[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33450-33469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15936]



[[Page 33449]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926



Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) For General Industry and 
Construction Standards; Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven Emissions 
and Inorganic Arsenic; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 33450]]



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

[Docket No. S-778]
RIN 1218-AB 53


Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General 
Industry and Construction Standards; Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven 
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
removing from the Code of Federal Regulations or revising provisions in 
its standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or 
inconsistent. The Agency is making these regulatory changes to reduce 
the burden imposed on the regulated community by these provisions and 
to respond to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the President. In this 
document, substantive changes are made to both health and safety 
standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or 
unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee 
protections. Changes being made to health standards include reducing 
the frequency of required chest x-rays and eliminating sputum-cytology 
examinations for workers covered by the coke oven and inorganic arsenic 
standards, and changing the emergency-response provisions of the vinyl 
chloride standard. Changes being made to OSHA safety standards include 
eliminating the public safety provisions of the temporary labor camp 
standard, eliminating unnecessary cross-references in the textile 
industry standards, and others. OSHA estimates that these changes will 
result in annualized savings for employers of over $9,600,000 and in 
reducing paperwork burden of 6600 hours annually.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of this final rule to the 
Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the 
Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
    For additional copies of this rule contact U.S. Department of 
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of 
Publications, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20210, (202) 219-9667.
    For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the 
Labor News Bulletin Board at (202) 219-4748; or OSHA's Web Site on the 
Internet at http://www.osha.gov. 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: Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N-3637, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Distribution Table
III. Summary and Explanation
    Amendments to Part 1910 that received no comments or positive 
comments only
    A. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
    B. Storing and handling of liquefied petroleum gases 
(Sec. 1910.110)
    C. Storing and handling of anhydrous ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)
    D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
    E. Temporary labor camps (Sec. 1910.142)
    F. Safety color code for marking physical hazards 
(Sec. 1910.144)
    G. Fire brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
    H. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
    I. Pulp, paper, paperboard mills (Sec. 1910.261)
    J. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
    K. Sawmills (Sec. 1910.265)
    L. Agricultural operations (Sec. 1910.267)
    M. Vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
    N. Inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018) and Coke oven emissions 
(Sec. 1910.1029)
    Amendments to Part 1910 that received varied comments
    O. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
    P. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1910.151)
    Q. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
    Amendments to Part 1926 that received no comments or positive 
comments only
    A. Incorporation by reference (Sec. 1926.31)
    B. Flammable and combustible liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
    C. Initiation of explosive charges--Electric blasting 
(Sec. 1926.906)
    Amendments to Part 1926 that received varied comments
    D. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1926.50)
IV. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Environmental Assessment
VII. International Trade
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Federalism
X. State Plan Standards
XI. Authority and Signature

    References to the rulemaking record are provided in the text of the 
preamble. References are identified as ``Ex.'' followed by a number to 
designate the reference in this rulemaking docket, S-778. For example, 
``Ex. 3'' means exhibit three in Docket S-778. Exhibit 3 is a copy of 
the ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Changes to 
General Industry and Construction Standards; Proposed Paperwork 
Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven Emissions and Inorganic 
Arsenic'', the first step in the rule-making action being completed 
today, which was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1996 (61 
FR 37849).
    A list of exhibits and copies of the exhibits are available in the 
OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-7894.

I. Background

    OSHA has made a continuing effort to eliminate confusing, outdated, 
and duplicative requirements from its standards and regulations. In 
1978 and again in 1984, the Agency conducted revocation and revision 
projects that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of unnecessary 
provisions. In response to the President's Memorandum of March 4, 1995, 
which requested Agencies to review and stream-line their regulations, 
the Agency continued this effort by conducting a line-by-line review of 
its regulations to determine where they could be eliminated, simplified 
or clarified. As a result of this review, OSHA completed a document on 
May 31, 1995, entitled ``OSHA's Regulatory Reform Initiatives'' (Ex. L-
5). That document detailed the Agency's findings as to which 
regulations could be deleted or revised without reducing employee 
health and safety. OSHA stated in that document that clarifying, 
deleting, or revising these regulations would improve employer 
compliance and, consequently, enhance safety and health protection for 
employees.
    The Agency began the rulemaking process that would implement the 
changes identified in the review with an administrative notice that 
made minor clarifications and technical amendments to OSHA standards 
(61 FR 9228, March 7, 1996). In a second notice, duplicate health 
provisions from the shipyard and construction standards were eliminated 
and replaced with cross-references to the identical text in the general 
industry standards (61 FR 31427, June 20, 1996). Eliminating these 
duplicate provisions

[[Page 33451]]

has reduced the number of pages devoted to OSHA rules in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) without changing the substantive requirements 
of the standards.
    On July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37849), OSHA proposed substantive changes 
to certain standards that the Agency believed are unnecessary to, 
duplicative of, or inconsistent with the protection of worker safety 
and health. OSHA requested comments and set 60 days for their receipt. 
The final changes supported by the public record, and reflected in the 
Federal Register notice being published today, complete the regulatory 
action initiated with the July, 1996 Federal Register notice. OSHA is 
also reducing paperwork burden by deleting the requirements for sputum-
cytology examinations and reducing the frequency of chest x-rays for 
workers covered by the arsenic and coke oven emissions standards.

II. Distribution Table

    For the convenience of the public, OSHA is providing a distribution 
table, below, which shows the section designations of those existing 
OSHA General Industry rules that are being removed, removed and 
reserved, and redesignated in this rulemaking action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Old Section (29 CFR 1910)            New Section (29 CFR 1910)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(b)(15)(vi).........................  Removed.                       
110(b)(15)(vii)........................  Removed.                       
110(b)(15)(viii).......................  Removed.                       
110(b)(15)(ix).........................  110(b)(15)(vi).                
110(c)(2)(i)...........................  110(c)(2).                     
110(c)(2)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
110(c)(2)(iii).........................  Removed.                       
110(c)(2)(iv)..........................  Removed.                       
110(e)(10).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
110(g).................................  Removed and Reserved.          
111(f)(7)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
111(f)(8)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
141(a)(2)(i)...........................  Removed.                       
141(a)(2)(ii)..........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(iii).........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(iv)..........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(v)...........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(vi)..........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(vii).........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(viii)........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(ix)..........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(x)...........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
141(a)(2)(xi)..........................  Removed Paragraph Designation. 
142(a)(4)..............................  Removed.                       
151....................................  Added Appendix A.              
156(f)(2)(iii).........................  Removed.                       
183(a).................................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(a)(3)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(iii).........................  261(a)(3)(ii) .                
261(a)(3)(iv)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(v)...........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(vi)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(vii).........................  261(a)(3)(iii).                
261(a)(3)(viii)........................  261(a)(3)(iv).                 
261(a)(3)(ix)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(x)...........................  261(a)(3)(v).                  
261(a)(3)(xi)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xii).........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xiii)........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xiv).........................  261(a)(3)(vi).                 
261(a)(3)(xv)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xvi).........................  261(a)(3)(vii).                
261(a)(3)(xvii)........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xviii).......................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xix).........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xx)..........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xxi).........................  261(a)(3)(viii).               
261(a)(3)(xxii)........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xxiii).......................  261(a)(3)(ix).                 
261(a)(3)(xxiv)........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xxv).........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xxvi)........................  Removed.                       
261(a)(3)(xxvii).......................  Removed.                       
261(b)(1)..............................  Removed.                       
261(b)(2)..............................  Removed.                       
261(b)(3)..............................  Removed.                       
261(b)(4)..............................  261(b)(1).                     
261(b)(5)..............................  Removed.                       
261(b)(6)..............................  Removed.                       
261(b)(7)..............................  261(b)(2).                     
261(c)(2)(vi)..........................  Removed.                       

[[Page 33452]]

                                                                        
261(c)(2)(vii).........................  Removed.                       
261(c)(2)(viii)........................  261(c)(2)(vi).                 
261(c)(6)(i)...........................  261(c)(6).                     
261(c)(6)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(c)(7)(i)...........................  261(c)(7).                     
261(c)(7)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(d)(1)(i)...........................  261(d)(1).                     
261(d)(1)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(e)(3)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(e)(7)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(e)(9)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(g)(1)(iv)..........................  Removed.                       
261(g)(1)(v)...........................  261(g)(1)(iv).                 
261(g)(2)(i)...........................  Removed.                       
261(g)(2)(ii)..........................  261(g)(2)(i).                  
261(g)(2)(iii).........................  261(g)(2)(ii).                 
261(g)(15)(iv).........................  Removed.                       
261(g)(15)(v)..........................  261(g)(15)(iv).                
261(g)(15)(vi).........................  Removed.                       
261(h)(2)(iii).........................  Removed.                       
261(h)(2)(iv)..........................  261(h)(2)(iii).                
261(j)(1)(iv)..........................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(j)(3)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(j)(4)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(j)(4)(iii).........................  261(j)(4)(ii).                 
261(j)(4)(iv)..........................  261(j)(4)(iii).                
261(j)(4)(v)...........................  261(j)(4)(iv).                 
261(j)(4)(vi)..........................  261(j)(4)(v).                  
261(j)(5)(iv)..........................  Removed.                       
261(j)(6)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(j)(6)(iii).........................  261(j)(6)(ii).                 
261(k)(2)(i)...........................  Removed.                       
261(k)(2)(ii)..........................  261(k)(2)(i).                  
261(k)(2)(iii).........................  261(k)(2)(ii).                 
261(k)(2)(iv)..........................  261(k)(2)(iii).                
261(k)(2)(v)...........................  261(k)(2)(iv).                 
261(k)(2)(vi)..........................  261(k)(2)(v).                  
261(k)(4)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(k)(16).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(m)(2)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(m)(4)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
261(m)(5)(i)...........................  Removed.                       
261(m)(5)(ii)..........................  Removed.                       
261(m)(5)(iii).........................  261(m)(5).                     
262(c)(3)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
262(c)(4)..............................  Removed and Reserved.          
262(gg)................................  Removed and Reserved.          
262(ll)(1).............................  Removed.                       
262(ll)(2).............................  262(ll).                       
262(qq)(1).............................  Removed.                       
262(qq)(2).............................  Removed.                       
262(rr)................................  Removed.                       
265(a)(1)..............................  265(a).                        
265(a)(2)..............................  Removed.                       
265(c)(3)(i)...........................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(10).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(14).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(16).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(17).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(22).............................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(24)(iv)(a)......................  Removed.                       
265(c)(24)(iv)(b)......................  265(c)(24)(iv).                
265(c)(24)(iv)(c)......................  Removed.                       
265(c)(26)(i)..........................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(30)(vi).........................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(c)(30)(x)..........................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(e)(3)(ii)(d).......................  Removed and Reserved.          
265(f)(9)..............................  Removed.                       
265(g).................................  Removed.                       
265(h).................................  Removed.                       
265(i).................................  Removed.                       
267....................................  Removed and Reserved.          
268(f).................................  Removed and Reserved.          
1017(g)(5)(i)..........................  Removed.                       

[[Page 33453]]

                                                                        
1017(g)(5)(ii).........................  Removed.                       
1017(g)(6).............................  1017(g)(5) .                   
1017(g)(7).............................  1017(g)(6).                    
1018(n)(2)(ii)(C)......................  Removed.                       
1018(n)(2)(ii)(D)......................  1018(n)(2)(ii)(C).             
1018(q)(2)(iii)(F).....................  Removed.                       
1018(q)(2)(iii)(G).....................  Removed.                       
1018(q)(2)(iii)(H).....................  Removed.                       
1018 App C, Section I, General.........  Removed ``(4) A sputum cytology
                                          examination;''.               
1018 App C, Section I, General.........  Redesignated paragraph 5 as    
                                          paragraph 4                   
1018 App C, Section I, General.........  Removed entire section entitled
                                          ``III. Sputum cytology''.     
1029(j)(2)(vii)........................  Removed.                       
1029(j)(2)(viii).......................  1029(j)(2)(vii). Added new     
                                          1029(j)(3)(iv).               
1029(j)(3)(iv).........................  1029(j)(3)(v).                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary and Explanation

    In this section, OSHA explains the changes made to each regulatory 
provision being removed, revised, or redesignated. First, the changes 
that were proposed in the July 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) and the reasons for proposing those changes are discussed. Next, 
any comments that OSHA received about the proposed changes are 
identified and addressed. Finally, the action that OSHA is taking with 
regard to the proposed changes is explained.
    The proposed changes to Part 1910 standards are listed first, 
followed by those for Part 1926. Within this framework, provisions that 
received either no comments or positive comments only are listed first, 
in numerical order, followed by the few provisions for which minor 
varied comments were received.

Amendments to Part 1910 That Received No Comments or Positive Comments 
Only

A. Explosives and Blasting Agents (Sec. 1910.109)
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 prohibits the transporting of 
blasting caps on a vehicle that is carrying other explosives. However, 
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued regulations that 
provide an approved method for safely transporting blasting caps on the 
same vehicle with other explosives. Therefore, OSHA proposed to amend 
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of 29 CFR 1910.109 to permit transporting blasting 
caps on the same vehicle with other explosives if they are transported 
in accordance with the method specified in the DOT regulations at 49 
CFR 177.835(g)(3)(i).
    OSHA received supporting comments (e.g. Ex. 4: 1,10) on the 
proposed provision, and no commenter opposed the proposed action. As a 
result, OSHA is amending paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 as 
proposed.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 requires that boxes and 
packaging materials that have previously contained explosives not be 
used again and be destroyed by burning at an approved outdoor location. 
However, environmental agencies often will not permit the burning of 
these materials. Additionally, DOT permits the re-use of such packaging 
materials if such re-use is accomplished in accordance with certain 
criteria contained in 49 CFR 173.28.
    OSHA proposed to amend paragraph (e)(2)(i) to permit reusing 
uncontaminated containers and packaging materials if such re-use is 
accomplished in accordance with DOT regulations.
    All of the comments OSHA received on this provision supported the 
proposed action. For example, the Institute of Manufacturers of 
Explosives (IME) (Ex. 4: 10 pp. 1-2) stated:
    In addition, IME supports OSHA's amendment to Sec. 1910.109 
(e)(2)(i). The amended regulation will allow companies to reuse, rather 
than burn, uncontaminated packaging materials. As a result, companies 
will not be forced to violate state or local prohibitions against 
burning in order to comply with OSHA, or vice versa.

Accordingly, OSHA is amending paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 as 
proposed.
B. Storing and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (Sec. 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.
    OSHA had proposed to delete paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(viii) of 
Sec. 1910.110, because 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. Upon further review of 
these paragraphs, OSHA has concluded that paragraph (b)(15)(v) is not 
under the jurisdiction of DOT, since it addresses valves associated 
with storage tank piping located at a worksite. Accordingly, OSHA is 
retaining paragraph (b)(15)(v) and deleting paragraphs (b)(15)(vi)-
(viii). OSHA is also redesignating paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as new 
paragraph (b)(15)(vi) of Sec. 1910.110.
    Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv) of Sec. 1910.110 contain specifications 
for marking LPG cylinders. OSHA proposed deleting these marking 
specifications because they duplicate DOT requirements. No comments 
were received on the proposed changes, and OSHA is deleting the text of 
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv). OSHA is also redesignating paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) as new paragraph (c)(2).
    Paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 contains limitation requirements 
on the capacity of LPG containers that are used to fuel passenger 
carrying vehicles. OSHA proposed deleting these requirements pertaining 
to passenger carrying vehicles because they are under the jurisdiction 
of DOT. No comments were received on the proposed changes, and OSHA is 
deleting the text of paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 and reserving 
the paragraph designation.
    Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for installing 
LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles. OSHA proposed deleting these 
requirements because the installation of LP-gas systems on commercial 
vehicles is under the jurisdiction of DOT. No comments were received on 
the proposed changes. OSHA, therefore, is deleting the text from 
paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 and reserving the paragraph designation.

[[Page 33454]]

C. Storing 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 to protect such vehicles from 
collision. Because full trailers and semitrailers that transport 
ammonia are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA proposed deleting the 
text of paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111 and reserving the 
paragraph designations.
    OSHA received no comments on the proposed changes, and the text of 
paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111 is therefore being 
deleted and the paragraph designations are being reserved.
D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
    OSHA proposed deleting the definition of ``lavatory'' given in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141. This definition stated 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 Lavatory is self-explanatory in the context of the section and 
that deleting this definition will not diminish the health of employees 
in affected workplaces. No comments were received in opposition to the 
proposed deletion of the definition of ``lavatory'' in Sec. 1910.141. 
The definition of ``lavatory'' is, therefore, being deleted from 
Sec. 1910.141. Further, to conform to the format typically found in 
other OSHA standards, all paragraph designations for the definitions 
within paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.141 are also being removed.
E. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)
    Paragraph 1910.142(a)(4) provides regulations for closing temporary 
labor camps. Upon closing 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 leave 
all grounds and buildings in a clean and sanitary condition.
    Because this paragraph deals with closing the site, which occurs 
after the employees have left, this paragraph does not relate to worker 
safety but to public safety, which is outside the Agency's mission. For 
these reasons, OSHA proposed removing paragraph 1910.142(a)(4). No 
comments were received on this issue, and paragraph 1910.142(a)(4) is 
accordingly being removed. OSHA notes, however, that employers may be 
responsible for adhering to other standards related to 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. OSHA 
proposed removing these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 because they 
have relatively narrow scope and for employers desiring guidance in 
this area, the American National Standards Institute standard ANSI 
Z535.1-91, Safety Color Code is available. No comments were received on 
this issue. However on reconsideration, OSHA has decided to retain this 
section to indicate that proper color coding is necessary for worker 
protection in emergencies.
G. Fire Brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
    Section 1910.156 contains requirements for organizing, training, 
and providing personal protective equipment for members of 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 then 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 proposed removing it. There were no comments on 
the proposed change, and OSHA is therefore removing 
Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii) as proposed.
H. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
    Paragraph 1910.183(a) states that helicopter cranes are expected to 
comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). OSHA does not have the statutory authority to 
enforce FAA regulations for helicopters (found at 14 CFR part 133) and 
therefore proposed removing this paragraph. There were no comments on 
the proposed change and OSHA is therefore removing paragraph 
1910.183(a) and reserving the paragraph designation as proposed.
I. 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. 
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). 
Including these ANSI standards in Sec. 1910.261 duplicates other 
standards in part 1910 that apply to general industry as a whole, cover 
the same hazards, and in many cases, 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 paragraph 1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also 
the source standard for Section 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, A12.1-967, which is referenced in 
Sec. 1910.261. Accordingly, OSHA proposed deleting paragraph 
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 Section 1910.261. For this 
reason, OSHA proposed deleting many provisions of Sec. 1910.261 and 
applying the corresponding provisions found elsewhere in part 1910. The 
following table lists the OSHA standards that were proposed for 
deletion, the referenced ANSI standards, and the OSHA standards that 
will provide equivalent or better protection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Referenced ANSI       Equivalent OSHA  
      Deleted standard              standard              standard      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.261(a)(3)(ii)..........  A12.1-1967            Sec.  1910.23       
1910.261(a)(3)(iv)..........  A14.1-1968            Sec.  1910.25       

[[Page 33455]]

                                                                        
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)........  0.1-1954              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      
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, proposed 
removing Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this duplicate 
coverage.
    Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 requires workers in the pulp, 
paper and paperboard industry who enter closed vessels, tanks, chip 
bins, and similar equipment to follow specific procedures and wear 
personal protective 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 proposed deleting paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 for two 
reasons. First, Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces, 
provides better protection for workers required to work in a confined 
space. Section 1910.146 provides a comprehensive regulatory program 
within which employers can effectively protect employees working 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. This 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 proposed removing 
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this

[[Page 33456]]

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 proposed removing 
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 proposed removing 
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 
gas masks to employees working in the acid department. Since employers 
are required to comply with the general requirements for respiratory 
protection in Sec. 1910.134, OSHA proposed removing 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. 
Since employers are required to comply with all of Sec. 1910.1000, 
including paragraph 1910.1025 which addresses lead exposure, OSHA 
proposed removing paragraph (g)(15)(iv) to eliminate this duplication.
    All of the proposed changes to Sec. 1910.261 adopted by this notice 
were supported by two commenters, American Forest & Paper Association 
(AFPA) and the Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper 
Manufacturers (PCAP&PM) (Exs.4-15, 4-24). The AFPA stated that ``AFPA 
wishes to commend OSHA for the substantial efforts which the Agency has 
made to remove or revise standards that are obsolete, duplicative, 
unnecessary, or inconsistent for maintaining employee protection''. 
There were no comments opposing these changes and OSHA is therefore 
removing the paragraphs listed above and shown on the table from 
Sec. 1910.261, for the reasons stated above and given in the proposal.
    AFPA also recommended that OSHA delete a number of other 
provisions. OSHA believes these suggestions require additional study 
and there needs to be more extensive opportunity for comment on them. 
Rather than holding up the deregulatory changes in this document, OSHA 
will consider including those suggestions in its next proposal to 
eliminate unneeded provisions.
J. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
    For the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards coverage, OSHA 
proposed to delete a number of standards in Sec. 1910.262 that 
reference general occupational safety and health standards. The 
following table lists the standards OSHA proposed to delete. The 
referenced general OSHA standards will continue to apply to employers 
in the Textile industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Deleted standard                 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)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore 
deleting the standards listed in the table above.
    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 
has decided to retain this provision to indicate that proper color 
coding is necessary for worker protection in emergencies. Because OSHA 
is retaining Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.262(c)(8), 
OSHA will also retain Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
    No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore 
retaining Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
K. Sawmills (Sec. 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; dry kiln operation; 
finishing; shipping; storage; yard and yard equipment; and for power 
tools and related equipment used in connection with such operations. 
Certain paragraphs of Sec. 1910.265 incorporate and apply general 
occupational safety and health standards that apply to all employment 
covered by 29 CFR 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, but it is also incorporated by reference in paragraph 
(c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. OSHA believes that this repetition does not 
enhance worker safety, and therefore proposed removing paragraph 
(c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. Also, since Sec. 1910.5 applies to all 
industries, including the sawmill industry, OSHA proposed removing 
paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265, which merely references Sec. 1910.5.
    Similarly, to eliminate duplicate standards coverage, OSHA proposed 
deleting various provisions currently found in Sec. 1910.265 that 
reference general occupational safety and health standards. The 
following table lists the standards OSHA proposed deleting and the 
referenced general OSHA standards that will continue to apply to 
sawmills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Deleted standard                 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 retaining 
Sec. 1910.144 since the Agency believes that proper color coding is 
necessary for worker protection in emergencies. Since OSHA is retaining 
Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.265(c)(11), OSHA will 
also retain 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

[[Page 33457]]

(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 
includes provisions for sling inspection, removal, and protection. OSHA 
proposed deleting paragraphs (c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c)(24)(iv)(c) to 
eliminate the duplication of requirements for slings in Sec. 1910.265.
    The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) (Ex. 4-15) supported 
the changes to the provisions in Section 1910.265 that had been 
proposed by OSHA and that are now made final by this notice. There were 
no comments opposing these changes, and OSHA is therefore deleting the 
standards as proposed. The AFPA (Ex. 4-15) also suggested several other 
changes. OSHA concluded that they need further study, and rather than 
delaying this final rule, OSHA will consider including them in the next 
proposal to eliminate unnecessary provisions.
L. 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 
proposed removing and reserving this section.
    No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore 
removing Sec. 1910.267 and reserving this section.
M. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
    OSHA proposed deleting paragraphs (g)(5) (i) and (ii) of 
Sec. 1910.1017, vinyl chloride, which was promulgated in 1974. These 
paragraphs addressed 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 that 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 release of, or substantial threats 
of release of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of 
the hazard.'' Thus, vinyl chloride, which is a ``hazardous substance'' 
as defined under the HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the emergency 
response provisions in both the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER rules. With 
regard to overlapping provisions, 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 provisions more protective of 
employee safety and health shall apply. * * *''
    At the time it proposed to revoke the vinyl chloride provisions, 
OSHA believed that the emergency-response provisions in Sec. 1910.120 
were more protective overall than the relevant provisions in the vinyl 
chloride standard. Further, the provisions of Sec. 1910.120, which 
require employers to develop a broad program to respond appropriately 
to any potential emergency situation, were viewed by the Agency as 
giving employers more flexibility 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); required elements of the emergency 
response plan, paragraph (q)(2); procedures for handling emergency 
response, paragraph (q)(3); using skilled support personnel, paragraph 
(q)(4); using specialist employees, paragraph (q)(5); training 
emergency personnel, paragraphs (q) (6), (7), and (8); medical 
surveillance and consultation for emergency-response personnel, 
paragraph (q)(9); using chemical protective clothing, paragraph 
(q)(10); and procedures for post-emergency operations, paragraph 
(q)(11).
    OSHA continues to believe that deleting 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 solicited comment on the 
question of the sufficiency of Sec. 1910.120 to address the protection 
of vinyl chloride emergency response employees, if the emergency 
response provisions currently in the vinyl chloride standard were 
deleted.
    Comments were received which fully supported the proposed action. 
The Vinyl Institute (Ex. 4-11) commented as follows:

    In the event of a vinyl chloride incident during transportation, 
storage, or manufacture, it is necessary to respond quickly to stop 
or minimize any release and prevent the situation from escalating. 
Because of the quantity of material that potentially could be 
involved, such an incident or leak, if not quickly corrected, could 
create a cloud of explosive gas within a relatively short time. The 
emergency response provisions contained in the Hazardous Waste 
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard would enable 
the emergency responders to appropriately respond to the incident. 
In contrast, the vinyl chloride standard can be interpreted to 
prevent action if the exposure concentration is unknown or if it is 
expected to exceed 36,000 ppm and life rescue is not necessary.
    Following good emergency response practices and acting 
consistently with the HAZWOPER standard should produce the optimum 
results while protecting the life and safety of employees and other 
potentially exposed individuals. In addition, eliminating the 
emergency response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard 
clarifies which standard should govern in the event of such an 
emergency incident.
    OSHA's proposal to delete two specific emergency response 
provisions in the vinyl chloride standard and rely on the emergency 
response provisions in HAZWOPER will result in optimal responsive 
action. The HAZWOPER standard is flexible enough to allow responders 
and companies to develop comprehensive emergency response programs 
that can be adapted to the particular factual circumstances of a 
vinyl chloride incident.

    The Vinyl Chloride Panel Transportation Committee of the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association (Ex. 4-12A) commented that:

    The Committee agrees with OSHA's proposal, and believes that the 
emergency response criteria in the HAZWOPER standard are more 
appropriate than the relevant provisions of the current vinyl 
chloride standard. HAZWOPER recognizes that entry into an unknown 
concentration or a confined space may be necessary for reasons other 
than life rescue, in order to avoid catastrophic human or 
environmental threats. Unlike the current vinyl chloride standard, 
the HAZWOPER provisions are flexible enough to allow responders and 
companies to develop comprehensive emergency response programs that 
suit their individual needs.

    OSHA received no comments objecting to this proposed action.
    Based on the reasoning set forth in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM)

[[Page 33458]]

(61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), the discussion of the issues in this 
notice, and on supporting comments submitted to the record, OSHA has 
determined that deleting paragraphs (g)(5) (i) and (ii) from the vinyl 
chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) is appropriate, and this final 
rule accomplishes that action.
N. Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018) and Coke Oven Emissions 
(Sec. 1910.1029)
    OSHA proposed to revise the existing medical surveillance 
requirements in paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018 that address 
inorganic arsenic and paragraph (j) of 29 CFR 1910.1029 that address 
coke oven emissions exposure with respect to sputum-cytology 
examinations and chest x-rays.
    Those changes are being made in accordance with Section 6(b)(7) of 
the OSH Act which provides that ``The Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, may by rule promulgated 
pursuant to Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, make 
appropriate modifications in the foregoing requirements relating to the 
use of labels or other forms of warning, monitoring or measuring, and 
medical examinations, as may be warranted by experience, information, 
or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the 
promulgation of the relevant standard''.
    Specifically, OSHA proposed to delete the requirement in paragraph 
(n)(2)(ii)(C) of Sec. 1910.1018 (the inorganic arsenic standard) that 
provides for sputum-cytology examination, as well as the requirement in 
paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.1029 (The coke oven emission 
standard) that provides for sputum-cytology examination. Sputum-
cytology examinations were originally included in the medical 
surveillance programs for inorganic arsenic and coke oven workers based 
on OSHA's belief that such examinations were useful in lung cancer 
screening. Subsequent studies indicate that sputum-cytology does not 
improve survival.
    OSHA also proposed to revise the requirement in paragraph 
(n)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic standard that 
provided for a semi-annual 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 also proposed to change the required frequency 
of chest x-rays for these employees from semi-annual to annual. 
Likewise, OSHA proposed to amend the requirement in Sec. 1910.1029, 
paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the coke oven emissions standard, which 
provides for a semi-annual chest x-ray for employees 45 years of age or 
older or with 5 or more years of employment in a regulated area. OSHA 
proposed to amend the coke oven standard provision to require an annual 
chest x-ray in the medical surveillance program for the group of 
employees noted above. OSHA originally promulgated the provision for 
semi-annual x-rays in the belief that semi-annual examinations were 
appropriate for certain coke oven workers for lung cancer screening. 
Subsequent studies indicate that annual screening is equally effective.
    The basis for OSHA's final determinations with respect to its 
proposed treatment of the relevant sputum-cytology provisions is given 
below, followed by a discussion addressing the relevant x-ray 
provisions.
    Sputum-cytology. When OSHA issued its coke oven emission standard 
in 1976 and inorganic arsenic standard in 1978, it included sputum-
cytology as a medical screening technique for lung cancer. Medical 
opinion at the time believed that this would improve lung cancer 
survival rates for those at higher risk, such as arsenic and coke oven 
emission exposed workers.
    Two subsequent studies of persons at high risk of lung cancer did 
not indicate any improved survival from sputum-cytology screening. 
Therefore, OSHA proposed to delete the requirements.
    Two randomized controlled studies evaluated the benefits of sputum-
cytology examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in a high-
risk group, 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 survival 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, five year (Sloan Kettering) and 
eight 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. 
Other evaluations of the same studies, (Chest X-ray Screening Improves 
Outcome in Lung Cancer, A Reappraisal of Randomized Trials on Lung 
Cancer Screening) (Ex. 1-1), and (The National Cancer Institute 
Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program) (Ex. 1-2), reached the 
same conclusion.
    There are no controlled studies on the impact of sputum-cytology 
directly on inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission exposed workers. 
But inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission exposed workers are 
similar to the smokers studied in that both groups include older males 
that are placed at higher risk of lung cancer through inhalation.
    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).
    OSHA solicited comments on these conclusions with respect to the 
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requested submission of other data 
and views that would support or dispute the Agency's proposed findings 
and conclusions.
    OSHA received no comments objecting to this proposed action. 
Comments were submitted which support the Agency's proposal and 
conclusions with respect to the questionable value of sputum-cytology 
as a useful lung cancer screening technique (Exs. 4-2, 4-7, 4-17, 4-22, 
4-27).
    James Craner, MD, MPH, and a Board-Certified Occupational Medicine 
physician stated:

    I fully concur with the proposal to eliminate sputum cytology 
examinations for the reasons that OSHA has cited. In my experience, 
I have also found this test to be inaccurate with a significant 
false positive rate, particularly in smokers. The test is expensive 
for employers, uncomfortable for employees, and generates 
unacceptable costs and anxiety for all involved in chasing (false) 
positive results. [Ex. 4-17]

    Newport News Shipbuilding's Director of Environmental Health and 
Safety (Ex. 4-27) commented that:

    In the 17 years since this regulation was established there has 
been considerable further experience with cytology and screening 
techniques in general. This experience and the scientific literature 
published since 1978 established that bronchial cytology is of no 
added value in the protection of industrial workers against the 
health hazards of arsenic.

[[Page 33459]]

    An analysis of the NNS experience of bronchial cytology revealed 
that since inception of the program well over 1000 cytological 
examinations have been done. No case of dysplasia has been detected. 
This contrasts with the 16 per 1000 found in the Mayo lung project 
which used multiple screening techniques for cancer in high risk 
persons.
    Also in support of OSHA's proposal, The American Iron and Steel 
Institute (AISI) commented that:
    As OSHA points out, sputum cytology examinations were originally 
included in the [coke oven emissions] standard based on the belief 
that they ``were useful in screening for lung cancer.'' See 61 Fed. 
Reg. at 37855-56. Studies and information that have become available 
since the standard was promulgated show this belief to have been 
incorrect. Two large-scale studies (the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-
Kettering Lung Projects) of male smokers 45 years of age or older (a 
high risk group) found that sputum cytology had no significant value 
as a screening tool for lung cancer when used in addition to annual 
x-ray screening. [Ex. 4-22]

    AISI further indicated that:

    Experience in the steel industry is consistent with the results 
of the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering Studies. From 1977 through 
1990, the cytology laboratory at Shadyside Hospital in Pittsburgh, 
PA, performed almost 71,000 sputum cytology examinations of coke 
oven workers from various steel companies. Only two definite 
malignancies were detected in all of these examinations, for a 
detection rate of 0.000028 [Ex. 4-22]

    Based on their experience, AISI asserts that ``* * * sputum 
cytology has not been of any more benefit in terms of lung cancer 
screening under the Coke Oven Emissions Standard than it was in the 
Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering studies.'' (Ex. 4-22)
    The studies indicate the sputum-cytology screening does not appear 
to improve survival rates of groups at higher risk of lung cancer 
beyond that which would be accomplished through annual chest x-rays. 
Arsenic and coke-oven emission exposed workers fit in this category. 
The commenters support this analysis and have provided additional data 
which tends to support these conclusions. Since the studies and 
analysis do not indicate survival benefits, OSHA is deleting the 
requirements for sputum-cytology in the inorganic arsenic and coke oven 
emission standards as proposed.
    X-Rays. As noted above, OSHA proposed to revise the requirements in 
the inorganic arsenic and coke oven standards for chest x-rays from 
semi-annual to annual for higher risk workers covered by those 
standards. The basis for the proposal was studies that indicate that 
semi-annual x-rays did not improve lung cancer survival rates over 
annual x-rays.
    This evidence continues to show that employees at a higher risk of 
lung cancer from exposures to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions 
profit from a medical surveillance program, including annual chest x-
rays, for the early detection of lung cancer.
    As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), two 
recent randomized controlled studies were conducted on a group at high 
risk for developing lung cancer (namely, male smokers 45 years of age 
or 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 a number 
of 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 less infrequent 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 (Exs. 1-9, 1-10) found that periodic chest x-rays led 
to enhanced detection of early-stage lung cancer and, consequently, 
higher rates of resectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a 
subsequent analysis of these studies (Lung Cancer Detection, Results of 
Randomized Prospective Study in Czechoslovakia) (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 over diagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the 
Mayo Lung Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality 
rates of persons diagnosed with lung cancer were found to be 59% and 
78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in the control group.
    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 over-diagnosis 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 concludes that employees exposed to 
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions continue to need medical 
surveillance to detect lung cancer, and that periodic chest x-rays are 
a necessary part of the medical surveillance to improve detection and 
survival from lung cancer. OSHA proposed reducing the frequency of 
chest x-rays from semi-annually to annually for older persons with 
higher risk exposures.
    This frequency is based, in part, 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 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. Frequent chest x-rays very slightly increase 
cancer rates from radiation and therefore should not be given more 
frequently than necessary from a health perspective.
    In summary, large randomized controlled studies demonstrate that 
semi-annual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual 
screenings. The studies also demonstrate that annual chest radiography 
screening of high-risk individuals, including workers exposed to 
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions results in earlier detection 
of lung cancer and improved survival.
    Several commenters (Exs. 4-17, 4-22) suggested that intervals 
between x-rays

[[Page 33460]]

for high-risk workers could be longer than 1 year; however, the Agency 
is aware of no data to demonstrate with reasonable confidence what 
longer interval, if any, would not reduce survival rates. In addition, 
no such data were received by OSHA in response to the proposal. OSHA 
therefore concludes that an annual x-ray provision is reasonable for 
the reasons set forth in the proposal and this final notice. 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 solicited comments and data in the proposal to reduce the 
frequency of chest x-rays from semi-annual to annual for certain 
workers exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions. OSHA 
received no comments objecting to this proposed action. Comment was 
received supporting the proposal (Exs. 4-7, 4-17, 4-22, 4-27).
    AISI commented that:

    * * * the requirement for semiannual x-rays originally was 
included in the Coke Oven Emissions Standard ``in the belief that 
semiannual examinations were valid for screening for lung cancer.'' 
See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/2. Since then, the results of several 
large randomized control studies have become available. These 
studies, the Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study, indicate that 
periodic chest x-rays do lead to enhanced detection of early-stage 
lung cancer. See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/3. However, when the results 
of the Mayo Lung Project (where chest x-rays were taken every four 
months) were compared to the results of the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-
Kettering studies described above (where chest x-rays were taken 
only once a year), it was found that the fatality rates ``did not 
differ in any practical or statistically-significant fashion across 
these three major studies.'' See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/1.
    What this demonstrates, as OSHA correctly points out, is that 
``semiannual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over 
annual screenings.'' Id. That being the case, OSHA clearly is 
justified in finding that ``an annual chest x-ray satisfies the 
purpose of the medical surveillance program required under the 
standard.'' See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/1. A contrary conclusion not 
only would impose unjustified burdens on coke oven employers, it 
also would continue to expose coke oven employees to an increased 
risk of cancer associated with the performance of unnecessary 
diagnostic x-rays. For that reason, the Energy Technology Committee 
of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 
has cautioned against the routine administration of chest x-rays and 
stated that for individuals at increased risk of lung disease or 
cancer, such as persons exposed to pulmonary irritants or 
carcinogens, ``a chest x-ray every 12-24 months may be justified.'' 
(See American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 
Guidelines for Use of Routine X-Ray Examinations in Occupational 
Medicine; ACOEM Membership Directory 1995/1996: Addendum at 517.)
    The semiannual chest x-rays currently required under the 
standard do not provide a significant benefit over annual chest x-
ray screening in terms of early lung cancer detection...Chest x-rays 
under the Coke Oven Emissions Standard should, therefore, be 
required no more often than annually.'' (Ex. 4-22)

    With respect to the arsenic standard, James Craner, MD, MPH stated 
that ``* * * I agree with the proposal to reduce the frequency of chest 
x-ray examinations' (Ex. 4-17).
    In summary, available data do not indicate that semi-annual x-rays 
provide additional protection than do annual x-rays in improving the 
detection of and survival from lung cancer for higher risk persons. The 
record strongly supports this analysis and OSHA's proposal to reduce 
the x-ray frequencies from semi-annual to annual for certain workers 
exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission. OSHA concludes 
that this final action will not reduce the health of affected workers 
and accordingly finalizes the changes proposed.

Amendments to Part 1910 That Received Varied Comments

O. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
    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 
within the jurisdiction of some other regulatory agency. Among the 
requirements revoked were the three columns of Table H-21 (American 
Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives)(ATD)that specified 
minimum distances between explosive storage magazines and inhabited 
buildings, passenger railways, and public highways because they dealt 
with public and property protection and not employee protection.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Sec. 1910.109 was inadvertently overlooked 
during the 1978 rulemaking and still makes reference to the three 
columns of Table H-21 which were revoked. Therefore, OSHA proposed to 
delete the phrase in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) which made reference to these 
three revoked columns. OSHA also proposed to delete the word 
``manufacture'' from footnote number 5 of Table H-21 to clarify that 
the Table applies only to the storage of explosives in magazines.
    In response to the proposal, the Institute of Makers of Explosives 
(IME) objected to OSHA making changes to Table H-21, which is a revised 
version of the American Table of Distances (ATD) that is published by 
the IME. The IME (Ex. 4-10) asserted that the portion of the ATD 
published as Table H-21 comes from an outdated version of the ATD; 1991 
is the current publication date for the ATD. This commenter also stated 
that Table H-21 only provides the distances applicable to barricaded 
magazines, and that OSHA fails to provide the unbarricaded distances, 
which are significantly greater, and which are necessary to fully 
protect on-site workers.
    In expressing its concern, the IME (Ex. 4-10, pg.2) stated:

    The ATD, in its entirety, provides anyone storing explosives 
with all of the key parameters for maintaining sufficient distances 
between magazines and buildings on-site, as well as between on-site 
magazines and inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public 
highways. IME is adamant that an understanding of, and adherence to, 
all of the distances is necessary to maintain the safety of every 
explosives manufacturing and storage site. IME thus requires that 
those who use the copyright protected ATD must publish the entire 
ATD, with all its footnotes and columns, verbatim. In the interest 
of promoting overall safety, the IME suggests that OSHA publish the 
entire ATD.

    OSHA is appreciative of the comment expressed by IME; however, 
after a careful evaluation of this issue, OSHA has concluded that IME's 
suggestion to publish the entire ATD will require additional study. In 
addition, the public, and specifically the user community has not had 
notice or an opportunity to comment on this suggestion. Therefore, more 
extensive opportunity is needed for public comment to be expressed on 
this issue. Rather than holding up the deregulatory changes in this 
document, OSHA will consider this suggestion in its next proposal on 
technical amendments to the OSHA standards. However OSHA will make the 
minor corrections proposed so the existing language will be consistent 
and correct.
P. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
    Section 1910.151 states the employer's obligation 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 employers have on hand first aid 
supplies approved by the consulting physician.

[[Page 33461]]

    OSHA proposed amending 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 that meet the needs of most 
employers and most work sites are readily available. If the workplace 
had unusual hazards or posed special problems that would require 
modifying a commercial first aid kit or developing a specialized kit, 
the Agency expected the employer to provide those special items. An 
employer who was unsure whether a commercially available kit was 
sufficient could seek professional advice. Such advice, however, would 
not have been required by OSHA as a matter of course.
    Two commenters, Occupational Health Network and Gundersen Clinic 
Ltd. (Exs. 4-18, 4-23) opposed this amendment. One of the commenters 
(Ex. 4-23) said:

    While indeed commercial first aid kits are readily available and 
often meet the needs of many employers and many work sites, such 
first aid kits have been available for many years. We find that 
employers need improved first aid attention and protocols for use of 
specific first aid supplies that are in tune with the types of 
problems identified on their incident reports and OSHA 200 logs.

    American Pulpwood Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 
Company, Bell Atlantic, and Nynex (Ex. 4-5, 4-6, 4-19, 4-20, 
respectively) urged OSHA to adopt the proposed amendment. For example, 
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company said:

    Southwestern Bell Telephone Company provides employees' vehicles 
and work locations with the most up-to-date and well-stocked first 
aid kits available. We continually monitor their use and revise the 
kits accordingly.

    Nynex stated:

    The wide variety of commercially available first aid kits have 
proven to be adequate for occupational settings.

    After a review of the comments, OSHA concludes that workers will 
continue to be well protected after the change. Employers still must 
provide adequate first aid supplies for their workplace and can be 
cited if they fail to do so. As discussed below, there are many sources 
of information on appropriate supplies such as that provided by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society 
For Testing and Materials (ASTM). The employer may also consult with 
appropriate medical professionals, emergency rooms, and local fire/
rescue departments if the employer prefers. If there are unique hazards 
in the employer's workplace, the requirement for providing adequate 
first aid supplies means that the employer must provide adequate 
supplies for those professionals who would determine what additional 
supplies are needed. Accordingly, OSHA is adopting the proposed 
amendment to Sec. 1910.151(b).
    Since some employers may find it useful to refer to a list of basic 
first aid supplies, OSHA is providing a reference to this information 
in a new non-mandatory Appendix A to Sec. 1910.151. The Appendix refers 
to ANSI standard ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum Requirements for 
Industrial Unit-type First-aid Kits.'' OSHA is aware that ANSI Z308.1 
is currently under revision. When ANSI issues its revision to the 
Z308.1 standard, OSHA may revise Appendix A to reference the revised 
ANSI standard, if the Agency determines that the new edition is as 
effective as the earlier edition. In addition, at that time OSHA will 
consider adding other consensus standards on first aid kits as 
references in the Appendix.
    In providing references to applicable voluntary consensus 
standards, OSHA is complying with Section 12(d)(1) of the National 
Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113) which states that all 
Federal agencies shall use applicable technical standards that are 
developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies as a means to carry 
out their policy objectives or activities.
Q. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
    Paragraph (f) of existing Sec. 1910.268 contains requirements for 
rubber insulating equipment (gloves and blankets) used at 
telecommunications centers and field installations. In the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, OSHA presented several reasons why it believed 
that Sec. 1910.268(f) was unnecessary. First, the general industry 
standard found at 29 CFR 1910.137, Electrical Protective Equipment, 
addresses all rubber insulating equipment, and removing 
Sec. 1910.268(f) would eliminate this duplication of standards and the 
associated compliance problems. Second, Sec. 1910.137 provides more 
comprehensive employee protection, since it covers requirements for 
manufacture and marking, electrical proof tests, test and maximum use 
voltages, test intervals, workmanship, and in-service care and use. 
Third, Sec. 1910.137 is written in performance language that provides 
employers with flexibility in meeting the standard. Thus, OSHA believed 
that paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268 could be removed without 
diminishing employee safety and health.
    OSHA received seven comments from the telecommunications industry 
objecting to the proposed removal of this paragraph (Exs. 4-4, 4-6, 4-
8, 4-9, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20). These commenters argued that applying 
Sec. 1910.137 to their rubber gloves would increase the frequency with 
which the gloves had to be tested from every 9 months under 
Sec. 1910.268(f) to every 6 months under Sec. 1910.137. The commenters 
stated that this would increase the cost of testing rubber gloves 
without a commensurate increase in safety. Mr. James M. Degen of NYNEX 
(Ex. 4-20) worded the industry's arguments as follows:

    NYNEX does not agree, however, with OSHA's proposal to revoke 
the requirements for rubber insulating equipment used at 
telecommunications centers and field installations [29 CFR 
1910.268(f)] . . . Specifically, 1910.268(f) requires the electrical 
testing of rubber insulating gloves on a nine month interval, while 
1910.137 requires that these tests be conducted on a six month 
interval. NYNEX finds that the test interval in 1910.268(f) is 
adequate for the telecommunications industry and should be 
maintained for the following reasons:
    1. In contrast to the electric utility industry, 
telecommunications workers do not work with or otherwise handle live 
electric lines. Rubber insulating gloves are used as a precautionary 
measure against an unintentional contact with energized conductors 
or equipment.
    2. The national consensus standard that is referenced as a 
source of the requirements of 1910.137, ASTM F496-93b, Standard 
Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves, 
recognizes this difference between the electric utility industry and 
telecommunications in paragraph 7.3, which states:

    ``Industries, such as telecommunications, that utilize 
insulating gloves as precautionary protection against unintentional 
contact with energized conductors, may increase the maximum interval 
between issue and retest to nine months.''

    3. NYNEX has not experienced any work-related injuries or 
fatalities as a result of the failure of rubber insulating gloves.
    4. Finally, shortening the retest interval from nine months to 
six months would result in a fifty percent increase of direct costs 
to NYNEX amounting to $165,000 per year, as well as a fifty percent 
increase of indirect costs attributed to the administrative and lost 
productive time associated with exchanging, testing and reissuing of 
insulating gloves. These increased costs to NYNEX, as well as the 
rest of the telecommunications industry, will not result in any 
demonstrable improvement in employee safety.

    OSHA agrees with this commenter's rationale. Paragraph (f)(5) of 
Sec. 1910.268 reads as follows:

    (5) The employer is responsible for the periodic retesting of 
all insulating gloves,

[[Page 33462]]

blankets, and other rubber insulating equipment. This retesting 
shall be electrical, visual and mechanical. The following maximum 
retesting intervals shall apply:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gloves, blankets, and other insulating        Natural     Synthetic 
                   equipment                       rubber       rubber  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
(1)Months                                                               
                                               -------------------------
New...........................................           12           18
Re-issued.....................................            9           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, Table I-6 in Sec. 1910.137 sets intervals for testing 
rubber insulating equipment that differ from the intervals for such 
equipment in the telecommunications. Table I-6 requires rubber blankets 
to be tested before first use and every 12 months thereafter. It 
requires rubber insulating gloves to be tested before first use and 
every 6 months thereafter. No distinction is made between natural and 
synthetic rubber.
    As noted by the commenters, removing Sec. 1910.268(f) in its 
entirety would effectively increase the amount of testing performed by 
telecommunications employers on rubber gloves.1 This would 
consequently increase the industry's testing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The testing intervals for synthetic rubber insulating 
blankets would also be shorter. However, the commenters did not 
object on that basis. Additionally, the national consensus standard 
for this equipment, American Society for Testing and Materials F479 
Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Blankets, which 
formed the basis for the test intervals in Sec. 1910.137, provides a 
maximum interval of 12 months between tests, regardless of whether 
the rubber is natural or synthetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Employees performing telecommunications work wear rubber insulating 
gloves to protect them against accidental contact with energized parts. 
These employees use specific work practices required in Sec. 1910.268, 
including maintaining minimum approach distances from energized parts, 
to protect them against electric shock hazards. The gloves provide 
secondary protection in case the work practices are not followed. This 
contrasts with the way rubber insulating gloves are used for other 
types of electrical work, such as electric power transmission and 
distribution work. In this type of work, employees wearing rubber 
insulating gloves handle energized conductors directly, and the gloves 
provide the primary form of protection for the worker.
    All the commenters on this issue maintained that they had 
experienced no injuries as a result of the failure of rubber insulating 
gloves. For these reasons, OSHA has decided not to remove 
Sec. 1910.268(f)(5).
    OSHA is also retaining paragraph (f)(6) of Section 1910.268 because 
of its connection with paragraph (f)(5). This paragraph requires that 
rubber gloves and blankets be marked to indicate compliance with the 
test schedule required under paragraph (f)(5) and that rubber gloves be 
destroyed if they fail the tests or if they are otherwise found to be 
defective.
    OSHA continues to believe that the remaining provisions contained 
in existing Sec. 1910.268(f) unnecessarily duplicate requirements in 
Sec. 1910.137. None of the interested persons who commented on 
Sec. 1910.268(f) presented reasons why any paragraphs other than 
Sec. 1910.268 (f)(5) and (f)(6) should be retained. Therefore, the 
Agency is revising paragraph (f)(1), removing paragraphs (f)(2) through 
(f)(4) and (f)(7) through (f)(9) and redesignating paragraphs (f)(5) 
and (f)(6) as (f)(2) and (f)(3) of Sec. 1910.268. Paragraph (f)(1) as 
revised explains that 1910.137 applies to telecommunications except for 
Table I-6.

Amendments to Part 1926 That Received No Comments or Positive Comments 
Only

A. Incorporation by reference (Sec. 1926.31)
    This final rule amends Sec. 1926.31 to clarify that only mandatory 
provisions of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as OSHA 
standards.
    As stated in the proposal, 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 section 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 have 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, 
using 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).
    OSHA's ability to enforce ``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 used them to help 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 an 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 OSH para. 24,840).
    In order to address these issues, the Agency is revising 
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 simplify and streamline 
the 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. At that time, paragraph (a)(1) of 
Sec. 1910.6 was revised to clarify that ``only the mandatory provisions 
* * * of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards 
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act'' (49 FR 5318).
    In the present rule making, OSHA proposed to revise paragraph (a) 
of Sec. 1926.31 to read the same as Sec. 1910.6 by adding a sentence to 
existing Sec. 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ``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

[[Page 33463]]

Occupational Safety and Health Act.'' No comments were received on the 
proposed revision, and this paragraph (Sec. 1926.31(a)) is therefore 
being revised as proposed.
B. Flammable and combustible liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
    Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.152 requires employers to use a 
safety can, which is defined as 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, for the storage, use, and handling of flammable and combustible 
liquids. As stated in the proposal, while approved metal safety cans 
are still acceptable, various nationally recognized testing 
laboratories have also approved the use of plastic safety cans for 
flammable liquids. 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 are also acceptable for the storage, use, and 
handling of flammable and combustible liquids because they sufficiently 
reduce the risk from fire, spills and explosions.
    Furthermore, the Agency has determined that it is sufficient to 
require the use of the original container only for quantities of 
flammable liquids that are one gallon or less because that will 
adequately protect against the risk of fire and explosion. 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.
    One comment was received on the proposed revision to 
Sec. 1926.152(a)(1), (Ex. 4-2). This commenter supported the proposed 
revision as written. Based on the reasons stated above, OSHA is 
revising Sec. 1926.152(a)(1) as proposed.
C. Initiation of explosive charges--Electric blasting (Sec. 1926.906)
    OSHA proposed revising paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to allow the 
use of other types of specifically designed instruments, in addition to 
those equipped with silver chloride cells, when testing circuits to 
charged holes.
    The general industry standard, Sec. 1910.109(e)(4)(vii), Explosives 
and Blasting Agents, states that ``Blasters, when testing circuits to 
charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers designed for this 
purpose.'' The standard does not specifically require using silver 
chloride cells. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA) 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). The revision of Sec. 1926.906(q) 
will correct the inconsistency with the above mentioned standards.
    One comment was received on the proposed revision to 
Sec. 1926.906(q). This commenter (Ex. 4-10) substantially supported the 
proposed revision to Sec. 1926.906(q). OSHA is therefore revising 
Sec. 1926.906(q) as proposed.

Amendments to Part 1926 That Received Varied Comments

D. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1926.50)
    OSHA proposed revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of Sec. 1926.50 
to eliminate the requirement for physician approval of first aid 
supplies. As stated in the proposal, 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 which 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. The Agency believes that this change 
will allow the employer more flexibility in meeting the first aid 
requirements without affecting employee safety.
    No comments were received on this proposed revision; however, nine 
comments were received addressing the proposal to revise the identical 
provision in the General Industry standard Sec. 1910.151(b) (Exs. 4-5, 
4-6, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-26, 4-28 and 4-30). Those comments are 
discussed in the General Industry section above. In addition, as stated 
in the Sec. 1910.151(b) discussion, OSHA is providing a reference for 
basic first aid supplies and their use in a new non-mandatory Appendix 
A to Sec. 1910.151. In order to be consistent with the General Industry 
standards, and for the reasons stated in the discussion of the General 
Industry standard, this final rule revises Sec. 1926.50 in the same 
manner as Sec. 1910.151 with the addition of a non-mandatory Appendix A 
to Sec. 1926.50.
    Appendix A for Sec. 1910.151 includes a statement that employers 
are to follow the provisions of Sec. 1910.1030(d)(3) of the OSHA 
standard on occupational exposure to blood borne pathogens (56 FR 
64175). As that standard is not applicable to employers in the 
construction industry, this statement is not repeated in Appendix A to 
Sec. 1926.50. Additional First aid supplies (other than those 
referenced in Appendix A) may be necessary to address specific work 
hazards and prevalent injuries.
    OSHA is revising Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 to limit the 
requirement for posting the telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals 
or ambulances to those areas where the 911 emergency number is not 
available. OSHA believes that requiring all employers to post the 
numbers where the 911 emergency number is available could lead to 
confusion and might slow emergency response, and would place an 
unnecessary burden on the employers.

IV. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis Introduction

    Based on the record of this rulemaking, this final rule eliminates 
a number of provisions in OSHA standards that are duplicative, 
unnecessary, or potentially in conflict with the rules of other Federal 
agencies. All of the changes OSHA is making are expected to benefit the 
regulated community by making the rules clearer, simple and easier to 
understand and apply. Quantifiable economic benefits can be estimated 
only for four of these changes, however.2 By eliminating 
these ``problem provisions'' from its standards, this Standards 
Improvement rule will lessen the burden employers currently experience, 
and will, in turn, generate cost savings. No commenters disputed these 
findings, reported by OSHA in the Preliminary Economic Analysis that 
accompanied the proposed rule. The following paragraphs discuss the 
Final Economic Analysis in detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, the Duke Power Company [Ex. 4-2] applauded 
OSHA's elimination of a provision (Sec. 1926.152) on storage cans 
for flammable and combustible liquids that conflicts with a DOT 
requirement on the same topic. Unfortunately, the Agency does not 
have sufficient data to estimate the apparent cost savings from this 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Aid Kits

    The final rule eliminates the requirements in Sec. 1910.151(b) and 
Sec. 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must have certain first aid supplies 
approved by a consulting physician before they are used. This 
requirement applied only in cases where no infirmary, clinic, or 
hospital was in close proximity to the worksite and the employer 
intended to treat first aid injuries at the site.

[[Page 33464]]

Although the number of establishments meeting these criteria is not 
known, the Agency believes that its estimate of 10 percent of 
establishments is reasonable, and no commenter disagreed with this 
estimate. The provisions being eliminated did not specify how the 
physician was to provide this consultation, but OSHA assumed that, at 
most, five minutes of a physician's time, valued at $100/
hr,3 would be required to approve the contents of the first 
aid kit at these establishments. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA 
also assumed that the physician provided five minutes of his or her 
time at an hourly wage rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Opportunity cost measured as the market price for 
occupational physical exams, i.e., at the rate of about $100 an 
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis further assumed that the physician would need to 
approve the first aid supplies once every 10 years, after which time 
the development of new kinds of medical supplies and the possibility of 
new hazards at the worksite would make a new consultation necessary. 
The cost of five minutes of a physician's time annualized over 10 years 
is $1.19 per year.
    The Agency estimates that approximately 6.4 million employers fall 
under OSHA jurisdiction and will be affected by this change [County 
Business Patterns, 1993]. Of these, 10% would be affected by the 
change; the annualized cost for employers to comply with these 
provisions in the past was approximately $761,600 ((6.4 million  x  
10%)  x  $1.19). By eliminating the requirement for a physician's 
approval of an establishment's first aid kit, OSHA will eliminate this 
burden.

Coke Oven Emissions

    The final rule will eliminate the requirement at Sec. 1910.1029(j) 
for employers to conduct semiannual sputum cytology tests and will 
reduce the frequency at which they must supply chest x-rays from twice 
a year to once a year for workers who are 45 years of age or older or 
who have five or more years of employment in areas defined by the 
standard as regulated areas. Regulated areas encompass the coke oven 
battery, including topside and its machinery, pushside and its 
machinery, cokeside and its machinery, and battery ends; the wharf; the 
screening station; and the beehive oven and its machinery.
    The Inflationary Impact Statement developed by OSHA in support of 
the Coke Oven standard (Sec. 1910.1029), [Inflationary Impact 
Statement: Coke Oven Emissions, 1976] estimated total employment in 
coke ovens at 29,600 workers. The same analysis estimated that 75 
percent of these employees worked in regulated areas. The 1992 Census 
of Manufacturers (Industry Series) indicated total employment for SIC 
33121 (Coke Oven and Blast Furnace Products) at 8,600 and total 
production person-hours at 15.7 million. A separate Census Industry 
Series count specific to coke ovens indicates a total of 11.2 million 
production person-hours, which constitutes approximately 71 percent of 
SIC 3312's productive person-hours, suggesting a current total number 
of 6,135 coke oven workers.
    Assuming that the proportion of coke oven employees working in 
regulated areas has remained constant, approximately 4,600 coke oven 
employees currently work in regulated areas. 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]. Thus, approximately 77 percent of the 
current regulated area workforce will have been exposed to coke oven 
emissions for five years or more.4 Adjusting this percentage 
to reflect the assumption that 30 percent of employees are over 45 
years of age yields an estimate of 84 percent 5 of coke oven 
employees (3,864 workers) potentially affected by the revocation or 
revision of these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  (1-0.05)5 = 0.77 This calculation assumes an 
equal probability of turnover in each year thereafter.
    \5\  ((0.77)  x  (1-0.30)) + (0.30) = 0.84 All other things 
equal, at least 30 percent of those with 5 or more years of exposure 
would be over 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data for 1994 obtained from the Physician Payment Review Commission 
[E-mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC, to Tom Mockler, OSHA] indicate 
that the average x-ray charge nationally is $54.40 and the average lab 
charge for cytological examination of bodily fluids is $51.90. (OSHA 
assumes that the additional average charge of $19.00 for sputum 
specimen collection is included in the fee for the medical exam 
required by the standard.) Therefore the savings associated with the 
elimination of one chest x-ray and two sputum cytologies annually is 
$158.20 per worker ($54.40 for one x-ray, and $103.80 for two sputum 
cytology tests). For the group of 3,864 employees, the annual savings 
is thus $611,285.
    The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) [Ex. 4-22] agreed with 
the Preliminary Economic Analysis's finding that this change would save 
employers money. AISI's analysis, which assumed higher wage rates and a 
larger affected population than OSHA's analysis, estimated a cost 
savings of $925,000 per year. Thus, the Agency's cost savings estimate 
for this regulatory action may be understated.

Inorganic Arsenic

    As in the case of the coke oven standard, OSHA is eliminating the 
requirement for sputum cytology and reducing the frequency of chest x-
ray exams from semi-annual to annual for workers exposed above the 
inorganic arsenic action level of 5g/m3 (29 CFR 
1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1910.1018 formerly required employees 
exposed above the action level for 30 days per year to receive these 
medical surveillance elements semi-annually if they were 45 years of 
age or older or had 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 to 
inorganic arsenic, 7,400 were exposed above an 8-hour TWA 4g/
m3, 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. 6 
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumes that 
the size of the exposed population is unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\  Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic trioxide 
consumed in the 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 exposed above the action level would 
need the semi-annual x-ray exams, based on OSHA's analysis of age, job 
tenure and turnover. Using the same assumptions, the Agency estimates 
that approximately 3,700 workers will be affected by the final rule's 
revision to this provision. This change will eliminate the need for x-
ray and sputum cytology testing valued at $158.20 (see the explanation 
above for coke ovens for cost details) for 3,700 employees, for an 
annual cost savings of $584,340.

Pulp and Paper

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


[[Page 33465]]


    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 for similar 
confined spaces in pulp and paper mills.
    OSHA is eliminating these specific separate requirements for 
confined space entry in pulp and paper mills and instead is cross-
referencing Sec. 1910.146, OSHA's generic permit-required confined 
space standard. In other words, employers in the pulp and paper 
industry will no longer have to comply with Sec. 1910.261(b)(5) but 
will instead be required to comply with Sec. 1910.146. Sec. 1910.146 
requires employers to assess the hazards associated with their confined 
spaces and take appropriate safety precautions to deal with those 
hazards. Although Sec. 1910.146 may require employers under certain 
circumstances to complete additional checklists, conduct training, and 
plan for rescue, depending on the hazard(s) present, pulp and paper 
mill employers will in some cases no longer need to require employees 
to wear lifelines or provide for outside ``attendants'', 7 
as was required by Sec. 1910.261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, Sec. 1910.146(c)(5) states 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, 
the employer is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 identified.
    By deleting the more rigid confined space requirements of the pulp 
and paper industry-specific standard and requiring employers to comply 
with the more performance-oriented requirement for attendants and 
lifelines of the permit-required confined spaces standard, 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 person-hours 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 or revising these four unnecessary or 
duplicative requirements, the Agency is reducing annual employer 
burdens related to first aid kits by $761,000, to medical surveillance 
for coke oven emission workers by $611,285 and inorganic arsenic 
workers $584,340, and to confined space entry in pulp and paper mills 
by $7.7 million, for a total annualized employer savings of $9,656,625.

Technological Feasibility

    OSHA could not identify any provision of the final rule that raised 
technological feasibility problems for employers. OSHA therefore 
concludes that technological feasibility is not an issue for the 
changes made to these standards in this regulatory action.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 
amended, requires that the Agency examine its regulatory actions to 
determine if they have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. As stated at the time of the proposal, and 
confirmed by this final economic analysis and comments to the record, 
these modifications to existing regulations are expected to reduce the 
regulatory burden on all affected employers, large and small. No 
commenters disputed this conclusion. For that reason, the Agency hereby 
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Environmental Assessment

    The final rule has 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 rule will have no significant environmental impact.

VII. International Trade

    This 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.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the final ``Standards 
Improvement For General Industry and Construction Standards'' standard. 
OMB has approved the collections of information contained in the 
Inorganic Arsenic standard and has assigned the OMB Control Number of 
1218-0104 to these collections. OMB has also approved the collections 
of information contained in the Coke Oven Emissions standard and has 
assigned the OMB Control Number of 1218-0128 to them. Both approvals 
expire on 3/31/2000. Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct 
or sponsor a collection of information unless: (1) the collection of 
information displays a currently valid OMB control number; and (2) the 
agency informs the potential persons who are to respond to the 
collection of information that such persons are not required to respond 
to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.

IX. Federalism

    This 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 revision and revocation of standards is meant to reduce the 
volume and complexity of OSHA standards, and

[[Page 33466]]

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 the revocation and 
revision of these standards 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.

X. State Plan Standards

    The States with their own approved occupational safety and health 
plans must have at least as effective standards in place 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, Virginia, Virgin Islands, 
Washington, and Wyoming.

XI. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. 
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Business and industry, Coke oven emission, Explosives, Fire 
prevention, Hazardous substances, Inorganic arsenic, Occupatioal safety 
and health.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry, Electric power, First-aid, Fire prevention
    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day of June 1998.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, 6(b) (7) 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. 6-96 (62 FR 111), 29 CFR 
Parts 1910 and 1926 are amended as set forth below.

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart H--Hazardous Materials

    1. The authority citation for subpart H 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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

    1a. Remove the phrase, ``from inhabited buildings, passenger 
railways, and public highways and'' from paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of 
Sec. 1910.109.
    2. Remove the words, ``manufacture and'' from the first sentence in 
footnote number 5, of Table H-21, of Sec. 1910.109.
    3. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1910.109  Explosives and blasting agents.

* * * * *
    (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).
* * * * *
    (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  [Amended]

    1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(vi) through (b)(15)(viii) of 
Sec. 1910.110, and redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as (b)(15)(vi).
    2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (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  [Amended]

    5. 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 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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, 29 CFR Part 1911.


Sec. 1910.141  [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  [Amended]

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

Subpart K--Medical and First Aid

    1. The authority citation for subpart K 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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Revise the final sentence in paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1910.151  Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 1910.151, add Appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Sec. 1910.151--First aid kits (Non-Mandatory)

    First aid supplies are required to be readily available under 
paragraph Sec. 1910.151(b). An example of the minimal contents of a 
generic first aid kit is described in American National Standard 
(ANSI) Z308.1-1978 ``Minimum Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type 
First-aid Kits.'' The contents of the kit listed in the ANSI 
standard should be adequate for small worksites. When larger 
operations or multiple operations are being conducted at the same 
location, employers should determine the need for additional first 
aid kits at the worksite, additional types of first aid equipment 
and supplies and additional quantities and types of supplies and 
equipment in the first aid kits.
    In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing 
first-aid needs in their workplace may need to enhance their first-
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200 log, OSHA 101's or other 
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the 
local fire/rescue department, appropriate medical professional, or 
local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these 
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace, 
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are 
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their 
worksite periodically and augment the first aid kit appropriately.
    If it is reasonably anticipated that employees will be exposed 
to blood or other potentially infectious materials while using first 
aid supplies, employers are required to provide appropriate personal 
protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with the provisions of the 
Occupational Exposure to Blood borne Pathogens standard,

[[Page 33467]]

Sec. 1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This standard lists appropriate 
PPE for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, face shields, 
masks, and eye protection.

Subpart L--Fire Protection

    1. The authority citation for subpart L 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 6-96 (62 FR 111) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1910.156  [Amended]

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

Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage

    1. The authority citation for subpart N 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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1910.183  [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: 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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec. 1910.261  [Amended]

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


Sec. 1910.262  [Amended]

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


Sec. 1910.265  [Amended]

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


Sec. 1910.267  [Removed and Reserved]

    37. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.267.


Sec. 1910.268  [Amended]

    38. Revise paragraph (f)(1), remove paragraphs (f)(2) through 
(f)(4) and (f)(7) through (f)(9) and redesignate paragraphs (f)(5) and 
(f)(6) as (f)(2) and (f)(3) as follows:


Sec. 1910.268  Telecommunications.

* * * * *
    (f) Rubber insulating equipment. (1) Rubber insulating equipment 
designed for the voltage levels to be encountered shall be provided and 
the employer shall ensure that they are used by employees as required 
by this section. The requirements of Sec. 1910.137, Electrical 
Protective Equipment, shall be followed except for Table I-6.
* * * * *

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 6-96 (62 FR 111), 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)).

[[Page 33468]]

    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 not issued 
under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds), 
benzene, and cotton dust listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract 
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and 1910.1200 are also issued 
under 29 U.S.C. 653.


Sec. 1910.1017  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 1910.1017, remove paragraph (g)(5).
    3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) of Sec. 1910.1017 as 
paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively.
    4. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate 
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); add the word ``and'' after 
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(B); and 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:


Sec. 1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *
    (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 
semiannually, and the x-ray requirement specified in paragraph 
(n)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at least annually, for other covered 
employees.
* * * * *


Sec. 1910.1018  [Amended]

    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).
    6. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1018, revise paragraph VI to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1018--Inorganic Arsenic Substance 
Information Sheet

* * * * *

VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

    If your exposure to arsenic is over the Action Level (5 mg/m3)--
(including all persons working in regulated areas) at least 30 days 
per year, or you have been exposed to arsenic for more than 10 years 
over the Action Level, your employer is required to provide you with 
a medical examination. The examination shall be every 6 months for 
employees over 45 years old or with more than 10 years exposure over 
the Action Level and annually for other covered employees. The 
medical examination must include a medical history; a chest x-ray; 
skin examination and a nasal examination. 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. The physician must not tell your employer any conditions he 
detects unrelated to occupational exposure to arsenic but must tell 
you those conditions.

Appendix C--[Amended]

* * * * *
    7. In Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1018, Section I, General, remove 
paragraph (4) which reads ``(4) A Sputum Cytology examination;'' 
redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and insert the word ``and'' 
after paragraph (3).
    8. In Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1018, remove the entire section 
entitled ``III. Sputum Cytology''.
    9. In Sec. 1910.1029, remove paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and redesignate 
paragraph (j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and insert the word 
``and'' after paragraph (j)(2)(vi).
    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) 
through (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) 
through (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:


Sec. 1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *
    (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) of this section.
    13. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph VI is revised to 
read as follows:

Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1029--Coke Oven Emissions Substance 
Information Sheet

* * * * *

VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

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

Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029--Industrial Hygiene and Medical 
Surveillance Guidelines

* * * * * *

II. Medical Surveillance Guidelines

    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 semiannually 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 Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029, Section II, the paragraphs 
entitled ``C. Sputum Cytology,'' are removed.

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.31 to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.31  Incorporation by reference.

    (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

[[Page 33469]]

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. The 
locations where these standards may be examined are as follows:
    (1) Offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, Washington, DC 
20210.
    (2) The Regional and Field Offices of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, which are listed in the U.S. Government Manual.
* * * * *

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 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Revise paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (f) of Sec. 1926.50 to read 
as follows:


Sec. 1926.50  Medical services and first aid.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) First aid supplies shall be easily accessible when required.
    (2) The contents of the first aid kit shall be placed in a 
weatherproof container with individual sealed packages for each type of 
item, and shall be checked by the employer before being sent out on 
each job and at least weekly on each job to ensure that the expended 
items are replaced.
* * * * *
    (f) In areas where 911 is not available, the telephone numbers of 
the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 1926.50, add Appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Sec. 1926.50--First aid Kits (Non-Mandatory)

    First aid supplies are required to be easily accessible under 
paragraph Sec. 1926.50(d)(1). An example of the minimal contents of 
a generic first aid kit is described in American National Standard 
(ANSI) Z308.1-1978 ``Minimum Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type 
First-aid Kits''. The contents of the kit listed in the ANSI 
standard should be adequate for small work sites. When larger 
operations or multiple operations are being conducted at the same 
location, employers should determine the need for additional first 
aid kits at the worksite, additional types of first aid equipment 
and supplies and additional quantities and types of supplies and 
equipment in the first aid kits.
    In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing 
first-aid needs in their workplace, may need to enhance their first-
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200 log, OSHA 101's or other 
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the 
local Fire/Rescue Department, appropriate medical professional, or 
local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these 
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace, 
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are 
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their 
worksite periodically and augment the first aid kit appropriately.
    If it is reasonably anticipated employees will be exposed to 
blood or other potentially infectious materials while using first-
aid supplies, employers should provide personal protective equipment 
(PPE). Appropriate PPE includes gloves, gowns, face shields, masks 
and eye protection (see ``Occupational Exposure to Blood borne 
Pathogens'', 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(3)) (56 FR 64175).

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 6-96 (62 FR 111) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. In Sec. 1926.152, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.152  Flammable and combustible liquids.

    (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.

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, 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 
6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Revise paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.906  Initiation of explosive charges--electric blasting.

* * * * *
    (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. 98-15936 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P