3.18 per 
hour in overhead costs.\24\ Therefore, the estimated annual burden 
hours and labor costs of this requirement are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ BLS, 2017. Employer costs for employee benefits (other than 
wage and salary) were estimated to be 31.70 percent of total 
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe 
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1 - percent of total compensation 
attributable to employee benefits, or 1/(1 - .317) = 1.4641. Total 
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying 
the base wages ($18.70) by the fringe benefits factor (1.4641).
    \24\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17% 
of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.

Burden hours: 21,233 construction project sites x .05 hour = 1,062 
hours
Cost: 1,062 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18 overhead) 
= $32,440

    Based on these limited costs, OSHA preliminarily determined that 
the provision would be economically feasible; OSHA received no comments 
to the contrary and retains this conclusion for the FEA. As noted 
previously, the task of communicating relevant site information to 
rescue services is gradually being made easier by the spread of 
advanced telecommunications technology, such that in the near future 
the existing burden should be eliminated. OSHA neither received any 
comments on its preliminary estimate, nor on how long the costs will 
likely remain in effect. Therefore it retains this estimate, updated to 
2017 dollars.
Permissible Exposure Limits Table
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, 29 CFR 1926.55--Gases, 
Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists--is the Construction counterpart to 29 
CFR 1910.1000--Air Contaminants, which enumerates hundreds of 
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) in its Z tables. Because 29 CFR 
1926.55 is not as clear as its General Industry counterpart, OSHA is 
updating Sec.  1926.55(a) and appendix A (now Tables 1 and 2) to help 
clarify the construction PELs. These updates will: (1) Change the term 
``Threshold Limit Values'' to ``Permissible Exposure Limits;'' (2) 
eliminate language that sounds advisory; (3) eliminate confusing 
language; (4) divide appendix A into Tables 1 and 2; (5) correct 
several noted errors in appendix A; and (6) correct cross-references to 
the asbestos standard. OSHA deems these changes to be simple 
clarifications which will not change the substantive effect of this 
rule. OSHA did not receive any comments about any potential costs 
because of these changes and therefore concludes that these revisions 
will not result in changes to the cost or impact of 29 CFR 1926.55.
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
    OSHA is replacing the regulatory text of its Process Safety 
Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals construction regulation, 
Sec.  1926.64, with a cross-reference to the corresponding general 
industry regulation in 29 CFR 1910.119. The requirements applicable to 
construction work in 29 CFR 1926.64 are identical to those set forth in 
29 CFR 1910.119. This change will only serve to eliminate duplicative 
regulatory text and as such will present no additional compliance 
burden to employers. In the absence of public comment to the contrary, 
OSHA has determined that this cross-reference to an existing standard 
has no cost.
Lanyard/Lifeline Break Strength
    OSHA is lowering the minimum breaking strength requirement in Sec.  
1926.104--Safety Belts, Lifelines and Lanyards, paragraph (c), from 
5,400 pounds to 5,000 pounds, which is in better accord with market 
practice. 5,400-pound breaking strength is not generally offered on the 
market. This may have cost savings to the extent that some employers 
purchased lanyards/lifelines with much higher strength. As discussed in 
the Summary and Explanation of that section, the agency believes a 
5,000-pound requirement will still provide a more than sufficient 
safety factor. Because this change lowers the minimum requirement, 
employers will not be required to purchase new equipment. When 
employers do replace their equipment, they could continue to purchase 
lifelines with a breaking strength of 5,400 pounds, or with a breaking 
strength of 5,000 pounds. This revision also will bring Sec.  
1926.104(c) into conformance with the lanyard and lifeline breaking-
strength requirement in the Fall Protection standard, at Sec.  
1926.502(d)(9). As a result, OSHA preliminarily concluded that this 
change will not add any new compliance costs for employers and, 
receiving no comments to the contrary, believes this is descriptive of 
the final rule as well. To the extent this eliminates confusion by 
employers, this may provide some cost savings.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    Under 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades, 
OSHA requires that employers comply with the mandatory provisions of 
Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 
Currently, employers comply with Part 6 when they use one of two 
versions of MUCTD: The 1988

[[Page 21449]]

Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 MUTCD (``1988 Edition'') or the 
Millennium Edition, December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). Since 
OSHA's last published update to subpart G, requiring employers to 
follow one of the two MUTCD editions above, the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) has updated 23 CFR 655.601 through 655.603 to 
require adherence to the 2009 Edition, November 4, 2009, MUTCD (``2009 
Edition''). The agency is updating subpart G to require employers to 
follow the MUTCD 2009 Edition.
    23 CFR 655.603 states that the MUTCD is the national standard for 
all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or 
bicycle trail open to public travel. It also requires all States, 
within two years after a new national MUTCD edition is issued or any 
national MUTCD amendments are made, to adopt the new MUTCD in the 
State, adopt the national MUTCD with a State Supplement that is in 
substantial conformance with the new MUTCD, or adopt a State MUTCD that 
is in substantial conformance with the new MUTCD.
    Each State enacts its own laws regarding compliance with standards 
for traffic control devices in that State. If the State law has adopted 
a State Supplement or a State MUTCD that the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) has found to be in substantial conformance with 
the national MUTCD, then those State requirements are what the local 
road agencies (as well as the State DOT) must abide by. The exception 
is traffic control devices installed on a federally aided project, in 
which case 23 CFR 655.603(d)(2) specifically requires those devices to 
comply with the national MUTCD before the road can be opened or 
reopened to the public for unrestricted use.
    The agency believes any employer costs related to incorporating the 
updated MUCTD reference into subpart G are very limited because, first, 
the updated DOT rules are already currently in force for all public 
roads. Second, even in the limited circumstances of construction on 
private roads, the MUCTD rules are already likely followed. Finally, 
the changes from the prior editions are minor and could easily be 
outweighed by eliminating the burden created by having conflicting DOT 
and OSHA requirements.
    Private roads open to public travel are now subject to the same 
traffic control standards as public streets and highways. However, the 
FHWA does not require State and/or local highway agencies to have 
specific authority or enforcement responsibility for traffic control 
devices on private roads to ensure compliance with the MUTCD. Owners or 
parties responsible for such private roads are encouraged to bring the 
traffic control devices into compliance with the MUTCD and other 
applicable State Manuals, and those who do not may find themselves 
exposed to increased tort liability. State and local jurisdictions can 
encourage MUTCD compliance on private roads by incorporating pertinent 
language into zoning requirements, building and occupancy permits, and 
similar controls that they exercise over private properties.
    As a practical matter, available data on private road construction 
indicate that it represents a very small portion of total road 
construction activity. Data from the Census Construction Spending 
Survey indicate that it represents less than 1 percent of all funds 
dedicated to highway and street construction (Census, 2014).\25\ This 
leaves a very limited scope of construction signage not already 
governed by the updated DOT rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Since private spending on Highway and Street construction 
is relatively small in comparison to other categories of spending, 
it does not appear as a separate item, but can be derived from 
subtracting Total Public Construction spending on Highway and Street 
construction from Total Construction spending on Highway and Street 
construction. 2013 data indicates private spending was well below 1 
percent of total spending in this category. This pattern was 
consistent at least as far back as 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all contractors engaged in construction of public roads are 
now required to follow the current MUTCD, only those firms that work 
exclusively on private roads would incur costs associated with this 
proposal. Contractors that work on both public and private roads should 
not see an increased burden because they would already need to be in 
compliance with the MUTCD to work on public roads. Considering that 
there is pressure, both from a regulatory and liability perspective, 
for firms that work exclusively on private roads to follow the MUTCD, 
OSHA believes the total number of these firms potentially incurring 
costs as a result of this proposal would be very small. OSHA received 
no comments on the number of contractors that work exclusively on 
private roads and are therefore not required to follow the MUTCD.
    For any firms not already complying with the updated MUTCD, the 
cost of compliance would be very limited. As explained in the Summary 
and Explanation, the revisions to the MUTCD make the document more user 
friendly and account for advances in technology. A comparison of the 
1998 and 2009 updates shows fewer and less burdensome new requirements, 
but more guidance and support material which makes the document easier 
to use. This change to the OSHA rule should decrease the burden on 
employers by eliminating confusion as to which edition they must comply 
with. It would also inform employers that compliance with DOT 
regulations will not run afoul of outdated OSHA regulations. Most of 
the new provisions provide more options to employers, which should 
either increase safety or reduce the burden to employers.
    Nonetheless, the agency has identified one \26\ proposed change in 
the 2009 Edition that could have a very small cost for those employers 
doing construction work exclusively on private roads that are not 
already following the updated MUTCD for these items. The change 
prohibits contractors from relying on hand-signs alone to control 
traffic. This burden would only apply to a subset of contractors that 
use flaggers to control traffic (as opposed to something like automated 
flagger-assistance devices) and choose to only use hand signals to 
accomplish this task. Each of these contractors would need to purchase 
at least one stop sign or flag. OSHA has determined that a flag would 
cost, on average, $8.23 each, dependent on size (ERG, 2015).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In the proposed rule OSHA mistakenly identified a second 
change in the 2009 Edition as a new requirement. The Agency stated 
that ``[o]ne change is a requirement to use a new symbol and 
additional sign for a shoulder drop-off'' (81 FR 68504, 68534). 
Neither the use of a shoulder drop-off sign nor an additional sign 
is required by the 2009 Edition under Section 6F.44.
    \27\ Inflated to 2017 dollars using GDP deflator (OSHA 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of signs or flags a contractor needs for these 
situations would presumably be dependent on the number of simultaneous 
projects that the road construction firm engages in during a typical 
season, or how large and complex such projects are. While smaller 
contractors may be more likely to engage solely in private road 
operations, larger, more complex projects demanding more equipment 
would almost certainly fall to larger contractors also employed in 
public road construction. Considering the very limited number of 
contractors and situations that would likely be impacted by this 
proposal, the agency believes that most of the potentially affected 
firms would not need more than a handful of either signs or flags.
    As indicated in the PEA, it is not clear whether any firm would 
incur new costs as a result of this update to the 2009 Edition, but as 
shown, any such costs would be very limited in nature and

[[Page 21450]]

would be an insignificant portion of a contractor's annual profit. OSHA 
therefore did not believe this change would have a significant impact 
to any firm or raise an issue of economic feasibility. The agency did 
not receive any comments to contradict this preliminary conclusion, and 
therefore believes it accurately describes the final rule.
Load Limit Posting
    OSHA is removing the load limit posting requirement for single-
family dwellings and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29 CFR 
1926.250--General Requirements for Storage, paragraph (a)(2). OSHA 
estimates that removing the requirement for employers to post maximum 
safe load limits of floors in storage areas when constructing single-
family dwellings or wood-framed multi-family structures will result in 
a cost savings to employers engaged in these construction activities of 
approximately $5,806,000.
    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee 
affected by this requirement 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to develop and 
post the currently required signs, assuming the information is readily 
available from current engineering estimates. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) 2017 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data 
(BLS, 2017) indicate that the most common construction occupation is 
``construction laborer.'' Partly for that reason, the agency believes 
this occupation is most representative of the workers actually posting 
the load limit requirement at such dwellings. Consistent with that, 
OSHA, based on the OES data, estimates a wage of $18.70 per hour for 
the average affected construction worker (BLS, 2017). OSHA also 
estimates that, based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation data, employers pay an additional 46 percent in employee 
benefits,\28\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour 
in 2017. This is estimated to save an additional $3.18 in hourly 
overhead costs.\29\ The resulting labor and overhead savings is $30.56 
per hour. According to the U.S. Census, in 2016 there were 738,000 
single-family houses and 11,000 wood-framed multi-family residential 
structures constructed (Census, 2016; pp. 213, 477).\30\ As was 
presented in the PEA, OSHA in this FEA estimates that, on average, each 
single-family house would have one relevant storage area per structure, 
producing one required posting. For the final rule, the definition of 
structures covered by the exemption has been expanded somewhat to 
include wood frame multi-family residential structures. Because such 
structures are more likely to have multiple storage areas, the agency 
estimates that on average they would need to have two required postings 
currently.\31\ Using this data, OSHA estimates that the yearly burden 
on employers affected by this proposed revision will be reduced by 
$7.64 per posting ($30.56/hour x 0.25 hours) for a total cost savings 
of $5,806,000 ($7.64 cost per posting x 738,000 single-family homes 
plus $7.64 x two postings x 11,000 multi-family structures) to the 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ BLS, 2018. Employer costs for employee benefits (other than 
wage and salary) were estimated to be 31.70 percent of total 
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe 
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1 - percent of total compensation 
attributable to employee benefits), or 1/(1 - .317) = 1.4641. Total 
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying 
the base wages ($18.70) by the fringe benefits factor (1.4641).
    \29\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17% 
of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.
    \30\ In the 911 Emergency Medical Services section of the FEA 
presented earlier, the Agency examined total construction starts, 
which were estimated using Dodge data. Included within that total 
were new home starts. However, as has historically been the case 
when examining the paperwork burden for 29 CFR 1926.250, the Agency 
is using U.S. Census data rather than the Dodge report. As 
referenced in the PEA, the Dodge report did not include a necessary 
distinction in the data on townhomes separate from condominiums; 
townhomes and condominiums were both grouped together in the Dodge 
report's multifamily category. Therefore, OSHA believes the data 
provided from the U.S. Census was the best available for analyzing 
the proposed update to 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2). While this element in 
the data was not essential for the FEA, due to a change of scope in 
the load limit exemption, the Agency is retaining its consistency 
with the data series used in the PEA. No commenters questioned the 
use of either data series.
    \31\ Since many multi-family structures have three or more 
levels and may span a considerable horizontal distance, this may 
represent a conservative estimate of the potential cost savings from 
reduced posting requirements per structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No public comments challenged OSHA's preliminary cost methodology. 
Therefore, based on the profile data described above, the final 
estimated burden hours and labor costs reduced by this requirement are:

Reduced burden hours: 760,000 total postings x .25 hours = 190,000 
hours
Reduced cost: 190,000 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18 
overhead) = $5,806,000
Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS)
    OSHA is amending the existing standards in 29 CFR part 1926, 
subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection 
(Sec. Sec.  1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003). The existing 
standards, which are based on consensus standards from 1970, are 
amended to remove the provisions that specify test procedures and 
performance requirements. The revised provisions will reference the 
1970 consensus standards for equipment manufactured prior to the 
effective date of this final rule. They also reference the most recent 
ISO standards: ISO 3471:2008, ISO 5700:2013 and ISO 27850:2013, for new 
equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final rule. It 
is OSHA's understanding that all industries affected by this change are 
already following the new ISO standards, and therefore has concluded 
that this change will not create any new costs for employers. OSHA 
received no comments that would rebut the agency's conclusion on 
current adherence to the ISO standards (and therefore the conclusion of 
no new costs) among the affected industries.
    The agency is also expanding the existing regulatory language of 
Sec. Sec.  1926.1000 and 1926.1001 to cover compactors and skid-steer 
loaders, as indicated previously by reserving existing Sec.  
1926.1000(a)(2). OSHA believes that this new equipment, as with the 
equipment currently covered by the existing standard, already adheres 
to the minimum performance criteria for ROPS as set forth in the recent 
ISO standards, and received no comment on it. OSHA concludes that this 
change will not add any new compliance cost to employers. OSHA received 
no comments on this issue.
Underground Construction--Diesel Engines
    Existing regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) requires 
that mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground comply with the 
Mine Safety Health Administration's (MSHA) provisions of 30 CFR part 
32. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it with updated 
provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, and 30 CFR 75.1909 Non-
permissible diesel-powered equipment; design and performance 
requirements; 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; 
electrical system design and performance requirements; and 75.1911 Fire 
suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel 
transportation units (61 FR 55411). In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067 
to allow engines that meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
requirements to be used as an alternative to seeking MSHA approval 
under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 5706). The agency proposes to update the 
regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) to cross-reference 
these updated provisions.
    These changes will allow employers who use diesel-powered engines 
on

[[Page 21451]]

mobile equipment in underground construction to (1) use current MSHA 
procedures to obtain approval plates to affix to the engines, or (2) 
meet or exceed the applicable EPA requirements listed at MSHA Table 
57.5067-1. Based on available information, OSHA has determined that 
currently manufactured equipment meets the requirements and is 
generally compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 
emission requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency therefore preliminarily 
concluded that all applicable new equipment currently available in the 
market meets the proposed requirements.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using equipment 
that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA requirements 
referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing existing equipment 
in use, the agency is allowing equipment purchased before the effective 
date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms of existing 
Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved by MSHA under 
30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent to such MSHA-
approved equipment). OSHA received no comment on the number of engines 
in use that meet the existing standard but will not meet the 
requirements of the new MSHA standard and whether continued use of such 
equipment presents a serious safety or health hazard. However, as 
discussed in the Summary and Explanation, commenters agreed the change 
was desirable. As further indicated in the discussion, the final rule 
has been refined to better reflect the technical needs of underground 
construction environments, at the suggestion of commenters. This change 
does not modify OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this provision, 
eliminating reference to obsolete MSHA standards, will not produce 
significant costs of compliance.
    In summary, because diesel equipment manufactured for underground 
construction apparently conforms with the newer MSHA standards, and 
because this rule does ``grandfather'' existing equipment, the agency 
believes employers will not have additional expenses in complying with 
the proposed change to the underground construction standard. OSHA 
received no comments on this conclusion and therefore the agency 
carries forward its preliminary assessment to this FEA.
Coke Oven Emissions
    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in 
construction. In the Summary and Explanation, the point was made that 
the provisions of this standard do not fit construction work. Therefore 
OSHA is deleting 29 CFR 1926.1129 (and the reference to it in 29 CFR 
1926.55).
    An interpretation letter to Mr. Mark D. Katz of the law firm Ulmer 
& Berne LLP from Assistant Secretary Charles Jeffress on June 22, 1999, 
stated that OSHA was removing 29 CFR 1926.1129 from OSHA's internet 
website and intended to delete it from Part 1926 Code of Federal 
Regulations. It also stated that OSHA would formally notify its field 
offices that Sec.  1926.1129 would not to be enforced.\32\ Since OSHA 
is not enforcing Sec.  1926.1129 and it has no applicability to 
construction, this change has no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretation, Coke 
Oven Emissions, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22754 (accessed 
November 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Social Security Number Collection Requirements From OSHA's 
Standards
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is deleting the 
requirements in its standards for employers to use social security 
numbers to identify employees in exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records. The agency believes that while this 
change will help employers to protect their employees from identity 
theft, it does not impose new costs upon employers. One anonymous 
commenter was concerned that removing social security numbers from all 
existing document would be expensive (OSHA-2012-0007-0647). However, 
the proposed and final changes do not require employers to delete 
social security numbers from existing records, nor do they prohibit 
employers from continuing to use them to identify employees; employers 
are simply no longer required to include employee social security 
numbers on the records. The agency believes that these changes have 
benefits to both employees and employers and cost savings, but OSHA has 
not quantified those benefits and savings for this analysis.
Summary of Costs
    Table IV-2 provides a brief summary of the cost savings and 
benefits that OSHA estimates will result from this rule. The expected 
total cost savings per year are approximately $6,066,000. Given that 
these are all annual cost savings, the final estimate is the same when 
discounted at either 3 or 7 percent. For the same reason, when the 
Department uses a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons 
under E.O. 13771, the annualized cost savings of the final rule are 
also $6,066,000 with 7 percent discounting. As indicated earlier, this 
final estimate includes an overhead factor in the labor costs. This is 
estimated to add an additional savings of $603,500, or 11.3%, on what 
would have been an estimated savings of $5,462,000.

                               Table IV-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Item                        Cost savings/benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
    Removes the load limit posting           $5,806,000.
     requirement for single family
     dwellings and wood-framed multi-family
     structures in Sec.   1926.250(a)(2).
    Removes the requirement for periodic     $292,500.
     CXR in Sec.  Sec.   1910.1029,
     1910.1045, and 1910.1018.
    Revises paragraph (f) in 29 CFR          -$32,440.
     1926.50--Medical Services and First
     Aid.
                                            ----------------------------
        Total..............................  $6,066,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Benefits:
    Adds cross-reference between Sec.  Sec.  Clarifies existing employer
       1904.5 and 1904.10(b)(6).              obligations regarding
                                              recording of hearing loss.
    Allows digital storage of chest          Brings standard up to date,
     roentgenograms in Sec.  Sec.             simplifies.
     1910.1029, 1910.1045, 1910.1018,
     1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101,
     1910.1027, and 1926.1127.
    Updates required pulmonary function      Brings OSHA standards up to
     testing requirements in Sec.             current technology and
     1910.1043.                               medical practices.

[[Page 21452]]

 
    Eliminates ``feral cats'' from           Eliminates the threat of
     definition of vermin in Sec.             unnecessary extermination.
     1926.250(b)(3).
    Clarifies language in Construction       Clarifies existing
     PELS, 29 CFR 1926.55.                    construction employer
                                              obligations regarding
                                              PELs.
    PSM cross-reference between Sec.  Sec.   Eliminates unneeded
      1926.64 and 1910.119.                   regulatory text.
    Lowering lanyard/lifeline break          Harmonizes with fall
     strength, Sec.   1926.104(c).            protection rule Sec.
                                              1926.502.
    Updates 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G, to  Harmonizes nationwide
     latest DOT MUTCD standards.              rules, greater safety,
                                              incidental costs.
    Updates Rollover Protective Structure    Harmonizes OSHA rule with
     rule (ROPS), 29 CFR part 1926, subpart   more recent consensus
     W.                                       standards.
    Update references in Underground         Simplifies/clarifies
     Construction--Diesel Engines, Sec.       employer obligations.
     1926.800(k)(10)(ii).
    Eliminates Coke Oven Emissions in        Eliminates unneeded
     Construction, Sec.   1926.1129.          regulatory text.
    Removal of Social Security Number        Provides greater privacy
     requirements.                            protection for employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis--Safety, 2018.

Technological Feasibility
    The purpose of the provisions in this standard is to reduce the 
burden on employers, or provide employers with compliance flexibility 
by removing or revising confusing, outdated, duplicative, or 
inconsistent requirements, while maintaining or enhancing the level of 
protection for employees. This standard deletes and revises a number of 
provisions in existing OSHA standards. In most instances, the agency 
chose to revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well as 
consistency, with standards more recently promulgated by the agency or 
current consensus standards. In other instances, the provisions revise 
standards to improve consistency with current technology or research, 
and to clarify OSHA's original intent. In all cases where a standard 
has been updated to provide new equipment requirements, there are 
products currently on the market that will satisfy the standard. The 
only requirement with significant costs requires posting the latitude 
and longitude in a prominent place. This is easily technologically 
feasible. Because of the reduction or removal of current requirements 
and because many of the updates reflect what is already practiced in 
the applicable industry, OSHA preliminarily concluded that the proposed 
rule would be technologically feasible. The agency received no comments 
to suggest otherwise, and retains that conclusion for the FEA.
Economic Feasibility
    OSHA concludes that the final provisions of this standards 
improvement action do not impose costs of any significance on 
employers, providing primarily cost savings, and therefore the agency 
concludes that this rule is economically feasible. The PEA had also 
preliminarily reached this conclusion with regard to the proposal. The 
only provision with significant costs requires approximately three 
minutes of time per establishment. Such a cost is obviously feasible. 
It is possible that a minimal number of construction projects will 
incur costs as a result the changes to MUTCD. However the costs per 
project will be minimal.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of this 
rule to determine whether these requirements would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 
has estimated annual costs of $32,440 and will lead to approximately 
$6.1 million per year in cost savings to regulated entities. Since the 
costs related to this rule (from posting location information in 
limited circumstances) and cost savings (primarily from no longer 
having to post load limit information in many situations) amount to a 
few dollars per construction project, and are widely dispersed 
geographically and throughout the industry, the agency believes this 
rule does not possess the potential to have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The agency therefore certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
References
BLS, 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment 
Survey. May 2017. Found at: www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. 
Accessed June 2018.
BLS, 2017a. Nonfatal occupational illnesses by major industry sector 
and category of illness, 2016. TABLE SNR07. Found at: www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm. October 31, 2017 version, accessed September 2018.
BLS, 2018. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Cost for Employee 
Compensation, December 2017. News Release June 8th 2018. Found at: 
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Accessed June 2018.
BLS, 2018a. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2017, Table 
SNR07. Found at: data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oes/current/oes299011.htm. March 30, 2018 version, accessed September 2018.
Census, 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, ``Characteristics of New Housing 
2016.'' Found at: www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2016.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
Census, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Spending Survey data, 
available from www.census.gov/econ/currentdata. Accessed September 
2016.
Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage Rates for 
Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June 
10, 2002 (document ID 2025). This analysis itself was based on a 
survey of several large chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden 
Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under 
the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for 
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.
Dodge Data and Analytics, data run, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, New York 
10121. May 2016.
ERG, 2015. Eastern Research Group, ``Supporting Information for 
Standard Improvement Project 4,'' September, 2015. Docket ID# OSHA-
2012-0007-0077.
ERG, 2017a. Eastern Research Group, ``Spirometry and Chest X-Ray 
Information for SIPS IV,'' December 2017.
ERG, 2017b. Eastern Research Group, ``SIPS 4 Medical Examination 
Calculations,'' Excel Workbook. July 2017.

[[Page 21453]]

FCC, 2014. Federal Communications Commission, ``911 Wireless 
Services Guide,'' December 2014.
NENA, 2001. RCN Commission and the National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA), ``Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, 
Accessibility and Future of America's 911 Service,'' September 2001. 
Found at: c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/collection/7F122EC0-BC5A-46DD-9A65-B39A035E87D5/NENA_Report_to_the_Nation_1.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
NENA, 2017. National Emergency Number Association, 911 Statistics, 
August 2017. www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics. Accessed November 
2017.
OSHA, 2012. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Standard 
Interpretations. Asbestos Standards. www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583. Accessed 
November 24, 2017.
OSHA, 2018. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ``SIPS 4 
Cost Benefits Estimates FEA,'' Excel Workbook.
OSHA, 2018a. Supporting Statement for the Information Collection 
Requirement on Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses (28 CFR part 1904), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Control No. 1218-0176, July 2018. Found at: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201807-1218-002.

V. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH 
Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) 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; 
authorized summary adoption of existing national consensus and 
established Federal standards within two years of the effective date of 
the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)); authorized promulgation of standards 
pursuant to notice and comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and required 
employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
    An occupational 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 and places of 
employment.'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially 
reduces or eliminates significant risk. In addition, it must be 
technologically and economically feasible, cost effective, and 
consistent with prior agency action, or a justified departure. A 
standard must be supported by substantial evidence, and be better able 
to effectuate the OSH Act's purposes than any national consensus 
standard it supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612-16616, March 30, 1993.)
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures 
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available 
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be 
expected to be developed. (See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. 
OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel 
Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI).)
    A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass 
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term 
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the 
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available 
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S. 
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994) (LOTO II). Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to 
include among a standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical 
testing, and other information-gathering and transmittal provisions. 
(29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)). OSHA safety standards also must be highly 
protective. (See 58 FR at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.) 
Finally, whenever practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of 
objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(5)).

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., include enhancing the quality and utility of information 
the Federal government requires and minimizing the paperwork and 
reporting burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions 
before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information 
(paperwork), including publishing a summary of the collection of 
information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of 
the information. PRA defines ``collection of information'' as ``the 
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 
disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or 
for an agency, regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). 
Under PRA, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA, and it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The public is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any 
other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of 
information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 
U.S.C. 3512).
    SIP-IV modifies twenty-five Information Collections currently 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA.

B. Solicitation of Comments

    The Department is submitting a series of Information Collection 
Requests (ICRs) to revise the collections in accordance to this Final 
Rule, as required by the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Some of these 
revisions will result in changes to the existing burden hour and/or 
cost estimates. Other revisions will be less significant and will not 
change the ICR burden hour and cost estimates.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Final Rule contains some revisions to existing standard 
provisions that are not collections of information. These revisions 
are not addressed in this preamble section. However other revisions 
will modify language contained in a currently OMB approved 
information collection (paperwork analysis), though they will not 
change burden hour or cost estimates. These information collections, 
referenced by OMB Control number, are included in this section since 
the Agency will prepare and submit an ICR to OMB to incorporate the 
revised language into the existing information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency solicited comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in the NPRM and did not receive any comments in 
response to the information collection requirements.

C. Revisions to the Collection of Information Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the 
following paragraphs provide information about the ICRs, including the 
changes in burden associated with the revisions to information 
collection requirements.
    1. Title: Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP-IV).
    2. Description of revisions to the ICRs: The SIP-IV Final Rule 
adds, removes, or revises collection of information requirements, as 
further explained in Table 1(a) that identifies those ICRs where the 
Final Rule changed burden hours and costs. For those ICRs, Table 1(b) 
itemizes the responses, frequencies,

[[Page 21454]]

time, burden hours, and cost as a result of the program change. Table 2 
identifies those ICRs where the Final Rule will add to or revise the 
text of standards, but do not result in a burden or cost change as 
result.

                        Table 1(a)--ICRs With Burden Hour Changes as a Result of the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  OMB control
                   ICR title                          No.                   Provisions being modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029)........       1218-0128  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                 employees. In addition, OSHA is adding the
                                                                 option of digital radiography to its existing
                                                                 standards because digital radiography systems
                                                                 are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-
                                                                 based systems in medical facilities.
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045)..............       1218-0126  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                 employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018)..........       1218-0104  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                 employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Construction Standards on Posting Emergency          1218-0093  OSHA is adding to 29 CFR 1926.50(f) a
 Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits (29                     requirement that when an employer uses a
 CFR 1926.50 and 29 CFR 1926.250).                               communication system for contacting 911
                                                                 services, if the communication system is in an
                                                                 area that does not automatically supply the
                                                                 caller's latitude and longitude to the 911
                                                                 dispatcher, the employer must post or otherwise
                                                                 provide to employees the latitude and longitude
                                                                 of the work site or other information that
                                                                 communicates the location of the worksite. In
                                                                 addition, OSHA is removing the load limit
                                                                 posting requirement for single family dwellings
                                                                 and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29
                                                                 CFR 1926.250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      Table 1(b)--Estimated Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Estimated cost
                                                                                                           Average time      Estimated       (capital-
ICR title and paragraph modified    OMB control      Number of       Number of    Frequency per response   per response    burden hour/    operation and
                                        No.         respondents      responses                                (hours)     program change   maintenance)
                                                                                                                                            change \34\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR            1218-0128           2,498           2,498  Annual................            1.42            -624       -$179,357
 1910.1029) (Sec.
 1910.1029(j)).
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045)       1218-0126             542             542  Annual................            1.25            -135         -38,916
 (Sec.   1910.1045(n)).
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR              1218-0104             589             589  Annual................            1.42            -148         -42,290
 1910.1018) (Sec.
 1910.1018(n)).
Construction Standard on Posting       1218-0093          21,233          21,233  Annual................             .05          +1,062    \36\ +27,761
 Emergency Telephone Numbers (29
 CFR 1926.50) \35\ (Sec.
 1926.50(f)).
Construction Standard on Floor         1218-0093         760,000         760,000  Annual................            0.25        -190,000          \37\ -
 Load Limits (29 CFR 1926.250)                                                                                                                 4,966,600
 (Sec.   1926.250(a)).
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total.................  ..............         784,862         784,862  ......................  ..............        -189,845      -5,199,402
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Totals in this column may vary slightly from those in the 
Final Economic Analysis (FEA) due to rounding in the FEA.
    \35\ Both 29 CFR 1926.50 and 1926.250 are covered by the same 
ICR, 1218-0093.
    \36\ This cost is under item 12 for posting emergency telephone 
numbers of the ICR, 1218-0093.
    \37\ This cost is under item 12 for posting floor load limits of 
the ICR, 1218-0093.

                                    Table 2--ICRs With No Burden Hour Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  OMB control
                   ICR title                          No.                   Provisions being modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos in General Industry (29 CFR                 1218-0133  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
 1910.1001).                                                     to its existing standards because digital
                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                 medical facilities.
Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)...       1218-0134  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                 medical facilities.
Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001)......       1218-0195  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                 medical facilities.
Cadmium in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1127)....       1218-0186  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                 medical facilities.

[[Page 21455]]

 
Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027)       1218-0185  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                 medical facilities.
Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043)................       1218-0061  OSHA is revising paragraph (h) and appendix D of
                                                                 its Cotton Dust standard. Many of the revisions
                                                                 are simply editorial, to clarify existing
                                                                 language, as well as to update outdated
                                                                 pulmonary function measurements. OSHA is also
                                                                 updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require a
                                                                 determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio, and the
                                                                 evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against
                                                                 the lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/
                                                                 ethnic group, by age, which is consistent with
                                                                 generally accepted practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule will also have an impact on the provisions in 
OSHA's standards that currently require employers to include employee 
Social Security Numbers (SSNs) on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records. As explained above in the Summary and 
Explanation of the Rule section (see Section III.B.17.), the agency 
previously considered stakeholder comments regarding the SSN collection 
requirements in OSHA's standards during the SIP II (70 FR 1112, January 
5, 2005) and Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285, March 25, 
2016) rulemakings. Eliminating SSN collection requirements from OSHA's 
standards will affect several of the ICRs covered under the PRA. Table 
3 shows the control number, title, and section modified for each of the 
ICRs that will be affected. The agency believes removing the SSNs will 
have no measureable impact on employer burden.

        Table 3--ICRs Affected by Social Security Number Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     OMB control No.                Title             Section modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-0202................  Hazardous Waste         1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A)
                            Operations and          ,
                            Emergency Response      1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A)
                            for General Industry    .
                            (29 CFR 1910.120) and
                            Construction (29 CFR
                            1926.65).
1218-0133................  Asbestos in General     1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F
                            Industry (29 CFR        ),
                            1910.1001).             1910.1001(m)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1001,
                                                    appendix D.
1218-0010................  Vinyl Chloride          1910.1017(m)(1).
                            Standard (29 CFR
                            1910.1017).
1218-0104................  Inorganic Arsenic (29   1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D
                            CFR 1910.1018).         ),
                                                    1910.1018(q)(2)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0092................  Lead Standard in        1910.1025(d)(5),
                            General Industry (29    1910.1025(n)(1)(ii)(
                            CFR 1910.1025).         D),
                                                    1910.1025(n)(2)(ii)(
                                                    A),
                                                    1910.1025(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1025,
                                                    appendix B.
1218-0252................  Hexavalent Chromium     1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F
                            Standards for General   ),
                            Industry (29 CFR        1910.1026(m)(4)(ii)(
                            1910.1026), Shipyard    A),
                            Employment (29 CFR      1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(
                            1915.1026), and         F),
                            Construction (29 CFR    1915.1026(k)(4)(ii)(
                            1926.1126).             A),
                                                    1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(
                                                    F),
                                                    1926.1126(k)(4)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0185................  Cadmium in General      1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B
                            Industry Standard (29   ),
                            CFR 1910.1027).         1910.1027(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1027,
                                                    appendix D.
1218-0129................  Benzene (29 CFR         1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D
                            1910.1028).             ),
                                                    1910.1028(k)(2)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0128................  Coke Oven Emissions     1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a)
                            (29 CFR 1910.1029).     ,
                                                    1910.1029(m)(2)(i)(a
                                                    ).
1218-0180................  Bloodborne Pathogens    1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A
                            Standard (29 CFR        ).
                            1910.1030).
1218-0061................  Cotton Dust (29 CFR     1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C
                            1910.1043).             ),
                                                    1910.1043(k)(2)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1043,
                                                    appendices B-I, B-
                                                    II, B-III.
1218-0101................  1,2-Dibromo-3-          1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d
                            Chloropropane (DBCP)    ),
                            Standard (29 CFR        1910.1044(p)(2)(ii)(
                            1910.1044).             a).
1218-0126................  Acrylonitrile Standard  1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D
                            (29 CFR 1910.1045).     ).
1218-0108................  Ethylene Oxide (EtO)    1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F
                            Standard (29 CFR        ),
                            1910.1047).             1910.1047(k)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0145................  Formaldehyde Standard   1910.1048(o)(1)(vi),
                            (29 CFR 1910.1048).     1910.1048(o)(3)(i),
                                                    1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(
                                                    D), 1910.1048,
                                                    appendix D.
1218-0184................  4,4'-                   1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D
                            Methylenedianiline      ),
                            (MDA) for General       1910.1050(n)(4)(ii)(
                            Industry (29 CFR        A),
                            1910.1050).             1910.1050(n)(5)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0170................  1,3-Butadiene Standard  1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F
                            (29 CFR 1910.1051).     ),
                                                    1910.1051(m)(4)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1051,
                                                    appendix F.
1218-0179................  Methylene Chloride (29  1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F
                            CFR 1910.1052).         ),
                                                    1910.1052(m)(2)(iii)
                                                    (C),
                                                    1910.1052(m)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1910.1051,
                                                    appendix B.
1218-0266................  Respirable Crystalline  1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G
                            Silica Standards for    ),
                            General Industry,       1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(
                            Shipyard Employment     A),
                            and Marine Terminals    1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(
                            (29 CFR 1910.1053)      G),
                            and Construction (29    1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(
                            CFR 1926.1153).         A).
1218-0195................  Asbestos in Shipyards   1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F
                            Standard (29 CFR        ),
                            1915.1001).             1915.1001(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1915.1001,
                                                    appendix D.
1218-0134................  Asbestos in             1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F
                            Construction (29 CFR    ),
                            1926.1101).             1926.1101(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A), 1926.1101,
                                                    appendix D.
1218-0186................  Cadmium in              1926.1127(d)(2)(iv),
                            Construction Standard   1926.1127(n)(1)(ii)(
                            (29 CFR 1926.1127).     B),
                                                    1926.1127(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                    A).
1218-0183................  4,4'-                   1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F),
                            Methylenedianiline      1926.60(o)(5)(ii)(A)
                            (MDA) in Construction   .
                            (29 CFR 1926.60).

[[Page 21456]]

 
1218-0189................  Lead in Construction    1926.62(d)(5),
                            Standard (29 CFR        1926.62(n)(1)(ii)(D)
                            1926.62).               ,
                                                    1926.62(n)(2)(ii)(A)
                                                    ,
                                                    1926.62(n)(3)(ii)(A)
                                                    , 1926.62, appendix
                                                    B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above-described changes, the agency made 
adjustments to some ICRs to reflect ongoing PRA interpretations that 
may result in a minor change to the burden hours and/or costs; these 
changes are not a result of this rulemaking. For example, the agency 
has determined that the requirement for employers to make records 
available upon request to the Assistant Secretary is no longer 
considered a collection of information. OSHA typically requests access 
to records during an inspection, and information collected by the 
agency during the investigation is not subject to the PRA under 5 CFR 
1320.4(a)(2). While NIOSH may use records collected from employers for 
research purposes, the agency does not anticipate that NIOSH will 
request employers to make available records during the approval period. 
Therefore, the burden for the employer to make this information 
available to NIOSH is zero where before the burden may have been one 
hour.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, 
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States 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. Executive Order 13132 provides for 
preemption of State law only with the express consent of Congress. 
Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that 
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and 
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that 
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State 
Plans'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards 
developed by State Plans must be at least as effective in providing 
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards.
    While OSHA drafted this rule to protect employees in every State, 
Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State Plans to develop and 
enforce their own standards, provided the requirements in these 
standards are at least as safe and healthful as the requirements 
specified in this final rule.
    In summary, this rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In 
States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from 
this final rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as 
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans, this final rule would not significantly limit State policy 
options.

VIII. State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, OSHA-approved State Plans must 
either amend their standards to be ``at least as effective as'' the new 
standard or amendment, or show that 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)). State Plan adoption must be 
completed within six months of the promulgation date of the final 
Federal rule. OSHA concludes that this final rule, by revising 
confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent standards, will 
increase the protection afforded to employees while reducing the 
compliance burden of employers. Therefore, within six months of the 
rule's promulgation date, State Plans must adopt amendments to their 
standards that are ``at least as effective,'' unless they demonstrate 
that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards 
are already ``at least as effective'' in protecting workers as this 
final rule.
    The 28 OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, 
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. The 
Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and the Virgin 
Islands State Plans cover state and local government employees only, 
while the rest cover the private sector and state and local government 
employees.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    OSHA reviewed this final rule 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 in section IV 
(``Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis'') of this document, the agency determined that this final 
rule has one revision with estimated annual new costs of $32,440 but 
all revisions would result in approximately $6.1 million per year in 
overall (net) cost savings to regulated entities.
    The agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments 
except in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved 
by the agency. Consequently, this rule does 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 final rule 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.

X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health

    OSHA must consult with the ACCSH whenever the agency proposes a 
rulemaking that involves the occupational safety and health of 
construction employees (29 CFR 1911.10, 1912.3). Accordingly, prior to 
the dates of meetings listed below, OSHA distributed to the ACCSH 
members for their review a copy of the proposed revisions that applied 
to construction, as well as a brief summary and explanation of these 
revisions. At the regular meetings on December 15-16, 2011; May 10-11, 
2012; November 29, 2012; March 18, 2013; May 23, 2013; August 22, 2013; 
May 7-8, 2014; December 3-4, 2014; and December 2, 2015, OSHA staff 
presented summaries of the material provided to ACCSH members earlier 
and responded to the members' questions. The ACCSH

[[Page 21457]]

subsequently recommended that OSHA publish the proposal.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1904

    Recordkeeping.

29 CFR Part 1910

    Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Pulmonary--
function testing, Social Security numbers on records.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Sanitation, 
Social Security numbers on records.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Airborne contaminants, Chest X-ray requirements, Coke oven 
emissions, Diesel equipment, Emergency services, Incorporation by 
reference, Lanyards, Load limits, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices (MUCTD), Personal protective equipment (PPE), Process safety 
management (PSM), Roll-over protective structures (ROPs), Social 
Security numbers on records.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation 
of this document pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part 
1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
________________________________
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated in the preamble of this final rule, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends 29 CFR parts 1904, 
1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:

PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND 
ILLNESSES

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1904 to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of 
Labor's Orders No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) and 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable, and 5 U.S.C. 553.

Subpart C--Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria

0
2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1904.10 to read as follows:

Sec.  1904.10  Recording criteria for cases involving occupational 
hearing loss.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) If a physician or other licensed health care professional 
determines the hearing loss is not work-related, do I still need to 
record the case? If a physician or other licensed health care 
professional determines, following the rules set out in Sec.  1904.5, 
that the hearing loss is not work-related or that occupational noise 
exposure did not significantly aggravate the hearing loss, you do not 
have to consider the case work-related or record the case on the OSHA 
300 Log.
* * * * *

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A--General

0
3. The authority citation for part 1910, subpart A, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 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), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable.
    Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8, and 1910.9 also issued under 29 
CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 
U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); 
Pub. L. 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) 
(58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).

0
4. Amend Sec.  1910.6 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (z) as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Old paragraph                                                                                                                                                                   New paragraph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) through (o).......................  (j) through (p).
(p) through (x).......................  (s) through (aa).
(y)...................................  (r).
(z)...................................  (bb).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
c. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (q).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  1910.6   Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this 
part and an official historic file of such changes are available for 
inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
889-5627).
    (3) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by 
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA 
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must 
be available to the public.
    (4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by 
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the 
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact 
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In 
addition, these standards are available for inspection at any Regional 
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or 
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). They are also available for inspection at 
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 
202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
    (i) The following material is available at the American Thoracic 
Society (ATS), 25 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004; website: 
www.atsjournals.org/.
    (1) Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S. 
Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of 
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159:179-187, 1999, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1910.1043(h).
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (q) The following material is available from the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des

[[Page 21458]]

Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 
799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.1001.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 1910, subpart Z, to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 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), or 5-2007 (72 
FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those 
substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and 
Z-3 of Sec.  1910.1000. The latter were issued under 29 U.S.C. 
655(a).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic 
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI) 
listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 
29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Public Law 106-430, 114 
Stat. 1901.
    Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.

0
6. Amend Sec.  1910.1001 by revising paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and 
(l)(3)(ii), the heading to Table 1, and appendices D and E and H, 
sections III and IV, to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and 
work history; a complete physical examination of all systems with 
emphasis on the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and 
digestive tract; completion of the respiratory disease standardized 
questionnaire in appendix D to this section, part 1; a 14- by 17-inch 
or other reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior 
chest X-ray; pulmonary function tests to include forced vital capacity 
(FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1); and 
any additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician. 
Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance 
with appendix E to this section.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance 
with the protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, 
except that the frequency of chest X-rays shall be conducted in 
accordance with Table 1 to this section, and the abbreviated 
standardized questionnaire contained in part 2 of appendix D to this 
section shall be administered to the employee.
    Table 1 to Sec.  1910.1001--Frequency of Chest X-ray
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21459]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.000

[[Page 21460]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.001

[[Page 21461]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.002

[[Page 21462]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.003

[[Page 21463]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.004

[[Page 21464]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.005

[[Page 21465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.006

[[Page 21466]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.007

[[Page 21467]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.008

[[Page 21468]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.009

[[Page 21469]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.010

[[Page 21470]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.011

[[Page 21471]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.012

[[Page 21472]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.013

[[Page 21473]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.014

[[Page 21474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.015

[[Page 21475]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.016

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

Appendix E to Sec.  1910.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
Mandatory

    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the 
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  1910.6), and recorded on a classification 
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a 
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1 
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to 
NIOSH.
    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board 
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with 
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall 
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO 
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for 
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the 
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete 
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for 
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International 
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be 
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and 
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed 
transparencies of images.
* * * * *

Appendix H to Sec.  1910.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for 
Asbestos Non-Mandatory

* * * * *

III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease

    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer 
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest 
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural 
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also 
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities). 
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, 
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer 
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus 
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to

[[Page 21476]]

be found among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an 
early age. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of 
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, 
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis 
worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of 
asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to 
asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities, 
end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of 
fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be 
observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease 
even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to 
be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death 
may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos 
has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, 
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed 
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's 
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as cancer, 
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some 
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may 
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos 
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure-related chronic 
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with 
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos 
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating 
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations. 
When an active employee has been identified as having been 
overexposed to asbestos, measures taken by the employer to eliminate 
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious 
long-term consequences.
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be 
performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a 
reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing 
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program, 
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine 
examination:
    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to 
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and 
digestive tract.
    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire 
contained in appendix D of this section.
    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and 
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's 
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one 
second (FEV1).
    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician 
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available 
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than 
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon 
termination of employment.
    The employer is required to provide the physician with the 
following information: A copy of the standard in this section 
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the 
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the 
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a 
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment 
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the 
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician. 
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the 
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties 
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the 
examining physician containing the results of the medical 
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has 
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended 
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective 
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by 
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any 
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further 
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal 
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos, 
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  1910.1018 by revising paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)(A) and 
(n)(3)(i) and (ii), appendix A, section VI, and appendix C, section I, 
to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with paragraphs 
(n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least annually.
    (ii) Whenever a covered employee has not taken the examinations 
specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this 
section within six (6) months preceding the termination of employment, 
the employer shall provide such examinations to the employee upon 
termination of employment.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1018--Inorganic Arsenic Substance Information 
Sheet

* * * * *

VI. Medical Examinations

    If your exposure to arsenic is over the Action Level (5 [mu]g/
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 (during initial examination only); 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 to Sec.  1910.1018--Medical Surveillance Guidelines

I. General

    Medical examinations are to be provided for all employees 
exposed to levels of inorganic arsenic above the action level (5 
[mu]g/m3) for at least 30 days per year (which would include among 
others, all employees, who work in regulated areas). Examinations 
are also to be provided to all employees who have had 10 years or 
more exposure above the action level for more than 30 days per year 
while working for the present or predecessor employer though they 
may no longer be exposed above the level.
    An initial medical examination is to be provided to all such 
employees by December 1, 1978. In addition, an initial medical 
examination is to be provided to all employees who are first 
assigned to areas in which worker exposure will probably exceed 5 
[mu]g/m3 (after August 1, 1978) at the time of initial assignment. 
In addition to its immediate diagnostic usefulness, the initial 
examination will provide a baseline for comparing future test 
results. The initial examination must include as a minimum the 
following elements:
    (1) A work and medical history, including a smoking history, and 
presence and degree of respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness, 
cough, sputum production, and wheezing;
    (2) A 14'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
    (3) A nasal and skin examination; and
    (4) Other examinations which the physician believes appropriate 
because of the employee's exposure to inorganic arsenic or because 
of required respirator use.

[[Page 21477]]

    Periodic examinations are also to be provided to the employees 
listed in the first paragraph of this section. The periodic 
examinations shall be given annually for those covered employees 45 
years of age or less with fewer than 10 years employment in areas 
where employee exposure exceeds the action level (5 [mu]g/m\3\). 
Periodic examinations need not include sputum cytology or chest X-
ray and only an updated medical history is required.
    Periodic examinations for other covered employees shall be 
provided every six (6) months. These examinations shall include all 
tests required in the initial examination, except the chest X-ray, 
and the medical history need only be updated.
    The examination contents are minimum requirements. Additional 
tests such as lateral and oblique X-rays or pulmonary function tests 
may be useful. For workers exposed to three arsenicals which are 
associated with lymphatic cancer, copper acetoarsenite, potassium 
arsenite, or sodium arsenite the examination should also include 
palpation of superficial lymph nodes and complete blood count.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  1910.1027 by revising paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) and 
appendix D to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1027  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the 
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining 
physician);
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21478]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.017

[[Page 21479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.018

[[Page 21480]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.019

[[Page 21481]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.020

[[Page 21482]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.021

[[Page 21483]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.022

[[Page 21484]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.023

[[Page 21485]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.024

[[Page 21486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.025

[[Page 21487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.026

[[Page 21488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.027

[[Page 21489]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.028

[[Page 21490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.029

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  1910.1029 by revising paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3), 
appendix A, section VI, and appendix B, section II(A), to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
    (3) Periodic examinations. (i) The employer shall provide the 
examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vi) 
of this section at least annually for employees covered under paragraph 
(j)(1)(i) of this section.
    (ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least 
annually for employees 45 years of age or older or with five (5) or 
more years employment in the regulated area.
    (iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 years of age or older or with 
five (5) or more years employment in a regulated area transfers or is 
transferred from employment in a regulated area, the employer must 
continue to provide the examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) 
and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least annually as long as 
that employee is employed by the same employer or a successor employer.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec.  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 initial 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. Periodic examinations shall include all 
tests required in the initial examination, except that (1) the x-ray 
is to be performed during initial examination only and (2) 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. 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.
* * * * *

Appendix B to Sec.  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 the standard in paragraph (j) of 
this section. 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'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized 
standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray reading, 
pulmonary function tests (FVC and FEV1), 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 (1) the x-ray is to be 
performed during initial examination only and (2) 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. 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.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  1910.1043 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (h)(3)(ii), and (n)(1) and 
appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III; and
0
b. Removing and reserving appendix C; and
0
c. Revising appendix D.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1043   Cotton dust.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A pulmonary function measurement, including forced vital 
capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second 
(FEV1), and determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio 
shall be made. FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC ratio 
values shall be compared to appropriate race/ethnicity-specific Lower 
Limit of Normal (LLN) values and predicted values published in 
Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S. 
Population, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 
159(1): 179-187, January 1999 (commonly known as the NHANES III 
reference data set) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1910.6). To 
obtain reference values for Asian-Americans, Spirometric Reference 
Values FEV1 and FVC predicted and LLN values for Caucasians 
shall be multiplied by 0.88 to adjust for ethnic differences. These 
determinations shall be made for each employee before the employee 
enters the workplace on the first day of the work week, preceded by at 
least 35 hours of no exposure to cotton dust. The tests shall be 
repeated during the shift, no less than 4 and no more than 10 hours 
after the beginning of the work shift; and, in any event, no more than 
one hour after cessation of exposure. Such exposure shall be typical of 
the employee's usual workplace exposure.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *

[[Page 21491]]

    (ii) Medical surveillance as required in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of 
this section shall be provided every six months for all employees in 
the following categories:
    (A) An FEV1 greater than the LLN, but with an 
FEV1 decrement of 5 percent or 200 ml. on a first working 
day;
    (B) An FEV1 of less than the LLN; or
    (C) Where, in the opinion of the physician, any significant change 
in questionnaire findings, pulmonary function results, or other 
diagnostic tests have occurred.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Appendices B and D of this section are incorporated as part of 
this section and the contents of these appendices are mandatory.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.030

[[Page 21493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.031

[[Page 21494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.032

[[Page 21495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.033

[[Page 21496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.034

[[Page 21497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.035

[[Page 21498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.036

[[Page 21499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.037

[[Page 21500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.038

[[Page 21501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.039

[[Page 21502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.040

[[Page 21503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.041

[[Page 21504]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.042

[[Page 21505]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.043

[[Page 21506]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.044

[[Page 21507]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.045

[[Page 21508]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.046

[[Page 21509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.047

[[Page 21510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.048

[[Page 21511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.049

[[Page 21512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.050

[[Page 21513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.051

[[Page 21514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.052

[[Page 21515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.053

[[Page 21516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.054

[[Page 21517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.055

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

Appendix C to Sec.  1910.1043 [Reserved]

Appendix D to Sec.  1910.1043--Pulmonary Function Standards for Cotton 
Dust Standard

    The spirometric measurements of pulmonary function shall conform 
to the following minimum standards, and these standards are not 
intended to preclude additional testing or alternate methods which 
can be determined to be superior.

I. Apparatus

    a. The instrument shall be accurate to within 50 
milliliters or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is 
greater.
    b. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 should be 
capable of measuring vital capacity from 0 to 7 liters BTPS
    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 should be capable of 
measuring vital capacity from 0 to 8 liters BTPS.
    c. The instrument shall have a low inertia and offer low 
resistance to airflow such that the resistance to airflow at 12 
liters per second must be less than 1.5 cm H2 O/(liter/
sec).
    d. The zero time point for the purpose of timing the 
FEV1 shall be determined by extrapolating the steepest 
portion of the volume time curve back to the maximal inspiration 
volume (1, 2, 3, 4) or by an equivalent method.
    e. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 that 
incorporate measurements of airflow to determine volume shall 
conform to the same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this 
section I when presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 12 
liters per second.
    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 that incorporate 
measurements of airflow to determine volume shall conform to the 
same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this section I when 
presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 14 liters per second.
    f. The instrument or user of the instrument must have a means of 
correcting volumes to body temperature saturated with water vapor 
(BTPS) under conditions of varying ambient spirometer temperatures 
and barometric pressures.
    g. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall 
provide a tracing or display of either flow versus volume or volume 
versus time during the entire forced expiration. A tracing or 
display is necessary to determine whether the patient has performed 
the test properly. The tracing must be stored and available for 
recall and must be of sufficient size that hand measurements may be 
made within the volume accuracy requirements of paragraph (a) of 
this section I. If a paper record is made it must have a paper speed 
of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of at least 10.0 mm of 
chart per liter of volume.
    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall provide during 
testing a paper tracing or real-time display of flow versus volume 
and volume versus time for the entire forced expiration. Such a 
tracing or display is necessary to determine whether the worker has 
performed the test properly. Flow-volume and volume-time curves must 
be stored and available for recall. Real-time displays shall have a 
volume scale of at least 5 mm/L, a time scale of at least 10 mm/s, 
and a flow scale of at least 2.5 mm/L/s, when both flow-volume and 
volume-time displays are visible. If hand measurements will be made, 
paper tracings must be of sufficient size to allow those 
measurements to be made within the volume accuracy requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section I. If a paper record is made it must 
have a paper speed of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of 
at least 10.0 mm of chart per liter of volume.
    h. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall be 
capable of accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and shall 
not stop accumulating volume before (i) the volume change for a 0.5-
second interval is less than 25 milliliters, or (ii) the flow is 
less than 50 milliliters per second for a 0.5 second interval.
    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall be capable of 
accumulating volume for a minimum of 15 seconds and shall not stop 
accumulating volume before the volume change for a 1-second interval 
is less than 25 milliliters.
    i. The forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume 
in 1 second (FEV1) measurements shall comply with the 
accuracy requirements stated in paragraph (a) of this section. That 
is, they should be accurately measured to within 50 ml 
or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is greater.
    j. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 must be 
capable of being calibrated in the field with respect to the 
FEV1 and FVC. This calibration of the FEV1 and 
FVC may be either directly or indirectly through volume and time 
base measurements. The volume calibration source should provide a 
volume displacement of at least 2 liters and should be accurate to 
within + or-30 milliliters.
    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 must be capable of 
having its calibration checked in the field and be recalibrated, if 
necessary, if the spirometer requires the technician to do so. The 
volume-calibration syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at 
least 3 liters and shall be accurate to within  0.5 
percent of 3 liters (15 milliliters).

II. Technique for Measurement of Forced Vital Capacity Maneuver

    a. Use of a nose clip is recommended but not required. The 
procedures shall be explained in simple terms to the worker who 
shall be instructed to loosen any tight clothing and stand in front 
of the apparatus. The worker may sit, but care should be taken on 
repeat testing that the same position be used and, if possible, the 
same spirometer. Particular attention shall be given to ensure that 
the chin is slightly elevated with the neck slightly extended. The 
worker shall be instructed to make a full inspiration from a normal 
breathing pattern and then blow into the apparatus, without 
interruption, as hard, fast, and completely as possible. At least 
three and no more than eight forced expirations shall be carried 
out. During the maneuvers, the worker shall be observed for 
compliance with instruction. The expirations shall be checked 
visually for technical acceptability and repeatability from flow-
volume or volume-time tracings or displays. The following efforts 
shall be judged technically unacceptable when the worker:

[[Page 21518]]

    1. Has not reached full inspiration preceding the forced 
expiration,
    2. Has not used maximal effort during the entire forced 
expiration,
    3. Has not tried to exhale continuously for at least 6 seconds 
and the volume-time curve shows no change in volume (<0.025 L) for 
at least one second,
    4. Has coughed in the first second or closed the glottis,
    5. Has an obstructed mouthpiece or a leak around the mouthpiece 
(obstruction due to tongue being placed in front of mouthpiece, 
false teeth falling in front of mouthpiece, etc.),
    6. Has an unsatisfactory start of expiration, one characterized 
by excessive hesitation (or false starts), and, therefore, not 
allowing back extrapolation of time 0 (extrapolated volume on the 
volume-time tracing must be less than 150 milliliters or 5 percent 
of the FVC, whichever is greater.), and
    7. Has an excessive variability between the acceptable curves. 
The difference between the two largest FVCs from the satisfactory 
tracings shall not exceed 150 milliliters and the difference between 
the two largest FEV1s of the satisfactory tracings shall 
not exceed 150 milliliters.
    b. Calibration checks of the volume accuracy of the instrument 
for recording FVC and FEV1 shall be performed daily or 
more frequently if specified by the spirometer manufacturer, using a 
3-liter syringe. Calibration checks to ensure that the spirometer is 
recording 3 liters of injected air to within 3.5 
percent, or 2.90 to 3.10 liters, shall be conducted. Calibration 
checks of flow-type spirometers shall include injection of 3 liters 
air over a range of speeds, with injection times of 0.5 second, 3 
seconds, and 6 or more seconds. Checks of volume-type spirometers 
shall include a single calibration check and a check to verify that 
the spirometer is not leaking more than 30 milliliters/minute air.

III. Interpretation of Spirogram

    a. The first step in evaluating a spirogram should be to 
determine whether or not the worker has performed the test properly 
or as described in section II of this appendix. From the three 
satisfactory tracings, the forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced 
expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) shall be measured 
and recorded. The largest observed FVC and largest observed 
FEV1 shall be used in the analysis regardless of the 
curve(s) on which they occur.
    b. [Reserved]

IV. Qualifications of Personnel Administering the Test

    Technicians who perform pulmonary function testing should have 
the basic knowledge required to produce meaningful results. Training 
consisting of approximately 16 hours of formal instruction should 
cover the following areas.
    a. Basic physiology of the forced vital-capacity maneuver and 
the determinants of airflow limitation, with emphasis on the 
relation to repeatability of results.
    b. Instrumentation requirements, including calibration check 
procedures, sources of error, and their correction.
    c. Performance of the testing including worker coaching, 
recognition of improperly performed maneuvers and corrective 
actions.
    d. Data quality with emphasis on repeatability.
    e. Actual use of the equipment under supervised conditions.
    f. Measurement of tracings and calculations of results.

0
11. Revise paragraphs (n)(2)(iii) and (n)(3)(i) and (ii) of Sec.  
1910.1045 to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1045   Acrylonitrile.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The employer shall provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section at least annually 
for all employees specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section.
    (ii) If an employee has not had the examination specified in 
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section within 6 months 
preceding termination of employment, the employer shall make such 
examination available to the employee prior to such termination.
* * * * *

0
12. Revise appendix D of Sec.  1910.1048 to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1048   Formaldehyde.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.056

[[Page 21520]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.057

[[Page 21521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.058

[[Page 21522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.059

[[Page 21523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.060

[[Page 21524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.061

[[Page 21525]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.062

[[Page 21526]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.063

[[Page 21527]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.064

0
13. Revise appendix F of Sec.  1910.1051 to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1051   1,3-Butadiene.

* * * * *

[[Page 21528]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.066

[[Page 21529]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.067

[[Page 21530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.068

[[Page 21531]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.069

[[Page 21532]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.070

[[Page 21533]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.071

[[Page 21534]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.072

[[Page 21535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.073

[[Page 21536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.074

[[Page 21537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.075

[[Page 21538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.077

[[Page 21539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.078

[[Page 21540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.079

[[Page 21541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.080

[[Page 21542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.081

[[Page 21543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.082

[[Page 21544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.083

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

0
14. Revise appendix B, section IV, of Sec.  1910.1052 to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1910.1052  Methylene chloride.

* * * * *

Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1052--Medical Surveillance for Methylene 
Chloride

* * * * *

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

    As discussed in sections II and III of this appendix, MC is 
classified as a suspect or potential human carcinogen. It is a 
central nervous system (CNS) depressant and a skin, eye and 
respiratory tract irritant. At extremely high concentrations, MC has 
caused liver damage in animals. MC principally affects the CNS, 
where it acts as a narcotic. The observation of the symptoms 
characteristic of CNS depression, along with a physical examination, 
provides the best detection of early neurological disorders. Since 
exposure to MC also increases the carboxyhemoglobin level in the 
blood, ambient carbon monoxide levels would have an additive effect 
on that carboxyhemoglobin level. Based on such information, a 
periodic post-shift carboxyhemoglobin test as an index of the 
presence of carbon monoxide in the blood is recommended, but not 
required, for medical surveillance.
    Based on the animal evidence and three epidemiologic studies 
previously mentioned, OSHA concludes that MC is a suspect human 
carcinogen. The medical surveillance program is designed to observe 
exposed workers on a regular basis. While the medical surveillance 
program cannot detect MC-induced cancer at a preneoplastic stage, 
OSHA anticipates that, as in the past, early detection and 
treatments of cancers leading to enhanced survival rates will 
continue to evolve.

A. Medical and Occupational History

    The medical and occupational work history plays an important 
role in the initial evaluation of workers exposed to MC. It is 
therefore extremely important for the examining physician or other 
licensed health care professional to evaluate the MC-exposed worker 
carefully and completely and to focus the examination on MC's 
potentially associated health hazards. The medical evaluation must 
include an annual detailed work and medical history with special 
emphasis on cardiac history and neurological symptoms.
    An important goal of the medical history is to elicit 
information from the worker regarding potential signs or symptoms 
associated with increased levels of carboxyhemoglobin due to the 
presence of carbon monoxide in the blood. Physicians or other 
licensed health care professionals should ensure that the smoking 
history of all MC exposed employees is known. Exposure to MC may 
cause a significant increase in carboxyhemoglobin level in all 
exposed persons. However, smokers as well as workers with anemia or 
heart disease and those concurrently exposed to carbon monoxide are 
at especially high risk of toxic effects because of an already 
reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
    A comprehensive or interim medical and work history should also 
include occurrence of headache, dizziness, fatigue, chest pain, 
shortness of breath, pain in the limbs, and irritation of the skin 
and eyes.
    In addition, it is important for the physician or other licensed 
health care professional to become familiar with the operating 
conditions in which exposure to MC is likely to occur. The physician 
or other licensed health care professional also must become familiar 
with the signs and symptoms that may indicate that a worker is 
receiving otherwise unrecognized and exceptionally high exposure 
levels of MC.
    An example of a medical and work history that would satisfy the 
requirement for a comprehensive or interim work history is 
represented by the following:
    The following is a list of recommended questions and issues for 
the self-administered questionnaire for methylene chloride exposure.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.084

[[Page 21546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.085

[[Page 21547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.086

[[Page 21548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.087

[[Page 21549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.088

[[Page 21550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.089

[[Page 21551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.090

[[Page 21552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.091

[[Page 21553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.092

[[Page 21554]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.093

[[Page 21555]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.094

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
* * * * *

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD 
EMPLOYMENT

0
15. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 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 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, 
as applicable.
    Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR part 
1911.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
16. Amend Sec.  1915.5 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c).
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Old paragraph                        New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)(1)....................................  (d).
(d)(1)(i) through (xiii)..................  (d)(1) through (13).
(d)(1)(vi)(A) through (C).................  (d)(6)(i) through (iii).
(d)(1)(vii)(A) through (C)................  (d)(7)(i) through (iii).
(d)(1)(viii)(A) through (C)...............  (d)(8)(i) through (iii).
(d)(2)....................................  (e).
(d)(2)(i).................................  (e)(1).
(d)(3)....................................  (f).
(d)(3)(i).................................  (f)(1).
(d)(4)....................................  (i).
(d)(4)(i) through (xviii).................  (i)(1) though (18).
(d)(5)....................................  (g).
(d)(5)(i) and (ii)........................  (g)(1) and (2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (d) introductory text, removing 
``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph 
(d).''
0
d. Adding reserved paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2).
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing 
``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph 
(g).''
0
f. Adding paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  1915.5   Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by 
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA 
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must 
be available to the public.
    (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this 
part and an official historic file of such changes are available for 
inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
889-5627).
    (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by 
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the 
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact 
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In 
addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional 
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or 
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for 
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 
For information on the availability of these standards at NARA, 
telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
    (h) The following material is available from the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 
22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 
8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1915.1001.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Subpart F--General Working Conditions

0
17. Revise paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.80   Scope, application, definitions, and effective dates.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (33) Vermin. Insects, birds, rodents and other animals that may 
create safety and health hazards for employees.
* * * * *

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
18. Amend Sec.  1915.1001 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and 
appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV, to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.1001   Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other 
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the

[[Page 21556]]

physician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) 
and forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). 
Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance 
with appendix E to this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.095

[[Page 21558]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.096

[[Page 21559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.097

[[Page 21560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.098

[[Page 21561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.099

[[Page 21562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.100

[[Page 21563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.101

[[Page 21564]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.102

[[Page 21565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.103

[[Page 21566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.104

[[Page 21567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.105

[[Page 21568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.106

[[Page 21569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.107

[[Page 21570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.108

[[Page 21571]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.109

[[Page 21572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.110

[[Page 21573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.111

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

Appendix E to Sec.  1915.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays. 
Mandatory

    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the 
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  1915.5), and recorded on a classification 
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a 
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1 
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to 
NIOSH.
    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board 
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with 
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall 
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO 
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for 
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the 
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete 
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for 
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International 
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be 
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and 
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed 
transparencies of images.
* * * * *

Appendix I to Sec.  1915.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for 
Asbestos, Non-Mandatory

* * * * *

III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease

    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer 
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest 
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural 
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also 
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities). 
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, 
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer 
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus 
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found 
among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age. 
Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of 
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, 
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of

[[Page 21574]]

sickness. When the fibrosis worsens, shortness of breath occurs even 
at rest. The diagnosis of asbestosis is most commonly based on a 
history of exposure to asbestos, the presence of characteristic 
radiologic abnormalities, end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and 
other clinical features of fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques 
and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often 
a progressive disease even in the absence of continued exposure, 
although this appears to be a highly individualized characteristic. 
In severe cases, death may be caused by respiratory or cardiac 
failure.

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos 
have been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, 
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed 
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's 
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer, 
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some 
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may 
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos 
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic 
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with 
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos 
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating 
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations. 
When an active employee has been identified as having been 
overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate 
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious 
long-term consequences.
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limits (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air) for 30 or more days per year and for all 
employees who are assigned to wear a negative-pressure respirator. 
All examinations and procedures must be performed by or under the 
supervision of licensed physician at a reasonable time and place, 
and at no cost to the employee.
    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing 
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program, 
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine 
examination,
    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to 
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and 
digestive tract.
    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire 
contained in appendix D to this section.
    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and 
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's 
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one 
second (FEV1).
    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician 
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available 
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than 
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon 
termination of employment.
    The employer is required to provide the physician with the 
following information: A copy of the standard in this section 
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the 
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the 
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a 
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment 
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the 
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician. 
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the 
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties 
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the 
examining physician containing the results of the medical 
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has 
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended 
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective 
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by 
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any 
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further 
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal 
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos, 
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart A--General

0
19. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart A, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 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), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 
5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), 
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
20. Amend Sec.  1926.6 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g) through (ff) as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Old paragraphs                       New paragraphs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) and (h)...............................  (d) and (e).
(j).......................................  (g).
(k).......................................  (i).
(l).......................................  (h).
(m) through (p)...........................  (j) through (m).
(u) through (w)...........................  (n) through (p).
(x) and (y)...............................  (r) and (s).
(aa)......................................  (t).
(dd) and (ee).............................  (u) and (v).
(ff)......................................  (f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
c. Adding reserved paragraph (d)(2).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) and removing 
newly redesignated (f)(3) and (4).
0
e. Adding reserved paragraphs (i)(2), (l)(2), and (m)(2).
0
f. Revising newly designating paragraph (n).
0
g. Adding reserved paragraph (o)(2).
0
h. Adding paragraph (q).
0
i. Further redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (r)(1) through 
(3) as paragraphs (r)(4) through (6) and adding new paragraphs (r)(1) 
through (3).
0
j. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (t)(2) and (u).
0
k. Adding reserved paragraph (v)(2).
0
l. Removing reserved paragraphs (z), (bb), and (cc).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  1926.6  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 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.
    (b) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by 
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA 
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must 
be available to the public.
    (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by 
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the 
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact 
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In 
addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional 
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or 
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for 
inspection at the

[[Page 21575]]

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030, 
or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI B15.1-1953 (R1958), Safety Code for Mechanical Power-
Transmission Apparatus, revised 1958, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.300(b)(2).
    (2) ANSI B30.5-1968, Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes, 
approved Dec. 16, 1968, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(a).
* * * * *
    (n) The following material is available from the Federal Highway 
Administration, United States Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-366-4000; 
website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/:
    (1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways, 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May 
2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), (``MUTCD'') IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a).
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (q) The following material is available from the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 
22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 
8685; website://www.ilo.org/:
    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1101.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (r) * * *
    (1) ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective 
structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth 
Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c).
    (2) ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-
over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance 
conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1002(c).
    (3) ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and performance 
requirements, First Edition, May.01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1003(c).
* * * * *
    (t) * * *
    (2) PCSA Std. No. 2, Mobile Hydraulic Crane Standards, 1968 (``PCSA 
Std. No. 2 (1968)''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.602(b) and 
1926.1433(a).
* * * * *
    (u) The following material is available from the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 
15096; telephone: 1-877-606-7323; fax: 724-776-0790; website: 
www.sae.org/:
    (1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
    (2) SAE J166-1971, Trucks and Wagons, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (3) SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1003(b).
    (4) SAE J168, Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
    (5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access Systems for Off-Road 
Machines, reaffirmed May 2003 (``SAE J185 (May 1993)''), IBR approved 
for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (6) SAE J236-1971, Self-Propelled Graders, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (7) SAE J237-1971, Front End Loaders and Dozers, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (8) SAE J319b-1971, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (9) SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised 
July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1001(b).
    (10) SAE J321a-1970, Fenders for Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving 
Haulage Equipment, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (11) SAE J333a-1970, Operator Protection for Agricultural and Light 
Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (12) SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
    (13) SAE J386-1969, Seat Belts for Construction Equipment, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (14) SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-
Tired Dozers, approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (15) SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, 
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1001(b).
    (16) SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial 
change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (17) SAE J397, Critical Zone Characteristics and Dimensions for 
Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (18) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice Boom Cranes--Method of 
Test, revised Jun. 2003 (``SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)''), IBR approved for 
Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (19) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993), Cantilevered Boom Crane 
Structures--Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993 (``SAE J1063 (Nov. 
1993)''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
* * * * *

Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

0
21. Revise the authority citation for part 1926, subpart D, to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; and 
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), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR 
part 1911.
    Sections 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1926.62 also issued under sec. 1031, Public Law 102-550, 
106 Stat. 3672 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
    Section 1926.65 also issued under sec. 126, Public Law 99-499, 
100 Stat. 1614 (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note) and 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
22. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.50   Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *
    (f)(1) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are not 
available, the telephone numbers of the physicians, hospitals, or 
ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
    (2) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are available 
and an employer uses a communication system for contacting necessary 
emergency-medical service, the employer must:
    (i) Ensure that the communication system is effective in contacting 
the emergency-medical service; and
    (ii)(A) When using a communication system in an area that does not

[[Page 21576]]

automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude information to 
the 911 emergency dispatcher, the employer must post in a conspicuous 
location at the worksite either:
    (1) The latitude and longitude of the worksite; or
    (2) Other location-identification information that communicates 
effectively to employees the location of the worksite.
    (B) The requirement specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this 
section does not apply to worksites with readily available telephone 
land lines that have 911 emergency service that automatically 
identifies the location of the caller.
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  1926.55 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c);
0
b. Removing the heading for appendix A;
0
c. Designating the table entitled ``Threshold Limit Values of Airborne 
Contaminants for Construction'' as Table 1 to Sec.  1926.55 and 
revising the table heading;
0
d. In newly designated Table 1:
0
i. Revising the fourth and fifth column headings;
0
ii. Removing the entry for ``Asbestos; see 1926.58'' and adding in its 
place the entry ``Asbestos; see Sec.  1926.1101'';
0
iii. Removing the entry for ``Coke oven emissions; see Sec.  
1926.1129'';
0
iv. Removing the entry for ``Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos 
limit; see 1926.58'' and adding in its place the entry ``Talc 
(containing asbestos); use asbestos limit; see Sec.  1926.1101''; and
0
v. Removing the entry for ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see 1926.58'' and 
adding in its place the entry ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.  
1926.1101'';
0
e. Designating the table entitled ``Mineral Dusts'' as Table 2 to Sec.  
1926.55;
0
f. Following newly designated Table 2, removing the word ``Footnotes'' 
and adding in its place ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this 
section:'';
0
g. Revising footnotes 2 and 3;
0
h. Removing and reserving footnote 4;
0
i. Revising footnote 5 and the footnote designated by a single 
asterisk; and
0
j. Removing the footnote designated by double asterisks.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  1926.55  Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists.

    (a) Employers must limit an employee's exposure to any substance 
listed in Table 1 or 2 of this section in accordance with the 
following:
    (1) Substances with limits preceded by (C)--Ceiling Values. An 
employee's exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to 
any substance in Table 1 of this section with a permissible exposure 
limit preceded by (C) must at no time exceed the exposure limit 
specified for that substance. If instantaneous monitoring is not 
feasible, then the employer must assess the ceiling as a 15-minute 
time-weighted average exposure that the employer cannot exceed at any 
time during the working day.
    (2) Other substances--8-hour Time Weighted Averages. An employee's 
exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to any 
substance in Table 1 or 2 of this section with a permissible exposure 
limit not preceded by (C) must not exceed the limit specified for that 
substance measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average in any work 
shift.
* * * * *
    (c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to the 
exposure of employees to airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, 
or actinolite dust. Whenever any employee is exposed to airborne 
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, or actinolite dust, the 
requirements of Sec.  1926.1101 shall apply.
* * * * *

                Table 1 to Sec.   1926.55--Permissible Exposure Limits for Airborne Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Skin
                    Substance                       CAS No.\d\        ppm \a\        mg/m 3 b      designation *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Asbestos; see Sec.   1926.1101..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos limit;
 see Sec.   1926.1101...........................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.   1926.1101....
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\2\ See Table 2 of this section.
\3\ Use Asbestos Limit Sec.   1926.1101.
\4\ [Reserved]
\5\ See Table 2 of this section for the exposure limit for any operations or sectors where the exposure limit in
  Sec.   1926.1153 is stayed or is otherwise not in effect.
* An ``X'' designation in the ``Skin Designation'' column indicates that the substance is a dermal hazard.
\a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
\b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
  listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.
 * * * * * * *
\d\ The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on the substance name. For an entry covering
  more than one metal compound, measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS numbers
  for the individual compounds.

* * * * *

0
24. Revise Sec.  1926.64 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.64  Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.

    For requirements regarding the process safety management of highly 
hazardous chemicals as it pertains to construction work, follow the 
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.119.

[[Page 21577]]

Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment

0
25. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart E, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 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), 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 
1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
26. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.104 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.104  Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards.

* * * * *
    (c) Lifelines used on rock-scaling operations, or in areas where 
the lifeline may be subjected to cutting or abrasion, shall be a 
minimum of \7/8\-inch wire core manila rope. For all other lifeline 
applications, a minimum of \3/4\-inch manila or equivalent, with a 
minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds, shall be used.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades

0
27. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart G, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 333; 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), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; 
and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
28. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec.  1926.200 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.200   Accident prevention signs, devices, and tags.

* * * * *
    (g) Traffic control signs and devices. (1) At points of hazard, 
construction areas shall be posted with legible traffic control signs 
and protected by traffic control devices.
    (2) The design and use of all traffic control devices, including 
signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices, for protection 
of construction workers shall conform to Part 6 of the MUTCD 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
* * * * *

0
29. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.201 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.201   Signaling.

    (a) Flaggers. Signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers, 
including warning garments worn by flaggers, shall conform to Part 6 of 
the MUTCD (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
* * * * *

Sec.  1926.202  [Removed]

0
30. Remove Sec.  1926.202.

Sec.  1926.203   [Removed]

0
31. Remove Sec.  1926.203.

Subpart H--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal

0
32. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart H, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
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), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 
or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable. Section 1926.250 also issued 
under 29 CFR part 1911.

0
33. Revise paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  1926.250 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.250  General requirements for storage.

    (a) * * *
    (2)(i) The weight of stored materials on floors within buildings 
and structures shall not exceed maximum safe load limits.
    (ii) Employers shall conspicuously post maximum safe load limits of 
floors within buildings and structures, in pounds per square foot, in 
all storage areas, except when the storage area is on a floor or slab 
on grade. Posting is not required for storage areas in all single-
family residential structures and wood-framed multi-family residential 
structures.
* * * * *

Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and 
Compressed Air

0
34. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart S, continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Orders 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), 5-2007 (72 
FR 31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.

0
35. Revise paragraph (k)(10) of Sec.  1926.800 to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.800   Underground construction.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10)(i) Internal combustion engines, except diesel-powered engines 
on mobile equipment, are prohibited underground.
    (ii) Mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground in 
atmospheres other than gassy operations:
    (A) Shall comply with MSHA provisions in 30 CFR 57.5067; or
    (B) If purchased on or before July 15, 2019, may alternatively 
comply with MSHA provisions under 30 CFR part 32 (revised as of July 1, 
1996) (formerly Schedule 24), or be demonstrated by the employer to be 
fully equivalent to such MSHA-approved equipment, and be operated in 
accordance with that part.
    (iii) For purposes of this paragraph (k)(10), when an applicable 
MSHA provision uses the term ``mine,'' use the phrase ``underground 
construction site.'' (Each brake horsepower of a diesel engine requires 
at least 100 cubic feet (2.832 m\3\) of air per minute for suitable 
operation in addition to the air requirements for personnel. Some 
engines may require a greater amount of air to ensure that the 
allowable levels of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide 
are not exceeded.)
* * * * *

Subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection

0
36. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart W, is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
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), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable.

0
37. Amend Sec.  1926.1000 by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.1000   Scope.

    (a) Coverage. This subpart applies to the following types of 
material handling equipment: All rubber-tired, self-propelled scrapers, 
rubber-tired front-end loaders, rubber-tired dozers, wheel-type 
agricultural and industrial tractors, crawler tractors, crawler-type 
loaders, and motor graders, with or without attachments, that are used 
in construction work. This subpart also applies to compactors and 
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment, with or without attachments, 
manufactured after July 15, 2019, that are used in construction work. 
This subpart does not apply to sideboom pipelaying tractors.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. Material handling 
equipment described in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding 
compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment) manufactured before 
July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover protective

[[Page 21578]]

structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in 
Sec.  1926.1001(b), as applicable. Agricultural and industrial tractors 
used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective 
structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in 
Sec.  1926.1002(b), as applicable. When overhead protection is provided 
on agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall 
meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.  
1926.1003(b), as applicable.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. Material 
handling machinery described in paragraph (a) of this section 
manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover 
protective structures that meet the minimum performance standards 
prescribed in Sec.  1926.1001(c). Agricultural and industrial tractors 
used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective 
structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in 
Sec.  1926.1002(c). When overhead protection is provided on 
agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall 
meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.  
1926.1003(c).
* * * * *

0
38. Section 1926.1001 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.1001   Minimum performance criteria for rollover protective 
structures for designated scrapers, loaders, dozers, graders, crawler 
tractors, compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.

    (a) General. This section prescribes minimum performance criteria 
for roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers; rubber-tired front end loaders and rubber-tired 
dozers; crawler tractors and crawler-type loaders, motor graders, 
compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding compactors and 
rubber-tired skid steer equipment) manufactured before July 15, 2019, 
the protective frames shall conform to the following Society of 
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practices as applicable: SAE J320a, 
Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for 
Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers; SAE J394, Minimum Performance 
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End 
Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers; SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria 
for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-
Type Loaders; SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Motor Graders; and SAE J397, Critical Zone 
Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of Construction and 
Industrial Machinery, as applicable (each incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard (ISO 
3471:2008) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section manufactured on or after July 
15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the test and performance 
requirements of the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO) standard ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving Machinery--Roll-over 
protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).

0
39. Amend Sec.  1926.1002 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e) through (i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (j) as paragraph (e); and
0
d. Removing newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3) and paragraph (k).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  1926.1002   Protective frames (roll-over protective structures, 
known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used 
in construction.

    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for frames used 
to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors 
used in construction work that will minimize the possibility of 
operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal 
operation. See paragraph (e) of this section for definitions of 
agricultural and industrial tractors.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment 
manufactured before July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the 
test and performance requirements of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers Standard J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and 
Performance Requirements and J168, Protective enclosures-test 
procedures and performance requirements, as applicable (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard 
(ISO 5700:2013) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment 
manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall 
meet the test and performance requirements of the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 5700:2013, Tractors 
for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--static 
test method and acceptance conditions or ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving 
Machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and 
performance requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
    (d) Overhead protection requirements. For overhead protection 
requirements, see Sec.  1926.1003.
* * * * *

0
40. Section 1926.1003 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.1003   Overhead protection for operators of agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction.

    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for overhead 
protection used to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction work that will minimize the 
possibility of operator injury resulting from overhead objects such as 
flying or falling objection, and from the cover itself in the event of 
accidental upset.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. When overhead 
protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial 
tractors manufactured before July 15, 2019, the overhead protection 
shall be designed and installed according to the requirements contained 
in the test and performance requirements of Society of Automotive 
Engineers Standard J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements, which pertains to overhead 
protection requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6) 
or comply with the consensus standard (ISO 27850:2013) listed in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. When overhead 
protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial 
tractors manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the overhead 
protection shall be designed and installed according to the 
requirements contained in the test and performance requirements of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 
27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object 
protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements, 
which pertains to overhead protection requirements (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
    (d) Site clearing. In the case of machines to which Sec.  1926.604 
(relating to site clearing) also applies, the

[[Page 21579]]

overhead protection may be either the type of protection provided in 
Sec.  1926.604, or the type of protection provided by this section.

Appendix A to Subpart W of Part 1926 [Removed]

0
41. Remove appendix A to subpart W of part 1926.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
42. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart Z, is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
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 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR 
part 1911.
    Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
43. Amend Sec.  1926.1101 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and 
appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV(iii), to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.1101   Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other 
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the physician, and 
pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced 
expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). Classification of 
all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance with appendix E to 
this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 21580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.112

[[Page 21581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.113

[[Page 21582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.114

[[Page 21583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.115

[[Page 21584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.116

[[Page 21585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.117

[[Page 21586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.118

[[Page 21587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.119

[[Page 21588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.120

[[Page 21589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.121

[[Page 21590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.122

[[Page 21591]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.123

[[Page 21592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.124

[[Page 21593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.125

[[Page 21594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.126

[[Page 21595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.127

[[Page 21596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.128

[[Page 21597]]

Appendix E to Sec.  1926.1101--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
Mandatory

    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the 
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  1926.6), and recorded on a classification 
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a 
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1 
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to 
NIOSH.
    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board 
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with 
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall 
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO 
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for 
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the 
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete 
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for 
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International 
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be 
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and 
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed 
transparencies of images.
* * * * *

Appendix I to Sec.  1926.1101--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for 
Asbestos, Non-Mandatory

* * * * *

III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease

    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer 
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest 
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural 
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also 
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities). 
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, 
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer 
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus 
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found 
among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age. 
Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of 
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, 
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis 
worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of 
asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to 
asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities, 
end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of 
fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be 
observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease 
even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to 
be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death 
may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos 
has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, 
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed 
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's 
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer, 
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some 
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may 
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos 
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic 
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with 
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos 
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating 
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations. 
When an active employee has been identified as having been 
overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate 
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious 
long-term consequences.
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be 
performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a 
reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing 
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program, 
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine 
examination:
    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to 
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and 
digestive tract.
    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire 
contained in appendix D of this appendix.
    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and 
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's 
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one 
second (FEV1).
    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician 
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available 
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than 
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon 
termination of employment.
    The employer is required to provide the physician with the 
following information: A copy of the standard in this section 
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the 
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the 
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a 
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment 
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the 
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician. 
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the 
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties 
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the 
examining physician containing the results of the medical 
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has 
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended 
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective 
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by 
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any 
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further 
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal 
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos, 
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *

0
44. Revise paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of Sec.  1926.1127 to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1926.1127  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the 
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining 
physician);
* * * * *

Sec.  1926.1129   [Removed and Reserved]

0
45. Remove and reserve Sec.  1926.1129.

Sec. Sec.  1910.120, 1910.1001, 1910.1017, 1910.1018, 1910.1025, 
1910.1026, 1910.1027, 1910.1028, 1910.1029, 1910.1030, 1910.1043, 
1910.1044, 1910.1045, 1910.1047, 1910.1048, 1910.1050, 1910.1051, 
1910.1052, 1910.1053, 1915.1001, 1915.1026, 1926.60, 1926.62, 1926.65, 
1926.1101, 1926.1126, 1926.1127, and 1926.1153   [Amended]

0
46. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 29 CFR parts 
1910, 1915, and 1926, remove words and punctuation from the following 
sections as follows:

[[Page 21598]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Words and                              29 CFR
  punctuation to  ------------------------------------------------------
      remove           Part 1910          Part 1915         Part 1926
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and social         1910.120(f)(8)(ii  1915.1001(n)(3)(  1926.60(o)(5)(ii
 security number.   )(A),              ii)(A),           )(A),
                    1910.1001(m)(3)(   1915.1026(k)(4)   1926.62(d)(5),
                    ii)(A),            (ii)(A).          1926.62(n)(3)(i
                    1910.1017(m)(1),                     i)(A), 1926.62,
                    1910.1025(d)(5),                     app. B, Sec.
                    1910.1025(n)(3)(                     XII.,
                    ii)(A),                              1926.65(f)(8)(i
                    1910.1025, app.                      i)(A),
                    B, Sec. XII.,                        1926.1101(n)(3)
                    1910.1026(m)(4)(                     (ii)(A),
                    ii)(A),                              1926.1126(k)(4)
                    1910.1028(k)(2)(                     (ii)(A),
                    ii)(A),                              1926.1127(d)(2)
                    1910.1030(h)(1)(                     (iv),
                    ii)(A),                              1926.1153(j)(3)
                    1910.1043(k)(2)(                     (ii)(A).
                    ii)(A),
                    1910.1044(p)(2)(
                    ii)(a),
                    1910.1047(k)(3)(
                    ii)(A),
                    1910.1048(o)(3)(
                    i),
                    1910.1048(o)(4)(
                    ii)(D),
                    1910.1050(n)(5)(
                    ii)(A),
                    1910.1051(m)(4)(
                    ii)(A),
                    1910.1053(k)(3)(
                    ii)(A).
social security    1910.1043(k)(1)(i  ................  ................
 numbers,.          i)(C),
                    1910.1048(o)(1)(
                    vi).
social security    1910.1028(k)(1)(i  ................  ................
 number,.           i)(D),
                    1910.1050(n)(3)(
                    ii)(D),
                    1910.1052(m)(2)(
                    ii)(F),
                    1910.1052(m)(2)(
                    iii)(C).
, social security  1910.1001(m)(1)(i  ................  ................
 number.            i)(F),
                    1910.1047(k)(2)(
                    ii)(F),
                    1910.1050(n)(4)(
                    ii)(A),
                    1910.1051(m)(2)(
                    ii)(F),
                    1910.1052(m)(3)(
                    ii)(A).
, social security  1910.1018(q)(1)(i  1915.1001(n)(2)(  1926.60(o)(4)(ii
 number,.           i)(D),             ii)(F),           )(F),
                    1910.1018(q)(2)(   1915.1026(k)(1)   1926.62(n)(1)(i
                    ii)(A),            (ii)(F).          i)(D),
                    1910.1025(n)(1)(                     1926.62(n)(2)(i
                    ii)(D),                              i)(A),
                    1910.1025(n)(2)(                     1926.1101(n)(2)
                    ii)(A),                              (ii)(F),
                    1910.1026(m)(1)(                     1926.1126(k)(1)
                    ii)(F),                              (ii)(F),
                    1910.1027(n)(1)(                     1926.1127(n)(1)
                    ii)(B),                              (ii)(B),
                    1910.1027(n)(3)(                     1926.1127(n)(3)
                    ii)(A),                              (ii)(A),
                    1910.1029(m)(1)(                     1926.1153(j)(1)
                    i)(a),                               (ii)(G).
                    1910.1029(m)(2)(
                    i)(a),
                    1910.1044(p)(1)(
                    ii)(d),
                    1910.1045(q)(2)(
                    ii)(D),
                    1910.1053(k)(1)(
                    ii)(G).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-07902 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P