[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39281-39285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18920]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-019A]
RIN 1218-AA51
Permit-Required Confined Spaces
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of informal public hearing; reopening of public comment
period; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice schedules an informal public hearing concerning
OSHA's proposal (59 FR 60735) to modify the existing rescue provisions
of the standard (Sec. 1910.146) covering entry into permit-required
confined spaces. The Agency requests that interested parties present
testimony and evidence regarding the issues raised by the proposed
revision and by this hearing notice. This notice also reopens the
public comment period and corrects an error in the proposed revision.
DATES: An informal public hearing will begin at 9 a.m. on September 27,
1995 and on each succeeding day.
Notices of intention to appear at the informal pubic hearing, along
with all testimony and evidence which will be introduced into the
hearing record, must be postmarked by September 13, 1995.
Comments must be postmarked by September 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Notices of intention to appear at the hearing and testimony
and documentary evidence which will be introduced into the hearing
record must be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. Tom Hall, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Division of Consumer Affairs, room
N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone
(202) 219-8615.
The informal public hearing will be held in the Frances Perkins
Building auditorium, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
N.W., 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Division of Consumer Affairs, room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8615. Proposal: Mr. Richard
E. Liblong, Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, U.S.
Department of Labor, room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 14, 1993, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a General Industry standard
(Sec. 1910.146) to require protection for employees who enter permit-
required confined spaces (permit spaces). The permit space standard,
which provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe
performance of entry operations, became effective on April 15, 1995.
On March 15, 1993, the United Steelworkers of America (USWA)
petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for
judicial review of Sec. 1910.146. In particular, the USWA contended
that Sec. 1910.146(k)(2), which addresses the use of off-site rescue
services, was vague and ineffective. The USWA also stated that OSHA had
inappropriately omitted both a requirement for testing or monitoring
performed to comply with the standard and a requirement for employees
to
[[Page 39282]]
have access to testing or monitoring results.
Based on discussions with the USWA, OSHA agreed to initiate further
rulemaking, issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR
60735) on November 28, 1994. The proposed revisions to
Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) more clearly express what the Agency intended when
it promulgated the permit space standard. They state specifically that
host employers must ensure that prospective rescuers who are not
employees of the host employer are able to respond to a rescue summons
in a timely manner and are equipped and trained to perform permit space
rescues at the host employer's facility.
In addition, based on information received subsequent to the
promulgation of Sec. 1910.146, OSHA proposed to make
Sec. 1910.146(k)(3)(i), which deals with the point of attachment for a
retrieval line, more performance-oriented by allowing any point of
attachment which enables the entrant's body to present the smallest
possible profile during retrieval.
Also, the Agency asked for public input on the USWA's suggestion
that OSHA add provisions which would require that employers provide for
employee observation of permit space testing or monitoring, and that
employers also provide employee access to the results of permit space
testing or monitoring.
The NPRM set a 90 day comment period, ending on February 27, 1995,
to receive written comments on the proposed revisions and the issues
raised. OSHA received 51 written comments (Exs. 161-1 through 161-51).
Several commenters (Ex. 161-21, 161-22, 161-38, 161-40, 161-44)
required that OSHA convene an informal public hearing to address their
concerns. The comments received in response to the proposed revision
and issues raised are available for inspection and copying in the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. S-019A, room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.
Based on the response to the NPRM, OSHA has decided to convene an
informal public hearing, beginning on September 27, 1995, and to reopen
the comment period to obtain public input regarding the need to more
clearly express a host employer's responsibility to assess a
prospective rescue service's capabilities (i.e., is equipped, trained,
and can respond in a timely manner) and regarding the need for employee
participation in testing and monitoring. The Agency requests that
hearing participants and commenters provide supporting information for
any recommendations, so OSHA can adequately assess these materials when
drafting the final rule for this rulemaking.
Rescue and Emergency Services
Existing paragraph (k)(1) sets requirements for employers who have
their own employees enter permit spaces to provide rescue and emergency
services. The criteria set by this paragraph are designed to protect
such employees from permit space hazards and to maximize their ability
to provide effective rescue and emergency services. Paragraph (k)(1)
applies both to rescuers employed by employers who are conducting
permit space operations and to rescuers employed by outside rescue
services, insofar as such employers are regulated by OSHA (State and
local government employees in non-State Plan States are not covered).
OSHA's experience indicates that many employers who conduct permit
space operations rely on off-site rescue services, such as those
provided by local fire departments, in lieu of establishing an adequate
rescue capability using their own employees. The Agency has
acknowledged that there are circumstances where it is reasonable for
``host employers'' to rely on persons other than their own employees to
provide rescue and emergency services. Accordingly, existing paragraph
(k)(2) sets criteria for the use of such ``outside'' rescue and
emergency services.
In particular, the host employer must provide the ``outside
rescuers'' with pertinent information about the identified permit space
hazards and give them access to any permit space from which rescue may
be necessary, so that the rescue service can develop appropriate rescue
plans and can practice performing rescues.
Pursuant to Secs. 1910.146(d)(9) and (f)(11), the host employer is
currently required to establish effective means of summoning rescuers
and document those means in the entry permit. Unless non-entry rescue
procedures have been implemented or the potential rescuers are standing
by as entry operations proceed, some time will pass between the
transmittal of the rescue summons and the retrieval of an entrant. OSHA
expects affected employers to make arrangements for rescue which
maximize the likelihood that entrants will be retrieved safely while
minimizing the risks for potential rescuers.
However, in response to a submission (Ex. 1) from the United
Steelworkers of America (USWA), the Agency has acknowledged (59 FR
60736) that the final rule may not have been sufficiently clear as to a
``host'' employer's responsibility for the performance of ``outside''
rescue services. Accordingly, the Agency has proposed to revise
Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) so the standard clearly indicates that ``host''
employers are required to retain rescue services that can respond
adequately and in a timely fashion when summoned to perform rescues.
In response, some commenters (Exs. 161-9, 161-13, 161-31, 161-42
and 161-50) expressed support for the proposed revisions as the
appropriate means to ensure that rescue services performed adequately.
Those commenters indicated that compliance would pose no difficulties.
On the other hand, several commenters (Exs. 161-1, 161-2, 161-5,
161-6, 161-11 and 161-33) expressed concern that the proposed language
appears to rule out the use of outside rescue services. Those
commenters stated that OSHA should not discourage the use of off-site
rescue services because there will be situations where affected
employers have no viable alternative to relying on those services.
Furthermore, those commenters have indicated that an ``off-site''
rescue service summoned by a ``host'' employer might well be able to
respond at least as quickly and effectively as an ``on-site'' resuce
service set up by the employer conducting entry operations.
One commenter (Ex. 161-1) expressed concern that ``[a]doption of
this section as stated may force small inexperienced employers into
establishing in-house resuce teams with little or no practical
training.'' In addition, a commenter (Ex. 161-6) stated that ``[o]n-
site rescue teams are usually comprised of electricians, pipefitters,
maintenance workers and other craftspeople where rescue is a sideline.
Whereas most on-site teams are only given a minimal amount of time to
train, many off-site technical rescue teams do nothing but train for
and run fire and rescue calls.'' However, another commenter (Ex. 161-
40) stated that on-site employees, properly trained and equipped, would
perform better than off-site rescue services, because on-site personnel
would be familiar with the facility and closer to the spaces being
entered.
In addition, the USWA (Ex. 161-38) commented as follows:
In our June 22, 1993 letter, the USWA expressed concern that the
provisions of the standard (primarily paragraph (k)(2)) allowing
off-site rescue services were vague and ineffective. In subsequent
discussions with OSHA and the DOL solicitors, we argued that only an
on-site rescue service could respond in time to save the life of an
[[Page 39283]]
entrant overcome by a hazardous atmosphere, trapped by an engulfing
liquid or solid, or critically injured by some other confined space
hazard. We also pointed out that the standard imposes a number of
requirements on on-site rescue services, but not on off-site
services, thus giving employers an unwarranted incentive to choose
off-site services.
Subsequent discussions with employers and professional rescue
services, along with comments submitted to this docket [S-019A] by
other parties, have caused us to modify that position. We remain
skeptical that an off-site service can respond rapidly enough in
most circumstances. We are, however, willing to admit the
possibility. In addition, the mere fact that a rescue service is
maintained on site is no guarantee that the service will reach the
scene of an emergency on time, especially in a very large plant.
Accordingly, we would support a performance-based approach to this
issue, so long as the desired performance was spelled out with
sufficient specificity, and so long as it applied to both on-site
and off-site rescue services.
A number of commenters (Exs. 161-1, 161-14, 161-20, and 161-29)
suggested that the Agency drop the proposed revisions to
Sec. 1910.146(k). For example, a commenter (Ex. 161-35) stated that the
proposed revision ``places the host employer in an unenviable position
of being held accountable for the performance of specified employee
activities over which the host employer has no control.'' In addition,
a commenter (Ex. 161-20) indicated that the rationale behind the
proposed revisions failed to take into account the application of the
requirements in existing Sec. 1910.146(k)(1) to all employers (except
some public sector employers) who send employees into permit spaces to
perform rescues. That commenter also stated as follows:
Many employers will use off-site services because they do not
have the specialized rescue training and experience of these
organizations. If a host employer is utilizing the outside rescuer
because it does not have the expertise to maintain a team in-house,
how can the host determine, let alone be held accountable as to
whether that expertise is ``functioning appropriately''? [emphasis
in original]
Other commenters (Ex. 161-26, 161-37, 161-42, 161-46) suggested that
any revision of existing Sec. 1910.146(k) be limited to providing clear
guidance regarding how to assess the relative merits of on-site and
off-site options, and set performance criteria that would apply to all
rescue services. These commenters were primarily concerned that the
Agency apply the same criteria to all rescuers, whether on-site or off-
site.
For example, several commenters (Exs. 161-23, 161-30, 161-38 and
161-45) asked that the Agency indicate clearly what constitutes
``timely'' response to a rescue summons. Some commenters. (Exs. 161-2,
161-6, 161-7 and 161-26) noted that rescuer proficiency was as
important as the response time and suggested that OSHA set performance
criteria for assessing the timeliness of response. Another commenter
(Ex. 161-38) suggested that employers be required to have rescuers
arrive within four minutes of summons where entrant has been exposed to
atmospheric or engulfment hazards, and within 10 minutes otherwise.
One commenter (Ex. 161-25) stated as follows:
Even with well trained rescue personnel on-site, extracting an
incapacitated person from a confined space while attempting to
adminster first aid is not a quick process. Therefore, the fact that
rescue capability happens to be off-site and perhaps is unfamiliar
with the site's confined spaces may have little impact on the
ultimate outcome of such an incident.
Another commenter (Ex. 161-39) recognized that a rescue service
which responds to a permit space accident within four minutes will
still need time to prepare for entry, making it ``impossible for an
outside rescue service to * * * have oxygen to the patient within four
minutes.'' However, that commenter stated ``if the rescuers can get to
the patient close to this four-minute time frame, then a rescue may
still be possible.''
Other commenters (Exs. 161-14, 161-20, 161-28 and 161-33) stated
that OSHA should not attempt to specify what constitutes ``timeliness''
because the existing standard provides sufficient guidance regarding
how to assess the adequacy of rescuer response in a specific situation.
For example, a commenter (Ex. 161-33) stated as follows:
After careful deliberation, the Agency properly rejected any
attempt to incorporate a timeliness requirement into the standard.
Rather than adopting a timeliness requirement which would be
infeasible, would encourage conduct likely to endanger rescuers, and
inevitably would be subject to inconsistent enforcement through
subjective (if not arbitrary) 20-20 hindsight, the Agency concluded
``that prevention of emergencies in permit spaces is the most
effective approach to this problem.'' 58 FR 4527/1.
The Agency recognizes that permit space hazards vary in their
capacity to kill or permanently injure employees and that what
constitutes ``timely'' rescue will vary accordingly. A commenter (Ex.
161-6) has indicated that immediate rescue is not always imperative,
because a slightly hypoxic environment may disable an entrant without
creating a risk of permanent brain damage. Another commenter (Ex. 161-
38) took issue with that comment, stating that OSHA must require rescue
within the first few minutes, because the Agency cannot assume an
environment is only slightly hypoxic.
Some atmospheric hazards can cause death or permanent injury within
four to six minutes. However, rescuers responding from outside of the
immediate area of the entry space would usually not be able to begin a
rescue in four to six minutes. Therefore, the only way rescuers could
successfully retrieve entrants under such circumstances would be to
have personnel present and prepared to initiate rescue throughout the
period of entry operations. One commenter (Ex. 161-33) has stated that
the proposed rule appears to require ``a rescue team to be standing by
immediately outside every space during every entry.'' The commenter
indicated that such a measure would be inappropriate where there was
``non-emergency entry into a permit space.''
As stated both in the NPRM and elsewhere in this notice, OSHA
intended this rulemaking simply to clarify the existing requirements of
Sec. 1910.146(k)(2). In particular, the Agency has attempted to
indicate clearly that an employer who retains an off-site rescue and
emergency service must ensure that the designated service has the
equipment, training and overall ability to respond in a timely fashion
when summoned to rescue a permit space entrant. OSHA does not thereby
intend to require that host employers ``guarantee'' the performance of
off-site services, to make compliance more burdensome for off-site
services than for on-site services, or to prevent the use of off-site
services. The Agency has consistently maintained that the purpose of
Sec. 1910.146(k) is to require that employers' provisions for rescue,
by whatever means, are adequate. The proposed amendment to
Sec. 1910.146(k)(2) (59 FR 60735) was intended solely to clarify the
original intent of that paragraph.
As amended, paragraph (k)(2) would read as follows:
(2) When an employer (host employer) arranges to have persons
other than the host employer's employees (outside rescuer) perform
permit space rescue, the host employer shall ensure that:
(i) The outside rescuer can effectively respond in a timely
manner to a rescue summons.
(ii) The outside rescuer is equipped, trained and capable of
functioning appropriately to perform permit space rescues at the
host employer's facility.
[[Page 39284]]
(iii) The outside rescuer is aware of the hazards they may
confront when called on to perform rescue at the host employer's
facility.
(iv) The outside rescuer is provided with access to all permit
spaces from which rescue may be necessary so that the outside
rescuer can develop appropriate rescue plans and practice rescue
operations.
The Agency requests testimony and further comment concerning both the
need for and the adequacy of the proposed language. Does the proposed
language adequately clarify the host employer's responsibilities in
using the services of a rescue service not comprised of his own
employees? If not, how can the proposed provisions be further improved?
Is addition guidance necessary?
Two commenters (Ex. 161-2 and 161-44) have provided examples of
programs for the proper organization, training and equipping of rescue
services. The Agency solicits input regarding the extent to which it
would be appropriate to incorporate criteria, such as that provided by
the commenters, either as regulatory text or in a non-mandatory
appendix.
Employee Participation in Testing and Monitoring
In response to a submission from the USWA (Ex. 1), the NPRM
solicited comment as to whether Sec. 1910.146 should be revised to
require that affected employees, or their designated representatives,
be permitted to observe the evaluation of confined space conditions,
including any testing or monitoring conducted under the permit space
standard. The USWA (Ex. 161-38), which requested a hearing on this
issue, expressed support for incorporation of employee participation
into the permit standard. In particular, the USWA stated that such a
provision was required under section 8(c)(3) of the OSH Act, which
provides for employee observation of monitoring performed to verity
compliance with health standards. The commenter also stated ``A worker
entering a confined space risks sudden death if the monitoring is not
done properly. Surely that worker should have the right to observe the
monitoring.''
Other commenters (Exs. 161-39 and 161-43) stated that it was
appropriate to require employee participation in monitoring and testing
because it would reassure employees that the results were accurate and
reliable. In addition, a commenter (Ex. 161-40) indicated that employee
participation in monitoring was an example of the approaches that could
be used to involve workers in the development and implementation of a
permit space program.
On the other hand, some commenters (Exs. 161-9, 161-12, 161-13,
161-25,161-30, 161-50) opposed the inclusion of a requirement for
employee observation of monitoring, stating that existing Sec. 1910.146
already addressed employee access to monitoring information and that
the suggested requirement would impose unreasonable burdens and delays.
Other commenters (Exs. 161-20, 161-26, 161-29, 161-35, 161-48) also
stated that section 8(c)(3) of the OSH Act does not require employee
participation in permit space monitoring, because Sec. 1910.146 is a
safety standard and the statute applies to the promulgation of health
standards.
In addition, some commenters (Exs. 161-15, 161-27 and 161-35)
stated that adoption of the suggested provision would intrude on labor/
management relations by mandating collaboration, while other commenters
(Exs. 161-26 and 161-49) expressed concern that such a requirement
would raise safety problems because employees would be exposed to
dangerous atmospheres. One other commenter (Ex. 161-45) stated that it
was unnecessary to mandate employee participation, but that permit
space programs should provide for the survey of a permit space at an
affected employee's request, as a means of building trust that the
employer is looking out for the well-being of the employees.
In response to the above-described comments, OSHA requests
additional input regarding the need for regulatory language addressing
employee participation in permit space monitoring.
Correction
In its notice of November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60735) OSHA made an error
in the regulatory text portion of the proposed revision of paragraph
(k)(3)(i). The preamble discussion (in the middle column of page 60738)
makes it clear that OSHA intended to amend only the first sentence of
paragraph (k)(3)(i). However, the proposed regulatory text (in the
third column of page 60739) did not include the existing paragraph
(k)(3)(i) language which provides for the use of wristlets, creating
the impression that OSHA intended to disallow the use of wristlets.
Indeed, several commenters (Exs. 161-20, 161-25, 161-26, 161-48) called
the omission to the Agency's attention and expressed support for the
retention of the sentence in the final rule. The exclusion of the
sentence regarding the use of wristlets from the proposal was
inadvertent. Therefore, the proposed revision to paragraph (k)(3)(i),
of Sec. 1910.146, beginning on the tenth line of the third column of
page 60739, is corrected to read as follows:
(i) Each authorized entrant shall use a chest or full body
harness, with a retrieval line attached at the center of the
entrant's back near shoulder level, above the entrants head or other
point which the employer can establish will ensure that the entrant
will present the smallest possible profile during removal. Wristlets
may be used in lieu of the chest or full body harness if the
employer can demonstrate that the use or full body harness is
infeasible or creates a greater hazard and that the use of wristlets
is the safest and most effective alternative.
* * * * *
Public Participation--Notice of Hearing
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the act, an opportunity to submit oral
testimony concerning the proposed revisions and issues raised will be
provided at an informal public hearing scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on
September 27, 1995 in the auditorium of the Francis Perkins Building,
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. The hearing will
be extended to subsequent days as necessary.
Notice of Intention To Appear
All persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file, in
quadruplicate, a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before
September 13, 1995. The notice must be addressed to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA
Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket S-019A, room N3647, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210, telephone (202) 219-8615. The notice of intention to appear may
also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5986, provided the
original and 3 copies of the notice subsequently are sent to Mr. Hall.
The notices of intention to appear, which will be available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center Docket Office,
room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210,
telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of each person wishing
to appear;
(2) The capacity in which the person will appear;
(3) The approximate amount of time requested for the presentation;
(4) The specific issues that will be addressed;
(5) A statement of the position that will be taken with respect to
each issue addressed, and;
[[Page 39285]]
(6) Whether the party expects to submit documentary evidence, and,
if so, a brief summary of that evidence.
Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing
Any party requesting more than 10 minutes for a presentation at the
hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide, in
quadruplicate, the complete text of the testimony, including any
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing, to the OSHA
Division of Consumer Affairs. This material must be postmarked on or
before September 13, 1995. These materials will be available for
inspection and copying at the Technical Data Center Docket Office. The
amount of time requested in each submission will be reviewed. In those
instances where the information contained in the submission does not
justify the amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time
will be allocated and the participant will be provided appropriate
notice.
Any party who has not substantially complied with the requirements
for requesting more than 10 minutes of presentation time will be
limited to a 10 minute presentation. Any party who has not filed a
notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify, as time
permits, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.
The hearing will be open to the public, and any interested person
is welcome to attend. However, only persons who have filed proper
notice of intention to appear will be permitted to ask questions and
otherwise participate fully in the proceeding.
Any participant who requires audiovisual equipment for their oral
testimony must submit a request for such equipment in their notice of
intent to appear, specifying the type of equipment needed.
Conduct and Nature of Hearing
The hearing will commence at 9 a.m. on September 27, 1995 in
Washington, D.C. Any procedural matters relating to the hearing will be
resolved immediately after commencement. The informal nature of the
rulemaking hearing to be held is established in the legislative history
of section 6 of the Act and is reflected in the OSHA hearing
regulations (see 29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although the presiding officer is
an Administrative Law Judge and questioning by interested parties is
allowed on the issues, it is clear that the hearing shall remain
informal and legislative in type. The intent, in essence, is to provide
an opportunity for effective oral presentation by interested parties
which can be carried out expeditiously and in the absence of rigid
procedures which might unduly impede or protract the rulemaking
process.
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911.
The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge who
will have all the necessary and appropriate authority to conduct a full
and fair informal hearing as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including the
powers to:
(1) Regulate the course of the proceedings;
(2) Dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable
matters;
(3) Confine the presentation to the matters pertinent to the issues
raised;
(4) Regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by
appropriate means;
(5) In the Judge's discretion, question and permit the questioning
of any witness and to limit the time for questioning, and;
(6) In the Judge's discretion, keep the record open for a
reasonable, stated time to receive written information and additional
data, views and arguments from any person who participated in the oral
proceedings.
Following the close of the hearing, the presiding Administrative
Law Judge will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health. The Administrative Law Judge does
not make or recommend any decisions as to the content of the final
standard.
The proposed revisions and issues raised will be reviewed in light
of all testimony and written submissions received as part of the
record. Decisions made by OSHA concerning the proposed revisions and
issues will be based on the entire record of the proceeding, including
the written comments and data received from the public.
Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments with respect to the issues raised in this notice. These
comments must be postmarked on or before September 13, 1995, and
submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-019A,
room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-7894. Comments limited to
10 pages or less also may be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-
5046, provided the original and three copies are sent to the Docket
Office thereafter. Written submissions must clearly identify the issue
addressed and the position taken with respect to each issue.
The data, views and arguments that are submitted will be available
for public inspection and copying at the above address.
All timely written submissions will be made a part of the record
for this proceeding.
Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210.
It is issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90
(55 FR 9033) and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of July, 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-18920 Filed 8-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M