Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health, 49956-49968 [2015-19226]
Download as PDF
49956
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952,
1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956
[Docket No. OSHA–2014–0009]
RIN 1218–AC76
Streamlining of Provisions on State
Plans for Occupational Safety and
Health
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document primarily
proposes to amend OSHA regulations to
remove the detailed descriptions of
State plan coverage, purely historical
data, and other unnecessarily codified
information. In addition, this document
proposes to move most of the general
provisions of subpart A of part 1952 into
part 1902, where the general regulations
on State plan criteria are found. It also
proposes to amend several other OSHA
regulations to delete references to part
1952, which would no longer apply.
The purpose of these proposed revisions
is to eliminate the unnecessary
codification of material in the Code of
Federal Regulations and save the time
and funds currently expended in
publicizing State plan revisions. The
proposed streamlining of OSHA State
plan regulations would not change the
areas of coverage or any other
substantive components of any State
plan. It also does not affect the rights
and responsibilities of the State plans,
or any employers or employees, except
to eliminate the burden on State plan
designees to keep paper copies of
approved State plans and plan
supplements in an office, and to submit
multiple copies of proposed State plan
documents to OSHA. This document
also contains a request for comments for
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), which covers all collection
of information requirements in OSHA
State plan regulations.
DATES: Comments and additional
materials (including comments on the
information-collection (paperwork)
determination described under the
section titled SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of this document) must be
submitted (post-marked, sent or
received) by September 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number OSHA–
2014–0009, or regulatory information
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
number (RIN) 1218–AC76 by any of the
following methods:
Electronically: You may submit
comments and attachments
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions; or
Fax: If your submission, including
attachments, does not exceed 10 pages,
you may fax them to the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693–1648; or
U.S. mail, hand delivery, express
mail, messenger or courier service: You
must submit your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA–2014–0009, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–2625,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2350 (OSHA’s TTY number is (877)
889–5627). Deliveries (hand, express
mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of
Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m.,
EST.
Instructions for submitting comments:
All submissions must include the
Docket Number (Docket No. OSHA–
2014–0009) or the RIN number (RIN
1218–AC76) for this rulemaking.
Because of security-related procedures,
submission by regular mail may result
in significant delay. Please contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information
about security procedures for making
submissions by hand delivery, express
delivery and messenger or courier
service.
All comments, including any personal
information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
caution should be taken in submitting
personal information, such as Social
Security numbers and birth dates.
Docket: To read or download
submissions in response to this Federal
Register document, go to docket number
OSHA–2014–0009, at https://
www.regulations.gov. All submissions
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index: However,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through that Web
page. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Electronic copies of this Federal
Register document are available at
https://www.regulations.gov. This
document, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, is available
at OSHA’s Web page at https://
www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
referenced in this document may be
obtained from: Office of State Programs,
Directorate of Cooperative and State
Programs, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Room N3700,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–2244,
fax (202) 693–1671.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
press inquiries: Francis Meilinger,
OSHA Office of Communications, Room
N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999;
email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
For general and technical
information: Douglas J. Kalinowski,
Director, OSHA Directorate of
Cooperative and State Programs, Room
N–3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2200;
email: kalinowski.doug@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29
U.S.C. 667, provides that States that
desire to assume responsibility for the
development and enforcement of
occupational safety and health
standards may do so by submitting, and
obtaining federal approval of, a State
plan. States may obtain approval for
plans that cover private-sector
employers and State and local
government employers (comprehensive
plans) or for plans that only cover State
and local government employers.
From time to time changes are made
to these State plans, particularly with
respect to the issues which they cover.
Procedures for approval of and changes
to comprehensive State plans are set
forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part
1902 and 29 CFR part 1953. A
description of each comprehensive State
plan has previously been set forth in 29
CFR part 1952, subparts C–FF. These
descriptions have contained the
following sections: Description of the
plan, Developmental schedule,
Completion of developmental steps and
certifications, Staffing benchmarks,
Final approval determination (if
applicable), Level of Federal
enforcement, Location where the State
plan may be physically inspected, and
Changes to approved plan.
Procedures for approval of a State
plan covering State and local
government employees only are set forth
in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1956,
subparts A–C. Pursuant to 29 CFR
1956.21, procedures for changes to these
State plans are also governed by 29 CFR
part 1953. A description of each State
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
plan for State and local government
employees only has previously been set
forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subparts E–
I. These subparts have contained the
following sections: Description of the
plan as certified (or as initially
approved), Developmental schedule,
Completed developmental steps and
certification (if applicable), and
Location of basic State plan
documentation.
The area of coverage of each State
plan has previously been codified at 29
CFR part 1952 under each State’s
subpart within the sections entitled
‘‘Final approval determination’’ and
‘‘Level of Federal enforcement,’’ and in
29 CFR part 1956 within the section on
the description of the plan. Therefore,
any change to a State plan’s coverage or
other part of the State plan description
contained in 29 CFR part 1952 or 29
CFR part 1956 has thus far necessitated
an amendment to the language of the
CFR, which has required the
expenditure of additional time and
resources, such as those needed for
printing. Furthermore, reprinting parts
1952 and 1956 in the annual CFR
publication has necessitated the
expenditure of additional time and
resources. The individual descriptions
of the State plans consisted of 103 pages
in the July 1, 2013 revision of title 29,
part 1927 to end, of the CFR. For these
reasons, OSHA proposes to streamline
parts 1952 and 1956 to delete the
detailed descriptions of State plan
coverage, purely historical data, and
other unnecessarily codified
information, thus saving time and funds
currently expended in publishing
changes to these parts of the CFR.
There is no legal statutory
requirement that individual State plans
be described in the CFR. The CFR is a
codification of the documents of each
agency of the Government having
general applicability and legal effect,
issued or promulgated by the agency in
the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. 1510(a)
and (b). The description of a State plan
is not a document of general
applicability; it only applies to a
particular State. Nevertheless, in this
document, OSHA sets forth brief
descriptions of each State plan that will
be retained in the CFR in part 1952 in
order to make this information readily
available to those conducting legal
research and relying on the CFR. Brief
descriptions of comprehensive plans are
included in subpart A of part 1952 and
brief descriptions of State plans
covering State and local government
employees only are included in subpart
B of part 1952. Any significant changes
that would make these descriptions
outdated, such as a withdrawal or grant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
of final approval, will continue to be
codified in the CFR.
The proposed partial deletions of the
State plan descriptions from the CFR
will not decrease transparency. Each
section of part 1952 would continue to
note each State plan, the date of its
initial approval, and, where applicable,
the date of final approval, the existence
of an operational status agreement, and
the approval of staffing requirements
(‘‘benchmarks’’). Each section would
have a general statement of coverage
indicating whether the plan covers all
private-sector and State and local
government employers, with some
exceptions, or State and local
government employers only. Each
section would also note that current
information about these coverage
exceptions and additional details about
the State plan could be obtained from
the Web page on the OSHA public Web
site describing the particular State plan
(a link would be referenced). The OSHA
Web page for each State plan would also
be updated to include the latest
information on coverage and other
important changes. Furthermore, the
other information about the State plan
that is currently in the CFR would still
be available in the Federal Register, and
could be searched electronically at
https://www.federalregister.gov and
would also be available in printed form.
The Federal Register could also be
searched electronically on commercially
available legal databases. When changes
are made to State plan coverage, all of
the information on coverage would be
reprinted in the Federal Register along
with the change, so that readers would
not have to search through many
Federal Register notices to obtain a
comprehensive description of coverage.
In addition to changing the individual
descriptions of all State plans within
part 1952, OSHA proposes to make
several other housekeeping changes.
First, OSHA proposes to move the
provisions of subpart A of part 1952 that
pertain to the required criteria for State
plans, to part 1902. (The following
provisions would be moved to part
1902: 29 CFR 1952.4, Injury and illness
recording and reporting requirements;
29 CFR 1952.6, Partial approval of State
plans; 29 CFR 1952.8, Variations,
tolerances, and exemptions affecting the
national defense; 29 CFR1952.9,
Variances affecting multi-state
employers; 29 CFR 1952.10,
Requirements for approval of State
posters; and 29 CFR 1952.11, State and
local government employee programs.)
As a result, the complete criteria for
State plans would be located within part
1902.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49957
OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR
1952.1 (Purpose and scope) and 29 CFR
1952.2 (Definitions) because the changes
described above and the restructuring of
part 1952 would make these provisions
unnecessary. OSHA proposes to delete
29 CFR 1952.3 (Developmental plans)
because that material is covered by 29
CFR 1902.2(b). The text of 29 CFR
1952.5 (Availability of State plans)
requires complete copies of each State
plan, including supplements thereto, to
be kept at OSHA’s National Office, the
office of the nearest OSHA Regional
Administrator, and the office of the
State plan agency listed in part 1952.
OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.5
because with the widespread use of
electronic document storage and the
Internet, it is no longer necessary to
physically store such information in
order to make it available to the public.
Information about State plans can now
be found on each State’s Web site, as
well as on OSHA’s Web site. For the
same reasons, OSHA proposes to delete
the language in 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan
supplement availability) which
discusses making State plan documents
available for public inspection and
photocopying in designated offices.
OSHA proposes to delete the text of 29
CFR 1952.7(a), which deals with
product standards, because the
explanation of section 18(c)(2) of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2), on product
standards is already covered by 29 CFR
1902.3(c)(2). However, OSHA proposes
to move § 1952.7(b) to the end of
§ 1902.3(c)(2) because that material was
not previously included. In addition,
OSHA proposes to delete references to
part 1952 from several other parts of the
regulations, such as parts 1903, 1904,
1953, 1954 and 1955, because these
references would no longer be accurate
due to the proposed changes. Where
appropriate, OSHA proposes to insert
references to the newly numbered part
1902.
Finally, OSHA proposes to make
some further minor changes to part
1902. The text of 29 CFR 1902.3(j),
which briefly describes State plans
covering State and local government
employees, would be deleted because a
more detailed description of State plan
coverage of State and local government
employees, formerly set forth in 29 CFR
1952.11, would be incorporated into 29
CFR part 1902 as § 1902.4(d). This
change would necessitate the redesignation of paragraphs in § 1902.3.
Also, OSHA proposes to change 29 CFR
1902.10(a) to reduce the number of
copies a State agency must submit in
order to obtain approval of a State plan.
With the advent of computer
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
49958
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
technology, the submission of extra
paper copies is not necessary. OSHA
also proposes to delete outdated
references to an address in 29 CFR
1902.11(c) and (d).
Administrative Procedure Act and
Direct Final Rulemaking
The notice and comment rulemaking
procedures of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do
not apply ‘‘to interpretive rules, general
statements of policy or, rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice’’ or
when the agency for good cause finds
that ‘‘notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest.’’ 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). The proposed
revisions set forth in this document
would not implement any substantive
change in the development, operation or
monitoring of State plans. Nor would
these revisions change the coverage or
other enforcement responsibilities of the
State plans or federal OSHA. The
compliance obligations of employers
and the rights of employees remain
unaffected. Therefore, OSHA for good
cause finds that notice and comment is
unnecessary. In addition, the proposed
elimination of the requirement to make
paper copies of State plan documents
available in certain federal and State
offices and the reduction of the number
of copies of a proposed State plan which
a State agency must submit would be
purely procedural changes. Future
alterations to State plan coverage would
only require a simple, easily searchable
notice to be published in the Federal
Register and an update to OSHA’s State
plan Web page.
Although neither the Act nor the APA
requires notice and comment
rulemaking here, OSHA, as a matter of
policy, is providing interested persons
30 days to submit comments. OSHA
believes a 30-day timeframe for
submitting comments is appropriate
because the proposal is primarily a set
of non-substantive technical changes.
OSHA is publishing a companion
direct final rule along with this
proposed rule in the ‘‘Final Rules’’
section of this Federal Register. An
agency uses direct final rulemaking
when it anticipates that a rule will not
be controversial. OSHA does not
consider this proposed rule to be such
because it primarily consists of changes
in the organization of State plan
information housed within the CFR, and
the resultant re-numbering and updates
to cross-references throughout the CFR.
In direct final rulemaking, an agency
publishes a direct final rule in the
Federal Register with a statement that
the rule will become effective unless the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
agency receives significant adverse
comment within a specified period. The
agency may publish an identical
proposed rule at the same time. If the
agency receives no significant adverse
comment in response to the direct final
rule, the agency typically confirms the
effective date of a direct final rule
through a separate Federal Register
document. If the agency receives a
significant adverse comment, the agency
withdraws the direct final rule and
treats such comment as a response to
the proposed rule. For purposes of this
proposed rule and the companion direct
final rule, a significant adverse
comment is one that explains why the
rule would be inappropriate.
The comment period for the direct
final rule runs concurrently with that of
this proposed rule. OSHA will treat
comments received on the companion
direct final rule as comments regarding
the proposed rule. OSHA also will
consider significant adverse comment
submitted to this proposed rule as
comment to the companion direct final
rule. If OSHA receives no significant
adverse comment to either this proposal
or the companion direct final rule,
OSHA will publish a Federal Register
document confirming the effective date
of the direct final rule and withdrawing
this companion proposed rule. Such
confirmation may include minor
stylistic or technical changes to the
document. If OSHA receives a
significant adverse comment on either
the direct final rule or this proposed
rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal
of the companion direct final rule and
proceed with this proposed rule. In the
event that OSHA withdraws the direct
final rule because of significant adverse
comment, OSHA will consider all
timely comments received in response
to the direct final rule when it continues
with the proposed rule. After carefully
considering all comments to the direct
final rule and the proposal, OSHA will
decide whether to publish a new final
rule.
OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule revises ‘‘collection
of information’’ (paperwork)
requirements that are subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA–95’’), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB’s
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The
Paperwork Reduction Act defines a
‘‘collection of information’’ as ‘‘the
obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public of facts or
opinions by or for an agency regardless
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of form or format’’ (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)). OMB approved the
collection of information requirements
currently contained in the regulations
associated with OSHA-approved State
Plans (29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953,
1954, and 1956) under OMB Control
Number 1218–0247.
Through emergency processing
procedures, OSHA submitted a request
that OMB revise the collection of
information requirements contained in
these regulations within 45 days of
publication. The proposed rule would
not impose new collection of
information requirements for purposes
of PRA–95; therefore, the Agency does
not believe that this rule will impact
burden hours or costs. The proposed
rule would move the current collection
of information requirement provisions
of subpart A of part 1952, pertaining to
required criteria for State plans, to part
1902. The proposed rule would delete
the text of current 29 CFR 1952.5
(Availability of State plans) requiring
complete copies of each State plan,
including supplements thereto, to be
kept at OSHA’s National Office, the
nearest OSHA Regional Office, and the
office of the State plan agency. The rule
would also delete the language in
current 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan
supplement availability) which
discusses making State plan documents
available for public inspection and
photocopying in designated offices. The
rule would also reduce from ten to one
the number of copies of the State Plan
which a State agency must submit under
29 CFR 1902.10(a) in order to obtain
approval of the State plan. Finally, the
proposed rule would revise regulations
containing current collection of
information requirements at 29 CFR
parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956
to delete or update cross-references,
remove duplicative provisions, and redesignate paragraphs.
OSHA has submitted an ICR
addressing the collection of information
requirements identified in this rule to
OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)).
OSHA solicits comments on the
proposed extension and revision of the
collection of information requirements
and the estimated burden hours
associated with the regulations
associated with OSHA-approved State
Plans, including comments on the
following:
Whether the proposed collection of
information requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and cost) of the
information collection requirements,
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
Minimizing the burden on employers
who must comply, for example, by
using automated or other technological
techniques for collecting and
transmitting information.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv),
OSHA provides the following summary
of the Occupational Safety and Health
State Plans Information Collection
Request (ICR):
1. Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
2. Title: Occupational Safety and
Health State Plans
3. OMB Control Number: 1218–0247.
49959
4. Description of Collection of
Information Requirements: The
proposed collection of information
requirements, contained in the
regulations associated with this rule are
set forth below. The citations reflect the
changes in this notice of proposed
rulemaking and the accompanying
direct final rule.
Part
Collection of Information Requirements
29 CFR 1902 ......................
1902.2(a), 1902.2(b), 1902.2(c)(2), 1902.2(c)(3), 1902.3(a), 1902.3(b)(1)–(b)(3), 1902.3(c)(1), 1902.3(d)(1),
1902.3(d)(2), 1902.3(e), 1902.3(f), 1902.3(g), 1902.3(h), 1902.3(i), 1902.3(j), 1902.3(k), 1902.4(a), 1902.4(a)(1),
1902.4(a)(2), 1902.4(b)(1), 1902.4(b)(2), 1902.4(b)(2)(i)–(b)(2)(vii), 1902.4(c)(1), 1902.4(c)(2), 1902.4(c)(2)(i)–
(c)(2)(xiii), 1902.4(d)(1), 1902.4(d)(2), 1902.4(d)(2)(i)–(d)(2)(iii)(k), 1902.4(e), 1902.7(a), 1902.7(d), 1902.9(a)(1),
1902.9(a)(5), 1902.9(a)(5)(i)–(a)(5)(xii), 1902.10, 1902.10(a), 1902.10(b), 1902.31, 1902.32(e), 1902.33,
1902.38(b), 1902.39(a), 1902.39(b), 1902.44(a), 1902.46(d), 1902.46(d)(1).
29 CFR 1952.
29 CFR 1953 ......................
29 CFR 1954 ......................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29 CFR 1955.
29 CFR 1956 ......................
1953.1(a), 1953.1(b), 1953.1(c), 1953.2(c)–1953.2(j), 1953.3(a)–(e), 1953.4(a)(1)–1953.4(a)(5), 1953.4(b)(1)–
1953.4(b)(7), 1953.4(c)(1)–1953.4(c)(5), 1953.4(d)(1), 1953.4(d)(2), 1953.5(a)(1)–1953.5(a)(3), 1953.5(b)(1)–
(b)(3), 1953.6(a), 1953.6(e).
1954.2(a), 1954.2(b), 1954.2(b)(1)–1954.2(b)(3), 1954.2(c), 1954.2(d), 1954.2(e), 1954.2(e)(1)–(e)(4), 1954.3(f)(1),
1954.3(f)(1)(i)–1954.3(f)(1)(v), 1954.10(a), 1954.10(b), 1954.10(c), 1954.11, 1954.20(a), 1954.20(b),
1954.20(c)(1), 1954.20(c)(2), 1954.20(c)(2)(i)–1954.20(c)(2)(iv), 1954.21(a), 1954.21(b), 1954.21(c), 1954.21(d),
1954.22(a)(1), 1954.22(a)(2).
1956.2(b)(1), 1956.2(b)(1)(i)–(ii), 1956.2(b)(2), 1956.2(b)(3), 1956.2(c)(1), 1956.2(c)(2), 1956.10(a), 1956.10(b)(1),
1956.10(b)(2), 1956.10(b)(3), 1956.10(c), 1956.10(d)(1), 1956.10(d)(2), 1956.10(e), 1956.10(f), 1956.10(g),
1956.10(h), 1956.10(i), 1956.10(j), 1956.11(a), 1956.11(a)(1), 1956.11(a)(2), 1956.11(d), 1956.20, 1956.21,
1956.22, 1956.23.
5. Affected Public: Designated state
government agencies that are seeking or
have submitted and obtained approval
for State Plans for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and
health standards.
6. Number of Respondents: 28.
7. Frequency: On occasion; quarterly;
annually.
8. Average Time per Response: Varies
from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to
an information inquiry to 80 hours to
document state annual performance
goals.
9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: The
Agency does not believe that this rule
will impact burden hours or costs.
However, based on updated data and
estimates, the Agency is requesting an
adjustment increase of 173 burden
hours, from 11,196 to 11,369 burden
hours. This burden hour increase is the
result of the anticipated increase in the
submission of state plan changes
associated with one state (Maine)
actively implementing a new State Plan.
The burden hour increase was partially
offset by the decrease in the estimated
number of state-initiated state plan
changes.
10. Estimated Costs (Operation and
Maintenance): There are no capital costs
for this collection of information.
Submitting comments. In addition to
having an opportunity to file comments
with the Department, the PRA provides
that an interested party may file
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
comments on the collection of
information requirements contained in
the rule directly with the Office of
Management and Budget, at the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–
395–5806 (this is not a toll-free
number); or by email: OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov. Commenters
are encouraged, but not required, to
send a courtesy copy of any comments
to the Department. See ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The OMB will
consider all written comments that the
agency receives within forty-five (45)
days of publication of this NPRM in the
Federal Register. In order to help ensure
appropriate consideration, comments
should mention OMB control number
1218–0247. Comments submitted in
response to this document are public
records; therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting personal
information such as Social Security
numbers and date of birth.
Docket and inquiries. To access the
docket to read or download comments
and other materials related to this
paperwork determination, including the
complete Information Collection
Request (ICR) (containing the
Supporting Statement with attachments
describing the paperwork
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determinations in detail), use the
procedures described under the section
of this document titled ADDRESSES. You
also may obtain an electronic copy of
the complete ICR by visiting the Web
page, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, select ‘‘Department of Labor’’
under ‘‘Currently Under Review’’ to
view all of DOL’s ICRs, including the
ICR related to this rulemaking. To make
inquiries, or to request other
information, contact Mr. Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
OSHA, Room N–3609, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2222.
OSHA notes that a Federal agency
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA and displays a
currently valid OMB control number,
and the public is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Also, notwithstanding
any other provisions of law, no person
shall be subject to penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information
if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control
number.
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
49960
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
Unfunded Mandates, and Executive
Orders on the Review of Regulations
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as
amended), OSHA examined the
provisions of the proposal to determine
whether it would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Since no
employer of any size would have any
new compliance obligations, the Agency
certifies that the proposal would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
OSHA also reviewed this proposal in
accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA;
2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, September
30, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). Because this proposal
would impose no new compliance
obligations, it would require no
additional expenditures by either
private employers or State, local, or
tribal governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)
emphasizes consultation between
Federal agencies and the States on
policies not required by statute which
have federalism implications, i.e.,
policies, such as regulations, which
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, or which impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments. This
proposal has no federalism implications
and would not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local
governments.
OSHA has reviewed this proposal in
accordance with Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) and
determined that the proposal would not
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1902,
1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and
1956
Intergovernmental relations, Law
enforcement, Occupational safety and
health.
Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized
the preparation of this proposal. OSHA
is issuing this proposal under the
authority specified by Sections 8(c)(1),
8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1), (c)(2), and
(g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 1–2012 (76 FR 3912).
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 28,
2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
Amendments to Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble of this proposal, OSHA
proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1902,
1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and
1956 as follows:
PART 1902—STATE PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
OF STATE STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 1902
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29
U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor’s Order
No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart B—Criteria for State Plans
2. Amend § 1902.3 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (c)(2);
■ b. Remove paragraph (j);
■ c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) and (l)
as (j) and (k), respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
§ 1902.3
Specific criteria.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) The State plan shall not include
standards for products distributed or
used in interstate commerce which are
different from Federal standards for
such products unless such standards are
required by compelling local conditions
and do not unduly burden interstate
commerce. This provision, reflecting
section 18(c)(2) of the Act, is interpreted
as not being applicable to customized
products or parts not normally available
on the open market, or to the optional
parts or additions to products which are
ordinarily available with such optional
parts or additions. In situations where
section 18(c)(2) is considered
applicable, and provision is made for
the adoption of product standards, the
requirements of section 18(c)(2), as they
relate to undue burden on interstate
commerce, shall be treated as a
condition subsequent in light of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
facts and circumstances which may be
involved.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 1902.4 by revising
paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (e)
to read as follows:
§ 1902.4
Indices of effectiveness.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) State and local government
employee programs. (1) Each approved
State plan must contain satisfactory
assurances that the State will, to the
extent permitted by its law, establish
and maintain an effective and
comprehensive occupational safety and
health program applicable to all
employees of public agencies of the
State and its political subdivisions
which program is as effective as the
standards contained in an approved
plan.
(2) This criterion for approved State
plans is interpreted to require the
following elements with regard to
coverage, standards, and enforcement:
(i) Coverage. The program must cover
all public employees over which the
State has legislative authority under its
constitution. The language in section
18(c)(6) which only requires such
coverage to the extent permitted by the
State’s law specifically recognizes the
situation where local governments
exclusively control their own
employees, such as under certain home
rule charters.
(ii) Standards. The program must be
as effective as the standards contained
in the approved plan applicable to
private employers. Thus, the same
criteria and indices of standards
effectiveness contained in §§ 1902.3(c)
and 1902.4(a) and (b) would apply to
the public employee program. Where
hazards are unique to public
employment, all appropriate indices of
effectiveness, such as those dealing with
temporary emergency standards,
development of standards, employee
information, variances, and protective
equipment, would be applicable to
standards for such hazards.
(iii) Enforcement. Although section
18(c)(6) of the Act requires State public
employee programs to be as effective as
standards contained in the State plan,
minimum enforcement elements are
required to ensure an effective and
comprehensive public employee
program as follows:
(A) Regular inspections of
workplaces, including inspections in
response to valid employee complaints;
(B) A means for employees to bring
possible violations to the attention of
inspectors;
(C) Notification to employees, or their
representatives, of decisions that no
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
violations are found as a result of
complaints by such employees or their
representatives, and informal review of
such decisions;
(D) A means of informing employees
of their protections and obligations
under the Act;
(E) Protection for employees against
discharge of discrimination because of
the exercise of rights under the Act;
(F) Employee access to information on
their exposure to toxic materials or
harmful physical agents and prompt
notification to employees when they
have been or are being exposed to such
materials or agents at concentrations or
levels above those specified by the
applicable standards;
(G) Procedures for the prompt
restraint or elimination of imminent
danger situations;
(H) A means of promptly notifying
employers and employees when an
alleged violation has occurred,
including the proposed abatement
requirements;
(I) A means of establishing timetables
for the correction of violations;
(J) A program for encouraging
voluntary compliance; and
(K) Such other additional enforcement
provisions under State law as may have
been included in the State plan.
(3) In accordance with § 1902.3(b)(3),
the State agency or agencies designated
to administer the plan throughout the
State must retain overall responsibility
for the entire plan. Political
subdivisions may have the
responsibility and authority for the
development and enforcement of
standards: Provided, that the designated
State agency or agencies have adequate
authority by statute, regulation, or
agreement to insure that the
commitments of the State under the
plan will be fulfilled.
(e) Additional indices. Upon his own
motion or after consideration of data,
views and arguments received in any
proceeding held under subpart C of this
part, the Assistant Secretary may
prescribe additional indices for any
State plan which shall be in furtherance
of the purpose of this part, as expressed
in § 1902.1.
■ 4. Add §§ 1902.7 through 1902.09 to
read as follows:
Sec.
*
*
*
*
*
1902.7 Injury and illness recording and
reporting requirements.
1902.8 Variations and variances.
1902.9 Requirements for approval of State
posters.
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and
reporting requirements.
(a) Injury and illness recording and
reporting requirements promulgated by
State-Plan States must be substantially
identical to those in 29 CFR part 1904
on recording and reporting occupational
injuries and illnesses. State-Plan States
must promulgate recording and
reporting requirements that are the same
as the Federal requirements for
determining which injuries and
illnesses will be entered into the records
and how they are entered. All other
injury and illness recording and
reporting requirements that are
promulgated by State-Plan States may
be more stringent than, or supplemental
to, the Federal requirements, but,
because of the unique nature of the
national recordkeeping program, States
must consult with OSHA and obtain
approval of such additional or more
stringent reporting and recording
requirements to ensure that they will
not interfere with uniform reporting
objectives. State-Plan States must
extend the scope of their regulation to
State and local government employers.
(b) A State may not grant a variance
to the injury and illness recording and
reporting requirements for private sector
employers. Such variances may only be
granted by Federal OSHA to assure
nationally consistent workplace injury
and illness statistics. A State may only
grant a variance to the injury and illness
recording and reporting requirements
for State or local government entities in
that State after obtaining approval from
Federal OSHA.
(c) A State must recognize any
variance issued by Federal OSHA.
(d) A State may, but is not required,
to participate in the Annual OSHA
Injury/Illness Survey as authorized by
29 CFR 1904.41. A participating State
may either adopt requirements identical
to § 1904.41 in its recording and
reporting regulation as an enforceable
State requirement, or may defer to the
Federal regulation for enforcement.
Nothing in any State plan shall affect
the duties of employers to comply with
§ 1904.41, when surveyed, as provided
by section 18(c)(7) of the Act.
§ 1902.8
Variations and variances.
(a) The power of the Secretary of
Labor under section 16 of the Act to
provide reasonable limitations and
variations, tolerances, and exemptions
to and from any or all provisions of the
Act as he may find necessary and proper
to avoid serious impairment of the
national defense is reserved.
(b) No action by a State under a plan
shall be inconsistent with action by the
Secretary under this section of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49961
(c) Where a State standard is identical
to a Federal standard addressed to the
same hazard, an employer or group of
employers seeking a temporary or
permanent variance from such standard,
or portion thereof, to be applicable to
employment or places of employment in
more than one State, including at least
one State with an approved plan, may
elect to apply to the Assistant Secretary
for such variance under the provisions
of 29 CFR part 1905.
(d) Actions taken by the Assistant
Secretary with respect to such
application for a variance, such as
interim orders, with respect thereto, the
granting, denying, or issuing any
modification or extension thereof, will
be deemed prospectively an
authoritative interpretation of the
employer or employers’ compliance
obligations with regard to the State
standard, or portion thereof, identical to
the Federal standard, or portion thereof,
affected by the action in the
employment or places of employment
covered by the application.
(e) Nothing herein shall affect the
option of an employer or employers
seeking a temporary or permanent
variance with applicability to
employment or places of employment in
more than one State to apply for such
variance either to the Assistant
Secretary or the individual State
agencies involved. However, the filing
with, as well as granting, denial,
modification, or revocation of a variance
request or interim order by, either
authority (Federal or State) shall
preclude any further substantive
consideration of such application on the
same material facts for the same
employment or place of employment by
the other authority.
(f) Nothing herein shall affect either
Federal or State authority and
obligations to cite for noncompliance
with standards in employment or places
of employment where no interim order,
variance, or modification or extension
thereof, granted under State or Federal
law applies, or to cite for
noncompliance with such Federal or
State variance action.
§ 1902.9 Requirements for approval of
State posters.
(a)(1) In order to inform employees of
their protections and obligations under
applicable State law, of the issues not
covered by State law, and of the
continuing availability of Federal
monitoring under section 18(f) of the
Act, States with approved plans shall
develop and require employers to post
a State poster meeting the requirements
set out in paragraph (a)(5) of this
section.
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49962
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) Such poster shall be substituted
for the Federal poster under section
8(c)(1) of the Act and § 1903.2 of this
chapter where the State attains
operational status for the enforcement of
State standards as defined in § 1954.3(b)
of this chapter.
(3) Where a State has distributed its
poster and has enabling legislation as
defined in § 1954.3(b)(1) of this chapter
but becomes nonoperational under the
provisions of § 1954.3(f)(1) of this
chapter because of failure to be at least
as effective as the Federal program, the
approved State poster may, at the
discretion of the Assistant Secretary,
continue to be substituted for the
Federal poster in accordance with
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) A State may, for good cause
shown, request, under 29 CFR part
1953, approval of an alternative to a
State poster for informing employees of
their protections and obligations under
the State plans, provided such
alternative is consistent with the Act,
§ 1902.4(c)(2)(iv) and applicable State
law. In order to qualify as a substitute
for the Federal poster under this
paragraph (a), such alternative must be
shown to be at least as effective as the
Federal poster requirements in
informing employees of their
protections and obligations and address
the items listed in paragraph (a)(5) of
this section.
(5) In developing the poster, the State
shall address but not be limited to the
following items:
(i) Responsibilities of the State,
employers and employees;
(ii) The right of employees or their
representatives to request workplace
inspections;
(iii) The right of employees making
such requests to remain anonymous;
(iv) The right of employees to
participate in inspections;
(v) Provisions for prompt notice to
employers and employees when alleged
violations occur;
(vi) Protection for employees against
discharge or discrimination for the
exercise of their rights under Federal
and State law;
(vii) Sanctions;
(viii) A means of obtaining further
information on State law and standards
and the address of the State agency;
(ix) The right to file complaints with
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration about State program
administration;
(x) A list of the issues as defined in
§ 1902.2(c) which will not be covered by
State plan;
(xi) The address of the Regional Office
of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(xii) Such additional employee
protection provisions and obligations
under State law as may have been
included in the approved State plan.
(b) Posting of the State poster shall be
recognized as compliance with the
posting requirements in section 8(c)(1)
of the Act and § 1903.2 of this chapter,
provided that the poster has been
approved in accordance with subpart B
of part 1953 of this chapter. Continued
Federal recognition of the State poster is
also subject to pertinent findings of
effectiveness with regard to the State
program under 29 CFR part 1954.
publication of the notice in the Federal
Register. Thereafter the written
comments received or copies thereof
shall be available for public inspection
and copying at the office of the Director,
Office of State Programs, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, office
of the Assistant Regional Director in
whose region the State is located, and
an office of the State which shall be
designated by the State for this purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Add § 1902.16 immediately
following § 1902.15 to read as follows:
§ 1902.16
Subpart C—Procedures for
Submission, Approval and Rejection of
State Plans
5. In § 1902.10, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
§ 1902.10
Submission.
(a) An authorized representative of
the State agency or agencies responsible
for administering the plan shall submit
one copy of the plan to the appropriate
Assistant Regional Director of the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. The State plan shall include
supporting papers conforming to the
requirements specified in the subpart B
of this part, and the State occupational
safety and health standards to be
included in the plan, including a copy
of any specific or enabling State laws
and regulations relating to such
standards. If any of the representations
concerning the requirements of subpart
B of this part are dependent upon any
judicial or administrative
interpretations of the State standards or
enforcement provisions, the State shall
furnish citations to any pertinent
judicial decisions and the text of any
pertinent administrative decisions.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 1902.11, revise paragraphs (c)
and (d) to read as follows:
§ 1902.11
General notice.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The notice shall provide that the
plan, or copies thereof, shall be
available for inspection and copying at
the office of the Director, Office of State
Programs, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, office of the
Assistant Regional Director in whose
region the State is located, and an office
of the State which shall be designated
by the State for this purpose.
(d) The notice shall afford interested
persons an opportunity to submit in
writing, data, views, and arguments on
the proposal, subjects, or issues
involved within 30 days after
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Partial approval of State plans.
(a) The Assistant Secretary may
partially approve a plan under this part
whenever:
(1) The portion to be approved meets
the requirements of this part;
(2) The plan covers more than one
occupational safety and health issue;
and
(3) Portions of the plan to be approved
are reasonably separable from the
remainder of the plan.
(b) Whenever the Assistant Secretary
approves only a portion of a State lan,
he may give notice to the State of an
opportunity to show cause why a
proceeding should not be commenced
for disapproval of the remainder of the
plan under subpart C of this part before
commencing such a proceeding.
Subpart D—Procedures for
Determinations Under Section 18(e) of
the Act
8. In § 1902.31, revise the definition of
‘‘Development step’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 1902.31
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Development step includes, but is not
limited to, those items listed in the
published developmental schedule, or
any revisions thereof, for each plan. A
developmental step also includes those
items specified in the plan as approved
under section 18(c) of the Act for
completion by the State, as well as those
items which under the approval
decision were subject to evaluations and
changes deemed necessary as a result
thereof to make the State program at
least as effective as the Federal program
within the 3 years developmental
period. (See 29 CFR 1953.4(a)).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Revise § 1902.33 to read as follows:
§ 1902.33
Developmental period.
Upon the commencement of plan
operations after the initial approval of a
State’s plan by the Assistant Secretary,
a State has three years in which to
complete all of the developmental steps
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
specified in the plan as approved.
Section 1953.4 of this chapter sets forth
the procedures for the submission and
consideration of developmental changes
by OSHA. Generally, whenever a State
completes a developmental step, it must
submit the resulting plan change as a
supplement to its plan to OSHA for
approval. OSHA’s approval of such
changes is then published in the
Federal Register.
■ 10. In § 1902.34, revise paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§ 1902.34 Certification of completion of
developmental steps.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) After a review of the certification
and the State’s plan, if the Assistant
Secretary finds that the State has
completed all the developmental steps
specified in the plan, he shall publish
the certification in the Federal Register.
§ 1902.41
[Amended]
11. In § 1902.41, remove paragraph (c)
and redesignate paragraph (d) as (c).
■ 12. In § 1902.43, revise paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:
■
§ 1902.43
Affirmative 18(e) decision.
(a) * * *
(3) An amendment to the appropriate
section of part 1952 of this chapter;
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1904—RECORDING AND
REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL
INJURIES AND ILLNESSES
Subpart A—List of Approved State
Plans for Private-Sector and State and
Local Government Employees
15. The authority citation for part
1904 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1952.1
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666,
669, 673, Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–
2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart D—Other OSHA Injury and
Illness Recordkeeping Requirements
16. In § 1904.37, revise paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1904.37 State recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) Basic requirement. Some States
operate their own OSHA programs,
under the authority of a State plan as
approved by OSHA. States operating
OSHA-approved State plans must have
occupational injury and illness
recording and reporting requirements
that are substantially identical to the
requirements in this part (see 29 CFR
1902.3(j), 29 CFR 1902.7, and 29 CFR
1956.10(i)).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1952—APPROVED STATE
PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE STANDARDS
17. The authority citation for part
1952 is revised to read as follows:
■
PART 1903—INSPECTIONS,
CITATIONS AND PROPOSED
PENALTIES
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29
U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan.
25, 2012).
■
13. The authority citation for part
1903 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 8 and 9 (29 U.S.C. 657,
658); 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor’s Order
No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart A—List of Approved State Plans for
Private-Sector and State and Local
Government Employees
14. In § 1903.2, revise paragraph (a)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec.
1952.1
1952.2
1952.3
1952.4
1952.5
1952.6
1952.7
1952.8
1952.9
1952.10
1952.11
1952.12
1952.13
1952.14
1952.15
1952.16
1952.17
1952.18
1952.19
1952.20
1952.21
1952.22
18. Revise subpart A to read as
follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1903.2 Posting of notice; availability of
the Act, regulations and applicable
standard.
(a) * * *
(2) Where a State has an approved
poster informing employees of their
protections and obligations as defined
in § 1902.9 of this chapter, such poster,
when posted by employers covered by
the State plan, shall constitute
compliance with the posting
requirements of section 8(c)(1) of the
Act. Employers whose operations are
not within the issues covered by the
State plan must comply with paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
49963
PO 00000
South Carolina.
Oregon.
Utah.
Washington.
North Carolina.
Iowa.
California.
Minnesota.
Maryland.
Tennessee.
Kentucky.
Alaska.
Michigan.
Vermont.
Nevada.
Hawaii.
Indiana.
Wyoming.
Arizona.
New Mexico.
Virginia.
Puerto Rico.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
South Carolina.
(a) The South Carolina State plan
received initial approval on December 6,
1972.
(b) The South Carolina State plan
received final approval on December 18,
1987.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance officer staffing levels
(benchmarks) necessary for a ‘‘fully
effective’’ enforcement program were
required to be established for each State
operating an approved State plan. In
September 1984, South Carolina, in
conjunction with OSHA, completed a
reassessment of the staffing levels
initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/south_carolina.html.
§ 1952.2
Oregon.
(a) The Oregon State plan received
initial approval on December 28, 1972.
(b) The Oregon State plan received
final approval on May 12, 2005.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels
(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully
effective’’ enforcement program were
required for each State operating an
approved State plan. In October 1992,
Oregon completed, in conjunction with
OSHA, a reassessment of the health
staffing level initially established in
1980 and proposed a revised health
benchmark of 28 health compliance
officers. Oregon elected to retain the
safety benchmark level established in
the 1980 Report to the Court of the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia in 1980 of 47 safety
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on August 11, 1994.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
49964
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/oregon.html.
§ 1952.3
Utah.
(a) The Utah State plan received
initial approval on January 10, 1973.
(b) The Utah State plan received final
approval on July 16, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984, Utah, in conjunction with OSHA,
completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 10 safety and 9 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comments and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements effective July 16, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/utah.html.
§ 1952.4
Washington.
(a) The Washington State plan
received initial approval on January 26,
1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with Washington.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/washington.html.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1952.5
North Carolina.
(a) The North Carolina State plan
received initial approval on February 1,
1973.
(b) The North Carolina State plan
received final approval on December 18,
1996.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels
(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully
effective’’ enforcement program were
required for each State operating an
approved State plan. In September 1984,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
North Carolina, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised benchmarks of 50
safety and 27 health compliance
officers. After opportunity for public
comment and service on the AFL–CIO,
the Assistant Secretary approved these
revised staffing requirements on January
17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina
reconsidered the information utilized in
the initial revision of its 1980
benchmarks and determined that
changes in local conditions and
improved inspection data warranted
further revision of its benchmarks to 64
safety inspectors and 50 industrial
hygienists. After opportunity for public
comment and service on the AFL–CIO,
the Assistant Secretary approved these
revised staffing requirements on June 4,
1996.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/north_carolina.html.
§ 1952.6
Iowa.
(a) The Iowa State plan received
initial approval on July 20, 1973.
(b) The Iowa State plan received final
approval on July 2, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984, Iowa, in conjunction with OSHA,
completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 16 safety and 13 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements effective July 2, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/iowa.html.
§ 1952.7
California.
(a) The California State plan received
initial approval on May 1, 1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with California.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(c) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/california.html.
§ 1952.8
Minnesota.
(a) The Minnesota State plan received
initial approval on June 8, 1973.
(b) The Minnesota State plan received
final approval on July 30, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Minnesota, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 31 safety and 12 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on July 30, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/minnesota.html.
§ 1952.9
Maryland.
(a) The Maryland State plan received
initial approval on July 5, 1973.
(b) The Maryland State plan received
final approval on July 18, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Maryland, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 36 safety and 18 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on July 18, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/maryland.html.
§ 1952.10
Tennessee.
(a) The Tennessee State plan received
initial approval on July 5, 1973.
(b) The Tennessee State plan received
final approval on July 22, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Tennessee, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 22 safety and 14 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on July 22, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/tennessee.html.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1952.11
Kentucky.
(a) The Kentucky State plan received
initial approval on July 31, 1973.
(b) The Kentucky State plan received
final approval on June 13, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Kentucky, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 23 safety and 14 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on June 13, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/kentucky.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 1952.12
Alaska.
§ 1952.15
(a) The Alaska State plan received
initial approval on August 10, 1973.
(b) The Alaska State plan received
final approval on September 28, 1984.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. Alaska’s
compliance staffing benchmarks are 4
safety and 5 health compliance officers.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/alaska.html.
§ 1952.13
Michigan.
(a) The Michigan State plan received
initial approval on October 3, 1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with Michigan.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels
(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully
effective’’ enforcement program were
required for each State operating an
approved State plan. In 1992, Michigan
completed, in conjunction with OSHA,
a reassessment of the levels initially
established in 1980 and proposed
revised benchmarks of 56 safety and 45
health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comment and
service on the AFL–CIO, the Assistant
Secretary approved these revised
staffing requirements on April 20, 1995.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/michigan.html.
§ 1952.14
Vermont.
(a) The Vermont State plan received
initial approval on October 16, 1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with Vermont.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/vermont.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49965
Nevada.
(a) The Nevada State plan received
initial approval on January 4, 1974.
(b) The Nevada State plan received
final approval on April 18, 2000.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In July 1986
Nevada, in conjunction with OSHA,
completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 11 safety and 5 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on September 2, 1987.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/nevada.html.
§ 1952.16
Hawaii.
(a) The Hawaii State plan received
initial approval on January 4, 1974.
(b) The Hawaii State plan received
final approval on May 4, 1984.
(c) On September 21, 2012 OSHA
modified the State Plan’s approval
status from final approval to initial
approval, and reinstated concurrent
federal enforcement authority pending
the necessary corrective action by the
State Plan in order to once again meet
the criteria for a final approval
determination. OSHA and Hawaii
entered into an operational status
agreement to provide a workable
division of enforcement responsibilities.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/hawaii.html.
§ 1952.17
Indiana.
(a) The Indiana State plan received
initial approval on March 6, 1974.
(b) The Indiana State plan received
final approval on September 26, 1986.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
49966
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Indiana, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 47 safety and 23 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/indiana.html.
§ 1952.18
Wyoming.
(a) The Wyoming State plan received
initial approval on May 3, 1974.
(b) The Wyoming State plan received
final approval on June 27, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Wyoming, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 6 safety and 2 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on June 27, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/wyoming.html.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1952.19
Arizona.
(a) The Arizona State plan received
initial approval on November 5, 1974.
(b) The Arizona State plan received
final approval on June 20, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984, Arizona in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 9 safety and 6 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on June 20, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/arizona.html.
§ 1952.20
New Mexico.
(a) The New Mexico State plan
received initial approval on December
10, 1975.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with New Mexico.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels
(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully
effective’’ enforcement program were
required for each State operating an
approved State plan. In May 1992, New
Mexico completed, in conjunction with
OSHA, a reassessment of the staffing
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised benchmarks of 7 safety
and 3 health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comment and
service on the AFL–CIO, the Assistant
Secretary approved these revised
staffing requirements on August 11,
1994.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/new_mexico.html.
§ 1952.21
Virginia.
(a) The Virginia State plan received
initial approval on September 28, 1976.
(b) The Virginia State plan received
final approval on November 30, 1988.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court
Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks)
necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’
enforcement program were required to
be established for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September
1984 Virginia, in conjunction with
OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and
proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 38 safety and 21 health
compliance officers. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AFL–CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing
requirements on January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/virginia.html.
§ 1952.22
Puerto Rico.
(a) The Puerto Rico State plan
received initial approval on August 30,
1977.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational
status agreement with Puerto Rico.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector
employers and employees, with several
notable exceptions, as well as State and
local government employers and
employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/puerto_rico.html.
■ 19. Add subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for
State and Local Government Employees
Sec.
1952.23 Connecticut.
1952.24 New York.
1952.25 New Jersey.
1952.26 The Virgin Islands.
1952.27 Illinois.
Subpart B—List of Approved State
Plans for State and Local Government
Employees
§ 1952.23
Connecticut.
(a) The Connecticut State plan for
State and local government employees
received initial approval from the
Assistant Secretary on November 3,
1978.
(b) In accordance with 29 CFR
1956.10(g), a State is required to have a
sufficient number of adequately trained
and competent personnel to discharge
its responsibilities under the plan. The
Connecticut Public Employee Only
State plan provides for three (3) safety
compliance officers and one (1) health
compliance officer as set forth in the
Connecticut Fiscal Year 1986 grant. This
staffing level meets the ‘‘fully effective’’
benchmarks established for Connecticut
for both safety and health.
(c) The plan only covers State and
local government employers and
employees within the State. For
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/connecticut.html.
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 1952.24
New York.
(a) The New York State plan for State
and local government employees
received initial approval from the
Assistant Secretary on June 1, 1984.
(b) The plan, as revised on April 28,
2006, provides assurances of a fully
trained, adequate staff, including 29
safety and 21 health compliance officers
for enforcement inspections and 11
safety and 9 health consultants to
perform consultation services in the
public sector. The State has also given
satisfactory assurances of continued
adequate funding to support the plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and
local government employers and
employees within the State. For
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/new_york.html.
§ 1952.25
New Jersey.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Virgin Islands.
(a) The Virgin Islands State plan for
Public Employees Only was approved
on July 23, 2003.
(b) The plan only covers State and
local government employers and
employees within the State. For
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/virgin_islands.html.
§ 1952.27
Illinois.
(a) The Illinois State plan for state and
local government employees received
initial approval from the Assistant
Secretary on September 1, 2009.
(b) The Plan further provides
assurances of a fully trained, adequate
staff within three years of plan approval,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Subparts C through FF [Removed]
■
(a) The New Jersey State plan for State
and local government employees
received initial approval from the
Assistant Secretary on January 11, 2001.
(b) The plan further provides
assurances of a fully trained, adequate
staff, including 20 safety and 7 health
compliance officers for enforcement
inspections, and 4 safety and 3 health
consultants to perform consultation
services in the public sector, and 2
safety and 3 health training and
education staff. The State has assured
that it will continue to provide a
sufficient number of adequately trained
and qualified personnel necessary for
the enforcement of standards as
required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State
has also given satisfactory assurance of
adequate funding to support the plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and
local government employers and
employees within the State. For
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/new_jersey.html.
§ 1952.26
including 11 safety and 3 health
compliance officers for enforcement
inspections, and 3 safety and 2 health
consultants to perform consultation
services in the public sector. The state
has assured that it will continue to
provide a sufficient number of
adequately trained and qualified
personnel necessary for the enforcement
of standards as required by 29 CFR
1956.10. The state has also given
satisfactory assurance of adequate
funding to support the Plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and
local government employers and
employees within the state. For
additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/
stateprogs/illinois.html.
Jkt 235001
20. Remove subparts C through FF.
PART 1953—CHANGES TO STATE
PLANS
21. The authority citation for part
1953 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29
U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–
2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
22. In § 1953.3, revise paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
49967
(ii) Subject to pertinent findings of
effectiveness under this part, and
approval under part 1953 of this
chapter, Federal enforcement
proceedings will not be initiated where
an employer has posted the approved
State poster in accordance with the
applicable provisions of an approved
State plan and § 1902.9 of this chapter.
(iii) Subject to pertinent findings of
effectiveness under this part, and
approval under part 1953 of this
chapter, Federal enforcement
proceedings will not be initiated where
an employer is in compliance with the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of an approved State plan
as provided in § 1902.7 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1955—PROCEDURES FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF
STATE PLANS
25. The authority citation for part
1955 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608
(29 U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart A—General
■
§ 1953.3
General policies and procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Plan supplement availability. The
underlying documentation for identical
plan changes shall be maintained by the
State. Annually, States shall submit
updated copies of the principal
documents comprising the plan, or
appropriate page changes, to the extent
that these documents have been revised.
To the extent possible, plan documents
will be maintained and submitted by the
State in electronic format and also made
available in such manner.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1954—PROCEDURES FOR THE
EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF
APPROVED STATE PLANS
23. The authority citation for part
1954 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29
U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–
2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart A—General
24. In § 1954.3, revise paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:
■
§ 1954.3 Exercise of Federal discretionary
authority.
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00038
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
26. In § 1955.2, revise paragraph (a)(4)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1955.2
Definitions.
(a) * * *
(4) Developmental step includes, but
is not limited to, those items listed in
the published developmental schedule,
or any revisions thereto, for each plan.
A developmental step also includes
those items in the plan as approved
under section 18(c) of the Act, as well
as those items in the approval decision
which are subject to evaluations (see
e.g., approval of Michigan plan), which
were deemed necessary to make the
State program at least as effective as the
Federal program within the 3 year
developmental period. (See part 1953 of
this chapter.)
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1956—STATE PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
OF STATE STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES IN STATES WITHOUT
APPROVED PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
PLANS
27. The authority citation for part
1956 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Section 18 (29 U.S.C. 667), 29
CFR parts 1902 and 1955, and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan.
25, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
49968
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Nashville Nashville, TN, at 615–736–
5421 or at Ashley.M.Schad@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366–9826
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Subparts E through I [Removed]
■
28. Remove subparts E through I.
[FR Doc. 2015–19226 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Table of Acronyms
Coast Guard
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
33 CFR Part 100
SUMMARY:
A. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before September 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section
of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and
material online at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you
successfully transmit the comment. If
you fax, hand deliver, or mail your
comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast
Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend
that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number (USCG–2015–0011) in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period and may
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0011]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulation, Tennessee
River 463.0 to 467.0; Chattanooga, TN
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
a special local regulated area for all
waters of the Tennessee River,
beginning at mile marker 463.0 and
ending at mile marker 467.0. This
proposed regulated area is necessary to
provide safety for the approximately
2,500 swimmers that will be
participating in the ‘‘Ironman
Chattanooga’’ on the Tennessee River
from mile marker 463.0 to mile marker
467.0. Entry into this area will be
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Ohio Valley or designated
representative.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
change the rule based on your
comments.
2. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number (USCG–2015–0011) in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room
W12–140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
3. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
4. Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting, but you may submit a request
for one, using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
B. Basis and Purpose
The ‘‘Ironman Chattanooga’’ is a
second year event being held on
September 27, 2015. The Captain of the
Port Ohio Valley has determined that
additional safety measures are necessary
to protect race participants, spectators,
and waterway users during this event.
Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to
establish a special local regulation for
all waters of the Tennessee River
beginning at mile marker 463.0 and
ending at mile marker 467.0. This
proposed regulation would provide
safety for the approximately 2,500
swimmers that will be racing in the
‘‘Ironman Chattanooga.’’
The legal basis and authorities for this
proposed rulemaking establishing a
special local regulation are found in 33
U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast
Guard to establish and define special
local regulations for regattas under 33
CFR 100.
E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM
18AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49956-49968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19226]
[[Page 49956]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956
[Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009]
RIN 1218-AC76
Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety
and Health
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document primarily proposes to amend OSHA regulations to
remove the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely
historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information. In
addition, this document proposes to move most of the general provisions
of subpart A of part 1952 into part 1902, where the general regulations
on State plan criteria are found. It also proposes to amend several
other OSHA regulations to delete references to part 1952, which would
no longer apply. The purpose of these proposed revisions is to
eliminate the unnecessary codification of material in the Code of
Federal Regulations and save the time and funds currently expended in
publicizing State plan revisions. The proposed streamlining of OSHA
State plan regulations would not change the areas of coverage or any
other substantive components of any State plan. It also does not affect
the rights and responsibilities of the State plans, or any employers or
employees, except to eliminate the burden on State plan designees to
keep paper copies of approved State plans and plan supplements in an
office, and to submit multiple copies of proposed State plan documents
to OSHA. This document also contains a request for comments for an
Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), which covers all collection of information requirements
in OSHA State plan regulations.
DATES: Comments and additional materials (including comments on the
information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the
section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document) must be
submitted (post-marked, sent or received) by September 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number OSHA-
2014-0009, or regulatory information number (RIN) 1218-AC76 by any of
the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions; or
Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648; or
U.S. mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier
service: You must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627).
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., EST.
Instructions for submitting comments: All submissions must include
the Docket Number (Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009) or the RIN number (RIN
1218-AC76) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures,
submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery
and messenger or courier service.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, caution should be
taken in submitting personal information, such as Social Security
numbers and birth dates.
Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register document, go to docket number OSHA-2014-0009, at https://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index: However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at https://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web page at
https://www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents referenced in this
document may be obtained from: Office of State Programs, Directorate of
Cooperative and State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20210, (202) 693-2244, fax (202) 693-1671.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Francis
Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski,
Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-
3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email: kalinowski.doug@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that desire to assume
responsibility for the development and enforcement of occupational
safety and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining
federal approval of, a State plan. States may obtain approval for plans
that cover private-sector employers and State and local government
employers (comprehensive plans) or for plans that only cover State and
local government employers.
From time to time changes are made to these State plans,
particularly with respect to the issues which they cover. Procedures
for approval of and changes to comprehensive State plans are set forth
in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1902 and 29 CFR part 1953. A
description of each comprehensive State plan has previously been set
forth in 29 CFR part 1952, subparts C-FF. These descriptions have
contained the following sections: Description of the plan,
Developmental schedule, Completion of developmental steps and
certifications, Staffing benchmarks, Final approval determination (if
applicable), Level of Federal enforcement, Location where the State
plan may be physically inspected, and Changes to approved plan.
Procedures for approval of a State plan covering State and local
government employees only are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR
part 1956, subparts A-C. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1956.21, procedures for
changes to these State plans are also governed by 29 CFR part 1953. A
description of each State
[[Page 49957]]
plan for State and local government employees only has previously been
set forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subparts E-I. These subparts have
contained the following sections: Description of the plan as certified
(or as initially approved), Developmental schedule, Completed
developmental steps and certification (if applicable), and Location of
basic State plan documentation.
The area of coverage of each State plan has previously been
codified at 29 CFR part 1952 under each State's subpart within the
sections entitled ``Final approval determination'' and ``Level of
Federal enforcement,'' and in 29 CFR part 1956 within the section on
the description of the plan. Therefore, any change to a State plan's
coverage or other part of the State plan description contained in 29
CFR part 1952 or 29 CFR part 1956 has thus far necessitated an
amendment to the language of the CFR, which has required the
expenditure of additional time and resources, such as those needed for
printing. Furthermore, reprinting parts 1952 and 1956 in the annual CFR
publication has necessitated the expenditure of additional time and
resources. The individual descriptions of the State plans consisted of
103 pages in the July 1, 2013 revision of title 29, part 1927 to end,
of the CFR. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to streamline parts 1952
and 1956 to delete the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage,
purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information,
thus saving time and funds currently expended in publishing changes to
these parts of the CFR.
There is no legal statutory requirement that individual State plans
be described in the CFR. The CFR is a codification of the documents of
each agency of the Government having general applicability and legal
effect, issued or promulgated by the agency in the Federal Register. 44
U.S.C. 1510(a) and (b). The description of a State plan is not a
document of general applicability; it only applies to a particular
State. Nevertheless, in this document, OSHA sets forth brief
descriptions of each State plan that will be retained in the CFR in
part 1952 in order to make this information readily available to those
conducting legal research and relying on the CFR. Brief descriptions of
comprehensive plans are included in subpart A of part 1952 and brief
descriptions of State plans covering State and local government
employees only are included in subpart B of part 1952. Any significant
changes that would make these descriptions outdated, such as a
withdrawal or grant of final approval, will continue to be codified in
the CFR.
The proposed partial deletions of the State plan descriptions from
the CFR will not decrease transparency. Each section of part 1952 would
continue to note each State plan, the date of its initial approval,
and, where applicable, the date of final approval, the existence of an
operational status agreement, and the approval of staffing requirements
(``benchmarks''). Each section would have a general statement of
coverage indicating whether the plan covers all private-sector and
State and local government employers, with some exceptions, or State
and local government employers only. Each section would also note that
current information about these coverage exceptions and additional
details about the State plan could be obtained from the Web page on the
OSHA public Web site describing the particular State plan (a link would
be referenced). The OSHA Web page for each State plan would also be
updated to include the latest information on coverage and other
important changes. Furthermore, the other information about the State
plan that is currently in the CFR would still be available in the
Federal Register, and could be searched electronically at https://www.federalregister.gov and would also be available in printed form.
The Federal Register could also be searched electronically on
commercially available legal databases. When changes are made to State
plan coverage, all of the information on coverage would be reprinted in
the Federal Register along with the change, so that readers would not
have to search through many Federal Register notices to obtain a
comprehensive description of coverage.
In addition to changing the individual descriptions of all State
plans within part 1952, OSHA proposes to make several other
housekeeping changes. First, OSHA proposes to move the provisions of
subpart A of part 1952 that pertain to the required criteria for State
plans, to part 1902. (The following provisions would be moved to part
1902: 29 CFR 1952.4, Injury and illness recording and reporting
requirements; 29 CFR 1952.6, Partial approval of State plans; 29 CFR
1952.8, Variations, tolerances, and exemptions affecting the national
defense; 29 CFR1952.9, Variances affecting multi-state employers; 29
CFR 1952.10, Requirements for approval of State posters; and 29 CFR
1952.11, State and local government employee programs.) As a result,
the complete criteria for State plans would be located within part
1902.
OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.1 (Purpose and scope) and 29
CFR 1952.2 (Definitions) because the changes described above and the
restructuring of part 1952 would make these provisions unnecessary.
OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.3 (Developmental plans) because
that material is covered by 29 CFR 1902.2(b). The text of 29 CFR 1952.5
(Availability of State plans) requires complete copies of each State
plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National
Office, the office of the nearest OSHA Regional Administrator, and the
office of the State plan agency listed in part 1952. OSHA proposes to
delete 29 CFR 1952.5 because with the widespread use of electronic
document storage and the Internet, it is no longer necessary to
physically store such information in order to make it available to the
public. Information about State plans can now be found on each State's
Web site, as well as on OSHA's Web site. For the same reasons, OSHA
proposes to delete the language in 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement
availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for
public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. OSHA proposes
to delete the text of 29 CFR 1952.7(a), which deals with product
standards, because the explanation of section 18(c)(2) of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 667(c)(2), on product standards is already covered by 29 CFR
1902.3(c)(2). However, OSHA proposes to move Sec. 1952.7(b) to the end
of Sec. 1902.3(c)(2) because that material was not previously
included. In addition, OSHA proposes to delete references to part 1952
from several other parts of the regulations, such as parts 1903, 1904,
1953, 1954 and 1955, because these references would no longer be
accurate due to the proposed changes. Where appropriate, OSHA proposes
to insert references to the newly numbered part 1902.
Finally, OSHA proposes to make some further minor changes to part
1902. The text of 29 CFR 1902.3(j), which briefly describes State plans
covering State and local government employees, would be deleted because
a more detailed description of State plan coverage of State and local
government employees, formerly set forth in 29 CFR 1952.11, would be
incorporated into 29 CFR part 1902 as Sec. 1902.4(d). This change
would necessitate the re-designation of paragraphs in Sec. 1902.3.
Also, OSHA proposes to change 29 CFR 1902.10(a) to reduce the number of
copies a State agency must submit in order to obtain approval of a
State plan. With the advent of computer
[[Page 49958]]
technology, the submission of extra paper copies is not necessary. OSHA
also proposes to delete outdated references to an address in 29 CFR
1902.11(c) and (d).
Administrative Procedure Act and Direct Final Rulemaking
The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply ``to interpretive
rules, general statements of policy or, rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice'' or when the agency for good cause finds that
``notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). The
proposed revisions set forth in this document would not implement any
substantive change in the development, operation or monitoring of State
plans. Nor would these revisions change the coverage or other
enforcement responsibilities of the State plans or federal OSHA. The
compliance obligations of employers and the rights of employees remain
unaffected. Therefore, OSHA for good cause finds that notice and
comment is unnecessary. In addition, the proposed elimination of the
requirement to make paper copies of State plan documents available in
certain federal and State offices and the reduction of the number of
copies of a proposed State plan which a State agency must submit would
be purely procedural changes. Future alterations to State plan coverage
would only require a simple, easily searchable notice to be published
in the Federal Register and an update to OSHA's State plan Web page.
Although neither the Act nor the APA requires notice and comment
rulemaking here, OSHA, as a matter of policy, is providing interested
persons 30 days to submit comments. OSHA believes a 30-day timeframe
for submitting comments is appropriate because the proposal is
primarily a set of non-substantive technical changes.
OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule along with this
proposed rule in the ``Final Rules'' section of this Federal Register.
An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates that a rule
will not be controversial. OSHA does not consider this proposed rule to
be such because it primarily consists of changes in the organization of
State plan information housed within the CFR, and the resultant re-
numbering and updates to cross-references throughout the CFR.
In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become
effective unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within
a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule
at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment
in response to the direct final rule, the agency typically confirms the
effective date of a direct final rule through a separate Federal
Register document. If the agency receives a significant adverse
comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such
comment as a response to the proposed rule. For purposes of this
proposed rule and the companion direct final rule, a significant
adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be
inappropriate.
The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with
that of this proposed rule. OSHA will treat comments received on the
companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule.
OSHA also will consider significant adverse comment submitted to this
proposed rule as comment to the companion direct final rule. If OSHA
receives no significant adverse comment to either this proposal or the
companion direct final rule, OSHA will publish a Federal Register
document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and
withdrawing this companion proposed rule. Such confirmation may include
minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. If OSHA receives
a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule or this
proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the companion
direct final rule and proceed with this proposed rule. In the event
that OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant
adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in
response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed
rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule
and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.
OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule revises ``collection of information''
(paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA-95''), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5
CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a ``collection of
information'' as ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting,
or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or
opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)). OMB approved the collection of information requirements
currently contained in the regulations associated with OSHA-approved
State Plans (29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956) under OMB
Control Number 1218-0247.
Through emergency processing procedures, OSHA submitted a request
that OMB revise the collection of information requirements contained in
these regulations within 45 days of publication. The proposed rule
would not impose new collection of information requirements for
purposes of PRA-95; therefore, the Agency does not believe that this
rule will impact burden hours or costs. The proposed rule would move
the current collection of information requirement provisions of subpart
A of part 1952, pertaining to required criteria for State plans, to
part 1902. The proposed rule would delete the text of current 29 CFR
1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requiring complete copies of each
State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's
National Office, the nearest OSHA Regional Office, and the office of
the State plan agency. The rule would also delete the language in
current 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses
making State plan documents available for public inspection and
photocopying in designated offices. The rule would also reduce from ten
to one the number of copies of the State Plan which a State agency must
submit under 29 CFR 1902.10(a) in order to obtain approval of the State
plan. Finally, the proposed rule would revise regulations containing
current collection of information requirements at 29 CFR parts 1902,
1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956 to delete or update cross-references, remove
duplicative provisions, and re-designate paragraphs.
OSHA has submitted an ICR addressing the collection of information
requirements identified in this rule to OMB for review (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)). OSHA solicits comments on the proposed extension and revision
of the collection of information requirements and the estimated burden
hours associated with the regulations associated with OSHA-approved
State Plans, including comments on the following:
Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of
the information collection requirements,
[[Page 49959]]
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Minimizing the burden on employers who must comply, for example, by
using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and
transmitting information.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), OSHA provides the following
summary of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plans Information
Collection Request (ICR):
1. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
2. Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans
3. OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.
4. Description of Collection of Information Requirements: The
proposed collection of information requirements, contained in the
regulations associated with this rule are set forth below. The
citations reflect the changes in this notice of proposed rulemaking and
the accompanying direct final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection of Information
Part Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR 1902............................... 1902.2(a), 1902.2(b),
1902.2(c)(2), 1902.2(c)(3),
1902.3(a), 1902.3(b)(1)-
(b)(3), 1902.3(c)(1),
1902.3(d)(1), 1902.3(d)(2),
1902.3(e), 1902.3(f),
1902.3(g), 1902.3(h),
1902.3(i), 1902.3(j),
1902.3(k), 1902.4(a),
1902.4(a)(1), 1902.4(a)(2),
1902.4(b)(1), 1902.4(b)(2),
1902.4(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(vii)
, 1902.4(c)(1),
1902.4(c)(2),
1902.4(c)(2)(i)-(c)(2)(xiii
), 1902.4(d)(1),
1902.4(d)(2),
1902.4(d)(2)(i)-(d)(2)(iii)
(k), 1902.4(e), 1902.7(a),
1902.7(d), 1902.9(a)(1),
1902.9(a)(5),
1902.9(a)(5)(i)-(a)(5)(xii)
, 1902.10, 1902.10(a),
1902.10(b), 1902.31,
1902.32(e), 1902.33,
1902.38(b), 1902.39(a),
1902.39(b), 1902.44(a),
1902.46(d), 1902.46(d)(1).
29 CFR 1952.
29 CFR 1953............................... 1953.1(a), 1953.1(b),
1953.1(c), 1953.2(c)-
1953.2(j), 1953.3(a)-(e),
1953.4(a)(1)-1953.4(a)(5),
1953.4(b)(1)-1953.4(b)(7),
1953.4(c)(1)-1953.4(c)(5),
1953.4(d)(1), 1953.4(d)(2),
1953.5(a)(1)-1953.5(a)(3),
1953.5(b)(1)-(b)(3),
1953.6(a), 1953.6(e).
29 CFR 1954............................... 1954.2(a), 1954.2(b),
1954.2(b)(1)-1954.2(b)(3),
1954.2(c), 1954.2(d),
1954.2(e), 1954.2(e)(1)-
(e)(4), 1954.3(f)(1),
1954.3(f)(1)(i)-1954.3(f)(1
)(v), 1954.10(a),
1954.10(b), 1954.10(c),
1954.11, 1954.20(a),
1954.20(b), 1954.20(c)(1),
1954.20(c)(2),
1954.20(c)(2)(i)-1954.20(c)
(2)(iv), 1954.21(a),
1954.21(b), 1954.21(c),
1954.21(d), 1954.22(a)(1),
1954.22(a)(2).
29 CFR 1955.
29 CFR 1956............................... 1956.2(b)(1),
1956.2(b)(1)(i)-(ii),
1956.2(b)(2), 1956.2(b)(3),
1956.2(c)(1), 1956.2(c)(2),
1956.10(a), 1956.10(b)(1),
1956.10(b)(2),
1956.10(b)(3), 1956.10(c),
1956.10(d)(1),
1956.10(d)(2), 1956.10(e),
1956.10(f), 1956.10(g),
1956.10(h), 1956.10(i),
1956.10(j), 1956.11(a),
1956.11(a)(1),
1956.11(a)(2), 1956.11(d),
1956.20, 1956.21, 1956.22,
1956.23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are
seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the
development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards.
6. Number of Respondents: 28.
7. Frequency: On occasion; quarterly; annually.
8. Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to
respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual
performance goals.
9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: The Agency does not believe that
this rule will impact burden hours or costs. However, based on updated
data and estimates, the Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of
173 burden hours, from 11,196 to 11,369 burden hours. This burden hour
increase is the result of the anticipated increase in the submission of
state plan changes associated with one state (Maine) actively
implementing a new State Plan. The burden hour increase was partially
offset by the decrease in the estimated number of state-initiated state
plan changes.
10. Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): There are no
capital costs for this collection of information.
Submitting comments. In addition to having an opportunity to file
comments with the Department, the PRA provides that an interested party
may file comments on the collection of information requirements
contained in the rule directly with the Office of Management and
Budget, at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB
Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this
is not a toll-free number); or by email: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of
any comments to the Department. See ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives
within forty-five (45) days of publication of this NPRM in the Federal
Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments
should mention OMB control number 1218-0247. Comments submitted in
response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and date of birth.
Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download
comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination,
including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing
the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork
determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the
section of this document titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an
electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, select ``Department of Labor'' under
``Currently Under Review'' to view all of DOL's ICRs, including the ICR
related to this rulemaking. To make inquiries, or to request other
information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding
any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for
failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of
information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
[[Page 49960]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates, and Executive
Orders on the Review of Regulations
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the provisions of the proposal to
determine whether it would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Since no employer of any size
would have any new compliance obligations, the Agency certifies that
the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. OSHA also reviewed this proposal
in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, September
30, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this
proposal would impose no new compliance obligations, it would require
no additional expenditures by either private employers or State, local,
or tribal governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States
on policies not required by statute which have federalism implications,
i.e., policies, such as regulations, which have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, or which
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. This proposal has no federalism implications and would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments.
OSHA has reviewed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) and determined that the
proposal would not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953,
1954, 1955, and 1956
Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety
and health.
Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this proposal. OSHA is issuing this proposal under the authority
specified by Sections 8(c)(1), 8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1),
(c)(2), and (g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(76 FR 3912).
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 28, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Amendments to Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this proposal, OSHA
proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954,
1955, and 1956 as follows:
PART 1902--STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1902 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667);
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart B--Criteria for State Plans
0
2. Amend Sec. 1902.3 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Remove paragraph (j);
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) and (l) as (j) and (k), respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1902.3 Specific criteria.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The State plan shall not include standards for products
distributed or used in interstate commerce which are different from
Federal standards for such products unless such standards are required
by compelling local conditions and do not unduly burden interstate
commerce. This provision, reflecting section 18(c)(2) of the Act, is
interpreted as not being applicable to customized products or parts not
normally available on the open market, or to the optional parts or
additions to products which are ordinarily available with such optional
parts or additions. In situations where section 18(c)(2) is considered
applicable, and provision is made for the adoption of product
standards, the requirements of section 18(c)(2), as they relate to
undue burden on interstate commerce, shall be treated as a condition
subsequent in light of the facts and circumstances which may be
involved.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1902.4 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.4 Indices of effectiveness.
* * * * *
(d) State and local government employee programs. (1) Each approved
State plan must contain satisfactory assurances that the State will, to
the extent permitted by its law, establish and maintain an effective
and comprehensive occupational safety and health program applicable to
all employees of public agencies of the State and its political
subdivisions which program is as effective as the standards contained
in an approved plan.
(2) This criterion for approved State plans is interpreted to
require the following elements with regard to coverage, standards, and
enforcement:
(i) Coverage. The program must cover all public employees over
which the State has legislative authority under its constitution. The
language in section 18(c)(6) which only requires such coverage to the
extent permitted by the State's law specifically recognizes the
situation where local governments exclusively control their own
employees, such as under certain home rule charters.
(ii) Standards. The program must be as effective as the standards
contained in the approved plan applicable to private employers. Thus,
the same criteria and indices of standards effectiveness contained in
Sec. Sec. 1902.3(c) and 1902.4(a) and (b) would apply to the public
employee program. Where hazards are unique to public employment, all
appropriate indices of effectiveness, such as those dealing with
temporary emergency standards, development of standards, employee
information, variances, and protective equipment, would be applicable
to standards for such hazards.
(iii) Enforcement. Although section 18(c)(6) of the Act requires
State public employee programs to be as effective as standards
contained in the State plan, minimum enforcement elements are required
to ensure an effective and comprehensive public employee program as
follows:
(A) Regular inspections of workplaces, including inspections in
response to valid employee complaints;
(B) A means for employees to bring possible violations to the
attention of inspectors;
(C) Notification to employees, or their representatives, of
decisions that no
[[Page 49961]]
violations are found as a result of complaints by such employees or
their representatives, and informal review of such decisions;
(D) A means of informing employees of their protections and
obligations under the Act;
(E) Protection for employees against discharge of discrimination
because of the exercise of rights under the Act;
(F) Employee access to information on their exposure to toxic
materials or harmful physical agents and prompt notification to
employees when they have been or are being exposed to such materials or
agents at concentrations or levels above those specified by the
applicable standards;
(G) Procedures for the prompt restraint or elimination of imminent
danger situations;
(H) A means of promptly notifying employers and employees when an
alleged violation has occurred, including the proposed abatement
requirements;
(I) A means of establishing timetables for the correction of
violations;
(J) A program for encouraging voluntary compliance; and
(K) Such other additional enforcement provisions under State law as
may have been included in the State plan.
(3) In accordance with Sec. 1902.3(b)(3), the State agency or
agencies designated to administer the plan throughout the State must
retain overall responsibility for the entire plan. Political
subdivisions may have the responsibility and authority for the
development and enforcement of standards: Provided, that the designated
State agency or agencies have adequate authority by statute,
regulation, or agreement to insure that the commitments of the State
under the plan will be fulfilled.
(e) Additional indices. Upon his own motion or after consideration
of data, views and arguments received in any proceeding held under
subpart C of this part, the Assistant Secretary may prescribe
additional indices for any State plan which shall be in furtherance of
the purpose of this part, as expressed in Sec. 1902.1.
0
4. Add Sec. Sec. 1902.7 through 1902.09 to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements.
1902.8 Variations and variances.
1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.
* * * * *
Sec. 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements.
(a) Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements
promulgated by State-Plan States must be substantially identical to
those in 29 CFR part 1904 on recording and reporting occupational
injuries and illnesses. State-Plan States must promulgate recording and
reporting requirements that are the same as the Federal requirements
for determining which injuries and illnesses will be entered into the
records and how they are entered. All other injury and illness
recording and reporting requirements that are promulgated by State-Plan
States may be more stringent than, or supplemental to, the Federal
requirements, but, because of the unique nature of the national
recordkeeping program, States must consult with OSHA and obtain
approval of such additional or more stringent reporting and recording
requirements to ensure that they will not interfere with uniform
reporting objectives. State-Plan States must extend the scope of their
regulation to State and local government employers.
(b) A State may not grant a variance to the injury and illness
recording and reporting requirements for private sector employers. Such
variances may only be granted by Federal OSHA to assure nationally
consistent workplace injury and illness statistics. A State may only
grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting
requirements for State or local government entities in that State after
obtaining approval from Federal OSHA.
(c) A State must recognize any variance issued by Federal OSHA.
(d) A State may, but is not required, to participate in the Annual
OSHA Injury/Illness Survey as authorized by 29 CFR 1904.41. A
participating State may either adopt requirements identical to Sec.
1904.41 in its recording and reporting regulation as an enforceable
State requirement, or may defer to the Federal regulation for
enforcement. Nothing in any State plan shall affect the duties of
employers to comply with Sec. 1904.41, when surveyed, as provided by
section 18(c)(7) of the Act.
Sec. 1902.8 Variations and variances.
(a) The power of the Secretary of Labor under section 16 of the Act
to provide reasonable limitations and variations, tolerances, and
exemptions to and from any or all provisions of the Act as he may find
necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national
defense is reserved.
(b) No action by a State under a plan shall be inconsistent with
action by the Secretary under this section of the Act.
(c) Where a State standard is identical to a Federal standard
addressed to the same hazard, an employer or group of employers seeking
a temporary or permanent variance from such standard, or portion
thereof, to be applicable to employment or places of employment in more
than one State, including at least one State with an approved plan, may
elect to apply to the Assistant Secretary for such variance under the
provisions of 29 CFR part 1905.
(d) Actions taken by the Assistant Secretary with respect to such
application for a variance, such as interim orders, with respect
thereto, the granting, denying, or issuing any modification or
extension thereof, will be deemed prospectively an authoritative
interpretation of the employer or employers' compliance obligations
with regard to the State standard, or portion thereof, identical to the
Federal standard, or portion thereof, affected by the action in the
employment or places of employment covered by the application.
(e) Nothing herein shall affect the option of an employer or
employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance with applicability
to employment or places of employment in more than one State to apply
for such variance either to the Assistant Secretary or the individual
State agencies involved. However, the filing with, as well as granting,
denial, modification, or revocation of a variance request or interim
order by, either authority (Federal or State) shall preclude any
further substantive consideration of such application on the same
material facts for the same employment or place of employment by the
other authority.
(f) Nothing herein shall affect either Federal or State authority
and obligations to cite for noncompliance with standards in employment
or places of employment where no interim order, variance, or
modification or extension thereof, granted under State or Federal law
applies, or to cite for noncompliance with such Federal or State
variance action.
Sec. 1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.
(a)(1) In order to inform employees of their protections and
obligations under applicable State law, of the issues not covered by
State law, and of the continuing availability of Federal monitoring
under section 18(f) of the Act, States with approved plans shall
develop and require employers to post a State poster meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
[[Page 49962]]
(2) Such poster shall be substituted for the Federal poster under
section 8(c)(1) of the Act and Sec. 1903.2 of this chapter where the
State attains operational status for the enforcement of State standards
as defined in Sec. 1954.3(b) of this chapter.
(3) Where a State has distributed its poster and has enabling
legislation as defined in Sec. 1954.3(b)(1) of this chapter but
becomes nonoperational under the provisions of Sec. 1954.3(f)(1) of
this chapter because of failure to be at least as effective as the
Federal program, the approved State poster may, at the discretion of
the Assistant Secretary, continue to be substituted for the Federal
poster in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) A State may, for good cause shown, request, under 29 CFR part
1953, approval of an alternative to a State poster for informing
employees of their protections and obligations under the State plans,
provided such alternative is consistent with the Act, Sec.
1902.4(c)(2)(iv) and applicable State law. In order to qualify as a
substitute for the Federal poster under this paragraph (a), such
alternative must be shown to be at least as effective as the Federal
poster requirements in informing employees of their protections and
obligations and address the items listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this
section.
(5) In developing the poster, the State shall address but not be
limited to the following items:
(i) Responsibilities of the State, employers and employees;
(ii) The right of employees or their representatives to request
workplace inspections;
(iii) The right of employees making such requests to remain
anonymous;
(iv) The right of employees to participate in inspections;
(v) Provisions for prompt notice to employers and employees when
alleged violations occur;
(vi) Protection for employees against discharge or discrimination
for the exercise of their rights under Federal and State law;
(vii) Sanctions;
(viii) A means of obtaining further information on State law and
standards and the address of the State agency;
(ix) The right to file complaints with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration about State program administration;
(x) A list of the issues as defined in Sec. 1902.2(c) which will
not be covered by State plan;
(xi) The address of the Regional Office of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration; and
(xii) Such additional employee protection provisions and
obligations under State law as may have been included in the approved
State plan.
(b) Posting of the State poster shall be recognized as compliance
with the posting requirements in section 8(c)(1) of the Act and Sec.
1903.2 of this chapter, provided that the poster has been approved in
accordance with subpart B of part 1953 of this chapter. Continued
Federal recognition of the State poster is also subject to pertinent
findings of effectiveness with regard to the State program under 29 CFR
part 1954.
Subpart C--Procedures for Submission, Approval and Rejection of
State Plans
0
5. In Sec. 1902.10, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.10 Submission.
(a) An authorized representative of the State agency or agencies
responsible for administering the plan shall submit one copy of the
plan to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The State
plan shall include supporting papers conforming to the requirements
specified in the subpart B of this part, and the State occupational
safety and health standards to be included in the plan, including a
copy of any specific or enabling State laws and regulations relating to
such standards. If any of the representations concerning the
requirements of subpart B of this part are dependent upon any judicial
or administrative interpretations of the State standards or enforcement
provisions, the State shall furnish citations to any pertinent judicial
decisions and the text of any pertinent administrative decisions.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 1902.11, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.11 General notice.
* * * * *
(c) The notice shall provide that the plan, or copies thereof,
shall be available for inspection and copying at the office of the
Director, Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, office of the Assistant Regional Director in whose
region the State is located, and an office of the State which shall be
designated by the State for this purpose.
(d) The notice shall afford interested persons an opportunity to
submit in writing, data, views, and arguments on the proposal,
subjects, or issues involved within 30 days after publication of the
notice in the Federal Register. Thereafter the written comments
received or copies thereof shall be available for public inspection and
copying at the office of the Director, Office of State Programs,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, office of the Assistant
Regional Director in whose region the State is located, and an office
of the State which shall be designated by the State for this purpose.
* * * * *
0
7. Add Sec. 1902.16 immediately following Sec. 1902.15 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1902.16 Partial approval of State plans.
(a) The Assistant Secretary may partially approve a plan under this
part whenever:
(1) The portion to be approved meets the requirements of this part;
(2) The plan covers more than one occupational safety and health
issue; and
(3) Portions of the plan to be approved are reasonably separable
from the remainder of the plan.
(b) Whenever the Assistant Secretary approves only a portion of a
State lan, he may give notice to the State of an opportunity to show
cause why a proceeding should not be commenced for disapproval of the
remainder of the plan under subpart C of this part before commencing
such a proceeding.
Subpart D--Procedures for Determinations Under Section 18(e) of the
Act
0
8. In Sec. 1902.31, revise the definition of ``Development step'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 1902.31 Definitions.
* * * * *
Development step includes, but is not limited to, those items
listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions
thereof, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items
specified in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act for
completion by the State, as well as those items which under the
approval decision were subject to evaluations and changes deemed
necessary as a result thereof to make the State program at least as
effective as the Federal program within the 3 years developmental
period. (See 29 CFR 1953.4(a)).
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 1902.33 to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.33 Developmental period.
Upon the commencement of plan operations after the initial approval
of a State's plan by the Assistant Secretary, a State has three years
in which to complete all of the developmental steps
[[Page 49963]]
specified in the plan as approved. Section 1953.4 of this chapter sets
forth the procedures for the submission and consideration of
developmental changes by OSHA. Generally, whenever a State completes a
developmental step, it must submit the resulting plan change as a
supplement to its plan to OSHA for approval. OSHA's approval of such
changes is then published in the Federal Register.
0
10. In Sec. 1902.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.34 Certification of completion of developmental steps.
* * * * *
(c) After a review of the certification and the State's plan, if
the Assistant Secretary finds that the State has completed all the
developmental steps specified in the plan, he shall publish the
certification in the Federal Register.
Sec. 1902.41 [Amended]
0
11. In Sec. 1902.41, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraph
(d) as (c).
0
12. In Sec. 1902.43, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1902.43 Affirmative 18(e) decision.
(a) * * *
(3) An amendment to the appropriate section of part 1952 of this
chapter;
* * * * *
PART 1903--INSPECTIONS, CITATIONS AND PROPOSED PENALTIES
0
13. The authority citation for part 1903 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 8 and 9 (29 U.S.C. 657, 658); 5 U.S.C. 553;
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
0
14. In Sec. 1903.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1903.2 Posting of notice; availability of the Act, regulations
and applicable standard.
(a) * * *
(2) Where a State has an approved poster informing employees of
their protections and obligations as defined in Sec. 1902.9 of this
chapter, such poster, when posted by employers covered by the State
plan, shall constitute compliance with the posting requirements of
section 8(c)(1) of the Act. Employers whose operations are not within
the issues covered by the State plan must comply with paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
* * * * *
PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND
ILLNESSES
0
15. The authority citation for part 1904 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart D--Other OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Requirements
0
16. In Sec. 1904.37, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1904.37 State recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Basic requirement. Some States operate their own OSHA programs,
under the authority of a State plan as approved by OSHA. States
operating OSHA-approved State plans must have occupational injury and
illness recording and reporting requirements that are substantially
identical to the requirements in this part (see 29 CFR 1902.3(j), 29
CFR 1902.7, and 29 CFR 1956.10(i)).
* * * * *
PART 1952--APPROVED STATE PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS
0
17. The authority citation for part 1952 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part
1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012).
0
18. Revise subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A--List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and State
and Local Government Employees
Sec.
1952.1 South Carolina.
1952.2 Oregon.
1952.3 Utah.
1952.4 Washington.
1952.5 North Carolina.
1952.6 Iowa.
1952.7 California.
1952.8 Minnesota.
1952.9 Maryland.
1952.10 Tennessee.
1952.11 Kentucky.
1952.12 Alaska.
1952.13 Michigan.
1952.14 Vermont.
1952.15 Nevada.
1952.16 Hawaii.
1952.17 Indiana.
1952.18 Wyoming.
1952.19 Arizona.
1952.20 New Mexico.
1952.21 Virginia.
1952.22 Puerto Rico.
Subpart A--List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and
State and Local Government Employees
Sec. 1952.1 South Carolina.
(a) The South Carolina State plan received initial approval on
December 6, 1972.
(b) The South Carolina State plan received final approval on
December 18, 1987.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance officer staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, South
Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised
compliance staffing benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health compliance
officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-
CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing
requirements on January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/south_carolina.html.
Sec. 1952.2 Oregon.
(a) The Oregon State plan received initial approval on December 28,
1972.
(b) The Oregon State plan received final approval on May 12, 2005.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (``benchmarks'') necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required for each State operating
an approved State plan. In October 1992, Oregon completed, in
conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the health staffing level
initially established in 1980 and proposed a revised health benchmark
of 28 health compliance officers. Oregon elected to retain the safety
benchmark level established in the 1980 Report to the Court of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in 1980 of 47 safety
compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service
on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing
requirements on August 11, 1994.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and
[[Page 49964]]
local government employers and employees, within the State. For current
information on these exceptions and for additional details about the
plan, please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/oregon.html.
Sec. 1952.3 Utah.
(a) The Utah State plan received initial approval on January 10,
1973.
(b) The Utah State plan received final approval on July 16, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Utah,
in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 10 safety and 9 health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comments and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements
effective July 16, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/utah.html.
Sec. 1952.4 Washington.
(a) The Washington State plan received initial approval on January
26, 1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with
Washington.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/washington.html.
Sec. 1952.5 North Carolina.
(a) The North Carolina State plan received initial approval on
February 1, 1973.
(b) The North Carolina State plan received final approval on
December 18, 1996.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (``benchmarks'') necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September 1984, North Carolina, in
conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially
established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 50 safety and 27
health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and
service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised
staffing requirements on January 17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina
reconsidered the information utilized in the initial revision of its
1980 benchmarks and determined that changes in local conditions and
improved inspection data warranted further revision of its benchmarks
to 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing requirements on June 4, 1996.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/north_carolina.html.
Sec. 1952.6 Iowa.
(a) The Iowa State plan received initial approval on July 20, 1973.
(b) The Iowa State plan received final approval on July 2, 1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Iowa,
in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 16 safety and 13 health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements
effective July 2, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/iowa.html.
Sec. 1952.7 California.
(a) The California State plan received initial approval on May 1,
1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with
California.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html.
Sec. 1952.8 Minnesota.
(a) The Minnesota State plan received initial approval on June 8,
1973.
(b) The Minnesota State plan received final approval on July 30,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984
Minnesota, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 31 safety and 12 health compliance officers.
After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
July 30, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/minnesota.html.
Sec. 1952.9 Maryland.
(a) The Maryland State plan received initial approval on July 5,
1973.
(b) The Maryland State plan received final approval on July 18,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984
Maryland, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 36 safety and 18 health compliance officers.
After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
July 18, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current
[[Page 49965]]
information on these exceptions and for additional details about the
plan, please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/maryland.html.
Sec. 1952.10 Tennessee.
(a) The Tennessee State plan received initial approval on July 5,
1973.
(b) The Tennessee State plan received final approval on July 22,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984
Tennessee, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 22 safety and 14 health compliance officers.
After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
July 22, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/tennessee.html.
Sec. 1952.11 Kentucky.
(a) The Kentucky State plan received initial approval on July 31,
1973.
(b) The Kentucky State plan received final approval on June 13,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984
Kentucky, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 23 safety and 14 health compliance officers.
After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
June 13, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/kentucky.html.
Sec. 1952.12 Alaska.
(a) The Alaska State plan received initial approval on August 10,
1973.
(b) The Alaska State plan received final approval on September 28,
1984.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. Alaska's compliance
staffing benchmarks are 4 safety and 5 health compliance officers.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/alaska.html.
Sec. 1952.13 Michigan.
(a) The Michigan State plan received initial approval on October 3,
1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with
Michigan.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (``benchmarks'') necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required for each State operating
an approved State plan. In 1992, Michigan completed, in conjunction
with OSHA, a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980
and proposed revised benchmarks of 56 safety and 45 health compliance
officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-
CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing
requirements on April 20, 1995.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/michigan.html.
Sec. 1952.14 Vermont.
(a) The Vermont State plan received initial approval on October 16,
1973.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Vermont.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/vermont.html.
Sec. 1952.15 Nevada.
(a) The Nevada State plan received initial approval on January 4,
1974.
(b) The Nevada State plan received final approval on April 18,
2000.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In July 1986 Nevada, in
conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially
established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks
of 11 safety and 5 health compliance officers. After opportunity for
public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing requirements on September 2, 1987.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/nevada.html.
Sec. 1952.16 Hawaii.
(a) The Hawaii State plan received initial approval on January 4,
1974.
(b) The Hawaii State plan received final approval on May 4, 1984.
(c) On September 21, 2012 OSHA modified the State Plan's approval
status from final approval to initial approval, and reinstated
concurrent federal enforcement authority pending the necessary
corrective action by the State Plan in order to once again meet the
criteria for a final approval determination. OSHA and Hawaii entered
into an operational status agreement to provide a workable division of
enforcement responsibilities.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/hawaii.html.
Sec. 1952.17 Indiana.
(a) The Indiana State plan received initial approval on March 6,
1974.
(b) The Indiana State plan received final approval on September 26,
1986.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to
[[Page 49966]]
be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In
September 1984 Indiana, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a
reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed
revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 47 safety and 23 health
compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service
on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing
requirements on January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/indiana.html.
Sec. 1952.18 Wyoming.
(a) The Wyoming State plan received initial approval on May 3,
1974.
(b) The Wyoming State plan received final approval on June 27,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Wyoming,
in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 6 safety and 2 health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
June 27, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/wyoming.html.
Sec. 1952.19 Arizona.
(a) The Arizona State plan received initial approval on November 5,
1974.
(b) The Arizona State plan received final approval on June 20,
1985.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Arizona
in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels
initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 9 safety and 6 health compliance officers. After
opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
June 20, 1985.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/arizona.html.
Sec. 1952.20 New Mexico.
(a) The New Mexico State plan received initial approval on December
10, 1975.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with New
Mexico.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (``benchmarks'') necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required for each State operating
an approved State plan. In May 1992, New Mexico completed, in
conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the staffing levels initially
established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 7 safety and 3
health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and
service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised
staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_mexico.html.
Sec. 1952.21 Virginia.
(a) The Virginia State plan received initial approval on September
28, 1976.
(b) The Virginia State plan received final approval on November 30,
1988.
(c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required to be established for
each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984
Virginia, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the
levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 38 safety and 21 health compliance officers.
After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the
Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on
January 17, 1986.
(d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virginia.html.
Sec. 1952.22 Puerto Rico.
(a) The Puerto Rico State plan received initial approval on August
30, 1977.
(b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Puerto
Rico.
(c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees,
with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government
employers and employees, within the State. For current information on
these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please
visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/puerto_rico.html.
0
19. Add subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government
Employees
Sec.
1952.23 Connecticut.
1952.24 New York.
1952.25 New Jersey.
1952.26 The Virgin Islands.
1952.27 Illinois.
Subpart B--List of Approved State Plans for State and Local
Government Employees
Sec. 1952.23 Connecticut.
(a) The Connecticut State plan for State and local government
employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on
November 3, 1978.
(b) In accordance with 29 CFR 1956.10(g), a State is required to
have a sufficient number of adequately trained and competent personnel
to discharge its responsibilities under the plan. The Connecticut
Public Employee Only State plan provides for three (3) safety
compliance officers and one (1) health compliance officer as set forth
in the Connecticut Fiscal Year 1986 grant. This staffing level meets
the ``fully effective'' benchmarks established for Connecticut for both
safety and health.
(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and
employees within the State. For additional details about the plan,
please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/connecticut.html.
[[Page 49967]]
Sec. 1952.24 New York.
(a) The New York State plan for State and local government
employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on
June 1, 1984.
(b) The plan, as revised on April 28, 2006, provides assurances of
a fully trained, adequate staff, including 29 safety and 21 health
compliance officers for enforcement inspections and 11 safety and 9
health consultants to perform consultation services in the public
sector. The State has also given satisfactory assurances of continued
adequate funding to support the plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and
employees within the State. For additional details about the plan,
please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_york.html.
Sec. 1952.25 New Jersey.
(a) The New Jersey State plan for State and local government
employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on
January 11, 2001.
(b) The plan further provides assurances of a fully trained,
adequate staff, including 20 safety and 7 health compliance officers
for enforcement inspections, and 4 safety and 3 health consultants to
perform consultation services in the public sector, and 2 safety and 3
health training and education staff. The State has assured that it will
continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and
qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as
required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State has also given satisfactory
assurance of adequate funding to support the plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and
employees within the State. For additional details about the plan,
please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_jersey.html.
Sec. 1952.26 The Virgin Islands.
(a) The Virgin Islands State plan for Public Employees Only was
approved on July 23, 2003.
(b) The plan only covers State and local government employers and
employees within the State. For additional details about the plan,
please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virgin_islands.html.
Sec. 1952.27 Illinois.
(a) The Illinois State plan for state and local government
employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on
September 1, 2009.
(b) The Plan further provides assurances of a fully trained,
adequate staff within three years of plan approval, including 11 safety
and 3 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 3
safety and 2 health consultants to perform consultation services in the
public sector. The state has assured that it will continue to provide a
sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel
necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR
1956.10. The state has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate
funding to support the Plan.
(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and
employees within the state. For additional details about the plan,
please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/illinois.html.
Subparts C through FF [Removed]
0
20. Remove subparts C through FF.
PART 1953--CHANGES TO STATE PLANS
0
21. The authority citation for part 1953 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
0
22. In Sec. 1953.3, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1953.3 General policies and procedures.
* * * * *
(c) Plan supplement availability. The underlying documentation for
identical plan changes shall be maintained by the State. Annually,
States shall submit updated copies of the principal documents
comprising the plan, or appropriate page changes, to the extent that
these documents have been revised. To the extent possible, plan
documents will be maintained and submitted by the State in electronic
format and also made available in such manner.
* * * * *
PART 1954--PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF APPROVED
STATE PLANS
0
23. The authority citation for part 1954 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart A--General
0
24. In Sec. 1954.3, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1954.3 Exercise of Federal discretionary authority.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this
part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement
proceedings will not be initiated where an employer has posted the
approved State poster in accordance with the applicable provisions of
an approved State plan and Sec. 1902.9 of this chapter.
(iii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this
part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement
proceedings will not be initiated where an employer is in compliance
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of an approved State
plan as provided in Sec. 1902.7 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 1955--PROCEDURES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF STATE PLANS
0
25. The authority citation for part 1955 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667);
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Subpart A--General
0
26. In Sec. 1955.2, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1955.2 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(4) Developmental step includes, but is not limited to, those items
listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions
thereto, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items
in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act, as well as
those items in the approval decision which are subject to evaluations
(see e.g., approval of Michigan plan), which were deemed necessary to
make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program
within the 3 year developmental period. (See part 1953 of this
chapter.)
* * * * *
PART 1956--STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN
STATES WITHOUT APPROVED PRIVATE EMPLOYEE PLANS
0
27. The authority citation for part 1956 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Section 18 (29 U.S.C. 667), 29 CFR parts 1902 and
1955, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan.
25, 2012).
[[Page 49968]]
Subparts E through I [Removed]
0
28. Remove subparts E through I.
[FR Doc. 2015-19226 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P