Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/12/21/E6-21799/standards-improvement-project-phase-iii
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 22:40:36
Document Index: 212290388

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091926', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091917', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', 'art 72', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091926', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091926', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', 'art 1915', 'art 1910', 'art 1917', 'art 1918', 'art 1926', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091926', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091915', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091910', '§\u20091926']

Federal Register :: Standards Improvement Project, Phase III
A Proposed Rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 12/21/2006
76623-76630 (8 pages)
E6-21799
A. Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Codes (§ 1910.35)
B. Subpart H—Hazardous Materials—Flammable and Combustible Liquids (§ 1910.106) and Spray Finishing Using Flammable or Combustible Materials (§ 1910.107)
C. Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment—General Requirements (§ 1910.132 and § 1915.152)
D. Respiratory Protection (§ 1910.134)
E. Subpart J—General Environmental Controls—Sanitation Standard (§ 1910.141)
F. Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (§ 1910.1003)
G. Lead (§ 1910.1025 and § 1926.62)
H. 1,3-Butadiene (§ 1910.1051)
I. Asbestos (§ 1915.1001)
a. Recordkeeping Requirements—Commercial Diving Operations (§ 1910.440)
b. Definitions (§§ 1917.2, 1918.2, and 1919.2)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E6-21799 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E6-21799
Start Further Info Start Printed Page 76624
B. Subpart H—Hazardous Materials—Flammable and Combustible Liquids (§ 1910.106) and Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (§ 1910.107)
C. Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment (§ 1910.132 and § 1915.152)
OSHA has identified numerous standards as potential candidates for improvement in SIPs III based on the Agency's review of its standards, suggestions and comments from the public, or recommendations from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB recommendations were based on comments they received on Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005).[1] Many commenters during the SIPs II Start Printed Page 76625rulemaking process applauded the SIPs process and OSHA for its “efforts to streamline and improve its health standards by removing or revising requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent” (Ex. 3-5, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-13 to Docket S-778A).
The preamble to OSHA's 2002 plain language update of Subpart E (67 FR 67949-67965) explains that OSHA declined to extend recognition to the building codes [2] at that time because there were three different model building codes used in the country. That situation has changed significantly. First, the three former building codes have evolved into a single code, the IBC. Secondly, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the egress provisions of the IBC and IFC, when applied together, offer employee protection equal to the Subpart E provisions.
On December 1, 2001, the National Marine Manufacturers Association petitioned OSHA to update § 1910.107 to reference portions of the 1995 edition of NFPA 33-Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials. This edition of NFPA 33 was the first to include a composites manufacturing chapter. This chapter includes less stringent provisions than previous editions of NFPA 33 that formed the basis for § 1910.107. These less stringent 1995 provisions presumed a lower degree of hazard in the process of composites spraying. Subsequently, OSHA staff witnessed field tests at the request of the industry to demonstrate the hazard level; these tests were inconclusive.
On June 17, 2004, ACMA testified on this issue to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Small Business Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Marine Manufacturers Association subsequently submitted a reform nomination [3] to OMB. Both the testimony and the reform nomination requested recognition of the more “current” NFPA 33 provisions, but did not request recognition of NFPA 30. The 2003 editions of NFPA 30 and 33 remain the most current, however, NFPA is in the process of revising both these standards, with the next anticipated editions being 2007.
OSHA is considering whether or not NFPA 30 and NFPA 33 are equivalent to the existing provisions in § 1910.106 and § 1910.107. As mentioned above, OSHA had attended a presentation to demonstrate that the new NFPA provisions were equivalent, however the demonstration did not prove to be conclusive. In addition, there is a lack of data that OSHA can rely on to draw conclusions. With this, OSHA cannot conclude at this time that NFPA 30 and NFPA 33 provide protection for employees equivalent to § 1910.106 and § 1910.107. OSHA hopes that commenters can provide data to help Start Printed Page 76626the Agency determine what course of action to take.
As mentioned above, OSHA intends to update its standards that reference outdated consensus standards. As part of that process, it is anticipated that § 1910.106 and § 1910.107 will be updated in their entirety sometime in the future. In this ANPRM, however, OSHA is exploring the idea of amending § 1910.106 and § 1910.107, at this time, to allow employers to comply with the 2003 editions of NFPA 30 and 33 until the more extensive revision is completed. Making this change now, as part of the SIPs III effort, would allow employers engaged in composites manufacturing operations to follow the newer provisions of the NFPA 33. However, the Agency is concerned that the new NFPA 33 may not provide employee protection equivalent to the existing standard. OSHA believes additional information regarding the equivalency of the employee protection afforded by the newer requirements for composite spraying is needed. While OSHA's de minimis policy would allow employers to comply with the more current versions of consensus standards applicable to their work, employers must be able to demonstrate that complying with the consensus standard is as protective as following the OSHA standard. In the case of composite sprayings, ACMA noted that they were aware of the de minimis policy but that, in their experience, they have had problems demonstrating that the newer standard provides equivalent protection. ACMA stated that “* * * some of our member companies have been able to successfully appeal citations to OSHA supervisors, but such appeals are time consuming and expensive, and are often intimidating to small business owners” [ACMA 2004 petition]. Updating the OSHA standard to reference the newer NFPA standards would eliminate any confusion or inconsistency as to the employer's obligation. OSHA is particularly interested in comment on the following:
4. Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 30 as protective or more protective of employees' safety and health than the equivalent provisions in § 1910.106? Should OSHA revise § 1910.106 to be consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific available information or data supporting your comments.
5. Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 33 as protective or more protective of employees' safety and health than the equivalent provisions in § 1910.107? Should OSHA revise § 1910.107 to be more consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific available information or data supporting your comments.
In 1994, OSHA revised the general industry safety standards regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) “to be more consistent with the current consensus regarding good industry practices, as reflected by the latest editions of the pertinent American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards” (59 FR 16334). The revision includes a requirement for employers to perform a hazard assessment that would provide the information necessary for the employer to select the appropriate PPE for employees and to verify compliance by way of a written certification. As part of this revision the Agency added paragraphs § 1910.132(d), (e), and (f) as well as non-mandatory appendices A and B to Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment. Appendix A contains a list of references and is provided for information purposes. Appendix B—Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection was added to the subpart to provide specific guidance to employers and employees regarding eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards.
The ship repair, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking (i.e. shipyards) standard requires a similar hazard assessment. The final rule for Shipyards § 1915.152, published in 1996 (61 FR 26321), revised the PPE section requiring employers to do a hazard assessment, equipment (PPE) selection, and to verify the required assessment through a “document,” rather than a certification as required for general industry employees in § 1910.132. The document must contain the date of the hazard assessment and the name of the person performing the hazard assessment. The comments from the Shipyard industry argued against a written certification, stating that it would create a burden. OSHA agreed and changed the word from “certification” to “document”, which OSHA judged to be an equally effective way to verify compliance.
OSHA is concerned that the hazard assessment provisions in § 1910.132(d) and § 1915.152 lack specific documentation of the hazard assessment required to be performed by the employer, and are thus not sufficiently protective of employees' safety and health. Currently, employers in both industries are not required to document or post the results of the hazard assessment. Employers are only required to include the name of the person certifying, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and in the General Industry standard § 1910.132, a statement that the document is a certification that the hazard assessment has been performed.
The Agency is interested in making the hazard assessment process more effective. One method the Agency is considering is to require employers to include the results of the hazard assessment (the hazards identified and the PPE needed to address those hazards) in a certification and to post the certification for review by employees. Another method being considered to increase effectiveness of the hazard assessment in § 1910.132 and § 1915.152 is to revise the respective Appendices and make them mandatory, adding a requirement to post the results of the assessment.
7. Would adding a posting requirement to § 1910.132 and § 1915.152 be more or less protective Start Printed Page 76627than the protection currently provided? Please provide any rationale or data to support your answer.
8. Are there other approaches to conducting hazard assessments for PPE that are more effective than Appendix B in § 1910.132 and Appendix A in § 1915.152?
The definition of potable drinking water in OSHA's current sanitation standard, § 1910.141, makes reference to U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards published in 42 CFR part 72. There are other agencies that have provisions relating to safe drinking water, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at Title 21 of the CFR, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at Title 40, specifically the Office of Water.
In 1996, OSHA consolidated 13 similar standards for regulating carcinogenic chemicals into a single standard, § 1910.1003 (See 61 FR 9228, March 7, 1996). OSHA did not intend to make substantive changes to any of the 13 standards under that action. Where language among the 13 standards differed, the Agency attempted to design the regulatory text of the single rule to maintain the same substantive requirements of each standard. Four of these 13 standards, covering employee exposures to methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-chloromethyl ether, ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone, had a provision in former paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of each standard that provided respirator requirements that differed from those provided in the other nine standards. Specifically, this provision required employers to ensure that employees involved in handling any of these four carcinogenic chemicals wear full-facepiece, supplied-air respirators of the continuous-flow or pressure-demand type rather than half-mask respirators permitted under the other nine standards. The Agency inadvertently omitted this provision from the consolidated standard, thereby appearing to change the respirator requirement for those four substances. That was not intended; therefore, OSHA is considering reinstating the former respirator-use requirement in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of § 1910.1003 for the four substances.
16. If OSHA reinstates the requirements for full-facepiece air-supplied respirators, does the respirator-use requirement conflict with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (§ 1910.134)?
In several provisions of the lead standards (§ 1910.1025 and § 1926.62), the airborne concentrations at which protective actions must occur vary slightly. A number of provisions in the lead standards trigger actions at airborne concentrations, which are “above the AL,” and “at or above the PEL.” The terminology in the lead standards for these airborne concentrations is inconsistent and can be confusing. For example, § 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii) currently states that “[t]he employer shall continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at least 7 days apart, are below the PEL but at or above the action level[.]” OSHA is considering revising this to state “[t]he employer shall continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at least 7 days apart, are at or below the PEL but at or above the action level[.]” [Emphasis added.]
§ 1910.1025 (Lead in General Industry):
(d)(6)(ii) “at or above the action level but below the permissible exposure limit” “at or above the action level but at or below the permissible exposure limit”
(d)(6)(iii) “are below the PEL but at or above the action level” “are at or below the PEL but at or above the action level”
(d)(8)(ii) “exceeds the permissible exposure limit” “is above the permissible exposure limit”
(j)(1)(i) “above the action level” “at or above the action level”
(j)(2)(ii) “exceeds the numerical criterion” “is at or above the numerical criterion”
(j)(2)(iv) “exceeds 40 μg/100 g” and “exceeds the numerical criterion” “is at or above 40 μg/100 g” and “is at or above the numerical criterion”
(k)(1)(i)(B) “at or below 40 μg/100 g” “below 40 μg/100 g”
(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) “at or below 40 μg/100 g” “below 40 μg/100 g”
§ 1926.62 (Lead in Construction):
(d)(8)(ii) “at or above the PEL” and “at or above that level” “above the PEL” and “above that level”
(j)(2)(iv)(B) “exceeds 40 μg/dl” “is at or above 40 μg/dl”
(k)(1)(iii)(A) (1) “at or below 40 μg/dl” “below 40 μg/dl”
Paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-butadiene standard (§ 1910.1051) for general industry requires employers to establish and maintain fit-testing records for employees who use respirators to reduce toxic exposures. However, paragraph (h)(2)(i) states that “employers must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with OSHA's respiratory-protection standard § 1910.134 (b) through (d) * * * and (f) through (m).” The requirements to establish and maintain fit-testing records specified in paragraph (m)(2) of the respiratory-protection standard are essentially the same as the applicable recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-butadiene standard.
The Agency inadvertently failed to delete the recordkeeping provision in the 1,3-butadiene standard when it replaced many of the respiratory-protection requirements of health standards with the reference to the respiratory-protection standard in § 1910.134 (see 63 FR 1293-1294). OSHA believes that having two similar recordkeeping provisions is redundant and confusing. Therefore, the Agency is considering removing paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-butadiene standard for general industry.
The introductory paragraph to OSHA's respiratory-protection standard (§ 1910.134) specifies that the standard applies to ship repair, shipbuilding, and ship breaking (i.e. shipyards) (Part 1915), general industry (Part 1910), marine terminals (Part 1917), longshoring (Part 1918), and construction (Part 1926). Three of these parts, general industry, shipyards, and construction, contain standards regulating employee exposure to asbestos, with each of these standards having a paragraph entitled “Respirator program.” These paragraphs specify the requirements for an employer's respirator program with respect to asbestos exposure. In the final rulemaking for the respiratory-protection standard, the Agency updated these paragraphs in the asbestos standards for general industry and construction [4] so that the program requirements would be consistent with the provisions of the newly revised respiratory-protection standard (see 63 FR 1285 and 1298). However, the Agency inadvertently omitted revising the respirator program requirements specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the asbestos standard for shipyards (§ 1915.1001). OSHA is considering correcting this oversight and revising paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the asbestos standard for shipyards to read the same as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for general industry (§ 1910.1001) and (h)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for construction (§ 1926.1101) which state “[t]he employer must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with § 1910.134 (b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).”
Similarly, the Agency is considering removing paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and the entirety of paragraph (h)(4) from the shipyard standard, which address filter changes, washing faces and facepieces to prevent skin irritation, and fit testing, respectively. OSHA believes this is appropriate because the continuing-use provisions specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) duplicate paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of the asbestos standard for shipyards. Also, the fit-testing requirements provided in paragraph (f) of the respiratory-protection standard either meet or exceed the provisions specified in (h)(4) of the shipyard asbestos standard except that the frequency of fit-testing is different. The current Shipyard asbestos standard at § 1915.1001 (4)(i) requires quantitative and qualitative fit-testing be performed initially and at least every six months thereafter. The Respirator standard at § 1910.134 (f)(2) requires employees wearing a tight-fitting respirator be fit-tested prior to initial use, whenever a different facepiece is used and at least annually thereafter.
By adding the reference to § 1910.134 (respirator standard) in § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the shipyard Start Printed Page 76629asbestos standard, OSHA would incorporate the fit testing requirements of § 1910.134(f), which include the requirement to use the OSHA-accepted qualitative fit testing and quantitative fit testing protocols and procedures contained in Appendix A. Accordingly, the fit testing requirements of § 1915.1001, Appendix C would be duplicative. Therefore, OSHA is considering deleting this Appendix.
25. Would revising § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) to be consistent with similar provisions in the asbestos standard for general industry and construction create additional compliance requirements?
The original Commercial Diving Operations standard included a requirement in paragraph § 1910.411 that employers provide medical exams to dive team members. This paragraph was removed by a 1979 court decision [Taylor Diving and Salvage vs. U.S. Department of Labor (599 F.2d 622)(5th Cir., 1979)]. However, the current standard still includes a reference to paragraph § 1910.411 in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 1910.440, which requires employers to keep dive team medical records for five years. Since there is no longer a requirement for team medical exams, the requirement to keep such records for five years makes no sense. Therefore, OSHA intends to propose removing paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 1910.440.
40. Are there any other standards that need to be changed to reduce or eliminate inconsistencies between standards? Start Printed Page 76630
1. To view the full Regulatory Reform report, please visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​inforeg/​reports/​manufacturing_​initiative.pdf.
3. In OMB's draft 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB requested public nominations of specific regulations, guidance documents and paperwork requirements that, if reformed, could result in lower costs, greater effectiveness, enhanced competitiveness, more regulatory certainty and increased flexibility. See Reference Number 153 addressing flammable liquids in the Regulatory Reform report at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​inforeg/​reports/​manufacturing_​initiative.pdf.
4. Paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for general industry (§ 1910.1001) and the asbestos standard for construction (§ 1926.1101), respectively, specify the provisions of the updated respiratory-protection standard that apply to employers covered by these standards.