Source: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/1998-11-09
Timestamp: 2019-06-18 19:02:38
Document Index: 533486131

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1926', 'art 1915', 'art 1926', 'art 1915', 'arts 1917', 'art 1915', 'art 1910', 'art 1926', 'ART 1926', 'ART 1926', 'art 1910', 'art 1910', 'ART 1910', 'ART 1926']

2211 Standards Advisory Committee on Metalworking Fluids (Reg Plan Seq. No. 73) 1218-AB58
2212 Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout)(Section 610 Review) 1218-AB59
2213 Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide (Section 610 Review) 1218-AB60
2214 Fall Protection in the Construction Industry 1218-AB62
2215 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals 1218-AB63
2216 Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction Industry -- Part II 1218-AB68
2217 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica (Reg Plan Seq. No. 74) 1218-AB70
2218 Grain Handling Facilities (Section 610 Review) 1218-AB73
2219 Cotton Dust (Section 610 Review) 1218-AB74
2220 Steel Erection (Part 1926) (Safety Protection for Ironworkers)(Reg Plan Seq. No. 75) 1218-AA65
2221 Access and Egress in Shipyards (Part 1915, Subpart E) (Phase I) (Shipyards: Emergency Exits and Aisles) 1218-AA70
2222 Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (Reg Plan Seq. No. 76) 1218-AB36
2223 Safety and Health Programs (for General Industry and the Maritime Industries) (Reg Plan Seq. No. 77) 1218-AB41
2224 Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium) 1218-AB45
2225 Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis (Reg Plan Seq. No. 78) 1218-AB46
2226 Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces 1218-AB47
2227 Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (Part 1915, Subpart P) (Phase II) (Shipyards: Fire Safety) 1218-AB51
2228 Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for Air Contaminants (Reg Plan Seq. No. 79) 1218-AB54
2229 Plain Language Revision of Existing Standards (Phase I) (Reg Plan Seq. No. 80) 1218-AB55
2230 Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories Programs: Fees 1218-AB57
2231 Flammable and Combustible Liquids 1218-AB61
2232 Revocation of Certification Records for Tests, Inspections, and Training 1218-AB65
2233 Plain Language Revision of the Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus Standard 1218-AB66
2234 Requirement To Pay for Personal Protective Equipment (Reg Plan Seq. No. 81) 1218-AB77
2235 Consolidation of Records Maintenance Requirements in OSHA Standards 1218-AB78
2236 Consultation Agreements 1218-AB79
2237 Respiratory Protection (Proper Use of Modern Respirators) 1218-AA05
2238 Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (Simplified Injury/ Illness Recordkeeping Requirements) (Reg Plan Seq. No. 82) 1218-AB24
2239 Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training (Industrial Truck Safety Training) 1218-AB33
2240 Permit Required Confined Spaces (General Industry: Preventing Suffocation/Explosions In Confined Spaces) 1218-AB52
2241 Longshoring and Marine Terminals (Parts 1917 and 1918) -- Reopening of the Record (Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs)) 1218-AA56
2242 Scaffolds in Shipyards (Part 1915 -- Subpart N) (Phase I) 1218-AA68
2243 Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyethanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, and Their Acetates: Protecting Reproductive Health 1218-AA84
2244 Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations (Part 1910) 1218-AB27
2245 Indoor Air Quality in the Workplace 1218-AB37
2246 General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment 1218-AB50
2247 Fire Brigades 1218-AB64
2248 Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment in the Construction Industry 1218-AB67
2249 Safety and Health Programs for Construction 1218-AB69
2250 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout) in Construction (Part 1926) (Preventing Construction Injuries/Fatalities; Lockout) 1218-AB71
2251 Occupational Exposure to Beryllium 1218-AB76
2252 Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems (1910) (Slips, Trips and Fall Prevention) 1218-AB80
2253 Standards Improvement Project 1218-AB53
73. STANDARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON METALWORKING FLUIDS
Statement of Need: Under Table Z-1 of the 1971 air contaminants rule, OSHA enforces a permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3 for mineral oil mists, but evidence suggests this level is outdated and that exposure to metalworking fluids can lead to cancer, non-malignant lung disease, and dermatitis. Giving a SAC the opportunity to examine and comment upon current studies and data concerning the risks associated with all metalworking fluid mixtures (straight oils, synthetic, and semisynthetic) will provide valuable information the Agency can use to develop a proposed rule for metalworking fluids or other appropriate response to hazards posed by occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. The SAC will also report on related issues such as fluid management, engineering controls, medical surveillance, and economic and technological feasibility.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Because the SAC is still considering the issues, the form of the Committee's recommendations is unknown at the present time. However, once the SAC report is written, OSHA will review it and determine how to proceed with a proposed rule and other actions to protect employees. Quantitative estimates of costs and benefits will be made only after the proposed rule has been drafted.
Complete Review 11/00/98
Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the ethylene oxide (ETO) standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review has considered the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, comments on the rule received from the public, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal, State or local regulations, and the degree to which technology, economic conditions or other factors may have changed since the rule was last evaluated. The Agency's findings with respect to this review will be published in a report available to the public in 1998.
ANPRM 01/00/99
NPRM Process Safety Management 00/00/00
Abstract: Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more that 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rock drillers and by recent studies that demonstrate a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among silica- exposed workers. In October 1996, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified crystalline silica as "carcinogenic to humans." Exposure studies indicate that some workers are still exposed to very high levels of silica. Although OSHA currently has a permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica (10mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2, respirable), more than 30 percent of OSHA- collected silica samples from 1982 through 1991 exceeded this limit. Additionally, recent studies suggest that the current OSHA standard is insufficient to protect against silicosis. For example, a recent study concluded that a 45-year exposure under the current OSHA standard would lead to a lifetime risk of silicosis of 35 percent to 47 percent. OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on crystalline silica because the agency has preliminarily concluded that there will be no significant progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases without the adoption of a full and comprehensive silica standard, including provisions for exposure monitoring, engineering and work practice controls, training and education, respiratory protection, and medical surveillance. A comprehensive standard will improve worker protection, ensure adequate prevention programs, and further reduce the incidence of silica-related diseases.
Statement of Need: The current OSHA permissible exposure limit for silica is 10mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (respirable) and 30 mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (total dust). In the interval since this limit was promulgated, there have been a number of studies of workers that have estimated that close to 50 percent of workers exposed to silica at the current limit for a 45-year working lifetime would develop silicosis, a disabling, progressive and sometimes fatal disease involving scarring of the lung, coughing, and shortness of breath. There are currently about 300 deaths reported per year from silicosis. However, the actual number of cases and the true risk is unknown due to inadequate case ascertainment, which means that the number of deaths is probably under-reported. Also, since the promulgation of OSHA's permissible exposure limit studies have demonstrated a statistically significant, dose-related increase in lung cancer in several occupational groups. Because of these recent findings, OSHA believes that it will be necessary to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the current permissible exposure limit is protective of worker health. OSHA also believes that, in addition to the permissible exposure limit, the ancillary provisions, such as engineering controls, provided by a comprehensive standard will be necessary to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development, and thus quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at this time.
Public Meeting 10/00/98
Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Acting Deputy Director, Directorate of Policy, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution[[Page 62007]]Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
2220. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS)
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 75 in Part II of this issue of the Federal Register.
75. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS)
Abstract: On December 29, 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its intention to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee to negotiate issues associated with a revision of the existing steel erection standard. The Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC), a 20-member committee, was established, and the SENRAC charter was signed by Secretary Reich on May 26, 1994 and was recently re-chartered for a 2-year period. The primary issues the committee negotiated include the need to expand the scope and application of the existing standard to include construction specifications and work practices, written construction safety erection plans, and fall protection. The Committee met 11 times over an 18-month period and completed work on the draft regulatory text for the proposed steel erection standard on December 1, 1995.
The process has led to a proposed revision to subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 that contains innovative provisions that will help to minimize the major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. Many of these provisions could not have been developed without this process, which has brought together industry and labor experts, via face-to-face negotiations, to discuss different approaches to resolving the issues. This process has proved mutually beneficial to all the parties involved (including OSHA), with each Committee member participating in resolving the issues and developing practical and effective rules to make the steel erection industry safer.
Statement of Need: In 1989, OSHA was petitioned by the Ironworkers Union and National Erectors Association to revise its construction safety standard for steel erection through the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA asked an independent consultant to review the issues involved in a steel erection revision, render an independent opinion, and recommend a course of action to revise the standard. The consultant recommended that OSHA address the issues through negotiated rulemaking. Based on the consultant's findings and the continued requests for negotiated rulemaking, OSHA decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop a proposed revision of subpart R. The use of negotiated rulemaking was thought to be the best approach to resolving steel erection safety issues, some of which have proven intractable in the past.
Alternatives: An alternative to using the negotiated rulemaking process is to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking developed by Agency staff and consider the concerns of the affected interests through the public comment and public hearing process. OSHA anticipated that this alternative would result in an extremely long and contentious rulemaking proceeding, with subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeals. Another alternative would be not to revise the Agency's current steel erection rules for construction. This alternative was rejected because it would permit steel erection-related injuries and fatalities to continue.
Public Hearing 12/00/98
Agency Contact: Russel B. Swanson
Room S1506, FP Building
Abstract: In the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate OSHA standards that applied to the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers have been subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards. This has resulted in inconsistent and contradictory requirements for essentially the same operations.
Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining subparts were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards.
Reopen Record 03/00/99
2222. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Regulatory Plan: This entry is Seq. No. 76 in Part II of this issue of the Federal Register.
76. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the increasing magnitude of the problem, a regulatory approach should be explored to ensure that the largest possible number of employers and employees become aware of the problems and ways of preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA has examined and analyzed the extensive scientific literature documenting the problem of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the causes of the problem, and effective solutions; conducted a telephone survey of over 3,000 establishments regarding their current practices to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders; and completed a number of site visits to facilities with existing programs. The Agency has also held numerous stakeholder meetings to solicit input from individuals regarding the possible contents of a standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach presentations to people who are interested in this subject and consulted professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on the options considered by the Agency. Information obtained from these activities is undergoing Agency review. Options for regulatory action are being developed.
Statement of Need: OSHA estimates that work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the United States account for over 600,000 injuries and illnesses (34 percent of all lost workdays reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)). These disorders now account for one out of every three dollars spent on workers' compensation. It is estimated that employers spend $20 billion a year on direct costs for MSD-related workers' compensation, and up to five times that much for indirect costs, such as those associated with hiring and training replacement workers. In addition to these monetary effects, MSDs often impose a substantial personal toll on affected workers who can no longer work or perform simple personal tasks like buttoning their clothes or brushing their hair.
The evidence OSHA has assembled and analyzed indicates that technologically and economically feasible measures are available to significantly reduce exposures to workplace risk factors and the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many companies that have voluntarily implemented ergonomics programs have demonstrated that effective ergonomic interventions are available to reduce MSDs. Many of these interventions are simple and inexpensive, but nevertheless have a significant effect on the occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Benefits include substantial savings in workers' compensation costs, increased productivity, and decreased turnover.
Risks:The data OSHA has obtained and analyzed indicate that employees are at a significant risk of developing or aggravating musculoskeletal disorders due to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. In addition, information from site visits, the scientific literature, the Agency's compliance experience, and other sources indicates that there are economically and technologically feasible means of addressing and reducing these risks to prevent the development or aggravation of such disorders, or to reduce their severity. These data and analyses will be presented in the preamble to any proposed standard published in the Federal Register.
Agency Contact: Adam Finkel Director, Health Standards Programs Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N3718, FP Building Washington, DC 20210
2223. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRIES)
77. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRIES)
Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many of the States, members of the safety and health community, insurance companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the Agency's Voluntary Protection Program, and many proactive employers in all industries have recognized the value of worksite-specific safety and health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. The effectiveness of these programs is seen most dramatically in the reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers implement such programs. To assist employers in establishing safety and health programs, OSHA in 1989 (54 FR 3904) published nonmandatory guidelines that were based on a distillation of the best safety and health management practices observed by OSHA in the years since the Agency was established. OSHA's decision to expand on these guidelines by developing a safety and health programs rule is based on the Agency's recognition that occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate; for example, an average of about 17 workers were killed each day in 1997 in occupational fatalities.
Statement of Need: Worksite-specific safety and health programs are increasingly being recognized as the most effective way of reducing job-related accidents, injuries, and illnesses. Many States have to date passed legislation and/or regulations mandating such programs for some or all employers, and insurance companies have also been encouraging their client companies to implement these programs, because the results they have achieved have been dramatic. In addition, all of the companies in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program have established such programs and are reporting injury and illness rates that are sometimes only 20 percent of the average for other establishments in their industry. Safety and health programs apparently achieve these results by actively engaging front-line employees, who are closest to operations in the workplace and have the highest stake in preventing job-related accidents, in the process of identifying and correcting occupational hazards. Finding and fixing workplace hazards is a cost-effective process, both in terms of the avoidance of pain and suffering and the prevention of the expenditure of large sums of money to pay for the direct and indirect costs of these injuries and illnesses. For example, many employers report that these programs return between $5 and $9 for every dollar invested in the program, and almost all employers with such programs experience substantial reductions in their workers' compensation premiums. OSHA believes that having employers evaluate the job-related safety and health hazards in their workplace and address any hazards identified before they cause occupational injuries, illnesses, or deaths is an excellent example of "regulating smarter," because all parties will benefit: workers will avoid the injuries and illnesses they are currently experiencing; employers will save substantial sums of money and increase their productivity and competitiveness; and OSHA's scarce resources will be leveraged as employers and employees join together to identify, correct, and prevent job-related safety and health hazards.
Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that employees in industries within OSHA's jurisdiction are at significant risk of injury, illness, and death as a result of their work and that the safety and health programs required by the rule are necessary and appropriate to reduce that risk.
Risks: Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. In 1996 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 6.2 million injuries and illnesses occurred within private industry, and in 1997, 6,218 workers lost their lives on the job. There is increasing evidence that addressing hazards in a piecemeal fashion, as employers tend to do in the absence of a comprehensive safety and health program, is considerably less effective in reducing accidents than a systematic approach. Dramatic evidence of the seriousness of this problem can be found in the staggering workers' compensation bill paid by America's employers and employees: approximately $54 billion annually. These risks can be reduced by the implementation of safety and health programs, as evidenced by the experience of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program participants, who regularly achieve injury and illness rates averaging one-fifth to one-third those of competing firms in their industries. Other benefits of reducing accidents include enhanced productivity, improved employee morale, and reduced absenteeism. Because these programs address all significant job-related hazards -- including those that are covered by OSHA standards as well as those not currently addressed by these standards -- the proposed rule will be effective in ensuring a systematic approach to the control of long-recognized hazards, such as lead, and emerging hazards, such as lasers and violence in the workplace.
Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent Acting Deputy Director Directorate of Policy Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N3641, FP Building Washington, DC 20210
2224. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)
Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This represents a significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general industry is found in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z and is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3 for "Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3)." These are measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of chromium in the compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3 of chromium (VI) measured and reported as chromium (VI). This ceiling limit applies to all forms of hexavalent chromium (VI) including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for chromium (VI) in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3.
NPRM 05/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End 08/00/99
2228. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
79. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
Abstract: OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. These PELs set OSHA- enforceable limits on the magnitude and duration of employee exposure to each contaminant. The amount of exposure permitted by a given PEL depends on the toxicity and other characteristics of the particular substance. OSHA's PELs for air contaminants are codified in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3. The air contaminant limits were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from existing national consensus standards issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the American National Standards Institute. These PELs, which have not been updated since 1971, thus reflect the results of research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, much new information has become available that indicates that, in most cases, these early limits are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct this situation, OSHA published a proposal in 1988 updating the air contaminant limits in general industry. That proposal became a final rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PELs for 212 toxic air contaminants and established PELs for 164 previously unregulated air contaminants. On June 12, 1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA proposed a rule that would have extended these limits to workplaces in the construction, maritime, and agriculture industries. However, on July 10, 1992, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 1989 final rule on the grounds that "(1) OSHA failed to establish that existing exposure limits in the workplace presented significant risk of material health impairment or that new standards eliminated or substantially lessened the risk; (2) OSHA did not meet its burden of establishing that its 428 new permissible exposure limits (PELs) were either economically or technologically feasible." The Court's decision to vacate the rule forced the Agency to return to the earlier, insufficiently protective limits.
Statement of Need: OSHA's current Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 contain approximately 470 PELs for various forms (e.g., dust, fumes, vapors) of the regulated contaminants, many of which are widely used in industrial settings. These PELs, which were adopted wholesale by OSHA in 1971 and have not been revised since then, often lead to adverse effects when workers are exposed to them. In addition, new chemicals are constantly being introduced into the working environment, and exposure to these substances can result in both acute and chronic health effects. Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular damage; chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. For these reasons, it is a high OSHA priority to establish an ongoing regular process that will allow OSHA routinely to update existing PELs and establish limits for previously unregulated substances. The first step in achieving this goal is to publish an air contaminants proposal for a number of substances that will establish streamlined but scientifically sound and defensible procedures for conducting risk assessments and performing feasibility analyses that will permit regular updating and review of permissible exposure limits for air contaminants. The ability to lower existing limits and establish limits for new contaminants is an essential component of OSHA's mandate to protect the health and functional well-being of America's workers.
NPRM 01/00/99
2229. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF EXISTING STANDARDS (PHASE I)
80. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF EXISTING STANDARDS (PHASE I)
Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its initial package of workplace safety and health standards in the 1970's. Section 6(a) of the Act directed OSHA to adopt nationally recognized consensus standards, developed by groups such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and existing Federal standards as OSHA standards without public participation or other public comment. Many of these standards have been identified by the regulated community as being overly complex, difficult to read and follow, and out of date with current technology.
This project is part of a Presidential initiative to respond to concerns about the complexity and obsolescence of certain Federal regulations. OSHA believes that some of the Agency's section 6(a) standards in subpart E and subpart H of part 1910 meet the criteria for critical review set forth in the Presidential initiative. OSHA is initiating two separate rulemakings that will revise two of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date section 6(a) standards. These specific standards address means of egress (exit routes) and spray finishing using flammable and combustible liquids. Section 1910.107 (spray finishing using flammable and combustible liquids) also contains substantive ventilation requirements that duplicate ventilation requirements contained in section 1910.94, paragraphs (c) and (d). The purpose of these rulemakings is to simplify and clarify these standards and to write them in "plain language," as directed by the President's report and the June 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language.
Statement of Need: These two OSHA standards are being revised as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor report of June 15, 1995 and in response to the June 1998 Executive Memorandum.
Exposure to flammable and combustible liquids during spray applications creates a variety of safety and health problems, including thermal burns, chemical burns, smoke inhalation, respiratory inflammations and infections, nausea, dizziness, including respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, decreases in pulmonary function, and other serious injuries and illnesses.
In case of an emergency, proper exit routes are needed both to protect employees from being trapped in hazardous work areas and to guide employees to safety.
Alternatives: OSHA has considered two alternatives to rewriting these rules in plain language: leaving the rules unchanged and initiating a comprehensive revision and updating of these rules. The first alternative has been rejected because it would leave these complex and specification-driven rules in place, a situation that has led to confusion and misinterpretations in the past. Carrying out the second alternative -- conducting comprehensive rulemaking -- would take many years, and would, again, allow the current situation to continue. The approach OSHA has taken -- conducting rulemaking for the limited but important purpose of rewriting these rules in plain language -- is the fastest and least resource-intensive approach to the problems presented by these rules.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Because these plain language revisions are not substantively changing these rules, no cost impacts will be associated with these revisions.
Hearing on Exit Route 04/29/97 62 FR 9402
NPRM Spray Finishing 11/00/98
Additional Information: Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910 subpart E, and Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 1910.107, are two standards selected for revision under a Presidential Initiative to revise outdated, duplicative, or obsolete Federal regulations. These standards will be rewritten in plain language to make them easier to read. 29 CFR 1910.94(c) will be combined with 29 CFR 1910.107 to eliminate duplicative standards. Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.106, has been moved to RIN 1218-AB61.
Agency Contact: John Martinok
NPRM 03/00/99
2233. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS STANDARD
Abstract: OSHA has identified one standard in part 1910 that needs to be revised as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor Report of June 15, 1995 and to respond to the President's June 1998 Executive Memo on Plain Language. This standard is 29 CFR 1910.219, Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus. OSHA intends to issue a plain language rule that will address the following: Mechanical power-transmission apparatus guarding and maintenance.
NPRM-Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus 09/00/99
2234. REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
81. REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Abstract: Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when necessary to protect employees from hazards which can cause them injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the abbreviation "PPE" to cover both personal protective equipment and other protective equipment. The Agency is proposing to revise its PPE standards to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE and under what circumstances. According to the proposal, employers would be required to provide all OSHA-required PPE at no cost to employees, with the following exceptions: the employer would not need to pay for safety-toe protective footwear or prescription safety eyewear if all three of the following conditions are met: (1) the employer permits such footwear or eyewear to be worn off the job-site; (2) the footwear or eyewear is not used in a manner that renders it unsafe for use off the job-site (for example, contaminated safety-toe footwear would not be permitted to be worn off a job-site); and (3) such footwear or eyewear is not designed for special use on the job. Employers are also not required to pay for the logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v).
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: At this stage of rulemaking, the Agency has not determined costs or benefits, and will not be able to do this until the language of the proposal is finalized.
2235. CONSOLIDATION OF RECORDS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IN OSHA STANDARDS
2236. CONSULTATION AGREEMENTS
2237. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (PROPER USE OF MODERN RESPIRATORS)
Final Assigned Protection Factors 07/00/99
2238. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)
82. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)
Abstract: OSHA requires employers to keep records of illness and injuries. These records are used by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), among others, to develop data on workplace safety and health by industry and across industries. Over the years, concerns about the reliability and utility of these data have been raised by Congress, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office, business and labor, as well as BLS and OSHA. In the late 1980's, OSHA contracted with the Keystone Center to bring together representatives of industry, labor, government, and academia in a year-long effort to discuss problems with OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping system. Keystone issued a report with specific recommendations on how to improve the system. In 1995, OSHA held several meetings with stakeholders from business, labor and government in order to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information.
All of these uses of the data are affected by the quality of the records employers maintain. Higher quality data lead to higher quality analyses, which in turn lead to better decisions about occupational safety and health matters. To improve the quality of the records and enhance the utility of the information for all the entities using the data, OSHA needs to provide clearer guidance to employers, simplify the recordkeeping forms, and provide employees with access to the information.
Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for issuance of this final rule is Section 8(c)(1) of the Act, which requires employers to record and report such records as are necessary for the enforcement of the Act and for developing information on the cases and prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses, as required by regulation, and section 24(a) of the Act, which requires OSHA to develop an effective program of occupational safety and health statistics to further the purposes of the Act.
Alternatives: One alternative to publication of a final rule is to take no action and continue to administer the injury and illness recordkeeping system using the current regulation, forms and guidelines. Another alternative is to revise the current rule to expand its coverage and scope (i.e., eliminate the current rule's small employer and Standard Industrial Classification exemptions).
The first alternative is unacceptable because it does not address the problems with the current system identified by participants in the Keystone dialogue and other OSHA stakeholders. The second alternative is also unacceptable because it would require many employers, especially small-business employers, in low hazard industries to keep OSHA injury and illness data. This could impose a substantial paperwork burden on those employers without commensurate benefit.
Risks: Benefits of the proposal would include: (a) a system that is more compatible with and easier for government and employers to use; (b) more reliable and useful records; (c) information for entire construction sites; and (d) greater employee involvement.
Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent
Room N3641, FP Building
2239. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCK OPERATOR TRAINING (INDUSTRIAL TRUCK SAFETY TRAINING)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1915.120; 29 CFR 1917.1; 29 CFR 1918.1; 29 CFR 1910.16
The present standard has proven to be ineffective in reducing the number of accidents involving powered industrial trucks. As a result, there has been strong interest that OSHA issue a new standard to more effectively address this hazard. OSHA has revised the present standard to increase its effectiveness by requiring, in performance language, initial and refresher training and evaluation as necessary. The frequency of the refresher training will be based upon the vehicle operator's knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the job safely. OSHA will also state what information the training should include. This rule will apply to general industry, the maritime industries and construction.
Final Action 11/00/98
2240. PERMIT REQUIRED CONFINED SPACES (GENERAL INDUSTRY: PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES)
Abstract: OSHA issued a final standard governing employee entry into confined spaces in general industry on January 14, 1993 (58 FR 4462). The standard was challenged by a number of parties including the United Steelworkers of America. OSHA reached a settlement agreement with the steelworkers in June 1994. As part of this settlement agreement, OSHA issued a proposal on November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60735), to clarify paragraph (k) of the rule, Rescue and Emergency Services. OSHA also proposed to allow more flexibility in the point of retrieval line attachment and asked whether the standard should provide affected employees or their representatives with the opportunity to observe the evaluation of confined spaces, including atmospheric testing, and to have access to evaluation results. Hearings were held September 27-28 1995. The post-hearing comment period ended on December 20, 1995. In February 1996, the record was closed. A final rule is expected in calendar year 1998.
Public Meeting Next Action Undetermined 01/27/98 62 FR 52671
2244. ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS (PART 1910)
NPRM 01/26/90 52 FR 2776
After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a proposed rule on April 5, 1994. The proposal would require employers to write and implement indoor air quality compliance plans that would include inspection and maintenance of current building ventilation systems to ensure they are functioning as designed. In buildings where smoking is allowed the proposal would require designated smoking areas that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted directly to the outside. Other proposed provisions would require employers to maintain healthy air quality during renovation, remodeling, and similar activities. The provisions for indoor air quality would apply to 70 million workers and more than 4.5 million nonindustrial indoor work environments, including schools and training centers, offices, commercial establishments, health care facilities, cafeterias and factory break rooms. ETS provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and nonindustrial work environments under OSHA's jurisdiction. OSHA preliminarily estimates that 5,583 to 32,502 cancer deaths and 97,700 to 577,818 coronary heart diseases related to occupational exposure to ETS will be prevented over the next 45 years. This represents 140 to 722 cancer deaths and 2,094 to 13,001 heart diseases each year. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the proposed standard will prevent 4.5 million air-quality related illnesses per year.
Record Closes 02/09/96
2246. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT
Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers have been subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards for landside operations. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six shipyard employment safety standards (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these Subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining subparts were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee, which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards.
The operations that are addressed in this particular rulemaking relate to housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. About 75,000 workers are exposed annually to these hazards.
2247. FIRE BRIGADES
Abstract: Firefighting exposes members of fire brigades to a significant risk of harm. To mitigate these risks, OSHA promulgated a standard for fire brigades in 1980. However, the standard is now more than 18 years old, and does not reflect current advances in technology and safety. This action would revise the existing fire brigade standard to reflect the latest technology in safety, particularly with respect to personal protective equipment and emergency procedures. It would also address gaps in coverage, since the existing fire brigade standard does not cover wildland fire fighting or crash-rescue type fire fighting. OSHA will be working closely with State Plan States to assess the potential impact of the proposed rule on municipal fire departments.
Email: martonik@dol.gov
2249. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
2250. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY (LOCKOUT) IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926) (PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION INJURIES/FATALITIES; LOCKOUT)
2252. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALL PREVENTION)
NPRM 04/10/99 55 FR 13360
Final Miscellaneous Minor & Technical Amendments 03/07/96 61 FR 9228
NPRM-Consolidation of Repetitive Provisions; Technical
Amendments 06/20/96 61 FR 31427
NPRM-Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry &
Final Longshoring 07/25/96 62 FR 40141
Final Action 06/18/98 63 FR 33450
Final Action Effective 08/17/98