[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21416-21598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07902]
Vol. 84
Tuesday,
No. 93
May 14, 2019
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, et al.
Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926
[OSHA-2012-0007]
RIN 1218-AC67
Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order 13563,
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' and consistent with
Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' OSHA
is removing or revising outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and
inconsistent requirements in its safety and health standards. The
current review, the fourth in this ongoing effort, the Standards
Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV), reduces regulatory burden while
maintaining or enhancing worker safety and health, and improving
privacy protections.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 15, 2019. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2019. There are a
number of collections of information contained in this final rule (see
Section VI, Paperwork Reduction Act). Notwithstanding the general date
of applicability that applies to all other requirements contained in
the final rule, affected parties do not have to comply with the
collections of information until the Department of Labor publishes a
separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the Office of
Management and Budget has approved them under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the agency
designates Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, 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:
General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
Office of Communications: telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
Technical inquiries: Mr. Vernon Preston, Directorate of
Construction: telephone: (202) 693-2020; fax: (202) 693-1689; email:
preston.vernon@dol.gov.
Copies of this Federal Register document. Electronic copies are
available at www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register document, as
well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Incorporated Standards
The standards published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)
required in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z; the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G; the
International Labour Organization (ILO) required in 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart
Z; the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) required in
29 CFR part 1926, subpart W; and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, are incorporated by
reference into these subparts with the approval of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Reasonable Availability and Summary of the Incorporated Standards
American Thoracic Society--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec. 1910.6 and
1910.1043(h)
The American Thoracic Society (ATS) provides free online public
access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated
into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online
viewing and a printable version of Spirometric Reference Values from a
Sample of the General U.S. Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR,
Fedan KB. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
159:179-187, 1999, is available at www.atsjournals.org/.
Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) required that health care providers
conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual values to
the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH,
2003), ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011)
all recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for
assessing spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population.
OSHA is now revising this provision to specify use of the NHANES III
reference data set and to replace the values currently in appendix C
with the NHANES III values, derived from Spirometric Reference Values
from a Sample of the General U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999).
The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative
of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference
values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians,
African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old.
Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal
accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et
al., 1999).
Federal Highway Administration--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec.
1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department
of Transportation provides free online access to view and print a read-
only copy of the materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart
G, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a printable version of
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
(MUTCD), 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May
2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov.
Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part VI of MUTCD,
1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or
December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). OSHA is revising subpart
G to update the incorporation by reference of Part 6 of the MUTCD to
the November 4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 Edition''), including Revision 1 and
Revision 2, both dated May 2012. This version of the MUTCD aims to
expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate
technology advances in traffic control device application (74 FR 66730,
77 FR 28455, and 77 FR 28460).
International Labour Organization--IBR Approval for Sec. 1910.6,
Appendix E to Sec. 1910.1001, Sec. 1915.5, Appendix E to Sec.
1915.1001, Sec. 1926.6, and Appendix E to Sec. 1926.1101
The International Labour Organization (ILO) provides free online
access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated
into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29
CFR part 1926, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a
printable version of the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO
International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised
Edition 2011, Occupational safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), is
available at www.ilo.org.
Digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional
analog film-based systems in medical facilities, and both the ILO and
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
recently published guidelines for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at
68509). OSHA is updating the version of the Guidelines for the Use of
ILO Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses to the 2011 version
(from the 1980 version), and clarifying that classification must be in
accordance with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a
professionally accepted Classification system'') in appendix E of each
of the three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
The International Organization for Standardization and the Society of
Automotive Engineers--IBR Approval for Subpart W
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides
for purchase materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W,
by this rulemaking. ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over
protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements,
Fourth Edition, Aug. 8, 2008; ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for
agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--Static test
method and acceptance conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013; and ISO
27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object
protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements,
First Edition, May 01, 2013, are available for purchase at www.iso.org.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) provides for purchase
materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, by this
rulemaking. SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970; SAE J168,
Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance Requirements,
approved July 1970; SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-
Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers,
revised July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J334a, Protective
Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements, revised July 1970;
SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers,
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J395, Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler
Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July 1969 (editorial change
July 1970); SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969; and SAE
J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of
Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969, are
available for purchase at www.sae.org/standards.
The original source standards for subpart W requirements were
derived from SAE Standards. The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and
develop new equipment, the industry now uses the most recent ISO
standards. Equipment manufactured after the effective date of this
final rule must meet the applicable test and performance requirements
for the ISO standards. Equipment manufactured before the effective date
of this final rule must meet the former SAE requirements of subpart W,
or the test and performance requirements for the applicable ISO
standards that apply to newly manufactured equipment.
ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective
structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth
Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c), specifies performance requirements for
metallic roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for earth-moving
machinery, as well as a consistent and reproducible means of evaluating
the compliance with these requirements by laboratory testing using
static loading on a representative specimen.
ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over
protective structures--Static test method and acceptance conditions,
Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1002(c), specifies a static test method and the acceptance
conditions for roll-over protective structures (cab or frame) of
wheeled or tracked tractors for agriculture and forestry.
ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling
object protective structures--Test procedures and performance
requirements, First Edition, May 01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1003(c), sets forth the test procedures and
performance requirements for a falling object protective structure, in
the event such a structure is installed on an agricultural or forestry
tractor.
SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection--Test
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1003(b), establishes requirements of a frame
including overhead cover for the protection of operators on wheel type
agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the possibility of
operator injury resulting from accidental upsets and overhead hazards
during normal operation.
SAE J168, Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1002(b),
specifies test procedures and performance requirements for wheel type
agricultural and industrial tractors equipped with protective
enclosures necessary to fulfill the intended purposes.
SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised July 1969
(editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b),
provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural
adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1002(b),
establishes requirements of a frame for the protection of operators on
wheel type agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the
possibility of operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during
normal operation.
SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers,
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970) IBR approved for
1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency with a means of testing for
structural adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July
1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b),
provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural
adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial change July
1970), IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency
with a means of testing for structural adequacy of a roll-over
protective structure (ROPS) design.
SAE J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for
Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969,
IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b), covers
characteristics and dimensions of a critical zone to prevent crushing
of an operator during roll-over.
Dates of Approval and Further Availability
The incorporation by reference of materials from the ATS, ILO,
FHWA, and ISO is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
July 15, 2019. The incorporation by reference of the various SAE
standards in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register before January 6, 2015.
All approved material is available for inspection at the OSHA
Docket Office (U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-3508, Washington DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350) and is
available from the sources listed in 29 CFR 1910.6, 29 CFR 1915.5, and
29 CFR 1926.6. The material is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
V. Legal Considerations
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
Health
I. Executive Summary
OSHA is making 14 revisions to existing standards in the
recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards.
The purpose of the Standards Improvement Project (SIP) is to remove or
revise outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent
requirements in OSHA's safety and health standards, which will permit
better compliance by employers and reduce costs and paperwork burdens
where possible, without reducing employee protections. In fact, many of
the revisions in this rulemaking reduce costs while improving worker
safety and health or privacy. OSHA is conducting SIP-IV in response to
the President's Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulations and
Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821), and consistent with Executive Order
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). The
revisions include an update to the consensus standard incorporated by
reference for signs and devices used to protect workers near automobile
traffic, a revision to the requirements for roll-over protective
structures to comply with current consensus standards, updates for
storage of digital x-rays, and the method of calling emergency services
to allow for use of current technology. OSHA is also revising two
standards to align with current medical practice: A reduction to the
number of necessary employee x-rays and updates to requirements for
pulmonary function testing. To protect employee privacy and prevent
identity fraud, OSHA is also removing from the standards the
requirements that employers include an employee's social security
number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and other
records.
SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) to
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements. The agency
estimates cost savings and paperwork reductions for SIP rulemakings.
The agency estimates that one revision (updating the method of
identifying and calling emergency medical services) may increase
construction employers' combined costs by about $32,000 per year while
two provisions (reduction in the number of necessary employee x-rays
and elimination of posting requirements for residential construction
employers) provide estimated combined cost savings of $6.1 million
annually. This final rule is considered an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771
deregulatory action. Details on OSHA's cost/cost savings estimates for
this final rule can be found in the rule's Final Economic Analysis and
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis in this preamble. OSHA has
estimated that, at a discount rate of 3 percent over 10 years, 7
percent over 10 years, or 7 percent over a perpetual time horizon, this
final rule yields net annual cost savings of $6.1 million per year.
The agency has not estimated or quantified benefits to employees
from reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to employers for the
reduced cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-ray films. The
agency has concluded that the revisions are economically feasible and
do not have any significant economic impact on small businesses. The
Final Economic Analysis in this preamble provides an explanation of the
economic effects of the revisions.
II. Background
The purpose of the SIP-IV rulemaking is to remove or revise
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in
OSHA's safety and health standards. The agency believes that improving
OSHA standards will increase employers' understanding of their
obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, improved employee
safety and health, and reduced compliance costs.
In 1995, in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve
government regulation,\1\ OSHA began a series of rulemakings designed
to revise or remove standards that were confusing, outdated,
duplicative, or inconsistent. OSHA published the first rulemaking,
``Standards Improvement Project, Phase I'' (SIP-I) on June 18, 1998 (63
FR 33450).\2\ Two additional rounds of SIP rulemaking followed, with
final SIP rules published in 2005 (SIP-II) (70 FR 1111) and 2011 (SIP-
III) (76 FR 33590).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clinton, W.J., Memorandum for Heads of Departments and
Agencies. Subject: Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. March 4, 1995.
\2\ Revisions made by the SIP-I rulemaking included adjustments
to the medical-surveillance and emergency-response provisions of the
Coke Oven Emissions, Inorganic Arsenic, and Vinyl Chloride
standards, and removal of unnecessary provisions from the Temporary
Labor Camps standard and the textile industry standards.
\3\ In the final SIP-II rule published in 2005 (70 FR 1111),
OSHA revised a number of provisions in its health and safety
standards identified as needing improvement either by the Agency or
by commenters during the SIP-I rulemaking. These included updating
or removing notification requirements from several standards,
updating requirements for first aid kits to reflect newer consensus
standards, updating requirements for laboratories analyzing samples
under the vinyl chloride standard, and making worker exposure
monitoring frequencies consistent under certain health standards,
among other things. The final SIP-III rule, published in 2011 (76 FR
33590), updated consensus standards incorporated by reference in
several OSHA rules, deleted provisions in a number of OSHA standards
that required employers to prepare and maintain written training-
certification records for personal protective equipment, revised
several sanitation standards to permit hand drying by high-velocity
dryers, and modified OSHA's sling standards to require that
employers use only appropriately marked or tagged slings for lifting
capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the President's Executive Order 13563 (E.O.),
``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' establishes the goals
and criteria for regulatory review, and requires agencies to review
existing standards and regulations to ensure that these standards and
regulations continue to protect public health, welfare, and safety
effectively, while promoting economic growth and job creation. The E.O.
encourages agencies to use the best, least burdensome means to achieve
regulatory objectives, to perform periodic reviews of existing
standards to identify outmoded, ineffective, or burdensome standards,
and to modify, streamline, or repeal such standards when appropriate.
The agency believes that the SIP rulemaking process is an effective
means to improve its standards.
OSHA advised the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH) at a public meeting held on December 16, 2011, that it
intended to review its standards under the SIP criteria, with
particular emphasis on construction standards. A transcription of these
proceedings (ACCSH Transcript) is available at Docket No. OSHA-2011-
0124-0026.
Recognizing the importance of public participation in the SIP
process, the agency published a Request for Information (RFI) on
December 6, 2012 (77 FR 72781), asking the public to identify standards
that were in need of revision or removal, and to explain how such
action would reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or increasing
the protection afforded to employees. The agency received 26 comments
in response to the RFI. Several of the revisions in this rule were
recommended in the public comments received in response to the RFI.
Other revisions were identified by the agency's own internal review and
by ACCSH.
On October 4, 2016, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV'' (81 FR
68504). The period for submitting comments was originally 60 days and
was extended by 30 days to allow parties affected by the rule more time
to review the proposed rule and collect information and data necessary
for comments. The comment period ended on January 4, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The NPRM was also consistent with Executive Order 13777,
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). That
Executive Order requires each agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force
to identify regulations for ``repeal, replacement, or modification''
that, among other things, ``eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation;'' ``are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;'' or
``impose costs that exceed benefits.'' Id. section 3(d). In OSHA's
view, the regulatory provisions identified in the NPRM met those
criteria for repeal, replacement, or modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA received around 700 submissions on the proposed rulemaking,
with many of the submissions containing comments on more than one of
the proposed revisions. The proposed revision to the shipyards standard
to remove ``feral cats'' from the definition of ``vermin'' received
over 500 comments in support. The proposed revision to the lockout/
tagout standard in general industry received about 150 comments against
and seven in favor. The remaining comments cover the other proposed
revisions. All significant issues raised in the comments are discussed
in the Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
OSHA is moving forward with 14 revisions in its recordkeeping,
general industry, maritime, and construction standards. OSHA is not
moving forward with proposed revisions to the lockout/tagout general
industry standard, personal protective equipment fit in construction,
the excavation construction standard, or the decompression tables in
the underground construction standard. OSHA received requests for a
hearing on the proposal regarding the lockout/tagout standard from some
commenters that were opposed to that proposal. In light of the
information provided by the comments, OSHA is not in a position at this
time to make a final decision on this issue. As a result, the agency
will further consider this issue in light of the overall standard. As
OSHA is not moving forward with the proposed changes to the lockout/
tagout standard, the agency determined that a hearing was not required.
OSHA describes the revisions, including changes from the proposal and
decisions not to move forward on four proposals, in detail in section
III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
A. Revision in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Recording and
Reporting Standards (29 CFR Part 1904)
Subpart C--Recording Forms and Recording Criteria, Recording Criteria
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss in 29 CFR 1904.10
OSHA proposed to revise Sec. 1904.10(b)(6) of the Recordkeeping
rule with language that will assist employers to comply with
requirements for recording hearing loss. Title 29 CFR 1904.5 applies to
the determination criteria for work-relatedness of all occupational
injuries and illnesses, including hearing loss. OSHA proposed adding a
cross-reference to this section to clarify requirements for physicians
or other licensed health care professionals (PLHCPs) when making a
determination of work-relatedness for cases of hearing loss. The final
rule is identical to the proposal.
The addition of the cross-reference simply emphasizes the pre-
existing requirement that, if an event or exposure in the work
environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or
significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss, the PLHCP, just
as anybody else evaluating a case involving hearing loss, must consider
the case to be work-related. Ultimately, the employer is responsible
for ensuring that the PLHCP applies the analysis in Sec. 1904.5 when
evaluating work-related hearing loss, if the employer chooses to rely
on the PLHCP's opinion in determining recordability.
Commenters who opposed the addition of this cross-reference at
Sec. 1904.10(b)(6) represented employers in manufacturing and
construction sectors. These commenters stated that if OSHA intended for
Sec. 1904.5, specifically the presumption of work-relatedness, to
apply to occupational hearing loss cases, the rulemaking to revise the
hearing loss provisions in the rule on recording and reporting
occupational injuries and illnesses in 2002 should have contained this
explicitly (Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting
Requirements, 67 FR 44037 (July 1, 2002)). (See discussion of specific
comments below.) However, OSHA notes that the existing regulatory text
of Sec. 1904.10(b)(5) already confirms this where it states, ``You
must use the rules in Sec. 1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is
work-related.'' The addition of the new cross-reference is merely to
reduce any existing confusion. OSHA has received compelling evidence
from commenters representing workers' unions and the field of audiology
that there is confusion about the interpretation of Sec. 1904.10(b)(6)
and what definition of work-relatedness applies. The agency believes
that the simple addition of this cross-reference to another existing
requirement adds clarity for PHLCPs and employers, and after
considering the comments on this proposal, OSHA has decided to add the
cross-reference to Sec. 1904.5 in Sec. 1904.10(b)(6).
Several commenters expressed support for OSHA's proposed cross-
reference to Sec. 1904.5 in Sec. 1904.10(b)(6). The Laborers' Health
& Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building
Trades Union (NABTU) stated that hearing loss among construction
workers is severely underreported (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, -0757). NABTU
cited the CPWR Center for Construction Research and Training's Fifth
Edition of the Construction Chart Book which suggests that rates of
hearing loss in the construction industry are elevated significantly
beyond the 1,400 cases that BLS reported from 2004 to 2010:
Since employers have no obligation to test workers' hearing
(audiometric testing) in construction, even if employees experience
noise levels at or above OSHA's PEL, hearing loss in construction is
rarely recognized as an
occupational disease. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
numbers reported to the BLS show a very low rate of hearing loss,
and for this reason hearing loss data for construction are not
comparable with data for general industry.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0781). The CPWR Chart Book notes that in the 7 years
between 2004 and 2010, the BLS reported 1,400 cases of hearing loss in
construction. They contrasted this number with hearing data that are
collected by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large
household survey in the U.S. In the NHIS Survey, at least one in five
(21.4%) construction workers self-reported some hearing trouble in 2010
(chart 49b). The CPWR Chart Book indicates that this is nearly one-
third higher than the proportion of workers with hearing trouble for
all industries combined (16.3%). Id.
NABTU stated that the addition of the cross-reference would clarify
that a PLHCP has the same responsibilities in evaluating whether
hearing loss is work-related as in evaluating any other workplace
injury or illness. NABTU added that OSHA's proposed revision to Sec.
1904.10 would provide consistency between standards, and that the
clarification would serve to improve reporting of work-related hearing
loss (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, and Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
(USW) also supported the addition of the cross-reference. USW described
a case involving USW members in which a health care professional
consistently ruled that cases of hearing loss were not occupational,
even though those workers had experienced high workplace noise levels
for years. Each case was instead attributed to loud music, firing a gun
while hunting, or some other non-occupational cause (OSHA-2012-0007-
0764).
The AFL-CIO stated that:
It appears that many employers are misinterpreting the current
language in section 1904.10(b)(6) to allow a physician to use
different criteria for determining work-relatedness than are set
forth in section 1904.5 of the regulation. This proposal will help
to make clear that physicians and other health care professionals
must apply the criteria in section 1904.5 of the recordkeeping rule
in making determinations whether hearing loss is work-related for
the purposes of recording the case on the OSHA 300 log. The
recording of such cases will help identify jobs and operations where
workers are exposed to excessive levels of noise and assist in
efforts to control these exposures to prevent further risk to
workers.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
Dr. Alice Suter, Ph.D., provided a link to a position paper from
the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA), ``NHCA Guidelines
on Recording Hearing Loss on the OSHA 300 Log.'' It states:
Professional reviewers commonly report pressure by their clients
to make a determination that an STS [Standard Threshold Shift] is
not recordable. Some have been questioned and challenged on every
case they have identified as work-related. Others are unsure of
their obligations under the OSHA regulations . . . To the extent
that STSs are minimized because of reluctance to report them,
workers are not getting the necessary counseling, hearing protector
checking, and noise control remedies that could prevent further
hearing loss.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
In her comments, Dr. Suter stated that (a) the definition of an STS
is quite lenient--so any STS is already a significant shift in hearing
threshold level; (b) to qualify for recordability, the hearing loss
must first exceed a hearing threshold level of 25dB, which is quite a
significant level itself; and (c) to be in a hearing conservation
program and to have one's hearing tested, workers are, by definition,
exposed to levels of 85 dBA or above, where the risk of noise-induced
hearing loss is well-known (OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
Several associations representing employer interests in
manufacturing and construction industries expressed opposition to this
revision. The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) and the
Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS) believed that the addition of a
reference to Sec. 1904.5 at Sec. 1904.10(b)(6) would substantively
change the requirements for recording occupational hearing loss cases
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756). This cross-reference creates no new
requirement. In fact, the same cross-reference to Sec. 1904.5 already
exists in the language of Sec. 1904.10(b), which is adjacent and
immediately prior to Sec. 1904.10(b)(6). Section 1904.10(b)(5)
requires the employer to employ the rules of Sec. 1904.5 to ascertain
if the hearing loss is work related. The provision also states that the
hearing loss must be considered work related if an event or exposure in
the work environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss,
or significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.
The addition of the very same cross-reference in Sec.
1904.10(b)(6) merely ensures consistency between provisions, provides
clarity for PLHCPs in the assessment and determination of hearing loss
cases, and in no way alters interpretation of the existing regulations
under part 1904.
Section 1904.5(a) states that an injury or illness is to be
considered work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment
either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or
significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-
relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from
events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an
exception in Sec. 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies. Section
1904.5(b)(1) defines the work environment as ``the establishment and
other locations where one or more employees are working or are present
as a condition of their employment.'' OSHA sometimes refers to this
presumption for injuries and illnesses that occur in the work
environment to be work-related as the ``geographical presumption.'' In
their comments, CISC and CWS noted that in OSHA's 2002 preamble to the
revision of Sec. 1904.10, the agency stated:
OSHA agrees . . . that it is not appropriate to include a
presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases to employees
who are working in noisy work environments. It is possible for a
worker who is exposed at or above the 8-hour 85 dBA action levels of
the noise standard to experience a non-work-related hearing loss,
and it is also possible for a worker to experience a work-related
hearing loss and not be exposed to those levels.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756 (quoting 67 FR 44037, 44045)). This
statement was not addressing the geographic presumption of Sec.
1904.5, but a different presumption--that of work-relatedness whenever
the employee was exposed to noise of 85 dBA or greater, as in the 2001
revision of Sec. 1904.10(b)(5). The current regulations do not contain
a presumption that hearing loss is work-related when the work
environment is loud (85 dBA or greater). The clarification to Sec.
1904.10(b)(6) does not, and could not, create such a presumption.
OSHA clarified in the 2002 rulemaking that Sec. 1904.5 is to be
followed when making work-relatedness determinations. 67 FR 44037,
44045. The 2001 version of Sec. 1904.10(b)(5) had created a special
rule for noise exposure in the workplace, providing that hearing loss
is presumed to be work-related if the employee is exposed to noise in
the workplace at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or greater,
or to a total noise dose of 50 percent, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.95.
For hearing loss cases where the employee is not exposed to this level
of noise, the rules in Sec. 1904.5 must be used to determine if the
hearing loss is work-related.
Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements,
66 FR 5916, 6129 (Jan. 19, 2001). But in 2002, OSHA abandoned the
special rule and reverted to treating the determination of work-
relatedness of hearing loss as it does for any other injury or illness
under the recordkeeping rule: ``Therefore, the final rule states that
there are no special rules for determining work-relationship and
restates that the rule's overall approach to work-relatedness--that a
case is work-related if one or more events or exposures in the work
environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or
significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.'' 67 FR at 44045
(emphasis added). The text of Sec. 1904.10(b)(5) confirms this: ``You
must use the rules in Sec. 1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is
work-related.''
OSHA maintains that indeed it is not appropriate to include an
outright presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases. For
example, as stipulated at Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)(ii), if an employee in a
high-noise work environment meets the recording criteria for hearing
loss, but a physician discovers that the employee has an inner ear
infection that is entirely responsible for the loss, the case would not
be considered work-related. OSHA has consistently interpreted Sec.
1904.10(b)(6) this way since 2001:
[T]he provisions allowing for review by a physician or other
licensed health care professional allow for the exclusion of hearing
loss cases that are not caused by noise exposure, such as off the
job traumatic injury to the ear, infections, and the like. OSHA
notes that this presumption is consistent with a similar presumption
in OSHA's Occupational Noise standard (in both cases, an employer is
permitted to rebut this presumption if he or she suspects that the
hearing loss shown on an employer's audiogram in fact has a medical
etiology and this is confirmed by a physician or other licensed
health care professional).
66 FR 5916, 6012. The addition of a cross-reference in Sec.
1904.10(b)(6) adds no new requirement and merely clarifies the existing
requirements for PLCHPs, and ultimately employers, in hearing loss case
determinations.
The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) submitted comments stating that
the revision, as proposed, would significantly expand the employer's
responsibility for hearing loss that may have just as easily been
incurred through workers' off-duty behaviors including the use of ``ear
buds'' or headphones, power tools, lawn mowers, chain saws, or
attendance at music or sporting events. GAC stated that this revision
would negate workers' non-workplace noise exposures, and increase OSHA
recordables and enforcement actions unfairly (OSHA-2012-0007-0737).
But for a case to be presumed work-related, there must be a causal
connection between the injury or illness and an event or exposure at
work. This does not mean that work factors must outweigh non-work
factors in causing the injury, or that work factors must be
quantifiable, e.g., a 10% or 20% cause, or that work factors must be
``significant.'' Causality for OSHA recordkeeping purposes is
established if work is a cause. In order to further clarify the issue
of work-relatedness, in 2001, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement
with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to resolve NAM's
challenge to the 2001 recordkeeping final rule. The settlement
agreement states that ``a case is presumed work-related if, and only
if, an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause
of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to pre-
existing condition. The work event or exposure need only be one of the
discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant cause.''
Settlement Agreement: Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and
Reporting, 66 FR 66943, 66944 (Dec. 27, 2001). As a result, the
geographic presumption treats a case as work-related if work is one
cause, even if there are also other non-work causes. However, there
must be a causal relationship between the injury or illness and a work
event; there is no presumption that an injury is work-related simply
because it occurs at work (see Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)).
GAC and Formosa Plastics also disagreed specifically with the use
of language from Compliance Directive CPL 02-00-135 in the proposed
rule preamble, with GAC stating that by incorporating language from a
compliance directive into the standard, OSHA would in effect be turning
guidance into a requirement (OSHA-2012-0007-0737, -6333). OSHA
disagrees. The only revision of the regulatory text is to add the
cross-reference to the existing regulatory provision at Sec. 1904.5.
OSHA is adding this cross-reference through the use of notice-and-
comment rulemaking, in this Standards Improvement Project-IV
rulemaking, which is the proper and appropriate way to make changes to
the CFR. This cross-reference adds no new requirement for employers,
removes ambiguity, and adds clarity to OSHA enforcement policy already
currently in place.
The Flexible Packing Association and Bemis Company also submitted
comments that emphasized that to enter a hearing conservation program,
an employee must be exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound
level of 85 dBA or higher (OSHA-2012-0007-0765, -6338). That is
correct, under 29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1), and is not being changed by this
rulemaking.
The American Petroleum Institute commented that it had no concerns
about the proposed cross-reference, but it did have concerns about the
language of the compliance directive (OSHA-2012-0007-0766). The only
change being made here is the addition of a cross-reference to Sec.
1904.5.
Some organizations that were generally supportive of the cross-
reference felt that it could be improved by the addition of further
language. The USW suggested that the cross-reference also be included
in the occupational noise exposure standard at Sec. 1910.95(g)(8)(ii),
as follows: ``. . . unless a physician determines in accord with
Section 1904.5 that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or
aggravated by occupational noise exposure . . . (bolded italics
added)'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). While OSHA appreciates that suggestion,
OSHA is not making any changes to the occupational noise standard that
were not proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM.
NIOSH felt that consistency may not be accomplished by simply
cross-referencing to Sec. 1904.5, because Sec. 1904.5 differs in some
respects from the compliance directive. It is OSHA's regulations that
are enforceable, and OSHA is only adding the cross-reference to the
existing regulatory definition of work-relatedness here.
NIOSH also made the distinction that:
Sec. 1904.5 states that determination of whether work
``significantly aggravated'' a pre-existing illness or injury is
made when the work exposure causes one of the following (which would
not have occurred simply from the pre-existing condition):
i. Death
ii. Loss of consciousness
iii. One or more days away from work, or days of restricted work, or
days of job transfer
iv. Medical treatment or a change in medical treatment.
Occupational noise exposure does not cause i-iv and cross
referencing to Sec. 1904.5 may be confusing.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA agrees that Sec. 1904.5(b)(4), which NIOSH
cited, is not applicable to hearing loss. However, as explained above,
Sec. 1904.10(b)(5) already requires analysis under Sec. 1904.5. OSHA
will not be
adding language beyond the cross-reference to the text of Sec.
1904.10(b)(6), and the final text is identical to the proposed text.
B. Revisions in General Industry Standards, Shipyard Standards, and
Construction Standards (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926)
1. Subpart Z of Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926--Toxic and Hazardous
Substances, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1910.1001, Inorganic Arsenic in 29 CFR
1910.1018, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1910.27, Coke Oven Emissions in 29 CFR
1910.29, Acrylonitrile in 29 CFR 1910.1045, Asbestos in 29 CFR
1915.1001, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1926.1101, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1926.1127.
OSHA proposed three revisions. The first revision was to remove the
requirement in several of its standards that employers provide periodic
chest X-rays (CXR) to screen for lung cancer. The final rule retains
that proposed revision without change. The second revision was to allow
employers to use digital radiography and other reasonably-sized
standard films for X-rays. The final rule retains that proposed
revision without change. The third revision was to update terminology
and references to the International Labour Organization (ILO)
guidelines included in its asbestos standards (81 FR 68504, 68507-
68511). The final rule's language is nearly the same as that originally
proposed, but with some minor changes to respond to concerns raised by
NIOSH.
Several OSHA standards currently require periodic CXR to screen
exposed workers for lung cancer. Since these standards were
promulgated, however, large studies with many years of follow-up have
not shown a benefit of CXR screening in reducing either lung cancer
incidence or mortality (see 81 FR at 68507-68511). As a result, OSHA
proposed removing the requirement for periodic CXR in the following
standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec. 1910.1029, Coke
Oven Emissions; and Sec. 1910.1045, Acrylonitrile. OSHA did not
propose to remove the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or any
other, standards, as baseline CXR at pre-placement or at the initiation
of a medical surveillance program provides benefits to workers exposed
to lung carcinogens, their employers, and healthcare professionals
evaluating these workers (see 81 FR at 68509). OSHA also did not
propose removing the CXR requirements in standards where CXR is used
for purposes other than screening for lung cancer. For example, OSHA is
retaining the CXR requirements in the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to continue screening for
asbestosis. OSHA proposed adding the text, ``Pleural plaques and
thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-mandatory
appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec. 1910.1001),
as well as the parallel appendices in the Maritime and Construction
asbestos standards (Sec. 1915.1001, appendix I; Sec. 1926.1101,
appendix I) (see 81 FR at 68564, 68662, 68684).
OSHA also proposed updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not
require, the use of digital CXRs, also referred to as digital
radiographs, in the medical surveillance provisions of its inorganic
arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec. 1910.1029), and
acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045) standards discussed above, and its
asbestos (Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium
(Sec. Sec. 1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. Digital radiography
systems are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities, and both the ILO and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently published guidelines
for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at 68509). In addition, OSHA
proposed allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as
the 16 inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by
17 inch film specified in some standards. This proposed change would
affect the acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045), inorganic arsenic (Sec.
1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec. 1910.1029), and asbestos
(Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) standards. Updating
this requirement, as proposed, would ensure consistency across
standards as well as conformance with current medical practice (81 FR
at 68510).
Lastly, OSHA proposed replacement of ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-
ray'' to reflect current terminology and corrections to remove
references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven
emissions appendices (Sec. 1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)),
as these exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR
1112). OSHA also proposed making changes to conform to the language
used in the ILO's ``Guidelines for the use of the ILO International
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses,'' which refers to a
classification system as applying to CXR, while interpretation refers
to the information translated by the physician to the employer. The
proposed revisions clarified that classification must be in accordance
with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a professionally
accepted Classification system'') according to the Guidelines for use
of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) in appendix E of each of the
three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
Comments and Responses on Removing the Requirement To Provide Periodic
CXR To Screen for Lung Cancer
OSHA received several comments supporting the proposal to remove
the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer screening from the
inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.
1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045) standards. These
comments came from organizations representing labor, industry, and
NIOSH.
Among labor unions, the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North
America (LHSFNA) noted, ``Chest X-rays are of very little value in lung
cancer cases'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Similarly, the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers International Union (USW) stated, ``There is no
evidence that ordinary chest x-rays can detect lung cancer in time to
affect mortality'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW noted that low-dose
computed tomography (LDCT), unlike CXR, can detect lung cancer while
treatable, but brings with it the risk of increased radiation exposure
and false positive results. USW further stated that better equipment
and protocols have helped with the latter two problems, and that LDCT
will continue to improve (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW recommended
that OSHA consider adopting LDCT in the future for high-risk
populations (OSHA-2012-0007-0764).
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) agreed with OSHA's
proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement, writing, ``We agree
that it is long past time to remove requirements for CXRs for the
screening detection of lung cancer, since they have no benefit and
offer only harm'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). With regard to LDCT, however,
NABTU stated that OSHA should replace the CXR requirement with a
carefully-monitored LDCT screening requirement:
[W]hile `OSHA will continue to monitor the literature on [whether to
continue to require] baseline Chest X-rays', the agency offers no
similar assurance about other forms of screening for lung cancer
and, in particular, includes an inadequate assessment of the
benefits of LDCT. After citing a Cochran review that is 3 years old
and opining that it may take NIOSH years to come up with
recommendations, OSHA effectively absolves employers from any
requirement to offer an intervention that has been demonstrated to
save lives. This clearly violates the intent of the standards and
raises the concern that OSHA intends to wait another 30 years before
making needed updates.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
NABTU further stated that OSHA is ``repeating the mistakes that
lead to the CXR requirements and this overdue standard improvement''
and should ensure that current medical input is considered in this
standard improvement (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU asserted that LDCT
screening for lung cancer has been endorsed by most relevant medical
organizations, as prospective studies have demonstrated LDCT to be an
effective lung screening method (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Recognizing the
potential for unnecessary biopsies and surgical interventions from LDCT
screening, NABTU advocated for LDCT screening only for workers with
sufficient smoking history and a history of occupational lung
carcinogen exposure (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU cited the Building
Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed) as an example, which
screens former Department of Energy (DOE) construction workers for lung
cancer with LDCT if they meet the following criteria: Age between 50 to
79 years; five years of employment at a DOE site; smoking history of 20
pack-years (number of cigarette packs per day times number of years
smoked) or evidence of asbestosis on CXR; and not recently treated for
cancer. The findings among 1,300 scanned workers have included 15 Stage
1 lung cancers, two Stage 2 lung cancers, and six Stage 4 lung cancers
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on these data, NABTU urged OSHA to adopt
an LDCT screening requirement using the criteria from the BTMed
program, and to collaborate with NIOSH and the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) to continue to evaluate outcomes and modify LDCT
screening requirements (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU also submitted to
the record guidance from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
(FIOH) and the Lung Cancer Alliance on LDCT screening for asbestos
workers (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachments 4 and 5, respectively).
OSHA acknowledges the concerns of NABTU about not replacing the
periodic CXR requirement with an appropriate intervention for lung
cancer screening. OSHA also appreciates the data shared from the BTMed
Program, which appeared to show LDCT as a useful tool for lung cancer
detection. However, OSHA believes that the utility of LDCT in
occupational lung cancer screening remains a complex issue, as the
agency is not aware of any definitive LDCT screening recommendations
based upon a large, randomized, controlled study of workers. Instead,
the screening recommendations have stemmed from a study of smokers
(i.e., the National Lung Screening Trial), as referenced by NABTU (see
Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
The National Lung Screening Trial enrolled asymptomatic men and
women (n=53,454), aged 55 to 74, that were current smokers or former
smokers within the last 15 years and had a smoking history of at least
30 pack-years. The participants underwent annual lung cancer screening
with either LDCT or chest radiography for three years. The results
showed a statistically significant 20 percent relative reduction in
lung cancer mortality with LDCT screening (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). However, the trial also showed that LDCT
screening results in a high false-positive rate; 24.2 percent of the
total LDCT screening tests were classified as positive, with 96.4
percent of these positive results ultimately being false positives. In
addition, 39.1 percent of the 26,722 (or about 10,450) participants in
the LDCT screening group had at least one positive screening result
during the study (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
Attachment 3). Given that only 649 cancers were diagnosed after a
positive screening test, and assuming that each of these cancers was in
a different participant, it follows that only 6.2 percent of those with
at least one positive test were ultimately diagnosed with lung cancer.
This means that 36.7 percent of participants in the LDCT screening
group had at least one false positive result. Most positive initial
screening results in the National Lung Screening Trial--many of which
were false positives--were followed up with a diagnostic evaluation
that included further imaging and, infrequently, invasive procedures
(Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). The authors
noted potentially harmful effects that could result, including
overdiagnosis and the development of radiation-induced cancer (Aberle,
et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
Based on these findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent, volunteer
panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine,
recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT for adults aged
55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who either
currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Under USPSTF's
criteria, screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked
for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits
life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung
surgery (Moyer et al., 2014) (OSHA-2012-0007-0032). However, given the
high false positive rate and subsequent imaging and resulting radiation
dose in the National Lung Screening Trial, the USPSTF also noted that
lung cancer screening with LDCT is not without harm:
The benefit of screening varies with risk because persons who
are at higher risk because of smoking history or other risk factors
are more likely to benefit. Screening cannot prevent most lung
cancer deaths, and smoking cessation remains essential. Lung cancer
screening has substantial harms, most notably the risk for false-
positive results and incidental findings that lead to a cascade of
testing and treatment that may result in more harms, including the
anxiety of living with a lesion that may be cancer. Overdiagnosis of
lung cancer and the risks of radiation are real harms, although
their magnitude is uncertain. The decision to begin screening should
be the result of a thorough discussion of the possible benefits,
limitations, and known and uncertain harms (Moyer, et al., 2014).
(OSHA-2012-0007-0032).
In addition to the USPSTF, several other organizations have
recommended similar lung cancer screening protocols for high-risk
smokers, including the American Cancer Society, American College of
Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Lung
Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American
Association for Thoracic Surgery. Each organization's specific
screening recommendations are summarized by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf.
OSHA is not aware of any definitive recommendations based on a
large, randomized, controlled study examining the benefit of lung
cancer screening with LDCT among occupationally-exposed workers. NABTU
supplied a report by the FIOH that recommended LDCT screening in
asbestos-exposed individuals if their personal combination of risk
factors yields a risk for lung cancer equal to that needed for entry
into the National
Lung Screening Trial (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Similarly, as
discussed by NABTU, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a
nonprofit alliance of 27 cancer centers, recommended screening for two
high risk groups: (1) Current or former smokers within the last 15
years who are ages 55 to 74 years with a smoking history of 30 pack-
years or more; or (2) individuals age 50 years or older with a smoking
history of at least 20 pack-years and with one or more additional risk
factors; these risk factors include a history of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) or pulmonary fibrosis, a history of cancer, a
family history of lung cancer, radon exposure, or occupational exposure
to asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (VI), nickel,
silica, or diesel fumes (see www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf). The former criteria are very similar to those
recommended by the USPTF for heavy smokers, while the latter criteria
are similar to those used in the NABTU BTMed program: Age 50 to 79
years, not recently treated for cancer, with five years of employment
at a Department of Energy (DOE) site and either a 20 pack-year smoking
history or evidence of asbestosis on CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
NABTU submitted to the record a study by McKee et al. (2015, OSHA-
2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2) in which individuals meeting either NCCN
group 1 or group 2 criteria (see above) were offered an LDCT screening
scan between January 2012 and December 2013. The authors examined the
lung cancer detection outcomes between the two groups, as ``[i]nclusion
of the group 2 population into annual lung screening has generated
controversy because this group was not formally evaluated in the NLST
[National Lung Screening Trial] or other CT lung screening trials''
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2). Of 1,760 persons scanned (1,296 in
group 1 and 464 in group 2), there were 481 positive results (365 in
group 1 and 116 in group 2). Follow-up data were available for 1,328
(75%) scanned individuals (997 in group 1 and 331 in group 2) and
indicated 23 diagnosed cancers (17 in group 1 and six in group 2).
Overall, the group 2 results were substantively similar to the group 1
results, for both the rate of positive results and the annualized
cancer detection rates. The authors concluded that screening
eligibility should be expanded to include group 2 (McKee et al., 2015)
(OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2).
While the published results of the McKee et al. study are somewhat
encouraging for the potential future use of LDCT, OSHA notes that no
information was provided about the false positive rate, subsequent
imaging or invasive procedures, and cumulative radiation dose received.
The 481 positive results among 1,760 persons screened indicates a total
positive rate of 27 percent, the majority of which were likely false
positives given the 23 diagnosed cancers among the 1,328 persons with
follow-up data. In addition, it is unclear the extent to which persons
in Group 2 were occupationally exposed, as only 24% (approximately 129)
of the 538 persons in Group 2 were reported to have carcinogen exposure
(see Fig. 3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). The carcinogen itself
or the amount of exposure was not specified, and the majority of
persons in Group 2 were instead included in the group based on having a
history of a chronic lung disease or smoking-related cancer (see Fig.
3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). It is also unclear if any of the
six people diagnosed with cancer in Group 2 had exposure to an
occupational carcinogen. In addition, lung cancer mortality was not
studied. Thus, OSHA maintains that additional research, specifically
well-conducted, randomized, controlled studies of occupationally-
exposed workers, is needed to establish the efficacy of LDCT screening
for lung cancer among workers.
OSHA's position is further supported by the 2014 FIOH report,
provided by NABTU (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4), and NIOSH. FIOH
reviewed the literature on the efficacy of lung cancer screening with
LDCT in asbestos-exposed workers, and concluded that lung cancer
screening with LDCT should be considered for those persons with prior
exposure to asbestos who are at or above the risk threshold (1.34% over
6 years) set for participation in the National Lung Screening Trial
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). However, FIOH found that none of
the risk calculators they examined showed a risk approaching the
National Lung Screening Trial risk threshold for a 50-year-old man with
a smoking history of 20 pack-years and occupational exposure to
asbestos; the risk threshold was exceeded in one risk model for a 60-
year-old man with a smoking history of 10 pack-years, asbestos
exposure, and a family history of lung cancer (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
Attachment 4). It should be noted that asbestos exposure was not
quantified in these risk calculators, with one model based on data from
subjects with a minimum duration of five years of employment in an
occupation at high risk for asbestos exposure, and the other model
based on data from subjects with at least one year of asbestos exposure
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Although FIOH recommended that
asbestos-exposed individuals be considered for LDCT lung cancer
screening if their personal combination of risk factors, particularly
smoking history, yields a risk of lung cancer at or above that needed
for entry in the National Lung Screening Trial, FIOH also concluded:
Much work remains to be done related to risk estimation for lung
cancer screening eligibility, especially the interplay between age,
smoking history, other exposures to tobacco smoke, and other risk
factors such as occupational history or genetic predisposition.
Going forward it is imperative that efforts are focused on answering
these key questions about lung cancer risk, patient selection, and
the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in asbestos-exposed
adults. (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4).
Industry support for the proposal came from the North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), representing the
insulation industry (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NAIMA noted that OSHA's
proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer
screening would ``remove costly and burdensome requirements for some''
(OSHA-2012-0007-0701).
NIOSH submitted comments to the record supporting OSHA's proposal
to remove the CXR requirement for lung cancer screening (other than an
initial, baseline CXR) in various standards, re-affirming that
``current medical literature does not support the effectiveness of
screening for lung cancer with periodic CXR'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
NIOSH also agreed with OSHA's assessment that existing evidence is
insufficient to justify using alternative screening methods to CXR,
that it may be years before research can provide a recommendation on
the efficacy of LDCT screening, and that further research is needed on
the risks associated with LDCT-associated radiation exposure occurring
during a screening protocol for workers exposed to lung carcinogens in
the workplace (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
NIOSH encouraged OSHA to track new developments that may eventually
justify requirements for lung cancer screening with LDCT in various
standards, and pointed to the FIOH recommendations for asbestos-exposed
workers, as discussed above (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH suggested
that it may, in the future, be possible to conduct lung cancer
screening with ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) with radiation
doses similar to conventional CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), pointing to a
recent study by Huber et al. (2016) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment
3). In this study, the authors examined a lung phantom with multiple
nodules of different sizes using both standard CT and ultralow-dose CT,
and found that 93.3% of lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose
CT, compared with 95.5% with standard CT (OSHA-2012-0007-0726,
Attachment 3). Additional post-processing of imaging improved the
detection rate. The authors concluded that lung cancer screening with
ultralow-dose CT is feasible, but also acknowledged that the use of a
lung phantom was a ``major limitation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726,
Attachment 3).
NIOSH suggested that OSHA, in potential future requirements for
LDCT screening, consider setting different threshold levels of exposure
to occupational carcinogens that trigger screening in nonsmokers
compared to smokers (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also noted the
importance of appropriate counseling in LDCT screening, as results
often lead to repeat CT scans to evaluate changes in nodules over time
(OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
OSHA agrees with NIOSH and its statements regarding the need for
the agency to stay apprised of developments that may eventually justify
the use of LDCT or ultralow-dose CT for lung cancer screening in
workers. There are currently no definitive LDCT lung cancer screening
recommendations based on a randomized, controlled trial of
occupationally-exposed workers. Thus, OSHA believes that additional
scientific study of lung cancer screening with LDCT for workers is
needed. However, for this rulemaking, the currently available evidence
on LDCT screening for lung cancer indicates a high rate of false
positive results (as observed in the National Lung Screening Trial)
that can lead to unnecessary follow-up and potential harms.
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to delete the
requirement for periodic CXR in 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic;
Sec. 1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec. 1910.1045,
Acrylonitrile. OSHA has also decided not to require the use of LDCT or
ultralow-dose CT for periodic lung cancer screening in workers at this
time.
Comments and Responses on Allowing Employers To Use Digital Radiography
and Other Reasonably-Sized Standard Films for CXR
OSHA received many comments supporting the proposal to allow, but
not require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance
provisions of the inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018), coke oven
emissions (Sec. 1910.1029), acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045), asbestos
(Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101), and cadmium (Sec. Sec.
1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards, and to allow the use of other
reasonably-sized standard X-ray films. Support was received from NAIMA,
NIOSH, NABTU, LHSFNA, and USW (OSHA-2012-0007-0701; -0726; -0742, -
0757; and -0764). LHSFNA summarized, ``The past few years have brought
rapid digitization to the medical industry. The proposed change to
allow digital X-ray storage is a necessary consequence of changes in
technology'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). There were no comments opposing the
use of digital CXRs or other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films.
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to allow, but not
require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions
of the standards listed.
Comments and Response on Updating Terminology and References to the ILO
Guidelines
OSHA also received comments on the proposals to replace
``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, remove
references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven
emissions appendices (Sec. 1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)),
update language to refer to classification (not interpretation),
consistent with the ILO Guidelines, and update references to the ILO
guidelines in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards. NAIMA
expressed support for updating the terminology and references to the
ILO guidelines in the asbestos standards (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NABTU
also expressed support for referencing the updated ILO guidelines
(OSHA-2012-0007-0742). After considering these comments, OSHA has
decided to finalize its proposals to replace ``roentgenogram'' with
``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, to remove references to semi-
annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions
appendices (Sec. 1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), and to
refer to only classification.
NIOSH expressed concern that the ILO's 2011 ``Classification of
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses'' allows digital CXRs to be printed out
as hard copies and then classified using the ILO's standard image
films. NIOSH cited research suggesting that allowing this approach will
significantly increase the apparent prevalence of small opacities
(Franzblau, et al., 2009) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment 4). In the
proposal, OSHA recommended that radiographic facilities and physicians
``should'' follow the NIOSH Guidelines, ``Application of Digital
Radiography for the Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis,''
and noted that NIOSH does not recommend using film-based ILO reference
radiographs for comparison with digital chest images or printed hard
copies of the images (81 FR at 68510). Instead, NIOSH recommended that
OSHA require the use of the NIOSH Guidelines, which state that only ILO
digital standard images should be used to classify digital CXRs. NIOSH
noted that the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations already
promulgated by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) at
20 CFR part 718 are consistent with the NIOSH Guidelines (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726).
OSHA has carefully considered this concern and believes that NIOSH
has presented compelling evidence, in the research cited and within the
OWCP regulation, that digital CXRs should not be printed as a hard copy
and then compared to ILO film standard images. As such, OSHA has
incorporated the reference to the 2011 ILO guidelines, but has added
language reflecting NIOSH's concerns. Specifically, in appendix E to
the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and
1926.1101), OSHA has added a provision requiring that digitally-
acquired chest X-rays be classified using a complete set of ILO
standard digital chest radiographic images provided for use with the
Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification of
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). The
classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays must be performed
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies, and not
based on the viewing of hard copy printed transparencies of the images.
OSHA believes these edits to the regulatory language address NIOSH's
concerns and are consistent with the DOL OWCP regulation.
In addition, NIOSH expressed concern that the regulatory language
in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) allows CXR classification by a
``B-Reader, a board eligible/certified
radiologist, or an experienced physician with known expertise in
pneumoconiosis'' (see 81 CFR at 68563, 68661, and 68683). NIOSH
suggested that OSHA either remove the ``experienced physician'' or more
specifically define the type of expertise in pneumoconiosis that is
required to qualify as an ``experienced physician'' and that would
ensure such a physician is able to accurately classify CXRs using the
ILO classification system (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA recognizes
NIOSH's concern, and notes that in the new respirable crystalline
silica standard, only B-Readers can classify x-rays. See 29 CFR
1910.1053(i)(2)(iii). However, this change to the asbestos standards
was not proposed. OSHA will consider making this change in a future
rulemaking.
Summary of Changes
As proposed, OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic CXR in
the following standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec.
1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec. 1910.1045, Acrylonitrile.
OSHA is not removing the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or
any other, standards. OSHA is also not removing the CXR requirements in
standards where CXR is used for purposes other than screening for lung
cancer; for example, OSHA is retaining the CXR requirements in the
asbestos standards (Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to
continue screening for asbestosis. OSHA is adding the text, ``Pleural
plaques and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-
mandatory appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec.
1910.1001), as well as appendix I of the maritime and construction
asbestos standards (Sec. Sec. 1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively).
OSHA is also updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not
require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions
of the inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.
1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045) standards, and the
asbestos (Sec. Sec. 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium
(Sec. Sec. 1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. In addition, OSHA is
allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as the 16
inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 17 inch
film specified in some standards.
Finally, OSHA is replacing ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to
reflect current terminology and is also eliminating references to semi-
annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions
appendices (Sec. 1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), as these
exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR 1112). In
appendix E of each of its three asbestos standards, OSHA is updating
terminology and clarifying that classification must be in accordance
with the ILO classification system according to the Guidelines for the
use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). OSHA is also further specifying
that only ILO standard digital chest radiographic images are to be used
to classify digital CXRs, and that digital CXRs are not to be printed
out as hard copies and then classified.
References
Aberle, R., Adams, A., Berg, C., Black, W., Clapp, J., Fagerstrom,
R., et al. (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose
Computed Tomographic Screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365(5): 395-409.
[FIOH] Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (2014). Asbestos,
Asbestosis, and Cancer: Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and
Attribution 2014. Helsinki: FIOH.
Franzblau, A., Kazerooni, E.A., Sen, A., Goodsitt, M.M., Lee, S-Y,
Rosenman, K.D., Lockey, J.E., Meyer, C.A., Gillespie, B.W., Petsonk,
E.L., Wang, M.L. (2009). Comparison of Digital Radiographs with Film
Radiographs for the Classification of Pneumoconiosis. Acad. Radiol.
16(6): 669-677.
Huber, A., Landau, J., Ebner, L., Butikofer, Y., Leidolt, L., Brela,
B., May, M., Johannes, H., Christe, A. (2016). Performance of
ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer
screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of
conventional chest X-ray imaging. Eur. Radiol. 26(10): 3643-3652.
[ILO] International Labour Organization (2011). Guidelines for the
Use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
McKee B.J., Hashim, J.A., French R.J., McKee A.B., Hesketh P.J.,
Lamb, C.R., Williamson, C., Flacke, S., Wald, C. (2015). Experience
with a CT Screening Program for Individuals at High Risk for
Developing Lung Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.12(2): 192-197.
Moyer, V.A. (2014). Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals. Internal Med,
160 (5).
[NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2011).
NIOSH Guideline: Application of Digital Radiography for the
Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis. DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2011-198.
2. Subpart Z of Part 1910--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Cotton Dust
in 29 CFR 1910.1043
OSHA proposed to update the lung-function testing requirements of
its cotton-dust standard to align them with current practices and
technology. The language of the final rule is slightly changed from
that originally proposed in response to comments from NIOSH.
In 1978, OSHA promulgated the standard for occupational exposure to
cotton dust at 29 CFR 1910.1043 because workers exposed to cotton dust
are at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis (43 FR
27350, June 23, 1978). As described in the preambles to the proposed
and final rules, as well as in the preamble to the SIP-IV NPRM,
byssinosis is characterized by a continuum of effects (41 FR 56497,
56500-56501, December 28, 1976; 43 FR 27352-27354; 81 FR 68511). The
cotton dust standard contains medical-surveillance provisions at 29 CFR
1910.1043(h). These provisions require initial and periodic medical-
surveillance examinations that include administration of a medical
questionnaire to determine if workers are experiencing symptoms (Sec.
1910.1043(h)(2)(ii) and (h)(3)(i)). Medical surveillance requirements
also include pulmonary function testing (i.e., spirometry testing) to
objectively measure lung function and to assess changes in lung
function (Sec. 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii)).
To improve the accuracy and consistency of pulmonary function
testing, OSHA mandated specific requirements in the cotton dust
standard based on recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
(ATS) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) (43 FR 27391; 29 CFR 1910.1043, appendix D). Since 1978,
pulmonary function testing procedures and technology have evolved
significantly, and some of the mandates in the cotton dust standard now
are outdated. OSHA thus proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM (81 FR 68504) to
update the lung function testing requirements for the cotton dust
standard to align them with current practices and technology. Three
commenters supported OSHA's proposed updates to requirements for
pulmonary function testing in the cotton dust standard (NIOSH, OSHA-
2012-007-0726; NABTU, OSHA-2012-0007-0742; and Change to Win, OSHA-
2012-0007-0759). No comments opposed to these proposed changes were
submitted to the rulemaking record. After considering these comments,
OSHA has decided to issue this final rule codifying these updates.
Proposed and Final Revisions
OSHA based the proposed revisions to the cotton dust standard
pulmonary
function testing requirements on current recommendations from the
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS),
NIOSH, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM). Each of these organizations is a recognized authority
on generally accepted practices in pulmonary function testing. As in
the proposal, references to generally accepted practices in this final
rule refer to only those practices recommended by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, or
ACOEM.
Like other respiratory diseases, byssinosis can slow the speed of
expired air and/or reduce the volume of air that can be inspired and
then exhaled. To detect and monitor these impairments, spirometry
measures the maximal volume and speed of air that is forcibly exhaled
after taking a maximal inspiration. Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) is
defined as total exhaled volume after full inspiration. Speed of
expired air is determined by dividing the volume of air exhaled in the
first second, i.e., the Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second
(FEV1), by the total FVC to give the FEV1/FVC
ratio. Values obtained from accurate and repeatable spirometry testing
are then compared to reference predicted values, which are averages
expected for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race as the
employee being tested. A spirometry result that is 100 percent of the
predicted value for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race
indicates that the individual being tested has average lung function
(OSHA, 2013). Depending upon the race of the individual and the
reference value group being used, an adjustment may need to be made on
the basis of race. This issue is discussed at greater length later in
this section. Values are also compared to the employee's previous
measurements.
Currently, Sec. 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) requires that health care
providers conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual
values to the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. Appendix
C (29 CFR 1910.1043) contains predicted values derived from equations
published by Knudson et al. (1976). Currently, NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003),
ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) all
recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for assessing
spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population. Therefore,
OSHA proposed (81 FR 68581) and in this final rule is now revising this
provision to specify use of the NHANES III reference data set and to
replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values,
derived from Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General
U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999), which are incorporated by
reference.
The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative
of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference
values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians,
African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old.
Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal
accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et
al., 1999).
Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) currently specifies that the
``predicted FEV1 and FVC for blacks shall be multiplied by
0.85 to adjust for ethnic differences'' because the Knudson data set
contains reference values only for Caucasians. However, such an
adjustment for that race/ethnic group is no longer necessary because
the NHANES III data set contains reference values for African
Americans. However, the NHANES III data set does not contain reference
values for Asian Americans, who typically have smaller lung volumes
compared to Caucasians of the same age, height, and gender (Pellegrino
et al., 2005). To obtain Asian American reference values, ATS/ERS
(Redlich et al., 2014) and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) recommend that
Caucasian reference values for FVC and FEV1 be multiplied by
a factor of 0.88. Therefore, OSHA proposed and this final rule requires
use of a 0.88 correction factor to obtain Asian American reference
values for the FVC and FEV1. Because race does not appear to
affect FEV1/FVC (ratio), OSHA did not propose and is not
requiring to apply a correction factor to Caucasian values to derive a
ratio for Asian Americans. If the NHANES data set is updated to include
Asian American values in the future, and generally accepted practices
endorse that data set for use in the U.S., OSHA will consider revising
Sec. 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) to include that update.
In comments to the record, NIOSH supported use of the NHANES III
spirometric reference values instead of the older Knudson 1976
spirometric reference values and the use of a correction factor of 0.88
to reference values for FEV1 and FVC in Caucasians to
determine reference values for Asian Americans (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
While use of the NHANES III data set will simplify interpretation
of spirometry results by providing reference values for more race/
ethnic groups, neither the NHANES III nor the correction factor
addresses every race/ethnic group. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing the
proposed text indicating that FVC, FEV1, and
FEV1/FVC values be compared to ``appropriate'' race
ethnicity specific values. The term ``appropriate'' includes groups
that are not represented in the NHANES III dataset. For example, using
Mexican American values for non-Mexican American Hispanic workers may
be appropriate. Designations of race/ethnicity are self-reported by
workers, and bi-racial or multi-racial workers should select the race/
ethnicity category that best describes them. OSHA's guidance document
on spirometry testing provides some additional guidance on this topic,
including a recommendation to use Caucasian reference values for Native
American Indians (OSHA, 2013).
The software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set,
which is identified as the Hankinson 1999 data set on some spirometers.
If software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data
set, users of those spirometers would be able to access the NHANES III
values online through the NIOSH calculator (CDC/NIOSH, 2010). Tables of
the NHANES III values are also available in an appendix to OSHA's
spirometry guidance for healthcare professionals that is available
online (OSHA, 2013). Therefore, NHANES III values are widely available
to spirometry providers, including those providers using older
spirometers.
Currently, paragraph (h)(2)(iii) requires an evaluation of
pulmonary function testing values using predicted values of FVC and
FEV1, which are the only reference values listed in the
tables in current appendix C. The NHANES III reference data set
includes the lower limit of normal (LLN) as well as predicted values
for FEV1, FVC, and the FEV1/FVC ratio. The LLN
for these spirometry measurements represents the lower fifth percentile
of a healthy (normal) population. That is, 95 percent of a healthy
(normal) population should have spirometry values above the LLN, and
spirometry values below the LLN could be abnormal (OSHA, 2013).
Generally accepted practices by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM currently
compare spirometry values to the LLN values to identify impaired
pulmonary function.
In particular, ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005) defines airways
obstruction as an FEV1/vital capacity (VC) below the LLN.
ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) and
NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003) define borderline airway obstruction as an
FEV1/FVC below the LLN, with an FEV1 between the
LLN and the predicted value; they define airways obstruction as both
FEV1/FVC and an FEV1 below the LLN. ATS/ERS,
NIOSH, and ACOEM indicate that an FVC or VC less than the LLN could
indicate possible restrictive impairment (Pellegrino et al., 2005;
Townsend, 2011; CDC/NIOSH, 2003).
Therefore, OSHA proposed and is finalizing (h)(2)(iii) to require
an evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against
the LLN and percent predicted values to fully characterize possible
pulmonary impairment in exposed workers, which is consistent with
generally accepted current practices and supported by NIOSH (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726). OSHA's requirement to evaluate the FEV1/FVC
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC will not affect triggers
for changes in medical surveillance frequency or referral for a
detailed pulmonary examination, because the standard bases those
triggers solely on FEV1 values.
OSHA also proposed and is finalizing a change in the triggers for
the frequency of medical surveillance. Currently, paragraphs
(h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of the standard require frequency of medical
surveillance based in part on whether the FEV1 is above or
below 80 percent of the predicted value. OSHA proposed that the basis
for frequency of medical surveillance be changed to whether the
FEV1 is above or below the LLN. As noted above, generally
accepted practices currently use the LLN as the basis for classifying
possibly abnormal lung function. Pulmonary function normally declines
with age, and the LLN better accounts for age-related declines than the
current standard (Townsend et al., 2011). There is evidence that the
cut-off point used by the standard, 80 percent of the predicted value,
can result in erroneous lung function interpretation in adults
(Pellegrino et al., 2005). Therefore, OSHA proposed and is now making
final the use of the LLN to determine the frequency of lung-function
testing.
OSHA also proposed and is now making a correction to Sec.
1910.1043(n)(1). Currently, paragraph (n)(1) specifies that appendices
B, C, and D of the cotton dust standard are mandatory. Since OSHA in
this rulemaking is removing the old Knudson values from appendix C and
reserving the appendix for future use, OSHA is modifying Sec.
1910.1043(n)(1) to now specify that only appendices B and D are
mandatory.
OSHA also makes corrections to Sec. 1910.1043, appendix B-II, B,
``Occupational History Table.'' The table's column titled ``Tenure of
Employment'' contains boxes in which dates of employment are entered.
To allow the entry of dates that occurred later than 1999, OSHA
proposed to change the dates to ``From 19____ or 20____'' and ``To
19____ or 20____ .'' After further consideration, OSHA is finalizing
this change, but with an alternation that will make the date entry even
more open-ended. The agency is changing the column's two sub-headers to
read as follows: ``FROM (year)'' and ``TO (year.)''
In reviewing this appendix, OSHA also noticed additional, minor
technical variations from current practice and other similar forms in
other health standards. In appendix B-II, A, ``Identification,'' OSHA
is removing the ``age last birthday'' question because the form already
asks for the employee's birthday. Additionally, OSHA is changing the
measurement for height to inches (in) from centimeters (cm) and adding
that the weight should be listed in pounds (lbs).
Section 1910.1043, appendix D, sets standards for spirometric
measurements of pulmonary function. OSHA based the proposed changes to
appendix D, which are now finalized, on the most recent spirometry
recommendations from ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). Many of these
changes reflect advances in spirometry procedures or methods of
interpretation.\5\ Other changes reflect technological changes
associated with the current widespread use of flow-type spirometers, in
addition to volume-type spirometers, which were in widespread use in
1978 when OSHA published the current standard, and remain in use today.
The changes would apply only to equipment purchased one year or more
after OSHA publishes the final standard in the Federal Register. This
would give time for distributors to exhaust existing stocks and allow
medical providers to continue using the older spirometers until they
buy new ones in the normal course of business. For equipment purchased
on or before the one year anniversary of the Federal Register
publication date, the original specifications in appendix D continue to
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Appendix D provides minimal standards that must be employed
when making spirometry measurements. Users of appendix D should also
consult generally accepted practices from ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et
al., 2005; Miller et al., 2005), NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003), and ACOEM
(Townsend, 2011) for a complete list of current spirometry
standards. OSHA's spirometry guidance also outlines those practices
(OSHA, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current appendix D(I)(b) specifies volume capacity for spirometers,
and this final rule is changing it from seven to eight liters in
appendix (D)(I)(b)(2). Current appendix D(I)(e) specifies flow rates
for flow-type spirometers, and the final rule is changing it from 12 to
14 liters per second in D(I)(e)(2). These revisions to appendix D(I)(b)
and (e) reflect current recommendations by ATS/ERS (Miller et al.,
2005).
Current appendix D(I)(g) requires either a tracing or display, and
OSHA is revising this language in appendix D(I)(g)(2) to ``paper
tracing or real-time display.'' When OSHA published the current
standard in 1978, a pen linked to a physical strip chart generated
tracings of expiration curves on graph paper during pulmonary testing.
In contrast, most current flow-type and volume-type spirometers use
computer-generated displays of expiration curves projected on the
spirometer or on an attached computer screen.
In appendix D(I)(g)(2), OSHA proposed and is adding size
specifications for computer-generated displays, the technology most
often used today (Miller et al., 2005). An issue that was critical for
tracings in 1978, and remains critical for both tracings and displays
today, is that they be large enough to allow a technician to easily
evaluate the technical acceptability of the expiration during testing.
A large real-time display allows the technician to easily view a
technically unacceptable expiration and coach the worker to achieve
optimal expirations in subsequent attempts. Current appendix D(I)(g)
also specifies requirements for paper tracings of the expiration curve,
and requires that the tracings be of sufficient size for hand
measurements to conform to appendix D(I)(a). OSHA is revising paragraph
D(I)(g)(2) to indicate ``If hand measurements will be made.'' OSHA is
making this change because hand measurements are rarely used, and the
values currently shown in the expiration curve are usually computer
generated today.
Original appendix D(I)(g) also requires the spirometer to display
flow versus volume or volume versus time tracings. The revision in
appendix D(I)(g)(2) requires the spirometer to display both flow-volume
and volume-time curves or tracings during testing. The flow-volume
curve emphasizes early expiration and allows the technician to detect
problems early in the maneuver (OSHA, 2013). The volume-time curve
emphasizes the end of the expiration and allows the technician to coach
the patient to achieve a complete expiration
(OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also updating the paragraph to indicate that both
types of curves or tracings must be stored and available for recall.
This requirement to store curves will allow the assessment of results
for acceptability and repeatability, once testing is concluded, and it
will also make it possible to include the curves in reports to health
care providers who interpret the results (OSHA, 2013).
Current appendix D(I)(h) requires that instruments be capable of
accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and not stop
accumulating volume before (1) the volume change for a 0.5-second
interval is less than 25 millimeters, or (2) the flow is less than 50
milliliters per second for a 0.5-second interval. As noted by ATS in
1987, these end-of-test criteria, which were first included in the 1979
ATS statement, caused premature termination of exhalation and FVCs that
were falsely reduced by as much as 9 percent (ATS, 1987). To avoid such
falsely reduced FVCs, ATS defined end-of-test criteria only according
to volume change from 1987 onward (ATS 1987, 1994, 2005). Therefore,
OSHA is updating the first clause in appendix D(I)(h)(2) by specifying
the currently recommended volume change of less than 25 milliliters for
a 1-second interval (Miller et al., 2005) and is also removing the
latter clause, i.e., that the instrument shall not stop accumulating
volume before the flow is less than 50 milliliters per second for a
0.5-second interval. These changes that were proposed and are now final
make appendix D consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations for
expiratory end-of-test criteria using volume increment only, since flow
rate criteria were abandoned in 1987 (ATS, 1987; Miller et al., 2005).
OSHA is also updating this provision by revising the time for which the
instrument must be capable of accumulating volume to 15 seconds, the
maximum time for which an exhalation should be done according to ATS/
ERS (Miller et al., 2005). In 1987, ATS stated that they encourage
spirometer designs that allowed patients to continue exhaling for as
long as possible (ATS, 1987).
Current appendix D(I)(j), (II)(b), and (IV)(b) provide requirements
for the calibration of spirometers, and the final rule updates several
of these requirements. Revisions to appendix D(I)(j)(2), (II)(b), and
(IV)(b) clarify that the technician must always check the calibration
of spirometers, and recalibrate them only if the spirometer requires
the technician to do so. That change is consistent with recommendations
by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). The reason for the change is that
while technicians cannot recalibrate many spirometer models in current
use, they nevertheless must check the volume accuracy of all
spirometers; this ensures that the spirometers are operating within
calibration limits, i.e., that the spirometers are accurate (OSHA,
2013). In addition, appendix D(II)(b) was revised to indicate that the
calibration check is to assess the volume accuracy of the spirometer
and that calibration checks be done daily, or more frequently if
specified by the spirometer manufacturer when the spirometer is in use.
This language, which is more specific than the proposed ``check all
spirometers regularly,'' was suggested by NIOSH, based on ATS/ERS
(Miller et al., 2005) recommendations (OSHA 2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also
commented that OSHA may want to note that when performing calibration
checks, it is the volume accuracy of the spirometer that is being
validated (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
OSHA proposed and is making in the final rule a number of changes
to appendix D(I)(j): First, it is not including the following text in
appendix D(I)(j)(2) because it is ambiguous and provides no useful
information: ``. . . with respect to the FEV1 and FVC. This
calibration of the FEV1 and FVC may be either directly or
indirectly through volume and time base measurements.'' The second
update to appendix D(I)(j)(2) includes the current ATS/ERS requirements
for calibration-syringe accuracy and volume displacement (Miller et
al., 2005). As noted above, OSHA is revising the term ``calibration''
to ``calibration check.'' Another change to paragraph D(I)(j)(2) is to
revise the term ``calibration source'' to ``calibration syringe''
because a syringe is the only type of calibration source currently
used, so specifying a syringe instead of a source would clarify the
requirement.
In addition, OSHA changed the word ``should'' in D(I)(j)(2) to
``shall,'' so the new D(I)(j)(2) would read, ``the volume-calibration
syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at least 3 liters and
shall be accurate to within 0.5 percent of 3 liters (15
milliliters).'' The phrase ``should'' sounds advisory, and the current
practices OSHA is updating are based on the 3 liter size of the
syringe. There were no comments addressing this point.
Current appendix D(II)(b) provides that technicians should perform
calibrations using a syringe or other source of at least two liters.
The change in the syringe volume to three liters is consistent with
current practices. OSHA also is changing the term ``syringe or other
volume source'' to ``syringe'' for the reasons described above in the
discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Another change to appendix D(II)(b) is
to delete the phrase ``or method.'' The meaning of that phrase is
unclear; the sentence is addressing calibration checks of an instrument
(i.e., spirometer), not a method. OSHA also is updating calibration
check procedures for flow-type and volume-type spirometers to determine
whether a spirometer is recording 3 liters (L) of air 3.5
percent (Miller et al., 2005; OSHA, 2013). The check of flow-type
spirometers would involve the injection of air at three different
speeds, and the check of volume-type spirometers would involve a single
injection of air and a check for spirometer leakage. Users should refer
to generally accepted practices and other guidance for complete details
about calibration checks (see, e.g., Miller et al., 2005; Townsend,
2011; OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also changing the term ``recalibration'' in
this provision to ``calibration checks'' for the reasons stated above
in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Finally, OSHA is changing
``should'' to ``shall'' in the first sentence of D(II)(b) for the same
reasons as discussed above regarding paragraph D(I)(j).
Appendix D(II)(a) currently contains requirements for measuring
forced expirations, including having the patient make at least three
forced expirations. OSHA is updating this paragraph to have the worker
perform at least three, but no more than eight, forced expirations
during testing. This change would clarify that up to eight forced
expirations can be attempted to obtain three acceptable forced
expirations (Miller et al., 2005). The same paragraph currently states
that ``The subject may sit, . . .'' OSHA proposed that ``subject'' be
changed to ``patient'' primarily because ``subject'' implies someone in
an experimental trial. OSHA further considered this proposed change
after NIOSH commented that the term ``patient'' can potentially imply a
person with an illness and that a term such as ``worker'' or ``testing
participant'' may be a better term (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA has
decided that worker is the appropriate term to use since it refers to
the individual being tested and has updated appendix D(II)(a) to
indicate ``worker'' instead of ``subject.'' The terms ``patient'' or
``subject'' were also revised to ``worker'' in appendix D(I)(g)(2),
D(III)(a) and D(IV)(c). OSHA also is clarifying the text in paragraph
D(II)(a) to indicate that the expiration must be repeatable. The term
``repeatability,'' now used by ATS/ERS, would be an update to the
existing term ``reproducibility''; paragraph D(II)(a)(7) lists the
criteria for repeatable (formerly, reproducible) results. In addition,
appendix D(II)(a) lists elements of ``unacceptable'' efforts in
paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(7); OSHA revises this language to ``technically
unacceptable'' to make clear that the problem is not with the worker's
lungs but with the flaws in how the test is conducted.
Appendix D(II)(a)(3) currently specifies that a worker's efforts
during testing are unacceptable when the expiration does not continue
for at least five seconds or until an obvious plateau in the volume-
time curve occurs. The revision to this paragraph clarifies that
results may be acceptable if the worker attempted to exhale (versus
actually exhaled) for at least six seconds and the volume-time curve
shows no change in volume (<0.025 L) for at least one second (Miller et
al., 2005). The change was made because OSHA agrees with a NIOSH
comment that OSHA should specify the ATS/ERS (Miller et al. 2005)
criteria of <0.025 L for at least one second rather than ``an obvious
plateau'' (OSHA-2012-00070-0726). Therefore, the expiration must meet
both of these criteria for a spirometry result to be technically
acceptable. Many workers who are young or have small lung volumes can
complete an expiration in less than six seconds, and their results may
be acceptable if the technician observes no change in volume in the
volume-time curve (OSHA, 2013).
Current appendix D(II)(a)(4) provides that the results are
unacceptable when the worker coughs or closes the glottis during forced
expiration. OSHA is revising the paragraph to clarify that the results
are unacceptable if coughing occurs in the first second of expiration,
a condition that is consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations
(Miller et al., 2005). Coughing in the first second interferes with
measurement of the FEV1 (Miller et al., 2005), but coughing
toward the end of the expiration does not affect test results (OSHA,
2013). Glottis closure at any time may result in premature termination
of the expiration (Miller et al., 2005).
Current appendix D(II)(a)(6) provides that the results are
unacceptable when there is an unsatisfactory start to expiration
characterized by excessive hesitation, i.e., one with an extrapolated
volume greater than 10 percent of the FVC on the volume-time curve. As
noted in the 1987 ATS statement, a criterion of 10 percent could result
in a falsely elevated FEV1 from a suboptimal effort (ATS,
1987). The change to appendix D(II)(a)(6) indicates that extrapolated
volume must be less than 150 milliliters or 5 percent of the FVC,
whichever is greater, to be unacceptable. This change updates the
provision to be consistent with the most recent ATS/ERS recommendation
on criteria for start-of-test so that an accurate time zero is set
(Miller et al., 2005). All ATS or ATS/ERS statements define acceptable
start-of-test criteria according to volume, as well as percent FVC,
using whichever criterion is larger for a given patient (ATS, 1979,
1987, 1994; Miller et al., 2005), and it is not clear why the volume
value was excluded from the current cotton dust standard. OSHA is also
including the 2005 ATS/ERS recommendations for volume, in addition to
percentage of FVC, for consistency with ATS/ERS. Expressing the values
as both percentage of FVC and as a volume, and using whichever approach
gives the larger allowed extrapolated volume, aids in the
interpretation of results for individuals with very small or very large
lung volumes. For example, since 5 percent of FVC will be less than 150
milliliters in individuals with FVC <3.00 L, the 150 milliliter
criterion would be used for those patients. But 5 percent of FVC would
exceed 150 milliliters in individuals with FVC >3.00 L, so in that case
the 5 percent of FVC criterion would be used to evaluate the start-of-
test for these patients.
As stated above, appendix D(II)(a)(7) contains criteria for
acceptable repeatability. Editorial changes proposed in appendix
D(II)(a)(7) are for clarification. Notably, OSHA removed the word
``three'' because technicians can examine up to eight acceptable curves
to select the two highest FEV1 and FVC values (Miller et
al., 2005). OSHA also changed ``variation'' to ``difference'' because
``difference'' is the more appropriate mathematical term to use when
comparing only two numbers.
In appendix D(II)(a)(7), OSHA also revised the maximum difference
between the two largest FVC values and the two largest FEV1
values of a satisfactory test to 150 milliliters, a change from the
current maximum difference of 10 percent or 100
milliliters, whichever is greater. This revision to the criteria for
acceptable repeatability reflects current ATS/ERS recommendations
(Miller et al., 2005). In 2005, ATS/ERS stated that many patients are
able to achieve repeatability of FEV1 and FVC to within 150
milliliters (Miller et al., 2005). In 1994, the ATS changed its
repeatability criterion from a volume and a percentage difference
between values to a volume difference only, so that the criterion was
equally stringent for all lung sizes, and also so that it was easy to
compute during the test if hand-measurements were made (ATS, 1994).
OSHA is also making editorial changes to make it clear that the
difference between the two largest acceptable FVC values ``shall'' not
exceed 150 milliliters and the two largest acceptable FEV1
values ``shall'' not exceed 150 milliliters. OSHA inadvertently
proposed that the term ``should not exceed'' be used, and the agency is
revising the term to indicate ``shall not exceed.'' The change is
consistent with other changes being made to this regulation because the
word ``should'' sounds advisory (see, e.g., changes to D(I)(j)(2)).
The agency discussed final changes to appendix D(II)(b) above.
OSHA is removing appendix D(III)(b). The paragraph refers to a
NIOSH guideline that specifies an outdated evaluation criterion of
FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.75 percent, and OSHA is unaware of an
updated NIOSH cotton dust guideline that more appropriately compares
the FEV1/FVC ratio to LLN. As noted above, generally
accepted practices use the LLN as the basis for classifying possibly
abnormal lung function because it accounts for age-related declines in
lung function (Townsend, 2011). Appendix D(III)(b) also refers to a
table that OSHA never included in the final cotton dust standard. That
table was most likely Table XII-12 in the NIOSH criteria document for
cotton dust (CDC/NIOSH, 1974). The lack of the table does not appear to
be a pressing issue since no user complained about the missing table
after OSHA promulgated the standard. In addition, the information is
available to users in the NIOSH criteria document.
The updates to current paragraphs D(IV)(a) and (d) change
``reproducibility'' to ``repeatability'' to conform to the terminology
now used by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). ``Repeatability'' would have
the same meaning as ``reproducibility.'' OSHA also is changing the term
``calibration'' in paragraph D(IV)(b) to ``calibration checks'' for the
reasons stated above in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j).
A commenting organization, Change to Win, generally supports OSHA's
revisions of the cotton dust standard; however, it articulates the
following reservations: (1) The lack of accounting for the ``healthy
worker effect'' seen in epidemiological studies that results from the
use of the NHANES population-based data, which may result in ``false
positives'' (i.e., the worker appears to be normal when in
fact they only look normal compared to a ``sicker'' general
population); and (2) the lack of a requirement for the employer to look
at results of all the exposed workers to see if trends may indicate an
inadequacy of exposure control (OSHA-2012-0007-0759). OSHA appreciates
these concerns and acknowledges that some workers may have above
average lung function. However, paragraph (h)(3)(iv) requires periodic
medical examinations for some workers, including comparisons of current
examinations to previous examinations to determine whether significant
changes have occurred. This might allow a physician to detect a
significant change from baseline lung function in a worker who
otherwise has above average lung function compared to a reference
population. OSHA agrees that evaluating pulmonary function testing
results of all exposed workers may provide useful information for
employers and employees; this action is not required by the agency
because it goes beyond the scope of this effort, which is to simply
update the standard to make it consistent with current practices and
technologies.
References
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
Lung Association (1979). ATS Statement--Snowbird Workshop on
Standardization of Spirometry. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 119, 831-838.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
Lung Association (1987). Standardization of Spirometry--1987 Update.
Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 136, 1285-1298.
ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
Lung Association (1994). Standardization of Spirometry--1994 Update.
Am. Resp. Crit. Care Med, 152, 1107-1136.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health) (1974). Criteria for a Recommended
Standard: Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust. Chapter XII: Tables
and Figures. www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/75-118f.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health) (2003). Spirometry training guide.
December 1, 2003. www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-154c/pdfs/2004-154c.pdf.
CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health) (2010). Spirometry reference value
calculator. www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/RefCalculator.html.
Hankinson, J.L., Odencrantz, J.R. and Fedan, K.B. (1999).
Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general US
population. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 159, 179-87.
Hankinson, J.H., Kawut, S.M. and Shahar, E. (2010). Performance of
American Thoracic Society-recommended spirometry reference values in
a multiethnic sample of adults. Chest, 137, 138-145.
Knudson, R.J., Slatin, R.C., Lebowitz, M.D. and Burrows, B. (1976).
The maximal expiratory flow-volume curve. Normal standards,
variability, and effects of age. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 113, 587-
600.
Miller, M.R., Hankinson, J., Brusasco, V., Burgos, F., Casaburi, R.,
Coates, A., Wanger, J. (2005). American Thoracic Society/European
Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) Task Force: Standardisation of
Spirometry. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 319-33, www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/pfet/PFT2.pdf.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2013).
Spirometry testing in occupational health programs. Best practices
for healthcare professionals. US Department of Labor. www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3637.pdf.
Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R.O., Burgos, F.,
Casaburi, R. . . . Wanger, J. (2005). ATS/ERS standardisation of
lung function testing. Interpretative strategies for lung function
tests. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 948-968.
Redlich, C.A., Tarlo, S.M., Hankinson, J.L., Townsend, M.C.,
Eschenbacher, W.L., Von Essen, S.G., Sigsgaard, T. and Weissman,
D.N. (2014). American Thoracic Society Committee on Spirometry in
the Occupational Setting. Official American Thoracic Society
technical standards: Spirometry in the occupational setting. Am. J.
Respir. Crit. Care Med., 189(8), 983-93.
Townsend, M.C. (2011). American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Occupational and Environmental Lung
Disorders Committee. Spirometry in the occupational health setting--
2011 Update. J. Occup. Environ. Med., 53, 569-584. www.acoem.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Affairs/Policies_And_Position_Statements/ACOEM%20Spirometry%20Statement.pdf.
3. Subpart F of Part 1915--General Working Conditions, Definitions in
29 CFR 1915.80
Existing requirements in the sanitation standard for Shipyard
Employment, Sec. 1915.88(j)(1) and (2), specify that employers must,
to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain workplaces in
a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers detect
vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-control
program.
Paragraph (b)(33) of Sec. 1915.80 defines the term ``vermin'' as
``insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and feral cats,
that may create safety and health hazards for employees.'' After
stakeholders raised concerns about the inclusion of ``feral cats'' in
the definition of vermin, OSHA proposed to remove the term ``feral
cats'' from the definition in Sec. 1915.80(b)(33). This final rule
enacts the proposed removal without change.
OSHA received over 700 comments in response to the NPRM, over 500
of which addressed the removal of the term ``feral cats'' from the
definition of vermin. Each of the comments favored the proposed change.
Many of these comments (250) were from a mass mail campaign with the
following comment:
Just because these cats aren't pets doesn't mean they're not
cared for. Indeed, many shipyard employers and their employees value
the cats both for companionship and as a means of controlling rodent
populations. Classifying shipyard cats as ``vermin'' will likely
lead to their mistreatment and interfere with the trap-neuter-return
(TNR) programs used to manage their numbers and keep the cats
healthy. OSHA is a very influential agency. By removing cats from
the definition of ``vermin,'' OSHA is setting an important example
for other government agencies to establish policies that more
effectively protect cats and promote public health and safety.
Most of the remaining comments contained similar points, such as,
OSHA should not classify cats as vermin; cats should be treated
humanely; and some cats may be mistreated if OSHA left the definition
as is. In addition, commenters stated that cats in fact assist at
shipyards in controlling vermin, such as rodents and mice, without the
hazards associated with the use of pesticides or chemicals.
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the
term ``feral cats'' from the definition of vermin in Sec.
1915.80(b)(33). Removing the term ``feral cats'' is consistent with the
general industry sanitation standard provision on vermin, which
describes vermin as ``rodents, insects, and other vermin'' (Sec.
1910.141(a)(5)). OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral
cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of vermin. To the
extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular
shipyard, OSHA will consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under the
standard. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
4. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
Controls, Medical Services and First Aid in 29 CFR 1926.50
Under 29 CFR 1926.50, employers must provide specified medical
services and first aid to employees to address serious injuries that
may occur on the job. Since 1979, OSHA has required the posting of
telephone numbers of
physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for worksites located in areas
where 911 emergency service is not available. OSHA adopted this
requirement when 911 emergency service was still a relatively new
concept, and was available only in certain parts of the country. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
Today, 911 emergency service is available almost everywhere in
North America. In nearly all locations in the United States and Canada,
a 911 call over a land-line telephone will link the caller to an
emergency-dispatch center. In the United States, most localities with
911 service also have so-called ``Enhanced 911,'' which will not only
connect the land-line caller to a dispatcher, but also will
automatically provide the caller's location to the emergency
dispatcher. This automatic-location information is critical for
emergency responders in cases when the 911 caller does not know his/her
exact location, or does not have sufficient time to provide such
information.
Although the automatic transmission of location information to
emergency dispatchers is customary for land-line telephones, the task
of automatically transmitting location information is more complex when
the emergency call originates from a wireless telephone. Since 1996,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been phasing in the
requirement that wireless carriers adopt technologies that provide 911
caller-location information. The last phase-in benchmark for wireless
handsets occurs in January of 2019.\6\ As a result, in some remote
areas of the country, wireless-telephone carriers still are unable to
provide accurate information about the location of the 911 caller to
911 answering centers. OSHA proposed revisions to Sec. 1926.50(f) to
update the 911 service-posting requirements consistent with the current
status of land-line and wireless-telephone technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed revisions addressed the problem of locating callers,
usually cell-phone callers, in remote areas that do not have automatic-
location capability. In such areas, the proposed revisions required
employers to post in a conspicuous location either the latitude and
longitude of the worksite or other location-identification information
that effectively communicates the location of the worksite. Employers
can obtain information about which counties, or portions of counties,
are exempted from the 911 location accuracy requirements from FCC PS
Docket No. 07-114, which is publicly available on the FCC's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) web page: apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=07-114.
The proposed revisions also required employers to ensure that the
communication system they use to contact ambulance service is
effective. Under Sec. 1926.50(e), employers are required to provide a
communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper
equipment for transportation of an injured person. When using wireless
telephones as a communication system, however, that system's
availability varies based on the location of the caller. If an employer
is relying upon a communication system at a worksite, it must be
effective at the worksite. OSHA did not propose any changes to the
requirement to post telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or
ambulances for worksites located in areas where 911 emergency service
is not available.
OSHA received two comments on the revision of Sec. 1926.50, from
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742)
and the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757). Both comments supported the revision. The comment from
LHSFNA noted that ``[m]any construction sites are in remote locations
(e.g., pipeline work, highway construction and windmill sites) where
cell phone coverage is inconsistent. . . .This proposed revision could
save many lives on remote construction sites.'' After considering these
comments, OSHA is revising the standard as proposed in the NPRM. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
5. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
Controls, Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists in 29 CFR 1926.55
The provisions of Sec. 1926.55 establish permissible exposure
limits for numerous toxic chemicals used during construction
activities. These provisions are the construction counterpart to the
general industry standard at Sec. 1910.1000. OSHA proposed
clarifications for several of these provisions, notably paragraphs (a)
and (c) and appendix A to Sec. 1926.55. The final rule is identical to
the proposed rule, with the addition of an asterisk and a non-
substantive, formatting change to appendix A to Sec. 1926.55. OSHA
proposed that the phrase ``threshold limit values'' (TLV) be revised to
``permissible exposure limits'' (PELs) and that the references to the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), in
both paragraph (a) and appendix A, be eliminated, as the original
language was confusing. While OSHA originally adopted these limits from
ACGIH recommendations, the limits are OSHA, not ACGIH, requirements.
OSHA received two comments in response to this first proposed revision
of Sec. 1926.55. The North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701) agreed the current language
in the standard is confusing and the proposed revisions were
preferable. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
supported the change to refer to the limits as PELs but requested that
OSHA include a reference to the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values of
Airborne Contaminants for 1970 in the standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0734).
The comment did not state a reason to maintain the reference to ACGIH.
OSHA acknowledges that these PELs are based on the ACGIH values, but
these PELs are enforceable OSHA requirements. After considering these
comments and to avoid possible confusion, OSHA has decided to revise
the standard as proposed to use the phrase ``permissible exposure
limits'' and to not include the references to ACGIH in the regulatory
text and appendix A.
Second, the phrase ``shall be avoided'' in paragraph (a) is
confusing as to whether it indicates the provision is mandatory, as
intended, or advisory and is not appropriate in regulatory text. OSHA
proposed revising this language to read, ``An employee's exposure . . .
must at no time exceed the exposure limit given for that substance.''
Third, the words ``inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or
contact'' in paragraph (a) are redundant and confusing. In addition,
the concentrations listed are airborne values, and the standard
addresses exposure through any route. OSHA proposed to delete these
words.
Fourth, appendix A is not an appendix but an integral part of the
standard. To acknowledge this relationship, OSHA proposed to revise the
heading to read, ``Table A.''
Fifth, appendix A has a column labelled ``Skin Designation'' under
which an ``X'' demarcates certain substances, although the appendix
provides no definition of ``X.'' The 1970 ACGIH publication, however,
notes that the ``X'' identifies substances that present a dermal
hazard. OSHA proposed adding a footnote to appendix A that clarifies
the meaning of this designation.
Sixth, appendix A has two footnotes designated by asterisks.
However, there
are no asterisks in the body of the table referencing these footnotes.
The first footnote, designated by a single asterisk, says, ``The PELs
are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a
ceiling limit.'' The second footnote, designated by two asterisks,
states, ``As determined from breathing-zone air samples.'' OSHA
proposed deleting these two footnotes, and moving the content of the
footnotes to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Sec. 1926.55.
Finally, OSHA proposed correcting the cross-references to OSHA's
construction asbestos standard in paragraph (c) and in appendix A. The
correct cross reference is: Sec. 1926.1101. OSHA also proposed
deleting footnote 4, which was also a reference to the asbestos
standard, as footnote 4 does not appear in the body of the table.
OSHA received two other comments in response to the proposed
revisions of Sec. 1926.55. North America's Building Trades Unions
(NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) submitted comments generally supporting
the revisions. Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA)
(OSHA-2012-0007-0757) supported the revisions but requested that OSHA
revise appendix A to align them with 2009 NIOSH skin classifications
and to add a footnote to appendix A stating that these PELs are from
the 1969 threshold limit values and may not be protective. OSHA
recognizes that most of its PELs were issued shortly after adoption of
the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970, and have not been
updated since that time. However, a standards improvement project is
not the appropriate vehicle to change appendix A.
After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the standard as
proposed with two additions. First, rather than redesignating appendix
A to Sec. 1926.55 as Table A, OSHA is dividing appendix A into two
tables and designating them as Tables 1 and 2 of Sec. 1926.55. OSHA is
also revising the heading for the footnotes to these tables to
correspond with this change. Appendix A did not conform with criteria
for presenting tables and footnotes in the Code of Federal Regulations.
When appendix A was added to the Code of Federal Regulations in 1993,
OSHA adopted the format used in ACGIH's 1970 TLVs (58 FR 35076; 35089-
35099). This format presented TLVs for most substances in one table and
TLVs for mineral dusts in a separate table, with footnotes following
the two tables. Accordingly, OSHA is designating the first table in
former appendix A as Table 1, with the title ``Permissible Exposure
Limits for Airborne Contaminants'', and the second table as Table 2,
with the title ``Mineral Dusts.'' The footnotes are now preceded by the
heading ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this section'' to make it
clear that the footnotes apply to both tables. This is a non-
substantive, formatting revision. Second, OSHA is adding an asterisk to
``Skin Designation'' in Table 1 to Sec. 1926.55, linked to the
footnote about dermal hazards.
6. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
Controls, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals in 29
CFR 1926.64
To avoid unnecessary duplication, OSHA proposed replacing the
entire 31 pages of regulatory text for the Process Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) Standard for construction at Sec.
1926.64 with a cross reference to the identical general industry
standard at Sec. 1910.119. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule. Other construction standards have similar cross references to
corresponding general industry standards; for example, the Respiratory
Protection Standard for construction at Sec. 1926.103 refers to the
general industry Respiratory Protection Standard at Sec. 1910.134. The
PSM standard has limited applicability to construction, mainly through
paragraph (h), Contractors.
OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec. 1926.64: The
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742),
the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757), and the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). All three comments supported
the revision. After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to
replace the regulatory text of the PSM Standard for construction with a
reference to the identical general industry standard, as proposed. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
7. Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving
Equipment, Safety Belts, Lifelines, and Lanyards in 29 CFR 1926.104
The breaking strength of a lifeline is the maximum load that it can
carry without failing or breaking. The minimum breaking-strength
requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards
standard, Sec. 1926.104(c), has been 5,400 pounds. OSHA proposed
revising the minimum breaking-strength requirement for these lifelines
from 5,400 to 5,000 pounds. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule.
As noted by OSHA in the proposed fall protection standard published
on November 25, 1986 (51 FR 42718, 42726), the agency based the 5,400-
pound requirement on the breaking strength of the then-available \3/4\-
inch diameter manila rope used for body-belt systems and not on the
forces generated in a fall. The basis for the requirement of a 5,000
pound minimum breaking-strength for lanyards and vertical lifelines
adopted in the final fall protection standard at Sec. 1926.502(d)(9)
is the force generated by a 250-pound employee experiencing a force 10
times the force of gravity, plus a two-fold margin of safety. Id. The
5,000 pound requirement is also consistent with the most recent ANSI/
ASSE standards Z359.1 2007 and A10.32.
For consistency, OSHA proposed revising the minimum breaking-
strength requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and
lanyards standard to 5,000 pounds. OSHA received comments on the
revision of Sec. 1926.104(c), from the North America's Building Trades
Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) and the Laborers' Health & Safety
Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Both of these
comments supported the revision.
After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the minimum
breaking-strength requirement in Sec. 1926.104(c) to 5,000 pounds.
This revision conforms Sec. 1926.104(c) with the breaking-strength
requirements in the fall protection standard at Sec. 1926.502(d)(9).
The agency also concludes that identical specifications for the same
equipment eliminate confusion and, thereby, improve compliance. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
8. Subpart G of Part 1926--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part 6 of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1988 Edition,
Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or December 2000 MUTCD
(``Millennium Edition''). OSHA proposed to revise subpart G to update
the incorporation by reference of Part 6 of the MUTCD to the November
4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 Edition''), including Revision 1 and Revision 2,
both dated May 2012. This version of the MUTCD aims to expedite
traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology
advances in traffic control device application (74 FR 66730, 77 FR
28455, and 77 FR 28460).
The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that traffic
control signs or devices conform to the 2009 Edition (see 23 CFR
655.601 through 655.603). DOT regulations recognize that the MUTCD is
the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any
street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel (Sec.
655.603(a)). DOT requires compliance with the 2009 Edition for all
federal-aid construction areas (Sec. 655.603(d)(3)). In addition, each
State must have a highway safety program that complies with DOT's
designated national standard, and where State or other federal agency
MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial
conformance with the 2009 Edition (23 U.S.C. 402(a); 23 CFR
655.603(b)(1)). Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or
supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements
included in the 2009 Edition (Sec. 655.603(b)).
The differences between OSHA's standards that reference the MUTCD's
1988 Edition and the Millennium Edition and DOT's regulations cause
potential industry confusion and inefficiency, without advancing worker
safety. Accordingly, in Directive CPL 02-01-054, dated October 16,
2012, OSHA stated that it would accept compliance with the 2009 Edition
in lieu of compliance with the 1988 Edition or Millennium Edition
referenced in Sec. 1926.200(g) through its de minimis policy.
OSHA reviewed the differences between the 1988 Edition, the
Millennium Edition, and the 2009 Edition, and has concluded that the
2009 Edition will provide greater employee safety benefits than the
older versions. The 2009 revisions to the MUTCD largely make the
document more accessible and accounts for advances in technology. A
comparison of the 1988 and 2009 Editions shows few new requirements;
rather, the document is easier to use, with more guidance and
supporting material available. The MUTCD is a complex document
comprised of standards, guidance, and supporting material. Under Sec.
1926.6(a), OSHA's subpart G provisions incorporate by reference only
the mandatory provisions of the MUTCD, i.e., those provisions
containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language, and only
those provisions that affect worker safety with regard to the use of
signs, devices, barricades, flaggers, and points of hazard. Previously,
it was difficult to locate these provisions, but the 2009 Edition
clearly labels them ``standards.''
The revisions to the 1988 and Millennium Editions that affect
worker safety are minimal. DOT identified the following areas as
significant revisions that relate to work safety in the final rule (74
FR 66730):
The needs and control of all road users through a
temporary traffic-control (TTC) zone apply to all public facilities and
private property open to public travel, in addition to highways.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allows non-compliant
devices on existing highways and bikeways to be brought into compliance
with the current edition of the MUTCD as part of the systematic
upgrading of substandard traffic control devices (and installation of
new required traffic control devices) required pursuant to the Highway
Safety Program, 23 U.S.C. 402(a). If the FHWA establishes a target
compliance date for upgrading such devices, traffic control devices
shall be in compliance by that date. (These target compliance dates
established by the FHWA are shown in Table I-2 of the 2009 Edition.)
Workers within the public right-of-way must use high-
visibility safety apparel.
A new section titled ``Automated Flagger Assistance
Devices'' (AFAD). These optional devices enable a flagger to assume a
position out of the lane of traffic when controlling road users through
TTC zones.
New requirements that flaggers shall use a ``STOP/SLOW''
paddle, flag, or AFAD to control road users; the 2009 Edition prohibits
the use of hand movements alone. In the previous editions, it was not
clear that hand signals alone were insufficient.
All devices used for lane channelization (i.e., directing
vehicles in a particular direction) must be crashworthy (a
characteristic of a roadside appurtenance that has been successfully
crash tested in accordance with a national standard such as the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350, ``Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway
Features.'')
Temporary traffic barriers, including their end treatments
(such as an impact attenuator), must be crashworthy.
There was one major revision to the MUTCD, the 2003 Edition,
between the Millennium Edition and the 2009 Edition. OSHA is providing
a list of the changes between the 2003 Edition and the 2009 Edition in
the record (find 2009 Edition figure changes at www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007).
OSHA also proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 1926.200 through 1926.203
in subpart G to clarify their provisions and eliminate duplication.
Section 1926.200(g)--Traffic signs. Existing paragraph (g)(1) of
Sec. 1926.200 states, ``[c]onstruction areas shall be posted with
legible traffic control signs at points of hazard.'' Accordingly,
paragraph (g)(1) does not explicitly require protection by traffic
control devices. However, paragraph (g)(1) requires legible signs at
points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2) prohibits misuse of both signs
and devices, by requiring their use to conform to the MUTCD. Not
requiring employers to use, but prohibiting the misuse of, protective
devices at points of hazard is an anomaly that causes unnecessary
confusion.
OSHA proposed to revise paragraph (g)(1) to explicitly require that
employers use traffic control devices at points of hazard. OSHA also
proposed to revise paragraph (g)(2) to clarify that it covers the
design and use of traffic-control devices, and adds a list of those
devices: Signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices.
Consistent with these revisions, OSHA also proposed to revise the
headings of Sec. 1926.200 and paragraph (g) by adding the term
``devices'' to these headings. The agency will retain the requirement
that signs be legible.
Section 1926.201--Signaling. The agency proposed limiting revisions
to Sec. 1926.201 to the 2009 Edition update discussed above.
Section 1926.202--Barricades. OSHA proposed deleting this section
because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to paragraph
(g)(1), which require the use of barricades as traffic control devices
at points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2), which require that the
design and use of barricades conform to the updated MUTCD.
Section 1926.203--Definitions applicable to this subpart. OSHA
proposed deleting this section because the MUTCD defines or describes
most of the words defined in this section (e.g., barricade, signs, and
signals). To the extent that other provisions of subpart G use the
defined words but do not reference the MUTCD, providing definitions for
these words is unnecessary because the meanings of the words are either
obvious or defined in applicable consensus standards or in other OSHA
standards; for example, an adequate description of a ``tag'' is in
Sec. 1926.200(h).
OSHA received three comments on the proposed revisions to subpart
G. OSHA received a comment of general support from Laborers' Health &
Safety
Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). A comment from
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742)
supporting the proposed revisions also and requested that OSHA ``make
clear that these requirements apply not only to flaggers on road
construction projects, but also pedestrian employees working in the
work zone. Pedestrian workers are at risk of being injured and/or
killed by vehicles inside the work zone. Both flaggers and pedestrian
workers should be protected by the MUTCD provisions.'' The provisions
of Sec. Sec. 1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a) protect all workers in
construction areas with exposure to traffic. The signaling provision,
Sec. 1926.201(a), instructs flaggers to comply with the MUTCD on
signaling and on what garments to wear. Following these provisions
protects all workers, not only flaggers. OSHA does not see a need to
specifically state in the standard that all workers are protected. OSHA
also received a comment from American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0754). This comment supports the
revision and states that updating to the newest edition of the MUTCD
will alleviate uncertainty and confusion caused by OSHA's reference to
multiple versions of the MUTCD in existing standards. The comment also
supports OSHA's clarification of the standards related to signage,
signaling, and barricades in subpart G.
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to update the
references to the MUTCD in subpart G to the 2009 Edition as well as
revise Sec. Sec. 1926.200 through 1926.203 as proposed. Updating the
references to the 2009 Edition MUTCD eliminates confusion as to which
edition employers must comply with, and will inform employers that
compliance with DOT regulations will not conflict with outdated OSHA
regulations. The other revisions clarify subpart G's provisions and
eliminate duplication. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule.
In summary, OSHA is revising the safety and health regulations for
construction to adopt and incorporate the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD and
clarify the regulatory text. The revisions delete the references in
Sec. Sec. 1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a) to the 1988 Edition and
Millennium Edition of the MUTCD and insert references to the 2009
Edition. The revisions also revise the regulatory text of paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of Sec. 1926.200 to eliminate confusion regarding
OSHA's interpretation of the existing text. OSHA is deleting Sec.
1926.202 because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to
Sec. Sec. 1926.200(g) and 1926.203 because the revisions make this
section unnecessary.
9. Subpart H of Part 1926--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and
Disposal, General Requirements for Storage in 29 CFR 1926.250
Subpart H of OSHA's construction standards governs the handling,
storage, use, and disposal of construction materials on a work site.
Section 1926.250 addresses safe storage of building materials inside
buildings under construction, and Sec. 1926.250(a)(2) requires
employers to post maximum safe load limits of floors in storage areas.
This requirement is important during the construction of large
buildings because employers often store heavy building materials in
these structures on upper floors to accommodate construction staging
and schedules. If the weight of stored materials and equipment exceed
the maximum safe load limit of the floor, then there is a risk of a
localized failure of the floor and structural collapse. However,
requiring employers to post safe load limits is unnecessary in
residential construction because employers do not place heavy materials
in storage areas above floor or slab on grade. Therefore, OSHA proposed
revising Sec. 1926.250(a)(2) to exclude residential construction from
the posting requirement. The final rule differs from the proposed rule.
The final rule uses the term ``all single-family residential structures
and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' instead of
``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that are under
construction.'' The final rule also contains organizational changes to
the proposed language.
OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec.
1926.250(a)(2), from the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701), the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) (OSHA-2012-0007-0747), and the North America's
Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
OSHA addresses the comment from NAHB first. The comment supports
the proposal to exclude detached, single family residences and
townhouses from the load limit posting requirements in Sec.
1926.250(a)(2). NAHB suggests the load limits for floors in residential
construction in the United States are uniform and that the weight of
materials stored on upper floors are within the safety factor of the
supporting material. The comment notes that the International
Residential Code (IRC) ``has been adopted and is generally used as a
base building code standard throughout most of the United States.'' The
IRC ``is a comprehensive, stand-alone residential building code
addressing the design and construction of one- and two-family dwellings
and townhouses not more than three stories above grade'' and ``has
specific design requirements for live loads (i.e., weight of occupants,
furnishings, etc.) placed on floors.'' The comment gives an example of
what a larger load imposed on an upper floor of a residential home
under construction might be: ``a stack of 25 (gypsum board or drywall)
is well within the inherent factors of safety, particularly since it is
only imposing a short-term load.''
While this comment supports OSHA's proposed revisions, it requests
that OSHA change ``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that
are under construction'' to ``residential home building'' or
``residential home construction'' to be in line with the language used
in OSHA's Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction, STD 03-11-
002. ``Residential construction'' means that the end-use of the
building in question must be as a home or dwelling and must be
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and
methods. A comprehensive explanation of OSHA's definition of
``residential construction'' is in STD 03-11-002, which is located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
NAIMA submitted a comment in support of the proposed changes,
stating, ``safe load limit requirements are unnecessary for single-
family home construction as they do not store heavy materials that
could endanger employees working at lower levels.''
The agency received a comment opposed to the proposed revisions
from NABTU. Their comment states that it is possible that during the
construction of townhouses, ``one unit may be used as a material depot
during the procurement and construction phase.'' OSHA understands that
it is possible for excessive loads to be stored on any floor during
residential construction, but it is not industry practice to store
loads for extended periods on the upper floors of the types of
residential buildings excepted by this revision. NABTU's comment goes
on to say that ``[o]btaining maximum safe loads information is not an
extra burden on employers.'' The fact that employers no longer will
need to post signs in storage areas in residential construction does
not mean they are relieved of their duty to know the safe load limits
and ensure the safety of workers. As noted above,
load limit requirements in residential construction are mostly uniform
in the United States, and materials that are typically stored are well
within the safety factor. OSHA has requirements that require safe load
limits not be exceeded without requiring the posting of such limits.
For example, Sec. 1910.22(b) requires that a walking-working surface
support the maximum intended load for that surface and does not require
the posting of the load limit. Finally, this comment correctly notes
that employers must ensure the weight of stored materials does not
exceed safe load limits. It also argues that the posting of signs in
residential construction ``increase awareness'' regarding load limits
``even if the likelihood is low'' for error or incidents. OSHA does not
dispute that more information and sign posting in general can increase
safety on a job-site, but in this case, the posting of load limits in
storage areas of residential construction sites does not increase or
decrease the level of safety.
After considering these comments, OSHA is revising Sec.
1926.250(a)(2) to exclude all single-family residential structures and
wood-framed multi-family residential structures from the posting
requirement. The final revisions to the regulatory text are somewhat
different than the revisions in the proposed rule. First, OSHA has
named the subsection ``Load Limits'' for identification purposes.
Second, the revision moves the requirement that the weight of storage
materials not exceed safe load limits from the end of the subsection to
the beginning. This change makes clear that the duty to ensure that any
loads placed on floors do not exceed the maximum safe loads of the
floors exists regardless of whether or not employers are required to
post the safe load limits. Third, the revision changes the style of
language used to be more in line with the language used throughout
subpart H. Finally, OSHA agrees with the first commenter and has
determined that the use of the words ``all single-family residential
structures and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' is
more appropriate than the proposed ``detached single-family dwellings
or townhouses that are under construction.'' OSHA considered using the
words ``residential construction'' to be in line with the language used
in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, and STD 03-11-002, but this would limit
the exception to structures constructed using traditional wood frame
construction materials and methods. The revision covers all single-
family residential structures, regardless of the materials or methods
used during construction, and multi-family residential structures
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and
methods.
OSHA finds that the revision will lessen the compliance burden of
employers without jeopardizing the safety of employees. While employers
involved in residential construction do not place heavy loads on the
floors of these structures, the revision does not relieve employers of
the duty to ensure that any loads placed on these floors do not exceed
the maximum safe loads of the floors.
10. Subpart S of Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons,
Cofferdams and Compressed Air, Underground Construction in 29 CFR
1926.800
OSHA has required, under Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii), that mobile
diesel-powered equipment used in ``other than gassy operations''
underground be approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) in accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 32, or that the
employer can demonstrate that the equipment is ``fully equivalent'' to
MSHA-approved equipment. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it
with updated provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, and 30 CFR 75.1909
Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; \7\ design and performance
requirements, 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment;
electrical system design and performance requirements, and 75.1911 Fire
suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel
transportation units (61 FR 55412). Those sections are rules for coal
mines. In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067, which permits operators in
metal and nonmetal mines to use engines that meet Environmental
Protection Administration (EPA) requirements for engines as an
alternative to seeking MSHA approval under part 7, subpart E (66 FR
5706). Under 30 CFR 57.5067, all engines used in underground metal and
nonmetal mines must have an affixed plate evidencing approval of the
engine pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or meet or exceed the
applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA Table 57.5067-1. OSHA
proposed to update the regulatory language in Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii)
to cross-reference these updated provisions. The final rule contains
differences from the proposed rule. The final rule requires compliance
only with Sec. 57.5067, pertaining to underground metal and nonmetal
mines, and not Sec. Sec. 75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i),
pertaining to underground coal mines. The final rule also contains
minor technical changes to the proposed language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Non-permissible equipment may not be used in gassy
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA received two comments on the proposed changes. One was from
Caterpillar Inc. (OSHA-2012-007-0762). That comment supported the
changes regarding the substitution of 30 CFR 57.5067 for former part
32, but recommended that OSHA not require compliance with Sec. Sec.
75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30. The comment
explained that requiring compliance with Sec. Sec. 75.1909, 75.1910,
and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30, ``would create some conflict or,
at the least, confusion . . . and inappropriately add underground coal-
mining equipment requirements to equipment used in non-coal
environments.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OSHA hosted a conference call with Caterpillar to discuss
its comment, a summary of which is found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar recommended that OSHA not require compliance with
Sec. Sec. 75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30
because those standards apply to equipment used in underground coal
mines, while 30 CFR 57.5067 applies to equipment used in underground
metal and nonmetal mines. Caterpillar stated, and the agency agrees,
that equipment used for underground construction is more closely
related, and often the same, as equipment used in underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Caterpillar suggested that OSHA look at alternative
standards related to equipment used in underground metal and nonmetal
mines (while maintaining that only requiring compliance with 30 CFR
57.5067 regarding engines is necessary), such as 30 CFR 57.14100
through 57.14162--Safety Devices and Maintenance Requirements or 30 CFR
57.5060 through 57.5075--Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only.
After review of these MSHA standards, OSHA has determined that
requiring compliance with either the Safety Devices and Maintenance
Requirements or Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only standards
would go beyond the scope of Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) and be in
conflict with other parts of subpart S. Section 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) is
in the ventilation subsection and is concerned with diesel exhaust and
compliance with 30 CFR 57.5067 is sufficiently equivalent to the
original standard that required compliance with former part 32.
Further, requiring compliance with 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and
75.1911(a) through (i) is
actually inconsistent with 30 CFR 57.5067, as that latter section
allows engines to be approved pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or
meet or exceed the applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA
Table 57.5067-1. Therefore, OSHA agrees that the proposed rule is
unworkable, and the final rule will require compliance with only 30 CFR
57.5067 as recommended.
Further, OSHA solicited comment on whether employers use the option
in the current standard to demonstrate that equipment is ``fully
equivalent'' to MSHA-approved equipment. OSHA received no comment on
this provision, therefore all new engines used that are covered by
subpart S will have to comply with 30 CFR 57.5067.
The other comment was from the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of
North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). This comment supported
updating the reference to current MSHA regulations, but opposed the
grandfathering of older equipment. As OSHA explains below, to avoid the
cost of replacing current equipment, OSHA will grandfather older
equipment that complies with existing Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii). OSHA
notes, however, that 30 CFR 57.5067 was issued seventeen years ago, so
the amount of equipment that would not be in compliance with the
current requirement is not that large and will continue to diminish.
Based on available information, OSHA has determined that currently
manufactured equipment meets the proposed requirements and is generally
compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission
requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency concludes that all applicable new
equipment currently available in the market meets the final rule
requirements. OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using
equipment that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA
requirements referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing
existing equipment in use that are compliant with the current standard,
the agency proposes to allow equipment purchased before the effective
date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms of existing
Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved by MSHA under
30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent to such MSHA-
approved equipment).
Finally, the comment from Caterpillar pointed out that 100 ft\3\
equals 2.832 m\3\ (not 28.32 m\3\ as stated in the existing and
proposed regulatory text) and suggested a reorganization of the
regulatory text for clarity. The agency agrees with this suggestion and
has made the applicable change to Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) in the
final rule.
11. Subpart W of Part 1926--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead
Protection
Provisions in subpart W specify minimum performance criteria for
rollover protective structures (ROPS) and overhead protection on
construction equipment. The agency proposed to revise the existing
standards in 29 CFR 1926.1000, 1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003 by
removing the provisions that specify the test procedures and
performance requirements, and replacing those provisions with
references to the underlying consensus standards from which they were
derived. The substantive differences between the consensus standards
and OSHA's standards are minimal. The agency also proposed to remove
irrelevant text from Sec. 1926.1000. The final rule is identical to
the proposed rule except for the addition of ISO 3471:2008 to Sec.
1926.1002 and other technical corrections. While reviewing the
incorporated material for this section OSHA found outdated references
to former 29 CFR 1926.1501 in Sec. 1926.6. OSHA is removing those
references in this final rule.
The original source standards for the current subpart W
requirements are the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards
J320a-1970, J394-1970, J395-1970, J396-1970, J334a-1970, J167-1970,
J168-1970, and J397-1969. The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and
develop new equipment, the industry now uses the most recent
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards: ISO
3471:2008; ISO 5700:2013; and ISO 27850:2013. Though the names of the
construction equipment covered by the consensus standards have changed
over time, OSHA believes that all the equipment listed in Sec.
1926.1001(a) is covered by one of those ISO standards.
For equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final
rule, OSHA proposed that it meet the test and performance requirements
for the applicable ISO standards discussed below. For equipment
manufactured before the effective date of this final rule, OSHA
proposed that it meet the former requirements of subpart W, or the test
and performance requirements for the applicable ISO standards that
apply to newly manufactured equipment.
OSHA received five comments on these proposed changes. The
Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North
America's Building Trades Union (NABTU) supported the revisions (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757, -0742). The Association of Equipment Manufacturers
(AEM), NIOSH, and Paul Ayers, a private citizen, were generally
supportive of these changes and recommended technical changes (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699, -0726, -0740). OSHA appreciates that input and responds
to specific comments below. After considering these comments, OSHA has
decided to finalize the proposed revisions to subpart W with the minor
changes discussed below.
OSHA is renaming Sec. 1926.1000 as ``Scope'' because this more
accurately describes what follows in this section. Paragraph (a) lists
the types of equipment covered by subpart W. The agency is also adding
compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment manufactured after the
effective date of the final rule to paragraph (a). The ISO standards
apply to compactors and skid-steer equipment as well as the other
equipment included in the standard, and OSHA concludes that all
compactors and skid steer equipment currently produced meet those
requirements. Paragraph (b) states which standards apply to equipment
manufactured before the publication of this final rule. Paragraph (c)
states which standards apply to equipment manufactured after the
publication of this final rule. OSHA solicited comment on whether
paragraphs (d), ``Remounting,'' (e), ``Labeling,'' and (f), ``Machines
meeting certain existing governmental requirements'' are necessary or
are obsolete, but received no comment in response. These paragraphs are
not in conflict with the final revisions and are unchanged in the final
rule. LHSFNA specifically supported the inclusion of compactors and
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment in the standard, citing research on
fatalities associated with compactors (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). LHSFNA
also recommended that because only equipment manufactured after the
effective date of the standard will be covered by revised subpart W,
OSHA should study the prevalence of ROPS on existing older compactors
and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment and explore the need for a rule
that would require this older equipment to be retrofitted.
Section 1926.1000(c) limited the application of the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 1926.1001 and 1926.1002 to equipment manufactured after July
1, 1969. OSHA is eliminating this limitation because it is OSHA's
understanding that there are not any
pieces of covered equipment in operation today that are more than 45
years old and do not meet the SAE standards. OSHA received no comment
on this revision.
Section 1926.1001 provides ROPS requirements for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers, rubber-tired front end loaders, rubber-tired
dozers, crawler tractors, crawler-type loaders, and motor graders. The
final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J397-1969--
Critical Zone-Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of
Construction and Industrial Machinery, SAE 320a-1970--Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-
Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, SAE J394-1970--Minimum Performance
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structures for Rubber-Tired Front End
Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, SAE J395-1970--Minimum Performance
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and
Crawler-Type Loaders, and SAE J396-1970--Minimum Performance Criteria
for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor Graders, as applicable.
The final rule requires equipment manufactured after the effective date
of the final rule (including compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer
equipment) to meet the requirements of ISO 3471:2008, Earth-moving
machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and
performance requirements. This standard contains specifications for
ROPS to protect employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that
covered equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of
ISO 3471:2008, the final rule provides the option for equipment
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
Section 1926.1002 provides ROPS requirements for wheel-type
agricultural equipment and industrial tractors used in construction.
The final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J168-1970--
Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance Requirement and
SAE J334a-1970-Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, as applicable. The final rule requires equipment
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule meet the
requirements of ISO 5700:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Roll-over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance
conditions. This standard contains specifications for ROPS to protect
employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that covered
equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of ISO
5700:2013, the final rule provides the option for equipment
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards. OSHA solicited comment
on whether any equipment covered by Sec. 1926.1002 that complies with
ISO 3471:2008, the standard for earth-moving machinery, should be
considered in compliance for ROPS. The comment from AEM noted that ISO
3471:2008 could be used for equipment covered by Sec. 1926.1002 (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699). Therefore, because ISO 3471:2008 requires testing at
higher levels of energy than ISO-5700:2013, compliance with either ISO-
5700:2013 or ISO 3471:2008 for equipment covered by Sec. 1926.1002 is
included in the final rule.
AEM also recommended updating the consensus standard that is used
in prior Sec. 1926.1002(j)(1) [now Sec. 1926.1002(e)(1)] for the
definition of ``agricultural tractor.'' OSHA is not changing the scope
of equipment covered by Sec. 1926.1002 and believes that the current
definition does not require a change to be compatible with the
revisions. OSHA appreciates AEM's recommendations to update this
definition and to include various other standards as possible options
for Sec. 1926.1002. OSHA acknowledges that there are other consensus
standards that may apply to equipment covered by subpart W. However,
OSHA has chosen to adopt the ISO standards that most closely align to
the current regulatory structure of subpart W.
Section 1926.1003 provides design and installation requirements for
the use of overhead protection for operators of agricultural and
industrial tractors used in construction. The final rule deletes the
current overhead protection specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J167-1970--
Overhead Protection for Agricultural Tractors--Test Procedures and
Performance Requirements when using overhead protection. The final rule
requires equipment manufactured after the effective date of the final
rule meet the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture
and forestry--Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and
performance requirements when using overhead protection. This standard
contains specifications for overhead protection to protect employees.
Because, as noted above, OSHA concludes that overhead protection, when
used, is manufactured to the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, the final
rule provides the option for equipment manufactured before the
effective date of the final rule to comply with the ISO standard rather
than the SAE standards. NIOSH noted that ISO 27850:2013 is not the most
recent industry standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), but AEM recommended
that OSHA incorporate ISO 27850:2013 in Sec. 1926.1003 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0699). OSHA is finalizing the use of ISO 27850:2013 in Sec.
1926.1003. AEM also recommended that OSHA incorporate ISO 3449:2005 in
subpart W but OSHA is not incorporating it because there is no
equivalent consensus standard in subpart W for this ISO to update.
The comment from AEM (OSHA-2012-0007-0699) asked that OSHA remove
the references to the outdated SAE standards. NIOSH also noted that SAE
J334a-1970 is not the current version of that standard (OSHA-2012-0007-
0726). OSHA is aware that the old SAE standards have been canceled. But
they were the original source standards for subpart W, and OSHA is
grandfathering older equipment that met the requirements of the
original subpart W and thus the original source standards. For these
reasons, OSHA is retaining these source standards in the final rule but
it will consider this request for any future rulemaking it undertakes
on subpart W. AEM also requested that OSHA remove the prescriptive
tests in subpart W, as proposed, and replace them with the ISO
standards, which OSHA has done in this final rule. Finally, AEM
recommended that OSHA ``acknowledge the protective structures compliant
with the current industry standards incorporated by reference and
judged to fully comply with OSHA 1926.1002 and 1926.1003.'' The final
rule does state older equipment that meets the requirements of the
current standards required for new equipment will be in compliance with
subpart W. AEM and Paul Ayers also noted that there is a conversion
error in subpart W, and Ayers notes that the same error is also in 29
CFR 1928.52, OSHA's rule for agriculture on protective enclosures for
tractors (OSHA-2012-0007-0699, -0740). That error is eliminated in
subpart W, as the prescriptive tests are deleted by this final rule.
Amending the agriculture standard is beyond the scope
of this SIP-IV rulemaking, but OSHA takes note of the error.
12. Subpart Z of Part 1926--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Coke Oven
Emissions in 29 CFR 1926.1129
Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in
construction. In 1993, OSHA incorporated this standard into part 1926
(58 FR 35256, June 30, 1993) and in 1996 revised it to be just a
reference to the identical general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.1029;
61 FR 31428, June 20, 1996). In neither rulemaking did OSHA discuss, in
particular, the application of the coke oven standard to construction,
as it was only one of many standards involved in each rulemaking. The
provisions of the coke oven standard, however, do not fit construction
work. OSHA thus proposed to delete Sec. 1926.1129. The final rule
enacts the proposed deletion without any other changes.
As just stated, the coke oven standard does not fit construction
work. Much of the standard regulates exposure in the ``regulated
area.'' (See 29 CFR 1910.1029(d)). But this ``regulated area'' is
limited, including only ``[t]he coke oven battery including topside and
its machinery, pushside and its machinery, coke side and its machinery,
and the battery ends; the wharf; and the screening station [and the]
beehive oven and its machinery'' (Sec. 1910.1029(d)(2)(i) and (ii)).
As stated in an interpretation issued nearly contemporaneously with the
general industry coke oven emissions standard, ``[t]he ground level
around the base of the coke oven battery is not generally considered in
the regulated area unless work related to coke oven operations take
place. The coke oven regulation, 29 CFR 1910.1029, does not apply to
employees walking past coke ovens or between them.'' (Interpretation
memorandum to White, May 17, 1977). Any work operating the coke ovens
is general industry work. OSHA recognized this issue in the 1990s, when
it stated that the coke oven construction standard was ``invalid,'' and
that OSHA intended to remove it from the Code of Federal Regulations.
(Interpretation letter to Katz, June 22, 1999). OSHA also advised its
Regional Offices in 2005 of this interpretation and that they should
not enforce Sec. 1926.1129. OSHA's inspection database contains no
record of a citation under this standard since 1997.\9\ For this
reason, OSHA proposed to delete Sec. 1926.1129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ There were a few citations between 1993 and 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA received three comments on the proposed deletion, each asking
OSHA to retain Sec. 1926.1129. The North America's Building Trades
Unions commented that, ``there are still 17 coke oven plants, with 54
batteries, that required industrial construction workers to perform
tasks such as patching and replacing refractory bricks and other
maintenance, work that potentially overexposes these workers to coke
oven emissions'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on this limited
information about what the workers are doing, the work described in
this scenario is likely covered by Sec. 1910.1029, even if the work is
done by ``industrial construction workers.'' The United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union (USW) describes work covered by
Sec. 1910.1029 as ``heavy maintenance,'' encompassing ``[r]ebuilding,
and rebricking ovens, changing doors, rebuilding and replacing
equipment'' within the regulated area (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). In this
example as well, based on the limited information about what the
workers are doing, OSHA thinks it is likely that the work described is
covered by Sec. 1910.1029.
The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America commented that
eliminating Sec. 1926.1129 could cause companies to respond by
``reclassifying work as construction work, thus exempting them from the
regulation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). The USW also states that ``OSHA
should avoid giving [employers] such an incentive'' to reclassify work
(OSHA-2012-0007-0764). Employers do not determine whether or not work
is covered by the construction or general industry standards. The work
itself is used to determine if it will be considered maintenance or
construction. An employer whose employees are engaged in general
industry work may not avoid compliance with general industry standards
by ``classifying'' the work as construction.
Additionally, the USW commented that construction workers laboring
near a coke oven would be deprived of ``respirators, protective
clothing and personal hygiene measures'' if Sec. 1926.1129 were to be
removed (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). This is not the case. First, Sec.
1910.1029, as discussed above, only covers the ``regulated area.''
Second, 29 CFR part 1926 contains a number of standards that apply to
construction workers laboring near an active coke oven. For example,
the provisions of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart C--General Safety and
Health Provisions, 29 CFR part 1926, subpart D--Occupational Health and
Environmental Controls, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart E--Personal
Protective and Life Saving Equipment apply to construction work near
coke ovens.\10\ Because Sec. 1926.1129 is invalid, employers of
construction workers who work near coke ovens must follow the
provisions of the construction standards as a whole, but do not have to
follow the specific standard Sec. 1910.1029, which applies to general
industry work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ An Administrative Law Judge with the Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission has upheld a citation for violation of
Sec. 1926.51(f), requiring washing facilities when construction
workers in the regulated area were exposed to coke dust, and a
citation for violation of Sec. 1926.59, requiring employers to
provide employees with information and training on hazardous
chemicals. The Review Commission affirmed the violation of Sec.
1926.51(f) (the other violation was not at issue before the
Commission). McGraw Construction Co, Inc., 1991 WL 494789 (No. 89-
2220, Jan. 11, 1991) (ALJ Decision), aff'd in part, 15 BNA OSHC 2144
(No. 89-2220, Feb. 1, 1993),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, in effect, the standard does not address construction
worker exposures to coke oven emissions, this removal will not reduce
the level of protection for workers. To the extent any construction
workers would in the future be exposed to coke oven emissions and there
is no applicable construction standard that addresses the specific
hazard, OSHA could cite the employer under the General Duty Clause (29
U.S.C. 654(a)(1)). After considering these comments, OSHA is proceeding
with the removal of Sec. 1926.1129. OSHA is also removing the
reference to Sec. 1926.1129 in Sec. 1926.55, Table 1.
13. Additional Revisions to Paragraphs and Appendices in 29 CFR Parts
1910, 1915, and 1926 To Remove Social Security Number Collection
Requirements
OMB requires all federal agencies to identify and eliminate
unnecessary collection and use of Social Security Numbers (SSN) in
agency systems and programs (see Memorandum from Clay Johnson III,
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Regarding Safeguarding
Against and Responding to the Breach of Personal Identifiable
Information (M-07-16), May 22, 2007 (available at: georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf)). Recognizing
the seriousness of the threat of identity theft and the availability of
other methods for tracking employees for research purposes, if needed,
OSHA examined
the SSN collection requirements in its standards. Based on this review,
OSHA proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM removing all requirements in its
standards to include employee SSNs on exposure monitoring, medical
surveillance, or other records in order to facilitate employers'
efforts to safeguard employee privacy. Specifically, OSHA proposed
deleting the requirements to include an employee's SSN from 19
standards. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
The 19 standards proposed for revision are as follows:
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response--
Sec. Sec. 1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A) and 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A);
Asbestos--Sec. Sec. 1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F),
(m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D, 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A),
and appendix D, and 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix
D;
Vinyl Chloride--Sec. 1910.1017(m)(1);
Inorganic Arsenic--Sec. 1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D) and
(q)(2)(ii)(A);
Lead--Sec. Sec. 1910.1025(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D),
(n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B and 1926.62(d)(5),
(n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
Chromium (VI)--Sec. Sec. 1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F) and
(m)(4)(ii)(A), 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A), and
1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A);
Cadmium--Sec. Sec. 1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(3)(ii)(A),
and appendix D and 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv), (n)(1)(ii)(B), and
(n)(3)(ii)(A);
Benzene--Sec. 1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D) and (k)(2)(ii)(A);
Coke Oven Emissions--Sec. 1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a) and
(m)(2)(i)(a);
Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec. 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A);
Cotton Dust--Sec. 1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C), (k)(2)(ii)(A)
and appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--Sec. 1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d)
and (p)(2)(ii)(a);
Acrylonitrile--Sec. 1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D);
Ethylene Oxide--Sec. 1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F) and
(k)(3)(ii)(A);
Formaldehyde--Sec. 1910.1048(o)(1)(vi), (o)(3)(i),
(o)(4)(ii)(D), and appendix D;
Methylenedianiline--Sec. Sec. 1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D),
(n)(4)(ii)(A), and (n)(5)(ii)(A) and 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F) and
(o)(5)(ii)(A);
1,3-Butadiene--Sec. 1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F),
(m)(4)(ii)(A), and appendix F;
Methylene Chloride--Sec. 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F),
(m)(2)(iii)(C), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
Respirable Crystalline Silica--Sec. Sec.
1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G) and (k)(3)(ii)(A) and 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G) and
(j)(3)(ii)(A).
OSHA received a total of seven comments in response to this
proposal, six of which expressed support for deleting the requirements
to include an employee's SSN from the standards mentioned above.
The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
stated that they ``strongly support'' the deletion of SSN collection
requirements ``because inclusion of such information on medical
documents compromises employee's personal information and creates a
liability scenario for employers.'' The American Foundry Society (AFS)
also supported removing the SSN collection requirements from OSHA's
standards. AFS stated that there is no justification for including such
sensitive information on data sheets or reports that may go to
analytical laboratories or be seen by dozens of people in non-secure
environments. AFS recommended that employers could instead use the
unique employee identification number that employers may use for
personnel and other records, which can be linked back to an employee's
SSN without compromising security.
The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) commented that it
``wholeheartedly'' agrees with OSHA's proposal and believes that there
are safer and better alternatives than SSNs to identify employees. CISC
also supported OSHA's statements in the proposal that employers would
not be required to go back and delete employee SSNs from existing
records, would not be required to use an alternative unique employee
identifier on existing records, and would still be permitted to use
SSNs if they wish to do so, and encouraged OSHA to specifically
reference these statements in the final rule to clarify employers'
responsibilities regarding existing and future records. CISC further
recommended that OSHA not mandate a specific type of alternative
identification method for employers to use in lieu of SSNs because
limiting employers' flexibility to come up with an identification
system that works best for their unique situations would be burdensome
and difficult to implement.
One commenter, an anonymous public citizen, expressed concern that
removing the SSN collection requirements from exposure monitoring and
surveillance records would affect employers' ability to identify
employees on records. The commenter stated that if employers were
required to remove SSNs from existing records, it ``would be daunting
and conflict with NARA requirements.'' The commenter also expressed
concern that using alternative unique employee identifiers could
complicate employer efforts to secure existing records and/or lead to
similar employee privacy concerns as those posed by SSNs. OSHA
appreciates the commenter's concerns; however, OSHA believes that the
seriousness of the threat of identity theft outweighs the concerns
raised by the commenter.
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the
SSN collection requirements from the standards listed above, as
proposed in the NPRM. Consistent with the proposal, OSHA is not
otherwise altering OSHA's requirements for maintaining records, and
employers are expected to continue handling previously-generated
records that contain SSNs as they currently do. Employers are not
required to delete employee SSNs from existing records, nor are
employers required to include an alternative unique employee identifier
on those records. OSHA is not mandating a specific type of
identification method that employers should use on newly-created
records, but is instead providing employers with the flexibility to
develop a system that best works for their unique situations. Although
the revised standards will no longer require it, employers who wish to
do so may continue using SSNs on records developed in compliance with
the standards noted above. Accordingly, removing the SSN collection
requirements will not increase an employer's compliance burden under
any of the revised standards.
Additionally, as noted in the proposal, when reviewing forms to
remove their SSN collection requirements, OSHA noticed that several
forms from older standards do not comport with OMB's Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, as updated on October 30, 1997 (62 FR 58782-58790). OSHA
thus explained that it was considering revising those forms to either
update the language to ensure compliance with OMB's standards or remove
the question altogether. The final rule makes those revisions to comply
with OMB standards. The final rule also effects a minor change to a
question in a general industry Cadmium standard questionnaire.
As one example from the proposal, Part 1 (``Initial Medical
Questionnaire'') of appendix D of the asbestos standard for general
industry (29 CFR 1910.1001)
includes a question (currently #15) that states:
Race:
1. White __
2. Black __
3. Asian __
4. Hispanic __
5. Indian __
6. Other __
To reflect a combined race and ethnicity format (see 62 FR 58782,
58789), OSHA proposed revising the language to state:
Race:
1. White __
2. Black or African American __
3. Asian __
4. Hispanic or Latino
5. American Indian or Alaska Native __
6. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander __
OSHA requested comments on whether it should revise the forms in this
manner, and whether doing so would impose any additional burden hours
or costs on employers.
The agency only received one comment on this issue. NIOSH
recommended that OSHA continue to collect race and ethnicity
information in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) standards. NIOSH stated that, in some cases, this information may
be necessary to choose the correct reference equation for
interpretation of spirometry results, and that possessing this
information may also be useful for documenting disparities. NIOSH
suggested that OSHA provide instructions to those who provide
information using the combined format that they should check all
categories that apply to them, since race and ethnicity are not
mutually exclusive, and many Americans have mixed racial and ethnic
backgrounds. NIOSH also pointed out that OMB's standards combine
``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' into a single category
and does not separate them, as OSHA appeared to do in the proposal.
OSHA did not propose to separate those two categories; it only appeared
that way due to the spacing in the proposal.
After considering this comment, OSHA has decided to revise its
older forms to use a combined race and ethnicity format, as
demonstrated above for Part 1 (``Initial Medical Questionnaire'') of
appendix D of the asbestos standard for general industry (29 CFR
1910.1001), in order to bring the forms into compliance with OMB's
standards. The following forms, which are also impacted by the removal
of SSN collection requirements, will be revised to use the combined
race and ethnicity format: Asbestos Standard for General Industry
(Sec. 1910.1001, appendix D), Construction (Sec. 1926.1101, appendix
D), and Maritime (Sec. 1915.1001, appendix D); Cotton Dust (Sec.
1910.1043, appendix B-1, appendix B-II, and appendix B-III); and
Methylene Chloride (Sec. 1910.1052, appendix B). OSHA is accepting
NIOSH's recommendation to adhere to the OMB's Standards and is
inserting a ``Check all that apply'' instruction to all the forms that
are impacted.
Additionally, when reviewing forms to remove their SSN collection
requirements, OSHA noticed that appendix D of the general industry
Cadmium standard (Sec. 1910.1027) asked workers, ``35. Have you or
your partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still
birth or deformed offspring?'' OSHA recognizes that the phrasing of the
last condition was insensitive and not medically accurate. Therefore,
OSHA is rephrasing that question to read, ``35. Have you or your
partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still birth
or child with malformations or birth defects?''
C. Proposed Revisions Not Being Finalized Today
Subpart J of Part 1910--General Environmental Controls, Control of
Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147
OSHA proposed making changes to subpart J of part 1910--General
Environmental Controls, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/
tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147. According to its terms, the lockout/tagout
standard applies to servicing and maintenance operations ``in which the
unexpected energization or startup of the machines or equipment, or the
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees'' (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(i) (emphasis in original)). Because OSHA believes the
word ``unexpected'' has been misinterpreted to exclude some operations
where employees are subject to injury from startup or the release of
stored energy, the agency proposed removing the word ``unexpected''
from Sec. 1910.147(a)(1) and several other places it appears in the
standard.
OSHA made this proposal as a result of a ruling made by the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), which was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div. (GMC Delco), 17 BNA
OSHC 1217 (Nos. 91-2973, 91-3116, 91-3117, 1995); aff'd 89 F.3d 313
(6th Cir. 1996). Those decisions found that the lockout/tagout standard
did not apply where a startup procedure for a machine provided a
warning to a worker servicing it that it was about to start. In that
case, workers were servicing machines that used an eight-to-twelve-step
startup procedure, including time delays, and audible or visual
warnings. The court and OSHRC held that, because these features would
warn the servicing employees that the machines were about to start, the
startup would not be ``unexpected.'' OSHA believes that the GMC Delco
decisions misconstrued the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/
tagout standard by allowing employers to use warning and delay systems
as alternatives to following the requirements of the standard.
OSHA received about 155 comments on this issue, though many were
submitted as part of a mass mailing campaign. All but seven of the
comments opposed removing the word ``unexpected.''
As an example, Davies Molding, LCC, a firm that makes moldings,
commented (as part of a mass mail campaign) that:
This proposed rule would adversely impact a company's ability to
utilize certain advances in technology such as automated controls
that can eliminate the potential for unexpected energization and
therefore eliminate the need for LOTO. It also contradicts recent
legal precedent (Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div.,
GMC Delco). In removing the ability of employers to demonstrate the
absence of exposure to unexpected energization, lockout would become
a requirement for all energy sources. . . . Regulatory certainty is
strongly desired, but not every machine is the same and a singular,
generic fix applied to all equipment is not the solution. OSHA's
LOTO rule (29 CFR 1910.147) is complex and outdated. A better
solution to concerns about LOTO and the scope of requirements around
energization is for OSHA to move forward with its plans to review
and potentially update the entire rule in a complete and independent
rulemaking. OSHA has noted review of technological advancements with
computer-based controls, greater acceptance of such methods
internationally, increased requests for variances for these devices,
the utility of understanding new technology and potential hazards to
workers, and the appropriateness of a potential rulemaking process
is necessary.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0581).
Apogee Designs, a manufacturer, commented:
Removing ``unexpected'' from the term ``unexpected
energization'' broadens the scope of the rule adding only confusion
to what is already understood and implemented. We agree with the
Plastics Industry Association (PIA) in that OSHA should pursue a
separate rule relating to 29 CFR 1910.147 that would NOT adversely
impact automated controls that eliminate
potential unexpected energization. . . . If changes are made to the
LOTO rule they should be reviewed in their totality in the context
of modern manufacturing techniques and technology. Much has been
said of `Advanced Manufacturing' and its ability to provide jobs for
employees and opportunities for firms who wish to embrace what is no
longer the future but is `the now'. We submit that OSHA focus on how
to minimize risk of personnel harm without placing undue burden on
employees, companies, and regulators. It is not possible to
eliminate accidents, it is possible to minimize their impact.
(OSHA-2012-0007-0733).
The American National Standards Institute Accredited Z244 Committee
for the Control of Hazardous Energy--Lockout, Tagout and Alternative
Methods also commented that the removal of the word ``unexpected''
would be inconsistent with its standard ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0714).
In favor of removal, the AFL-CIO commented:
This decision [GMC Delco] totally undermines the original intent
of the standard and allows warning systems to be used instead of
following the requirements of the standard. As OSHA points out in
the preamble of the proposed rule, the exclusive use of warning
systems subverts the intent of the standard by removing the control
of the hazardous energy from the individual authorized employee and
instead placing the burden on exposed employees to recognize
warnings so they can escape danger zones . . . . Moreover, this
decision requires OSHA to make a case-by-case determination of
whether or not such warning systems provide adequate and reliable
warnings to workers again undermining the application of the rule
and the protection of workers.
. . . .
If OSHA choses[sic] to maintain the term ``unexpected'' in the
standard, we urge OSHA to include a definition of the term
``unexpected'' in the final version of this rule similar to the
definition that is included in the OSHA Lockout-Tagout compliance
directive. That directive states that ``the term unexpected refers
to any energization or start-up that is not sanctioned (through the
removal of personal LOTO devices) by each authorized employee
engaged in the servicing and maintenance activity.'' (CPL 02-00-147)
(OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
OSHA continues to believe that the GMC Delco decisions misconstrued
the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/tagout standard. However,
OSHA also acknowledges the overwhelming opposition to this change and
agrees with the many comments that cited complications with this issue
due to technological advancements. Further, the AFL-CIO included in its
comment a proposal of a path OSHA could follow to uphold the rigor of
the proposed rule. In light of the information provided by the
comments, OSHA is not in a position at this time to make a final
decision on this issue. As a result, the agency will not finalize its
proposal to remove the word ``unexpected'' from the control of
hazardous energy standard but will further consider this issue in light
of the overall standard.
Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment,
Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment in 29 CFR 1926.95
Section 1926.95 sets out the requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE) in construction. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to revise
this standard to explicitly require that PPE used in construction
properly fit each affected worker.
OSHA received four comments on this proposal. The Laborers' Health
& Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building
Trades Unions (NABTU) both supported the revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0757,
-0742). A third comment from a safety professional supported the
revision, but mentioned ``significant concerns'' that ``need to be
addressed'' before finalizing the proposal (OSHA-2012-0007-0696). The
comment characterized the change as a ``difficult'' and ``bold step''
with definite compliance challenges. A fourth comment, from the
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC), opposed the revision
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753). CISC, made up of 25 trade associations, stated
that ensuring that PPE properly fits all affected workers in
construction would impose significant additional obligations. CISC
commented in particular that explicitly requiring employers to ensure
that all PPE properly fits would greatly change the standard and place
new responsibilities on employers, and warrants a more fulsome
rulemaking process than that offered in the SIP-IV rulemaking.
The purpose of SIP-IV is to remove or revise outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in OSHA's safety and health
standards. Given that limited purpose and the comments described above,
OSHA is not finalizing the proposal in this rulemaking. Instead, OSHA
has determined that such a change to the PPE standard should occur in a
separate rulemaking outside the limited SIP process. OSHA anticipates
that this approach would provide the public with broader notice of the
proposal, encourage robust commentary, and better inform OSHA's
approach to employer obligations and worker safety in relation to PPE
used in construction.
Subpart P of Part 1926--Excavations, Specific Excavation Requirements
in 29 CFR 1926.651
Paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of Sec. 1926.651 specify requirements
for employers to protect employees from (1) loose rock or soil in
excavations, and (2) excavated or other materials or equipment that
could fall or roll into an excavation. Similar provisions were part of
OSHA's subpart P Excavation standard originally issued under the
Construction Safety Act in 1971 as 29 CFR 1518.651(h) and (i) (36 FR
7340, 7389, April 17, 1971), and OSHA retained them when it revised the
standard in 1989 (54 FR 45894, Oct. 31, 1989). The original 1971
standard placed the burden on employers to ensure employees' safety
from loose rock and soil, and excavated or other materials, in or
around excavations (36 FR 7340, 7389). The 1989 revision added to the
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) the phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' when
referring to loose rock or soil and excavated or other materials or
equipment (54 FR 45894, 45924-45925).
In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA proposed to remove the phrase ``that could
pose a hazard'' from both paragraphs to help clarify that the burden is
on the employer to ensure employees' safety from loose rock and soil,
and excavated or other materials, in or around excavations, and that
OSHA does not have to establish that loose rock or soil or excavated or
other material or equipment poses a hazard to employees before it can
establish a violation of Sec. 1926.651(j)(1) and (2).
OSHA received six comments on this proposed change. The Laborers'
Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North American
Building Trades Union (NABTU) both supported this revision, both
stating that spoil piles pose a recognized hazard (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
-0757).
Emmanuel Omeike, a safety professional, commented that this
proposal is unnecessary and does not address the ongoing hazards and
high rates of injuries and fatalities due to excavation work. He argued
that the excavations standard is already comprehensive enough, and OSHA
should focus on enforcing the current standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0696).
The National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA) and
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) both expressed opposition
to this revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0654, -0753). Both argued that the
1989 revision to the Excavation standard did make a substantive change
to the standard,
which was OSHA's intent when it clarified the standard. They also
argued that the existing language recognizes that loose rock or soil or
excavated or other material or equipment do not always pose a hazard to
employees, and it clearly informs employers that they must protect
employees from loose rock or soil or excavated or other material or
equipment when it does pose a hazard.
The National Association of Homebuilders (OSHA-2012-007-0747)
joined in the CISC comment, and also recommended that OSHA revise the
excavations standard to add the work practices that are outlined in the
OSHA memorandum ``Suspension of 29 CFR 1926.652 to House Foundations/
Basement Excavations'' for protecting house foundation/basement
excavations in either SIP-IV or a separate rulemaking. That
recommendation is beyond the scope of SIP-IV.
In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA also proposed removing the language ``by
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec. 1926.651(j)(1) because that
language is unnecessary while retaining the term ``excavation face'' in
the provision. NUCA opposed the removal of this language for the same
reasons it opposed the removal of ``that could pose a hazard'' (OSHA-
2012-0007-0654).
After considering these comments, OSHA has decided that it needs to
further consider the possible removal of the phrase ``that could pose a
hazard'' from Sec. 1926.651(j)(1) and (2) and the language ``by
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec. 1926.651(j)(1). As a result,
OSHA is not making any changes to these two provisions in this final
rule.
Subpart S in Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams
and Compressed Air, Compressed Air in 29 CFR 1926.803
OSHA proposed to revise subpart S--Underground Construction,
Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed Air, by replacing the
decompression tables currently found in appendix A to subpart S with
the 1992 French Air and Oxygen decompression tables (French). OSHA also
requested comment on whether the following decompression tables should
also be permitted as substitutes for the existing tables in appendix A:
The Edel-Kindwall (NIOSH) tables, the Blackpool (British) tables, and
the German Standard Decompression (German) tables. After reviewing the
comments, discussed below, OSHA has determined that while the
decompression tables need to be updated, SIP-IV is not the appropriate
mechanism to carry out a broader update of subpart S. In addition to
the decompression tables, subpart S, as it relates to decompression,
needs to be updated in its entirety. The agency considered the effect
of only updating the tables, as proposed, but has determined they would
conflict with and not solve other problems with the current standard. A
full explanation of the proposal and discussion of the decompression
tables is found at 81 FR 68503, 68520.
OSHA received three comments, each offering support for the use of
the French tables. The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America
(LHSFNA) and the North American Building Trades Union (NABTU) stated
they are ``glad to see OSHA's proposal to update this standard and
adopt the French tables, which can also be used for oxygen
decompression and at pressures higher than those in the original OSHA
standard'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757 and OSHA-2012-0007-0742). This comment
highlights the difficulty with only updating the tables without
updating other parts of the standard. While the French tables are
designed to be used at higher pressures and for oxygen decompression,
OSHA did not propose in SIP-IV to revise the parts of subpart S that
limit the amount of pressure an employee can be subjected to or limit
the use of oxygen. OSHA believes that only updating the decompression
tables, without updating other parts of the standard, would lead
employers to believe they can use parts of the French tables that would
violate the current standard. Both commenters also requested that
contractors be given the option to use the British, Edel-Kindwall,
German, or Navy tables. As part of further study of this issue, OSHA
will continue to consider which tables are acceptable for use in
underground construction.
OSHA also received a comment from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that supported the updating of
the decompression standard in a manner that goes beyond the scope of
the proposed rule. NIOSH recommended that OSHA take the following steps
when updating the decompression tables: ``[r]equire staged
decompression, allow 100 percent oxygen use during decompression, vary
the decompression schedule based on exposure time, and allow for
greater pressures in underground construction projects'' (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726). NIOSH also recommended that OSHA adopt the Edel-Kindwall
tables, and noted that additional decompression tables exist. Finally
NIOSH agreed that the standard would need to be updated if an oxygen-
based set of decompression tables were selected.
Each of the comments were supportive of OSHA's efforts to update
the decompression standard, including the tables. However, each of the
comments highlighted the challenges and problems that present
themselves by only updating to the French tables (or any of the tables
discussed). OSHA agrees that the limitations on pressure and the use of
oxygen in the current standard are not compatible with any of the
modern decompression tables. OSHA acknowledges that these issues were
discussed in the proposed rule, but has determined that SIP-IV is not
the appropriate mechanism to update subpart S. While OSHA is not
updating the tables in this rulemaking as proposed, the agency is
considering how to best move forward with updating the decompression
standard. The proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) and appendix
A to subpart S are not being finalized.
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the
benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations. Executive Orders
12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) also require
OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the
impacts of certain rules that the agency promulgates. Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, and it is not a ``major rule''
under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The expected
total cost savings per year are $6,066,000. Given that these are all
annual cost savings, the final estimate is the same when discounted at
either 3 or 7 percent. For the same reason, when the Department uses a
perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 13771,
the annualized cost savings of the final rule are also $6,066,000 with
7 percent discounting. This rule has estimated annual costs of $32,440
and will lead to approximately $6.1 million per year in cost savings to
regulated entities. Thus, neither the benefits nor the costs of this
rule exceed $100 million. In addition, it does not meet any of the
other criteria specified by UMRA or the Congressional Review Act for a
significant regulatory action or major rule. This Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) addresses the
costs, cost savings and benefits of this rule.
Work-Related Hearing Loss
OSHA is adding a specific cross-reference to 29 CFR 1904.5--
Determination of Work-Relatedness, in Sec. 1904.10--Recording Criteria
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss, paragraph (b)(6). This
cross-reference clarifies that employers must comply with the
provisions of Sec. 1904.5 when making a determination as to whether a
worker's hearing loss is work-related. This clarification does not
change any of the requirements in 29 CFR 1904.10. In the Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA), OSHA determined that neither new costs nor
compliance burdens would result from adding the cross-reference to an
existing standard. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the
Final Rule (Summary and Explanation), while some commenters, such as
the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (OSHA-2012-0007-0753),
expressed concern that the proposed language may increase their
required reporting of hearing loss cases, the agency explained in
detail in that section why this clarification does not impose any new
obligations on employers.\11\ With that in mind, OSHA retains its
assessment from the PEA that this provision does not impose new costs
on employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OSHA has conducted a sensitivity analysis on the
hypothetical assumption that the clarification will assist some
employers' compliance with their hearing-loss reporting obligations.
For instance, in 2016 BLS reported 100 cases of hearing loss for the
entire construction industry, or 0.2 per 10,000 workers; however,
hearing loss across all industries was much higher, at 1.7 per
10,000 workers (BLS, 2017a). If the construction industry were to
report hearing loss at a rate of 2.0 per 10,000 workers--similar to
other industries--then it would be reporting an additional 900
hearing-loss cases. The average case costs $57, so that would result
in total additional costs of $51,300 ($57 x 900). OSHA assumes that,
across all industries, the clarification may result in a 10%
increase in reported hearing-loss cases (with much of that overall
increase coming from the construction industry). This modest 10%
increase is based on the assumption that the regulation's hearing-
loss reporting requirement is already clear to nearly all employers.
A 10% increase would result in additional costs of $107,700 (18,900
total cases in 2016 x 10% x $57 per case) (BLS, 2017a). (The $57-
per-case estimate is based on the estimated labor costs divided by
the total number of cases reported to BLS (OSHA, 2018a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest X-Ray Requirements
Medical surveillance requirements in health standards are designed
primarily to detect the early onset of adverse health effects so that
appropriate interventions can be taken. In certain OSHA standards, the
agency currently requires periodic chest X-rays (CXRs) as a form of
early lung cancer detection. At the time these standards were
promulgated, routine screening for lung cancer with CXR was considered
appropriate; however, recent studies with many years of follow-up have
not shown a benefit from CXR screening for either lung cancer incidence
or mortality. As a result, OSHA is removing the requirement for
periodic CXR in the following standards: Sec. Sec. 1910.1029--Coke
Oven Emissions, 1910.1045--Acrylonitrile, and 1910.1018--Inorganic
Arsenic.
As OSHA has become increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of CXR
in reducing lung cancer mortality, the agency has moved to decrease CXR
requirements to eliminate unnecessary radiation to workers as well as
reduce the cost to employers to provide CXR as part of medical
examinations. OSHA previously reduced the frequency of CXRs for workers
covered by the arsenic and coke oven emissions standards in the first
phase of the Standards Improvement Process (63 FR 33450, June 18,
1998). Not only does OSHA conclude that the removal of this requirement
will result in a cost savings to employers, but the agency also
believes it will prove to be beneficial to employees by decreasing
their exposure to radiation as well as decreasing the rate of false
positive results. OSHA has not attempted to quantify these benefits in
this final analysis.
To estimate the annual cost savings to employers for removing the
requirement for periodic CXRs from the listed standards, OSHA, with the
assistance of Eastern Research Group (ERG), estimated the number of
unnecessary CXRs that will be eliminated by this change by drawing on
estimates of the affected number of workers for each standard addressed
in the agency's recent Information Collection Requests (ERG, 2017b).
The numbers presented in this FEA have been revised from the PEA to
reflect the most recent wage, price and industry profile data. These
changes are demonstrated in the SIPS-IV Cost Benefits Estimates
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).\12\ OSHA then analyzed data from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule.
Summary CMS survey data from across the United States indicated a
national average price of $73.11 per CXR (ERG, 2017a).\13\ Finally, the
agency multiplied the average price of a CXR by the number of CXRs to
be eliminated, providing an estimate of $265,326 of exam cost savings.
This information is detailed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In addition, note that the totals in tables in this
chapter, as well as totals summarized in the text, may not precisely
sum from underlying elements due to rounding. The precise
calculation of the numbers in the FEA appears in the spreadsheet.
\13\ Exam cost adjusted from PEA to 2017 dollars using the GDP
deflator as indicated in the SIP-IV Cost Benefits Estimates
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).
Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. 1910.1029):
Reduced Exam Costs: 2,498 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$182,636
Acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045):
Reduced Exam Costs: 542 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$39,627
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018):
Reduced Exam Costs: 589 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$43,063
Total Reduced Exam Cost:
$182,636 + $39,627 + $43,063 = $265,326
Reducing the time of the medical exam, by removing the CXR
requirement, also saves employers money because the employee is away
from work for a shorter period of time. Based on information from
RadiologyInfo.org, the agency conservatively estimates that the time
employees will be away from work is reduced by 15 minutes when the CXR
component of the exam is eliminated (ERG, 2017a). As indicated below,
OSHA estimates this change will save 907 hours of worker time that
would have been spent during their recurring exams.
For the calculation of labor-related cost savings for this FEA,
OSHA included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of
labor in its primary cost calculation. Overhead costs are indirect
expenses that cannot be tied to producing a specific product or
service. Common examples include rent, utilities, and office equipment.
Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the cost elements that
fit this definition. The lack of a common definition has led to a wide
range of overhead estimates. Consequently, the treatment of overhead
costs needs to be case-specific. OSHA adopted an overhead rate of 17
percent of base wages. This is consistent with the overhead rate used
for sensitivity analyses in the 2017 Improved Tracking of Workplace
Injuries and Illnesses FEA and the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final
standard on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica. For
example, to calculate the total labor cost for production work related
medical exams for production operator (SOC: 51-000), three components
are added together: Base wage ($18.30) + fringe benefits ($8.49, 46% of
$18.30) \14\ + applicable overhead
costs ($3.11, 17% of $18.30). This increases the labor cost of the
fully-loaded wage (including overhead) for a production worker to
$29.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Wages are based on data from the May 2017 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Standard Occupational
Classification Code 51-000--Production Operation (BLS, 2017), which
lists average base compensation of $18.30. A private industry Fringe
Benefit rate of 31.70 percent was from Source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (BLS 2018). The
multiplier applied to base compensation to determine loaded wages is
1.46 [1/(1 - 31.70 percent)]. Applying the multiplier (1.46) to base
compensation ($18.30) results in loaded wages of $26.79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplying the reduced exam time by the fully-loaded employee
hourly wages of $29.90, the agency estimates a cost savings of $27,131.
This information is detailed as follows:
Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. 1910.1029):
Time saved: 2,498 exams x .25 hours = 625 hours \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number here and
elsewhere for presentation in the Final Economic Analysis. See also
fn. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cost: 625 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $18,675
Acrylonitrile (Sec. 1910.1045):
Time saved: 542 exams x .25 hours = 136 hours
Reduced Cost: 136 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $4,052
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018):
Time saved: 589 exams x .25 hours = 147 hours
Reduced Cost: 147 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $4,403
Total Employee Time Savings from fewer CXRs:
625 hours + 136 hours + 147 hours = 907 hours
Total Value of Time Savings plus Overhead from fewer CXRs:
$18,675 + $4,052 + $4,403 = $27,131
Combining the value of saved worker time and overhead of $27,131
with the decreased exam cost of $265,326 nets a total potential cost
savings to employers of approximately $292,500. OSHA did not receive
comments questioning the estimates of the cost savings, as presented in
the PEA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The overhead component was not included in the PEA, but has
been added to the FEA in fulfillment of Department of Labor policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to removing the requirement for periodic CXR, OSHA is
updating other CXR requirements in its coke oven emissions,
acrylonitrile, and inorganic arsenic standards, as well as in its three
Asbestos standards--Sec. Sec. 1910.1001 asbestos (General Industry),
1915.1001 Asbestos (Maritime), and 1926.1101 Asbestos (Construction)--
and two cadmium standards--Sec. Sec. 1910.1027 Cadmium (General
Industry) and 1926.1127 Cadmium (Construction).
In recent years, innovation in medical technology has allowed for
screening with digital CXRs. Reflecting this, OSHA is adding the option
of digital radiography to its existing standards. As a practical
matter, digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional
analog film-based systems in medical facilities.
There are cost savings to using digital CXRs over analog CXRs.
Traditional analog film-based CXRs are much larger than standard-sized
office documents and weigh more than a piece of paper of the same size.
As such, storing traditional CXRs requires an investment in specialized
storage cabinets, which in turn may require reinforcement of the floor.
Digital CXRs, however, can be stored on a computer. Due to continuing
advances in technology and the emergence of inexpensive and large-
capacity storage devices, digital CXRs can be stored for just a
fraction of a cent each. Digital CXRs also save time and materials
because they can be instantly processed and ready for use as soon as
the CXR is taken.
OSHA believes that digital storage of CXRs is so common that most
employers are already realizing these cost savings and will thus not
incur any additional savings as a result of this change. As a practical
matter, OSHA already allows digital storage of CXRs. In a letter of
interpretation released on September 24, 2012, entitled ``OSHA's
Position on the Acceptability of Digital Radiography in Place of
Traditional Chest Roentgenograms,'' OSHA stated: ``OSHA would allow,
but would not require, digital radiography in place of traditional
chest roentgenograms for medical surveillance exams under the asbestos
standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards.'' \17\
Although OSHA has not released interpretations specifically allowing
for digital storage of CXRs in other standards, it has become the
agency's practice not to cite or otherwise penalize employers for
storing CXRs digitally. Because it is now current OSHA enforcement
practice to waive the formal requirement for employers to keep analog
copies of CXRs when they store them digitally, the agency concludes
that there is no realized cost savings by changing this requirement.
Even so, OSHA also believes that employers will benefit from the
certainty that comes only from codified regulation. Employers can now
rely on the regulatory text rather than agency discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretations.
Asbestos standards, Sept. 24, 2012, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583 (accessed
November 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions in these standards also include replacements of
antiquated terminology such as ``roentgenogram,'' correction of
misspellings in the existing standards, an update to the current ILO
classification guidance, and revisions where inaccuracies exist in
clinical diagnostic language. OSHA is updating the regulatory text to
better distinguish between the appropriate uses of ``classification''
and ``interpretation'' of CXRs. As indicated in the PEA, the agency
believes these changes are merely editorial in nature and reflect
current practices, and therefore do not create new costs or cost
savings for employers. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation,
while commenters generally approved of the changes OSHA was proposing,
the agency did not receive comments questioning the PEA's conclusions.
Cotton Dust
As explained in greater detail in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA
is making revisions to its medical surveillance program requirements--
more specifically, its pulmonary function testing requirements of the
cotton dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043). Exposure to cotton dust places
employees at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis.
Since the publication of the cotton dust standard in 1978, OSHA has not
updated its pulmonary function testing requirements to match those of
current technology and practices. As a result, OSHA in the proposal
based the proposed revisions on current recommendations from
organizations recognized as authorities on generally accepted practices
in pulmonary-function testing: ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM.
OSHA is revising paragraph (h) and appendix D of its Cotton Dust
standard. Many of the revisions are simply editorial, to clarify
existing language, as well as to update pulmonary function
measurements. However, for those revisions that may suggest a potential
need to upgrade pulmonary testing equipment, OSHA investigated the
characteristics of equipment currently available in the United States
and whether such equipment met the specifications of OSHA's revisions.
Paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) give instructions
for pulmonary function testing, measuring Forced Vital Capacity (FVC)
and Forced Expiratory Volume in One second (FEV1) against
the Spirometry Prediction Tables for Normal Males and Females (former
appendix C), adjusting those measurements based on ethnicity, and from
the outcome of such measurements, determining the frequency of medical
surveillance provided to employees. OSHA is
revising this provision to specify use of the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III reference data set and to
replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values.
Software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set,
which is identified as the Hankinson data set on some spirometers. If
software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data
set, users of those spirometers will be able to access the NHANES III
values online through the NIOSH calculator. Tables of the NHANES III
values are also available online in an appendix of OSHA's spirometry
guidance for healthcare professionals. Therefore, NHANES III values are
widely available to spirometry providers, including those providers
using older spirometers.
OSHA's use of the NHANES III data set in place of the Knudson
values currently in appendix C simplifies interpretation of spirometry
results by providing reference values for more race/ethnic groups,
thereby reducing the need to adjust values for race/ethnic groups not
included in the Knudson data set. This revision as to how pulmonary
functioning should be tested and measured falls in line with current
generally accepted practices; therefore OSHA does not believe this
revision will pose a compliance burden to affected employers.
OSHA is also updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require an
evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the
lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/ethnic group, by age. Modern
spirometers typically provide this information automatically, and no
one in the record argued that this provision would have costs.
Similarly, OSHA has decided that the basis for frequency of medical
surveillance in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) is whether the
FEV1 is above or below the LLN. This technically changes the
required triggers for medical surveillance from the existing standard,
but is consistent with generally accepted current practices. The agency
believes the changes will reduce confusion and have little other
practical effect. The revision to evaluate the FEV1/FVC
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC does not affect the
triggers for other medical monitoring requirements such as changes in
medical-surveillance frequency or referral for a detailed pulmonary
examination because the standard bases those triggers solely on
FEV1 values.
Revisions to appendix D address updates to the specifications of
spirometry equipment used in performing pulmonary functioning tests. To
assess whether current readily available spirometry equipment met the
agency's specifications, OSHA investigated the market for spirometry
equipment, with the assistance of a contractor, Eastern Research Group
(ERG). OSHA found that the market has been adapting to similar
consensus standards in this area since as far back as 1994. In its
research of spirometry product specifications collected through
internet searches, interviews with manufacturers, and the consultation
of peer-reviewed literature and voluntary standards published by
respiratory health groups, the agency found that spirometry models
currently sold in the United States, Europe, and Australia meet the
specification revisions of spirometry equipment to be used in the
cotton dust standard. Upon further investigation, ERG determined that
out of a sample of 12 spirometry models from various manufacturers, 11
models were already compliant with the volume, accuracy, and minimum
duration requirements of the 2005 spirometry specification standard
jointly published by ATS/ERS (ERG, 2017a).
The agency estimates that spirometry equipment has a working life
of approximately ten years. To prevent a potential burden to employers
from having to prematurely purchase new equipment, OSHA is allowing the
revised spirometry specifications to apply only to equipment newly
purchased one year or more after the date of publication of this final
standard in the Federal Register. Combined with evidence that the large
majority of the equipment already on the market is already compliant,
OSHA preliminarily concluded that the revisions to the spirometry
equipment specifications would not impose additional costs or
compliance burdens to employers. OSHA received no comments indicating
substantial costs from these requirements, and therefore stands by its
preliminary conclusions.
Shipyard Employment: Feral Cats
As stated in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is removing feral
cats from its definition of ``vermin'' in paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.
1915.80--subpart F--Shipyard General Working Conditions. 29 CFR
1915.88--Sanitation, paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), specify that employers
must, to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain
workplaces in a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers
detect vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-
control program.
OSHA has determined that, although the possibility exists for feral
cats to pose safety and health hazards for employees, the threat is
minor as the cats tend to avoid human contact. Further, stakeholders
and commenters (as discussed in the Summary and Explanation) have
expressed concern that including the term ``feral cats'' in the
definition of ``vermin'' encourages cruel and unnecessary
extermination. OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral
cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of other vermin. To
the extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular
shipyard, OSHA would consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under
the standard. Removing a perceived obligation to exterminate feral cats
does not have any costs to employers; if there is an economic effect,
it would be a potential cost savings to the extent that anyone is now
exterminating feral cats on the basis of that perceived obligation.
911 Emergency Medical Services
OSHA is revising paragraph (f) in 29 CFR 1926.50--Medical Services
and First Aid. Existing Sec. 1926.50(e) requires employers to provide
a communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper
equipment for transportation of an injured person. Existing Sec.
1926.50(f) requires the posting of telephone numbers of physicians,
hospitals, or ambulances for work sites located in areas where 911
emergency service is not available. OSHA is retaining both of these
requirements. The agency will add to paragraph (f) a requirement that
when an employer uses a communication system for contacting 911
services, the employer must ensure that the communication system can
effectively do so, and, if the system is in an area that does not
automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude to the 911
dispatcher, post or otherwise provide to employees the latitude and
longitude of the work site or other information that communicates the
location of the worksite.
OSHA has concluded that this requirement will result in annual
costs of $32,440 until 2019, when the FCC expects enhanced 911 wireless
services to be universal, at which time these costs would disappear.
OSHA calculated the burden hours and wage hour costs for employers
to post the latitude and longitude of the work site location based on
the number of new construction projects started in a given year. To
estimate the number of project sites, OSHA reviewed the most
recent data provided by request from Dodge Data and Analytics.\18\ The
Dodge data show a total of 891,712 new construction project starts in
2016, of which 766,133 were residential buildings, 68,589 were non-
residential buildings, and 56,990 were non-buildings. Of the 766,133
residential buildings, 735,745 were single-family homes, 9,084 were
two-family houses, and 21,304 were apartments.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For the purpose of this section, in conformance with
previous ICRs on this provision, OSHA deems the Dodge data to be the
best source of information for new construction projects. This
stands in contrast to U.S. Census construction data used later in
the FEA in the context of Load Limit Posting provision because OSHA
is interested in all construction projects started, but not
necessarily completed, in a given year. While the Census
construction data provides more detailed information on residential
housing starts and completions, and total value of construction put
in place, it does not provide information on the total number of
construction projects started in a given year. No commenters
questioned the use of either data series.
\19\ Dodge defines single-family homes as single-family
detached, stand-alone units. Single-family attached structures,
including such buildings as condominiums and townhomes, are included
in Dodge's multi-family category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA notes that more than one single-family home may be built at a
project site. The agency determined that construction contractors build
approximately one-half of single-family houses at single house project
sites and the other half at project sites holding multiple single-
family homes. As a result, OSHA estimated the number of single-family
homes completed at single house project sites in 2016 to be 367,873,
and 183,936 to be the total of project sites holding two single family-
homes (one-half of single-family houses at single project sites:
735,745/2 = 367,873; one-half of single-family homes at project sites
holding two houses: 367,873/2 = 183,936). As shown below in Table IV-1,
the total number of construction project sites covered by this
provision is: 707,776.
Table IV-1--Estimated Total Construction Sites in the United States,
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
of
Type of construction site construction
projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Residential Buildings............................... 68,589
Non-Buildings Construction Projects..................... 56,990
Residential Buildings................................... 582,197
One Single-Family Home Per Site....................... 367,873
Multiple Single-Family Homes Per Site................. 183,936
Multi-Family Residential Buildings.................... 30,388
Two-Family Houses................................. 9,084
Apartments........................................ 21,304
---------------
Total Construction Sites............................ 707,776
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Safety, based on Dodge Data
and Analytics, 2016.
In the United States, when a 911 call is made from a traditional
telephone or wireline, the call is routed to a Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) that is responsible for assisting people in a particular
geographic area or community. Depending on the type of 911 service
available, the telephone number of the caller and the location or
address of the emergency is either communicated by the caller to the
emergency dispatcher (Basic 911); or automatically displayed to the
dispatcher through the use of equipment and database information
(Enhanced 911). According to a 2001 report produced by the RCN
Commission and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
entitled, Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, Accessibility
and Future of America's 911 Service,\20\ wireline 911 coverage is
available to 97.8 percent of the U.S. population; however only 93
percent of all U.S. counties have either Basic or Enhanced wireline 911
coverage while 7 percent of U.S. counties are without any 911 services.
NENA reported that these areas without any wireline 911 coverage are
primarily rural in character with sparse population and generally high
poverty levels; as well as inclusive of Native American lands and
military installations (NENA, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Report Card to the Nation (RCN)--An RCN Commission was
formed by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) to review
and grade the performance of 911. NENA serves its members and the
greater public safety community as the only professional
organization solely focused on 911 policy, technology, operations,
and education issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 5, 2014, version of the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) 911 Wireless Service Guide, it was estimated that
about 70 percent of 911 calls were placed from wireless phones (FCC,
2014). The FCC finds using wireless phones creates unique challenges
for emergency response personnel because wireless or mobile phones are
not associated with one fixed location or address. Although the
location of the cell site closest to the 911 caller may provide a
general indication of the caller's location, the FCC finds that the
information is not always specific enough for rescue personnel to
deliver assistance to the caller quickly (FCC, 2014). As a result, the
FCC is now requiring wireless service carriers to implement its
wireless Enhanced 911 program which will provide 911 dispatchers with
additional information on wireless 911 calls. The FCC is allowing the
implementation of its wireless Enhanced 911 program in two parts--Phase
I and Phase II. Phase I requires carriers to provide the PSAP with the
telephone number of the 911 wireless caller as well as the location of
the cell site or base station transmitting the call. Phase II however,
requires carriers to provide more precise information to the PSAP, such
as the latitude and longitude of the caller whereby the accuracy of the
geographical coordinates must be within 50 to 300 meters of the
caller's location (FCC, 2014).
With the implementation of the wireless Enhanced 911 program, the
total number of U.S. counties with 911 coverage has increased from 93
percent to nearly 97 percent. As of August 2017, NENA reported a total
number of 3,135 U.S. counties, which include parishes, independent
cities, boroughs, and Census areas. Of these counties, 97.7 percent
(3,063) are now capable of receiving some \21\ Phase I location
information and 97.0 percent (3,041) are capable of receiving some
Phase II. All wireless carriers, however, are expected to comply with
Phase II of the FCCs requirements by 2019.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The term ``some,'' as defined by the National Emergency
Number Association, means that some or all wireless carriers have
implemented either Phase I or Phase II service in the County or the
PSAPs. In order for any carrier to provide service, the County or
PSAP must be capable of receiving the service. In most cases, all
carriers are implemented in a County or PSAP, but one or more may be
in the process of completing the implementation. See www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics (NENA, 2017).
\22\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since all 911 emergency calls made are routed to a PSAP or call
center based on the geographic location in which the call was made, for
the purpose of this analysis, OSHA is interested in those U.S. counties
where Enhanced 911 is neither available by wireline nor wireless
device. Using the data provided by NENA, OSHA estimates that of the
3,135 recorded U.S. counties, 3 percent (87) have neither wireline nor
wireless Enhanced 911 capabilities. By extension, for this analysis,
OSHA further assumes that 3 percent of all construction project sites
(21,233 of 707,776 construction project sites) are located within those
counties without wireline and wireless Enhanced 911
capabilities and will therefore be covered by this provision whereby
employers must either post the latitude and longitude of the work site
or other location-identification information that effectively
communicates the location of the work site to the 911 emergency medical
service dispatcher. The agency believes this is likely an overestimate
of the number of construction sites affected by this provision of the
proposal, as construction activity will generally parallel population
concentration. Enhanced cell service, in turn, is more concentrated
around population centers. NENA estimates that 98.7 percent of the
population now has Phase II wireless service; 99.0 percent of PSAPs
have Phase II service. The agency, however, did not receive any
comments on this aspect of analysis, nor for the distribution of
wireline and wireless service at construction sites.
OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee
affected by this requirement 3 minutes (.05 hour) to obtain the
latitude and longitude of worksite locations, write the information on
material, and then to prominently post the information, as required by
proposed Sec. 1926.50(f). The agency posited in the PEA that this
would not pose an issue of technological feasibility as the information
could be easily downloaded from the internet before the crew leaves for
the site; in the large majority of cases this information should be
also be available onsite via common applications for smartphones. This
was not questioned in comments, and OSHA therefore retained this as its
final assessment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2017
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data indicate that the most
common construction occupation is ``construction laborer.'' Partly for
that reason, the agency believes this occupation is most representative
of the workers actually posting the latitude and longitude load
requirements at construction project sites. Consistent with that, OSHA,
based on the OES data, estimates a wage of $18.70 per hour for the
average affected construction worker (BLS, 2017). OSHA also estimated,
based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data, that
construction employers paid an additional 46 percent in employee
benefits,\23\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour
in 2017. In addition, this is estimated to save an additional $3.18 per
hour in overhead costs.\24\ Therefore, the estimated annual burden
hours and labor costs of this requirement are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ BLS, 2017. Employer costs for employee benefits (other than
wage and salary) were estimated to be 31.70 percent of total
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1 - percent of total compensation
attributable to employee benefits, or 1/(1 - .317) = 1.4641. Total
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying
the base wages ($18.70) by the fringe benefits factor (1.4641).
\24\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17%
of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.
Burden hours: 21,233 construction project sites x .05 hour = 1,062
hours
Cost: 1,062 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18 overhead)
= $32,440
Based on these limited costs, OSHA preliminarily determined that
the provision would be economically feasible; OSHA received no comments
to the contrary and retains this conclusion for the FEA. As noted
previously, the task of communicating relevant site information to
rescue services is gradually being made easier by the spread of
advanced telecommunications technology, such that in the near future
the existing burden should be eliminated. OSHA neither received any
comments on its preliminary estimate, nor on how long the costs will
likely remain in effect. Therefore it retains this estimate, updated to
2017 dollars.
Permissible Exposure Limits Table
As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, 29 CFR 1926.55--Gases,
Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists--is the Construction counterpart to 29
CFR 1910.1000--Air Contaminants, which enumerates hundreds of
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) in its Z tables. Because 29 CFR
1926.55 is not as clear as its General Industry counterpart, OSHA is
updating Sec. 1926.55(a) and appendix A (now Tables 1 and 2) to help
clarify the construction PELs. These updates will: (1) Change the term
``Threshold Limit Values'' to ``Permissible Exposure Limits;'' (2)
eliminate language that sounds advisory; (3) eliminate confusing
language; (4) divide appendix A into Tables 1 and 2; (5) correct
several noted errors in appendix A; and (6) correct cross-references to
the asbestos standard. OSHA deems these changes to be simple
clarifications which will not change the substantive effect of this
rule. OSHA did not receive any comments about any potential costs
because of these changes and therefore concludes that these revisions
will not result in changes to the cost or impact of 29 CFR 1926.55.
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
OSHA is replacing the regulatory text of its Process Safety
Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals construction regulation,
Sec. 1926.64, with a cross-reference to the corresponding general
industry regulation in 29 CFR 1910.119. The requirements applicable to
construction work in 29 CFR 1926.64 are identical to those set forth in
29 CFR 1910.119. This change will only serve to eliminate duplicative
regulatory text and as such will present no additional compliance
burden to employers. In the absence of public comment to the contrary,
OSHA has determined that this cross-reference to an existing standard
has no cost.
Lanyard/Lifeline Break Strength
OSHA is lowering the minimum breaking strength requirement in Sec.
1926.104--Safety Belts, Lifelines and Lanyards, paragraph (c), from
5,400 pounds to 5,000 pounds, which is in better accord with market
practice. 5,400-pound breaking strength is not generally offered on the
market. This may have cost savings to the extent that some employers
purchased lanyards/lifelines with much higher strength. As discussed in
the Summary and Explanation of that section, the agency believes a
5,000-pound requirement will still provide a more than sufficient
safety factor. Because this change lowers the minimum requirement,
employers will not be required to purchase new equipment. When
employers do replace their equipment, they could continue to purchase
lifelines with a breaking strength of 5,400 pounds, or with a breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds. This revision also will bring Sec.
1926.104(c) into conformance with the lanyard and lifeline breaking-
strength requirement in the Fall Protection standard, at Sec.
1926.502(d)(9). As a result, OSHA preliminarily concluded that this
change will not add any new compliance costs for employers and,
receiving no comments to the contrary, believes this is descriptive of
the final rule as well. To the extent this eliminates confusion by
employers, this may provide some cost savings.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Under 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades,
OSHA requires that employers comply with the mandatory provisions of
Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Currently, employers comply with Part 6 when they use one of two
versions of MUCTD: The 1988
Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 MUTCD (``1988 Edition'') or the
Millennium Edition, December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). Since
OSHA's last published update to subpart G, requiring employers to
follow one of the two MUTCD editions above, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) has updated 23 CFR 655.601 through 655.603 to
require adherence to the 2009 Edition, November 4, 2009, MUTCD (``2009
Edition''). The agency is updating subpart G to require employers to
follow the MUTCD 2009 Edition.
23 CFR 655.603 states that the MUTCD is the national standard for
all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or
bicycle trail open to public travel. It also requires all States,
within two years after a new national MUTCD edition is issued or any
national MUTCD amendments are made, to adopt the new MUTCD in the
State, adopt the national MUTCD with a State Supplement that is in
substantial conformance with the new MUTCD, or adopt a State MUTCD that
is in substantial conformance with the new MUTCD.
Each State enacts its own laws regarding compliance with standards
for traffic control devices in that State. If the State law has adopted
a State Supplement or a State MUTCD that the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has found to be in substantial conformance with
the national MUTCD, then those State requirements are what the local
road agencies (as well as the State DOT) must abide by. The exception
is traffic control devices installed on a federally aided project, in
which case 23 CFR 655.603(d)(2) specifically requires those devices to
comply with the national MUTCD before the road can be opened or
reopened to the public for unrestricted use.
The agency believes any employer costs related to incorporating the
updated MUCTD reference into subpart G are very limited because, first,
the updated DOT rules are already currently in force for all public
roads. Second, even in the limited circumstances of construction on
private roads, the MUCTD rules are already likely followed. Finally,
the changes from the prior editions are minor and could easily be
outweighed by eliminating the burden created by having conflicting DOT
and OSHA requirements.
Private roads open to public travel are now subject to the same
traffic control standards as public streets and highways. However, the
FHWA does not require State and/or local highway agencies to have
specific authority or enforcement responsibility for traffic control
devices on private roads to ensure compliance with the MUTCD. Owners or
parties responsible for such private roads are encouraged to bring the
traffic control devices into compliance with the MUTCD and other
applicable State Manuals, and those who do not may find themselves
exposed to increased tort liability. State and local jurisdictions can
encourage MUTCD compliance on private roads by incorporating pertinent
language into zoning requirements, building and occupancy permits, and
similar controls that they exercise over private properties.
As a practical matter, available data on private road construction
indicate that it represents a very small portion of total road
construction activity. Data from the Census Construction Spending
Survey indicate that it represents less than 1 percent of all funds
dedicated to highway and street construction (Census, 2014).\25\ This
leaves a very limited scope of construction signage not already
governed by the updated DOT rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Since private spending on Highway and Street construction
is relatively small in comparison to other categories of spending,
it does not appear as a separate item, but can be derived from
subtracting Total Public Construction spending on Highway and Street
construction from Total Construction spending on Highway and Street
construction. 2013 data indicates private spending was well below 1
percent of total spending in this category. This pattern was
consistent at least as far back as 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since all contractors engaged in construction of public roads are
now required to follow the current MUTCD, only those firms that work
exclusively on private roads would incur costs associated with this
proposal. Contractors that work on both public and private roads should
not see an increased burden because they would already need to be in
compliance with the MUTCD to work on public roads. Considering that
there is pressure, both from a regulatory and liability perspective,
for firms that work exclusively on private roads to follow the MUTCD,
OSHA believes the total number of these firms potentially incurring
costs as a result of this proposal would be very small. OSHA received
no comments on the number of contractors that work exclusively on
private roads and are therefore not required to follow the MUTCD.
For any firms not already complying with the updated MUTCD, the
cost of compliance would be very limited. As explained in the Summary
and Explanation, the revisions to the MUTCD make the document more user
friendly and account for advances in technology. A comparison of the
1998 and 2009 updates shows fewer and less burdensome new requirements,
but more guidance and support material which makes the document easier
to use. This change to the OSHA rule should decrease the burden on
employers by eliminating confusion as to which edition they must comply
with. It would also inform employers that compliance with DOT
regulations will not run afoul of outdated OSHA regulations. Most of
the new provisions provide more options to employers, which should
either increase safety or reduce the burden to employers.
Nonetheless, the agency has identified one \26\ proposed change in
the 2009 Edition that could have a very small cost for those employers
doing construction work exclusively on private roads that are not
already following the updated MUTCD for these items. The change
prohibits contractors from relying on hand-signs alone to control
traffic. This burden would only apply to a subset of contractors that
use flaggers to control traffic (as opposed to something like automated
flagger-assistance devices) and choose to only use hand signals to
accomplish this task. Each of these contractors would need to purchase
at least one stop sign or flag. OSHA has determined that a flag would
cost, on average, $8.23 each, dependent on size (ERG, 2015).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the proposed rule OSHA mistakenly identified a second
change in the 2009 Edition as a new requirement. The Agency stated
that ``[o]ne change is a requirement to use a new symbol and
additional sign for a shoulder drop-off'' (81 FR 68504, 68534).
Neither the use of a shoulder drop-off sign nor an additional sign
is required by the 2009 Edition under Section 6F.44.
\27\ Inflated to 2017 dollars using GDP deflator (OSHA 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of signs or flags a contractor needs for these
situations would presumably be dependent on the number of simultaneous
projects that the road construction firm engages in during a typical
season, or how large and complex such projects are. While smaller
contractors may be more likely to engage solely in private road
operations, larger, more complex projects demanding more equipment
would almost certainly fall to larger contractors also employed in
public road construction. Considering the very limited number of
contractors and situations that would likely be impacted by this
proposal, the agency believes that most of the potentially affected
firms would not need more than a handful of either signs or flags.
As indicated in the PEA, it is not clear whether any firm would
incur new costs as a result of this update to the 2009 Edition, but as
shown, any such costs would be very limited in nature and
would be an insignificant portion of a contractor's annual profit. OSHA
therefore did not believe this change would have a significant impact
to any firm or raise an issue of economic feasibility. The agency did
not receive any comments to contradict this preliminary conclusion, and
therefore believes it accurately describes the final rule.
Load Limit Posting
OSHA is removing the load limit posting requirement for single-
family dwellings and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29 CFR
1926.250--General Requirements for Storage, paragraph (a)(2). OSHA
estimates that removing the requirement for employers to post maximum
safe load limits of floors in storage areas when constructing single-
family dwellings or wood-framed multi-family structures will result in
a cost savings to employers engaged in these construction activities of
approximately $5,806,000.
OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee
affected by this requirement 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to develop and
post the currently required signs, assuming the information is readily
available from current engineering estimates. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics' (BLS) 2017 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data
(BLS, 2017) indicate that the most common construction occupation is
``construction laborer.'' Partly for that reason, the agency believes
this occupation is most representative of the workers actually posting
the load limit requirement at such dwellings. Consistent with that,
OSHA, based on the OES data, estimates a wage of $18.70 per hour for
the average affected construction worker (BLS, 2017). OSHA also
estimates that, based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation data, employers pay an additional 46 percent in employee
benefits,\28\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour
in 2017. This is estimated to save an additional $3.18 in hourly
overhead costs.\29\ The resulting labor and overhead savings is $30.56
per hour. According to the U.S. Census, in 2016 there were 738,000
single-family houses and 11,000 wood-framed multi-family residential
structures constructed (Census, 2016; pp. 213, 477).\30\ As was
presented in the PEA, OSHA in this FEA estimates that, on average, each
single-family house would have one relevant storage area per structure,
producing one required posting. For the final rule, the definition of
structures covered by the exemption has been expanded somewhat to
include wood frame multi-family residential structures. Because such
structures are more likely to have multiple storage areas, the agency
estimates that on average they would need to have two required postings
currently.\31\ Using this data, OSHA estimates that the yearly burden
on employers affected by this proposed revision will be reduced by
$7.64 per posting ($30.56/hour x 0.25 hours) for a total cost savings
of $5,806,000 ($7.64 cost per posting x 738,000 single-family homes
plus $7.64 x two postings x 11,000 multi-family structures) to the
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ BLS, 2018. Employer costs for employee benefits (other than
wage and salary) were estimated to be 31.70 percent of total
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1 - percent of total compensation
attributable to employee benefits), or 1/(1 - .317) = 1.4641. Total
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying
the base wages ($18.70) by the fringe benefits factor (1.4641).
\29\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17%
of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.
\30\ In the 911 Emergency Medical Services section of the FEA
presented earlier, the Agency examined total construction starts,
which were estimated using Dodge data. Included within that total
were new home starts. However, as has historically been the case
when examining the paperwork burden for 29 CFR 1926.250, the Agency
is using U.S. Census data rather than the Dodge report. As
referenced in the PEA, the Dodge report did not include a necessary
distinction in the data on townhomes separate from condominiums;
townhomes and condominiums were both grouped together in the Dodge
report's multifamily category. Therefore, OSHA believes the data
provided from the U.S. Census was the best available for analyzing
the proposed update to 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2). While this element in
the data was not essential for the FEA, due to a change of scope in
the load limit exemption, the Agency is retaining its consistency
with the data series used in the PEA. No commenters questioned the
use of either data series.
\31\ Since many multi-family structures have three or more
levels and may span a considerable horizontal distance, this may
represent a conservative estimate of the potential cost savings from
reduced posting requirements per structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No public comments challenged OSHA's preliminary cost methodology.
Therefore, based on the profile data described above, the final
estimated burden hours and labor costs reduced by this requirement are:
Reduced burden hours: 760,000 total postings x .25 hours = 190,000
hours
Reduced cost: 190,000 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18
overhead) = $5,806,000
Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS)
OSHA is amending the existing standards in 29 CFR part 1926,
subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection
(Sec. Sec. 1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003). The existing
standards, which are based on consensus standards from 1970, are
amended to remove the provisions that specify test procedures and
performance requirements. The revised provisions will reference the
1970 consensus standards for equipment manufactured prior to the
effective date of this final rule. They also reference the most recent
ISO standards: ISO 3471:2008, ISO 5700:2013 and ISO 27850:2013, for new
equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final rule. It
is OSHA's understanding that all industries affected by this change are
already following the new ISO standards, and therefore has concluded
that this change will not create any new costs for employers. OSHA
received no comments that would rebut the agency's conclusion on
current adherence to the ISO standards (and therefore the conclusion of
no new costs) among the affected industries.
The agency is also expanding the existing regulatory language of
Sec. Sec. 1926.1000 and 1926.1001 to cover compactors and skid-steer
loaders, as indicated previously by reserving existing Sec.
1926.1000(a)(2). OSHA believes that this new equipment, as with the
equipment currently covered by the existing standard, already adheres
to the minimum performance criteria for ROPS as set forth in the recent
ISO standards, and received no comment on it. OSHA concludes that this
change will not add any new compliance cost to employers. OSHA received
no comments on this issue.
Underground Construction--Diesel Engines
Existing regulatory language in Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) requires
that mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground comply with the
Mine Safety Health Administration's (MSHA) provisions of 30 CFR part
32. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it with updated
provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, and 30 CFR 75.1909 Non-
permissible diesel-powered equipment; design and performance
requirements; 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment;
electrical system design and performance requirements; and 75.1911 Fire
suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel
transportation units (61 FR 55411). In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067
to allow engines that meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requirements to be used as an alternative to seeking MSHA approval
under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 5706). The agency proposes to update the
regulatory language in Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) to cross-reference
these updated provisions.
These changes will allow employers who use diesel-powered engines
on
mobile equipment in underground construction to (1) use current MSHA
procedures to obtain approval plates to affix to the engines, or (2)
meet or exceed the applicable EPA requirements listed at MSHA Table
57.5067-1. Based on available information, OSHA has determined that
currently manufactured equipment meets the requirements and is
generally compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4
emission requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency therefore preliminarily
concluded that all applicable new equipment currently available in the
market meets the proposed requirements.
OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using equipment
that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA requirements
referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing existing equipment
in use, the agency is allowing equipment purchased before the effective
date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms of existing
Sec. 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved by MSHA under
30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent to such MSHA-
approved equipment). OSHA received no comment on the number of engines
in use that meet the existing standard but will not meet the
requirements of the new MSHA standard and whether continued use of such
equipment presents a serious safety or health hazard. However, as
discussed in the Summary and Explanation, commenters agreed the change
was desirable. As further indicated in the discussion, the final rule
has been refined to better reflect the technical needs of underground
construction environments, at the suggestion of commenters. This change
does not modify OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this provision,
eliminating reference to obsolete MSHA standards, will not produce
significant costs of compliance.
In summary, because diesel equipment manufactured for underground
construction apparently conforms with the newer MSHA standards, and
because this rule does ``grandfather'' existing equipment, the agency
believes employers will not have additional expenses in complying with
the proposed change to the underground construction standard. OSHA
received no comments on this conclusion and therefore the agency
carries forward its preliminary assessment to this FEA.
Coke Oven Emissions
Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in
construction. In the Summary and Explanation, the point was made that
the provisions of this standard do not fit construction work. Therefore
OSHA is deleting 29 CFR 1926.1129 (and the reference to it in 29 CFR
1926.55).
An interpretation letter to Mr. Mark D. Katz of the law firm Ulmer
& Berne LLP from Assistant Secretary Charles Jeffress on June 22, 1999,
stated that OSHA was removing 29 CFR 1926.1129 from OSHA's internet
website and intended to delete it from Part 1926 Code of Federal
Regulations. It also stated that OSHA would formally notify its field
offices that Sec. 1926.1129 would not to be enforced.\32\ Since OSHA
is not enforcing Sec. 1926.1129 and it has no applicability to
construction, this change has no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretation, Coke
Oven Emissions, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22754 (accessed
November 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of Social Security Number Collection Requirements From OSHA's
Standards
As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is deleting the
requirements in its standards for employers to use social security
numbers to identify employees in exposure monitoring, medical
surveillance, and other records. The agency believes that while this
change will help employers to protect their employees from identity
theft, it does not impose new costs upon employers. One anonymous
commenter was concerned that removing social security numbers from all
existing document would be expensive (OSHA-2012-0007-0647). However,
the proposed and final changes do not require employers to delete
social security numbers from existing records, nor do they prohibit
employers from continuing to use them to identify employees; employers
are simply no longer required to include employee social security
numbers on the records. The agency believes that these changes have
benefits to both employees and employers and cost savings, but OSHA has
not quantified those benefits and savings for this analysis.
Summary of Costs
Table IV-2 provides a brief summary of the cost savings and
benefits that OSHA estimates will result from this rule. The expected
total cost savings per year are approximately $6,066,000. Given that
these are all annual cost savings, the final estimate is the same when
discounted at either 3 or 7 percent. For the same reason, when the
Department uses a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons
under E.O. 13771, the annualized cost savings of the final rule are
also $6,066,000 with 7 percent discounting. As indicated earlier, this
final estimate includes an overhead factor in the labor costs. This is
estimated to add an additional savings of $603,500, or 11.3%, on what
would have been an estimated savings of $5,462,000.
Table IV-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Cost savings/benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
Removes the load limit posting $5,806,000.
requirement for single family
dwellings and wood-framed multi-family
structures in Sec. 1926.250(a)(2).
Removes the requirement for periodic $292,500.
CXR in Sec. Sec. 1910.1029,
1910.1045, and 1910.1018.
Revises paragraph (f) in 29 CFR -$32,440.
1926.50--Medical Services and First
Aid.
----------------------------
Total.............................. $6,066,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Benefits:
Adds cross-reference between Sec. Sec. Clarifies existing employer
1904.5 and 1904.10(b)(6). obligations regarding
recording of hearing loss.
Allows digital storage of chest Brings standard up to date,
roentgenograms in Sec. Sec. simplifies.
1910.1029, 1910.1045, 1910.1018,
1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101,
1910.1027, and 1926.1127.
Updates required pulmonary function Brings OSHA standards up to
testing requirements in Sec. current technology and
1910.1043. medical practices.
Eliminates ``feral cats'' from Eliminates the threat of
definition of vermin in Sec. unnecessary extermination.
1926.250(b)(3).
Clarifies language in Construction Clarifies existing
PELS, 29 CFR 1926.55. construction employer
obligations regarding
PELs.
PSM cross-reference between Sec. Sec. Eliminates unneeded
1926.64 and 1910.119. regulatory text.
Lowering lanyard/lifeline break Harmonizes with fall
strength, Sec. 1926.104(c). protection rule Sec.
1926.502.
Updates 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G, to Harmonizes nationwide
latest DOT MUTCD standards. rules, greater safety,
incidental costs.
Updates Rollover Protective Structure Harmonizes OSHA rule with
rule (ROPS), 29 CFR part 1926, subpart more recent consensus
W. standards.
Update references in Underground Simplifies/clarifies
Construction--Diesel Engines, Sec. employer obligations.
1926.800(k)(10)(ii).
Eliminates Coke Oven Emissions in Eliminates unneeded
Construction, Sec. 1926.1129. regulatory text.
Removal of Social Security Number Provides greater privacy
requirements. protection for employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis--Safety, 2018.
Technological Feasibility
The purpose of the provisions in this standard is to reduce the
burden on employers, or provide employers with compliance flexibility
by removing or revising confusing, outdated, duplicative, or
inconsistent requirements, while maintaining or enhancing the level of
protection for employees. This standard deletes and revises a number of
provisions in existing OSHA standards. In most instances, the agency
chose to revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well as
consistency, with standards more recently promulgated by the agency or
current consensus standards. In other instances, the provisions revise
standards to improve consistency with current technology or research,
and to clarify OSHA's original intent. In all cases where a standard
has been updated to provide new equipment requirements, there are
products currently on the market that will satisfy the standard. The
only requirement with significant costs requires posting the latitude
and longitude in a prominent place. This is easily technologically
feasible. Because of the reduction or removal of current requirements
and because many of the updates reflect what is already practiced in
the applicable industry, OSHA preliminarily concluded that the proposed
rule would be technologically feasible. The agency received no comments
to suggest otherwise, and retains that conclusion for the FEA.
Economic Feasibility
OSHA concludes that the final provisions of this standards
improvement action do not impose costs of any significance on
employers, providing primarily cost savings, and therefore the agency
concludes that this rule is economically feasible. The PEA had also
preliminarily reached this conclusion with regard to the proposal. The
only provision with significant costs requires approximately three
minutes of time per establishment. Such a cost is obviously feasible.
It is possible that a minimal number of construction projects will
incur costs as a result the changes to MUTCD. However the costs per
project will be minimal.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of this
rule to determine whether these requirements would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
has estimated annual costs of $32,440 and will lead to approximately
$6.1 million per year in cost savings to regulated entities. Since the
costs related to this rule (from posting location information in
limited circumstances) and cost savings (primarily from no longer
having to post load limit information in many situations) amount to a
few dollars per construction project, and are widely dispersed
geographically and throughout the industry, the agency believes this
rule does not possess the potential to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The agency therefore certifies
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
References
BLS, 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment
Survey. May 2017. Found at: www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
Accessed June 2018.
BLS, 2017a. Nonfatal occupational illnesses by major industry sector
and category of illness, 2016. TABLE SNR07. Found at: www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm. October 31, 2017 version, accessed September 2018.
BLS, 2018. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation, December 2017. News Release June 8th 2018. Found at:
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Accessed June 2018.
BLS, 2018a. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2017, Table
SNR07. Found at: data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oes/current/oes299011.htm. March 30, 2018 version, accessed September 2018.
Census, 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, ``Characteristics of New Housing
2016.'' Found at: www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2016.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
Census, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Spending Survey data,
available from www.census.gov/econ/currentdata. Accessed September
2016.
Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage Rates for
Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June
10, 2002 (document ID 2025). This analysis itself was based on a
survey of several large chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden
Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under
the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.
Dodge Data and Analytics, data run, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, New York
10121. May 2016.
ERG, 2015. Eastern Research Group, ``Supporting Information for
Standard Improvement Project 4,'' September, 2015. Docket ID# OSHA-
2012-0007-0077.
ERG, 2017a. Eastern Research Group, ``Spirometry and Chest X-Ray
Information for SIPS IV,'' December 2017.
ERG, 2017b. Eastern Research Group, ``SIPS 4 Medical Examination
Calculations,'' Excel Workbook. July 2017.
FCC, 2014. Federal Communications Commission, ``911 Wireless
Services Guide,'' December 2014.
NENA, 2001. RCN Commission and the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), ``Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness,
Accessibility and Future of America's 911 Service,'' September 2001.
Found at: c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/collection/7F122EC0-BC5A-46DD-9A65-B39A035E87D5/NENA_Report_to_the_Nation_1.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
NENA, 2017. National Emergency Number Association, 911 Statistics,
August 2017. www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics. Accessed November
2017.
OSHA, 2012. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Standard
Interpretations. Asbestos Standards. www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583. Accessed
November 24, 2017.
OSHA, 2018. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ``SIPS 4
Cost Benefits Estimates FEA,'' Excel Workbook.
OSHA, 2018a. Supporting Statement for the Information Collection
Requirement on Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses (28 CFR part 1904), Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control No. 1218-0176, July 2018. Found at: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201807-1218-002.
V. Legal Considerations
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) is ``to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)).
To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards;
authorized summary adoption of existing national consensus and
established Federal standards within two years of the effective date of
the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)); authorized promulgation of standards
pursuant to notice and comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and required
employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
An occupational safety or health standard is a standard ``which
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
employment.'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially
reduces or eliminates significant risk. In addition, it must be
technologically and economically feasible, cost effective, and
consistent with prior agency action, or a justified departure. A
standard must be supported by substantial evidence, and be better able
to effectuate the OSH Act's purposes than any national consensus
standard it supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612-16616, March 30, 1993.)
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. (See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v.
OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI).)
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) (LOTO II). Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to
include among a standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical
testing, and other information-gathering and transmittal provisions.
(29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)). OSHA safety standards also must be highly
protective. (See 58 FR at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.)
Finally, whenever practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5)).
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Overview
The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., include enhancing the quality and utility of information
the Federal government requires and minimizing the paperwork and
reporting burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions
before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information
(paperwork), including publishing a summary of the collection of
information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of
the information. PRA defines ``collection of information'' as ``the
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or
for an agency, regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
Under PRA, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA, and it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The public is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for
failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of
information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44
U.S.C. 3512).
SIP-IV modifies twenty-five Information Collections currently
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA.
B. Solicitation of Comments
The Department is submitting a series of Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) to revise the collections in accordance to this Final
Rule, as required by the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Some of these
revisions will result in changes to the existing burden hour and/or
cost estimates. Other revisions will be less significant and will not
change the ICR burden hour and cost estimates.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Final Rule contains some revisions to existing standard
provisions that are not collections of information. These revisions
are not addressed in this preamble section. However other revisions
will modify language contained in a currently OMB approved
information collection (paperwork analysis), though they will not
change burden hour or cost estimates. These information collections,
referenced by OMB Control number, are included in this section since
the Agency will prepare and submit an ICR to OMB to incorporate the
revised language into the existing information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency solicited comments on the information collection
requirements contained in the NPRM and did not receive any comments in
response to the information collection requirements.
C. Revisions to the Collection of Information Requirements
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the
following paragraphs provide information about the ICRs, including the
changes in burden associated with the revisions to information
collection requirements.
1. Title: Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP-IV).
2. Description of revisions to the ICRs: The SIP-IV Final Rule
adds, removes, or revises collection of information requirements, as
further explained in Table 1(a) that identifies those ICRs where the
Final Rule changed burden hours and costs. For those ICRs, Table 1(b)
itemizes the responses, frequencies,
time, burden hours, and cost as a result of the program change. Table 2
identifies those ICRs where the Final Rule will add to or revise the
text of standards, but do not result in a burden or cost change as
result.
Table 1(a)--ICRs With Burden Hour Changes as a Result of the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
ICR title No. Provisions being modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029)........ 1218-0128 OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
employees. In addition, OSHA is adding the
option of digital radiography to its existing
standards because digital radiography systems
are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-
based systems in medical facilities.
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045).............. 1218-0126 OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
radiography to its existing standards because
digital radiography systems are rapidly
replacing traditional analog film-based systems
in medical facilities.
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018).......... 1218-0104 OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
radiography to its existing standards because
digital radiography systems are rapidly
replacing traditional analog film-based systems
in medical facilities.
Construction Standards on Posting Emergency 1218-0093 OSHA is adding to 29 CFR 1926.50(f) a
Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits (29 requirement that when an employer uses a
CFR 1926.50 and 29 CFR 1926.250). communication system for contacting 911
services, if the communication system is in an
area that does not automatically supply the
caller's latitude and longitude to the 911
dispatcher, the employer must post or otherwise
provide to employees the latitude and longitude
of the work site or other information that
communicates the location of the worksite. In
addition, OSHA is removing the load limit
posting requirement for single family dwellings
and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29
CFR 1926.250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1(b)--Estimated Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost
Average time Estimated (capital-
ICR title and paragraph modified OMB control Number of Number of Frequency per response per response burden hour/ operation and
No. respondents responses (hours) program change maintenance)
change \34\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1218-0128 2,498 2,498 Annual................ 1.42 -624 -$179,357
1910.1029) (Sec.
1910.1029(j)).
Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045) 1218-0126 542 542 Annual................ 1.25 -135 -38,916
(Sec. 1910.1045(n)).
Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1218-0104 589 589 Annual................ 1.42 -148 -42,290
1910.1018) (Sec.
1910.1018(n)).
Construction Standard on Posting 1218-0093 21,233 21,233 Annual................ .05 +1,062 \36\ +27,761
Emergency Telephone Numbers (29
CFR 1926.50) \35\ (Sec.
1926.50(f)).
Construction Standard on Floor 1218-0093 760,000 760,000 Annual................ 0.25 -190,000 \37\ -
Load Limits (29 CFR 1926.250) 4,966,600
(Sec. 1926.250(a)).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................. .............. 784,862 784,862 ...................... .............. -189,845 -5,199,402
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Totals in this column may vary slightly from those in the
Final Economic Analysis (FEA) due to rounding in the FEA.
\35\ Both 29 CFR 1926.50 and 1926.250 are covered by the same
ICR, 1218-0093.
\36\ This cost is under item 12 for posting emergency telephone
numbers of the ICR, 1218-0093.
\37\ This cost is under item 12 for posting floor load limits of
the ICR, 1218-0093.
Table 2--ICRs With No Burden Hour Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
ICR title No. Provisions being modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos in General Industry (29 CFR 1218-0133 OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
1910.1001). to its existing standards because digital
radiography systems are rapidly replacing
traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities.
Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)... 1218-0134 OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
to its existing standards because digital
radiography systems are rapidly replacing
traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities.
Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001)...... 1218-0195 OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
to its existing standards because digital
radiography systems are rapidly replacing
traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities.
Cadmium in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1127).... 1218-0186 OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
to its existing standards because digital
radiography systems are rapidly replacing
traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities.
Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027) 1218-0185 OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
to its existing standards because digital
radiography systems are rapidly replacing
traditional analog film-based systems in
medical facilities.
Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043)................ 1218-0061 OSHA is revising paragraph (h) and appendix D of
its Cotton Dust standard. Many of the revisions
are simply editorial, to clarify existing
language, as well as to update outdated
pulmonary function measurements. OSHA is also
updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require a
determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio, and the
evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against
the lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/
ethnic group, by age, which is consistent with
generally accepted practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will also have an impact on the provisions in
OSHA's standards that currently require employers to include employee
Social Security Numbers (SSNs) on exposure monitoring, medical
surveillance, and other records. As explained above in the Summary and
Explanation of the Rule section (see Section III.B.17.), the agency
previously considered stakeholder comments regarding the SSN collection
requirements in OSHA's standards during the SIP II (70 FR 1112, January
5, 2005) and Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285, March 25,
2016) rulemakings. Eliminating SSN collection requirements from OSHA's
standards will affect several of the ICRs covered under the PRA. Table
3 shows the control number, title, and section modified for each of the
ICRs that will be affected. The agency believes removing the SSNs will
have no measureable impact on employer burden.
Table 3--ICRs Affected by Social Security Number Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control No. Title Section modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1218-0202................ Hazardous Waste 1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A)
Operations and ,
Emergency Response 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A)
for General Industry .
(29 CFR 1910.120) and
Construction (29 CFR
1926.65).
1218-0133................ Asbestos in General 1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F
Industry (29 CFR ),
1910.1001). 1910.1001(m)(3)(ii)(
A), 1910.1001,
appendix D.
1218-0010................ Vinyl Chloride 1910.1017(m)(1).
Standard (29 CFR
1910.1017).
1218-0104................ Inorganic Arsenic (29 1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D
CFR 1910.1018). ),
1910.1018(q)(2)(ii)(
A).
1218-0092................ Lead Standard in 1910.1025(d)(5),
General Industry (29 1910.1025(n)(1)(ii)(
CFR 1910.1025). D),
1910.1025(n)(2)(ii)(
A),
1910.1025(n)(3)(ii)(
A), 1910.1025,
appendix B.
1218-0252................ Hexavalent Chromium 1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F
Standards for General ),
Industry (29 CFR 1910.1026(m)(4)(ii)(
1910.1026), Shipyard A),
Employment (29 CFR 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(
1915.1026), and F),
Construction (29 CFR 1915.1026(k)(4)(ii)(
1926.1126). A),
1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(
F),
1926.1126(k)(4)(ii)(
A).
1218-0185................ Cadmium in General 1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B
Industry Standard (29 ),
CFR 1910.1027). 1910.1027(n)(3)(ii)(
A), 1910.1027,
appendix D.
1218-0129................ Benzene (29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D
1910.1028). ),
1910.1028(k)(2)(ii)(
A).
1218-0128................ Coke Oven Emissions 1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a)
(29 CFR 1910.1029). ,
1910.1029(m)(2)(i)(a
).
1218-0180................ Bloodborne Pathogens 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A
Standard (29 CFR ).
1910.1030).
1218-0061................ Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C
1910.1043). ),
1910.1043(k)(2)(ii)(
A), 1910.1043,
appendices B-I, B-
II, B-III.
1218-0101................ 1,2-Dibromo-3- 1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d
Chloropropane (DBCP) ),
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1044(p)(2)(ii)(
1910.1044). a).
1218-0126................ Acrylonitrile Standard 1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D
(29 CFR 1910.1045). ).
1218-0108................ Ethylene Oxide (EtO) 1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F
Standard (29 CFR ),
1910.1047). 1910.1047(k)(3)(ii)(
A).
1218-0145................ Formaldehyde Standard 1910.1048(o)(1)(vi),
(29 CFR 1910.1048). 1910.1048(o)(3)(i),
1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(
D), 1910.1048,
appendix D.
1218-0184................ 4,4'- 1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D
Methylenedianiline ),
(MDA) for General 1910.1050(n)(4)(ii)(
Industry (29 CFR A),
1910.1050). 1910.1050(n)(5)(ii)(
A).
1218-0170................ 1,3-Butadiene Standard 1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F
(29 CFR 1910.1051). ),
1910.1051(m)(4)(ii)(
A), 1910.1051,
appendix F.
1218-0179................ Methylene Chloride (29 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F
CFR 1910.1052). ),
1910.1052(m)(2)(iii)
(C),
1910.1052(m)(3)(ii)(
A), 1910.1051,
appendix B.
1218-0266................ Respirable Crystalline 1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G
Silica Standards for ),
General Industry, 1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(
Shipyard Employment A),
and Marine Terminals 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(
(29 CFR 1910.1053) G),
and Construction (29 1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(
CFR 1926.1153). A).
1218-0195................ Asbestos in Shipyards 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F
Standard (29 CFR ),
1915.1001). 1915.1001(n)(3)(ii)(
A), 1915.1001,
appendix D.
1218-0134................ Asbestos in 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F
Construction (29 CFR ),
1926.1101). 1926.1101(n)(3)(ii)(
A), 1926.1101,
appendix D.
1218-0186................ Cadmium in 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv),
Construction Standard 1926.1127(n)(1)(ii)(
(29 CFR 1926.1127). B),
1926.1127(n)(3)(ii)(
A).
1218-0183................ 4,4'- 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F),
Methylenedianiline 1926.60(o)(5)(ii)(A)
(MDA) in Construction .
(29 CFR 1926.60).
1218-0189................ Lead in Construction 1926.62(d)(5),
Standard (29 CFR 1926.62(n)(1)(ii)(D)
1926.62). ,
1926.62(n)(2)(ii)(A)
,
1926.62(n)(3)(ii)(A)
, 1926.62, appendix
B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above-described changes, the agency made
adjustments to some ICRs to reflect ongoing PRA interpretations that
may result in a minor change to the burden hours and/or costs; these
changes are not a result of this rulemaking. For example, the agency
has determined that the requirement for employers to make records
available upon request to the Assistant Secretary is no longer
considered a collection of information. OSHA typically requests access
to records during an inspection, and information collected by the
agency during the investigation is not subject to the PRA under 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2). While NIOSH may use records collected from employers for
research purposes, the agency does not anticipate that NIOSH will
request employers to make available records during the approval period.
Therefore, the burden for the employer to make this information
available to NIOSH is zero where before the burden may have been one
hour.
VII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and
the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for
preemption of State law only with the express consent of Congress.
Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
Under section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State
Plans'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State Plans must be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards.
While OSHA drafted this rule to protect employees in every State,
Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State Plans to develop and
enforce their own standards, provided the requirements in these
standards are at least as safe and healthful as the requirements
specified in this final rule.
In summary, this rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In
States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from
this final rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State
Plans, this final rule would not significantly limit State policy
options.
VIII. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, OSHA-approved State Plans must
either amend their standards to be ``at least as effective as'' the new
standard or amendment, or show that 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)). State Plan adoption must be
completed within six months of the promulgation date of the final
Federal rule. OSHA concludes that this final rule, by revising
confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent standards, will
increase the protection afforded to employees while reducing the
compliance burden of employers. Therefore, within six months of the
rule's promulgation date, State Plans must adopt amendments to their
standards that are ``at least as effective,'' unless they demonstrate
that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards
are already ``at least as effective'' in protecting workers as this
final rule.
The 28 OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. The
Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and the Virgin
Islands State Plans cover state and local government employees only,
while the rest cover the private sector and state and local government
employees.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and
Executive Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As discussed in section IV
(``Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis'') of this document, the agency determined that this final
rule has one revision with estimated annual new costs of $32,440 but
all revisions would result in approximately $6.1 million per year in
overall (net) cost savings to regulated entities.
The agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments
except in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved
by the agency. Consequently, this rule does not meet the definition of
a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see section 421(5) of the UMRA
(2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the agency
certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, local, or
tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or
increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million
in any year.
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health
OSHA must consult with the ACCSH whenever the agency proposes a
rulemaking that involves the occupational safety and health of
construction employees (29 CFR 1911.10, 1912.3). Accordingly, prior to
the dates of meetings listed below, OSHA distributed to the ACCSH
members for their review a copy of the proposed revisions that applied
to construction, as well as a brief summary and explanation of these
revisions. At the regular meetings on December 15-16, 2011; May 10-11,
2012; November 29, 2012; March 18, 2013; May 23, 2013; August 22, 2013;
May 7-8, 2014; December 3-4, 2014; and December 2, 2015, OSHA staff
presented summaries of the material provided to ACCSH members earlier
and responded to the members' questions. The ACCSH
subsequently recommended that OSHA publish the proposal.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1904
Recordkeeping.
29 CFR Part 1910
Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Pulmonary--
function testing, Social Security numbers on records.
29 CFR Part 1915
Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Sanitation,
Social Security numbers on records.
29 CFR Part 1926
Airborne contaminants, Chest X-ray requirements, Coke oven
emissions, Diesel equipment, Emergency services, Incorporation by
reference, Lanyards, Load limits, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUCTD), Personal protective equipment (PPE), Process safety
management (PSM), Roll-over protective structures (ROPs), Social
Security numbers on records.
Authority and Signature
Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation
of this document pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part
1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
Signed at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
________________________________
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this final rule, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends 29 CFR parts 1904,
1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:
PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND
ILLNESSES
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1904 to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of
Labor's Orders No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) and 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
applicable, and 5 U.S.C. 553.
Subpart C--Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria
0
2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 1904.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving occupational
hearing loss.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) If a physician or other licensed health care professional
determines the hearing loss is not work-related, do I still need to
record the case? If a physician or other licensed health care
professional determines, following the rules set out in Sec. 1904.5,
that the hearing loss is not work-related or that occupational noise
exposure did not significantly aggravate the hearing loss, you do not
have to consider the case work-related or record the case on the OSHA
300 Log.
* * * * *
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart A--General
0
3. The authority citation for part 1910, subpart A, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR
3912), as applicable.
Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8, and 1910.9 also issued under 29
CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29
U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222);
Pub. L. 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993)
(58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
0
4. Amend Sec. 1910.6 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (z) as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old paragraph New paragraph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) through (o)....................... (j) through (p).
(p) through (x)....................... (s) through (aa).
(y)................................... (r).
(z)................................... (bb).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (q).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.6 Incorporation by reference.
(a) * * *
(2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this
part and an official historic file of such changes are available for
inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
889-5627).
(3) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public.
(4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
addition, these standards are available for inspection at any Regional
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). They are also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone:
202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(i) The following material is available at the American Thoracic
Society (ATS), 25 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004; website:
www.atsjournals.org/.
(1) Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S.
Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159:179-187, 1999, IBR approved
for Sec. 1910.1043(h).
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(q) The following material is available from the International
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des
Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22
799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
(1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
1910.1001.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 1910, subpart Z, to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72
FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
All of subpart Z issued under 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those
substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and
Z-3 of Sec. 1910.1000. The latter were issued under 29 U.S.C.
655(a).
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic
(organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI)
listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 653.
Section 1910.1030 also issued under Public Law 106-430, 114
Stat. 1901.
Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
0
6. Amend Sec. 1910.1001 by revising paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and
(l)(3)(ii), the heading to Table 1, and appendices D and E and H,
sections III and IV, to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1001 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and
work history; a complete physical examination of all systems with
emphasis on the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and
digestive tract; completion of the respiratory disease standardized
questionnaire in appendix D to this section, part 1; a 14- by 17-inch
or other reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior
chest X-ray; pulmonary function tests to include forced vital capacity
(FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1); and
any additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician.
Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance
with appendix E to this section.
(3) * * *
(ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance
with the protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section,
except that the frequency of chest X-rays shall be conducted in
accordance with Table 1 to this section, and the abbreviated
standardized questionnaire contained in part 2 of appendix D to this
section shall be administered to the employee.
Table 1 to Sec. 1910.1001--Frequency of Chest X-ray
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.016
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Appendix E to Sec. 1910.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
Mandatory
(a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 1910.6), and recorded on a classification
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
NIOSH.
(b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
(c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
(d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
transparencies of images.
* * * * *
Appendix H to Sec. 1910.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
Asbestos Non-Mandatory
* * * * *
III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to
be found among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an
early age. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis
worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of
asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to
asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities,
end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of
fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be
observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease
even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to
be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death
may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.
IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as cancer,
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure-related chronic
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
When an active employee has been identified as having been
overexposed to asbestos, measures taken by the employer to eliminate
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
long-term consequences.
The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic
centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be
performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a
reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
examination:
(i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
digestive tract.
(ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
contained in appendix D of this section.
(iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
second (FEV1).
(iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
termination of employment.
The employer is required to provide the physician with the
following information: A copy of the standard in this section
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
examining physician containing the results of the medical
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 1910.1018 by revising paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)(A) and
(n)(3)(i) and (ii), appendix A, section VI, and appendix C, section I,
to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) A standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with paragraphs
(n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least annually.
(ii) Whenever a covered employee has not taken the examinations
specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this
section within six (6) months preceding the termination of employment,
the employer shall provide such examinations to the employee upon
termination of employment.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1018--Inorganic Arsenic Substance Information
Sheet
* * * * *
VI. Medical Examinations
If your exposure to arsenic is over the Action Level (5 [mu]g/
m3)--(including all persons working in regulated areas) at least 30
days per year, or you have been exposed to arsenic for more than 10
years over the Action Level, your employer is required to provide
you with a medical examination. The examination shall be every 6
months for employees over 45 years old or with more than 10 years
exposure over the Action Level and annually for other covered
employees. The medical examination must include a medical history; a
chest X-ray (during initial examination only); skin examination and
a nasal examination. The examining physician will provide a written
opinion to your employer containing the results of the medical
exams. You should also receive a copy of this opinion. The physician
must not tell your employer any conditions he detects unrelated to
occupational exposure to arsenic but must tell you those conditions.
* * * * *
Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1018--Medical Surveillance Guidelines
I. General
Medical examinations are to be provided for all employees
exposed to levels of inorganic arsenic above the action level (5
[mu]g/m3) for at least 30 days per year (which would include among
others, all employees, who work in regulated areas). Examinations
are also to be provided to all employees who have had 10 years or
more exposure above the action level for more than 30 days per year
while working for the present or predecessor employer though they
may no longer be exposed above the level.
An initial medical examination is to be provided to all such
employees by December 1, 1978. In addition, an initial medical
examination is to be provided to all employees who are first
assigned to areas in which worker exposure will probably exceed 5
[mu]g/m3 (after August 1, 1978) at the time of initial assignment.
In addition to its immediate diagnostic usefulness, the initial
examination will provide a baseline for comparing future test
results. The initial examination must include as a minimum the
following elements:
(1) A work and medical history, including a smoking history, and
presence and degree of respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness,
cough, sputum production, and wheezing;
(2) A 14'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized standard film or
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
(3) A nasal and skin examination; and
(4) Other examinations which the physician believes appropriate
because of the employee's exposure to inorganic arsenic or because
of required respirator use.
Periodic examinations are also to be provided to the employees
listed in the first paragraph of this section. The periodic
examinations shall be given annually for those covered employees 45
years of age or less with fewer than 10 years employment in areas
where employee exposure exceeds the action level (5 [mu]g/m\3\).
Periodic examinations need not include sputum cytology or chest X-
ray and only an updated medical history is required.
Periodic examinations for other covered employees shall be
provided every six (6) months. These examinations shall include all
tests required in the initial examination, except the chest X-ray,
and the medical history need only be updated.
The examination contents are minimum requirements. Additional
tests such as lateral and oblique X-rays or pulmonary function tests
may be useful. For workers exposed to three arsenicals which are
associated with lymphatic cancer, copper acetoarsenite, potassium
arsenite, or sodium arsenite the examination should also include
palpation of superficial lymph nodes and complete blood count.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 1910.1027 by revising paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) and
appendix D to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1027 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining
physician);
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.029
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 1910.1029 by revising paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3),
appendix A, section VI, and appendix B, section II(A), to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
* * * * *
(3) Periodic examinations. (i) The employer shall provide the
examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vi)
of this section at least annually for employees covered under paragraph
(j)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least
annually for employees 45 years of age or older or with five (5) or
more years employment in the regulated area.
(iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 years of age or older or with
five (5) or more years employment in a regulated area transfers or is
transferred from employment in a regulated area, the employer must
continue to provide the examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)
and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least annually as long as
that employee is employed by the same employer or a successor employer.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1029--Coke Oven Emissions Substance
Information Sheet
* * * * *
VI. Medical Examinations
If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year, your
employer is required to provide you with a medical examination every
year. The initial medical examination must include a medical
history, a chest X-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison,
skin examination, a urinalysis, and a urine cytology exam for early
detection of urinary cancer. Periodic examinations shall include all
tests required in the initial examination, except that (1) the x-ray
is to be performed during initial examination only and (2) the urine
cytologic test is to be performed only on those employees who are 45
years or older or who have worked for 5 or more years in the
regulated area. The examining physician will provide a written
opinion to your employer containing the results of the medical
exams. You should also receive a copy of this opinion.
* * * * *
Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029--Industrial Hygiene and Medical
Surveillance Guidelines
* * * * *
II. Medical Surveillance Guidelines
A. General. The minimum requirements for the medical examination
for coke oven workers are given in the standard in paragraph (j) of
this section. The initial examination is to be provided to all coke
oven workers who work at least 30 days in the regulated area. The
examination includes a 14'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized
standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray reading,
pulmonary function tests (FVC and FEV1), weight,
urinalysis, skin examination, and a urinary cytologic examination.
These tests are needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the
employee's future test results. Periodic exams include all the
elements of the initial exams, except that (1) the x-ray is to be
performed during initial examination only and (2) the urine
cytologic test is to be performed only on those employees who are 45
years or older or who have worked for 5 or more years in the
regulated area. The examination contents are minimum requirements;
additional tests such as lateral and oblique X-rays or additional
pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed necessary.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 1910.1043 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (h)(3)(ii), and (n)(1) and
appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III; and
0
b. Removing and reserving appendix C; and
0
c. Revising appendix D.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1043 Cotton dust.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) A pulmonary function measurement, including forced vital
capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second
(FEV1), and determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio
shall be made. FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC ratio
values shall be compared to appropriate race/ethnicity-specific Lower
Limit of Normal (LLN) values and predicted values published in
Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S.
Population, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
159(1): 179-187, January 1999 (commonly known as the NHANES III
reference data set) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1910.6). To
obtain reference values for Asian-Americans, Spirometric Reference
Values FEV1 and FVC predicted and LLN values for Caucasians
shall be multiplied by 0.88 to adjust for ethnic differences. These
determinations shall be made for each employee before the employee
enters the workplace on the first day of the work week, preceded by at
least 35 hours of no exposure to cotton dust. The tests shall be
repeated during the shift, no less than 4 and no more than 10 hours
after the beginning of the work shift; and, in any event, no more than
one hour after cessation of exposure. Such exposure shall be typical of
the employee's usual workplace exposure.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Medical surveillance as required in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of
this section shall be provided every six months for all employees in
the following categories:
(A) An FEV1 greater than the LLN, but with an
FEV1 decrement of 5 percent or 200 ml. on a first working
day;
(B) An FEV1 of less than the LLN; or
(C) Where, in the opinion of the physician, any significant change
in questionnaire findings, pulmonary function results, or other
diagnostic tests have occurred.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) Appendices B and D of this section are incorporated as part of
this section and the contents of these appendices are mandatory.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.055
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1043 [Reserved]
Appendix D to Sec. 1910.1043--Pulmonary Function Standards for Cotton
Dust Standard
The spirometric measurements of pulmonary function shall conform
to the following minimum standards, and these standards are not
intended to preclude additional testing or alternate methods which
can be determined to be superior.
I. Apparatus
a. The instrument shall be accurate to within 50
milliliters or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is
greater.
b. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 should be
capable of measuring vital capacity from 0 to 7 liters BTPS
2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 should be capable of
measuring vital capacity from 0 to 8 liters BTPS.
c. The instrument shall have a low inertia and offer low
resistance to airflow such that the resistance to airflow at 12
liters per second must be less than 1.5 cm H2 O/(liter/
sec).
d. The zero time point for the purpose of timing the
FEV1 shall be determined by extrapolating the steepest
portion of the volume time curve back to the maximal inspiration
volume (1, 2, 3, 4) or by an equivalent method.
e. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 that
incorporate measurements of airflow to determine volume shall
conform to the same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this
section I when presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 12
liters per second.
2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 that incorporate
measurements of airflow to determine volume shall conform to the
same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this section I when
presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 14 liters per second.
f. The instrument or user of the instrument must have a means of
correcting volumes to body temperature saturated with water vapor
(BTPS) under conditions of varying ambient spirometer temperatures
and barometric pressures.
g. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall
provide a tracing or display of either flow versus volume or volume
versus time during the entire forced expiration. A tracing or
display is necessary to determine whether the patient has performed
the test properly. The tracing must be stored and available for
recall and must be of sufficient size that hand measurements may be
made within the volume accuracy requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section I. If a paper record is made it must have a paper speed
of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of at least 10.0 mm of
chart per liter of volume.
2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall provide during
testing a paper tracing or real-time display of flow versus volume
and volume versus time for the entire forced expiration. Such a
tracing or display is necessary to determine whether the worker has
performed the test properly. Flow-volume and volume-time curves must
be stored and available for recall. Real-time displays shall have a
volume scale of at least 5 mm/L, a time scale of at least 10 mm/s,
and a flow scale of at least 2.5 mm/L/s, when both flow-volume and
volume-time displays are visible. If hand measurements will be made,
paper tracings must be of sufficient size to allow those
measurements to be made within the volume accuracy requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section I. If a paper record is made it must
have a paper speed of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of
at least 10.0 mm of chart per liter of volume.
h. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall be
capable of accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and shall
not stop accumulating volume before (i) the volume change for a 0.5-
second interval is less than 25 milliliters, or (ii) the flow is
less than 50 milliliters per second for a 0.5 second interval.
2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall be capable of
accumulating volume for a minimum of 15 seconds and shall not stop
accumulating volume before the volume change for a 1-second interval
is less than 25 milliliters.
i. The forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume
in 1 second (FEV1) measurements shall comply with the
accuracy requirements stated in paragraph (a) of this section. That
is, they should be accurately measured to within 50 ml
or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is greater.
j. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 must be
capable of being calibrated in the field with respect to the
FEV1 and FVC. This calibration of the FEV1 and
FVC may be either directly or indirectly through volume and time
base measurements. The volume calibration source should provide a
volume displacement of at least 2 liters and should be accurate to
within + or-30 milliliters.
2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 must be capable of
having its calibration checked in the field and be recalibrated, if
necessary, if the spirometer requires the technician to do so. The
volume-calibration syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at
least 3 liters and shall be accurate to within 0.5
percent of 3 liters (15 milliliters).
II. Technique for Measurement of Forced Vital Capacity Maneuver
a. Use of a nose clip is recommended but not required. The
procedures shall be explained in simple terms to the worker who
shall be instructed to loosen any tight clothing and stand in front
of the apparatus. The worker may sit, but care should be taken on
repeat testing that the same position be used and, if possible, the
same spirometer. Particular attention shall be given to ensure that
the chin is slightly elevated with the neck slightly extended. The
worker shall be instructed to make a full inspiration from a normal
breathing pattern and then blow into the apparatus, without
interruption, as hard, fast, and completely as possible. At least
three and no more than eight forced expirations shall be carried
out. During the maneuvers, the worker shall be observed for
compliance with instruction. The expirations shall be checked
visually for technical acceptability and repeatability from flow-
volume or volume-time tracings or displays. The following efforts
shall be judged technically unacceptable when the worker:
1. Has not reached full inspiration preceding the forced
expiration,
2. Has not used maximal effort during the entire forced
expiration,
3. Has not tried to exhale continuously for at least 6 seconds
and the volume-time curve shows no change in volume (<0.025 L) for
at least one second,
4. Has coughed in the first second or closed the glottis,
5. Has an obstructed mouthpiece or a leak around the mouthpiece
(obstruction due to tongue being placed in front of mouthpiece,
false teeth falling in front of mouthpiece, etc.),
6. Has an unsatisfactory start of expiration, one characterized
by excessive hesitation (or false starts), and, therefore, not
allowing back extrapolation of time 0 (extrapolated volume on the
volume-time tracing must be less than 150 milliliters or 5 percent
of the FVC, whichever is greater.), and
7. Has an excessive variability between the acceptable curves.
The difference between the two largest FVCs from the satisfactory
tracings shall not exceed 150 milliliters and the difference between
the two largest FEV1s of the satisfactory tracings shall
not exceed 150 milliliters.
b. Calibration checks of the volume accuracy of the instrument
for recording FVC and FEV1 shall be performed daily or
more frequently if specified by the spirometer manufacturer, using a
3-liter syringe. Calibration checks to ensure that the spirometer is
recording 3 liters of injected air to within 3.5
percent, or 2.90 to 3.10 liters, shall be conducted. Calibration
checks of flow-type spirometers shall include injection of 3 liters
air over a range of speeds, with injection times of 0.5 second, 3
seconds, and 6 or more seconds. Checks of volume-type spirometers
shall include a single calibration check and a check to verify that
the spirometer is not leaking more than 30 milliliters/minute air.
III. Interpretation of Spirogram
a. The first step in evaluating a spirogram should be to
determine whether or not the worker has performed the test properly
or as described in section II of this appendix. From the three
satisfactory tracings, the forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced
expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) shall be measured
and recorded. The largest observed FVC and largest observed
FEV1 shall be used in the analysis regardless of the
curve(s) on which they occur.
b. [Reserved]
IV. Qualifications of Personnel Administering the Test
Technicians who perform pulmonary function testing should have
the basic knowledge required to produce meaningful results. Training
consisting of approximately 16 hours of formal instruction should
cover the following areas.
a. Basic physiology of the forced vital-capacity maneuver and
the determinants of airflow limitation, with emphasis on the
relation to repeatability of results.
b. Instrumentation requirements, including calibration check
procedures, sources of error, and their correction.
c. Performance of the testing including worker coaching,
recognition of improperly performed maneuvers and corrective
actions.
d. Data quality with emphasis on repeatability.
e. Actual use of the equipment under supervised conditions.
f. Measurement of tracings and calculations of results.
0
11. Revise paragraphs (n)(2)(iii) and (n)(3)(i) and (ii) of Sec.
1910.1045 to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray; and
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The employer shall provide the examinations specified in
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section at least annually
for all employees specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section.
(ii) If an employee has not had the examination specified in
paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section within 6 months
preceding termination of employment, the employer shall make such
examination available to the employee prior to such termination.
* * * * *
0
12. Revise appendix D of Sec. 1910.1048 to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1048 Formaldehyde.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.064
0
13. Revise appendix F of Sec. 1910.1051 to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.083
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
0
14. Revise appendix B, section IV, of Sec. 1910.1052 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1052 Methylene chloride.
* * * * *
Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1052--Medical Surveillance for Methylene
Chloride
* * * * *
IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
As discussed in sections II and III of this appendix, MC is
classified as a suspect or potential human carcinogen. It is a
central nervous system (CNS) depressant and a skin, eye and
respiratory tract irritant. At extremely high concentrations, MC has
caused liver damage in animals. MC principally affects the CNS,
where it acts as a narcotic. The observation of the symptoms
characteristic of CNS depression, along with a physical examination,
provides the best detection of early neurological disorders. Since
exposure to MC also increases the carboxyhemoglobin level in the
blood, ambient carbon monoxide levels would have an additive effect
on that carboxyhemoglobin level. Based on such information, a
periodic post-shift carboxyhemoglobin test as an index of the
presence of carbon monoxide in the blood is recommended, but not
required, for medical surveillance.
Based on the animal evidence and three epidemiologic studies
previously mentioned, OSHA concludes that MC is a suspect human
carcinogen. The medical surveillance program is designed to observe
exposed workers on a regular basis. While the medical surveillance
program cannot detect MC-induced cancer at a preneoplastic stage,
OSHA anticipates that, as in the past, early detection and
treatments of cancers leading to enhanced survival rates will
continue to evolve.
A. Medical and Occupational History
The medical and occupational work history plays an important
role in the initial evaluation of workers exposed to MC. It is
therefore extremely important for the examining physician or other
licensed health care professional to evaluate the MC-exposed worker
carefully and completely and to focus the examination on MC's
potentially associated health hazards. The medical evaluation must
include an annual detailed work and medical history with special
emphasis on cardiac history and neurological symptoms.
An important goal of the medical history is to elicit
information from the worker regarding potential signs or symptoms
associated with increased levels of carboxyhemoglobin due to the
presence of carbon monoxide in the blood. Physicians or other
licensed health care professionals should ensure that the smoking
history of all MC exposed employees is known. Exposure to MC may
cause a significant increase in carboxyhemoglobin level in all
exposed persons. However, smokers as well as workers with anemia or
heart disease and those concurrently exposed to carbon monoxide are
at especially high risk of toxic effects because of an already
reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
A comprehensive or interim medical and work history should also
include occurrence of headache, dizziness, fatigue, chest pain,
shortness of breath, pain in the limbs, and irritation of the skin
and eyes.
In addition, it is important for the physician or other licensed
health care professional to become familiar with the operating
conditions in which exposure to MC is likely to occur. The physician
or other licensed health care professional also must become familiar
with the signs and symptoms that may indicate that a worker is
receiving otherwise unrecognized and exceptionally high exposure
levels of MC.
An example of a medical and work history that would satisfy the
requirement for a comprehensive or interim work history is
represented by the following:
The following is a list of recommended questions and issues for
the self-administered questionnaire for methylene chloride exposure.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.094
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
* * * * *
PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
EMPLOYMENT
0
15. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754); 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553,
as applicable.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
16. Amend Sec. 1915.5 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c).
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old paragraph New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)(1).................................... (d).
(d)(1)(i) through (xiii).................. (d)(1) through (13).
(d)(1)(vi)(A) through (C)................. (d)(6)(i) through (iii).
(d)(1)(vii)(A) through (C)................ (d)(7)(i) through (iii).
(d)(1)(viii)(A) through (C)............... (d)(8)(i) through (iii).
(d)(2).................................... (e).
(d)(2)(i)................................. (e)(1).
(d)(3).................................... (f).
(d)(3)(i)................................. (f)(1).
(d)(4).................................... (i).
(d)(4)(i) through (xviii)................. (i)(1) though (18).
(d)(5).................................... (g).
(d)(5)(i) and (ii)........................ (g)(1) and (2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (d) introductory text, removing
``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph
(d).''
0
d. Adding reserved paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2).
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing
``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph
(g).''
0
f. Adding paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1915.5 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b)(1) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public.
(2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this
part and an official historic file of such changes are available for
inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
889-5627).
(c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of these standards at NARA,
telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(h) The following material is available from the International
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve
22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798
8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
(1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
1915.1001.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
0
17. Revise paragraph (b)(33) of Sec. 1915.80 to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.80 Scope, application, definitions, and effective dates.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(33) Vermin. Insects, birds, rodents and other animals that may
create safety and health hazards for employees.
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
18. Amend Sec. 1915.1001 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and
appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV, to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.1001 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the
physician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC)
and forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1).
Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance
with appendix E to this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.111
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Appendix E to Sec. 1915.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays.
Mandatory
(a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 1915.5), and recorded on a classification
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
NIOSH.
(b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
(c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
(d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
transparencies of images.
* * * * *
Appendix I to Sec. 1915.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
Asbestos, Non-Mandatory
* * * * *
III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found
among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age.
Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of
sickness. When the fibrosis worsens, shortness of breath occurs even
at rest. The diagnosis of asbestosis is most commonly based on a
history of exposure to asbestos, the presence of characteristic
radiologic abnormalities, end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and
other clinical features of fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques
and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often
a progressive disease even in the absence of continued exposure,
although this appears to be a highly individualized characteristic.
In severe cases, death may be caused by respiratory or cardiac
failure.
IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
have been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer,
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
When an active employee has been identified as having been
overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
long-term consequences.
The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
or above the permissible exposure limits (0.1 fiber per cubic
centimeter of air) for 30 or more days per year and for all
employees who are assigned to wear a negative-pressure respirator.
All examinations and procedures must be performed by or under the
supervision of licensed physician at a reasonable time and place,
and at no cost to the employee.
Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
examination,
(i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
digestive tract.
(ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
contained in appendix D to this section.
(iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
second (FEV1).
(iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
termination of employment.
The employer is required to provide the physician with the
following information: A copy of the standard in this section
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
examining physician containing the results of the medical
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart A--General
0
19. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart A, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657;
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912),
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
20. Amend Sec. 1926.6 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g) through (ff) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old paragraphs New paragraphs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) and (h)............................... (d) and (e).
(j)....................................... (g).
(k)....................................... (i).
(l)....................................... (h).
(m) through (p)........................... (j) through (m).
(u) through (w)........................... (n) through (p).
(x) and (y)............................... (r) and (s).
(aa)...................................... (t).
(dd) and (ee)............................. (u) and (v).
(ff)...................................... (f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
c. Adding reserved paragraph (d)(2).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) and removing
newly redesignated (f)(3) and (4).
0
e. Adding reserved paragraphs (i)(2), (l)(2), and (m)(2).
0
f. Revising newly designating paragraph (n).
0
g. Adding reserved paragraph (o)(2).
0
h. Adding paragraph (q).
0
i. Further redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (r)(1) through
(3) as paragraphs (r)(4) through (6) and adding new paragraphs (r)(1)
through (3).
0
j. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (t)(2) and (u).
0
k. Adding reserved paragraph (v)(2).
0
l. Removing reserved paragraphs (z), (bb), and (cc).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.6 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government, and
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect
as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e.,
provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language)
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
(b) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public.
(c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional
Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
(TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for
inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030,
or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) ANSI B15.1-1953 (R1958), Safety Code for Mechanical Power-
Transmission Apparatus, revised 1958, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.300(b)(2).
(2) ANSI B30.5-1968, Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,
approved Dec. 16, 1968, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1433(a).
* * * * *
(n) The following material is available from the Federal Highway
Administration, United States Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-366-4000;
website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/:
(1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May
2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), (``MUTCD'') IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a).
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(q) The following material is available from the International
Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve
22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798
8685; website://www.ilo.org/:
(1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1101.
(2) [Reserved]
(r) * * *
(1) ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective
structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth
Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c).
(2) ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-
over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance
conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1002(c).
(3) ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and performance
requirements, First Edition, May.01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1003(c).
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(2) PCSA Std. No. 2, Mobile Hydraulic Crane Standards, 1968 (``PCSA
Std. No. 2 (1968)''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 1926.602(b) and
1926.1433(a).
* * * * *
(u) The following material is available from the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096; telephone: 1-877-606-7323; fax: 724-776-0790; website:
www.sae.org/:
(1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.602(b).
(2) SAE J166-1971, Trucks and Wagons, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
(3) SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1003(b).
(4) SAE J168, Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1002(b).
(5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access Systems for Off-Road
Machines, reaffirmed May 2003 (``SAE J185 (May 1993)''), IBR approved
for Sec. 1926.1423(c).
(6) SAE J236-1971, Self-Propelled Graders, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
(7) SAE J237-1971, Front End Loaders and Dozers, IBR approved for
Sec. 1926.602(a).
(8) SAE J319b-1971, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
(9) SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised
July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1001(b).
(10) SAE J321a-1970, Fenders for Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving
Haulage Equipment, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.602(a).
(11) SAE J333a-1970, Operator Protection for Agricultural and Light
Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.602(a).
(12) SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1002(b).
(13) SAE J386-1969, Seat Belts for Construction Equipment, IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.602(a).
(14) SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-
Tired Dozers, approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR
approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b).
(15) SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders,
approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1001(b).
(16) SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial
change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b).
(17) SAE J397, Critical Zone Characteristics and Dimensions for
Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969,
IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1001(b).
(18) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice Boom Cranes--Method of
Test, revised Jun. 2003 (``SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)''), IBR approved for
Sec. 1926.1433(c).
(19) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993), Cantilevered Boom Crane
Structures--Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993 (``SAE J1063 (Nov.
1993)''), IBR approved for Sec. 1926.1433(c).
* * * * *
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
0
21. Revise the authority citation for part 1926, subpart D, to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR
part 1911.
Sections 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
U.S.C. 553.
Section 1926.62 also issued under sec. 1031, Public Law 102-550,
106 Stat. 3672 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
Section 1926.65 also issued under sec. 126, Public Law 99-499,
100 Stat. 1614 (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note) and 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
22. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.50 Medical services and first aid.
* * * * *
(f)(1) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are not
available, the telephone numbers of the physicians, hospitals, or
ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
(2) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are available
and an employer uses a communication system for contacting necessary
emergency-medical service, the employer must:
(i) Ensure that the communication system is effective in contacting
the emergency-medical service; and
(ii)(A) When using a communication system in an area that does not
automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude information to
the 911 emergency dispatcher, the employer must post in a conspicuous
location at the worksite either:
(1) The latitude and longitude of the worksite; or
(2) Other location-identification information that communicates
effectively to employees the location of the worksite.
(B) The requirement specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section does not apply to worksites with readily available telephone
land lines that have 911 emergency service that automatically
identifies the location of the caller.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 1926.55 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c);
0
b. Removing the heading for appendix A;
0
c. Designating the table entitled ``Threshold Limit Values of Airborne
Contaminants for Construction'' as Table 1 to Sec. 1926.55 and
revising the table heading;
0
d. In newly designated Table 1:
0
i. Revising the fourth and fifth column headings;
0
ii. Removing the entry for ``Asbestos; see 1926.58'' and adding in its
place the entry ``Asbestos; see Sec. 1926.1101'';
0
iii. Removing the entry for ``Coke oven emissions; see Sec.
1926.1129'';
0
iv. Removing the entry for ``Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos
limit; see 1926.58'' and adding in its place the entry ``Talc
(containing asbestos); use asbestos limit; see Sec. 1926.1101''; and
0
v. Removing the entry for ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see 1926.58'' and
adding in its place the entry ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.
1926.1101'';
0
e. Designating the table entitled ``Mineral Dusts'' as Table 2 to Sec.
1926.55;
0
f. Following newly designated Table 2, removing the word ``Footnotes''
and adding in its place ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this
section:'';
0
g. Revising footnotes 2 and 3;
0
h. Removing and reserving footnote 4;
0
i. Revising footnote 5 and the footnote designated by a single
asterisk; and
0
j. Removing the footnote designated by double asterisks.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.55 Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists.
(a) Employers must limit an employee's exposure to any substance
listed in Table 1 or 2 of this section in accordance with the
following:
(1) Substances with limits preceded by (C)--Ceiling Values. An
employee's exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to
any substance in Table 1 of this section with a permissible exposure
limit preceded by (C) must at no time exceed the exposure limit
specified for that substance. If instantaneous monitoring is not
feasible, then the employer must assess the ceiling as a 15-minute
time-weighted average exposure that the employer cannot exceed at any
time during the working day.
(2) Other substances--8-hour Time Weighted Averages. An employee's
exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to any
substance in Table 1 or 2 of this section with a permissible exposure
limit not preceded by (C) must not exceed the limit specified for that
substance measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average in any work
shift.
* * * * *
(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to the
exposure of employees to airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite,
or actinolite dust. Whenever any employee is exposed to airborne
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, or actinolite dust, the
requirements of Sec. 1926.1101 shall apply.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 1926.55--Permissible Exposure Limits for Airborne Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skin
Substance CAS No.\d\ ppm \a\ mg/m 3 b designation *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Asbestos; see Sec. 1926.1101..................
* * * * * * *
Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos limit;
see Sec. 1926.1101...........................
* * * * * * *
Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec. 1926.1101....
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\2\ See Table 2 of this section.
\3\ Use Asbestos Limit Sec. 1926.1101.
\4\ [Reserved]
\5\ See Table 2 of this section for the exposure limit for any operations or sectors where the exposure limit in
Sec. 1926.1153 is stayed or is otherwise not in effect.
* An ``X'' designation in the ``Skin Designation'' column indicates that the substance is a dermal hazard.
\a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
\b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.
* * * * * * *
\d\ The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on the substance name. For an entry covering
more than one metal compound, measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS numbers
for the individual compounds.
* * * * *
0
24. Revise Sec. 1926.64 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.64 Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.
For requirements regarding the process safety management of highly
hazardous chemicals as it pertains to construction work, follow the
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.119.
Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
0
25. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart E, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657;
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or
1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
26. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec. 1926.104 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.104 Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards.
* * * * *
(c) Lifelines used on rock-scaling operations, or in areas where
the lifeline may be subjected to cutting or abrasion, shall be a
minimum of \7/8\-inch wire core manila rope. For all other lifeline
applications, a minimum of \3/4\-inch manila or equivalent, with a
minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds, shall be used.
* * * * *
Subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
0
27. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart G, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 333; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR
31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable;
and 29 CFR part 1911.
0
28. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec. 1926.200 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.200 Accident prevention signs, devices, and tags.
* * * * *
(g) Traffic control signs and devices. (1) At points of hazard,
construction areas shall be posted with legible traffic control signs
and protected by traffic control devices.
(2) The design and use of all traffic control devices, including
signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices, for protection
of construction workers shall conform to Part 6 of the MUTCD
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1926.6).
* * * * *
0
29. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.201 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.201 Signaling.
(a) Flaggers. Signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers,
including warning garments worn by flaggers, shall conform to Part 6 of
the MUTCD (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1926.6).
* * * * *
Sec. 1926.202 [Removed]
0
30. Remove Sec. 1926.202.
Sec. 1926.203 [Removed]
0
31. Remove Sec. 1926.203.
Subpart H--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal
0
32. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart H, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355),
or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable. Section 1926.250 also issued
under 29 CFR part 1911.
0
33. Revise paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1926.250 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.250 General requirements for storage.
(a) * * *
(2)(i) The weight of stored materials on floors within buildings
and structures shall not exceed maximum safe load limits.
(ii) Employers shall conspicuously post maximum safe load limits of
floors within buildings and structures, in pounds per square foot, in
all storage areas, except when the storage area is on a floor or slab
on grade. Posting is not required for storage areas in all single-
family residential structures and wood-framed multi-family residential
structures.
* * * * *
Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and
Compressed Air
0
34. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart S, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Orders 12- 71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059),
9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-2007 (72
FR 31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.
0
35. Revise paragraph (k)(10) of Sec. 1926.800 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.800 Underground construction.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(10)(i) Internal combustion engines, except diesel-powered engines
on mobile equipment, are prohibited underground.
(ii) Mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground in
atmospheres other than gassy operations:
(A) Shall comply with MSHA provisions in 30 CFR 57.5067; or
(B) If purchased on or before July 15, 2019, may alternatively
comply with MSHA provisions under 30 CFR part 32 (revised as of July 1,
1996) (formerly Schedule 24), or be demonstrated by the employer to be
fully equivalent to such MSHA-approved equipment, and be operated in
accordance with that part.
(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (k)(10), when an applicable
MSHA provision uses the term ``mine,'' use the phrase ``underground
construction site.'' (Each brake horsepower of a diesel engine requires
at least 100 cubic feet (2.832 m\3\) of air per minute for suitable
operation in addition to the air requirements for personnel. Some
engines may require a greater amount of air to ensure that the
allowable levels of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide
are not exceeded.)
* * * * *
Subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection
0
36. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart W, is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
applicable.
0
37. Amend Sec. 1926.1000 by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1000 Scope.
(a) Coverage. This subpart applies to the following types of
material handling equipment: All rubber-tired, self-propelled scrapers,
rubber-tired front-end loaders, rubber-tired dozers, wheel-type
agricultural and industrial tractors, crawler tractors, crawler-type
loaders, and motor graders, with or without attachments, that are used
in construction work. This subpart also applies to compactors and
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment, with or without attachments,
manufactured after July 15, 2019, that are used in construction work.
This subpart does not apply to sideboom pipelaying tractors.
(b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. Material handling
equipment described in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding
compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment) manufactured before
July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover protective
structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
Sec. 1926.1001(b), as applicable. Agricultural and industrial tractors
used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective
structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
Sec. 1926.1002(b), as applicable. When overhead protection is provided
on agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall
meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.
1926.1003(b), as applicable.
(c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. Material
handling machinery described in paragraph (a) of this section
manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover
protective structures that meet the minimum performance standards
prescribed in Sec. 1926.1001(c). Agricultural and industrial tractors
used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective
structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
Sec. 1926.1002(c). When overhead protection is provided on
agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall
meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.
1926.1003(c).
* * * * *
0
38. Section 1926.1001 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1001 Minimum performance criteria for rollover protective
structures for designated scrapers, loaders, dozers, graders, crawler
tractors, compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
(a) General. This section prescribes minimum performance criteria
for roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers; rubber-tired front end loaders and rubber-tired
dozers; crawler tractors and crawler-type loaders, motor graders,
compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
(b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment
listed in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding compactors and
rubber-tired skid steer equipment) manufactured before July 15, 2019,
the protective frames shall conform to the following Society of
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practices as applicable: SAE J320a,
Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for
Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers; SAE J394, Minimum Performance
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End
Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers; SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria
for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-
Type Loaders; SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Motor Graders; and SAE J397, Critical Zone
Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of Construction and
Industrial Machinery, as applicable (each incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard (ISO
3471:2008) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment
listed in paragraph (a) of this section manufactured on or after July
15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the test and performance
requirements of the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) standard ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving Machinery--Roll-over
protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1926.6).
0
39. Amend Sec. 1926.1002 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e) through (i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (j) as paragraph (e); and
0
d. Removing newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3) and paragraph (k).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1002 Protective frames (roll-over protective structures,
known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used
in construction.
(a) General. This section sets forth requirements for frames used
to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors
used in construction work that will minimize the possibility of
operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal
operation. See paragraph (e) of this section for definitions of
agricultural and industrial tractors.
(b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment
manufactured before July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the
test and performance requirements of the Society of Automotive
Engineers Standard J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and
Performance Requirements and J168, Protective enclosures-test
procedures and performance requirements, as applicable (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard
(ISO 5700:2013) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment
manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall
meet the test and performance requirements of the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 5700:2013, Tractors
for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--static
test method and acceptance conditions or ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving
Machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and
performance requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1926.6).
(d) Overhead protection requirements. For overhead protection
requirements, see Sec. 1926.1003.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 1926.1003 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1003 Overhead protection for operators of agricultural and
industrial tractors used in construction.
(a) General. This section sets forth requirements for overhead
protection used to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and
industrial tractors used in construction work that will minimize the
possibility of operator injury resulting from overhead objects such as
flying or falling objection, and from the cover itself in the event of
accidental upset.
(b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. When overhead
protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial
tractors manufactured before July 15, 2019, the overhead protection
shall be designed and installed according to the requirements contained
in the test and performance requirements of Society of Automotive
Engineers Standard J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
Procedures and Performance Requirements, which pertains to overhead
protection requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1926.6)
or comply with the consensus standard (ISO 27850:2013) listed in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. When overhead
protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial
tractors manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the overhead
protection shall be designed and installed according to the
requirements contained in the test and performance requirements of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO
27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object
protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements,
which pertains to overhead protection requirements (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 1926.6).
(d) Site clearing. In the case of machines to which Sec. 1926.604
(relating to site clearing) also applies, the
overhead protection may be either the type of protection provided in
Sec. 1926.604, or the type of protection provided by this section.
Appendix A to Subpart W of Part 1926 [Removed]
0
41. Remove appendix A to subpart W of part 1926.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
0
42. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart Z, is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR
part 1911.
Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
43. Amend Sec. 1926.1101 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and
appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV(iii), to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1101 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and
gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other
reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
ray to be administered at the discretion of the physician, and
pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced
expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). Classification of
all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance with appendix E to
this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.128
Appendix E to Sec. 1926.1101--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
Mandatory
(a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 1926.6), and recorded on a classification
form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
NIOSH.
(b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
known expertise in pneumoconioses.
(c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
(d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
transparencies of images.
* * * * *
Appendix I to Sec. 1926.1101--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
Asbestos, Non-Mandatory
* * * * *
III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found
among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age.
Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis
worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of
asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to
asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities,
end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of
fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be
observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease
even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to
be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death
may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.
IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer,
from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic
diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
When an active employee has been identified as having been
overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate
or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
long-term consequences.
The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic
centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be
performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a
reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
examination:
(i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
digestive tract.
(ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
contained in appendix D of this appendix.
(iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
second (FEV1).
(iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
termination of employment.
The employer is required to provide the physician with the
following information: A copy of the standard in this section
(including all appendices to this section); a description of the
employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
examining physician containing the results of the medical
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
* * * * *
0
44. Revise paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of Sec. 1926.1127 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.1127 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the
frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining
physician);
* * * * *
Sec. 1926.1129 [Removed and Reserved]
0
45. Remove and reserve Sec. 1926.1129.
Sec. Sec. 1910.120, 1910.1001, 1910.1017, 1910.1018, 1910.1025,
1910.1026, 1910.1027, 1910.1028, 1910.1029, 1910.1030, 1910.1043,
1910.1044, 1910.1045, 1910.1047, 1910.1048, 1910.1050, 1910.1051,
1910.1052, 1910.1053, 1915.1001, 1915.1026, 1926.60, 1926.62, 1926.65,
1926.1101, 1926.1126, 1926.1127, and 1926.1153 [Amended]
0
46. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 29 CFR parts
1910, 1915, and 1926, remove words and punctuation from the following
sections as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words and 29 CFR
punctuation to ------------------------------------------------------
remove Part 1910 Part 1915 Part 1926
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and social 1910.120(f)(8)(ii 1915.1001(n)(3)( 1926.60(o)(5)(ii
security number. )(A), ii)(A), )(A),
1910.1001(m)(3)( 1915.1026(k)(4) 1926.62(d)(5),
ii)(A), (ii)(A). 1926.62(n)(3)(i
1910.1017(m)(1), i)(A), 1926.62,
1910.1025(d)(5), app. B, Sec.
1910.1025(n)(3)( XII.,
ii)(A), 1926.65(f)(8)(i
1910.1025, app. i)(A),
B, Sec. XII., 1926.1101(n)(3)
1910.1026(m)(4)( (ii)(A),
ii)(A), 1926.1126(k)(4)
1910.1028(k)(2)( (ii)(A),
ii)(A), 1926.1127(d)(2)
1910.1030(h)(1)( (iv),
ii)(A), 1926.1153(j)(3)
1910.1043(k)(2)( (ii)(A).
ii)(A),
1910.1044(p)(2)(
ii)(a),
1910.1047(k)(3)(
ii)(A),
1910.1048(o)(3)(
i),
1910.1048(o)(4)(
ii)(D),
1910.1050(n)(5)(
ii)(A),
1910.1051(m)(4)(
ii)(A),
1910.1053(k)(3)(
ii)(A).
social security 1910.1043(k)(1)(i ................ ................
numbers,. i)(C),
1910.1048(o)(1)(
vi).
social security 1910.1028(k)(1)(i ................ ................
number,. i)(D),
1910.1050(n)(3)(
ii)(D),
1910.1052(m)(2)(
ii)(F),
1910.1052(m)(2)(
iii)(C).
, social security 1910.1001(m)(1)(i ................ ................
number. i)(F),
1910.1047(k)(2)(
ii)(F),
1910.1050(n)(4)(
ii)(A),
1910.1051(m)(2)(
ii)(F),
1910.1052(m)(3)(
ii)(A).
, social security 1910.1018(q)(1)(i 1915.1001(n)(2)( 1926.60(o)(4)(ii
number,. i)(D), ii)(F), )(F),
1910.1018(q)(2)( 1915.1026(k)(1) 1926.62(n)(1)(i
ii)(A), (ii)(F). i)(D),
1910.1025(n)(1)( 1926.62(n)(2)(i
ii)(D), i)(A),
1910.1025(n)(2)( 1926.1101(n)(2)
ii)(A), (ii)(F),
1910.1026(m)(1)( 1926.1126(k)(1)
ii)(F), (ii)(F),
1910.1027(n)(1)( 1926.1127(n)(1)
ii)(B), (ii)(B),
1910.1027(n)(3)( 1926.1127(n)(3)
ii)(A), (ii)(A),
1910.1029(m)(1)( 1926.1153(j)(1)
i)(a), (ii)(G).
1910.1029(m)(2)(
i)(a),
1910.1044(p)(1)(
ii)(d),
1910.1045(q)(2)(
ii)(D),
1910.1053(k)(1)(
ii)(G).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-07902 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
