[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52856-52859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25067]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H-004 E, F, G, H, I, and J]


Occupational Exposure to Lead

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Amendments to final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document embodies a determination by OSHA that it is 
economically feasible for the brass and bronze ingot manufacturing 
industry as a whole to achieve an air lead limit of 75 g/m\3\ 
within six years by means of engineering and work practice controls. It 
amends Table I of paragraph (e)(1), the compliance Implementation 
Schedule, of the final rule on occupational exposure to lead, 29 CFR 
1910.1025, to reflect that determination. This document also amends 
that Table based 

[[Page 52857]]
on the lifting of a judicial stay on March 8, 1990 and July 19, 1991, 
for other, specific industries. The stay had been in effect with 
respect to compliance requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of the 
lead standard. Accordingly, lead industries affected by the lifting of 
the stay must implement engineering and work practice controls in 
accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of the lead standard by the date 
specified for the particular industry in Table I of paragraph (e)(1), 
as amended.
    In addition, this document makes technical changes and corrections 
to the standard, amending portions of the standard that are unclear, 
obsolete or inconsistent with current compliance requirements. It also 
amends certain information in the Appendices to 29 CFR 1910.1025 that 
may have been misleading.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 1995. The compliance dates for industries 
identified herein are set forth in Table I of paragraph (e)(1), below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anne Cyr, Acting Director of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20010, telephone: (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 14, 1978, OSHA promulgated the lead standard (29 CFR 
1910.1025), which established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 
g/m\3\ based on an 8-hour time-weighted-average (TWA) (43 FR 
52952; and see 43 FR 54354, November 21, 1978). Paragraph (e)(1) of the 
standard requires that, to the extent feasible, employers achieve the 
PEL of 50 g/m\3\ solely by means of engineering and work 
practice controls.
    The standard was challenged by both industry and labor, with all 
cases transferred to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. In United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F. 2d 1189 
(D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981), the Court affirmed 
most aspects of the regulation covering worker exposure to airborne 
lead. The Court also upheld OSHA's findings of feasibility for ten 
industries: primary lead production, secondary lead production, can 
manufacturing, lead acid battery manufacturing, paints and coatings 
manufacturing, ink manufacturing, wallpaper manufacturing, electronics, 
printing, and grey-iron foundries. However, the Court further found 
that OSHA had failed to present adequate evidence of feasibility for 38 
lead industries.
    The Court remanded the record to OSHA for reconsideration of the 
technological and economic feasibility of paragraph (e)(1) and stayed 
enforcement of paragraph (e)(1) for those industries. Nonetheless, the 
Court held that the 38 industries were required to meet the PEL by a 
combination of engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory 
protection. Accordingly, the entire lead standard was in effect with 
two exceptions: (1) the requirement for the 38 remand industries that 
the PEL be achieved by engineering and work practice controls; and (2) 
the requirement that high efficiency filters be used in respirators, 
which had been stayed administratively by OSHA in 1979 (44 FR 5445).
    In December 1981, OSHA published (46 FR 60758) and filed with the 
Court its statement of reasons that compliance with paragraph (e)(1) is 
feasible for all but nine of the remand industries, which, after 
recategorizing and adding other industries to the list, totaled 45 
industries. The nine industries were: brass and bronze ingot 
manufacturing/production; collection and processing of scrap (including 
independent battery breaking); lead chemicals; lead chromate pigments; 
leaded steel; nonferrous foundries; secondary copper smelting; 
shipbuilding and ship repairing; and stevedoring. OSHA requested that 
the record for these nine be remanded again to the Agency for further 
consideration of economic and technological feasibility. In March 1987, 
the Court remanded the record to OSHA for these industries.
    On July 11, 1989, after public hearings, OSHA published its 
determination that compliance with paragraph (e)(1) was both 
technologically and economically feasible for eight of the nine 
industries (54 FR 29142). For the ninth industry, nonferrous foundries, 
OSHA distinguished between large foundries (those with 20 or more 
employees) and small foundries (those with fewer than 20 employees). 
OSHA concluded that paragraph (e)(1) was feasible for large nonferrous 
foundries but was not economically feasible for small nonferrous 
foundries. On January 30, 1990, OSHA published its determination that 
achieving an airborne lead concentration of 75 g/m\3\ was 
economically feasible for small foundries (55 FR 3146).
    On March 8, 1990, in response to OSHA's statement of reasons 
regarding the feasibility of paragraph (e)(1), the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit lifted the judicial stay for all remand 
industries except the six that contested OSHA's feasibility findings. 
The 39 industries for which the stay was lifted are: agricultural 
pesticides; aluminum smelting; ammunition manufacturing; artificial 
pearl processing; book binding; brick manufacturing; cable coating; 
cutlery; diamond processing; electroplating; explosives manufacturing; 
gasoline additive manufacturing; glass manufacturing; jewelry 
manufacturing; lamp manufacturing; lead burning; lead chromate 
pigments; leather manufacturing; machining; miscellaneous lead 
products; nickel smelting; pipe galvanizing; plastics and rubber 
manufacturing; plumbing; pottery and ceramics; primary and secondary 
smelting of gold, silver, and platinum; primary copper smelting; sheet 
metal manufacturing; shipbuilding and ship repair; solder 
manufacturing; soldering; spray painting; steel manufacturing 
(excluding leaded steel manufacturing); stevedoring; terne metal; 
textiles; telecommunications; tin rolling and plating; and zinc 
smelting. These industries were given two and one-half years (46 FR 
60758, Dec. 11, 1981), from the date the stay was lifted, until 
September 8, 1992, to comply with the PEL by means of engineering and 
work practice controls.
    The stay was continued for the six industries that asserted 
challenges to OSHA's feasibility findings. These industries are: 
nonferrous foundries; secondary copper smelting; brass and bronze ingot 
manufacturing; collection and processing of scrap (including 
independent battery breaking); leaded steel manufacturing; and lead 
chemicals manufacturing. On July 19, 1991, in AISI v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 
975 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the Court affirmed OSHA's findings of 
technological and economic feasibility for all industries except the 
finding of economic feasibility for brass and bronze ingot 
manufacturing. Accordingly, the Court lifted the judicial stay for the 
other five industries.
    Secondary copper smelters, lead chemical manufacturing, and large 
nonferrous foundries were allowed five years from July 19, 1991, the 
date of the Court's decision, to implement engineering and work 
practice controls to achieve the PEL of 50 ug/m3. Small nonferrous 
foundries were allowed five years from that date to achieve an airborne 
lead concentration of 75 ug/m3.
    As to the sixth industry, brass and bronze ingot manufacturing, the 
stay remained in effect. The Court upheld OSHA's finding of 
technological 

[[Page 52858]]
feasibility for that industry but remanded the record to OSHA for 
further consideration of economic feasibility. For all other lead 
industries the requirement to comply with paragraph (e)(1) is currently 
in effect.
    In response to the remand, OSHA has reconsidered the record and has 
concluded that an airborne lead concentration of 75 ug/m3, measured as 
an 8-hour TWA, is the lowest, economically feasible level that can be 
achieved by the brass and bronze ingot manufacturing industry as a 
whole by engineering and work practice controls. Employers in the 
industry are required, therefore, to reduce airborne concentrations of 
lead to that level. The industry will have six years from the date the 
court lifts the existing stay to do so.
    OSHA reached this conclusion based upon the evidence in the record 
as discussed and analyzed at 57 FR 29150-29162 (July 11, 1989). In 
particular, OSHA relied upon reliable data from OSHA's contractor JACA, 
showing that nearly three-quarters of all employees in ingot production 
were already exposed below 50 ug/m3 years ago. Data from recent OSHA 
inspections are similar. These data show that most employees are 
exposed below 50 ug/m3 and that 90% are exposed below 100 ug/m3. Taken 
together, these data suggest that only very limited costs will be 
incurred in reducing exposure levels in most operations, most of the 
time to lead in air concentrations at or below 75 ug/m3.
    OSHA is assured of the economic feasibility of 75 ug/m3 for three 
additional reasons. First, OSHA recognizes that in the two most 
difficult operations to control to 75 ug/m3 by engineering and work 
practice controls, briquetting and baghouse maintenance, achieving that 
airborne concentration limit probably is not economically feasible for 
the industry as a whole. OSHA therefore is not seeking to prove 
economic feasibility for, or to impose the presumption of economic 
feasibility on, those operations. Second, in recognition of the 
economic constraints on the industry, OSHA is allowing employers six 
years from the date the court lifts the stay on paragraph (e) of the 
lead standard before employers have to come into compliance with the 
airborne concentration limit of 75 ug/m3. Employers, thus, can spread 
the costs of compliance over that time period. And finally, although 
OSHA did not rely upon it in determining economic feasibility, the fact 
that industry representatives recognize that 75 ug/m3 is economically 
feasible is strong confirmation of the accuracy of that determination.
    This recognition by the industry is reflected in the settlement 
agreement signed on June 27, 1995 by OSHA and the Institute of Scrap 
Recycling Industries (``ISRI'') and the Brass and Bronze Ingot 
Manufacturers, Inc. (``BBIM''), representing the brass and bronze ingot 
manufacturing industry. OSHA will incorporate the detailed terms of 
that agreement into a compliance directive applicable to the industry.
    The new compliance dates that result from the stay being lifted, 
OSHA's determination of economic feasibility, and the settlement 
agreement are reflected in the Implementation Schedule (Table I) of 
paragraph (e)(1) of the standard, as amended.

Explanation of Technical Amendments and Corrections

    1. Paragraph (e). Methods of compliance--(1) Engineering and work 
practice controls. The Implementation Schedule (Table I) of paragraph 
(e)(1) is being revised to reflect the current status of compliance 
dates for the engineering and work practice requirements for the lead 
industries as a result of the lifting of the stay on enforcement of 
paragraph (e)(1) for all of the remaining remand lead industries except 
brass and bronze ingot manufacturers. The revision of Table I also 
reflects OSHA's determination regarding economic feasibility for that 
industry and the settlement agreement between representatives of OSHA 
and the industry. In addition, reference to interim levels, which are 
now obsolete, is deleted.
    2. Paragraph (e)(4). Bypass of interim level. Paragraph (e) (4) is 
deleted from 29 CFR 1910.1025 as the interim levels established in this 
paragraph at the time of promulgation of the lead standard are no 
longer relevant. To avoid confusion for readers and to maintain 
continuity of the regulatory text, paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5), respectively.
    3. Paragraph (f)--Respiratory protection. Paragraph (f)(1)(i) is 
revised to delete the entire clause beginning with the word ``except,'' 
which is based on interim levels that are no longer relevant.
    4. Paragraph (j). Medical Surveillance.--Paragraph (j)(2)(ii) is 
revised to clarify that the requirement for follow-up blood sampling 
tests applies only to the 60 ug/100 g removal trigger and does not 
apply to the 50 ug/100 g trigger, which already involves an average 
rather than a single result to be confirmed.
    5. Paragraph (k). Medical removal protection--(1) Temporary medical 
removal and return of an employee--(i) Temporary removal due to 
elevated blood lead levels. Paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(A) and (B) are deleted 
in their entirety as they reference a phase-in schedule for medical 
removal protection that is no longer relevant. Paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(C) 
and (D) are revised to maintain consistency with current requirements 
and are redesignated as paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(A) and (B), respectively, 
to maintain continuity of the regulatory text.
    Paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) and (2) are deleted since they 
reference interim levels that no longer apply, and paragraphs 
(k)(1)(iii)(A)(3) and (4) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) and (2), respectively, to maintain continuity of the 
regulatory text.
    6. This document also corrects several inadvertent errors and 
updates information in Appendix B and revises certain language in 
Appendix C which might otherwise be misleading.
    With the exception of the amendments to Table I and the 
determination of economic feasibility for the brass and bronze ingot 
manufacturing industry, which were the subject of additional fact 
finding and a settlement agreement, the amendments and corrections 
described above are minor and not controversial. OSHA does not believe 
that there is a need to subject these technical amendments and 
corrections in which the public is not particularly interested to 
rulemaking or other public procedures (see 29 CFR 1911.5). Good cause 
is hereby found to dispense with such procedures in this instance. For 
the same reason, good cause is also found to make these changes 
effective immediately.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
    This action is taken pursuant to sections 6(b) and 8(c) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1593, 1597, 1599, 
29 U.S.C 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 
9033) and 29 CFR part 1911 and 33 U.S.C 941. Part 1910, Title 29, Code 
of Federal Regulations, is hereby amended as set forth below.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Lead, Occupational Safety and Health.


[[Page 52859]]

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of October, 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby 
amended as set forth below:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Subpart Z of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 6, 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 
U.S.C. 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-
76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.

    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, except those substances which have exposure 
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The 
latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1000, Table Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 not issued 
under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds), 
benzene, and cotton dust listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under Sec. 107 of Contract Work 
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333 and 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR Part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 
653.
    Section 1910.1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653 and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1028 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    Sections 1910.1045 and 1910.1047 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 
653.
    Section 1910.1048 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Sections 1910.1200, 1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1450 is also issued under secs. 6(b), 8(c) and 
8(g)(2), Pub. L. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1593, 1955, 1600; 29 U.S.C. 655, 
657.

    2. Section 1910.1025 is amended by revising Table I in paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii), and paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (k)(1)(i);
    3. By removing paragraph (e)(4) and redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) 
and (6) as paragraphs (e)(4) and (5);
    4. By removing paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and redesignating 
paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(C) and (D) as (k)(1)(i)(A) and (B); and
    5. By removing paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) and (2), and 
redesignating paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A)(3) and (4) as paragraphs 
(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) and (2).


Sec. 1910.1025  Lead.

* * * * *
    (e) Methods of compliance--(1) Engineering and work practice 
controls. (ii) * * *

                                 Table I                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Compliance dates:1 (50 g/m\3\)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead chemicals, secondary copper smelting  July 19, 1996.               
Nonferrous foundries.....................  July 19, 1996.\2\            
Brass and bronze ingot manufacture.......  6 years.\3\                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Calculated by counting from the date the stay on implementation of   
  paragraph (e)(1) was lifted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the      
  District of Columbia, the number of years specified in the 1978 lead  
  standard and subsequent amendments for compliance with the PEL of 50  
  g/m\3\ for exposure to airborne concentrations of lead levels
  for the particular industry.                                          
\2\Large nonferrous foundries (20 or more employees) are required to    
  achieve the PEL of 50 g/m\3\ by means of engineering and work
  practice controls. Small nonferrous foundries (fewer than 20          
  employees) are required to achieve an 8-hour TWA of 75 g/m\3\
  by such controls.                                                     
\3\Expressed as the number of years from the date on which the Court    
  lifts the stay on the implementation of paragraph (e)(1) for this     
  industry for employers to achieve a lead in air concentration of 75   
  g/m\3\. Compliance with paragraph (e) in this industry is    
  determined by a compliance directive that incorporates elements from  
  the settlement agreement between OSHA and representatives of the      
  industry.                                                             

* * * * *
    (f) Respiratory protection.
    (1) * * *
    (i) During the time period necessary to install and implement 
engineering or work practice controls.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a 
blood lead level test indicate that an employee's blood lead level 
exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(A) of this section, the employer shall provide a second 
(follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer 
receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Temporary removal due to elevated blood lead levels. (A) The 
employer shall remove an employee from work having an exposure to lead 
at or above the action level on each occasion that a periodic and a 
follow-up blood sampling test conducted pursuant to this section 
indicate that the employee's blood lead level is at or above 60 
g/100 g of whole blood; and
    (B) The employer shall remove an employee from work having an 
exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion that the 
average of the last three blood sampling tests conducted pursuant to 
this section (or the average of all blood sampling tests conducted over 
the previous six (6) months, whichever is longer) indicates that the 
employee's blood lead level is at or above 50 g/100 g of whole 
blood; provided, however, that an employee need not be removed if the 
last blood sampling test indicates a blood lead level at or below 40 
g/100 g of whole blood.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 1910.1025, Appendix B is amended as follows:
    Section XV, For Additional Information, Part A, and item 9 are 
revised and new items 10 through 14 are added to read as follows:
* * * * *
    XV. * * *
    A. Copies of the Standard and explanatory material may be 
obtained by writing or calling the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. 
Department of Labor, room N2634, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-7894.
* * * * *
    9. Revision to the standard and an additional appendix (Appendix 
D), Federal Register, Vol. 47, pp. 51117-51119, November 12, 1982.
    10. Notice of reopening of lead rulemaking for nine remand 
industry sectors, Federal Register, vol. 53, pp. 11511-11513, April 
7, 1988.
    11. Statement of reasons, Federal Register, vol. 54, pp. 29142-
29275, July 11, 1989.
    12. Statement of reasons, Federal Register, vol. 55, pp. 3146-
3167, January 30, 1990.
    13. Correction to appendix B, Federal Register, vol. 55, pp. 
4998-4999, February 13, 1991.
    14. Correction to appendices, Federal Register, vol. 56, p. 
24686, May 31, 1991.
* * * * *
    7. Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1025, Section I. Medical Surveillance 
and Monitoring Requirements for Workers Exposed to Inorganic Lead, is 
amended as follows:

    a. In the last sentence of the second paragraph, the words ``A 
zinc protoporphyrin (ZPP) measurement is strongly recommended . . 
.'' are revised to read ``A zinc protoporphyrin (ZPP) is required . 
. .''
    b. In Table 2, item B, the words ``(ZPP is also strongly 
recommended . . .'' are revised to read ``(ZPP is also required . . 
.''
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-25067 Filed 10-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P