- Publication Date:
- Publication Type:Unified Agenda
- Fed Register #:69:37785-38319
- Title:Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA)
is on pages 37792-37793
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage
is on pages 37792-37793
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage
| Sequence Number |
Title | Regulation Identification Number |
| 1971 | Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide (Section 610 Review) | 1218-AB60 |
| 1972 | Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica | 1218-AB70 |
| 1973 | Occupational Exposure to Beryllium | 1218-AB76 |
| 1974 | Hearing Conservation Program for Construction Workers | 1218-AB89 |
| 1975 | Cranes and Derricks | 1218-AC01 |
| 1976 | Excavations (Section 610 Review) | 1218-AC02 |
| 1977 | Ionizing Radiation | 1218-AC11 |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Proposed Rule Stage
| Sequence Number |
Title | Regulation Identification Number |
| 1978 | Longshoring and Marine Terminals (Parts 1917 and 1918) -- Reopening of the Record (Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs)) | 1218-AA56 |
| 1979 | Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium) | 1218-AB45 |
| 1980 | Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces | 1218-AB47 |
| 1981 | General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment | 1218-AB50 |
| 1982 | Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment | 1218-AB67 |
| 1983 | Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems (1910) (Slips, Trips, and Fall Prevention) | 1218-AB80 |
| 1984 | Revision and Update of Subpart S--Electrical Standards | 1218-AB95 |
| 1985 | Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards | 1218-AC08 |
| 1986 | Explosives | 1218-AC09 |
| 1987 | Slip Resistance of Skeletal Structural Steel | 1218-AC14 |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Final Rule Stage
| Sequence Number |
Title | Regulation Identification Number |
| 1988 | Assigned Protection Factors: Amendments to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection | 1218-AA05 |
| 1989 | Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (Part 1915, Subpart P) (Shipyards: Fire Safety) | 1218-AB51 |
| 1990 | Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment | 1218-AB77 |
| 1991 | Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General Industry, Marine Terminals, and Construction Standards (Phase II) | 1218-AB81 |
| 1992 | Controlled Negative Pressure Fit Testing Protocol: Amendment to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection | 1218-AC05 |
| 1993 | Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints Under Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 | 1218-AC10 |
| 1994 | Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints Under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 | 1218-AC12 |
| 1995 | Oregon State Plan | 1218-AC13 |
| 1996 | Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection | 1218-AC15 |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Completed Actions
| Sequence Number |
Title | Regulation Identification Number |
| 1997 | Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyethanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, and Their Acetates: Protecting Reproductive Health | 1218-AA84 |
| 1998 | Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis | 1218-AB46 |
| 1999 | Commercial Diving Operations: Revision | 1218-AB97 |
| 2000 | Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses (Section 610 Review) | 1218-AC03 |
| Department of Labor (DOL) | Prerule Stage |
| Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) | |
1971. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ETHYLENE OXIDE (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1047
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the ethylene oxide (ETO) standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review is considering the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, comments on the rule received from the public, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal, State or local regulations, and the degree to which technology, economic conditions or other factors may have changed since the rule was last evaluated. The Agency's findings with respect to this review will be published in a report available to the public in 2004.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Begin Review End Review |
10/01/96 11/00/04 |
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov
RIN: 1218-AB60
1972. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: Crystalline silica is a significant component of the earth's crust, and many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to it, usually in the form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from exposure of employees over long periods of time (10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general industry is based on a formula recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1971 (PEL=10mg/cubic meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for construction and maritime (derived from ACGIH's 1962 Threshold Limit Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend a 50ug/m3 exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica. Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published a recommended standard for addressing the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.
In developing a proposed standard, OSHA is currently considering several options ranging from proposing comprehensive standards simultaneously for general industry, construction, and maritime, to focusing the proposal on one or more specific issues, such as modernizing the construction and maritime PELs or standardizing sampling and analytical methods to ensure that employers and employees are receiving reliable data on employee exposures.
Statement of Need: Over two million workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust in general industry, construction and maritime industries. Industries that could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline silica include: foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting operations, paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, brick making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur; between 1990 and 1996, 200 to 300 deaths per year are known to have occurred where silicosis was identified on death certificates as an underlying or contributing cause of death. It is likely that many more cases have occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated crystalline silica as a known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline silica has also been associated with an increased risk of developing tuberculosis and other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, as well as, renal and autoimmune respiratory diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement data indicate that some workers continue to be exposed to levels of crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure limits. Congress has included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal nuclear testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the Agency to modernize its exposure limits for construction and maritime, and to address some specific issues that will need to be resolved to propose a comprehensive standard.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant risk of silicosis and other serious disease and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk. In addition, the proposed rule will recognize that the PELs for construction and maritime are outdated and need to be revised to reflect current sampling and analytical technologies.
Alternatives: Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted to address this problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, including initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 1997, sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its Web site. OSHA has determined that rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of crystalline silica. The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the scope of the rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking and estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.
Risks: A detailed risk analysis has not yet been completed for this rule.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Completed SBREFA Report Complete Peer Review of Risk Assessment |
12/19/03 02/00/05 |
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB70
1973. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In 1999 and 2001, OSHA was petitioned to issue an emergency temporary standard by the Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union, Public Citizen Health Research Group and others. The Agency denied the petitions but stated its intent to begin data gathering to collect needed information on beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of usage.
On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) (67 FR 70707) to solicit information pertinent to occupational exposure to beryllium including: current exposures to beryllium; the relationship between exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects; exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods; and medical surveillance. In addition, the Agency conducted field surveys of selected work sites to assess current exposures and control methods being used to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. OSHA is using this information to develop a proposed rule addressing occupational exposure to beryllium. OSHA plans to initiate the SBREFA process by January 2005.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Request for Information Initiate SBREFA Process |
11/26/02 01/00/05 |
67 FR 70707 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB76
1974. HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.52
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA issued a section 6(b)(5) health standard mandating a comprehensive hearing conservation program for noise-exposed workers in general industry in 1983. However, no rule was promulgated to cover workers in the construction industry. A number of recent studies have shown that many construction workers experience work-related hearing loss. In addition, the use of engineering, administrative and personal protective equipment to reduce exposures to noise is not extensive in this industry. OSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to gather information on the extent of noise-induced hearing loss among workers in different trades in this industry, current practices to reduce this loss, and additional approaches and protections that could be used to prevent such loss in the future. The Agency has reviewed the comments received and other information to determine the appropriate course of action. In order to get additional public input, stakeholder meetings have been convened.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| ANPRM ANPRM Comment Period End Stakeholder Meetings Additional Stakeholder Meeting |
08/05/02 11/04/02 03/24/04 07/21/04 |
67 FR 50610 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB89
1975. CRANES AND DERRICKS
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: Subpart N addresses hazards associated with various types of hoisting equipment used at construction sites. Such equipment includes cranes and derricks. The existing rule, which dates back to 1971, is based in part on industry consensus standards from 1958, 1968, and 1969. There have been considerable technological changes since those consensus standards were developed. Industry consensus standards for derricks and for crawler, truck and locomotive cranes were updated as recently as 1995.
Across-section of the industry has asked OSHA to update subpart N. OSHA has determined that the existing rule needs to be revised and has established a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a draft proposed rule.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Notice of Intent To Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Comment Period End Request for Comments on Proposed Committee Members Request for Comment Period End Established Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Complete Rulemaking Negotiations |
07/16/02 09/16/02 02/27/03 03/31/03 06/12/03 09/00/04 |
67 FR 46612 68 FR 9036 68 FR 9036 68 FR 35172 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Directorate of Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
Email: bswanson@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AC01
1976. EXCAVATIONS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 651 et seq; 5 USC 610
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.650 to 1926.652
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the Agency's trenching and excavations standard (29 CFR 1926.650 to 1926.652) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review is considering the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Begin Review Request for Comments Comment Period End End Review |
12/01/01 08/21/02 11/19/02 03/00/05 |
67 FR 54103 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov
RIN: 1218-AC02
1977. IONIZING RADIATIONN
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.109
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA is considering amending 29 CFR 1910.1096 that addresses exposure to ionizing radiation. The OSHA regulations were published in 1974, with only minor revisions since that time. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both have more extensive radiation standards that reflect new technological and safety advances. In addition, radiation is now used for a broader variety of purposes, including health care, food safety, mail processing, and baggage screening. OSHA is in the process of reviewing information about the issue, and will determine the appropriate course of action regarding this standard when the review is completed.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Request for Information (RFI) | 07/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC11
| Department of Labor (DOL) | Proposed Rule Stage |
| Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) | |
1978. LONGSHORING AND MARINE TERMINALS (PARTS 1917 AND 1918) -- REOPENING OF THE RECORD (VERTICAL TANDEM LIFTS (VTLS))
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1918.11; 29 CFR 1918.85
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA issued a final rule on Longshoring on July 25, 1997 (62 FR 40142). However, in that rule, the Agency reserved provisions related to vertical tandem lifts. Vertical tandem lifts (VTLs) involve the lifting of two or more empty intermodal containers, secured together with twist locks, at the same time. OSHA has continued to work with national and international organizations to gather additional information on the safety of VTLs. The Agency has published an NPRM to address safety issues related to VTLs. The extended comment period concluded 2/13/04, and an informal public hearing has been scheduled to begin on 7/29/04.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Rule on Longshoring/Marine Public Meeting on VTLs -- 1/27/1998 Second NPRM NPRM Comment Period End 2/13/04 Public Hearing Published in Federal Register - 4/13/04 |
06/06/94 09/23/94 07/25/97 10/09/97 09/16/03 12/10/03 07/29/04 |
59 FR 28594 62 FR 40142 62 FR 52671 68 FR 54298 68 FR 68804 69 FR 19361 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AA56
1979. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)
Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910
Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, October 4, 2004.
Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium (CrVI). The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Unions (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for CrVI compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). The current PEL in general industry is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as CrVI and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of CrVI in the anhydride compound equates to a PEL of PEL of 52 PEug/m3. The ceiling limit applies to all forms of CrVI, including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL of CrVI in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a P52 ug/m3. After reviewing the petition,OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b)(5) rulemaking.
OSHA began collecting data and performing preliminary analyses relevant to occupational exposure to CrVI. However, in 1997, OSHA was sued by HRG for unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. The 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in OSHA's favor and the Agency continued its data collection and analytic efforts on CrVI. In 2002, OSHA was sued again by HRG for continued unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. In August, 2002 OSHA published a Request for Information on CrVI to solicit additional information on key issues related to controlling exposures to CrVI and on December 4, 2002, OSHA announced its intent to proceed with developing a proposed standard. On December 24, 2002, the 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRG and ordered the Agency to proceed expeditiously with a CrVI standard.
Statement of Need: Approximately one million workers are exposed to CrVI in general industry, maritime, construction, and agriculture. Industries or work processes that could be particularly affected by a standard for CrVI include: Electroplating, welding, painting, chromate production, chromate pigment production, ferrochromium production, iron and steel production, chromium catalyst production, and chromium dioxide and sulfate production. Exposure to CrVI has been shown to produce lung cancer, an often fataldisease, among workers exposed to CrVI compounds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies CrVI compounds as a Group 1 Carcinogen: Agents considered to be carcinogenic in humans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have also designated CrVI compounds as known and confirmed human carcinogens, respectively. Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers CrVI compounds to be potential occupational carcinogens. OSHA's current standards for CrVI compounds, adopted in 1971, were established to protect against nasal irritation. Therefore, there is a need to revise the current standard to protect workers from lung cancer.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant risk of lung cancer and dermatoses and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk.
Alternatives: OSHA had considered non-regulatory approaches, including the dissemination of guidance on its web site. However, OSHA has determined that rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of CrVI and the Agency has been ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals to move forward with a final rule. The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the scope of the rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking is still under development, and estimates of the costs and benefits are being developed.
Risks: A detailed risk analysis is in process.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Request for Information Comment Period End Initiate SBREFA Process SBREFA Report NPRM |
08/22/02 11/20/02 12/23/03 04/20/04 10/00/04 |
67 FR 54389 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB45
1980. CONFINED SPACES IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926): PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES
Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.36
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In January 1993, OSHA issued a general industry rule to protect employees who enter confined spaces (29 CFR 1910.146). This standard does not apply to the construction industry because of differences in the nature of the worksite in the construction industry. In discussions with the United Steel Workers of America on a settlement agreement for the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a proposed rule to extend confined-space protection to construction workers appropriate to their workenvironment. OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule addressing this construction industry hazard next year.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| SBREFA Panel Report NPRM |
11/24/03 03/00/05 |
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Directorate of Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
Email: bswanson@dol.gov
RIN: 1218-AB47
1981. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915 subpart F
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA initiated a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, ship repair, and shipbreaking industries. Publication of a proposal addressing general working conditions in shipyards is part of this project. The operations addressed in this rulemaking relate to general working conditions such as housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. About 100,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM | 12/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB50
1982. ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRICAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.136; 29 CFR 1910.137; 29 CFR 1910.269; 29 CFR 1926 subpart V; 29 CFR 1926.97
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: Electrical hazards are a major cause of occupational death in the United States. The annual fatality rate for power line workers is about 50 deaths per 100,000 employees. The construction industry standard addressing the safety of these workers during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines is over 30 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard that will prevent many of these fatalities, add flexibility to the standard, and update and streamline the standard. OSHA also intends to amend the corresponding standard for general industry so that requirements for work performed during the maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution installations are the same as those for similar work in construction. In addition, OSHA will be revising a few miscellaneous general industry requirements primarily affecting electric transmission and distribution work, including provisions on electrical protective equipment and foot protection. This rulemaking will also address fall protection in aerial lifts for power generation, transmission and distribution work. The SBREFA process has been completed, and OSHA is making changes to the regulatory analysis based on that review.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| SBREFA Report NPRM |
06/30/03 11/00/04 |
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB67
1983. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS, AND FALL PREVENTION)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 subparts D and I
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In 1990, OSHA proposed a rule (55 FR 13360) addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards and establishing requirements for personal fall protection systems. Since that time, new technologies and procedures have become available to protect employees from these hazards. The Agency has been working to update these rules to reflect current technology. OSHA published a notice to re-open the rulemaking for comment on a number of issues raised in the record for the NPRM, or related to technological advances. OSHA is currently reviewing the comments and the record will be reopened again for comment on a revised economic analysis.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Hearing Reopen Record Comment Period End Reopen Record |
04/10/90 08/22/90 09/11/90 05/02/03 07/31/03 12/00/04 |
55 FR 13360 55 FR 29224 68 FR 23527 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB80
1984. REVISION AND UPDATE OF SUBPART S -- ELECTRICAL STANDARDS
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 subpart S
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to revise and update its 29 CFR 1910 subpart S-Electrical Standards. OSHA will rely heavily on the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) 70 E standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. This revision will provide the first update of the General Industry-Electrical Standard since it was originally published in 1981. OSHA intends to complete this project in several stages. The first stage will cover design safety standards for electrical systems, while the second stage will cover safety-related maintenance and work practice requirements and safety requirements for special equipment. It will thus allow the latest technological developments to be considered. Several of these state-of-the-art safety developments will be addressed by OSHA for the first time.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Public Hearing |
04/05/04 06/04/04 10/00/04 |
69 FR 17773 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB95
1985. UPDATING OSHA STANDARDS BASED ON NATIONAL CONSENSUS STANDARDS
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, during the first two years of the Act, the Agency was directed to adopt national consensus standards as OSHA standards. Some of these standards were adopted as regulatory text, while others were incorporated by reference. In the thirty years since these standards were adopted by OSHA, the organizations responsible for these consensus standards have issued updated versions of these standards. However, in most cases, OSHA has not revised its regulations to reflect later editions of the consensus standards. OSHA standards also continue to incorporate by reference various consensus standards that are now outdated and, in some cases, out of print.
The Agency is now considering the possibility of initiating rulemaking to update some of these standards. In that regard, OSHA has asked various consensus standards organizations to review their standards, compare the latest versions of these standards to the ones currently adopted by OSHA, and determine which ones are most important for OSHA to update. Additionally, OSHA has asked them to consider whether the changes to these standards would be noncontroversial, and if the new versions would reduce risk. The organizations were enthusiastic about the possibility of updating references to their standards, and they have provided considerable information on priorities and other related issues. OSHA is in the process of evaluating the information it has received in order to determine the best way to proceed. It is possible that a direct final rule may be appropriate to address some of these standards, and others may be more appropriately addressed by an NPRM.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM | 09/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC08
1986. EXPLOSIVES
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.109
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA is considering amending 29 CFR 1910.109 that addresses explosives and blasting agents. These OSHA regulations were published in 1974, and many of the provisions do not reflect technological and safety advances made by the industry since that time. Additionally, the standard contains outdated references and classifications. Two trade associations representing many of the employers subject to this rule have petitioned the Agency to consider revising it, and have recommended changes they believe address the concerns they are raising. OSHA has reviewed the petition and related information about the issue. Initially, OSHA planned to revise the pyrotechnics requirement in this NPRM. However, based on our work to date, it appears appropriate to reserve action on these requirements for a second phase of rulemaking. The agency therefore plans to proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1910.109 without any changes to the existing pyrotechnics requirements, and at a future date will develop a proposed rule for pyrotechnics revision. OSHA expects to publish an NPRM by November 2004.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM | 11/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC09
1987. • SLIP RESISTANCE OF SKELETAL STRUCTURAL STEEL
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333; 29 CFR 1911
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.754(c)(3)
Legal Deadline: Other, Judicial, July 18, 2004, Notice of limited reopening of record for 1926.754(c)(3). Final, Judicial, January 18, 2006, Final Rule Deadline. Per Settlement Agreement (Steel Coaltion, Resilient Floor Covering Institute v. OSHA).
Abstract: On May 11, 1994 OSHA established the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. On August 13, 1998 OSHA published a notice of proposed rule making, permitting time for written comments and public hearings. Following notice and comment the final rule for the steel erection standard was published on January 18, 2001. On April 3, 2003, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement with Steel Coalition and Resilient Floor Covering Institute whereby OSHA agreed to a limited reopening of the administrative record of docket S-775 regarding paragraph.754(c)(3). No later than July 18, 2004, OSHA will publish notice in the Federal Register reopening the record for this limited purpose. The July notice will solicit information regarding only section 1926.754(c)(3).
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM | 07/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Bruce Swanson, Director, Directorate of Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-3468, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
RIN: 1218-AC14
| Department of Labor (DOL) | Final Rule Stage |
| Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) | |
1988. ASSIGNED PROTECTION FACTORS: AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL RULE ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), except for reserved provisions on assigned protection factors (APFs) and maximum use concentrations (MUCs). APFs are numbers that describe the effectiveness of the various classes of respirators in reducing employee exposure to airborne contaminants (including particulates, gases, vapors, biological agents, etc.). Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use APFs to determine the type of respirator to protect the health of employees in various hazardous environments. Maximum use concentrations establish the maximum airborne concentration of a contaminant in which a respirator with a given APF may be used.
Currently, OSHA relies on the APFs developed by NIOSH in the 1980s unless OSHA has assigned a different APF in a substance-specific health standard. However, many employers follow the more recent APFs published in the industry consensus standard, ANSI Z88.2-1992. For someclasses of respirators, the NIOSH and ANSI APFs vary greatly.
This rulemaking action will complete the 1998 standard, reduce compliance confusion among employers, and provide employees with consistent and appropriate respiratory protection. On June 6, 2003, OSHA published an NPRM on Assigned Protection Factors in the Federal Register at 68 FR 34036 containing a proposed APF table, and requesting public comment. The extended comment period ended October 2, 2003, and an informal public hearing was held January 28-30, 2004.
Statement of Need: About five million employees wear respirators as part of their regular job duties. Due to inconsistencies between the APFs found in the current industry consensus standard (ANSI Z88.2-1992) and in the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic, employers, employees, and safety and health professionals are often uncertain about what respirator to select to provide protection against hazardous air contaminants. Several industry and professional groups have asked OSHA to proceed with this rulemaking to resolve these inconsistencies and provide reliable protection of employees' health in cases where respirators must be worn.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is the determination that assigned protection factors and maximum use concentrations are necessary to complete the final Respiratory Protection standard and provide the full protection of that standard.
Alternatives: OSHA has considered allowing the current situation to continue, in which OSHA generally enforces NIOSH APFs but many employers follow the more recent consensus standard APFs. However, allowing the continuation of this situation results in inconsistent enforcement, lack of guidance for employers, and the potential for inadequate employee protection.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated compliance costs for OSHA's proposed APF rule are $4.6 million. The APFs proposed in this rulemaking help to ensure that the benefits attributed to proper respiratory protection under 29 CFR 1910.134 are achieved, as well as provide an additional degree of protection.
Risks: The preamble to the final Respiratory Protection rule (63 FR 1270, Jan. 8, 1998) discusses the significance of the risks potentially associated with the use of respiratory protection. No independent finding of significant risk has been made for the APF rulemaking, since it only addresses a single provision of the larger rule.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| ANPRM ANPRM Comment Period End NPRM Final Rule Final Rule Effective NPRM NPRM Comment Period End NPRM Comment Period Extended Public Hearing on 01/28/2004 Final Rule: Revocation of Respiratory Protection M. TB Public Hearing Post-Hearing Comment and Brief Period Extended Post-Hearing Comment Period End Post-Hearing Briefs End Final Action |
05/14/82 09/13/82 11/15/94 01/08/98 04/08/98 06/06/03 09/04/03 10/02/03 11/12/03 12/31/03 01/28/04 03/30/04 04/29/04 05/29/04 12/00/04 |
47 FR 20803 59 FR 58884 63 FR 1152 68 FR 34036 68 FR 53311 68 FR 64036 68 FR 75767 69 FR 16510 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Additional Information: At the time of the revision of the 1972 standard, OSHA decided that because its proposed standard for occupational exposure to tuberculosis (TB), published three months earlier, included a comprehensive respiratory protection provision, the agency would allow compliance with the previous respirator standard for TB protection until completion of the TB rulemaking. Thus, pending conclusion of the TB rulemaking, OSHA redesignated the old respiratory protection standard in a new section entitled ``Respiratory Protection for M. Tuberculosis.`` Because OSHA has withdrawn its proposed TB standard, the agency also revoked the designated respiratory protection standard, and is applying the general industry respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) to respiratory protection against TB.
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AA05
1989. FIRE PROTECTION IN SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (PART 1915, SUBPART P) (SHIPYARDS: FIRE SAFETY)
Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, subpart P
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The rule will update and revise an important but outdated part of OSHA's shipyard rules. The original rule was adopted by OSHA in 1971 and has remained unchanged since then. A negotiated rulemaking committee was convened on October 15, 1996. Members of the committee included: OSHA, State government, Federal agency, small and large shipyard employers, and maritime and firefighter union representatives. The committee completed work in February 2002, and recommended proposal requirements to OSHA. The Agency has published an NPRM based on their recommendations.
Statement of Need: Fires in the shipyard environment may cause death and serious injuries in this 100,000-employee work force. Updating OSHA's outdated shipyard requirements for fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, and fire brigades will facilitate compliance by employers and employees and reduce these fire-related injuries and fatalities.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is a preliminary determination that an unacceptable risk of fire-related injuries and fatalities exists in the shipyard industry.
Alternatives: OSHA has considered but rejected the alternative of allowing the existing rule to remain in place, because the Agency believes that doing so would contribute to the unacceptable number of fire-related accidents occurring in shipyards every year.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency has estimated annual costs of the NPRM to be $4.3 million, and that there will be cost savings of $6.2 million, in addition to avoiding fatalities and injuries.
Risks: The Agency has estimated that compliance with the NPRM would prevent one fatality and 102 lost workday injuries annually.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Rule |
12/11/02 03/11/03 08/00/04 |
67 FR 76213 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB51
1990. EMPLOYER PAYMENT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.132; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1917.96; 29 CFR 1918.106; 29 CFR 1926.95
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when necessary to protect employees from hazards that can cause them injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the abbreviation PPE to cover both personal protective equipment and other protective equipment. The Agency continues to consider how to address this issue, and is re-opening the record to get input on issues related to PPE considered to be a "tool of the trade."
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Informal Public Hearing End Limited Reopening of Record |
03/30/99 06/14/99 08/13/99 07/00/04 |
64 FR 15401 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB77
1991. STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY, MARINE TERMINALS, AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (PHASE II)
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, subpart Z; 29 CFR 1910.1001 to 1910.1052; 29 CFR 1910.142; 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1910.219; 29 CFR 1910.261; 29 CFR 1910.265; 29 CFR 1910.410; 29 CFR 1917.92; 29 CFR 1926.1101; 29 CFR 1926.1127; 29 CFR 1926.1129; 29 CFR 1926.60; 29 CFR 1926.62
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing to remove or revise provisions in its health standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency is proposing these changes to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by these requirements. In this document, substantive changes are proposed for standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee protections. Phase I of this Standards Improvement process was completed in June 1998 (63 FR 33450). OSHA plans to initiate Phase III of this project at a future date to address problems in various safety and health standards.
Statement of Need: Some parts of OSHA's standards are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency needs to periodically review its standards and make needed corrections. This effort results in standards that are easier for employers and employees to follow and comply with, and thus enhances compliance and worker protection.
Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding that the OSHA standards need to be updated to bring them up to date, reduce inconsistency, and remove unneeded provisions.
Alternatives: OSHA has considered updating each standard as problems are discovered, but has determined that it is better to make such changes to groups of standards so it is easier for the public to comment on like standards. OSHA has also considered the inclusion of safety standards that need to be updated. However, the Agency has decided to pursue a separate rulemaking for safety issues because the standards to be updated are of interest to different stakeholders.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This revision of OSHA's standards is a deregulatory action. It will reduce employers' compliance obligations.
Risks: The project does not address specific risks, but is intended to improve OSHA's standards by bringing them up do date and deleting unneeded provisions. The anticipated changes will have no negative effects on worker safety and health.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End NPRM Comment Period Extended Second NPRM Comment Period End Public Hearing Final Action |
10/31/02 12/20/02 01/08/03 01/30/03 07/08/03 08/00/04 |
67 FR 66493 68 FR 1023 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB81
1992. CONTROLLED NEGATIVE PRESSURE FIT TESTING PROTOCOL: AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL RULE ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). In the final revised respirator standard, OSHA set up a mechanism for OSHA's acceptance of new fit test protocols under Mandatory Appendix A. Any person may submit to OSHA an application for approval of a new fit test protocol, and if the application meets certain criteria, OSHA will initiate a rulemaking proceeding under 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act to determine whether to list the new protocol as an approved fit test protocol in Appendix A. OSHA has been petitioned to allow the use of a modified Controlled Negative Pressure (CNP) fit test protocol.
Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use fit testing to select respirators. Currently OSHA relies on fit testing methods specified in Appendix A of the final revised Respiratory Protection standard.
When OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard in 1998, it allowed for later rulemaking on new fit test methods. This rulemaking action will allow for the incorporation of new fit test methods into 1910.134.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Action |
06/06/03 09/04/03 07/00/04 |
68 FR 33887 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC05
1993. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 806 OF THE CORPORATE AND CRIMINAL FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002
Priority: Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 18 USC 1514A
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1980
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204 was enacted July 30, 2002. Among other provisions, title VIII, entitled the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, provides protection for employees of publicly traded companies who provide evidence of fraud to any Federal law enforcement agency, members of Congress, or a person with supervisory authority over the employee. This rule establishes procedures and time frames for the handling of complaints under the Act.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Interim Final Rule Final Rule |
05/28/03 08/00/04 |
68 FR 318859 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Tom Marple, Director, Office of Investigative Assistance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, nw, Room N3622, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2122
Fax: 202 693-1681
RIN: 1218-AC10
1994. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 60129
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1981
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: This rule establishes procedures and timeframes for the handling of complaints under section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, including investigations by OSHA, appeals to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), appeals of ALJ decisions to the Administrative Review Board and judicial review.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Interim Final Rule Interim Final Rule Effective Interim Final Rule Comment Period End Final Action |
04/05/04 04/05/04 06/04/04 02/00/05 |
69 FR 17587 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: John Robert Spear, Director, Office of Investigative Assistance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Rm 3603, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2187
Fax: 202 693-1681
Email: john.spear@osha-no.osha.gov
RIN: 1218-AC12
1995. • OREGON STATE PLAN
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 667
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1952
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA will propose to grant final approval under section 18(e) of the OSH Act for the Oregon State occupational safety and health plan, administered by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OR-OSHA) of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. Following a comment period and opportunity to request a public hearing, OSHA will make a final determination as a whether to grant final approval of the State plan. Actual performance by the State must be "at least as effective" overall as the Federal OSHA program in all areas covered under the State plan. Final approval results in the relinquishment of authority for Federal concurrent enforcement jurisdiction in the State with respect to safety and health issues covered by the plan.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Notice of Eligibility for Final Approval Notice of Final Approval Determination |
10/00/04 12/00/04 |
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: State
Agency Contact: Paula O. White, Director, Federal-State Operations, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2200
Fax: 202 693-1671
Email: paula.white@osha.gov
RIN: 1218-AC13
1996. • ROLLOVER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES; OVERHEAD PROTECTION
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
Legal Authority: 29 CFR 1928 subpart C; . . .
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: XXX
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Direct Final Rule | 12/00/04 | |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AC15
| Department of Labor (DOL) | Completed Actions |
| Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) | |
1997. GLYCOL ETHERS: 2-METHOXYETHANOL, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND THEIR ACETATES: PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1910.1031
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10586). OSHA used the information received in response to the ANPRM, as well as other information and analysis, and published a proposal on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15526), that would reduce the permissible exposure limits for four glycol ethers and provide protection for approximately 46,000 workers exposed to these substances. OSHA re-opened the record to collect updated information to help determine what action should be taken. Based on the information received and a review of the record, the Agency decided to withdraw the proposal.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| ANPRM ANPRM Comment Period End NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Reopen Record Comment Period End Effective Date Withdrawn |
04/02/87 07/31/87 03/23/93 06/07/93 08/08/02 11/06/02 12/31/03 12/31/03 |
52 FR 10586 58 FR 15526 67 FR 51524 68 FR 75475 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AA84
1998. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Priority: Economically Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1035
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: In 1993, the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop an occupational health standard to protect workers who care for or oversee patients or others with active tuberculosis (TB) against the transmission of TB. After reviewing the available information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers in some work settings and began rulemaking on a proposed standard. On October 17, 1997, OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to TB (62 FR 54160). The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed workers using infection control measures that have been shown to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating work-related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for the early identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation,use of respiratory protection in certain situations, and skin testing and training of employees.
Informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, New York City, NY, and Chicago, IL. The post-hearing comment period closed on October 5, 1998. On June 17, 1999, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record for 90 days to submit the Agency's report on homeless shelters and certain other documents that became available to the Agency after the close of the post-hearing comment period. During this limited reopening of the rulemaking record, OSHA also requested interested parties to submit comments and data on the Agency's preliminary risk assessment in order to obtain the best, most recent data for providing the most accurate estimates of the occupational risk of tuberculosis.
At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (IOM) conducted a study of OSHA's proposal and the need for a TB standard.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| SBREFA Panel NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Post Hearing Comment End Record Reopening Second Reopening Comment Period End Reopening Comment Period End Third Reopening Comment Period Extension of Comment Period Reopening Comment Period End Comment Period End Withdrawn |
09/10/96 10/17/97 02/17/98 10/05/98 06/17/99 06/28/99 08/02/99 01/24/02 03/05/02 03/25/02 05/24/02 12/31/03 |
62 FR 54160 62 FR 65388 64 FR 32447 64 FR 34625 67 FR 3465 67 FR 9934 68 FR 75767 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB46
1999. COMMERCIAL DIVING OPERATIONS: REVISION
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.423; 29 CFR 1910.426
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA's Commercial Diving Operations standard (29 CFR 1910.401 to 1910.441) was published in 1977. In the intervening years, major changes in the technology of diving systems and equipment have occurred. In December 1999, OSHA granted a permanent variance to Dixie Divers, Inc., permitting recreational diving instructors employed by that company to comply with the provisions of the variance rather than with paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(3)(iii) of 1910.423 and paragraph (b)(1) of 1910.426. Since OSHAgranted the variance, other employers of recreational diving instructors have asked OSHA to clarify the applicability of the variance to their operations. OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the commercial diving operations standard to reflect the alternative specified in the permanent variance granted to Dixie Divers, Inc. Comments have been received and reviewed, and a final rule has been issued.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Rule |
01/10/03 04/10/03 02/17/04 |
68 FR 1399 69 FR 7351 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
Small Entities Affected: No
Government Levels Affected: None
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB97
2000. PRESENCE SENSING DEVICE INITIATION OF MECHANICAL POWER PRESSES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority: Other Significant
Legal Authority: 29 USC 651 et seq; 5 USC 610
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.217(h), app A,B,C
Legal Deadline: None
Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the Agency's Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses rule (29 CFR 1910.217) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review is considering among other things, the need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.
| Timetable: | ||
| Action | Date | FR Cite |
| Begin Review Request for Comments Comment Period End End Review |
12/01/01 08/28/02 01/27/03 06/08/04 |
67 FR 55181 69 FR 31927 |
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined
Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov
RIN: 1218-AC03