- Publication Date:
- Publication Type:Unified Agenda
- Fed Register #:70:27164-27208
- Title:Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA)
is on pages 73200-73201 Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Proposed Rule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Final Rule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Long-Term Actions
Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Completed Actions
1924. 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. Statement of Need: A preliminary analysis of the available health data indicates that OSHA's current permissible exposure limits (PELs) for beryllium may not be sufficient to protect workers from the risk of developing chronic beryllium disease (CBD). Workers exposed below OSHA's current PELs have become sensitized and in some cases have developed CBD. The use of beryllium has become more widespread in private industry including uses in microelectronics, automobiles, aerospace products and miscellaneous uses in alloys for products such as bicycle frames and golf clubs. This widespread use places workers at risk of exposure. Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this standard is the preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant risk of CBD and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce that risk. Alternatives: Over the past years OSHA has attempted non-regulatory guidance to address this problem. The Agency published two hazard information bulletins to address beryllium exposures in general industry and dental labs. OSHA has determined that rulemaking is necessary and is evaluating various options. Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking and estimates of the costs and benefits are under development. Risks: A detailed risk analysis is in development.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB76 1925. 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. A cross-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. The negotiated rulemaking committee completed 11 meetings since July of 2003 and in July 2004 submitted a recommended revision of the crane standard to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA. OSHA is currently conducting an economic analysis of the draft rule to determine if a SBREFA anel will be needed. Should the SBREFA process not be needed, as determined by a regulatory flexibility screening analysis, and not used, a proposed rule would be the next step.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Dirctorate 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 RIN: 1218-AC01 1926. EXCAVATIONS (SECTION 610 REVIEW) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant 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 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: John Smith, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-2225 Fax: 202 693-1641 Email: smith.john@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC02 1927. IONIZING RADIATION 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 1910.1096 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC11 1928. EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Emergency responder health and safety is currently regulated primarily under the following standards: the fire brigade standard (29 CFR 1910.156); hazardous waste operations and emergency response (29 CFR 1910.120); the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134); the permit-required confined space standard (29 CFR 1910.146); and the bloodborne pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). Some of these standards were promulgated decades ago and none were designed as comprehensive emergency response standards. Consequently, they do not address the full range of hazards or concerns currently facing emergency responders. Many do not reflect major changes in performance specifications for protective clothing and equipment. Current OSHA standards also do not reflect all the major developments in safety and health practices that have already been accepted by the emergency response community and incorporated into National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and American National Standards Institute consensus standards. OSHA will be collecting information to evaluate what action the agency should take.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Federalism Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC17 1929. LEAD IN CONSTRUCTION (SECTION 610 REVIEW) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b0); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.62 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA will undertake a review of the Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review will consider the continued need for the rule, 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: SJohn Smith, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-2225 Fax: 202 693-1641 Email: smith.john@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC18 1930. • STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT Priority: Other Significant. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is continuing its efforts to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and health standards. This effort builds upon the success of the Standards Improvement Project (SIPS) Phase I published on June 18, 1998 (63 FR 33450) and Phase II published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1111). The Agency believes that such changes can reduce compliance costs and reduce the paperwork burden associated with a number of its standards. The Agency will only consider such changes if they do not diminish employee protections. To initiate the project, OSHA will be publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit input from the public on rules that may be addressed in Phase III of SIPS. The Agency plans to include both safety and health topics in Phase III.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC19 1931. • HAZARD COMMUNICATION Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1200; 29 CFR 1915.1200; 29 CFR 1917.28; 29 CFR 1918.90; 29 CFR 1926.59; 29 CFR 1928.21 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import, and prepare labels and material safety data sheets to convey the hazards and associated protective measures to users of the chemicals. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces are required to have a hazard communication program, including labels on containers, material safety data sheets, and training for employees. Within the United States (US), there are other Federal agencies that also have requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals at different stages of the life cycle. Internationally, there are a number of countries that have developed similar laws that require information about chemicals to be prepared and transmitted to affected parties. These laws vary with regard to the scope of substances covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of requirements (e.g., specification of a format for MSDSs), and the use of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies between the various laws are substantial enough that different labels and safety data sheets must often be used for the same product when it is marketed in different nations. The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard information. Labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of information that important statements are not easily recognized. Development of multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets is a major compliance burden for chemical manufacturers, distributors, and transporters involved in international trade. Small businesses may have particular difficulty in coping with the complexities and costs involved. As a result of this situation, and in recognition of the extensive international trade in chemicals, there has been a longstanding effort to harmonize these requirements and develop a system that can be used around the world. In 2003, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Countries are now considering adoption of the GHS into their national regulatory systems. There is an international goal to have as many countries as possible implement the GHS by 2008. OSHA is considering modifying its HCS to make it consistent with the GHS. This would involve changing the criteria for classifying health and physical hazards, adopting standardized labeling requirements, and requiring a standardized order of information for safety data sheets.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC20
1932. 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 work environment.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses 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 RIN: 1218-AB47 1933. 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB50 1934. 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB67 1935. 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. 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. 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 is under way.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB70 1936. 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. As a result of the comments received on that notice, OSHA has determined that the rule proposed in 1990 is out-of-date and does not reflect current industry practice or technology. The Agency will develop a new proposal, modified to reflect current information, as well as re-assess the impact.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB80 1937. EXPLOSIVES Priority: Other Significant. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.109 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is 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. Initially, OSHA planned to revise the pyrotechnics requirements 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 propose 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 August 2005.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC09
1938. 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 an industry consensus standard, ANSI Z88.2-1992. For some classes 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 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. 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 under that standard. Alternatives: OSHA has considered allowing the current situation to continue. Accordingly, OSHA generally enforces NIOSH APFs, but many employers follow the more recent ANSI Z88.2-1992 APFs. However, allowing the situation to continue 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AA05 1939. 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 was held on 7/29-30/04. The rulemaking record was open through 11/30/04.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AA56 1940. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. 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 52 ug/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 PEL of 52 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 OCAW 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 and Paper, Allied-International, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) 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. OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on CrVI on October 4, 2004. Public hearings were held February 1-15, 2005. Statement of Need: Approximately 380,000 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 fatal disease, 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. Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the NPRM, OSHA preliminary estimates the cost of the propose standards $223 million per year. OSHA preliminarily estimates the proposed standard will prevent an average of 44 to 167 cases on cancer per year, and will have monetary benefits of $25 million to $701 million per year. Risks: A detailed risk analysis is included in the NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB45 1941. 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. In 1999, OSHA proposed to require employers to pay for PPE, with a few exceptions. The Agency continues to consider how to address this issue, and re-opened the record on 7/8/2004 to get input on issues related to PPE considered to be a "tool of the trade". The comment period ended 8/23/2004.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB77 1942. 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 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. OSHA is evaluating public comment in response to the NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB95 1943. 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 more than 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 undertaking a multi-year project to update these standards. A notice describing the project was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68283), along with a direct final rule and notice of proposed rulemaking on the first set of standards to be addressed. The direct final rule has been withdrawn since a significant adverse comment was received, and a final rule based on the NPRM is being prepared. The next set of standards will be published as well.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC08 1944. 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.
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 1945. 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. Per Settlement Agreement (Steel Coalition, 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 the Steel Coalition and Resilient Floor Covering Institute whereby OSHA agreed to a limited reopening of the administrative record of docket S-775 regarding paragraph 1926.754(c)(3). On July 15, 2004, OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register reopening the record for this limited purpose. The July notice solicited information regarding section 1926.754(c)(3) only.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Federalism: 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 RIN: 1218-AC14 1946. ROLLOVER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES; OVERHEAD PROTECTION Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 CFR 1928 subpart C; sec 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 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 5-2002(67 FR 65008) as applicable.sec 1928.51, 192; 29 CFR 1926 subpart W -- Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection: sec 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act), 40 USC 333; sec 1926.1002 and 19 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In 1996, OSHA published a technical amendment revising the construction and agriculture standards that regulate testing of roll-over protective structures (ROPS) used to protect employees who operate wheel-type tractors. This revision removed the original, detailed ROPS standards and replaced them with references to national consensus standards for ROPS-testing requirements. The Agency believed that the national consensus standards largely duplicated the ROPS standards they replaced, and that any differences between them were not substantive. Subsequently, OSHA identified several substantive differences between the national consensus standards and the original ROPS standards. The direct final rule will reinstate the original ROPS standards.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Federalism: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC15 1947. NFPA STANDARDS IN SHIPYARD FIRE PROTECTION Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.4; 29 CFR 1915.505; 29 CFR 1915.507 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In this rulemaking, OSHA is updating National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards incorporated by reference in the OSHA 29 CFR part 1915 subpart P fire protection standards. OSHA published a final rule for subpart P in 2004 that included nine NFPA standards that have been updated since the rule was proposed. OSHA plans to issue a direct final rulemaking, along with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to update the NFPA standards.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AC16
1948. 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 continues to review comments received, the additional public input from Stakeholder meetings that were held in March and July of 2004, and is determining if rulemaking or some other action is appropriate.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB89
1949. 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 2005.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: John Smith, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-2225 Fax: 202 693-1641 Email: smith.john@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB60 1950. 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) proposed to remove or revise provisions in its health standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. Where appropriate, the Agency is primarily changing that provision to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by these requirements. In this document, substantive changes standards 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 to date and deleting unneeded provisions. The anticipated changes will have no negative effects on worker safety and health.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Dorothy Dougherty, Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, RM-3718, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678 Email: dougherty.dorothy@dol.gov RIN: 1218-AB81 1951. 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Small Entities Affected: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Compliance Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Rm N-3622, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-2122 Fax: 202 693-1681 RIN: 1218-AC12 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||