Standards Improvement Project-Phase III, 38646-38671 [2010-15156]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38646-38671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15156]



[[Page 38645]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, et al.



Standards Improvement Project--Phase III; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 38646]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049]
RIN 1218-AC19


Standards Improvement Project--Phase III

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
continuing its efforts to remove or revise outdated, duplicative, 
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in its safety and health 
standards. This effort builds on the success of Standards Improvement 
Project (SIP)--Phase I published on June 18, 1998, and SIP--Phase II 
published on January 5, 2005. The Agency believes that the proposed 
revisions will reduce compliance costs, eliminate paperwork burdens, 
and clarify requirements without diminishing worker protections.

DATES: Submit comments and hearing requests on or before September 30, 
2010. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of 
the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049, by 
any of the following methods:
    Electronic. Submit comments electronically to https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow 
the instructions online for submitting comments.
    Facsimile. OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and 
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including 
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 
693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead 
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these 
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit 
these attachments, in hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical 
Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must 
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and docket number 
(i.e., OSHA-2006-0049) so the Agency can attach them to the appropriate 
document.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and 
messenger service. Submit comments and any additional material (e.g., 
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-
2006-0049 or RIN No. 1218-AC19, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, 
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-
5627.) Note that security-related procedures may result in significant 
delays in receiving comments and other written materials by regular 
mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about 
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express 
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation 
for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions. All submissions must include the Agency name and the 
OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049). Comments and 
other material, including any personal information, are placed in the 
public docket without revision, and will be available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about 
submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or 
submitting comments that contain personal information (either about 
themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and 
medical data.
    OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this proposed rule. 
It also welcomes comments on its findings that this proposed rule would 
have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts on 
the regulated community.
    Docket. The electronic docket for this proposed rule, established 
at https://www.regulations.gov, lists most of the documents in the 
docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not 
publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All 
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for 
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA 
Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

References and Exhibits

    In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references a number of 
supporting materials. References to these materials are specified as 
``ID,'' followed by the number of the document. OSHA posts these 
referenced materials in Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049 at https://www.regulations.osha.gov. The documents also are available at the OSHA 
Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section of this notice). For further 
information about accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal 
Register notice, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room 
N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical 
inquiries, contact Mr. Ryan Tremain, Health Scientist, Directorate of 
Standards and Guidance, N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2056 or fax (202) 693-1678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, 
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are 
available at OSHA's Web site at https://www.osha.gov. In addition, the 
docket material is available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-
5627).

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Legal Considerations
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Certification
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and 
Health
XI. Public Participation
XII. List of Subjects
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Proposed Amendments to Standards

I. Background

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

[[Page 38647]]

and reduce compliance costs. In addition, this action will allow 
employers to comply with many standards using newer and more flexible 
means than specified in the existing standards. OSHA's effort to 
improve standards began in the 1970s, not long after it issued the 
first set of standards. In 1973, OSHA issued proposals to clarify and 
update rules that it adopted originally on May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466). 
In 1978, OSHA published a rulemaking titled, ``Selected General and 
Special (Cooperage and Laundry Machinery, and Bakery Equipment) 
Industry Safety and Health Standards: Revocation'' (43 FR 49726, 
October 24, 1978). Commonly known as the ``Standards Deletion 
Project,'' this comprehensive final rule revoked hundreds of 
unnecessary and duplicative requirements in the general industry 
standards at 29 CFR 1910. Another rulemaking in 1984 titled, 
``Revocation of Advisory and Repetitive Standards'' (49 FR 5318, 
February 10, 1984) resulted in the removal of many repetitive and 
unenforceable requirements. These rulemaking actions primarily removed 
standards that were: (1) Not relevant to worker safety (i.e., the 
standards addressed public-safety issues); (2) duplicative of other 
standards found elsewhere in the general industry standards; (3) 
considered ``nuisance'' standards (i.e., one having no merit or worker 
safety or health benefits); or (4) legally unenforceable.
    In 1996, in response to the Presidential Memorandum on Improving 
Government Regulations, OSHA began another series of rulemaking 
improvement actions. Patterned after the earlier rulemaking actions, 
the new effort identified and then revised or removed, standards that 
were confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent. This effort 
also included standards that could be rewritten in plain language. In 
the first action, titled, ``Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry 
and Construction Standards'' (61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), also known 
as the ``Standards Improvement Project'' or ``SIP-I,'' OSHA focused on 
revising standards that were out of date, duplicative, or inconsistent.
    OSHA published the final rule on SIP-I on June 18, 1998 (63 FR 
33450). Changes made in SIP-I included reducing the frequency of a 
medical-testing requirement and eliminating an unnecessary and obsolete 
medical test required in both the Coke Oven and Inorganic Arsenic 
standards; revising the emergency-response provisions of the Vinyl 
Chloride standard; eliminating the public-safety provisions of the 
Temporary Labor Camps standard; and eliminating unnecessary cross 
references in the textile industry standards. OSHA made these 
improvements without reducing worker safety and health protection.
    In 2002, OSHA published a proposed rule for phase II of the 
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-II) (67 FR 66494, October 31, 2002). 
In that notice, OSHA proposed to revise a number of provisions in 
health and safety standards that commenters identified during SIP-I, or 
that the Agency identified as standards in need of improvement.
    In the final rule on SIP-II, published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1111), the Agency revised a number of health standards to reduce 
regulatory burden, facilitate compliance, and eliminate unnecessary 
paperwork without reducing health protections. The improvements made by 
SIP-II addressed issues such as worker notification of the use of 
chemicals in the workplace, frequency of exposure monitoring, and 
medical surveillance.
    As stated in the 2006 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 
for the SIP-III project (71 FR 76623, December 21, 2006), OSHA 
identified a number of standards as potential candidates for 
improvement in SIP-III based on the Agency's review of its standards, 
suggestions and comments from the public, and recommendations from the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB based its 
recommendations on comments it received on Regulatory Reform of the 
U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005).\1\ Many commenters during the SIP-II 
rulemaking process applauded the SIP process and OSHA for its efforts 
to streamline and improve its health standards by removing or revising 
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent requirements (IDs 3-5, 3-10, 3-
11, and 3-13 to Docket S-778A). These commenters encouraged the Agency 
to continue the SIP project, hence today's publication of a proposed 
SIP-III rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the full Regulatory Reform report, please visit: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SIP-III, OSHA's objective is to modify individual provisions of 
standards by removing or revising requirements that are confusing, 
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent without reducing workers' safety 
and health or imposing any additional economic burden on employers. The 
ANPRM for SIP-III invited comments on a number of such requirements 
identified by OSHA, and also solicited recommendations from commenters 
for additional requirements for inclusion in the proposal. Commenters 
submitted 134 comments to the docket; OSHA discusses these comments 
below, along with the proposed changes.

II. Legal Considerations

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

[[Page 38648]]

same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n. 32; International 
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (LOTO II).
    Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a 
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and 
other information-gathering and transmittal provisions. (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(7).) OSHA standards also must be highly protective. (See 58 FR 
at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.) Finally, whenever 
practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of objective 
criteria and of the performance desired.'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).)

III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    OSHA is proposing a number of actions amending its standards, 
including revisions to its general industry, maritime, construction, 
and agricultural standards. A detailed discussion of each of the 
proposed revisions follows, including a discussion of comments the 
Agency received in response to the ANPRM. Some of the revisions 
proposed affect more than one industry. For example, the proposed 
revisions to the general industry Slings standard also would affect 
shipyard employment and the construction industry. When proposed 
revisions in a general industry standard would affect additional 
industries, OSHA will discuss the revisions fully in the general 
industry section, and then reference the provisions affected in the 
sections covering the other industries.

A. Proposed Revisions in General Industry Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)

1. Subpart E
    OSHA is proposing several revisions to subpart E. First, OSHA 
proposes to revise the title of subpart E from ``Means of Egress'' to 
``Exit Routes and Emergency Planning.'' The Agency originally proposed 
to revise the title of subpart E to ``Exit Routes, Emergency Action 
Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans''(61 FR 47712, September 10, 1996) ; 
however, this title is missing from the final standard because of a 
printing error (see 67 FR 67949, November 7, 2002). OSHA now proposes 
to revise the title to the more concise ``Exit Routes and Emergency 
Planning.'' As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 2002 final rule, 
the revised title is part of the Agency's use of plain language that 
readily conveys the contents of the subpart (67 FR 67949 at 67950).
    OSHA also is proposing to revise Sec.  1910.35 to update the 
edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life 
Safety Code, that OSHA references therein as a compliance alternative. 
Currently, Sec.  1910.35 accepts employer compliance with the 2000 
edition of NFPA 101 instead of complying with corresponding 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. The Agency 
analyzed the provisions of the 2006 edition of NFPA 101 (ID 0137), and 
preliminarily concluded that the corresponding provisions provide an 
equal or higher level of worker safety than Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 
1910.36, and 1910.37. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to update 
Sec.  1910.35 by stating that employers who demonstrate compliance with 
the 2006 version of the Life Safety Code will be deemed to be in 
compliance with these requirements.
    Finally, OSHA is proposing to revise Sec.  1910.35 to add a second 
compliance alternative that will allow employers demonstrating 
compliance with the exit-route provisions of the International Code 
Council (ICC), 2006 International Fire Code (IFC), to be in compliance 
with the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 
1910.37. Also, OSHA is proposing to revise the title of Sec.  1910.35, 
listed in the Table of Contents in Sec.  1910.33, a definition in Sec.  
1910.34, and two notes in Sec.  1910.36, to correspond to the proposed 
new language to Sec.  1910.35.
    The proposed revision to add the IFC compliance alternative 
receives support from comments made in response to the 2006 ANPRM. In 
the ANPRM, OSHA explained the reasons for the recommended revision, and 
requested information on the suitability of allowing both the IFC, as 
well as ICC's International Building Code (IBC), to serve as an 
equivalent compliance option. The ANPRM recommendation was in response 
to a petition by the ICC, which submitted a comparison of the 2003 IBC 
and IFC provisions and the OSHA requirements. Subsequently, OSHA 
analyzed the provisions of the newer (2006) editions of the IFC and 
IBC, and compared them with requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 
1910.36, and 1910.37 (ID 0138). In this analysis, OSHA found that the 
IFC contains provisions for existing buildings and exit-route 
maintenance, while the IBC does not. These provisions are necessary to 
achieve equivalency with Sec.  1910.37. Therefore, OSHA determined that 
the IFC corresponded to the OSHA requirements, and that the IBC did 
not. This analysis concluded that the corresponding provisions of the 
IFC provide an equivalent or higher level of worker safety than 
Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. Therefore, the Agency is 
proposing to recognize the IFC as a compliance alternative, in addition 
to the NFPA 101 compliance alternative, thereby providing additional 
flexibility to employers.
    In the ANPRM, OSHA asked if the egress provisions of the ICC codes 
offer protection equivalent to that required by subpart E. Many 
commenters responded affirmatively. For example, the Building Owners 
and Managers Association International (BOMA), which represents 
thousands of owners and managers of existing commercial properties in 
North America, stated that it strongly supports this proposed 
additional compliance option (ID 0121). Further, BOMA stated that the 
IBC and IFC are ``responsive to not only the health safety and welfare 
needs of those who lease real estate, but for those who are employers 
in the industry as well.''
    The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings 
Service, the landlord of the civilian Federal government, with a total 
inventory of over 345 million square feet of workspace for a million 
Federal workers, commented:

    [T]he requirements for egress in the IBC and IFC will satisfy 
the OSHA rules and clearly demonstrate that a building designed and 
constructed to the requirements of the IBC and IFC provides 
equivalent protection to the federal egress requirements. (ID 0130.)

A comment from the New York Department of State (ID 0023) included a 
detailed discussion of the IBC, IFC, and subpart E. This commenter 
concluded that the combined requirements of these two national model 
codes provide an equivalent level of protection to all occupants.

    Many of the subpart E provisions are general, performance-oriented 
requirements, and do not cover conditions in every building. Employers 
may use a compliance alternative as guidance on specific situations. 
OSHA believes allowing employers two compliance options--compliance 
with either the NFPA 101 (2006) or the IFC (2006)--will give employers 
additional flexibility to use whichever compliance option best serves 
their needs, while meeting the level of worker protection provided by 
OSHA's subpart E rules.
    OSHA notes that a number of commenters supporting the proposed 
revision stated that such a revision would involve a potential cost 
savings for them because it ``can reduce design and construction 
delays. * * *'' (See, for example, ID 0117.) Other commenters (IDs 
0019, 0020) supported the flexibility the revision would provide to 
employers by allowing them to comply with either NFPA 101 or with

[[Page 38649]]

the ICC Codes, explaining that health-care facilities participating in 
Medicare and Medicaid used NFPA 101, even in those jurisdictions that 
use the ICC codes.
    The ANPRM also included a question about whether other, alternative 
national building codes were available that OSHA should consider. 
Commenters (IDs 0018, 0021, 0023, 0119, 0121) responded that no other 
building codes are available for OSHA to consider. One commenter (ID 
0121) noted, ``Currently, 47 states and the District of Columbia use 
the IBC, and 42 states and the District of Columbia use the IFC.'' GSA 
stated (ID 0130) that they have ``adopted the technical requirements of 
the IBC and the IFC. * * *''
    Opposition to the revision came from the NFPA (IDs 0022, 0134). 
However, much of NFPA's comment centered on whether the ICC codes 
provide a level of safety equivalent to NFPA 101, rather than whether 
compliance with the ICC codes would provide a level of safety 
equivalent to that required by OSHA in subpart E. As noted previously, 
OSHA plans to retain and update existing Sec.  1910.35. Thus, the 
comparison provided by NFPA (ID 0022) of the provisions of NFPA 101 and 
the ICC codes does not address the issue regarding the ability of the 
ICC codes to serve as an additional compliance option to OSHA's subpart 
E.
    Another concern raised by the NFPA comments (IDs 0022, 0134) was 
that the ICC developed the ICC Codes using consensus principles that 
differed from the consensus principles used to develop NFPA codes. 
Again, this comment does not address the issue of whether the ICC Codes 
provide a level of protection equal to that provided by subpart E, 
regardless of the method of development. While it is true that OSHA, in 
conformance with section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), and OMB 
Circular A-119, must consider consensus standards in developing its 
mandatory standards, the Agency is not restricted to the use of 
consensus standards. OSHA does not plan to promulgate a government-
unique standard instead of a consensus standard, but to allow 
compliance alternatives that provide workers with a level of safety 
that is at least equivalent to the level of safety provided by OSHA's 
existing subpart E requirements.
    The Denver Fire Department (ID 0013) also objected to the proposed 
revision because the IBC and IFC do not specify minimum exit access 
widths for every type of occupancy. The Denver Fire Department did not 
explain how the lack of such specificity would impact worker safety; as 
noted earlier, OSHA does not believe worker safety would be compromised 
by including IFC 2006 as a compliance alternative. OSHA notes that both 
NFPA 101 and the ICC Codes allow exit access widths narrower than the 
28-inch minimum specified in Sec.  1910.36, but only in limited 
situations in which the occupancy type and occupant load ensure an 
equal level of safety.
    OSHA believes that most of the information received in response to 
the ANPRM supports the proposal to allow the 2006 NFPA 101 or the 2006 
IFC provisions as independent compliance alternatives to the 
corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. 
The Agency believes the proposed revisions will increase compliance 
flexibility, and achieve greater compatibility with many State and 
local jurisdictions, while maintaining worker protection.
    2. Subpart I
a. Training Certification Records
    OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (f)(4) of the general 
industry Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standard (Sec.  1910.132), 
paragraph (e)(4) of the shipyard employment PPE standard (Sec.  
1915.152), and paragraph (n)(4) of the general industry and 
construction Cadmium standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127), 
which require employers to prepare and maintain a written record 
certifying compliance with the training requirements of these sections. 
Specifically, employers must currently verify that affected workers 
received training as required by the standards through a written 
certification record that includes, at a minimum, the name(s) of the 
workers trained, the date(s) of training, and the types of training the 
workers received. The Cadmium standards for general industry and 
construction are the only substance-specific standards that require 
written certification to document training. The Agency estimates that 
it takes over 1.8 million hours for employers to develop and maintain 
the training-certification records mandated by the PPE standards in 
Sec. Sec.  1910.132 and 1915.152, and over 3,000 hours for the 
training-certification records required by the Cadmium standards for 
general industry (Sec.  1910.1027) and construction (Sec.  
1926.1127).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 74 FR 61175, 74 FR 45883, 73 FR 74199, and 73 FR 74197, 
respectively, for information on accessing the information-
collection requests (ICRs) for these training-certification records. 
The ICRs describe the procedures and data used to determine the 
hours required to develop and maintain the training-certification 
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 38650]]

regulations for testing air cylinders. New subpart C of 49 CFR part 180 
now specifies the general DOT requirements for requalifying air 
cylinders; these requirements replicate the requirements in former 49 
CFR parts 173 and 178 for requalifying air cylinders. OSHA, therefore, 
is proposing to revise the language in Sec.  1910.134(i)(4)(i) by 
referencing the new DOT standard for cylinder testing at 49 CFR part 
180. OSHA believes that the proposed revision will clarify the 
requirements of the Respiratory Protection standard by accurately 
identifying the location of the appropriate DOT reference standard. By 
expediting this process, the proposed revision will ease the regulatory 
burden on employers without reducing employee protection.
(2) Updating the NIOSH Respirator-Certification Requirement in Sec.  
1910.134(i)(9)
    Existing paragraph (i)(9) of OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard 
(Sec.  1910.134) requires the employer to use breathing-gas containers 
marked in accordance with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard 
at 42 CFR part 84. In its presentation at the December 10, 2009, ACCSH 
meeting (see section X of this preamble below), NIOSH stated that it 
has seen some confusion in the regulated community as to how this 
provision applies to after-market cylinders. NIOSH recommended that 
OSHA revise the provision to clarify that after-market cylinders not 
manufactured under the quality-assurance program incorporated as part 
of the NIOSH approval process for self-contained breathing apparatus 
(SCBA) are not acceptable for use. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to 
revise this provision to read: ``The employer shall use only the 
respirator manufacturer's NIOSH-approved breathing gas containers, 
marked and maintained in accordance with the Quality Assurance 
provisions of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as issued in accordance 
with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 CFR part 84.'' 
OSHA requests public comment on this NIOSH-recommended revision.
(3) Appendix C to Sec.  1910.134
    In response to the ANPRM, OSHA received a request from the Mexican 
Consulate in Omaha Nebraska. The request was to revise question 2a in 
the OSHA Medical Evaluation Questionnaire, Appendix C, Part A, Section 
2, of its Respiratory Protection standard (Sec.  1910.134) by deleting 
the word ``fits,'' leaving only the word ``seizures'' to describe the 
medical condition. The request described the use of the term ``fits'' 
as outdated, unnecessary, and offensive. OSHA agrees, and is proposing 
to remove it from the questionnaire. OSHA believes this revision to the 
questionnaire would have no effect on administration of, or responses 
to, the questionnaire.
(4) Appendix D to Sec.  1910.134
    OSHA is proposing to clarify that Appendix D of the Respiratory 
Protection standard (Sec.  1910.134) is mandatory by removing paragraph 
(o)(2) from the standard, and by revising paragraph (o)(1) of the 
standard to include Appendix D among the designated mandatory 
appendices. As stated in the ANPRM, the proposed revision to paragraph 
(o)(1) would reduce public confusion by clarifying the Agency's purpose 
regarding Appendix D when it published the Respiratory Protection 
standard on January 8, 1998, (63 FR 1152); namely, that Appendix D is 
mandatory. Evidence of this purpose is provided in paragraph (c)(2)(i), 
the introductory text to paragraph (k), and paragraph (k)(6) of the 
Respiratory Protection standard; these provisions mandate that 
employers provide voluntary respirator users with the information 
contained in Appendix D. Additionally, the title of Appendix D states 
that it is mandatory. In the ANPRM, OSHA posed the following three 
questions about this proposed revision for public consideration:
     Have employers understood that the requirement to provide 
Appendix D information to employees, who voluntarily use respirators, 
is a mandatory requirement?
     Is the information contained in Appendix D appropriate for 
alerting employees to considerations related to voluntary respirator 
use?
     To what extent, if any, would deleting paragraph (o)(2) 
and clarifying that Appendix D is mandatory, increase burden on 
employers?
    The Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO 
(BCTD; ID 0118) stated that the basic information in Appendix D is 
worthwhile, but construction workers find the language in the appendix 
difficult to understand. They suggested that OSHA better explain ``why 
respirators should not be shared with other workers.'' The BCTD also 
stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2) would not increase burden to 
employers since the obligation to use Appendix D already exists under 
paragraphs (k)(6) and (c)(2), and that ``deleting (o)(2) would 
definitely clarify an apparent contradiction about the mandatory 
requirements already in the standard.''
    The AFL-CIO (ID 0024) stated that, since paragraph (k)(6) states 
that, since employers must provide a copy of Appendix D to workers, it 
would be helpful to clarify that Appendix D is mandatory by including 
it among the list of mandatory appendices in paragraph (o)(1) as OSHA 
proposed, and that this action would clarify the mandatory requirement 
in (k)(6). The AFL-CIO further stated that ``any additional burden from 
this action, if there is any, will be more than offset by the worker 
protection information conveyed in Appendix D during voluntary use 
situations.''
    The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) also 
stated that employers already must provide the information in Appendix 
D to workers, and that failure to do so may result in OSHA citations. 
ASSE supported revising the language to make Appendix D mandatory 
because it ``may foster compliance and actually reduce the potential 
for citations by clarifying the employer's responsibilities.''
    The 3M Company (ID 0028) also supported revising paragraph (o)(2). 
3M stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2) would reduce confusion as to 
whether it is mandatory to provide Appendix D to workers when 
respiratory use is voluntary. 3M also stated that the information in 
Appendix D is appropriate.
    The Associated General Contractors of America (AGCA; ID 0120) 
opposed deleting paragraph (o)(2) and revising paragraph (o)(1). In its 
response, AGCA urged, ``OSHA to follow the complete rulemaking process 
to gauge the impact of this revision,'' and that any revisions should 
preserve employers' flexibility in informing their employees of the 
various uses of different respirators.
    OSHA reviewed the comments received on revising the language in 
paragraph (o)(1) of Sec.  1910.134 to indicate that Appendix D as 
mandatory, and on deleting paragraph (o)(2), which describes Appendix D 
as non-mandatory. Based on the current record, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that the language in paragraph (o)(2) is confusing for 
employers since it contradicts the requirement in paragraphs (c)(2) and 
(k) that employers must provide employees with the information in 
Appendix D in voluntary respirator-use situations. Accordingly, OSHA 
agrees with commenters who stated that revising the language in 
paragraph (o) of Sec.  1910.134 would clarify the employer's 
responsibilities and reduce confusion about whether information 
specified in Appendix D is mandatory. Regarding the comment by AGCA, 
OSHA notes that the SIP-III

[[Page 38651]]

proposal is a notice-and-comment rulemaking that provides the regulated 
public with an appropriate opportunity for determining the impact, if 
any, of the proposed revision on the public. In addition, OSHA does not 
believe that the proposed revisions would have any impact on the 
employers' flexibility in informing their employees of the various uses 
of respirators. Therefore, OSHA decided to propose revising the 
language in paragraph (o) of Sec.  1910.134 to state that Appendix D is 
mandatory, and to delete the confusing and inconsistent language in 
paragraph (o)(2).
    (5) Asbestos (Sec.  1915.1001)
    The introductory paragraph to OSHA's Respiratory Protection 
standard (Sec.  1910.134) specifies that the standard applies to 
general industry (29 CFR 1910), shipyards (29 CFR 1915), marine 
terminals (29 CFR 1917), longshoring (29 CFR 1918), and construction 
(29 CFR 1926). Three of these parts, general industry, shipyards, and 
construction, contain standards regulating employee exposure to 
asbestos, with each of these standards having a provision entitled, 
``Respirator program.'' These paragraphs specify the requirements for 
an employer's respirator program with respect to asbestos exposure. In 
the final rulemaking for the Respiratory Protection standard, the 
Agency updated these paragraphs in the Asbestos standards for general 
industry and construction so that the program requirements would be 
consistent with the provisions of the newly revised Respiratory 
Protection standard (see 63 FR 1285 and 1298). However, the Agency 
inadvertently omitted revising the respirator-program requirements 
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards 
(Sec.  1915.1001). OSHA is proposing to correct this oversight by 
revising paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards to 
read the same as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of the Asbestos standard for 
general industry (Sec.  1910.1001) and (h)(2)(i) of the Asbestos 
standard for construction (Sec.  1926.1101), which state, ``[t]he 
employer must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance 
with Sec.  1910.134 (b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) 
through (m).''
    Similarly, the Agency is considering removing paragraphs 
(h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and (h)(4) from the shipyard Asbestos 
standard, which address filter changes, washing faces and facepieces to 
prevent skin irritation, and fit testing, respectively. OSHA believes 
this action is appropriate because the continuing-use provisions 
specified in paragraph Sec.  1910.1001(g)(2)(ii) duplicate paragraphs 
(h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards. 
Also, the fit-testing requirements provided in paragraph (f) of the 
Respiratory Protection standard either meet or exceed the provisions 
specified in (h)(4) of the shipyard Asbestos standard, except that the 
frequency of fit-testing is different. The current shipyard-employment 
Asbestos standard at Sec.  1915.1001(h)(4)(ii) requires employers to 
perform quantitative and qualitative fit testing ``at the time of 
initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafter for each 
employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator.'' The Respiratory 
Protection standard at Sec.  1910.134(f)(2) requires employers to fit 
test employees using a tight-fitting respirator ``prior to initial use 
of the respirator, whenever a different facepiece * * * is used, and at 
least annually thereafter.''
    By adding the reference to the Sec.  1910.134 Respiratory 
Protection standard to Sec.  1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the shipyard 
Asbestos standard, OSHA would incorporate the fit-testing requirements 
of Sec.  1910.134(f), which include the requirement to use the OSHA-
accepted qualitative fit-testing and quantitative fit-testing protocols 
and procedures contained in Appendix A of Sec.  1910.134. Accordingly, 
the-fit testing requirements specified in Appendix C of Sec.  1915.1001 
would be redundant; therefore, OSHA is considering deleting this 
Appendix C from Sec.  1915.1001.
    In the ANPRM, OSHA asked the following questions regarding the 
Sec.  1915.1001 respirator provisions:
     Would revising Sec.  1915.1001(h)(3)(i) to be consistent 
with similar provisions in the asbestos standard for general industry 
and construction create additional compliance requirements?
     Does this change maintain the same level of employee 
protection? Would making the recommended changes increase the economic 
or paperwork burden?
     Besides altering the frequency of fit testing, how would 
making the recommended change to delete paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) through 
(h)(4)(ii) affect the requirements of the standard?
    OSHA received several comments in response to these questions. The 
3M Company (ID 0028) addressed this issue by stating:

    [M]aking Sec.  1915.1001(h)(3)(i) consistent with similar 
provisions in other asbestos standards will [not] create additional 
compliance requirements. 3M believes it will result in less 
confusion among employers who work with asbestos in many different 
industries. * * * This change would maintain the same level of 
protection as provided by the other asbestos standards.

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

[[Page 38652]]

in the ANPRM regarding this revision (71 FR 76627):
     What types of respirators are currently being used to 
protect employees from exposure to these four chemicals?
     If OSHA reinstates the requirements for full facepiece 
air-supplied respirators, does the respirator-use requirement conflict 
with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (Sec. 1910.134)?
     Would the reinstated respirator use requirement be more or 
less protective than the protection offered by OSHA's Respiratory 
Protection Standard?
     How would reinstating the respirator use requirement 
change the economic or paperwork burden?

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 0021) supported 
reinstating the former respirator-use requirements in Sec.  
1910.1003(c)(4)(iv), and did not know of any conflict this section 
would have with the requirements contained in Sec.  1910.134. The AFL-
CIO (ID 0024) stated that the inadvertent action OSHA took with these 
four carcinogens resulted in workers receiving substantially less 
respiratory protection than previously required, and that OSHA should 
correct this error immediately. The AFL-CIO strongly recommended that 
OSHA issue a technical correction to Sec.  1910.1003 within 30 days to 
reinstate the original respiratory-protection requirements for these 
four carcinogens. The AFL-CIO also recommended that ``the remaining 9 
chemicals require the same, more protective respirators that are 
applicable to the 4 substances.'' AFL-CIO added, ``With that approach, 
you would now have real and consistently applied worker protection 
measures that achieve desirable improvement in the standards.''
    The 3M Company (ID 0028) stated that, since these four carcinogens 
are liquids with significant vapor pressure, the current requirements 
for using half masks with dust, mist, and fume filters are 
inappropriate, and conflict with the Sec.  1910.134 respirator-
selection requirements. Further, 3M believed that reinstating the 
requirement for a full-facepiece, supplied-air respirator would provide 
the appropriate minimum assigned protection factor (APF) required for 
the four liquid carcinogens, and would be consistent with the 
respirator-selection requirements of Sec.  1910.134. Therefore, the 
protection afforded to workers would be different for liquid-carcinogen 
vapors than that for the particulate carcinogens (an APF of 10 for 
particulates versus an APF of 1,000 for liquids using supplied-air 
respirators).
    In its comments, 3M also maintained that requiring supplied-air 
respirators would result in the use of a more protective class of 
respirator than the Sec.  1910.134 respirator-selection requirements. 
However, 3M also stated that, by requiring full-facepiece, supplied-air 
respirators, OSHA would introduce additional hazards for employees 
caused by trailing air-supply hoses. The commenter suggested a 
preference for half-facepiece respirators with chemical cartridges for 
the four liquid carcinogens, which could meet the respirator-selection 
requirements in Sec.  1910.134 if the cartridges used to absorb the 
liquid carcinogens' vapors have an adequate service life. (Id.)
    At the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) 
meeting on December 12, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) representative provided specific comment on 
the revisions proposed to the respirator requirements of the 13 
Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) standard. The full committee then 
recommended ``that OSHA and NIOSH work together to address * * * 
technical issues relating to the respiratory protection provisions in 
the proposed rule.'' (ACCSH, Ex.12.2.) The specific NIOSH comment was:

    [T]he lack of either a NIOSH REL or an OSHA PEL results in a 
NIOSH respirator recommendation of any self-contained breathing 
apparatus that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-
demand or other positive-pressure mode, or any supplied-air 
respirator that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-
demand or other positive-pressure mode in combination with an 
auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure breathing apparatus. 
Neither a supplied-air respirator with a full facepiece operated in 
a continuous flow mode nor a supplied-air respirator with a full 
facepiece operated in a pressure-demand mode would provide the 
[NIOSH] recommended level and type of protection unless used in 
combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure 
breathing apparatus. (ACCSH Ex. 12.2; comments on the proposed rule 
on Standards Improvement Project III by the National Personal 
Protective Technology Laboratory, NIOSH.)

    Based on the NIOSH comments, OSHA is considering revising the 13 
Carcinogens standard to ensure that employers provide respiratory 
protection meeting the NIOSH recommendation. Therefore, OSHA requests 
comment on whether it should include in the final SIP-III standard a 
revision to the respirator provisions of the 13 Carcinogens standard 
that explicitly requires employers to use self-contained breathing 
apparatus with a full facepiece and operated in a pressure-demand or 
other positive-pressure mode, or any supplied-air respirator that has a 
full facepiece and operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-
pressure mode in combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-
pressure breathing apparatus. Alternatively, OSHA could modify the 
proposed language to require respirator selection pursuant to Sec.  
1910.134, which would require employers to evaluate the specific hazard 
to determine and select the appropriate NIOSH-approved respirator for 
use by employees exposed to these carcinogens. OSHA also requests 
comment on these alternative approaches, as well as any other 
regulatory approaches that would address the issue raised by NIOSH.
    In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to reinstate the requirement 
that employers provide full-facepiece, supplied-air respirators to 
workers exposed to methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-chloromethyl ether, 
ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone. OSHA notes that reinstatement of 
the requirement to use supplied-air respirators with the four liquid 
carcinogens will provide needed safety for employees working with these 
chemicals. Deleting this requirement was an inadvertent omission that 
needs correction. Whether OSHA should allow the use of chemical 
cartridges with NIOSH-certified air-purifying half-mask respirators for 
these four liquid carcinogens depends on employers proving that the 
cartridges used to absorb the vapors emitted from these chemicals would 
have an adequate service life. OSHA requests comment on, and data 
describing, the availability of such chemical cartridges for use with 
these four carcinogens.
(7) 1,3-Butadiene (Sec.  1910.1051)
    OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-Butadiene 
standard (Sec.  1910.1051), which requires that employers keep fit-test 
records for employees who use respirators to reduce toxic exposures. In 
the ANPRM, OSHA raised the possibility of deleting this recordkeeping 
provision from the 1,3-Butadiene standard for general industry, relying 
instead on the fit-testing recordkeeping requirement in Sec.  1910.134.
    The American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 0021) agreed with OSHA 
that deleting the fit-testing records requirement in the 1,3-Butadiene 
standard was appropriate since the requirement duplicates the 
recordkeeping requirement in Sec.  1910.134. The 3M Company (ID 0028) 
also supported deleting the 1,3-Butadiene fit-testing record 
requirement, noting that removing this

[[Page 38653]]

requirement would not reduce protection because the requirement in 
Sec.  1910.134 is at least as protective as the 1,3-Butadiene 
requirement.
    Based on its review of the comments received in response to the 
ANPRM, OSHA believes that deleting the fit-testing recordkeeping 
requirement in paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-Butadiene Standard and 
relying instead on the fit-testing recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
1910.134 would not reduce employee protection. Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing this revision in this rulemaking.
3. Subpart J
a. Definition of ``Potable Water'' (Sec.  1910.141(a)(2))
    OSHA is proposing to revise and update the definition of the term 
``potable water'' in the Sanitation standards for general industry 
(Sec.  1910.141(a)(2)) and construction (Sec.  1926.51(a)(6)), and the 
Field Sanitation standard for agriculture (Sec.  1928.110(b)). The 
proposed definition would bring consistency to OSHA regulations.
    OSHA currently defines potable water as ``water which meets the 
quality standards prescribed in the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking 
Water Standards, published in 42 CFR part 72, or water which is 
approved for drinking purposes by the State or local authority having 
jurisdiction.'' OSHA adopted the existing definition from a Public 
Health Service Code that is no longer in existence.
    OSHA proposes to define potable water as ''water that meets the 
standards for drinking purposes of the state or local authority having 
jurisdiction, or water that meets the quality standards prescribed by 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Primary Water 
Regulations (40 CFR part 141).'' OSHA earlier proposed the same 
revision to the shipyard-employment standards (72 FR 72451-72520).
b. Washing Facilities (Sec.  1910.141(d))
    OSHA is proposing to revise the Bloodborne Pathogens standard by 
removing from the definition of ``handwashing facilities'' at Sec.  
1910.1030(b) the term ``hot'' in the phrase ``hot air drying 
machines.'' The definition currently reads as follows:
    ``Handwashing Facilities means a facility providing an adequate 
supply of running potable water, soap, and single use towels or hot air 
drying machines.'' OSHA is proposing this revision in response to an 
inquiry from Dyson B2B Inc. (Dyson; ID 0015.1), which describes a new 
air blower that uses high-velocity (non-heated) air, rather than hot or 
warm air, to dry hands. On July 13, 2007, OSHA issued a letter of 
interpretation to Dyson in which it recognized that some air-blower 
techniques provide the appropriate level of employee protection, and 
agreeing to include this proposed revision in the SIP-III rulemaking 
(ID 0144). In this letter, OSHA also acknowledged that current 
technology allows for the use of hand-drying products that do not 
involve hot air, and noted that, when it published the Bloodborne 
Pathogens standard, adequate non-heated, high-velocity air blowers were 
not available.
    OSHA also is proposing to apply this revision to four Sanitation 
standards, including the Sanitation standard for general industry 
(Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(iv)), marine terminals (Sec.  
1917.127(a)(1)(iii)), longshoring (Sec.  1918.95(a)(1)(iii)), and 
construction (1926.51(f)(3)(iv)). The general industry and construction 
Sanitation standards at Sec. Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(iv) and 
1926.51(f)(3)(iv), respectively, use identical language as follows:

    Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper, 
warm air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth 
toweling, convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided. [Emphasis 
added.]

    While the definitions for Marine Terminals at Sec. Sec.  
1917.127(a)(1)(iii) and Longshoring at 1918.95(a)(1)(iii) differ 
slightly from this definition, the term ``warm air blowers'' is used in 
both definitions. OSHA notes that, whether the definitions include the 
term ``hot'' or ``warm,'' the definitions do not include high-velocity 
air blowers. In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to remove the term 
``hot'' or ``warm'' from these definitions, which then would permit 
employers to use high-velocity air blowers in the workplace. OSHA 
believes the proposal does not revise these definitions substantively 
in that employers still could use hot-/warm-air drying machines, as 
well as air blowers or other air-drying machines that may become 
available.
4. Slings (Sec.  1910.184)
    OSHA is proposing to amend its standards regulating slings at Sec.  
1910.184 (general industry), Sec. Sec.  1915.112, 1915.113, and 
1915.118 (shipyard employment), and Sec.  1926.251 (construction) by 
removing outdated tables that specify safe working loads, and revising 
other provisions (e.g., Sec. Sec.  1910.184(e)(6) and 1915.112) that 
reference the outdated tables. The proposal would replace the outdated 
tables with a requirement that would prohibit employers from loading 
slings in excess of the recommended safe working load as prescribed on 
permanently affixed identification markings. The proposed revisions 
also would expressly prohibit the use of slings that do not have such 
markings.
    Manufacturers produce slings with markings that indicate the 
sling's rated capacity (i.e., safe working load), the name or trademark 
of the manufacturer, and other specifications (e.g., size, material 
used in manufacturing the sling); this information prevents misuse of 
slings, thereby increasing employee safety. OSHA currently requires 
these markings for three of the five types of slings regulated by its 
standards (i.e., alloy-steel-chain, metal-mesh, and synthetic-web 
slings).
    Many slings are sufficiently large for manufacturers to emboss or 
stitch identification markings onto the sling's surface. Other slings 
have identification markings on tags attached to the sling by other 
means, such as a separate wire or cable. However, such tags may detach 
from the sling during use, in which case, the employer must remove the 
sling from service until the tag is replaced.
    OSHA published the existing Slings standard (Sec.  1910.184) on 
June 27, 1975 (see 40 FR 27368), based on the then-current 1971 
consensus standard, ANSI B30.9-1971, Slings. OSHA made Sec.  1910.184 
applicable to the construction industry on February 9, 1979 (44 FR 
8577). After 1975, OSHA made no revisions to these standards except for 
minor corrections. The load-capacity tables in these standards are now 
obsolete, and no longer conform to the load-capacity tables of the 
updated ANSI B30.9 standard. For example, the current ANSI B30.9 
standard includes tables for slings made of alloy-steel chain (grades 
80 and 100) not included in the existing OSHA standards.
    In 1996, the National Association of Chain Manufactures (NACM) 
petitioned OSHA to adopt requirements of the recently updated ANSI 
B30.9 standard. NACM believed that the existing OSHA standard was not 
as safe as the updated ANSI standard. The NACM petition recommended 
that, at a minimum, OSHA remove Table N-1-184-1 in Sec.  1910.184, 
which lists outdated load-capacity requirements for alloy-steel-chain 
slings.
    Therefore, OSHA is proposing to remove the existing load-capacity 
tables for slings from the following standards: Sec.  1910.184 (general 
industry; tables N-184-1, and N-184-3 through N-184-22); Sec.  1915.118 
(shipyard employment; tables G-1 through G-5, G-7 through G-8, and G-
10), including references to these tables in Sec.  1915.112 and

[[Page 38654]]

Sec.  1915.113; and Sec.  1926.251 (construction; tables H-1 and H-3 
through H-19). Also, OSHA is proposing to add the requirement for 
identification markings on wire-, natural-, and synthetic-fiber rope 
slings in Sec. Sec.  1910.184 and 1926.251, as well as manila rope and 
manila rope slings, wire rope and wire-rope slings, and chain and chain 
slings in Sec.  1915.112. The proposal would provide similar protection 
for shackles in Sec.  1915.113 and Sec.  1926.251. In addition, OSHA is 
proposing that employers follow the safe working-load capacity 
information on the identification markings affixed to slings by the 
sling manufacturer. Further, if the sling is missing its identification 
marking, OSHA is proposing, consistent with the latest ASME/ANSI B30.9 
standard, that employers remove these slings from service until they 
reaffix the identification markings.
    OSHA believes the proposed revisions will eliminate duplicative, 
inconsistent, and outdated information, thus minimizing confusion over 
the rated capacity of any type of sling used by employers. Further, 
reliance on the information marked on the sling simplifies compliance 
for employers by eliminating the need to check tables or other sources 
of information. Finally, the proposed revisions will maintain or 
increase employee safety by ensuring that employers use slings with 
readily available, up-to-date load ratings.
    OSHA requests comment from the public on the following questions 
regarding the use of slings in this country: (1) Are all slings 
manufactured in accordance with the specifications prescribed by the 
ASME/ANSI B30.9 slings standard; (2) are all slings equipped with 
markings or tags; (3) what other information do manufacturers mark on 
slings; and (4) do the markings and tags remain affixed to the sling, 
or are the markings and tags easily removed or damaged?
5. Subpart T
    OSHA is proposing to remove two unnecessary requirements from 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(5) of its Commercial Diving Operations 
standard at Sec.  1910.440. Paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires employers to 
retain dive-team member medical records for five years, even though the 
standard contains no requirement for diver medical examinations. In 
this regard, a 1979 court decision (Taylor Diving and Salvage v. U.S. 
Department of Labor (599 F.2d 622) (5th Cir., 1979)) resulted in the 
removal of the requirement (formerly located at Sec.  1910.411) to 
provide medical examinations, and OSHA never removed the corresponding 
medical recordkeeping requirement from the standard. Also, OSHA is 
proposing to correct a typographical error in paragraph (b)(4) that 
refers to Sec.  1910.20 instead of Sec.  1910.1020.
6. Subpart Z
    OSHA is proposing to remove the requirements to transfer records to 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for 
15 substance-specific standards in subpart Z, as well as from the 
standard regulating access to employee exposure and medical records 
(Sec.  1910.1020). In addition, the following paragraphs describe 
miscellaneous proposed revisions to several other health standards.
a. Transfer of Exposure and Medical Records to NIOSH
    OSHA is proposing to remove provisions in its substance-specific 
standards that require employers to transfer exposure and medical 
records to NIOSH. Most of OSHA's existing substance-specific standards, 
as well as the Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records standard 
(Sec.  1910.1020), require employers to transfer to NIOSH specified 
medical and exposure records when: An employer ceases to do business 
and leaves no successor; the period for retaining the records expires; 
or an employee terminates employment (including retirement or death). 
OSHA proposes to remove the record-transfer requirement from the 
following standards:
     Asbestos--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(m)(6)(ii), 
1915.1001(n)(8)(ii), and Sec.  1926.1101(n)(8)(ii);
     13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--Sec.  
1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii);
     Vinyl Chloride--Sec.  1910.1017 (m)(3);
     Inorganic