Methylene Chloride; Notice of Motion for Reconsideration; Proposed Rule

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H-71]

RIN 1218-AA95

Methylene Chloride; Notice of Motion for Reconsideration;

Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of motion for reconsideration; proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has

received a motion for reconsideration of certain provisions of its

standard regulating occupational exposure to methylene chloride (MC),

62 FR 1494 (Jan. 10, 1997). The motion, filed jointly by the

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural

Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Halogenated Solvents Industry

Alliance, Inc., and others asks OSHA to amend the methylene chloride

standard by adding to the medical surveillance provisions of the

standard a provision for temporary medical removal protection benefits

for employees who are temporarily removed or transferred to another job

because of a medical determination that exposure to methylene chloride

may aggravate or contribute to the employee's existing skin, heart,

liver, or neurological disease; and modifying certain startup dates for

employers in certain identified application groups, i.e., who use MC in

certain work operations. The standard currently requires employers with

fewer than 20 employees to complete installation of engineering

controls by April 10, 2000 and larger employers to do so by earlier

dates. The motion asks that the April 10, 2000 startup date for

engineering controls be applied to some additional small- and medium-

sized employers in the identified application groups. Shorter startup

date extensions are requested for the larger employers in those same

application groups. The parties to the motion further request that

respirator use to achieve the 8-hour time-weighted-average permissible

exposure limit not be required before the engineering control startup

dates for the employers covered by the motion.

OSHA tentatively concludes that the amendments are appropriate and

are supported by the rulemaking record. Accordingly, OSHA is hereby

proposing to amend the MC standard with the

[[Page 24502]]

modifications the parties have recommended. OSHA is reopening the

rulemaking record for the methylene chloride standard for 30 days for

the limited purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed

amendments.

DATES: Comments concerning the proposed rule must be postmarked or

transmitted by fax on or before June 3, 1998. Comments concerning the

collection of information requirements must be postmarked or

transmitted by fax on or before July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to: The Docket

Office, Docket No. H-71, Room N-2625, United States Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202) 219-7894. Comments of 10 pages or fewer may be transmitted by fax

to (202) 219-5046, provided the original and three copies are sent to

the Docket Office thereafter. The hours of operation of the Docket

Office are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of Public Affairs, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS: This proposed rule contains

collection of information requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1052, ``Methylene

Chloride,'' in paragraphs (j)(11)(B) and (j)(14)(i), (ii), and (iv).

Under these requirements employers must provide certain employees with

additional medical examinations beyond those now required under the

standard. The proposed rule would not change the requirement in the

existing standard that employers provide the employee with a copy of

the written medical opinion for each medical examination required by

the standard. Because it requires additional medical examinations than

does the current rule and, for some of those examinations, the

provision of more information about the results, the proposed rule

imposes additional collection of information requirements on employers

than the current standard. 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 to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for review. OSHA has submitted the

appropriate request to OMB for approval. OSHA currently has approval

for the collection of information requirements in the existing

Methylene Chloride standard under OMB Control Number 1218-0179.

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 accurately, including whether the

methodology and assumptions used are valid;

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 of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

Title: Methylene Chloride (MC) (29 CFR 1910.1052).

Description: The purpose of this standard and its information

collection requirements is to protect employees from adverse health

effects associated with occupational exposure to MC. The current

standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure to MC, inform

employees of monitoring results, and notify employees of corrective

action to be taken. Employers are also required to provide medical

surveillance to employees who are exposed to MC above the action level.

Employers must also provide information and training to employees on

the following: health effects of MC, specifics regarding use of MC in

the workplace, the content of the standard, and means the employees can

take to protect themselves from overexposure to MC.

In response to a motion for reconsideration by the United Auto

Workers (UAW), the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., and

others, the Agency is proposing to add paragraphs (j)(9)(i) (A) and

(B), (j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14), dealing with

medical removal protection, medical removal protection benefits,

voluntary removal or restriction of an employee, and multiple health

care professional review to the MC standard.

Respondents: The respondents are employers whose employees have

occupational exposure to MC, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

75-09-2, in general industry, construction and shipyard employment,

approximately 92,000 respondents.

Estimate of Burden Hours: OSHA estimates that the total burden for

the proposed MC collection of information provision will be 619 burden

hours.

Estimate of Costs: OSHA estimates that the total cost for the first

year will be $60,515 for the collection of information provision.

Interested parties are requested to send comments regarding this

information collection 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. Commenters are

encouraged to send a copy of their comments on the collection of

information to OSHA along with their other comments.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized

and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget

approval of the final information collection request: They will also

become a matter of public record. Copies of the referenced information

collection request are available for inspection and copying in the OSHA

Docket office and will be mailed immediately to any person who requests

copies by telephoning Adrian Corsey at (202) 219-7075 extension 105.

For electronic copies of the MC information collection request, contact

OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and click on

``Federal Register Notices''. Then click on ``Type of Publication'',

then ``Notices'', and lastly ``1998''. Copies of the request are also

available at the OMB docket office.

I. Background

On January 10, 1997, OSHA issued a standard regulating occupational

exposure to methylene chloride (MC). 62 FR 1494. The standard was

designed to reduce both the risk that worker exposure to MC will cause

cancer and the risk that MC will cause or aggravate certain other

adverse health effects. The standard reduced the prior 8-hour time-

weighted-average permissible exposure limit (8-hour TWA PEL) to MC from

500 parts per million (ppm) to 25 ppm. It also set a short term

exposure limit (STEL) of 125 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period.

The 8-hour TWA PEL was set at 25 ppm to reduce, to the extent

feasible, the risk that workers exposed to MC would contract cancer.

Data showing that MC exposure presents a risk of cancer included animal

bioassay data, studies detailing the metabolism of MC to carcinogenic

products in humans, and epidemiological studies suggesting an elevated

risk of biliary cancer and astrocytic brain cancer in MC-exposed

workers. The agency used a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic

[[Page 24503]]

(PBPK) model to estimate the cancer risk. OSHA's final risk assessment

estimated that, at the prior 8-hour TWA PEL of 500 ppm (a level that

the Agency found was considerably higher than the level at which most

affected workers were currently exposed, see 62 FR 1565), lifetime

occupational exposure to MC could result in approximately 125 cancer

deaths per 1000 exposed workers. 62 FR 1563, Table VII. At the new 8-

hour TWA PEL of 25 ppm, OSHA estimated that the excess cancer risk

would be reduced to approximately 3.6 deaths per 1000 workers. Id. OSHA

concluded that a significant risk to workers remains at an exposure

level of 25 ppm but set the 8-hour TWA PEL at that level because it was

the lowest level for which OSHA could document feasibility across all

the affected application groups. 62 FR 1575.

The STEL was set at 125 ppm to minimize the adverse health effects

caused by acute exposure to MC. Central nervous system (CNS) depression

has been observed at MC concentrations as low as 175 ppm. CNS

depression is characterized by fatigue, difficulty in maintaining

concentration, dizziness, and headaches. These consequences of MC

exposure constitute material impairments of health and, by reducing

workers' coordination and concentration, can lead to workplace

accidents. Also, MC is metabolized to carbon monoxide (CO) and

therefore causes health impairment similar to that caused by direct

exposure to CO. Carbon monoxide blocks the oxygen binding site on

hemoglobin, producing carboxyhemoglobin, or COHb. Elevated COHb levels

reduce the supply to oxygen to the heart and can aggravate pre-existing

heart disease and lead to heart attacks. Physical exertion increases

the concentration of COHb in MC-exposed workers and thus increases the

risk of a heart attack, particularly to persons with silent or

symptomatic cardiac disease, who may be susceptible to very small

increases in COHb due to an already impaired blood supply to the heart.

The liver and skin are also susceptible to acute effects from MC

exposure. Chlorinated hydrocarbons as a class (of which MC is a member)

are generally toxic to the liver. However, animal studies indicate that

MC is among the least hepatotoxic of this class of compounds. The

limited amount of human data that are available is inconclusive but

supports the hypothesis that MC is toxic to the liver. 62 FR at 1515.

Prolonged skin contact with MC also causes irritation and skin burns.

62 FR at 1609.

Employers must achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL and the STEL, to the

extend feasible, by engineering and work practice controls. If such

controls are unable to achieve the exposure limits, and during the time

they are being implemented, employers must provide, at no cost to

employees, and ensure that employees use, appropriate respirators. The

standard does not permit the use of air-purifying respirators to

protect against MC exposure because MC 1uickly penetrates all currently

available organic vapor cartridges, rendering air-purifying respirators

ineffective after a relatively brief period of time. Therefore, when

respiratory protection is required, the standard provides that

atomsphere-supplying respirators must be used.

The standard requires employers to provide medical surveillance to

employees who are exposed to MC either (1) at or above the action level

on 30 or more days per year or at or above the 8-hour TWA PEL or STEL

on 10 or more days per year; (2) at or above the 8-hour TWL Pel or STEL

for any time period where an employee who has been identified by a

physician or other licensed health care professional as being at risk

from cardiac disease or from some other serious MC-related health

condition requests inclusion in the medical surveillance program; or

(3) during an emergency. The medical surveillance must include a

comprehensive medical and work history that emphasizes neurological

symptoms, skin conditions, history of hematologic or liver disease,

signs or symptoms suggestive of heart disease (angina, coronary artery

disease), risk factors for cardiac disease, MC exposures, and work

practices and personal protective equipment used during such exposures.

The standard's medical surveillance procedures focus on MC's

noncarcinogenic health effects because a medical surveillance program

cannot detect cancer at a preneoplastic state. 62 FR at 1589. However,

the standard's medical surveillance provisions can lead to early

detection of cancer and to higher survival rates from early treatment.

OSHA found that the standard was both technologically and

economically feasible in all of the industrial applications that use

MC. However, the Agency recognizes that larger employers are better

able than smaller ones to absorb or pass through the costs associated

with compliance with the standard. To avoid placing an undue economic

burden on small businesses, OSHA provided for later startup dates for

small employers. Larger employers were given until April 10, 1998 (one

year after the standard's effective date) to complete installation of

engineering controls to achieve the PEL and STEL, while employers with

fewer than 20 employees were given a total of three years, or until

April 10, 2000, to do so. Employers with fewer than 20 employees were

also given more time than larger employers to comply with the other

provisions of the standard. In addition, intermediate startup dates

were established for polyurethane foam manufacturers with 20-99

employees because OSHA anticipated that firms in that group could have

somewhat higher capital expenditures to meet the requirements of the

standard.

II. The Motion for Reconsideration

The motion filed by the parties asks OSHA to reconsider two aspects

of the standard: (1) The agency's decision not to include medical

removal protection benefits in the medical surveillance provisions of

the standard; and (2) the start-up dates for engineering controls and

for use of respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL for employers

using MC in certain specific applications.

Those applications are:

Polyurethane foam manufacturing;

Foam fabrication;

Furniture refinishing;

General aviation aircraft stripping;

Formulation of products containing methylene chloride;

Boat building and repair;

Recreational vehicle manufacture;

Van conversion;

Upholstery; and

Use of methylene chloride in construction work for

restoration and preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal,

cabinet making and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing.

The motion requests that the standard's current final engineering

control startup date of April 10, 2000, which now applies to employers

with fewer than 20 employees, be applied also to employers in the

specified application groups with 20-49 employees and to foam

fabricators with 20-149 employees. (In referring to an employer's

number of employees, the parties to the motion explain that they intend

for the number of employees to refer to the total number or workers

employed by the particular employer, not the number who work at a

particular facility or the number that use methylene chloride in their

work.) The motion requests shorter extensions of the engineering

control dates for larger employers in these application groups. The

parties further request that respirator use to achieve the 8-hour TWA

PEL not be required before the

[[Page 24504]]

engineering control startup dates for the employers covered by the

motion.

In evaluating the motion, OSHA notes that the parties are not

seeking to modify the fundamental protections provided to workers by

the standard. They are not challenging the 8-hour TWA PEL or the STEL

or the requirement that those limits be met, to the extent feasible,

through engineering and work practice controls. Nor are the parties

seeking modifications of the provisions in the standard for regulated

areas, protective work clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities,

hazard communication, employee information and training, and

recordkeeping. Moreover, the extensions of the startup dates that they

seek would not change the standard's current final compliance deadline

of April 10, 2000 but would merely give additional employers the

benefit of that startup date. The parties suggest that their proposed

changes to startup dates will enhance long-term worker protection by

enabling employers to use their resources effectively and efficiently

in developing permanent engineering solutions to reduce MC exposures in

their workplaces. The parties' proposed addition to the medical

surveillance provisions of the standard--a provision for medical

removal protection benefits--is also designed to enhance worker

protection by encouraging worker participation in medical surveillance.

Thus, the parties believe that the amendments they seek will promote

worker protection while minimizing employers' compliance burdens.

III. Medical Removal Protection Benefits

OSHA set the permissible exposure limits for methylene chloride to

eliminate significant risk, to the extent feasible, to workers exposed

to MC. However, individuals vary in their response to chemical

exposures. Some may see their health impaired, or preexisting medical

conditions aggravated, at an exposure level that does not provoke such

effects in most workers. Medical surveillance can identify those

workers who exhibit signs or symptoms of illnesses that could be

aggravated by exposure to a toxic substance and lead to treatment or

reduction in exposure. OSHA has therefore provided for medical

surveillance whenever it has issued a new standard for a single toxic

substance.

Medical surveillance can result in a medical opinion that

particular workers should be removed from their present jobs have their

work activities otherwise restricted. This can lead to concern among

workers that participation in medical surveillance could cost them

their jobs. A worker who fear that medical surveillance may endanger

his or her livelihood may be reluctant to consent to medical tests or

to provide complete and accurate information during a medical

examination. If employees whose health could be significantly impaired

by continued MC exposure withhold their full cooperation, they might

continue to be exposed to MC without being aware that such exposure

poses a risk to their health. To avoid having the potential loss of a

job act as a disincentive to workers participating in the standard's

medical surveillance program, OSHA has, in certain of its toxic

chemical standards, provided for medical removal protection benefits

(MRPB). MRPB provisions require that an employer who must remove an

employee from continued exposure to a chemical or otherwise restrict an

employee's exposure to that chemical must maintain the employee's

earnings and other employment rights and benefits for a specified time.

When it has included MRPB provisions in earlier standards, OSHA has

delineated as specifically as possible the medical conditions that

trigger removal. Where possible, the Agency has specified objective

removal criteria. For example, the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025)

requires that an employee be removed from exposure above the action

level when an employee's blood lead concentration exceeds a certain

value. Similarly, the cadmium standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) lists

objective biological monitoring criteria that trigger medical removal.

OSHA has also, however, recognized that medical removal is

sometimes appropriate without regard to specific biological markers

when, in the judgment of a physician or other licenses health care

professional, removal is necessary to protect the health of the

employee. Thus, in addition to objective removal criteria, the lead and

cadmium standards provide for medical removal based on the discretion

of a health care professional. The lead standard requires medical

removal ``on each occasion that a final medical determination results

in a medical finding, determination, or opinion that the employee has a

detected medical condition which places the employee at increased risk

of material impairment to health from exposure to lead.'' Under the

cadmium standard, an employee must be removed if a written medical

opinion determines that removal is justified by ``biological monitoring

results, inability to wear a respirator, evidence of illness, other

signs or symptoms of cadmium-related dysfunction or disease, or any

other reason deemed medically sufficient * * *.'' The formaldehyde

standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) contains no objective criteria for medical

removal but provides for removal ``if the physician finds that

significant irritation of the mucosa of the eyes or of the upper

airways, respiratory sensitization, dermal irritation, or dermal

sensitization result from workplace formaldehyde exposure and

recommends restrictions or removal.''

In the proposed MC rule, OSHA solicited comment on whether it

should provide for medical removal protection benefits in the final

rule. 56 FR at 57043 (Nov. 7, 1991). A number of commenters urged the

Agency to do so on the basis that MRPB would encourage employee

participation in medical surveillance. In the final rule, OSHA found,

as it had in the earlier standards discussed above, that MRPB would

increase employee participation in medical surveillance. However, the

Agency declined to include such a provision in the standard because it

did not believe it could offer substantive guidance to medical

professionals as to when it would be appropriate to remove an employee

from further MC exposure or to return a removed employee to the

workplace. 62 FR at 1595.

The parties to the motion for reconsideration believe they have

drafted a provision that is narrowly tailored to diseases that MC

exposure may aggravate and that limits the scope of the provision in a

way that avoids any undue economic burden on small employers. Under

their proposal, MRPB would be required only when a physician or other

licensed health care professional (PLHCP) determines that the

employee's exposure to MC would contribute to or aggravate the

employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke),

or skin disease. The parties note that the heart, liver, central

nervous system, and skin are the organs and systems that OSHA

identified in the standard as being particularly susceptible to MC-

induced noncarcinogenic health effects. They believe that physicians

and other licensed health care professionals will be able to render an

informed judgment as to whether MC exposure will contribute to or

aggravate an existing disease affecting these systems or organs.

The parties further propose, in paragraph (j)(10), that the

standard require the PLHCP to presume that MC exposure below the 8-hour

TWA PEL

[[Page 24505]]

will not aggravate an existing disease of the heart, liver, central

nervous system, or skin. Under the proposal, a PLHCP who recommends

removal of an employee who is exposed below the 8-hour TWA PEL must

cite specific medical evidence to support the recommendation. Absent

such evidence, the employer need not remove the employee.

When a medical determination indicates removal, the parties'

proposal requires the employer to either transfer the employee to

comparable work where MC exposures are below the action level or remove

the employee from MC exposure. For each employee thus removed or

transferred, the employer must maintain the employee's earnings,

seniority, and other employment rights and benefits for up to six

months. The employer may cease paying MRP benefits before the end of

the six-month period upon receipt of a medical determination that the

employee's exposure to MC will no longer aggravate any existing

cardiac, hepatic, neurological, or dermal disease, or upon receipt of a

medical determination concluding that the employee can never return to

MC exposure above the action level.

The parties also propose inclusion of provisions that OSHA has

routinely included in previous standards that provided for MRPB. These

provisions (1) allow an employer to condition an employee's receipt of

MRPB on participation in follow-up medical surveillance; (2) provide

for a diminution of MRP benefits to offset any workers' compensation

indemnity payments the employee receives for the same period of time;

(3) provide an offset of such benefits against compensation from a

publicly or employer-funded compensation program or income the employee

receives from other employment that is made possible by virtue of the

employee's removal, and (4) require the employer to pay MRP benefits if

it voluntarily removes or restricts an employee due to the effects of

MC exposure on the employee's medical condition.

The current standard provides for the employer to select the PLHCP

who conducts medical surveillance. Under the parties' proposal, the

health care professional selected by the employer would make the

medical determination whether to recommend that an employee be removed.

The parties also, propose to include a provision that allows employees

the option to have the recommendation of the employer-selected health

care professional reviewed by a health care professional or the

employee's choice. If the two health care professionals disagree, they

jointly designate a third, who must be a specialist in the field at

issue and whose written opinion is the definitive medical determination

under the standard. The parties note that, in previous standards that

have provided for MRPB, OSHA has included similar provisions for multi-

step review to strengthen the basis for medical removal determinations

and to increase employee confidence in those determinations.

The parties have also recommended a provision designed to avoid an

undue burden that could result if a small business would need to

provide medical removal protection benefits to more than one employee

at the same time. Paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B) of their proposal states that

if the employer receives a recommendation for medical removal of an

additional employee and comparable work that does not involve exposure

to MC at or above the action level is not available, the employer need

not remove the additional employee if the employer can demonstrate that

removal and the costs of MRP benefits to that employee, considering

feasibility in relation to the size of the employer's business and the

other requirements of this standard, make further reliance on MRP an

inappropriate remedy. In such a case, the employer may retain the

additional employee in the existence job until transfer or removal

becomes appropriate, provided: (i) The employer or the PLHCP informs

the additional employee of the risk to the employee's health from

continued MC exposure; and (ii) the employer ensures that the employee

receives medical surveillance, including a physical examination, at

least every 60 days.

OSHA has carefully considered the parties' proposal in light of its

earlier concern that a MRPB provision must provide sufficient guidance

to licensed health care professionals as to when medical removal is

indicated. OSHA concludes that the MRPB provision recommended by the

parties delineates with sufficient specificity the circumstances that

can trigger medical removal protection benefits. First, the provision

requires MRPB only if the PLHCP finds that the employee has an

identifiable disease of one or more specific organs that are known to

be susceptible to MC exposure. Second, by providing for a rebuttable

presumption that such a disease will not be aggravated by exposure to

MC below the 8-hour TWA PEL, the parties' proposal ensures that the

physician or other health care professional will take into account the

level of methylene chloride to which the worker is exposed. OSHA

believes that, with these constraints, the parties' proposal will

improve employee confidence and participation in medical surveillance

while providing adequate guidance to the physicians and other licensed

health care professionals who will be conducting medical surveillance

and making recommendations for medical removal under the standard.

OSHA also believes that the ancillary provisions of the MRPB

program recommended by the parties are appropriate. The parties have

patterned their recommendation on the existing OSHA standards that

provide for MRPB. OSHA agrees that provisions it has routinely included

as part of a MRPB program, including those providing for a multi-step

review process, should be included in the methylene chloride standard.

OSHA continues to believe that multi-step review is vital to ensuring

employee confidence in medical removal determinations and is a

necessary part of any standard that provides for medical removal

protection benefits.

The one provision in the parties' proposal with no direct

counterpart in earlier standards that provide for MRPB is the provision

in proposed paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B) that would allow an employer who

has already removed one or more employees under paragraph (j)(11) to

retain an additional employee in the existing job despite a removal

recommendation if removal would result in undue economic burden. In

such a situation, the parties propose that the employer must provide

enhanced medical surveillance to the employee and must ensure that the

employee who is not removed is fully informed of the health risk

presented by continued MC exposure.

OSHA agrees with the parties that, in the limited circumstances

specified in this provision, it is appropriate to allow an employer to

retain an employee in his or her present job, even when the PLHCP has

recommended removal, provided the employer ensures that the employee

receives the more frequent medical surveillance specified in the

proposed provision and is fully aware of the health risk. Frequent

medical surveillance and full information will enable the employer and

employee to take steps to minimize the risk under exiting workplace

conditions, by, for example, implementing those controls that are in

place and strictly following work practices that are designed to

minimize the employee's MC exposure. Thus, the parties' proposal

provides additional protection to those workers who would be retained

in their current jobs under paragraph (j)(11)(i)(B).

[[Page 24506]]

IV. Extensions of Startup Dates

The motion for reconsideration requests that the standard's current

final engineering control startup date of April 10, 2000, which is

limited in the final standard to employers with fewer than 20

employees, also apply to employers in the specified application groups

who have 20-49 employees and to foam fabricators who have 20-149

employees. According to the parties employers in these application

groups and size categories, like those with fewer than 20 employees,

have limited resources with which to develop and implement engineering

controls and will be able to use those resources more efficiently if

given additional time to develop and install effective controls and to

take advantage of the compliance assistance that OSHA plans to offer.

The motion requests shorter extensions of the engineering control dates

for larger employers in these application groups.

The parties further request that respirator use to achieve the 8-

hour TWA PEL (currently required by Aug. 31, 1998 under a partial stay

issued by OSHA on Dec. 18, 1997, 62 FR 66275) not be required before

the engineering control startup dates for those employers covered by

the motion. They contend that workers would be better protected if

these employers can concentrate their limited resources on implementing

effective engineering controls rather than diverting part of those

resources to interim and expensive respiratory protection that would no

longer be needed a short time later, once full compliance with the 8-

hour TWA PEL and STEL is achieved by engineering controls.

The following chart shows the startup dates requested by the motion

for reconsideration. Where the startup date for a provision has already

passed, the chart lists that provision as being ``in effect.'' For the

reasons discussed below, OSHA is now proposing to adopt the startup

dates requested by the parties to the motion.

Proposed Startup Dates

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

Selected applications

Selected applications \1\ with 50 or more

Employers with fewer Polyurethane foam \1\ with 1-49 employees and foam All other employers

than 20 employees mfrs. with 20 or more employees and foam fabricators with 150 with 20 or more

employees fabricators with 1- or more employees employees

149 employees

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

Engineering controls to achieve 8- April 10, 2000 October 10, 1999 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.

hour TWA PEL and STEL. (unchanged from

current standard).

Respirators to achieve 8-hour TWA April 10, 2000 \2\.... October 10, 2000 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.

PEL.

Respirators to achieve STEL........ In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.

All other provisions............... In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.

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

\1\ As described earlier, the selected applications are furniture refinishing; general aviation aircraft stripping; product formulation; use of MC-based

adhesive for boat building and repair, recreational vehicle manufacture, van conversion, or upholstery; and use of MC in construction work for

restoration and preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making, or floor refinishing and resurfacing.

\2\ Under a partial stay issued on December 18, 1997 (62 FR 66275) these dates are now December 10, 1998 for engineering controls and August 31, 1998

for respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL.

OSHA generally agrees that worker protection against MC exposure

will best be achieved if employers develop and install effective

engineering controls as soon as practicable. OSHA has long recognized

that engineering controls are superior to respiratory protection as a

means of protecting workers against inhalation of toxic chemicals.

Engineering controls protect workers by reducing the airborne

concentrations of methylene chloride to or below permitted limits.

Their effectiveness does not, unlike respirator use, depend on the

respiratory protection functioning as designed or on employers

effectively supervising employees to ensure that they use and maintain

respiratory equipment consistently and properly. Respirators also may

present safety hazards by limiting workers' mobility, vision, and

ability to communicate.

The agency also recognizes that employers require a reasonable

amount of time to develop and install engineering controls. Engineering

controls, such as local exhaust ventilation, must be properly designed

and installed if they are to work efficiently. The parties request that

OSHA help employers in the application groups for which relief is

sought to develop effective engineering controls by offering compliance

assistance that will give those employers guidance as to appropriate

engineering controls and avoid the uncertainty and expense that would

result if each employer were to attempt to design and implement its own

controls. OSHA agrees that compliance assistance would help employers

use their resources more efficiently and plans to offer such

assistance. Already, OSHA has developed Fact Sheets for a number of

applications that identify engineering controls and work practices that

employers can use to protect their employees against MC exposure. OSHA

has also developed a small entity compliance guide and has started

conducting a series of outreach seminars on the MC standard in various

cities around the country. OSHA intends to add to this information base

to further help employers to develop engineering controls that would be

both effective and feasible to implement in their facilities.

Although OSHA has long recognized the superiority of engineering

controls, respirator use is necessary when engineering and work

practice controls cannot achieve the required exposure levels. The

Agency has consistently required that respirators be used when feasible

engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve permissible

exposure limits. OSHA also requires the use of respirators for interim

protection while engineering controls are being developed and

installed. For most toxic chemicals, air-purifying respirators, which

are relatively inexpensive, provide effective protection at most

workplace exposure levels. However, air-purifying respirators do not

provide effective protection against MC exposure because MC quickly

penetrates all currently available organic vapor cartridges. Therefore,

when respirators are required under the MC standard,

[[Page 24507]]

atmosphere-supplying respirators must be used.

Atmosphere-supplying respirators are a relatively expensive type of

respiratory equipment, requiring the employer not only to purchase the

respiratory equipment itself but also to install an air compressor and

associated ductwork or rent cylinders containing breathing air. In

light of the relatively high cost associated with the atmosphere-

supplying respirators required by the MC standard, OSHA agrees with the

parties that the standard should permit employers in the identified

application groups to concentrate their limited resources on developing

permanent engineering solutions rather than diverting part of those

resources to interim respiratory protection to achieve the 8-hour TWA

PEL.

OSHA further notes that the parties' proposal will provide workers

with significant interim protection before the final compliance

deadline of April 10, 2000 or by whatever earlier date controls are

required. First, under the parties' proposal, the STEL will go into

effect as scheduled, and employers will be required to ensure that some

combination of engineering controls, work practice controls, and

respiratory protection reduce exposures below that level. Workers will

therefore be protected against acute health effects associated with

high short-term exposure to MC. Moreover, reduction of short-term

exposures to below the STEL will, in many cases, help reduce 8-hour

time-weighted average exposures as well and will thereby provide

workers with some interim protection against the chronic effects of MC

exposure.

The parties' proposal will also not delay compliance with the

requirement that employers implement feasible work practices to reduce

MC exposures. Such controls can achieve significant reductions in MC

exposures in many workplaces at low cost. Early implementation of work

practice controls will also enable employers to evaluate the extent to

which exposures can be reduced by such controls and will enable them to

better determine the nature and extent of the engineering controls they

will need to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL and STEL. Furthermore, the

remaining protections of the standard (regulated areas, protective work

clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities, hazard communication,

employee information and training, and recordkeeping) will take effect

as currently scheduled for all employers.

In many workplace situations, adherence to careful work practices

will achieve substantial reductions in MC exposures. In its Fact

Sheets, OSHA has identified feasible work practices for several of the

application groups (furniture refinishing, polyurethane foam

manufacturing, construction work) for which the parties seek relief.

Many of the identified work practices would be feasible for and useful

to facilities in other application groups as well. To facilitate

widespread dissemination of the information on work practices in the

Fact Sheets, OSHA is listing them below.

A. Furniture Refinishers

Keep MC Vapors Contained

Keep the door to mixing/storage areas closed at all times.

Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.

Properly label all MC containers to indicate their

contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these

labels and follow the directions.

Keep solution containers closed tightly when not in use.

Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of stripping

solutions.

Keep dip tanks and reservoir tanks covered when not in

use.

Keep the stripping solution at the appropriate temperature

(often around 70 deg. F). At this temperature, wax in the solution will

form a vapor barrier that prevents the solution from evaporating too

quickly. If the temperature is too high or too low, the wax will not

form a vapor barrier.

Do not let sludge dry on the stripping table. Place the

wet sludge in sealed containers for later recovery or disposal, or dry

it using proper engineering controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation)

to capture the MC vapors.

Avoid Breathing MC Vapors

Turn on the dip tank or stripping table ventilation system

at least an hour before work begins or leave it on overnight.

Avoid breathing air directly above the stripping solution

and dip tank. Do not lean over the tank when working.

Avoid breathing the air directly above the furniture

during manual stripping. Do not lean over an area covered with

stripper.

Do not work or stand between solution-covered furniture

and the exhaust system.

Turn the solution-recycling system off when it is not

being used.

Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.

People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,

which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average

permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can

quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.

If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms

of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.

Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks

Develop and follow your facility's procedures for

detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill

control devices.

Frequently inspect process equipment, holding tanks, and

spill control devices for cracks, loose parts, and other possible

sources of leaks.

Where spills occur, follow procedures for containing them.

Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.

Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to

clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all

metal safety container) immediately after use.

Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by

employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces

MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,

unventilated spaces such as tanks and maintenance pits.

Do not enter or lean into a storage tank, dip tank, or

low-lying confined area until it has been completely aired out and

tested. Wear proper PPE and follow the appropriate confined space entry

procedures outlined in OSHA's Permit Required Confined Spaces standard

(29 CFR 1910.146).

Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop

into a confined space or low-lying area.

B. Polyurethane Foam Manufacturers

Keep MC Vapors Contained

Keep the doors to the pouring and cooling areas closed at

all times.

Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.

Properly label all MC containers to indicate their

contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these

labels and follow the directions.

Keep MC containers closed tightly when not in use.

Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC.

Keep the openings on the sides of the tunnel closed when

it is not in use.

[[Page 24508]]

This keeps MC vapors from escaping and ensures that the makeup air

system at the end of the tunnel runs well.

Avoid Breathing MC Vapors

Turn on local exhaust ventilation systems in the tunnel

and cooling rooms at least an hour before work begins or leave them on

overnight.

Turn on the general ventilation system in the cooling room

at least an hour before work beings or leave it on overnight.

Avoid breathing air directly above cooling foam.

When possible, minimize the amount of time spent near the

cooling foam and tunnel openings because these areas are likely to have

the highest levels of MC vapors.

Do not work or stand between cooling foam and the exhaust

system.

Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.

People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,

which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average

permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can

quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.

If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms

of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.

Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks

Develop and follow your facility's procedures for

detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill

control devices.

Frequently inspect the tunnel and other equipment for

cracks, loose parts, and other possible sources of leaks.

Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.

Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to

clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all

metal safety container) immediately after use.

Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by

employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces

MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,

unventilated spaces.

Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until

it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow

the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's

Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).

Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop

into a confined space or low-lying area.

C. Construction Work

Keep MC Vapors Contained

Store and transport MC products only in approved safety

containers.

Properly label all MC containers to indicate their

contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these

labels and follow the directions.

Keep MC product containers closed tightly when not in use.

Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC products.

Avoid Breathing MC Vapors

Avoid breathing the air directly above areas covered with

MC. Do not lean over an area covered with MC.

Do not work or stand between MC-covered areas and the

exhaust system.

Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.

People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,

which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average

permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm.

Also, your sense of smell can quickly get used to the odor of MC so

that you stop noticing it.

If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms

of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.

Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks

Develop and follow procedures for containing MC spills or

leaks.

Frequently inspect MC product containers for cracks or

other possible sources of leaks.

Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.

Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to

clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all

metal safety container) immediately after use.

Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by

employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

Take extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces

MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,

unventilated spaces.

Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until

it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow

the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's

Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).

Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop in

area where MC is being used.

V. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (j), Medical Surveillance, of

the final rule governing occupational exposure to methlylene chloride

(MC) (29 CFR 1910.1052) to add medical removal protection benefits to

the rule. This preliminary economic analysis estimates the costs of

complying with the proposed MRP provisions and then assesses the

economic feasibility and potential economic impacts of these costs on

firms in the affected sectors. The information used in this analysis is

taken from the exposure profile, industry profile, and economic impacts

analysis presented in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) that

accompanied OSHA's final rule for methylene chloride (Federal Register

Vol. 62, 7, pp. 1494 to 1619). Relying on the data developed for the

analysis to support this proposed revision to the final rule ensures

analytical consistency and comparability across the two economic

analysis documents.

OSHA's final MC rule did not contain medical removal protection

provisions. The revisions being proposed today respond to a motion for

reconsideration filed by the United Auto Workers (UAW), the Halogenated

Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., and others. As requested in that

motion, OSHA is proposing to add paragraphs (j)(9)(i) (A) and (B),

(j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14), dealing with medical

removal protection, medical removal protection benefits, voluntary

removal or restriction of an employee, and multiple health care

professional review, respectively, to the final rule. Medical removal

protection (MRP) would apply only under certain limited circumstances,

i.e., medical removal protection would be required only if a physician

or other licensed health care professional finds that exposure to MC

may contribute to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac,

hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or dermal disease. The

proposed rule instructs the physician or other licensed health care

professional to presume that a medical condition is unlikely to require

removal form exposure to MC,

[[Page 24509]]

unless medical evidence indicates to the contrary, if the employee is

not exposed to MC at concentrations above the 8-hour TWA PEL of 25 ppm.

The physician or other licensed health care professional may also

recommend removal from exposure to MC for any other condition that

would, in the health care professional's opinion, place the employee's

health at risk of material impairment from exposure to MC, but MRP

would only be triggered by a finding that exposure to MC may contribute

to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological

(including stroke), or dermal disease.

Any employee medically removed must (1) be provided with comparable

work where MC exposures are below the action level, or (2) be

completely removed from MC exposure. The employee's total pay, benefits

and seniority must be maintained throughout the period of medical

removal protection, even if the only way to remove the employee from MC

exposure is to send him or her home for the duration of the medical

removal protection period. The employer may reduce the amount paid to

the removed worker to the extent that the worker's previous pay has

been offset by other compensation (such as worker's compensation

payments) or by wages from another job made possible by the medical

removal.

The proposal would require employers to maintain medical removal

protection benefits for up to six months. Medical removal protection

may be terminated in less than 6 months if a medical determination

shows that the employee may return to MC exposure, or a medical

determination is made that the employee can never return to MC

exposure.

In situations in which no comparable work is available for the

medically removed employee, the proposal would allow the employer to

demonstrate that the medical removal and the costs of medical removal

protection benefits, considering feasibility in relation to the size of

the employer's business and the other requirements of this standard,

make reliance on medical removal protection an inappropriate remedy. In

such a situation, the employer may retain the employee in the existing

job until transfer or removal becomes appropriate, provided that the

employer ensures that the employee receives additional medical

surveillance, including a physical examination at least every 60 days

until removal or transfer occurs, and that the employer or PLHCP

informs the employee of the risk to the employee's health from

continued MC exposure.

In conducting this economic analysis, OSHA has estimated the number

of workers with the four listed types of conditions (neurological,

hepatic, cardiac, and dermal disease) that can trigger MRP. OSHA has

assumed that medical removal protection would be extended only to

employees exposed above the PEL, as reflected by the presumption. This

analysis also assumes that all employers will provide medical removal

protection whenever a physician or other licensed health care provider

recommends removal, i.e., OSHA has not quantified the number of times

small firms may retain an employee for whom a removal recommendation

has been made in the employee's existing job due to the employer's

financial inability to remove the employee. Because some very small

firms may find that medical removal protection is infeasible in their

circumstances but this cost analysis assumes that all such employees

will be removed, OSHA believes that this analysis is likely to

overestimate the costs associated with MRP.

Cost of Medical Removal Protection Provisions

OSHA's estimates of the costs of the proposed medical removal

protection provisions are calculated based on the number of workers

eligible for medical removal protection times the frequency of the

medical conditions that would trigger medical removal protection in the

exposed population times the costs of medical removal protection for

each type of medical condition.

Number of Workers Eligible for Medical Removal Protection Under the

Proposal

Because of the presumption stated explicitly in the proposed

revisions, medical removal protection will be limited in almost all

cases to employees exposed to MC at concentrations above the PEL of 25

PPM as an 8-hour TWA. The Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) estimated

that approximately 55,000 employees in all affected application groups

are currently exposed above 25 ppm. This estimate is used here to

calculate the number of employees potentially eligible for medical

removal protection during the year in which medical removal protection

would be in effect but the engineering control requirements of the rule

would not yet be in effect for some of the application groups. Once the

implementation of engineering controls is required, OSHA assumes, for

the purposes of this analysis, that 10 percent of those employees

previously exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm (5,500 employees)

would continue to be exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm.

OSHA believes that reliance on these assumptions will lead to an

overestimate of the number of employees eligible for medical removal

protection because some firms will have implemented controls and lower

the exposure of their employees well before the final standard requires

them to do so. Once the standard requires employers to implement

engineering controls, OSHA's Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129)

estimated that the exposure of almost all employees would be reduced to

MC levels below 25 ppm as a 8-hour TWA. To capture all costs

potentially associated with the proposed medical removal protection

provisions, OSHA has assumed for this analysis that some employees will

continue to be exposed above 25 ppm.

Frequency of Medical Removal Protection Under the Proposed Provisions

The proposed changes to the occupational exposure to methylene

chloride standard allow for medical removal protection in the event

that exposure to methylene chloride ``may contribute to or aggravate

existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or skin

disease.'' Medical removal protection does not apply if the condition

is such that removal from MC exposure must be permanent.

OSHA believes that MC-induced or aggravated neurological symptoms

(other than stoke) occur infrequently and that when such protection is

triggered by neurological manifestations (other than stroke), the

period of time involved in the removal will be relatively brief. OSHA

also believes that MC-induced or aggravated heart conditions or strokes

are likely to result in permanent medical removal, and thus that

employers will not incur the costs of medical removal protection in

these cases. This analysis therefore focuses on medical removal

protection for MC-induced or aggravated dermatitis or abnormal hepatic

conditions. Each of these conditions is likely to resolve with time,

proper treatment, or both, and these are therefore the conditions

likely to result in a determination that temporary medical removal

protection, rather than permanent removal, is needed.

Because the proposal would provide for medical removal protection

in situations where exposure to MC contributes to or aggravates the

listed condition, this analysis focuses on the frequency with which

each covered

[[Page 24510]]

condition occurs in the working population, and not simply on the

frequency with which MC causes these conditions. For the first year

after the MRP provisions are in effect, OSHA has no evidence that

hepatic conditions are more prevalent in workplaces that use MC than in

the general working age population and therefore assumes that the

prevalence of hepatic conditions will be the same as in the general

working age population (18-65). OSHA estimates that 5 percent of the

working population will be found on evaluation to have hepatic

conditions sufficiently abnormal to trigger medical removal.

For dermatitis, which is seldom a lasting condition, OSHA similarly

assumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the

prevalence in the MC-exposed workforce is the same as the rate in the

general working age population. For dermatitis, Vital and Health

Statistics (National Center for Health Statistics, 1995) reports that,

in 1993, the prevalence of dermatitis was 2.93 percent for persons

between 18 and 45 and 2.18 percent for persons between 45 and65.

Weighting using the BLS data cited above, OSHA finds that 2.7 percent

of the MC-exposed workforce will be found on the first required medical

evaluation to have dermatitis and will be medically removed.

After the proposed standard has been in effect for the first year,

OSHA assumes that the prevalence of dermatitis will continue at the

same rate. For liver conditions, OSHA assumes that most of the

conditions that triggered removal in the first year will have been

resolved and that the number of older cases that flare up and have to

be treated again, combined with new cases that trigger medical removal,

will occur at a combined rate \1/5\ that of the initial rate.

Costs of Medical Removal Protection

Employers incur three kinds of costs for medical removal

protection: costs for medical evaluations not already required; costs

resulting from changing the employee's job, such as those related to

retraining and lost productivity; and, where alternative jobs that do

not involve MC exposure are not available, the costs of keeping a

worker who is not working on the payroll.

Employers may incur costs for medical evaluations (over and above

those already required for medical surveillance) for two reasons: to

determine if the employee can return to work, and to determine, using

multiple PLHCP review, whether the initial medical determination was

correct. Because the proposal allows employees to be removed from

medical removal protection status only on the basis of a new medical

determination, every instance of medical removal protection will

require one additional examination. OSHA estimated the cost of a

medical examination at $130 in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129).

Every case of medical removal protection would require at least one

additional medical evaluation. In addition, OSHA estimates that 10

percent of all removed cases will require a second medical evaluation

either for the purpose of multiple health care professional review or

because the first examination showed that the employee could not yet be

returned to normal duty.

The largest MRP-related costs in almost all cases will be the cost

of paying for time away from work for the removed employee. OSHA

estimates that the typical dermatitis case will involve 6 days away

from work. BLS (BLS, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts,

Rates, and Characteristics, 1994) reports that, in 1994, the typical

lost worktime case of dermatitis involved 3 days away from work. OSHA

allowed an additional three days to allow time for a return-to-work

determination to be made. For medical removal for hepatic conditions,

OSHA estimates that a 4-week period of medical removal will normally be

sufficient to provide for stabilization and a return to the normal

range for the typical case of elevated liver enzymes. Because almost no

cases will be resolved in less than 4 weeks and a small number of cases

(such as those involving serious liver disease) may take much longer to

resolve, OSHA's cost estimate estimates 5 weeks as the average period

of medical removal for these cases.

For the short-term medical removal associated with dermatitis, OSHA

has conservatively assumed that the employee will be paid full wages

and benefits even though not at work. For the longer term medical

removal associated with hepatic conditions, OSHA estimates that, in

firms with more than 20 employees, alternative jobs not involving

exposure to MC will be found for affected employees. OSHA estimates the

costs of moving employees to alternative jobs as equivalent to the loss

of 20 person hours in lost productivity and/or retraining expenses. For

firms with fewer than 20 employees, OSHA expects that there may be more

difficulty finding alternative positions both because fewer alternative

positions are available and because more positions in the establishment

are likely to involve exposure to MC.

For the very small firms in furniture stripping, where all jobs may

involve exposure to MC, OSHA has assumed that all cases of medical

removal will involve removing employees from work entirely, and thus

that employers will incur the full costs of the employee's wages and

benefits for the five weeks the employee is medically removed. Firms

with fewer than 20 employees in other application groups tend to be

somewhat larger than in furniture stripping and will therefore be more

likely to have work that does not involve exposure to MC at levels

above the action level. For example, in such small-business-dominated

application groups as printing shops, and in small cold cleaning and

paint stripping operations, exposure to MC tends to involve only a

single employee and is commonly intermittent even for that employee.

For establishments with fewer than 20 employees in application groups

other than furniture stripping, OSHA estimates that 50% will be able to

find alternative employment and 50% will need to send the employee home

because alternative jobs without MC exposure cannot be found.

Annualized Cost Estimates

Table 1 shows OSHA's estimated annualized costs for firms in each

application group. The total annualized costs for medical removal

protection are estimated to be $920,387 per year for all affected

employers. The greatest costs are in the cold cleaning application

group, the all other industrial paint stripping application group, the

construction application group, and the furniture stripping application

group. All of these application groups have annualized MRP costs in

excess of $100,000 per year.

Table 1.--Annualized Costs of MRP for Methylene Chloride Application

Groups

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

Annualized

Application group costs ($)

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

Methylene Chloride Manufacturing........................... 70

Distribution/Formulation of Solvents....................... 6,597

Metal Cleaning:

Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning................ 307,216

Open-Top Vapor Degreasing.............................. 2,709

Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing.......................... 378

Semiconductors......................................... 1,147

Printed Circuit Boards................................. 0

Aerosol Packaging.......................................... 2,875

Paint Remover Manufacturing................................ 593

Paint Manufacturing........................................ 823

Paint Stripping:

Aircraft Stripping..................................... 9,662

[[Page 24511]]

Furniture Stripping.................................... 80,579

All Other Industrial Paint Stripping................... 206,619

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing................... 4,296

Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use............... 52,639

Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing.......................... 182

Ink Solvent Use............................................ 53,298

Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation.................... 541

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing............................... 3,576

Solvent Recovery........................................... 0

Film Base Manufacturing.................................... 0

Polycarbonate Manufacturing................................ 0

Construction............................................... 115,297

Shipyards.................................................. 18,652

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

Total, All Application Groups.......................... 920,387

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

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor.

Table 2.--Screening Analysis To Identify Possible Economic Impacts of the Proposed MC Standard's Medical Removal

Provisions

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

Annualized costs of compliance

Number of -------------------------------

Application group affected as percent of as percent of

establishments sales profit

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

Manufacture of MC............................................... 4 0.0000 0.0004

Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 320 0.0003 0.0046

Metal Cleaning:

Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 23,717 0.0001 0.0021

Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 278 0.0001 0.0016

Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 45 0.0001 0.0014

Semiconductors.............................................. 239 0.0000 0.0002

Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 141 0.0000 0.0000

Aerosol Packaging............................................... 50 0.0001 0.0012

Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 80 0.0001 0.0015

Paint Manufacturing............................................. 49 0.0001 0.0027

Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping):

Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 300 0.0001 0.0017

Furniture Stripping......................................... 6,152 0.0154 0.2977

All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 35,041 0.0000 0.0010

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 100 0.0003 0.0093

Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 3,487 0.0000 0.0000

Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 15 0.0000 0.0003

Ink Solvent Use................................................. 11,869 0.0004 0.0098

Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 60 0.0001 0.0018

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 108 0.0000 0.0004

Solvent Recovery................................................ 35 0.0000 0.0000

Film Base....................................................... 1 0.0000 0.0000

Polycarbonates.................................................. 4 0.0000 0.0000

Construction.................................................... 9,504 0.0027 0.0705

Shipyards....................................................... 25 0.0025 0.0655

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

All Application Groups.................................... 91,624 0.0014 0.0296

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

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor

Economic Impacts

Table 2 combines the cost data from Table 1 and the economic

profile information provided in the Final Economic Analysis for the

Methylene Chloride rule (Ex. 129) to provide estimates of the potential

impacts of these compliance costs on firms in affected application

groups. The proposed medical removal protection is clearly economically

feasible: on average, annualized compliance costs amount only to 0.0014

percent of estimated sales and 0.03 percent of profits. For all but one

application group--furniture stripping--compliance costs are less than

0.07 percent of profits, and less than 0.003 percent of the value of

sales. Even in furniture stripping, the annualized costs of medical

removal protection are still only 0.015 percent of sales and 0.3

percent of profits. Impacts of this magnitude do not threaten the

economic feasibility of firms in any affected application group. If

highly unusual circumstances were to arise that pose such a threat, the

proposed standard allows specifically for the cost impact to be

considered on a case-by-case basis.

OSHA's cost methodology for this proposal tends to overestimate the

costs and economic impacts of the standard for several reasons. First,

OSHA has not taken into account cost savings that employers will

realize from the extended startup dates that are being proposed. As

discussed above, by extending the startup date for the use of

respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL, this proposal will enable

some employers to avoid using respirators at all because they will

achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL by means of engineering controls before the

date that respirator

[[Page 24512]]

use is required. Such employers will achieve significant cost savings

as compared to the current standard. OSHA has not, however, attempted

to quantify those savings.

Other aspects of OSHA's methodology also tend to result in cost

overestimates. OSHA's use of general population prevalence data to

estimate the prevalence of conditions that might lead to medical

removal overestimates costs by ignoring the possibility that workers in

MC establishments may be healthier than the general population, i.e.,

it ignores the ``healthy worker'' effect. OSHA has also assumed that

all unusual hepatic conditions will lead to medical removal, when in

many cases no medical removal protection will be necessary. Finally,

OSHA has also included in its cost estimate all cases involving medical

removal, when it is in fact likely that some smaller firms would be

able to argue that the cost of extending MRP benefits to an additional

employee would make reliance on MRP an inappropriate remedy and thereby

avoid removing that additional employee, as allowed by the proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification

Tables 3 and 4 provide a regulatory flexibility screening analysis.

As in the analysis for all firms in Table 2, OSHA used the cost data

presented in Table 1 in combination with the data on small firms

presented in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129). Table 3 shows

annualized compliance costs as a percentage of revenues and profits

using SBA definitions of small firms for each relevant SIC code within

each application group. This analysis shows that costs as a percentage

of revenues and profits are slightly greater than is the case for all

firms in the SIC, but still average only 0.0017 percent of revenues and

0.035 percent of profits. The most heavily impacted industry is

furniture stripping, but the impacts in this group are the same for all

firms in the group because all furniture stripping firms are small

using the SBA definition.

Table 3.--Screening Analysis of Potential Economic Impacts on Smaller Firms (Small Establishments and Firms as

Defined by SBA Under Section 3 of The Small Business Act)

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

Number of Costs as a Costs as a

small percentage of percentage of

Application group establishments profits for sales for

affected small firms small firms

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

Manufacture of MC............................................... 0 NA NA

Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 278 0.0005 0.0072

Metal Cleaning:

Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 22.365 0.0003 0.0067

Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 262 0.0003 0.0051

Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 42 0.0002 0.0044

Semiconductors.............................................. 185 0.0000 0.0002

Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 109 0.0000 0.0000

Aerosol Packaging............................................... 47 0.0002 0.0019

Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 77 0.0001 0.0026

Paint Manufacturing............................................. 62 0.0002 0.0045

Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping)............................. 77 0.0001 0.0026

Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 173 0.0004 0.0088

Furniture Stripping......................................... 6,152 0.0154 0.2977

All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 33,044 0.0001 0.0029

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 49 0.0001 0.0034

Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 3,281 0.0002 0.0031

Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 11 0.0000 0.0004

Ink Solvent Use................................................. 9,210 0.0005 0.0106

Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 49 0.0001 0.0034

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 15 NA NA

Solvent Recovery................................................ 24 0.0000 0.0000

Film Base....................................................... 0 NA NA

Polycarbonates.................................................. 0 NA NA

Construction.................................................... 9,086 0.0033 0.0866

Shipyards....................................................... 0 NA 0NA

All Application Groups.................................... 84,573 0.0017 0.0352

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

NA=No small firms in this application group.

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA; Department of Labor.

Table 4.--Screening Anaylsis of Potential Economic Impacts on Firms With Fewer Than 20 Employees

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

Number of Costs as a Costs as a

small percentage of percentage of

Application group establishments profits for sales for

affected small firms small firms

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

Manufacture of MC............................................... 0 NA NA

Distribution/Formulation of Solvents............................ 139 0.0018% 0.0322%

Metal Cleaning:

Cold Degreasing and Other Cold Cleaning..................... 9,223 0.0005 0.0110

Open-Top Vapor Degreasing................................... 0 NA NA

Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing............................... 11 0.0005 0.0132

Semiconductors.............................................. 0 NA NA

Printed Circuit Boards...................................... 20 0.0000 0.0000

Aerosal Packaging............................................... 10 0.0006 0.0072

Paint Remover Manufacturing..................................... 34 0.0003 0.0114

[[Page 24513]]

Paint Manufacturing............................................. 7 0.0006 0.0194

Paint Remover Use (Paint Stripping)............................. 34 0.0003 0.0114

Aircraft Stripping.......................................... 75 0.0011 0.0335

Furniture Stripping......................................... 5.900 0.0155 0.3034

All Other Industrial Paint Stripping........................ 25,441 0.0002 0.0042

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing........................ 8 0.0010 0.0386

Plastics and Adhesives Manufacturing and Use.................... 498 0.0013 0.0264

Ink and Ink Solvent Manufacturing............................... 3 0.0002 0.0022

Ink Solvent Use................................................. 5,395 0.0011 0.0237

Pesticide Manufacturing and Formulation......................... 40 0.0010 0.0386

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.................................... 0 NA NA

Solvent Recovery................................................ 17 0.0000 0.0000

Film Base....................................................... 0 NA NA

Polycarbonates.................................................. 0 NA NA

Construction.................................................... 9,085 0.0044 0.1596

Shipyards....................................................... 0 NA NA

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

All Application Groups.................................... 55,907 0.0026 0.0644

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

NA=No small firms in this application group.

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis: OSHA; Department of Labor.

As noted in the discussion of costs, firms with fewer than 20

employees are much more likely to incur greater costs for medical

removal protection because such firms may have difficulty in finding a

job that does not involve exposure to MC at levels above the action

level. OSHA therefore examined annualized compliance costs as a

percentage of sales and profits for firms with fewer than 20 employees.

Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. For the typical

affected firm with fewer than 20 employees, the annualized costs of

medical removal protection represent 0.0026 percent of sales and 0.064

percent of profits. Furniture stripping has the greatest potential

impacts--annualized costs are 0.016 percent of sales and 0.3 percent of

profits for firms in this application group. These impacts do not

constitute significant impacts, as envisioned by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. However, because unusually prolonged medical removal

without an alternative job within the establishment might present

problems for these very small firms, the proposed standard includes a

provision requiring special consideration of the economic burden

imposed by medical removal protection when an employer would otherwise

need to provide MRP benefits to more than one employee. This provision

ensures that impacts are not unduly burdensome even in rare and unusual

circumstances. Therefore, based on its analyses both of impacts and

small firms using the SBA definitions, and of very small firms with

fewer than 20 employees, OSHA certifies that the proposed MRP

provisions will not have a significant impact on a substantial number

of small entities.

VI. Public Participation

Comments should be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office by June 3,

1998.

Note: OSHA is only reopening the record for comments on the two

issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration: the compliance dates

and medical removal protection. It is not reopening the record or

requesting comments on any other issues pertaining to the methylene

chloride standard.

Authority and Signature: This document was prepared under the

direction of Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 1998.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

1. The general authority citation for subpart Z of CFR 29 part 1910

continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of

Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48

FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable;

and 29 CFR Part 1911.

* * * * *

2. Section 1910.1052 would be amended by revising paragraphs

(j)(9)(i) (A) and (B) and paragraph (n)(2), and by adding paragraphs

(j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14) as follows:

Sec. 1910.1052 Methylene Chloride.

* * * * *

(j) Medical surveillance.

* * * * *

(9) Written medical opinions.

(i) * * *

(A) The physician or other licensed health care professional's

opinion concerning whether exposure to MC may contribute to or

aggravate the employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological

(including stroke) or dermal disease or whether the employee has any

other medical condition(s) that would place the employee's health at

increased risk of material impairment from exposure to MC.

(B) Any recommended limitations upon the employee's exposure to MC,

including removal from MC exposure, or upon the employee's use of

respirators, protective clothing, or other protective equipment.

* * * * *

(10) Medical Presumption. For purposes of this paragraph (j) of

this section, the physician or other licensed health care professional

shall presume,

[[Page 24514]]

unless medical evidence indicates to the contrary, that a medical

condition is unlikely to require medical removal from MC exposure if

the employee is not exposed to MC above the 8-hour TWA PEL. If the

physician or other licensed health care professional recommends removal

for an employee exposed below the 8-hour TWA PEL, the physician or

other licensed health care professional shall cite specific medical

evidence, sufficient to rebut the presumption that exposure below the

8-hour TWA PEL is unlikely to require removal, to support the

recommendation. If such evidence is cited by the physician or other

licensed health care professional, the employer must remove the

employee. If such evidence is not cited by the physician or other

licensed health care professional, the employer is not required to

remove the employee.

(11) Medical Removal Protection (MRP). (i) Temporary medical

removal and return of an employee.

(A) Except as provided in paragraph (j)(10) of this section, when a

medical determination recommends removal because the employee's

exposure to MC may contribute to or aggravate the employee's existing

cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or skin disease, the

employer must provide medical removal protection benefits to the

employee and either:

(1) Transfer the employee to comparable work where methylene

chloride exposure is below the action level; or

(2) Remove the employee from MC exposure.

(B) If comparable work is not available and the employer is able to

demonstrate that removal and the costs of extending MRP benefits to an

additional employee, considering feasibility in relation to the size of

the employer's business and the other requirements of this standards,

make further reliance on MRP an inappropriate remedy, the employer may

retain the additional employee in the existing job until transfer or

removal becomes appropriate, provided:

(1) The employer ensures that the employee receives additional

medical surveillance, including a physical examination at least every

60 days until transfer or removal occurs; and

(2) The employer or PLHCP informs the employee of the risk to the

employee's health from continued MC exposure.

(C) The employer shall maintain in effect any job-related

protective measures or limitations, other than removal, for as long as

a medical determination recommends them to be necessary.

(ii) End of MRP benefits and return of the employee to former job

status.

(A) The employer may cease providing MRP benefits at the earliest

of the following:

(1) Six months;

(2) Return of the employee to the employee's former job status

following receipt of a medical determination concluding that the

employee's exposure to MC no longer will aggravate any cardiac,

hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or dermal disease;

(3) Receipt of a medical determination concluding that the employee

can never return to MC exposure.

(B) For the purposes of this paragraph (j), the requirement that an

employer return an employee to the employee's former job status is not

intended to expand upon or restrict any rights an employee has or would

have had, absent temporary medical removal, to a specific job

classification or position under the terms of a collective bargaining

agreement.

(12) Medical Removal Protection Benefits. (i) For purposes of this

paragraph (j), the term medical removal protection benefits means that,

for each removal, an employer must maintain for up to six months the

earnings, seniority, and other employment rights and benefits of the

employee as though the employee had not been removed from MC exposure

or transferred to a comparable job.

(ii) During the period of time that an employee is removed from

exposure to MC, the employer may condition the provision of medical

removal protection benefits upon the employee's participation in

follow-up medical surveillance made available pursuant to this section.

(iii) If a removed employee files a workers' compensation claim for

an MC-related disability, the employer shall continue the MRP benefits

required by this paragraph until either the claim is resolved or the 6-

month period for payment of MRP benefits has passed, whichever occurs

first. To the extent the employee is entitled to indemnity payments for

earnings lost during the period of removal, the employer's obligation

to provide medical removal protection benefits to the employee shall be

reduced by the amount of such indemnity payments.

(iv) The employer's obligation to provide medical removal

protection benefits to a removed employee shall be reduced to the

extent that the employee receives compensation for earnings lost during

the period of removal from either a publicly or an employer-funded

compensation program, or receives income from employment with another

employer made possible by virtue of the employee's removal.

(13) Voluntary Removal or Restriction of an Employee. Where an

employer, although not required by this section to do so, removes an

employee from exposure to MC or otherwise places any limitation on an

employee due to the effects of MC exposure on the employee's medical

condition, the employer shall provide medical removal protection

benefits to the employee equal to those required by paragraph (j)(12)

of this section.

(14) Multiple Health Care Professional Review Mechanism. (i) If the

employer selects the initial physician or licensed health care

professional (PLHCP) to conduct any medical examination or consultation

provided to an employee under this paragraph (j)(11), the employer

shall notify the employee of the right to seek a second medical opinion

each time the employer provides the employee with a copy of the written

opinion of that PLHCP.

(ii) If the employee does not agree with the opinion of the

employer-selected PLHCP, notifies the employer of that fact, and takes

steps to make an appointment with a second PLHCP within 15 days of

receiving a copy of the written opinion of the initial PLHCP, the

employer shall pay for the PLHCP chosen by the employee to perform at

least the following:

(A) Review any findings, determinations or recommendations of the

initial PLHCP; and

(B) Conduct such examinations, consultations, and laboratory tests

as the PLHCP deems necessary to facilitate this review.

(iii) If the findings, determinations or recommendations of the

second PLHCP differ from those of the initial PLHCP, then the employer

and the employee shall instruct the two health care professional to

resolve the disagreement.

(iv) If the two health care professionals are unable to resolve

their disagreement within 15 days, then those two health care

professionals shall jointly designate a PLHCP who is a specialist in

the field at issue. The employer shall pay for the specialist to

perform at least the following:

(A) Review the findings, determinations, and recommendations of the

first two PLHCPs; and

(B) Conduct such examinations, consultations, laboratory tests and

discussions with the prior PLHCPs as the specialist deems necessary to

resolve the disagreements of the prior health care professionals.

[[Page 24515]]

(v) The written opinion of the specialist shall be the definitive

medical determination. The employer shall act consistent with the

definitive medical determination, unless the employer and employee

agree that the written opinion of one of the other two PLHCPs shall be

the definitive medical determination.

(vi) The employer and the employee or authorized employee

representative may agree upon the use of any expeditious alternate

health care professional determination mechanism in lieu of the

multiple health care professional review mechanism provided by this

paragraph so long as the alternate mechanism otherwise satisfies the

requirements contained in this paragraph.

* * * * *

(n) Dates.

* * * * *

(2) Start-up dates.

(i) Initial Monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section

shall be completed according to the following schedule:

(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees, within 300 days

after the effective date of this section.

(B) For polyurethane foam manufacturers with 20 to 99 employees,

within 255 days after the effective date of this section.

(C) For all other employers, within 150 days after the effective

date of this section.

(ii) Engineering controls required under paragraph (f)(1) of this

section shall be implemented according to the following schedule:

(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees: within three (3)

years after the effective date of this section.

(B) For employers with fewer than 150 employees engaged in foam

fabrication; for employers with fewer than 50 employees engaged in

furniture refinishing, general aviation aircraft stripping, and product

formulation; for employers with fewer than 50 employees using MC-based

adhesives for boat building and repair, recreational vehicle

manufacture, van conversion, and upholstering; for employers with fewer

than 50 employees using MC in construction work for restoration and

preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making

and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing: within three (3) years after

the effective date of this section.

(C) For employers engaged in polyurethane foam manufacturing with

20 employees or more: within thirty (30) months after the effective

date of this section.

(D) For employers with 150 or more employees engaged in foam

fabrication; for employers with 50 or more employees engaged in

furniture refinishing, general aviation aircraft stripping, and product

fabrication; for employers with 50 or more employees using MC-based

adhesives in boat building and repair, recreational vehicle

manufacture, van conversion and upholstering; and for employers with 50

or more employees using MC in construction work for restoration and

preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making

and/or floor refinishing and resurfacing: within two (2) years after

the effective date of this section.

(E) For all other employers: within one (1) year after the

effective date of this section.

(iii) Employers identified in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) (B), (C), and

(D) of this section shall comply with the following requirements listed

in this paragraph by the dates indicated:

(A) Use of respiratory protection whenever an employee's exposure

to MC exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the 8-hour TWA

PEL, in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1) and (g)(1) of

this section: by the applicable dates set out in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)

(B), (C) and (D) of this section for the installation of engineering

controls.

(B) Use of respiratory protection whenever an employee's exposure

to MC exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the STEL in

accordance with paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(1), and (g)(1) of this section:

by the applicable dates indicated in paragraph (n)(2)(iv) of this

section.

(C) Implementation of work practices (such as leak and spill

detection, cleanup and enclosure of containers) required by paragraph

(f)(1) of this section: by the applicable dates indicated in paragraph

(n)(2)(iv) of this section.

(D) Notification of corrective action under paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of

this section: no later than (90) days before the compliance date

applicable to such corrective action.

(iv) Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (n), all other

requirements of this section shall be complied with according to the

following schedule:

(A) For employers with fewer than 20 employees, within one (1) year

after the effective date of this section.

(B) For employers engaged in polyurethane foam manufacturing with

20 to 99 employees, within 270 days after the effective date of this

section.

(C) For all other employers, within 255 days after the effective

date of this section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-11797 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M