Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV, 68504-68685 [2016-19454]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68504-68685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19454]



[[Page 68503]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 192

October 4, 2016

Part II





Department of Labor





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





Occupational Safety and Health Administration





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





29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926





Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 68504]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007]
RIN 1218-AC67


Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' 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remove or revise outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent 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. The current review, 
the fourth in this ongoing effort, is called Standards Improvement 
Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV). The goal of the proposed rulemaking is to 
reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or enhancing employees' 
safety and health. SIP-IV focuses primarily on OSHA's construction 
standards.

DATES: Submit comments and hearing requests by December 5, 2016. All 
submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the 
submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional material using any of the 
following methods:
    Electronic. Submit comments and attachments electronically via the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Facsimile. Commenters may fax submissions, including any 
attachments that are no longer than 10 pages in length to the OSHA 
Docket Office at (202) 693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of 
these documents. Commenters must submit lengthy attachments that 
supplement these documents (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210. These 
attachments must clearly identify the commenter's name, date, subject, 
and docket number (i.e., OSHA-2012-0007) so the Agency can attach them 
to the appropriate comments.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand (courier) delivery, or messenger 
service. Submit a copy of comments and any additional material (e.g., 
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-
2012-0007, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 
(202) 693-2350 (TDY number: (877) 889-5627). Note that security 
procedures may result in significant delays in receiving comments and 
other written materials by regular mail. Contact the OSHA Docket Office 
for information about security procedures concerning delivery of 
materials by express mail, hand delivery, or messenger service. The 
hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., 
e.t.
    Instructions. All submissions received must include the Agency name 
and the docket number for this rulemaking (i.e., OSHA-2012-0007). OSHA 
places all submissions, including any personal information provided, in 
the public docket without change; this information will be available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions 
commenters about submitting information 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, 
including whether these revisions will have any economic, paperwork, or 
other regulatory impacts on the regulated community.
    Docket. To read or download submissions or other material in the 
docket (including material referenced in the preamble), go to https://www.regulations.gov, or contact the OSHA Docket Office at the address 
listed above. While the Agency lists all documents in the docket in the 
https://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted 
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this 
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are 
accessible at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office 
for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Press inquiries. Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, 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.
    General and technical information. Contact Blake Skogland, Office 
of Construction Standards and Guidance, OSHA Directorate of 
Construction, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Room N-3468, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2020; fax: 
(202) 693-1689; email: skogland.blake@dol.gov.
    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 page at https://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis
V. Legal Considerations
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

I. Executive Summary

    OSHA is proposing 18 revisions to existing standards in its 
recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards, 
with most of the revisions to its construction standards. The purpose 
of Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) is to remove or revise 
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in 
OSHA's safety and health standards, which will permit better compliance 
by employers and reduce costs and paperwork burdens where possible, 
without reducing employee protections. OSHA is conducting SIP-IV in 
response to the President's Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulations and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 38210). OSHA would update 
three standards to align with current medical practice, including a 
reduction to the number of necessary employee x-rays, updates to 
requirements for pulmonary function testing, and updates to the table 
used for decompression of employees during underground construction. 
Additionally, the proposed revisions include an update to the consensus 
standard incorporated by reference for signs and devices used to 
protect workers near automobile traffic, a revision to the requirements 
for roll-over protective structures to comply with current consensus 
standards,

[[Page 68505]]

updates for storage of digital x-rays and the method of calling 
emergency services to allow for use of current technology, and a 
revision to lockout/tagout requirements in response to a court 
decision, among others. OSHA is also proposing to remove from its 
standards the requirements that employers include an employee's social 
security number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and 
other records in order to protect employee privacy and prevent identity 
fraud.
    SIP rulemakings do not address new significant risks or estimate 
benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall, SIP 
rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because they 
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements. The Agency 
does estimate cost savings and paperwork reductions for SIP 
rulemakings. The Agency has estimated that one revision (updating the 
method of identifying and calling emergency medical services) may 
increase construction employers costs by about $28,000 per year while 
two provisions (reduction in the number of necessary employee x-rays 
and elimination of posting requirements for residential construction 
employers) provide estimated costs savings of $3.2 million annually. 
The Agency has not estimated or quantified benefits to employees from 
reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to employers for the reduced 
cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-ray films, among others. 
The Agency has preliminarily concluded that the proposed revisions are 
economically feasible and do not have any significant economic impact 
on small businesses. The Preliminary Economic Analysis in this preamble 
provides an explanation of the economic effects of the proposed 
revisions.

II. Background

    The purpose of the SIP-IV rulemaking is to remove or revise 
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in 
OSHA's safety and health standards. The Agency believes that improving 
OSHA standards will increase employers' understanding of their 
obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, improve employee 
safety and health, and reduce compliance costs.
    In 1995, in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve 
government regulation,\1\ OSHA began a series of rulemakings designed 
to revise or remove standards that were confusing, outdated, 
duplicative, or inconsistent. OSHA published the first rulemaking, 
``Standards Improvement Project, Phase I'' (SIP-I) on June 18, 1998 (63 
FR 33450).\2\ Two additional rounds of SIP rulemaking followed, with 
final SIP rules published in 2005 (SIP-II) (70 FR 1111) and 2011 (SIP-
III) (76 FR 33590).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clinton, W.J. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and 
Agencies. Subject: Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. March 4, 1995.
    \2\ Revisions made by the SIP-I rulemaking included adjustments 
to the medical-surveillance and emergency-response provisions of the 
Coke Oven Emissions, Inorganic Arsenic, and Vinyl Chloride 
standards, and removal of unnecessary provisions from the Temporary 
Labor Camps standard and the textile industry standards.
    \3\ In the final SIP-II rulemaking published in 2005 (70 FR 
1111), OSHA revised a number of provisions in its health and safety 
standards identified as needing improvement either by the Agency or 
by commenters during the SIP-I rulemaking. These included updating 
or removing notification requirements from several standards, 
updating requirements for first aid kits to reflect newer consensus 
standards, updating requirements for laboratories analyzing samples 
under the vinyl chloride standard, making worker exposure monitoring 
frequencies consistent under certain health standards, among other 
things. The final SIP-III rule, published in 2011 (76 FR 33590), 
updated consensus standards incorporated by reference in several 
OSHA rules, deleted provisions in a number of OSHA standards that 
required employers to prepare and maintain written training-
certification records for personal protective equipment, revised 
several sanitation standards to permit hand drying by high-velocity 
dryers, and modified OSHA's sling standards to require that 
employers use only appropriately marked or tagged slings for lifting 
capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the President's Executive Order 13563 (E.O.), 
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' sets out the goals and 
criteria for regulatory review, and requires agencies to review 
existing standards and regulations to ensure that these standards and 
regulations continue to protect public health, welfare, and safety 
effectively, while promoting economic growth and job creation. The E.O. 
encourages agencies to use the best, least burdensome means to achieve 
regulatory objectives, to perform periodic reviews of existing 
standards to identify outmoded, ineffective, or burdensome standards, 
and to modify, streamline, or repeal such standards when appropriate.
    The Agency believes that the SIP rulemaking process is an effective 
means to improve its standards and advised the Advisory Committee for 
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) at a public meeting held on 
December 16, 2011 that it intended to review its standards under the 
SIP criteria, with particular emphasis on construction standards. A 
transcription of these proceedings (ACCSH Transcript) is available at 
Docket No. OSHA-2011-0124-0026.
    Recognizing the importance of public participation in the SIP 
process, the Agency published a Request for Information (RFI) on 
December 6, 2012 (77 FR 72781) asking the public to identify standards 
that were in need of revision or removal, and to explain how such 
action would reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or increasing 
the protection afforded to employees. The Agency received 26 comments 
in response to the RFI. As discussed below, several of the proposed 
amendments contained in this proposed rule were recommended in the 
public comments received in response to the RFI. Other proposed SIP 
amendments were identified by the Agency's own internal review and by 
ACCSH.

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, and construction 
standards. A detailed discussion of each of the proposed revisions 
follows, including a discussion of comments the Agency received in 
response to the RFI. Some of the proposed revisions affect more than 
one industry (i.e., general industry, construction). When proposed 
revisions to 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 Revision in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Recording 
and Reporting Standards (29 CFR Part 1904)

Subpart C--Recording Forms and Recording Criteria, Recording Criteria 
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss in 29 CFR 1904.10
    The provisions of 29 CFR part 1904 provide for the recording and 
reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses. Section 1904.10 sets 
out the recordkeeping criteria for recording cases involving 
occupational hearing loss. Current Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) provides that 
``[i]f a physician or other licensed health care professional 
determines that a hearing loss is not work-related or has not been 
significantly aggravated by occupational noise exposure, [the employer 
is] not required to consider the case work-related or to record the 
case on the OSHA 300 log.'' Section 1904.5 provides the requirements 
for determining whether an injury or illness is work-related.
    To clarify the relationship between Sec. Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) and 
1904.5, OSHA incorporated the following language

[[Page 68506]]

into the recordkeeping compliance directive:

    Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) 
must follow the rules set out in 1904.5 to determine if the hearing 
loss is work-related. If an event or exposure in the work 
environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or 
significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss, the PLHCP must 
consider the case to be work-related. It is not necessary for work 
to be the sole cause, or the predominant cause, or even a 
substantial cause of the hearing loss; any contribution from work 
makes the case work-related. The employer is responsible for 
ensuring that the PLHCP applies the analysis in Section 1904.5 when 
evaluating work-related hearing loss, if the employer chooses to 
rely on the PLHCP's opinion in determining recordability.

(CPL 02-00-135, Chapter 5, Section IX, Question 10-4, 01/12/2012.)
    In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to add a specific cross 
reference to Sec.  1904.5 in paragraph Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) to make the 
language in Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) consistent with the above-quoted 
language from the compliance directive. The reference specifies that 
employers must comply with the provisions of Sec.  1904.5 when making a 
determination of whether a worker's hearing loss is work-related. OSHA 
believes the proposed revision will assist employers in complying with 
the hearing-loss recording requirement.

B. Proposed Revisions in General Industry Standards, Shipyard 
Standards, and Construction Standards (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 
1926)

1. Subpart J of 1910--General Environmental Controls, Control of 
Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147
    The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard, 29 CFR 
1910.147, establishes requirements for the control of hazardous energy, 
including electrical, pneumatic, mechanical, hydraulic, chemical or 
thermal energy, during the servicing and maintenance of machinery and 
equipment. Workers who service equipment without preventing the 
discharge of this energy can be electrocuted or suffer burns, 
amputations, lacerations, bone fractures, or crushing injuries, among 
others.
    According to its terms, the lockout/tagout standard applies to 
servicing and maintenance operations ``in which the unexpected 
energization or startup of the machines or equipment, or the release of 
stored energy could cause injury to employees'' (Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(i) (emphasis in original)). Because OSHA believes the 
term ``unexpected'' has been misinterpreted to exclude some operations 
where employees are subject to injury from startup or the release of 
stored energy, the Agency is proposing to remove the word from Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1) and several other places it appears in the standard 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.147(a)(2)(iii)(A), (a)(3)(i), (b), (c)(1), (c)(4)(i), 
(f)(4), and in Appendix A). The lockout/tagout standard was designed to 
protect workers from being injured if a machine or other piece of 
equipment they are servicing releases stored energy, for example, by 
starting or moving during the servicing. The standard protects these 
employees by requiring that machines or equipment be de-energized and 
locked or tagged out by the worker performing the servicing or 
maintenance before the work is performed. The essence of the standard's 
protection is that a de-energized machine or piece of equipment cannot 
be restarted unless the worker servicing it personally removes the 
lockout or tagout device he or she has applied.
    Thus, OSHA intended the phrase ``unexpected energization'' to mean 
any re-energization or startup that occurs before the servicing 
employee removes the lockout/tagout device from the energy isolation 
device or equivalent energy control mechanism.
    In line with this intent, OSHA has historically interpreted the 
term ``unexpected energization'' to mean energization that is 
unintended or unplanned by the servicing employee (72 FR 72452, 72496, 
December 20, 2007; CPL 02-00-147). OSHA believes that preventing this 
type of unintended or unplanned energization during servicing is 
necessary to fully effectuate the standard's purpose of protecting 
workers through the control of hazardous energy. (See CPL 02-00-147, 
The Control of Hazardous Energy--Enforcement Policy and Inspection 
Procedures at 3-1 (Feb. 11, 2008) (``Quite simply, the [lockout/tagout] 
standard is violated when an employee is, or may be, exposed to 
hazardous energy that has not been isolated, even if the employee knows 
that the energy has not been controlled and continues to constitute a 
hazard.''))
    Several decisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission (OSHRC) support this interpretation. In Burkes Mechanical, 
Inc., 21 BNA OSHC 2136, 2139 & n.4 (No. 04-0475, 2007), OSHRC rejected 
an argument that the lockout/tagout standard did not apply to employees 
who were servicing conveyor equipment that was operating. The fact that 
they knew the equipment was moving did not mean that the hazard fell 
outside the scope of the standard. Similarly, OSHRC found the standard 
applied in Otis Elevator Co., 24 BNA OSHC 1081 (No. 09-1278, 2013), 
aff'd, 762 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2014), where an employee was trying to 
unjam the stuck gate assembly of an elevator car without proper energy 
control measures in place. The energization was unexpected because, 
although the worker knew the gate assembly would start to move when 
unjammed, he could not predict when it would become unjammed. The 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
affirmed OSHRC's decision for the same reason. Otis Elevator Co. v. 
Secretary of Labor, 762 F.3d 116, 122 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
    On the other hand, OSHA's understanding of the standard has not 
always been accepted. In Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis 
Div. (GMC Delco), 17 BNA OSHC 1217 (Nos. 91-2973, 91-3116, 91-3117, 
1995); aff'd 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996), both OSHRC and the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected OSHA's 
interpretation. Instead they held that the lockout/tagout standard did 
not apply where a startup procedure for a machine provided a warning to 
a worker servicing it that it was about to start. In that case, workers 
were servicing machines that used an eight-to-twelve-step startup 
procedure, including time delays, and audible or visual warnings. The 
court and OSHRC held that, because these features would warn the 
servicing employees that the machines were about to start, the startup 
would not be ``unexpected.'' According to the Sixth Circuit, ``the 
plain language of the lockout standard unambiguously renders the rule 
inapplicable where an employee is alerted or warned that the machine 
being serviced is about to activate.'' 89 F.3d at 315.
    OSHA believes that the GMC Delco decisions fundamentally 
misconstrue the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/tagout standard 
by allowing employers to use warning and delay systems as alternatives 
to following the requirements of the standard. Warning devices are not 
as protective as a lockout/tagout program, and the standard does not 
allow them to be used as an alternative to a lockout/tagout program. 
Indeed, the exclusive use of warning devices subverts the intent of the 
standard by removing control over the hazardous energy from individual 
authorized employees and instead placing the burden on those exposed 
employees to become cognizant of and to recognize the warnings, so that 
they can attempt to escape danger zones before they are injured. In 
adopting the standard, OSHA considered this approach to be impractical 
and dangerous. Instead, OSHA intended to

[[Page 68507]]

protect employees effectively from all forms of hazardous energy by 
isolating machines from their energy sources during servicing and/or 
maintenance and providing the workers who were servicing them with 
control over the energy isolation devices (see CPL 02-00-147 at 3-3 & 
ch. 4).
    In addition, by holding that work on a device that gives warning 
before startup does not fall within the standard, the GMC Delco 
decisions, in essence, require a case-by-case assessment of various 
warning schemes to determine the applicability of the standard. To 
enforce the standard consistent with those decisions, OSHA has provided 
its compliance officers with 11 different factors to evaluate to 
determine whether particular warning devices are adequate and reliable 
enough to allow all employees to escape all types of hazardous energy 
in all circumstances that may occur (see CPL 02-00-147 at 3-5 to 3-6). 
This creates a degree of uncertainty about the applicability of the 
standard for the regulated community that OSHA did not intend.
    As a result of the GMC Delco decisions, OSHA is proposing to remove 
the term ``unexpected'' from the lockout/tagout standard to revert to 
its original understanding of the standard. The proposal is intended to 
make clear that the lockout/tagout standard covers all equipment 
servicing activities in which there are energization, startup, or 
stored energy hazards.
    This proposal is consistent with the court's recognition that the 
rulemaking process provides OSHA with the opportunity to change the 
application of the lockout/tagout standard. GMC Delco, 89 F.3d at 316. 
It will also make the standard consistent with OSHA's shipyard lockout/
tagout standard, which is almost identical to the general industry 
standard except that it omits the word ``unexpected'' from the scope 
provision. 29 CFR 1915.89. The shipyard lockout/tagout proposal gave 
the same reasons for deleting the word as are provided here (72 FR 
72452, 72496, December 20, 2007), and OSHA finalized the rule after 
failing to receive any comments addressing the issue. (76 FR 24576, 
24704, May 2, 2011).
    Removing the word ``unexpected'' will improve protection of workers 
under the standard, eliminate the confusion regarding applicability of 
the standard caused by the GMC Delco decisions, and make the lockout/
tagout standard consistent with the lockout/tagout provisions in the 
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment standard.
2. Subpart Z of 1910, 1915, and 1926--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, 
Asbestos in 29 CFR 1910.1001, Inorganic Arsenic in 29 CFR 1910.1018, 
Cadmium in 29 CFR 1910.27, Coke Oven Emissions in 29 CFR 1910.29, 
Acrylonitrile in 29 CFR 1910.1045, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1915.1001, 
Asbestos in 29 CFR 1926.1101, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1926.1127
    OSHA is proposing a series of revisions to requirements addressing 
employee chest X-rays in the Agency's health standards. In particular, 
OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement in several of its standards 
that employers provide periodic chest X-rays to screen for lung cancer; 
to allow employers to use digital films and other reasonably-sized 
standard films for X-rays; and to update terminology and references to 
ILO guidelines included in its asbestos standards.
Removing Periodic Chest X-Ray Requirements for Lung-Cancer Screening
    OSHA requires medical surveillance in its health standards to 
detect early indications of adverse health effects in exposed workers 
before symptoms occur, so that appropriate interventional measures can 
be taken. Several OSHA standards currently require periodic chest X-
rays (CXR), also referred to as posterior-anterior CXR, radiographs, or 
roentgenograms (a term no longer used). When the Agency published these 
standards, routine screening for lung cancer with CXR was appropriate 
clinical practice. However, since then, large studies with many years 
of follow-up have not shown a benefit to CXR screening, either on lung 
cancer incidence or mortality. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to remove 
the requirement for periodic CXR in the following standards: Sec. Sec.  
1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; 1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and 
1910.1045, Acrylonitrile. OSHA is not proposing to remove the 
requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or any other, standards. OSHA 
is also not proposing to remove the CXR requirements in standards where 
it is used for purposes other than periodic screening for lung cancer. 
For example, the proposal does not affect periodic CXRs required by 
OSHA's standards to detect or monitor the progression of 
pneumoconiosis.
    Similarly, OSHA is proposing to amend Appendix H of the asbestos 
standard, Sec.  1910.1001.\4\ Appendix H provides non-mandatory 
guidelines for asbestos medical exposure, and OSHA proposes to include 
the text ``Plural plaques and thickening may be observed on chest X-
rays.'' OSHA is retaining CXRs in the asbestos standard to continue 
screening for asbestosis, and the proposed text notes the changes 
related to asbestosis that can be seen on CXRs. The change thus 
explains the purpose of the CXR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OSHA is also proposing the same change for the parallel 
appendices in the Maritime and Construction Asbestos standards, 29 
CFR 1915.1001 Appendix I and 1926.1101 Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 
U.S.C. 655(b)(7), allows OSHA to modify medical examination 
requirements in existing standards when ``warranted by experience, 
information, or medical or technological developments.'' OSHA has used 
this authority on several occasions. For example, when contemporary 
evidence indicated that sputum cytology did not improve lung-cancer 
survival rates, OSHA removed the sputum-cytology-examination 
requirements from the Coke Oven and Inorganic Arsenic standards in the 
SIP-I rulemaking (63 FR 33450, 33458-59, June 18, 1998). In addition, 
OSHA also reduced CXR frequencies from semi-annual to annual for some 
workers exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions in SIP-I. 
The Agency based this reduction on data available at the time 
indicating that semi-annual x-rays provided no additional protection, 
when compared to annual x-rays, in improving the detection of, and 
survival from, lung cancer for higher risk persons (63 FR 33459-60). 
This eliminated unnecessary radiation exposure for employees and 
reduced the burden on employers. OSHA retained the medical history and 
physical-examination requirements in these standards.
    For the reasons discussed below, OSHA has made a preliminary 
determination that the current literature shows that there is no 
evidence of benefit, either in lung cancer incidence or mortality, from 
screening with CXR in the general population. The primary goal of 
population-based screening is to detect disease at an early stage when 
cure or control is possible, thereby decreasing the number of people 
who die from the disease (Black and Welch, 1997; U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2013; Mazzone, 2012).\5\ Several large-
scale, randomized controlled trials have been conducted over the years 
to determine whether

[[Page 68508]]

screening with chest x-rays, with or without the addition of sputum 
cytology tests, was effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer. 
These studies are discussed below. The Mayo Lung Project compared 
participants in an ``intervention'' group, who were offered chest 
radiography and sputum cytology every four months, with those in a 
``control'' group offered standard medical care. Participants were 
middle-aged and older men who were chronic heavy cigarette smokers and 
thus at high risk of developing lung cancer. After the initial 
prevalence screening, 9,211 male smokers aged 45 and older who 
completed the prevalence screening with negative results and who 
qualified for incidence rescreening were randomized to either of the 
two groups. The more screening-intensive intervention group was 
encouraged (and reminded) to undergo free chest x-rays and free sputum 
cytology tests every four months for six years. While the ``controls'' 
were offered standard medical care, they also were advised to undergo 
annual chest x-rays and sputum cytology tests, resulting in significant 
contamination of the control group by CXR performed off protocol. 
Follow-up ranged from one to five years, and averaged three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Materials referenced are posted on https://regulations.gov, 
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007, and are accessible at OSHA's Docket 
Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 
N2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY 
number is (877) 889-5627.) OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., E.T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the end of the follow-up (July 1, 1983), the Mayo Clinic study 
observed no difference in lung cancer mortality between the 
intervention and control groups, but observed an excess of 46 cases in 
the intervention group, a possible indication of over-diagnosis in lung 
cancer screening. The excess number of cases also could have resulted 
from short follow-up time (that is, additional cases may have been 
observed in the control group if the study lasted longer). In summary, 
this trial demonstrated significantly increased lung cancer detection, 
resectability, and survivorship after detection in the group offered 
screening every four months compared with the control group. However, 
there was no significant difference in lung cancer mortality rate 
between the two groups. Contamination of the control group, together 
with 25 percent non-compliance in the screened group, limited the 
statistical power of this trial. The authors concluded that ``results 
do not justify recommending large-scale radiologic or cytologic 
screening for early lung cancer at this time (Fontana, et al., 1984; 
Fontana, et al., 1991).''
    The term ``over-diagnosis'' refers to identifying through screening 
a disease that would otherwise remain undiagnosed during an 
individual's lifetime (i.e., because symptoms do not present). Over-
diagnosis is a serious potential risk of screening, as the evaluation 
and treatment of over-diagnosed cancer can lead to morbidity, and even 
to premature mortality (Black, 2000).
    In order to assess whether over-diagnosis accompanies lung cancer 
CXR screening, Marcus et al. (2006) extended the follow-up of the same 
Mayo Clinic population studied by Fontana et al. for an additional 16 
years using a randomized controlled trial with a stop-screen feature. A 
stop-screen study design (i.e., one in which screening is terminated 
after a prespecified number of years but follow-up continues for 
ascertainment of cases of disease and deaths) provides the best setting 
in which to assess whether over-diagnosis accompanies screening (Marcus 
et al., 2006). If over-diagnosis does not occur, the cumulative number 
of cases in each group will be equal after screening stops and the 
number of cancers in the control group identified through symptoms 
catches up with those identified earlier through screening (Marcus et 
al., 2006).
    At the start of the study in 1983, information on lung cancer 
status was available for 6,101 participants. From 1971 through the end 
of 1999, 585 participants in the more frequently screened group and 500 
in the usual-care group were diagnosed with lung cancer. Because the 
number of lung cancers in the usual care group did not equalize with 
those in the more frequently screened group at the end of the study 
period, the study investigators concluded that ``the persistence of 
excess cases in the intervention [group] after 16 years of additional 
follow-up provides continued support for over-diagnosis in lung cancer 
screening'' (Marcus et al., 2006).
    OSHA identified one study that included men who were younger than 
45. A Czech study, Kubic and Polak (1986), enrolled 6,364 smokers aged 
40 to 64 years. This study compared semi-annual screening using x-ray 
and sputum cytology to screening at three-year intervals, and to no 
screening. Although it found more earlier-stage lung cancers in both 
screened groups, this study also found no significant difference in 
mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian 
(PLCO) Randomized Trial examined the question whether screening would 
reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers. In a randomized controlled 
study conducted in ten screening centers in the US, 154,901 
participants aged 55 through 74 years were assigned either to the group 
that received annual CXR for three or four years, or to the ``usual 
care'' (no radiographic intervention) group; 51.6 percent of the 
participants were current or former smokers. All diagnosed cancers, 
deaths, and causes of death were ascertained through 13 years of 
follow-up or until December 31, 2009, whichever event occurred earlier 
(Oken et al., 2011). The study found no statistically significant 
differences in lung cancer mortality or incidence rates between the 
intervention and ``usual care'' groups, despite finding a higher 
proportion of early stage (potentially curable) lung cancers in the 
screened group (Hocking et al., 2010). Of particular note is the rate 
of false positives in the study; of 13,038 participants with at least 
one positive CXR, 12,730, or 97.6 percent, did not test positive for 
lung cancer. Furthermore, 121 participants without cancer underwent an 
invasive surgical procedure (Hocking et al., 2013).
    An effective screening measure should detect a disease in its early 
stages before clinical signs and symptoms appear (Herman, 2006). 
Patients who are diagnosed while they are still asymptomatic tend to 
have better outcomes than those who are symptomatic (In, et al., 2008). 
It is well documented in the radiology literature that initial CXR 
misses 19-50 percent of lung cancers (Quekel, 1999). In the past 
decades, several technological innovations have shown improved 
sensitivity in detecting lung cancer. Several small studies have shown 
that newer techniques (e.g., dual-energy subtraction radiology, 
electronic bone suppression, temporal subtraction) may result in fewer 
missed diagnoses of pulmonary nodules. However, no large-scale 
randomized or non-randomized studies are available that assess the 
sensitivity of these radiological techniques.
    Baseline screening of general populations for unsuspected lung 
cancer with CXR yields only a small fraction--less than one percent--of 
lung cancer cases (Hocking et al., 2010; Kubik and Polak, 1986; Fontana 
et al., 1984). Currently, the majority (approximately 85 percent) of 
patients with lung cancer present for clinical evaluation with symptoms 
(Mazzone, et al., 2014); detection of lung cancer in the remaining 
(asymptomatic) patients frequently occurs when an x-ray or CT scan is 
done for another reason (Mazzone et al., 2014; PubMed Health).
    Several authoritative sources of health-information do not 
recommend CXR for wide-scale screening. For example, the National 
Cancer Institute (NCI) in its online Lung Cancer Screening PDQ 
(Physician's Data Query) concluded, ``Based on solid evidence, 
screening with chest x-ray and/or

[[Page 68509]]

sputum cytology does not reduce mortality from lung cancer in the 
general population or in ever-smokers.'' The NCI PDQ goes on to discuss 
the harm associated with false-positive screenings: ``Based on solid 
evidence, at least 95 percent of all positive chest x-ray screening 
exams (but not all) do not result in a lung cancer diagnosis. False-
positive exams result in unnecessary invasive diagnostic procedures.'' 
The NCI PDQ refers to the Oken (2011) and Marcus (2006) studies when 
estimating the magnitude of over-diagnosis at 6 percent to 17 percent. 
The Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that reviews health-care 
literature for the purpose of making empirical recommendations, updated 
its original review article, ``Screening for lung cancer,'' in 2013. 
This latest review included nine trials (eight randomized controlled 
studies and one controlled trial) with a total of 453,965 subjects. The 
review includes many of the studies discussed here. The authors 
concluded:

    The current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer 
with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Annual low-dose CT 
screening is associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality in 
high-risk smokers but further data are required on the cost 
effectiveness of screening and the relative harms and benefits of 
screening across a range of different risk groups and settings.

(Manser et al., 2013).

    Screening workers exposed to lung carcinogens is a complex issue. 
Current tools, particularly CXR, have not been shown to be effective in 
reducing mortality in high-risk smoking populations, and have not been 
studied in worker populations (Fontana, 1984; Oken, 2011; Marcus et 
al., 2011; Hocking et al., 2010). However, workers exposed to lung 
carcinogens are at a higher risk for lung cancer than the general 
population. OSHA conducts risk analyses as part of its regulatory 
requirements, and has determined that occupational exposure to each of 
these: Inorganic arsenic, coke oven emissions, and acrylonitrile, was 
found to be associated with a ``significant risk'' of lung cancer 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; 1910.1029, Coke Oven 
Emissions; and 1910.1045, Acrylonitrile).
    OSHA has also preliminarily determined that the existing evidence 
is insufficient to justify using alternative screening methods to CXR. 
While the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
is currently evaluating the applicability of Low-Dose Computed 
Tomographic (LDCT) as a screening tool for workers exposed to lung 
carcinogens, it may be years before this research can provide a 
recommendation on the efficacy of LDCT. Additionally, research is 
needed on the risks associated with LDCT-associated radiation exposure 
occurring during a screening protocol for workers exposed to lung 
carcinogens in the workplace.
    As noted earlier in this discussion, OSHA is proposing to remove 
the requirement to use periodic CXR as a screening tool for lung cancer 
from the following standards: Sec. Sec.  1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; 
1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and 1910.1045, Acrylonitrile.
    Although OSHA is proposing to remove periodic CXR requirements from 
the medical-surveillance sections of these three standards, the Agency 
emphasizes that the Access to Medical and Exposure Records standard (29 
CFR 1910.1020) would still require employers to maintain all medical 
records, including records of CXRs previously administered. That is, 
this proposed rule would not relieve employers in general industry, 
maritime, and construction of the duty to maintain records of CXRs 
already administered under the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1910.1018, 
1910.1029, 1910.1045, 1915.1018, 1915.1045, 1926.1118, and 1926.1145 
\6\ in accordance with Sec.  1910.1020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Construction and Maritime Inorganic Arsenic and 
Acrylonitrile standards, Sec. Sec.  1915.1018, 1915.1045, 1926.1118, 
and 1926.1145, merely reference the respective general industry 
standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1018 and 1910.1045), so OSHA is not 
proposing to revise them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is not proposing to remove the initial, baseline CXR 
requirement in these three standards. The Agency recognizes that 
requiring initial, baseline CXR at pre-placement or at the initiation 
of a medical-surveillance program provides benefits to workers exposed 
to lung carcinogens, their employers, and health-care professionals 
evaluating those workers. For example, even with known limitations, CXR 
can serve to document the absence of disease. Baseline CXR also can be 
useful in preventing additional testing after detecting an abnormality 
at a future date. In this regard, the PLCO Screening Trial found that 
``evaluation stopped after comparison of the screening radiograph with 
a prior CXR in about one-third'' of those participants presenting with 
an abnormal follow-up CXR (Hocking et al., 2013). When a worker 
receives a CXR prompted by symptoms, physical examination, or other 
indicator, and has an abnormality on that CXR, a baseline CXR from 
years before with the same lesion would reduce the need for additional 
evaluation (e.g., CT scans, biopsy); such evaluations can be invasive, 
and lead to unnecessary irradiation for workers and additional costs 
for employers. However, workers receiving baseline CXR also may undergo 
invasive, potentially unnecessary work-ups and diagnostic testing for 
CXR-detectable lesions that may never progress to clinical 
significance. OSHA will continue to monitor the literature on baseline 
chest X-rays.
Updating Other Chest X-Ray Requirements
    In recent years, improvements in medical technology permit 
screening with digital CXRs, also referred to as digital radiographs, 
in addition to traditional film-based CXRs. The medical community is 
rapidly adopting the technology, and both the International Labor 
Organization (ILO) and NIOSH recently published guidelines for digital 
radiographs (ILO, 2011; NIOSH, 2011).
    OSHA is proposing to update the CXR requirements to allow the use 
of digital radiograph in the medical surveillance provisions of its 
Coke Oven Emissions, Acrylonitrile, and Inorganic Arsenic standards 
discussed above, and in its three asbestos standards and two cadmium 
standards. The latter standards are: Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, Asbestos 
(General Industry); 1915.1001, Asbestos (Maritime); 1926.1101, Asbestos 
(Construction); 1910.1027, Cadmium (General Industry); and 1926.1127 
Cadmium (Construction).\7\ As noted previously, OSHA is proposing to 
add the option of digital radiography standards to its existing 
standards because digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing 
traditional analog film-based systems in medical facilities. Another 
Department of Labor Program, the Office of Workers' Compensation 
Programs, published a final rule allowing the submission of digital 
radiographs in connection with benefit claims, and set out quality 
standards for administering and interpreting digital radiographs. (See 
79 FR 21606; April 17, 2014). OSHA's proposal will codify current 
Agency policy as stated in a Letter of Interpretation dated September 
24, 2012 to Dr. Michael Hodgson, in which OSHA confirmed that it ``will 
allow, but will not require, digital radiography in place of 
traditional chest roentgenograms for medical surveillance exams under 
the Asbestos Standards for

[[Page 68510]]

general industry, construction, and shipyards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Maritime Cadmium standard, Sec.  1915.1027, is a 
reference to the general industry standard (Sec.  1910.1027), so 
OSHA is not proposing to revise it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Radiographic facilities and the physicians that are required by 
OSHA standards to classify CXR according to ILO's classification 
guidelines and that employ digital radiographs in their practice should 
follow the NIOSH Guidelines, ``Application of Digital Radiography for 
the Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis,'' or the most 
recent NIOSH guidance on using digital radiography to detect 
pneumoconiosis. In its current guidelines, NIOSH recommends that ``only 
authorized ILO standard digital images should be used for classifying 
digital chest images for pneumoconiosis.'' NIOSH does not recommend 
using film-based ILO reference radiographs for comparison with digital 
chest images or printed hard copies of the images. In this revision of 
the chest x-ray requirements, OSHA is also proposing to allow other 
reasonably-sized standard x-rays films, such as the 16 inch by 17 inch 
size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 17 inch film specified 
in some standards. In these standards, the phrase ``A 14- by 17-inch 
film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray'' (or similar) would be 
replaced by ``A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film 
or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray.'' This proposed change will 
affect the acrylonitrile standard (Sec.  1910.1045); the inorganic 
arsenic standard (Sec.  1910.1018); the coke oven standard (Sec.  
1910.1029); and the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 
1915.1001, and 1926.1101).\8\ Updating this requirement ensures 
consistency across standards as well as conformance with current 
medical practice. This proposed change also would codify existing 
Agency policy outlined in a Letter of Interpretation (February 16, 1993 
to David Lee Sirott) confirming that 16 inch by 17 inch X-rays are 
generally acceptable for the purpose of complying with OSHA standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ And minor rewording to conform to the proposed language in 
the cadmium standards (1910.1027 and 1926.1127).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed updates also include replacement of ``roentgenogram'' with 
``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology and corrections to remove 
references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in Coke Ovens 
Emissions appendices, Sec.  1910.1029 App. A(VI) and App. B(II)(A), as 
these exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR 1112). 
In addition, the proposal makes changes to conform to the language used 
in the ILO's ``Guidelines for the use of the ILO International 
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses,'' which specifically 
refers to a classification system as applying to CXR, while 
interpretation refers to the information translated by the physician to 
the employer. Finally, the proposed revisions include updating the 
version of the ILO Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses to 
the 2011 version (from the 1980 version), and clarifying that 
classification must be accordance with the ILO classification system 
(rather than ``a professionally accepted Classification system'') in 
Appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards.
Statement of Reasonable Availability
    As noted above, OSHA is incorporating the ILO Classification of 
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, by reference. OSHA 
believes that this classification document is reasonably available to 
interested parties. It is available for purchase from the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 
22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 
8685; Web site: https://www.ilo.org/. In addition, it is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking and in OSHA's docket office for review. 
If OSHA ultimately finalizes this rule, the classification document 
will be maintained in OSHA's national and regional offices for review 
by the public.
References
Aberle, R., Adams, A., Berg, C., Black, W., Clapp, J., Fagerstrom, 
R., et al. (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose 
Computed Tomographic Screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365(5): 395-409.
Bach, P.B., Mirkin, J.N., Oliver, T.K., Azzoli, C.G., Berry, D.A., 
Brawley, O.W., . . . and Detterbeck, F.C. (2012). Benefits and Harms 
of CT Screening for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 307(22): 
2418-2429.
Black, W.C. (2000). Overdiagnosis: An Underrecognized Cause of 
Confusion and Harm in Cancer Screening. Journal of the National 
Cancer Institute, Vol 92 (16): 1280
Fasola, G., Belvedere, O., Aita, M., Zanin, T., Follador, A., 
Cassetti, P., et al. (2007). Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening 
for Lung Cancer and Pleural Mesothelioma in an Asbestos-Exposed 
Population: Baseline Results of a Prospective, Nonrandomized 
Feasibility Trial--An Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary 
Group Study (ATOM 002). The Oncologist, 12: 1215-1224.
Fontana, R.S., Sanderson, D.R., Taylor, W.F., Woolner, L.B., Miller, 
W.E., Muhm, J.R., and Uhlenhopp, M.A. (1984). Early Lung Cancer 
Detection: Results of the Initial (Prevalence) Radiologic and 
Cytologic Screening in the Mayo Clinic study. Am. Rev. Resp. Dis., 
130(4): 561. Abstract only.
Fontana, R.S., Sanderson, D.R., Woolner, L.B., Taylor, W.F., Miller, 
W.E., Muhm, J.R., Bernatz, P.E., Payne, W.S, and Pairolero, P.C. and 
Bergstralh, E.J., (1991). Screening for Lung Cancer, A Critique of 
the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer, 67(supplement): 1155-1164).
Herman, C. (2006). What Makes a Screening Exam ``Good''? AMA Virtual 
Mentor, 8(1):34-7.
Hocking, W.G., Hu, P., Oken, M.M., Winslow, S.D., Kvale, P.A., 
Prorok, P.C., Ragard, L.R., et al. (2010). Lung Cancer Screening in 
the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer 
screening trial. J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 102(10): 722-731.
Hocking, W.G., Tammemagi, M.C., Commins, J., Oken, M.M., Kvale, 
P.A., Hu, P., . . . and Prorok, P.C. (2013). Diagnostic Evaluation 
Following a Positive Lung Screening Chest Radiograph in the 
Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. 
Lung Cancer. 82(2): 238.
In, K.H., Kwon, Y.S., Oh, I.J., Kim, K.S., Jung, M.H., Lee, K.H., 
Kim, S.Y., Ryu, J.S., Lee, S.Y., Jeong, E.T., Lee, S.Y., . . . Kim, 
Y.C. (2009). Lung cancer patients who are asymptomatic at diagnosis 
show favorable prognosis: a Korean Lung Cancer Registry Study. Lung 
Cancer. 64(2): 232-7. Abstract only.
[ILO] International Labour Organization (2011). Guidelines for the 
Use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of 
Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
Kubik, A., and Polak, J. (1986). Lung Cancer Detection Results of a 
Randomized Prospective Study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer, 57(12): 
2427-2437.
Manser, R., Lethaby, A., Irving, L., Stone, C., Brynes, G., 
Abramson, M., and Campbell, D. (2013). Screening for Lung Cancer. 
Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., The Cochrane Library, 6.
Marcus, P., Bergstralh, E.J., Zweig, M., Harris, A., Offord, K.P., 
and Fontana, R.S. (2006). Extended Lung Cancer Incidence Follow-up 
in the Mayo Lung Project and Overdiagnosis. J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 
98(11).
Mazzone, P.J., Choi, H.K., and Ha, D. (2014) Lung Cancer. Cleveland 
Clinic Center for Continuing Education, The Disease Management 
Project, Chapter on Pulmonary Disease.
Moyer, V.A. (2014). Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals Internal Med, 
160 (5).
[NCI] National Cancer Institute (Last modified 2/2014). Screening 
for Lung Cancer With Chest X-Ray and/or Sputum Cytology. Retrieved 
from: https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/lung/HealthProfessional on September 16, 2014.
Oken, M., Hocking, W., Kvale, P., Andriole, G., Buys, S., Church, 
T., et al. (2011). Screening by Chest Radiograph and Lung Cancer 
Mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) 
Randomized Trial. JAMA, 306(17): 1865-1873.
PubMed Health, Retrieved 9/16/2014 from: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

[[Page 68511]]

pubmedhealth/PMH0004529/on September 16, 2014.
Quekel, L.G., Kessels, A.G., Goei, R, and van Engelshoven, J.M. 
(1999). Miss rate of lung c[aacute]ncer on the chest radiograph in 
clinical practice. Chest. 115(3):720-4.
Toyoda, Y., Nakayama, T., Kusunoki, Y., Iso, H., and Suzuki, T. 
(2008). Brit. J. Cancer, 98: 1602-1607.
Screening for Lung Cancer, Topic Page (2013). U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force. (2013). U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 
Retrieved on September 16, 2014 from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspslung.htm.
3. Subpart Z of 1910--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Pulmonary-
Function Testing Requirements for Cotton Dust in 29 CFR 1910.1043
Background
    In 1978, OSHA promulgated the standard for occupational exposure to 
cotton dust at 29 CFR 1910.1043 because workers exposed to cotton dust 
are at risk of developing the respiratory disease, byssinosis (43 FR 
27350, June 23, 1978). As described in the preambles to the proposed 
and final rules, byssinosis is characterized by a continuum of effects 
(41 FR 56497, 56500-56501, December 28, 1976; 43 FR 27352-27354). 
Generally, workers who develop byssinosis first experience an acute 
stage (also called the reactor state), with mild and apparently 
reversible symptoms that occur on the first day of the work week, after 
one or more days away from the workplace. Symptoms include chest 
tightness, difficulty breathing, coughing, and possibly wheezing. Some 
of those workers also experience temporary acute declines in lung 
function over the course of a workshift as measured by pulmonary-
function testing. As the disease progresses, workers may begin to 
experience symptoms on other days of the work week. Sometimes the 
disease progresses into a chronic, irreversible stage that involves 
permanent narrowing of bronchial tubes. Symptoms during the chronic 
stage are similar to symptoms observed with emphysema and chronic 
bronchitis, and include chronic cough with phlegm production and 
progressive shortness of breath. At this stage, impaired lung function 
associated with the disease is clearly detectable by pulmonary function 
testing. Byssinosis can lead to disability or death. Rates of 
progression depend on exposure levels and susceptibility of workers.
    The Cotton Dust Standard contains medical-surveillance provisions 
at 29 CFR 1910.1043(h). These provisions require initial and periodic 
medical-surveillance examinations that include administration of a 
medical questionnaire to determine if workers are experiencing symptoms 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(ii) and (h)(3)(i)). Medical surveillance 
requirements also include pulmonary function testing (i.e., spirometry 
testing) to objectively measure lung function and to assess changes in 
lung function (Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii)).
    The preamble for the final Cotton Dust standard noted the poor 
accuracy and high variability of pulmonary function tests in the past, 
resulting from lack of uniform specifications for equipment calibration 
checks, test procedures, and personnel training (43 FR 27391). To 
improve the accuracy and consistency of pulmonary function testing, 
OSHA mandated specific requirements in the Cotton Dust Standard based 
on recommendations from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (43 FR 
27391; 29 CFR 1910.1043, Appendix D). Since 1978, pulmonary function 
testing procedures and technology have evolved significantly, and some 
of the mandates in the Cotton Dust Standard now are outdated. OSHA is 
proposing to update the lung function testing requirements for the 
Cotton Dust Standard to make them consistent with current practices and 
technology.
Proposed Revisions
    OSHA based the proposed revisions to the Cotton Dust Standard 
pulmonary function testing requirements on current recommendations from 
the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS), 
NIOSH, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine (ACOEM). Each of these organizations is a recognized authority 
on generally accepted practices in pulmonary function testing. In the 
following discussion, references to generally accepted practices refer 
to only those practices recommended by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, or ACOEM.
    Like other respiratory diseases, byssinosis can slow the speed of 
expired air and/or reduce the volume of air that can be inspired and 
then exhaled. To detect and monitor these impairments, spirometry 
measures the maximal volume and speed of air that is forcibly exhaled 
after taking a maximal inspiration. Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) is 
defined as total exhaled volume after full inspiration. Speed of 
expired air is determined by dividing the volume of air exhaled in the 
first second, i.e., the Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1), 
by the total FVC to give the FEV1/FVC ratio. Values obtained from 
accurate and repeatable spirometry testing are then compared to 
reference predicted values, which are averages expected for a person of 
the same gender, age, height, and race as the employee being tested. A 
spirometry result that is 100 percent of the predicted value for a 
person of the same gender, age, and height and race indicates that the 
individual being tested has average lung function (OSHA, 2013). 
Depending upon the race of the individual and the reference value group 
being used, an adjustment may need to be made on the basis of race. 
This issue is discussed at greater length later in this discussion. 
Values are also compared to the employees' previous measurements.
    Currently, Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) requires that health care 
providers conducting medical surveillance compare the employees' values 
to the predicted values in Appendix C of the standard. Appendix C 
currently contains predicted values derived from equations published by 
Knudson et al. (1976).
    OSHA is proposing to revise this provision to specify use of the 
third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) 
reference data set and to replace the values currently in Appendix C 
with the NHANES III values, derived from Spirometric Reference Values 
from a Sample of the General U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999), 
which will be incorporated by reference. Currently, NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 
2003), ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) 
all recommend NHANES III as the most appropriate reference data set for 
assessing spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population. 
The data set from NHANES III is the most recent and most representative 
of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference 
values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians, 
African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old. 
Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal 
accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et 
al., 1999).
    OSHA also proposes to make a correction to Sec.  1910.1043, 
Appendix B-II, Section B, ``Occupational History Table''. The table's 
column titled ``Tenure of Employment'' contains boxes in which dates of 
employment are entered. To allow the entry of dates that occurred later 
than 1999, OSHA would change the column's two sub-headers to

[[Page 68512]]

read as follows: ``From 19_ or 20_'' and ``To 19_ or 20_''.
Statement of Reasonable Availability
    As noted above, OSHA is incorporating the Spirometric Reference 
Values from a Sample of the General U.S. Population (Hankinson JL, 
Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical 
Care Medicine, 159(1):179-187, January 1999). These values are also 
available to interested parties at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/nhanes.htm. In addition, they are available at 
www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rulemaking and in OSHA's 
docket office for review. If OSHA ultimately finalizes this rule, the 
data set will be maintained in OSHA's national and regional offices for 
review by the public.
    Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) currently specifies that FEV1 and FVC 
predicted values be multiplied by 0.85 to obtain reference values for 
blacks because the Knudson data set contains reference values only for 
Caucasians. However, such an adjustment for that race/ethnic group is 
no longer necessary because the NHANES III data set contains reference 
values for African Americans. However, the NHANES III data set does not 
contain reference values for Asian Americans, who typically have 
smaller lung volumes compared to Caucasians of the same age, height, 
and gender (Pellegrino et al., 2005). To obtain Asian American 
reference values, ATS/ERS (Redlich et al., 2014) and ACOEM (Townsend, 
2011) recommend that Caucasian reference values for FVC and FEV1 be 
multiplied by a factor of 0.88. Therefore, OSHA is proposing use of a 
0.88 correction factor to obtain Asian American reference values for 
the FVC and FEV1. Because race does not appear to affect FEV1/FVC 
(ratio), OSHA is not proposing to apply a correction factor to 
Caucasian values to derive a ratio for Asian Americans. If the NHANES 
data set is updated to include Asian American values in the future, and 
generally accepted practices endorse that data set for use in the U.S., 
OSHA will consider revising Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii).
    OSHA's proposal to replace the Knudson values currently in Appendix 
C with the NHANES III data set would simplify interpretation of 
spirometry results by providing reference values for more race/ethnic 
groups; however, neither the NHANES III nor the proposed correction 
factor addresses every race/ethnic group. Therefore, OSHA is proposing 
text that indicates comparison to ``appropriate'' race/ethnicity values 
for groups not included in NHANES III. For example, using Mexican-
American values for non-Mexican-American Hispanic workers may be 
appropriate. Designations of race/ethnicity are self-reported by 
workers, and bi-racial or multi-racial workers should select the race 
category that best describes them. OSHA's guidance document provides 
some additional guidance on this topic, including a recommendation to 
use Caucasian reference values for Native American Indians (OSHA, 
2013).
    The software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set, 
which is identified as the Hankinson 1999 data set on some spirometers. 
If software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data 
set, users of those spirometers would be able to access the NHANES III 
values online through the NIOSH calculator (CDC/NIOSH, 2010). Tables of 
the NHANES III values are also available in an appendix to OSHA's 
spirometry guidance for healthcare professionals that is available 
online (OSHA, 2013). Therefore, NHANES III values are widely available 
to spirometry providers, including those providers using older 
spirometers.
    Currently, paragraph (h)(2)(iii) requires an evaluation of 
pulmonary function testing values using predicted values of FVC and 
FEV1, which are the only reference values listed in the tables in 
current Appendix C. The NHANES III reference data set includes the 
lower limit of normal (LLN) as well as predicted values for FEV1, FVC, 
and the FEV1/FVC ratio. The LLN for these spirometry measurements 
represents the lower fifth percentile of a healthy (normal) population. 
That is, 95 percent of a healthy (normal) population should have 
spirometry values above the LLN, and spirometry values below the LLN 
could be abnormal (OSHA, 2013). Generally accepted practices by ATS/
ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM currently compare spirometry values to the LLN 
values to identify impaired pulmonary function.
    In particular, ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005) defines airways 
obstruction as an FEV1/vital capacity (VC) below the LLN. ACOEM 
(Townsend, 2011) and NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003) define borderline airway 
obstruction as an FEV1/FVC below the LLN, with an FEV1 between the LLN 
and the predicted value; they define airways obstruction as both FEV1/
FVC and an FEV1 below the LLN. ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM indicate that 
an FVC or VC less than the LLN could indicate possible restrictive 
impairment (Pellegrino et al., 2005; Townsend, 2011; CDC/NIOSH, 2003).
    Therefore, OSHA is proposing to update (h)(2)(iii) to require an 
evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the LLN and percent 
predicted values to fully characterize possible pulmonary impairment in 
exposed workers, which is consistent with generally accepted current 
practices described above. OSHA's proposal to evaluate the FEV1/FVC 
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC will not affect triggers for changes 
in medical surveillance frequency or referral for a detailed pulmonary 
examination, because the standard bases those triggers solely on FEV1 
values.
    However, OSHA is also proposing to change the triggers for the 
frequency of medical surveillance. Currently, paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) 
and (B) of the standard require frequency of medical surveillance based 
in part on whether the FEV1 is above or below 80 percent of the 
predicted value. OSHA is proposing that the basis for frequency of 
medical surveillance be whether the FEV1 is above or below the LLN. As 
noted above, generally accepted practices currently use the LLN as the 
basis for classifying possibly abnormal lung function. Pulmonary 
function normally declines with age, and the LLN better accounts for 
age-related declines than the current standard (Townsend et al., 2011). 
There is evidence that the cut-off point used by the standard, 80 
percent of the predicted value, can result in erroneous lung function 
interpretation in adults (Pellegrino et al., 2005). Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing to use the LLN to determine the frequency of lung-function 
testing.
    Section 1910.1043, Appendix D, sets standards for spirometric 
measurements of pulmonary function. OSHA is basing the proposed changes 
to Appendix D on the most recent spirometry recommendations from ATS/
ERS (Miller et al., 2005). Many of the proposed changes reflect 
advances in spirometry procedures or methods of interpretation.\9\ 
Other proposed changes reflect technological changes associated with 
the current widespread use of flow-type spirometers, in addition to 
volume-type spirometers, which were in widespread use in 1978 when OSHA 
published the current standard, and remain in use today. The proposed

[[Page 68513]]

changes would apply only to equipment purchased one year after OSHA 
publishes the final standard in the Federal Register. This would give 
time for distributors to exhaust existing stocks and allow medical 
providers to continue using the older spirometers until they buy new 
ones in the normal course of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Appendix D provides minimal standards that must be employed 
when making spirometry measurements. Users of Appendix D should also 
consult generally accepted practices from ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et 
al., 2005; Miller et al., 2005), NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003), and ACOEM 
(Townsend, 2011) for a complete list of current spirometry 
standards. OSHA's spirometry guidance also outlines those practices 
(OSHA, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Appendix D(I)(b) specifies volume capacity for spirometers, 
and the proposed revision would change it from seven to eight liters. 
Current Appendix D(I)(e) specifies flow rates for flow-type 
spirometers, and the proposed revision would change it from 12 to 14 
liters per second. These proposed revisions to Appendix D(I)(b) and (e) 
reflect current recommendations by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005).
    Current Appendix D(I)(g) requires either a tracing or display, and 
OSHA is proposing to revise this language to ``paper tracing or real-
time display.'' When OSHA published the current standard in 1978, a pen 
linked to a physical strip chart generated tracings of expiration 
curves on graph paper during pulmonary testing. In contrast, most 
current flow-type and volume-type spirometers use computer-generated 
displays of expiration curves projected on the spirometer or on an 
attached computer screen.
    OSHA is proposing to add size specifications for computer-generated 
displays, the technology most often used today (Miller et al., 2005). 
An issue that was critical for tracings in 1978, and remains critical 
for both tracings and displays today, is that they be large enough to 
allow a technician to easily evaluate the technical acceptability of 
the expiration during testing. A large real-time display allows the 
technician to easily view a technically unacceptable expiration and 
coach the worker to achieve optimal expirations in subsequent attempts. 
Current Appendix D(I)(g) also specifies requirements for paper tracings 
of the expiration curve, and requires that the tracings be of 
sufficient size for hand measurements to conform to Appendix D(I)(a). 
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph D(I)(g) to indicate ``If hand 
measurements will be made.'' OSHA is proposing these changes because 
hand measurements are currently rarely used, and the values currently 
shown in the expiration curve are usually computer generated today.
    Appendix D(I)(g) also requires the spirometer to display flow 
versus volume or volume versus time tracings. The proposed revision 
would require the spirometer to display both flow-volume and volume-
time curves or tracings during testing. The flow-volume curve 
emphasizes early expiration and allows the technician to detect 
problems early in the maneuver (OSHA, 2013). The volume-time curve 
emphasizes the end of the expiration and allows the technician to coach 
the patient to achieve a complete expiration (OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also 
proposing to update the paragraph to indicate that both types of curves 
or tracings must be stored and available for recall. This requirement 
to store curves will allow the assessment of results for acceptability 
and repeatability, once testing is concluded, and it will also make it 
possible to include the curves in reports to health care providers who 
interpret the results (OSHA, 2013).
    Current Appendix D(I)(h) requires that instruments be capable of 
accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and not stop 
accumulating volume before (1) the volume change for a 0.5-second 
interval is less than 25 millimeters, or (2) the flow is less than 50 
milliliters per second for a 0.5-second interval. As noted by ATS in 
1987, these end-of-test criteria, which were first included in the 1979 
ATS statement, caused premature termination of exhalation and FVCs that 
were falsely reduced by as much as 9 percent (ATS, 1987). To avoid such 
falsely reduced FVCs, ATS defined end-of-test criteria only according 
to volume change from 1987 onward (ATS 1987, 1994, 2005). Therefore, 
OSHA is proposing to update the first clause by specifying the 
currently recommended volume change of less than 25 milliliters for a 
1-second interval (Miller et al, 2005) and is also proposing to remove 
the latter clause, i.e., that the instrument shall not stop 
accumulating volume before the flow is less than 50 milliliters per 
second for a 0.5-second interval. The proposed changes make Appendix D 
consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations for expiratory end-of-
test criteria using volume increment only, since flow rate criteria 
were abandoned in 1987 (ATS, 1987; Miller et al., 2005). OSHA is also 
proposing to update this provision by revising the time for which the 
instrument must be capable of accumulating volume to 15 seconds, the 
maximum time for which an exhalation should be done according to ATS/
ERS (Miller et al., 2005). In 1987, ATS stated that they encourage 
spirometer designs that allowed patients to continue exhaling for as 
long as possible (ATS, 1987).
    Current Appendix D(I)(j), (II)(b), and (IV)(b) provide requirements 
for the calibration of spirometers, and the proposal updates several of 
these requirements. The proposed revisions to Appendix D(I)(j), 
(II)(b), and (IV)(b) clarify that the technician must always check the 
calibration of spirometers, and recalibrate them only if the spirometer 
requires the technician to do so. That change is consistent with 
recommendations by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). The reason for the 
proposed change is that while technicians cannot recalibrate many 
spirometer models in current use, they nevertheless must check all 
spirometers regularly when in use to ensure that the spirometers are 
operating within calibration limits, i.e., that the spirometers are 
accurate (OSHA, 2013).
    OSHA is proposing to delete the following text from Appendix 
D(I)(j) because it is ambiguous and provides no useful information: ``. 
. . with respect to the FEV1 and FVC. This calibration of the FEV1 and 
FVC may be either directly or indirectly through volume and time base 
measurements.'' OSHA also is proposing to update paragraph D(I)(j) to 
include the current ATS/ERS requirements for calibration-syringe 
accuracy and volume displacement (Miller et al., 2005). As noted above, 
OSHA is proposing to revise the term ``calibration'' to ``calibration 
check.'' Another proposed change to paragraph D(I)(j) is to revise the 
term ``calibration source'' to ``calibration syringe'' because a 
syringe is the only type of calibration source currently used, so 
specifying a syringe instead of a source would clarify the requirement.
    In addition, OSHA proposes to change the word ``should'' in D(I)(j) 
to ``shall,'' so the new D(I)(j)(2) would read, ``the volume-
calibration syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at least 3 
liters and shall be accurate to within  0.5 percent of 3 
liters (15 milliliters).'' The phrase ``should'' sounds advisory, and 
the current practices that OSHA proposes to adopt are based on the 3 
liter size of the syringe. OSHA seeks comment on this change to 
``shall.''
    Current Appendix D(II)(b) provides that technicians should perform 
calibrations using a syringe or other source of at least two liters. 
The proposed change in the syringe volume to three liters is consistent 
with current practices. OSHA also is proposing to change the term 
``syringe or other volume source'' to ``syringe'' for the reasons 
described above in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Another 
proposed change to Appendix D(II)(b) would be to delete the phrase ``or 
method.'' The meaning of that phrase is unclear; the sentence is 
addressing calibration checks of an instrument (i.e., spirometer), not 
a method. OSHA also is proposing calibration check procedures for flow-
type and volume-type spirometers to determine whether a spirometer is 
recording 3 liters of air 

[[Page 68514]]

3.5 percent (Miller et al., 2005; OSHA, 2013). The check of flow-type 
spirometers would involve the injection of air at three different 
speeds, and the check of volume-type spirometers would involve a single 
injection of air and a check for spirometer leakage. Users should refer 
to generally accepted practices and other guidance for complete details 
about calibration checks (see, e.g., Miller et al., 2005; Townsend, 
2011; OSHA, 2013). OSHA also proposes to change the term 
``recalibration'' in this provision to ``calibration checks'' for the 
reasons stated above in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Finally, 
OSHA proposes to change ``should'' to ``shall'' in the first sentence 
of D(II)(B) for the same reasons as discussed above regarding paragraph 
D(I)(j).
    Appendix D(II)(a) currently contains requirements for measuring 
forced expirations, including having the patient make at least three 
forced expirations. OSHA is proposing to update this paragraph to have 
the patient perform at least three, but no more than eight, forced 
expirations during testing. This proposed change would clarify that up 
to eight forced expirations can be attempted to obtain three acceptable 
forced expirations (Miller et al., 2005). The same paragraph currently 
states that ``The subject may sit, . . .'' OSHA proposes that 
``subject'' be changed to ``patient'' because ``subject'' implies 
someone in an experimental trial, while patient is the more appropriate 
term for someone undergoing screening at a medical facility, and 
``patient'' is the term used most often in the standard. OSHA also is 
proposing to clarify the text in paragraph D(II)(a) to indicate that 
the expiration must be repeatable. The term ``repeatability,'' now used 
by ATS/ERS, would be an update to the existing term 
``reproducibility''; paragraph D(II)(a)(7) lists the criteria for 
repeatable (formerly, reproducible) results. In addition, Appendix 
D(II)(a) lists elements of ``unacceptable'' efforts in paragraphs 
(a)(1)-(a)(7); OSHA proposes to revise this language to ``technically 
unacceptable'' to make clear that the problem is not with the worker's 
lungs but with the flaws in how the test is conducted.
    Appendix D(II)(a)(3) currently specifies that a worker's efforts 
during testing are unacceptable when the expiration does not continue 
for at least five seconds or until an obvious plateau in the volume-
time curve occurs. The proposed revision to this paragraph clarifies 
that results may be acceptable if the worker attempted to exhale 
(versus actually exhaled) for at least six seconds and until an obvious 
plateau in the volume-time curve occurs (Miller et al., 2005). 
Therefore, the expiration must meet both of these criteria for a 
spirometry result to be technically acceptable. Many workers who are 
young or have small lung volumes can complete an expiration in less 
than six seconds, and their results may be acceptable if the technician 
observes an obvious plateau in the volume-time curve (OSHA, 2013).
    Appendix D(II)(a)(4) provides that the results are unacceptable 
when the worker coughs or closes the glottis during forced expiration. 
This proposed change clarifies that the results are unacceptable if 
coughing occurs in the first second of expiration, a condition that is 
consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations (Miller et al., 2005). 
Coughing in the first second interferes with measurement of the FEV1 
(Miller et al., 2005), but coughing toward the end of the expiration 
does not affect test results (OSHA, 2013). Glottis closure at any time 
may result in premature termination of the expiration (Miller et al., 
2005).
    Appendix D(II)(a)(6) provides that the results are unacceptable 
when there is an unsatisfactory start to expiration characterized by 
excessive hesitation, i.e., one with an extrapolated volume greater 
than 10 percent of the FVC on the volume-time curve. As noted in the 
1987 ATS statement, a criterion of 10 percent could result in a falsely 
elevated FEV1 from a suboptimal effort (ATS, 1987). The proposed change 
would indicate that extrapolated volume must be less than 150 
milliliters or 5 percent of the FVC, whichever is greater, to be 
unacceptable. It would update the provision to be consistent with the 
most recent ATS/ERS recommendation on criteria for start-of-test so 
that an accurate time zero is set (Miller et al, 2005). All ATS or ATS/
ERS statements define acceptable start-of-test criteria according to 
volume, as well as percent FVC, using whichever criterion is larger for 
a given patient (ATS, 1979, 1987, 1994; Miller et al., 2005), and it is 
not clear why the volume value was excluded from the current cotton 
dust standard. OSHA is proposing to include the 2005 ATS/ERS 
recommendations for volume, in addition to percentage of FVC, for 
consistency with ATS/ERS. Expressing the values as both percentage of 
FVC and as a volume, and using whichever approach gives the larger 
allowed extrapolated volume, aids in the interpretation of results for 
individuals with very small or very large lung volumes. For example, 
since 5 percent of FVC will be less than 150 milliliters in individuals 
with FVC < 3.00 L, the 150 milliliter criterion would be used for those 
patients. But 5 percent of FVC would exceed 150 milliliters in 
individuals with FVC > 3.00 L, so in that case the 5 percent of FVC 
criterion would be used to evaluate the start-of-test for these 
patients.
    As stated above, Appendix D(II)(a)(7) contains criteria for 
acceptable repeatability. Editorial changes proposed in Appendix 
D(II)(a)(7) are for clarification. Notably, OSHA would remove the word 
``three'' because technicians can examine up to eight acceptable curves 
to select the two highest FEV1 and FVC values (Miller et al., 2005). 
OSHA is also proposing to change ``variation'' to ``difference'' 
because ``difference'' is the more appropriate mathematical term to use 
when comparing only two numbers.
    In Appendix D(II)(a)(7), OSHA also is proposing to revise the 
maximum difference between the two largest FVC values and the two 
largest FEV1 values of a satisfactory test to 150 milliliters, a change 
from the current maximum difference of 10 percent or 100 
milliliters, whichever is greater. This proposed revision to the 
criteria for acceptable repeatability reflects current ATS/ERS 
recommendations (Miller et al., 2005). In 2005, ATS/ERS stated that 
many patients are able to achieve repeatability of FEV1 and FVC to 
within 150 milliliters (Miller et al., 2005). In 1994, the ATS changed 
its repeatability criterion from a volume and a percentage difference 
between values to a volume difference only, so that the criterion was 
equally stringent for all lung sizes, and also so that it was easy to 
compute during the test if hand-measurements were made (ATS, 1994). 
OSHA is also proposing editorial changes to make it clear that the 
difference between the two largest acceptable FVC values should not 
exceed 150 milliliters and the two largest acceptable FEV1 values 
should not exceed 150 milliliters.
    The Agency discussed proposed changes to Appendix D(II)(b) above.
    OSHA is proposing to remove Appendix D(III)(b). The paragraph 
refers to a NIOSH guideline that specifies an outdated evaluation 
criterion of FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.75 percent, and OSHA is unaware of an 
updated NIOSH cotton dust guideline that more appropriately compares 
the FEV1/FVC ratio to LLN. As noted above, generally accepted practices 
use the LLN as the basis for classifying possibly abnormal lung 
function because it accounts for age-related declines in lung function 
(Townsend, 2011). Appendix D(III)(b) also refers to a table that OSHA 
never included in the final Cotton Dust

[[Page 68515]]

Standard. That table was most likely Table XII-12 in the NIOSH criteria 
document for cotton dust (CDC/NIOSH, 1974). The lack of the table does 
not appear to be a pressing issue since no user complained about the 
missing table after OSHA promulgated the standard. In addition, the 
information is available to users in the NIOSH criteria document.
    The proposed updates to paragraphs D(IV)(a) and (d) would change 
``reproducibility'' to ``repeatability'' to conform to the terminology 
now used by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). ``Repeatability'' would have 
the same meaning as ``reproducibility.'' OSHA also is proposing to 
change the term ``calibration'' in paragraph D(IV)(b) to ``calibration 
checks'' for the reasons stated above in the discussion of paragraph 
D(I)(j). OSHA also proposes to change ``subject'' to ``patient'' in 
paragraph D(IV)(c) for the reason discussed above in the discussion of 
paragraph D(II)(a).
References
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association(1979). ATS Statement--Snowbird Workshop on 
Standardization of Spirometry. American Review of Respiratory 
Disease, 119, 831-838.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association(1987). Standardization of Spirometry--1987 Update. 
Am Rev Respir Dis, 136, 1285-1298.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American 
Lung Association(1994). Standardization of Spirometry--1994 Update. 
Am Resp Crit Care Med, 152, 1107-1136.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health)(1974). Criteria for a Recommended 
Standard: Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust. Chapter XII: Tables 
and Figures. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/75-118f.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health)(2003). Spirometry training guide. 
December 1, 2003. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-154c/pdfs/2004-154c.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health)(2010). Spirometry reference value 
calculator. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/RefCalculator.html.
Hankinson, J. L., Odencrantz, J. R. and Fedan, K. B. (1999). 
Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general US 
population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med., 159, 179-87.
Hankinson, J. H., Kawut, S. M. and Shahar, E. (2010). Performance of 
American Thoracic Society-recommended spirometry reference values in 
a multiethnic sample of adults. Chest, 137, 138-145.
Knudson, R. J., Slatin, R. C., Lebowitz, M. D. and Burrows, B. 
(1976). The maximal expiratory flow-volume curve. Normal standards, 
variability, and effects of age. Am Rev Respir Dis, 113, 587-600.
Miller, M. R., Hankinson, J., Brusasco, V., Burgos, F., Casaburi, 
R., Coates, A. . . . Wanger, J. (2005). American Thoracic Society/
European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) Task Force: Standardisation 
of Spirometry. Eur Respir J, 26, 319-33, https://www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/pfet/PFT2.pdf.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2013). 
Spirometry testing in occupational health programs. Best practices 
for healthcare professionals. US Department of Labor. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3637.pdf.
Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R. O., Burgos, F., 
Casaburi, R. . . . Wanger, J. (2005). ATS/ERS standardisation of 
lung function testing. Interpretative strategies for lung function 
tests. Eur Respir J., 26, 948-968.
Redlich, C. A., Tarlo, S.M., Hankinson, J.L., Townsend, M. C., 
Eschenbacher, W. L., Von Essen, S. G., Sigsgaard, T. and Weissman, 
D.N. (2014). American Thoracic Society Committee on Spirometry in 
the Occupational Setting. Official American Thoracic Society 
technical standards: Spirometry in the occupational setting. Am J 
Respir Crit Care Med., 189(8), 983-93.
Sanders, C. L., Yesupriya, A. J., and Curtin, L. R. (undated). 
Analysis of Population Structure and Stratification in NHANES III 
Self-Reported Race/Ethnicities. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/events/file/print/10year/08_pop_struct_ab.pdf.
Townsend, M. C. (2011). American College of Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Occupational and Environmental Lung 
Disorders Committee. Spirometry in the occupational health setting--
2011 update. J Occup Environ Med, 53, 569-584. https://www.acoem.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Affairs/Policies_And_Position_Statements/ACOEM%20Spirometry%20Statement.pdf.
4. Subpart F of 1915--General Working Conditions, Definitions in 29 CFR 
1915.80
    Existing requirements in the sanitation standard for Shipyard 
Employment, Sec.  1915.88(j)(1) and (j)(2), specify that employers 
must, to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain 
workplaces in a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers 
detect vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-
control program.
    Paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 defines the term ``vermin'' as 
``insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and feral cats, 
that may create safety and health hazards for employees.'' OSHA 
included this definition in the proposal for 29 CFR part 1915, subpart 
F, General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment, on December 20, 
2007 (72 FR 72452). In that NPRM, OSHA requested comment on the 
proposed vermin-control provisions, as well as examples of vermin that 
are present and the types of controls employers use to prevent the 
harborage of vermin in shipyard worksites. Id. at 72484. The Agency 
cited the hazards associated with exposure to insects, birds, and 
rodents in the preamble discussion, but did not mention any hazards 
associated with feral cats. Id. The Agency received two comments on 
these provisions. One commenter stated that vermin did not pose a 
serious hazard to workers and that OSHA should remove these provisions 
from the rulemaking (Ex. 197.1, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). The 
other commenter explained that the number and types of vermin are 
greater than OSHA indicated in the proposed discussion, and that ``[t]o 
`implement and maintain an effective control program' as required in 
this section would probably be very expensive, near impossible or even 
illegal'' (Ex. 121.1, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). Based on the 
general industry sanitation standard that applied to shipyard 
employment prior to the subpart F rulemaking, and these limited 
comments, the final standard adopted the proposed definition 76 FR 
24576 (May 2, 2011). The final rule preamble also did not identify any 
hazards associated with feral cats. Id. at 24616.
    Recently, stakeholders raised concerns about including feral cats 
in the definition of vermin. These stakeholders argue that while the 
possibility exists for feral cats to pose safety and health hazards for 
employees (e.g., bites, scratches, fecal contamination), the threat is 
minor as the cats tend to avoid human contact. Further, these 
stakeholders expressed concern that including the term ``feral cats'' 
in the definition of vermin encourages cruel and unnecessary 
extermination. OSHA recognizes these concerns and, therefore, is 
proposing to remove the term ``feral cats'' from the definition in 
Sec.  1915.80(b)(33). The revised provision would define the term 
``vermin'' as ``insects, birds, rodents and other animals that may 
create safety and health hazards for employees.'' The Washington State 
Plan also removed the term ``feral cats'' from its definition of 
vermin, which is equivalent to OSHA's definition in Sec.  
1915.80(b)(33) (WAC 296-304-01001). The proposed revision also is 
consistent with the general industry sanitation standard provision on 
vermin, which describes vermin as ``rodents, insects, and other 
vermin'' (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)). OSHA does not believe that removing 
the term ``feral

[[Page 68516]]

cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and 
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of other vermin. To 
the extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular 
shipyard, OSHA would consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under 
the standard.
5. Subpart D of 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, 
Medical Services and First Aid in 29 CFR 1926.50
    Under 29 CFR 1926.50, employers must provide specified medical 
services and first aid to employees to address serious injuries that 
may occur on the job. Existing Sec.  1926.50(f) requires the posting of 
telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for worksites 
located in areas where 911 emergency service is not available. OSHA 
adopted this requirement in 1979 when 911 emergency service was still a 
relatively new concept, and was available only in certain parts of the 
country.
    Today, 911 emergency service is available almost everywhere in 
North America. In nearly all locations in the United States and Canada, 
a 911 call over a land-line telephone will link the caller to an 
emergency-dispatch center. In the United States, most localities with 
911 service also have so-called ``Enhanced 911,'' which will not only 
connect the land-line caller to a dispatcher, but also will 
automatically provide the caller's location to the emergency 
dispatcher. This automatic-location information is critical for 
emergency responders in cases when the 911 caller does not know his/her 
exact location, or does not have sufficient time to provide such 
information.
    Although the automatic transmission of location information to 
emergency dispatchers is customary for land-line telephones, the task 
of automatically transmitting location information is more complex when 
the emergency call originates from a wireless telephone. Since 1996, 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been phasing in the 
requirement that wireless carriers adopt technologies that provide 911 
caller-location information. However, carriers are not likely to 
complete the phase-in until 2019; consequently, the FCC established a 
procedure for exempting carriers from the location requirement. As a 
result, in some remote areas of the country, wireless-telephone 
carriers still are unable to provide accurate information about the 
location of the 911 caller to 911 answering centers. The proposed 
revision to Sec.  1926.50(f) updates the 911 service-posting 
requirements consistent with the current status of land-line and 
wireless-telephone technologies.
    The proposed standard addresses the problem of locating callers, 
usually cell-phone callers, in remote areas that do not have automatic-
location capability. In such areas, the proposed standard requires 
employers to post in a conspicuous location either the latitude and 
longitude of the worksite or other location-identification information 
that effectively communicates the location of the worksite. OSHA notes 
that when ACCSH discussed this proposal, one member stated that he had 
seen a contractor provide latitude and longitude coordinates at a 
remote site on stickers given to employees. (ACCSH Aug. 23, 2013 
transcript, p. 85.) Employers can obtain information about which 
counties, or portions of counties, are exempted from the 911 location 
accuracy requirements from FCC PS Docket No. 07-114, which is publicly 
available on the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web 
page: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=07-114.
    The proposed revision also requires employers to ensure that the 
communication system they use to contact ambulance service is 
effective. Under existing Sec.  1926.50(e), employers are required to 
provide a communication system for contacting ambulance service, or 
proper equipment for transportation of an injured person. When using 
wireless telephones as a communication system, however, that system's 
availability varies based on the location of the caller. If an employer 
is relying upon a communication system at a worksite, it must be 
effective at the worksite. The Agency is retaining the requirement to 
post telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for 
worksites located in areas where 911 emergency service is not 
available.
6. Subpart D of 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, 
Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists in 29 CFR 1926.55
    The provisions of Sec.  1926.55 establish permissible exposure 
limits for numerous toxic chemicals used during construction 
activities. These provisions are the construction counterpart to the 
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.1000. However, OSHA believes 
that several of these provisions, notably paragraph (a), paragraph (c), 
and Appendix A to Sec.  1926.55, need clarification. In this regard, 
OSHA believes, first, that the use of the phrase ``threshold limit 
values'' and the reference to the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), in both paragraph (a) and Appendix A, 
are confusing. Since these are OSHA standards, the correct terminology 
to express these limits is ``permissible exposure limits,'' and the 
proposed revision makes this revision. Moreover, while OSHA originally 
adopted these limits from ACGIH recommendations, the limits are OSHA, 
not ACGIH, requirements. Therefore, the proposed revision deletes the 
references to ACGIH.
    Second, the phrase ``shall be avoided'' in paragraph (a) has an 
advisory, rather than a mandatory, connotation and, therefore, is not 
appropriate in regulatory text. OSHA is proposing to revise this 
language to read, ``An employee's exposure . . . must at no time exceed 
the exposure limit given for that substance.''
    Third, the words ``inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or 
contact'' in paragraph (a) are redundant and confusing. In addition, 
the concentrations listed are airborne values, and the standard 
addresses exposure through any route. Therefore, the proposed language 
deletes these words.
    Fourth, Appendix A is not an appendix but an integral part of the 
standard. The proposal, therefore, would acknowledge this relationship 
by revising the heading to read, ``Table A.''
    Fifth, Appendix A (proposed Table A) has a column labelled ``Skin 
Designation'' under which an ``X'' demarcates certain substances, 
although the appendix provides no definition of ``X.'' The 1970 ACGIH 
publication, however, notes that the ``X'' identifies substances that 
present a dermal hazard. The proposed revision adds a footnote to the 
proposed table that clarifies the meaning of this designation.
    Sixth, Appendix A (proposed Table A) has two footnotes designated 
by asterisks. However, there are no asterisks in the body of the 
appendix referencing these footnotes. The first footnote, consisting of 
a single asterisk, says, ``The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise 
noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit.'' The second 
footnote, consisting of two asterisks, states, ``As determined from 
breathing-zone air samples.'' The proposed revision deletes these two 
footnotes, and moves the content of the footnotes to proposed 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Sec.  1926.55.
    Finally, OSHA is proposing to correct the cross-references to 
OSHA's construction asbestos standard in paragraph (c) and in Appendix 
A (proposed Table A). The correct cross reference is: Sec.  1926.1101.

[[Page 68517]]

7. Subpart D of 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, 
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals in 29 CFR 
1926.64
    To avoid unnecessary duplication, OSHA is proposing to replace the 
entire 31 pages of regulatory text for the Process Safety Management of 
Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) Standard for construction at Sec.  
1926.64 with a cross reference to the identical general industry 
standard at Sec.  1910.119. Other construction standards have similar 
cross references to corresponding general industry standards; for 
example, the Respiratory Protection Standard for construction at Sec.  
1926.103 refers to the general industry Respiratory Protection Standard 
at Sec.  1910.134.
    OSHA believes that it is unnecessary to reproduce the entire PSM 
Standard in 29 CFR part 1926 because construction employers rarely have 
a PSM program at their worksites. The PSM standard affects construction 
employers mainly through paragraph (h), Contractors, when they perform 
construction work at refineries or chemical-manufacturing plants; in 
these cases, the host employer generally will have a copy of the 
standard available. Should construction employers require a copy of the 
PSM Standard, they can obtain a copy readily at OSHA's Web page.
8. Subpart E of 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment, 
Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment in 29 CFR 1926.95
    Current Sec.  1926.95(a) of the construction personal protective 
equipment (PPE) standard states that PPE ``shall be provided, used, and 
maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is 
necessary.'' PPE must fit properly in order to provide adequate 
protection to employees. This can be a particular issue for small-
stature construction workers, including some females, who may not be 
able to use standard-size PPE. Section 1926.95(c)'s requirement that 
PPE to be ``of safe design'' implicitly precludes the use of ill-
fitting equipment. However, OSHA's construction standard does not 
contain an explicit requirement for PPE used in construction to fit 
each affected employee, like the general industry PPE standard does 
(see 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(iii)).
    Several commenters responding to the request for information for 
this rulemaking, including the AFL-CIO and the International Safety 
Equipment Association, recommended that the Agency revise its 
construction PPE standards to ensure that PPE fits all construction 
employees (Exs. OSHA-2012-0007-0012 and -0018).
    Revising Sec.  1926.95(c) to require employers to select PPE that 
properly fits each employee will clarify the construction PPE 
requirements on this point and make them consistent with general 
industry PPE requirements. The Agency believes that providing clear and 
explicit language on this point will help ensure employers provide 
employees with properly fitting PPE, thereby adequately protecting 
employees exposed to hazards requiring PPE. The proposed language, 
therefore, merely clarifies, and makes explicit, the requirement that 
all PPE used in construction fit properly.
9. Subpart E of 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment, 
Safety Belts, Lifelines, and Lanyards in 29 CFR 1926.104
    OSHA is proposing to revise the minimum breaking-strength 
requirement for lifelines in the Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards 
standard, Sec.  1926.104(c), to 5,000 pounds. This proposed revision 
will bring Sec.  1926.104(c) into conformity with the breaking-strength 
requirements for lanyards and vertical lifelines in the Fall protection 
systems criteria and practices (``Fall Protection'') standard at Sec.  
1926.502(d)(9). The Agency concludes that making identical 
specifications for the same equipment will avoid confusion and, 
thereby, improve compliance.
    The breaking strength of a lifeline is the maximum load that it can 
carry without failing or breaking. Under existing Sec.  1926.104(c), 
the minimum breaking-strength requirement is 5,400 pounds. As noted by 
OSHA in the proposed Fall Protection standard published on November 25, 
1986 (51 FR 42718, 42726), the Agency based the 5,400-pound requirement 
on the breaking strength of the then-available \3/4\-inch diameter 
manila rope used for body-belt systems and not on the forces generated 
in a fall. The basis for the revised requirement of 5,000 pounds 
adopted in the final Fall Protection standard and proposed now for 
Sec.  1926.104(c) is the force generated by a 250-pound employee 
experiencing a force 10 times the force of gravity, plus a two-fold 
margin of safety. Id. This proposed revision also is consistent with 
the most recent ANSI/ASSE standards Z359.1 2007 and A10.32.
10. Subpart G of 1926--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
    The provisions regarding accident prevention signs, signals, and 
barricades in 29 CFR 1926.200(g), 201 and 202, subpart G (Signs, 
Signals, and Barricades), contain requirements for employers' use of 
accident prevention signs, tags, signaling and barricades. These 
provisions require that traffic control signs and devices used for the 
protection of workers, barricades used for the protection of workers, 
and signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers, including warning 
garments worn by flaggers, comply with the mandatory provisions of 
either of two versions of Part VI of the MUCTD. Employers may comply 
with Part VI of the 1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993, MUTCD 
(``1988 Edition'') or the Millennium Edition, December 2000 MUTCD 
(``Millennium Edition'').
    Several commenters to the SIP-IV Request for Information (77 FR 
72781), including the AFL-CIO (OSHA-2012-0007-0012), the Laborers' 
Health and Safety Fund of North America (OSHA-2012-0007-0011), and the 
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (OSHA-2012-0007-
0025), asked OSHA to update subpart G because the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) updated the MUTCD in 2009. These revisions aimed 
to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and 
incorporate technology advances in traffic control device application 
(74 FR 66730). In addition, DOT issued two revisions to the MUTCD in 
2012 (77 FR 28455 and 77 FR 28460).
    OSHA is proposing revisions to Subpart G, including an update to 
the references to the MUTCD to the November 4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 
Edition''), including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated 
May 2012. Updating the reference to the 2009 Edition MUTCD will 
eliminate confusion as to which edition employers must comply with, and 
will inform employers that compliance with DOT regulations will not 
conflict with outdated OSHA regulations.
Statement of Reasonable Availability
    OSHA believes that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is 
reasonably available to interested parties. It is available from the 
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone: 202-366-4000; Web site: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/. In 
addition, it is available in the docket for this rulemaking and in 
OSHA's docket office for review. If OSHA ultimately finalizes this 
rule, the standards will be maintained in OSHA's national and regional 
offices for review by the public.
    DOT requires that traffic control signs or devices conform to the 
2009 Edition

[[Page 68518]]

(see 23 CFR 655.601 to .603). DOT regulations recognize that the MUTCD 
is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on 
any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel (Sec.  
655.603(a)). DOT requires compliance with the 2009 Edition for all 
federal-aid construction areas (Sec.  655.603(d)(3)). In addition, each 
State must have a highway safety program that complies with DOT's 
designated national standard, and where State or other federal agency 
MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial 
conformance with the 2009 Edition(23 U.S.C. 402(a); 23 CFR 
655.603(b)(1)). Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or 
supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements 
included in the 2009 Edition (Sec.  655.603(b)).
    The differences between OSHA's standards that reference the 1988 
Edition and the Millennium Edition MUTCDs and DOT's regulations cause 
potential industry confusion and inefficiency, without advancing worker 
safety. Accordingly, in Directive CPL 02-01-054, dated October 16, 
2012, OSHA stated that it would accept compliance with the 2009 Edition 
in lieu of compliance with the 1988 Edition or Millennium Edition 
MUTCDs referenced in Sec.  1926.200(g) through its de minimis policy.
    OSHA reviewed the differences between the 1988 Edition, the 
Millennium Edition, and the 2009 Edition, and concluded that the more 
recently published manual will provide greater employee safety benefits 
than the older versions. The 2009 revisions to the MUTCD largely make 
the document more accessible and account for advances in technology. A 
comparison of the 1988 and 2009 Editions shows few new requirements; 
rather, the document is easier to use, with more guidance and 
supporting material available. The MUTCD is a complex document 
comprised of standards, guidance, and supporting material. Under Sec.  
1926.6(a), OSHA's Subpart G provisions incorporate by reference only 
the mandatory provisions of the MUTCD, i.e., those provisions 
containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language, and only 
those provisions that affect worker safety with regard to the use of 
signs, devices, barricades, flaggers and points of hazard. Often, it 
was difficult to locate these provisions, but the 2009 Edition clearly 
labels them ``standards.''
    The revisions to the 1988 and Millennium Editions that affect 
worker safety are minimal. DOT identified the following areas as 
significant revisions that relate to work safety in the final rule (74 
FR 66730):
     The needs and control of all road users through a 
temporary traffic-control (TTC) zone apply to all public facilities and 
private property open to public travel, in addition to highways.
     Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allows non-compliant 
devices on existing highways and bikeways to be brought into compliance 
with the current edition of the MUTCD as part of the systematic 
upgrading of substandard traffic control devices (and installation of 
new required traffic control devices) required pursuant to the Highway 
Safety Program, 23 U.S.C. 402(a). If the FHWA establishes a target 
compliance date for upgrading such devices, traffic control devices 
shall be in compliance by that date. (These target compliance dates 
established by the FHWA are shown in Table I-2 of the 2009 Edition.)
     Workers within the public right-of-way must use high-
visibility safety apparel.
     There is a new section titled ``Automated Flagger 
Assistance Devices'' (AFAD). These optional devices enable a flagger to 
assume a position out of the lane of traffic when controlling road 
users through TTC zones.
     New requirements that flaggers shall use a ``STOP/SLOW'' 
paddle, flag, or AFAD to control road users; the 2009 Edition prohibits 
the use of hand movements alone. In the previous editions, it was not 
clear that hand signals alone were insufficient.
     All devices used for lane channelization (i.e., directing 
vehicles in a particular direction) must be crashworthy.
     Temporary traffic barriers, including their end treatments 
(such as an impact attenuator), must be crashworthy.
    There was one major revision to the MUTCD, the 2003 Edition, 
between the Millennium Edition and the 2009 Edition. OSHA is providing 
a list of the changes between the 2003 Edition and the 2009 Edition in 
the record (find 2009 Edition figure changes at regulations.gov in 
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007).
    Section 1926.200(g)--Traffic signs. Current paragraph (g)(1) of 
Sec.  1926.200 states, ``[c]onstruction areas shall be posted with 
legible traffic control signs at points of hazard.'' Accordingly, 
current paragraph (g)(1) does not explicitly require protection by 
traffic control devices. However, existing paragraph (g)(1) requires 
legible signs at points of hazard and paragraph (g)(2) prohibits misuse 
of both signs and devices, by requiring their use to conform to the 
MUTCD. Not requiring employers to use, but prohibiting the misuse of, 
protective devices at points of hazard is an anomaly that causes 
unnecessary confusion. Additionally, current enforcement procedures 
allow OSHA to cite an employer for a violation under paragraph (g)(1) 
when the employer exposes an employee to a hazard resulting from the 
lack of protective devices at points of hazard when the devices (i.e., 
channelization devices and warning devices) would essentially serve as 
signs. (CPL 02-01-054, Paragraph XIII.F.2).
    The proposed revision explicitly requires that employers use 
traffic control devices at points of hazard. Accordingly, OSHA is 
proposing to revise paragraph (g)(1) to require employers to use both 
signs and devices at points of hazard. While paragraph (g)(2) would 
still cover the misuse of signs and devices, the proposal would revise 
this paragraph too. Proposed paragraph 200(g)(2) would clarify that it 
covers the design and use of traffic-control devices, and would add a 
list of those devices: Signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other 
devices. Consistent with these revisions, OSHA would also revise the 
headings of Sec.  1926.200 and paragraph (g) by adding the term 
``devices'' to these headings. The Agency would retain the requirement 
that signs be legible. These changes would clarify the requirements for 
signs and devices.
    Section 1926.201--Signaling. The Agency is limiting proposed 
revisions to Sec.  1926.201 to the 2009 Edition update discussed above.
    Section 1926.202--Barricades. OSHA is proposing to delete this 
section because it would duplicate the requirements in the proposed 
revisions to paragraph (g)(1), which also would require the use of 
barricades as traffic control devices at points of hazard, and 
paragraph (g)(2), which would require that the design and use of 
barricades conform to the updated MUTCD.
    Section 1926.203--Definitions applicable to this subpart. OSHA is 
proposing to delete this section because the MUTCD defines or describes 
most of the words defined in this section (e.g., barricade, signs, 
signals). If OSHA retained this section, it would need to update these 
definitions to conform to the MUTCD. To the extent that other 
provisions of subpart G use the defined words but do not reference the 
MUTCD, OSHA believes that providing definitions for these words is 
unnecessary because the meanings of the words are either obvious or 
defined clearly in applicable consensus standards or in other OSHA 
standards;

[[Page 68519]]

for example, an adequate description of a ``tag'' is in Sec.  
1926.200(h).
    In summary, OSHA is proposing to amend the safety and health 
regulations for construction to adopt and incorporate the 2009 Edition 
of the MUTCD and clarify the regulatory text. The revisions would 
delete the references in Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a) to 
the 1988 Edition and Millennium Edition of the MUTCD and insert 
references to the 2009 Edition. The revisions also would amend the 
regulatory text of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of Sec.  1926.200 to 
eliminate confusion regarding OSHA's interpretation of the current 
text. The proposal deletes Sec.  1926.202 because it duplicates the 
requirements in the proposed revisions to Sec.  1926.200(g) and Sec.  
1926.203 because the proposed revisions make this section unnecessary.
11. Subpart H of Part 1926--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and 
Disposal, General Requirements for Storage in 29 CFR 1926.250
    Subpart H of OSHA's construction standards governs the handling, 
storage, use, and disposal of construction materials on a work site. 
Section 1926.250 addresses safe storage of building materials inside 
buildings under construction, and Sec.  1926.250(a)(2) requires 
employers to post maximum safe load limits of floors in storage areas. 
This requirement is important in large buildings under construction 
because employers store large, heavy quantities of building materials 
in these structures to accommodate construction staging and schedules. 
However, requiring employers to post safe load limits is unnecessary in 
single-family home construction because employers do not use these 
structures for storing heavy materials that could endanger employees 
working at lower levels should the floor collapse. Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing to exclude detached, single-family residences and townhouses 
from the posting requirement.
    OSHA finds that the proposed revision will lessen the compliance 
burden of employers without jeopardizing the safety of employees. While 
OSHA believes that employers involved in residential-building 
construction do not place heavy loads on the floors of these 
structures, the proposed revision does not relieve these employers of 
the duty to ensure that any loads placed on these floors do not exceed 
the maximum safe loads of the floors.
12. Subpart P of 1926--Excavations, Specific Excavation Requirements in 
29 CFR 1926.651
    Paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of Sec.  1926.651 specify requirements 
for employers to protect employees from (1) loose rock or soil in 
excavations, and (2) excavated or other materials or equipment that 
could fall or roll into an excavation. Similar provisions were part of 
OSHA's subpart P Excavation standard originally issued under the 
Construction Safety Act in 1971 as 29 CFR 1518.651(h) and (i) (36 FR 
7340, 7389, April 17, 1971), and OSHA retained them when it revised the 
standard in 1989 (54 FR 45894, Oct. 31, 1989). The original 1971 
standard placed the burden on employers to ensure employees' safety 
from loose rock and soil, and excavated or other materials, in or 
around excavations (36 FR 7340, 7389). The 1989 revision added to the 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) the phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' 
when referring to loose rock or soil and excavated or other materials 
or equipment (54 FR 45894, 45924-45925).
    A number of decisions by administrative law judges of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) have 
interpreted the added phrase in the standard as placing the burden on 
OSHA to establish that loose rock or soil or excavated or other 
material or equipment poses a hazard to employees before it can 
establish a violation of Sec. Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (j)(2). (See, 
e.g., Black Construction Corp., 19 BNA OSHC 1043 (2000) (ALJ) ((j)(1)); 
Schaer Development of Central Florida, Inc., No. 11-0371, 2011 WL 
3394942 (OSHRC ALJ June 2, 2011) ((j)(2))). These decisions are 
contrary to most of OSHA's standards, which presume that a hazard 
exists unless the employer can demonstrate otherwise (see, e.g., Austin 
Bridge Co., 7 BNA OSHC 1761 (1979)). Moreover, the preamble to the 1989 
revision does not indicate that OSHA intended to shift the burden when 
it revised the 1971 provisions, but only to clarify the language of the 
provisions (54 FR 45894, 45924). Thus, OSHA is proposing to remove the 
phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and 
(j)(2). This revision would clarify, as originally intended, employers 
must protect their employees from loose rock or soil and excavated or 
other materials or equipment, and that OSHA does not have the burden of 
demonstrating the existence of a hazard. Therefore, the standards 
presume a hazard unless an employer complied with the protections 
required by Sec. Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (j)(2).
    Section 1926.651(j)(1) applies to loose rock or soil that can fall 
from the face of the excavation. The preamble to the 1989 revision 
states that this provision does not apply to all excavations, only 
those excavations with loose rock or soil of ``sufficient volume [to] 
endanger an employee'' (54 FR 45894, 45924). It is the employer's duty 
to assess whether (1) the rock or soil is loose and (2) of sufficient 
volume to potentially endanger or injure employees in the excavation. 
The proposed revision would remove the phrase ``that could pose a 
hazard,'' but would keep the language limiting this provision to loose 
rock or soil. As noted in the previous paragraph, removing the language 
``that could pose a hazard'' from the provision would preserve the duty 
of employers to protect workers from the hazard, while relieving OSHA 
of the initial burden of demonstrating that a hazard exists. OSHA also 
is proposing to remove the language ``by falling or rolling from an'' 
from the provision as that language is unnecessary to describe the 
hazard; however, OSHA is proposing to retain the term ``excavation 
face'' in the provision to clarify the location of the hazard.
    Section 1926.651(j)(2) applies to excavated materials (``spoil 
piles'') or other materials or equipment that are on the surface near 
the excavation. Employers must keep these piles, and other materials or 
equipment, at least two feet from the edge of the excavation, or 
prevent them from moving by using retaining devices. Excavated soil is 
loose and may present a hazard to workers in an excavation. As 
explained in the preamble to the 1989 revision:

    The intent of this requirement is to protect employees from 
materials, equipment, and spoil piles which might fall into 
excavations. Obviously, materials such as excavated soil and stored 
construction supplies can superimpose loads on the walls of an 
excavation. Such loads can be the cause of cave-ins and must be 
considered when determining what protection is necessary to 
safeguard employees.

(54 FR 45894, 45925).
    The proposed revision would remove the phrase ``that could pose a 
hazard by falling or rolling into excavations,'' but would retain the 
language ``excavated or other materials or equipment,'' from the first 
sentence in paragraph (j)(2). The proposed language would keep the 
remaining language in the paragraph, including the two-foot rule, and 
would remove from OSHA the burden of demonstrating that a hazard 
exists, while retaining the employers' duty to protect employees from 
the hazards of excavated or other materials or

[[Page 68520]]

equipment placed less than 2 feet from the edge of the excavation.
13. Subpart S of 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams 
and Compressed Air, Underground Construction in 29 CFR 1926.800
    Existing regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) requires 
that mobile diesel-powered equipment used in ``other than gassy 
operations'' underground be approved by the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) in accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 
32, or that the employer that demonstrate the equipment is ``fully 
equivalent'' to MSHA-approved equipment. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 
and replaced it with updated provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E and 
30 CFR 75.1909 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; \10\ design 
and performance requirements, 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered 
equipment; electrical system design and performance requirements, and 
75.1911 Fire suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel 
transportation units (61 FR 55411). In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 
57.5067, which permits operators to use engines that meet Environmental 
Protection Administration (EPA) requirements for engines as an 
alternative to seeking MSHA approval under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 
5706). The Agency proposes to update the regulatory language in Sec.  
1926.800(k)(10)(ii) to cross-reference these updated provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Non-permissible equipment may not be used in gassy 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's existing regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(i)(2) 
requires that mobile diesel powered equipment used in ``gassy 
operations'' underground be approved by MSHA in accordance with the 
provisions of 30 CFR part 36, or that the employer demonstrate that the 
equipment is ``fully equivalent'' to MSHA-approved equipment. MSHA has 
also updated part 36. However, the reference in Sec.  1926.800(i)(2) 
remains correct, and OSHA does not need to change the language to 
ensure employers are following MSHA's updated requirements.
    Under 30 CFR 57.5067, all engines used in underground mines must 
have an affixed plate evidencing approval of the engine pursuant to 30 
CFR part 7, subpart E or meet or exceed the applicable requirements of 
the EPA listed in MSHA Table 57.5067-1. To use equipment with non-
permissible engines in non-gassy operations, the employer must ensure 
it meets the requirements listed in 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and 
75.1911 for other machine features. If the employer wishes to use 
equipment with permissible engines, in gassy operations, it must ensure 
the equipment meets the requirements listed in 30 CFR part 36 for other 
machine features.
    When MSHA revoked 30 CFR part 32 in 1996, it directed state and 
federal agencies that reference 30 CFR part 32 to 30 CFR part 7, 
subpart E and 30 CFR 75.1909 and 75.1910 (61 FR 55416). Accordingly, 
the proposal substitutes references to those sections for the reference 
to part 32. OSHA has also proposed including 30 CFR 75.1911(a)-(i) in 
the cross-reference because Sec.  75.1909 requires certain equipment to 
have fire suppression systems in accordance with Sec.  75.1911. To 
maintain the scope of 29 CFR 800(k)(10)(ii), OSHA is not proposing to 
incorporate Sec.  75.1911 paragraphs (j) and (k) (regarding fire 
suppression systems on diesel-powered equipment), which are training 
and recordkeeping requirements that were not contained in the original 
30 CFR part 32. In addition, OSHA is not proposing to incorporate Sec.  
75.1911(l), which addresses the interaction of that section with other 
MSHA requirements not relevant here. Thus, OSHA has not included 
paragraphs (j)-(l) in the cross reference.
    If adopted, these changes will allow employers to use diesel-
powered engines on mobile equipment in underground construction that 
meets current MSHA requirements.
    The existing OSHA standard allows employers to use non-MSHA 
approved engines if they can demonstrate that they are fully 
equivalent. The existing standard and OSHA give no guidance how 
employers can make such a demonstration. OSHA believes that the 
allowance for engines that meet or exceed EPA requirements in MSHA 
Table 57.067-1 is a much more effective and simple way to allow the use 
of non-MSHA approved engines. OSHA solicits comments on whether 
employers do make such demonstrations and whether the use of EPA 
requirements will better effectuate a safe and healthful workplace.
    For other machine features, the proposal requires that equipment 
with non-approved engines meeting the applicable EPA requirements must 
also meet the requirements of 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a)-
(i) for non-permissible engines used in ``other than gassy'' 
operations. Because these requirements list features, the only way for 
an employer to demonstrate equivalency is to show that the equipment 
has the required features, rendering the ``fully equivalent'' clause 
unnecessary as to ``other machine features.'' Therefore, because OSHA 
believes that the function of the current ``fully equivalent'' clause 
is captured by the updates to the referenced MSHA regulations, the 
Agency has not retained the language in the proposal.
    Based on available information, OSHA has determined that currently 
manufactured equipment meets the proposed requirements and is generally 
compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission 
requirements (ERG, 2015). The Agency has therefore preliminarily 
concluded that all applicable new equipment currently available for in 
the market meets the proposed requirements. OSHA recognizes that there 
may be some employers using equipment that predates the newer MSHA 
standards, and the EPA requirements referenced in them. To avoid the 
costs of replacing existing equipment in use and are complaint with the 
current Standard, the Agency proposes to allow equipment purchased 
before the effective date of the final rule to continue to comply with 
the terms of existing Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been 
approved by MSHA under 30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be 
equivalent to such MSHA-approved equipment). OSHA solicits comment on 
whether there are engines in use that meet the existing standard but 
will not meet the requirements of current MSHA standard and, if so, 
whether continued use of such equipment presents a serious safety or 
health hazard. OSHA also seeks comment on whether this proposed 
grandfathering is workable.
14. Subpart S in 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams 
and Compressed Air, Compressed Air in 29 CFR 1926.803
    OSHA is proposing to revise subpart S--Underground Construction, 
Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed Air by replacing the decompression 
tables currently found in Appendix A to subpart S with the 1992 French 
Air and Oxygen decompression tables. OSHA is also requesting comment on 
whether the following decompression tables should also be permitted as 
substitutes for the existing tables in Appendix A: The Edel-Kindwall 
(NIOSH) tables, the Blackpool (British) tables, and the German Standard 
Decompression tables. OSHA has preliminarily concluded that the French 
tables provide safer decompression practices than the OSHA 
decompression tables currently found in Appendix A to subpart S. OSHA 
proposes to revise Sec.  1926.803(f)(1) to require employers to follow 
the 1992

[[Page 68521]]

French Air and Oxygen decompression tables to decompress employees 
exposed to compressed air environments. OSHA proposes to adopt the 
French tables with an incorporation by reference, while deleting 
Appendix A.
    The current decompression tables in OSHA's subpart S standard were 
developed by Washington state. According to a NIOSH Request for 
Information (77 FR 74193), the Washington state Decompression Tables 
were used by several states prior to 1971, when OSHA adopted them as 
the federal requirement in Appendix A to subpart S. These tables were 
adopted under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, which permitted the Agency, 
for a two-year period, to adopt then-current consensus standards as its 
own without notice and comment rulemaking. The tables in Appendix A 
prescribe decompression by reducing the pressure that workers are 
exposed to at intervals in accordance with the schedule in the tables. 
The current tables address exposures ranging from half an hour to over 
eight hours, with only one decompression schedule for exposures of 
greater than eight hours. Subpart S prohibits employee exposures to 
compressed air environments of greater than 50 pounds per square inch 
(p.s.i) (Sec.  1926.803(e)(5)).
    Employers in the tunneling construction industry have requested 
variances from the underground construction standards in subpart S from 
federal OSHA as well as states with State Plans. The requests seek a 
variance to use decompression tables other than those found in Appendix 
A to subpart S as well as other provisions in the underground 
standards. In their requests, employers in the industry assert that 
using other decompression tables is safer than using OSHA's current 
decompression tables. Also of note, many of the tunneling projects have 
working pressures ahead of the drill head higher than 50 p.s.i.--so 
none of the tables in Appendix A would be appropriate or safe. The 
variance requests suggest that using tables that provide for 
decompression from environments under pressure greater than 50 p.s.i. 
and provide staged decompression (stopping workers at set depths and 
pressures to prevent decompression illness (DCI)), with an enriched 
oxygen atmosphere, provide greater protection to employees from DCI. 
The decompression tables that were developed after the 1970s use 
elevated levels of oxygen to aid in the decompression process.
    The ineffectiveness of the current OSHA tables for preventing DCI 
is discussed in a 1986 study by Gregory J. Downs and Edel P. Kindwall. 
During a tunneling project in Milwaukee where pressures ranged from 28 
psig to 43 psig and the current OSHA tables were used for 
decompression, 33 percent of tunneling workers examined experienced 
aseptic necrosis, a form of DCI also known as dysbaric osteonecrosis 
that causes portions of the bone tissue to die.\11\ The study explains 
that parts of the current OSHA tables ``poorly facilitates total 
nitrogen elimination,'' resulting in instances of aseptic necrosis for 
a substantial number of workers decompressed in accordance with the 
tables at the Milwaukee tunneling project.\12\ Downs and Kindwall 
concluded that the OSHA tables are ``considered inadequate in 
efficiently eliminating nitrogen from the body, and allow bone disease 
at pressures in excess of 36.5 psig.'' \13\ Kindwall mentioned in a 
subsequent study that there were inconsistencies in the OSHA tables. 
For example, the decompression times at 26 and 44 psig are the same for 
six and eight hour exposures. He believes that this is the result of a 
mistake made during the transcription of the tables.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Downs GJ, Kindwall EP (1986) ``Aseptic necrosis in caisson 
workers: A new set of decompression tables,'' p. 570.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed air tunneling and caisson 
work decompression procedures: Development, problems, and solutions. 
Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), p. 342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 23, 2014 OSHA granted a permanent variance to an underground 
construction contractor allowing, among other things, the employer to 
use the 1992 French decompression tables (79 FR 29809). In granting 
this variance, OSHA found that if the employer followed the 
requirements of the variance, including the French decompression 
tables, the working conditions for employees would be at least as safe 
as following OSHA's standard (79 FR 29816). OSHA granted similar 
variances for other projects on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16440), and 
August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50652). On July 27, 2015, OSHA published a 
Federal Register notice seeking comment on an employer's variance 
request to use the 1992 French decompression tables for all future 
tunneling projects it performs, subject to certain conditions (80 FR 
44386). (Note that ``at least as safe'' is the main criterion OSHA 
follows to evaluate variance requests.)
    On December 15, 2011, the Seattle Tunnel and Tail Team gave a 
presentation to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and 
Health (ACCSH), titled Tunnel Advances (OSHA-2011-0124-0066). The 
presentation discussed how technology and work practices have changed 
in the underground construction industry, particularly since the 
promulgation of subpart S. They illustrated this point by showing the 
number of variances that were needed to complete underground 
construction projects safely, as many of the requirements of subpart S 
have become outdated. One of the common variance requests asks to use 
decompression tables other than the current OSHA decompression tables.
1992 French Air and Oxygen Decompression Tables
    The 1992 French decompression tables replaced an older series of 
tables from 1974. The French Ministry of Labor revised the earlier 
tables when a number of cases of DCI occurred during an underground 
construction project.\15\ OSHA conducted a review of the scientific 
literature on DCI during work under higher air pressure to determine 
whether use of the decompression methods in the 1992 French 
Decompression Tables was more effective or safer than following the 
tables currently in the standard. Based on this review, OSHA has 
preliminarily concluded that decompression recoveries performed with 
these tables will result in a fewer cases of DCI than the decompression 
tables specified by the current standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Le Pechon, JC, Barre, P, Baudi, JP, Ollivier, F (1992). 
Compressed Air Work--French Tables 1992 Operational Results. p. 285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The review conducted by OSHA found several studies supporting the 
determination that the 1992 French Decompression Tables result in a 
lower rate of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the 
standard. For example, H. L. Andersen studied the occurrence of DCI at 
maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g. 
during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark in 1992-
1996.\16\ This project used the 1992 French Decompression Tables to 
decompress the workers during part of the construction. Anderson 
observed 6 DCI cases out of 7,220 decompression events, or a frequency 
of 0.0008 (0.08 percent). The DCI incidence in the study by Andersen is 
substantially less than the DCI incidence reported by Eric Kindwall for 
the decompression tables specified in Appendix A of the current 
standard. In his study, Kindwall reported 60 treated cases of DCI among

[[Page 68522]]

4,168 exposures between 19 and 31 p.s.i.g., resulting in a DCI 
incidence of 1.44 percent using the current OSHA tables.\17\ OSHA found 
no studies in which the DCI incidence reported for the 1992 French 
Decompression Tables were higher than the DCI incidence reported for 
the OSHA decompression tables. The results of these studies show that 
the French tables do a better job of minimizing the significant risks 
of decompression illness than the current OSHA tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness during 
construction of the Great Belt tunnel, Denmark. Undersea and 
Hyperbaric Medicine, 29(3), pp. 172-188.
    \17\ Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed air tunneling and caisson 
work decompression procedures: Development, problems, and solutions. 
Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), pp. 337-345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During decompressions under the May 23, 2014 variance to Tully/OHL 
USA Joint Venture, which allowed use of the French decompression tables 
during hyperbaric operations, the Tully/OHL reported no instances of 
DCI using the French tables.\18\ Likewise, during decompressions under 
the variance to Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture, which also 
allowed use of the French decompression tables, Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee 
reported no instances of DCI. (Traylor 2015). The French tables also 
address decompression at greater pressures than 50 p.s.i and for 
durations longer than eight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Email from Luis Alonso to Stefan Weisz, RE: Tully Variance 
End of Project Effectiveness Evaulation Report--Reminder, January 
21, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State-Plan states have also granted variances to entities asking to 
use the 1992 French Air and Oxygen Decompression tables. On June 25, 
2007, Washington state granted a permanent variance to VCGP/Parsons 
RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV that allowed, among other things, the use of 
the 1992 French Air and Oxygen decompression tables. Based on its 
research, the state of Washington determined that ``decompression using 
oxygen is much more effective in purging the body of residual 
nitrogen,'' concluding that the French tables were at least as 
effective as the decompression tables in their standard (OSHA-2012-
0036-0009). Similarly, Nevada (OSHA-2012-0036-0006) and Oregon (OSHA-
2012-0036-0007) approved variance requests to use the French tables.
    Based on a review of available evidence, the experience of State-
Plan states (discussed above) that granted variances (Nevada, Oregon, 
and Washington) for hyperbaric exposures occurring during similar 
subaqueous tunnel-construction work, and OSHA's previously issued 
variance allowing use the French Decompression Tables, OSHA is 
proposing to replace the tables in Appendix A with the 1992 French 
Decompression Tables, which will be incorporated by reference into 
Sec.  1926.803(f)(1).
Other Tables
    In 2003, Valerie Flook published ``A comparison of oxygen 
decompression tables for use in compressed air work,'' a Health and 
Safety Executive study comparing several oxygen decompression tables, 
including the British, French, German, and Edel-Kindwall tables. The 
study ``was commissioned to compare a number of tables used for oxygen 
decompression from compressed air work in order to identify the safest 
set of tables. . . .'' The study used a mathematical model to predict 
the maximum gas volume in bubbles in the central venous blood at the 
end of decompression using each set of tables. The report noted that 
the model used had been verified by comparison to actual nitrogen gas 
bubble counts (measured using Doppler technology) after various 
compression decompression trials in both animal and human subjects. As 
explained by NIOSH, nitrogen gas bubbles in the body are a precursor to 
DCI.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CDC--Decompression Sickness and Tunnel Workers, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/default.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Flook study concluded that ``[t]he range of gas volumes 
predicted for most exposures is small and it is unlikely that the 
different [decompression] profiles could be distinguished. . . .'' 
(Flook, 2003, 34). The British, French, Edel-Kindwall, and German 
tables, among others, all achieved a quantity of nitrogen gas bubbles 
that was within the same range. Similar to the French tables, the 
British and German tables also address decompression at greater 
pressures than 50 p.s.i. and for durations longer than eight hours, 
while the Edel-Kindwall tables do not. OSHA is seeking comment on 
whether the Edel-Kindwall, British, and/or German tables should be 
included as options in the OSHA standard. OSHA also seeks any 
scientific information beyond the Flook study demonstrating the 
effectiveness of these tables in preventing DCI. If OSHA were to add 
any of these tables (British, Edel-Kindwall, and/or German) to Sec.  
1926.803 in addition to the French tables, then employers would be able 
choose any of the added tables to decompress employees. OSHA provides 
more information about each below.
Edel-Kindwall Tables
    OSHA asks for comment on whether the Edel-Kindwall decompression 
tables should (also) be included as a replacement for the tables in 
Appendix A of subpart S. The Edel-Kindwall tables were developed in 
response to several tunneling workers experiencing DCI using the 
current OSHA decompression tables. Between 1971 and 1973 during a 
tunneling project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, workers experienced aseptic 
necrosis, when using the current OSHA decompression tables. This 
incident prompted NIOSH to determine if alternate decompression tables 
could be developed.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CDC--Decompression Sickness and Tunnel Workers, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/history.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NIOSH awarded a contract to Eric Kindwall to develop staged 
decompression tables. The tables, later known as the Edel-Kindwall 
decompression tables, included the use of oxygen because it shortened 
decompression time considerably, from over 10 hours to less than four 
hours. A 1986 study by Kindwall and Gregory J. Downs tested the 
effectiveness of the Edel-Kindwall tables to eliminate nitrogen from 
the body and reduce instances of DCI. Six human subjects were 
compressed for this experiment. While compressed, each subject 
simulated work conditions for four hours. After performing many 
activities to establish baseline information for each subject, they 
were decompressed in accordance with the OSHA or Edel-Kindwall air and 
oxygen tables. The comparison of the OSHA tables and the Edel-Kindwall 
air table ability to eliminate nitrogen from the body resulted in ``no 
statistical difference'' between the two tables. The comparison of the 
OSHA tables and the Edel-Kindwall oxygen table showed that the Edel-
Kindwall oxygen table was ``more efficient in eliminating nitrogen'' 
than the OSHA tables. Kindwall and Downs concluded that their ``data is 
definitive enough to for immediate acceptance of this table for use by 
the construction industry.'' Although Kindwall and Downs expressed some 
concerns regarding the cost of equipment, oxygen toxicity and 
flammability, they did not believe these potential concerns outweighed 
the ``shorter decompression times and reduced morbidity'' offered by 
the Edel-Kindwall tables.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Downs GJ, Kindwall EP ``Aseptic necrosis in caisson 
workers: A new set of decompression tables,'' 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Edel-Kindwall tables have been approved as part of variance 
requests in some State Plan states. In its December 15, 2011 
presentation, the Seattle Tunnel and Tail Team presented permanent 
variances--one from Oregon in 2004 and another from Washington in 
2007--that approved the use of the Edel-Kindwall tables for underground

[[Page 68523]]

construction projects within those states (OSHA-2011-0124-0066).
German Decompression Tables
    OSHA asks for comment on whether to (also) include the German 
decompression tables as a replacement for the tables in Appendix A of 
subpart S. These decompression tables were developed by Dr. Max 
Hahn.\22\ These tables were approved for use in Oregon, along with the 
French tables, in 2006 (OSHA-2012-0036-0007). The information from the 
Flook study discussed above resulted in the German decompression tables 
being approved by the Health and Safety Executive for use in the United 
Kingdom, ``the first time non-UK tables had been used on a UK 
contract.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Huggins, Karl E ``The Dynamics of Decompression Workbook'', 
1992.
    \23\ Lamont, DR, Flook, V ``A Comparison of Oxygen Decompression 
Tables for Use in Hyperbaric Tunnelling''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

British Blackpool Tables
    OSHA asks for comment on whether the British Blackpool 
decompression tables should (also) be included as a replacement for the 
tables in Appendix A of subpart S. The Blackpool decompression tables 
were published in 1973 with air as the breathing gas for 
decompression.\24\ The Blackpool decompression tables are included in 
the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Executive's ``A Guide to 
Compressed Air Work 1996,'' The Guide updated the ``Work in Compressed 
Air Special Regulations 1958.'' \25\ In 2001, oxygen decompression 
became mandatory in the United Kingdom, using a modified Blackpool 
table that required ``oxygen breathing from 0.6 bar downwards.'' \26\ A 
year later, the Health and Safety Executive reprinted ``A Guide to 
Compressed Air Work 1996'' to reflect the change in policy. The 
modified Blackpool Tables were compared to other oxygen decompression 
tables in the Flook study discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Lamont, DR, Flook, V ``A Comparison of Oxygen Decompression 
Tables for Use in Hyperbaric Tunnelling''.
    \25\ A guide to the Work In Compressed Air Regulations 1996, 
Health and Safety Executive.
    \26\ Lamont, DR, Flook, V ``A Comparison of Oxygen Decompression 
Tables for Use in Hyperbaric Tunnelling''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Insofar as the Agency can find, underground projects which 
incorporate new tunneling technology have not followed OSHA's existing 
decompression tables, but have followed more recently developed tables. 
In each case, federal OSHA or a State Plan state has been persuaded by 
the available research and studies on the matter that the newer 
decompression methods better protect underground workers. (The states 
have either granted variances (discussed above) or promulgated a new 
standard (California \27\)). Many of these tunneling projects also 
require work in atmospheres above the 50 p.s.i. limit in OSHA's 
construction subpart S, as current tunneling technology, when there are 
gaseous or wet underground conditions particularly, require higher 
pressures. (OSHA is not proposing to change the 50 p.s.i. limit in the 
SIP-IV rulemaking.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ California incorporates the Navy Diving Manual by 
reference. Because these tables are specifically for diving, 
conversions are necessary to use the tables in a non-diving 
application. See https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/6085.html. For this 
reason, OSHA is not proposing to add, or seeking comment on, the 
Navy Diving Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIP-IV Request for Information
    Given the evidence suggesting that other decompression tables are 
at least as safe and in many cases safer than OSHA's current 
decompression tables, OSHA asked for comment on this topic in its 
Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV, Request for Information (77 FR 
72781; Dec. 6, 2012). OSHA received comments from various groups 
requesting that OSHA update or revise its decompression tables (OSHA-
2012-0007-0011, -0016, -0017). All of the commenters stated that OSHA's 
current decompression tables were outdated and did not address the 
hazard of DCI as well as more recently developed decompression tables. 
NIOSH argues that updating the decompression tables in Appendix A will 
shorten the time needed for decompression and reduce the instances of 
decompression sickness (OSHA-2012-0007-0017). NIOSH recommended that 
OSHA take the following steps when updating its decompression tables: 
Require staged decompression, allow 100 percent oxygen use during 
decompression, vary the decompression schedule based on exposure time, 
and allow for greater pressures in underground construction projects. 
NIOSH also recommended that OSHA adopt the Edel-Kindwall tables. The 
Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America recommended that OSHA 
adopt the French and Tri-mix \28\ tables, with a certifying physician 
and variances from OSHA above 8 bars (116 p.s.i.) of pressure (OSHA-
2012-0007-0011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Tri-mix is a mixture of three breathing gases: Oxygen, 
nitrogen, and helium. The mixture of the gases is usually 
proprietary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA must set safety standards that provide a high degree of worker 
protection (Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665,669 (D.C. Cir. 1994); 
58 FR 16612, 16615 (Mar. 30, 1993)). Such standards must also be 
feasible and cost-effective. Based on the evidence discussed above, 
OSHA preliminarily determines that the best available evidence shows 
that the decompression tables in Appendix A to subpart S are not highly 
protective and that the French tables are more protective of worker 
health. OSHA is seeking comment on whether the Edel-Kindwall, British, 
and German tables should be included as options in the OSHA standard. 
In addition, OSHA requests comment on NIOSH's statement that staged 
decompression will shorten the time needed for decompression.
    Therefore, OSHA proposes to remove the decompression tables found 
in Appendix A of Subpart S and replace them with the 1992 French Air 
and Oxygen decompression tables. The French tables have been used most 
often in the U.S., and the Agency has collected more information on 
their safety. Regarding the request for comment on other identified 
tables, OSHA also asks whether it would be less confusing and easier 
for the tunneling industry to use one set of tables, rather than 
include more alternatives in the OSHA standard?
    The tables will be posted in the docket of this proposal for 
commenters to view.
Alternative Regulatory Structure
    OSHA seeks comment on an alternative regulatory structure for 
regulating which decompression tables will be used to decompress 
workers from a compressed air environment. Under this structure, in 
addition to removing its current decompression tables, OSHA would also 
revise Sec.  1926.803(f) to allow employers to use any decompression 
table that a qualified person determines will protect workers from 
instances of DCI on the project. The table used would have to meet 
accepted industry practices for prevent DCI in workers.
    As discussed earlier, OSHA adopted the Washington state 
decompression tables into its regulations under section 6(a) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Although used by several states 
prior to their adoption, few, if any, studies regarding the 
effectiveness of the Washington state decompression tables were done 
prior to their adoption by OSHA. Instances of DCI using the current 
OSHA tables led NIOSH to support research that resulted in the creation 
of the Edel-Kindwall tables. Since then, several other tables have been 
developed that when used result in a lower incidence of DCI.

[[Page 68524]]

    OSHA has granted variance requests from members of the underground 
construction industry asking, among other things, to use decompression 
tables that they believe are at least as effective as the current OSHA 
tables found in Appendix A of subpart S. On May 23, 2014, OSHA granted 
the variance request of Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR 29809). 
Tully/OHL USA requested to use the 1992 French decompression tables, 
which permit both air and oxygen decompression. OSHA granted a variance 
to Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture in which they also requested 
to use the 1992 French decompression tables, as well as the proprietary 
Trimix tables, in their variance application (80 FR 16440).\29\ OSHA 
also granted a permanent variance to Impreglio Healy Parsons Joint 
Venture on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50652). Their variance application 
also requested to use the 1992 French decompression tables (OSHA-2014-
0011-0001). Several occupational safety and health programs have 
approved of various decompression tables for underground construction 
work. In the Seattle Tunnel and Tail Team's presentation to ACCSH, they 
included variances from Washington that approved the use of the 1992 
French decompression tables, Trimix tables, and modified NIOSH (Edel-
Kindwall) tables (OSHA-2011-0124-0066). The presentation also included 
a variance from Oregon that approved the use of the DCIEM Oxygen 
Decompression tables, also known as the Canadian Navy Tables, the 1992 
French Decompression Tables, and the NIOSH (Edel-Kindwall) Oxygen 
Decompression tables (OSHA-2011-0124-0066). In their comment to the 
Request for Information, the Laborer's health and Safety Fund of North 
America recommended OSHA adopt the French tables, but listed four other 
decompression tables--the Edel-Kindwall tables, the U.S. Navy Tables 
(Revision 6), the Canadian Navy Tables (1992), and the Trimix tables 
(for pressures over 4.8 bar)--that had been approved by variance in 
several states. (OSHA-2012-0007-0011). Furthermore, the Flook study 
suggests that many of the oxygen decompression tables provide virtually 
the same protection from DCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Although Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture requested 
the use of Trimix tables in their variance application for the Blue 
Plains Tunneling (BPT) project, they later explained to OSHA that 
``[a]t the Blue Plains Tunnel, Traylor will not experience 
hyperbaric pressures greater than 3.6 bar. Therefore we do not plan 
on using trimix at the BPT project.'' OSHA-2012-0035-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the numerous decompression tables that employers requests to 
use in variance applications, it appears that the industry does not 
believe there is one table that is applicable for all underground 
construction projects where workers may need to be decompressed. OSHA 
believes using a performance standard rather than specifying which 
table an employer must use may allow employers greater flexibility in 
providing safe decompression for their workers. OSHA requests comment 
on this regulatory approach.
Statement of Reasonable Availability
    OSHA believes that the 1992 French Decompression Tables included in 
this proposal are reasonably available to interested parties. The 
tables are published in the Official Journal of the French Republic, 
titled ``Travaux en milieu hyperbare, measures particuli[egrave]res de 
prevention'' (Work in hyperbaric environment, specific prevention 
measures). J. O. Rep. Fran[ccedil]. Brochure n[deg] 1636, June 1992. 
The tables are available for purchase from the French government at 
https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/. In addition, it is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking and in OSHA's docket office for review. 
If OSHA ultimately finalizes this rule, the tables will be maintained 
in OSHA's national and regional offices for review by the public.
    Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and 
Compressed Air also has several provisions that limit the quantities of 
oxygen that may be taken below ground and kept there. OSHA asks for 
comment on providing an exception to those requirements for purposes of 
maintaining oxygen on hand for decompression purposes, which would be 
necessary in a final rule as the updated tables discussed above require 
the use of oxygen.
15. Subpart W of 1926--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead 
Protection
    Provisions in subpart W specify minimum performance criteria for 
rollover protective structures (ROPS) and overhead protection on 
construction equipment. The Agency is proposing to amend the existing 
standards 29 CFR 1926.1000, 1926.1001, 1926.1002 and 1926.1003 by 
removing the provisions that specify the test procedures and 
performance requirements, and replacing those provisions with 
references to the underlying consensus standards from which they were 
derived. The substantive differences between the consensus standards 
and OSHA's standards are minimal. The Agency is also proposing to 
remove irrelevant text from Sec.  1926.1000.
    The original source standards for the current subpart W 
requirements are the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards 
(``SAE'') J320a-1971, J394-1971, J395-1971, J396-1971, J334a-1970, 
J167-1970, J168-1970, and J397-1969. The American National Standards 
Institute and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and 
develop new equipment the industry now uses the most recent 
International Organization for Standardization (``ISO'') standards: ISO 
3471-2008; ISO 5700-2013; and ISO 27850-2013. Though the names of the 
construction equipment covered by the consensus standards have changed 
over time, OSHA believes that all the equipment listed in current Sec.  
1926.1001(a) is covered by one of those ISO standards. A comment from a 
representative of Caterpillar, Inc. stated that the SAE standards have 
either been cancelled or superseded by new ISO standards (OSHA-2012-
0007-0009). OSHA reviewed the relevant standards and believes that the 
standards identified in the proposed revisions reflect the current 
design and development of ROPS for equipment covered by subpart W. OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that using the proposed ISO standards will be 
as protective as using the current OSHA standards. Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing that, for new equipment manufactured after the effective date 
of the revised standard, the performance measures for testing ROPS meet 
the ISO standards. This proposed incorporation by reference will 
eliminate over 20 pages of text and diagrams in the CFR.
    OSHA proposes to rename Sec.  1926.1000 as ``Scope'' because this 
more accurately describes what follows in this section. Proposed 
paragraph (a) lists the types of equipment currently covered by subpart 
W. It also adds compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment 
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule, which existing 
Sec.  1926.1000(a)(2) anticipates as a possible expansion of the scope. 
The most recent ISO standards apply to compactors and skid-steer 
loaders as well as the equipment included in the current standard, and 
based on interviews with several manufacturers OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that all compactors and skid steer loaders currently produced 
meet those requirements. Proposed paragraph (b) states which standards 
apply to equipment manufactured before the publication of a final rule. 
Proposed paragraph (c) states which standards

[[Page 68525]]

apply to equipment manufactured after the publication of a final rule. 
Paragraphs (d) through (f) remain unchanged in the proposal, but OSHA 
solicits comment on whether paragraphs (d), ``Remounting,'' (e), 
``Labeling,'' and (f), ``Machines meeting certain existing governmental 
requirements'' are necessary or are obsolete (due to adoption of modern 
consensus standards) and should be deleted.
    Currently, Sec.  1926.1000(c) limits the application of the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  1926.1001 and 1926.1002 to equipment 
manufactured after July 1, 1969. The proposal eliminates this 
limitation because it is OHSA's understanding that there are not any 
pieces of covered equipment in operation today that are more than 45 
years old and do not meet the SAE standards. OSHA seeks comment on 
whether this is so, and any data on the types and numbers of pre-1969, 
non-SAE compliant equipment currently in use.
    Current Sec.  1926.1001 provides ROPS requirements for rubber-tired 
self-propelled scrapers, rubber-tired front end loaders, rubber-tired 
dozers, crawler tractors, crawler-type loaders, and motor graders. The 
proposed rule deletes the current ROPS specifications for this 
equipment, and replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule comply with 
SAE J397-1969--Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for 
Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, SAE 320a-1970--
Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for 
Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, SAE J394-1970--Minimum 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structures for Rubber-
Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, SAE J395-1970--Minium 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler 
Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, and SAE J396-1970--Minimum 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor 
Graders, as applicable. The proposal requires equipment manufactured 
after the effective date of the final rule (including compactors and 
rubber-tired skid steer equipment) to meet the requirements of ISO 
3471-2008, Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective structures--
Laboratory tests and performance requirements. This standard contains 
specifications for ROPS to protect employees. Because, as noted above, 
OSHA believes that covered equipment is already being manufactured to 
the requirements of ISO 3471-2008, the proposal provides the option for 
equipment manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to 
comply with the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
    Current Sec.  1926.1002 provides ROPS requirements for wheel-type 
agricultural equipment and industrial tractors used in construction. 
The proposed rule deletes the current ROPS specifications for this 
equipment, and replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule comply with 
SAE J168-1970-Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance 
Requirement and SAE J334a-1970-Protective Frame Test Procedures and 
Performance Requirements, as applicable. The proposal requires 
equipment manufactured after the effective date of the final rule meet 
the requirements of ISO 5700-2013, Tractors for agriculture and 
forestry--Roll-over protective structures--Static test method and 
acceptance conditions. This standard contains specifications for ROPS 
to protect employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that 
covered equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of 
ISO 5700-2013, the proposal provides the option for equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with 
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
    OSHA solicits comment on whether any equipment covered by Sec.  
1926.1002 that complies with ISO 3471-2008, the standard for earth-
moving machinery should be considered in compliance for ROPS. OSHA asks 
this because ISO 3471-2008 requires testing at higher levels of energy 
than ISO-5700.
    Current Sec.  1926.1003 provides design and installation 
requirements for the use of overhead protection for operators of 
agricultural and industrial tractors used in construction. The proposed 
rule deletes the current overhead protection specifications for this 
equipment, and replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment 
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule comply with 
SAE J167-1970-Overhead Protection for Agricultural Tractors- Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements when using overhead protection. 
The proposal requires equipment manufactured after the effective date 
of the final rule meet the requirements of ISO 27850-2013, Tractors for 
agriculture and forestry-- Falling object protective structures-- Test 
procedures and performance requirements when using overhead protection. 
This standard contains specifications for overhead protection to 
protect employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that overhead protection, when used, is manufactured to the 
requirements of ISO 27850-2013, the proposal provides the option for 
equipment manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to 
comply with the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
Statement of Reasonable Availability
    As noted above, OSHA is continuing to incorporate by reference 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards. OSHA believes that 
these standards are reasonably available to interested parties. They 
are available for purchase the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096; telephone: 1-877-606-
7323; fax: 724- 776-0790; Web site: https://www.sae.org/. OSHA proposes 
to incorporate by reference International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) standards. OSHA believes that these standards are 
reasonably available to interested parties. They are available for 
purchase from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, 
Switzerland; telephone: +41 22 749 01 11; fax: +41 22 733 34 30; Web 
site: https://www.iso.org/. In addition, it is available in the docket 
for this rulemaking and in OSHA's docket office for review. If OSHA 
ultimately finalizes this rule, the standards will be maintained in 
OSHA's national and regional offices for review by the public.
16. Subpart Z of 1926--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Coke Oven 
Emissions in 29 CFR 1926.1129.
    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in 
construction. OSHA incorporated this standard into part 1926 in 1993 
(58 FR 35256, June 30, 1993) and revised it to be just a reference to 
the identical general industry standard in 1996 (61 FR 31428, June 20, 
1996). In neither rulemaking did OSHA discuss, in particular, the 
application of the coke oven standard to construction, as it was only 
one of many standards involved in each rulemaking.
    However, the provisions of this standard do not fit construction 
work. Much of the standard regulates exposure in the ``regulated 
area.'' (See 29 CFR 1910.1029(d)). But this ``regulated area'' is 
limited, including only ``[t]he coke oven battery including topside and 
its machinery, pushside and its machinery, coke side and its machinery, 
and the battery ends; the wharf; and the screening station [and the] 
beehive oven and its machinery'' (Sec.  1910.1029(d)(2)(i) and (ii)). 
As stated in an interpretation issued nearly contemporaneously with the 
general industry coke oven

[[Page 68526]]

emissions standard, ``[t]he ground level around the base of the coke 
oven battery is not generally considered in the regulated area unless 
work related to coke oven operations take place. The coke oven 
regulation, 29 CFR 1910.1029, does not apply to employees walking past 
coke ovens or between them.'' (Interpretation memorandum to White, May 
17, 1977). Any work operating the coke ovens would be general industry 
work, and it is unlikely that any workers doing construction work, even 
if within a facility with an operating coke oven, would be so close to 
the coke oven as to be covered under the standard. OSHA recognized this 
issue in the 1990s, when it stated that the coke oven construction 
standard was ``invalid,'' and would be removed from the Code of Federal 
Regulations. (Interpretation letter to Katz, June 22, 1999). OSHA also 
advised its Regional Offices of this interpretation and that they 
should not enforce Sec.  1926.1129 in 2005. OSHA's inspection database 
contains no record of a citation under this standard since 1997.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ There were a few citations between 1993 and 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since, in effect, the standard does not address construction worker 
exposures to coke oven emissions, there would be no reduction in the 
level of protection. To the extent any construction workers would in 
the future be exposed to coke oven emissions, OSHA could cite the 
employer under the General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)). Thus, 
OSHA is now proposing to delete Sec.  1926.1129. OSHA is also proposing 
to delete the reference to Sec.  1926.1129 in Sec.  1926.55, Appendix A 
(proposed Table A).
17. Additional Proposed Revisions to Paragraphs and Appendices in 29 
CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 To Remove Social Security Number 
Collection Requirements
    In addition to the revisions described above, OSHA is proposing a 
series of revisions to various standards in 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 
and 1926, to remove the requirements that employers include an 
employee's social security number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records. OSHA believes that these revisions 
will protect employees' privacy and prevent identity fraud.
    Many of OSHA's standards--particularly, its substance-specific 
standards--require that exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and 
other records include the employee's SSN. OSHA has historically 
required SSNs on these records because SSNs, which are assigned at 
birth and do not change over time, are unique and constant personal 
identifiers that offer a useful method for linking records with 
individual employees. OSHA explained in a 1999 letter of interpretation 
regarding the asbestos standard for construction that only using an 
employee's name to match a record with an employee is undesirable 
because ``[m]any employees have identical or similar names.'' (Mr. 
Shawn T. Christon, April 16, 1999). Similarly, in the preamble to the 
final methylene chloride standard (62 FR 1494, January 10, 1997), OSHA 
explained that a SSN is a more useful identifier than an employer-
generated employee identification number because each SSN is ``unique 
to an individual for a lifetime and does not change as an employee 
changes employers.'' (62 FR 1494, 1598).
    However, increasingly widespread concerns about identity theft have 
prompted OSHA to reexamine whether requiring SSNs on records is still 
appropriate. Identity theft has emerged as one of the fastest growing 
crimes in the United States, and the Social Security Administration 
(SSA) has alerted the public that repetitive use and disclosure of SSNs 
in organizational recordkeeping systems should be avoided, as doing so 
multiplies the susceptibility of persons to potential identity theft 
(SSA, Identity Theft and Social Security, SSA Publication No. 05-10064 
(Sept. 2015)), available at: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10064.pdf). 
OSHA recognizes that limiting the use and transmission of SSNs is a key 
strategy for preventing identity theft, and acknowledges that requiring 
employers to include employee SSNs on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records does not further that effort.
    OSHA previously requested public comments on its SSN collection 
requirements in the Standards Improvement Project Phase II (SIP II) 
proposal (67 FR 66494-66501, October 31, 2002), and the comments that 
the Agency received reflected mixed opinions on the usefulness of, and 
the privacy risks created by, including employee SSNs on monitoring and 
surveillance records. As discussed in the SIP II final rule (70 FR 
1112, January 5, 2005), several commenters supported maintaining the 
requirements to collect employee SSNs, citing, among other reasons, 
SSNs' common use in other employee records and their suitability for 
tracking employees in large epidemiological studies of workplace 
populations (e.g., Exs. 3-9, 3-16, 3-14, OSHA Docket No. S-778-A). 
Several other commenters, however, expressed interest in replacing SSNs 
with alternative identification numbers that would pose a less serious 
risk to employee privacy and security if acquired by a third party 
(e.g., Exs. 3-1, 3-7, 3-28, 4-7, OSHA Docket No. S-778-A). OSHA 
ultimately decided not to take action in the SIP II final rule 
concerning the use of SSNs in its standards, concluding that the Agency 
needed to further investigate the issue (70 FR 1112, 1126-27).
    OSHA subsequently clarified in two letters of interpretation that 
employers are permitted under its current standards to maintain a 
second set of records that use alternative identification numbers in 
place of SSNs (Mr. Sutherland, Feb. 5, 2007; Mr. Mayo, March 27, 2008). 
In the 2008 letter, which responded to an inquiry about the SSN 
requirements in the recordkeeping provisions of the lead standard (29 
CFR 1910.1025(d)(5)), OSHA clarified that employers are permitted to 
keep a second set of records with alternative identification numbers in 
place of SSNs so long as ``those unique identification numbers [can] be 
easily cross referenced to the employee's SSN,'' because ``such a 
system would ensure that the employees' privacy is maintained, while 
also satisfying the intent of the Lead Standard'' (Mr. Mayo, March 27, 
2008). The letter also emphasized that the lead standard only requires 
employers to assure access to complete exposure records that contain 
SSNs when requested by an employee, a designated employee 
representative, or a representative of OSHA or NIOSH.
    OSHA also considered its SSN collection requirements after it 
published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Occupational Exposure 
to Respirable Crystalline Silica (78 FR 56273, September 12, 2013). 
OSHA received many comments on the recordkeeping provisions in the 
proposed paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(G) (Air monitoring data) and 
(j)(3)(i)(A) (Medical surveillance) which, consistent with the 
recordkeeping requirements in OSHA's other health standards, required 
the employer to include the employee's SSN in the standard's monitoring 
and surveillance records. More than a dozen commenters addressed the 
SSN collection requirements and all of those commenters expressed 
opposition to including the requirements in the standard (e.g., 
Document ID 1772, p.1; 1785, pp. 9-10; 2185, pp. 8; 2267, p. 7; 2270, 
p. 3; 2291, p. 26; 2301, Attachment 1, pp. 80-81; 2311, p. 3; 2315, p. 
7; 2348, Attachment 1, p. 39;

[[Page 68527]]

2357, pp. 36-37; 2363, p. 7; 2379, Appendix 1, p. 73; 2107, p. 4; 1963, 
p. 3, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034). Commenters generally viewed the 
inclusion of a SSN on the records as creating an unnecessary risk to 
employee privacy and security, and sought the flexibility to use 
alternate personal identifiers in place of SSNs. Several commenters 
explained that companies currently use alternative identifiers--such as 
employee identification numbers--to link monitoring and surveillance 
records with specific employees, and stated that these identifiers can 
be internally linked back to an employee's SSN if that information is 
needed (e.g., Docket ID 2379, Appendix 1, p. 73; 2357, pp. 36-37; 2270, 
p.3, 2348, Attachment 1, p. 39; 2301, Attachment 1, pp. 80-81; 2291, p. 
26, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034). Commenters acknowledged that SSNs must 
be used on some government reports (e.g., payroll reports to the IRS) 
and are therefore present in some employer records, but stated that 
access to those records is usually more restricted than to air 
monitoring records.
    OSHA ultimately decided to retain the requirements to include the 
employee's SSN in the recordkeeping paragraphs of the silica final 
rule, stating that including the employee SSNs on such records is 
``long-standing OSHA practice, based on the fact that it is a number 
that is both unique to an individual and is retained for a lifetime, 
and does not change as an employee changes employers'' (81 FR 16285, 
16852, March 25, 2016). OSHA acknowledged the commenters' concerns 
about employee privacy and identity theft, but explained that any 
change to the Agency's requirements for including employee SSNs on 
exposure records should be done comprehensively, rather than on a 
standard-by-standard basis. OSHA stated that it intended to examine the 
SSN requirements in all of its substance-specific health standards in a 
future rulemaking.
    OSHA originally required collection of employee SSNs in its 
standards because SSNs are assigned at birth and do not change over 
time, which makes SSNs useful for linking records with individual 
employees. As unique and constant personal identifiers, SSNs are also 
suitable for researchers who track employees in large epidemiological 
studies of workplace populations. However, other tracking methods have 
emerged that allow researchers to conduct these studies without the use 
of SSNs.
    OMB requires all federal agencies to identify and eliminate 
unnecessary collection and use of SSNs in agency systems and programs 
(see Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, 
Office of Management and Budget, to the Heads of Executive Departments 
and Agencies Regarding Safeguarding Against and Responding to the 
Breach of Personal Identifiable Information (M-01-16), May 22, 2007 
(available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf). 
Recognizing the seriousness of the threat of identity theft and the 
availability of other methods for tracking employees for research 
purposes, if needed, OSHA has reexamined the SSN collection 
requirements in its standards, and now proposes to comprehensively 
remove all requirements to include employee SSNs on exposure 
monitoring, medical surveillance, or other records. Specifically, OSHA 
proposes to delete the requirement to include an employee's SSN in 
records employers must maintain under the following standards:
     Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response--
Sec. Sec.  1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A) and 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A);
     Asbestos--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F), 
(m)(3)(ii)(A), and Appendix D, 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), 
and Appendix D, and 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and Appendix 
D;
     Vinyl Chloride--Sec.  1910.1017(m)(1);
     Inorganic Arsenic--Sec.  1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D) and 
(q)(2)(ii)(A);
     Lead--Sec. Sec.  1910.1025(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D), 
(n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and Appendix B, and 1926.62(d)(5), 
(n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and Appendix B;
     Chromium (VI)--Sec. Sec.  1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F) and 
(m)(4)(ii)(A), 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A), and 
1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A);
     Cadmium--Sec. Sec.  1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(3)(ii)(A), 
and Appendix D, and 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv), (n)(1)(ii)(B), and 
(n)(3)(ii)(A);
     Benzene--Sec. Sec.  1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D) and 
(k)(2)(ii)(A);
     Coke Oven Emissions--Sec. Sec.  1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a) and 
(m)(2)(i)(a);
     Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec.  1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A);
     Cotton Dust--Sec. Sec.  1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C), 
(k)(2)(ii)(A), and Appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
     1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropoane--Sec. Sec.  
1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d) and (p)(2)(ii)(a);
     Acrylonitrile--Sec.  1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D);
     Ethylene Oxide--Sec. Sec.  1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F) and 
(k)(3)(ii)(A);
     Formaldehyde--Sec. Sec.  1910.1048(o)(1)(vi), (o)(3)(i), 
(o)(4)(ii)(D), and Appendix D;
     Methylenedianiline--Sec. Sec.  1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D), 
(n)(4)(ii)(A), and (n)(5)(ii)(A), and 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F) and 
(o)(5)(ii)(A).
     1,3-Butadiene--Sec. Sec.  1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F), 
(m)(4)(ii)(A), and Appendix F;
     Methylene Chloride--Sec. Sec.  1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F), 
(m)(2)(iii)(C), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and Appendix B;
     Respirable crystalline silica--Sec. Sec.  
1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G) and (k)(3)(ii)(A), and 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G) 
and (j)(3)(ii)(A).
    The Agency believes that removing these requirements will 
facilitate employers' efforts to safeguard employee privacy. Based on 
the comments that it received in response to the SIP II request and the 
proposed silica rule, OSHA understands that some employers use a unique 
employee identification number to identify employees, and because these 
numbers are not used in commerce, they pose a less serious risk to 
employee privacy than SSNs if they are acquired by an authorized third 
party. Alternatively, some employers use other personal identifying 
information, either alone or in combination, to identify employees, 
such as first and last name, date of birth, government issued 
identification or driver's license number, passport number, or the last 
four digits of the SSN. Although some of this personal information, 
such as date of birth, may be used in commerce, exposure of that 
information may also be less damaging to employee privacy than exposure 
of an employee's SSN.
    The proposed revisions would not otherwise alter OSHA's 
requirements for maintaining records, and employers would thus be 
expected to continue handling previously-generated records that contain 
SSNs as they currently do. The proposal does not require the deletion 
of employee SSNs from existing records, and it does not require 
employers to use an alternative unique employee identifier on those 
records. The proposal allows employers, who wish to do so, to continue 
using SSNs on records developed in compliance with the standards noted 
above. Accordingly, OSHA believes that these proposed revisions will 
not increase an employer's compliance burden under any of the revised 
standards.
    OSHA sought and received a recommendation from the Advisory 
Committee on Construction Safety and

[[Page 68528]]

Health (ACCSH) to proceed with its proposal to remove the SSN 
collection requirements from its standards. At a public meeting held on 
December 2, 2015, ACCSH unanimously recommended that OSHA proceed with 
the proposal (ACCSH Dec. 2, 2016 transcript, pp. 83-98, available at 
Docket No. OSHA-2015-0002-0113). However, members of ACCSH also 
requested that OSHA provide guidance to employers whether they could 
continue using SSNs, and as noted above the proposal would allow them 
to do so.
    OSHA seeks comments on all aspects of this proposal. In addition, 
the Agency seeks comments on potential alternative approaches, 
including a requirement that the employer implement an alternative 
unique employee identifier, and that the employer remove all employee 
SSNs from all existing records maintained under the standards noted 
above. In particular, OSHA seeks comments on whether employers 
currently use alternatives to SSNs to identify employees in the records 
required by OSHA's standards, and if so, which alternative identifiers 
employers use, and whether employers maintain two sets of records or 
just a single set. OSHA would appreciate detailed information on any 
alternatives to SSNs. The Agency also requests comments on how removing 
the SSN requirements from exposure monitoring and surveillance records 
would affect employers' ability to identify employees on records, and 
whether the proposed revisions would affect the way that employers 
conduct business.
    Regarding the handling of existing records, OSHA requests 
information on whether employers currently maintain the records 
required under OSHA's standards electronically, in hard copy, or both. 
For those employers that store records electronically, OSHA seeks 
information on whether employers store those records in a database, and 
if so, whether OSHA's proposed revisions would require employers to 
modify or reprogram their databases. OSHA also requests information on 
the feasibility of removing SSNs from existing records, including any 
obstacles that might prevent employers from removing SSNs from 
electronic records, and whether it would be practicable to remove SSNs 
from existing hard copy records.
    This proposal would impact several forms that are contained in 
appendices to OSHA's standards, and when reviewing those forms to 
remove their SSN collection requirements, OSHA noticed that several 
forms from older standards do not comport with OMB's Standards for 
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 
Ethnicity, as updated on October 30, 1997 (62 FR 58782-58790). The 
Agency is considering revising the forms to either update the language 
to ensure compliance with OMB's standards or remove the question 
altogether. For example, Part 1 (``Initial Medical Questionnaire'') of 
Appendix D of the asbestos standard for general industry (29 CFR 
1910.1001) includes a question (currently, #15) that states:

Race:
1. White __
2. Black __
3. Asian __
4. Hispanic __
5. Indian __
6. Other__

    To reflect a combined race and ethnicity format (see 62 FR 58782, 
58789), OSHA is considering revising the language to state:

Race:
1. White __
2. Black or African American __
3. Asian __
4. Hispanic or Latino __
5. American Indian or Alaska Native __
6. Native Hawaiian or __
Other Pacific Islander __

    Other forms impacted by the removal of SSN collection requirements 
that have questions that would be similarly affected are: Asbestos in 
Construction (Sec.  1926.1101, Appendix D) and Maritime (Sec.  
1915.1001 Appendix D); Cotton Dust (Sec.  1910.1043, Appendix B-1, 
Appendix B-II, and Appendix B-III) and Methylene Chloride (Sec.  
1910.1052, Appendix B)
    OSHA requests comments on revising the appendices as indicated 
above and particularly on whether revising the language of race and 
ethnicity questions would impose any additional burden hours or costs 
on the respondents.

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Certification

A. Overview

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the 
benefits, costs, and net benefits of proposed regulations. Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) 
also require OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and 
analyze the impacts of certain rules that the Agency promulgates. 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 
flexibility.
    The proposed rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, and it is not a ``major 
rule'' under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This 
proposed rule has estimated annual costs of $27,899 and would lead to 
approximately $3.2 million per year in cost savings to regulated 
entities. Thus, neither the benefits nor the costs of this rule exceed 
$100 million. In addition, it does not meet any of the other criteria 
specified by UMRA or the Congressional Review Act for a significant 
regulatory action or major rule. This Preliminary Economic Analysis 
(PEA) addresses the costs, cost savings benefits, and potential 
economic impacts of the proposed rule.
    The purpose of the proposed provisions in this standard was to 
reduce the burden on employers, or provide employers with compliance 
flexibility, by removing or revising confusing, outdated, duplicative, 
or inconsistent requirements, while maintaining the same level of 
protection for employees. This proposed standard deletes and revises a 
number of provisions in existing OSHA standards. In most instances, the 
Agency chose to revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well 
as consistency, with standards more recently promulgated by the Agency 
or current consensus standards. In other instances, the proposed 
provisions revise standards to improve consistency with current 
technology or research, and to restore OSHA's original intent to 
standards. Because of the reduction or removal of current requirements 
and because many of the updates reflect what is already practiced in 
the applicable industry, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that the 
proposed rule is technologically feasible.

B. Costs, Cost Savings, and Benefits

Work-Related Hearing Loss
    OSHA is proposing to add a specific cross-reference to 29 CFR 
1904.5--Determination of Work-Relatedness--in Sec.  1904.10--Recording 
Criteria for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss--paragraph 
(b)(6). This cross-reference specifies that employers must comply with 
the provisions of Sec.  1904.5 when making a determination as to 
whether a worker's hearing loss is work-related. OSHA is not changing 
any requirements of 29 CFR 1904.10, but merely clarifying the Agency's 
intent. Since this change does not change the requirements of this 
standard, OSHA has preliminarily determined that neither new costs nor 
compliance burdens would be incurred.

[[Page 68529]]

Lockout/Tagout
    OSHA is proposing to remove the word ``unexpected'' from the phrase 
``unexpected energization'' in its general industry standard regulating 
the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) at 29 CFR 1910.147. As 
described in the Summary and Explanation, because removing the word 
``unexpected'' from the language of this standard would not represent 
any revision in OSHA policy, but instead clarify the Agency's original 
meaning of the term ``energization'' in the standard, OSHA preliminary 
concludes that this action would not result in any costs, compliance 
burdens, or additional employer responsibility other than what the 
Final Economic Analysis already considered for original Sec.  1910.147 
(OSHA, 1989).
    This revision would respond to the interpretation of the lockout/
tagout of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Reich v. General Motors 
Corp., Delco Chassis Div. (GMC Delco), 17 BNA OSHC 1217 (Nos. 91-2973, 
91-3116, 91-3117, 1995); aff'd 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996). In that 
case, both OSHRC and the Court of Appeals found that a machine with a 
multi-step procedure, time delays, and a warning system before 
reenergization was not covered by the standard because its 
reenergization was not ``unexpected.'' OSHA does not agree with this 
decision, and its consistent interpretation of the standard is that 
such equipment is covered by the standard. As explained in the summary 
and explanation, the phrase ``unexpected energization'' was intended to 
mean any re-energization or startup that was not authorized by the 
servicing employee removing her personal lockout/tagout device from the 
energy isolation device or equivalent energy control mechanism. 
Moreover, to implement the GMC Delco decision, OSHA's directive on the 
lockout/tagout standard lists 11 different factors for compliance 
officers to use to evaluate and document whether equipment is covered 
by the standard or not. This case-by-case analysis creates a degree of 
uncertainty about the applicability of the standard for the regulated 
community that OSHA did not intend. Though this proposed revision may 
change the frequency or number of violations cited and the amount of 
fines assessed due to improved employer understanding of the revised 
language, these are not material effects that would serve as a basis 
for estimating new costs to comply with the standard, and such costs 
can be avoided by adherence to the standard, whose costs OSHA has 
already estimated.
    In addition, removing the word ``unexpected'' from the text of 
Sec.  1910.147 also would harmonize this standard with a recent OSHA 
lockout/tagout standard which does not include the term ``unexpected.'' 
See OSHA's General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment standard 
at 29 CFR 1915.89.
Chest X-Ray Requirements
    Medical surveillance requirements in health standards are designed 
primarily to detect the early onset of adverse health effects so that 
appropriate interventions can be taken. In certain OSHA standards, the 
Agency currently requires periodic chest X-rays (CXRs) as a form of 
early lung cancer detection. At the time these standards were 
promulgated, routine screening for lung cancer with CXR was considered 
appropriate; however, recent studies with many years of follow-up have 
not shown a benefit from CXR screening for either lung cancer incidence 
or mortality. As a result, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement 
for periodic CXR in the following standards: Sec.  1910.1029--Coke Oven 
Emissions, Sec.  1910.1045--Acrylonitrile, and Sec.  1910.1018--
Inorganic Arsenic.
    As OSHA has become increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of CXR 
in reducing lung cancer mortality, the Agency has moved to decrease CXR 
requirements to eliminate unnecessary radiation to workers as well as 
reduce the cost to employers to provide CXR as part of medical 
examinations, which it did previously in the first phase of the 
Standards Improvement Process (63 FR 33450, June 18, 1998). Not only 
does OSHA preliminarily conclude that the removal of this requirement 
would result in a cost savings to employers, but the Agency also 
believes it would prove to be beneficial to employees by decreasing 
their exposure to radiation as well as decreasing the rate of false 
positive results. Although OSHA has not attempted to quantify these 
benefits in this preliminary analysis, the Agency invites comment from 
the public on these issues.
    To estimate the annual cost savings to employers if the requirement 
for periodic CXRs were removed from the listed standards, OSHA, with 
the assistance of Eastern Research Group (ERG), estimated the number of 
unnecessary CXRs that would be eliminated by this proposed change by 
drawing on estimates of the affected number of workers for each 
standard in the Agency's most recent Information Collection Requests 
for each affected standard (ERG, 2015). OSHA then analyzed data from 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Physician Fee 
Schedule. Summarizing data from around the United States indicated a 
national average price of $68.42 for a CXR (ERG, 2015). Finally, the 
Agency multiplied the average price of a CXR by the number of CXRs to 
be eliminated, providing an estimate of $245,148 of exam cost savings. 
This information is detailed as follows:

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 2,324 exams x $68.42 CXR cost per exam = 
$159,008
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 467 exams x $68.42 CXR cost per exam = 
$31,952
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 792 exams x $68.42 CXR cost per exam = 
$54,188
Total Reduced Exam Cost:
    $159,008+$31,952+$54,188 = $245,148

    Reducing the time of the medical exam, by removing the CXR 
requirement, would also save employers money because the employee is 
away from work for a shorter period of time. Based on information from 
RadiologyInfo.org, the Agency conservatively estimates that the time 
employees would be away from work is reduced by 15 minutes when the CXR 
component of the exam is eliminated (ERG, 2015). OSHA seeks comment on 
this time estimate. As indicated, OSHA estimates this change would save 
896 hours of worker time that would have been spent during their 
recurring exams. Multiplying the reduced exam time by employee hourly 
wages of $24.05,\31\ the Agency estimates a cost savings of $21,549 in 
employee time. This information is detailed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Wages are based on data from the May 2013 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Standard Occupational 
Classification Code 51-000--Production Operation, which lists 
average base compensation of $16.79. A private industry Fringe 
Benefit rate of 30.20 percent was from Source: Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--June 2014. 
(https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09102014.htm). The 
multiplier applied to base compensation to determine loaded wages is 
1.43 [1/(1-30.20 percent)]. Applying the multiplier (1.43) to base 
compensation ($16.79) results in loaded wages of $24.05.

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Time saved: 2,324 exams x .25 hours = 581 hours \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Numbers rounded to the nearest whole dollar here and 
elsewhere in the Preliminary Economic Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduced Cost: 581 hours x $24.05 employee wage = $13,973
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Time saved: 467 exams x .25 hours = 117 hours
    Reduced Cost: 117 hours x $24.05 employee wage = $2,814
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):

[[Page 68530]]

    Time saved: 792 exams x .25 hours = 198 hours
    Reduced Cost: 198 hours x $24.05 employee wage = $4,762
Total Employee Time Savings from fewer CXRs:
    581 hours + 117 hours + 198 hours = 896 hours
Total Value of Time Savings from fewer CXRs:
    $13,973 + $2,814 + $4,762 = $21,549

    Combining the value of saved worker time of $21,549 with the 
decreased exam cost of $245,148 nets a total potential cost savings to 
employers of $266,697. OSHA seeks comment on these estimates.
    OSHA is also proposing to update other CXR requirements in its Coke 
Oven Emissions, Acrylonitrile, and Inorganic Arsenic standards 
discussed above, as well as in its three Asbestos standards--Sec.  
1910.1001 Asbestos (General Industry), Sec.  1915.1001 Asbestos 
(Maritime), and Sec.  1926.1101 Asbestos (Construction)--and two 
Cadmium standards--Sec.  1910.1027 Cadmium (General Industry), and 
Sec.  1926.1127 Cadmium (Construction).
    In recent years, innovation in medical technology has allowed for 
screening with digital CXRs. Reflecting this, OSHA is proposing to add 
the option of digital radiography to its existing standards. As a 
practical matter, digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing 
traditional analog film-based systems in medical facilities.
    There are cost savings to using digital CXRs over analog CXRs. 
Traditional analog film-based CXRs are much larger than standard-sized 
office documents and weigh more than a piece of paper of the same size. 
As such, storing traditional CXRs requires an investment in specialized 
storage cabinets, which in turn may require reinforcement of the floor. 
Digital CXRs, however, can be stored on a computer. Due to continuing 
advances in technology and the emergence of inexpensive and large-
capacity storage devices, digital CXRs can be stored for just a 
fraction of a cent each. Digital CXRs also save time and materials 
because they can be instantly processed and ready for use as soon as 
the CXR is taken.
    OSHA believes that digital storage of CXRs is so common that most 
employers are already realizing this cost savings and would thus not 
incur any additional savings as a result of this proposal. As a 
practical matter, OSHA already allows digital storage of CXRs as a 
matter of enforcement discretion. In a letter of interpretation 
released on September 24, 2012, entitled ``OSHA's position on the 
acceptability of digital radiography in place of traditional chest 
roentgenograms,'' OSHA stated: ``OSHA would allow, but would not 
require, digital radiography in place of traditional chest 
roentgenograms for medical surveillance exams under the Asbestos 
Standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards.'' Although 
OSHA has not released interpretations specifically allowing for digital 
storage of CXRs in other standards, it has become the Agency's practice 
not to cite or otherwise penalize employers for storing CXRs digitally. 
Because it is now current OSHA enforcement practice to waive the formal 
requirement for employers to keep analog copies of CXRs when they store 
them digitally, the Agency preliminarily concludes that there would be 
no realized cost savings by changing this requirement. This proposed 
change simply formalizes and thereby clarifies what the Agency has 
already accommodated in practice.
    Revisions in these standards also include replacements of 
antiquated terminology such as ``roentgenogram,'' correction of 
misspellings in the existing standards, an update to the current ILO 
classification guidance, and revisions where inaccuracies exist in 
clinical diagnostic language. OSHA is proposing to update the 
regulatory text to better distinguish between the appropriate uses of 
classification and interpretation of CXRs. The Agency believes these 
changes are merely editorial in nature and reflect current practices, 
and therefore would not create new costs or cost savings for employers.
Cotton Dust--Pulmonary Function Testing
    As explained in greater detail in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA 
is proposing to make revisions to its medical surveillance program 
requirements--more specifically, its pulmonary function testing 
requirements of the Cotton Dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043). Exposure 
to cotton dust places employees at risk of developing the respiratory 
disease byssinosis. Since the publication of the Cotton Dust standard 
in 1978, OSHA has not updated its pulmonary function testing 
requirements to match those of current technology and practices. As a 
result, OSHA is basing its proposed revisions on current 
recommendations from organizations recognized as authorities on 
generally accepted practices in pulmonary-function testing: The 
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS), the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the 
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
    OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (h) and Appendix D of its 
Cotton Dust standard. Many of the revisions are simply editorial, to 
clarify existing language, as well as to update outdated pulmonary 
function measurements. However, for those revisions that may suggest a 
potential need to upgrade pulmonary testing equipment, OSHA 
investigated the characteristics of equipment currently available in 
the United States and whether such equipment met the specifications of 
OSHA's proposed revisions.
    Paragraphs 1043(h)(2)(iii) and (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) give 
instructions for pulmonary function testing, measuring forced vital 
capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 
against the Spirometry Prediction Tables for Normal Males and Females 
(Appendix C), adjusting those measurements based on ethnicity, and from 
the outcome of such measurements, determining the frequency of medical 
surveillance provided to employees. OSHA is proposing to revise this 
provision to specify use of the National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES) III reference data set and to replace the 
values currently in Appendix C with the NHANES III values.
    Software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set, 
which is identified as the Hankinson data set on some spirometers. If 
software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data 
set, users of those spirometers would be able to access the NHANES III 
values online through the NIOSH calculator. Tables of the NHANES III 
values are also available in an appendix of OSHA's spirometry guidance 
for healthcare professionals that is also available online. Therefore, 
NHANES III values are widely available to spirometry providers, 
including those providers using older spirometers.
    OSHA's proposal to use the NHANES III data set in place of the 
Knudson values currently in Appendix C would simplify interpretation of 
spirometry results by providing reference values for more race/ethnic 
groups, thereby reducing the need to adjust values for race/ethnic 
groups not included in the Knudson data set. This revision as to how 
pulmonary functioning should be tested and measured falls in line with 
current generally accepted practices; therefore OSHA does not believe 
this proposed revision should pose a compliance burden to affected 
employers.

[[Page 68531]]

    OSHA is also proposing to update paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require 
an evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the lower limit of 
normal (LLN) for each race/ethnic group, by age. Similarly, OSHA is 
proposing that the basis for frequency of medical surveillance in 
paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) be whether the FEV1 is above or below 
the LLN. This would technically change the required triggers for 
medical surveillance from the existing standard, but is consistent with 
generally accepted current practices. The Agency believes the changes 
would reduce confusion and have little other practical effect. The 
proposed revision to evaluate the FEV1/FVC ratio in addition to FEV1 
and FVC would not affect the triggers for other medical monitoring 
requirements such as changes in medical-surveillance frequency or 
referral for a detailed pulmonary examination because the standard 
bases those triggers solely on FEV1 values.
    Proposed revisions to Appendix D address updates to the 
specifications of spirometry equipment used in performing pulmonary 
functioning tests. To assess whether current readily available 
spirometry equipment met the Agency's proposed specifications, OSHA 
investigated the market for spirometry equipment, with the assistance 
of its contractor, Eastern Research Group (ERG). OSHA found that the 
market has been adapting to similar consensus standards in this area as 
far back as 1994. In its research of spirometry product specifications 
collected through internet searches, interviews with manufacturers, and 
the consultation of peer-reviewed literature and voluntary standards 
published by respiratory health groups, the Agency found that 
spirometry models currently sold in the United States, Europe and 
Australia meet the potential specification revisions of spirometry 
equipment to be used in the cotton dust standard. More specifically, 
ERG looked at a sample of 12 spirometry models from various 
manufacturers and found that 11 out of the 12 models were already 
complaint with the volume, accuracy, and minimum duration requirements 
of the 2005 spirometry specification standard jointly published by ATS/
ERS (ERG, 2015).
    The Agency estimates that this spirometry equipment has a working 
life of approximately ten years. To prevent a potential burden to 
employers from having to prematurely purchase new equipment, OSHA is 
proposing that the revised spirometry specifications apply only to 
equipment newly purchased one year or more after OSHA publishes the 
final standard in the Federal Register. Combined with evidence that the 
large majority of the equipment already on the market is already 
compliant, OSHA does not believe that the proposed revisions to the 
spirometry equipment specifications would impose additional costs or 
compliance burdens to employers. OSHA welcomes comment on the possible 
impacts of these requirements.
Shipyard Employment: Feral Cats
    As stated in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is proposing to 
remove feral cats from its definition of vermin in paragraph (b)(33) of 
Sec.  1915.80--Subpart F--Shipyard General Working Conditions. 29 CFR 
1915.88--Sanitation, paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2), specify that 
employers must, to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and 
maintain workplaces in a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When 
employers detect vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective 
vermin-control program.
    OSHA has determined that, although the possibility exists for feral 
cats to pose safety and health hazards for employees, the threat is 
minor as the cats tend to avoid human contact. Further, stakeholders 
have expressed concern that including the term ``feral cats'' in the 
definition of vermin encourages cruel and unnecessary extermination. 
OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral cats'' from the 
definition would reduce worker health and safety, and notes that feral 
cats may help reduce the presence of other vermin. To the extent feral 
cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular shipyard, OSHA 
would consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under the standard. 
Removing a perceived obligation to exterminate feral cats should not 
have any costs to employers.
911 Emergency Medical Services
    OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (f) in 29 CFR 1926.50--
Medical Services and First Aid. Existing Sec.  1926.50(e) requires 
employers to provide a communication system for contacting ambulance 
service, or proper equipment for transportation of an injured person. 
Existing Sec.  1926.50(f) requires the posting of telephone numbers of 
physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for work sites located in areas 
where 911 emergency service is not available. OSHA is proposing to 
retain both of these this requirements. The Agency would add to 
paragraph (f) a requirement that when an employer uses a communication 
system for contacting 911 services, the employer must ensure that the 
communication system can effectively do so, and, if the system is in an 
area that does not automatically supply the caller's latitude and 
longitude to the 911 dispatcher, post or otherwise provide to employees 
the latitude and longitude of the work site or other information that 
communicates the location of the worksite.
    OSHA has preliminarily concluded that this proposed requirement 
would result in annual costs of $27,899 until 2019, when the FCC 
expects enhanced 911 wireless services to be universal, at which time 
these costs would disappear.
    OSHA calculated the burden hours and wage hour costs for employers 
to post the latitude and longitude of the work site location based on 
the number of new construction projects started in a given year. To 
estimate the number of project sites, OSHA reviewed the most recent 
data provided by request from Dodge Data and Analytics.\33\ The Dodge 
data show a total of 660,469 new construction projects starts in 2012 
of which 537,997 were residential buildings, 58,754 were non-
residential buildings, and 63,718 were non-buildings. Of the 537,997 
residential buildings, 516,363 were single-family homes, 7,388 were 
two-family houses, and 14,246 were apartments.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For the purpose of this section, in conformance with 
previous ICRs on this provision, OSHA deems the Dodge data to be the 
best source of information for new construction projects. This 
stands in contrast to U.S. Census construction data used later in 
the PEA in the context of Load Limit Posting provision because OSHA 
is interested in all construction projects started, but not 
necessarily completed, in a given year. While Census construction 
data provides lists more detailed information on residential housing 
starts and completions, and total value of construction put in 
place, it does not provide information on the total number of 
construction projects started in a given year.
    \34\ Dodge defines single-family homes as single-family 
detached, stand-alone units. Single-family attached structures, 
including such buildings as condominiums and townhomes, are included 
in Dodge's multi-family category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA notes that more than one single-family home may be built at a 
project site. The Agency determined that construction contractors build 
approximately one-half of single-family houses at single house project 
sites and the other half at project sites holding multiple single-
family homes. As a result, OSHA estimated the number of single-family 
homes completed at single house project sites in 2012 to be 258,182, 
and 129,091 to be the total of project sites holding two single family-
homes (one-half of single-family houses at single project sites: 
516,363/2 =

[[Page 68532]]

258,182; one-half of single-family homes at project sites holding two 
houses: 258,182/2 = 129,091).
    As shown below in Table IV-1, the total number of construction 
project sites covered by this provision is: 531,379.

  Table IV-1--Estimated Total Construction Sites in the United States,
                                  2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total number
                                                                of
                Type of construction site                  construction
                                                             projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Residential Buildings...............................          58,754
Non-Buildings Construction Projects.....................          63,718
Residential Buildings...................................         408,907
One Single-Family Home Per Site.........................         258,182
Multiple Single-Family Homes Per Site...................         129,091
Multi-Family Residential Buildings......................          21,634
Two-Family Houses.......................................           7,388
Apartments..............................................          14,246
                                                         ---------------
  Total Construction Sites..............................         531,379
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the United States, when a 9-1-1 call is made from a traditional 
telephone or wireline, the call is routed to a Public Safety Answering 
Point (PSAP) that is responsible for assisting people in a particular 
geographic area or community. Depending on the type of 9-1-1 service 
available, the telephone number of the caller and the location or 
address of the emergency is either communicated by the caller to the 
emergency dispatcher (Basic 9-1-1); or automatically displayed to the 
dispatcher through the use of equipment and database information 
(Enhanced 9-1-1). According to a 2001 report produced by the RCN 
Commission and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) titled, 
Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, Accessibility and Future 
of America's 9-1-1 Service,\35\ wireline 9-1-1 coverage is available to 
97.8 percent of the U.S. population; however only 93 percent of all 
U.S. counties have either Basic or Enhanced wireline 9-1-1 coverage 
while 7 percent of U.S. counties are without any 9-1-1 services. NENA 
reported that these areas without any wireline 9-1-1 coverage are 
primarily rural in character with sparse population and generally high 
poverty levels; as well as inclusive of Native American lands and 
military installations (NENA, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Report Card to the Nation (RCN)--An RCN Commission was 
formed by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) to review 
and grade the performance of 9-1-1. NENA serves its members and the 
greater public safety community as the only professional 
organization solely focused on 9-1-1 policy, technology, operations, 
and education issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 5, 2014 version of the Federal Communications 
Commission's (FCC) 911 Wireless Service Guide, it was estimated that 
about 70 percent of 9-1-1 calls were placed from wireless phones (FCC, 
2014). The FCC finds using wireless phones create unique challenges for 
emergency response personnel because wireless or mobile phones are not 
associated with one fixed location or address. Although the location of 
the cell site closest to the 9-1-1 caller may provide a general 
indication of the caller's location, the FCC finds that the information 
is not always specific enough for rescue personnel to deliver 
assistance to the caller quickly (FCC, 2014). As a result, the FCC is 
now requiring wireless service carriers to implement its wireless 
Enhanced 9-1-1 program which will provide 9-1-1 dispatchers with 
additional information on wireless 9-1-1 calls. The FCC is allowing the 
implementation of its wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 program in two parts--
Phase I and Phase II. Phase I requires carriers to provide the PSAP 
with the telephone number of the 9-1-1 wireless caller as well as the 
location of the cell site or base station transmitting the call. Phase 
II however, requires carriers to provide more precise information to 
the PSAP, such as the latitude and longitude of the caller whereby the 
accuracy of the geographical coordinates must be within 50 to 300 
meters of the caller's location (FCC, 2014).
    With the implementation of the wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 program, the 
total number of U.S. counties with 9-1-1 coverage has increased from 93 
percent to nearly 97 percent. As of March 2015, NENA reported a total 
number of 3,135 U.S. counties, which include parishes, independent 
cities, boroughs and Census areas. Of these counties, 96.9 percent 
(3,038) of them are now capable of receiving some \36\ Phase I location 
information and 95.7 percent (3,000) are capable of receiving some 
Phase II. All wireless carriers, however, are expected to comply with 
Phase II of the FCCs requirements by 2019.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The term `some,'' as defined by the National Emergency 
Number Association, means that some or all wireless carriers have 
implemented either Phase I or Phase II service in the County or the 
PSAPs. In order for any carrier to provide service, the County or 
PSAP must be capable of receiving the service. In most cases, all 
carriers are implemented in a County or PSAP, but one or more may be 
in the process of completing the implementation. See https://www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics.
    \37\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all 9-1-1 emergency calls made are routed to a PSAP or call 
center based on the geographic location in which the call was made, for 
the purpose of this analysis, OSHA is interested in those U.S. counties 
where Enhanced 9-1-1 is neither available by wireline nor wireless 
device. Using the data provided by NENA, OSHA estimates that of the 
3,135 recorded U.S. counties, 4.3 percent (135) neither have wireline 
nor wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 capabilities. By extension, for this 
analysis, OSHA further assumes that 4.3 percent of all construction 
project sites (22,849 of 531,379 construction project sites) are 
located within those counties without wireline and wireless Enhanced 9-
1-1 capabilities and would therefore be covered by this provision 
whereby employers must either post the latitude and longitude of the 
work site or other location-identification information that effectively 
communicates the location of the work site to the 9-1-1 emergency 
medical service dispatcher. The Agency believes this is likely an 
overestimate of the number of construction sites affected by this 
provision of the proposal, as construction activity will generally 
parallel population concentration. Enhanced cell service, in turn, is 
more concentrated around population centers. NENA estimates that 98.4 
percent of the population now has Phase II wireless service; 98.1 
percent of PSAPs have Phase II service. The Agency, however, requests 
comment on this aspect of analysis, as well as the distribution of 
wireline and wireless service at construction sites.
    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee 
affected by this requirement 3 minutes (.05 hour) to obtain the 
latitude and longitude of worksite locations, write the information on 
material, and then to prominently post the information, as required by 
proposed Sec.  1926.50(f). This would not pose an issue of 
technological feasibility as the information could be easily downloaded 
from the Internet before the crew leaves for the site; in the large 
majority of cases this information should be also be available onsite 
via common applications for smartphones. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) 2013 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data 
indicate that the most common construction occupation is ``construction 
laborer.'' Partly for that reason, the Agency believes this occupation 
is most representative of the workers actually posting the latitude and 
longitude load requirements at construction project sites. Consistent 
with that, OSHA, based on the OES

[[Page 68533]]

data, estimates a wage of $16.84 per hour for the average affected 
construction worker (BLS, 2013a). BLS also estimates in their 2013 
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation report that employers pay an 
additional 45 percent in employee benefits,\38\ implying a total 
employer cost for employee compensation of $24.42 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ BLS, 2013b. Employer costs for employee benefits (other 
than wage and salary) were estimated to be 31 percent of total 
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe 
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1--percent of total compensation 
attributable to employee benefits, or 1/(1-.3) = 1.45. Total 
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying 
the base wages ($16.84) by the fringe benefits factor (1.45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the estimated annual burden hours and wage hour cost of 
this proposed requirement are:
    Burden hours: 22,849 construction project sites x .05 hour = 
1,142.45 hours.
    Cost: 1,142.45 hours x $24.42 = $27,899.
    Based on these costs, OSHA preliminary determines that the proposed 
provision is economically feasible. OSHA notes that a member of ACCSH 
stated that he had seen a firm provide location information at remote 
sites. (ACCSH Aug. 23, 2013 transcript, p. 85.) As noted previously, 
the task of communicating relevant site information to rescue services 
is gradually being made easier by the spread of advanced 
telecommunications technology, such that in the near future the 
existing burden should be eliminated. However, OSHA seeks comments on 
this estimate and how long the costs will remain in effect.
Permissible Exposure Limits Table
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, 29 CFR 1926.55--Gases, 
Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists--is the Construction counterpart to 29 
CFR 1910.1000--Air Contaminants, which enumerates hundreds of 
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) in its Z tables. Because 29 CFR 
1926.55 is not as clear as its General Industry counterpart, OSHA is 
proposing to update section 1926.55(a) and Appendix A to help clarify 
the construction PELs. These proposed changes would: (1) Change the 
term ``Threshold Limit Values'' to ``Permissible Exposure Limits''; (2) 
eliminate language that sounds advisory; (3) eliminate confusing 
language; (4) correct several noted errors in Appendix A; and (5) 
correct cross-references to the asbestos standard. OSHA deems these 
changes to be simple clarifications which would not change the 
substantive effect this rule. Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily 
concluded that these revisions would not result in changes to the cost 
or impact of 29 CFR 1926.55; however, OSHA seeks comment on this 
preliminary conclusion.
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
    OSHA is proposing to replace the regulatory text of its Process 
Safety Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals construction 
regulation, Sec.  1926.64, with a cross-reference to the corresponding 
general industry regulation in 29 CFR 1910.119. The requirements 
applicable to construction work in 29 CFR 1926.64 are identical to 
those set forth in 29 CFR 1910.119. This change would only serve to 
eliminate duplicative regulatory text and as such, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that it has no cost.
Personal Protective Equipment Fit
    OSHA is proposing to amend Section Sec.  1926.95--Criteria for 
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), paragraph (c), to clarify that PPE 
must properly fit each employee. The existing regulatory text states 
that PPE ``shall be of safe design and construction for the work to be 
performed'' and current paragraph (a) states that PPE ``shall be 
provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition 
wherever it is necessary. . . .'' It is the agency's opinion that for 
PPE to provide protection against the hazards for which it is designed, 
it must fit properly. OSHA views this change as a clarification of the 
existing language and thus preliminarily determines that it would not 
increase costs or compliance burdens to employers.
Lanyard/Lifeline Break Strength
    OSHA is proposing to lower the minimum breaking strength 
requirement in Sec.  1926.104--Safety Belts, Lifelines and Lanyards, 
paragraph (c)--from 5,400 pounds to 5,000 pounds. As discussed in the 
Summary and Explanation of that section, the Agency believes a 5,000 
pound requirement would still provide a more than sufficient safety 
factor. Because this change lowers the minimum requirement, employers 
would not be required to purchase new equipment. When employers do 
replace their equipment, they could continue to purchase lifelines with 
a breaking strength of 5,400 pounds, or with a breaking strength of 
5,000 pound. This proposed revision also would bring Sec.  104(c) into 
conformance with the lanyard and lifeline breaking strength requirement 
in the Fall Protection standard, at Sec.  1926.502(d)(9). As a result, 
OSHA has preliminarily concluded that this change would not add any new 
compliance costs for employers.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    Under 29 CFR part 1926 subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades, 
OSHA requires that employers comply with the mandatory provisions of 
Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 
Currently, employers comply with Part VI when they use one of two 
versions of MUCTD: the 1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 
MUTCD (``1988 Edition'') or the Millennium Edition, December 2000 MUTCD 
(``Millennium Edition''). Since OSHA's last published update to subpart 
G, requiring employers to follow one of the two MUTCD editions above, 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) has then updated 23 CFR 655.601 
through 655.603 to require adherence to the 2009 Edition, November 4, 
2009, MUTCD (``2009 Edition''). The Agency is proposing to update 
subpart G to require employers to follow the MUTCD 2009 Edition.
    23 CFR 655.603 states that the MUTCD is the national standard for 
all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or 
bicycle trail open to public travel. It also requires all States, 
within two years after a new national MUTCD edition is issued or any 
national MUTCD amendments are made, to adopt the new MUTCD in the 
State, adopt the national MUTCD with a State Supplement that is in 
substantial conformance with the new MUTCD, or adopt a State MUTCD that 
is in substantial conformance with the new MUTCD.
    Each State enacts its own laws regarding compliance with standards 
for traffic control devices in that State. If the State law has adopted 
a State Supplement or a State MUTCD that the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) has found to be in substantial conformance with 
the national MUTCD, then those State requirements are what the local 
road agencies (as well as the State DOT) must abide by. The exception 
is traffic control devices installed on a federally aided project, in 
which case 23 CFR 655.603(d)(2) specifically requires those devices to 
comply with the national MUTCD before the road can be opened or 
reopened to the public for unrestricted use.
    The Agency believes any employer costs related to incorporating the 
updated MUCTD reference into subpart G are very limited because, first, 
the updated DOT rules are already currently

[[Page 68534]]

in force for all public roads. Second, even in the limited 
circumstances of construction on private roads, the MUCTD rules are 
already likely followed. Finally, the changes from the prior editions 
are minor and could easily be outweighed by eliminating the burden 
created by having conflicting DOT and OSHA requirements.
    Private roads open to public travel are now subject to the same 
traffic control standards as public streets and highways. However, the 
FHWA does not require State and/or local highway agencies to have 
specific authority or enforcement responsibility for traffic control 
devices on private roads to ensure compliance with the MUTCD. Owners or 
parties responsible for such private roads are encouraged to bring the 
traffic control devices into compliance with the MUTCD and other 
applicable State Manuals, and those who do not may find themselves 
exposed to increased tort liability. State and local jurisdictions can 
encourage MUTCD compliance on private roads by incorporating pertinent 
language into zoning requirements, building and occupancy permits, and 
similar controls that they exercise over private properties.
    As a practical matter, available data on private road construction 
indicate that it represents a very small portion of total road 
construction activity. Data from the Census Construction Spending 
Survey indicate that it represents less than 1 percent of all funds 
dedicated to highway and street construction (Census, 2014).\39\ This 
leaves a very limited scope of construction signage not already 
governed by the updated DOT rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Since private spending on Highway and Street construction 
is relatively small in comparison to other categories of spending, 
it does not appear as a separate item, but can be derived from 
subtracting Total Public Construction spending on Highway and Street 
construction from Total Construction spending on Highway and Street 
construction. 2013 data indicates private spending was well below 1 
percent of total spending in this category. This pattern was 
consistent at least as far back as 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all contractors engaged in construction of public roads are 
now required to follow the current MUTCD, only those firms that work 
exclusively on private roads would incur costs associated with this 
proposal. Contractors that work on both public and private roads should 
not see an increased burden because they would already need to be in 
compliance with the MUTCD to work on public roads. Considering that 
there is pressure, both from a regulatory and liability perspective, 
for firms that work exclusively on private roads to follow the MUTCD, 
OSHA believes the total number of these firms potentially incurring 
costs as a result of this proposal would be very small. To better 
understand how often these situations occur, OSHA seeks comment on the 
number of contractors that work exclusively on private roads and are 
therefore not required to follow the MUTCD. To the extent that 
situation occurs, the Agency also seeks comment on the extent to which 
such contractors already follow the updated MUTCD.
    For any firms not already complying with the updated MUTCD, the 
cost of compliance would be very limited. As explained in the Summary 
and Explanation, the revisions to the MUTCD make the document more user 
friendly and account for advances in technology. A comparison of the 
1998 and 2009 updates shows fewer and less burdensome new requirements, 
but more guidance and support material which makes the document easier 
to use. This proposed change to the OSHA rule should decrease the 
burden on employers by eliminating confusion as to which edition they 
must comply with. It would also inform employers that compliance with 
DOT regulations would not run afoul of outdated OSHA regulations. Most 
of the new provisions provide more options to employers, which should 
either increase safety or reduce the burden to employers.
    Nonetheless, the Agency has identified two proposed changes in the 
2009 Edition that could have a very small cost for those employers 
doing construction work exclusively on private roads that are not 
already following the updated MUTCD for these items.
    One change is a requirement to use a new symbol and additional sign 
for a shoulder drop-off. OSHA has estimated that the average price of a 
shoulder drop-off sign at $32.74, depending on size and finish. A 
second change prohibits contractors from relying on hand-signs alone to 
control traffic. This burden would only apply to a subset of 
contractors that use flaggers to control traffic (as opposed to 
something like automated flagger assistance device) and choose to only 
use hand signals to accomplish this task. Each of these contractors 
would need to purchase at least one stop sign or flag. OSHA has 
determined that a flag would cost, on average, $7.96 each, dependent on 
size (ERG, 2015).
    The number of signs or flags a contractor needs for these 
situations would presumably be dependent on the number of simultaneous 
projects that the road construction firm engages in during a typical 
season, or how large and complex such projects are. While smaller 
contractors may be more likely to engage solely in private road 
operations, larger, more complex projects demanding more equipment 
would almost certainly fall to larger contractors also employed in 
public road construction. Considering the very limited number of 
contractors and situations that would likely be impacted by this 
proposal, the Agency believes that most of the potentially affected 
firms would not need more than a handful of either signs or flags. The 
Agency seeks comment on what the likely impact of these changes would 
be, both in terms of the number of signs and/or flags potentially 
affected contractors might need, as well as whether other changes to 
MUCTD might have a cost associated with them, or ultimately whether the 
clarity provided by a government-wide reference to a single set of 
standards may provide a cost savings to employers.
    It is not clear whether any firm would incur new costs as a result 
of this this proposed update to the 2009 Edition, but as shown, any 
such costs would be very limited in nature and would be an 
insignificant portion of a contractor's annual profit. OSHA therefore 
does not believe these changes would have a significant impact to any 
firm or raise an issue of economic feasibility. The Agency, however, 
welcomes comment on this preliminary assessment.
Load Limit Postings
    OSHA is proposing to remove the load limit posting requirement for 
single family dwellings or townhouses in 29 CFR 1926.250--General 
Requirements for Storage, paragraph (a)(2). OSHA has preliminarily 
estimated that removing the requirement for employers to post maximum 
safe load limits of floors in storage areas when constructing single 
family dwellings or townhouses would result in a cost savings to 
employers engaged in these construction activities of approximately 
$2,948,715.
    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee 
affected by this requirement 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to develop and 
post the currently required signs, assuming the information is readily 
available from current engineering estimates. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) 2013 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data 
indicate that the most common construction occupation is ``construction 
laborer.'' Partly for that reason, the Agency believes this occupation 
is most representative of the workers actually posting the load limit 
requirement at such dwellings. Consistent with that, OSHA, based on the 
OES data, estimates a wage of $16.84

[[Page 68535]]

per hour for the average affected construction worker (BLS, 2013a). BLS 
also estimates in their 2013 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation 
report that employers pay an additional 45 percent in employee 
benefits,\40\ implying a total employer cost for employee compensation 
of $24.42 per hour. According to the U.S. Census, in 2012 there were 
483,000 single family houses constructed, including townhouses (Census, 
2012).\41\ OSHA estimates, that on average, each project would have one 
storage area, producing one required posting. Using this data, OSHA 
preliminarily estimates that the yearly burden on employers affected by 
this proposed revision would be reduced by $6.105 ($24.42/hour x 0.25 
hours) for a total cost savings of $2,948,715 ($6.105 cost per posting 
x 483,000 single family homes) to the industry. Therefore, the 
estimated reduction in burden hours and wage hour costs of this 
proposed requirement are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ BLS, 2013b. Employer costs for employee benefits (other 
than wage and salary) were estimated to be 31 percent of total 
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe 
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1--percent of total compensation 
attributable to employee benefits, or 1/(1 - .3) = 1.45. Total 
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying 
the base wages ($16.84) by the fringe benefits factor (1.45).
    \41\ In the 911 Emergency Medical Services section of PEA 
presented earlier, the Agency examined total construction starts, 
which were estimated using Dodge data. Included within that total 
were new home starts. However, as has historically been the case 
when examining the paperwork burden for 29 CFR 1926.250, the Agency 
is using U.S. Census data rather than the Dodge report. The Dodge 
report does not include data on townhomes separate from 
condominiums; townhomes and condominiums are both grouped together 
in the Dodge report's multifamily category. For the purposes of 
analyzing the change to this provision, OSHA needs to be able to 
separate condominiums from townhomes; the U.S. Census' definition of 
a single family homes identically matches the new home constructions 
that the Agency needs to measure. Therefore, OSHA believes the data 
provided from the U.S. Census is the best available for analyzing 
the proposed update to 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduced burden hours: 483,000 houses x .25 hours = 120,750 hours.
    Reduced cost: 120,750 hours x $24.42 = $2,948,715.
Excavation Hazards
    In 1989, OSHA updated Sec.  1926.651(j)--Specific Excavation 
Requirements--Protection of Employees from Loose Rock or Soil, to add 
the phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' when referring to loose rock or 
soil and excavated or other materials or equipment. A number of 
Administrative Law Judges of the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission (OSHRC) later ruled that the added phrase in the standard 
shifts the burden of determining whether loose rock or soil and 
excavated or other material or equipment poses a hazard to employees to 
OSHA, before OSHA can establish a violation. These rulings are 
inconsistent with what OSHA intended, as the preamble to the 1989 
revision does not indicate that OSHA intended to shift the burden when 
it revised the 1971 provisions, but rather intended to clarify the 
language of the provisions. Thus, the Agency is proposing to remove the 
phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and 
(j)(2).
    OSHA believes that this revision would clarify its original intent 
that the burden is on employers to protect their employees from loose 
rock or soil and excavated or other materials or equipment, and that 
OSHA does not have the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of 
a hazard. Consistent with the Agency's intent, no estimated costs or 
cost savings were attributed to this additional language in the 1989 
update to the original 1971 rule (54 FR 45894). Hence, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that no cost or compliance burdens would be 
associated with the proposed removal of this language.
Decompression Tables
    OSHA is proposing to replace the current decompression tables found 
in Appendix A to subpart S of part 1926--Underground Construction, 
Caissons, Cofferdams and Compressed Air--with the 1992 French Air and 
Oxygen decompression tables, which are an updated industry standard, 
and are therefore preferred over the Agency's existing tables. The 
information available to the Agency currently indicates that 
underground projects which incorporate new tunneling technology have 
not followed OSHA's existing decompression tables, but instead, have 
followed the French or other updated tables. In each case, federal OSHA 
or a state plan state had been persuaded by the available research and 
studies that the new decompression methods provide better protection 
for underground workers and has issued a variance.
    Since underground tunneling projects currently already use these 
proposed tables, OSHA has preliminary determined that the replacement 
of its existing Decompression Tables in Appendix A to subpart S of part 
1926 with the French tables would not result in an increase of cost to 
affected employers. OSHA seeks comment regarding any establishment that 
does not currently use the French tables and/or uses any other updated 
tables. This should provide some relief for employers who currently 
wish to use the newer tables, in that they would no longer need to 
apply for a variance from the Agency. The Agency however, has not 
quantified a cost savings associated with this reduced burden to 
employers.
Rollover Protective Structures
    OSHA is proposing to amend the existing standards in 29 CFR part 
1926 subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection 
(Sec.  1926.1001, 1002, and 1003). The existing standards, which are 
based on consensus standards from 1970, will be amended to remove the 
provisions that specify test procedures and performance requirements. 
The revised provisions will reference the 1970 consensus standards for 
equipment manufactured prior to the effective date of the final rule. 
They will also reference the most recent ISO standards: ISO 3471-2008, 
ISO 5700-2013 and ISO 3449-2005, for new equipment manufactured after 
the effective date of the final rule. It is OSHA's understanding that 
all industries affected by this change are already following the new 
ISO standards, and therefore has preliminarily concluded that this 
change would not create any new costs for employers. However, OSHA 
seeks comments on this conclusion and on current adherence to the ISO 
standards in the affected industries.
    The Agency also proposes to expand the existing regulatory language 
of Sec.  1926.1000 and 1001 to cover compactors and skid-steer loaders, 
as telegraphed previously by reserving existing paragraph 1000(a)(2). 
OSHA believes that this new equipment, as with the equipment currently 
covered by the existing standard, already adheres to the minimum 
performance criteria for ROPS as set forth in the recent ISO standards, 
but seeks further comment. If OSHA is correct about the current 
compliance for this new equipment, then OSHA preliminarily concludes 
that this change would not add any new compliance cost to employers. 
OSHA seeks comments on this issue as well.
Underground Construction--Diesel Engine
    Existing regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) requires 
that mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground comply with the 
Mine Safety Health Administration's (MSHA) provisions of 30 CFR part 
32. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it with updated 
provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E and 30 CFR 75.1909 Non-
permissible diesel-powered equipment; design and performance 
requirements, 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-

[[Page 68536]]

powered equipment; electrical system design and performance 
requirements, and 75.1911 Fire suppression systems for diesel-powered 
equipment and fuel transportation units (61 FR 55411). In 2001, MSHA 
issued 30 CFR 57.5067 to allow engines that meet Environmental 
Protection Administration (EPA) requirements to be used as an 
alternative to seeking MSHA approval under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 
5706). The Agency proposes to update the regulatory language in Sec.  
1926.800(k)(10)(ii) to cross-reference these updated provisions.
    If adopted, these changes will allow employers who use diesel-
powered engines on mobile equipment in underground construction to use 
current MSHA procedures to obtain approval plates to affix to the 
engines or meet or exceed the applicable EPA requirements listed at 
MSHA Table 57.5067-1, and meet the requirements for other machine 
features in 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a)-(i) for non-
permissible diesel-powered engines. Based on available information, 
OSHA has determined that currently manufactured equipment meets the 
proposed requirements and are generally compliant with the more 
stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission requirements (ERG, 2015). The 
Agency has therefore preliminarily concluded that all applicable new 
equipment currently available for in the market meets the proposed 
requirements.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using equipment 
that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA requirements 
referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing existing equipment 
in use, the Agency proposes to allow equipment purchased before the 
effective date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms 
of existing Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved 
by MSHA under 30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent 
to such MSHA-approved equipment). OSHA solicits comment on the number 
of engines in use that meet the existing standard but will not meet the 
requirements of the new MSHA standard and whether continued use of such 
equipment presents a serious safety or health hazard. OSHA also seeks 
comment on whether this proposed grandfathering is workable.
    The Agency observes that some parts of the updated MSHA regulations 
have additional requirements, such as the potential need for training 
on fire suppression systems. However, as discussed in the Summary and 
Explanation, OSHA proposes to carry over the reference to only 
equipment requirements in the MSHA standards. Therefore, as explained, 
these other elements of the MSHA standards would not apply here and 
would therefore carry no cost.
    In summary, because diesel equipment manufactured for underground 
construction apparently conforms with the newer MSHA standards, and the 
proposal would ``grandfather'' in existing equipment, the Agency 
believes employers will not have additional expenses in complying with 
the this proposed change to the Underground Construction standard. OSHA 
welcomes comments on this preliminary conclusion.
Coke Oven Emissions
    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in 
construction. In the Summary and Explanation, the point was made that 
the provisions of this standard do not fit construction work. Therefore 
OSHA is proposing to delete 29 CFR 1926.1129 (and the reference to it 
in 29 CFR 1926.55).
    An interpretation letter to Mr. Katz from Assistant Secretary 
Charles Jeffress on June 22, 1999 stated, ``We will remove 29 CFR 
1926.1129 from OSHA's Internet Web site; the standard will be deleted 
from Part 1926 Code of Federal Regulations, and we [OSHA] will formally 
notify OSHA field offices that Sec.  1926.1129 is not to be enforced.'' 
Since OSHA is not enforcing Sec.  1926.1129 and it has no applicability 
to construction, this change will have no cost.
Removal of Social Security Number Collection Requirements From OSHA's 
Standards
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is proposing to 
delete the requirements in its standards for employers to use social 
security numbers to identify employees on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records. The Agency believes that while this 
change will help employers to protect their employees from identity 
theft, it will not impose new costs upon employers. The proposed 
changes would not require employers to delete social security numbers 
from existing records, nor would they prohibit employers from 
continuing to use them to identify employees; employers would simply no 
longer be required to include employee social security numbers on the 
records. The Agency believes that these changes have the potential to 
provide benefits to both employees and employers and potential cost 
savings, but OSHA has not quantified those potential benefits and 
savings for this preliminary analysis.

C. Summary

    OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed provisions do not 
impose costs of any significance on any employer, and therefore 
concludes that the proposed rule is economically feasible. Table IV-2 
provides a brief summary of the cost savings and benefits OSHA 
estimates would result from the proposed rule.

                               TABLE IV-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Item                        Cost savings/benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove the load limit posting            $2,948,715.
 requirement for single family
 dwellings or townhouses in Sec.
 1926.250 (a)(2).
Remove the requirement for periodic CXR  266,697.
 in Sec.   1910.1029, Sec.   1910.1045,
 and Sec.   1910.1018.
Revise paragraph (f) in 29 CFR 1926.50-- -27,899.
 Medical Services and First Aid.
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................  3,187,513.
Allow digital storage of chest           Reduces storage costs, brings
 roentgenograms in Sec.   1910.1029,      standard up to date,
 Sec.   1910.1045, Sec.   1910.1018,      simplifies.
 Sec.   1910.1001, Sec.   1915.1001,
 Sec.   1926.1101, Sec.   1910.1027,and
 Sec.   1926.1127.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68537]]

 
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove the requirement for periodic CXR  Reduced radiation, fewer false
 in Sec.   1910.1029, Sec.   1910.1045,   positives.
 and Sec.   1910.1018.
Update required pulmonary function       Brings OSHA standards up to
 testing requirements in Sec.             current technology and medical
 1910.1043.                               practices.
Revise decompression tables to require   Better protect employees,
 adherence to 1992 French Air and         reduce cases of decompression
 Oxygen Decompression tables in Subpart   illness, bring OSHA standard
 S of Part 1926.                          up to current medical
                                          guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the 
proposed rule to determine whether these proposed requirements would 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This proposed rule has estimated annual costs of $27,899 and 
would lead to approximately $3.2 million per year in cost savings to 
regulated entities. Since the costs related to this proposal (from 
posting location information in limited circumstances) amount to a few 
dollars per construction project, and are widely dispersed 
geographically and throughout the industry, the Agency believes the 
proposed rule does not possess potential to have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency therefore 
certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
References
BLS, 2013a. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment 
Survey. May 2013. BLS Occupational Code: Construction Laborer 47-
2061. Found at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472061.htm.
BLS, 2013b. Employer Cost for Employee Compensation, December 2013. 
Economic News Release March 12th 2014. Found at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t06.htm.
Census, 2012. U.S. Census Bureau, ``Characteristics of New Housing 
2012.'' Found at: https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html.
Census, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Spending Survey data, 
accessed from https://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata.
Dodge Data and Analytics, data run, 2 Penn Plaza New York, New York 
10121.
ERG, 2015. Eastern Research Group, ``Supporting Information for 
Standard Improvement Project 4,''.September, 2015.
FCC, 2014. Federal Communications Commission, ``911 Wireless 
Services Guide,'' December 2014.
NENA, 2001. RCN Commission and the National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA), ``Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, 
Accessibility and Future of America's 9-1-1 Service,'' September 
2001. Found at: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/collection/7F122EC0-BC5A-46DD-9A65-B39A035E87D5/NENA_Report_to_the_Nation_1.pdf.
OSHA, 1989. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis. Regulatory Impact and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 29 CFR 190.147 (The Control of 
Hazardous Energy Sources--Lockout/Tagout) August, 1989. Found at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OSHA-S012A-2006-0642-
0266.

V. 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; authorized 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 
required 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 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 safety 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).)

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., include enhancing the quality and utility of information 
the Federal government requires and minimizing the paperwork and 
reporting burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions 
before

[[Page 68538]]

an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information (paperwork), 
including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a 
brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information. 
PRA defines ``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)). Under PRA, a 
Federal agency may not 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 (44 U.S.C. 3507). 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 (44 
U.S.C. 3512).
    The Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV) proposal would 
modify a number of Information Collections currently approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA.

B. Solicitation of Comments

    Concurrent with publication of this proposed rule, the Department 
is submitting a series of Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to 
revise the collections in accordance with this NPRM, as required by the 
PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Some of these revisions, if adopted, would 
result in changes to the existing burden hour and/or cost estimates. 
Other revisions may be less significant and would not change the ICR 
burden hour and cost estimates.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The proposal would revise to existing standard provisions 
that are not collections of information. These revisions are not 
addressed in this preamble section. However some revisions will 
modify language contained in a currently OMB approved information 
collection (paperwork analysis), though they will not change burden 
hour or cost estimates. These information collections, referenced by 
OMB Control number, are included in this section since the Agency 
will prepare and submit an ICR to OMB to incorporate the revised 
language into the existing information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency solicits comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this NPRM. The Agency is particularly 
interested in comments on the collections of information requirements 
that:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information 
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's 
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     Evaluate the accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden 
(time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including 
the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and
     Minimize the compliance burden on employers, for example, 
by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and 
transmitting information.

C. Proposed Revisions to the Collection of Information Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the 
following paragraphs provide information about the ICRs, including the 
changes in burden associated with the proposed revisions to information 
collection requirements.
    1. Title: Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV)
    2. Description of revisions to the ICRs: The SIP-IV proposal adds, 
removes, or revises collection of information requirements, as further 
explained in Table 1(a) that identifies those ICRs where the proposal 
will change burden hours and costs. For those ICRs, Table 1(b) itemizes 
the responses, frequencies, time, burden hours, and cost as a result of 
the program change. Table 2 identifies those ICRs where the proposal 
will add to or revise the text of standards, but do not result in a 
burden or cost change as result.

           Table 1(a)--ICRs With Proposed Burden Hour Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   OMB control       Provisions being
           ICR title                   No.               modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR           1218-0128  OSHA is proposing to
 1910.1029).                                      remove the requirement
                                                  for periodic chest x-
                                                  rays as part of the
                                                  medical exams for
                                                  employees. In
                                                  addition, OSHA is
                                                  proposing to add the
                                                  option of digital
                                                  radiography to its
                                                  existing standards
                                                  because digital
                                                  radiography systems
                                                  are rapidly replacing
                                                  traditional analog
                                                  film-based systems in
                                                  medical facilities.
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR                 1218-0126  OSHA is proposing to
 1910.1045).                                      remove the requirement
                                                  for periodic chest x-
                                                  rays as part of the
                                                  medical exams for
                                                  employees. OSHA is
                                                  proposing to add the
                                                  option of digital
                                                  radiography to its
                                                  existing standards
                                                  because digital
                                                  radiography systems
                                                  are rapidly replacing
                                                  traditional analog
                                                  film-based systems in
                                                  medical facilities.
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR             1218-0104  OSHA is proposing to
 1910.1018).                                      remove the requirement
                                                  for periodic chest x-
                                                  rays as part of the
                                                  medical exams for
                                                  employees. OSHA is
                                                  proposing to add the
                                                  option of digital
                                                  radiography to its
                                                  existing standards
                                                  because digital
                                                  radiography systems
                                                  are rapidly replacing
                                                  traditional analog
                                                  film-based systems in
                                                  medical facilities.
Construction Standards on             1218-0093  OSHA is proposing to
 Posting Emergency Telephone                      add to 29 CFR
 Numbers and Floor Load Limits                    1926.50(f) a
 (29 CFR 1926.50 and 29 CFR                       requirement that when
 1926.250).                                       an employer uses a
                                                  communication system
                                                  for contacting 911
                                                  services, if the
                                                  communication system
                                                  is in an area that
                                                  does not automatically
                                                  supply the caller's
                                                  latitude and longitude
                                                  to the 911 dispatcher,
                                                  the employer must post
                                                  or otherwise provide
                                                  to employees the
                                                  latitude and longitude
                                                  of the work site or
                                                  other information that
                                                  communicates the
                                                  location of the
                                                  worksite. In addition,
                                                  OSHA is proposing to
                                                  remove the load limit
                                                  posting requirement
                                                  for single family
                                                  dwellings or
                                                  townhouses in 29 CFR
                                                  1926.250.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 68539]]


                                                       Table 1(b)--Estimated Burden Hours and Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Estimated
                                                                                                                                                cost
                                                                                                                    Average     Estimated     (capital-
     ICR Title and paragraph modified       OMB control   Number of    Number of       Frequency per response       time per   burden hour    operation
                                                No.      respondents   responses                                    response     /program        and
                                                                                                                    (hours)       change    maintenance)
                                                                                                                                               change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029)        1218-0128        2,324        2,324  Annual.......................         1.42         -581     -$159,008
 (Sec.   1910.1029(j)).
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045) (Sec.        1218-0126          467          467  Annual.......................         1.25         -117       -31,952
 1910.1045(n)).
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018) (Sec.    1218-0104          792          792  Annual.......................         1.42         -198       -54,188
   1910.1018(n)).
Construction Standard on Posting Emergency    1218-0093       22,849       22,849  Annual.......................          .05        1,142        27,899
 Telephone Numbers (29 CFR 1926.50) \43\
 (Sec.   1926.50(f)).
Construction Standard on Floor Load Limits    1218-0093      483,000      483,000  Annual.......................         0.25     -120,750    -2,948,715
 (29 CFR 1926.250) (Sec.   1926.250 (a)).
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total...............................  ...........      509,432      509,432  .............................  ...........     -120,504    -3,165,964
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \43\ Both 29 CFR 1926.50 and 1926.250 are covered by the same 
ICR, 1218-0093.

                               Table 2--ICRs With No Proposed Burden Hour Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  OMB control
                   ICR title                          No.                   Provisions being modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos in General Industry (29 CFR                 1218-0133  OSHA is proposing to add the option of digital
 1910.1001).                                                     radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)...       1218-0134  OSHA is proposing to add the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001)......       1218-0195  OSHA is proposing to add the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Cadmium in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1127)....       1218-0186  OSHA is proposing to add the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027)       1218-0185  OSHA is proposing to add the option of digital
                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                 in medical facilities.
Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043)................       1218-0061  OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (h) and
                                                                 Appendix D of its Cotton Dust standard. Many of
                                                                 the revisions are simply editorial, to clarify
                                                                 existing language, as well as to update
                                                                 outdated pulmonary function measurements. OSHA
                                                                 is also proposing to update paragraph
                                                                 (h)(2)(iii) to require a determination of the
                                                                 FEV1/FVC ration, and the evaluation of FEV1,
                                                                 FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the lower limit of
                                                                 normal (LLN) for each race/ethnic group, by
                                                                 age, which is consistent with generally
                                                                 accepted practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal will also have an impact on the provisions in OSHA's 
standards that currently require employers to include employee SSNs on 
exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and other records. As 
explained above in the Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule 
section (see Section III.B.17.), the Agency previously considered 
stakeholder comments regarding the SSN collection requirements in 
OSHA's standards during the SIP II (70 FR 1112, January 5, 2005) and 
Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285, March 25, 2016) 
rulemakings. Eliminating SSN collection requirements from OSHA's 
standards will affect several of the ICRs covered under the PRA. Table 
3 shows the control number, title, and paragraph or appendix modified 
for each of the ICRs that will be affected. The agency believes 
removing the social security numbers will have no measureable impact on 
employer burden.

            Table 3--ICRs Affected by Social Security Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Paragraph/
       OMB control No.                  Title          appendix modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-0202....................  Hazardous Waste         1910.120(f)(8)(ii
                                Operations and          )(A),
                                Emergency Response      1926.65(f)(8)(ii
                                for General Industry    )(A).
                                (29 CFR 1910.120) and
                                Construction (29 CFR
                                1926.65).
1218-0133....................  Asbestos in General     1910.1001(m)(1)(i
                                Industry (29 CFR        i)(F),
                                1910.1001).             1910.1001(m)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        D.
1218-0010....................  Vinyl Chloride          1910.1017(m)(1).
                                Standard (29 CFR
                                1910.1017).
1218-0104....................  Inorganic Arsenic (29   1910.1018(q)(1)(i
                                CFR 1910.1018).         i)(D),
                                                        1910.1018(q)(2)(
                                                        ii)(A).

[[Page 68540]]

 
1218-0092....................  Lead Standard in        1910.1025(d)(5),
                                General Industry (29    1910.1025(n)(1)(
                                CFR 1910.1025).         ii)(D),
                                                        1910.1025(n)(2)(
                                                        ii)(A),
                                                        1910.1025(n)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        B.
1218-0252....................  Hexavalent Chromium     1910.1026(m)(1)(i
                                Standards for General   i)(F),
                                Industry (29 CFR        1910.1026(m)(4)(
                                1910.1026), Shipyard    ii)(A),
                                Employment (29 CFR      1915.1026(k)(1)(
                                1915.1026), and         ii)(F),
                                Construction (29 CFR    1915.1026(k)(4)(
                                1926.1126).             ii)(A),
                                                        1926.1126(k)(1)(
                                                        ii)(F),
                                                        1926.1126(k)(4)(
                                                        ii)(A).
1218-0185....................  Cadmium in General      1910.1027(n)(1)(i
                                Industry Standard (29   i)(B),
                                CFR 1910.1027).         1910.1027(n)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        D.
1218-0129....................  Benzene (29 CFR         1910.1028(k)(1)(i
                                1910.1028).             i)(D),
                                                        1910.1028(k)(2)(
                                                        ii)(A).
1218-0128....................  Coke Oven Emissions     1910.1029(m)(1)(i
                                (29 CFR 1910.1029).     )(a),
                                                        1910.1029(m)(2)(
                                                        i)(a).
1218-0180....................  Bloodborne Pathogens    1910.1030(h)(1)(i
                                Standard (29 CFR        i)(A).
                                1910.1030).
1218-0061....................  Cotton Dust (29 CFR     1910.1043(k)(1)(i
                                1910.1043).             i)(C),
                                                        1910.1043(k)(2)(
                                                        ii)(A),
                                                        Appendices B-I,
                                                        B-II, B-III.
1218-0101....................  1,2-Dibromo-3-          1910.1044(p)(1)(i
                                Choropropane (DBCP)     i)(d),
                                Standard (29 CFR        1910.1044(p)(2)(
                                1910.1044).             ii)(a).
1218-0126....................  Acrylonitrile Standard  1910.1045(q)(2)(i
                                (29 CFR 1910.1045).     i)(D).
1218-0108....................  Ethylene Oxide (EtO)    1910.1047(k)(2)(i
                                Standard (29 CFR        i)(F),
                                1910.1047).             1910.1047(k)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A).
1218-0145....................  Formaldehyde Standard   1910.1048(o)(1)(v
                                (29 CFR 1910.1048).     i),
                                                        1910.1048(o)(3)(
                                                        i),
                                                        1910.1048(o)(4)(
                                                        ii)(D), Appendix
                                                        D.
1218-0184....................  4,4'-                   1910.1050(n)(3)(i
                                Methylenedianiline      i)(D),
                                (MDA) for General       1910.1050(n)(4)(
                                Industry (29 CFR        ii)(A),
                                1910.1050).             1910.1050(n)(5)(
                                                        ii)(A).
1218-0170....................  1,3-Butadiene Standard  1910.1051(m)(2)(i
                                (29 CFR 1910.1051).     i)(F),
                                                        1910.1051(m)(4)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        F.
1218-0179....................  Methylene Chloride (29  1910.1052(m)(2)(i
                                CFR 1910.1052).         i)(F),
                                                        1910.1052(m)(2)(
                                                        iii)(C),
                                                        1910.1052(m)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        B.
1218-0266....................  Respirable Crystalline
                                Silica Standards for
                                General Industry,
                                Shipyard Employment
                                and Marine Terminals
                                (29 CFR 1910.1053)
                                and Construction (29
                                CFR 1926.1153)
                                1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G
                                ),
                                1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(A
                                ),
                                1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G
                                ),
                                1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(A
                                ).
1218-0195....................  Asbestos in Shipyards   1915.1001(n)(2)(i
                                Standard (29 CFR        i)(F),
                                1915.1001).             1915.1001(n)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        D.
1218-0134....................  Asbestos in             1926.1101(n)(2)(i
                                Construction (29 CFR    i)(F),
                                1926.1101).             1926.1101(n)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A), Appendix
                                                        D.
1218-0186....................  Cadmium in              1926.1127(d)(2)(i
                                Construction Standard   v),
                                (29 CFR 1926.1127).     1926.1127(n)(1)(
                                                        ii)(B),
                                                        1926.1127(n)(3)(
                                                        ii)(A).
1218-0183....................  4,4'-                   1926.60(o)(4)(ii)
                                Methylenedianiline      (F),
                                (MDA) in Construction   1926.60(o)(5)(ii
                                (29 CFR 1926.60).       )(A).
1218-0189....................  Lead in Construction    1926.62(d)(5),
                                Standard (29 CFR        1926.62(n)(1)(ii
                                1926.62).               )(D),
                                                        1926.62(n)(2)(ii
                                                        )(A),
                                                        1926.62(n)(3)(ii
                                                        )(A), Appendix
                                                        B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above-described changes, the Agency will make 
adjustments to the some of the ICRs to reflect on-going PRA 
interpretations that will result in changes to the burden hours and 
costs; these changes are not a result of this rulemaking.

D. Submitting Comments

    Members of the public who wish to comment on the paperwork 
requirements in this proposal must send their written comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer 
for the DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments to OMB by email at 
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference the ICR's OMB control 
number in order to help ensure proper consideration. The Agency 
encourages commenters also to submit their comments on these paperwork 
requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-2012-0007), 
along with their comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For 
instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see 
the sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and  
ADDRESSES.

E. Docket and Inquiries

    To access the docket to read or download comments and other 
materials related to these paperwork determination, including the ICR 
(containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the 
paperwork determinations in detail) use the procedures described under 
the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an 
electronic copy of the complete ICRs by visiting the Web page at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll under ``Currently Under 
Review'' to ``Department of Labor (DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's 
ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for

[[Page 68541]]

proposed rulemakings. 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.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, 
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior 
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and 
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and 
the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for 
preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. 
Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that 
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and 
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that 
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State Plan 
States.'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards 
developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards.
    While OSHA drafted this proposed rule to protect employees in every 
State, Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State Plan States and 
Territories to develop and enforce their own standards, provided the 
requirements in these standards are at least as safe and healthful as 
the requirements specified in this proposed rule.
    In summary, this proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132. 
In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed 
from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same 
manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-
approved State Plans, this rulemaking would not significantly limit 
State policy options.

VIII. State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 28 States and U.S. territories 
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans 
(``State Plan States'') must revise their standards to reflect the new 
standard or amendment. The State standard must be at least as effective 
as the final Federal standard or amendment, and must be promulgated 
within six months of the publication date of the final Federal rule (29 
U.S.C. 667(c)(2); 29 CFR 1953.5(a)).
    A State-Plan State may demonstrate that a standard change is 
unnecessary because the State standard is already the same as or at 
least as effective as the new or amended Federal standard. In order to 
avoid delays in worker protection, the effective date of the State 
standard and any of its delayed provisions must be the date of State 
promulgation or the Federal effective date, whichever is later. The 
Assistant Secretary may permit a longer time period if the State timely 
demonstrates that good cause exists for extending the time limitation 
(29 CFR 1953.5(a)). Of the 28 States and territories with OSHA-approved 
State plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto 
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 
and Wyoming. Six States and territories cover only public-sector 
employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and the 
Virgin Islands.
    When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not 
impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing 
standard, State Plan States are not required to amend their standards, 
although OSHA may encourage them to do so.
    OSHA concludes that this final rule, by revising confusing, 
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent standards, will increase the 
protection afforded to employees while reducing the compliance burden 
of employers. Therefore, States and Territories with approved State 
Plans must adopt comparable amendments to their standards within six 
months of the promulgation date of this rule unless they demonstrate 
that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards 
are at least as effective in protecting workers as this final rule.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As discussed in section IV (``Preliminary 
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification'') of 
this notice, the Agency determined that this proposed rule has one 
revision with estimated annual new costs of $27,899, but all proposed 
revisions would result in approximately $3.2 million per year in 
overall (net) cost savings to regulated entities.
    As noted under section VIII (``State Plans'') of this notice, the 
Agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except 
in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the 
Agency. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the definition 
of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see Section 421(5) of the 
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the 
Agency certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate that State, 
local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory 
obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more 
than $100 million in any year.

X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health

    OSHA must to consult with the ACCSH whenever the Agency proposes a 
rulemaking that involves the occupational safety and health of 
construction employees (29 CFR 1911.10, 1912.3). Accordingly, prior to 
the dates of meetings listed below, OSHA distributed to the ACCSH 
members for their review, a copy of the proposed revisions that applied 
to construction, as well as a brief summary and explanation of these 
revisions. At the regular meetings on December 15-16, 2011, May 10-11 
2012, November 29, 2012, March 18, 2013, May 23, 2013, August 22, 2013, 
May 7-8 2014, December 3-4, 2014, and December 2, 2015, OSHA staff made 
presentations to the ACCSH members that summarized the material 
provided to them earlier, and then responded to their questions. The 
ACCSH subsequently recommended that OSHA publish the proposal.

XI. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments and Access to the Docket

    OSHA invites comments on the proposed revisions described, and the 
specific issues raised, in this notice. These comments should include 
supporting information and data. OSHA will carefully review and 
evaluate these comments, information, and data, as well as any other 
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
    When submitting comments, parties must follow the procedures 
specified in the previous sections titled DATES and

[[Page 68542]]

ADDRESSES. The comments must provide the name of the commenter and 
docket number. The comments also should identify clearly the provision 
of the proposal each comment is addressing, the position taken with 
respect to the proposed provision or issue, and the basis for that 
position. Comments, along with supporting data and references, 
submitted on or before the end of the specified comment period will 
become part of the proceedings record, and will be available for public 
inspection and copying at https://www.regulations.gov.

B. Requests for an Informal Public Hearing

    Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of 
the public may request an informal public hearing by following the 
instructions under the section of this Federal Register notice titled 
ADDRESSES. Hearing requests must include the name and address of the 
party requesting the hearing, and submitted (e.g., postmarked, 
transmitted, sent) on or before December 5, 2016. All submissions must 
bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1904

    Recordkeeping.

29 CFR Part 1910

    Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Lockout/
tagout, Pulmonary-function testing, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Chest X-ray requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sanitation.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Airborne contaminants, Construction, Chest X-ray requirements, Coke 
oven emissions, Diesel equipment, Decompression table, Excavations, 
Emergency services, Incorporation by reference, Lanyards, Load limits, 
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD), Personal protective 
equipment, Process safety management, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Roll-over protective structures (ROPs).

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized 
the preparation of this notice pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 
29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 10, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is proposing to amend 29 
CFR parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926 as set forth below:

PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND 
ILLNESSES

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1904 to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of 
Labor's Orders No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) and 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable, and 5 U.S.C. 553.

Subpart C--Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria

0
2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1904.10 to read as follows:


Sec.  1904.10  Recording criteria for cases involving occupational 
hearing loss.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) If a physician or other licensed health care professional 
determines the hearing loss is not work-related, do I still need to 
record the case? If a physician or other licensed health care 
professional determines, following the rules set out in Sec.  1904.5, 
that the hearing loss is not work-related or that occupational noise 
exposure did not significantly aggravate the hearing loss, you do not 
have to consider the case work-related or record the case on the OSHA 
300 Log.
* * * * *

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

0
3. The authority section for part 1910 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable.
    Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8, and 1910.9 also issued under 29 
CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 
U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); 
Public Law 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 
1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).

Subpart A--General

0
4. Add paragraphs (aa) and (bb) to Sec.  1910.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.6  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (aa) The following material is available for purchase at the 
American Thoracic Society (ATS), 25 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, NY 
10004; Web site: https://www.atsjournals.org/.
    (1) Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S. 
Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of 
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159(1):179-187, January 1999, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1910.1043(h).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (bb) The following material is available for purchase from the 
International Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 
Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 
(0) 22 798 8685; Web site: https://www.ilo.org/.
    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1910.1001, Appendix E.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart J--General Environmental Controls

0
5. The authority section for subpart J continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.

0
6. Amend Sec.  1910.147 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(iii)(A), and (a)(3)(i);
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Servicing and/or maintenance'' in 
paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4)(i) note;
0
d. Revising paragraph (f)(4);
0
e. Revising Appendix A.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.147  The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines 
and equipment in which the energization or

[[Page 68543]]

startup of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could 
cause injury to employees. This standard establishes minimum 
performance requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Work on cord and plug connected electric equipment for which 
exposure to the hazards of energization or startup of the equipment is 
controlled by the unplugging of the equipment from the energy source 
and by the plug being under the exclusive control of the employee 
performing the servicing or maintenance.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) This section requires employers to establish a program and 
utilize procedures for affixing appropriate lockout devices or tagout 
devices to energy isolating devices, and to otherwise disable machines 
or equipment to prevent energization, startup or release of stored 
energy in order to prevent injury to employees.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Servicing and/or maintenance. Workplace activities such as 
constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, 
and maintaining and/or servicing machines or equipment. These 
activities include lubrication, cleaning or unjamming of machines or 
equipment and making adjustments or tool changes, where the employee 
may be exposed to the energization or startup of the equipment or 
release of hazardous energy.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Energy control program. The employer shall establish a program 
consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic 
inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing 
or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the energizing, startup 
or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine 
or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered 
inoperative.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    Note: Exception: The employer need not document the required 
procedure for a particular machine or equipment, when all of the 
following elements exist: (1) The machine or equipment has no potential 
for stored or residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after 
shut down which could endanger employees; (2) the machine or equipment 
has a single energy source which can be readily identified and 
isolated; (3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will 
completely deenergize and deactivate the machine or equipment; (4) the 
machine or equipment is isolated from that energy source and locked out 
during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device will 
achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under the 
exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the servicing 
or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not create 
hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing this 
exception, has had no accidents involving the activation or 
reenergization of the machine or equipment during servicing or 
maintenance.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Shift or personnel changes. Specific procedures shall be 
utilized during shift or personnel changes to ensure the continuity of 
lockout or tagout protection, including provision for the orderly 
transfer of lockout or tagout device protection between off- going and 
oncoming employees, to minimize exposure to hazards from the 
energization or startup of the machine or equipment, or the release of 
stored energy.
* * * * *

[[Page 68544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.000


[[Page 68545]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.001


[[Page 68546]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.002


[[Page 68547]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.003

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
7. Revise the authority citation for subpart Z to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, except those substances that have 
exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 
1910.1000. The latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 
655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic 
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI) 
listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract 
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 
29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat. 
1901.
    Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.

0
8. Amend Sec.  1910.1001 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (l)(3)(ii);
0
b. Revising the heading to Table 1;
0
c. Revising Appendix D;
0
d. Revising Appendix E;
0
e. Revising Appendix H, sections III and IV(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and 
work history; a complete physical examination of all systems with 
emphasis on the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and 
digestive tract; completion of the respiratory disease standardized 
questionnaire in Appendix D to this section, part 1; a 14- by 17-inch 
or other reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior 
chest X-ray; pulmonary function tests to include forced vital capacity 
(FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV(1.0)); and any 
additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician. 
Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance 
with Appendix E to this section.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance 
with the protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, 
except that the frequency of chest X-rays shall be conducted in 
accordance with Table 1, and the abbreviated standardized questionnaire 
contained in part 2 of Appendix D to this section shall be administered 
to the employee.
    Table 1--Frequency of Chest X-ray
* * * * *

[[Page 68548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.004


[[Page 68549]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.005


[[Page 68550]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.006


[[Page 68551]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.007


[[Page 68552]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.008


[[Page 68553]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.009


[[Page 68554]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.010


[[Page 68555]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.011


[[Page 68556]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.012


[[Page 68557]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.013


[[Page 68558]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.014


[[Page 68559]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.015


[[Page 68560]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.016


[[Page 68561]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.017


[[Page 68562]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.018


[[Page 68563]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.019


[[Page 68564]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.020


[[Page 68565]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.021

0
9. Amend Sec.  1910.1018 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)(A) and, (n)(3)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Revising Appendix A, section VI;
0
c. Revising Appendix C, sections I(2) and (4).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with paragraphs 
(n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least annually.
    (ii) Whenever a covered employee has not taken the examinations 
specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this 
section within six (6) months preceding the termination of employment, 
the employer shall provide such examinations to the employee upon 
termination of employment.
* * * * *

[[Page 68566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.022


[[Page 68567]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.023

0
10. Amend Sec.  1910.1027 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C);
0
 b. Revising Appendix D.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1027  Cadmium.

    (l) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the 
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining 
physician);
* * * * *

[[Page 68568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.024


[[Page 68569]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.025


[[Page 68570]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.026


[[Page 68571]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.027


[[Page 68572]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.028


[[Page 68573]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.029


[[Page 68574]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.030


[[Page 68575]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.031


[[Page 68576]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.032


[[Page 68577]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.033


[[Page 68578]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.034


[[Page 68579]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.035

0
11. Amend Sec.  1910.1029 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3);
0
b. Revising Appendix A, section VI;
0
c. Revising Appendix B, section II(A).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1029   Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
    (3) Periodic examinations. (i) The employer shall provide the 
examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii) through 
(vi) of this section at least annually for employees covered under 
paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section.
    (ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii) through (vii) of this section at 
least annually for employees 45 years of age or older or with five (5) 
or more years employment in the regulated area.
    (iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 years of age or older or with 
five (5) or more years employment in a regulated area transfers or is 
transferred from employment in a regulated area, the employer must 
continue to provide the examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) 
and (j)(2)(iii) through (vii) of this section at least annually as long 
as that employee is employed by the same employer or a successor 
employer.
* * * * *

[[Page 68580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.036


[[Page 68581]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.037

0
12. Amend Sec.  1910.1043 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(3)(ii);
0
b. Revising paragraph (n)(1);
0
c. Revising Appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
0
d. Removing and reserving Appendix C;
0
e. Revising Appendix D.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1043  Cotton Dust.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A pulmonary function measurement, including forced vital 
capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and 
determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio shall be made. FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/
FVC ratio values shall be compared to appropriate race/ethnicity-
specific Lower Limit of Normal (LLN) values and predicted values 
published in Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General 
U.S. Population, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 
Medicine, 159(1):179-187, January 1999 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  1910.6). To obtain reference values for Asian-Americans, 
Spirometric Reference Values FEV1 and FVC predicted and LLN values for 
Caucasians shall be multiplied by 0.88 to adjust for ethnic 
differences. These determinations shall be made for each employee 
before the employee enters the workplace on the first day of the work 
week, preceded by at least 35 hours of no exposure to cotton dust. The 
tests shall be repeated during the shift, no less than 4 and no more 
than 10 hours after the beginning of the work shift; and, in any event, 
no more than one hour after cessation of exposure. Such exposure shall 
be typical of the employee's usual workplace exposure.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Medical surveillance as required in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of 
this section shall be provided every six months for all employees in 
the following categories:

[[Page 68582]]

    (A) An FEV1 greater than the LLN, but with an FEV1 decrement of 5 
percent or 200 ml. on a first working day;
    (B) An FEV1 of less than the LLN; or
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Appendices B and D of this section are incorporated as part of 
this section and the contents of these appendices are mandatory.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.038


[[Page 68583]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.039


[[Page 68584]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.040


[[Page 68585]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.041


[[Page 68586]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.042


[[Page 68587]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.043


[[Page 68588]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.044


[[Page 68589]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.045


[[Page 68590]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.046


[[Page 68591]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.047


[[Page 68592]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.048


[[Page 68593]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.049


[[Page 68594]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.050


[[Page 68595]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.051


[[Page 68596]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.052


[[Page 68597]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.053


[[Page 68598]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.054


[[Page 68599]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.055


[[Page 68600]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.056


[[Page 68601]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.057


[[Page 68602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.058


[[Page 68603]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.059


[[Page 68604]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.060


[[Page 68605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.061


[[Page 68606]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.062


[[Page 68607]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.063


[[Page 68608]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.064


[[Page 68609]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.065


[[Page 68610]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.066


[[Page 68611]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.067

0
13. Revise paragraphs (n)(2)(iii), and (n)(3)(i) and (ii) of Sec.  
1910.1045 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1045  Acrylonitrile.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The employer shall provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section at least annually 
for all employees specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section.
    (ii) If an employee has not had the examination specified in 
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section within 6 months 
preceding termination of employment, the employer shall make such 
examination available to the employee prior to such termination.
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Appendix D of Sec.  1910.1048 to read as follows:

[[Page 68612]]

Sec.  1910.1048  Formaldehyde.

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.068


[[Page 68613]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.069


[[Page 68614]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.070


[[Page 68615]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.071


[[Page 68616]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.072


[[Page 68617]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.073


[[Page 68618]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.074


[[Page 68619]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.075


[[Page 68620]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.076

Sec.  1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.

* * * * *

[[Page 68621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.077


[[Page 68622]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.078


[[Page 68623]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.079


[[Page 68624]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.080


[[Page 68625]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.081


[[Page 68626]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.082


[[Page 68627]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.083


[[Page 68628]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.084


[[Page 68629]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.085


[[Page 68630]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.086


[[Page 68631]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.087


[[Page 68632]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.088


[[Page 68633]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.089


[[Page 68634]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.090


[[Page 68635]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.091

0
16. Revise Appendix B, section IV., of Sec. 1910.1052 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.1052  Methylene chloride.

* * * * *

[[Page 68636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.092


[[Page 68637]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.093


[[Page 68638]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.094


[[Page 68639]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.095


[[Page 68640]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.096


[[Page 68641]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.097


[[Page 68642]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.098


[[Page 68643]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.099


[[Page 68644]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.100


[[Page 68645]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.101

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD 
EMPLOYMENT

0
17. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; 29 CFR 
part 1911.
    Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 
CFR part 1911.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
18. Add paragraph (d)(6) to Sec.  1915.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) The following material is available for purchase from the 
International Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 
Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 
(0) 22 798 8685; Web site: https://www.ilo.org/.
    (i) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1915.1001, Appendix E.
* * * * *

Subpart F--General Working Conditions

0
19. Revise paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.80  Scope, application, definitions, and effective dates.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (33) Vermin. Insects, birds, rodents and other animals that may 
create safety and health hazards for employees.
* * * * *

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
20. Amend Sec.  1915.1001 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C);
0
b. Revising Appendix D;
0
c. Revising Appendix E;
0
d. Revising Appendix I, sections III and IV(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1915.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other 
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the physician, and 
pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced 
expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)). Classification of all chest 
X-rays shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this 
section.
* * * * *

[[Page 68646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.102


[[Page 68647]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.103


[[Page 68648]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.104


[[Page 68649]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.105


[[Page 68650]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.106


[[Page 68651]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.107


[[Page 68652]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.108


[[Page 68653]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.109


[[Page 68654]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.110


[[Page 68655]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.111


[[Page 68656]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.112


[[Page 68657]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.113


[[Page 68658]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.114


[[Page 68659]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.115


[[Page 68660]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.116


[[Page 68661]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.117


[[Page 68662]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.118


[[Page 68663]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.119

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart A--General

0
21. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 
5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), 
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
22. Amend Sec.  1926.6 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (u)(1) and removing and reserving (u)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (x)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (x)(4) 
through (6), and adding new paragraphs (x)(1) through (3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (dd); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (gg) and (hh).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.6  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Part 
6, May 2012, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a).
* * * * *
    (x) * * *
    (1) ISO 27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling 
object protective structures--Test procedures and performance 
requirements, First Edition, May.01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1003(c).
    (2) ISO 3471:2008, Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective 
structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth 
Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1001(c).
    (3) ISO 5700:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over 
protective structures--Static test method and conditions, Fifth 
Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1002(c).
* * * * *
    (dd) The following material is available for purchase from the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, 
Warrendale, PA 15096; telephone: 1-877-606-7323; fax: 724-776-0790; Web 
site: https://www.sae.org/:
    (1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
    (2) SAE J166-1971, Trucks and Wagons, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (3) SAE J167-1970, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test 
Procedures and Performance Requirements, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1003(b).
    (4) SAE J168-1970, Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and 
Performance Requirements, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
    (5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access Systems for Off-Road 
Machines, reaffirmed May 2003 (``SAE J185 (May 1993)''), IBR approved 
for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (6) SAE J236-1971, Self-Propelled Graders, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (7) SAE J237-1971, Front End Loaders and Dozers, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (8) SAE J319b-1971, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.602(a).
    (9) SAE J320a-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (10) SAE J321a-1970, Fenders for Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving 
Haulage Equipment, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (11) SAE J333a-1970, Operator Protection for Agricultural and Light 
Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (12) SAE J334a-1970, Protective Frame Test Procedures and 
Performance Requirements, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
    (13) SAE J386-1969, Seat Belts for Construction Equipment, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (14) SAE J394-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Robber-
Tired Dozers, IBR approved for 1926.1001(b).
    (15) SAE J395-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (16) SAE J396-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1001(b).
    (17) SAE J397-1969, Critical Zone Characteristics and Dimensions 
for Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
    (18) SAE J743a-1964, Tractor Mounted Side Boom, 1964 (``SAE J743a-
1964''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(a).
    (19) SAE J959-1966, Lifting Crane Wire-Rope Strength Factors, 1966 
(``SAE J959-1966''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(a).
    (20) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice Boom Cranes--Method of 
Test, revised Jun. 2003 (``SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)''), IBR approved for 
Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (21) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993), Cantilevered Boom Crane 
Structures--Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993 (``SAE J1063 (Nov. 
1993)''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
* * * * *
    (gg) The following material is available for purchase from the 
French government at https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/.
    (1) Travaux en milieu hyperbare, measures particuli[egrave]res de 
pr[eacute]vention (Work in hyperbaric environment, specific prevention 
measures). J.O. Rep. Fran[ccedil]. Brochure n[deg] 1636, June 1992.
    (2) [Reserved]

[[Page 68664]]

    (hh) The following material is available for purchase from the 
International Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 
Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 
(0) 22 798 8685; Web site: https://www.ilo.org/.
    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification 
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational 
safety and health series; 22 (Rev. 2011), IBR approved for Sec.  
1926.1101, Appendix E.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

0
23. Revise the authority citation for subpart D to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; 
and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1926.62 also issued under section 1031 of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
    Section 1926.65 also issued under section 126 of the Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as amended (reprinted at 
29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
24. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.50  Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *
    (f)(1) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are not 
available, the telephone numbers of the physicians, hospitals, or 
ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
    (2) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are available 
and an employer uses a communication system for contacting necessary 
emergency-medical service, the employer must:
    (i) Ensure that the communication system is effective in contacting 
the emergency-medical service; and
    (ii) When using a communication system in an area that does not 
automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude information to 
the 911 emergency dispatcher, the employer must post in a conspicuous 
location at the worksite either:
    (A) The latitude and longitude of the worksite; or
    (B) Other location-identification information that communicates 
effectively to employees the location of the worksite.
    Note to paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section: The requirement 
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section does not apply to 
worksites with readily available telephone land lines that have 911 
emergency service that automatically identifies the location of the 
caller.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec.  1926.55 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c);
0
c. In appendix A:
0
i. Revising the heading;
0
ii. Removing the entry for ``Coke Oven Emissions'';
0
iii. Revising entries for ``Asbestos''; ``Talc (containing asbestos); 
use asbestos limit''; ``Tremolite, asbestiform''; Footnote 3; and the 
footnote designated by a single asterisk;
0
iv. Removing Footnote 4 and the footnote designated by double 
asterisks.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.55  Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists.

    (a) Permissible Exposure Limits. Employers must limit an employee's 
exposure to any substance listed in Table A of this section in 
accordance with the following:
    (1) Substances with limits preceded by (C)--Ceiling Values. An 
employee's exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to 
any substance in Table A with a permissible exposure limit preceded by 
(C) must at no time exceed the exposure limit specified for that 
substance. If instantaneous monitoring is not feasible, then the 
employer must assess the ceiling as a 15-minute time-weighted average 
exposure that the employer cannot exceed at any time during the working 
day.
    (2) Other substances--8-hour Time Weighted Averages. An employee's 
exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to any 
substance in Table A with a permissible exposure limit not preceded by 
(C) must not exceed the limit specified for that substance measured as 
an 8-hour time-weighted average in any work shift.
* * * * *
    (c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to the 
exposure of employees to airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, 
or actinolite dust. Whenever any employee is exposed to airborne 
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, or actinolite dust, the 
requirements of Sec.  1926.1101 of this title shall apply.
* * * * *

                Table A to Sec.   1926.55--Permissible Exposure Limits for Airborne Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Skin
                    Substance                       CAS No. \d\       ppm \a\        mg/m3, b       designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Asbestos; see Sec.   1926.1101..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos limit;
 see Sec.   1926.1101...........................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.   1926.1101....
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Footnotes
* * * * *
    \3\ Use Asbestos Limit Sec.  1926.1101.
* * * * *
    * An ``X'' designation in the ``Skin Designation'' column indicates 
that the substance is a dermal hazard.

[[Page 68665]]

    \a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by 
volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
    \b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is 
in this column only, the value is exact; when listed with a ppm entry, 
it is approximate.
* * * * *
    \d\ The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on 
the substance name. For an entry covering more than one metal compound, 
measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS 
numbers for the individual compounds.
* * * * *
0
26. Revise Sec.  1926.64 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.64  Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.

    For requirements regarding the process safety management of highly 
hazardous chemicals as it pertains to construction work, follow the 
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.119 of this chapter.

Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment

0
27. The authority citation for subpart E continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 
1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
28. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.95 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.95  Criteria for personal protective equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Design and selection. Employers must ensure that all personal 
protective equipment:
    (1) Is of safe design and construction for the work to be 
performed; and
    (2) Is selected to ensure that it properly fits each affected 
employee.
* * * * *
0
29. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.104 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.104  Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards.

* * * * *
    (c) Lifelines used on rock-scaling operations, or in areas where 
the lifeline may be subjected to cutting or abrasion, shall be a 
minimum of 7/8-inch wire core manila rope. For all other lifeline 
applications, a minimum of 3/4-inch manila or equivalent, with a 
minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds, shall be used.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades

0
30. The authority citation for subpart G continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 333; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; 
and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
31. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec.  1926.200 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.200  Accident prevention signs, devices, and tags.

* * * * *
    (g) Traffic control signs and devices. (1) At points of hazard, 
construction areas shall be posted with legible traffic control signs 
and protected by traffic control devices.
    (2) The design and use of all traffic control devices, including 
signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices, for protection 
of construction workers shall conform to Part VI of the MUTCD, 2009 
Edition, including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 
2012, FHWA (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
* * * * *
0
32. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.201 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.201   Signaling.

    (a) Flaggers. Signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers, 
including warning garments worn by flaggers, shall conform to Part VI 
of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, 
including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012, FHWA 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
* * * * *


Sec.  1926.202  [Removed]

0
33. Remove Sec.  1926.202.


Sec.  1926.203   [Removed]

0
34. Remove Sec.  1926.203.

Subpart H--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal

0
35. The authority citation for subpart H continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 
or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.
    Section 1926.250 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

0
36. Revise paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  1926.250 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.250  General requirements for storage.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Employers must:
    (i) Post the maximum safe load limits of the floors within 
buildings and structures, in pounds per square foot, conspicuously in 
all storage areas, except for floors or slabs on grade, and except that 
employers need not post limits in detached single-family dwellings or 
townhouses that are under construction; and
    (ii) Ensure that loads on floors do not exceed the maximum safe 
loads of the floors.
* * * * *

Subpart P--Excavations

0
37. The authority citation for subpart P is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Worker Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable.

0
38. Revise paragraph (j) of Sec.  1926.651 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.651  Specific excavation requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) Protection of employees from loose rock or soil. (1) Where 
there is loose rock or soil on the excavation face, employers must use 
scaling to remove the loose material; install protective barricades at 
intervals as necessary on the face to stop and contain falling 
material; or use other means that provide equivalent protection.
    (2) Protection from excavated or other materials or equipment shall 
be provided by placing and keeping excavated or other materials or 
equipment at least 2 feet (.61 m) from the edge of excavations, or by 
the use of retaining devices that are sufficient to prevent materials 
or equipment from falling or rolling into excavations, or by a 
combination of both if necessary.
* * * * *

Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams, and 
Compressed Air

0
39. The authority citation for subpart S continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Orders 12- 71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 
9-83

[[Page 68666]]

(48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.

0
40. Revise paragraph (k)(10) of Sec.  1926.800 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.800  Underground construction.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10)(i) Internal combustion engines, except diesel-powered engines 
on mobile equipment, are prohibited underground.
    (ii) Mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground in 
atmospheres other than gassy operations purchased on or before [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall
    (A) Comply with paragraph (k)(10)(iii); or
    (B) Have been approved by MSHA under 30 CFR part 32 (formerly 
Schedule 24) (1995), or be demonstrated by the employer to be fully 
equivalent to such MSHA-approved equipment, and be operated in 
accordance with that part. For purposes of this subsection, when an 
applicable MSHA provision uses the term ``mine,'' use the phrase 
``underground construction site.'' (Each brake horsepower of a diesel 
engine requires at least 100 cubic feet (28.32 m\3\) of air per minute 
for suitable operation in addition to the air requirements for 
personnel. Some engines may require a greater amount of air to ensure 
that the allowable levels of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and 
nitrogen dioxide are not exceeded.)
    (iii) Mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground in 
atmospheres other than gassy operations purchased after [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall comply with 
MSHA provisions 30 CFR 57.5067, 75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) 
through (i) and shall be operated in accordance with those provisions. 
For purposes of this subsection, when an applicable MSHA provision uses 
the term ``mine,'' use the phrase ``underground construction site.'' 
(Each brake horsepower of a diesel engine requires at least 100 cubic 
feet (28.32 m\3\) of air per minute for suitable operation in addition 
to the air requirements for personnel. Some engines may require a 
greater amount of air to ensure that the allowable levels of carbon 
monoxide, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide are not exceeded.)
* * * * *
0
41. Revise paragraph (f)(1) of Sec.  1926.803 to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.803  Compressed Air.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Decompression to normal condition shall be in accordance with 
the 1992 French Air and Oxygen decompression tables (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
* * * * *

Appendix A to Subpart S of Part 1926 [Removed]

0
42. Remove appendix A to subpart S of part 1926.

Subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection

0
43. The authority citation for subpart W is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 
3912), as applicable.

0
44. Amend Sec.  1926.1000 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1000  Scope.

    (a) Coverage. This subpart applies to the following types of 
material handling equipment: All rubber-tired, self-propelled scrapers, 
rubber-tired front-end loaders, rubber-tired dozers, wheel-type 
agricultural and industrial tractors, crawler tractors, crawler-type 
loaders, and motor graders, with or without attachments, that are used 
in construction work. This subpart also applies to compactors and 
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment, with or without attachments, 
manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that are used in 
construction work. This subpart does not apply to sideboom pipelaying 
tractors.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 
Material handling equipment described in paragraph (a) of this section 
(excluding compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment) 
manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], shall be equipped 
with rollover protective structures that meet the minimum performance 
standards prescribed in Sec.  1926.1001(b), as applicable. Agricultural 
and industrial tractors used in construction shall be equipped with 
rollover protective structures that meet the minimum performance 
standards prescribed in Sec.  1926.1002(b), as applicable. When 
overhead protection is provided on agricultural and industrial 
tractors, the overhead protection shall meet the minimum performance 
standards prescribed in Sec.  1926.1003(b), as applicable.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE]. Material handling machinery described in paragraph (a) of this 
section manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], shall 
be equipped with rollover protective structures that meet the minimum 
performance standards prescribed in Sec.  1926.1001(c). Agricultural 
and industrial tractors used in construction shall be equipped with 
rollover protective structures that meet the minimum performance 
standards prescribed in Sec.  1926.1002(c). When overhead protection is 
provided on agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead 
protection shall meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in 
Sec.  1926.1003(c).
* * * * *
0
45. Section 1926.1001 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1001  Minimum performance criteria for rollover protective 
structures for designated scrapers, loaders, dozers, graders, crawler 
tractors, compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.

    (a) General. This section prescribes minimum performance criteria 
for roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers; rubber-tired front end loaders and rubber-tired 
dozers; crawler tractors and crawler-type loaders, motor graders, 
compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 
For equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding 
compactors and rubber-tired skid steer equipment) manufactured before 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the protective frames shall conform to 
the following Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practices as 
applicable: SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over 
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers; SAE 
J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure 
for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers; SAE J395, 
Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for 
Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders; SAE J396, Minimum 
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor 
Graders; and SAE J397-1969, Critical Zone Characteristics and 
Dimensions for Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, as 
applicable (each incorporated by

[[Page 68667]]

reference, see Sec.  1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard 
(ISO 3471-2008) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE]. For equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this section 
manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the protective 
frames shall meet the test and performance requirements of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 3471-
2008 Earth-Moving Machinery--Roll-over protective structures--
Laboratory tests and performance requirements (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
0
46. Amend Sec.  1926.1002 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e) through (i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) as (e)(1) and (2), 
respectively;
0
d. Removing paragraphs (j)(3) and (k).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1002  Protective frames (roll-over protective structures, 
known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used 
in construction.

    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for frames used 
to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors 
used in construction work that will minimize the possibility of 
operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal 
operation. See paragraph (e) of this section for definitions of 
agricultural and industrial tractors.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 
For equipment manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
protective frames shall meet the test and performance requirements of 
the Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J334a-1970, Protective 
Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements and J168-1970, 
Protective enclosures-test procedures and performance requirements, as 
applicable (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6), or comply 
with the consensus standard (ISO 5700-2013) listed in paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE]. For equipment manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], the protective frames shall meet the test and performance 
requirements of the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO) standard ISO 5700-2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Roll-over protective structures--static test method and acceptance 
conditions (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
    (d) For overhead protection requirements, see 29 CFR 1926.1003.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 1926.1003 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1003  Overhead protection for operators of agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction.

    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for overhead 
protection used to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and 
industrial tractors used in construction work that will minimize the 
possibility of operator injury resulting from overhead objects such as 
flying or falling objection, and from the cover itself in the event of 
accidental upset.
    (b) Equipment manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 
When overhead protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and 
industrial tractors manufactured before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
the overhead protection shall be designed and installed according to 
the requirements contained in the test and performance requirements of 
Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J167-1970, Protective Frame 
with Overhead Protection-Test Procedures and Performance Requirements, 
which pertains to overhead protection requirements (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1926.6) or comply with the consensus standard (ISO 
3449-2005) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE]. When overhead protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural 
and industrial tractors manufactured on or after [insert effective date 
of the final rule], the overhead protection shall be designed and 
installed according to the requirements contained in the test and 
performance requirements of the International Organization for 
Standardization (``ISO'') standard ISO 27850-2013, Tractors for 
agriculture and forestry--Falling object protective structures--Test 
procedures and performance requirements, which pertains to overhead 
protection requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
    (d) Site clearing. In the case of machines to which 29 CFR 1926.604 
(relating to site clearing) also applies, the overhead protection may 
be either the type of protection provided in 29 CFR 1926.604, or the 
type of protection provided by this section.

Appendix A to Subpart W of Part 1926 [Removed]

0
48. Remove appendix A to subpart W of part 1926.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
49. The authority citation for subpart Z continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 
31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; 
and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
50. Amend Sec.  1926.1101 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C);
0
b. Revising Appendix D;
0
c. Revising Appendix E;
0
d. Revising Appendix I, sections III and IV(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1101  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other 
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the physician, and 
pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced 
expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)). Classification of all chest 
X-rays shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this 
section.
* * * * *

[[Page 68668]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.120


[[Page 68669]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.121


[[Page 68670]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.122


[[Page 68671]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.123


[[Page 68672]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.124


[[Page 68673]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.125


[[Page 68674]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.126


[[Page 68675]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.127


[[Page 68676]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.128


[[Page 68677]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.129


[[Page 68678]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.130


[[Page 68679]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.131


[[Page 68680]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.132


[[Page 68681]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.133


[[Page 68682]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.134


[[Page 68683]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.135


[[Page 68684]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.136


[[Page 68685]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC16.137

0
51. Revise paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of Sec.  1926.1127 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1926.1127  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or 
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the 
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining 
physician);
* * * * *


Sec.  1926.1129   [Removed and Reserved]

0
52. Remove and reserve Sec.  1926.1129.

Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 [Amended]

0
53. In addition to the revisions and amendments set forth above, in 29 
CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926, remove words and punctuation from the 
following paragraphs and appendices as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         29 CFR
   Words and punctuation to remove    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Part 1910                Part 1915                Part 1926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and social security number...........  1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A)..  1915.1001(n)(3)(ii)(A).  1926.60(o)(5)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1001(m)(3)(ii)(A).  1915.1026(k)(4)(ii)(A).  1926.62(d)(5)
                                       1910.1017(m)(1)........                           1926.62(n)(3)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1025(d)(5)........                           1926.62 App. B,
                                       1910.1025(n)(3)(ii)(A).                           Sec. XII.
                                       1910.1025 App. B,......                           1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A)
                                       Sec. XII...............                           1926.1101(n)(3)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1026(m)(4)(ii)(A).                           1926.1126(k)(4)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1028(k)(2)(ii)(A).                           1926.1127(d)(2)(iv)
                                       1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A).                           1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1043(k)(2)(ii)(A).
                                       1910.1044(p)(2)(ii)(a).
                                       1910.1047(k)(3)(ii)(A).
                                       1910.1048(o)(3)(i).....
                                       1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(D).
                                       1910.1050(n)(5)(ii)(A).
                                       1910.1051(m)(4)(ii)(A).
                                       1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(A).
social security numbers,.............  1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C).
                                       1910.1048(o)(1)(vi)....
social security number,..............  1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D).
                                       1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D).
                                       1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F).
                                       1910.1052(m)(2)(iii)(C)
social security number...............  1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F).
                                       1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F).
                                       1910.1050(n)(4)(ii)(A).
                                       1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F).
                                       1910.1052(m)(3)(ii)(A).
social security number,..............  1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D).  1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F).  1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F)
                                       1910.1018(q)(2)(ii)(A).  1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F).  1926.62(n)(1)(ii)(D)
                                       1910.1025(n)(1)(ii)(D).                           1926.62(n)(2)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1025(n)(2)(ii)(A).                           1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F)
                                       1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F).                           1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F)
                                       1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B).                           1926.1127(n)(1)(ii)(B)
                                       1910.1027(n)(3)(ii)(A).                           1926.1127(n)(3)(ii)(A)
                                       1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a)..                           1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G)
                                       1910.1029(m)(2)(i)(a)..
                                       1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d).
                                       1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D).
                                       1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-19454 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P