[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66494-66517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27541]
[[Page 66493]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926
Standards Improvement Project-Phase II; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66494]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926
[Docket No. S-778-A]
RIN 1218-AB 81
Standards Improvement Project-Phase II
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'' or
``the Agency'') is continuing to remove and revise provisions of its
standards that are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent.
The Agency completed the first phase of this process with the
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register in June 1998. In
this second phase, OSHA is proposing to revise a number of health
provisions in its standards for general industry, shipyard employment,
and construction. The Agency believes that the proposed revisions would
streamline these provisions; in some cases, OSHA is making substantive
revisions to provisions that would reduce regulatory requirements for
employers while maintaining employee protection.
DATES: Submit written comments and any request for a hearing by
December 30, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of written comments to the Docket
Office, Docket No. S-778-A, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone:
(202) 693-2350). Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages
or less by fax to the Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
You may submit comments electronically through OSHA's Homepage at
http://www.osha.gov. Please note that you may not attach materials such
as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish
to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA
Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such
materials to the OSHA Docket Office, you must clearly identify your
electronic comments by name, date, and subject, so that we can attach
the materials to your electronic comments.
Send requests for a hearing to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone:
(202) 693-1999). Submit comments on the reduction of paperwork burden
described in section VII of this notice to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530
(Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone:
(202) 693-1999). For technical inquiries, contact Mr. Robert Manware,
Office of Physical Hazards, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone:
(202) 693-2299; fax: (202) 693-1678). For additional copies of this
Federal Register notice, contact the Office of Publications, Room N-
3101, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-1888). Electronic copies of
this Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant documents, are available at OSHA's website on the Internet at
http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 1995, the Agency identified a number of provisions in its
regulations and standards that were inconsistent, duplicative,
outdated, or in need of being rewritten in plain language. In 1998, as
part of the process of correcting such provisions, OSHA made several
substantive revisions to its health and safety standards that reduced
the regulatory obligations of employers while maintaining the safety
and health protection afforded to employees (63 FR 33450, June 18,
1998). During and after this rulemaking, the Agency identified several
other regulatory provisions in its safety and health standards
involving notification of use, frequency of exposure monitoring and
medical surveillance, and similar provisions that it believes are
unnecessary or ineffective in protecting employee safety and health.
Today, OSHA is proposing to make substantive revisions to a number of
the health standard provisions identified in this process.
The Agency plans to propose similar revisions to several of its
safety and other standards in a future Federal Register notice. In
addition, OSHA requests comments on possible similar revisions to
outdated provisions in safety or health standards which could be
included in the next or subsequent Standards Improvement proposal.
The Agency has made a preliminary finding that the revisions to the
health standards proposed herein would reduce the regulatory burden of
employers without reducing the health protection that these standards
currently provide to employees. OSHA also believes that the changes set
forth in this proposal would simplify and clarify the requirements of
these provisions, thereby facilitating employer compliance, improving
employee protection and reducing paperwork.
This notice-and-comment rulemaking is necessary because a number of
the proposed revisions are substantive. The Agency will base its final
decisions regarding these proposed revisions on the record developed in
this rulemaking through public comment.
This action will affect a number of standards included in Parts
1926 and 1915. In accordance with Agency procedures therefore, the
Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, and the Advisory
Committee on Maritime Safety and Health have been advised of the
standards which affect the construction and maritime industries. This
information was presented to the Construction Committee at their
meeting in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2000, and to the Maritime
Committee on December 6, 2000, in Baltimore, Maryland.
II. Summary and Explanation
The proposed revisions address: Methods of communicating illness
outbreaks (temporary labor camps standard (Sec. 1910.142)); first-aid
kits for the general industry (standards for medical services and first
aid (Sec. 1910.151) and telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268));
laboratory licensing (vinyl chloride standard (Sec. 1910.1017);
periodic exposure monitoring (vinyl chloride, 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec. 1910.1044), and acrylonitrile (Sec.
1910.1045) standards); reporting the use of alternative control methods
(asbestos standards for shipyards and construction (Sec. Sec.
1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively)); evaluating chest x-rays
(inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.1018 and 1910.1029, respectively)); signing medical opinions
(asbestos standards for general industry and the cadmium standards for
general industry and construction (Sec. Sec. 1910.1027 and 1926.1127,
respectively)); and semiannual medical examinations
[[Page 66495]]
(vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, and coke oven emissions standards).
Also included in the proposed revisions are requirements to notify
OSHA of certain events (13 carcinogens (Sec. 1910.1003), vinyl
chloride, inorganic arsenic, DBCP, and acrylonitrile standards);
semiannual updating of compliance plans (vinyl chloride, inorganic
arsenic, lead for general industry and construction (Sec. Sec.
1910.1025 and 1926.62, respectively), DBCP, and acrylonitrile
standards); and employee-notification requirements in general-industry
standards (asbestos, vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium,
benzene, coke oven emissions, cotton dust (Sec. 1910.1043), DBCP,
acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide (Sec. 1910.1047), formaldehyde (Sec.
1910.1048), methylenedianiline (Sec. 1910.1050), butadiene (Sec.
1910.1051), and methylene chloride (Sec. 1910.1052)), and construction
standards (methylenedianiline (Sec. 1910.1051), and methylene chloride
(Sec. 1910.1052)), and construction standards (methylenedianiline
(Sec. 1926.60), lead, asbestos, and cadmium). The Agency is also
seeking comment on the need to include social security numbers in the
exposure-monitoring and medical-surveillance records required by a
number of its substance-specific standards.
The Agency emphasizes that the scope of this rulemaking is limited
to revising provisions that are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, or
inconsistent with the provisions in other standards. In regard to the
last item, the Agency is specifically proposing to revise a number of
OSHA's older standards (vinyl chloride, acrylonitrile, coke ovens,
arsenic, DBCP) to be consistent with the frequencies of exposure
monitoring, medical surveillance, and compliance plan updates that are
required in the majority of more recently promulgated rules. Comment is
being solicited on whether it is appropriate to revise these older
standards to be consistent with the newer standards. The scope of the
rulemaking does not include a review of the appropriateness of the
frequencies in exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and
compliance plan updating that is required by the newer standards.
It should be noted that certain sections in 29 CFR part 1910 that
are being addressed in this document are incorporated by reference in
29 CFR parts 1915 and 1926. Thus, changes to those sections in part
1910 will also apply to parts 1915 and 1926.
A. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)
Paragraph (1)(2) of this standard requires camp superintendents to
report immediately to local health authorities ``by telegram or
telephone'' the outbreak of specific illnesses and medical conditions
among employees. OSHA believes that the requirement to use a telegram
or telephone to notify health authorities is too restrictive in this
age of computers and the internet, and that other forms of
communication should be permitted for this purpose. Thus, the Agency is
proposing to delete the requirement to use a telegram or telephone for
notification. However, OSHA is retaining the requirement that camp
superintendents immediately notify local health authorities of the
outbreak of any of the illnesses or medical conditions specified by
this provision.
B. Reference to First-Aid Supplies in Appendix A to the Standard on
Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
Paragraph (b) Sec. 1910.151, the Agency's standard regulating
medical services and first-aid supplies, requires employers to ensure
that ``[a]dequate first aid supplies shall be readily available [at the
workplace].'' To assist employers in meeting this requirement, OSHA
added a nonmandatory appendix to this standard. (63 FR 33450, June 18,
1998). This appendix refers to the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) consensus standard (ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum
requirements for industrial unit-type first aid kits'', referred to
hereafter as the ``1978 edition''), which specifies basic first-aid
supplies for the workplace. The Agency believes that this appendix
provides employers with helpful information they can use in selecting
first-aid supplies and containers that are appropriate to the medical
emergencies and environmental conditions that they may encounter in
their workplaces. In discussing the addition of Appendix A to this
standard, OSHA noted that ANSI was developing a new edition of this
consensus standard (63 FR 33461). The Agency then stated that, once
ANSI completed this project, it would propose revising Appendix A to
reference the new edition. However, OSHA stated that it would propose
such a revision only if it had first determined that ``the new edition
is as effective [in protecting employees] as the earlier edition,'' and
that it would also ``consider adding other consensus standards on first
aid kits as references to the Appendix.''
ANSI subsequently completed the new edition of the consensus
standard and published it as ANZI Z308.1-1998 (``Minimum requirements
for workplace first aid kits'', referred to hereafter as ``the 1998
edition''). In reviewing the 1998 edition, the Agency found that:
[sbull] Regarding container requirements, the 1998 edition permits
more compliance flexibility than the 1978 edition. For example, the
1998 edition identifies three types of first-aid containers, types I,
II, and III, designed for stationary indoor use, mobile indoor use, and
mobile outdoor use, respectively, while the 1978 edition includes only
two types of containers, (standard and special purpose, with special-
purpose containers designed for use under extreme conditions such as
example, corrosive, nonsparking, nonmagnetic, or dielectric conditions.
[sbull] Requirements for the three types of containers identified
in the 1998 edition are performance based, while the 1978 edition
provides extensive specifications for each type of container.
[sbull] Unlike the 1978 edition, the conditioning and drop-test
procedures described in the 1998 edition for types II and III
containers, and the procedures for testing type III containers for
corrosion and moisture resistance, specify the minimum number of
containers required for testing.
[sbull] The 1998 edition specifies that each type III container
subjected to drop testing must also undergo corrosion and moisture-
resistance testing to ensure the structural integrity of the container
under severe moisture conditions. The 1978 edition appears to allow
testing of different special-purpose containers under the drop- and
moisture-testing conditions.
[sbull] Corrosion and moisture-resistance testing of type III
containers under the 1998 edition requires exposure of the containers
to simulated salt spray for 20 days in accordance with the provisions
of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) consensus standard
B117 (``Operating salt spray (fog) operations''). The 1978 edition only
requires exposure of a special-purpose container to fresh water for 15
minutes.
[sbull] Regarding the content (fill items) of the containers, the
1998 edition provides a short list of basic items needed to disinfect
and cover wounds, including special items for treating burns. However,
the 1998 edition lists optional fill items for use if an employer
identifies workplace hazards that may inflict injuries not covered by
the basic fill items. The 1978 edition has a single list of fill items,
some of which are unnecessary for many emergencies (for example,
forceps, metal splints, tourniquets). Additionally, the 1978 edition is
missing several important
[[Page 66496]]
items (for example, medical-examination gloves, cold packs).
[sbull] The 1998 edition requires color coding of unit packages
that contain specific types of fill items (for example, yellow for
bandages, blue for antiseptics), while the 1978 edition has no such
requirement.
[sbull] The 1998 edition, more often than the 1978 edition,
identifies fill items according to standardized testing and quality-
control methods. For example, the 1998 edition requires that absorbent
compresses meet the water-absorbency criteria of ASTM consensus
standard D117 (``Nonwoven fabrics''), and that antiseptics conform to
the requirements specified by the Food and Drug Administration in 21
CFR part 333 (``Topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-
counter human use''). The 1978 edition provides no absorbency criteria
for absorbent gauze compresses, while the antiseptic solution used for
antiseptic swabs is required only to be ``acceptable to the consulting
physician.''
The Agency's review of the two editions demonstrates that, compared
with the 1978 edition, the 1998 edition: Increases compliance
flexibility by emphasizing performance-based requirements, including a
choice of three containers and a list of basic and optional fill items;
improves the procedures for conditioning and testing first-aid
containers; and ensures the reliability and efficacy of the fill items
by basing the selection of these items on standardized testing and
quality-control methods. Based on this review, OSHA preliminarily finds
that the provisions of the 1998 edition would provide employers with
the information they need to select first-aid containers and fill items
appropriate to the hazards in their workplaces that could injure
employees. Accordingly, the 1998 edition would protect employees at
least as well as the requirements of the 1978 edition. Thus, the Agency
is proposing to replace the reference to the 1978 edition in appendix A
of Sec. 1910.151 with a reference to the 1998 edition. This revision
would not impose any additional cost on employers because appendix A is
nonmandatory.
OSHA welcomes comment on the extent to which the newer editions of
the ANSI Z308.1 consensus standard would provide equivalent or better
protection to employees. The Agency would also appreciate receiving
information on the availability of other consensus standards and
guidelines for first-aid kits. Responses to this request for
information should include, if possible, a detailed description of
these consensus standards and guidelines, as well as a rationale for
including them in the proposed revision to appendix A of Sec.
1910.151.
C. First-aid Supplies in the Telecommunications Standard (Sec.
1910.268)
Paragraph (b)(3) of OSHA's telecommunication standard (Sec.
1910.268) requires an employer to: Provide first-aid supplies (fill
items) recommended by a consulting physician; ensure that the fill
items are readily accessible and housed in weatherproof containers if
used outdoors; and inspect the fill items at least once a month and
replace expended items. With this rulemaking, the Agency is proposing
to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read, ``Employers must provide employees
with readily accessible, and appropriate first-aid supplies. A
nonmandatory example of appropriate supplies is listed in appendix A to
Sec. 1910.151.''
In an earlier rulemaking on June 18, 1998, 63 FR 33461, OSHA
removed from paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 the requirement that a
consulting physician approve first-aid supplies. In proposing to remove
paragraph (b) (61 FR 37850, July 22, 1996), the Agency found that
``[c]ommercial first-aid kits are readily available and will meet the
needs of most employers * * *.'' (Ex. 4-23, Docket No. S-778). In
addition, OSHA noted that it expected employers to modify commercial
first-aid kits in response to special or unusual workplace hazards, and
to consult with a medical professional as necessary when doing so. To
provide employers with helpful information for selecting first-aid
kits, and to assist them in modifying the kits, the Agency added a
nonmandatory appendix A to Sec. 1910.151 (63 FR 33461); this appendix
refers to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus
standard (ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum requirements for industrial unit-
type first aid kits'') that specifies basic first-aid supplies for the
workplace. (Note: Section B above discusses OSHA's proposal to update
this ANSI reference.)
The Agency preliminarily concludes that substituting the guidance
of nonmandatory appendix A to Sec. 1910.151 for the requirements
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1910.268 would reduce the
regulatory burden on employers in the telecommunications industry by
increasing their flexibility in meeting OSHA's requirements for first-
aid kits, and would facilitate their compliance by making the
requirements to provide first-aid kits consistent across the two
standards. In addition, the Agency believes that the proposed revision
would afford telecommunication employees with at least the same level
of protection they currently receive because nonmandatory appendix A to
Sec. 1910.151, including the reference to the ANSI consensus standard,
provides more extensive guidelines for selecting appropriate medical
supplies than paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 1910.268 and, in addition,
provides the recommendation that these supplies include personal
protective equipment to prevent employee exposure to bloodborne
pathogens. Accordingly, OSHA requests comments that discuss the
proposed revision updating the nonmandatory recommendations for first-
aid supplies.
D. 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec. 1910.1003)
In the 13 carcinogens standard, paragraph (f)(2) of the standard
requires employers to provide the nearest OSHA Area Director with two
reports on the occurrence of any incident that results in the release,
into any area where employees may be potentially exposed, of any of the
13 carcinogenic substances regulated by the standard. These reports
consist of an abbreviated preliminary report submitted within 24 hours
of the chemical release, followed by a detailed report submitted within
15 calendar days of the incident. OSHA believes that these reports may
be of little of no utility in view of the fact that recent substance-
specific standards developed by the Agency do not contain this (or any
other) reporting requirement. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to delete
this provision from the 13 carcinogens standard to reduce reporting
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. OSHA requests
comment on the extent to which this proposed revision would reduce
reporting burden on employers and on the effect of such a deletion (if
any) on employee health.
E. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
Paragraph (k)(6) of the vinyl chloride standard specifies that
laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) under
42 CFR part 74 ``Clinical laboratories'') must analyze biological
samples collected during medical examinations. However, 42 CFR part 74
is outdated, and the USPHS now addresses laboratory-licensing
requirements under 42 CFR part 493 (``Laboratory requirements'').
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to delete the reference to 42 CFR
part 74 from paragraph (k)(6) of this standard. OSHA is seeking comment
on the need to specify a licensing or quality-control
[[Page 66497]]
requirement, the extent to which the requirements specified in 42 CFR
part 493 would be a suitable substitute for the requirements of former
42 CFR part 74, and whether any other reference or criteria are
available that could serve this purpose.
F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure Monitoring
Several of the Agency's older standards retain provisions that
require employers to monitor employee exposures either monthly or
quarterly, depending on the level of the toxic substance found in the
workplace. These provisions include: Paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and
(d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride standard (Sec. 1910.1017), which
require employers to conduct exposure monitoring at least monthly if
employee exposures are in excess of the permissible exposure limit
(PEL) and not less than quarterly if employee exposures are above the
action level (AL); paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the standard
regulating 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec. 1910.1044),
specifying that employers must perform exposure monitoring at least
quarterly if employee exposures are below the PEL and no less than
monthly if employee exposures exceed the PEL,\1\ and paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard (Sec.
1910.1045), which contain requirements for employers to conduct
exposure monitoring at least quarterly for employees exposed at or
above the AL, but below the PEL, and at least monthly for employees
having exposures above the PEL. There is little discussion in the
preambles to these standards explaining the basis for adopting these
monitoring frequencies, which suggests that OSHA may have relied on
prevailing practice in establishing these frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This standard does not specify an action level, so employers
must continue to monitor employee DBCP exposures on a continuing
basis. See section O (``Additional Issues for Comment'') of this
Summary and Explanation for a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the substance-specific standards published by the Agency after
these standards, exposure monitoring is required no more often than
semiannually if employee exposures are at or above the AL, and no more
than quarterly if exposures are above the PEL. Thus, OSHA is proposing
to amend the exposure monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride standard, paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard and paragraphs
(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the DBCP standard because they are
inconsistent with the exposure monitoring protocols established by OSHA
in its later substance-specified standards and no substantive reason
for the increased monitoring frequency is apparent. OSHA is proposing
to revise these paragraphs to require that employers conduct exposure
monitoring at least quarterly if the results of initial exposure
monitoring show that employee exposures are above the PEL, and no less
than semiannually if these results indicate exposures that are at or
above the AL. The Agency solicits comment on the extent to which, if
any, this proposed revision would reduce the protection afforded by the
existing standards to employees exposed to vinyl chloride,
acrylonitrile and DBCP, and the extent to which the proposed revisions
would reduce employer burdens, including cost and paperwork reductions.
OSHA notes that two of its standards (benzene, 1910.1028 and 1,3-
butadiene, 1910.1051) provide for exposure monitoring frequency
different from the quarterly/semiannual monitoring contained in other
standards. The Agency is not revising benzene or 1,3-butadiene with
respect to monitoring frequency. The exposure monitoring provisions in
those standards have specific basis in their respective rulemaking
records that preclude changing them for consistency under this standard
improvement action.
G. Alternative Control Methods for Class 1 Asbestos Removal
Provisions in OSHA's asbestos standards for shipyard employment and
construction (Sec. Sec. 1915.1001, paragraph (g)(6)(iii), and
1926.1101, paragraph (g)(6)(iii), respectively) address alternative
control methods used to perform Class I asbestos work. Specifically,
these provisions require an employer to send the evaluation and
certification of the alternative control method to OSHA's Directorate
of Technical Support before removing more than 25 linear feet or 10
square feet or thermal-system insulation or surfacing material. The
intent of this provision was the development of a database of
alternative control methods for use in future rulemaking. However, in
practice, this provision has been little used and no database has been
developed. OSHA thus believes that this requirement is of little
utility.
Current OSHA regulatory policy requires that paperwork provisions,
such as this, be a benefit to employee health or serve some other
useful regulatory purpose. Since certification of alternative control
methods does not appear to meet this requirement, the Agency is
proposing to delete it from the shipyard-employment and construction
asbestos standards. OSHA invites comment on any regulatory benefit or
purpose that removal of this provision would jeopardize.
H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the ILO U/C Rating
OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(A) of the inorganic
arsenic standard (Sec. 1910.1018) and paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the coke
oven emissions standard (Sec. 1910.1029); these provisions require
that employees' chest x-rays receive an International Labor Office
UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. Subsequent to the promulgation of
these provisions, the Agency received information from two physicians
that the ILO U/C rating is not suitable to evaluate chest x-rays for
lung cancer. Regarding the use of the ILO U/C ratings specified by the
inorganic arsenic standard, Stephen Wood, MD, MSPH, Corporate Medical
Director for the Kennecott Corporation, states in a letter to OSHA (Ex.
1-1), ``This method of x-ray interpretation was designed specifically
for use in pneumoconiosis or dust related disease. Arsenic does not
cause pneumoconiosis. This classification system is unnecessary for
cancer surveillance and represents a substantial cost and logistical
burden to industry.'' Later, Steven R. Smith, MD, Director of
Occupational Health and Occupational Medicine, Community Hospitals
Indianapolis, wrote to the Agency (Ex. 1-2) addressing the ILO U/C
rating required by the coke oven emissions standard:
I am sure you know that the main pulmonary problem with coke
oven emission exposure is carcinoma of the lung and not
pneumoconiosis. The main merit of the ILO U/C rating system is that
it standardizes the reading of films where there are parenchymal
opacities[,] either round nodules or linar densities. For the
problem of carcinoma of the lung this system really has little to
add over the proper interpretation of films by skilled radiologists.
* * * I think it is of much more importance that the chest films
done as part of the coke oven emissions exposure surveillance be
interpreted by expert radiologists who are aware of the fact the
films are being done primarily for pulmonary carcinoma. To require
that an ILO U/C rating system be employed as well seems to me as
though it is going to necessitate an additional expense[,] as well
as to greatly limit the number of radiologists who are able to
interpret such films.
Based on the information provided in these letters, and on the
opinion of the Agency's Office of Occupational Medicine, OSHA believes
that the ILO U/C rating may not be a suitable method to use in
evaluating chest x-rays for lung cancer. Therefore, the Agency is
[[Page 66498]]
proposing to remove the ILO U/C rating requirements specified in the
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions standards, thereby permitting
the examining physician to determine the most effective procedure for
evaluating these chest x-rays. The proposed approach would be similar
to that taken in recent Agency standards that require the evaluation of
chest x-rays for cancer (for example, paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of the
cadmium standard (Sec. 1910.1027)). In this regard, OSHA solicits
comment and other information regarding the suitability of the ILO U/C
ratings for evaluating chest x-rays for cancer, the identity of any
other available method or procedure that could effectively substitute
for ILO U/C ratings, and the safety and efficacy of the proposed
elimination of the requirement.
I. Signed Medical Opinion
Paragraph (l)(7)(i) of the asbestos standard (Sec. 1910.1001), and
paragraph (l)(10)(i) of the cadmium standard for general industry
(Sec. 1910.1027) and construction (Sec. 1926.1127), require that the
examining physician sign the written medical opinion provided as part
of the medical-surveillance requirements of these standards. The
preamble to the cadmium standards states that ``the [purpose of the]''
requirement that the physician sign the opinion is to ensure that the
information that is given to the employer has been seen and read by the
physician and that the physician has personally determined whether the
employee may continue to work in cadmium-exposed jobs'' (57 FR 42366).
The requirement that a medical opinion be obtained by the employer is
not affected by this proposed revision. No other substance-specific
standard promulgated by OSHA requires that the physician sign the
medical opinion.
The Agency believes that the requirement to sign a medical opinion
written by a physician is unnecessary, precludes electronic
transmission of the opinion from the physician to the employer, and
provides no additional benefit to employees. Accordingly, OSHA is
proposing to remove this requirement from these paragraphs. In this
regard, the Agency requests comment on whether or not a signed medical
opinion is necessary to ensure that the examining physician has
reviewed it prior to submitting it to the employer.
J. Providing Semiannual Medical Examinations to Employees Experiencing
Long-Term Toxic Exposures
Three of the Agency's oldest health standards specify that
employers provide semiannual medical examinations to employees having
long-term exposures to the toxic substances regulated by these
standards. However, these standards, which regulate employee exposures
to vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017), inorganic arsenic (Sec.
1910.1018), and coke oven emissions (Sec. 1910.1029), only require
that other employees (i.e., those exposed for lesser periods) be given
annual medical examinations.
Under paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the vinyl chloride standard, employers
must provide a semiannual medical examination to employees exposed to
vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride manufacturing above the action
level for at least 10 years. The preamble to this standard provides no
rationale for this requirement.
Paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of the inorganic arsenic standard specifies
that employers must offer semiannual medical examinations to employees
who are 45 years or older or have been exposed above the action level
to inorganic arsenic for at least 10 years. In justifying this
requirement, the Agency stated in the preamble to this standard that
``[l]ong-term employees who have exposures now or in the near future
below the action level, but have had exposure above the action level
now or in the recent past, are quite likely to have had substantially
greater exposures in the more distant past * * * the epidemiological
studies indicate that risk increases with both degree and duration of
exposure'' (43 FR 19620). [Italics in original.] OSHA notes that this
statement addressed high exposures that occurred prior to the 1970's.
Paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii) of the coke oven emissions
standard require that employers provide semiannual medical examinations
for: Employees who are at least 45 years of age or have five or more
years of employment in a regulated area, and for an employee in this
age/experience group who ``transfers or is transferred from employment
in a regulated area * * * [for] as long as that employee is employed by
the same employer or a successor employer.'' In the preamble to this
standard, the Agency explains this requirement by stating that ``the
high risk population requires more frequent and more comprehensive
testing than the remainder of the population'' (41 FR 46779).
OSHA believes that the available evidence does not support the
requirements for semiannual medical examinations offered to employees
with long-term exposures to vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, and coke
oven emissions. Based on a review of the existing medical research
literature, the Agency recently amended the inorganic arsenic and coke
oven emissions standards by reducing the frequency of chest x-rays from
semiannually to annually, and by removing the requirement for sputum
cytology entirely from these standards (63 FR 33450). This review
indicated that semiannual chest x-rays did not increase employee
protection through early detection of lung cancer, while sputum
cytology did not provide additional protection to employee health, over
and above that provided by an annual chest x-ray. Semiannual medical
examinations are less useful when the frequency of x-ray has been
reduced. In addition, no other substance-specific standards promulgated
by OSHA require semiannual medical examinations.
Based on the available evidence, the Agency believes that
semiannual medical examinations are unnecessary, and that annual
medical examinations are sufficient to detect cancer and other medical
impairments caused by exposure to vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic,
and coke oven emissions. OSHA also believes that current industry
practice with regard to employees occupationally exposed to toxic
substances is to screen these employees annually. Therefore, the Agency
is proposing to revise the standards regulating these toxic substances
to be consistent with its other substance-specific standards, which
require that employers provide annual medical examinations for covered
employees regardless of the duration of their exposures. The Agency
request comment and other information comparing the effectiveness of
annual and semiannual medical examinations in detecting cancer and
other medical impairments caused by exposure to vinyl chloride,
inorganic arsenic, and coke oven emissions.
The proposed revisions to paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii) of
the coke oven emissions standard do not include removing the
requirement to conduct semiannual urinary cytology examinations.
However, OSHA is raising this issue for comment and may include such
removal in the final rule if warranted, based on comments. The coke
oven emissions standard (29 CFR 1910.1029) requires that employers
provide urinary cytology examinations
[[Page 66499]]
(paragraph (j)(2)(vii)) semiannually to certain exposed employees
(paragraph (j)(3)(ii)). OSHA adopted this requirement based on the
belief, at the time, that urinary cytology would serve as a useful tool
in screening for cancer.
The Agency believes that the utility of urinary cytology as a
screening tool for cancer should be reexamined. OSHA's Office of
Occupational Medicine (OOM) reviewed data pertaining to the benefits of
urinary cytology in the detection of bladder cancer (Ex. 1-3). The
literature indicates that the sensitivity (i.e., ability to detect
bladder cancer in those who have it) of urine cytology is not very
powerful and, thus, not a particularly effective screening test for
this disease. Although there may be views to the contrary, on balance
OOM recommends that urinary cytology testing be eliminated from the
coke oven standard. However, OOM does recommend retaining dipstick
urinalysis an inexpensive means of maintaining the urologic screening
program until more effective technology is developed, despite its low
sensitivity for detecting cancer. Comment is requested on the issue and
on the OOM recommendation retaining dipstick urinalysis.
K. Notifying OSHA Regarding Use or Regulated Areas
The Agency is proposing to delete paragraph (d) of the 1,2-dibromo-
3-chloropropane (DBCP) standard (Sec. 1910.1044). This paragraph
requires employers to submit a report to the nearest OSHA Area Office
that describes their use of DBCP, and to do so within 10 days of
introducing the substance into the workplace. The preamble to the
standard does not provide a rationale for this requirement, and no
other substance-specific standard published by the Agency has a similar
requirement. OSHA has not found this provision of the standard useful
for its inspectors.
Accordingly, OSHA finds that the provision has little utility in
practice and thus, it may be appropriate to remove this provision to
reduce paperwork. OSHA requests comment on this issue and the proposed
deletion of paragraph (d) of the DBCP standard.
A number of OSHA standards dating from the 1970s require employers
to notify the nearest OSHA Area Director/Office if they are required by
the standard to establish regulated areas in their workplaces. The
following standards have such a requirement: 13 carcinogens (Sec.
1910.1003, paragraph (f)(1)), vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017,
paragraph (n)(1)), inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018, paragraph
(d)(1)), and acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045, paragraph (d)(1)).
The preamble to the vinyl chloride standard explains that the
purpose of this notification requirement is to ``enable the Agency to
obtain information on control technology'' (39 FR 35890), while the
preamble to the acrylonitrile standard notes that the requirement is
designed to enable OSHA to Abe aware of facilities where substantial
exposure * * * exists'' (43 FR 45762). Further, in the years since
these standards were promulgated, OSHA has not found the notification
provision useful for the purposes described or for inspection purposes.
In addition, recent substance-specific standards promulgated by OSHA do
not require such notification. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to
delete this notification requirement from the 13 carcinogens, vinyl
chloride, inorganic arsenic, and acrylonitrile standards to reduce
paperwork. OSHA invites comment on the effect this deletion would have
in general, and specifically on employee protection, employer burden,
and paperwork reduction.
L. Reporting Emergencies to OSHA
Paragraph (n)(2) of the vinyl chloride standard (Sec. 1910.1017)
and paragraph (d)(2) of the acrylonitrile standard (Sec. 1901.1045)
require employers to report the occurrence of emergencies involving
these substances to the nearest OSHA Area Director/Office. The
preambles to these standards are silent on the reason for this
reporting requirement and OSHA has not found such reporting, which has
occurred only rarely, useful. In addition, other Agency substance-
specific standards do not have such a requirement. Accordingly, OSHA is
proposing to delete these reporting provisions of the vinyl chloride
and acrylonitrile standards as unnecessary and to reduce paperwork.
OSHA asks for comment on the proposed deletions and for information on
any impact such an action might have.
M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance Plans
The Agency's substance-specific standards typically require
employers to develop compliance plans to meet the exposure-control
objectives of the standard. Most of these standards specify that
employers must update these plans at least annually, and OSHA believes
that annual updating is sufficient to ensure the continued
effectiveness of the plans. However, several older substance-specific
standards promulgated by the Agency require semiannual updating; these
standards include: Vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017, paragraph (f)(3));
inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018, paragraph (g)(2)(iv)); lead (Sec.
1910.1025, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)); coke oven emissions, paragraph
(f)(6)(iv); 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropany (DBCP)(Sec. 1910.1044,
paragraph (g)(2)(ii)); acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045, paragraph
(g)(2)(v)); and lead in construction (Sec. 1926.62, paragraph
(e)(2)(v)).
The preambles to the standards containing this requirement present
no evidence pointing to the need for such a requirement in facilities
handling these substances, and OSHA believes that current industry
practice considers annual updating sufficient. In particular, there is
no evidence to suggest that employee health protections would be
lessened by this proposed change. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
revise its older substance-specific standards to require annual,
instead of semiannual, updating of compliance plans. OSHA believes that
the proposed revisions would make this requirement consistent across
its standards without diminishing employee protection and will reduce
paperwork. The Agency solicits comment on any impact, particularly on
employee health that the proposed revision might have.
N. Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Monitoring Results
Many of OSHA's substance-specific standards require employers to
notify employees of their exposure monitoring results. These standards
require the employer to provide written notification to each employee
included in the monitoring program. However, some of these standards
also require the employer to post the monitoring results, while others
allow posting in lieu of individual notification. In addition, the
number of days that may elapse between receipt of an employee's
exposure monitoring results and employee notification varies across the
standards. These periods range from ``as soon as possible'' to 20
working days after receipt of the monitoring results. Table 1 below
describes the methods employers are required to use when notifying
employees and the amount of elapsed time permitted by 15 substance-
specific standards for general industry, one such standard for shipyard
employment, and four such standards for construction.
[[Page 66500]]
Table 1.--Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard \1\ Method of notification Maximum period for notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1910 (General Industry):
Asbestos (Sec. 1910.1001(d)(7)(i)) Individually in writing or 15 working days.
posting.
Vinyl Chloride (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 10 working days.
1910.1017(n)(3)).
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
1910.1018(e)(5)(i)).
Lead (Sec. 1910.1025(d)(8)(i)).... Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
Cadmium (Sec. 1910.1027(d)(5)(i)). Individually in writing and 15 working days.
posting.
Benzene (Sec. 1910.1028(e)(7)(i)). Individually in writing only.... 15 working days.
Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
1910.1029(e)(3)(i)).
Cotton Dust (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 20 working days.
1910.1043(d)(4)(i)).
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
1910.1044(f)(5)(i)).
Acrylonitrile (Sec. Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
1910.1045(e)(5)(i)).
Ethylene Oxide (Sec. Individually in writing or 15 working days.
1910.1047(d)(7)(i)). posting.
Formaldehyde (Sec. Individually in writing or 15 working days.
1910.1048(d)(6)). posting.
Methylenedianiline (Sec. Individually in writing or 15 working days.
1910.1050(e)(7)(i)). posting.
Butadiene (Sec. Individually in writing or 5 working days.
1910.1051(d)(7)(i)). posting.
Methelene Chloride (Sec. Individually in writing or 15 working days.
1910.1052(d)(5)(i)). posting.
Part 1915 (Shipyard Employment):
Asbestos (Sec. 1915.1001(f)(5)(i) Individually in writing or As soon as possible.
and (f)(5)(ii)). posting.
Part 1926 (Construction):
Methylenedianiline (Sec. Individually in writing or 15 working days.
1926.60(f)(7)(i)). posting.
Lead (Sec. 1926.62(d)(8)(i))...... Individually in writing only.... 5 working days.
Asbestos (Sec. 1926.1101(f)(5)(i) Individually in writing or As soon as possible.
and (f)(5)(ii)). posting.
Cadmium (Sec. 1926.1127(d)(5)(i)). Individually in writing and 5 working days.
posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the paragraphs containing the requirements.
The preambles to these standards generally do not identify
substance-specific or record-based reasons for these differences in
notification methods and timing. Further, there is no evidence to
suggest that differences in timing, within the ranges reflected in
these standards, have an effect on employee health. Accordingly, OSHA
believes that making the notification and timing requirements
consistent across standards will reduce regulatory confusion and
facilitate compliance without diminishing employee protection. The
Agency is therefore proposing to allow employees to provide employees
with their exposure monitoring results either individually in writing
or by posting the employees' results in a readily accessible location.
In the case of notification there are a number of considerations.
Individual notification gives employees a permanent record, employees
may take the notification more seriously, and there are no privacy
concerns. However, the paperwork burden is increased for employers and
employees will have less knowledge of overall trends. Posting has the
converse strengths and weaknesses. OSHA is proposing to give the
employer the option of either individual notification or posting, or
both. The Agency requests comments on these issues.
The point of notification is to ensure that employees are aware of
their exposures to OSHA-regulated substances, and the Agency
preliminarily concludes that this goal can be met either through
individual written notification or through posting in a location that
is readily accessible to all employees whose results are being posted.
OSHA requests comment on this preliminary finding, particularly with
respect to any impact the proposed changes might have on employee
protection.
The Agency is also proposing to require employers regulated by the
15 substance-specific standards for general industry (see Table 1
above) to notify their employees of their exposure monitoring results
within 15 working days of receiving the results. OSHA believes
consistency of period will simplify compliance and that 15 days is a
reasonable time frame.
For employers covered by the four substance-specific standards for
construction and the asbestos standard for shipyard employment listed
in the table, OSHA is proposing to require notification as soon as
possible but no later than five working days after the employer
receives the results of the exposure monitoring performed under these
standards. Both the asbestos and cadmium standards established
different notification intervals based on the industries affected: the
asbestos standards requires notification within 15 days for general-
industry employers and ``as soon as possible'' for construction and
shipyard employers which may be involved in more short-term and
intermittent activities, while the cadmium standards specified a
maximum period of 15 working days for general-industry employers and
five working days for construction employers. The preamble to the
cadmium standard for construction states that the five working-day
notification period is appropriate ``in light of the short term nature
of many construction jobs'' (57 FR 42383).
OSHA is requesting comment on whether a 5 working day or 15 working
day notification period is more appropriate for the shipyard standard
due to the nature of the work in that industry.
The Agency finds that these factors, short-term or intermittent
projects, may justify retaining the shorter notification period for
construction activities. OSHA believes that five days is a reasonable
interval for notification. However, both shipyards and construction are
covered by the 15 working day requirement for other health standards.
OSHA is not proposing to change those other standards because they do
not have as much impact in the construction or shipyard industry and
they may result in an increase in burden.
OSHA invites comment and other information on these proposed
revisions to the notification requirements in OSHA health standards,
particularly on the differences proposed for employers in different
industries and any
[[Page 66501]]
reduction in employee protection that may result from the proposed
revisions.
O. Additional Issue for Comment
Social Security Numbers
Most of OSHA's substance-specific standards require that records,
especially exposure monitoring and medical-surveillance records,
include the employee's social security number (SSN). In the preamble to
the final methylene chloride standard (62 FR 1598), OSHA justified the
requirement for employers to document social security numbers by
stating: ``Social security number * * * are correlated to employee
identity in other types of records. These numbers are a more useful
differentiation among employees [than other possible methods] since
each number is unique to an individual for a lifetime and does not
change as an employee changes employers.'' In a letter of
interpretation regarding the use of social security numbers in the
asbestos standard for construction (April 16, 1999), the Agency
provided the following rationale for requiring SSNs: ``[M]any employees
have identical or similar names; identifying employees solely by name
makes it difficult to determine to which employee a particular record
pertains. The present system avoids this problem because Social
Security numbers are unique to the individual.''
Based on privacy concerns, the Office of Management and Budget
recently requested OSHA to examine alternatives to requiring social
security numbers for employee identification. Although the Agency is
not specifically proposing to delete the requirement for SSNs from its
standards at this time, OSHA is requesting the public to submit
comments on: The necessity, usefulness, and effectiveness of social
security numbers as a means of identifying employee records, notably
exposure monitoring and medical-surveillance records, and any privacy
concerns or issues raised by this requirement, as well as the
availability of other equally effective methods of uniquely identifying
employees for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.
III. Legal Considerations
The Agency believes that the proposed rule would not reduce the
employee protections put into place by the rules being revised; the
intent of the present rulemaking is to remove outdated, unnecessary or
duplicative provisions from these older rules and makes them more
consistent. It is therefore unnecessary to determine significant risk,
or the extent to which the proposed rule would reduce that risk, as
would be required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court ruling
applying to standards addressing new hazards, setting more stringent
standards, or reducing employee protection. Accordingly, no finding of
significant risk is necessary.
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis
Introduction
This proposed rule deletes or revises a number of provisions in
OSHA standards that are duplicative, unnecessary, or potentially in
conflict with the rules of other Federal agencies. All of the changes
OSHA is making are expected to benefit the regulated community by
reducing burden and confusion, enhancing occupational safety and health
to employees, and improving compliance by employers. For most of these
changes, economic benefits can be quantified.\2\ By deleting and
revising these provisions, this Phase II Proposed Revision Standard
will lessen the burden employers currently experience, which will, in
turn, generate cost savings. OSHA estimates annual savings of $6.57
million from these revisions (Table 3). Total burden hours would fall
by 207892. (The estimates in this Economic Analysis may differ very
slightly from the estimates in the Paperwork Reduction Analysis because
of rounding.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OSHA estimates that a few of these revised provisions may
not have any readily quantifiable reductions in burden hours and/or
costs, although they normally increase employer flexibility.
Table 3.--Estimated Annual Cost Savings Due to the Standards Improvement
Project--Phase 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost
Provision savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Sec. 1910.42, Temporary Labor Camps................. $0
B Sec. 1910.151(b), Reference to First Aid Supplies in 0
Appendix A.............................................
C Sec. 1910.268, First Aid Supplies Telecom........... 5,603
D Sec. 1910.1003(f)(2) Incident Reports, 13 27,284
Carcinogens............................................
E Sec. 1910.1017(k)(6), Vinyl Chloride................ 0
F:
Sec. 1910.1017(d)(2)(i), Exposure Monitoring, 102,750
Vinyl Chloride.....................................
Sec. 1910.1017(d)(2)(ii), Exposure Monitoring, 25,687
Vinyl Chloride.....................................
Sec. 1910.1044(f)(3)(i) & f(3)(ii), Exposure 0
Monitoring, 1,2-DBCP...............................
Sec. 1910.1045(e)(3)(ii), Exposure Monitoring, 22,446
Acrylonitrile......................................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 150,883
===============
G:
Sec. 1915.1001(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods, 39
Asbestos Removal...................................
Sec. 1926.1101(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods, 39
Asbestos Removal...................................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 78
===============
H:
Sec. 1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A), ILO/UC Rating, 0
Inorganic Arsenic..................................
Sec. 1910.1029(j)(2)(ii), ILO/UC Rating, Coke Oven 0
Emissions..........................................
I:
Sec. 1910.1001(1)(7)(i), Signed Opinion, Asbestos. 0
Sec. 1910.1027(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium 0
Gen. Industry......................................
Sec. 1926.1127(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium 0
Con. Industry......................................
[[Page 66502]]
J:
Sec. 1910.1017(k)(2)(i), Semiannual Medical Exams, 31,064
Vinyl Chloride.....................................
Sec. 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), Semiannual Medical 164,238
Exams, Inorganic Arsenic...........................
Sec. 1910.1029(j)(3)(ii-iii), Semiannual Medical 362,443
Exams, Coke Oven emissions.........................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 557,745
===============
K:
Sec. 1910.1044(d), Notifying OSHA Regarding 0
Regulated Areas, 1,2-DBCP..........................
Sec. 1910.1003(f)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding 5,457
Regulated Areas, 13 Carcinogens....................
Sec. 1910.1017(n)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding 656
Regulated Areas, Vinyl Chloride....................
Sec. 1910.1018(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding 117
Regulated Areas, Inorganic Arsenic.................
Sec. 1910.1045(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding 647
Regulated Areas, Acrylonitrile.....................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 6,876
===============
L:
Sec. 1910.1017(n)(2) Reporting Emergencies, Vinyl 22,503
Chloride...........................................
Sec. 1910.1045(d)(2) Reporting Emergencies, 2,588
Acrylonitrile......................................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 25,090
===============
M:
Sec. 1910.1017(f)(3) Semiannual Updating 7,614
Compliance Plans, Vinyl Chloride...................
Sec. 1910.1018(g)(2)(iv), Semiannual Updating 2,284
Compliance Plans, Inorganic Arsenic................
Sec. 1910.1029(f)(6)(iv), Semiannual Updating 1,332
Compliance Plans, Coke Oven Emissions..............
Sec. 1910.1044(e)(3)(iv), Semiannual Updating 0
Compliance Plans, 1,2-DCBP.........................
Sec. 1910.1045(g)(2)(ii), Semiannual Updating 448
Compliance Plans, Acrylonitrile....................
Sec. 1926.1025(e)(2)(v), Semiannual Updating 4,209,657
Compliance Plans, Lead, Con........................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 4,221,334
===============
N:
Sec. 1910.1017(n)(3) Notify Employees of Expos. 2,741
Monitoring Results, Vinyl Chloride.................
Sec. 1910.1018(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 9,393
Monitoring Results, Inorganic Arsenic..............
Sec. 1910.1025(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 891,293
Monitoring Results, Lead, Gen Ind..................
Sec. 1910.1027(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 50,540
Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Gen Ind...............
Sec. 1910.1029(e)(3)(i) Notify Employees of 25,765
Expos. Monitoring Results, Coke Oven...............
Sec. 1910.1043(d)(4)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 68,102
Monitoring Results, Cotton Dust....................
Sec. 1910.1044(f)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 0
Monitoring Results, 1,2-DBCP.......................
Sec. 1910.1045(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 8,255
Monitoring Results, Acryonitrile...................
Sec. 1926.62(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 494,063
Monitoring Results, Lead Construction..............
Sec. 1926.1127(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos. 27,189
Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Con...................
---------------
Subtotal.......................................... 1,454,431
===============
Total............................................. 6,572,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice-and-comment rulemaking is necessary because a number of
the proposed revisions are substantive. The Agency will base its final
decisions regarding these proposed revisions on the record developed
through public comment. The following paragraphs discuss the
Preliminary Economic Analysis in detail.
Methodology
This section describes OSHA's development of the total annual
paperwork requirements for a provision or standard, then presents a
methodology for aggregating these costs into industry-specific
estimates of total one-time costs, annualized costs (one-time or
intermittent costs amortized over a specific number of years), or
annual costs. For the purposes of this Preliminary Economic Analysis,
one-time or intermittent costs have been annualized using a discount
rate of 7 percent\3\, as required by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), over a specified period of time using the formula:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Guidelines and Discount
Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,'' Circular No.
A-94 Revised (Transmittal Memo No. 64). October 29, 1992.
Office of Management and Budget, ``Economic Analysis of Federal
Regulations Under Executive Order 12866.'' January 11, 1996, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = (i x (1 + i)\n\)/((1 + i)\n\ - 1),
where
a=annualization factor,
i=discount rate, and
n=economic life of the one-time or intermittent investment
OSHA uses average hourly earnings, including benefits, to represent
the cost of employee time. For the relevant occupational categories,
mean hourly earnings from the Year 2000 National Compensation Survey by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics have been adjusted to reflect the fact
that fringe benefits comprise about 27.1 percent \4\ of total employee
compensation in the private
[[Page 66503]]
sector.\5\ The costs of labor used in this analysis are therefore
estimates of total hourly compensation. These average hourly costs are:
$38.92 for managers; $27.39 for production supervisors; $24.68 for
chemical technicians; $18.40 for production workers; and $17.34 for
clerical workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Straight-time hourly wages and salaries were estimated to be
72.9 percent of total compensation in 2000. Thus, total
compensation, including benefits, for workers with average hourly
earnings of $13.41 would be $13.41/.729 = $18.40.
\5\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--March 2001, June 29,
2001, p. 5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates of the number of establishments and the number of
employees affected by a proposed change are usually either from a
statement in support of information collection requirements (ICR) or
from an economic analysis. The number of employees affected and their
hourly total wages are used to calculate costs. The changes proposed in
the Phase II Standards Improvement Project pertain to approval of
equipment, reporting incidents, exposure monitoring, laboratory
analysis, medical examinations, and employee notification requirements.
Most of the proposed revised standards reduce costs related to a
percentage of affected employees in the industry and the number of
labor hours required to monitor a specific activity. Usually, the
frequency of an activity, the number of employees requiring the
activity, and the cost of the activity per employee were used to arrive
at the estimated costs. In some instances, the costs of the activity
were calculated according to the number of affected establishments.
A. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.42)
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Sec. 1910.42 require that the camp
superintendent immediately report the outbreak of certain diseases to
the local health authority ``by telegram or telephone.'' OSHA believes
that because other forms of communication are readily available, the
requirement for notification via ``telegram or telephone'' is
unnecessarily restrictive. Thus, the Agency proposes deleting the
requirements specifying notification by telegram or telephone. The
Agency believes the revision would give more flexibility to employers
that can result in cost savings. However, the Agency has not calculated
the value of such savings.
B. Reference to First-Aid Supplies in Appendix A to the Standard on
Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151, the Agency's standard regulating
medical services and first-aid supplies, requires employers to ensure
that ``[a]dequate first aid supplies shall be readily available [in the
workplace].'' OSHA added a nonmandatory appendix to this standard in a
recent rulemaking (63 FR 33460) to help employers meet this
requirement. OSHA is proposing to update this appendix. This revision
would not impose any additional cost on employers because appendix A is
non-mandatory.
C. First-Aid Supplies in the Telecommunications Standard (Sec.
1910.268)
The proposed rule revises Paragraph (b)(3) of OSHA's
Telecommunications Standard (Sec. 1910.268) that requires an employer
to: provide first-aid supplies recommended by a consulting physician;
ensure that the items are readily accessible and housed in weatherproof
containers if used outdoors; and inspect the items at least once a
month and replace expended items. The Agency is proposing to revise
paragraph (b)(3) to read, ``Employers must provide employees with
readily accessible first-aid supplies in accordance with Appendix A to
(Sec. 1910.151).''
The propose rule eliminates the requirements in Sec.
1910.268(b)(3) that employers must have certain first-aid supplies
approved by a consulting physician before they are used. This
requirement applied only in cases where no infirmary, clinic, or
hospital was in close proximity to the worksite and the employer
intended to treat first-aid injuries at the site. OSHA's analysis here
relies on the assumptions in the Final Economic Analysis in an earlier
rulemaking (63 FR 33461).\6\ Based on the ICR to that rulemaking, the
Agency estimates that 10 percent of the establishments would meet these
criteria. OSHA also estimates that five minutes of a physician's time,
valued at $100/hr \7\ ($8.33 for five minutes), would be required to
approve the contents of the first-aid kit at these establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926 Standards Improvement
(Miscellaneous Changes) For General Industry and Construction
Standards; Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven Emissions and
Inorganic Arsenic; Final Rule--63:3350-33469.
\7\ Opportunity cost is estimated by the market price for
occupational physical exams, i.e., at the rate of about $100 an
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA assumes that the physician would need to approve the first aid
supplies once every 10 years, considering the possibility of the
development of new kinds of medical supplies and of new hazards at the
worksite. The cost of five minutes of a physician's time annualized
over a 10 year period at 7 percent interest is $1.19 per year (5/60 x
$100 x annualization factor of 0.1424).
The Agency estimates that there were approximately 47,217 employers
in the telecommunications industry in 1998 [County Business Patterns,
1998]. The major sector in the telecommunications industry is telephone
communications, which consists of establishments that operate both
wireline and wireless networks. The wireline networks use wires and
cables to connect customers' premises to central offices maintained by
the telecommunications companies. The wireless networks on the other
hand operate through the transmission of signals over networks of radio
towers and communications satellites [Career Guide to Industries 2000-
01 Edition, Telecommunications (SIC's 481, 482, 489)]. Since first-aid
supplies have to be approved once every 10 years, each year
approximately 10 percent of the establishment incur costs to comply
with the current requirement. Thus, current annualized cost is
approximately $5,603 ((47,217 x 10%) x $1.19). Eliminating the
requirement for a physician's approval of an establishment's first-aid
kit would eliminate this burden of $5,603.
D. 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec. 1910.1003)
The proposed rule would delete provision Sec. 1910.1003(f)(2) that
requires reporting of releases of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest
OSHA Area Director. Deleting this provision results in savings in
burden hours and associated costs.
Based on the ICR, the Agency estimates that reportable incidents
occur once per year at each facility and that about 97 employers fall
under OSHA jurisdiction and will be affected by the rule. A manager and
a clerical worker will each take five hours to collect information and
to report a release of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest OSHA Area
Director, for a total of 10 hours per employer. Thus, 970 burden hours
are attributed to this provision (485 burden hours each by a manager
and a clerk), at an annual cost of $27,286.\8\ By eliminating the
requirement to report releases of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest
OSHA Area Director, OSHA will eliminate annual cost burdens to
employers of $27,286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Annual cost saving ($27,286) due to revision of this
standard is obtained by multiplying 485 burden hours by each wage
rate and adding the products, i.e. [485 x ($38.92 + $17.34)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
Paragraph (k)(6) of the Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec. 1910.1017)
specifies that
[[Page 66504]]
laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) under 42
CFR part 74 (``Clinical laboratories'') must analyze biological samples
collected during medical examinations. however, 42 CFR part 74 is
outdated, and the PHS now addresses laboratory licensing requirements
under 42 CFR part 493 (``Laboratory requirements''). Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to delete the reference to 42 CFR part 74 from
paragraph (k)(6) of this standard. There are no cost applications to
the proposed change since the requirements are almost the same.
F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure Monitoring (Sec. 1910.1017)(Sec.
1910.1044) (Sec. 1910.1045)
Several of the Agency's older standards retain provisions that
require employers to monitor employee exposures either monthly or
quarterly, depending on the level of the toxic substance found in the
workplace. These include: paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of the
Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec. 1910.1017), requiring employers to
conduct exposure monitoring at least monthly if employees exposure are
above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), and not less than quarterly
if employee exposures are above the action level (AL); paragraphs
(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
(Sec. 1910.1044) Standard, requiring exposure monitoring at least
quarterly if employee exposures are below the PEL, and no less than
monthly if employee exposures exceed the PEL \9\; and paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.
1910.1045), requiring monitoring at least quarterly for employees
exposed at or above the AL, but below the PEL, and at least monthly for
employees exposed above the PEL. Little discussion exists in the
preambles to these standards regarding the basis for adopting these
monitoring frequencies, indicating that OSHA relied on prevailing
practice in making those determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This standard does not specify an action level, so employers
must continue to monitor employee DBCP exposures on a continuing
basis. See section O (``Additional Issues for Comment'') of this
Summary and Explanation for a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For substance-specific standards published by the Agency subsequent
to these standards, the most frequent exposure monitoring requirement
is semiannually if employee exposures are at or above the AL, and
quarterly if they are above the PEL. Thus, OSHA is proposing to amend
the previously mentioned exposure monitoring requirements because they
are inconsistent with the exposure monitoring protocols established by
OSHA in its later substance-specific standards. OSHA is proposing to
require that employers conduct exposure monitoring at least quarterly
if the results of initial exposure monitoring show that the employee
exposures are above the PEL, and no less than semiannually if these
results are at or above the AL.
This economic analysis relies on the following assumptions and
facts of employee exposure to vinyl chloride. The Agency estimates,
based on OSHA sampling data, that one percent of all employees are
exposed between the AL and the permissible exposure level (PEL), and
another one percent are exposed above the PEL. Employees exposed
between the AL and the PEL must be monitored quarterly, while those
exposed above the PEL must be monitored monthly. OSHA assumes that
employers use an organic vapor badge for monitoring because these
badges do not interfere with employees' work activity. A supervisor,
earning $27.39 per hour, will spend five minutes to administer, and
five minutes to collect, each vapor badge, for a total of 0.17 hour. A
clerical worker, earning $17.34 per hour, will spend five minutes (.08
hour) to maintain each record of a monitoring event.
The proposed rule revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec.
1910.1017(d)(2)(i) to require quarterly rather than monthly exposure
monitoring if above the PEL. Under monthly monitoring prior to
revision, burden hours would be 393 hours, assuming that 131 employees
are monitored 12 times a year, with a supervisor spending 0.17 hour and
a clerical spending .08 hour each event to administer and collect vapor
badges. The cost of monitoring would be $9,500 (267 hours x $27.39 per
hour plus 126 hours times $17.34 per hour). Under the revised rule,
burden hours would be 131 hours, since the 131 employees would be
monitored only four times a year. Costs would be reduced to $3,167 (89
hours x $27.39 plus 42 hours times $17.34). Savings due to the revision
from monthly to quarterly monitoring thus would be 262 burden hours,
worth $6,334. There would also be savings of 2/3 of the current cost
$144,624 for badges and laboratory analysis; that is, $96,416. Thus,
total annual savings attributed to this provision would be $102,750
($6,334 + $96,416).
The proposed rule also revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec.
1910.1017(d)(2)(ii) to require semiannual rather than quarterly
exposure monitoring if exposure is at or above the AL. With quarterly
exposure monitoring, burden hours would be 131 hours, costing $3,167.
Revising the provision to allow for semiannual monitoring would cut
burden hours to 66 hours, as 131 employees would be monitored only two
times a year. The costs of monitoring would be $1,583 (45 hours x
$27.39 plus 21 hours times $17.34). There would be a saving of 66
burden hours (quarterly burden hours of 131 hours - semiannual burden
hours of 66 hours) and a corresponding cost saving of $1,583 (quarterly
costs of $3,167 - semiannual costs of $1,583). The cost of badges and
laboratory analysis would fall by one-half, or from $48,208 to $24,104.
Thus, total annual cost savings due to this revision would be $25,687
($1,583 + $24,104.
OSHA is of the opinion that revision of paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and
(f)(3)(ii) of the standard regulating, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
(DBCP) (Sec. 1910.1044), would have no effect on cost or burden hours
since no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP-based end products.
The proposed revision of paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of
the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec. 1910.1045) would require semiannual
monitoring if employee exposures were at or above the AL, and quarterly
monitoring if these exposures were above the PEL. OSHA estimates that a
chemical technician, earning $24.68 per hour, requires 30 minutes (0.5
hour) to obtain and analyze each charcoal-sampling tube, and that each
exposure monitoring sample represents the exposures of 2 employees
(i.e., on average, there are two employees involved in the same or
similar tasks).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Supporting Statement for the Information Collection
Requirements of the Acrylonitrile (AN) Standard (29 CFR 1910.1045),
OMB 1218-0126 (2000), p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revision from quarterly to semiannual monitoring would save 282
burden hours and $6,947. The revision from monthly to quarterly
monitoring would save 628 burden hours and $15,499. Thus, revision of
the Acrylonitrile Standard would reduce total annual burden by 910
hours and $22,446.
G. Alternative Control Methods for Class I Asbestos Removal (Sec.
1915.1001(g)(6)(iii) and Sec. 1926.1101(g)(6)(iii))
OSHA is proposing to delete provisions in OSHA's Asbestos Standards
for shipyard employment and for construction (Sec. 1915.1001,
paragraph (g)(6)(iii), and 1926.1101, paragraph (g)(6)(iii),
respectively) that require that employers submit, to the Directorate of
Technical Support, alternative control
[[Page 66505]]
methods used to perform Class I asbestos work. OSHA believes that this
requirement is unnecessary because the Agency can obtain this
information from the public through an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking. Current OSHA regulatory policy requires that paperwork
provisions such as this requirement demonstrate a benefit to employees
or serve some other useful regulatory purpose.
To submit alternative control methods to the Directorate of
Technical Support, OSHA estimates would require 1 hour and cost $39.
These estimates are based on the assumption that OSHA would receive 7
notifications from employers who choose new or modified control
technology to reduce exposure in Class I asbestos for shipyards. A
manager, earning $38.92 per hour, would spend on average 10 minutes to
develop and transmit the information to the Agency for each employer.
Thus removing this requirement would result in annual cost savings of
$39.
For the Asbestos Standard for construction, OSHA again assumes the
Agency would receive 7 notifications from employers who choose new or
modified control technology to reduce exposures in Class I asbestos
work. OSHA estimates a manager, earning $38.92 an hour, would need 10
minutes to develop and transmit the information to OSHA. Thus, 1 burden
hour would be spent, at a cost of $39, to submit alternative method
information to OSHA.
Total annual savings of $78 would result from deleting these two
asbestos-related provisions, since the information would no longer have
to be submitted.
H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the ILO U/C Rating (Sec.
1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A) and Sec. 1910.1029(j)(20(ii))
OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(A) of the Inorganic
Arsenic Standard (Sec. 1910.1018) and paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the Coke
Oven Emissions Standards (Sec. 1910.1029); these provisions require
that employees' chest x-rays receive an International Labor Office
UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. Subsequent to the promulgation of
these provisions, the Agency received information from two physicians
that the ILO U/C rating is not suitable to evaluate chest x-rays for
lung cancer. Based on this information, OSHA believes that the ILO U/C
rating may not be a suitable method to use in evaluating chest x-rays
for lung cancer. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to remove the ILO
U/C rating requirements specified in the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke
Oven Emissions Standards, thereby permitting the examining physician to
determine the most effective procedure for evaluating these chest x-
rays. Deleting the ILO/UC rating would provide cost savings since it
allows the examining physician to determine the most effective
procedure for evaluating chest x-rays. However, the Agency has not
calculated the value of such savings.
I. Signed Medical Opinions (Sec. 1910.1001(l)(7)(i), Sec.
1910.1027(l)(10)(i), and Sec. 1926.1127,(l)(10)(i))
Paragraph (l)(7)(i) of the Asbestos Standard (Sec. 1910.1001) and
paragraph (l)(10)(i) of the Cadmium Standards for both general industry
(Sec. 1910.1027) and construction (Sec. 1926.1127), require that the
examining physician sign the written medical opinion provided as part
of the medical surveillance requirements of these standards. The
Preamble to the Cadmium standards states that ``the requirement that
the physician sign the opinion is to ensure that the information that
is given to the employer has been seen and read by the physician and
that the physician has personally determined whether the employee may
continue to work in cadmium-exposed jobs'' (57 FR 42366). No other
substance-specific standard promulgated by OSHA requires a signed
medical opinion.
The Agency believes that the requirement to sign a medical opinion
written by a physician is unnecessary, precludes electronic
transmission of the opinion from the physician to the employer, and
provides no benefit to employees. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to
remove this requirement from these paragraph.
Removal of the requirement that a physician sign the written
medical opinion provided as part of the medical surveillance
requirement of these standards would provide more flexibility, but does
not appear to provide any significant savings in time or burden for
most employers.
J. Semiannual Medical Examinations (Sec. 1910.1017(k)(2)(i), Sec.
1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), and Sec. 1910.1029(j)(3)(i))
Three revisions geared toward reducing burdens are proposed for
semiannual medical examinations: changing the requirement to an annual
exam requirement for the Vinyl Chloride, Arsenic, and Coke Oven
Standards. This analysis presents the burden hours and costs associated
with the current provisions and then presents estimates of cost savings
of the proposed revisions.
The proposed revision of the semiannual requirement for medical
exams in the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec. 1910.1017(k)(2)(i) to an
annual one (for employees working in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl
manufacturing for 10 years or longer) would generate annual cost
savings in several ways: less employees' time; fewer medical exams; and
less clerical time providing the physicians' opinions to the affected
employees and maintaining medical records.
Based on estimates in the ICR of the number of facilities, the
number of employees per facility, and the distribution of employee
exposures, OSHA estimates that 890 burden hours are incurred for
medical surveillance under the semiannual examination requirement, with
183 employees monitored twice a year for two hours and 79 employees
once a year for two hours at a cost of $16,376 (890 hours x $18.40, the
wage rate of a production worker). With annual examinations, OSHA
estimates that 324 burden hours would be required, as 262 employees
would be monitored only once a year, taking two hours. The cost would
be $9,642 (524 hours x $18.40). Annual savings of $6,734 would result.
The revision from semiannual to annual medical exams would result
in annual savings of $23,790 in the cost of the medical exams
themselves, at $130 per exam, as 183 employees would have only one, as
opposed to two, medical exams per year. The change in frequency from
semiannual to annual medical exams also reduces the number of hours of
clerical time required from 76 to 45, resulting in annual savings of
$539.
When annual savings are combined for the cost of employees' time
($6,734), medical exams ($23,790), and clerical costs of medical
records ($539), the revision of the Vinyl Chloride Standard generates
annual savings of $31,064. Thus, revision of the Vinyl Chloride
Standard results in reduced burden hours and substantial annual cost
savings.
The proposed rule also revises the semiannual medical exam
requirement in the Arsenic Standard, Sec. 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), for
employees who are 45 years old or older with 10 or more years of
exposure to Inorganic Arsenic (IA) above the AL. Based on the ICR, the
burden for medical surveillance was estimated to be 5,317 hours. OSHA
assumes each exam would take one hour and forty minutes and that 50
percent of the 1,900 employees would require two examinations per year,
50 percent of 1,990 employees would undergo only one exam per year, and
an
[[Page 66506]]
additional 10 percent would be subject to one exam per year. The cost
of the employees' time would be $97,838 (5,317 hours x $18.40 hourly
wage rate). Requiring only annual medical exams would result in 3,656
burden hours. The cost of the employees being away from the job would
be $67,264 (3,565 hours x $18.40 per hour). Thus, replacing semiannual
medical exams by annual medical exams would result in annual savings of
1,661 burden hours and $30,574.
The change in frequency from semiannual to annual contributes
$129,350 in annual cost savings for the medical exams themselves, at
$130 per exam. Semiannual medical exams cost $413,920 while annual
medical exams would cost an estimated $284,570. In addition, the
clerical costs of medical records would drop by $4,313 ($13,803-
$9,489). Total annual savings resulting from revision of the Inorganic
Arsenic Standard would be $164,238 ($30,574 + $4,313) and would consist
of savings in costs of employees' time, medical exams, and clerical
time for medical records.
The proposed rule revises the semiannual medical exams requirement
except for the urinary cytology examination, to annual medical exams in
the Coke Oven Standard, Sec. 1910.1029(j)(3)(i), for employees who are
45 years of age or older with five or more years of exposure in
regulated areas. However, these employees still receive semiannual
urinary cytology examinations. The proposed revision would generate
annual cost savings in employees' time, medical exams, and physicians'
medical opinions. Based on the ICR, medical exams currently require
14,903 burden hours as 84 percent of the 4,600 employees who work in
regulated areas require semiannual medical exams, 16 percent require an
annual medical exam, and 10 percent require an additional medical exam
per year. Each exam requires an employee to be away from his or her job
for one hour and 40 minutes, at $18.40 per hour, for a total annual
cost of $274,217. After the proposed revision, annual medical exams and
semiannual urinary cytology exams would require 12,005 burden hours at
a cost of $220,893. Cost savings in employees' time would thus be
$53,323.
At a cost of $130 per medical exam and $50 for urinary cytology
exams per employee, replacing semiannual medical exams (estimated cost
of $1,425,384) with annual medical exams plus semiannual urinary
cytology exams (estimated cost of $1,126,264) would result in annual
cost savings of $309,120. There would be no savings in clerical costs
of medical records.
OSHA estimates that revision of the Coke Oven Standard would
generate total annual savings of $362,443 when the savings in the costs
of employees' time and medical exams.
K. Notification of Regulated Area (Sec. 1910.1003(f)(1)(i),
1910.1017(n)(1)(i), 1910.1018(n)(2)(i), and 1910.1045(d)(1)(1))
The proposed rule would delete the ``13 carcinogens'' provision,
Sec. 1910.1003(f)(1), that requires employers to notify the nearest
OSHA Area Director of the established of Regulated Areas. Deleting this
provision results in savings in burden hours and associated costs. As
in the ICR, OSHA assumes that changes in operation requiring a report
to the nearest OSHA Area Director currently occur once a year per
facility and require one hour each of managerial and clerical time, a
total of two hours per employer, to report the necessary information.
OSHA estimates that 97 employers would be affected. Burden hours are
thus estimated to total 194 hours to report the information. The cost
is estimated to be $5,457 (97 employers x ($38.92 x 1 hour + $17.34 x 1
hour)), where $38.92 is the wage rate of a manager and $17.34 is the
wage rate of a clerical worker. Thus, savings due to deleting this
provision would be 194 burden hours and $5,457.
The proposed rule would eliminate the vinyl chloride provision,
Sec. 1910.1017(n)(1), that requires employers to notify the nearest
OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas. Based on
the ICR, the Agency estimates that 13 new regulated areas are
established each year, and that a manager, at an hourly rate of $38.92,
takes 15 minutes (0.25 hour) to notify the Area Director of the address
and the location of the establishment, and the number of employees in a
new regulated area. Thus, for new regulated areas, OSHA estimates a
current burden of 3.25 hours at a cost of $126.
For existing facilities, OSHA assumes that each employer
experiences one change in a regulated area each year, and that a
supervisor requires 10 minutes (0.17 hour) to inform the Area Director
of this change. OSHA estimates that there are 80 facilities, resulting
in 14 burden hours and a cost of $529 (14 burden hours x $38.92).
Total burden of the current rules, for new and existing facilities,
is 17 hours, costing $656. The proposed revision would, thus, save 17
hours and $656.
The proposed rule would delete the requirement in the Inorganic
Arsenic Standard, 1910.1018(d)(1), that employers notify the nearest
OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas. An OSHA
report titled ``Sampling Activity by Substance'' determined that 14.1
percent of establishments had Inorganic Arsenic exposures that exceeded
the PEL. Based on the Agency's estimate that 42 facilities are covered
by the standard, six facilities would have employees with IA exposures
that exceed the PEL (14.1% x 42 = 6). OSHA assumes that these six
employers have already notified the Agency about establishing regulated
areas; therefore, only significant changes to existing regulated areas
or establishments of new regulated areas must be reported to OSHA. The
Agency assumes that one significant change occurs in, or a new
regulated area is added to, each of these facilities annually, and that
a manager, earning $38.92 an hour, will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to
notify the Agency of the significant change or addition. Thus, OSHA
estimates it would require three burden hours for six employers to
notify the Area Director about establishment of regulated areas.
Estimated cost would be $117 (three burden hours x $38.92 an hour). By
deleting this provision, savings of three burden hours and $117 would
be realized.
The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Acrylonitrile
Standard, Sec. 1910.1045 (d)(1), that requires employers notify the
nearest OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas.
Since there are no new establishments, OSHA assumes that employers will
not establish new regulated areas during this clearance period, and
estimates that each of the 23 facilities will make one significant
change annually in a regulated area. The Agency estimates that
reporting a significant change to the nearest OSHA Area Office
currently takes a manager 0.5 hour and a clerical worker 0.5 hour each,
for a total of one hour for each of the 23 facilities. Thus, it costs
$647 for the 23 facilities to report a significant change, at $38.92 an
hour for a manager and $17.34 an hour for a clerical. Savings due to
deleting this provision would thus be 23 burden hours and $647.
L. Reporting Emergencies and Incidents (Sec. 1910.1017(n)(2) and
1910.1045(d)(2)(i))
The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Vinyl Chloride
Standard, Sec. 1910.1017(n)(2), that requires employers to report
emergencies, and available facts regarding each emergency, to the
nearest OSHA Area Director. On request of the
[[Page 66507]]
Area Director, the employer must submit additional information in
writing describing the nature and extent of employee exposures, and
measures taken to prevent similar emergencies in the future. OSHA
estimates that each employer experiences one reportable emergency per
year, and that a manager and a secretary will each spend five hours,
for a total of 10 hours, reporting the emergency. OSHA assumes there
are 80 affected employers; a manager and a secretary would each spend
five hours to report an emergency for a total of 800 burden hours. The
cost to the employers would be $22,504 (80 employess x ($38.92 x 5
hours + $17.34 x 5 hours)), since a manager earns $38.92 an hour and a
secretary earns $17.34 an hour. Hence, there would be savings of 800
burden hours and $22,503 by deleting this provision.
The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Acrylonitrile
Standard, Sec. 1910.1045(d)(2), that requires employers to report an
emergency to OSHA within 72 hours and to provide additional information
in writing to the nearest OSHA Area Office if requested to do so. OSHA
estimates that two emergencies will occur in each facility annually,
and that a professional and a secretary each requires one hour for a
total of two hours to compile and report the necessary information for
each emergency. OSHA estimates 92 burden hours would be attributed to
this provision because 23 facilities would report two emergencies per
year and a manager and a secretary would each spend one hour to compile
and report the necessary information. The cost of this provision would
be $2,588, since a manager earns $38.92 per hour and a secretary earns
$17.34 an hour. Savings due to deleting this requirement would be 92
burden hours, worth $2,588.
M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance Plans (Sec. 1910.1017(f)(3),
1910.1018(g)(2)(iv), 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv), 1910.1029(f)(6)(iv),
1910.1044(g)(2)(ii), 1910.1045(g)(2)(v) and 1926.62(e)(2)(v))
The Agency's substance-specific standards typically require
employers to develop compliance plans to meet the exposure-control
objectives of the standard. Most of these standards specify that
employers must update these plans at least annually, and OSHA believes
that annual updating is sufficient to ensure the continued
effectiveness of the plans. However, several older substance-specific
standards promulgated by the Agency require semiannual updating,
including: Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017, paragraph (f)(3)),
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018, paragraph (g)(2)(iv)); Lead (Sec.
1910.1025, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)); Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.
1910.1029(f)(6)(iv)); 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec.
1910.1044, paragraph (g)(2)(ii)); Acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045,
paragraph (g)(2)(v)); and Lead in Construction (Sec. 1926.62,
paragraph (e)(2)(v)).
A review of the Preambles to OSHA's substance-specific standards
found no compelling argument that updating compliance plans
semiannually provides employees with more health protection than
updating these plans annually. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
revise its older substance-specific standards to require annual,
instead of semiannual, updating of compliance plans. OSHA believes that
the proposed revisions would make this requirement consistent across
its standards without diminishing employee protection. Accordingly, the
proposal would eliminate a significant paperwork requirement that has
no demonstrated benefit to employees. The following discussion
estimates the cost savings of the proposed revisions.
The proposed rule revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard to require
that employers update compliance plans at least annually, instead of
semiannually. As in the ICR, the Agency estimates that semiannual
updates require 480 burden hours (20 facilities, each needing eight
hours from a manager and four hours from a secretary) to update the
compliance plans, at a cost of $15,229. On average, a manager earns
$38.92 an hour while a secretary earns $17.34 an hour. Annual updates
on the other hand, would require 240 burden hours at a cost of $7,614.
Thus, revising the standard to allow for annual updates of compliance
plans instead of semiannual updates would result in savings of $7,614.
Modifying the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (Sec. 1910.1018) to
require that employers update compliance plans at least annually
likewise would reduce burden hours and cost. OSHA estimates there are
six employers affected by this standard and that a manager and a
secretary need eight hours and four hours, respectively, to update the
compliance plans. With semiannual updates, the standard would require
144 burden hours at a cost of $4,569. Revising the standard to require
annual compliance updates would entail 72 burden hours at a cost of
$2,284, thereby resulting in savings of $2,284.
The proposed revision of the Lead Standard for General Industry
(Sec. 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv)) would reduce the frequency for updating the
compliance plan from semiannually to annually for areas with exposures
over the PEL. OSHA's information on areas over the PEL in general
industry is relatively old and the standard is almost 25 years old.
Therefore, a substantial amount of time has gone by to achieve
exposures below the PEL. Accordingly, OSHA has not assigned a cost
saving for this provision at this time. Instead, OSHA requests comments
on the approximate number of general industry lead facilities that
still have areas over the PEL. Based on such comments and other
information OSHA may be able to gather, OSHA will attempt to make a
current estimate of the cost savings from this provision.
Revision of the Coke Oven Standard (Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph
(f)(6)(iv)) would allow employers to update their compliance plans
annually instead of semiannually. OSHA estimates that each of the 14
plants takes 3 hours to review and update its compliance plan
semiannually for a total of 84 burden hours. OSHA estimates that a
manager earning $32.92 takes two hours to update the compliance
semiannually; and that a clerk earning $17.34 will take one hour
semiannually to update the plans. Therefore the cost for the 14 plants
to update their compliance plans semiannually is $2,665. Revising
semiannual updating to annual the 14 plants would take 42 hours
annually costing a total of $1,333. The burden hour savings would be 42
hours and cost saving would be $1,332.
The proposed revision of the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
Standard (Sec. 1910.1044) would have no cost or burden hours to
employers since no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP-based end
products.
Revision of the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec. 1910.1045, paragraph
(g)(2)(v)) would require that employers update compliance plans
annually instead of semiannually. OSHA assumes that a manager earning
$38.92 an hour would devote 0.5 hour to update a compliance plan at
each facility. With semiannual updating of compliance plans, employers
would require 23 burden hours at a cost of $895 (23 hours x $38.92).
Revision of the standard to require annual updates would lower this to
11.5 burden hours at a cost of $448 (11.5 x $38.92). Savings due to
this revision would thus be $448.
The proposed revision of the Lead in Construction Standard (Sec.
1926.62, paragraph (e)(2)(v)) would require employers to update
compliance plans annually instead of semiannually. Based on the Lead In
Construction Paperwork Package, which in turn drew upon the Economic
Analysis for the current rule, OSHA estimates it requires 216,344
burden hours at a cost of $8,419,313 (216,272 hours x $38.92) to update
compliance plans semiannually.
[[Page 66508]]
Revising the standard to require annual updates would cut the burden in
half, to 108,172 hours at a cost of $4,209,657 (108,172 hours x
$38.92). Thus, the savings due to changing from semiannual to annual
compliance updates would be $4,209,657.
N. Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Monitoring Results (Sec.
1910.1017(n)(3), 1910.1018(e)(5)(i), 1910.1025(d)(8)(i),
1910.1027(d)(5)(i), 1910.1029(e)(3)(i), 1910.1043(d)(4)(i),
1910.1044(f)(5)(i), 1910.1045(e)(5)(i), 1926.62(d)(8)(i), and
1926.1127(d)(5)(i))
Many of OSHA's substance-specific standards require employers to
notify employees of their exposure monitoring results. However, the
standards specify several different methods for providing this notice.
Accordingly, the standards state that an employer must provide such
notification to employees individually in writing or by posting the
results in a readily accessible location, or both. In addition, the
maximum period for notifying employees of their exposure monitoring
results after the employer receives them varies across the standards.
These periods range from ``as soon as possible'' to 20 working days
after receipt of the monitoring results.
A review of the Preambles to each of the above standards indicates
that the final choice of notification method and maximum period for
notification was a matter of convenience and feasibility; none of the
Preambles provided objective evidence that the final requirements were
most effective in protecting employees. In view of this finding, OSHA
believes that making the requirements consistent among the standards
would reduce confusion and facilitate compliance without diminishing
employee protection. As a result, the Agency is proposing to revise the
standards by requiring employers to provide employees with their
exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the
employees' results in a readily accessible location. Although the
posting option would reduce employers' paperwork burden to some extent,
they must still maintain individual exposure monitoring records for
employees under Sec. Sec. 1910.1020, 1915.1020, and 1926.33, OSHA's
records-access standards for general industry, shipyard employment, and
construction, respectively. Thus, employees could still get subsequent
access to their exposure monitoring results.
OSHA is proposing to standardize the period of time for notifying
employees of their exposure monitoring results after the employer
receives them across 20 pertinent standards. Currently, the
notification period ranges from ``as soon as possible'' to 20 working
days after receipt of the monitoring results. The Agency is proposing
to standardize the notification period to 15 days for general industry
and no later than 5 days for construction and shipyards. Making these
requirements consistent will reduce confusion and facilitate compliance
with the provisions. However, it will not result in any significant
cost savings.
OSHA assumes that the employers will choose to post the employees'
results in a readily accessible location for all the standards that
give the option of providing the results individually in writing or by
posting. This would generate savings in burden hours and costs.
The proposed rule would revise the Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec.
1910.1017 (n)(3)) to require employers to provide employees with their
exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the
employees' results in a readily accessible location. Based on the ICR,
under the present standard for exposure above the AL, but below the
PEL, 42 burden hours are required at a cost of $727 as 131 employees
would be notified quarterly by a secretary earning $17.34 an hour who
would spend 5 minutes per notification. For exposures above the PEL,
126 burden hours at a cost of $2,181 are required, as the same number
of employees would be notified monthly by the secretary. Additional
monitoring involves another 6 burden hours, at a cost of $111. Thus,
the present Vinyl Chloride Standard requires a total of 174 burden
hours and a cost of $3,019.
With the revised standard, for exposure above the AL but below the
PEL, 3 burden hours at a cost of $55 would be incurred as a secretary
of each of 20 employers would post monitoring results semiannually at a
readily accessible location. For exposure above the PEL, a secretary
would quarterly post monitoring results at 20 facilities in a readily
accessible location, requiring 6 burden hours at a cost of $111.
Additional monitoring would require 6 burden hours at a cost of $111.
Thus, the revised standard would require 15 burden hours at a cost of
$277. Cost savings would amount to $2,741.
The proposed rule revises the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (Sec.
1910.1018(e)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily
accessible location.
The present Arsenic Standard requires employers to notify employees
individually in writing of their exposure monitoring results. As in the
Inorganic Arsenic Paperwork Package, OSHA estimates that 7,400
employees are exposed to IA, 14.1 percent or 1,043 of these are exposed
above the PEL and will be monitored quarterly, 12.8 percent or 947 of
these employees are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and will
receive semiannual monitoring, while the employers must provide 10
percent or 740 of these employees with the results obtained to meet the
additional monitoring requirement. OSHA estimates that a secretary,
earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare each
notification. Thus, 545 burden hours estimated to cost $9,444 are
attributed to the present Inorganic Arsenic Standard.
With the revised standard, employers would have to post monitoring
results in a readily accessible location, which is cheaper than writing
to employees individually. For estimating the burden, the assumptions
would remain the same as under the present standard except employers or
facilities would post monitoring results. OSHA estimates there are 42
facilities: 14.1 percent or 6 of these have employees exposed above the
PEL and will be monitored quarterly; 12.8 percent or 5 of these have
employees that are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and will be
monitored semiannually, and an additional 10 percent or 4 facilities
will be monitored yearly. Thus, the revised standard would require 3
burden hours at a cost of $51. Cost savings due to changing from
writing employees individually to employers posting monitoring results
in a readily accessible location would amount to $9,393.
The proposed rule revises the Lead General Industry Standard (Sec.
1910.1025(d)(8)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes
the employees would post the employees' results in a readily accessible
location.
Currently, monitoring is required initially to determine if any
employees are exposed to lead at or above the action level, and every
six months if employees are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and
quarterly if employees are exposed to lead above the PEL. OSHA assumes
zero burden hours for quarterly monitoring based on the
[[Page 66509]]
assumption in the paperwork burden analysis that no industry sectors
have working conditions in which employees are being exposed above the
PEL. The Agency has estimated that about 11,508 employees would receive
initial monitoring and 377,859 employees may be exposed to lead at
levels between the AL and the PEL, which would require periodic
monitoring at six-month intervals. OSHA estimates that a secretary
earning $17.34 an hour will require five minutes (.08 hour) to prepare
each of 767,226 employee notifications (11,508 initial notifications
and 377,859 employees x 2 semiannual notifications).
Developing 767,226 employees monitoring results to comply with the
present Lead Standard will take 61,378 burden hours, at a total cost of
$1,064,296.
Under the revised standard 9,997 burden hours, at a cost of
$173,001, would be required for employee notification (secretaries at
each of the 62,357 employers, spending five minutes each, at $17.34 per
hour, to post initial and semiannual monitoring results). Cost savings
would amount to $891,293.
The proposed rule would revise the Cadmium General Industry
Standard (Sec. 1910.1027(d)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide
employees with their exposure monitoring results individually in
writing or by posting the employees' results in a readily accessible
location. As posting the monitoring results is cheaper than
individually writing employees, OSHA assumes the employers would prefer
to post the monitoring results.
The present standard requires employers to notify employees
individually in writing and to post in a centralized location their
exposure monitoring results. As in the Cadmium General Industry
Paperwork Package, the Agency estimates that 71,306 employees may need
periodic monitoring when exposed to cadmium above the AL. OSHA
estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5
minutes (.08 hour) semiannually to individually inform the employees in
writing of exposure monitoring results and to also post a copy of the
results in a centralized location. Included in this five minutes is the
time to maintain the record as required in paragraph (n)(1). The Agency
also estimates that the 143 additional samples will occur in 143
plants. Thus, 11,420 burden hours would be required at a cost of
$198,030 as 71,306 employees are notified individually in writing and
143 plants post notices of the employees' exposure monitoring results
in centralized locations.
Under the revised standard, 8,517 burden hours at a cost of
$147,685 would be required (secretaries at each of the 53,161
employers, and for posting 143 additional samples spending five
minutes, at $17.34 per hour, to post monitoring results). Cost savings
due to changing from individually writing employees and posting notices
in centralized location to employers posting notices in a readily
accessible location would amount to $50,341.
The proposed rule would revise the Coke Oven Emissions Standard
(Sec. 1910.1029 (e)(3)(i)) to require employers to provide employees
with their monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the
employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes the
employees would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily
accessible location.
The present standard requires employers to notify employees
individually in writing to their exposure monitoring results. As in the
ICR, the Agency estimates that 4,600 employees receive exposure
measurements (i.e., are ``covered employees'' because they work in
regulated areas). These measurements include 184,400 quarterly
measurements (4,600 employees x 4 measurements) and 230 resamplings (5%
of 4,600 employees), for a total of 18,630 samples. The agency also
assumes that a secretary, at a wage rate of $17,34 per hour, will take
5 minutes (.08 hour) to notify each employee of his or her sampling
results. Thus, 1,490 burden hours would be required at a cost of
$25,844 at 4,830 employees would be notified individually in writing of
their exposure monitoring results.
With the revised standard, 5 burden hours at a cost of $79 would be
attributed to secretaries at each of the 14 employers who earn $17.34
per hour and would spend five minutes each to post monitoring results
at a readily accessible location. Cost savings would amount to $25,765.
The proposed rule revises the Cotton Dust Standard (Sec.
1910.1043(d)(4)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily
accessible location.
OSHA estimated the numbers of exposed employees and the number of
facilities in the industry by utilizing data from Employment and
Earnings and County Business Patterns. The Agency estimates that 49,628
employees would be notified in writing of their exposure monitoring
results. OSHA estimates that a secretary, earing $17.34 per hour, will
take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 3,970
burden hours are required at a cost of $68,844 as 53,938 employees are
notified individually in writing of their exposure monitoring results.
Under the revision, 43 burden hours at a cost of $742 would be
required (a secretary at each of the 535 plants, earning $17.34 per
hour, would spend five minutes (.08 hour) to post monitoring results.
Cost savings would amount to $68,102.
The proposed rule would revise the 1,2-Dibro-3-Chloropropane (Sec.
1910.1044(f)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. No cost or
burden hours accrue to employers under this standard since OSHA has
determined that no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP or DBCP-based
end-use products.
The proposed rule would revise the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.
1910.1045(e)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily
accessible location.
The Agency estimates that under the present standard 923 employees
must be informed of sampling results in writing. OSHA estimates that a
secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to
prepare each notification. Thus, 485 burden hours are required at a
cost of $8,415.
Under the revision, 9 burden hours at a cost of $160 would be
attributed to secretaries at each of the 23 plants, earning $17.34 per
hour, spending five minutes (.08 hour) each to post quarterly
monitoring results and one additional monitoring result. Cost savings
would amount to $8,255.
The proposed rule would revise the Lead in Construction Standard
(Sec. 1926.62(d)(8)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily
accessible location.
[[Page 66510]]
As in the Lead in Construction Paperwork Package, the Agency
estimates that under the present standard, 177,194 employees are
notified two times a year in writing of their exposure monitoring
results. OSHA estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will
take 6 minutes (.10 hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 38,678
burden hours are required at a cost of $670,671.
The revised standard would require that employers post monitoring
results at readily accessible locations at each facility. Thus, 10,185
burden hours at a cost of $176,608 would be required in Lead in
Construction as secretaries of each of 147,073 firms, earning $17.34
per hour, would spend six minutes (.10 hour) to post monitoring results
two times a year. Cost savings would amount to $494.063.
The proposed rule revises the Cadmium in Construction Standard
(Sec. 1926.1127(d)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees
with their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by
posting the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA
assumes the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a
readily accessible location.
The Agency estimates that under the present standard 7,500
employees need monitoring when exposed to cadmium above the AL. OSHA
estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5
minutes (.08 hour) to individually inform the employees in writing of
exposure monitoring results and to also post a copy of the results in a
centralized location. The Agency assumes that the time associated with
posting a copy of the result is minimal after already completing the
individual notification; thus no additional time is assumed. Included
in this five minutes is the time to maintain the record as required in
paragraph (n)(1). The present standard requires 1,720 burden hours at a
cost of $32,044.
With the revised standard, 280 burden hours at a cost of $4,855
would be required (secretaries at 1000 employers, earning $17.34 per
hour, would spend 5 minutes each to post monitoring results. The
revision would result in cost savings of $27,189.
V. Costs, Economic Feasibility, and Technological Feasibility
The analysis described above indicates that the cost savings
associated with this rule are $6.7 million per year. Since this is far
less than $100 million, the proposed rule will not be economically
significant under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule is
technologically feasible because it always involves reducing
requirements on employers. Because this rule provides only cost
savings, and no costs to affected employers, it is economically
feasible.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the
proposed rule to determine if they would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated in
section IV (``Economic Analysis'') of this preamble, the proposed rule
is expected to reduce compliance costs and regulatory burden for all
employers, large and small. The reduction in compliance costs is under
$100 million. Accordingly, the Agency certifies that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
VII. Environmental Impact Assessment
OSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 U.S.C. part 1500), and the Department of
Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). The Agency finds that the
revisions included in the proposal do not directly involve the control
of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would have no
additional impact on the environment, including no impact on the
release of materials that contaminate natural resources or the
environment, beyond the impact imposed by the existing requirements
these proposed revisions would amend.
VIII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d),
and 5 CFR 1320.11) requires Federal agencies to submit collections of
information (i.e., on provisions requiring paperwork) contained in
proposed rules to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
PRA-95 defines a ``collection of information'' to mean, ``[O]btaining,
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)). The paperwork
burden-hour estimate and cost analysis that an agency submits to OMB is
termed an ``Information Collection Request'' (ICR).
The proposed revisions that reduce paperwork burden hours and/or
costs are contained in the following 12 ICRs currently approved by OMB,
(OMB approval numbers are in parenthesis): asbestos in construction
(1218-0134); asbestos in shipyards (1218-0195); 13 carcinogens (1218-
0085); vinyl chloride (1218-0010); inorganic arsenic (1218-0104); lead
in general industry (1218-0092); lead in construction (1218-0189);
cadmium in general industry (1218-0185); cadmium in construction (1218-
0186); coke over emissions (1218-0128); cotton dust (1218-0061); and
acrylonitrile (1218-0126).
For six ICRs, the proposed revisions do not affect burden hours or
costs. The six ICRs are: Temporary Labor Camps (1218-0096); 1,2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane (1218-0101); 1,3-Butadiene (1218-0170);
Asbestos in General Industry (1218-0133); Formaldehyde (1218-0145);
Methylenedianline in construction (1218-0183).
This proposal will result in a 207,892 burden hour reduction, from
357,749 hours to 149,857 hours. The paperwork burden hour reduction
estimates may differ from the Preliminary Economic Analysis as a result
of rounding.
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the Agency
is providing the following information for the ICRs having reductions
in burden hours and costs resulting from the proposed revisions: Title
and section number of the standard covered by the ICR; OMB control
number; a brief description of the proposed collection-of-information
revisions, including changes in frequency; total number of respondents
being impacted by the revision; and an estimate of the reduced annual
reporting (hour) and cost burdens for the information-collection
requirements in the standard.\11\ The costs below account for only
capital, maintenance, and purchasing revision. Hourly wage rate savings
are fully discussed in the preliminary economic analysis section of
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In determining these reporting and cost burdens, the Agency
considers, as appropriate, the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining the required data, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has a particular interest in comments on the following
issues regarding the proposed revisions to the paperwork requirements:
[sbull] The extent to which the proposed revisions to the
information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the Agency's functions, including the usefulness of the
information;
[[Page 66511]]
[sbull] The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time
and costs) of the proposed revisions, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
[sbull] The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
[sbull] Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and -transmission techniques.
Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the following ICRs in the
manner described:
Title: Temporary labor camps (Sec. 1910.142).
OMB control number: 1218-0096.
Proposed revision: Delete the requirement for camp superintendents
to sue a telegram or telephone when notifying local health authorities
of the outbreak of specific illnesses and medical conditions among
employees (Sec. 1910.142 (1)(2)).
Number of respondents: 838.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed
revision does to affect burden hours or costs.
Title: Asbestos in General Industry (Sec. 1910.1001).
OMB control number: 1218-0133.
Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that the physician sign
the physician's written opinion (Sec. 1910.1001(l)(7)(i)).
Number of respondents: 233.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
Title: 13 carcinogens (Sec. 1910.1003).
OMB control number: 1218-0085.
Proposed revisions: Remove the requirements that employers notify
OSHA area directors of regulated areas (Sec. 1910.1003(f)(1)) and the
incidental release of a specified carcinogen (Sec. 1910.1003(f)(2)).
Number of respondents: 97.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): Removing these
two provisions result in a burden hour reduction of 1,164 hours. There
are no operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: Vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017).
OMB control number: 1218-0010.
Proposed revisions: Lower the frequency of employee exposure
monitoring from monthly to quarterly (Sec. 1910.1017(d)(2)(i)), and
from quarterly to semiannually (Sec. 1910.1017(d)(2)(ii)); reduce the
frequency of updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually
(Sec. 1910.1017(f)(3)); reduce the administration of medical
examinations from semiannually to annually (Sec. 1910.1017(k)(2)(i))
(The reduction in the number of medical examinations results in fewer
instances that employers must provide a copy of a physician's statement
to the employee (Sec. 1910.1017(k)(4)) and fewer medical records
(Sec. 1910.1017(m)(iii)); remove the requirement that employers notify
OSHA of regulated areas (Sec. 1910.1017(n)(1)) and of emergencies
(Sec. 1910.1017(n)(2)); and allow employers to post employee exposure
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to
employees from 10 working days to 15 working days (Sec.
1910.1017(n)(3)).
Number of respondents: 80.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 1,938 burden hours. Less frequent
exposure monitoring results in a cost savings of $120,520. The
reduction in the number of medical examinations results in a cost
savings of $133,790.
Title: Inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018).
OMB control number: 1218-0104.
Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that employers notify
OSHA of regulated areas (Sec. 1910.1018(d)(1)); allow employers to
post employee exposure monitoring results instead of individually
informing each employee and extend the time for employers to provide
exposure-monitoring results to employees from 5 working days to 15
working days (Sec. 1910.1018(e)(5)(i)); reduce the frequency of
updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually (Sec.
1910.1018(g)(2)(iv)); reduce the administration of medical examinations
from semiannually to annually (Sec. 1910.1018(n)(3)(ii)). (The
reduction in the number of medical examinations results in fewer
instances that employers must provide information to the physician
(Sec. 1910.1018(n)(5)) and fewer instances that employers must provide
a copy of the physician's written opinion to the employee (Sec.
1910.1018(n)(6)). Also fewer medical records (Sec. 1910.1018(q)(2))
will be maintained.)
Number of respondents: 42.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 2,517 burden hours. The reduction in
the number of medical examinations results in a cost savings of
$124,375.
Title: Lead in general industry (Sec. 1910.1025).
OMB control number: 1218-0092.
Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days (Sec.
1910.1025(d)(8)(i)); reduce the frequency of up-dating compliance plans
from semi-annually to annually (Sec. 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv)).
Number of respondents: 61,535.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 51,401 burden hours. There are no
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: Cadmium in general industry (Sec. 1910.1027).
OMB control number: 1218-0185.
Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that the physician's
written opinion be signed (Sec. 1910.1027(l)(10)(i)); allow employers
to either post or individually inform employees of their exposure
monitoring results (Sec. 1910.1027(d)(5)(i)). (The current exposure
monitoring notification requirement requires employers to both post and
individually inform employees of their exposure monitoring results.)
Number of respondents: 53,161.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): Allowing
employers to notify employees by posting employee monitoring results
reduces the burden by 2,902 burden hours. There are no operation and
maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: Coke oven emissions (Sec. 1910.1029).
OMB control number: 1218-0128.
Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days (Sec.
1910.1029(e)(3)(i)); remove the requirement for semi-annual medical
examinations, except for urinary cytology examinations, for employees
45 years of age or older, or for employees with five or more years
employment in a regulated area (Sec. 1910.1029(j)(3)(i)); reduce the
frequency from semiannual to annual review of the employers compliance
plan.
Number of respondents: 14.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 4,425 burden hours. the reduction in
the number of medical examinations results in a cost savings of
$502,320.
Title: Cotton dust (Sec. 1910.1043).
OMB control number: 1218-0061.
[[Page 66512]]
Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and
reduce the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to
employees from 20 working days to 15 working days (Sec.
1910.1043(d)(4)(i)).
Number of respondents: 535.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed
revision results in a reduction of 3,927 burden hours. There are no
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: 1,2-Dibromo-3-chlolropropane (DBCP) (Sec. 1910.1044).
OMB control number: 1218-0101
Proposed Revisions: Remove the provision requiring employers to
notify OSHA when DBCP is introduced into the workplace (Sec. 1910.1044
(d)(4)); modify monthly exposure monitoring to quarterly when DBCP
exposure is above the PEL and quarterly exposure monitoring to semi-
annual when exposures are below the PEL (Sec. 1910.1044 (f)(3(ii));
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days and allow employers to
inform employees of their exposure monitoring results by posting
instead of individually informing employees (Sec. 1910.1044 (f)(5)(i))
and reduce the frequency of updating compliance plans from semi-
annually to at least annually (Sec. 1910.1044 (g)(2)(ii)).
Number of respondents: 0.
Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): There are no
establishments that are currently using DBCP; therefore, there are no
reductions in burden hours and costs on the public.
Title: Acrylonitrile (AN) (Sec. 1910.1045).
OMB control number: 1218-0126.
Proposed revisions: Remove the reporting provisions requiring
employers to notify OSHA when a regulated area is established (Sec.
1910.1045 (d)(1)) and report to the OSHA Area Office within 72 hours
the occurrence of an emergency (Sec. 1910.1045 (d)(2)); lower the
frequency of employee exposure monitoring from monthly/quarterly/
semiannually (Sec. 1910.1045 (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii); extend the
time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to employees
from 5 working days to 15 days and permit employers to post employee
exposure monitoring results (Sec. 1910.1045 (e)(5)); and, reduce the
frequency of updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually
(Sec. 1910.1045(g)(2)).
Number of respondents: 23.
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 1,511 burden hours. There are no
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: 1,3 Butadiene (Sec. 1910.1045).
OMB control number: 1218-0170.
Proposed revisions: Extend the time for employers to provide
exposure-monitoring results to employees from 5 working days to 15
working days (Sec. 1910.1051 (d)(7)(ii).
Number of respondents: 255.
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): The proposed
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
Title: Asbestos in shipyards(Sec. 1910.1001).
OMB control number: 1218-0195.
Proposed revisions: Extend the maximum time for employers to
provide exposure-monitoring results to employees from as soon as
possible to 5 working days (Sec. 1915.1001 (f)(5)(i)); remove the
requirement that employers submit their alternative control methods to
OSHA (Sec. 1915.1001(g)(6)(iii)).
Number of respondents: 7
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of burden hour. There are no operation
and maintnace costs associated with these revisions.
Title: MDA in Construction (Sec. 1926.60).
OMB control number: 1218-0183.
Proposed Revisions: Reduce the time for employers must provide
exposure-monitoring results to employers from 15 working days to 5
working days (Sec. 1926.60(f)(7)).
Number of respondents: 66.
burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): The proposed
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
Title: Lead in construction (Sec. 1926.62).
OMB control number: 1218-0189.
Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee
(Sec. 1926.62 (d)(8)(i)); reduce the frequency of updating compliance
plans from semi-annually to annually (Sec. 1926.62 (e)(2)(v)).
Number of respondents: 147,073.
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 136,665 burden hours. These are no
operations and maintenance cost associated with these revisions.
Title: Asbestos in construction (Sec. 1926.1101).
OMB control number: 1218-0134.
Proposed revisions: Increase the maximum time for employers to
provide exposure-monitoring results to employees from as soon as
possible to 5 working days (Sec. 1926.1101 (f)(5)(i)) and remove the
requirement that employers submit their alternative control methods to
OSHA (Sec. 1926.1101 (g)(6)(iii)).
Number of respondents: 7.
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 1 burden hour. There are no
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
Title: Cadmium in construction (Sec. 1926.1127).
OMB control number: 1218-0186.
Proposed revisions: Allow employers to either post or individually
inform employees of their exposure monitoring results (Sec. 1926.1127
(d)(5)(i)). The current exposure monitoring notification requirement
requires employers to both post and individually inform employees of
their exposure monitoring results. Remove the requirement that the
physician's written opinion be signed (Sec. 1926.1127 (l)(10)(i)).
Number of respondents: 1,000.
Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed
revisions result in a reduction of 1,440 burden hours. These are no
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
The Agency has submitted a copy of the above ICRs to OMB for their
review and approval. Members of the public who wish to provide comments
on these proposed revisions must submit comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530 (Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).
The Agency will summarize the comments submitted by the public in
response to this notice and will include the summaries in its request
to OMB for approval for the revisions to the 17 final information
collection requests that result from this proposal. These comments will
also become part of the record, and will be available for public
inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office.
Copies of the individual ICR's detailing the revisions are
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA or OMB docket offices.
Members of the public may also receive a copy of one, or all of the
ICRs, through the mail by contacting Mr. Todd Owen at (202) 639-2444,
or electronically via OSHA's Web site on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/.
[[Page 66513]]
IX. Unfunded Mandates
OSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and Executive Order
12875. As discussed above in section III (``Legal Considerations'') of
this preamble, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule
is likely to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on public and
private employers by the existing requirements these proposed revisions
would amend. The proposal would not expand existing regulatory
requirements or increase the number of employers who are covered by the
existing rules. Consequently, compliance with the proposed rule would
require no additional expenditures by either public or private
employers. In sum, the proposed rule does not mandate that state,
local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory
obligations.
X. Federalism
The Agency has reviewed the proposed 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 before taking actions that restrict state policy options, and
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and
the problem is of national scope. The Executive Order provides for
preemption of state law only when Congress expresses an intent that a
Federal agency do so. The Federal agency must limit any such preemption
to the extent possible.
With respect to states that do not have occupational safety and
health plans approved by OSHA under section 18 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the ``Act'') (29 U.S.C. 667), the Agency
finds that the proposed rule conforms to the preemption provisions of
the Act. These provisions authorize OSHA to preempt state promulgation
and enforcement of requirements dealing with occupational safety and
health issues covered by Agency standards, unless the state has a state
occupational safety and health plan approved by the Agency. (See Gade
v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 112 S.Ct. 2374
(1992).) The provisions of 29 U.S.C. 667 prohibit states without such
programs from issuing citations for violations of requirements covered
by Agency standards. The proposed rule would not expand this
limitation.
Regarding states that have OSHA-approved occupational safety and
health plans (``State-plan states''), the Agency finds that the
proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132 because the proposal
addresses a problem (i.e., health hazards) that is national in scope.
After OSHA adopts final revisions based on this proposal, section
18(c)(2) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)) would not preempt any
alternative revisions made by State-plan states if these revisions are
at least as affective as the final revisions developed by the Agency
from this proposal.
OSHA invites the states to submit comments and information
regarding the proposed revisions. In addition to addressing the impact
of the proposal on employee protection and employer burden, the Agency
requests the states, especially State-plan states, to identify any
enforcement issues they believe may result of OSHA adopts the proposed
revisions.
XI. State-Plan States
The 24 states and two territories with their own federally-approved
occupational safety and health plans must develop revisions that are at
least as effective as the final revisions adopted by the Agency from
this proposal within six months after OSHA publishes the final rule.
These states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut (State and local government employees only), Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Jersey (State and local government employees only), New Mexico, New
York (State and local government employees only), North Carolina,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.
XII. Public Participation
The Agency requests members of the public to submit written
comments and other information concerning this proposal. These comments
may include comments and data that endorse or support or object to the
proposed revisions set forth in this notice. OSHA welcomes such
comments and information so that the record of this rulemaking will
represent a full public response on the issues involved. See the
sections above titled Date and Addresses for information on sending
these submissions to the Agency. Submissions received within the
specified comment period will become part of the record, and will be
available for public inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office.
Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSHA Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, members
of the public may request an informal hearing by filing a request as
specified above under the section titled Addresses. However, section
6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (``the Act'') in
conjunction with the Administrative Procedures Act does not require the
Agency to hold a public hearing on proposed revisions involving
medical-surveillance or exposure monitoring requirements. Requests for
hearings must include the objections to the proposal that warrant a
hearing. The party making objections that are part of a hearing request
must:
[sbull] Include their name and address;
[sbull] Ensure that the request has a postmark date no later than
December 30, 2002;
[sbull] Separately number each objection;
[sbull] Specify with particularity the grounds for each objection;
and
Include a detailed summary of the evidence supporting each
objection that they plan to offer at the requested hearing.
Interested parties may file objections with their comments and they
will be fully considered by the Agency. Formal objections pursuant to
the preceding paragraph are only required if a party is requesting a
hearing.
Submit three copies of written comments to the Docket Office,
Docket No. S-778-A, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-
2350). Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less by
fax to the Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
You may submit comments electronically through OSHA's Homepage at
http://www.osha.gov. Please note that you may not attach materials such
as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish
to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA
Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such
materials to the OSHA Docket Office, you must clearly identify your
electronic comments by name, date, and subject, so that we can attach
the materials to your electronic comments.
Send requests for a hearing to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone:
(202) 693-1999). Submit comments on the reduction of paperwork burden
described in section VII of this notice to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New
[[Page 66514]]
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530 (Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).
XIII. Authority
John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this document.
Signed at Washington, DC, on October 15, 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Hazardous substances; Occupational safety and health; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 1915
Hazardous substances; Shipyard employment; Occupational safety and
health; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vessels.
29 CFR Part 1926
Construction industry; Hazardous substances; Occupational safety
and health; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In accordance with sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657)), section 41 of
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941),
section 107 of the Contract Work and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
333), section 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), the Agency
proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart J--General Environmental Controls
1. The authority citation for subpart J is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 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), or 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), as applicable.
Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.142 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1910.142, remove the words ``by telegram or telephone''
at the end of paragraph (l)(2).
Subpart K--Medical and First Aid
3. The authority citation for subpart K is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 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), or 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
4. In the first paragraph of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.151, remove
the words ``American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum
Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type First-aid Kits'' and add, in
their place, ``American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-1998 ``Minimum
Requirements for Workplace First-aid Kits.''
Subpart R--Special Industries
5. The authority citation for subpart R is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 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), or 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.268 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 1910.268, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Employers must provide employees with readily accessible, and
appropriate first aid supplies. A nonmandatory example of appropriate
supplies is listed in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.151.
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
7. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, and 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), I-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653), except those
substances that have exposure limits in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, of
29 CFR1910.1000. Section 1910.1000 also issued under section (6)(a)
of the Act (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 inorganic
arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust listings.
Section 1910.1000 also issued under section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 653.
8. in Sec. 1910.1001, revise paragraph (d)(7)(i) to read as set
forth below and remove the word ``signed'' from the first sentence of
the introductory text of paragraph (1)(7)(i).
Sec. 1910.1001 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) The employer
must, within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any
monitoring performed under this section, notify each affected employee
of these results either individually in writing or by posting the
results in an appropriate location that is accessible to affected
employees.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1003 [Amended]
9-10. Section 1910.1003 is amended by removing and reserving
paragraph (f).
11. Section 1910.1017 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of
paragraph (f)(3) and paragraph (k)(2);
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (k)(6);
c. Redesignating paragraph (k)(7) as (k)(6); and
d. Removing paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) and redesignating
paragraph (n)(3) as new paragraph (n) and revising it.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * * (i) Must be repeated at least quarterly for any employee
exposed, without regard to the use of respirators, in excess of the
permissible exposure limit.
(ii) Must be repeated not less than every 6 months for any employee
exposed without regard to the use of respirators, at or above the
action level.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * * Such plans must be updated at least annually.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
[[Page 66515]]
(2) Examinations must be provided in accordance with this paragraph
at least annually.
* * * * *
(n) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must,
within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any
monitoring performed under this section, notify each affected employee
of these results and the steps being taken to reduce exposures within
the permissible exposure limit either individually in writing or by
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to
affected employees.
* * * * *
12. Section 1910.1018 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)
b. Revising paragraphs (e)(5)(i), (g)(2)(iv), (n)(2)(ii)(A),
(n)(3)(i);
c. Removing paragraph (n)(3)(ii) and redesignating paragraph
(n)(3)(iii) as new (n)(3)(ii); and
d. Removing in appendix C section I, second paragraph, item (2),
the words ``and an International Labor Office UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C
rating''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 workin gdays after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to affected employees.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The plans required by this paragraph must be revised and
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) A standard posterior-Anterior chest x-ray;
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(e) * * * (i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with this
paragraph at least annually.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1025 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 1910.1025, revise paragraphs (d)(8)(i) and (e)(3)(iv)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1025 Lead.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the receipt of
the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each
affected employee of these results either individually in writing or by
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to
affected employees.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Written programs must be revised and updated at least annually
to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
14. In Sec. 1910.1027 remove the word ``signed'' from the first
sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (l)(10)(i) and revise
paragraph (d)(5)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1027 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1028 [Amended]
15-16. In Sec. 1910.1028 revise paragraph (e)(7)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1028 Benzene.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
17. Section Sec. 1910.1029 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i), (f)(6)(iv), (j)(2)(ii),
(j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii);
b. Removing paragraph (j)(3)(iv);
c. Redesignating paragraph (j)(3)(v) as (j)(3)(iv); and
d. Removing the words ``and a ILO/UC rating to assure some
standardization of x-ray reading'' from the third sentence of Appendix
B.II. A.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) Written plans for such programs shall be submitted, upon
request, to the Secretary and the Director, and shall be available at
the worksite for examination and copying by the Secretary, the
Director, and the authorized employee representative. The plans
required under paragraph (f)(6) of this section shall be revised and
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A standard posterior-anterior chest x-ray;
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(vi) of this section at least
annually and provide the examination specified in paragraph (j)(2)(vii)
at least semi-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)
through (j)(2)(vii) of this section at the frequencies specified in
paragraph (j)(3)(ii) as long as that employee is employed by the same
employer or a successor employer.
* * * * *
18-19. In Sec. 1910.1043, revise paragraph (d)(4)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1043 Cotton dust.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
20. In Sec. 1910.1044, remove and reserve paragraph (d) and revise
paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), (f)(5)(i) and the last sentence of
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1044 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.
* * * * *
[[Page 66516]]
(f) * * *
(3) * * * (i) if the monitoring required by this section reveals
employee exposures to be at or below the permissible exposure limit,
the employer must repeat these measurements at least every 6 months.
(ii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee
exposures to be in excess of the permissible exposure limit, the
employer must repeat these measurements for each such employee at least
quarterly. The employer must continue quarterly monitoring until at
least two consecutive measurements, taken at least seven (7) days
apart, are at or below the permissible exposure limit. Thereafter the
employer must monitor at least every 6 months.
* * * * *
(5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each employee of these results either individually in writing or
by posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to
employees.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * * These plans must be revised at least annually to reflect
the current status of the program.
* * * * *
21.-22. In Sec. 1910.1045, remove and reserve paragraph (d) and
revise paragraphs (e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iii), (e)(5)(i) and (g)(2)(v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee
exposure to be at or above the action level but at or below the
permissible exposure limits, the employer must repeat such monitoring
for each such employee at least every 6 months. The employer must
continue these measurements every 6 months until at least two
consecutive measurements taken at least seven (7) days a part, are
below the action level, and thereafter the employer may discontinue
monitoring for that employee.
(iii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee
exposure to be in excess of the permissible exposure limits, the
employer must repeat these determinations for each such employee at
least quarterly. The employer must continue these quarterly
measurements until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at
least seven (7) days apart, are at or below the permissible exposure
limits, and thereafter the employer must monitor at least every 6
months.
* * * * *
(5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The plans required by this paragraph must be revised and
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
23.-24. In Sec. 1910.1047, revise (d)(7)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
25. In Sec. 1910.1048, revise (d)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1048 Formaldehyde.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) * * * The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees. If employee exposure is above the PEL,
affected employees shall be provided with a description of the
corrective actions being taken by the employer to decrease exposure.
26. In Sec. 1910.1051, revise paragraph (d)(7)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section,
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
EMPLOYMENT
27. The authority citation for Part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``the Act''), 29 U.S.C.
653, 655, and 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), and 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
28. In Sec. 1915.1001, revise paragraph (f)(5) to read as set
forth below and remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).
Sec. 1915.1001 Asbestos
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must,
as soon as possible but no later than 5 days after the receipt of the
results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each
affected employee of these results either individually in writing or by
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to
employees.
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
29.-30. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the ``Act''), 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 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), and
3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
31. In Sec. 1926.60, revise paragraph (f)(7)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.60 Methylenedianilene.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(7) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *
[[Page 66517]]
32. In Sec. 1926.62, revise paragraphs (d)(8)(i) and (e)(2)(v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1926.62 Lead.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Written programs must be revised and updated at least annually
to reflect the current status of the program.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
33. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (``the Act''), 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 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), and
3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.1102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29
U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
34. In Sec. 1926.1101, revise paragraph (f)(5) to read as set
forth below and remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).
Sec. 1926.1101 Asbestos
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must,
as soon as possible but no later than 5 working days after the receipt
of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify
each affected employee of these results either individually in writing
or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible
to employees.
* * * * *
35-36. In Sec. 1926.1127 revise paragraph (d)(5)(i) to read as set
forth below and remove the word ``signed'' from the first sentence of
the introductory text of paragraph (1)(10)(i).
Sec. 1926.1127 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-27541 Filed 10-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P