[Federal Register: September 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 176)][Rules and Regulations] [Page 53925-53929]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13se05-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-023A]
RIN 1218-AC08
Updating OSHA Standards Based On National Consensus Standards;
General, Incorporation by Reference; Hazardous Materials, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids; General Environmental Controls, Temporary Labor
Camps; Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment,
Guarding of Portable Powered Tools; Welding, Cutting and Brazing, Arc
Welding and Cutting; Special Industries, Sawmills
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is issuing this final rule to delete from OSHA standards
three references to national consensus standards and two references to
industry standards that are outdated. Deleting these references will
not reduce employee protections. By eliminating the outdated
references, however, OSHA will clarify employer obligations under the
applicable OSHA standards and reduce administrative burdens on
employers and OSHA. These revisions are part of OSHA's overall effort
to update OSHA standards that reference, or that include language taken
directly from, outdated consensus standards.
DATES: This final rule will become effective on November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
Office of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive
petitions for review of the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For
technical inquiries contact Mr. Lee Smith, Director, Office of Safety
Systems, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2255 or fax
(202) 693-1663. Copies of this Federal Register notice are available
from the OSHA Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as
well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at
OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: References to comments in the rulemaking
record are found throughout the text of the preamble. Comments are
identified by an assigned exhibit number as follows: ``Ex. 4-3'' means
Exhibit 4-3 in Docket S-023A. A list of the exhibits and copies of the
exhibits are available in the OSHA Docket Office under Docket S-023A
and at OSHA's homepage.
Background
On November 24, 2004, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing its overall project to update OSHA standards that
are based on national consensus standards (69 FR 68283). The notice
explained the reasons for the project and the regulatory approaches
OSHA plans to use to implement the project, including notice and
comment rulemaking, direct final rulemaking, and technical amendments.
To review the eleven comments received on this notice, most of which
were supportive, see Docket S-023 at http://dockets.osha.gov. OSHA
appreciates these comments and will welcome additional comments as it
proceeds with the overall update project.
On the same day, OSHA also published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule (69 FR 68712) and a companion proposed rule (69 FR
68706) to delete three references to national consensus standards and
two references to industry standards that are outdated. OSHA announced
that the direct final rule would become effective on February 22, 2005,
unless the Agency received a significant adverse comment before the
comment period closed.
OSHA received five comments on the direct final rule and companion
proposed rule. OSHA considers one of the comments to be significantly
adverse. On February 18, 2005, OSHA published a notice withdrawing the
direct final rule (70 FR 8291). OSHA is treating the five comments as
comments to the proposed rule, and considered all of the comments in
publishing this final rule.
Discussion of Changes
OSHA explained in detail its decision to revoke each of the
references at issue in the direct final and companion proposed rules
published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68706,
68712), and OSHA incorporates those discussions in this final rule. The
five references are to consensus or industry standards issued over 35
years ago, and in one case over 60 years ago. Some are no longer
available to the public through the issuing Standards Development
Organization (SDO). Three of the references have been withdrawn by
their issuing SDOs and not replaced. In proposing the revocations, OSHA
found that the changes would enhance employee safety by eliminating
confusion and clarifying employer obligations. OSHA also determined
that the revocations would not result in additional costs to employers,
and may even produce cost savings.
The Agency carefully considered all comments received. After review
of the comments, OSHA continues to find that revoking the five
references is appropriate.
29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a)(2): OSHA is revoking from its
standard for flammable and combustible liquids American Petroleum
Institute Standard No. 12A, Specification for Oil Storage Tanks with
Riveted Shells, Seventh Edition, September 1951 (API 12A). OSHA
included API 12A in the standard to provide employers with one
means of complying with the standard's general requirement for
atmospheric tanks to be ``built in accordance with acceptable good
standards of design.'' 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a).
OSHA is revoking the reference for a number of reasons. API 12A is
over 50 years old and does not consider recent developments in the
construction of atmospheric tanks. The issuing SDO withdrew API 12A in
1974, has not replaced it, has not incorporated its provisions into
another consensus standard, and no longer makes the standard available
to the public. Under these circumstances, OSHA does not believe it is
appropriate to reference the standard as a compliance option. Because
OSHA did not require the use of API 12A in the standard, the revocation
does not change an employer's responsibility for constructing properly
designed atmospheric tanks under 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a).
29 CFR 1910.142(c)(4): OSHA is revoking from its temporary labor
camps standard a requirement that drinking fountains be constructed in
accordance with the American National Standard Institute Standard
Specifications for Drinking Fountains, ANSI Z4.2-1942. ANSI Z4.2-1942
contains ten specific recommendations concerning the construction of
drinking fountains which are based on the technology and construction
practices that existed in 1942. All of these recommendations use
advisory ``should'' language. The issuing SDO withdrew the standard in
1972 and it has not been replaced.
OSHA has determined that the reference to ANSI Z4.2-1942 should be
revoked for two reasons. First, because the specific recommendations in
ANSI Z4.2-1942 use advisory language, they are unenforceable. See 49 FR
5318, February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel
Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-44 (3d Cir. 1978). Second, referencing
recommendations issued over 60 years ago for the construction of
drinking fountains does not enhance the safety and health of employees.
The technology for constructing drinking fountains has changed
significantly since the 1940's. Since 1942, a number of drinking
fountain units have become available to employers that, while not
strictly manufactured in accordance with ANSI Z4.2-1942, are
constructed pursuant to good engineering practices and are safe to use
at temporary labor camps. It does not serve employers or employees to
reference construction specifications that do not consider this new
technology.
29 CFR 1910.243(e)(1)(i): OSHA is revoking from its portable
powered tools standard a provision that certain power lawnmowers
designed for sale to the general public meet the American National
Standard Safety Specifications for Power Lawnmowers, ANSI B71.1-X1968
(ANSI B71.1-1968). OSHA is replacing this provision with a reference to
the general machine guarding requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.212.
OSHA is also removing the final two sentences of paragraph
1910.243(e)(1) that describe the types of mowers for which the
specifications in ANSI B71.1-1968 do not apply. OSHA is making these
changes to simplify and clarify the scope and coverage of 29 CFR
1910.243. Deleting the reference and replacing it with a reference to
29 CFR 1910.212 will both retain the existing degree of employee
protection, and remove a continuing source of confusion as to the scope
of the referenced standard.
ANSI B71.1-1968 provides safety specifications for certain power
lawnmowers ``designed for sale to the general public.'' Lawnmowers
designed for commercial use must comply with the guarding requirements
of 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) and (a)(3)(ii). See Memorandum from John Miles
to Regional Administrators, ``Misapplication of Power Lawnmower
Standard 29 CFR 1910.243(e),'' 1986. It is difficult for employers to
determine which lawnmowers are designed for sale to the general public,
and which are designed for commercial use, and the distinction is not
particularly relevant to protecting employees from the hazards
associated with operating power lawnmowers.
Furthermore, virtually all of the specific provisions contained in
ANSI B71.1-1968 are included in the text of 29 CFR 1910.243(e). OSHA
considered updating the 1968 ANSI reference to the 1998 version of ANSI
B71.1, but determined that doing so would not clarify the standard
because the scope of the 1998 version would raise additional issues for
compliance that are not encountered under the existing OSHA standard.
29 CFR 1910.254(d)(1): OSHA is revoking from its arc welding and
cutting standard a recommendation that employers be acquainted with the
American Welding Society's Recommended Safe Practices for Gas-Shielded
Arc Welding, A6.1-1966. OSHA is revoking the reference for several
reasons. The hazard information included in AWS A6.1-1966 is extremely
outdated, particularly compared to the information that employers are
already required to provide to employees under OSHA's Hazard
Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. Second, virtually all of the
recommendations contained in AWS A6.1-1966 are covered elsewhere in
OSHA's welding standards. For example, paragraph 1910.254(d)(1) also
requires employees performing arc welding to be ``acquainted with''
1910.252(a), (b), and (c). These three paragraphs specifically address
many of the safety-related practices discussed in AWS A6.1-1966. Third,
other applicable OSHA standards protect employees performing gas-
shielded arc welding from many of the underlying hazards discussed in
AWS A6.1-1966. See, e.g., 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z (Toxic and
Hazardous Substances).
29 CFR 1910.265(c)(31)(i): OSHA is revoking a provision from its
standard on Sawmills which suggests that employers use ``appropriate
traffic control devices,'' as set forth in American National Standard
D8.1-1967 for Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Protection (ANSI D8.1-
1967). ANSI withdrew the standard in 1981 and did not replace it. OSHA
is revoking this reference for two main reasons. First, referencing a
withdrawn 37-year-old consensus standard that was intended to address
railroad and highway grade crossings--not crossings specifically in
sawmills--adds little value to employers and employees in the sawmill
industry. Second, the reference uses advisory ``should'' language and
is thus unenforceable. See 49 FR 5318, February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall,
584 F.2d at 643-644. Removing such provisions clarifies employer
obligations and enhances OSHA enforcement capabilities. See 47 FR
23477, May 28, 1982; 49 FR 5321, February 10, 1984. Because OSHA is
retaining the mandatory provision in paragraph 1910.265(c)(3)(i) that
employers plainly post railroad tracks and other hazardous crossings,
employees will continue to be alerted to potential hazards at these
dangerous areas.
Comments Received
The majority of comments received expressed support for this
rulemaking. For example, the National Automobile Dealer's Association
(NADA) stated that ``without question, OSHA should appropriately update
or revoke references to or language from consensus standards that are
outdated or no longer relevant.'' (Ex. 4-3). The International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) stated that it supports OSHA's first
rulemaking action associated with the update project, and that
``revoking these references will not reduce employee
protections provided by each affected OSHA standard.'' (Ex. 4-2).
Similarly, the National Lumber and Building Material Dealer's
Association (NLBMDA) stated that it ``supports OSHA's current efforts
to update their regulations.'' (Ex. 4-4).
One commenter recommended that OSHA establish a policy to review
and update consensus standards on a regular basis. (Ex. 4-2). As
explained in this preamble, this rulemaking is the first step in the
Agency's overall effort to deal with the problem of outdated national
consensus and industry standards in OSHA's rules. OSHA will continue to
explore available strategies and approaches to update its standards.
Two commenters representing small business employers, NADA and
NLBMDA, expressed concern about the costs and burdens associated with
obtaining updated versions of national consensus and industry standards
from the issuing SDOs. (Exs. 4-3, 4-4). One recommended that OSHA make
the standards readily available to the regulated community by
publishing referenced consensus standards in full in the relevant
docket and on the OSHA Web site. (Ex. 4-3).
The Agency recognizes the commenters' concerns regarding the
availability and cost of consensus and industry standards. OSHA will
continue to explore ways to inform employers and employees of their
compliance obligations at little or no cost. OSHA notes that this final
rule will not result in any cost to employers because it is deleting
references to consensus and industry standards. In addition, all
national consensus and industry standards which are incorporated by
reference in the OSHA standards are available for public inspection at
the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA's regional offices, and the U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration.
The IBT encouraged OSHA to ensure that the national consensus and
industry standards OSHA considers adopting in its regulations were
developed in a fair and participatory manner. (Ex. 4-2). The Agency
believes that the rulemaking process will address the IBT's concerns.
When OSHA attempts a substantive update to its regulations, it will
provide an opportunity for notice and comment. OSHA will only use
direct final rulemaking or technical amendments for non-controversial
updates, and will rely on notice and comment rulemaking for
controversial or potentially controversial updates and those which
involve substantive changes. Moreover, if a direct final rule results
in significant adverse comment, OSHA will withdraw the direct final
rule and proceed with notice and comment rulemaking. Consequently,
stakeholders will always have an opportunity to share with OSHA
concerns about the standards development process.
OSHA received one comment opposed to the Agency's underlying
approach to this rulemaking. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber)
stated that ``because the kind of changes announced by OSHA can affect
the compliance options available to employers, they can represent
substantive changes with potentially significant impact,'' and is
therefore ordinarily inappropriate for direct final rulemaking. (Ex. 3-
1). The Chamber also recommended that OSHA retain the current
references at issue in this final rule as compliance options. (Ex. 3-
1).
While OSHA appreciates the Chamber's concerns, in this instance
OSHA believes that retaining these extremely outdated references as
compliance options will only confuse employers and employees. As the
NLBMDA said, ``Updating or removing references to outdated national
consensus standards is the correct course of action to make the
regulations more understandable and consistent. The referencing of old
or discontinued consensus standards creates confusion,
misinterpretation, and ultimately leads to poor compliance.'' (Ex. 4-
4).
The need to remove references to out of date consensus standards is
particularly acute with regard to extremely outdated standards, such as
API 12A, ANSI Z4.2-1942, and ANSI D8.1-1967. These standards are so
outdated that they were withdrawn by their issuing SDOs 20 to 30 years
ago and never replaced. Some of the consensus standards revoked in this
rule are not even available through the issuing SDO. OSHA does not want
to encourage the design or construction of equipment to comply with
standards that do not reflect current technology and thus may not set
an appropriate level of safety. In future phases of the update project,
it may be appropriate to continue to reference older standards for
certain maintenance and use specifications. However, OSHA maintains
that it will rarely be appropriate to retain as compliance options
standards issued 40 or 50 years ago to guide the design and
construction of today's equipment.
Furthermore, OSHA does not agree with the Chamber that this action
is not appropriate for direct final rulemaking. Several of the
standards at issue in this rulemaking are unenforceable because they
use advisory ``should'' language. Some of the standards have been
withdrawn by the issuing SDO and not replaced, or are no longer
available to the public through the issuing SDO. None of the standards
reflect current technology. Deletion of these references neither
restricts meaningful compliance options for employers nor reduces
employee protections. In such situations, direct final rulemaking is an
appropriate course of action for the Agency to pursue to update its
standards.
The IBT made a suggestion regarding OSHA's removal of ANSI Z4.2-
1942, the standard for drinking fountains, from OSHA's standard for
temporary labor camps, 29 CFR 1910.142. (Ex. 4-2). IBT stated that in
the absence of an OSHA, industry, or consensus standard that governs
the construction of drinking fountains, and to avoid the use of hoses
or alternative devices for drinking, it ``might be helpful if OSHA
would include'' in the standard a definition of what constitutes a
``drinking fountain.''
OSHA appreciates the IBT's suggestion, but believes including a
definition of what constitutes a drinking fountain is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. The Agency, however, may re-examine the need to
provide definitions of this and other terms in future rulemakings. OSHA
reiterates that revoking the reference to ANSI Z4.2-1942 will not
adversely affect the safety and health of employees at temporary labor
camps. As explained above, ANSI Z4.2-1942 uses advisory ``should''
language and thus contains no compliance obligations. See 49 FR 5318,
February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall, 584 F.2d at 643-644. Further,
referencing a 60-year-old ANSI standard for drinking fountains that
reflects outdated engineering practices and technology does not enhance
employee safety. Finally, OSHA notes that other provisions in its
temporary labor camp standard, including 29 CFR 1910.142(c)(1), (c)(2),
and (c)(3), as well as other OSHA standards, offer additional
protection for workers in temporary labor camps.
IBT also stated that it supported OSHA's revocation of ANSI B71.1-
1968, safety specifications for power lawnmowers, so long as OSHA
thoroughly reviewed ANSI B71.1-1998 and determined that it does not
contain provisions that would serve to improve the existing OSHA
standard, 29 CFR 1910.243. OSHA assures IBT that it has conducted a
thorough review of ANSI B71.1-1998, and, for reasons discussed above,
determined that referencing it would not improve the existing OSHA
standard. 69 FR 68706, 68712.
Legal Considerations
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b). A
safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment.'' 29
U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within
the meaning of Section 652(8) if, among other things, a significant
risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the proposed standard
would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk.
This final rule will not reduce the employee protections put into
place by the standards being revised. The intent of this final rule is
to revoke references to consensus standards that are outdated, no
longer represent the state of the art in workplace safety, and are
confusing to employers and employees. It is therefore unnecessary to
determine significant risk, or the extent to which the final rule would
reduce that risk, as would typically be required by Industrial Union
Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607
(1980).
Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
This rule is not economically significant within the context of
Executive Order 12866, or a ``major rule'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. The rule would impose no additional costs on any private
or public sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an
economically significant or major rule specified by the Executive Order
or relevant statutes.
The rule simply deletes or revises a number of provisions in OSHA
standards that are outdated. The Agency concludes that the final rule
would not impose any additional costs on these employers. Consequently,
the rule requires no final economic analysis. Furthermore, because the
rule imposes no costs on employers, OSHA certifies that it would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, the Agency need not prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose or remove any information collection
requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501-30.
Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting
State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. E.O. 13132 provides for preemption of State
law only if there is a clear congressional intent for the Agency to do
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., expresses
Congress' intent to preempt State laws where OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State
can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of
such standards and their enforcement. 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational
safety and health standards developed by such States with State Plans
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Subject to these requirements, States with State Plans are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for safety and
health standards under State law.
This final rule complies with E.O. 13132. As Congress has expressed
a clear intent for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and
health rules in areas addressed by OSHA standards in States without
OSHA-approved State Plans, this rule limits State policy options in the
same manner as all OSHA standards. In States with OSHA-approved State
Plans, this action does not significantly limit State policy options.
State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 26 States or U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must
revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or
show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because an existing
State standard covering this area is already ``at least as effective''
as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). The State
standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must
be applicable to both the private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or standards amendment which does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard,
States are not required to revise their standards, although OSHA may
encourage them to do so. The 26 States and territories with OSHA-
approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut
(plan covers only State and local government employees), Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey (plan covers only State and local government
employees), New York (plan covers only State and local government
employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan covers only
State and local government employees), Washington, and Wyoming.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. For the
purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this final rule does
not impose any Federal mandate that may result in increased
expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or increased
expenditures by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any
year.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Consensus standards, Incorporation by reference, Occupational
safety and health.
Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Mr. Jonathan L.
Snare, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part
1911.
Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of August, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Amendments to Standards
0
Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby
amended as set forth below:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart A--General
0
1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Numbers
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), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable.
Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5
U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular
A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
Sec. 1910.6 [Amended]
0
2. Section 1910.6 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(e)(31); (e)(35); (e)(48); (f)(1); and (i)(2).
Subpart H--Hazardous Materials
0
3. The authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Orders Nos. 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; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119,
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 126 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.
Section 1910.119 also issued under section 304, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655
Note.
Section 1910.120 also issued under section 126, Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655
Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
4. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(a)(2) of Sec. 1910.106 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.106 Flammable and combustible liquids.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(a) * * *
(2) American Petroleum Institute Standards No. 650, Welded Steel
Tanks for Oil Storage, Third Edition, 1966.
* * * * *
Subpart J--General Environmental Controls
0
5. The authority citation for subpart J of part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No.
12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55
FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR
65008), as applicable.
Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
0
6. Paragraph (c)(4) of Sec. 1910.142 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.142 Temporary labor camps.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Where water under pressure is available, one or more drinking
fountains shall be provided for each 100 occupants or fraction thereof.
Common drinking cups are prohibited.
* * * * *
Subpart P--Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held
Equipment
0
7. The authority citation for subpart P of part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736),-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; 29
CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.243 also issued under 29 CFR part 1910.
0
8. Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of Sec. 1910.243 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.243 Guarding of portable powered tools.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Power lawnmowers of the walk-behind, riding-rotary, and reel
power lawnmowers shall be guarded in accordance with the machine
guarding requirements in 29 CFR 1910.212, General requirements for all
machines.
* * * * *
Subpart Q--Welding, Cutting and Brazing
0
9. The authority citation for subpart Q of part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Orders 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), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
10. Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1910.254 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.254 Arc welding and cutting.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) General. Workers assigned to operate or maintain arc welding
equipment shall be acquainted with the requirements of this section and
with 1910.252 (a), (b), and (c) of this part.
* * * * *
Subpart R--Special Industries
0
11. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017),
or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
12. Paragraph (c)(31)(i) of Sec. 1910.265 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.265 Sawmills.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(31) * * *
(i) Hazardous crossings. Railroad tracks and other hazardous
crossings shall be plainly posted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-17688 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
