[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 202 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54047-54051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25954]



 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 54047]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H-117-B]


Grain Handling Facilities

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA's standard for grain handling facilities applies to 
employees entering bins, silos, or tanks. At present, it does not apply 
to employees entering ``flat storage buildings or tanks'' unless entry 
is made from the top of the structure. It was entended to provide 
protection from the hazards faced by employees who walk on or 
underneath accumulations of grain within a grain storage facility. 
These hazards include engulfment and entrapment in the grain and grain 
handling equipment, which can result in asphyxiations crushing 
injuries, and amputations. OSHA intended the exception for flat storage 
buildings or tanks only to apply to entries that did not expose 
employees to these hazards; the point of entry into the storage area is 
not the critical factor in determining whether the entering employee is 
exposed to the hazards addressed in the standard. In this notice, OSHA 
is proposing to revise the exception for flat storage buildings or 
tanks and to add a new provision that applies to entry into flat 
storage facilities which do not have atmospheric hazards. The new 
provision would provide employees entering flat storage facilities with 
protection against entrapment, engulfment, and mechanical hazards, 
regardless of their point of entry. A definition for ``flat storage 
facility'' would be added to indicate more clearly the important 
elements which distinguish flat storage facilities from other grain 
storage structures.
    In addition, for the same reasons, OSHA proposes to amend the 
provision which requires specific rescue equipment for entries from the 
tops of bins, silos or tanks. The proposal would clarify this 
requirement to include all entries from above the level of the grain, 
or wherever employees walk or stand on stored grain which poses an 
engulfment hazard.

DATES: Comments and requests for hearings must be postmarked no later 
than November 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for hearings must be submitted in 
quadruplicate to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-117-B, Room N-
2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20210. (Telephone: 202-219-7894) Comments of 10 pages or 
less may be faxed to the Docket Office, if followed by hard copy mailed 
within two days. The OSHA Docket Office fax number is (202) 219-5046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Anne Cyr, OSHA Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-
3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA's standard for grain handling 
facilities, 29 CFR 1910.272, was published on December 31, 1987 (52 FR 
49625), after a lengthy and extensive rulemaking effort. These 
standards were challenged in the Fifth Circuitry Court of Appeals, and 
were upheld in pertinent part by that court in National Grain and Feed 
Association v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989).

Entries Into Flat Storage Facilities

    Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.272 covers employee entry into grain 
bins, silos or tanks. It provides protection against the wide range of 
hazards that employees may encounter during such entries. These hazards 
include engulfment by grain, entrapment in draw-offs and mechanical 
equipment used to move the grain, and asphyxiation from oxygen-
deficient atmospheres, among others.
    The requirements of paragraph (g) apply, in general, to all bin, 
silo and tank entries. However, an exception is provided in paragraph 
(g) for entries into so-called ``flat storage buildings or tanks where 
the diameter of such structures is greater than the height.'' Entries 
into these structures are currently covered by paragraph (g) only when 
such entries are made from the top of the structure. Entries from other 
parts of the structure are excepted from coverage under paragraph (g).
    In the preamble to the final rule (at 52 FR 49604-49605), OSHA 
explained its intentions as to the scope of the exception for flat 
storage:

    Many bins connected with grain facilities, e.g., flat storage 
and large diameter steel or concrete bins with ground level entry, 
present no entry hazards * * * Bin[s], silo[s] and tanks should be 
more clearly defined so as to exclude flat storage buildings with no 
bottom draw-off. The dangers represented in this section do not 
exist in conventional flat storage buildings which usually have 
large doorways and are at ground level * * *
    OSHA agrees that those large diameter tanks and flat storage 
buildings which are not entered from the top do not pose the same 
hazards as taller, cylindrical structures where ingress and egress 
are difficult, and where the quality of the atmosphere within such 
structures may be uncertain.

    The final rule assumed that hazards from entry into flat storage 
structures only arise when the entry is made from the top, because 
employees who enter in that manner would do so in order to stand or 
walk on the stored grain. The text of the standard did not directly 
address situations in which the very same hazards would be encountered 
during entries from lower levels.\1\

    \1\ It should be noted that Appendix A to Sec. 1910.272 
discusses the hazards faced by an employee who stands or walks on 
stored grain, without regard to the method or point of entry into 
the grain storage area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the seven years since the grain handling standard was issued, 
OSHA has learned that many entries take place from such levels lower 
than the top of the structure, in facilities whose dimensions (i.e., 
diameter greater than height) could be misconstrued to bring them 
within the definition of ``flat storage structures or tanks.'' At 
present, if such entries are made at points below the top of a 
qualifying flat storage structure or tank, they would be excepted from 
paragraph (g)'s requirements. However, it is clear to OSHA (and should 
be clear to employers) that employees making these entries are exposed 
to the same hazards of entry as if they were entering from the top.
    Data collected by OSHA since the effective date of the grain 
handling 

[[Page 54048]]
standard clearly indicate that engulfment and mechanical injuries and 
fatalities continue to occur in these types of entries. One tragic 
example occurred on October 22, 1993, when 19-year-old employee and two 
other workers were instructed to enter a corn storage structure in 
order to ``walk down'' the corn. The structure's diameter was greater 
than its height if measured to the eaves, although the diameter was 
less than the height if measured to the peak of the roof. The workers 
entered the facility not at the top of the structure, but through an 
opening several feet above the ground.
    The three men walked down the corn for 30-45 minutes while an auger 
at the base of the structure was running. At that point, the 19-year-
old employee sank into the corn up to his knees. The two other workers 
began trying to pull him out, but he kept sinking as the corn began to 
avalanche, covering him and pushing him in the direction of the auger. 
One co-worker left to shut off the auger while the other continued to 
try to pull him from the corn. Rescue efforts were unsuccessful, and he 
suffocated. No rescue equipment, observers, lock-out procedures, or 
other precautions had been taken to protect the workers during the 
entry.
    The present structure of paragraph (g) would benefit from further 
clarification to assure that these and other employees have the 
protection that this standard was intended to provide during entry. 
Accordingly, OSHA has determined that there is a compelling need to 
amend the standard to be in accord with its original intent: to provide 
appropriate protection to all grain handling employees, including those 
who walk on or under stored grain in flat storage facilities.
    When the grain handling standard was promulgated, OSHA intended 
that the exception to paragraph (g) be a narrow one, provided relief 
only for situations where the hazards of entry were not significant. 
Since that time, the Agency has learned that the exception has been 
misinterpreted in a manner broader than its original intent. There are 
two basic problems with the exception to paragraph (g): First, as noted 
above, entries into flat storage-type structures can be hazardous even 
if they are not executed from the top of the structure; and, second, 
the current regulatory text places the emphasis on type and dimensions 
of the storage facility rather than on the hazards posed to the 
employee making the entry. OSHA believes that it is necessary to 
clarify the original intent more explicitly by making three amendments 
to Sec. 1910.272: first, by revising the exception to paragraph (g) for 
flat storage to emphasize the hazards being addressed by the standard; 
second, by providing appropriate coverage for entries into flat storage 
facilities, in a new paragraph (h); and third, by adding a definition 
of ``flat storage facility'' to clarify OSHA's intentions as to the 
types of facilities which are to be covered in most cases by paragraph 
(h) instead of paragraph (g). The new paragraph (h) would assure that 
the standard provides protection for employees who are exposed to the 
hazards of entry into flat storage, regardless of where they enter the 
facility. Unlike the coverage in paragraph (g), however, paragraph (h) 
would be directed at engulfment and equipment hazards exclusively, 
rather than the broader range of confined space hazards addressed by 
paragraph (g).\2\

    \2\ At present, entries from the top of flat storage facilities 
are covered by paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) addresses a wide range 
of hazards which are unique to confined spaces, including not only 
engulfment and equipment hazards, but also such hazards as toxic, 
flammable and explosive atmospheres. By contrast, wide-open, 
warehouse-type flat storage operations, which do not have restricted 
access and egress, would not normally be expected to generate or 
expose employees to the panoply of potential hazards that entries 
into silos and other confined spaces do. Thus, it is not necessary 
to apply all of the requirements of paragraph (g) to flat storage 
entries if atmospheric hazards are not present; instead, only the 
provisions which address engulfment and equipment hazards need to be 
added. New paragraph (h) would provide this coverage for all such 
flat storage entries, regardless of the point of entry. The proposed 
amendment and definition would bring the regulatory text into line 
with the OSHA's original intent in providing the current exception 
to paragraph (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (h) would only apply to flat storage facilities where 
there are none of the atmospheric hazards that might otherwise be 
encountered in the confined spaces of a grain storage facility. 
Facilities which are truly ``flat storage'' are warehouse-type storage 
structures, having doorways at ground level through which motorized 
vehicles such as front-end loaders and trucks can drive to move grain 
in and out of the structure. Because of their basic configuration, 
openness, and access to the outside, these facilities would not 
generally be expected to have restricted ventilation, confinement, or 
toxic or flammable materials that might be expected to produce 
atmospheric hazards for employees entering the structure. For these 
facilities, the employer should have no difficulty establishing that 
atmospheric hazards are not present, and that engulfment, entrapment, 
and mechanical equipment are the only entry hazards that need to be 
addressed. Proposed paragraph (h) is designed to handle these 
circumstances. By contrast, the proposed revision to the paragraph (g) 
exception makes clear that if atmospheric hazards are present, it is 
paragraph (g), and not paragraph (h), that applies to entries into the 
grain storage structure, regardless of the type of structure being 
entered.
    The grain standard's present coverage of engulfment hazards is not 
sufficiently protective. Whereas entries (other than from the top) into 
flat storage structures are exempted from the confined spaces 
provisions of the standard, the standard does not provide alternative 
coverage for those entries. For example, an employee may enter a flat 
storage structure from a side or bottom entrance. If that employee 
walks on the grain, nothing in the current standard protects the 
employee from the hazards associated with that activity. If mechanical 
equipment, such as an auger, is used to draw off grain from the bottom, 
the employee is exposed to that equipment; if the surface of the grain 
were to collapse under the employee, the employee could be engulfed and 
asphyxiated; and if there were bridged grain above the employee, it 
could collapse upon the employee and cause asphyxiation. It is clear 
that the standard needs to be amended to provide protection from these 
hazards.
    Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the exception currently in 
paragraph (g), and to add a new paragraph (h) which addresses the 
requirements to be followed for all entries into flat storage 
structures where the employee may be exposed only to engulfment or 
mechanical equipment hazards.
    In the amended standard, paragraph (g) would be revised to cover 
all grain storage structures; the current exception to paragraph (a) 
would be revised to except those flat storage facilities which only 
have engulfment, entrapment or mechanical hazards. As noted above, 
entries into these types of flat storage facilities would be covered by 
paragraph (h) instead. This change will assure that between paragraphs 
(g) and (h), all entrants who are exposed to engulfment, entrapment, or 
mechanical hazards will be protected, regardless of the type or 
structure of the facility being entered, and regardless of the point of 
entry.
    A new definition of ``flat storage facility'' would be added to 
paragraph (c) of the standard, in order to indicate more clearly what 
types of grain storage structures would qualify for coverage by 
paragraph (h). In brief, a ``flat storage facility'' is, for all 
intents and purposes, a grain ``warehouse.'' The structure has doorways 
at ground level, through which motorized grain handling vehicles can be 
driven. Operators of these vehicles drive through the doorways to move 
grain into and out of the facility. A structure meeting the 

[[Page 54049]]
definition of flat storage facility, qualifies for coverage under 
paragraph (h) if the only entry hazards are engulfment, entrapment, or 
mechanical; if there are atmospheric hazards present, the limited 
provisions of paragraph (h) will not be sufficient to provide entering 
employees with protection, and paragraph (g) applies.
    The purpose of these revisions is to provide protection against 
engulfment by any employee who enters a grain storage facility and 
walks or stands on stored grain, regardless of the type of structure 
being entered. The revised standard would also prohibit the employer 
from exposing an employee to bridging conditions, whether or not the 
employee is walking or standing on the stored grain. In addition, the 
standard would require that the employer disconnect, lock and tag out, 
block off, or use another equally effective method to prevent operation 
of all equipment which presents a danger to employees, such as an auger 
or other mechanical equipment used to draw off grain. Similar 
requirements currently apply to entries into bins, silos or tanks under 
paragraph (g), and they would be extended to all grain storage entries 
under amended paragraph (g) and new paragraph (h).
    Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) is the corresponding requirement to proposed 
paragraph (h)(2), relating to the deactivation of equipment. In 
conjunction with the requirement in proposed paragraph (h)(2), OSHA is 
also proposing to revise the text of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to specify 
the need for deenergization, which is a necessary step in the 
procedures used to prevent the equipment from operating. This revision 
would provide additional consistency and clarify to the two provisions.
    Most flat storage facilities are entered by walking in through a 
door at ground level, and grain is loaded and unloaded by conveyors, 
trucks and other vehicles, and other equipment. Entry into flat storage 
may present engulfment and mechanical hazards; however, the entrant 
would not normally be exposed to the unique hazards presented by entry 
into confined spaces. Therefore, where such hazards do not exist, the 
detailed permit and control requirements in paragraph (g) are not 
necessary or appropriate for flat storage entries. Entrants into flat 
storage facilities need to be protected from engulfment and equipment 
hazards, and the revised standard would provide the necessary 
protection.
    Paragraph (h) would contain three requirements for flat storage: 
first, an employee walking or standing on grain would need to be 
equipped with a body harness and lifeline which will prevent the 
employee from sinking more than waist-deep into the grain. This 
provision would apply to any entry, from any point of entry, in which 
the employee walks on the grain. Second, any equipment which could 
endanger an entrant must be deenergized and prevented from operating 
during and for the duration of the entry. This provision would usually 
be directed at equipment located within the storage area; however, it 
would also address the engulfment hazard faced by an employee who is in 
the storage area when grain is being loaded into the area. The standard 
would not allow the equipment to expose the employee to this hazard. 
Third, no employee is to be exposed to a bridging condition or other 
buildup of grain which could fall on and engulf the employee.
    As noted above, the revised language would not provide a blanket 
exception for entries into a grain handling structure based solely on 
its dimensions or points of entry. Where employees in any type of grain 
storage structure walk or stand on or under accumulations of grain or 
grain products which could engulf them, asphyxiate them, or entrap them 
in draw-off or mechanical equipment, the standard's protective 
requirements would apply.
    In developing the final rule in 1987, OSHA determined that 
employees who enter grain storage bins, tanks, and other structures and 
who walk or stand on or under the stored grain are exposed to 
significant risks from a wide range of hazards. These hazards, 
particularly those of engulfment, asphyxiation, and entrapment, are not 
dependent on how or where the employee enters the structure. Rather, 
they relate directly to the employee's placement on top of and in the 
stored grain, regardless of how the employee reached that position. The 
significant risk being addressed by this proposed technical amendment 
(i.e., involving employees who enter flat storage structures from areas 
other than the top of the structure) is the residual risk that OSHA 
previously believed was adequately addressed in the final rule. Indeed, 
as noted earlier, as long as the employee's entry places that employee 
on top of or in the stored grain, the exact point of entry into the 
grain storage structure has no bearing on the hazards addressed by this 
part of the standard.

Rescue Equipment for Entries Into Grain Storage Facilities

    Paragraph (g)(2) of Sec. 1910.272 currently requires that specific 
types of rescue equipment be provided whenever entry is made from the 
``top'' of a bin, silo, or other grain storage structure. As noted 
earlier, the hazards of entry onto the grain do not relate to the 
specific point of entry into the storage area; rather, they arise any 
time the entrant must walk on the grain, regardless of whether the 
entry was from the top, or from the side, or at or above the level of 
the grain. Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend paragraph (g)(2) to 
cover all such entries. OSHA notes that there is currently a provision 
in paragraph (g)(4) which requires that rescue equipment be provided 
for entries other than from the top; however, this requirement is less 
specific than paragraph (g)(2). For example, paragraph (g)(4) requires 
selection of rescue equipment to suit the particular situation. 
Clearly, when applied to entries from above or at grain level but not 
from the top, paragraph (g)(4) would usually require the use of the 
same types of rescue equipment as are mandated for top entries by 
paragraph (g)(2). However, the performance language of paragraph (g)(4) 
may have left the issue open to question in some situations, and OSHA 
wishes to eliminate any doubts about what rescue equipment is necessary 
for all entries from levels at or above the level of the grain. For 
reasons discussed above, OSHA believes that the protections of the 
standard should be the same for all entries at or above the level of 
the grain, and should not depend on whether the entry is from the top 
of the structure. In addition, these protections need to be provided 
whenever employees walk on or in stored grain of a depth which could 
cause engulfment, regardless of where the employee entered the storage 
structure. The hazards of walking the grain relate to the practice 
itself and not to the point or method of entry. Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing to amend paragraph (g)(2) to extend the specific requirements 
on rescue equipment to all entries at or above the level of the grain, 
and to all entries where employees walk on or in grain that is deep 
enough to cause an engulfment hazard. Paragraph (g)(4) would continue 
to apply to other types of entries under paragraph (g). In addition, in 
accordance with the scope of proposed paragraphs (g) and (h), the term 
``grain storage structure'' is used in place of ``bins, silos and 
tanks.''
    The Agency solicits public comment on the proposed changes to 
paragraph (g) and the proposed addition of a new paragraph (h) to 
Sec. 1910.272. In particular, OSHA welcomes suggested alternative 
clarifying language for the exception which would better implement the 
Agency's original intent.

[[Page 54050]]

    This rulemaking is limited to the regulatory text discussed in this 
notice. The rest of $1910.272 is not affected by this notice or this 
rulemaking action. The proposed change would also apply to employment 
in marine terminals (see 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(2)(ix), which incorporates 
Sec. 1910.272 in its entirety.)

Summary of Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis

    The regulatory action being undertaken in this notice is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' for the purposes of Executive Order 
12866. The proposed changes to paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.272 are 
designed to bring that paragraph into line with the Agency's original 
intentions in issuing the final rule in 1987. The Regulatory Impact 
Analysis performed for Sec. 1910.272 at that time was based primarily 
on an assumption that the flat storage exception as drafted was as 
narrow as the Agency intended it to be. For that reason, any impacts 
associated with the proposed amendment to Sec. 1910.272 were evaluated 
as part of the original final rule. OSHA has reviewed the earlier 
economic analysis and has determined that it accounts for any costs and 
impacts associated with the proposed change in the rule, and that no 
additional economic data or analyses are needed.
    The Agency's intention in the final rule, in specifying particular 
types of rescue equipment for entries from the top of the structure, 
was that such equipment also be required for other entries which 
presented the same hazards, without regard to whether the employee 
entered from the side or other point of access at or above the level of 
the grain. However, as tragic experience has shown, the use of the term 
``from the top'' has not always been interpreted in practice to mean 
the entire class of entries which OSHA intended these provisions to 
cover. Nevertheless, the regulatory impact analysis developed by OSHA 
in 1987 evaluated costs and benefits according to the Agency's 
regulatory intent, i.e., the analysis assumed that all entries would be 
covered, and that rescue equipment would be provided in all cases. OSHA 
has also reviewed the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in 1987 
and reaffirms its determination that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The costs of the proposed technical amendment have already been 
accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 1987 
final rule. The data on entries developed for the RIA included all 
entries, regardless of point of entry or type of structure. These data 
had been collected in response to the original proposed rule, which did 
not contain an exception for flat storage.
    The data available to OSHA indicate that several fatalities per 
year could be prevented by the proposed technical amendment. As 
discussed below, fatalities and injuries have continued to occur as a 
result of entries made from points other than the top of grain storage 
structures. The prevention of these fatalities and injuries would not 
involve compliance costs beyond those already calculated at the time of 
the final rule; hence, while the benefit of this proposal would be 
significant, the compliance burden would be minimal.
    In the Final RIA, the Agency estimated that there were 14,000 grain 
elevators with 118,011 full-time and seasonal employees, and 9,922 
grain mills with 129,068 full-time and part-time employees [Tables II-
3, III-3, RIA (Exhibit 223)]. As noted at the time of the final rule, 
although all grain facilities have upright structures, only a portion 
only have flat storage structures [ADL (Exhibit 10); Stivers (Exhibit 
193)]. Flat storage structures are typically add-ons, constructed 
quickly to handle excess grain. Although entries into such structures 
are common, the Agency believes that most such entries do not involve 
the hazards of walking on grain [ADL; Stivers]. An industry cost 
analysis relied upon in the RIA indicated that ``side entries'' add no 
additional costs [Stivers, pp. 3-15 through 3-17]. OSHA's analysis 
agrees with the industry on this point, i.e., the RIA's cost estimates 
for entries include costs for both top and side entries [RIA, pp. VI-12 
to VI-17, and VI-63 to VI-68].
    The Agency estimated in the final RIA that the final standard would 
prevent 80% of all grain handling engulfments. Based on more recent 
Agency data from its IMIS database, as many as 2 to 4 engulfment 
fatalities annually could be prevented by this technical amendment. 
Based on the same data, the Agency believes that a similar number of 
equipment-related accidents could also be prevented.
    The original costs provided in the RIA for compliance with 
paragraph (g) of the standard, which addressed all kinds of entries for 
all types of grain storage structures, were estimated to be $12.7 
million, as compared to the total cost estimates for Sec. 1910.272 of 
between $41.4 and $68.8 million. Based on these figures, the Agency 
determined that the standard was economically feasible for the grain 
handling industry. The impacts of the amendment to paragraph (g) and 
the new paragraph (h) in this notice are incorporated into that 
analysis.
    This proposed rule imposes no recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It has no 
impacts on Federalism beyond those evaluated at the time of the final 
rule in 1987.

Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
arguments on all issues with respect to this proposed standard. These 
comments must be postmarked on or before November 20, 1995. Comments 
are to be submitted in quadruplicate, or in 1 original (hard copy) and 
1 disk (3\1/2\''or 5\1/4\'') in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, or 6.0, or ASCII, 
to the Docket Office, Docket No. H-117-B, Room N2625, U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210. All 
written comments, data, views, and arguments that are received within 
the specified comment period will be made a part of the record and will 
be available for public inspection and copying at the above Docket 
Office address.
    Requests for an informal public hearing on objections to the 
proposed rule, pursuant to Sec. 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3)), must be submitted to the Docket 
Office at the above address, and postmarked no later than November 20, 
1995. Hearing requests must comply with the following requirements: 
they must include the name and address of the objector; they must 
specify with particularity the provision of the proposed rule to which 
the objection is taken, and must state the grounds therefore; and they 
must be accompanied by a summary of the evidence proposed to be adduced 
at the requested hearing.

State Plan States

    The 25 States and Territories with their own OSHA-approved 
occupational safety and health plans must revise their existing 
standard within six months of the publication date of the final 
standard or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g. because an 
existing State standard covering this area is already ``at least as 
effective'' as the revised Federal standard. These States are: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Connecticut (State and local government employees 
only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Mexico, New York (State and local government employees 
only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 

[[Page 54051]]
Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Grain handling, Grain elevators, Occupational safety and health, 
Protective equipment.

Authority

    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, DC 
20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR Part 1911, it is hereby 
proposed to amend 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of October, 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    29 CFR part 1910 would be amended as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

    1. The Authority citation for subpart R of 29 CFR part 1910 would 
continue to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), as applicble.

    Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.266, 1910.267, 
1910.268, 1910.269, 1910.272, 1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 
29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1910.272  [Amended]

    2. The paragraph designations of the Definitions in paragraph (c) 
of Sec. 1910.272 would be removed.
    3. A new definition of ``Flat storage facility'' would be added in 
alphabetical order in paragraph (c) of Sec. 1910.272, to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1910.272  Grain handling facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) Definitions.
* * * * *
    Flat storage facility means a building or structure that is used to 
store grain, and that has large doorways at ground level through which 
motorized vehicles are driven in order to move grain.
* * * * *
    4. Paragraphs (h) through (p) of Sec. 1910.272 would be 
redesignated as new paragraphs (i) through (g), respectively.
    5. The heading and introductory text of paragraph (g), and 
paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2) of Sec. 1910.272, would be revised, 
and a new paragraph (h) would be added, to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.272  Grain handling facilities.

* * * * *
    (g) Entry into grain storage structures. This paragraph applies to 
employee entry into bins, silos, tanks, and other grain storage 
structures. Exception: Entry into flat storage facilities in which 
there are no toxicity, flammability, oxygen-deficiency, or other 
atmospheric hazards is covered by paragraph (h) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (ii) All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment 
which could present a danger to employees inside grain storage 
structures shall be deenergized and shall be disconnected, locked-out 
and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by other 
equally effective means or methods.
* * * * *
    (2) When an employee enters a grain storage structure from a level 
at or above the level of the stored grain, or whenever an employee 
walks or stands on or in stored grain of a depth which poses an 
engulfment hazard, the employer shall equip the employee with a body 
harness with lifeline, or a boatswaian's chair that meets the 
requirements of subpart D of this part. The lifeline shall be so 
positioned, and of sufficient length, to prevent the employee from 
sinking further than waist-deep in the grain.
* * * * *
    (h) Entry into flat storage facilities. (1) The employee shall be 
equipped with a body harness with lifeline when walking or standing on 
or in stored grain, where the depth of the grain poses an engulfment 
hazard. The lifeline shall be so positioned, and of sufficient length, 
to prevent the employee from sinking further than waist-deep in the 
grain.
    (2) All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment 
which could present a danger to an employee inside a flat storage 
facility (such as an auger or other grain transport equipment when an 
employee is standing on stored grain) shall be deenergized, and shall 
be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise 
prevented from operating by other equally effective means or methods.
    (3) No employee shall be permitted to be either underneath a 
bridging condition, or in any other location where an accumulation of 
grain on the sides or elsewhere could fall and engulf that employee.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-25954 Filed 10-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M