[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 141 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37848-37865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18268]


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

[[Page 37849]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

[Docket No. S-778]


Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry and Construction 
Standards; Proposed Paperwork Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven 
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: With this document, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) is continuing the process of removing or revising 
standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or 
inconsistent in response to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the 
President. This document proposes substantive changes to both health 
and safety standards to reduce regulatory requirements while 
maintaining employee protection. Changes proposed include reducing 
chest x-ray frequency and eliminating sputum cytology examinations for 
the coke oven and inorganic arsenic standards, changing the emergency-
response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard, eliminating public 
safety provisions of the temporary labor camp standard, eliminating 
unnecessary OSHA standard references in the textile industry standards 
and others.

DATES: Written comments and requests for a hearing on this proposal 
must be postmarked by September 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original 
(hardcopy) and 1 diskette (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\ inch) in WordPerfect 5.0, 
5.1, 6.0 or 6.1, or ASCII to: Docket Office, Docket No. S-778, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Room N-2634, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 
(telephone (202) 219-7894). Any information not contained on disk 
(e.g., studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Written 
comments limited to 10 pages in length also may be transmitted by 
facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided an original and 3 copies are sent 
to the Docket Office thereafter.
    Requests for a hearing should be sent to: Mr. Tom Hall, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 
(telephone (202) 219-8615).
    Comments on the reduction of paperwork burden and renewal of 
paperwork authorization for inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions 
should be sent to the OSHA docket and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 10235, 725 
17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn. OSHA Desk Officer.
    For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the 
Labor News Bulletin Board at (202) 219-4748; or OSHA's WebPage on the 
Internet at http://www.OSHAgov. For news releases, fact sheets and 
other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per 
minute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical inquiries should be directed 
to Mr. Pat Cattafesta, Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical 
Safety Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N3609, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20210 [telephone (202)-219-7202; FAX (202)-219-7477].
    Requests for interviews and other press inquiries should be 
directed to Ms. Ann Cyr, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, 
Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 
[telephone (202) 219-8148].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In March 1995, the President directed Federal agencies to undertake 
a line-by-line review of their regulations to determine where they 
could be simplified or clarified. OSHA initiated such a review, and as 
a result completed a document on May 31, 1995, entitled ``OSHA's 
Regulatory Reform Initiatives.'' That document detailed the Agency's 
findings as to which regulations could be deleted or revised without 
reducing employee health and safety, and which by clarifying 
requirements might improve compliance by employers and, consequently, 
provide enhanced occupational safety and health protection to 
employees. This regulatory improvement process involves revocation of 
outdated and obsolete provisions, elimination of substantive 
requirements which do not appear to be effective, consolidation of 
repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language. The 
Agency began this process with an administrative notice which made 
minor clarifications and technical amendments (61 FR 9228, March 
7,1996). This document proposes substantive changes to standards which 
the agency believes are unnecessary or ineffective in protecting worker 
health or safety. As these changes are substantive, notice and comment 
is required. Final decisions on carrying out the proposed revisions 
will depend on the record after considering public comment.

II. Summary and Explanation

Amendments to Part 1910

A. Explosives and Blasting Agents (Sec. 1910.109)
    When Sec. 1910.109 was first promulgated, Table H-21 (American 
Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives) specified the distances 
that must be maintained between stored explosives and inhabited 
buildings, passenger railways, and public highways. It also specified 
required distances between stored explosive magazines. Table H-21 also 
applied to the manufacture of explosives to the extent that it 
specified distances between an explosive manufacturing building and 
inhabited buildings, passenger railways, public highways, and 
magazines.
    In 1978, OSHA published a final rule (43 FR 49726) which revoked 
certain requirements that were called ``nuisance standards'' because 
they did not deal directly with workplace safety and health or were the 
jurisdiction of some other regulatory agency. Among the requirements 
revoked were the three columns of Table H-21 that specified distances 
to inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public highways because 
they dealt with public and property protection-not employee protection. 
As a result, the current Table H-21 specifies only the distances 
between magazines.
    Because Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Sec. 1910.109 was inadvertently 
overlooked during the 1978 rulemaking, this paragraph still makes 
reference to ``inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public 
highways.'' Consequently, OSHA is proposing to remove this phrase. 
Also, the first sentence of footnote number 5 of Table H-21 reads: 
``This table applies only to the manufacture and permanent storage of 
commercial explosives.'' OSHA is proposing to remove the words 
``manufacture and'' from the first sentence of footnote number 5 of 
Table H-21.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 states that blasting caps or 
electric blasting caps shall not be transported over the highways on 
the same vehicles with other explosives. However, DOT

[[Page 37850]]

regulations at 49 CFR 177.835(g)((3)(i) provide an approved method for 
the transport of detonators (blasting caps) on the same vehicle with 
other explosives.
    OSHA believes that blasting caps can be safely transported on the 
same vehicle with other explosives if such transport is done in 
accordance with the method specified in the Department Of 
Transportation (DOT) regulations.
    Therefore, OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to 
permit the transportation of blasting caps or electric blasting caps on 
the same vehicle with other explosives if they are transported in 
accordance with the method specified in DOT regulations at 49 CFR 
177.835(g)(3)(i).
    Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 states:

    Empty boxes and paper and fiber packing materials which have 
previously contained high explosives shall not be used again for any 
purpose, but shall be destroyed by burning at an approved isolated 
location out of doors, and no person shall be nearer than 100 feet 
after the burning has started.

    The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any boxes or 
packing material that may have been contaminated by leaking explosives 
do not present a hazard to employees. Consequently, all boxes and 
packing material, contaminated or not, may not be reused and must be 
disposed of by burning at an approved outdoor location.
    However, environmental agencies often will not permit the burning 
of such materials. In addition, DOT permits the reuse of packaging 
materials if such reuse is accomplished in accordance with the 
requirements of 49 CFR 173.28. Thus, employers are confronted by a 
conflict between the standards of two Federal agencies. OSHA believes 
that such containers and packing materials should be permitted to be 
reused if uncontaminated, and if accomplished in accordance with DOT 
regulations.
    Therefore, OSHA is proposing that paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 
Sec. 1910.109 be amended to read as follows:

    Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which 
have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of 
in a safe manner, or reused in accordance with Department of 
Transportation requirements at 49 CFR 173.28.
B. Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (1910.110)
    Paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(vii) of Sec. 1910.110 contain requirements 
for the location of backflow check valves, excess-flow valves, and 
shutoff valves on tank cars and transport trucks. Paragraph 
(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for locating tank 
cars and transport trucks during loading and unloading operations.
    The design of transportation vehicles and the safe location of such 
vehicles during loading and unloading operations are under the 
jurisdiction of DOT and not OSHA. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to 
delete paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(viii) of Sec. 1910.110. OSHA is also 
proposing to redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as new paragraph 
(b)(15)(v) of Sec. 1910.110.
    Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv) of Sec. 1910.110 contain specifications 
for the marking of LPG cylinders. These marking specifications are 
duplicative of DOT requirements. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to 
delete them.
    Paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 contains limitation requirements 
on the capacity of LPG containers that are used to fuel passenger 
carrying vehicles. As requirements pertaining to passenger carrying 
vehicles are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing to delete 
the text of paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.
    Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for the 
installation of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles. The installation 
of LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles is under the jurisdiction of 
DOT. OSHA, therefore, is proposing to delete the text from paragraph 
(g) of Sec. 1910.110 and to reserve the paragraph designation.
C. Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)
    Paragraph (f)(7) of Sec. 1910.111 contains safety requirements for 
full trailers and semitrailers that transport ammonia. Paragraph (f)(8) 
of Sec. 1910.111 contains requirements pertaining to the protection of 
such vehicles against collision. As full trailers and semitrailers that 
transport ammonia are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA is proposing 
to delete the text of paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.
D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
    OSHA proposes to delete the definition for ``lavatory,'' given in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141. This definition states that 
``lavatory means a basin or similar vessel used exclusively for washing 
of hands, arms, faces, and head.'' OSHA believes that the meaning of 
the term is self-explanatory in the context of the section. OSHA 
specifically seeks comment as to whether, in fact, deletion of this 
definition may diminish the health of employees in affected workplaces.
E. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)
    Section 1910.142 (a)(4) provides regulations for the closing of 
temporary labor camps. Upon the closing of a camp site, the regulations 
require the employer to collect all refuse, garbage, and manure, to 
fill all privy pits, to lock and secure any remaining privy buildings, 
and to have all buildings in a clean and sanitary condition.
    Because this paragraph deals with closing the site, which occurs 
after the employees have left, this paragraph essentially provides not 
for worker safety, but for public safety, which is outside the Agency's 
mission. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to remove 
Sec. 1910.142(a)(4). OSHA does note, however, that employers may be 
responsible for adhering to other standards regarding public health and 
safety in the locality or State in which the camp site is located.
F. Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards (Sec. 1910.144)
    Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark 
physical hazards. These colors were required so that emergency devices 
and physical hazards could be identified quickly by employees. Because 
removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have minimal 
effect on employee safety and health, the Agency has decided not to 
provide this standard. For employers desiring guidance in this area, 
the American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z535.1-91, Safety Color 
Code is available. OSHA, therefore, proposes to remove Sec. 1910.144.
G. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
    Section 1910.151 states the obligation of employers to have medical 
services available to provide advice on workplace health matters, and 
for use by employees if needed.
    Paragraph (b), in particular, requires the availability of first 
aid services for workplaces that do not have medical providers nearby. 
This paragraph also requires that first aid supplies approved by the 
consulting physician be on hand.
    OSHA proposes to amend Sec. 1910.151(b) so that the approval of 
first aid supplies by the consulting physician is no longer required, 
although the standard would continue to require that adequate supplies 
be available. Commercial first aid kits are readily available and will 
meet the needs of most employers and most worksites. If the workplace 
has unusual hazards or poses special problems that would require 
modification of a commercial first aid kit, or the

[[Page 37851]]

development of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer 
will provide those special items. If the employer is unsure whether a 
commercially available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be 
obtained. Such advice, however, would not be required by OSHA as a 
matter of course. These changes will allow the employer more 
flexibility in meeting the Agency's first aid requirements, without 
affecting employee health and safety.
H. Fire Brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
    Section 1910.156 contains requirements for the organization, 
training, and provision of personal protective equipment for fire 
brigades. Requirements for negative-pressure self-contained breathing 
apparatus are listed in Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii). These requirements 
were intended to remain mandatory for 18 months after the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified a 
positive-pressure breathing apparatus with the same or longer service 
life as the currently required negative-pressure breathing apparatus. 
The 18-month period was to allow employers to phase in the new 
apparatus.
    NIOSH has since certified a positive-pressure breathing apparatus, 
and the 18 month phase-in period has ended. This paragraph is therefore 
unnecessary, and OSHA proposes to remove it.
I. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
    Section 1910.183(a) states that helicopter cranes are expected to 
comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). Since OSHA does not have the statutory authority 
to enforce FAA regulations for helicopters, (found at 14 CFR part 133), 
it is proposed that Sec. 1910.183(a) be revoked.
J. Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills (Sec. 1910.261)
    Section 1910.261 contains requirements that apply to establishments 
where pulp, paper, and paperboard are manufactured and converted. 
Certain standards in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j), 
(k), and (m) of Sec. 1910.261 require these establishments to comply 
with a number of standards of the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI). The inclusion of these standards in Sec. 1910.261 duplicates 
other standards in part 1910 which apply to general industry as a 
whole. Many of the other general industry standards cover the same 
hazards, and in many cases, they share the same source materials as the 
provisions in Sec. 1910.261.
    All but one of the ANSI standards referenced in Sec. 1910.261 were 
source documents for OSHA standards that have general application 
without regard to any specific industry. For example, ANSI Standard 
A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, 
and Toeboards is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also the 
source standard for Sec. 1910.23, Guarding Floor and Wall Openings and 
Holes.
    OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, codified in Section 1910.23, 
provides equivalent or better protection for workers in this industry 
than the ANSI standard, A12.1-1967, which is referenced in 
Sec. 1910.261. OSHA proposes, therefore, to revoke 
Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(ii).
    Similarly, there are a number of other OSHA standards that OSHA 
believes can provide equivalent or better protection for pulp and paper 
workers than the ANSI standards referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k) and (m) in Sec. 1910.261. For this reason, 
OSHA proposes to revoke many provisions of Sec. 1910.261 and to apply 
the corresponding provisions found elsewhere in part 1910. The 
following table lists the OSHA standards proposed for revocation, the 
referenced ANSI standards and the OSHA standards that will provide 
equivalent or better protection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Standard proposed for        Referenced ANSI       Equivalent OSHA  
         revocation                 standard              standard      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.261(a)(3)(ii)..........  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(a)(3)(iv)..........  A14.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.25       
1910.261(a)(3)(v)...........  A14.2-1956..........  Sec.  1910.26       
1910.261(a)(3)(vi)..........  A14.3-1956..........  Sec.  1910.27       
1910.261(a)(3)(ix)..........  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(a)(3)(xi)..........  B30.2-1967..........  Sec.  1910.179      
                              B30.5-1968..........  Sec.  1910.180      
1910.261(a)(3)(xii).........  B30.2-1967..........  Sec.  1910.179      
1910.261(a)(3)(xiii)........  B30.2-1943..........  Sec.  1910.179      
                              B30.5-1968..........  Sec.  1910.180      
1910.261(a)(3)(xv)..........  B56.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.178      
1910.261(a)(3)(xvii)........  01.1-1954...........  Sec.  1910.213      
                                                    Sec.  1910.214      
1910.261(a)(3)(xviii).......  Z4.1-1968...........  Sec.  1910.141      
1910.261(a)(3)(xix).........  Z9.1-1951...........  Sec.  1910.94       
1910.261(a)(3)(xx)..........  Z9.2-1960...........  Sec.  1910.94       
1910.261(a)(3)(xxiv)........  Z35.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.145      
1910.261(a)(3)(xxv).........  Z87.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.133      
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi)........  Z88.2-1969..........  Sec.  1910.134      
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii).......  Z89.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.135      
1910.261(b)(1)..............  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(b)(2)..............  Z24.22-1957.........  Sec.  1910.132      
                              Z87.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.133      
                              Z88.2-1968..........  Sec.  1910.134      
                              Z89.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.135      
1910.261(b)(3)..............  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(b)(6)..............  B56.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.178      
1910.261(c)(2)(vi)..........  B30.2-1967..........  Sec.  1910.179      
1910.261(c)(3)(i)...........  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
                              A14.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.25       
                              A14.2-1956..........  Sec.  1910.26       
                              A14.3-1956..........  Sec.  1910.27       
1910.261(c)(8)(i)...........  B30.2-1967..........  Sec.  1910.179      

[[Page 37852]]

                                                                        
1910.261(c)(11).............  B56.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.30       
1910.261(d)(1)(ii)..........  Z87.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.133      
1910.261(e)(3)..............  B15.1-1955..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(e)(7)..............  O1.1-1961...........  Sec.  1910.213      
1910.261(e)(9)..............  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(g)(15)(vi).........  Z4.1-1968...........  Sec.  1910.141      
1910.261(h)(2)(iii).........  K13.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.134      
                              Z88.2-1967..........                      
1910.261(j)(1)(iv)..........  B15.1-1958..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(j)(3)..............  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(j)(4)(ii)..........  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(j)(5)(iv)..........  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(j)(6)(ii)..........  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(k)(2)(i)...........  B15.1-1953..........  Sec.  1910.219      
1910.261(k)(4)..............  A12.1-1967..........  Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(m)(2)..............  B56.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.178      
1910.261(m)(4)..............  Z87.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.133      
1910.261(m)(5)(i)...........  Z87.1-1968..........  Sec.  1910.132      
1910.261(m)(5)(ii)..........  B56.1-1969..........  Sec.  1910.178      
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Similarly, OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, Sec. 1910.95, 
Occupational Noise Exposure, provides worker protection that is at 
least equivalent to that provided by the ANSI standard, Z24.22-1957, 
Method of Measurement of Real-Ear Attenuation of Ear Protectors, that 
is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii). OSHA, therefore, proposes 
to revoke Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this duplicative 
coverage.
    Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 requires specific procedures to 
be followed and personal protective equipment to be worn by workers in 
the pulp, paper and paperboard industry who enter closed vessels, 
tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment. This standard, however, does 
not provide the necessary requirements for monitoring, testing, and 
communication that are critical when working in a confined space.
    OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 for two 
reasons. First, Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces, 
provides better protection for workers who are required to work in a 
confined space. Section 1910.146 provides a comprehensive regulatory 
program within which employers can effectively protect employees who 
work in confined spaces. This program addresses the ongoing need for 
monitoring, testing and communication at these workplaces. Second, 
employers are required to comply with Sec. 1910.146 when a specific 
industry standard does not completely address the known hazards of 
working in a confined space, a principle noted in paragraph (c)(2) of 
Sec. 1910.5, which means that employers must already comply with 
Sec. 1910.146 rather than paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to 
provide personal protective equipment to workers on a job basis. Since 
employers are required to comply with the general requirements for 
personal protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132, OSHA proposes to revoke 
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this duplication of requirements in 
a way that will not decrease worker protection.
    Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261 require 
employers to provide workers with personal protective equipment and ear 
protection when the noise level may be harmful. Since employers are 
required to comply with the general requirements for personal 
protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132 and the general requirements for 
occupational noise exposure in Sec. 1910.95, OSHA proposes to revoke 
paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) to eliminate this duplication of 
requirements.
    Paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 are specific 
electrical standards prescribed for the pulp, paper and paperboard 
industry that require compliance with subpart S, Electrical, in OSHA's 
standards. Since all of general industry is required to comply with all 
of subpart S for electrical standards, OSHA proposes to revoke 
paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 to eliminate this 
duplication.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to provide 
employees working in the acid department with gas masks. Since 
employers are required to comply with the general requirements for 
respiratory protection in Sec. 1910.134, OSHA proposes to revoke 
paragraph (g)(2)(i) to eliminate this regulatory duplication.
    Paragraph (g)(15)(iv) of Sec. 1910.261 is a standard prescribed for 
the pulp, paper and paperboard industry that addresses lead dust 
exposure, and requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1000, Air 
Contaminants, in OSHA's standards. Since employers are required to 
comply with all of Sec. 1910.1000, including paragraph 1910.1025 which 
addresses lead exposure, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph (g)(15)(iv) 
to eliminate this duplication.
K. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
    Paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of Sec. 1910.262 require employers in 
textile establishments to provide guards for equipment that conform to 
the requirements of Sec. 1910.219. Since all of general industry is 
required to comply with all of the general requirements of 
Sec. 1910.219, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs (c)(3) and (gg) of 
Sec. 1910.262 to eliminate this regulatory duplication.
    Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards 
coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke a number of other standards in 
Sec. 1910.262 that reference occupational safety and health standards 
of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards 
proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which 
will continue to apply to the Textile industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Standard Proposed for Revocation         Referenced OSHA Standard   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.262(c)(3).........................  1910.219.                      
1910.262(c)(4).........................  1910.141.                      
1910.262(gg)...........................  1910.219.                      
1910.262(ll)(1)........................  1910.23.                       
1910.262(qq)(1)........................  1910.132.                      
                                         1910.133.                      
                                         1910.134.                      
1910.262(qq)(2)........................  1910.134.                      
1910.262(rr)...........................  1910.1000.                     
                                         1910.94(d).                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37853]]



    Paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 requires employers to identify 
physical hazards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1910.144. 
Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark 
physical hazards. As noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA 
is proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, since the Agency believes that 
sufficient guidance on this matter is given by the American National 
Standards Institute standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and 
that removal of these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 would have no 
discernible effect on employee safety and health. Since OSHA is 
proposing to revoke Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in 
Sec. 1910.262(c)(8), OSHA also proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
L. Sawmills (1910.265)
    Section 1910.265 contains safety requirements for sawmill 
operations including, but not limited to, log and lumber handling, 
sawing, trimming, and planing; waste disposal; operation of dry kilns; 
finishing; shipping; storage; yard and yard equipment; and for power 
tools and related equipment used in connection with such operations. 
Certain paragraphs of this section incorporate and apply occupational 
safety and health standards of general application which apply to all 
employment covered by part 1910. As required in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section, such standards apply to sawmill operations in accordance 
with the rules of construction set forth in Sec. 1910.5. For example, 
the general standard regarding mechanical power-transmission apparatus 
in Sec. 1910.219 is applicable to employment in sawmill operations 
covered in Sec. 1910.265, and yet it is also incorporated by reference 
in paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. OSHA believes that worker safety 
is not enhanced by repeating the application of Sec. 1910.219 in 
Sec. 1910.265, and proposes to revoke paragraph (c)(22) of 
Sec. 1910.265. Also, since Sec. 1910.5 applies to all industries, 
including the sawmill industry, OSHA proposes to revoke paragraph 
(a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265 which merely references Sec. 1910.5.
    Similarly, for the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards 
coverage, OSHA proposes to revoke various provisions currently found in 
Sec. 1910.265 which reference occupational safety and health standards 
of general application. The following table lists the OSHA standards 
proposed for revocation and the referenced general OSHA standards which 
will continue to apply to sawmills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Standard Proposed for Revocation         Referenced OSHA Standard   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.265(c)(3)(i)......................  1910.23.                       
1910.265(c)(10)........................  1910.25-27.                    
1910.265(c)(14)........................  1910.110.                      
1910.265(c)(16)........................  1910.106.                      
1910.265(c)(17)(i).....................  1910.1000.                     
1910.265(c)(17)(ii)....................  Subpart I.                     
1910.265(c)(17)(iii)...................  1910.94(d).                    
1910.265(c)(22)........................  1910.219.                      
1910.265(c)(26)(i).....................  1910.219.                      
1910.265(c)(30)(vi)....................  1910.219.                      
1910.265(c)(30)(x).....................  1910.178.                      
1910.265(e)(3)(ii)(d)..................  1910.219.                      
1910.265(f)(9).........................  1910.219.                      
1910.265(g)............................  Subpart I.                     
1910.265(h)............................  1910.141.                      
1910.265(i)............................  Subpart L.                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(11) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to mark 
physical hazards as specified in Sec. 1910.144. Section 1910.144 
provides guidance on the colors to use to mark physical hazards. As 
noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA is proposing to 
revoke Sec. 1910.144 since the Agency believes that sufficient guidance 
on this matter is given by the American National Standards Institute 
standard ANSI Z535.1-1991, Safety Color Code, and that removal of these 
requirements from 29 CFR Part 1910 would have no discernible effect on 
employee safety and health. Since OSHA is proposing to revoke 
Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.265(c)11), OSHA also 
proposes to revoke Sec. 1910.265(c)(11).
    Paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to 
inspect slings daily when in use, and to remove a sling from service if 
it is found to be defective. In addition, paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of 
Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to provide suitable protection between 
the sling and the sharp unyielding surfaces of the load to be lifted. 
These provisions duplicate some of the general requirements for the use 
of slings in Sec. 1910.184 which also include provisions for sling 
inspection, removal and protection. OSHA proposes to revoke paragraphs 
(c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c), to eliminate the duplication of requirements 
for slings in Sec. 1910.265.
M. Agricultural Operations (Sec. 1910.267)
    Section 1910.267 previously contained part 1910 requirements 
applicable to agricultural operations. These requirements were moved to 
Sec. 1928.21 in 1975 (40 FR 18268). Since that time, Sec. 1910.267 has 
been used simply to refer employers to Sec. 1928.21 to locate these 
requirements. OSHA believes that Sec. 1910.267 is now unnecessary and 
proposes to revoke it.
N. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
    Paragraph (f) of 1910.268 contains requirements for rubber 
insulating equipment (gloves and blankets) used at telecommunications 
centers and field installations. As discussed below, OSHA has 
determined that these requirements are now outdated, and that they 
should be deleted.
    OSHA believes that the provisions of paragraph (f) are unnecessary 
for several reasons. First, the general industry standard found at 29 
CFR 1910.137, Electrical Protective Equipment, addresses all rubber 
insulating equipment, and revocation of paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268 
would eliminate this duplication of standards and related compliance 
problems. Second, Sec. 1910.137 provides more comprehensive employee 
protection, since it covers requirements for manufacture and marking, 
electrical proof tests, voltages, test intervals, workmanship and in-
service care and use. Third, Sec. 1910.137, is written in performance-
oriented language that provides employers with flexibility in meeting 
the standard. Thus, OSHA believes that paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268 
can be revoked without diminishing employee safety and health.
O. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
    OSHA is proposing to delete paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of 
Sec. 1910.1017, vinyl chloride, which was promulgated in 1974. These 
paragraphs address entry into unknown and hazardous vinyl-chloride 
atmospheres. Paragraph (g)(5)(i) allows entry into unknown 
concentrations of vinyl chloride or concentrations greater than 36,000 
ppm (lower explosive limit) only for purposes of life rescue. Paragraph 
(g)(5)(ii) allows entry into concentrations of vinyl chloride of less 
than 36,000 ppm, but greater than 3,600 ppm only for purposes of life 
rescue, firefighting, or securing equipment which will prevent a 
greater release of vinyl chloride.
    In 1989, OSHA promulgated industry-wide provisions addressing 
emergency response with respect to entry into unknown or hazardous 
atmospheres under Sec. 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste Operations and 
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (54 FR 9317, Mar. 6, 1989). 
Included in the scope of the HAZWOPER standard are requirements for 
``Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats 
of releases of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of 
the hazard.'' Thus, vinyl chloride, which is a ``hazardous substance'' 
as defined under the

[[Page 37854]]

HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the emergency response provisions in 
both the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER rules. In regard to overlapping 
provisions in two applicable standards, the HAZWOPER standard 
specifically states in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that ``If there is a 
conflict or overlap [between emergency-response provisions in 
Sec. 1910.120 and provisions in substance-specific standards], the 
provision more protective of employee safety and health shall apply * * 
*.''
    OSHA believes that the emergency-response provisions in 
Sec. 1910.120 are more protective overall than the relevant provisions 
in the vinyl chloride standard. Further, the provisions of 
Sec. 1910.120, which require development of a broad program to 
appropriately respond to any potential emergency situation, may be 
viewed as giving more flexibility to employers to tailor and implement 
effective comprehensive emergency-response programs to suit their 
needs. Key provisions in Sec. 1910.120(q) that would apply where there 
is a potential emergency associated with the release of vinyl chloride 
address the following: Development and implementation of an emergency 
response plan, paragraph (q)(1); elements required to be included in 
the emergency response plan, paragraph (q)(2); procedures for handling 
emergency response, paragraph (q)(3); use of skilled support personnel, 
paragraph (q)(4); use of specialist employees, paragraph (q)(5); 
training of emergency personnel, paragraph (q)(6), (7), and (8); 
medical surveillance and consultation for emergency-response personnel, 
paragraph (q)(9); use of chemical protective clothing, paragraph 
(q)(10); and procedures for post-emergency-response operations, 
paragraph (q)(11).
    OSHA believes, therefore, that deletion of Sec. 1910.1017(g)(5) (i) 
and (ii), in favor of Sec. 1910.120, will not result in an increased 
risk to the safety or health of employees engaged in vinyl chloride 
emergency response operations. The Agency solicits comment on the 
question of the sufficiency of Sec. 1910.120 to address the protection 
of vinyl chloride emergency response employees if, as proposed here, 
the emergency response provisions currently in the vinyl chloride 
standard are deleted.
P. Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018)
    OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance 
requirements in paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018, that address 
inorganic arsenic, with respect to sputum-cytology examinations and 
chest x-rays. The requirement in paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C) of 
Sec. 1910.1018 that provides for a semi-annual sputum-cytology 
examination for employees 45 years of age or older or with 10 or more 
years of exposure over the action level is proposed to be deleted. 
Sputum-cytology examination was included originally under medical 
surveillance programs for arsenic workers based on OSHA's belief that 
such examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer.
    In reevaluating this provision, the Agency has found no studies 
that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a 
screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to 
inorganic arsenic. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2], 
however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology 
examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in another high-risk 
group, namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. The two studies 
included the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial 
Sloan-Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National 
Cancer Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program. 
Together, the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were 
assigned at random to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent 
an annual chest radiograph, and sputum-cytologic study every 4 months) 
or to a single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic 
screening was performed).
    For both studies, there were no significant differences between the 
dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung-cancer 
cases, the number of late-stage lung-cancer cases, the number of 
resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns 
Hopkins) survival rates and the number of lung-cancer deaths. 
Therefore, sputum cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer 
screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.
    False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent 
in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5]. 
False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and 
anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest 
x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the 
pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible, 
fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this examination is negative, then the 
lower respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic 
bronchoscopy; bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In 
addition, imaging studies may be done, including computed tomography 
(CT scan) and magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of 
these procedures have inherent risks, including death [Ex. 1-6].
    The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection 
of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-
cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. The Society's decision in this regard 
was based on the lack of epidemiological evidence that would support 
the use of sputum-cytology screening, and the risks and costs 
associated with false positive exams [Ex. 1-8]. Therefore, since 
available data do not indicate that sputum-cytology examination adds 
any benefit to a lung-cancer screening program that already includes 
annual chest x-rays, and since false-positive results can lead to 
unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up procedures, OSHA is proposing 
that sputum-cytology examinations be deleted from the medical-
surveillance requirements of the inorganic arsenic standard.
    OSHA solicits comments on these conclusions with respect to the 
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data 
and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and 
conclusions.

Exhibits

    1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome 
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer 
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
    1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative 
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory 
Disease 130:545-49, 1984.
    1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a 
screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-
25S, 1986.
    1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: Results 
of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study in New York. Chest 86:44-53, 
1984.
    1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology. 
Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.
    1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic 
bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72, 
1974.
    1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of 
Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.
    1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of 
Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.

    OSHA is also proposing to revise the requirement in paragraph 
(n)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic standard, that 
provides for a semiannual chest x-ray for employees who are 45 years of 
age or older or who have 10 or more years of arsenic exposure over the 
action level. OSHA is proposing that the required frequency of chest x-
ray for these employees be changed from

[[Page 37855]]

semiannual to annual. OSHA originally adopted the provision for 
semiannual x-rays based on the belief that such semiannual examinations 
were valid for screening for lung cancer.
    OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide 
employees exposed to inorganic arsenic with a medical surveillance 
program, including chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung 
cancer. However, the Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing 
chest x-rays semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by 
a large, randomized, and controlled scientific study.
    Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1,1-2], were 
conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely, 
male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with 
respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. These studies, which 
included the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak Study 
[Ex.1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of chest 
x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of this 
group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental 
groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic 
intervals (4 months in the Mayo Lung Project and 6 months in the 
Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic, 
or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the 
experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the 
beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung 
tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)
    These studies found that periodic chest x-rays led to enhanced 
detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence, higher 
rates of respectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a 
subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific 
survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed 
cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower 
fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of 
overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung 
Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were 
found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in 
the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.
    The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the 
outcomes for the few experimental group participants who did not 
undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either 
because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This 
analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which 
combined the outcomes for experimental group participants in the Mayo 
Lung Project with similar experimental group participants from two 
other groups (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns 
Hopkins Lung Project). The 5 year fatality rate for the nonsurgery 
participants was about 90 percent, compared with a 30-percent fatality 
rate for those participants who underwent cancer surgery. This 
comparison provides strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in 
detecting early-stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those 
participants who undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected 
tumor. Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and 
lead-time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate 
differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the 
Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.
    Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to 
inorganic arsenic continue to need medical surveillance to detect lung 
cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung 
cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the 
frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annually.
    This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in 
Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35 
percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the 
experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which 
administered chest x-rays every 4 months, and the experimental-group 
participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns 
Hopkins Lung Project, which performed chest x-rays once a year. [See 
also Exs. 1-12 and 1-13] This analysis demonstrates that fatality rates 
did not differ in any practical or statistically significant fashion 
across these three major studies. OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual 
chest x-ray satisfies the purpose of the medical surveillance program 
required under the standard.
    In summary, large randomized controlled studies indicate that 
semiannual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual 
screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of 
high-risk individuals, including workers exposed to inorganic arsenic, 
should continue since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-
rays for detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in 
lowering lung cancer fatality rates.
    Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for 
high-risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data 
to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate. 
OSHA, therefore, believes that an annual x-ray provision is reasonable. 
Moreover, if the Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on 
the side of over-protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned 
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American 
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
    OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the 
value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and 
views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and 
conclusions.

Exhibits

    1-1. Strauss GM, et. al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome 
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer 
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
    1-2. Berlin NI, et. al. The National Cancer Institute 
cooperative early lung cancer detection program. American Review of 
Respiratory Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.
    1-9. Fontana R, et. al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program. 
Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.
    1-10. Fontana R, et. al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique 
of the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.
    1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a 
randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37, 
1986.
    1-12. Kubik A, et. al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual 
screening for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized 
controlled trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia. 
International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.
    1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical 
Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169 
Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.
Q. Coke Oven Emissions (Sec. 1910.1029)
    OSHA is proposing to revise the existing medical surveillance 
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1029, coke oven emissions, with respect to 
sputum-cytology examinations and chest x-rays. The requirement in 
paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.1029 that provides for a semiannual 
sputum-cytology examination for employees 45 years of age or older or 
with 5 or more years employment in the regulated area is proposed to be 
deleted. Sputum-cytology examination was included originally in the 
medical surveillance programs for coke oven workers based on OSHA's 
belief that such

[[Page 37856]]

examinations were useful in screening for lung cancer. (Note: Much of 
the following discussion of sputum-cytology examinations duplicates the 
discussion on that topic provided under ``P. Inorganic Arsenic'' 
above.)
    In reevaluating this provision, the Agency found no available 
studies that address the efficacy of sputum-cytology examinations as a 
screening tool for lung cancer for workers specifically exposed to coke 
oven emissions. Two randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2] 
however, were evaluated with respect to the benefit of sputum-cytology 
examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in a high-risk group, 
namely male smokers 45 years of age and older. Two of these studies 
were the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National Cancer 
Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program. Together, 
the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were assigned 
randomly to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent annual 
chest radiograph and sputum-cytologic study every four months) or to a 
single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic screening was 
performed).
    For both studies, there were no significant differences between the 
dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of lung cancer 
cases, the number of late-stage lung cancer cases, the number of 
resectable lung cancers, 5 year (Sloan Kettering) and 8 year (Johns 
Hopkins) survival rates, and the number of lung cancer deaths. 
Therefore, sputum-cytology did not add any benefit to a lung cancer 
screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.
    False-positive sputum-cytology results can be as high as 10 percent 
in patients with pulmonary infections and bronchial asthma [Ex. 1-5]. 
False positive results can lead to extensive testing, costs, and 
anxiety. A positive sputum-cytology examination, with a negative chest 
x-ray, is usually followed by an examination of the oral cavity, the 
pharynx, and the larynx by both direct visualization and flexible 
fiber-optic laryngoscopy. If this is negative, then the lower 
respiratory tract is visualized by flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy; 
bronchial washings and biopsy are often included. In addition, imaging 
studies may be done, including computed tomography (CT scan) and 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The more invasive of these procedures 
have inherent risks including death [Ex. 1-6].
    The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection 
of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-
cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. This decision was based on the lack of 
epidemiological evidence that would support the use of sputum-cytology 
screening, and the risks and costs associated with false positive exams 
[Ex. 1-8].
    Therefore, since available data do not indicate that sputum-
cytology examination adds any benefit to a lung cancer screening 
program that already includes annual chest x-rays, and since false-
positive results can lead to unnecessary and harmful medical follow-up 
procedures, OSHA is proposing that sputum-cytology examinations be 
deleted from the medical surveillance requirements of the coke oven 
emission standard.
    OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the 
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requests submission of other data 
and views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and 
conclusions.

Exhibits

    1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcomein 
lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer 
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
    1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative 
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory 
Disease 130:545-49, 1984.
    1-3. Tockman M. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a 
screened population: The Johns Hopkins study. Chest 89(suppl):324S-
25S, 1986.
    1-4. Melamed MR, et al. Screening for early lung cancer: results 
of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering study in New York. Chest 86:44-53, 
1984.
    1-5. Benpassat J, et al. Predictive value of sputum cytology. 
Thorax 42:165-169, 1987.
    1-6. Credle WF, et al. Complications of fiber optic 
bronchoscopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 109:67-72, 
1974.
    1-7. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of 
Clinical Oncology, p. 155, American Cancer Society, 1991.
    1-8. Holleb AI, et al. American Cancer Society Textbook of 
Clinical Oncology, p. 168-170, American Cancer Society, 1991.

    The requirement in Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the coke 
oven emissions standard, which provides for a semiannual chest x-ray 
for employees 45 years of age or older or with 5 or more years 
employment in a regulated area, is proposed for revison. OSHA is 
proposing that this requirement be revised to require an annual chest 
x-ray in the medical surveillance program for the group of employees 
noted above. OSHA adopted the provision for semiannual x-rays 
originally in the belief that semiannual examinations were valid for 
screening for lung cancer.
    OSHA maintains that it is necessary and appropriate to provide 
coke-oven employees with a medical surveillance program, including 
chest x-rays, for the early detection of lung cancer. However, the 
Agency recognizes that the efficacy of providing chest x-rays 
semiannually for this purpose has never been determined by a large, 
randomized, and controlled scientific study.
    Two recent randomized controlled studies [Exs. 1-1, 1-2], were 
conducted on a group at high risk for developing lung cancer (namely, 
male smokers 45 years of age and older), and were evaluated with 
respect to the utility of periodic x-rays. Two of these studies, 
referred to as the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9] and the Czechoslovak 
Study [Ex. 1-10], were designed specifically to assess the efficacy of 
chest x-rays in detecting early-stage lung cancer among the members of 
this group. The studies compared several outcomes between experimental 
groups that were assessed using chest x-rays administered at periodic 
intervals (four months in the Mayo Lung Project and six months in the 
Czechoslovak Study) and control groups receiving infrequent, sporadic, 
or (in some cases) no chest x-rays. (Participants in both the 
experimental and control groups were administered chest x-rays at the 
beginning of each study to ensure that they had no detectable lung 
tumors that would bias the research outcomes.)
    The results of these studies found that periodic chest x-rays led 
to enhanced detection of early-stage lung cancer and, as a consequence, 
higher rates of resectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a 
subsequent analysis of these studies [Ex. 1-11], lung-cancer-specific 
survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths per diagnosed 
cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed that the lower 
fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the result of 
overdiagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the Mayo Lung 
Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality rates were 
found to be 59% and 78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in 
the control groups of persons diagnosed with lung cancer.
    The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the 
outcomes for the few experimental-group participants who did not 
undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either 
because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This 
analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which 
combined the outcomes for experimental-group participants in the

[[Page 37857]]

Mayo Lung Project with similar experimental-group participants from two 
other studies (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung 
Projects). The 5-year fatality rate for the nonsurgery participants was 
about 90-percent, compared to a 30-percent fatality rate for those 
participants who underwent cancer surgery. This comparison provides 
strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in detecting early-
stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those participants who 
undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected tumor. 
Additionally, this comparison indicates that overdiagnosis and lead-
time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate 
differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the 
Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.
    Based on this discussion, OSHA believes that employees exposed to 
coke-oven emissions continue to need medical surveillance to detect 
lung cancer, and that chest x-rays are a valid method of detecting lung 
cancer. The proposed revision to the standard would reduce the 
frequency of chest x-rays from semi-annually to annually.
    This proposed frequency is based on an analysis described in 
Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35 
percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the 
experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which 
administered chest x-rays every four months, and the experimental-group 
participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung 
Projects, which performed chest
x-rays once a year. [see, also, Exs. 1-12, 1-13]. This analysis 
demonstrates that fatality rate did not differ in any practical or 
statistically-significant fashion across these three major studies. 
OSHA, therefore, finds that an annual chest x-ray satisfies the purpose 
of the medical surveillance program required under the standard.
    In summary, Large randomized controlled studies indicate that semi-
annual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual 
screenings. OSHA believes that annual chest radiography screening of 
high-risk individuals, including coke oven workers, should continue 
since epidemiological data support the use of chest x-rays for 
detecting early-stage lung cancer; this decision results in lower lung 
cancer fatality rates.
    Further, although it is possible that intervals between x-rays for 
high risk workers could be longer than 1 year, the Agency has no data 
to demonstrate precisely what other interval would be more appropriate. 
OSHA believes an annual x-ray provision is reasonable. Moreover, if the 
Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on the side of over-
protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum 
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
    OSHA solicits comment on these conclusions with respect to the 
value of performing annual x-rays, and requests submission of data and 
views that may support or dispute the Agency's findings and 
conclusions.

Exhibits

    1-1. Strauss GM, et al. Chest x-ray screening improves outcome 
in lung cancer: A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer 
screening. Chest 107:270S-279S, June 1995.
    1-2. Berlin NI, et al. The National Cancer Institute cooperative 
early lung cancer detection program. American Review of Respiratory 
Diseases 130:545-49, 1984.
    1-9. Fontana R, et al. Lung cancer screening: The Mayo Program. 
Journal of Occupational Medicine 28:746-50, 1986.
    1-10. Fontana R, et al. Screening for lung cancer, a critique of 
the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer 67:1155-64, 1991.
    1-11. Kubik A, Polak J. Lung cancer detection: Results of a 
randomized prospective study in Czechoslovakia. Cancer 57:2428-37, 
1986.
    1-12. Kubik A, et al. Lack of benefit from semi-annual screening 
for cancer of the lung: Follow-up report of a randomized controlled 
trial on population of high risk males in Czechoslovakia. 
International Journal of Cancer 45:26-33, 1990.
    1-13. U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force. Guide to Clinical 
Preventive Services: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 169 
Interventions, p. 67-70. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1989.

Amendments to Part 1926

A. Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 1926.31)
    Based on its ongoing review of compliance and enforcement 
activities and recommendations from its Advisory Committee on 
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA is aware that difficulties 
have arisen regarding certain provisions of part 1926 that were adopted 
under sections 6(a) of the Act. Many of the standards adopted under 
section 6(a) were American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards which 
were incorporated by reference and contained advisory provisions (e.g. 
use the word ``should'' rather than ``shall'').
    In the past, OSHA maintained that all standards, regardless of 
whether the term ``should'' or ``shall'' is used, created mandatory 
compliance responsibilities. Employers consistently challenged this 
position on the basis that section 6(a) of the Act only gave OSHA the 
authority to adopt ANSI standards verbatim. In ANSI standards, use of 
the term ``should'' means that the provision is only advisory. 
Therefore, employers maintained that ANSI ``should'' standards could 
only be advisory when adopted or incorporated by reference by OSHA 
under section 6(a).
    Enforcement of ``should'' standards has been denied by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and by most of the 
appellate courts in which contested cases have been heard. For example, 
in Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-
44 (1978), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that 
``should'' standards were merely advisory because the consensus 
organization had reached ``substantial agreement'' that these 
provisions be viewed only as recommendations, and not as mandatory 
standards.
    The courts have also ruled that failure to adopt an ANSI provision 
verbatim renders the resulting OSHA Section 6(a) provision invalid and 
unenforceable (see Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corporation, 577 F.2d 
1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 1977)).
    Although the ``should'' standards have not been enforceable in and 
of themselves, OSHA has employed them to demonstrate the existence of 
``recognized hazards'' under the general duty clause (section 5(a)(1)) 
of the Act. However, the Review Commission has ruled that, as long as 
the ``should'' provision remains in effect as a OSHA standard, OSHA may 
not issue a general duty clause citation for the hazard it addresses 
(see A. Prokosch & Sons Sheet Metal and Mid Hudson Automatic Sprinkler, 
1980 CCH OSHD para.24,840). Based on the fact that OSHA cannot enforce 
these provisions either directly or indirectly, the Agency proposes to 
revise Sec. 1926.31(a) to clarify that only the mandatory requirements 
of incorporated consensus standards are adopted as OSHA standards. The 
removal of the advisory provisions will also serve to simplify and 
streamline existing part 1926 standards.
    In 1984, OSHA conducted a rulemaking for 29 CFR part 1910 (General 
Industry Standards) that was similar to the one described above for the 
construction standards in part 1926. That is, paragraph (a) of 
Sec. 1910.6 was revised to clarify that only the mandatory provisions 
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as OSHA general 
industry standards (49 FR 5318).

[[Page 37858]]

    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.31 currently provides that ``the 
specifications, standards and codes * * * to the extent they are 
legally incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and 
effect as other standards in this part.'' OSHA is proposing to add a 
sentence at the end of Sec. 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ``Only the 
mandatory provisions (that is, provisions containing the word ``shall'' 
or other mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are 
adopted as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.'' 
This amendment will effectively eliminate ``should'' standards 
incorporated by reference into part 1926.
B. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1926.50)
    Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50 states that ``First-aid supplies 
approved by the consulting physician shall be easily accessible when 
required.'' Since first-aid kits that are commercially available will 
meet the needs of most employers, it is unnecessary for most employers 
to have a physician approve the contents of a first-aid kit. However, 
if the workplace has unusual hazards or special situations that would 
require modification of a commercial first-aid kit, or the development 
of a specialized kit, the Agency expects that the employer will provide 
these special items. If the employer is unsure whether a commercially 
available kit is sufficient, professional advice should be obtained. 
Such advice, however, would not be required as a matter of course. 
Accordingly, OSHA proposes to revise paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 1926.50 
to eliminate the requirement for physician approval of first-aid 
supplies. The Agency believes that this change will allow the employer 
more flexibility in meeting the first-aid requirements without 
affecting employee safety.
    Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 states that the ``telephone numbers 
of the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously 
posted.'' This outdated requirement places an unnecessary burden on the 
employer. Since the 911 emergency number is nearly universal, OSHA 
proposes to revise this paragraph to limit the requirement for posting 
these numbers to those areas where the 911 emergency number is not 
available.
C. Flammable and Combustible Liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
    Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.152 states that ``only approved 
containers and portable tanks shall be used for storage and handling of 
flammable and combustible liquids. Approved metal safety cans shall be 
used for the handling and use of flammable liquids in quantities 
greater than one gallon * * *.'' While approved metal safety cans are 
still acceptable, OSHA notes that various nationally recognized testing 
laboratories have also approved the use of plastic safety cans for 
flammable liquids. OSHA proposes to revise this paragraph to allow the 
use of approved plastic safety cans in addition to approved metal 
safety cans.
    A ``safety can'', by definition, is a container with a capacity of 
5 gallons or less that is equipped with a spring-closing lid and spout 
cover, a means to relieve internal pressure, and a flash-arresting 
screen. The Agency has determined that Department of Transportation 
(DOT)-approved containers of 5-gallon capacity or less, that are not 
equipped with a spring-closing lid, spout cover and flash-arresting 
screen can be used to transport relatively small quantities of 
flammable liquids safely. OSHA thus proposes to make DOT-approved 
containers of 5-gallon capacity or less also acceptable for the 
storage, use, and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.
    OSHA is also proposing to revise Sec. 1926.152(a)(1) to allow the 
use of the original container for quantities of flammable liquids that 
are one gallon or less. Where the original container is available, the 
employer may choose to use it, instead of an approved safety can for 
quantities of one gallon or less. If the original container is not 
available, an approved safety can must be used.
D. Initiation of Explosive Charges--Electric Blasting (Sec. 1926.906)
    Paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 states that ``Blasters, when testing 
circuits to charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers 
equipped with a silver chloride cell especially designed for this 
purpose.'' This provision specifically requires the use of silver 
chloride dry cells as a power source for testing electric blast caps. 
By contrast, paragraph (e)(4)(vii) of Sec. 1910.109, Explosives and 
blasting agents, states that ``Blasters, when testing circuits to 
charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers designed for this 
purpose'' and does not specifically require the use of silver chloride 
cells. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration currently 
allows for the use of a blasting galvanometer or other instruments that 
are specifically designed for testing blasting circuits (30 CFR CH.1 
Sec. 56.6407). Therefore, OSHA proposes to correct this inconsistency 
by revising paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to allow the use of other 
types of instruments, in addition to those equipped with silver-
chloride cells, when testing circuits to charged holes.

III. Summary of the Preliminary Economic, Feasibility and Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses

Preliminary Economic Analysis

    The Agency is proposing to eliminate a number of provisions in its 
standards that are duplicative, unnecessary, or potentially in conflict 
with the rules of other Federal agencies. All of the changes OSHA is 
proposing to make are expected to benefit the regulated community by 
reducing confusion, enhancing utility, and increasing readability. Only 
four of the proposed changes, however, have quantifiable economic 
benefits. Although the extent to which employers currently comply with 
these provisions is not known, economists generally assume full 
compliance when assessing the costs of regulations. The same compliance 
baseline is also used to evaluate benefits. By eliminating these 
``problem'' provisions for its standards, OSHA will lessen the burdens 
employers currently experience to comply with them, which will, in 
turn, generate cost savings. First Aid Kits
    The proposed rule would eliminate the requirements in 
Sec. 1910.151(b) and Sec. 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must have first 
aid supplies approved by a consulting physician. This requirement does 
not apply to all facilities; instead it depends on whether an 
infirmary, clinic, or hospital is nearby and would be used by the 
employer to treat all injured employees, i.e., the requirement applies 
only in cases where no such facilities are in close proximity and the 
employer intends to treat first aid injuries on site. Although the 
number of establishments meeting these criteria is uncertain, the 
Agency believes it is reasonable to assume that 10 percent of 
establishments would do so. How the physician is to provide this 
consultation is not specified in OSHA's provisions. OSHA assumes that, 
at most, five minutes of a physician's time, valued at $100/hr,1 
would be required to approve the contents of the first aid kit at these 
establishments. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA also assumes that 
the physician provides 5 minutes of his or her time at an hourly wage 
rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Opportunity cost as measured by the market price for 
occupational physical exams. Agency estimates for the cost of exams 
suggest a rate of about $100 an hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis further assumes that the physician needs to approve 
the first aid supplies once every 10 years, after which time the 
development of new

[[Page 37859]]

kinds of medical supplies and the possibility of new hazards in the 
workplace would require a new consultation. The cost of 5 minutes of a 
physician's time annualized over 10 years is $1.19.
    The Agency estimates that approximately 6.4 million employers fall 
under OSHA jurisdiction and would be affected by this change (County 
Business Patterns, 1993). Therefore, the annualized cost of satisfying 
these provisions is currently estimated to be $761,600 ((6.4 million 
x  10%)  x  $1.19). By eliminating this requirement, OSHA will reduce 
this burden, as well as the paperwork burden associated with obtaining 
and recording the physician's approval.

Coke Oven Emissions

    The proposed revision to Sec. 1910.1029(j) would eliminate the 
requirement for semiannual sputum cytology tests and reduce the 
required frequency of chest x-rays from semiannual to annual for 
workers who are 45 years of age or older or who have 5 or more years of 
employment in regulated areas. Regulated areas encompass the coke oven 
battery, including topside and its machinery, pushside and its 
machinery, coke side and its machinery, and battery ends; the wharf; 
the screening station; and the beehive oven and its machinery.
    The Inflationary Impact Statement developed for OSHA in support of 
Sec. 1910.1029 (Inflationary Impact Statement: Coke Oven Emissions, 
1976) estimated total employment in coke ovens at 29,600. The same 
analysis estimated that 75 percent of these employees worked in 
regulated areas. The 1992 Census of Manufacturers (Industry Series) 
indicated total employment in SIC 33121 (Coke Oven and Blast Furnace 
Products) at 8,600 and total production manhours at 15.7 million. A 
separate Census Industry Series count specific to coke ovens indicates 
a total of 11.2 million production manhours, which constitutes 
approximately 71 percent of SIC 33121's productive manhours, suggesting 
a total employment count in coke ovens of 6,135.
    Assuming that the proportion of coke oven employees in regulated 
areas has remained constant, approximately 4,600 employees work in 
regulated areas at the present time. Approximately 30 percent of the 
workforce in 1994 was over 45 years of age (BLS data presented in 
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, p. 402). Turnover 
rates in SIC 33, which includes coke ovens, are estimated at 5 percent 
annually (National Occupational Exposure Survey: Analysis of Management 
Interview Responses, 1988). A simple probability calculation suggests 
that approximately 77 percent of the regulated area workforce will have 
been exposed to coke oven emissions for 5 years or more.2 
Adjusting this percentage to reflect the assumption that 30 percent of 
employees are over 45 years of age results in an estimate of 84 percent 
3 of coke oven employees (3,864 workers) potentially affected by 
the proposed revocation of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ (1-.05)\5\=.77 This calculation assumes equal probability of 
turnover in each year thereafter.
    \3\ ((.77) x (1-.30))+(.30)=.84 All other things equal, at least 
30 percent of those with 5 or more years of exposure would be over 
45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1994 data obtained from the Physician Payment Review Commission (e-
mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC, to Tom Mockler, OSHA) indicate a 
national average x-ray charge of $54.40 and an average lab charge for 
cytology examination of bodily fluids of $51.90. There is also the 
potential for an additional charge averaging $19.00 for sputum specimen 
collection, but this is assumed to be contained within the fee for a 
medical exam. Therefore the savings for eliminating one chest x-ray and 
two sputum cytologies annually would be $158.20 per worker ($54.40 for 
one x-ray, plus $103.80 for two sputum cytology tests). For the group 
of 3,864 employees, the annual savings would be $611,285.

Inorganic Arsenic

    As in the case of the coke oven standard, OSHA is proposing to 
eliminate the requirement for sputum cytology and reduce the frequency 
of chest x-ray exams from semiannual to annual for workers exposed 
above the inorganic arsenic action level of 5 g/m \3\ (29 CFR 
1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1910.1018 currently requires 
employees exposed above the action level for 30 days per year to 
receive these medical surveillance elements semi-annually if they are 
45 years of age or older, or if they have had more than 10 years of 
exposure above the action level.
    The Federal Register notice for the inorganic arsenic rulemaking 
[(May 5, 1978), p. 19585] indicated that of 660,000 workers exposed, 
7,400 were exposed above 4 g/m \3\, i.e., close to or above 
the action level. Although arsenic uses and related exposures have 
shifted over time, the level of inorganic arsenic use in the U.S. 
appears to be approximately the same as it was at the time of the 
original rulemaking 4. Therefore, for the purposes of this 
analysis, the Agency assumes that the exposed population size is also 
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic trioxide 
consumed in U.S. (Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental 
Perspectives, 1983, p. 7; Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity 
Summary, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the original rulemaking, the Inflationary Impact 
Statement (Inflationary Impact Statement: Inorganic Arsenic, 1976) 
estimated that 50% of employees above the action level would need the 
semi-annual exams, based on OSHA's analysis of age, job tenure and 
turnover. Applying the same assumptions, the Agency estimates that 
approximately 3,700 workers would be affected by the proposed revisoin 
to this provision. This change will eliminate the need for testing 
valued at $158.20 (see the explanation above for coke ovens for cost 
details) for 3,700 employees, for an annual savings of $584,340.

Pulp and Paper

    The existing pulp and paper standard, Sec. 1910.261, contains 
paragraph (b)(5), ``vessel entering'', which states:

    Lifelines and safety harness shall be worn by anyone entering 
closed vessels, tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment, and a 
person shall be stationed outside in a position to handle the line 
and to summon assistance in the case of emergency.

Paragraph (b)(5) also prescribes other safety precautions applying to 
similar confined spaces in pulp and paper mills.
    OSHA proposes to eliminate these specific separate requirements for 
confined space entry in pulp and paper mills, and instead reference 
Sec. 1910.146, OSHA's generic confined spaces standard. In other words, 
employers in the pulp and paper industry will no longer have to comply 
with Sec. 1910.261(b)(5), but with Sec. 1910.146. Section 1910.146 
requires that employers assess the hazards of their confined spaces and 
employ the appropriate safety precautions to deal with the relevant 
existing or potential hazard. Although Sec. 1910.146 may require 
employers to complete additional checklists, conduct training, and plan 
for rescue, depending on the hazard present, employers will in many 
cases no longer need to require employees to wear lifelines or provide 
for outside ``attendants'' 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, Sec. 1910.146(c)(5) indicates that if an 
employer can certify that ventilation alone can reliably control 
atmospheric hazards in a space, and that is the only hazard posed by 
the space, they are exempt from many requirements of the standard, 
including the need for an outside attendant. Similarly, in 
Sec. 1910.146(k)(3), employers are expressly exempt from using a 
lifeline if such usage is either valueless or counterproductive from 
a safety standpoint.

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

[[Page 37860]]

    The costs of complying with Sec. 1910.146 in the pulp and paper 
industry were included in OSHA's supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
of the Final Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard, December 1992]. 
They were estimated to be approximately $4 million. No economic or 
technological feasibility problems were indicated.
    By deleting the more rigid confined space requirements of the pulp 
and paper industry-specific standard and requiring employers to comply 
with a more performance-oriented requirement for attendants and 
lifelines, OSHA is simultaneously relieving a burden and enhancing 
safety. Based on the underlying analysis used by OSHA in producing the 
RIA for Sec. 1910.146, a comparison of the costs associated with the 
requirement that an attendant be present (Sec. 1910.261(b)(5)) with the 
more flexible requirements in Sec. 1910.146 indicates a savings to 
employers of approximately 450,000 manhours annually. Given the hourly 
compensation rate of $17 used in the RIA, this represents an annual 
savings of $7.7 million.
    In summary, by revoking these four unnecessary or duplicative 
requirements, the Agency is reducing annual employer burdens related to 
first aid kits ($761,600), medical surveillance for coke oven emissions 
($611,285) and inorganic arsenic workers ($584,340), and confined space 
entry in pulp and paper mills ($7.7 million), for a total annualized 
employer savings of $9,656,625.

Technological Feasibility

    OSHA could not identify any requirement in the proposed revision 
and modification of OSHA standards that raises technological 
feasibility problems for employers. OSHA, therefore, has preliminarily 
concluded that technological feasibility is not an issue for the 
proposed changes in the standards.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 
amended, requires that the Agency examine regulatory actions to 
determine if they would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As indicated elsewhere in this 
analysis, these modifications to existing regulations are expected to 
reduce the regulatory burden on all affected employers, large and 
small. For that reason, the Agency hereby certifies that these changes 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

V. Environmental Assessment

    The proposed rules have been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council of 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures 
(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has concluded that 
the rules will have no significant environmental impact.

VI. International Trade

    This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards is not 
likely to have a significant effect on international trade, since the 
changes involve the revocation of obsolete provisions, consolidation of 
repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information Collection Requirements

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice 
serves two purposes: (1) Solicit public comment on the changes that are 
proposed in this rule pertaining to the Inorganic Arsenic and the Coke 
Oven Emissions standards and (2) solicit public comment on the existing 
Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions information collection 
requests for their extension.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 
1320.11 require Federal agencies to submit collections of information 
contained in proposed rules for public comment in the Federal Register 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposed 
rule impacts two active Information Collection Requests: Inorganic 
Arsenic (OMB Number 1218-0104) and Coke Oven Emissions (OMB Number 
1218-0128).
    The title, description, and respondent description of the 
information collection are described below with an estimate of the 
annual reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for 
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. OSHA invites 
comments on whether the proposed collection of information:
    1. Ensures that the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of OSHA, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    2. Estimates the projected burden including the validity of 
methodology and assumptions used accurately;
    3. Enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, 
or other forms ofinformation technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    Title: Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry andConstruction.
    Description: The purpose of these standards and their information 
collection requirements is to provide protection for employees against 
the health effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven 
emissions and inorganic arsenic. These standards require employers to 
monitor employee exposure, to provide medical surveillance and to 
maintain employee exposure monitoring and medical records. If exposure 
levels are above the standards' Permissible Exposure Levels (PEL), then 
employers must establish and implement a written control plan to reduce 
exposures below the PELs. Employers are also required to notify OSHA 
area offices of regulated areas and changes to regulated areas. The 
proposed rule would delete the requirement for employee sputum cytology 
exams contained in the medical surveillance provisions of the Coke Oven 
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic Standards. The proposed rule would also 
change the frequency of x-rays from semi-annual to annual in these 
standards. Description of Respondents: Employers whose employees may be 
exposed to coke oven emissions and inorganic arsenic. Estimate of 
Burden Hours and Cost: OSHA estimates that the total burden for Coke 
Oven Emissions will be 95,060 burden hours, a reduction of 2,945 hours 
(from employee medical examinations), at a cost savings of $611,285. 
For Inorganic Arsenic, the agency estimates the total burden to be 
24,615 burden hours, a reduction of 3,663 hours (from employee medical 
examinations), at a cost savings of $584,340. Employee exposure 
monitoring and medical records required by both standards must be 
maintained for at least 40 years, or for the duration of employment 
plus 20 years whichever is longer. The agency has submitted a copy of 
the proposed rule to OMB for its review and approval

[[Page 37861]]

of the information collections. Interested persons are requested to 
submit comments on the paperwork reduction regarding the proposed 
deletion of sputum cytology and frequency of x-rays to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer, OMB, New 
Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, 
DC 20503. Comments should also be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office 
for this proposal at OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number S-778, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.
    In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(a), this notice also 
solicits public comment on the existing Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven 
Emissions information collection requests for their extension. Persons 
interested in commenting on the existing information collection 
requirements contained in the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven Emissions 
standards are requested to submit comment including suggestions for 
reducing burden to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket Number (ICR 96-7 
Inorganic Arsenic orICR 96-8 Coke Oven Emissions), U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 
(Note that this is a different docket number than the Docket for 
proposal which poses to remove the sputum cytology and decrease the 
frequency of the chest x-rays) Comments submitted in response to this 
comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for 
Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection 
request; they will also become a matter of public record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Avgerage time                                
              Cite reference                    Total                Frequency                 Total       per response     Total cost        Burden    
                                             respondents                                     responses        (hours)                         (hours)   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Oven Emissions......................              22  On occasion..................         101,977            1.01      $1,363,900          95,060
Inorganic Arsenic........................              42  On occasion..................          58,763            1.06       2,017,684          24,615
      Total..............................  ..............  .............................         160,740  ..............       3,381,584         119,675
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the referenced information collection requests are 
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will 
be mailed immediately to persons who request copies by telephoning 
Vivian Allen at (202) 219-8076. For electronic copies of the Coke Oven 
Emissions and the Inorganic Arsenic requests, contact the Labor News 
Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784, or OSHA WebPage on the internet at 
http://www.osha.gov/. Copies of these information collection requests 
are also available at the OMB Docket Office.

VIII. Federalism

    This proposed revision and revocation of OSHA standards has been 
reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 
30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to 
the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, 
consult with States prior to taking any actions which would restrict 
State policy actions, and take such actions only when there is clear 
constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of national 
scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only if there is 
a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any such 
preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) 
expresses Congress' intent to preempt state laws relating to issues on 
which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health 
standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption in issues 
covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal 
approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their 
enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such 
Plan states must, among other things, be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards.
    The proposed revision and revocation of standards is meant to 
reduce the volume and complexity of OSHA standards, and to improve 
compliance by employers, without diminishing worker safety and health. 
Those States which have elected to participate under Section 18 of the 
OSH Act are not preempted by this proposal, and will be able to address 
any special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while 
ensuring that the State standards are at least as effective as the 
Federal standard. State comments are invited on this proposal and will 
be duly considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.

IX. Public Participation

    Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked 
by September 20, 1996, and submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket 
Office, Docket No. S-778, Room N2624, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    All written comments 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.
    The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven 
Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require 
the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance 
requirements.
    Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, interested 
persons may request an informal hearing by filing a request for such a 
hearing including objections to the proposal which warrant a hearing. 
Persons who have objections to the proposal but do not wish to request 
an oral hearing, may submit their objections in their comments where 
they will be fully considered. The objections and hearing requests 
should be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA, U.S. Dept. 
of Labor, Rm. N-3647, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210 
(tel. 202-219-8619) and must comply with the following conditions:
    1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;
    2. The objections must be postmarked by September 20, 1996;
    3. The objections must specify with particularity grounds upon 
which the objection is based;
    4. Each objection must be separately numbered; and
    5. The objections must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the 
evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing.
    The proposed changes to the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke Oven

[[Page 37862]]

Emission standards are issued pursuant to section 6(b)(7) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. That section does not require 
the Agency to hold a public hearing for changes in medical surveillance 
requirements.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through 
their knowledge of safety or health or their experience, would wish to 
endorse or support the proposed actions set forth in this notice. OSHA 
welcomes such supportive comments, including any related information 
which may be available, so that the record of this rulemaking will 
present a balanced picture of the public response on the issues 
involved.

X. State Plan Standards

    The States with their own approved occupational safety and health 
plans must adopt comparable standards within 6 months of the 
publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government 
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government 
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgina, Virgin Islands, Washington and 
Wyoming. Until such time as State standards are promulgated, Federal 
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in 
those States.

List of Subjects:

29 CFR Part 1910:

    Business and industry, Occupational safety and health, Hazardous 
materials, Fire protection.

29 CFR Part 1926:

    Construction industry, Occupational safety and health, Fire 
protection, Explosives

XI. 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, NW., 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), section 107 of 
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 29 CFR parts 1910 and 
1926 are proposed to be amended as set forth below.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15 day of July 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    A. It is proposed to amend Part 1910 of 29 CFR as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED]

Subpart H--Hazardous Materials

    1. The authority citation for subpart H is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 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.


Sec. 1910.109  Explosives and blasting agents [Amended]

    2. Remove the phrase, ``from inhabited buildings, passenger 
railways, and public highways and'' from paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of 
Sec. 1910.109.
    3. Remove the words, ``manufacture and'' from the first sentence in 
footnote number 5, of Table H-21, of Sec. 1910.109.
    4. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Blasting caps or electric blasting caps shall not be 
transported over the highways on the same vehicles with other 
explosives, unless packaged, segregated and transported in accordance 
with the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations 
(49 CFR parts 177-180).
    5. In Sec. 1910.109, revise paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which 
have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of in a 
safe manner, or reused in accordance with the Department of 
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 177-
180).
* * * * *


Sec. 1910.110  Storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases 
[Amended]

    1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110, and 
redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as (b)(15)(v).
    2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1910.110, and 
redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(i) as (c)(2).
    3. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.
    4. Remove and reserve paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110.


Sec. 1910.111  Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia [Amended]

    Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111.

Subpart J--General Environmental Controls

    1. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.


Sec. 1910.141   Sanitation [Amended]

    2. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141 and all paragraph 
designations for the definitions within paragraph (a)(2) of 
Sec. 1910.141.


Sec. 1910.142   Temporary labor camps [Amended]

    3. Remove paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 1910.142.


Sec. 1910.144   Safety color code for marking physical hazards 
[Removed]

    4. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.144.

Subpart K--Medical and First Aid

    1. The authority citation for subpart K is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 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.


Sec. 1910.151   Medical Services and first aid [Amended]

    2. Revise the final sentence in paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 to 
read as follows:
 * * * * *
    (b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.
 * * * * *

Subpart L--Fire Protection

    1. The authority citation for subpart L continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 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.


Sec. 1910.156   Fire brigades [Amended]

    2. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.156.

[[Page 37863]]

Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage

    1. The authority citation for subpart N is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 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.


Sec. 1910.183   Helicopters [Amended]

    2. Remove and reserve paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.183.

Subpart R--Special Industries

    1. The authority citation for subpart R is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 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. 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.


Sec. 1910.261   Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills [Amended]

    2. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3): (ii), 
(iv) through (vi), (xi) through (xiii), (xv), (xvii) through (xix), 
(xx), (xxii), (xxiv) through (xxvii).
    3. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(3)(ix) of Sec. 1910.261.
    4. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as 
follows:
    a. Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ii),
    b. Paragraph (a)(3)(vii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iii),
    c. Paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iv),
    d. Paragraph (a)(3)(x) as paragraph (a)(3)(v),
    e. Paragraph (a)(3)(xiv) as paragraph (a)(3)(vi),
    f. Paragraph (a)(3)(xvi) as paragraph (a)(3)(vii),
    g. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxi) as paragraph (a)(3)(viii),
    h. Paragraph (a)(3)(xxiii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ix).
    5. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    6. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph 
(b)(7) as paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1910.261.
    7. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261(c): (2)(vi), 
(2)(vii), (6)(ii), and (7)(ii).
    8. Remove and reserve the following paragraphs of Sec. 1910.261(c): 
(3)(i), (8)(i), and (11).
    9. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as 
follows:
    a. Paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph (c)(2)(vi),
    b. Paragraph (c)(6)(i) as paragraph (c)(6),
    c. Paragraph (c)7)(i) as paragraph (c)(7).
    10. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
    11. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(7), and (e)(9) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    12. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261.
    13. Remove and reserve paragraphs (g)(15)(iv) and (g)(15)(vi) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    14. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as 
follows:
    a. paragraph (g)(1)(v) to paragraph (g)(1)(iv),
    b. paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to paragraph (g)(2)(i),
    c. paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to paragraph (g)(2)(ii).
    15. Remove and reserve paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261.
    16. Remove paragraphs (j)(4)(ii), (j)(5)(iv) and (j)(6)(ii) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    17. Remove and reserve paragraphs (j)(1)(iv) and (j)(3) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    18. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as 
follows:
    a. Paragraph (j)(4)(iii) through paragraph (j)(4)(vi) as paragraph 
(j)(4)(ii) through paragraph (j)(4)(v),
    b. Paragraph (j)(6)(iii) as paragraph (j)(6)(ii).
    19. Remove paragraph (k)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261, and redesignate 
paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) through (k)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (k)(2)(i) 
through (k)(2)(v), respectively.
    20. Remove and reserve paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(16) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    21. Remove and reserve paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4) of 
Sec. 1910.261.
    22. Remove paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
    23. Redesignate paragraph (m)(5)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261 as paragraph 
(m)(5), and add a heading to paragraph (m)(5) to read as follows: 
``Unloading Cars''.


Sec. 1910.262   Textiles [Amended]

    24. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), and (gg) of 
Sec. 1910.262.
    25. Remove paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 and redesignate 
paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(8).
    26. Remove and reserve paragraph (gg) of Sec. 1910.262.
    27. Remove paragraphs (ll)(1), (qq)(1), (qq)(2), and (rr) of 
Sec. 1910.262.
    28. Redesignate paragraph (ll)(2) of Sec. 1910.262 as paragraph 
(ll).


Sec. 1910.265   Sawmills [Amended]

    29. Remove paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265.
    30. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1910.265 as paragraph (a).
    31. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (c)(10), (c)(11), 
(c)(14), and (c)(16) of Sec. 1910.265.
    32. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(17) of Sec. 1910.265.
    33.-34. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265.
    35. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 and 
redesignate paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(b) as paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a).
    36. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of Sec. 1910.265.
    37. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(26)(i), (c)(30)(vi), 
(c)(30)(x), and (e)(3)(ii)(d) of Sec. 1910.265.
    38. Remove paragraphs (f)(9), (g), (h), and (i) of Sec. 1910.265.


Sec. 1910.267  Agricultural operations [Removed]

    39. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.267.


Sec. 1910.268  Telecommunications [Amended]

    40. Remove and reserve paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

    1. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 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. 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 sec. 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure 
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The 
latter were issued under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1018 is also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.


Sec. 1910.1017  Vinyl chloride. [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1910.1017, remove paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (g)(5)(ii).
    3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) of Sec. 1910.1017 as 
paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively.


Sec. 1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic. [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate 
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); revise the reference in 
paragraph (n)(3)(i) that reads ``(n)(2)(ii)(A)(B) and (D)'' to read 
``(n)(2)(ii)''; and revise paragraph (n)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) ``The employer shall provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least 
semi-annually, and the x-ray requirement specified in paragraph 
(n)(2)(ii)(A) at least annually, for other covered employees.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(F), 
(q)(2)(iii)(G), and (q)(2)(iii)(H); and insert the word ``and'' after 
paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(D).

[[Page 37864]]

    6. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix A, in the middle of paragraph VI, 
revise the sentence beginning ``The medical examination must include * 
* *.'' to read as follows: ``The medical examination must include a 
medical history, a chest x-ray, a skin examination, and a nasal 
examination.'' Remove the sentence which begins ``The cytology exams 
are only included * * *.'' from paragraph VI.
    7. In Sec. 1910.1018 Appendix C, Section I, General, remove the 
words ``(4) A Sputum Cytology examination;'' redesignate paragraph (5) 
as paragraph (4); and remove the entire section entitled ``III. Sputum 
Cytology.''


Sec. 1910.1029  Coke oven emissions. [Amended]

    8. In Sec. 1910.1029, remove paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and redesignate 
paragraph (j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii).
    9. In paragraph (j)(3)(i) 0f Sec. 1910.1029, the reference 
``(j)(2)(i)-(vi)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
    10. In paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference 
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
    11. In paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference 
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)-
(vii).''
    12. In Sec. 1910.1029, redesignate paragraph (j)(3)(iv) as 
paragraph (j)(3)(v), and add a new paragraph (j)(3)(iv) to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The employer shall provide the x-ray specified in paragraph 
(j)(2)(ii) of this section at least annually for employees covered 
under paragraph (j)(3).
    13. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix A, paragraph VI is revised to read 
as follows:
* * * * *
    VI. If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year, 
your employer is required to provide you with a medical examination 
every year. The medical examination must include a medical history, 
a chest x-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison, skin 
examination, a urinalysis and a urine cytology exam for early 
detection of urinary cancer. The urine cytology exam is only 
included in the initial exam until you are either 45 years or older 
or have 5 or more years employment in the regulated areas when the 
medical exams including this test, but excepting the x-ray exam, are 
to be given every six months; under these conditions, you are to be 
given an x-ray exam at least once a year. The examining physician 
will provide a written opinion to your employer containing the 
results of the medical exams. You should also receive a copy of this 
opinion.

    14. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, paragraph A is 
revised to read as follows:

A. General

    The minimum requirements for the medical examination for coke 
oven workers are given in paragraph (j) of the standard. The initial 
examination is to be provided to all coke oven workers who work at 
least 30 days in the regulated area. The examination includes a 
14'' x 17'' posterior-anterior chest x-ray reading and a ILO/UC 
rating to assure some standardization of x-ray reading, pulmonary 
function tests (FVC and FEV 1.0), weight, urinalysis, skin 
examination, and a urinary cytologic examination. These tests are 
needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the employee's future 
test results. Periodic exams include all the elements of the initial 
exams, except that the urine cytologic test is to be performed only 
on those employees who are 45 years or older or who have worked for 
5 or more years in the regulated area; periodic exams, with the 
exception of x-rays, are to be performed semi-annually for this 
group instead of annually; for this group, x-rays will continue to 
be given at least annually. The examination contents are minimum 
requirements; additional tests such as lateral and oblique x-rays or 
additional pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed 
necessary.

    15. In Sec. 1910.1029 Appendix B, Section II, the paragraphs 
entitled ``C. Sputum Cytology,'' are removed. B. It is proposed to 
amend part 1926 of 29 CFR as follows:

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart C--General Safety and Health Standards

    1. The authority citation for subpart C is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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 applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1926.31  Incorporation by Reference. [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1926.31, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    (a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government and 
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are 
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect 
as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e., 
provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language) 
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

    1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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 applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1926.50  Medical services and first aid [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (d) First-aid supplies shall be easily accessible when required.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 1926.50, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (f) In areas where 911 is not available, the telephone numbers of 
the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
* * * * *

Subpart F--Fire Protection and Prevention

    1. The authority citation for subpart F is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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 applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1926.152  Flammable and combustible liquids [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1926.152, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    (a) * * * (1) Only approved containers and portable tanks shall be 
used for storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids. 
Approved safety cans or Department of Transportation approved 
containers shall be used for the handling and use of flammable liquids 
in quantities of 5 gallons or less, except that this shall not apply to 
those flammable liquid materials which are highly viscid (extremely 
hard to pour), which may be used and handled in original shipping 
containers. For quantities of one gallon or less, the original 
container may be used for storage, use, and handling of flammable 
liquids.
* * * * *

[[Page 37865]]

Subpart U--Blasting and Use of Explosives

    1. The authority citation for subpart U is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 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 applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1926.906  Initiation of explosive charges--electric blasting 
[Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1926.906, revise paragraph (q) to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (q) Blasters, when testing circuits to charged holes, shall use 
only blasting galvanometers or other instruments that are specifically 
designed for this purpose.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18268 Filed 7-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P