SIPs FR Notice Proposed

Friday,
July 2, 2010

Part III

Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, et al.
Standards Improvement Project—Phase
III; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38646

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918,
1919, 1926, and 1928
[Docket No. OSHA–2006–0049]
RIN 1218–AC19

Standards Improvement Project—
Phase III
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) is
continuing its efforts to remove or revise
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and
inconsistent requirements in its safety
and health standards. This effort builds
on the success of Standards
Improvement Project (SIP)—Phase I
published on June 18, 1998, and SIP—
Phase II published on January 5, 2005.
The Agency believes that the proposed
revisions will reduce compliance costs,
eliminate paperwork burdens, and
clarify requirements without
diminishing worker protections.
DATES: Submit comments and hearing
requests on or before September 30,
2010. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of
the submission date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA–2006–
0049, by any of the following methods:
Electronic. Submit comments
electronically to http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
Facsimile. OSHA allows facsimile
transmission of comments and hearing
requests that are 10 pages or fewer in
length (including attachments). Send
these documents to the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693–1648; OSHA does
not require hard copies of these
documents. Instead of transmitting
facsimile copies of attachments that
supplement these documents (e.g.,
studies, journal articles), commenters
must submit these attachments, in hard
copy, to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N–2625,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender’s name, date,
subject, and docket number (i.e.,
OSHA–2006–0049) so the Agency can

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

attach them to the appropriate
document.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand
(courier) delivery, and messenger
service. Submit comments and any
additional material (e.g., studies, journal
articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA–2006–0049 or RIN
No. 1218–AC19, Technical Data Center,
Room N–2625, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is
(877) 889–5627.) Note that securityrelated procedures may result in
significant delays in receiving
comments and other written materials
by regular mail. Please contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information
about security procedures concerning
delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service. The hours of operation for the
OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to
4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions. All submissions must
include the Agency name and the OSHA
docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No.
OSHA–2006–0049). Comments and
other material, including any personal
information, are placed in the public
docket without revision, and will be
available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the
Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want
made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain
personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as Social
Security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
OSHA requests comments on all
issues related to this proposed rule. It
also welcomes comments on its findings
that this proposed rule would have no
negative economic, paperwork, or other
regulatory impacts on the regulated
community.
Docket. The electronic docket for this
proposed rule, established at http://
www.regulations.gov, lists most of the
documents in the docket. However,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in locating docket
submissions.
References and Exhibits
In this Federal Register notice, OSHA
references a number of supporting
materials. References to these materials
are specified as ‘‘ID,’’ followed by the
number of the document. OSHA posts

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

these referenced materials in Docket No.
OSHA–2006–0049 at http://
www.regulations.osha.gov. The
documents also are available at the
OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES
section of this notice). For further
information about accessing exhibits
referenced in this Federal Register
notice, see the ‘‘Public Participation’’
heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information and press inquiries,
contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Office of
Communications, 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.
Ryan Tremain, Health Scientist,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
N–3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2056 or fax (202) 693–1678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice.
Electronic copies are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This
Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant information,
also are available at OSHA’s Web site at
http://www.osha.gov. In addition, the
docket material is available for
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–
2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
202–693–2350 (TTY number: 877–889–
5627).
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Legal Considerations
III. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health
XI. Public Participation
XII. List of Subjects
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Proposed Amendments to Standards

I. Background
OSHA wants to improve its standards
by removing or revising confusing,
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent
requirements. Improving OSHA
standards will help employers better
understand their obligations, which will
lead to increased compliance, ensure
greater safety and health for workers,

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and reduce compliance costs. In
addition, this action will allow
employers to comply with many
standards using newer and more flexible
means than specified in the existing
standards. OSHA’s effort to improve
standards began in the 1970s, not long
after it issued the first set of standards.
In 1973, OSHA issued proposals to
clarify and update rules that it adopted
originally on May 29, 1971 (36 FR
10466). In 1978, OSHA published a
rulemaking titled, ‘‘Selected General and
Special (Cooperage and Laundry
Machinery, and Bakery Equipment)
Industry Safety and Health Standards:
Revocation’’ (43 FR 49726, October 24,
1978). Commonly known as the
‘‘Standards Deletion Project,’’ this
comprehensive final rule revoked
hundreds of unnecessary and
duplicative requirements in the general
industry standards at 29 CFR 1910.
Another rulemaking in 1984 titled,
‘‘Revocation of Advisory and Repetitive
Standards’’ (49 FR 5318, February 10,
1984) resulted in the removal of many
repetitive and unenforceable
requirements. These rulemaking actions
primarily removed standards that were:
(1) Not relevant to worker safety (i.e.,
the standards addressed public-safety
issues); (2) duplicative of other
standards found elsewhere in the
general industry standards; (3)
considered ‘‘nuisance’’ standards (i.e.,
one having no merit or worker safety or
health benefits); or (4) legally
unenforceable.
In 1996, in response to the
Presidential Memorandum on
Improving Government Regulations,
OSHA began another series of
rulemaking improvement actions.
Patterned after the earlier rulemaking
actions, the new effort identified and
then revised or removed, standards that
were confusing, outdated, duplicative,
or inconsistent. This effort also included
standards that could be rewritten in
plain language. In the first action, titled,
‘‘Miscellaneous Changes to General
Industry and Construction Standards’’
(61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), also
known as the ‘‘Standards Improvement
Project’’ or ‘‘SIP–I,’’ OSHA focused on
revising standards that were out of date,
duplicative, or inconsistent.
OSHA published the final rule on
SIP–I on June 18, 1998 (63 FR 33450).
Changes made in SIP–I included
reducing the frequency of a medicaltesting requirement and eliminating an
unnecessary and obsolete medical test
required in both the Coke Oven and
Inorganic Arsenic standards; revising
the emergency-response provisions of
the Vinyl Chloride standard; eliminating
the public-safety provisions of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

Temporary Labor Camps standard; and
eliminating unnecessary cross
references in the textile industry
standards. OSHA made these
improvements without reducing worker
safety and health protection.
In 2002, OSHA published a proposed
rule for phase II of the Standards
Improvement Project (SIP–II) (67 FR
66494, October 31, 2002). In that notice,
OSHA proposed to revise a number of
provisions in health and safety
standards that commenters identified
during SIP–I, or that the Agency
identified as standards in need of
improvement.
In the final rule on SIP–II, published
on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1111), the
Agency revised a number of health
standards to reduce regulatory burden,
facilitate compliance, and eliminate
unnecessary paperwork without
reducing health protections. The
improvements made by SIP–II
addressed issues such as worker
notification of the use of chemicals in
the workplace, frequency of exposure
monitoring, and medical surveillance.
As stated in the 2006 Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for
the SIP–III project (71 FR 76623,
December 21, 2006), OSHA identified a
number of standards as potential
candidates for improvement in SIP–III
based on the Agency’s review of its
standards, suggestions and comments
from the public, and recommendations
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The OMB based its
recommendations on comments it
received on Regulatory Reform of the
U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005).1
Many commenters during the SIP–II
rulemaking process applauded the SIP
process and OSHA for its efforts to
streamline and improve its health
standards by removing or revising
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent
requirements (IDs 3–5, 3–10, 3–11, and
3–13 to Docket S–778A). These
commenters encouraged the Agency to
continue the SIP project, hence today’s
publication of a proposed SIP–III rule.
In SIP–III, OSHA’s objective is to
modify individual provisions of
standards by removing or revising
requirements that are confusing,
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent
without reducing workers’ safety and
health or imposing any additional
economic burden on employers. The
ANPRM for SIP–III invited comments
on a number of such requirements
identified by OSHA, and also solicited
recommendations from commenters for
1 To view the full Regulatory Reform report,
please visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38647

additional requirements for inclusion in
the proposal. Commenters submitted
134 comments to the docket; OSHA
discusses these comments below, along
with the proposed changes.
II. Legal Considerations
The purpose of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act;
29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) is ‘‘to assure so far
as possible every working man and
woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our
human resources * * *.’’ (29 U.S.C.
651(b).) To achieve this goal, Congress
authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational
safety and health standards, authorizing
summary adoption of existing national
consensus and established Federal
standards within two years of the
effective date of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
655(a)); authorizing promulgation of
standards pursuant to notice and
comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and
requiring employers to comply with
OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
An occupational safety or health
standard is a standard ‘‘which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one
or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe
or healthful employment and places of
employment.’’ (29 U.S.C. 652(8).) A
standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of
Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces
or eliminates significant risk. In
addition, it must be technologically and
economically feasible, cost effective,
and consistent with prior Agency
action, or a justified departure. A
standard must be supported by
substantial evidence, and be better able
to effectuate the OSH Act’s purposes
than any national consensus standard it
supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612–16616,
March 30, 1993.)
A standard is technologically feasible
if the protective measures it requires
already exist, can be brought into
existence with available technology, or
can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed.
(See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v.
OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI);
American Iron and Steel Institute v.
OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir.
1991) (AISI).)
A standard is economically feasible if
industry can absorb or pass on the costs
of compliance without threatening its
long-term profitability or competitive
structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is
cost effective if the protective measures
it requires are the least costly of the
available alternatives that achieve the

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38648

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW
v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir.
1994) (LOTO II).
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act
authorizes OSHA to include among a
standard’s requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other
information-gathering and transmittal
provisions. (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).) OSHA
standards also must be highly
protective. (See 58 FR at 16614–16615;
LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668–669.) Finally,
whenever practical, standards shall ‘‘be
expressed in terms of objective criteria
and of the performance desired.’’ (29
U.S.C. 655(b)(5).)
III. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Rule
OSHA is proposing a number of
actions amending its standards,
including revisions to its general
industry, maritime, construction, and
agricultural standards. A detailed
discussion of each of the proposed
revisions follows, including a
discussion of comments the Agency
received in response to the ANPRM.
Some of the revisions proposed affect
more than one industry. For example,
the proposed revisions to the general
industry Slings standard also would
affect shipyard employment and the
construction industry. When proposed
revisions in a general industry standard
would affect additional industries,
OSHA will discuss the revisions fully in
the general industry section, and then
reference the provisions affected in the
sections covering the other industries.
A. Proposed Revisions in General
Industry Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

1. Subpart E
OSHA is proposing several revisions
to subpart E. First, OSHA proposes to
revise the title of subpart E from ‘‘Means
of Egress’’ to ‘‘Exit Routes and
Emergency Planning.’’ The Agency
originally proposed to revise the title of
subpart E to ‘‘Exit Routes, Emergency
Action Plans, and Fire Prevention
Plans’’(61 FR 47712, September 10,
1996) ; however, this title is missing
from the final standard because of a
printing error (see 67 FR 67949,
November 7, 2002). OSHA now
proposes to revise the title to the more
concise ‘‘Exit Routes and Emergency
Planning.’’ As OSHA explained in the
preamble to the 2002 final rule, the
revised title is part of the Agency’s use
of plain language that readily conveys
the contents of the subpart (67 FR 67949
at 67950).
OSHA also is proposing to revise
§ 1910.35 to update the edition of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 101, Life Safety Code, that
OSHA references therein as a
compliance alternative. Currently,
§ 1910.35 accepts employer compliance
with the 2000 edition of NFPA 101
instead of complying with
corresponding requirements in
§§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. The
Agency analyzed the provisions of the
2006 edition of NFPA 101 (ID 0137),
and preliminarily concluded that the
corresponding provisions provide an
equal or higher level of worker safety
than §§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
update § 1910.35 by stating that
employers who demonstrate compliance
with the 2006 version of the Life Safety
Code will be deemed to be in
compliance with these requirements.
Finally, OSHA is proposing to revise
§ 1910.35 to add a second compliance
alternative that will allow employers
demonstrating compliance with the exitroute provisions of the International
Code Council (ICC), 2006 International
Fire Code (IFC), to be in compliance
with the corresponding requirements in
§§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. Also,
OSHA is proposing to revise the title of
§ 1910.35, listed in the Table of
Contents in § 1910.33, a definition in
§ 1910.34, and two notes in § 1910.36, to
correspond to the proposed new
language to § 1910.35.
The proposed revision to add the IFC
compliance alternative receives support
from comments made in response to the
2006 ANPRM. In the ANPRM, OSHA
explained the reasons for the
recommended revision, and requested
information on the suitability of
allowing both the IFC, as well as ICC’s
International Building Code (IBC), to
serve as an equivalent compliance
option. The ANPRM recommendation
was in response to a petition by the ICC,
which submitted a comparison of the
2003 IBC and IFC provisions and the
OSHA requirements. Subsequently,
OSHA analyzed the provisions of the
newer (2006) editions of the IFC and
IBC, and compared them with
requirements in §§ 1910.34, 1910.36,
and 1910.37 (ID 0138). In this analysis,
OSHA found that the IFC contains
provisions for existing buildings and
exit-route maintenance, while the IBC
does not. These provisions are necessary
to achieve equivalency with § 1910.37.
Therefore, OSHA determined that the
IFC corresponded to the OSHA
requirements, and that the IBC did not.
This analysis concluded that the
corresponding provisions of the IFC
provide an equivalent or higher level of
worker safety than §§ 1910.34, 1910.36,
and 1910.37. Therefore, the Agency is

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

proposing to recognize the IFC as a
compliance alternative, in addition to
the NFPA 101 compliance alternative,
thereby providing additional flexibility
to employers.
In the ANPRM, OSHA asked if the
egress provisions of the ICC codes offer
protection equivalent to that required by
subpart E. Many commenters responded
affirmatively. For example, the Building
Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA), which represents
thousands of owners and managers of
existing commercial properties in North
America, stated that it strongly supports
this proposed additional compliance
option (ID 0121). Further, BOMA stated
that the IBC and IFC are ‘‘responsive to
not only the health safety and welfare
needs of those who lease real estate, but
for those who are employers in the
industry as well.’’
The U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA), Public Buildings
Service, the landlord of the civilian
Federal government, with a total
inventory of over 345 million square
feet of workspace for a million Federal
workers, commented:
[T]he requirements for egress in the IBC
and IFC will satisfy the OSHA rules and
clearly demonstrate that a building designed
and constructed to the requirements of the
IBC and IFC provides equivalent protection
to the federal egress requirements. (ID 0130.)

A comment from the New York
Department of State (ID 0023) included
a detailed discussion of the IBC, IFC,
and subpart E. This commenter
concluded that the combined
requirements of these two national
model codes provide an equivalent level
of protection to all occupants.
Many of the subpart E provisions are
general, performance-oriented
requirements, and do not cover
conditions in every building. Employers
may use a compliance alternative as
guidance on specific situations. OSHA
believes allowing employers two
compliance options—compliance with
either the NFPA 101 (2006) or the IFC
(2006)—will give employers additional
flexibility to use whichever compliance
option best serves their needs, while
meeting the level of worker protection
provided by OSHA’s subpart E rules.
OSHA notes that a number of
commenters supporting the proposed
revision stated that such a revision
would involve a potential cost savings
for them because it ‘‘can reduce design
and construction delays. * * *’’ (See,
for example, ID 0117.) Other
commenters (IDs 0019, 0020) supported
the flexibility the revision would
provide to employers by allowing them
to comply with either NFPA 101 or with

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the ICC Codes, explaining that healthcare facilities participating in Medicare
and Medicaid used NFPA 101, even in
those jurisdictions that use the ICC
codes.
The ANPRM also included a question
about whether other, alternative
national building codes were available
that OSHA should consider.
Commenters (IDs 0018, 0021, 0023,
0119, 0121) responded that no other
building codes are available for OSHA
to consider. One commenter (ID 0121)
noted, ‘‘Currently, 47 states and the
District of Columbia use the IBC, and 42
states and the District of Columbia use
the IFC.’’ GSA stated (ID 0130) that they
have ‘‘adopted the technical
requirements of the IBC and the IFC.
* * *’’
Opposition to the revision came from
the NFPA (IDs 0022, 0134). However,
much of NFPA’s comment centered on
whether the ICC codes provide a level
of safety equivalent to NFPA 101, rather
than whether compliance with the ICC
codes would provide a level of safety
equivalent to that required by OSHA in
subpart E. As noted previously, OSHA
plans to retain and update existing
§ 1910.35. Thus, the comparison
provided by NFPA (ID 0022) of the
provisions of NFPA 101 and the ICC
codes does not address the issue
regarding the ability of the ICC codes to
serve as an additional compliance
option to OSHA’s subpart E.
Another concern raised by the NFPA
comments (IDs 0022, 0134) was that the
ICC developed the ICC Codes using
consensus principles that differed from
the consensus principles used to
develop NFPA codes. Again, this
comment does not address the issue of
whether the ICC Codes provide a level
of protection equal to that provided by
subpart E, regardless of the method of
development. While it is true that
OSHA, in conformance with section
6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), and OMB
Circular A–119, must consider
consensus standards in developing its
mandatory standards, the Agency is not
restricted to the use of consensus
standards. OSHA does not plan to
promulgate a government-unique
standard instead of a consensus
standard, but to allow compliance
alternatives that provide workers with a
level of safety that is at least equivalent
to the level of safety provided by
OSHA’s existing subpart E
requirements.
The Denver Fire Department (ID 0013)
also objected to the proposed revision
because the IBC and IFC do not specify
minimum exit access widths for every

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

type of occupancy. The Denver Fire
Department did not explain how the
lack of such specificity would impact
worker safety; as noted earlier, OSHA
does not believe worker safety would be
compromised by including IFC 2006 as
a compliance alternative. OSHA notes
that both NFPA 101 and the ICC Codes
allow exit access widths narrower than
the 28-inch minimum specified in
§ 1910.36, but only in limited situations
in which the occupancy type and
occupant load ensure an equal level of
safety.
OSHA believes that most of the
information received in response to the
ANPRM supports the proposal to allow
the 2006 NFPA 101 or the 2006 IFC
provisions as independent compliance
alternatives to the corresponding
requirements in §§ 1910.34, 1910.36,
and 1910.37. The Agency believes the
proposed revisions will increase
compliance flexibility, and achieve
greater compatibility with many State
and local jurisdictions, while
maintaining worker protection.
2. Subpart I
a. Training Certification Records
OSHA is proposing to remove
paragraph (f)(4) of the general industry
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
standard (§ 1910.132), paragraph (e)(4)
of the shipyard employment PPE
standard (§ 1915.152), and paragraph
(n)(4) of the general industry and
construction Cadmium standards
(§§ 1910.1027 and 1926.1127), which
require employers to prepare and
maintain a written record certifying
compliance with the training
requirements of these sections.
Specifically, employers must currently
verify that affected workers received
training as required by the standards
through a written certification record
that includes, at a minimum, the
name(s) of the workers trained, the
date(s) of training, and the types of
training the workers received. The
Cadmium standards for general industry
and construction are the only substancespecific standards that require written
certification to document training. The
Agency estimates that it takes over 1.8
million hours for employers to develop
and maintain the training-certification
records mandated by the PPE standards
in §§ 1910.132 and 1915.152, and over
3,000 hours for the training-certification
records required by the Cadmium
standards for general industry
(§ 1910.1027) and construction
(§ 1926.1127).2
74 FR 61175, 74 FR 45883, 73 FR 74199,
and 73 FR 74197, respectively, for information on
accessing the information-collection requests (ICRs)

PO 00000

2 See

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38649

OSHA does not believe that the
training certification records required by
the four standards listed previously
provide a safety or health benefit
sufficient to justify the time and cost to
employers. OSHA believes that
employers observe employees as they
work to ensure that work practices and
personal-protective equipment are
consistent with the training received. In
addition, OSHA generally conducts
enforcement of training requirements by
observation and worker interviews;
thus, the lack of a written record would
not interfere with OSHA’s enforcement
of training requirements. Therefore,
OSHA believes that removing these
training-certification requirements
would not compromise worker safety or
health. For these reasons, the Agency is
proposing to remove the requirements to
prepare and maintain trainingcertification records from the abovereferenced standards.
In addition to the four trainingcertification records proposed for
revocation, OSHA notes that 12 other
standards in the general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment
require employers to prepare written
records or documents to certify that they
complied with training requirements.
OSHA requests comment, including
rationale, on whether it should revoke
all or some of these 12 records. (See
section VI.C (‘‘Proposed Revisions to
Information-Collection Requirements’’)
below in this notice for a detailed
description of the paperwork-burden
hours associated with these trainingcertification requirements.)
b. Respiratory Protection
OSHA is proposing seven revisions
related to the Respiratory Protection
standard in § 1910.134. The following
paragraphs discuss each of these
revisions.
(1) Updating DOT regulations
referenced in § 1910.134(i)(4)(i)
An industrial hygienist with the
Michigan OSHA On-Site Consultation
Program raised a question regarding the
general OSHA requirements for
requalifying cylinders for self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA) specified by
§ 1910.134(i)(4)(i). This provision of the
Respiratory Protection standard
references the Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49
CFR parts 173 and 178 for retesting air
cylinders such as those used with
SCBAs. In August 2002, the DOT
revised its standard, which resulted in
the reorganizing and renumbering its
for these training-certification records. The ICRs
describe the procedures and data used to determine
the hours required to develop and maintain the
training-certification records.

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38650

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

regulations for testing air cylinders.
New subpart C of 49 CFR part 180 now
specifies the general DOT requirements
for requalifying air cylinders; these
requirements replicate the requirements
in former 49 CFR parts 173 and 178 for
requalifying air cylinders. OSHA,
therefore, is proposing to revise the
language in § 1910.134(i)(4)(i) by
referencing the new DOT standard for
cylinder testing at 49 CFR part 180.
OSHA believes that the proposed
revision will clarify the requirements of
the Respiratory Protection standard by
accurately identifying the location of the
appropriate DOT reference standard. By
expediting this process, the proposed
revision will ease the regulatory burden
on employers without reducing
employee protection.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

(2) Updating the NIOSH RespiratorCertification Requirement in
§ 1910.134(i)(9)
Existing paragraph (i)(9) of OSHA’s
Respiratory Protection standard
(§ 1910.134) requires the employer to
use breathing-gas containers marked in
accordance with the NIOSH respiratorcertification standard at 42 CFR part 84.
In its presentation at the December 10,
2009, ACCSH meeting (see section X of
this preamble below), NIOSH stated that
it has seen some confusion in the
regulated community as to how this
provision applies to after-market
cylinders. NIOSH recommended that
OSHA revise the provision to clarify
that after-market cylinders not
manufactured under the qualityassurance program incorporated as part
of the NIOSH approval process for selfcontained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
are not acceptable for use. Accordingly,
OSHA is proposing to revise this
provision to read: ‘‘The employer shall
use only the respirator manufacturer’s
NIOSH-approved breathing gas
containers, marked and maintained in
accordance with the Quality Assurance
provisions of the NIOSH approval for
the SCBA as issued in accordance with
the NIOSH respirator-certification
standard at 42 CFR part 84.’’ OSHA
requests public comment on this
NIOSH-recommended revision.
(3) Appendix C to § 1910.134
In response to the ANPRM, OSHA
received a request from the Mexican
Consulate in Omaha Nebraska. The
request was to revise question 2a in the
OSHA Medical Evaluation
Questionnaire, Appendix C, Part A,
Section 2, of its Respiratory Protection
standard (§ 1910.134) by deleting the
word ‘‘fits,’’ leaving only the word
‘‘seizures’’ to describe the medical
condition. The request described the use

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

of the term ‘‘fits’’ as outdated,
unnecessary, and offensive. OSHA
agrees, and is proposing to remove it
from the questionnaire. OSHA believes
this revision to the questionnaire would
have no effect on administration of, or
responses to, the questionnaire.
(4) Appendix D to § 1910.134
OSHA is proposing to clarify that
Appendix D of the Respiratory
Protection standard (§ 1910.134) is
mandatory by removing paragraph (o)(2)
from the standard, and by revising
paragraph (o)(1) of the standard to
include Appendix D among the
designated mandatory appendices. As
stated in the ANPRM, the proposed
revision to paragraph (o)(1) would
reduce public confusion by clarifying
the Agency’s purpose regarding
Appendix D when it published the
Respiratory Protection standard on
January 8, 1998, (63 FR 1152); namely,
that Appendix D is mandatory.
Evidence of this purpose is provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(i), the introductory text
to paragraph (k), and paragraph (k)(6) of
the Respiratory Protection standard;
these provisions mandate that
employers provide voluntary respirator
users with the information contained in
Appendix D. Additionally, the title of
Appendix D states that it is mandatory.
In the ANPRM, OSHA posed the
following three questions about this
proposed revision for public
consideration:
• Have employers understood that the
requirement to provide Appendix D
information to employees, who
voluntarily use respirators, is a
mandatory requirement?
• Is the information contained in
Appendix D appropriate for alerting
employees to considerations related to
voluntary respirator use?
• To what extent, if any, would
deleting paragraph (o)(2) and clarifying
that Appendix D is mandatory, increase
burden on employers?
The Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL–CIO (BCTD; ID
0118) stated that the basic information
in Appendix D is worthwhile, but
construction workers find the language
in the appendix difficult to understand.
They suggested that OSHA better
explain ‘‘why respirators should not be
shared with other workers.’’ The BCTD
also stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2)
would not increase burden to employers
since the obligation to use Appendix D
already exists under paragraphs (k)(6)
and (c)(2), and that ‘‘deleting (o)(2)
would definitely clarify an apparent
contradiction about the mandatory
requirements already in the standard.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

The AFL–CIO (ID 0024) stated that,
since paragraph (k)(6) states that, since
employers must provide a copy of
Appendix D to workers, it would be
helpful to clarify that Appendix D is
mandatory by including it among the
list of mandatory appendices in
paragraph (o)(1) as OSHA proposed, and
that this action would clarify the
mandatory requirement in (k)(6). The
AFL–CIO further stated that ‘‘any
additional burden from this action, if
there is any, will be more than offset by
the worker protection information
conveyed in Appendix D during
voluntary use situations.’’
The American Society of Safety
Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) also stated
that employers already must provide the
information in Appendix D to workers,
and that failure to do so may result in
OSHA citations. ASSE supported
revising the language to make Appendix
D mandatory because it ‘‘may foster
compliance and actually reduce the
potential for citations by clarifying the
employer’s responsibilities.’’
The 3M Company (ID 0028) also
supported revising paragraph (o)(2). 3M
stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2)
would reduce confusion as to whether
it is mandatory to provide Appendix D
to workers when respiratory use is
voluntary. 3M also stated that the
information in Appendix D is
appropriate.
The Associated General Contractors of
America (AGCA; ID 0120) opposed
deleting paragraph (o)(2) and revising
paragraph (o)(1). In its response, AGCA
urged, ‘‘OSHA to follow the complete
rulemaking process to gauge the impact
of this revision,’’ and that any revisions
should preserve employers’ flexibility in
informing their employees of the
various uses of different respirators.
OSHA reviewed the comments
received on revising the language in
paragraph (o)(1) of § 1910.134 to
indicate that Appendix D as mandatory,
and on deleting paragraph (o)(2), which
describes Appendix D as nonmandatory. Based on the current record,
OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
language in paragraph (o)(2) is
confusing for employers since it
contradicts the requirement in
paragraphs (c)(2) and (k) that employers
must provide employees with the
information in Appendix D in voluntary
respirator-use situations. Accordingly,
OSHA agrees with commenters who
stated that revising the language in
paragraph (o) of § 1910.134 would
clarify the employer’s responsibilities
and reduce confusion about whether
information specified in Appendix D is
mandatory. Regarding the comment by
AGCA, OSHA notes that the SIP–III

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
proposal is a notice-and-comment
rulemaking that provides the regulated
public with an appropriate opportunity
for determining the impact, if any, of the
proposed revision on the public. In
addition, OSHA does not believe that
the proposed revisions would have any
impact on the employers’ flexibility in
informing their employees of the
various uses of respirators. Therefore,
OSHA decided to propose revising the
language in paragraph (o) of § 1910.134
to state that Appendix D is mandatory,
and to delete the confusing and
inconsistent language in paragraph
(o)(2).
(5) Asbestos (§ 1915.1001)
The introductory paragraph to
OSHA’s Respiratory Protection standard
(§ 1910.134) specifies that the standard
applies to general industry (29 CFR
1910), shipyards (29 CFR 1915), marine
terminals (29 CFR 1917), longshoring
(29 CFR 1918), and construction (29
CFR 1926). Three of these parts, general
industry, shipyards, and construction,
contain standards regulating employee
exposure to asbestos, with each of these
standards having a provision entitled,
‘‘Respirator program.’’ These paragraphs
specify the requirements for an
employer’s respirator program with
respect to asbestos exposure. In the final
rulemaking for the Respiratory
Protection standard, the Agency
updated these paragraphs in the
Asbestos standards for general industry
and construction so that the program
requirements would be consistent with
the provisions of the newly revised
Respiratory Protection standard (see 63
FR 1285 and 1298). However, the
Agency inadvertently omitted revising
the respirator-program requirements
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the
Asbestos standard for shipyards
(§ 1915.1001). OSHA is proposing to
correct this oversight by revising
paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos
standard for shipyards to read the same
as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of the Asbestos
standard for general industry
(§ 1910.1001) and (h)(2)(i) of the
Asbestos standard for construction
(§ 1926.1101), which state, ‘‘[t]he
employer must implement a respiratory
protection program in accordance with
§ 1910.134 (b) through (d) (except
(d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).’’
Similarly, the Agency is considering
removing paragraphs (h)(3)(ii),
(h)(3)(iii), and (h)(4) from the shipyard
Asbestos standard, which address filter
changes, washing faces and facepieces
to prevent skin irritation, and fit testing,
respectively. OSHA believes this action
is appropriate because the continuinguse provisions specified in paragraph
§ 1910.1001(g)(2)(ii) duplicate

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of the
Asbestos standard for shipyards. Also,
the fit-testing requirements provided in
paragraph (f) of the Respiratory
Protection standard either meet or
exceed the provisions specified in (h)(4)
of the shipyard Asbestos standard,
except that the frequency of fit-testing is
different. The current shipyardemployment Asbestos standard at
§ 1915.1001(h)(4)(ii) requires employers
to perform quantitative and qualitative
fit testing ‘‘at the time of initial fitting
and at least every 6 months thereafter
for each employee wearing a negativepressure respirator.’’ The Respiratory
Protection standard at § 1910.134(f)(2)
requires employers to fit test employees
using a tight-fitting respirator ‘‘prior to
initial use of the respirator, whenever a
different facepiece * * * is used, and at
least annually thereafter.’’
By adding the reference to the
§ 1910.134 Respiratory Protection
standard to § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the
shipyard Asbestos standard, OSHA
would incorporate the fit-testing
requirements of § 1910.134(f), which
include the requirement to use the
OSHA-accepted qualitative fit-testing
and quantitative fit-testing protocols
and procedures contained in Appendix
A of § 1910.134. Accordingly, the-fit
testing requirements specified in
Appendix C of § 1915.1001 would be
redundant; therefore, OSHA is
considering deleting this Appendix C
from § 1915.1001.
In the ANPRM, OSHA asked the
following questions regarding the
§ 1915.1001 respirator provisions:
• Would revising § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i)
to be consistent with similar provisions
in the asbestos standard for general
industry and construction create
additional compliance requirements?
• Does this change maintain the same
level of employee protection? Would
making the recommended changes
increase the economic or paperwork
burden?
• Besides altering the frequency of fit
testing, how would making the
recommended change to delete
paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) through (h)(4)(ii)
affect the requirements of the standard?
OSHA received several comments in
response to these questions. The 3M
Company (ID 0028) addressed this issue
by stating:
[M]aking § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) consistent
with similar provisions in other asbestos
standards will [not] create additional
compliance requirements. 3M believes it will
result in less confusion among employers
who work with asbestos in many different
industries. * * * This change would
maintain the same level of protection as
provided by the other asbestos standards.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38651

The American Society of Safety
Engineers (ID 0021) supported revising
the shipyard-employment respirator
provisions to comply with the
requirements in the Asbestos standards
for general industry and construction,
and deleting the Asbestos standard’s
specific fit-testing requirements while
adopting the § 1910.134 requirements.
OSHA believes, after reviewing of the
comments received in response to the
ANPRM, that it is appropriate to
propose to remove paragraphs (h)(3)(ii),
(h)(3)(iii), and paragraph (h)(4) from the
shipyard-employment asbestos
standard, and to add a reference to
§ 1910.134 in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of that
standard. It also is appropriate to
propose to delete the fit-testing
requirements of Appendix C of
§ 1915.1001, and to replace Appendix C
with a reference to Appendix A of
§ 1910.134 and the fit-testing
requirements of § 1910.134(f). The
Agency believes these proposed
revisions would not increase employers’
compliance burden, but instead would
reduce this burden by providing
consistency between the shipyardemployment Asbestos standard and the
requirements of the Asbestos standards
for general industry and construction.
(6) 13 Carcinogens (4–Nitrobiphenyl,
etc.) (§ 1910.1003)
In the SIP–III ANPRM, OSHA
discussed correcting an inadvertent
omission from the respiratory-protection
requirements for four of the 13
carcinogen standards. Each of the 13
original standards included respiratoryprotection requirements appropriate to
the hazards associated with the
individual carcinogen. When OSHA
combined these standards into a single
standard (61 FR 9242, March 7, 1996),
it treated the 13 carcinogens as
particulates. However, four of the 13
carcinogens are liquids and not
particulates (i.e., methyl chloromethyl
ether, bis-chloromethyl ether,
ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone).
In the 1996 regulatory action, the
Agency inadvertently omitted the fullfacepiece, supplied-air respirators in the
continuous-flow or pressure-demand
mode for employees involved in
handling any of the four liquid
carcinogenic chemicals. Instead, OSHA
required half-mask particulate-filter
respirators for the 13 carcinogens,
which are inappropriate respirators for
use with the four liquid carcinogens.
In the SIP–III ANPRM, OSHA
discussed the reasons for reinstating the
original respirator-use requirement in
paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of § 1910.1003 for
these four liquid carcinogens. OSHA
also asked the following four questions

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

38652

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

in the ANPRM regarding this revision
(71 FR 76627):
• What types of respirators are
currently being used to protect
employees from exposure to these four
chemicals?
• If OSHA reinstates the requirements
for full facepiece air-supplied
respirators, does the respirator-use
requirement conflict with OSHA’s
Respiratory Protection Standard (Sec.
1910.134)?
• Would the reinstated respirator use
requirement be more or less protective
than the protection offered by OSHA’s
Respiratory Protection Standard?
• How would reinstating the
respirator use requirement change the
economic or paperwork burden?
The American Society of Safety
Engineers (ID 0021) supported
reinstating the former respirator-use
requirements in § 1910.1003(c)(4)(iv),
and did not know of any conflict this
section would have with the
requirements contained in § 1910.134.
The AFL–CIO (ID 0024) stated that the
inadvertent action OSHA took with
these four carcinogens resulted in
workers receiving substantially less
respiratory protection than previously
required, and that OSHA should correct
this error immediately. The AFL–CIO
strongly recommended that OSHA issue
a technical correction to § 1910.1003
within 30 days to reinstate the original
respiratory-protection requirements for
these four carcinogens. The AFL–CIO
also recommended that ‘‘the remaining 9
chemicals require the same, more
protective respirators that are applicable
to the 4 substances.’’ AFL–CIO added,
‘‘With that approach, you would now
have real and consistently applied
worker protection measures that achieve
desirable improvement in the
standards.’’
The 3M Company (ID 0028) stated
that, since these four carcinogens are
liquids with significant vapor pressure,
the current requirements for using half
masks with dust, mist, and fume filters
are inappropriate, and conflict with the
§ 1910.134 respirator-selection
requirements. Further, 3M believed that
reinstating the requirement for a fullfacepiece, supplied-air respirator would
provide the appropriate minimum
assigned protection factor (APF)
required for the four liquid carcinogens,
and would be consistent with the
respirator-selection requirements of
§ 1910.134. Therefore, the protection
afforded to workers would be different
for liquid-carcinogen vapors than that
for the particulate carcinogens (an APF
of 10 for particulates versus an APF of
1,000 for liquids using supplied-air
respirators).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

In its comments, 3M also maintained
that requiring supplied-air respirators
would result in the use of a more
protective class of respirator than the
§ 1910.134 respirator-selection
requirements. However, 3M also stated
that, by requiring full-facepiece,
supplied-air respirators, OSHA would
introduce additional hazards for
employees caused by trailing air-supply
hoses. The commenter suggested a
preference for half-facepiece respirators
with chemical cartridges for the four
liquid carcinogens, which could meet
the respirator-selection requirements in
§ 1910.134 if the cartridges used to
absorb the liquid carcinogens’ vapors
have an adequate service life. (Id.)
At the Advisory Committee on
Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH) meeting on December 12,
2009, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) representative provided
specific comment on the revisions
proposed to the respirator requirements
of the 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl,
etc.) standard. The full committee then
recommended ‘‘that OSHA and NIOSH
work together to address * * *
technical issues relating to the
respiratory protection provisions in the
proposed rule.’’ (ACCSH, Ex.12.2.) The
specific NIOSH comment was:
[T]he lack of either a NIOSH REL or an
OSHA PEL results in a NIOSH respirator
recommendation of any self-contained
breathing apparatus that has a full facepiece
and is operated in a pressure-demand or
other positive-pressure mode, or any
supplied-air respirator that has a full
facepiece and is operated in a pressuredemand or other positive-pressure mode in
combination with an auxiliary self-contained
positive-pressure breathing apparatus.
Neither a supplied-air respirator with a full
facepiece operated in a continuous flow
mode nor a supplied-air respirator with a full
facepiece operated in a pressure-demand
mode would provide the [NIOSH]
recommended level and type of protection
unless used in combination with an auxiliary
self-contained positive-pressure breathing
apparatus. (ACCSH Ex. 12.2; comments on
the proposed rule on Standards Improvement
Project III by the National Personal Protective
Technology Laboratory, NIOSH.)

Based on the NIOSH comments,
OSHA is considering revising the 13
Carcinogens standard to ensure that
employers provide respiratory
protection meeting the NIOSH
recommendation. Therefore, OSHA
requests comment on whether it should
include in the final SIP–III standard a
revision to the respirator provisions of
the 13 Carcinogens standard that
explicitly requires employers to use selfcontained breathing apparatus with a
full facepiece and operated in a

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

pressure-demand or other positivepressure mode, or any supplied-air
respirator that has a full facepiece and
operated in a pressure-demand or other
positive-pressure mode in combination
with an auxiliary self-contained
positive-pressure breathing apparatus.
Alternatively, OSHA could modify the
proposed language to require respirator
selection pursuant to § 1910.134, which
would require employers to evaluate the
specific hazard to determine and select
the appropriate NIOSH-approved
respirator for use by employees exposed
to these carcinogens. OSHA also
requests comment on these alternative
approaches, as well as any other
regulatory approaches that would
address the issue raised by NIOSH.
In this rulemaking, OSHA is
proposing to reinstate the requirement
that employers provide full-facepiece,
supplied-air respirators to workers
exposed to methyl chloromethyl ether,
bis-chloromethyl ether, ethyleneimine,
and beta-propiolactone. OSHA notes
that reinstatement of the requirement to
use supplied-air respirators with the
four liquid carcinogens will provide
needed safety for employees working
with these chemicals. Deleting this
requirement was an inadvertent
omission that needs correction. Whether
OSHA should allow the use of chemical
cartridges with NIOSH-certified airpurifying half-mask respirators for these
four liquid carcinogens depends on
employers proving that the cartridges
used to absorb the vapors emitted from
these chemicals would have an
adequate service life. OSHA requests
comment on, and data describing, the
availability of such chemical cartridges
for use with these four carcinogens.
(7) 1,3-Butadiene (§ 1910.1051)
OSHA is proposing to remove
paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-Butadiene
standard (§ 1910.1051), which requires
that employers keep fit-test records for
employees who use respirators to
reduce toxic exposures. In the ANPRM,
OSHA raised the possibility of deleting
this recordkeeping provision from the
1,3-Butadiene standard for general
industry, relying instead on the fittesting recordkeeping requirement in
§ 1910.134.
The American Society of Safety
Engineers (ID 0021) agreed with OSHA
that deleting the fit-testing records
requirement in the 1,3-Butadiene
standard was appropriate since the
requirement duplicates the
recordkeeping requirement in
§ 1910.134. The 3M Company (ID 0028)
also supported deleting the 1,3Butadiene fit-testing record
requirement, noting that removing this

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirement would not reduce
protection because the requirement in
§ 1910.134 is at least as protective as the
1,3-Butadiene requirement.
Based on its review of the comments
received in response to the ANPRM,
OSHA believes that deleting the fittesting recordkeeping requirement in
paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-Butadiene
Standard and relying instead on the fittesting recordkeeping requirements in
§ 1910.134 would not reduce employee
protection. Therefore, OSHA is
proposing this revision in this
rulemaking.
3. Subpart J
a. Definition of ‘‘Potable Water’’
(§ 1910.141(a)(2))
OSHA is proposing to revise and
update the definition of the term
‘‘potable water’’ in the Sanitation
standards for general industry
(§ 1910.141(a)(2)) and construction
(§ 1926.51(a)(6)), and the Field
Sanitation standard for agriculture
(§ 1928.110(b)). The proposed definition
would bring consistency to OSHA
regulations.
OSHA currently defines potable water
as ‘‘water which meets the quality
standards prescribed in the U.S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water
Standards, published in 42 CFR part 72,
or water which is approved for drinking
purposes by the State or local authority
having jurisdiction.’’ OSHA adopted the
existing definition from a Public Health
Service Code that is no longer in
existence.
OSHA proposes to define potable
water as ’’water that meets the standards
for drinking purposes of the state or
local authority having jurisdiction, or
water that meets the quality standards
prescribed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s National Primary
Water Regulations (40 CFR part 141).’’
OSHA earlier proposed the same
revision to the shipyard-employment
standards (72 FR 72451–72520).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

b. Washing Facilities (§ 1910.141(d))
OSHA is proposing to revise the
Bloodborne Pathogens standard by
removing from the definition of
‘‘handwashing facilities’’ at
§ 1910.1030(b) the term ‘‘hot’’ in the
phrase ‘‘hot air drying machines.’’ The
definition currently reads as follows:
‘‘Handwashing Facilities means a
facility providing an adequate supply of
running potable water, soap, and single
use towels or hot air drying machines.’’
OSHA is proposing this revision in
response to an inquiry from Dyson B2B
Inc. (Dyson; ID 0015.1), which describes
a new air blower that uses high-velocity

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

(non-heated) air, rather than hot or
warm air, to dry hands. On July 13,
2007, OSHA issued a letter of
interpretation to Dyson in which it
recognized that some air-blower
techniques provide the appropriate level
of employee protection, and agreeing to
include this proposed revision in the
SIP–III rulemaking (ID 0144). In this
letter, OSHA also acknowledged that
current technology allows for the use of
hand-drying products that do not
involve hot air, and noted that, when it
published the Bloodborne Pathogens
standard, adequate non-heated, highvelocity air blowers were not available.
OSHA also is proposing to apply this
revision to four Sanitation standards,
including the Sanitation standard for
general industry (§ 1910.141(d)(2)(iv)),
marine terminals (§ 1917.127(a)(1)(iii)),
longshoring (§ 1918.95(a)(1)(iii)), and
construction (1926.51(f)(3)(iv)). The
general industry and construction
Sanitation standards at
§§ 1910.141(d)(2)(iv) and
1926.51(f)(3)(iv), respectively, use
identical language as follows:
Individual hand towels or sections thereof,
of cloth or paper, warm air blowers or clean
individual sections of continuous cloth
toweling, convenient to the lavatories, shall
be provided. [Emphasis added.]

While the definitions for Marine
Terminals at §§ 1917.127(a)(1)(iii) and
Longshoring at 1918.95(a)(1)(iii) differ
slightly from this definition, the term
‘‘warm air blowers’’ is used in both
definitions. OSHA notes that, whether
the definitions include the term ‘‘hot’’ or
‘‘warm,’’ the definitions do not include
high-velocity air blowers. In this
rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to
remove the term ‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘warm’’ from
these definitions, which then would
permit employers to use high-velocity
air blowers in the workplace. OSHA
believes the proposal does not revise
these definitions substantively in that
employers still could use hot-/warm-air
drying machines, as well as air blowers
or other air-drying machines that may
become available.
4. Slings (§ 1910.184)
OSHA is proposing to amend its
standards regulating slings at § 1910.184
(general industry), §§ 1915.112,
1915.113, and 1915.118 (shipyard
employment), and § 1926.251
(construction) by removing outdated
tables that specify safe working loads,
and revising other provisions (e.g.,
§§ 1910.184(e)(6) and 1915.112) that
reference the outdated tables. The
proposal would replace the outdated
tables with a requirement that would
prohibit employers from loading slings

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38653

in excess of the recommended safe
working load as prescribed on
permanently affixed identification
markings. The proposed revisions also
would expressly prohibit the use of
slings that do not have such markings.
Manufacturers produce slings with
markings that indicate the sling’s rated
capacity (i.e., safe working load), the
name or trademark of the manufacturer,
and other specifications (e.g., size,
material used in manufacturing the
sling); this information prevents misuse
of slings, thereby increasing employee
safety. OSHA currently requires these
markings for three of the five types of
slings regulated by its standards (i.e.,
alloy-steel-chain, metal-mesh, and
synthetic-web slings).
Many slings are sufficiently large for
manufacturers to emboss or stitch
identification markings onto the sling’s
surface. Other slings have identification
markings on tags attached to the sling by
other means, such as a separate wire or
cable. However, such tags may detach
from the sling during use, in which
case, the employer must remove the
sling from service until the tag is
replaced.
OSHA published the existing Slings
standard (§ 1910.184) on June 27, 1975
(see 40 FR 27368), based on the thencurrent 1971 consensus standard, ANSI
B30.9–1971, Slings. OSHA made
§ 1910.184 applicable to the
construction industry on February 9,
1979 (44 FR 8577). After 1975, OSHA
made no revisions to these standards
except for minor corrections. The loadcapacity tables in these standards are
now obsolete, and no longer conform to
the load-capacity tables of the updated
ANSI B30.9 standard. For example, the
current ANSI B30.9 standard includes
tables for slings made of alloy-steel
chain (grades 80 and 100) not included
in the existing OSHA standards.
In 1996, the National Association of
Chain Manufactures (NACM) petitioned
OSHA to adopt requirements of the
recently updated ANSI B30.9 standard.
NACM believed that the existing OSHA
standard was not as safe as the updated
ANSI standard. The NACM petition
recommended that, at a minimum,
OSHA remove Table N–1–184–1 in
§ 1910.184, which lists outdated loadcapacity requirements for alloy-steelchain slings.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to
remove the existing load-capacity tables
for slings from the following standards:
§ 1910.184 (general industry; tables N–
184–1, and N–184–3 through N–184–
22); § 1915.118 (shipyard employment;
tables G–1 through G–5, G–7 through G–
8, and G–10), including references to
these tables in § 1915.112 and

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38654

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 1915.113; and § 1926.251
(construction; tables H–1 and H–3
through H–19). Also, OSHA is
proposing to add the requirement for
identification markings on wire-,
natural-, and synthetic-fiber rope slings
in §§ 1910.184 and 1926.251, as well as
manila rope and manila rope slings,
wire rope and wire-rope slings, and
chain and chain slings in § 1915.112.
The proposal would provide similar
protection for shackles in § 1915.113
and § 1926.251. In addition, OSHA is
proposing that employers follow the
safe working-load capacity information
on the identification markings affixed to
slings by the sling manufacturer.
Further, if the sling is missing its
identification marking, OSHA is
proposing, consistent with the latest
ASME/ANSI B30.9 standard, that
employers remove these slings from
service until they reaffix the
identification markings.
OSHA believes the proposed revisions
will eliminate duplicative, inconsistent,
and outdated information, thus
minimizing confusion over the rated
capacity of any type of sling used by
employers. Further, reliance on the
information marked on the sling
simplifies compliance for employers by
eliminating the need to check tables or
other sources of information. Finally,
the proposed revisions will maintain or
increase employee safety by ensuring
that employers use slings with readily
available, up-to-date load ratings.
OSHA requests comment from the
public on the following questions
regarding the use of slings in this
country: (1) Are all slings manufactured
in accordance with the specifications
prescribed by the ASME/ANSI B30.9
slings standard; (2) are all slings
equipped with markings or tags; (3)
what other information do
manufacturers mark on slings; and (4)
do the markings and tags remain affixed
to the sling, or are the markings and tags
easily removed or damaged?
5. Subpart T
OSHA is proposing to remove two
unnecessary requirements from
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(5) of its
Commercial Diving Operations standard
at § 1910.440. Paragraph (b)(3)(i)
requires employers to retain dive-team
member medical records for five years,
even though the standard contains no
requirement for diver medical
examinations. In this regard, a 1979
court decision (Taylor Diving and
Salvage v. U.S. Department of Labor
(599 F.2d 622) (5th Cir., 1979)) resulted
in the removal of the requirement
(formerly located at § 1910.411) to
provide medical examinations, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

OSHA never removed the corresponding
medical recordkeeping requirement
from the standard. Also, OSHA is
proposing to correct a typographical
error in paragraph (b)(4) that refers to
§ 1910.20 instead of § 1910.1020.
6. Subpart Z
OSHA is proposing to remove the
requirements to transfer records to the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) for 15
substance-specific standards in subpart
Z, as well as from the standard
regulating access to employee exposure
and medical records (§ 1910.1020). In
addition, the following paragraphs
describe miscellaneous proposed
revisions to several other health
standards.
a. Transfer of Exposure and Medical
Records to NIOSH
OSHA is proposing to remove
provisions in its substance-specific
standards that require employers to
transfer exposure and medical records
to NIOSH. Most of OSHA’s existing
substance-specific standards, as well as
the Access to Employee Exposure and
Medical Records standard (§ 1910.1020),
require employers to transfer to NIOSH
specified medical and exposure records
when: An employer ceases to do
business and leaves no successor; the
period for retaining the records expires;
or an employee terminates employment
(including retirement or death). OSHA
proposes to remove the record-transfer
requirement from the following
standards:
• Asbestos—§§ 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii),
1915.1001(n)(8)(ii), and
§ 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii);
• 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl,
etc.)—§ 1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii);
• Vinyl Chloride—§ 1910.1017 (m)(3);
• Inorganic Arsenic—§ 1910.1018
(q)(4)(ii) and (iii);
• Access to Employee Exposure and
Medical Records—§ 1910.1020(h)(3)(i),
(ii) and (h)(4);
• Lead—§§ 1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and
(iii) and 1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii);
• Benzene—§ 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii);
• Coke Oven Emissions—
§ 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and (iii);
• Bloodborne Pathogens—
§ 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii);
• Cotton Dust—§ 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii)
and (iii);
• 1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane—
§ 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii) and (iii);
• Acrylonitrile—§ 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii)
and (iii);
• Ethylene Oxide—
§ 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii);
• Methylenedianiline—
§ 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii);

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• 1,3-Butadiene—
§ 1910.1051(m)(6)(i).
In addition, OSHA is proposing as part
of this rulemaking to remove paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) from § 1910.440
(‘‘Recordkeeping requirements’’) of its
standards for Commercial Diving
Operations; this provision requires
employers to transfer diving medical
records to NIOSH in the event no
successor employer is available.
These proposed revisions are in
response to a comment from NIOSH (ID
0135) recommending that OSHA
reexamine the need for this
requirement, and consider removing it
from these standards because ‘‘the
records unfortunately have not proved
suitable for research purposes.’’ NIOSH
stated further (ID 0142) that ‘‘[g]iven that
these records have proven to have no
research utility, the costs associated
with the processing and maintaining
these records are not justified.’’
In its comments, NIOSH noted that, in
addition to the 2,900 records for the 13
Carcinogens standards mentioned in
their January 2006 response to OSHA’s
Information Collection Request for
OMB–1218–0085 (ID 0142), it
catalogued another 170,000 records over
a 30-year period, and used none of these
records for research purposes. NIOSH
further stated (ID 0135) that ‘‘boxes [of
records] are currently in temporary
storage at a NIOSH facility awaiting
resources to become available to process
them. There is also another shipment of
2,300 boxes from a defunct
manufacturing company in temporary
storage waiting NIOSH processing.’’
NIOSH also noted that contractors
hired by companies that are ceasing
business operations often are
responsible for sending records to
NIOSH. However, many of these
contractors have no knowledge of what
records to send, and may send
inappropriate documents. In this regard,
NIOSH stated:
[I]n fact, some companies have used the
opportunity to simply empty their files and
send NIOSH everything. As a result, we often
receive extraneous information unrelated to
the requirements of the standards (e.g.,
contract reports, drug test clearances, records
for hazards that are not required to be
submitted to NIOSH, environmental/
pollution records, company operating
manuals). On some occasions, even when
valid medical records are sent, the records do
not identify the particular hazard(s) that the
workers were exposed to.

NIOSH stated that, once records are in
its possession, it must ‘‘expend
increasingly scarce research resources in
processing them in accordance with the
NIOSH Records Schedule.’’ Lastly,
NIOSH presented data on the cost it

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
incurs with processing, shipping, and
long-term storage, noting:
NIOSH has previously estimated the inhouse cost of processing to be about $1.35/
record for records received under the OSHA
carcinogen standards. It should be noted that
these carcinogen records are the best
organized of any we receive. They require the
least amount of processing effort and are
therefore the least costly. Other more poorly
organized records and those containing
extraneous materials that NIOSH has
processed using contractor staff have cost
about $3.50–$4.00/record. In addition there
are other minimal costs associated with
preparing the paperwork for shipment to the
FRC [Federal Records Center] as well as the
actual shipping costs. Finally, there are the
long-term FRC storage costs (currently $0.30/
record/year). For the 170,000 records
currently at the FRC, that represents a total
lifetime storage cost of more than $2,000,000.
(ID 0135.)

In conclusion, NIOSH stated, ‘‘Based on
our experience over the last 30 years,
NIOSH believes that the significant
costs associated with the records
transfer requirements cannot be justified
in light of the complete lack of scientific
utility of the records.’’
Because the data generated by the
records-transfer requirements appears to
be of little or no value to NIOSH, OSHA
is proposing to remove the recordtransfer requirements from its
substance-specific health standards and
from paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of
§ 1910.1020 (Access to Employee
Exposure and Medical Records).
However, before making a final
determination on this proposal, the
Agency is requesting workers,
researchers, and other interested parties
to provide comment on the possible
usefulness of these records. For
example, the Agency is interested in
determining whether workers who
become ill after exposure to a hazardous
substance would have a need to retrieve
their records to verify their exposure
after the employer responsible for
exposing them to the substance is no
longer in business (and the records
cannot be obtained from a bankruptcy
trustee or legal receiver), or whether the
data would be useful for medical,

industrial-hygiene, or economic
research purposes. OSHA also is asking
for examples of instances in which
individuals or organizations previously
used the data. Additionally, the Agency
requests comment on the availability of
this type of data from sources other than
NIOSH (such as attorneys who hold
medical and exposure records when
companies cease business operations).
The Agency welcomes any ideas or
suggestions on how the data could be
made more useful for these purposes.
b. Miscellaneous Revisions
(1) Substance-Specific PPE and
Respirator Training Requirements
OSHA proposes to remove specific
training requirements from several of its
substance-specific standards because
standards regulating personal-protective
equipment (PPE) and respirators in 29
CFR 1910, subpart I, already require the
training. Specifically, § 1910.132
requires employers to train employees
on: when PPE (i.e., protective
equipment for the eyes, face, head,
hands, and feet) is necessary; what PPE
is necessary; how to properly don, doff,
adjust, and wear the PPE; the limitations
of the PPE; and the proper care,
maintenance, useful life, and disposal of
the PPE. Additionally, § 1910.134
requires employers to train employees
on why respirators are necessary; how
improper fit, use, or maintenance can
compromise the effectiveness of
respirators; the capabilities and
limitations of respirators; how to use
respirators effectively in emergency
conditions; how to inspect, don, and
doff respirators; how to use and check
the seals of respirators; and how to
recognize medical signs and symptoms
that may limit or prevent the effective
use of respirators.
The standards regulating PPE and
respirator training apply to every
operation in which an employer uses
PPE and respirators. Therefore, the
training requirements in substancespecific standards mandating training
on such equipment duplicate the
requirements for PPE and respirator

38655

training in §§ 1910.132 and 1910.134.
OSHA believes that these revisions will
reduce confusion regarding the training
requirements, thereby improving
employer compliance and worker
protection.
(2) Lead (§ 1910.1025) (Trigger Levels in
the Lead Standards (§§ 1910.1025 and
1926.62))
In the Lead standards for general
industry and construction, at §§ 1910.25
and 1926.62, respectively, OSHA is
proposing to amend the trigger levels at
which employers must initiate specific
actions to protect workers exposed to
lead because the airborne
concentrations at which these actions
must occur vary slightly. In this regard,
a number of provisions in the Lead
standards trigger actions at airborne
concentrations that are ‘‘above the AL,’’
and ‘‘at or above the PEL.’’ The
terminology in the Lead standards for
these airborne concentrations is
inconsistent and can be confusing. For
example, § 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii) currently
states that ‘‘[t]he employer shall
continue monitoring at the required
frequency until at least two consecutive
measurements, taken at least 7 days
apart, are below the PEL but at or above
the action level[.]’’ OSHA is proposing
to revise this provision to state that
‘‘[t]he employer shall continue
monitoring at the required frequency
until at least two consecutive
measurements, taken at least 7 days
apart, are below the PEL but at or above
the action level[.]’’ Similar issues arise
with respect to the blood-lead levels
that trigger medical-removal protection
or return to work in the Lead standards.
OSHA is proposing to revise these
terminologies in the Lead standards to
make these provisions internally
consistent and consistent with each
other.
Tables 1 and 2 below describe the
existing and proposed revisions in the
general industry and the construction
industry standards (with the proposed
revisions in bold font).

TABLE 1—§ 1910.1025 GENERAL INDUSTRY

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Existing language

Proposed language

§ 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii)
If the initial monitoring reveals that employee exposure is above
the permissible exposure limit the employer shall repeat monitoring quarterly. The employer shall continue monitoring at the
required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements,
taken at least 7 days apart, are below the PEL but at or above
the action level at which time the employer shall repeat monitoring for that employee at the frequency specified in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii), except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(7) of this
section.
§ 1910.1025(j)(1)(i)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:31 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

If the initial monitoring reveals that employee exposure is at or above
the permissible exposure limit the employer shall repeat monitoring
quarterly. The employer shall continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at least 7
days apart, are below the PEL but at or above the action level at
which time the employer shall repeat monitoring for that employee at
the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii), except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38656

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—§ 1910.1025 GENERAL INDUSTRY—Continued
Existing language

Proposed language

The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all
employees who are or may be exposed above the action level
for more than 30 days per year.
§ 1910.1025(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a blood
lead level test indicate that an employee’s blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of this section, the employer shall provide a
second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after
the employer receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
§ 1910.1025(k)(1)(i)(B)
The employer shall remove an employee from work having an exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion
that the average of the last three blood sampling tests conducted pursuant to this section (or the average of all blood sampling tests conducted over the previous six (6) months, whichever is longer) indicates that the employee’s blood lead level is
at or above 50 μg/100 g of whole blood; provided, however, that
an employee need not be removed if the last blood sampling
test indicates a blood lead level at or below 40 μg/100 g of
whole blood.
§ 1910.1025(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above
60 μg/100 g, or due to an average blood lead level at or above
50 μg/100 g, when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the employee’s blood lead level is at or below 40 μg/
100 g of whole blood.

The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level for
more than 30 days per year.
Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a blood lead
level test indicate that an employee’s blood lead level is at or above
the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph
(k)(1)(i)(A), of this section, the employer shall provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
The employer shall remove an employee from work having an exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion that the
average of the last three blood sampling tests conducted pursuant to
this section (or the average of all blood sampling tests conducted
over the previous six (6) months, whichever is longer) indicates that
the employee’s blood lead level is at or above 50 μg/100 g of whole
blood; provided, however, that an employee need not be removed if
the last blood sampling test indicates a blood lead level below 40
μg/100 g of whole blood.
For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above 60 μg/
100 g, or due to an average blood lead level at or above 50 μg/100
g, when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the employee’s blood lead level is below 40 ug/100 g of whole blood.

TABLE 2—§ 1926.62 LEAD
Existing language

Proposed language

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 1926.62(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a blood
lead level test indicate that an employee’s blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section, the employer shall provide a second (follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the
employer receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
§ 1926.62(j)(2)(iv)(B)
The employer shall notify each employee whose blood lead level
exceeds 40 μg/dl that the standard requires temporary medical
removal with Medical Removal Protection benefits when an employee’s blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for
medical removal under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section.
§ 1926.62(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above
50 μg/dl when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate
that the employee’s blood lead level is at or below 40 μg/dl.

(3) Occupational Exposure to
Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories
(§ 1910.1450)
OSHA is proposing to revise a
statement in non-mandatory Appendix
A of the standard that regulates
occupational exposure to hazardous
chemicals in laboratories (the lab
standard) at § 1910.1450. Specifically,
OSHA is proposing to revise the
statement on ingestion. OSHA included
the statement in Appendix A of the lab
standard when it published the standard
on January 31, 1990 [55 FR 3327–3335].
The purpose of the statement was to
provide guidance to employers
developing a chemical-hygiene plan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:31 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a blood lead
level test indicate that an employee’s blood lead level is at or above
the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph (k)(1)(i)
of this section, the employer shall provide a second (follow-up) blood
sampling test within two weeks after the employer receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
The employer shall notify each employee whose blood lead level is at
or above 40 μg/dl that the standard requires temporary medical removal with Medical Removal Protection benefits when an employee’s
blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal
under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section.
For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above 50 μg/
dl when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the employee’s blood lead level is below 40 μg/dl.

OSHA based the statement on Prudent
Practices for Handling Hazardous
Chemicals in Laboratories, a committee
report by the National Research Council.
The statement addressed by this
proposal appears in Section E of
Appendix A in § 1910.1450, entitled,
Basic Rules and General Procedures for
Working with Chemicals. In paragraph
1(a), Accidents and spills, the existing
text recommends that, when an
employee ingests a hazardous chemical,
‘‘[e]ncourage the victim to drink large
amounts of water.’’
OSHA is proposing to revise this
recommendation in response to a
commenter from Rexall Sundown (ID

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

0141), who noted, ‘‘I have a strong
concern for the blanket statement
concerning ingestion. I realize that it
may have been taken from Prudent
Practices; however, a strong word of
caution may need to be added.’’ The
commenter indicated the containers for
some hazardous chemicals warn, ‘‘Do
not give anything by mouth. Contact
medical advice immediately.’’ The
commenter recommended that OSHA
adopt the approach found in the Cornell
University Laboratory Safety Manual
and Chemical Hygiene Plan, where
treatment depends on the type and
amount of chemical involved. Based on
these considerations and the suggestion

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that drinking large amounts of water
may do more harm than good, OSHA is
revising the language to read, ‘‘This is
the one route of entry for which
treatment depends on the type and
amount of chemical involved. Seek
medical attention immediately.’’ OSHA
believes the language proposed would
enhance employee protection by
providing appropriate advice in
situations in which an employee may
ingest a hazardous chemical.
B. Proposed Revisions to the Standards
for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR Part
1915)
1. Appendix A of Subpart B
OSHA is proposing to amend
Appendix A (‘‘Compliance Assistance
Guidelines for Confined and Enclosed
Spaces and Other Dangerous
Atmospheres’’) to subpart B of 29 CFR
1915 by revising the sentence in
example number 1 under the section
titled, ‘‘Section 1915.11(b) Definition of
‘Hot work,’ ’’ to read, ‘‘Abrasive blasting
of the external hull for paint preparation
does not necessitate pumping and
cleaning the tanks of a vessel.’’ The
proposed revision adds the word
‘‘external’’ to the existing sentence to
indicate that the information provided
by the section applies only to work
performed on the outside of a ship.
OSHA believes the proposed revision
will clarify the compliance obligation
under these conditions.
In 1994, OSHA published the final
rule regulating confined and enclosed
spaces and other dangerous
atmospheres in shipyard employment
(59 FR 37816, July 25, 1994). In that
rulemaking, OSHA defined ‘‘hot work’’
in 29 CFR 1915.11 as:

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

[A]ny activity involving riveting, welding,
burning, and the use of powder-actuated
tools or similar fire-producing operations.
Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or
similar spark-producing operations are also
considered hot work except when such
operations are isolated physically from any
atmosphere containing more than 10 percent
of the lower explosive limit of a flammable
or combustible substance.

OSHA’s purpose in developing
Appendix A to subpart B was to assist
employers in complying with the
requirements of that subpart. The
section of Appendix A that OSHA is
proposing to revise provides several
examples of situations that do not
involve hot work, including the
example of abrasive blasting on the hull
for paint preparation. However, in the
final rule, OSHA did not explain that
this example only applies to work
performed on the external hull, not
inside the hull, of a ship. To correct this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

oversight, OSHA is proposing to add the
word ‘‘external’’ to this example.
2. §§ 1915.112, 1915.113, and 1915.118
OSHA proposes to revise and update
the slings provisions of § 1915.112
(Ropes, chains and slings), paragraph (a)
of § 1915.113 (Shackles and hooks), and
§ 1915.118 (Tables). See previous
section A.4 for a detailed discussion of
these proposed revisions.
3. § 1915.154—Respiratory Protection
The revisions OSHA is proposing to
Appendix C of the Respiratory
Protection standard at § 1910.134,
described in previous section A.2.b(2),
also would affect shipyard employment
through the Respiratory Protection
standard at § 1915.154.
4. § 1915.1001—Asbestos
OSHA proposes to revise § 1915.1001,
Asbestos, to require employers to
institute a respiratory-protection
program in accordance with § 1910.134.
See previous section A.2.b(6) for a
detailed discussion of these proposed
revisions.
C. Proposed Revisions to the Standards
for Marine Terminals (29 CFR Part
1917)
1. §§ 1917.2—Definitions
OSHA is proposing to add a definition
for the term ‘‘ship’s stores’’ in § 1917.2.
Currently, five provisions in Title 29 of
the Code of Federal Regulations use the
term ‘‘ship’s stores’’; however, OSHA
provides no definition of the term in
this title. OSHA uses the term in the
definition of ‘‘longshoring operation’’ in
§§ 1910.16(c)(1) and 1918.2; in the
definition of ‘‘vessel cargo handling
gear’’ in § 1918.2; in the scope and
application section of 29 CFR 1917 at
§ 1917.1(a); and in § 1917.50(j)(3)
(exceptions to the gear-certification
requirements).
After publishing the final rule for
marine terminals on June 30, 2000 (65
FR 40935), OSHA received a number of
requests asking the Agency to define the
term ‘‘ship’s stores’’ as used in
§ 1917.50(j)(3). In a directive published
on May 23, 2006 (CPL 02–00–139),
OSHA defined the term to mean
materials that are on board a vessel for
the upkeep, maintenance, safety,
operation, or navigation of the vessel, or
for the safety or comfort of the vessel’s
passengers or crew. The definition in
the directive is similar to the U.S. Coast
Guard definition at 46 CFR 147. OSHA
believes that the definition used in the
directive is appropriate, and, therefore,
is proposing to revise the definitions
section of § 1917.2 to include this
definition.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38657

2. § 1917.127—Sanitation
OSHA proposes to revise and update
the sanitation provisions in paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of § 1917.127 by removing the
word ‘‘warm’’ from the phrase ‘‘warm air
blowers.’’ See previous section A.3.b for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
D. Proposed Revisions to the Standards
for Longshoring (29 CFR 1918)
1. § 1918.2—Definitions
OSHA proposes to add a definition in
§ 1918.2 for the term ‘‘ship’s stores.’’ See
previous section C.1 for a detailed
discussion of this proposed revision.
2. § 1918.95—Sanitation
OSHA proposes to revise and update
the sanitation provisions in paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of § 1918.95 by removing the
word ‘‘warm’’ from the phrase ‘‘warm air
blowers.’’ See previous section A.3.b for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
E. Proposed Revisions to the Standards
for Gear Certification (29 CFR 1919)
1. §§ 1919.6, 1919.11, 1919.12, 1919.15,
and 1919.18
OSHA is proposing to update
§§ 1919.6(a)(1), 1919.11(d), 1919.12(f),
1919.15(a), and 1919.18(b) to require
employers to inspect a vessel’s cargohandling gear as recommended by
International Labor Organization (ILO)
Convention 152. This revision would
require employers to test and
thoroughly examine gear before initial
use; thoroughly examine it every 12
months thereafter; and retest and
thoroughly examine the gear every five
years. The proposed revision is
consistent with the current ILO
Convention 152. The existing standards,
based on outdated ILO Convention 32,
require testing and examination every
four years. OSHA believes these
proposed revisions represent the usual
and customary practice of the maritime
industry, and, therefore, will increase
employee protection while not adding
to employers’ compliance burden.
The proposed revisions would make
the 29 CFR 1919 standards consistent
with the existing requirement of the
Longshoring standard at § 1918.11(a).
Section 1918.11(a) requires an employer
using a vessel’s cargo-handling gear to
ensure that the vessel has a current and
valid cargo-gear register and certificates
that comply with the recommendations
of ILO Convention 152 for testing and
examination of cargo gear. Paragraph (b)
of § 1918.11 specifies that OSHA will
consider vessels holding a valid
certificate of inspection from the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), as well as public

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38658

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

vessels, to meet the requirements of
paragraph (a) of § 1918.11. Paragraphs
(c) and (d) of § 1918.11 specify the
competencies that persons or
organizations making entries and
issuing the certificates required by
paragraph (a) of this section must have,
both with regard to U.S. vessels not
holding a valid USCG Certificate of
Inspection, and vessels under foreign
registry.
In 1997, when OSHA updated the
Marine Terminals and Longshoring
standards (62 FR 40141, July 25, 1997),
it updated § 1918.11 requiring
inspections of vessels’ cargo-handling
gear as recommended by ILO
Convention No. 152, which replaced
ILO 32 (upon which OSHA’s current
rule is based). Accordingly, this revision
requires employers to test and
thoroughly examine gear before initial
use; thoroughly examine it every 12
months thereafter; and retest and
thoroughly examine the gear every five
years. The original standards, similar to
existing requirements in 29 CFR 1919,
required retesting and thorough
examination every four years. OSHA is
proposing to update the inspection and
testing requirements in §§ 1919.6(a)(1),
1919.11(d), 1919.12(f), 1919.15(a), and
1919.18(b) to be consistent with the
inspection and testing requirements in
existing 29 CFR 1917 (Marine
Terminals) and 1918 (Longshoring).
F. Proposed Revisions to the
Construction Standards (29 CFR 1926)
1. Subpart D
a. § 1926.51(a)(6)
OSHA proposes to revise § 1926.51,
Sanitation, by updating the definition of
the term ‘‘potable water.’’ See previous
section A.3.a for a detailed discussion of
this proposed revision.
b. § 1926.51(f)(3)

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

OSHA proposes to revise and update
the sanitation provisions in paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) of § 1926.51 by removing the
word ‘‘warm’’ from the term ‘‘warm air
blowers.’’ See previous section A.3.b for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
c. § 1926.60
OSHA is proposing to revise
paragraph (o)(8) of the
Methylenedianiline standard, which
requires employers to comply with the
requirements in § 1926.33 regarding the
transfer of records to NIOSH. See
previous section A.6.a for a detailed
discussion of this proposed revision.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:02 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

d. § 1926.62
The following paragraphs describe
several revisions OSHA is proposing to
the Lead standard for construction at
§ 1926.62.
(1) OSHA is proposing to revise the
trigger levels at which employers must
initiate specific actions to protect
workers exposed to lead. See previous
section A.6.b for a detailed discussion of
this proposed revision.
(2) OSHA proposes to remove
paragraphs (n)(6)(ii) and (iii) of
§ 1926.62, which require employers to
comply with the requirements in
§ 1926.33 regarding the transfer records
to NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
2. Subpart H
OSHA proposes to revise and update
the slings requirements at § 1926.251
(Rigging equipment for material
handling). See previous section A.4 for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
3. Subpart Z
a. Asbestos (§ 1926.1101)
(1) OSHA is proposing to correct the
references in paragraphs (n)(7) and
(n)(8) of the Asbestos standard for
construction to refer to § 1926.33 rather
than § 1910.20, because § 1910.20 does
not exist.
(2) Section 1926.33 requires
compliance with § 1910.1020, from
which OSHA is proposing to remove the
requirement to transfer employee
exposure and medical records to
NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a
detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
(3) OSHA proposes to remove the
requirement in existing (n)(8)(ii)
specifying that employers must transfer
employee medical and exposure records
to NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for
a detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
b. Cadmium (§ 1926.1127)
(1) OSHA is proposing to revoke the
training-certification record requirement
at paragraph (n)(4) of § 1926.1127. See
previous section A.2.a for a detailed
discussion of this proposed revision.
(2) OSHA is proposing to correct the
reference in paragraph (n)(6) of the
Cadmium standard for construction to
refer to § 1926.33, rather than paragraph
(h) of § 1926.33, because § 1926.33 has
no paragraph (h).
(3) Section 1926.33 requires
compliance with § 1910.1020, from
which OSHA is proposing to remove the
requirement to transfer employee

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

exposure and medical records to
NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a
detailed discussion of this proposed
revision.
G. Proposed Revisions to the Agriculture
Standards (29 CFR Part 1928)
1. Subpart I (General Environmental
Controls)
OSHA proposes to revise
§ 1928.110(b) by updating the definition
of the term ‘‘potable water.’’ See section
A.3.a for a detailed discussion of this
proposed revision.
H. Miscellaneous Issues
OSHA asked in question #40 of the
ANPRM whether any other standards
needed revision consistent with the
purpose of the SIP process (71 FR
76629). The American Society of Safety
Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) responded
that the OSHA Permissible Exposure
Limits for air contaminants need
revision. However, such an extensive
rulemaking is beyond the limited scope
of the SIP process.
The 3M Company (3M; ID 0028)
recommended that OSHA remove from
§ 1910.134(d)(3)(iv)(B) the reference to
filters certified under 30 CFR part 11,
and instead require that air-purifying
respirators use filters certified for
particulates by NIOSH under 42 CFR
part 84. The 3M Company also
recommended that OSHA remove
separate provisions regulating filter
selection from its substance-specific
standards, and replace these provisions
with a reference to
§ 1910.134(d)(3)(iv)(B). In response to
3M’s first recommendation, OSHA may
consider such a revision when it
receives sufficient evidence that
employers are no longer purchasing or
using dust-mist and dust-fume-mist
filters. Regarding 3M’s second
recommendation, OSHA removed many
of these separate filter-selection
provisions from its substance-specific
standards in the recent final rulemaking
for assigned protection factors (APFs)
(see 71 FR 50122). OSHA believes that
to propose additional revisions to these
provisions is inappropriate because, as
it explained in the final APF
rulemaking, ‘‘[T]he Agency decided to
retain former respirator selection
provisions in the existing substancespecific standards that it found
supplemented or supplanted the
proposed APFs and MUCs [maximum
use concentrations] * * *. OSHA did so
because these provisions enhance the
respirator protection afforded to
employees.’’ (Id. at 50177.)
3M also addressed the 1,3-Butadiene
standard’s provisions that limit the use

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of organic-vapor cartridges and canisters
to specific levels of butadiene. The
§ 1910.134 standard allows employers to
make service-life calculations in
developing replacement schedules for
vapor cartridges and canisters. 3M
presented calculations in its ANPRM
comments that resulted in service-life
durations ranging from 16.5 hours at a
5 parts per million (ppm) butadiene
concentration, to 4.75 hours at 50 ppm
butadiene. 3M stated that permitting
service-life calculations for butadiene
exposure concentrations would allow
employers to use powered air-purifying
respirators for some butadiene
exposures, thereby eliminating the
problems that occur with trailing air
hoses associated with the use of
supplied-air respirators. OSHA
disagrees with this recommended
revision because butadiene is a
compound with a high vapor pressure
and, as a result, droplets captured in the
filter may vaporize and penetrate
through the filter, and expose the
employee to excess levels of butadiene.
The National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA) and the American
Composites Manufacturers Association
(ACMA) petitioned OSHA to revise its
standards at 29 CFR 1910, subpart H
(see §§ 1910.106 and 1910.107) by
adopting the provisions of National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 30,
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code, and NFPA 33, Standard for Spray
Application using Flammable and
Combustible Materials, which apply to
the manufacturing of styrene crosslinked composites (i.e., glass-fiber
reinforced plastics). In response to the
petition, OSHA sought comment
through the ANPRM for SIP–III. In the
ANPRM, the Agency noted that it lacked
data from which to draw conclusions on
the relative level of protection provided
by the NFPA and OSHA standards.
OSHA requested data and information
on the level of employee protection
provided by these standards using the
following questions:
• Are the provisions in the 2003
edition of NFPA 30 as protective or
more protective of employee’s safety
and health than the equivalent
provisions in § 1910.106? Should OSHA
revise § 1910.106 to be consistent with
these provisions? Please submit specific
available information or data supporting
your comments.
• Are the provisions in the 2003
edition of NFPA 33 as protective or
more protective of employee’s safety
and health than the equivalent
provisions in § 1910.107? Should OSHA
revise § 1910.107 to be consistent with
these provisions? Please submit specific

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

available information or data supporting
your comments.
In response to these questions, OSHA
received a number of comments (IDs
0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0025, 0122, and
0128) supporting the composites
provisions in these NFPA standards.
However, none of the commenters
provided persuasive data or information
regarding the protection afforded to
employees by the NFPA standards.
In addition to the comments, OSHA
received a document from the ACMA
entitled, ‘‘Fire Hazard Analysis of
Composite Resin Manufacturing Spray
Application Areas’’ (ID 0139). This
document describes a study that
identified issues regarding electrical
classification, sprinkler protection,
ventilation, and the use of flammable
liquids in clean-up operations. The
study, based on preliminary research,
was part of an ACMA-sponsored effort
to analyze the hazards in this industry,
and to conduct testing to compare the
level of safety provided by the OSHA
standards and the NFPA standards.
However, this document, like the
comments described previously, does
not provide the Agency with sufficient
information to support proposing a
revision to the 29 CFR 1910, subpart H
standards. Therefore, OSHA decided not
to include any specific revisions to
§§ 1910.106 or 1910.107 of subpart H in
the SIP–III proposal. Rather, it will
continue to seek additional information
and data for use in determining the need
for revisions. Accordingly, OSHA again
seeks information that may help
determine if NFPA 33 provides
protection for employees equivalent to
that provided in § 1910.107, and
requests comments and supporting data
on the previous questions.
In the ANPRM, OSHA expressed its
position on the need for training, noting,
‘‘Training is an essential part of every
employer’s safety and health program
for protecting employees from injury
and illness’’ (71 FR 76629). OSHA asked
for comment on four questions
concerning training requirements, and
noted that, in SIP–II, it revised the
notification and timing requirements in
several health standards to make them
consistent with each other (67 FR
66493). OSHA explained that it made
these revisions to reduce confusion and
to facilitate compliance, without
diminishing employee protection. In the
ANPRM, OSHA asked the following
questions:
• How could the Agency modify the
training requirements in various OSHA
safety and health standards to promote
compliance with training requirements?
• How should training content and
frequency of retraining be addressed to

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38659

improve employees’ safety and health?
Please identify changes that could be
made to improve the training process.
• Would making training
requirements uniform among various
standards facilitate employers’
compliance with OSHA regulations?
• To what extent, if any, do other
agencies’ training requirements overlap
with OSHA’s?
OSHA received several comments in
response to these four questions. With
regard to retraining, the Building and
Construction Trades Department of the
AFL–CIO (BCTD; ID 0118) said:
OSHA should specify the frequency of
retraining. The retraining should not be
based on subjective criteria such as ‘‘when
needed’’ or ‘‘if worker shows lack of
understanding.’’ Too often criteria like [these[
are ignored or retraining is only implemented
after an accident. All safety and health
retraining should be required on an annual
basis.

The BCTD (ID 0118) also
recommended that OSHA require
employers to prepare a written
certification record for all training
requirements, noting that some OSHA
standards require certification records
and others do not. It further
recommended that OSHA add a new
training requirement to the construction
industry standards, one that would
mandate that all construction workers
receive the 10-hour OSHA safety-andhealth course for construction.
Additional training revisions
recommended by the BCTD are beyond
the scope of the SIP–III rulemaking, but
OSHA will consider them for further
action. (For a discussion of OSHA
proposals regarding trainingcertification-record requirements, see
item 2.a (‘‘Training certification
records’’) under previous section A
(‘‘Subpart I’’).
The Associated General Contractors of
America (ID 0120) also addressed the
frequency of training, noting, ‘‘[T]he
amount of training should match the
severity of the hazard and the
prevalence of the hazard to particular
occupations.’’ Duke Energy (ID 0018)
agreed with standardizing the language
of the health standards, and suggested
that, rather than specifying detailed
training requirements in its health
standards, OSHA should revise these
standards to allow employers to comply
with performance-based requirements,
such as the requirements in OSHA’s
Hazard Communication standard at
1910.1200.
Both the American Society of Safety
Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) and Northrop
Grumman Newport News (ID 0027)
argued against the ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’
approach. Northrop Grumman stated:

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38660

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

A toolbox meeting may be appropriate for
some employers while formal classroom,
computer-based training, or on-the-job
training may be effective for other employers.
We also note that different audiences within
the same employer may learn best using
different methods or frequencies. For
instance, employees retain information better
on tasks they perform frequently versus tasks
they perform infrequently. For an infrequent
task, ‘‘just in time’’ training or a job briefing
on the day of the job may be the best method
to ensure an employee understands how to
perform the work safely versus ‘‘annual’’
training that may have been conducted 11
months before the employee performs the
work. Furthermore, information technology,
such as virtual reality and computer-based
training, is opening up tremendous new
opportunities to enhance training beyond the
traditional means.

ASSE recommended that OSHA
consider the ANSI Z490.1 consensus
standard when addressing training
requirements. OSHA believes that the
Z490.1 standard is useful for employers
in developing and providing a
framework for training programs, but
that standard prescribes measures
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
For example, the standard prescribes
detailed criteria for developing and
evaluating training programs, including
needs assessment, learning objectives,
course content, and a written training
program plan, as well as detailed
records documenting the successful
completion of training.
After reviewing the commenters’
submissions, OSHA is not convinced
currently that employees or employers
would benefit from any revisions to the
frequency or content of the training
requirements contained in its existing
substance-specific standards.
Additionally, as part of a separate
rulemaking on the Global
Harmonization System (74 FR 50279,
September 30, 2009), OSHA is
addressing the training provisions in
several of its substance-specific
standards. Furthermore, as discussed
earlier, OSHA is proposing revisions to
the training-certification requirements
in several standards.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
A. Overview
OSHA determined that the proposed
standard is not an economically
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. E.O.
12866 requires regulatory agencies to
conduct an economic analysis of rules
that meet specific criteria. The most
frequently used criterion under E.O.
12866 is that the rule will impose on the
economy an annual cost in excess of
$100 million. Neither the benefits nor

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

the costs of this rule exceed $100
million. OSHA provided OMB’s Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
with this assessment of the costs,
benefits, and alternatives, as required by
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866.
OSHA also determined that the
proposal is not a major rule under the
Congressional Review provisions of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) requires OSHA to determine
whether the Agency’s regulatory actions
will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
OSHA’s conclusion, based on the
analysis described in this section of the
preamble, indicates that the proposed
rule will not have significant impacts on
a substantial number of small entities.
The proposal deletes and revises a
number of provisions in existing OSHA
standards. OSHA believes that the
proposal is technologically feasible
because it reduces or removes current
requirements on employers.
The Agency considered both
regulatory and non-regulatory
alternatives to the proposed revisions.
Non-regulatory alternatives are not an
appropriate remedy to effect these
revisions because the proposed
provisions reduce requirements or
provide flexibility to employers by
revising existing standards. As
discussed in the previous Summary and
Explanation section, the Agency
considered alternatives for amending
several provisions. In most instances,
the Agency chose to revise outdated
provisions to improve clarity, as well as
consistency, with standards more
recently promulgated by the Agency. In
some instances, the proposal provides
more flexibility in the way information
is communicated to employees or the
Agency. The purpose of the proposed
provisions was to reduce burden on
employers, or provide employers with
compliance flexibility, while
maintaining the level of protection for
employees.
B. Costs and Cost Savings
1. Removing Requirements To Transfer
Records to NIOSH
The Agency is deleting provisions
from § 1910.1020(h)(3) and (h)(4) of its
standard regulating access to employee
medical and exposure records that will
end employers’ responsibility to send
exposure and medical records to
NIOSH. Under existing
§ 1910.1020(h)(3), if an employer ceases
business operations without a successor,
the employer must send employee
exposure and medical records to NIOSH
if required to do so by a substance-

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

specific standard. For records associated
with other substances, the employer
must notify the Director of NIOSH in
writing three months before disposing of
them. Under § 1910.1020(h)(4), an
employer who regularly disposes of
employee records more than 30 years
old must notify the Director of NIOSH,
at least three months prior to disposal,
of the records planned for disposal in
the coming year.
Deleting these requirements from
OSHA standards provides several
sources of savings to NIOSH. In a
comment to the rulemaking record (ID
135), NIOSH reported that it catalogued
about 170,000 employee medical and
exposure records during the past 30
years. NIOSH noted that the records
were of no use for research purposes,
and estimated that removing the duty to
collect the records would result in a
savings of $2 million for long-term
storage of the catalogued records. In this
regard, NIOSH stated that long-term
storage costs are currently $0.30/record/
year, which ‘‘represents a total lifetime
storage cost of more than $2,000,000.’’ In
addition, NIOSH periodically receives
records from employers who are
terminating business operations. These
employers often fail to contact NIOSH
in advance regarding the
appropriateness of the records they are
sending to NIOSH. NIOSH protocol
requires it to keep records, even
inappropriate records, until it reviews
the records; NIOSH keeps unreviewed
records in temporary storage. Removal
of the records-transfer requirement, as
proposed, would relieve NIOSH of
receiving and temporarily storing these
records.
The proposal also would save NIOSH
the resources it expends on processing
received data on an on-going basis.
NIOSH noted that the cost of processing
records ranges from $1.35 to $4.00 per
record, but the agency did not provide
comment on how many records it
typically processes annually. In its
analyses of the paperwork burden
associated with this records-transfer
requirement, OSHA estimated that
employers expend 3,611 hours at a cost
of $157,459 annually (see section VI
below, ‘‘OMB Review Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995’’).
This savings also constitutes a benefit of
the proposed rule.
2. Removing Training-Certification and
Other Requirements
A second source of cost savings from
the proposed rule is removing the
certification requirements for employee
training under the PPE and Cadmium
standards. The Agency estimates that
this action will save employers, across

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
a wide range of industries, about 1.86
million hours annually, with an
estimated value of about $42.9 million
(see OSHA’s estimate of paperwork
costs below in section VI).
The proposal’s provisions on slings
require employers to mark equipment
(i.e., slings and shackles) with safe
working loads (SWL) and other rigging
information. OSHA’s current standards
require this information for three of the
five types of slings, and the Agency
believes that it is industry practice for
manufacturers to permanently mark all
slings with this information. Thus, the
Agency preliminarily concludes that

these provisions will not impose any
new cost burden on affected employers.
OSHA believes that having the SWL
information marked on slings instead of
located in tables would provide
employers with readily available and
up-to-date sling information, thereby
reducing employer cost. The Agency
seeks comment on any economic effects
that may result from replacing the tables
with marks.
The proposal also relaxes the
frequency of rigging inspections
required under 29 CFR 1919 from every
four years to every five years. The
Agency seeks comment on whether this

revision will result in any cost savings
for employers.
C. Summary
OSHA preliminarily concludes that
the provisions of the proposal do not
impose any new costs on employers.
Since the proposal does not impose
costs of any significance on any
employer, the Agency concludes that
the proposed standard is economically
feasible. The table below provides a
summary of the cost savings OSHA
estimates will result from this proposed
rulemaking.

Item

Cost savings

NIOSH record storage (one-time savings) .....................................................................................................................................
Removing requirements that employers transfer records to NIOSH (annual savings) ..................................................................
Removing requirements for written certification of training (annual savings) ................................................................................

$2.00 million.
$0.16 million.
$42.90 million.

Total .........................................................................................................................................................................................

$45.06 million.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as
amended), OSHA examined the
regulatory requirements of the proposal
to determine whether these proposed
requirements would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Since no
employer of any size will have new
costs, the Agency preliminarily
concludes that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

38661

A. Overview
The Standards Improvement ProjectPhase III (SIP–III) proposal would
revoke existing collection-ofinformation (paperwork) requirements
contained in 41 existing InformationCollection Requests (ICRs) currently
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA–95), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB’s
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. PRA–95
defines ‘‘collection of information’’ as
‘‘the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public of facts or
opinions by or for an agency regardless
of form or format’’ (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)). Under PRA–95, a Federal
agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it is
approved by OMB, and displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

B. Solicitation of Comments
OSHA prepared and submitted one
ICR for the SIP–III proposal to the OMB
for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
3507(d). The Agency solicits comments
on the proposed new and modified
collection-of-information requirements
and the estimated burden hours
associated with these requirements,
including comments on the following
items:
• Whether the proposed collection-ofinformation requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and cost) of the
information-collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the compliance
burden on employers, for example, by
using automated or other technological
techniques for collecting and
transmitting information.
C. Proposed Revisions to InformationCollection Requirements
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
and 1320.8(d)(2), the following
paragraphs provide information about
this ICR, including the reductions in
reporting burden associated with the
proposed revisions to informationcollection requirements.
1. Title: Standards Improvement
Project-Phase III (SIP–III)
2. Description of revisions to the ICRs:
The proposal would remove the

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

requirements for employers to transfer
employee exposure-monitoring and
medical records to the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) under the standard regulating
access to employee exposure and
medical records at § 1910.1020, as well
as an additional 18 standards in the
general, construction, and shipyardemployment industries. (See the earlier
detailed discussion of this proposed
revision under section IV.B.1.) In
addition, the Agency is proposing to
remove, from four of its standards,
training-certification records that
require employers to develop and
maintain written records certifying that
they complied with training
requirements. In addition to the four
training-certification records proposed
for removal, OSHA is considering
removing the training-certification
requirements from 12 other general
industry, construction, and shipyardemployment standards. (See the
detailed discussion of this proposed
revision located in previous section
III.A.2.)
3. Changes in reporting burden and
responses resulting from removing
requirements to transfer records to
NIOSH: The following table describes
the estimated changes in burden hours
and cost resulting from removing
provisions from OSHA standards
(identified by the current OMB control
numbers) requiring employers to
transfer employee exposure and medical
records to NIOSH.

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38662

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
OMB Control
No.

Standard and Provision

Change (cost)

Commercial Diving Operations—29 CFR 1910.440(b)(5)(ii) .......................................................
Asbestos—29 CFR 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii) ......................................................................................
Asbestos—29 CFR 1915.1001(n)(8)(ii) .......................................................................................
Asbestos—29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii) .......................................................................................
13 Carcinogens (4–Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)—29 CFR 1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii) ............................
Vinyl Chloride—29 CFR 1910.1017 (m)(3) .................................................................................
Inorganic Arsenic—29 CFR 1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii) ...........................................................
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records—29 CFR 1910.1020(h)(3)(i),(ii) and
(h)(4) .........................................................................................................................................
Lead—29 CFR 1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and (iii) .................................................................................
Lead—29 CFR 1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii) .....................................................................................
Cadmium—29 CFR 1910.27(n)(6) ..............................................................................................
Cadmium—29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(6) ..........................................................................................
Benzene—29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii) ........................................................................................
Coke Oven Emissions—29 CFR 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and (iii) ....................................................
Bloodborne Pathogens—29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii) .................................................................
Cotton Dust—29 CFR 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii) ......................................................................
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane—29 CFR 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii) and (iii) .........................................
Acrylonitrile—29 CFR 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii) ......................................................................
Ethylene Oxide—29 CFR 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii) .............................................................................
Formaldehyde—29 CFR 1910.1048(o)(6)(ii) and (iii) ..................................................................
Methylenedianiline—29 CFR 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii) ........................................................................
Methylenedianiline—29 CFR 1926.60(n)(7)(ii) ............................................................................
1,3-Butadiene—29 CFR 1910.1051(m)(6)(i) ...............................................................................
Methlyene Chloride—29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(5) ..........................................................................
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories—29 CFR 1910.1450(j)(2) ....

1218–0069
1218–0133
1218–0195
1218–0134
1218–0085
1218–0010
1218–0104

¥301
¥1
¥1
¥4
¥6
¥1
¥1

¥$5,764
¥$20
¥$22
¥$101
¥$139
¥$20
¥$23

1218–0065
1218–0092
1218–0189
1218–0185
1218–0186
1218–0129
1218–0128
1218–0180
1218–0061
1218–0101
1218–0126
1218–0108
1218–0145
1218–0184
1218–0183
1218–0170
1218–0179
1218–0131

¥2,939
¥2
¥1
0
0
¥1
¥3
0
¥3
0
¥3
¥3
¥2
¥1
¥1
¥3
¥1
¥333

¥$145,216
¥$42
¥$22
0
0
¥$23
¥$60
0
¥$69
0
¥$74
¥$55
¥$41
¥$18
¥$21
¥$65
¥$21
¥$5,644

Totals ....................................................................................................................................

........................

¥3,611

¥$157,460

The following table describes the
estimated changes in burden hours and
cost resulting from removing provisions

of the four OSHA standards that specify
that employers must develop and

maintain written records certifying their
compliance with training requirements.
OMB Control
No.

Standard and Provision

Change
(burden hours)

Change (cost)

Personal Protective Equipment—29 CFR 1910.132(f)(4) ...........................................................
Cadmium—29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(4) ..........................................................................................
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)—29 CFR 1915.152(e)(4) ...............................................
Cadmium—29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(4) ..........................................................................................

1218–0205
1218–0185
1218–0215
1218–0186

¥1,855,180
¥1,226
¥2,776
¥2,100

¥$42,743,347
¥$26,371
¥$48,664
¥$43,218

Totals ....................................................................................................................................

........................

¥1,861,282

¥$42,861,600

The following table describes the
estimated changes in burden hours and
cost to the training-certification

provisions that OSHA is considering
removing from 12 of its standards; these
training-certification provisions specify

Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance—29 CFR 1910.66(i)(1)(v) ...................................
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM)—29 CFR
1910.119(g)(3) ..........................................................................................................................
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)—29 CFR
1910.120(e)(6), (p)(7)(i), (q)(6)(ii)-(v) .......................................................................................
Permit-Required Confined Spaces— § 1910.146(g)(4) ...............................................................
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)—29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(iv) ....................
Powered Industrial Trucks—29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)-(3), (l)(6) ....................................................
Logging Operations—29 CFR 1910.266(i)(10)(i)-(ii) ...................................................................
Telecommunications—29 CFR 1910.268(c) ...............................................................................
Electrical Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution—29 CFR 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) ......
Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment—29 CFR 1915.12(d)(5)(i) and (ii) ...................................................................................
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment—29 CFR 1915.508(f) .................................................
Training Requirements for Fall Protection—29 CFR 1926.503(b) ..............................................
Totals ....................................................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:02 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00018

that employers must develop and
maintain written records certifying their
compliance with training requirements.
OMB
Control
No.

Standard and Provision

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Change
(burden hours)

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Change
(burden hours)

Change
(cost)

1218–0121

¥469

¥$11,247

1218–0200

¥30,767

¥$627,954

1218–0202
1218–0203
1218–0150
1218–0242
1218–0198
1218–0225
1218–0190

¥3,352
¥39,185
¥180,768
¥29,785
¥3,329
¥1,087
¥4,554

¥$113,231
¥$805,251
¥$3,947,973
¥$638,591
¥$56,105
¥$38,958
¥$65,851

1218–0011
1218–0248
1218–0197

¥1,601
¥625
¥481,885

¥$35,996
¥$22,408
¥$18,759,783

........................

¥777,407

¥$25,123,348

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
4. Number of respondents:
20,559,996.
5. Frequency of responses: On
occasion.
6. Number of responses: 80,383,596.
7. Average time per response: Three
minutes for a secretary to develop and
maintain certification records to one
hour for employers to send records to
NIOSH.
8. Estimated total burden hours
(reduction): ¥2,642,300 hours.
9. Estimated cost (capital—operation
and maintenance): OSHA estimates that
a capital-cost decrease of $2,929/year
will result from the proposed revisions
to the record-transfer provisions because
employers would no longer have to mail
worker exposure and medical records to
NIOSH.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

D. Submitting Comments
OSHA requests members of the public
to comment on the paperwork
requirements in this proposal by
submitting their written comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503;
Attn: OSHA Desk Officer (RIN–1218–
AC19). The Agency encourages
commenters also to submit their
comments on these paperwork
requirements to the rulemaking docket,
along with their comments on other
parts of the proposed rule. Commenters
may submit their comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking portal at
http://www.regulations.gov. OSHA posts
comments and submissions without
change; therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting personal
information such as Social Security
numbers and date of birth. Information
on using the http://regulations.gov Web
site to submit comments, and to access
the docket, is available at the Web site’s
‘‘User Tips’’ link. For instructions on
submitting comments to the rulemaking
docket, see the sections of this Federal
Register notice titled DATES and
ADDRESSES.
E. Docket and Inquiries
To access the docket to read or
download comments and other
materials related to these paperwork
determinations, including the complete
Information Collection Request (ICR)
(containing the Supporting Statement
describing the paperwork
determinations in detail), use the
procedures described under the section
of this notice titled ADDRESSES. Obtain
an electronic copy of the complete ICR
by visiting the Web site at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
scroll under ‘‘Currently Under Review’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

to ‘‘Department of Labor (DOL)’’ to view
all of the DOL’s ICRs, including those
ICRs submitted for proposed
rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to
request other information, contact Ms.
Jamaa N. Hill, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, Room N–3609,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222.
VII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this 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
prior to taking any actions that would
restrict State policy options, and take
such actions only when clear
constitutional authority exists and the
problem is national in scope. Executive
Order 13132 provides for preemption of
State law only with the expressed
consent of Congress. Agencies must
limit any such preemption to the extent
possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act;
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly
provides that States may adopt, with
Federal approval, a plan for the
development and enforcement of
occupational safety and health
standards; States that obtain Federal
approval for such a plan are referred to
as ‘‘State-Plan States.’’ (29 U.S.C. 667.)
Occupational safety and health
standards developed by State-Plan
States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment
as the Federal standards. Subject to
these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own
requirements for occupational safety
and health standards.
While OSHA drafted this proposed
rule to protect employees in every State,
Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits
State-Plan States and Territories to
develop and enforce their own
standards, provided the requirements in
these standards are at least as safe and
healthful as the requirements specified
in this proposed rule.
In summary, this proposed rule
complies with Executive Order 13132.
In States without OSHA-approved State
Plans, any standard developed from this
proposed rule would limit State policy
options in the same manner as every
standard promulgated by OSHA. In
States with OSHA-approved State Plans,
this rulemaking would not significantly
limit State policy options.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38663

VIII. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a
new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the
27 States and U.S. Territories with their
own OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans (State-Plan
States) must amend their standards to
reflect the new standard or amendment,
or show OSHA why such action is
unnecessary (e.g., because an existing
State standard covering this area is
already ‘‘at least as effective’’ as the new
Federal standard or amendment. (29
CFR 1953.5(a).) The State standard must
be at least as effective as the final
Federal rule, must be applicable to both
the private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors, and the
State must complete the standard within
six months after the publication date of
the final Federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or
amendment that does not impose
additional or more stringent
requirements than the existing standard,
State-Plan States are not required to
amend their standards, although OSHA
may encourage them to do so.
OSHA determined that the State-Plan
States must adopt provisions
comparable to the provisions in this
proposed rule within six months after
the effective date of the rule. OSHA
believes that the provisions of this
proposed rule provide employers in
State-Plan States and Territories with
new and critical information and
methods necessary to protect their
employees from the hazards found in
and around workplaces. The 27 States
and territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington,
and Wyoming. Connecticut, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin
Islands have OSHA-approved State
Plans that apply to State and local
government employees only. Until a
State-Plan State or Territory
promulgates its own comparable
provisions based on the final rule
developed from this proposed rule,
Federal OSHA will provide the State or
Territory with interim enforcement
assistance, as appropriate.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in
accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA;

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38664

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As
discussed in section IV (‘‘Preliminary
Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Flexibility Act Certification’’) of this
notice, the Agency determined that this
proposed rule will not impose
additional costs on any private- or
public-sector entity. Accordingly, this
proposed rule requires no additional
expenditures by either public or private
employers.
As noted under section VIII (‘‘State
Plans’’) of this notice, the Agency’s
standards do not apply to State and
local governments except in States that
elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan
approved by the Agency. Consequently,
this proposed rule does not meet the
definition of a ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandate’’ (see
Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of
the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this
proposed rule does not mandate that
State, local, or tribal governments adopt
new, unfunded regulatory obligations,
or increase expenditures by the private
sector of more than $100 million in any
year.
X. Review by the Advisory Committee
for Construction Safety and Health
The proposed provisions would
improve OSHA’s standards, including
construction standards, by clarifying,
updating, or removing standards that are
confusing, outdated, duplicative, or
inconsistent with other OSHA
requirements. OSHA does not expect
these proposed revisions to reduce
worker protection or increase employer
burden.
OSHA’s regulation governing the
Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH) at 29 CFR
1912.3 requires OSHA to consult with
the ACCSH whenever the Agency
proposes a rulemaking that involves the
occupational safety and health of
construction employees. Accordingly, in
early November, 2009, OSHA
distributed to the ACCSH members for
their review, before their regular
meeting, a copy of the proposed
revisions that applied to construction,
as well as a brief summary and
explanation of these revisions. At the
regular meeting on December 10, 2009,
OSHA staff made a presentation to the
ACCSH members that summarized the
material provided to them earlier, and
then responded to their questions. The
ACCSH subsequently recommended
that OSHA publish the proposal.
In addition to two general
recommendations regarding respiratoryprotection requirements for the 13
Carcinogens standard (see previous

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

discussion in section A.2.b.(4)) and the
retention of medical records, ACCSH
recommended that OSHA revise the
language in § 1926.95(a) to include the
requirement in § 1910.132(d)(1) that
employers must ‘‘select * * * the types
of PPE that will protect the affected
employee from the hazards identified in
the hazard assessment.’’
The ANPRM addressed revising the
construction standards to include
hazard-assessment and-certification
requirements. However, OSHA decided
that the personal-protective equipment
provisions of the construction standards
needed substantially more revision than
this rulemaking could provide. For
example, the PPE requirements in the
construction standards for eyes, face,
head, and extremities refer to consensus
standards that are over 30 years old.
These revisions would be extensive and
complex, and would require a detailed
analysis of risk, costs, and benefits.
Therefore, OSHA will defer these
revisions, including any revisions
requiring employers to select the ‘‘types
of PPE that will protect the affected
employee from the hazards identified in
the hazard assessment,’’ to a future
rulemaking.
XI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments and Access
to the Docket
OSHA invites comments on the
proposed revisions described, and the
specific issues raised, in this notice.
These comments should include
supporting information and data. OSHA
will carefully review and evaluate these
comments, information, and data, as
well as any other information in the
rulemaking record, to determine how to
proceed.
When submitting comments, parties
must follow the procedures specified in
the previous sections titled DATES and
ADDRESSES. The comments must
provide the name of the commenter and
docket number. The comments also
should identify clearly the provision of
the proposal each comment is
addressing, the position taken with
respect to the proposed provision or
issue, and the basis for that position.
Comments, along with supporting data
and references, submitted on or before
the end of the specified comment period
will become part of the proceedings
record, and will be available for public
inspection and copying at http://
www.regulations.gov.
B. Requests for an Informal Public
Hearing

1970 and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of
the public may request an informal
public hearing by following the
instructions under the section of this
Federal Register notice titled
ADDRESSES. Hearing requests must
include the name and address of the
party requesting the hearing, and
submitted (e.g., postmarked,
transmitted, sent) on or before
September 30, 2010. All submissions
must bear a postmark or provide other
evidence of the submission date.
XII. List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Abrasive blasting, Carcinogens,
Commercial diving, Egress, Hazard
assessment, Hazardous substances,
Medical records, Occupational safety
and health, Personal protective
equipment, Sanitation, Slings, Training,
Training certification records, and
Respiratory protection.
29 CFR Parts 1915, 1917, 1918, and
1919
Confined spaces, Dangerous
atmospheres, Gear certification, Hazard
assessment, Hazardous substances, Hot
work, Occupational safety and health,
Personal protective equipment,
Sanitation, Shackles, Slings.
29 CFR Part 1926
Construction, Hazardous substances,
Medical records, Occupational safety
and health, Potable water, Shackles,
Slings.
29 CFR Part 1928
Agriculture, Sanitation, Potable water.
XIII. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this proposed rule. OSHA
is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to
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 3704 of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29
CFR part 1911.

Under section 6(b)(3) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38665

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 17,
2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.

Subpart E—Means of Egress
[Amended]

XIV. Proposed Amendments to
Standards

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–
71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83
(48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62
FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration proposes to
amend 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917,
1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928 as set forth
below:
PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart A—General [Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart A
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order
Numbers 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), and 5–2007
(72 FR 31159), as applicable.
Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued
under 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.7(f)
also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C.
9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106–113 (113
Stat. 1501A–222); and OMB Circular A–25
(dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15,
1993).

2. Amend § 1910.6 as follows:
a. Redesignate existing paragraphs
(q)(25) through (q)(33) as paragraphs
(q)(26) through (q)(34).
b. Add new paragraph (q)(25) and
c. Add a new paragraph (x).
The additions read as follows:
§ 1910.6

Incorporation by reference.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

*

*
*
*
*
(q) * * *
(25) NFPA 101–2009, Life Safety
Code, IBR approved for § 1910.35.
Copies of NFPA 101–2009 are available
for purchase from the: National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169–7471;
telephone: 1–800–344–35557; e-mail:
[email protected].
*
*
*
*
*
(x) The following material is available
for purchase from the: International
Code Council, Chicago District Office,
4051 W. Flossmoor Rd., Country Club
Hills, IL 60478; telephone: 708–799–
2300, x3–3801; facsimile: 001–708–799–
4981; e-mail: [email protected].
(1) IFC–2009, International Fire Code,
IBR approved for § 1910.35.
(2) [Reserved]

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

(b) * * *
(3) * * *

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

4. Revise the title of subpart E from
‘‘Means of Egress’’ to ‘‘Exit Routes and
Emergency Planning.’’
5. In § 1910.33, revise the title listed
for § 1910.35 in the undesignated center
heading, from ‘‘Compliance with NFPA
101, Life Safety Code,’’ to ‘‘Compliance
with Alternate Exit Route Codes.’’
6. Revise the definition of the term
‘‘Occupant load’’ in paragraph (c) of
§ 1910.34 to read as follows:
§ 1910.34

Coverage and definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Occupant load means the total
number of persons that may occupy a
workplace or portion of a workplace at
any one time. The occupant load of a
workplace is calculated by dividing the
gross floor area of the workplace or
portion of the workplace by the
occupant load factor for that particular
type of workplace occupancy.
Information regarding the ‘‘Occupant
load’’ is located in Chapter 7 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of NFPA 101–2009, Life Safety
Code, and in Chapter 10 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of IFC–2009, International Fire
Code.
*
*
*
*
*
7. In § 1910.35, revise the heading of
the section and revise the introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 1910.35 Compliance with alternate exitroute codes.

OSHA will deem an employer
demonstrating compliance with the exitroute provisions of Chapter 7 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
2009 edition, or the exit-route
provisions of Chapter 10 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of the International Fire Code,
2009 edition, to be in compliance with
the corresponding requirements in
§§ 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
*
*
*
*
*
8. In § 1910.36, revise the notes to
paragraphs §§ 1910.36(b) and 1910.36(f)
to read as follows:

Note to paragraph § 1910.36(b) of this
section: For assistance in determining the
number of exit routes necessary for your
workplace, consult Chapter 7 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of NFPA 101–2009, Life Safety Code,
or Chapter 10 (‘‘Means of Egress’’) of IFC–
2009, International Fire Code.

*

*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *

*

*

Note to paragraph § 1910.36(f) of this
section: Information regarding the ‘‘Occupant
load’’ is located in Chapter 7 (‘‘Means of
Egress’’) of NFPA 101–2009, Life Safety Code,
and in Chapter 10 (‘‘Means of Egress’’) of IFC–
2009, International Fire Code.

*

*

*

*

*

Subpart I—Personal Protective
Equipment [Amended]
9. The authority citation for subpart I
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–
71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83
(48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62
FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

10. Remove paragraph (f)(4) from
§ 1910.132.
11. In § 1910.134, revise paragraphs
(i)(4)(i), (i)(9), and (o), and question 2a
in Part A, Section 2 (Mandatory) of
Appendix C, to read as follows:
§ 1910.134

Respiratory protection.

*

*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Cylinders are tested and
maintained as prescribed in the
Shipping Container Specification
Regulations of the Department of
Transportation (49 CFR part 180);
*
*
*
*
*
(9) The employer shall use only the
respirator manufacturer’s NIOSHapproved breathing gas containers,
marked and maintained in accordance
with the Quality Assurance provisions
of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as
issued in accordance with the NIOSH
respirator-certification standard at 42
CFR part 84.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Appendices. Compliance with
Appendix A, Appendix B–1, Appendix
B–2, Appendix C, and Appendix D to
this section are mandatory.
*
*
*
*
*

§ 1910.36 Design and construction
requirements for exit routes.

Appendix C to § 1910.134: * * *

*

*

PO 00000

*

Frm 00021

*

*

Fmt 4701

*

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

*

02JYP2

*

*

*

38666

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Part A. Section 2. * * *
*
*
*
*
1. * * *
2. * * *
a. Seizures: Yes/No
*
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart J—General Environmental
Controls [Amended]
12. The authority citation for subpart
J continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–
71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83
(48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62
FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), 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.

13. Amend paragraph (a)(2) by
revising the definition of ‘‘Potable
water’’ and revise paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of
§ 1910.141 to read as follow:
§ 1910.141

Sanitation.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Potable water means water that meets
the standards for drinking purposes of
the State or local authority having
jurisdiction, or water that meets the
quality standards prescribed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (40 CFR part 141).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Individual hand towels or
sections thereof, of cloth or paper, air
blowers or clean individual sections of
continuous cloth toweling, convenient
to the lavatories, shall be provided.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart N—Materials Handling and
Storage [Amended]

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14. Revise the authority citation for
subpart N to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–
71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83
(48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62
FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.176, 1910.177, 1910.178,
1910.179, 1910.180, 1910.181, and 1910.184
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

15. Amend § 1910.184 as follows:
a. Add new paragraphs (c)(13) and
(c)(14).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

b. Revise paragraphs (e)(6), (e)(8),
(f)(1), and (h)(1).
c. Remove and reserve paragraphs
(e)(5), (g)(6), and (i)(5).
d. Remove Tables N–184–1 and N–
184–3 through N–184–22.
e. Redesignate Table N–184–2 as N–
184–1.
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
§ 1910.184

Slings.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(13) Employers must not load a sling
in excess of its recommended safe
working load as prescribed by the sling
manufacturer on the identification
markings permanently affixed to the
sling.
(14) Employers must not use slings
without affixed and legible
identification markings.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Alloy steel-chain slings— * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(5) [Removed and Reserved]
(6) Safe operating temperatures.
Employers must permanently remove an
alloy steel-chain slings from service if it
is heated above 1000 degrees F. When
exposed to service temperatures in
excess of 600 degrees F, employers must
reduce the maximum working-load
limits permitted by the chain
manufacturer in accordance with the
chain or sling manufacturer’s
recommendations.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Effect of wear. If the chain size at
any point of the link is less than that
stated in Table N–184–1, the employer
must remove the chain from service.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Wire-rope slings—(1) Sling use.
Employers must use only wire-rope
slings that have permanently affixed
and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer, and
that indicate the recommended safe
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es)
used, the angle upon which it is based,
and the number of legs if more than one.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(6) [Removed and Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Natural and synthetic fiber-rope
slings—(1) Sling use. Employers must
use natural and synthetic fiber-rope
slings that have permanently affixed
and legible identification markings
stating the rated capacity for the type(s)
of hitch(es) used and the angle upon
which it is based, type of fiber material,
and the number of legs if more than one.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(i) * * *
*
*
*
*
(5) [Removed and Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart T—Commercial Diving
Operations [Amended]
16. Revise the authority citation for
subpart T to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Section 107, Contract and Work
Hours Safety Standards Act (the Construction
Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41,
Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary
of Labor’s Order No. 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–
83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96
(62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002
(67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
§ 1910.440

[Amended]

17. Remove and reserve paragraphs
(b)(3)(i), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of § 1910.440.
Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous
Substances [Amended]
18. Revise the authority citation for
subpart Z 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), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable, and 29 CFR part
1911.

All of subpart Z issued under section
6(b) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, except those substances that
have exposure limits listed in Tables Z–
1, Z–2, and Z–3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000.
The latter were issued under section
6(a) (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,
Section 1910.1000 Tables Z–1, Z–2, and
Z–3, but not under 29 CFR part 1911,
except for the arsenic (organic
compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and
chromium (VI) listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under
Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
3704) and 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 U.S.C. 655
or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and
1910.1200 also issued under 29 U.S.C.
653.
Section 1910.1030 also issued under
Pub. L. 106–430, 114 Stat. 1901.
19. Amend § 1910.1001 by removing
paragraph (m)(6)(ii), and redesignating
paragraph (m)(6)(i) as (m)(6).
20. Amend § 1910.1003 as follows:

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
a. Revise paragraph (c)(4)(iv).
b. Remove paragraph (g)(2)(i), and
redesignate paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and
(g)(2)(iii) as (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 1910.1003 13 Carcinogens (4nitrobiphenyl, etc.).

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Employers must provide each
employee engaged in handling
operations involving the carcinogens 4Nitrobiphenyl, alpha-Naphthylamine,
3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts),
beta-Naphthylamine, Benzidine, 4Aminodiphenyl, 2Acetylaminofluorene, 4Dimethylaminoazo-benzene, and NNitrosodimethylamine, addressed by
this section, with, and ensure that each
of these employees wears and uses, a
NIOSH-certified air-purifying, half-mask
respirator with particulate filters.
Employers also must provide each
employee engaged in handling
operations involving the carcinogens
methyl chloromethyl ether, bisChloromethyl ether, Ethyleneimine, and
beta-Propiolactone, addressed by this
section, with, and ensure that each of
these employees wears and uses, a fullfacepiece, supplied-air respirator
operated in the continuous-flow or
pressure-demand mode. Employers may
substitute a respirator affording
employees higher levels of protection
than these respirators.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1910.1017

[Amended]

21. Remove paragraph (m)(3) from
§ 1910.1017.
§ 1910.1018

[Amended]

22. Amend § 1910.1018 by removing
paragraphs (q)(4)(ii) and (q)(4)(iii), and
redesignating paragraph (q)(4)(iv) as
(q)(4)(ii).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

§ 1910.1020

[Amended]

23. Remove paragraphs (h)(3) and
(h)(4) from § 1910.1020.
24. Amend § 1910.1025 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(6)(iii),
(j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iv), (k)(1)(i)(B),
and (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
b. Remove paragraphs (n)(5)(ii) and
(n)(5)(iii), and redesignate paragraph
(n)(5)(iv) as (n)(5)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1910.1025

Lead.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(iii) If the initial monitoring reveals
that employee exposure is at or above
the permissible exposure limit, the
employer shall repeat monitoring

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

quarterly. The employer shall continue
monitoring at the required frequency
until at least two consecutive
measurements, taken at least 7 days
apart, are below the PEL but at or above
the action level, at which time the
employer shall repeat monitoring for
that employee at the frequency specified
in paragraph (d)(6)(ii), except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(7)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The employer shall institute a
medical surveillance program for all
employees who are or may be exposed
at or above the action level for more
than 30 days per year.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests.
Whenever the results of a blood lead
level test indicate that an employee’s
blood lead level is at or above the
numerical criterion for medical removal
under paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of this
section, the employer shall provide a
second (follow-up) blood sampling test
within two weeks after the employer
receives the results of the first blood
sampling test.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) Employee notification. Within
five working days after the receipt of
biological monitoring results, the
employer shall notify in writing each
employee whose blood lead level is at
or above 40 ug/100 g: * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The employer shall remove an
employee from work having an
exposure to lead at or above the action
level on each occasion that the average
of the last three blood sampling tests
conducted pursuant to this section (or
the average of all blood sampling tests
conducted over the previous six (6)
months, whichever is longer) indicates
that the employee’s blood lead level is
at or above 50 ug/100 g of whole blood;
provided, however, that an employee
need not be removed if the last blood
sampling test indicates a blood lead
level below 40 ug/100 g of whole blood.
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) For an employee removed due to
a blood lead level at or above 60 ug/100
g, or due to an average blood lead level
at or above 50 ug/100 g, when two
consecutive blood sampling tests
indicate that the employee’s blood lead

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

38667

level is below 40 ug/100 g of whole
blood;
*
*
*
*
*
25. Amend § 1910.1027 by removing
paragraph (n)(4), redesignating
paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) as
paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5), and
revising new paragraph (n)(4)(i) to read
as follows:
§ 1910.1027

Cadmium.

*

*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Except as otherwise provided for in
this section, access to all records
required to be maintained by paragraphs
(n)(1) through (4) of this section shall be
in accordance with the provisions of 29
CFR 1910.1020.
*
*
*
*
*
26. Revise paragraph (k)(4) of
§ 1910.1028 to read as follows:
§ 1910.1028

Benzene.

*

*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(4) Transfer of records. The employer
shall comply with the requirements
involving transfer of records as set forth
in 29 CFR 1910.1020(h).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1910.1029

[Amended]

27. Amend § 1910.1029 by removing
paragraphs (m)(4)(ii) and (m)(4)(iii), and
redesignating paragraph (m)(4)(iv) as
(m)(4)(ii).
28. Amend § 1910.1030 as follows:
a. Amend paragraph (b) by revising
the definition of ‘‘Handwashing
facilities’’; and
b. Remove paragraph (h)(4)(ii) and
redesignate paragraph (h)(4)(i) as (h)(4).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 1910.1030

Bloodborne pathogens.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Handwashing facilities means a
facility providing an adequate supply of
running potable water, soap, and singleuse towels or air-drying machines.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1910.1043

[Amended]

29. Amend § 1910.1043 by removing
paragraphs (k)(4)(ii) and (k)(4)(iii), and
redesignating paragraph (k)(4)(iv) as
(k)(4)(ii).
§ 1910.1044

[Amended]

30. Amend § 1910.1044 by removing
paragraphs (p)(4)(ii) and (p)(4)(iii), and
redesignating paragraph (p)(4)(iv) as
(p)(4)(ii).

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38668

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

§ 1910.1045

[Amended]

31. Amend § 1910.1045 by removing
paragraphs (q)(5)(ii) and (q)(5)(iii), and
redesignating paragraph (q)(5)(iv) as
(q)(5)(ii).
§ 1910.1047

[Amended]

32. Amend § 1910.1047 by removing
paragraph (k)(5)(ii), and redesignating
paragraph (k)(5)(i) as (k)(5).
§ 1910.1050

[Amended]

33. Amend § 1910.1050 by removing
paragraph (n)(7)(ii), and redesignating
paragraph (n)(7)(i) as paragraph (n)(7).
34. Amend § 1910.1051 as follows:
a. Remove and reserve paragraph
(m)(3).
b. Revise paragraph (m)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1910.1051

1,3-Butadiene.

*

*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(6) Transfer of records. The employer
shall transfer medical and exposure
records as set forth in 29 CFR
1910.1020(h).
*
*
*
*
*
35. In Appendix A to § 1910.1450,
revise item (a) under Section E,
subsection 1, to read as follows:

§ 1910.1450 Occupational exposure to
hazardous chemicals in laboratories.

*

*

*

*

*

Appendix A to § 1910.1450—* * *
*

*

*

*

*

E. Basic Rules and Procedures for
Working with Chemicals
*

*

*

*

*

1. General Rules
*

*
*
*
*
(a) Accidents and spills—* * *
Ingestion: This is one route of entry
for which treatment depends on the
type and amount of chemical involved.
Seek medical attention immediately.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1915—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

36. Revise the authority citation for
part 1915 to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941);
secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71
(36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48
FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR
111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 FR
65008), or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 of 29 CFR
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

Subpart B—Confined and Enclosed
Spaces and Other Dangerous
Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment
[Amended]
37. In Appendix A to subpart B, revise
item number 1 under the heading
‘‘Section 1915.11(b) Definition of ‘Hot
work’,’’ to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 1915—
Compliance Assistance Guidelines for
Confined and Enclosed Spaces and
Other Dangerous Atmospheres
*

*
*
*
*
Section 1915.11(b) Definition of ‘‘Hot
work.’’
*
*
*
*
*
1. Abrasive blasting of the external
hull for paint preparation does not
necessitate pumping and cleaning the
tanks of a vessel.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart G—Gear and Equipment for
Rigging and Materials Handling
38. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(b)(3), (c)(1), and (c)(3) of § 1915.112 to
read as follows:
§ 1915.112

Ropes, chains, and slings.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) Manila rope and manila-rope
slings. Employers must ensure that
manila rope and manila-rope slings:
(1) Have permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working
load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the
angle upon which it is based, and the
number of legs if more than one;
(2) Not be loaded in excess of its
recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification
markings by the manufacturer; and
(3) Not be used without affixed and
legible identification markings as
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(b) Wire rope and wire-rope slings.
(1) Employers must ensure that wire
rope and wire-rope slings:
(i) Have permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working
load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the
angle upon which it is based, and the
number of legs if more than one;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its
recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification
markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed and
legible identification markings as
required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(3) When U-bolt wire rope clips are
used to form eyes, employers must use
Table G–1 in § 1915.118 to determine
the number and spacing of clips.
Employers must apply the U-bolt so that
the ‘‘U’’ section is in contact with the
dead end of the rope.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Employers must ensure that chain
and chain slings:
(i) Have permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working
load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the
angle upon which it is based, and the
number of legs if more than one;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its
recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification
markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed and
legible identification markings as
required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Employers must note interlink
wear, not accompanied by stretch in
excess of 5 percent, and remove the
chain from service when maximum
allowable wear at any point of link, as
indicated in Table G–2 in § 1915.118,
has been reached.
*
*
*
*
*
39. In § 1915.113, revise paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
§ 1915.113

Shackles and hooks.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) Shackles. Employers must ensure
that shackles:
(1) Have permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working
load;
(2) Not be loaded in excess of its
recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification
markings by the manufacturer; and
(3) Not be used without affixed and
legible identification markings as
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1915.118

[Amended]

40. In § 1915.118, remove Tables G–1,
G–2, G–3, G–4, G–5, G–7, G–8, and G–
10, and redesignate Table G–6 as Table
G–1, and Table G–9 as Table G–2.
Subpart I—Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) [Amended]
§ 1915.152

[Amended]

41. Remove paragraph (e)(4) from
§ 1915.152.

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous
Substances [Amended]
42. Amend § 1915.1001 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(i).
b. Remove paragraphs (h)(3)(ii),
(h)(3)(iii), (h)(4), and (n)(8)(ii).
c. Redesignate paragraph (h)(3)(iv) as
(h)(3)(ii), and paragraph (n)(8)(i) as
(n)(8).
d. Revise Appendix C.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1915.1001

Asbestos.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) When respiratory protection is
used, the employer shall institute a
respiratory protection program in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b)
through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f)
through (m) which covers each
employee required by this section to use
a respirator.
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix C to § 1915.1001—Qualitative
and Quantitative Fit Testing
Procedures. Mandatory
Employers must perform fit testing in
accordance with the fit-testing
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(f) and
the qualitative and quantitative fittesting protocols and procedures
specified in Appendix A of 29 CFR
1910.134.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1917—MARINE TERMINALS
43. Revise the authority citation for
part 1917 to read as follows:

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941);
secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71
(36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48
FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR
111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 FR
65008) or 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under Sec. 29,
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform
Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801–1819),
and 5 U.S.C. 553.

maintenance, safety, operation, or
navigation of the vessel, or for the safety
or comfort of the vessel’s passengers or
crew.

(iii) Individual hand towels, clean
individual sections of continuous
toweling, or air blowers; and
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart F—Terminal Facilities
[Amended]

PART 1919—GEAR CERTIFICATION

45. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
§ 1917.127 to read as follows:
§ 1917.127

Sanitation.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Individual hand towels, clean
individual sections of continuous
toweling, or air blowers; and
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1918—SAFETY AND HEALTH
REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING
46. Revise the authority citation for
part 1918 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
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part
1911.
Section 1918.90 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1918.100 also issued under Sec.
29, Hazardous Materials Transportation
Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801–
1819), and 5 U.S.C. 553.

Subpart A—General Provisions
[Amended]

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

*

*
*
*
*
Ship’s stores means materials that are
aboard a vessel for the upkeep,
maintenance, safety, operation, or
navigation of the vessel, or for the safety
or comfort of the vessel’s passengers or
crew.
*
*
*
*
*

§ 1918.95

Jkt 220001

50. Revise paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text of § 1919.6 to read as
follows:
§ 1919.6 Criteria governing accreditation
to certificate vessels’ cargo gear.

(a)(1) A person applying for
accreditation to issue registers and
pertinent certificates, to maintain
registers and appropriate records, and to
conduct initial, annual and
quinquennial surveys, shall not be
accredited unless that person is engaged
in one or more of the following
activities:
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Duties of Persons
Accredited to Certificate Vessels’
Cargo Gear [Amended]
51. Revise paragraph (d) of § 1919.11
to read as follows:

*

Definitions.

48. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
§ 1918.95 to read as follows:

Definitions.

Subpart B—Procedures Governing
Accreditation [Amended]

§ 1918.2

44. Amend § 1917.2 by adding a
definition for the term ‘‘Ship’s stores’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
Ship’s stores means materials that are
aboard a vessel for the upkeep,

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
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part
1911.

§ 1919.11 Recordkeeping and related
procedures concerning records in custody
of accredited persons.

Subpart I—General Working
Conditions [Amended]

*

49. Revise the authority citation for
part 1919 to read as follows:

47. Amend § 1918.2, by adding the
definition for the term ‘‘Ship’s stores’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions
[Amended]

§ 1917.2

38669

*

PO 00000

Sanitation.

*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *

Frm 00025

*

Fmt 4701

*

Sfmt 4702

*
*
*
*
(d) When annual or quinquennial
tests, inspections, examinations, or heat
treatments are performed by an
accredited person, other than the person
who originally issued the vessel’s
register, such accredited person shall
furnish copies of any certificates issued
and information as to register entries to
the person originally issuing the
register.
*
*
*
*
*
52. Revise paragraph (f) of § 1919.12
to read as follows:
§ 1919.12 Recordkeeping and related
procedures concerning records in custody
of the vessel.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) An accredited person shall instruct
the vessel’s officers, or the vessel’s

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

38670

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

operator if the vessel is unmanned, that
the vessel’s register and certificates shall
be preserved for at least 5 years after the
date of the latest entry except in the case
of nonrecurring test certificates
concerning gear which is kept in use for
a longer period, in which event the
pertinent certificates shall be retained so
long as that gear is continued in use.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—Certification of Vessels’
Cargo Gear [Amended]
53. Revise paragraph (a) of § 1919.15
to read as follows:
§ 1919.15 Periodic tests, examinations and
inspections.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) Derricks with their winches and
accessory gear, including the
attachments, as a unit; and cranes and
other hoisting machines with their
accessory gear, as a unit, shall be tested
and thoroughly examined every 5 years
in the manner set forth in subpart E of
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
54. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1919.18
to read as follows:
§ 1919.18

Grace periods.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Quinquennial requirements—
within six months after the date when
due;
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH
REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart D—Occupational Health and
Environmental Controls [Amended]
55. Revise the authority citation for
subpart D to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76
(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55
FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 11.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Sections 1926.58, 1926.59, 1926.60,
and 1926.65 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.62 of 29 CFR also issued
under section 1031 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 4853).
Section 1926.65 of 29 CFR also issued
under section 126 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 note), and
5 U.S.C. 553.

56. Revise paragraphs (a)(6) and
(f)(3)(iv) of § 1926.51 to read as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

§ 1926.51

Sanitation.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(6) Potable water means water that
meets the standards for drinking
purposes of the State or local authority
having jurisdiction, or water that meets
the quality standards prescribed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (40 CFR part 141).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Individual hand towels or
sections thereof, of cloth or paper, air
blowers or clean individual sections of
continuous cloth toweling, convenient
to the lavatories, shall be provided.
*
*
*
*
*
57. Revise paragraph (o)(8) of
§ 1926.60, to read as follows:
§ 1926.60

Methylenedianiline.

*

*
*
*
*
(o) * * *
(8) Transfer of records. The employer
shall comply with the requirements
concerning transfer of records set forth
in 29 CFR 1926.33.
*
*
*
*
*
58. Amend § 1926.62 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (j)(2)(ii),
(j)(2)(iv)(B), and (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
b. Remove paragraphs (l)(2)(iii),
(n)(6)(ii), and (n)(6)(iii).
c. Redesignate paragraphs (l)(2)(iv)
through (l)(2)(viii) as (l)(2)(iii) through
(l)(2)(vii).
d. Redesignate paragraph (n)(6)(iv) as
(n)(6)(ii), and revise (n)(6)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1926.62

Lead.

*

*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests.
Whenever the results of a blood lead
level test indicate that an employee’s
blood lead level is at or above the
numerical criterion for medical removal
under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section,
the employer shall provide a second
(follow-up) blood sampling test within
two weeks after the employer receives
the results of the first blood sampling
test.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) * * *
(B) The employer shall notify each
employee whose blood lead level is at
or above 40 ug/dl that the standard
requires temporary medical removal
with Medical Removal Protection
benefits when an employee’s blood lead
level exceeds the numerical criterion for

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

medical removal under paragraph
(k)(1)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(l) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) For an employee removed due to
a blood lead level at or above 50 ug/dl
when two consecutive blood sampling
tests indicate that the employee’s blood
lead level is below 40 ug/dl;
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart—H Materials Handling,
Storage, Use, and Disposal [Amended]
59. Revise the authority citation for
subpart H to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76
(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55
FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable. Section 1926.250
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

60. Amend § 1926.251 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4),
(c)(1), (d)(1) and (f)(1).
b. Add new paragraphs (c)(16) and
(d)(7).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 1926.251
handling.

Rigging equipment for material

(a) * * *.
(2) Employers must ensure that
rigging equipment:
(i) Has permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working
load;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its
recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification
markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed,
legible identification markings, required
by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Employers must not use alloy
steel-chain slings with loads in excess of
the rated capacities (i.e., working load
limits) indicated on the sling by
permanently affixed and legible
identification markings prescribed by
the manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *.
(1) Employers must not use improved
plow-steel wire rope and wire-rope
slings with loads in excess of the rated

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2

capacities (i.e., working load limits)
indicated on the sling by permanently
affixed and legible identification
markings prescribed by the
manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*
(16) Wire rope slings shall have
permanently affixed, legible
identification markings stating size,
rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es)
used and the angle upon which it is
based, and the number of legs if more
than one.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Employers must not use naturaland synthetic-fiber rope slings with
loads in excess of the rated capacities
(i.e., working load limits) indicated on
the sling by permanently affixed and
legible identification markings
prescribed by the manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Employers must use natural- and
synthetic-fiber rope slings that have
permanently affixed and legible
identification markings that state the
rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es)
used and the angle upon which it is
based, type of fiber material, and the
number of legs if more than one.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *.
(1) Employers must not use shackles
with loads in excess of the rated
capacities (i.e., working load limits)
indicated on the shackle by
permanently affixed and legible
identification markings prescribed by
the manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Jul 01, 2010

Jkt 220001

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous
Substances [Amended]
61. Revise the authority citation for
subpart Z to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary
of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–
76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90
(55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65
FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007
(72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part
1911.
Section 1926.1102 of 29 CFR not issued
under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911;
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

62. Revise paragraphs (n)(7)(ii) and
(iii) and (n)(8) of § 1926.1101 to read as
follows:
§ 1926.1101

Asbestos.

*

*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) Availability of records. The
employer must comply with the
requirements concerning availability of
records set forth in 29 CFR part 1926.33.
(8) Transfer of records. The employer
must comply with the requirements
concerning transfer of records set forth
in 29 CFR part 1926.33.
*
*
*
*
*
63. Amend § 1926.1127 as follows:
a. Remove and reserve paragraph
(n)(4).
b. Revise paragraph (n)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1926.1127

Cadmium.

*

*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(6) Transfer of records. The employer
must comply with the requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

38671

concerning transfer of records set forth
in 29 CFR part 1926.33.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1928—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
AGRICULTURE
64. Revise the authority citation for
part 1928 to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76
(41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55
FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR
50017), 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part
1911.
Section 1928.21 also issued under section
29, Hazardous Materials Transportation
Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–615,
104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801–1819 and 5
U.S.C. 533)).

Subpart I—General Environmental
Controls [Amended]
65. Revise the definition of the term
‘‘potable water’’ in paragraph (b) of
§ 1928.110 to read as follows:
§ 1928.110

Field sanitation.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Potable water means water that meets
the standards for drinking purposes of
the State or local authority having
jurisdiction, or water that meets the
quality standards prescribed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (40 CFR part 141).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–15156 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

E:\FR\FM\02JYP2.SGM

02JYP2