Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry and Construction Standards; Proposed Paperwork Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic

[[Page 37849]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

[Docket No. S-778]

Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry and Construction

Standards; Proposed Paperwork Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven

Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: With this document, the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) is continuing the process of removing or revising

standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or

inconsistent in response to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the

President. This document proposes substantive changes to both health

and safety standards to reduce regulatory requirements while

maintaining employee protection. Changes proposed include reducing

chest x-ray frequency and eliminating sputum cytology examinations for

the coke oven and inorganic arsenic standards, changing the emergency-

response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard, eliminating public

safety provisions of the temporary labor camp standard, eliminating

unnecessary OSHA standard references in the textile industry standards

and others.

DATES: Written comments and requests for a hearing on this proposal

must be postmarked by September 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original

(hardcopy) and 1 diskette (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\ inch) in WordPerfect 5.0,

5.1, 6.0 or 6.1, or ASCII to: Docket Office, Docket No. S-778, U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

Room N-2634, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210

(telephone (202) 219-7894). Any information not contained on disk

(e.g., studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Written

comments limited to 10 pages in length also may be transmitted by

facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided an original and 3 copies are sent

to the Docket Office thereafter.

Requests for a hearing should be sent to: Mr. Tom Hall, U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210

(telephone (202) 219-8615).

Comments on the reduction of paperwork burden and renewal of

paperwork authorization for inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions

should be sent to the OSHA docket and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 10235, 725

17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn. OSHA Desk Officer.

For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the

Labor News Bulletin Board at (202) 219-4748; or OSHA's WebPage on the

Internet at http://www.OSHAgov. For news releases, fact sheets and

other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per

minute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical inquiries should be directed

to Mr. Pat Cattafesta, Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical

Safety Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, Room N3609, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20210 [telephone (202)-219-7202; FAX (202)-219-7477].

Requests for interviews and other press inquiries should be

directed to Ms. Ann Cyr, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs,

Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210

[telephone (202) 219-8148].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In March 1995, the President directed Federal agencies to undertake

a line-by-line review of their regulations to determine where they

could be simplified or clarified. OSHA initiated such a review, and as

a result completed a document on May 31, 1995, entitled ``OSHA's

Regulatory Reform Initiatives.'' That document detailed the Agency's

findings as to which regulations could be deleted or revised without

reducing employee health and safety, and which by clarifying

requirements might improve compliance by employers and, consequently,

provide enhanced occupational safety and health protection to

employees. This regulatory improvement process involves revocation of

outdated and obsolete provisions, elimination of substantive

requirements which do not appear to be effective, consolidation of

repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language. The

Agency began this process with an administrative notice which made

minor clarifications and technical amendments (61 FR 9228, March

7,1996). This document proposes substantive changes to standards which

the agency believes are unnecessary or ineffective in protecting worker

health or safety. As these changes are substantive, notice and comment

is required. Final decisions on carrying out the proposed revisions

will depend on the record after considering public comment.

II. Summary and Explanation

Amendments to Part 1910

A. Explosives and Blasting Agents (Sec. 1910.109)

When Sec. 1910.109 was first promulgated, Table H-21 (American

Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives) specified the distances

that must be maintained between stored explosives and inhabited

buildings, passenger railways, and public highways. It also specified

required distances between stored explosive magazines. Table H-21 also

applied to the manufacture of explosives to the extent that it

specified distances between an explosive manufacturing building and

inhabited buildings, passenger railways, public highways, and

magazines.

In 1978, OSHA published a final rule (43 FR 49726) which revoked

certain requirements that were called ``nuisance standards'' because

they did not deal directly with workplace safety and health or were the

jurisdiction of some other regulatory agency. Among the requirements

revoked were the three columns of Table H-21 that specified distances

to inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public highways because

they dealt with public and property protection-not employee protection.

As a result, the current Table H-21 specifies only the distances

between magazines.

Because Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Sec. 1910.109 was inadvertently

overlooked during the 1978 rulemaking, this paragraph still makes

reference to ``inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public

highways.'' Consequently, OSHA is proposing to remove this phrase.

Also, the first sentence of footnote number 5 of Table H-21 reads:

``This table applies only to the manufacture and permanent storage of

commercial explosives.'' OSHA is proposing to remove the words

``manufacture and'' from the first sentence of footnote number 5 of

Table H-21.

Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 states that blasting caps or

electric blasting caps shall not be transported over the highways on

the same vehicles with other explosives. However, DOT

[[Page 37850]]

regulations at 49 CFR 177.835(g)((3)(i) provide an approved method for

the transport of detonators (blasting caps) on the same vehicle with

other explosives.

OSHA believes that blasting caps can be safely transported on the

same vehicle with other explosives if such transport is done in

accordance with the method specified in the Department Of

Transportation (DOT) regulations.

Therefore, OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to

permit the transportation of blasting caps or electric blasting caps on

the same vehicle with other explosives if they are transported in

accordance with the method specified in DOT regulations at 49 CFR

177.835(g)(3)(i).

Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 states:

Empty boxes and paper and fiber packing materials which have

previously contained high explosives shall not be used again for any

purpose, but shall be destroyed by burning at an approved isolated

location out of doors, and no person shall be nearer than 100 feet

after the burning has started.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any boxes or

packing material that may have been contaminated by leaking explosives

do not present a hazard to employees. Consequently, all boxes and

packing material, contaminated or not, may not be reused and must be

disposed of by burning at an approved outdoor location.

However, environmental agencies often will not permit the burning

of such materials. In addition, DOT permits the reuse of packaging

materials if such reuse is accomplished in accordance with the

requirements of 49 CFR 173.28. Thus, employers are confronted by a

conflict between the standards of two Federal agencies. OSHA believes

that such containers and packing materials should be permitted to be

reused if uncontaminated, and if accomplished in accordance with DOT

regulations.

Therefore, OSHA is proposing that paragraph (e)(2)(i) of

Sec. 1910.109 be amended to read as follows:

Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which

have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of

in a safe manner, or reused in accordance with Department of

Transportation requirements at 49 CFR 173.28.

B. Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (1910.110)

Paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(vii) of Sec. 1910.110 contain requirements

for the location of backflow check valves, excess-flow valves, and

shutoff valves on tank cars and transport trucks. Paragraph

(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for locating tank

cars and transport trucks during loading and unloading operations.

The design of transportation vehicles and the safe location of such

vehicles during loading and unloading operations are under the

jurisdiction of DOT and not OSHA. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to

delete paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(viii) of Sec. 1910.110. OSHA is also

proposing to redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as new paragraph

(b)(15)(v) of Sec. 1910.110.

Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv) of Sec. 1910.110 contain specifications

for the marking of LPG cylinders. These marking specifications are

duplicative of DOT requirements. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to

delete them.

Paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 contains limitation requirements

on the capacity of LPG containers that are used to fuel passenger

carrying vehicles. As requirements pertaining to passenger carrying

vehicles are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing to delete

the text of paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.

Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for the

installation of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles. The installation

of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles is under the jurisdiction of

DOT. OSHA, therefore, is proposing to delete the text from paragraph

(g) of Sec. 1910.110 and to reserve the paragraph designation.

C. Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)

Paragraph (f)(7) of Sec. 1910.111 contains safety requirements for

full trailers and semitrailers that transport ammonia. Paragraph (f)(8)

of Sec. 1910.111 contains requirements pertaining to the protection of

such vehicles against collision. As full trailers and semitrailers that

transport ammonia are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing

to delete the text of paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.

D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)

OSHA proposes to delete the definition for ``lavatory,'' given in

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141. This definition states that

``lavatory means a basin or similar vessel used exclusively for washing

of hands, arms, faces, and head.'' OSHA believes that the meaning of

the term is self-explanatory in the context of the section. OSHA

specifically seeks comment as to whether, in fact, deletion of this

definition may diminish the health of employees in affected workplaces.

E. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)

Section 1910.142 (a)(4) provides regulations for the closing of

temporary labor camps. Upon the closing of a camp site, the regulations

require the employer to collect all refuse, garbage, and manure, to

fill all privy pits, to lock and secure any remaining privy buildings,

and to have all buildings in a clean and sanitary condition.

Because this paragraph deals with closing the site, which occurs

after the employees have left, this paragraph essentially provides not

for worker safety, but for public safety, which is outside the Agency's

mission. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to remove

Sec. 1910.142(a)(4). OSHA does note, however, that employers may be

responsible for adhering to other standards regarding public health and

safety in the locality or State in which the camp site is located.

F. Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards (Sec. 1910.144)

Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark

physical hazards. These colors were required so that emergency devices

and physical hazards could be identified quickly by employees. Because

removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have minimal

effect on employee safety and health, the Agency has decided not to

provide this standard. For employers desiring guidance in this area,

the American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z535.1-91, Safety Color

Code is available. OSHA, therefore, proposes to remove Sec. 1910.144.

G. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)

Section 1910.151 states the obligation of employers to have medical

services available to provide advice on workplace health matters, and

for use by employees if needed.

Paragraph (b), in particular, requires the availability of first

aid services for workplaces that do not have medical providers nearby.

This paragraph also requires that first aid supplies approved by the

consulting physician be on hand.

OSHA proposes to amend Sec. 1910.151(b) so that the approval of

first aid supplies by the consulting physician is no longer required,

although the standard would continue to require that adequate supplies

be available. Commercial first aid kits are readily available and will

meet the needs of most employers and most worksites. If the workplace

has unusual hazards or poses special problems that would require

modification of a commercial first aid kit, or the

[[Page 37851]]

development of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer

will provide those special items. If the employer is unsure whether a

commercially available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be

obtained. Such advice, however, would not be required by OSHA as a

matter of course. These changes will allow the employer more

flexibility in meeting the Agency's first aid requirements, without

affecting employee health and safety.

H. Fire Brigades (Sec. 1910.156)

Section 1910.156 contains requirements for the organization,

training, and provision of personal protective equipment for fire

brigades. Requirements for negative-pressure self-contained breathing

apparatus are listed in Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii). These requirements

were intended to remain mandatory for 18 months after the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified a

positive-pressure breathing apparatus with the same or longer service

life as the currently required negative-pressure breathing apparatus.

The 18-month period was to allow employers to phase in the new

apparatus.

NIOSH has since certified a positive-pressure breathing apparatus,

and the 18 month phase-in period has ended. This paragraph is therefore

unnecessary, and OSHA proposes to remove it.

I. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)

Section 1910.183(a) states that helicopter cranes are expected to

comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA). Since OSHA does not have the statutory authority

to enforce FAA regulations for helicopters, (found at 14 CFR part 133),

it is proposed that Sec. 1910.183(a) be revoked.

J. Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills (Sec. 1910.261)

Section 1910.261 contains requirements that apply to establishments

where pulp, paper, and paperboard are manufactured and converted.

Certain standards in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j),

(k), and (m) of Sec. 1910.261 require these establishments to comply

with a number of standards of the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI). The inclusion of these standards in Sec. 1910.261 duplicates

other standards in part 1910 which apply to general industry as a

whole. Many of the other general industry standards cover the same

hazards, and in many cases, they share the same source materials as the

provisions in Sec. 1910.261.

All but one of the ANSI standards referenced in Sec. 1910.261 were

source documents for OSHA standards that have general application

without regard to any specific industry. For example, ANSI Standard

A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings,

and Toeboards is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also the

source standard for Sec. 1910.23, Guarding Floor and Wall Openings and

Holes.

OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, codified in Section 1910.23,

provides equivalent or better protection for workers in this industry

than the ANSI standard, A12.1-1967, which is referenced in

Sec. 1910.261. OSHA proposes, therefore, to revoke

Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii).

Similarly, there are a number of other OSHA standards that OSHA

believes can provide equivalent or better protection for pulp and paper

workers than the ANSI standards referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), (c),

(d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k) and (m) in Sec. 1910.261. For this reason,

OSHA proposes to revoke many provisions of Sec. 1910.261 and to apply

the corresponding provisions found elsewhere in part 1910. The

following table lists the OSHA standards proposed for revocation, the

referenced ANSI standards and the OSHA standards that will provide

equivalent or better protection.

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

Standard proposed for Referenced ANSI Equivalent OSHA

revocation standard standard

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

1910.261(a)(3)(ii).......... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

1910.261(a)(3)(iv).......... A14.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.25

1910.261(a)(3)(v)........... A14.2-1956.......... Sec. 1910.26

1910.261(a)(3)(vi).......... A14.3-1956.......... Sec. 1910.27

1910.261(a)(3)(ix).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(a)(3)(xi).......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179

B30.5-1968.......... Sec. 1910.180

1910.261(a)(3)(xii)......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179

1910.261(a)(3)(xiii)........ B30.2-1943.......... Sec. 1910.179

B30.5-1968.......... Sec. 1910.180

1910.261(a)(3)(xv).......... B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178

1910.261(a)(3)(xvii)........ 01.1-1954........... Sec. 1910.213

Sec. 1910.214

1910.261(a)(3)(xviii)....... Z4.1-1968........... Sec. 1910.141

1910.261(a)(3)(xix)......... Z9.1-1951........... Sec. 1910.94

1910.261(a)(3)(xx).......... Z9.2-1960........... Sec. 1910.94

1910.261(a)(3)(xxiv)........ Z35.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.145

1910.261(a)(3)(xxv)......... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133

1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi)........ Z88.2-1969.......... Sec. 1910.134

1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii)....... Z89.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.135

1910.261(b)(1).............. B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(b)(2).............. Z24.22-1957......... Sec. 1910.132

Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133

Z88.2-1968.......... Sec. 1910.134

Z89.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.135

1910.261(b)(3).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

1910.261(b)(6).............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178

1910.261(c)(2)(vi).......... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179

1910.261(c)(3)(i)........... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

A14.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.25

A14.2-1956.......... Sec. 1910.26

A14.3-1956.......... Sec. 1910.27

1910.261(c)(8)(i)........... B30.2-1967.......... Sec. 1910.179

[[Page 37852]]

1910.261(c)(11)............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.30

1910.261(d)(1)(ii).......... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133

1910.261(e)(3).............. B15.1-1955.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(e)(7).............. O1.1-1961........... Sec. 1910.213

1910.261(e)(9).............. B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(g)(15)(vi)......... Z4.1-1968........... Sec. 1910.141

1910.261(h)(2)(iii)......... K13.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.134

Z88.2-1967..........

1910.261(j)(1)(iv).......... B15.1-1958.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(j)(3).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

1910.261(j)(4)(ii).......... A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

1910.261(j)(5)(iv).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(j)(6)(ii).......... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(k)(2)(i)........... B15.1-1953.......... Sec. 1910.219

1910.261(k)(4).............. A12.1-1967.......... Sec. 1910.23

1910.261(m)(2).............. B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178

1910.261(m)(4).............. Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.133

1910.261(m)(5)(i)........... Z87.1-1968.......... Sec. 1910.132

1910.261(m)(5)(ii).......... B56.1-1969.......... Sec. 1910.178

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

Similarly, OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, Sec. 1910.95,

Occupational Noise Exposure, provides worker protection that is at

least equivalent to that provided by the ANSI standard, Z24.22-1957,

Method of Measurement of Real-Ear Attenuation of Ear Protectors, that

is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii). OSHA, therefore, proposes

to revoke Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this duplicative

coverage.

Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 requires specific procedures to

be followed and personal protective equipment to be worn by workers in

the pulp, paper and paperboard industry who enter closed vessels,

tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment. This standard, however, does

not provide the necessary requirements for monitoring, testing, and

communication that are critical when working in a confined space.

OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 for two

reasons. First, Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces,

provides better protection for workers who are required to work in a

confined space. Section 1910.146 provides a comprehensive regulatory

program within which employers can effectively protect employees who

work in confined spaces. This program addresses the ongoing need for

monitoring, testing and communication at these workplaces. Second,

employers are required to comply with Sec. 1910.146 when a specific

industry standard does not completely address the known hazards of

working in a confined space, a principle noted in paragraph (c)(2) of

Sec. 1910.5, which means that employers must already comply with

Sec. 1910.146 rather than paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261.

Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to

provide personal protective equipment to workers on a job basis. Since

employers are required to comply with the general requirements for

personal protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132, OSHA proposes to revoke

paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this duplication of requirements in

a way that will not decrease worker protection.

Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261 require

employers to provide workers with personal protective equipment and ear

protection when the noise level may be harmful. Since employers are

required to comply with the general requirements for personal

protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132 and the general requirements for

occupational noise exposure in Sec. 1910.95, OSHA proposes to revoke

paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) to eliminate this duplication of

requirements.

Paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 are specific

electrical standards prescribed for the pulp, paper and paperboard

industry that require compliance with subpart S, Electrical, in OSHA's

standards. Since all of general industry is required to comply with all

of subpart S for electrical standards, OSHA proposes to revoke

paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 to eliminate this

duplication.

Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to provide

employees working in the acid department with gas masks. Since

employers are required to comply with the general requirements for

respiratory protection in Sec. 1910.134, OSHA proposes to revoke

paragraph (g)(2)(i) to eliminate this regulatory duplication.

Paragraph (g)(15)(iv) of Sec. 1910.261 is a standard prescribed for

the pulp, paper and paperboard industry that addresses lead dust

exposure, and requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1000, Air

Contaminants, in OSHA's standards. Since employers are required to

comply with all of Sec. 1910.1000, including paragraph 1910.1025 which

addresses lead exposure, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (g)(15)(iv)

to eliminate this duplication.

K. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)

Paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of Sec. 1910.262 require employers in

textile establishments to provide guards for equipment that conform to

the requirements of Sec. 1910.219. Since all of general industry is

required to comply with all of the general requirements of

Sec. 1910.219, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of

Sec. 1910.262 to eliminate this regulatory duplication.

Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards

coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke a number of other standards in

Sec. 1910.262 that reference occupational safety and health standards

of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards

proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which

will continue to apply to the Textile industry.

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

Standard Proposed for Revocation Referenced OSHA Standard

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

1910.262(c)(3)......................... 1910.219.

1910.262(c)(4)......................... 1910.141.

1910.262(gg)........................... 1910.219.

1910.262(ll)(1)........................ 1910.23.

1910.262(qq)(1)........................ 1910.132.

1910.133.

1910.134.

1910.262(qq)(2)........................ 1910.134.

1910.262(rr)........................... 1910.1000.

1910.94(d).

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

[[Page 37853]]

Paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 requires employers to identify

physical hazards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1910.144.

Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark

physical hazards. As noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA

is proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, since the Agency believes that

sufficient guidance on this matter is given by the American National

Standards Institute standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and

that removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have no

discernible effect on employee safety and health. Since OSHA is

proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in

Sec. 1910.262(c)(8), OSHA also proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).

L. Sawmills (1910.265)

Section 1910.265 contains safety requirements for sawmill

operations including, but not limited to, log and lumber handling,

sawing, trimming, and planing; waste disposal; operation of dry kilns;

finishing; shipping; storage; yard and yard equipment; and for power

tools and related equipment used in connection with such operations.

Certain paragraphs of this section incorporate and apply occupational

safety and health standards of general application which apply to all

employment covered by part 1910. As required in paragraph (a)(2) of

this section, such standards apply to sawmill operations in accordance

with the rules of construction set forth in Sec. 1910.5. For example,

the general standard regarding mechanical power-transmission apparatus

in Sec. 1910.219 is applicable to employment in sawmill operations

covered in Sec. 1910.265, and yet it is also incorporated by reference

in paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. OSHA believes that worker safety

is not enhanced by repeating the application of Sec. 1910.219 in

Sec. 1910.265, and proposes to revoke paragraph (c)(22) of

Sec. 1910.265. Also, since Sec. 1910.5 applies to all industries,

including the sawmill industry, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph

(a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265 which merely references Sec. 1910.5.

Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards

coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke various provisions currently found in

Sec. 1910.265 which reference occupational safety and health standards

of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards

proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which

will continue to apply to sawmills.

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

Standard Proposed for Revocation Referenced OSHA Standard

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

1910.265(c)(3)(i)...................... 1910.23.

1910.265(c)(10)........................ 1910.25-27.

1910.265(c)(14)........................ 1910.110.

1910.265(c)(16)........................ 1910.106.

1910.265(c)(17)(i)..................... 1910.1000.

1910.265(c)(17)(ii).................... Subpart I.

1910.265(c)(17)(iii)................... 1910.94(d).

1910.265(c)(22)........................ 1910.219.

1910.265(c)(26)(i)..................... 1910.219.

1910.265(c)(30)(vi).................... 1910.219.

1910.265(c)(30)(x)..................... 1910.178.

1910.265(e)(3)(ii)(d).................. 1910.219.

1910.265(f)(9)......................... 1910.219.

1910.265(g)............................ Subpart I.

1910.265(h)............................ 1910.141.

1910.265(i)............................ Subpart L.

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

Paragraph (c)(11) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to mark

physical hazards as specified in Sec. 1910.144. Section 1910.144

provides guidance on the colors to use to mark physical hazards. As

noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA is proposing to

revoke Sec. 1910.144 since the Agency believes that sufficient guidance

on this matter is given by the American National Standards Institute

standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and that removal of these

requirements from 29 CFR Part 1910 would have no discernible effect on

employee safety and health. Since OSHA is proposing to revoke

Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.265(c)11), OSHA also

proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.265(c)(11).

Paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to

inspect slings daily when in use, and to remove a sling from service if

it is found to be defective. In addition, paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of

Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to provide suitable protection between

the sling and the sharp unyielding surfaces of the load to be lifted.

These provisions duplicate some of the general requirements for the use

of slings in Sec. 1910.184 which also include provisions for sling

inspection, removal and protection. OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs

(c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c), to eliminate the duplication of requirements

for slings in Sec. 1910.265.

M. Agricultural Operations (Sec. 1910.267)

Section 1910.267 previously contained part 1910 requirements

applicable to agricultural operations. These requirements were moved to

Sec. 1928.21 in 1975 (40 FR 18268). Since that time, Sec. 1910.267 has

been used simply to refer employers to Sec. 1928.21 to locate these

requirements. OSHA believes that Sec. 1910.267 is now unnecessary and

proposes to revoke it.

N. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)

Paragraph (f) of 1910.268 contains requirements for rubber

insulating equipment (gloves and blankets) used at telecommunications

centers and field installations. As discussed below, OSHA has

determined that these requirements are now outdated, and that they

should be deleted.

OSHA believes that the provisions of paragraph (f) are unnecessary

for several reasons. First, the general industry standard found at 29

CFR 1910.137, Electrical Protective Equipment, addresses all rubber

insulating equipment, and revocation of paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268

would eliminate this duplication of standards and related compliance

problems. Second, Sec. 1910.137 provides more comprehensive employee

protection, since it covers requirements for manufacture and marking,

electrical proof tests, voltages, test intervals, workmanship and in-

service care and use. Third, Sec. 1910.137, is written in performance-

oriented language that provides employers with flexibility in meeting

the standard. Thus, OSHA believes that paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268

can be revoked without diminishing employee safety and health.

O. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)

OSHA is proposing to delete paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of

Sec. 1910.1017, vinyl chloride, which was promulgated in 1974. These

paragraphs address entry into unknown and hazardous vinyl-chloride

atmospheres. Paragraph (g)(5)(i) allows entry into unknown

concentrations of vinyl chloride or concentrations greater than 36,000

ppm (lower explosive limit) only for purposes of life rescue. Paragraph

(g)(5)(ii) allows entry into concentrations of vinyl chloride of less

than 36,000 ppm, but greater than 3,600 ppm only for purposes of life

rescue, firefighting, or securing equipment which will prevent a

greater release of vinyl chloride.

In 1989, OSHA promulgated industry-wide provisions addressing

emergency response with respect to entry into unknown or hazardous

atmospheres under Sec. 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste Operations and

Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (54 FR 9317, Mar. 6, 1989).

Included in the scope of the HAZWOPER standard are requirements for

``Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats

of releases of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of

the hazard.'' Thus, vinyl chloride, which is a ``hazardous substance''

as defined under the

[[Page 37854]]

HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the emergency response provisions in

both the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER rules. In regard to overlapping

provisions in two applicable standards, the HAZWOPER standard

specifically states in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that ``If there is a

conflict or overlap [between emergency-response provisions in

Sec. 1910.120 and provisions in substance-specific standards], the

provision more protective of employee safety and health shall apply * *

*.''

OSHA believes that the emergency-response provisions in

Sec. 1910.120 are more protective overall than the relevant provisions

in the vinyl chloride standard. Further, the provisions of

Sec. 1910.120, which require development of a broad program to

appropriately respond to any potential emergency situation, may be

viewed as giving more flexibility to employers to tailor and implement

effective comprehensive emergency-response programs to suit their

needs. Key provisions in Sec. 1910.120(q) that would apply where there

is a potential emergency associated with the release of vinyl chloride

address the following: Development and implementation of an emergency

response plan, paragraph (q)(1); elements required to be included in

the emergency response plan, paragraph (q)(2); procedures for handling

emergency response, paragraph (q)(3); use of skilled support personnel,

paragraph (q)(4); use of specialist employees, paragraph (q)(5);

training of emergency personnel, paragraph (q)(6), (7), and (8);

medical surveillance and consultation for emergency-response personnel,

paragraph (q)(9); use of chemical protective clothing, paragraph

(q)(10); and procedures for post-emergency-response operations,

paragraph (q)(11).

OSHA believes, therefore, that deletion of Sec. 1910.1017(g)(5) (i)

and (ii), in favor of Sec. 1910.120, will not result in an increased

risk to the safety or health of employees engaged in vinyl chloride

emergency response operations. The Agency solicits comment on the

question of the sufficiency of Sec. 1910.120 to address the protection

of vinyl chloride emergency response employees if, as proposed here,

the emergency response provisions currently in the vinyl chloride

standard are deleted.

P. Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018)

OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance

requirements in paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018, that address

inorganic arsenic, with respect to sputum-cytology examinations and

chest x-rays. The requirement in paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C) of

Sec. 1910.1018 that provides for a semi-annual sputum-cytology

examination for employees 45 years of age or older or with 10 or more

years of exposure over the action level is proposed to be deleted.

Sputum-cytology examination was included originally under medical

surveillance programs for arsenic workers based on OSHA's belief that

such examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer.

In reevaluating this provision, the Agency has found no studies

that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a

screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to

inorganic arsenic. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2],

however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology

examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in another high-risk

group, namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. The two studies

included the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National

Cancer Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program.

Together, the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were

assigned at random to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent

an annual chest radiograph, and sputum-cytologic study every 4 months)

or to a single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic

screening was performed).

For both studies, there were no significant differences between the

dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung-cancer

cases, the number of late-stage lung-cancer cases, the number of

resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns

Hopkins) survival rates and the number of lung-cancer deaths.

Therefore, sputum cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer

screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.

False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent

in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5].

False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and

anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest

x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the

pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible,

fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this examination is negative, then the

lower respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic

bronchoscopy; bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In

addition, imaging studies may be done, including computed tomography

(CT scan) and magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of

these procedures have inherent risks, including death [Ex. 1-6].

The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection

of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-

cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. The Society's decision in this regard

was based on the lack of epidemiological evidence that would support

the use of sputum-cytology screening, and the risks and costs

associated with false positive exams [Ex. 1-8]. Therefore, since

available data do not indicate that sputum-cytology examination adds

any benefit to a lung-cancer screening program that already includes

annual chest x-rays, and since false-positive results can lead to

unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up procedures, OSHA is proposing

that sputum-cytology examinations be deleted from the medical-

surveillance requirements of the inorganic arsenic standard.

OSHA solicits comments on these conclusions with respect to the

value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data

and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and

conclusions.

Exhibits

1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome

in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer

screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.

1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative

early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory

Disease 130:545-49, 1984.

1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a

screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-

25S, 1986.

1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: Results

of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study in New York. Chest 86:44-53,

1984.

1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology.

Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.

1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic

bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72,

1974.

1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of

Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.

1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of

Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.

OSHA is also proposing to revise the requirement in paragraph

(n)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic standard, that

provides for a semiannual chest x-ray for employees who are 45 years of

age or older or who have 10 or more years of arsenic exposure over the

action level. OSHA is proposing that the required frequency of chest x-

ray for these employees be changed from

[[Page 37855]]

semiannual to annual. OSHA originally adopted the provision for

semiannual x-rays based on the belief that such semiannual examinations

were valid for screening for lung cancer.

OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide

employees exposed to inorganic arsenic with a medical surveillance

program, including chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung

cancer. However, the Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing

chest x-rays semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by

a large, randomized, and controlled scientific study.

Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1,1-2], were

conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely,

male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with

respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. These studies, which

included the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak Study

[Ex.1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of chest

x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of this

group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental

groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic

intervals (4 months in the Mayo Lung Project and 6 months in the

Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic,

or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the

experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the

beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung

tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)

These studies found that periodic chest x-rays led to enhanced

detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence, higher

rates of respectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a

subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific

survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed

cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower

fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of

overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung

Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were

found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in

the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.

The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the

outcomes for the few experimental group participants who did not

undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either

because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This

analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which

combined the outcomes for experimental group participants in the Mayo

Lung Project with similar experimental group participants from two

other groups (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns

Hopkins Lung Project). The 5 year fatality rate for the nonsurgery

participants was about 90 percent, compared with a 30-percent fatality

rate for those participants who underwent cancer surgery. This

comparison provides strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in

detecting early-stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those

participants who undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected

tumor. Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and

lead-time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate

differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the

Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.

Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to

inorganic arsenic continue to need medical surveillance to detect lung

cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung

cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the

frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annually.

This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in

Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35

percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the

experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which

administered chest x-rays every 4 months, and the experimental-group

participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns

Hopkins Lung Project, which performed chest x-rays once a year. [See

also Exs. 1-12 and 1-13] This analysis demonstrates that fatality rates

did not differ in any practical or statistically significant fashion

across these three major studies. OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual

chest x-ray satisfies the purpose of the medical surveillance program

required under the standard.

In summary, large randomized controlled studies indicate that

semiannual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual

screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of

high-risk individuals, including workers exposed to inorganic arsenic,

should continue since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-

rays for detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in

lowering lung cancer fatality rates.

Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for

high-risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data

to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate.

OSHA, therefore, believes that an annual x-ray provision is reasonable.

Moreover, if the Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on

the side of over-protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned

by the U.S. Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American

Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).

OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the

value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and

views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and

conclusions.

Exhibits

1-1. Strauss GM, et. al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome

in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer

screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.

1-2. Berlin NI, et. al. The National Cancer Institute

cooperative early lung cancer detection program. American Review of

Respiratory Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.

1-9. Fontana R, et. al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program.

Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.

1-10. Fontana R, et. al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique

of the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.

1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a

randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37,

1986.

1-12. Kubik A, et. al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual

screening for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized

controlled trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia.

International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.

1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical

Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169

Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.

Q. Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. 1910.1029)

OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance

requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1029, coke oven emissions, with respect to

sputum-cytology examinations and chest x-rays. The requirement in

paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.1029 that provides for a semiannual

sputum-cytology examination for employees 45 years of age or older or

with 5 or more years employment in the regulated area is proposed to be

deleted. Sputum-cytology examination was included originally in the

medical surveillance programs for coke oven workers based on OSHA's

belief that such

[[Page 37856]]

examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer. (Note: Much of

the following discussion of sputum-cytology examinations duplicates the

discussion on that topic provided under ``P. Inorganic Arsenic''

above.)

In reevaluating this provision, the Agency found no available

studies that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a

screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to coke

oven emissions. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2]

however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology

examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in a high-risk group,

namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. Two of these studies

were the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial Sloan-

Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National Cancer

Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program. Together,

the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were assigned

randomly to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent annual

chest radiograph and sputum-cytologic study every four months) or to a

single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic screening was

performed).

For both studies, there were no significant differences between the

dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung cancer

cases, the number of late-stage lung cancer cases, the number of

resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns

Hopkins) survival rates, and the number of lung cancer deaths.

Therefore, sputum-cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer

screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.

False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent

in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5].

False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and

anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest

x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the

pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible

fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this is negative, then the lower

respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy;

bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In addition, imaging

studies may be done, including computed tomography (CT scan) and

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of these procedures

have inherent risks including death [Ex. 1-6].

The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection

of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-

cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. This decision was based on the lack of

epidemiological evidence that would support the use of sputum-cytology

screening, and the risks and costs associated with false positive exams

[Ex. 1-8].

Therefore, since available data do not indicate that sputum-

cytology examination adds any benefit to a lung cancer screening

program that already includes annual chest x-rays, and since false-

positive results can lead to unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up

procedures, OSHA is proposing that sputum-cytology examinations be

deleted from the medical surveillance requirements of the coke oven

emission standard.

OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the

value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data

and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and

conclusions.

Exhibits

1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcomein

lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer

screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.

1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative

early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory

Disease 130:545-49, 1984.

1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a

screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-

25S, 1986.

1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: results

of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering study in New York. Chest 86:44-53,

1984.

1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology.

Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.

1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic

bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72,

1974.

1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of

Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.

1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of

Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.

The requirement in Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the coke

oven emissions standard, which provides for a semiannual chest x-ray

for employees 45 years of age or older or with 5 or more years

employment in a regulated area, is proposed for revison. OSHA is

proposing that this requirement be revised to require an annual chest

x-ray in the medical surveillance program for the group of employees

noted above. OSHA adopted the provision for semiannual x-rays

originally in the belief that semiannual examinations were valid for

screening for lung cancer.

OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide

coke-oven employees with a medical surveillance program, including

chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung cancer. However, the

Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing chest x-rays

semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by a large,

randomized, and controlled scientific study.

Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2], were

conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely,

male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with

respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. Two of these studies,

referred to as the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak

Study [Ex. 1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of

chest x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of

this group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental

groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic

intervals (four months in the Mayo Lung Project and six months in the

Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic,

or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the

experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the

beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung

tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)

The results of these studies found that periodic chest x-rays led

to enhanced detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence,

higher rates of resectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a

subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific

survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed

cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower

fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of

overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung

Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were

found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in

the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.

The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the

outcomes for the few experimental-group participants who did not

undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either

because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This

analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which

combined the outcomes for experimental-group participants in the

[[Page 37857]]

Mayo Lung Project with similar experimental-group participants from two

other studies (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung

Projects). The 5-year fatality rate for the nonsurgery participants was

about 90-percent, compared to a 30-percent fatality rate for those

participants who underwent cancer surgery. This comparison provides

strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in detecting early-

stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those participants who

undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected tumor.

Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and lead-

time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate

differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the

Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.

Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to

coke-oven emissions continue to need medical surveillance to detect

lung cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung

cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the

frequency of chest x-rays from semi-annually to annually.

This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in

Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35

percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the

experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which

administered chest x-rays every four months, and the experimental-group

participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung

Projects, which performed chest

x-rays once a year. [see, also, Exs. 1-12, 1-13]. This analysis

demonstrates that fatality rate did not differ in any practical or

statistically-significant fashion across these three major studies.

OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual chest x-ray satisfies the purpose

of the medical surveillance program required under the standard.

In summary, Large randomized controlled studies indicate that semi-

annual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual

screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of

high-risk individuals, including coke oven workers, should continue

since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-rays for

detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in lower lung

cancer fatality rates.

Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for

high risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data

to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate.

OSHA believes an annual x-ray provision is reasonable. Moreover, if the

Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on the side of over-

protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum

Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).

OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the

value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and

views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and

conclusions.

Exhibits

1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome

in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer

screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.

1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative

early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory

Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.

1-9. Fontana R, et al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program.

Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.

1-10. Fontana R, et al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique of

the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.

1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a

randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37,

1986.

1-12. Kubik A, et al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual screening

for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized controlled

trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia.

International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.

1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical

Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169

Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.

Amendments to Part 1926

A. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 1926.31)

Based on its ongoing review of compliance and enforcement

activities and recommendations from its Advisory Committee on

Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA is aware that difficulties

have arisen regarding certain provisions of part 1926 that were adopted

under sections 6(a) of the Act. Many of the standards adopted under

section 6(a) were American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards which

were incorporated by reference and contained advisory provisions (e.g.

use the word ``should'' rather than ``shall'').

In the past, OSHA maintained that all standards, regardless of

whether the term ``should'' or ``shall'' is used, created mandatory

compliance responsibilities. Employers consistently challenged this

position on the basis that section 6(a) of the Act only gave OSHA the

authority to adopt ANSI standards verbatim. In ANSI standards, use of

the term ``should'' means that the provision is only advisory.

Therefore, employers maintained that ANSI ``should'' standards could

only be advisory when adopted or incorporated by reference by OSHA

under section 6(a).

Enforcement of ``should'' standards has been denied by the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and by most of the

appellate courts in which contested cases have been heard. For example,

in Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-

44 (1978), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that

``should'' standards were merely advisory because the consensus

organization had reached ``substantial agreement'' that these

provisions be viewed only as recommendations, and not as mandatory

standards.

The courts have also ruled that failure to adopt an ANSI provision

verbatim renders the resulting OSHA Section 6(a) provision invalid and

unenforceable (see Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corporation, 577 F.2d

1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 1977)).

Although the ``should'' standards have not been enforceable in and

of themselves, OSHA has employed them to demonstrate the existence of

``recognized hazards'' under the general duty clause (section 5(a)(1))

of the Act. However, the Review Commission has ruled that, as long as

the ``should'' provision remains in effect as a OSHA standard, OSHA may

not issue a general duty clause citation for the hazard it addresses

(see A. Prokosch & Sons Sheet Metal and Mid Hudson Automatic Sprinkler,

1980 CCH OSHD para.24,840). Based on the fact that OSHA cannot enforce

these provisions either directly or indirectly, the Agency proposes to

revise Sec. 1926.31(a) to clarify that only the mandatory requirements

of incorporated consensus standards are adopted as OSHA standards. The

removal of the advisory provisions will also serve to simplify and

streamline existing part 1926 standards.

In 1984, OSHA conducted a rulemaking for 29 CFR part 1910 (General

Industry Standards) that was similar to the one described above for the

construction standards in part 1926. That is, paragraph (a) of

Sec. 1910.6 was revised to clarify that only the mandatory provisions

of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as OSHA general

industry standards (49 FR 5318).

[[Page 37858]]

Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.31 currently provides that ``the

specifications, standards and codes * * * to the extent they are

legally incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and

effect as other standards in this part.'' OSHA is proposing to add a

sentence at the end of Sec. 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ``Only the

mandatory provisions (that is, provisions containing the word ``shall''

or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are

adopted as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.''

This amendment will effectively eliminate ``should'' standards

incorporated by reference into part 1926.

B. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1926.50)

Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50 states that ``First-aid supplies

approved by the consulting physician shall be easily accessible when

required.'' Since first-aid kits that are commercially available will

meet the needs of most employers, it is unnecessary for most employers

to have a physician approve the contents of a first-aid kit. However,

if the workplace has unusual hazards or special situations that would

require modification of a commercial first-aid kit, or the development

of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer will provide

these special items. If the employer is unsure whether a commercially

available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be obtained.

Such advice, however, would not be required as a matter of course.

Accordingly, OSHA proposes to revise paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50

to eliminate the requirement for physician approval of first-aid

supplies. The Agency believes that this change will allow the employer

more flexibility in meeting the first-aid requirements without

affecting employee safety.

Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 states that the ``telephone numbers

of the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously

posted.'' This outdated requirement places an unnecessary burden on the

employer. Since the 911 emergency number is nearly universal, OSHA

proposes to revise this paragraph to limit the requirement for posting

these numbers to those areas where the 911 emergency number is not

available.

C. Flammable and Combustible Liquids (Sec. 1926.152)

Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.152 states that ``only approved

containers and portable tanks shall be used for storage and handling of

flammable and combustible liquids. Approved metal safety cans shall be

used for the handling and use of flammable liquids in quantities

greater than one gallon * * *.'' While approved metal safety cans are

still acceptable, OSHA notes that various nationally recognized testing

laboratories have also approved the use of plastic safety cans for

flammable liquids. OSHA proposes to revise this paragraph to allow the

use of approved plastic safety cans in addition to approved metal

safety cans.

A ``safety can'', by definition, is a container with a capacity of

5 gallons or less that is equipped with a spring-closing lid and spout

cover, a means to relieve internal pressure, and a flash-arresting

screen. The Agency has determined that Department of Transportation

(DOT)-approved containers of 5-gallon capacity or less, that are not

equipped with a spring-closing lid, spout cover and flash-arresting

screen can be used to transport relatively small quantities of

flammable liquids safely. OSHA thus proposes to make DOT-approved

containers of 5-gallon capacity or less also acceptable for the

storage, use, and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.

OSHA is also proposing to revise Sec. 1926.152(a)(1) to allow the

use of the original container for quantities of flammable liquids that

are one gallon or less. Where the original container is available, the

employer may choose to use it, instead of an approved safety can for

quantities of one gallon or less. If the original container is not

available, an approved safety can must be used.

D. Initiation of Explosive Charges--Electric Blasting (Sec. 1926.906)

Paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 states that ``Blasters, when testing

circuits to charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers

equipped with a silver chloride cell especially designed for this

purpose.'' This provision specifically requires the use of silver

chloride dry cells as a power source for testing electric blast caps.

By contrast, paragraph (e)(4)(vii) of Sec. 1910.109, Explosives and

blasting agents, states that ``Blasters, when testing circuits to

charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers designed for this

purpose'' and does not specifically require the use of silver chloride

cells. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration currently

allows for the use of a blasting galvanometer or other instruments that

are specifically designed for testing blasting circuits (30 CFR CH.1

Sec. 56.6407). Therefore, OSHA proposes to correct this inconsistency

by revising paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to allow the use of other

types of instruments, in addition to those equipped with silver-

chloride cells, when testing circuits to charged holes.

III. Summary of the Preliminary Economic, Feasibility and Regulatory

Flexibility Analyses

Preliminary Economic Analysis

The Agency is proposing to eliminate a number of provisions in its

standards that are duplicative, unnecessary, or potentially in conflict

with the rules of other Federal agencies. All of the changes OSHA is

proposing to make are expected to benefit the regulated community by

reducing confusion, enhancing utility, and increasing readability. Only

four of the proposed changes, however, have quantifiable economic

benefits. Although the extent to which employers currently comply with

these provisions is not known, economists generally assume full

compliance when assessing the costs of regulations. The same compliance

baseline is also used to evaluate benefits. By eliminating these

``problem'' provisions for its standards, OSHA will lessen the burdens

employers currently experience to comply with them, which will, in

turn, generate cost savings. First Aid Kits

The proposed rule would eliminate the requirements in

Sec. 1910.151(b) and Sec. 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must have first

aid supplies approved by a consulting physician. This requirement does

not apply to all facilities; instead it depends on whether an

infirmary, clinic, or hospital is nearby and would be used by the

employer to treat all injured employees, i.e., the requirement applies

only in cases where no such facilities are in close proximity and the

employer intends to treat first aid injuries on site. Although the

number of establishments meeting these criteria is uncertain, the

Agency believes it is reasonable to assume that 10 percent of

establishments would do so. How the physician is to provide this

consultation is not specified in OSHA's provisions. OSHA assumes that,

at most, five minutes of a physician's time, valued at $100/hr,1

would be required to approve the contents of the first aid kit at these

establishments. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA also assumes that

the physician provides 5 minutes of his or her time at an hourly wage

rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.

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

\1\ Opportunity cost as measured by the market price for

occupational physical exams. Agency estimates for the cost of exams

suggest a rate of about $100 an hour.

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

This analysis further assumes that the physician needs to approve

the first aid supplies once every 10 years, after which time the

development of new

[[Page 37859]]

kinds of medical supplies and the possibility of new hazards in the

workplace would require a new consultation. The cost of 5 minutes of a

physician's time annualized over 10 years is $1.19.

The Agency estimates that approximately 6.4 million employers fall

under OSHA jurisdiction and would be affected by this change (County

Business Patterns, 1993). Therefore, the annualized cost of satisfying

these provisions is currently estimated to be $761,600 ((6.4 million

x 10%) x $1.19). By eliminating this requirement, OSHA will reduce

this burden, as well as the paperwork burden associated with obtaining

and recording the physician's approval.

Coke Oven Emissions

The proposed revision to Sec. 1910.1029(j) would eliminate the

requirement for semiannual sputum cytology tests and reduce the

required frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annual for

workers who are 45 years of age or older or who have 5 or more years of

employment in regulated areas. Regulated areas encompass the coke oven

battery, including topside and its machinery, pushside and its

machinery, coke side and its machinery, and battery ends; the wharf;

the screening station; and the beehive oven and its machinery.

The Inflationary Impact Statement developed for OSHA in support of

Sec. 1910.1029 (Inflationary Impact Statement: Coke Oven Emissions,

1976) estimated total employment in coke ovens at 29,600. The same

analysis estimated that 75 percent of these employees worked in

regulated areas. The 1992 Census of Manufacturers (Industry Series)

indicated total employment in SIC 33121 (Coke Oven and Blast Furnace

Products) at 8,600 and total production manhours at 15.7 million. A

separate Census Industry Series count specific to coke ovens indicates

a total of 11.2 million production manhours, which constitutes

approximately 71 percent of SIC 33121's productive manhours, suggesting

a total employment count in coke ovens of 6,135.

Assuming that the proportion of coke oven employees in regulated

areas has remained constant, approximately 4,600 employees work in

regulated areas at the present time. Approximately 30 percent of the

workforce in 1994 was over 45 years of age (BLS data presented in

Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, p. 402). Turnover

rates in SIC 33, which includes coke ovens, are estimated at 5 percent

annually (National Occupational Exposure Survey: Analysis of Management

Interview Responses, 1988). A simple probability calculation suggests

that approximately 77 percent of the regulated area workforce will have

been exposed to coke oven emissions for 5 years or more.2

Adjusting this percentage to reflect the assumption that 30 percent of

employees are over 45 years of age results in an estimate of 84 percent

3 of coke oven employees (3,864 workers) potentially affected by

the proposed revocation of this requirement.

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

\2\ (1-.05)\5\=.77 This calculation assumes equal probability of

turnover in each year thereafter.

\3\ ((.77) x (1-.30))+(.30)=.84 All other things equal, at least

30 percent of those with 5 or more years of exposure would be over

45.

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

1994 data obtained from the Physician Payment Review Commission (e-

mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC, to Tom Mockler, OSHA) indicate a

national average x-ray charge of $54.40 and an average lab charge for

cytology examination of bodily fluids of $51.90. There is also the

potential for an additional charge averaging $19.00 for sputum specimen

collection, but this is assumed to be contained within the fee for a

medical exam. Therefore the savings for eliminating one chest x-ray and

two sputum cytologies annually would be $158.20 per worker ($54.40 for

one x-ray, plus $103.80 for two sputum cytology tests). For the group

of 3,864 employees, the annual savings would be $611,285.

Inorganic Arsenic

As in the case of the coke oven standard, OSHA is proposing to

eliminate the requirement for sputum cytology and reduce the frequency

of chest x-ray exams from semiannual to annual for workers exposed

above the inorganic arsenic action level of 5 g/m \3\ (29 CFR

1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1910.1018 currently requires

employees exposed above the action level for 30 days per year to

receive these medical surveillance elements semi-annually if they are

45 years of age or older, or if they have had more than 10 years of

exposure above the action level.

The Federal Register notice for the inorganic arsenic rulemaking

[(May 5, 1978), p. 19585] indicated that of 660,000 workers exposed,

7,400 were exposed above 4 g/m \3\, i.e., close to or above

the action level. Although arsenic uses and related exposures have

shifted over time, the level of inorganic arsenic use in the U.S.

appears to be approximately the same as it was at the time of the

original rulemaking 4. Therefore, for the purposes of this

analysis, the Agency assumes that the exposed population size is also

unchanged.

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

\4\ Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic trioxide

consumed in U.S. (Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental

Perspectives, 1983, p. 7; Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity

Summary, 1995).

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

At the time of the original rulemaking, the Inflationary Impact

Statement (Inflationary Impact Statement: Inorganic Arsenic, 1976)

estimated that 50% of employees above the action level would need the

semi-annual exams, based on OSHA's analysis of age, job tenure and

turnover. Applying the same assumptions, the Agency estimates that

approximately 3,700 workers would be affected by the proposed revisoin

to this provision. This change will eliminate the need for testing

valued at $158.20 (see the explanation above for coke ovens for cost

details) for 3,700 employees, for an annual savings of $584,340.

Pulp and Paper

The existing pulp and paper standard, Sec. 1910.261, contains

paragraph (b)(5), ``vessel entering'', which states:

Lifelines and safety harness shall be worn by anyone entering

closed vessels, tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment, and a

person shall be stationed outside in a position to handle the line

and to summon assistance in the case of emergency.

Paragraph (b)(5) also prescribes other safety precautions applying to

similar confined spaces in pulp and paper mills.

OSHA proposes to eliminate these specific separate requirements for

confined space entry in pulp and paper mills, and instead reference

Sec. 1910.146, OSHA's generic confined spaces standard. In other words,

employers in the pulp and paper industry will no longer have to comply

with Sec. 1910.261(b)(5), but with Sec. 1910.146. Section 1910.146

requires that employers assess the hazards of their confined spaces and

employ the appropriate safety precautions to deal with the relevant

existing or potential hazard. Although Sec. 1910.146 may require

employers to complete additional checklists, conduct training, and plan

for rescue, depending on the hazard present, employers will in many

cases no longer need to require employees to wear lifelines or provide

for outside ``attendants'' 5.

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

\5\ For example, Sec. 1910.146(c)(5) indicates that if an

employer can certify that ventilation alone can reliably control

atmospheric hazards in a space, and that is the only hazard posed by

the space, they are exempt from many requirements of the standard,

including the need for an outside attendant. Similarly, in

Sec. 1910.146(k)(3), employers are expressly exempt from using a

lifeline if such usage is either valueless or counterproductive from

a safety standpoint.

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

[[Page 37860]]

The costs of complying with Sec. 1910.146 in the pulp and paper

industry were included in OSHA's supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis

(Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

of the Final Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard, December 1992].

They were estimated to be approximately $4 million. No economic or

technological feasibility problems were indicated.

By deleting the more rigid confined space requirements of the pulp

and paper industry-specific standard and requiring employers to comply

with a more performance-oriented requirement for attendants and

lifelines, OSHA is simultaneously relieving a burden and enhancing

safety. Based on the underlying analysis used by OSHA in producing the

RIA for Sec. 1910.146, a comparison of the costs associated with the

requirement that an attendant be present (Sec. 1910.261(b)(5)) with the

more flexible requirements in Sec. 1910.146 indicates a savings to

employers of approximately 450,000 manhours annually. Given the hourly

compensation rate of $17 used in the RIA, this represents an annual

savings of $7.7 million.

In summary, by revoking these four unnecessary or duplicative

requirements, the Agency is reducing annual employer burdens related to

first aid kits ($761,600), medical surveillance for coke oven emissions

($611,285) and inorganic arsenic workers ($584,340), and confined space

entry in pulp and paper mills ($7.7 million), for a total annualized

employer savings of $9,656,625.

Technological Feasibility

OSHA could not identify any requirement in the proposed revision

and modification of OSHA standards that raises technological

feasibility problems for employers. OSHA, therefore, has preliminarily

concluded that technological feasibility is not an issue for the

proposed changes in the standards.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as

amended, requires that the Agency examine regulatory actions to

determine if they would have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As indicated elsewhere in this

analysis, these modifications to existing regulations are expected to

reduce the regulatory burden on all affected employers, large and

small. For that reason, the Agency hereby certifies that these changes

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

V. Environmental Assessment

The proposed rules have been reviewed in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council of

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures

(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has concluded that

the rules will have no significant environmental impact.

VI. International Trade

This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards is not

likely to have a significant effect on international trade, since the

changes involve the revocation of obsolete provisions, consolidation of

repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information Collection Requirements

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice

serves two purposes: (1) Solicit public comment on the changes that are

proposed in this rule pertaining to the Inorganic Arsenic and the Coke

Oven Emissions standards and (2) solicit public comment on the existing

Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions information collection

requests for their extension.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR

1320.11 require Federal agencies to submit collections of information

contained in proposed rules for public comment in the Federal Register

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposed

rule impacts two active Information Collection Requests: Inorganic

Arsenic (OMB Number 1218-0104) and Coke Oven Emissions (OMB Number

1218-0128).

The title, description, and respondent description of the

information collection are described below with an estimate of the

annual reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for

reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection of information. OSHA invites

comments on whether the proposed collection of information:

1. Ensures that the collection of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the functions of OSHA, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

2. Estimates the projected burden including the validity of

methodology and assumptions used accurately;

3. Enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and

4. Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those

who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques,

or other forms ofinformation technology, e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

Title: Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry andConstruction.

Description: The purpose of these standards and their information

collection requirements is to provide protection for employees against

the health effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven

emissions and inorganic arsenic. These standards require employers to

monitor employee exposure, to provide medical surveillance and to

maintain employee exposure monitoring and medical records. If exposure

levels are above the standards' Permissible Exposure Levels (PEL), then

employers must establish and implement a written control plan to reduce

exposures below the PELs. Employers are also required to notify OSHA

area offices of regulated areas and changes to regulated areas. The

proposed rule would delete the requirement for employee sputum cytology

exams contained in the medical surveillance provisions of the Coke Oven

Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic Standards. The proposed rule would also

change the frequency of x-rays from semi-annual to annual in these

standards. Description of Respondents: Employers whose employees may be

exposed to coke oven emissions and inorganic arsenic. Estimate of

Burden Hours and Cost: OSHA estimates that the total burden for Coke

Oven Emissions will be 95,060 burden hours, a reduction of 2,945 hours

(from employee medical examinations), at a cost savings of $611,285.

For Inorganic Arsenic, the agency estimates the total burden to be

24,615 burden hours, a reduction of 3,663 hours (from employee medical

examinations), at a cost savings of $584,340. Employee exposure

monitoring and medical records required by both standards must be

maintained for at least 40 years, or for the duration of employment

plus 20 years whichever is longer. The agency has submitted a copy of

the proposed rule to OMB for its review and approval

[[Page 37861]]

of the information collections. Interested persons are requested to

submit comments on the paperwork reduction regarding the proposed

deletion of sputum cytology and frequency of x-rays to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer, OMB, New

Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington,

DC 20503. Comments should also be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office

for this proposal at OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number S-778, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210.

In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(a), this notice also

solicits public comment on the existing Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven

Emissions information collection requests for their extension. Persons

interested in commenting on the existing information collection

requirements contained in the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions

standards are requested to submit comment including suggestions for

reducing burden to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number (ICR 96-7

Inorganic Arsenic orICR 96-8 Coke Oven Emissions), U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

(Note that this is a different docket number than the Docket for

proposal which poses to remove the sputum cytology and decrease the

frequency of the chest x-rays) Comments submitted in response to this

comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for

Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection

request; they will also become a matter of public record.

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

Avgerage time

Cite reference Total Frequency Total per response Total cost Burden

respondents responses (hours) (hours)

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

Coke Oven Emissions...................... 22 On occasion.................. 101,977 1.01 $1,363,900 95,060

Inorganic Arsenic........................ 42 On occasion.................. 58,763 1.06 2,017,684 24,615

Total.............................. .............. ............................. 160,740 .............. 3,381,584 119,675

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

Copies of the referenced information collection requests are

available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will

be mailed immediately to persons who request copies by telephoning

Vivian Allen at (202) 219-8076. For electronic copies of the Coke Oven

Emissions and the Inorganic Arsenic requests, contact the Labor News

Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784, or OSHA WebPage on the internet at

http://www.osha.gov/. Copies of these information collection requests

are also available at the OMB Docket Office.

VIII. Federalism

This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards has been

reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October

30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to

the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options,

consult with States prior to taking any actions which would restrict

State policy actions, and take such actions only when there is clear

constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of national

scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only if there is

a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any such

preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)

expresses Congress' intent to preempt state laws relating to issues on

which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health

standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption in issues

covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal

approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their

enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such

Plan states must, among other things, be at least as effective in

providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the

Federal standards.

The proposed revision and revocation of standards is meant to

reduce the volume and complexity of OSHA standards, and to improve

compliance by employers, without diminishing worker safety and health.

Those States which have elected to participate under Section 18 of the

OSH Act are not preempted by this proposal, and will be able to address

any special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while

ensuring that the State standards are at least as effective as the

Federal standard. State comments are invited on this proposal and will

be duly considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.

IX. Public Participation

Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked

by September 20, 1996, and submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket

Office, Docket No. S-778, Room N2624, U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210.

All written comments received within the specified comment period

will be made a part of the record and will be available for public

inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.

The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven

Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require

the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance

requirements.

Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, interested

persons may request an informal hearing by filing a request for such a

hearing including objections to the proposal which warrant a hearing.

Persons who have objections to the proposal but do not wish to request

an oral hearing, may submit their objections in their comments where

they will be fully considered. The objections and hearing requests

should be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA, U.S. Dept.

of Labor, Rm. N-3647, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210

(tel. 202-219-8619) and must comply with the following conditions:

1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;

2. The objections must be postmarked by September 20, 1996;

3. The objections must specify with particularity grounds upon

which the objection is based;

4. Each objection must be separately numbered; and

5. The objections must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the

evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing.

The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven

[[Page 37862]]

Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require

the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance

requirements.

OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through

their knowledge of safety or health or their experience, would wish to

endorse or support the proposed actions set forth in this notice. OSHA

welcomes such supportive comments, including any related information

which may be available, so that the record of this rulemaking will

present a balanced picture of the public response on the issues

involved.

X. State Plan Standards

The States with their own approved occupational safety and health

plans must adopt comparable standards within 6 months of the

publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska,

Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government

employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,

Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government

employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Virgin Islands, Washington and

Wyoming. Until such time as State standards are promulgated, Federal

OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in

those States.

List of Subjects:

29 CFR Part 1910:

Business and industry, Occupational safety and health, Hazardous

materials, Fire protection.

29 CFR Part 1926:

Construction industry, Occupational safety and health, Fire

protection, Explosives

XI. Authority

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, NW., Washington, DC.

20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), section 107 of

the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and

Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 29 CFR parts 1910 and

1926 are proposed to be amended as set forth below.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15 day of July 1996.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

A. It is proposed to amend Part 1910 of 29 CFR as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED]

Subpart H--Hazardous Materials

1. The authority citation for subpart H is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1910.109 Explosives and blasting agents [Amended]

2. Remove the phrase, ``from inhabited buildings, passenger

railways, and public highways and'' from paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of

Sec. 1910.109.

3. Remove the words, ``manufacture and'' from the first sentence in

footnote number 5, of Table H-21, of Sec. 1910.109.

4. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Blasting caps or electric blasting caps shall not be

transported over the highways on the same vehicles with other

explosives, unless packaged, segregated and transported in accordance

with the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations

(49 CFR parts 177-180).

5. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which

have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of in a

safe manner, or reused in accordance with the Department of

Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 177-

180).

* * * * *

Sec. 1910.110 Storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases

[Amended]

1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110, and

redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as (b)(15)(v).

2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1910.110, and

redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(i) as (c)(2).

3. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.

4. Remove and reserve paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110.

Sec. 1910.111 Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia [Amended]

Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.

Subpart J--General Environmental Controls

1. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.

Sec. 1910.141 Sanitation [Amended]

2. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141 and all paragraph

designations for the definitions within paragraph (a)(2) of

Sec. 1910.141.

Sec. 1910.142 Temporary labor camps [Amended]

3. Remove paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 1910.142.

Sec. 1910.144 Safety color code for marking physical hazards

[Removed]

4. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.144.

Subpart K--Medical and First Aid

1. The authority citation for subpart K is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1910.151 Medical Services and first aid [Amended]

2. Revise the final sentence in paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 to

read as follows:

* * * * *

(b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.

* * * * *

Subpart L--Fire Protection

1. The authority citation for subpart L continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1910.156 Fire brigades [Amended]

2. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.156.

[[Page 37863]]

Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage

1. The authority citation for subpart N is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1910.183 Helicopters [Amended]

2. Remove and reserve paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.183.

Subpart R--Special Industries

1. The authority citation for subpart R is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1910.261 Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills [Amended]

2. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3): (ii),

(iv) through (vi), (xi) through (xiii), (xv), (xvii) through (xix),

(xx), (xxii), (xxiv) through (xxvii).

3. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(3)(ix) of Sec. 1910.261.

4. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as

follows:

a. Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ii),

b. Paragraph (a)(3)(vii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iii),

c. Paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iv),

d. Paragraph (a)(3)(x) as paragraph (a)(3)(v),

e. Paragraph (a)(3)(xiv) as paragraph (a)(3)(vi),

f. Paragraph (a)(3)(xvi) as paragraph (a)(3)(vii),

g. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxi) as paragraph (a)(3)(viii),

h. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxiii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ix).

5. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of

Sec. 1910.261.

6. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph

(b)(7) as paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1910.261.

7. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(c): (2)(vi),

(2)(vii), (6)(ii), and (7)(ii).

8. Remove and reserve the following paragraphs of Sec. 1910.261(c):

(3)(i), (8)(i), and (11).

9. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as

follows:

a. Paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph (c)(2)(vi),

b. Paragraph (c)(6)(i) as paragraph (c)(6),

c. Paragraph (c)7)(i) as paragraph (c)(7).

10. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.

11. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(7), and (e)(9) of

Sec. 1910.261.

12. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261.

13. Remove and reserve paragraphs (g)(15)(iv) and (g)(15)(vi) of

Sec. 1910.261.

14. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as

follows:

a. paragraph (g)(1)(v) to paragraph (g)(1)(iv),

b. paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to paragraph (g)(2)(i),

c. paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to paragraph (g)(2)(ii).

15. Remove and reserve paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261.

16. Remove paragraphs (j)(4)(ii), (j)(5)(iv) and (j)(6)(ii) of

Sec. 1910.261.

17. Remove and reserve paragraphs (j)(1)(iv) and (j)(3) of

Sec. 1910.261.

18. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as

follows:

a. Paragraph (j)(4)(iii) through paragraph (j)(4)(vi) as paragraph

(j)(4)(ii) through paragraph (j)(4)(v),

b. Paragraph (j)(6)(iii) as paragraph (j)(6)(ii).

19. Remove paragraph (k)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261, and redesignate

paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) through (k)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (k)(2)(i)

through (k)(2)(v), respectively.

20. Remove and reserve paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(16) of

Sec. 1910.261.

21. Remove and reserve paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4) of

Sec. 1910.261.

22. Remove paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.

23. Redesignate paragraph (m)(5)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261 as paragraph

(m)(5), and add a heading to paragraph (m)(5) to read as follows:

``Unloading Cars''.

Sec. 1910.262 Textiles [Amended]

24. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), and (gg) of

Sec. 1910.262.

25. Remove paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 and redesignate

paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(8).

26. Remove and reserve paragraph (gg) of Sec. 1910.262.

27. Remove paragraphs (ll)(1), (qq)(1), (qq)(2), and (rr) of

Sec. 1910.262.

28. Redesignate paragraph (ll)(2) of Sec. 1910.262 as paragraph

(ll).

Sec. 1910.265 Sawmills [Amended]

29. Remove paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265.

30. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1910.265 as paragraph (a).

31. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (c)(10), (c)(11),

(c)(14), and (c)(16) of Sec. 1910.265.

32. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(17) of Sec. 1910.265.

33.-34. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265.

35. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 and

redesignate paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(b) as paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a).

36. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of Sec. 1910.265.

37. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(26)(i), (c)(30)(vi),

(c)(30)(x), and (e)(3)(ii)(d) of Sec. 1910.265.

38. Remove paragraphs (f)(9), (g), (h), and (i) of Sec. 1910.265.

Sec. 1910.267 Agricultural operations [Removed]

39. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.267.

Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications [Amended]

40. Remove and reserve paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

1. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's

Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR

35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under sec. 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 sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

Section 1910.1018 is also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.

Sec. 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride. [Amended]

2. In Sec. 1910.1017, remove paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (g)(5)(ii).

3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) of Sec. 1910.1017 as

paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively.

Sec. 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic. [Amended]

4. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate

paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); revise the reference in

paragraph (n)(3)(i) that reads ``(n)(2)(ii)(A)(B) and (D)'' to read

``(n)(2)(ii)''; and revise paragraph (n)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) ``The employer shall provide the examinations specified in

paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least

semi-annually, and the x-ray requirement specified in paragraph

(n)(2)(ii)(A) at least annually, for other covered employees.

* * * * *

5. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(F),

(q)(2)(iii)(G), and (q)(2)(iii)(H); and insert the word ``and'' after

paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(D).

[[Page 37864]]

6. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix A, in the middle of paragraph VI,

revise the sentence beginning ``The medical examination must include *

* *.'' to read as follows: ``The medical examination must include a

medical history, a chest x-ray, a skin examination, and a nasal

examination.'' Remove the sentence which begins ``The cytology exams

are only included * * *.'' from paragraph VI.

7. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix C, Section I, General, remove the

words ``(4) A Sputum Cytology examination;'' redesignate paragraph (5)

as paragraph (4); and remove the entire section entitled ``III. Sputum

Cytology.''

Sec. 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions. [Amended]

8. In Sec. 1910.1029, remove paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and redesignate

paragraph (j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii).

9. In paragraph (j)(3)(i) 0f Sec. 1910.1029, the reference

``(j)(2)(i)-(vi)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-

(vii).''

10. In paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference

``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-

(vii).''

11. In paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference

``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-

(vii).''

12. In Sec. 1910.1029, redesignate paragraph (j)(3)(iv) as

paragraph (j)(3)(v), and add a new paragraph (j)(3)(iv) to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) The employer shall provide the x-ray specified in paragraph

(j)(2)(ii) of this section at least annually for employees covered

under paragraph (j)(3).

13. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix A, paragraph VI is revised to read

as follows:

* * * * *

VI. If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year,

your employer is required to provide you with a medical examination

every year. The medical examination must include a medical history,

a chest x-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison, skin

examination, a urinalysis and a urine cytology exam for early

detection of urinary cancer. The urine cytology exam is only

included in the initial exam until you are either 45 years or older

or have 5 or more years employment in the regulated areas when the

medical exams including this test, but excepting the x-ray exam, are

to be given every six months; under these conditions, you are to be

given an x-ray exam at least once a year. The examining physician

will provide a written opinion to your employer containing the

results of the medical exams. You should also receive a copy of this

opinion.

14. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, paragraph A is

revised to read as follows:

A. General

The minimum requirements for the medical examination for coke

oven workers are given in paragraph (j) of the standard. The initial

examination is to be provided to all coke oven workers who work at

least 30 days in the regulated area. The examination includes a

14'' x 17'' posterior-anterior chest x-ray reading and a ILO/UC

rating to assure some standardization of x-ray reading, pulmonary

function tests (FVC and FEV 1.0), weight, urinalysis, skin

examination, and a urinary cytologic examination. These tests are

needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the employee's future

test results. Periodic exams include all the elements of the initial

exams, except that the urine cytologic test is to be performed only

on those employees who are 45 years or older or who have worked for

5 or more years in the regulated area; periodic exams, with the

exception of x-rays, are to be performed semi-annually for this

group instead of annually; for this group, x-rays will continue to

be given at least annually. The examination contents are minimum

requirements; additional tests such as lateral and oblique x-rays or

additional pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed

necessary.

15. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, the paragraphs

entitled ``C. Sputum Cytology,'' are removed. B. It is proposed to

amend part 1926 of 29 CFR as follows:

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart C--General Safety and Health Standards

1. The authority citation for subpart C is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1926.31 Incorporation by Reference. [Amended]

2. In Sec. 1926.31, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government and

organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are

incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect

as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e.,

provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language)

of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under

the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1926.50 Medical services and first aid [Amended]

2. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(d) First-aid supplies shall be easily accessible when required.

* * * * *

3. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(f) In areas where 911 is not available, the telephone numbers of

the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.

* * * * *

Subpart F--Fire Protection and Prevention

1. The authority citation for subpart F is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1926.152 Flammable and combustible liquids [Amended]

2. In Sec. 1926.152, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

(a) * * * (1) Only approved containers and portable tanks shall be

used for storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.

Approved safety cans or Department of Transportation approved

containers shall be used for the handling and use of flammable liquids

in quantities of 5 gallons or less, except that this shall not apply to

those flammable liquid materials which are highly viscid (extremely

hard to pour), which may be used and handled in original shipping

containers. For quantities of one gallon or less, the original

container may be used for storage, use, and handling of flammable

liquids.

* * * * *

[[Page 37865]]

Subpart U--Blasting and Use of Explosives

1. The authority citation for subpart U is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec. 1926.906 Initiation of explosive charges--electric blasting

[Amended]

2. In Sec. 1926.906, revise paragraph (q) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(q) Blasters, when testing circuits to charged holes, shall use

only blasting galvanometers or other instruments that are specifically

designed for this purpose.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-18268 Filed 7-19-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P