Permit-Required Confined Spaces

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-019A]

RIN 1218-AA51

Permit-Required Confined Spaces

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

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of informal public hearing; reopening of public comment

period; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This notice schedules an informal public hearing concerning

OSHA's proposal (59 FR 60735) to modify the existing rescue provisions

of the standard (Sec. 1910.146) covering entry into permit-required

confined spaces. The Agency requests that interested parties present

testimony and evidence regarding the issues raised by the proposed

revision and by this hearing notice. This notice also reopens the

public comment period and corrects an error in the proposed revision.

DATES: An informal public hearing will begin at 9 a.m. on September 27,

1995 and on each succeeding day.

Notices of intention to appear at the informal pubic hearing, along

with all testimony and evidence which will be introduced into the

hearing record, must be postmarked by September 13, 1995.

Comments must be postmarked by September 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Notices of intention to appear at the hearing and testimony

and documentary evidence which will be introduced into the hearing

record must be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. Tom Hall, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, Division of Consumer Affairs, room

N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone

(202) 219-8615.

The informal public hearing will be held in the Frances Perkins

Building auditorium, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue

N.W., 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

Division of Consumer Affairs, room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8615. Proposal: Mr. Richard

E. Liblong, Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, U.S.

Department of Labor, room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 14, 1993, the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a General Industry standard

(Sec. 1910.146) to require protection for employees who enter permit-

required confined spaces (permit spaces). The permit space standard,

which provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe

performance of entry operations, became effective on April 15, 1995.

On March 15, 1993, the United Steelworkers of America (USWA)

petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for

judicial review of Sec. 1910.146. In particular, the USWA contended

that Sec. 1910.146(k)(2), which addresses the use of off-site rescue

services, was vague and ineffective. The USWA also stated that OSHA had

inappropriately omitted both a requirement for testing or monitoring

performed to comply with the standard and a requirement for employees

to

[[Page 39282]]

have access to testing or monitoring results.

Based on discussions with the USWA, OSHA agreed to initiate further

rulemaking, issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR

60735) on November 28, 1994. The proposed revisions to

Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) more clearly express what the Agency intended when

it promulgated the permit space standard. They state specifically that

host employers must ensure that prospective rescuers who are not

employees of the host employer are able to respond to a rescue summons

in a timely manner and are equipped and trained to perform permit space

rescues at the host employer's facility.

In addition, based on information received subsequent to the

promulgation of Sec. 1910.146, OSHA proposed to make

Sec. 1910.146(k)(3)(i), which deals with the point of attachment for a

retrieval line, more performance-oriented by allowing any point of

attachment which enables the entrant's body to present the smallest

possible profile during retrieval.

Also, the Agency asked for public input on the USWA's suggestion

that OSHA add provisions which would require that employers provide for

employee observation of permit space testing or monitoring, and that

employers also provide employee access to the results of permit space

testing or monitoring.

The NPRM set a 90 day comment period, ending on February 27, 1995,

to receive written comments on the proposed revisions and the issues

raised. OSHA received 51 written comments (Exs. 161-1 through 161-51).

Several commenters (Ex. 161-21, 161-22, 161-38, 161-40, 161-44)

required that OSHA convene an informal public hearing to address their

concerns. The comments received in response to the proposed revision

and issues raised are available for inspection and copying in the OSHA

Docket Office, Docket No. S-019A, room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Based on the response to the NPRM, OSHA has decided to convene an

informal public hearing, beginning on September 27, 1995, and to reopen

the comment period to obtain public input regarding the need to more

clearly express a host employer's responsibility to assess a

prospective rescue service's capabilities (i.e., is equipped, trained,

and can respond in a timely manner) and regarding the need for employee

participation in testing and monitoring. The Agency requests that

hearing participants and commenters provide supporting information for

any recommendations, so OSHA can adequately assess these materials when

drafting the final rule for this rulemaking.

Rescue and Emergency Services

Existing paragraph (k)(1) sets requirements for employers who have

their own employees enter permit spaces to provide rescue and emergency

services. The criteria set by this paragraph are designed to protect

such employees from permit space hazards and to maximize their ability

to provide effective rescue and emergency services. Paragraph (k)(1)

applies both to rescuers employed by employers who are conducting

permit space operations and to rescuers employed by outside rescue

services, insofar as such employers are regulated by OSHA (State and

local government employees in non-State Plan States are not covered).

OSHA's experience indicates that many employers who conduct permit

space operations rely on off-site rescue services, such as those

provided by local fire departments, in lieu of establishing an adequate

rescue capability using their own employees. The Agency has

acknowledged that there are circumstances where it is reasonable for

``host employers'' to rely on persons other than their own employees to

provide rescue and emergency services. Accordingly, existing paragraph

(k)(2) sets criteria for the use of such ``outside'' rescue and

emergency services.

In particular, the host employer must provide the ``outside

rescuers'' with pertinent information about the identified permit space

hazards and give them access to any permit space from which rescue may

be necessary, so that the rescue service can develop appropriate rescue

plans and can practice performing rescues.

Pursuant to Secs. 1910.146(d)(9) and (f)(11), the host employer is

currently required to establish effective means of summoning rescuers

and document those means in the entry permit. Unless non-entry rescue

procedures have been implemented or the potential rescuers are standing

by as entry operations proceed, some time will pass between the

transmittal of the rescue summons and the retrieval of an entrant. OSHA

expects affected employers to make arrangements for rescue which

maximize the likelihood that entrants will be retrieved safely while

minimizing the risks for potential rescuers.

However, in response to a submission (Ex. 1) from the United

Steelworkers of America (USWA), the Agency has acknowledged (59 FR

60736) that the final rule may not have been sufficiently clear as to a

``host'' employer's responsibility for the performance of ``outside''

rescue services. Accordingly, the Agency has proposed to revise

Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) so the standard clearly indicates that ``host''

employers are required to retain rescue services that can respond

adequately and in a timely fashion when summoned to perform rescues.

In response, some commenters (Exs. 161-9, 161-13, 161-31, 161-42

and 161-50) expressed support for the proposed revisions as the

appropriate means to ensure that rescue services performed adequately.

Those commenters indicated that compliance would pose no difficulties.

On the other hand, several commenters (Exs. 161-1, 161-2, 161-5,

161-6, 161-11 and 161-33) expressed concern that the proposed language

appears to rule out the use of outside rescue services. Those

commenters stated that OSHA should not discourage the use of off-site

rescue services because there will be situations where affected

employers have no viable alternative to relying on those services.

Furthermore, those commenters have indicated that an ``off-site''

rescue service summoned by a ``host'' employer might well be able to

respond at least as quickly and effectively as an ``on-site'' resuce

service set up by the employer conducting entry operations.

One commenter (Ex. 161-1) expressed concern that ``[a]doption of

this section as stated may force small inexperienced employers into

establishing in-house resuce teams with little or no practical

training.'' In addition, a commenter (Ex. 161-6) stated that ``[o]n-

site rescue teams are usually comprised of electricians, pipefitters,

maintenance workers and other craftspeople where rescue is a sideline.

Whereas most on-site teams are only given a minimal amount of time to

train, many off-site technical rescue teams do nothing but train for

and run fire and rescue calls.'' However, another commenter (Ex. 161-

40) stated that on-site employees, properly trained and equipped, would

perform better than off-site rescue services, because on-site personnel

would be familiar with the facility and closer to the spaces being

entered.

In addition, the USWA (Ex. 161-38) commented as follows:

In our June 22, 1993 letter, the USWA expressed concern that the

provisions of the standard (primarily paragraph (k)(2)) allowing

off-site rescue services were vague and ineffective. In subsequent

discussions with OSHA and the DOL solicitors, we argued that only an

on-site rescue service could respond in time to save the life of an

[[Page 39283]]

entrant overcome by a hazardous atmosphere, trapped by an engulfing

liquid or solid, or critically injured by some other confined space

hazard. We also pointed out that the standard imposes a number of

requirements on on-site rescue services, but not on off-site

services, thus giving employers an unwarranted incentive to choose

off-site services.

Subsequent discussions with employers and professional rescue

services, along with comments submitted to this docket [S-019A] by

other parties, have caused us to modify that position. We remain

skeptical that an off-site service can respond rapidly enough in

most circumstances. We are, however, willing to admit the

possibility. In addition, the mere fact that a rescue service is

maintained on site is no guarantee that the service will reach the

scene of an emergency on time, especially in a very large plant.

Accordingly, we would support a performance-based approach to this

issue, so long as the desired performance was spelled out with

sufficient specificity, and so long as it applied to both on-site

and off-site rescue services.

A number of commenters (Exs. 161-1, 161-14, 161-20, and 161-29)

suggested that the Agency drop the proposed revisions to

Sec. 1910.146(k). For example, a commenter (Ex. 161-35) stated that the

proposed revision ``places the host employer in an unenviable position

of being held accountable for the performance of specified employee

activities over which the host employer has no control.'' In addition,

a commenter (Ex. 161-20) indicated that the rationale behind the

proposed revisions failed to take into account the application of the

requirements in existing Sec. 1910.146(k)(1) to all employers (except

some public sector employers) who send employees into permit spaces to

perform rescues. That commenter also stated as follows:

Many employers will use off-site services because they do not

have the specialized rescue training and experience of these

organizations. If a host employer is utilizing the outside rescuer

because it does not have the expertise to maintain a team in-house,

how can the host determine, let alone be held accountable as to

whether that expertise is ``functioning appropriately''? [emphasis

in original]

Other commenters (Ex. 161-26, 161-37, 161-42, 161-46) suggested that

any revision of existing Sec. 1910.146(k) be limited to providing clear

guidance regarding how to assess the relative merits of on-site and

off-site options, and set performance criteria that would apply to all

rescue services. These commenters were primarily concerned that the

Agency apply the same criteria to all rescuers, whether on-site or off-

site.

For example, several commenters (Exs. 161-23, 161-30, 161-38 and

161-45) asked that the Agency indicate clearly what constitutes

``timely'' response to a rescue summons. Some commenters. (Exs. 161-2,

161-6, 161-7 and 161-26) noted that rescuer proficiency was as

important as the response time and suggested that OSHA set performance

criteria for assessing the timeliness of response. Another commenter

(Ex. 161-38) suggested that employers be required to have rescuers

arrive within four minutes of summons where entrant has been exposed to

atmospheric or engulfment hazards, and within 10 minutes otherwise.

One commenter (Ex. 161-25) stated as follows:

Even with well trained rescue personnel on-site, extracting an

incapacitated person from a confined space while attempting to

adminster first aid is not a quick process. Therefore, the fact that

rescue capability happens to be off-site and perhaps is unfamiliar

with the site's confined spaces may have little impact on the

ultimate outcome of such an incident.

Another commenter (Ex. 161-39) recognized that a rescue service

which responds to a permit space accident within four minutes will

still need time to prepare for entry, making it ``impossible for an

outside rescue service to * * * have oxygen to the patient within four

minutes.'' However, that commenter stated ``if the rescuers can get to

the patient close to this four-minute time frame, then a rescue may

still be possible.''

Other commenters (Exs. 161-14, 161-20, 161-28 and 161-33) stated

that OSHA should not attempt to specify what constitutes ``timeliness''

because the existing standard provides sufficient guidance regarding

how to assess the adequacy of rescuer response in a specific situation.

For example, a commenter (Ex. 161-33) stated as follows:

After careful deliberation, the Agency properly rejected any

attempt to incorporate a timeliness requirement into the standard.

Rather than adopting a timeliness requirement which would be

infeasible, would encourage conduct likely to endanger rescuers, and

inevitably would be subject to inconsistent enforcement through

subjective (if not arbitrary) 20-20 hindsight, the Agency concluded

``that prevention of emergencies in permit spaces is the most

effective approach to this problem.'' 58 FR 4527/1.

The Agency recognizes that permit space hazards vary in their

capacity to kill or permanently injure employees and that what

constitutes ``timely'' rescue will vary accordingly. A commenter (Ex.

161-6) has indicated that immediate rescue is not always imperative,

because a slightly hypoxic environment may disable an entrant without

creating a risk of permanent brain damage. Another commenter (Ex. 161-

38) took issue with that comment, stating that OSHA must require rescue

within the first few minutes, because the Agency cannot assume an

environment is only slightly hypoxic.

Some atmospheric hazards can cause death or permanent injury within

four to six minutes. However, rescuers responding from outside of the

immediate area of the entry space would usually not be able to begin a

rescue in four to six minutes. Therefore, the only way rescuers could

successfully retrieve entrants under such circumstances would be to

have personnel present and prepared to initiate rescue throughout the

period of entry operations. One commenter (Ex. 161-33) has stated that

the proposed rule appears to require ``a rescue team to be standing by

immediately outside every space during every entry.'' The commenter

indicated that such a measure would be inappropriate where there was

``non-emergency entry into a permit space.''

As stated both in the NPRM and elsewhere in this notice, OSHA

intended this rulemaking simply to clarify the existing requirements of

Sec. 1910.146(k)(2). In particular, the Agency has attempted to

indicate clearly that an employer who retains an off-site rescue and

emergency service must ensure that the designated service has the

equipment, training and overall ability to respond in a timely fashion

when summoned to rescue a permit space entrant. OSHA does not thereby

intend to require that host employers ``guarantee'' the performance of

off-site services, to make compliance more burdensome for off-site

services than for on-site services, or to prevent the use of off-site

services. The Agency has consistently maintained that the purpose of

Sec. 1910.146(k) is to require that employers' provisions for rescue,

by whatever means, are adequate. The proposed amendment to

Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) (59 FR 60735) was intended solely to clarify the

original intent of that paragraph.

As amended, paragraph (k)(2) would read as follows:

(2) When an employer (host employer) arranges to have persons

other than the host employer's employees (outside rescuer) perform

permit space rescue, the host employer shall ensure that:

(i) The outside rescuer can effectively respond in a timely

manner to a rescue summons.

(ii) The outside rescuer is equipped, trained and capable of

functioning appropriately to perform permit space rescues at the

host employer's facility.

[[Page 39284]]

(iii) The outside rescuer is aware of the hazards they may

confront when called on to perform rescue at the host employer's

facility.

(iv) The outside rescuer is provided with access to all permit

spaces from which rescue may be necessary so that the outside

rescuer can develop appropriate rescue plans and practice rescue

operations.

The Agency requests testimony and further comment concerning both the

need for and the adequacy of the proposed language. Does the proposed

language adequately clarify the host employer's responsibilities in

using the services of a rescue service not comprised of his own

employees? If not, how can the proposed provisions be further improved?

Is addition guidance necessary?

Two commenters (Ex. 161-2 and 161-44) have provided examples of

programs for the proper organization, training and equipping of rescue

services. The Agency solicits input regarding the extent to which it

would be appropriate to incorporate criteria, such as that provided by

the commenters, either as regulatory text or in a non-mandatory

appendix.

Employee Participation in Testing and Monitoring

In response to a submission from the USWA (Ex. 1), the NPRM

solicited comment as to whether Sec. 1910.146 should be revised to

require that affected employees, or their designated representatives,

be permitted to observe the evaluation of confined space conditions,

including any testing or monitoring conducted under the permit space

standard. The USWA (Ex. 161-38), which requested a hearing on this

issue, expressed support for incorporation of employee participation

into the permit standard. In particular, the USWA stated that such a

provision was required under section 8(c)(3) of the OSH Act, which

provides for employee observation of monitoring performed to verity

compliance with health standards. The commenter also stated ``A worker

entering a confined space risks sudden death if the monitoring is not

done properly. Surely that worker should have the right to observe the

monitoring.''

Other commenters (Exs. 161-39 and 161-43) stated that it was

appropriate to require employee participation in monitoring and testing

because it would reassure employees that the results were accurate and

reliable. In addition, a commenter (Ex. 161-40) indicated that employee

participation in monitoring was an example of the approaches that could

be used to involve workers in the development and implementation of a

permit space program.

On the other hand, some commenters (Exs. 161-9, 161-12, 161-13,

161-25,161-30, 161-50) opposed the inclusion of a requirement for

employee observation of monitoring, stating that existing Sec. 1910.146

already addressed employee access to monitoring information and that

the suggested requirement would impose unreasonable burdens and delays.

Other commenters (Exs. 161-20, 161-26, 161-29, 161-35, 161-48) also

stated that section 8(c)(3) of the OSH Act does not require employee

participation in permit space monitoring, because Sec. 1910.146 is a

safety standard and the statute applies to the promulgation of health

standards.

In addition, some commenters (Exs. 161-15, 161-27 and 161-35)

stated that adoption of the suggested provision would intrude on labor/

management relations by mandating collaboration, while other commenters

(Exs. 161-26 and 161-49) expressed concern that such a requirement

would raise safety problems because employees would be exposed to

dangerous atmospheres. One other commenter (Ex. 161-45) stated that it

was unnecessary to mandate employee participation, but that permit

space programs should provide for the survey of a permit space at an

affected employee's request, as a means of building trust that the

employer is looking out for the well-being of the employees.

In response to the above-described comments, OSHA requests

additional input regarding the need for regulatory language addressing

employee participation in permit space monitoring.

Correction

In its notice of November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60735) OSHA made an error

in the regulatory text portion of the proposed revision of paragraph

(k)(3)(i). The preamble discussion (in the middle column of page 60738)

makes it clear that OSHA intended to amend only the first sentence of

paragraph (k)(3)(i). However, the proposed regulatory text (in the

third column of page 60739) did not include the existing paragraph

(k)(3)(i) language which provides for the use of wristlets, creating

the impression that OSHA intended to disallow the use of wristlets.

Indeed, several commenters (Exs. 161-20, 161-25, 161-26, 161-48) called

the omission to the Agency's attention and expressed support for the

retention of the sentence in the final rule. The exclusion of the

sentence regarding the use of wristlets from the proposal was

inadvertent. Therefore, the proposed revision to paragraph (k)(3)(i),

of Sec. 1910.146, beginning on the tenth line of the third column of

page 60739, is corrected to read as follows:

(i) Each authorized entrant shall use a chest or full body

harness, with a retrieval line attached at the center of the

entrant's back near shoulder level, above the entrants head or other

point which the employer can establish will ensure that the entrant

will present the smallest possible profile during removal. Wristlets

may be used in lieu of the chest or full body harness if the

employer can demonstrate that the use or full body harness is

infeasible or creates a greater hazard and that the use of wristlets

is the safest and most effective alternative.

* * * * *

Public Participation--Notice of Hearing

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the act, an opportunity to submit oral

testimony concerning the proposed revisions and issues raised will be

provided at an informal public hearing scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on

September 27, 1995 in the auditorium of the Francis Perkins Building,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. The hearing will

be extended to subsequent days as necessary.

Notice of Intention To Appear

All persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file, in

quadruplicate, a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before

September 13, 1995. The notice must be addressed to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA

Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket S-019A, room N3647, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20210, telephone (202) 219-8615. The notice of intention to appear may

also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5986, provided the

original and 3 copies of the notice subsequently are sent to Mr. Hall.

The notices of intention to appear, which will be available for

inspection and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center Docket Office,

room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210,

telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the following information:

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of each person wishing

to appear;

(2) The capacity in which the person will appear;

(3) The approximate amount of time requested for the presentation;

(4) The specific issues that will be addressed;

(5) A statement of the position that will be taken with respect to

each issue addressed, and;

[[Page 39285]]

(6) Whether the party expects to submit documentary evidence, and,

if so, a brief summary of that evidence.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing

Any party requesting more than 10 minutes for a presentation at the

hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide, in

quadruplicate, the complete text of the testimony, including any

documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing, to the OSHA

Division of Consumer Affairs. This material must be postmarked on or

before September 13, 1995. These materials will be available for

inspection and copying at the Technical Data Center Docket Office. The

amount of time requested in each submission will be reviewed. In those

instances where the information contained in the submission does not

justify the amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time

will be allocated and the participant will be provided appropriate

notice.

Any party who has not substantially complied with the requirements

for requesting more than 10 minutes of presentation time will be

limited to a 10 minute presentation. Any party who has not filed a

notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify, as time

permits, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.

The hearing will be open to the public, and any interested person

is welcome to attend. However, only persons who have filed proper

notice of intention to appear will be permitted to ask questions and

otherwise participate fully in the proceeding.

Any participant who requires audiovisual equipment for their oral

testimony must submit a request for such equipment in their notice of

intent to appear, specifying the type of equipment needed.

Conduct and Nature of Hearing

The hearing will commence at 9 a.m. on September 27, 1995 in

Washington, D.C. Any procedural matters relating to the hearing will be

resolved immediately after commencement. The informal nature of the

rulemaking hearing to be held is established in the legislative history

of section 6 of the Act and is reflected in the OSHA hearing

regulations (see 29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although the presiding officer is

an Administrative Law Judge and questioning by interested parties is

allowed on the issues, it is clear that the hearing shall remain

informal and legislative in type. The intent, in essence, is to provide

an opportunity for effective oral presentation by interested parties

which can be carried out expeditiously and in the absence of rigid

procedures which might unduly impede or protract the rulemaking

process.

The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911.

The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge who

will have all the necessary and appropriate authority to conduct a full

and fair informal hearing as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including the

powers to:

(1) Regulate the course of the proceedings;

(2) Dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable

matters;

(3) Confine the presentation to the matters pertinent to the issues

raised;

(4) Regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by

appropriate means;

(5) In the Judge's discretion, question and permit the questioning

of any witness and to limit the time for questioning, and;

(6) In the Judge's discretion, keep the record open for a

reasonable, stated time to receive written information and additional

data, views and arguments from any person who participated in the oral

proceedings.

Following the close of the hearing, the presiding Administrative

Law Judge will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor

for Occupational Safety and Health. The Administrative Law Judge does

not make or recommend any decisions as to the content of the final

standard.

The proposed revisions and issues raised will be reviewed in light

of all testimony and written submissions received as part of the

record. Decisions made by OSHA concerning the proposed revisions and

issues will be based on the entire record of the proceeding, including

the written comments and data received from the public.

Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and

arguments with respect to the issues raised in this notice. These

comments must be postmarked on or before September 13, 1995, and

submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-019A,

room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-7894. Comments limited to

10 pages or less also may be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-

5046, provided the original and three copies are sent to the Docket

Office thereafter. Written submissions must clearly identify the issue

addressed and the position taken with respect to each issue.

The data, views and arguments that are submitted will be available

for public inspection and copying at the above address.

All timely written submissions will be made a part of the record

for this proceeding.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20210.

It is issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90

(55 FR 9033) and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of July, 1995.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95-18920 Filed 8-1-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M