Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On January 19, 1989, OSHA modified (54 FR 2332) the Ztable permissible exposure limits of 29 CFR 1910.1000 in responseto current scientific data. Section 6(b) of the Act requireswhere appropriate, provision for medical surveillance in each6(b) rulemaking for a harmful substance. A generic standard formedical surveillance would satisfy the requirements of the Actthus enabling the Agency to deal directly with the narrowerissues of the revision of the tables. OSHA published an AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 27, 1933, (53 FR37595) to acquire additional information. OSHA also intends toreview its compliance experience with medical surveillanceprovisions and seek experienced medical opinion in the form of asymposium or other public discussion. In addition, OSHAinitiated a survey in 1990 to collect information regarding theprevalence and effectiveness of current medical surveillanceprograms. In October 1992, OSHA will determine whether or not toproceed with rulemaking.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB00

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On January 19, 1989, OSHA modified (54 FR 2332) the Ztable permissible exposure limits of 29 CFR 1910.1000 (GeneralIndustry) in response to current scientific data. Section6(b)(7) of the Act requires provisions for exposure monitoringfor each substance undergoing 6(b) rulemaking. A genericstandard for exposure monitoring would satisfy the monitoringrequirement of the Act thus enabling the Agency to deal directlywith the narrower issues of the revision of the Z tables. OSHApublished an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September27, 1988, (53 FR 37591). OSHA intends to review its complianceexperience with exposure monitoring provisions and seek expertopinion to determine the appropriateness of generic exposuremonitoring provisions. In addition, OSHA initiated a survey in1990 to collect information regarding the prevalence andeffectiveness of current exposure assessment programs. OSHA willdetermine whether or not to proceed with rulemaking in October1992.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue Nw., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB01

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported thenumber of reported "disorders associated with repeated trauma"have more than doubled since 1984. These serious, potentiallycrippling disorders account for 48 percent of all occupationalillnesses reported to OSHA in 1988, up from 28 percent in 1984.These disorders are being recognized as very serious problems bythe industrial nations of the world and some have promulgatedergonomic standards in the last several years. In November 1988,OSHA received a petition from a meat packing industryrepresentative requesting the development of a standard coveringergonomic issues. Prior to issuing a Notice of ProposedRulemaking (NPRM), OSHA will publish an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to gather, review, and analyzeavailable information in industry on individual case studies,anecdotal data, and statistical data in which ergonomic hazardshave been addressed and resolved. OSHA also will seek thisinformation from a variety of other sources.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Directorate of SafetyStandards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605,FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB36

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Health complaints related to indoor air quality (IAQ)have increased significantly following energy conservationmeasures instituted in the early seventies. Such measures havegenerally reduced the infiltration of outside air, allowing thebuild-up of indoor air contaminants. Adverse health effectsassociated with indoor air contaminants are classified as: (1)sick building syndrome which is characterized by generalcomplaints that may include headaches, fatigue, nausea, mucousmembrane (eye, nose, and throat) irritation, coughs, and musclepain; and (2) building-related illness which describes thosespecific medical conditions of known etiology which can often bedocumented by physical signs and laboratory findings. Theseinclude respiratory allergies and Legionnaires' disease. Aparticular concern with matters dealing with indoor air qualityis exposure to passive tobacco smoke (PTS). A wide range ofhealth effects caused by passive exposure to tobacco smoke havebeen reported by the Surgeon General, the National ResearchCouncil, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and privateresearchers, as well as by citizens reporting health effects dueto exposure to passive smoke while at work. These effects rangefrom acute annoyance and eye and respiratory tract irritation tothe development of chronic pulmonary disease, cardiovasculardisease, and lung cancer. OSHA received two petitions for anEmergency Temporary Standard (ETS) in May 1987. Both requestedan ETS to prohibit smoking in all indoor workplaces exceptcertain specified areas. OSHA determined that available data didnot demonstrate the existence of a "grave danger," due toworkplace exposure to passive tobacco smoke, as defined inSection 6(c) of the OSH Act. OSHA, therefore, denied thepetitions on September 1, 1989. In response to the OSHA denial,a suit was filed by the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia D.C.Circuit for a review of the Agency's decision and for an orderpursuant to 5 USC, Section 706 setting aside the denial. TheCourt upheld OSHA's decision not to issue an ETS in anunpublished decision issued on May 10, 1991. OSHA published arequest for information on Indoor Air Quality September 20, 1991(56 FR 47892). Comment period was extended to March 20, 1992.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB37

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333; 33 USC 941CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.550; 29 CPR 1926.552; 29 CFR 1926.553;29 CFR 1926.554; 29 CFR 1926.556; 29 CFR 1910.67; 29 CFR1910.179; 29 CFR 1910.180; 29 CFR 1919.181

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The present crane regulations for construction andgeneral industry have not been revised since being promulgated in1971. They rely heavily on outdated 1968 ANSI standards. OSHAhas received comments that the existing provisions are inadequateand need revision to reflect current conditions and equipment.It has also been suggested that there is need to establishadditional crane installation and use provisions, includingpossible certification programs for crane operators and riggers.OSHA anticipates that this project will come about in severalphases due to the magnitude of the project.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Directorate of SafetyStandards Program, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605,FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB38

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Current OSHA regulations address specific safety andhealth hazards or specific safety and health conditions. Whilethin approach offers discrete instruction to employers aboutto protect workers from specific exposures, the cumulative impactof these regulations often is perceived by the regulated publicas resulting in duplicative, and sometimes contradictoryrequirements. The most obvious burden is created by the morethan 200 separate standards requiring employee training on safetyand health issues. The agency needs to identify methods tosimplify and ease this regulatory burden without reducing theprotections afforded employees. The agency believes, with almostunanimous public commentor support, the most effective way toaccomplish this goal is to explore a generic training requirementin the broader context of a comprehensive workplace safety andhealth management program. The agency already publishedVoluntary Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines onJanuary 26, 1989 (FR Vol. 54, NO. 16 Pages 3902 to 3916).

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Ruth Knight, Director, Office of ProgramEvaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8055

RIN: 1218-AB41

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1918.102;29 CFR 1926.103

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The present respiratory protection standards have beenin place for more than 10 years and do not take intoconsideration the current state-of-the-art for respiratoryprotection. In addition, the general industry standard forrespirators contains redundancies and includes several advisoryprovisions which should be eliminated or changed. OSHA hasreviewed the current standards and intends to propose revisions.In developing this proposal, OSHA has been working closely withthe National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA05

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 Occupational Safety and Health Actof 1970; 33 USC 941 Longshore and Harborworkers Compensation ActCFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.16; 29 CFR 1918 (Revision)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The purpose of this regulatory action would be toupdate and revise a standard first issued in 1960. The currentlanguage in many instances addresses the hazards of cargohandling involving methods long since abandoned, and fails toaddress the serious hazards of newer methods. Because much ofthe current standard is out of date, there are problems withcompliance. These revised requirements will provide bothemployers and employees with a blueprint for effective and safework practices in the cargo handling industry. No alternativeother than revision is contemplated. The annual cost of therevision is expected to be minimal -- less than five milliondollars.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Sectors Affected: 44 Water Transportation

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605 FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA56

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.751(Revision); 29 CFR 1926.752 (Revision)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This action will consolidate, clarify, and revise theexisting provisions governing steel erection assembly, flooring,bolting, riveting, fitting-up, plumbing-up, and fall protection.When completed, the revised fall protection requirements may berelocated and be incorporated into Subpart M (of Part 1926) whichis the general fall protection standard.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-4061

RIN: 1218-AA65

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.251; 29 CFR 1910.252; 29 CFR 1910.253;29 CFR 1910.254; 29 CFR 1926.350; 29 CFR 1926.351; 29 CFR1926.352; 29 CFR 1926.354

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA proposes to revise and update its existing Part1910 and Part 1926 subparts covering welding, cutting and brazingoperations, and to develop performance oriented standardsdesigned to reduce the number of deaths and injuries due tounsafe equipment and unsafe operations. There has been nosubstantial revision to these subparts since their adoption in1971. A complete and comprehensive revision is needed at thistime to bring the standards into line with the current state-of-the-art and updated consensus standards. In developing itsproposed revision for welding provisions in Part 1910 (GeneralIndustry), OSHA has determined that a similar revision to thePart 1926 (Construction Industry) welding provisions arewarranted.

Next Action Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Sectors Affected: Multiple

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Ave. Nw., Rm N3605, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA72

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On May 20, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) issued a report to OSHA, under Section 9(a) of the ToxicSubstances Control Act, stating that EPA has reasonable basis toconclude that the risk of injury to worker health from exposureto four glycol ethers during their manufacture, processing anduse is unreasonable, and that this risk may be prevented orreduced to a significant extent by OSHA regulatory action. EPAgave OSHA 180 days in which to respond to its report. OSHApublished its response on December 11, 1986, stating that OSHAhad preliminarily concluded that occupational exposures to thesubject glycol ethers at the current OSHA permissible exposurelimits may present significant risks to the health of workers.OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)on April 2, 1987, (52 FR 10586). OSHA will use the informationreceived in response to the ANPRM, as well as other informationand analysis, to prepare a proposed standard.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue Nw., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA84

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, subpart H

Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 15, 1991.

Abstract: Standards in 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart H, whichaddress the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials,such as compressed gases, acetylene, hydrogen, oxygen, liquifiedpetroleum gases, and flammable and combustible liquids, will berevised. This regulatory action will provide a new approach tothe revision of Subpart H and will occur in four phases in anexpanded timeframe. The four phases will be (1) Process SafetyManagement, (2) Flammable and Compressed Gases, (3) HazardousLiquids, and (4) Explosives. The first phase of the proposedaction is intended to better protect employees from unexpectedreleases of significant quantities of dangerous substances, andthis phase has been completed. The remaining phases are intendedto simplify, clarify and consolidate standards on hazardousmaterials and assist employers and employees in general industryto better understand and better focus on the hazards inherent inthe use, handling, and storage of such materials.

Next Action Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: This action includes three previousactions: (a) Hazardous Materials--Flammable and Compressed Gases(Part 1910); (b) Hazardous Materials--Flammable and CombustibleLiquids (Part 1910); and (c) Process Safety Management of HighlyHazardous Chemicals (completed), and adds a new action,Explosives: as the fourth phase of this regulatory action.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB20

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.1 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.31 et seq; 29CFR 1915.91 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.111 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.131 etseq; 29 CFR 1915.161 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.171 et seq; 29 CFR1915.181; 29 CFR 1910.13 et seq; 29 CFR 1910.14; 29 CFR 1910.15;29 CFR 1910.95; 29 CFR 1910.96; 29 CFR 1910.97; 29 CFR 1910.141;

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will complete the consolidationand updating of Parts 1915 and 1910 by providing shipyardemployees with coverage under one comprehensive OSHA standard.This revision effort will involve the promulgation of 20 maritimesubparts. Its completion will be done in stages and will relieveshipyard owners from the burden of having to comply with two setsof rules that are complex, prescriptive, confusing and, in somecases, conflicting. OSHA has established an Advisory Committeeto assist the Agency in reviewing and revising these subparts.Experts from government, industry, unions and the states areworking with OSHA on this project. A previously identifiedproject, Surface Preparation and Preservation (RIN: 1218-AA96),will be included in this project.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB22

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.1

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Concerns about the reliability and utility of injuryand illness data have been raised by Congress, OSHA, NIOSH, BLS,the National Academy of Sciences, OMB, the General AccountingOffice and representatives of business and labor. The revisionof the regulations, forms, and associated interpretive materialare being undertaken to simplify the injury and illnessrecordkeeping system. OSHA is currently working on this projectand has not collected sufficient information to determine theeffect on paperwork burden. Benefits will include: (1) A systemthat is easier for employers, employees and government personnelto use; (2) increased reliability and utility of the records; (3)comprehensive records of the injury and illness experience at agiven site will be available; and (4) employee involvement andawareness in safety and health matters will be enhanced.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,Organizations

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Sectors Affected: All

Analysis: Regulatory Impact Analysis

Agency Contact: Stephen A. Newell, Acting Director, Office ofStatistics, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3507, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-1463

RIN: 1218-AB24

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The permissible exposure limits (PELs) promulgated byOSHA in 1971 do not reflect current knowledge of the healtheffects of many toxic substances. OSHA published a proposal onJune 7, 1988 (53 FR 20960) to amend and expand the PELs forgeneral industry. On January 19, 1989 OSHA set new PELs for thetoxic substances originally covered in 1971 and covered newsubstances in a single rulemaking that applied to generalindustry. OSHA now plans to update the old PELs forconstruction, maritime, and possible agricultural sectors notcovered by the general industry proceeding. The PELs for thesesectors are outdated: the construction industry (29 CFR 1926)references the 1970 ACGIH TLVs; the maritime industry cites threedifferent references--29 CFR 1918 (longshoring), "dangerousgaseous contaminants not immediately dangerous to life" and"heavy concentrations of dusts." In addition, in theagricultural section, OSHA will consider the fact that chemicalsand pesticides are currently regulated by EPA. As a result ofthis rulemaking, OSHA expects that a unified table of PELs fortoxic substances will be adopted for all industries. On June 12,1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA published a propose rule that wouldprovide more protective PELs on hundreds of toxic airbornesubstances for workers in construction, agriculture, andmaritime. OSHA will be publishing a Federal Register noticedelaying hearings and extending comment period nine months.

Next Action Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB26

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Hazards at construction sites resulting from theabsence of effective lockout/tagout procedures to controlhazardous energy appear to be caused by several factors, allassociated with the nature of the construction industry. Thesefactors basically relate to such considerations as the types ofmachines and equipment found in construction; the makeup of theindustry in which employment is relatively "short term," lastingonly as long as the length of the current project; the presenceof multiple employers having different employer/employeerelationships and the temporary nature of the "in-the-field"maintenance activity. The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) expects the proposal to address lockout-related hazards in those construction work-site areas in whichthe available data indicate these hazards to be significant.Regulatory options involve developing a comprehensive standardcovering all potentially hazardous energy sources. OSHA willconsider the use of the construction advisory committee to assistin the development of this standard.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB30

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.178

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Nationally, fatalities due to unsafe operation ofindustrial vehicles and equipment account for approximately 12percent of the private sector fatalities. This is the secondleading cause of fatalities in the private sector, behind onlyhighway vehicle fatalities. The present standard has proven tobe ineffective in reducing the number of accidents involvingpowered industrial trucks. OSHA intends to revise the presentstandard to increase its effectiveness by requiring, inperformance language, initial and refresher training asnecessary. The frequency of the refresher training will be basedupon the ability of the vehicle operator to retain the knowledge,skills and abilities to perform the job safely. OSHA will alsogive guidance as to what information the instruction shouldinclude. There will also be other amendments to the standard toincrease its effectiveness.

Next Action Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB33

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: Not yet determined

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On November 14, 1978 (43 FR 52952), OSHA promulgated astandard that limited occupational exposures to lead. Thestandard also contained requirements for exposure monitoring,protective equipment, housekeeping and hygiene practices, medicalsurveillance, medical removal protection, posted areas andeducation and training. However, the scope of the standard didnot include the construction industry. Lead exposures in theconstruction industry continued to be regulated by the aircontaminants standard for construction (29 CFR 1926.55) which hasno protective ancillary provisions such as those contained in thegeneral industry standard. This standard adopted the 1970American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (200 ug/m3) which is four times thecurrent standard for general industry. OSHA recognized that thislevel represents a potential for material impairment of healthand is in the process of developing a proposal.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB34

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 658; 29 USC 659

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1903

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: A critical element of OSHA's comprehensive enforcementstrategy under the Occupational Safety and Health act isassurance that employers have abated hazards cited duringinspections. Currently, unless an employer voluntarily complieswith OSHA's request to submit documentation, OSHA has no proof ofhazard abatement without conducting a followup inspection. From1972 to the present, OSHA has implemented several administrativemeasures to induce employers to provide abatement documentation,but some 30 percent of cited employers still do not voluntarilydo so. OSHA's internal audits, the Department of Labor'sInspector General, and the General Accounting Office have pointedout this deficiency. The regulation OSHA now proposes willrequire cited employers to provide hazard abatementdocumentation. The NPRM will address the kinds of evidence to berequired, what notice to employees is needed, potential penaltiesfor non-reporting, possible certification forms for compliance,and other questions. Work on this project has not progressed tothe point where costs and benefits of possible regulatoryapproaches can be determined.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Raymond E. Donnelly, Director, General IndustryCompliance Assistance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safetyand Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., RoomN3119, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8041

RIN: 1218-AB40

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000(e); 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA's policy concerning the use of engineeringcontrols and respirators was targeted for review by thePresident's Task Force on Regulatory Relief in 1981. CurrentOSHA regulations require that employers implement feasibleengineering controls to maintain air contaminant concentrationsin the workplace at or below the prescribed permissible exposurelimits. The use of respirators is permitted only in those caseswhere engineering controls are not feasible, not yet installed,or not adequate. This policy has been criticized as beinginflexible, not cost-effective, and often unnecessary foremployee health protection. OSHA believes that any changes tothe policy for use of engineering controls must be closelycoordinated with revisions in the respiratory protectionregulations (29 CFR 1910.134). This rulemaking does not addressthe assessment and reduction of any absolute existing risks, butrather addresses the possible change in risk abatement associatedwith the use of respirators instead of engineering controls.OSHA published a proposal on June 5, 1989 (54 FR 23991).Hearings were held on May 30-31, 1990, and continued on July 9-10, 1990.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Additional Information: Post-hearing comments were due byOctober 9, 1990, and responses to post-hearing comments were dueby December 10, 1990. In response to oral petitions fromparticipants, the post-bearing comment period was extended toJanuary 14, 1991. OSHA will use the information received inresponse to the proposal to develop a final rule.

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Rm N3718, FP Bldg, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA28

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.104; 29 CFR 1926.105; 29 CFR 1926.500;29 CFR 1926.501; 29 CFR 1926.502; 29 CFR 1926.107(b); 29 CFR1926.250(b)(2); 29 CFR 1926.651(t); 29 CFR 1926.951(b)(4)(i); 29CFR 1926.107(c); 29 CFR 1926.107(f); 29 CFR 1926.651(w)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The existing standard has been proposed for revisionbecause it is poorly formatted, contains unnecessary andrestrictive provisions, and does not properly address the fallprotection needs of certain areas and operations. The proposalraises several significant issues including (1) when fallprotection systems must be installed, (2) whether work surfaceinspections are necessary to insure adequate structural integritybefore commencing work, and (3) whether body belt systems or bodyharness systems are appropriate for use as fall protection.(Subpart M revised)

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: This agenda entry is part of RegulatoryProgram RIN 1218-AB05; Elevated Surfaces (Part 1926).

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Rm N3605, FP Bldg, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA37

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.451; 29 CFR 1926.452; 29 CFR 1910.28;29 CFR 1910.29; 29 CFR 1926.752(k)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The existing standard has been proposed for revisionbecause it is poorly formatted, contains unnecessary andrestrictive provisions, and omits necessary specific coverage forcertain types of scaffolds. The proposal raises severalsignificant issues including: (1) the use of crossbraces asguardrails, (2) the use of fall protection during scaffolderection and dismantling operations, and (3) the role ofengineers in scaffold design. (Subpart L, revised)

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: This agenda entry is part of RegulatoryProgram RIN 1218-AB05; Elevated Surfaces (Part 1926).

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA40

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, subpart I

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Existing standards do not contain criteria forpersonal fall protection systems. Consequently, requirementscontaining criteria for personal fall protection systems would beadded to 29 CFR part 1910, Subpart I, Personal ProtectionEquipment, to enhance employee protection from injury and deathdue to falls to different elevations.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: 1218-AA48 will be issued concurrentlywith 1218-AB04.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA48

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.146

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Entry into confined spaces has been responsible formany employee deaths and injuries. However, current standards donot specifically address the hazards associated with entry intoconfined spaces. Therefore, OSHA is proposing certain criteriaand precautions which are necessary to minimize the hazardsassociated with employees entering confined spaces.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Analysis: Regulatory Impact Analysis

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA51

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.266 (Revision)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Logging is a very hazardous industry. It has anincidence rate nearly twice that of manufacturing, and reflectingthe seriousness of the injuries incurred, a lost workday ratenearly four times as high. The purpose of the standard will beto protect workers from the ever-present hazards of chain sawoperation, falling objects (trees, branches), rolling or slidinglogs, falls from trees, and materials handling accidents. Atpresent there is no OSHA standard specifically applicable tologging in general. There is a standard, 29 CFR 1910.266,applicable only to pulp wood logging; however, pulpwood loggingis estimated to account for less than half of the loggingactivity in the United States. Development of a national OSHAstandard addressing all types of logging will provide coveragefor those loggers not now protected. The new regulation willprovide coverage where there is no approved state regulation andwill set a minimum safety level for those states that chose todevelop a state regulation.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Sectors Affected: 24 Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA52

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.137; 29 CFR 1910.269

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: A major area of coverage not addressed in the currentOSHA electrical standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910)involves the maintenance and operation practices associated withelectrical transmission and distribution lines, substations andgenerating stations. It is intended that the proposed standardfill this void by establishing minimum requirements forelectrical safety work practices for qualified employees workingon or near installations whose purpose is the generation anddistribution of electricity. The proposal also revises thestandards for electrical protective equipment, which is usedroutinely for electrical power work.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Sectors Affected: Multiple

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA59

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.201; 29 CFR 1915.202; 29 CFR 1915.203;29 CFR 1915.73; 29 CFR 1915.74; 29 CFR 1915.75; 29 CFR 1915.77

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standard covering fall protection and will consolidateall related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions into 29CFR part 1915. The revision will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, address newtechnology and eliminate outmoded and redundant provisions.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: Applicable part 1910 provisions underconsideration: 29 CFR 1910.21-1910.23.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA66

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.71; 29 CFR 1910.28; 29 CFR 1910.29

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standards covering scaffolds and will consolidate allrelated and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions into 29 CFRpart 1915. The revision will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, address newtechnology, and eliminate outmoded and redundant provisions.

Next Action Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: Applicable part 1910 provisions underconsideration: 29 CFR 1910.28 - 1910.29.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA68

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.72; 29 CFR 1915.74; 29 CFR 1915.75; 29CFR 1915.76

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standards covering access and egress and willconsolidate all related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910provisions into 29 CFR Part 1915. The revision will develop, inpart, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps incoverage, address new technology, and eliminate outmoded andredundant provisions.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: Applicable part 1910 provisions underconsideration: 29 CFR 1910.24-1910.27; 29 CFR 1910.36-1910.37.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA70

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Existing standards for eye, face, head, and footprotection reference outdated national consensus standards whichhave been updated and improved. Consequently, criteria forpersonal protective equipment for eye, face, head, and foot wouldbe revised to reflect improved developments in these types ofequipment. This would allow the use of better personalprotective equipment and would result in improved employeeprotection from eye, face, head, and foot hazards.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605 FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA71

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.51; 29 CFR 1915.52; 29 CFR 1915.53; 29CFR 1915.54; 29 CFR 1915.55; 29 CFR 1915.56; 29 CFR 1915.57

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standard covering welding, cutting, and heating. Therevision will develop, in part, a performance-oriented standard,address current gaps in coverage, recognize new technology, andeliminate outmoded or redundant provisions. In addition, it willconsolidate 29 CFR part 1915 standards and applicable 29 CFR part1910 standards into one set of provisions.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: Applicable part 1910 provisions underconsideration: 29 CFR 1910.251-1910.252.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA73

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.151; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1915.153;29 CFR 1915.154; 29 CFR 1915.155; 29 CFR 1915.156, 29 CFR1915.157; 29 CFR 1915.158; 29 CFR 1915.159

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standard covering personal protective equipment. Therevision will develop, in part, a performance-oriented standard,address current gaps in coverage, recognize new technology, andeliminate outmoded-or redundant provisions. It will consolidate29 CFR part 1915 standards and applicable 29 CFR part 1910standards into one set of provisions.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: Applicable part 1910 provisions underconsideration: 29 CFR 1910.132-1910.137.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm N3605, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA74

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000 (Table Z-1); 29 CFR 1910.1051

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On October 10, 1985, EPA referred 1,3-butadiene (BD)to OSHA for possible regulatory action under section 9(a) of theToxic Substance Control Act. On April 11, 1986, OSHA respondedto the EPA referral indicating that the Agency has preliminarilyconcluded that BD poses risk to the occupationally exposedpopulation at the current OSHA permissible exposure limit andthat the risk can be reduced or prevented through thepromulgation of a revised standard. On October 1, 1986 (51 FR35003). OSHA published an ANPRM initiating regulatory actionwithin the meaning of section 9(a) of TSCA. Comments weresubmitted to OSHA by December 30, 1986. Based on the commentsreceived in response to the ANPRM OSHA developed a proposal whichwas published on August 10, 1990. Hearings were held inWashington, D.C. on January 15, 1991,and in New Orleans, Louisiana on February 20, 1991. Submissionof the post-hearing comments and briefs were scheduled to end onJune 22, and July 22, 1991 respectively; however, OSHA extendedthe dates to September 27, and October 28, 1991. The post-hearing comments and briefs were again extended and finallyclosed on November 26, 1991 and February 10, 1992, respectively.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA83

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.11; 29 CFR 1915.12; 29 CFR 1915.13; 29CFR 1915.14; 29 CFR 1915.15; 29 CFR 1915.16

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This regulatory action will revise the existingshipyard standard covering explosive and other dangerousatmospheres. This revision will develop, in part, a performance-oriented standard, address any gaps in coverage, recognize newtechnology, and eliminate outmoded or redundant standards.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: State, Federal

Sectors Affected: 373 Ship and Boat Building and Repairing

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8063

RIN: 1218-AA91

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In July 1985, OSHA was petitioned by the UnitedAutomobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers ofAmerica (UAW) to issue a hazard alert; issue an emergencytemporary standard; and to begin work on a new permanent standardfor methylene chloride (DCM). This request was based oninformation obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency andthe National Toxicology Program indicating that DCM is an animalcarcinogen and may have the potential to cause cancer in humans.In November 1986, OSHA notified the UAW that its petition hadbeen granted, in part, and denied, in part. Specifically, OSHAissued a set of guidelines for controlling occupational exposureto DCM and OSHA denied that portion of the petition requestingthe issuance of an emergency temporary standard. OSHA publishedan Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 24, 1986 (51FR 42257). After reviewing and analyzing the comments receivedin response to the ANPRM, OSHA published a proposal in theFederal Register on November 7, 1991 (56 FR 57036). The commentperiod closed on April 6, 1992. On June 9, 1992, OSHA publisheda notice of informal public hearings to be held in Washington, DCon September 16, 1992 and in San Francisco, CA on October 14, 1992.The notice also reopened the comment period until August 24, 1992.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm 3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA98

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941;40 USC 333, 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1200; 29 CFR 1915.99; 29 CFR 1917.28;29 CFR 1918.90; 29 CFR 1926.59; 29 CFR 1928.21

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA promulgated a final rule on August 24, 1987, thatextended the protections of its Hazard Communication Standard(HCS) from the manufacturing sector to all other workplaces whereemployees are exposed to hazardous chemicals. The HCS requirescovered employers to establish hazard communication programs fortheir employees, including labels on containers, material safetydata sheets, and training programs. On August 8, 1988, OSHApublished a NPRM to modify the final rule, and provide anopportunity for public comment. Public comments have beenreceived, hearings have been held, and OSHA will prepare a finalrule based on the public record for this standard, including therecord developed in earlier rulemakings. OSHA published arequest for information (RFI) on May 17, 1990, (55 FR 20580) toimprove the quality and representation of the informationprovided on the MSDS's and labels and to consider a standardizedformat. OSHA will determine if the rule should be reopened afterthe comments and other relevant information are analyzed. Thecomment period for the RFI expired on August 15, 1990.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB02

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.21; 29 CFR 1910.22; 29 CFR 1910.23; 29CFR 1910.24; 29 CFR 1910.25; 29 CFR 1910.26; 29 CFR 1910.27; 29CFR 1910.28, 29 CFR 1910.29; 29 CFR 1910.30; 29 CFR 1910.31; 29CFR 1910.32

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Existing standards for walking and working surfacesneed to be revised because they are out of date and restricttechnological innovation. The proposed revision is performance-oriented and permits flexibility for compliance.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: None

Additional Information: 1218-AB04 will be issued concurrentlywith 1218-AA48.

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB04

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 et seq

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1001; 29 CFR 1926.58

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On June 20, 1986, OSHA published revised standardsgoverning occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite in general industry andconstruction. In these standards, OSHA reduced the 8-hour timeweighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 0.2f/cc, and established other protective provisions. This standardwas legally challenged, and as a result, the Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia upheld the standard except that thecourt held that OSHA must reconsider several of the standard'sprovisions to determine if more protective regulatory provisionsare available to reduce risk. One of the issues to bereconsidered was the need for a short-term limit for occupationalexposure to asbestos in response to the Court's directive. Thislimit was established as 1 f/cc averaged over a 30-minutesampling period and a legaL notification of this amendment waspublished on September 14, 1988, at 53 FR 35610. On December 20,1989 (54 FR 52024) OSHA responded to the first three remand issues.OSHA deleted the ban on spraying asbestos containing materials,amended the regulatory text to clarify when constructionemployers must resume periodic monitoring; and explained why OSHAis not amending the regulatory text to clarify the limitedexemption for "small-scale, short-duration operations" in theconstruction industry standard. OSHA published a notice of itsresolution of Category II remand issues on February 5, 1990, anda notice of proposed rulemaking for Category III on July 20, 1990(55 FR 29712). On September 20, 1990, the comment period wasextended to December 3, 1990, and the public hearing wasrescheduled to commence on January 23, 1991. The post-hearingcomment period closed on April 26, 1991, and the briefing periodwas extended to July 24, 1991.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Bldg,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB25

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); PL 101-549 (November 15, 1990);5 USC 552(a); 5 USC 533

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.121, subpart H

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Public Law 99-499 requires the Secretary of Labor topromulgate a final standard for Hazardous Waste Operations andEmergency Response. The final standard was issued on March 6,1989. Section 126 of Public Law 99-499 was amended by Congresson December 22, 1987 to require the Secretary of Labor to includein the final rule a training course certification program atleast as comprehensive as the EPA's model program for asbestosabatement in public buildings. This proposed revision would addcriteria and requirements for training course certification oftraining for workers involved in hazardous waste operations.Separately, OSHA has collected additional information on thisrulemaking during the second half of CY 1991 on the characteristicsof selected training programs for emergency response personnel forhazardous materials incidents. Accordingly, the Agency will besubmitting this report to the public record in early 1992, and willbe granting the public an opportunity to review and comment on thereport and survey results. OSHA is presently reviewing commentssubmitted in response to a partial reopening of the record forthis rulemaking. The notice was published February 10, 1992, andthe comment period closed May 26, 1992. The opening of therecord allowed public comment on a study, "Survey of EmergencyResponse Programs" conducted by OSHA to evaluate theeffectiveness of current emergency response training programs.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Federal

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Bldg,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB27

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.140; 29 CFR 1915.99; 29 CFR 1915.100;29 CFR 1917.44; 29 CFR 1918.73; 29 CFR 1926.33; 29 CFR 1928.58

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA currently has no general regulation requiringthat employers train their employees in the safe operation ofmotor vehicles on the job, including the required use of seatbelts, although motor vehicle crashes are the single largestcause of occupational fatalities. On-the-job motor vehiclecrashes, in both on-road and off-road vehicles, caused over 30percent of traumatic work-related fatalities. In themanufacturing sector, which is the primary target of most OSHAregulations, more workers are killed by motor vehicles than byfixed machinery. The hazards faced by workers operatingautomobiles and trucks, both on public highways and at privatefacilities, could be greatly reduced by requiring employers totrain their employees in safe driving techniques, including therequired use of seat belts. OSHA plans to proceed with a singleNPRM that would regulate all employers covered by the OSHA Act.The approach will be to develop a generic, performance-orientedstandard. Various state regulations governing the use of seatbelts, and related studies will be considered in this proposal.OSHA expects that the regulation could prevent as many as 684fatalities each year.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions

Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Federal

Agency Contact: Roger A. Clark, Director, Safety StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB28

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.8

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Concerns have been raised by Congress, OMB, OSHA,NIOSH, BLS, the National Academy of Sciences, GAO andrepresentatives of business and labor about the reporting offatalities and multiple hospitalizations. These include theprocedures employers are required to follow, the length of timeemployers have to report the fatalities to OSHA and the number ofhospitalizations required before the employer must report theincident to OSHA. In particular, 48 hour reporting may allow toomany workplace factors to change before OSHA can reach theworksite to perform an adequate investigation of the incident.In addition, there are concerns that the current regulation maynot adequately inform employers of the need to report alloccupational fatalities, including those that occur over extendedperiods of time after the employee was originally injured.Benefits will include more accurate employer reporting offatalities and multiple hospitalizations, an improved ability forOSHA to respond to serious accidents while evidence is still"fresh", an improved count of fatalities and multiplehospitalizations and an upgraded data base for researchers andpolicy officials.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions,Organizations

Government Levels Affected: Local, State

Agency Contact: Stephen A. Newell, Acting Director, Office ofStatistics, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3507, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 423-1473423-1463

RIN: 1218-AB35

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1001; 29 CFR 1926.58

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On June 20, 1986, OSHA issued revised standardsgoverning occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite,anthophyllite, and actinolite in general industry and in theconstruction industry. These standards replaced OSHA's previousasbestos standard promulgated in 1972. Since the issuance of therevised standards, OSHA received letters and petitions concerningthe appropriateness of regulating nonasbestiform tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite as presenting the same health riskas asbestos. OSHA granted a temporary stay of the effectivedates of the current standards as they apply to nonasbestiformvarieties of tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. Thisaction was taken, in part, to enable the Agency to review lettersand memoranda from the National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health as well as submissions by the R. T. Vanderbilt Companyand various other trade associations concerning theappropriateness of regulating nonasbestiform tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite in the revised standards. Inaddition, the temporary stay was imposed to allow sufficient timefor OSHA to reopen the rulemaking record and conduct supplementalproceedings on the issue of whether, and how, to regulateoccupational exposure to the nonasbestiform varieties of tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite. On February 12, 1990 (55 FR 4938),OSHA published a proposal to gather additionaL information anddata to determine whether and how to regulate the nonasbestiformvarieties. Hearings were held May 8-14, 1990, and the commentperiod closed on June 28, 1990. After the close of thepost-hearing comment periods, the American Thoracic Society (ATS)submitted a final report on "The Health Effects of Tremolite."The agency set an additional comment period, later extended toDecember 14, 1990, to enable the public to submit written commentsand analyses on the issues raised in the ATS report. On September4, 1991, OSHA extended the partial stay until February 28, 1992.On March 5, 1992 (57 FR 7877), the stay was extended until May 30,1992. On June 8, 1992 (57 FR 24310), OSHA published its finalstandard which excludes nonasbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite,and actinolite from coverage under its Asbestos standard.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Small Entities Affected: None

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3718,FP Bldg., Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA26

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1925.60

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: 4,4'-Methylenedianiline (MDA) is a chemical usedprimarily to manufacture methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, which isused to make polyurethane foams and elastomers. Recentscientific data indicate that MDA is a carcinogen in animals anda potential carcinogen in humans. In 1983, OSHA and theEnvironmental Protection Agency participated in a joint effort topublish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicitinformation on MDA production and use, estimates of environmentaland occupational exposure, and studies of its toxic andcarcinogenic effects. EPA evaluated the data received inresponse to the advance notice and concluded that the chemicalpresents an unreasonable risk of injury to the health of exposedworkers. Under the provisions of section 9(a) of the ToxicSubstances Control Act, EPA referred MDA to OSHA for action.OSHA responded to the EPA referral on 2/26/86. OSHA establisheda mediated rulemaking advisory committee composed of interestedparties from labor, industry and government to assist the agencyin developing a proposed standard. The Committee completed itswork in June 1987 and forwarded its recommendations to the Agency.OSHA published the Committee's recommendations on July 16, 1987,and published a proposed standard for MDA on May 12, 1989.Hearings were conducted on March 20-21, 1990. The comment periodfor the first set of post hearing comments closed on May 8, 1990.The second closing date was May 23, 1990. The final MDA standardwas published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1992.

Small Entities Affected: None

Small Entities Affected: None

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA58

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 et seq

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1048

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On December 4, 1987, the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) published a revised standard foroccupational exposure to formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048). Thisstandard contained permissible exposure limits of 1 part weightedaverage (TWA) and 2 ppm as a 15-minute short-term exposure limit(STEL), along with ancillary protective provisions. Severalinterested parties petitioned the courts to review this standard.On June 9, 1989, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit issued its decision, which upheld the standard,but remanded the standard back to the Agency for reconsiderationof two issues: the assessment of the risk of cancer at 1 ppm,and the failure of the Agency to require medical removalprotection (MRP). The final standard also required that hazard-warning labels be placed on containers of all products composedof greater than 0.1 percent formaldehyde or capable of releasingformaldehyde into the air under any normal condition of use atconcentrations reaching or exceeding 0.1 ppm. The FormaldehydeInstitute filed an application for administrative stay of theformaldehyde standard's cancer labeling requirement. Based onthe confusion and misunderstanding of the standard's requirementsreflected in the application and in numerous comments submittedto the Agency subsequent to the application, the Agency decidedto stay the hazard communication provisions of the formaldehydestandard (29 CFR 1910.1048(m)(1)(i) through (m)(4)(ii). Thepurpose of the stay is to permit the Agency to propose to revokethese paragraphs and rely on the provisions of the hazardcommunication standard or develop some appropriate alternative.The stay was first granted on December 13, 1988 (53 FR 50198).On June 13, 1990 (55 FR 24070), OSHA extended the administrativestay until August 13, 1990, to consider further developments inthe hazard communication rulemaking in determining whatregulatory action to propose on formaldehyde. Based on publiccomment and the rulemaking record, OSHA published a formaldehydeproposal on July 15, 1991. The comment period ended on August14, 1991. The final standard was published on May 27, 1992 (57FR 22290).

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsProgram, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA82

Significance: Regulatory Program

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 et seq

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 (Table Z-2)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On June 18, 1986, the International Chemical WorkersUnion and the Public Citizen Health Research Group petitionedOSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard reducing thepermissible exposure limit for cadmium to one microgram ofcadmium per cubic meter of air. On June 25, 1987 the union andHRG filed a petition with the Court of Appeals requesting theCourt to order OSHA to promulgate an ETS. In its July 1, 1987,response to the petitioners, OSHA stated that issuance of anemergency standard was not warranted, but that exposure tocadmium at levels permitted under the current standardrepresented a significant risk to worker health which would beaddressed through section 6(b) rulemaking procedures. OnSeptember 26, 1988, OSHA published guidelines for controllingexposure to cadmium and recommended reduced exposure levelssignificantly below the permissible exposure limit. OSHApublished a proposal on February 6, 1990 (55 FR 4052), andconducted hearings on June 5, 1990, in Washington, DC and on July17, 1990, in Denver, CO. The comment period closed on October18, 1990. OSHA reopened the record on September 18, 1991, toreceive comments on the reports of two experiments -- solubilityand carcinogenicity of cadmium sulfide. The record closed onNovember 4, 1991. On March 30, 1992, the court ordered OSHA topublish a final standard by the end of August 1992.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Charles E. Adkins, Director, Health StandardsPrograms, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3718. FP Bldg.,Washington, DC 20210, 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB16