[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66494-66517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27541]



[[Page 66493]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926



Standards Improvement Project-Phase II; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 66494]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. S-778-A]
RIN 1218-AB 81


Standards Improvement Project-Phase II

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION:  Proposed rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'' or 
``the Agency'') is continuing to remove and revise provisions of its 
standards that are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. 
The Agency completed the first phase of this process with the 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register in June 1998. In 
this second phase, OSHA is proposing to revise a number of health 
provisions in its standards for general industry, shipyard employment, 
and construction. The Agency believes that the proposed revisions would 
streamline these provisions; in some cases, OSHA is making substantive 
revisions to provisions that would reduce regulatory requirements for 
employers while maintaining employee protection.

DATES: Submit written comments and any request for a hearing by 
December 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of written comments to the Docket 
Office, Docket No. S-778-A, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: 
(202) 693-2350). Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages 
or less by fax to the Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    You may submit comments electronically through OSHA's Homepage at 
http://www.osha.gov. Please note that you may not attach materials such 
as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish 
to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA 
Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such 
materials to the OSHA Docket Office, you must clearly identify your 
electronic comments by name, date, and subject, so that we can attach 
the materials to your electronic comments.
    Send requests for a hearing to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: 
(202) 693-1999). Submit comments on the reduction of paperwork burden 
described in section VII of this notice to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530 
(Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: 
(202) 693-1999). For technical inquiries, contact Mr. Robert Manware, 
Office of Physical Hazards, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: 
(202) 693-2299; fax: (202) 693-1678). For additional copies of this 
Federal Register notice, contact the Office of Publications, Room N-
3101, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-1888). Electronic copies of 
this Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other 
relevant documents, are available at OSHA's website on the Internet at 
http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1995, the Agency identified a number of provisions in its 
regulations and standards that were inconsistent, duplicative, 
outdated, or in need of being rewritten in plain language. In 1998, as 
part of the process of correcting such provisions, OSHA made several 
substantive revisions to its health and safety standards that reduced 
the regulatory obligations of employers while maintaining the safety 
and health protection afforded to employees (63 FR 33450, June 18, 
1998). During and after this rulemaking, the Agency identified several 
other regulatory provisions in its safety and health standards 
involving notification of use, frequency of exposure monitoring and 
medical surveillance, and similar provisions that it believes are 
unnecessary or ineffective in protecting employee safety and health. 
Today, OSHA is proposing to make substantive revisions to a number of 
the health standard provisions identified in this process.
    The Agency plans to propose similar revisions to several of its 
safety and other standards in a future Federal Register notice. In 
addition, OSHA requests comments on possible similar revisions to 
outdated provisions in safety or health standards which could be 
included in the next or subsequent Standards Improvement proposal.
    The Agency has made a preliminary finding that the revisions to the 
health standards proposed herein would reduce the regulatory burden of 
employers without reducing the health protection that these standards 
currently provide to employees. OSHA also believes that the changes set 
forth in this proposal would simplify and clarify the requirements of 
these provisions, thereby facilitating employer compliance, improving 
employee protection and reducing paperwork.
    This notice-and-comment rulemaking is necessary because a number of 
the proposed revisions are substantive. The Agency will base its final 
decisions regarding these proposed revisions on the record developed in 
this rulemaking through public comment.
    This action will affect a number of standards included in Parts 
1926 and 1915. In accordance with Agency procedures therefore, the 
Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health, and the Advisory 
Committee on Maritime Safety and Health have been advised of the 
standards which affect the construction and maritime industries. This 
information was presented to the Construction Committee at their 
meeting in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2000, and to the Maritime 
Committee on December 6, 2000, in Baltimore, Maryland.

II. Summary and Explanation

    The proposed revisions address: Methods of communicating illness 
outbreaks (temporary labor camps standard (Sec.  1910.142)); first-aid 
kits for the general industry (standards for medical services and first 
aid (Sec.  1910.151) and telecommunications (Sec.  1910.268)); 
laboratory licensing (vinyl chloride standard (Sec.  1910.1017); 
periodic exposure monitoring (vinyl chloride, 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec.  1910.1044), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  
1910.1045) standards); reporting the use of alternative control methods 
(asbestos standards for shipyards and construction (Sec. Sec.  
1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively)); evaluating chest x-rays 
(inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions standards (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1018 and 1910.1029, respectively)); signing medical opinions 
(asbestos standards for general industry and the cadmium standards for 
general industry and construction (Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127, 
respectively)); and semiannual medical examinations

[[Page 66495]]

(vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, and coke oven emissions standards).
    Also included in the proposed revisions are requirements to notify 
OSHA of certain events (13 carcinogens (Sec.  1910.1003), vinyl 
chloride, inorganic arsenic, DBCP, and acrylonitrile standards); 
semiannual updating of compliance plans (vinyl chloride, inorganic 
arsenic, lead for general industry and construction (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1025 and 1926.62, respectively), DBCP, and acrylonitrile 
standards); and employee-notification requirements in general-industry 
standards (asbestos, vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, 
benzene, coke oven emissions, cotton dust (Sec.  1910.1043), DBCP, 
acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide (Sec.  1910.1047), formaldehyde (Sec.  
1910.1048), methylenedianiline (Sec.  1910.1050), butadiene (Sec.  
1910.1051), and methylene chloride (Sec.  1910.1052)), and construction 
standards (methylenedianiline (Sec.  1910.1051), and methylene chloride 
(Sec.  1910.1052)), and construction standards (methylenedianiline 
(Sec.  1926.60), lead, asbestos, and cadmium). The Agency is also 
seeking comment on the need to include social security numbers in the 
exposure-monitoring and medical-surveillance records required by a 
number of its substance-specific standards.
    The Agency emphasizes that the scope of this rulemaking is limited 
to revising provisions that are outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, or 
inconsistent with the provisions in other standards. In regard to the 
last item, the Agency is specifically proposing to revise a number of 
OSHA's older standards (vinyl chloride, acrylonitrile, coke ovens, 
arsenic, DBCP) to be consistent with the frequencies of exposure 
monitoring, medical surveillance, and compliance plan updates that are 
required in the majority of more recently promulgated rules. Comment is 
being solicited on whether it is appropriate to revise these older 
standards to be consistent with the newer standards. The scope of the 
rulemaking does not include a review of the appropriateness of the 
frequencies in exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and 
compliance plan updating that is required by the newer standards.
    It should be noted that certain sections in 29 CFR part 1910 that 
are being addressed in this document are incorporated by reference in 
29 CFR parts 1915 and 1926. Thus, changes to those sections in part 
1910 will also apply to parts 1915 and 1926.

A. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec.  1910.142)

    Paragraph (1)(2) of this standard requires camp superintendents to 
report immediately to local health authorities ``by telegram or 
telephone'' the outbreak of specific illnesses and medical conditions 
among employees. OSHA believes that the requirement to use a telegram 
or telephone to notify health authorities is too restrictive in this 
age of computers and the internet, and that other forms of 
communication should be permitted for this purpose. Thus, the Agency is 
proposing to delete the requirement to use a telegram or telephone for 
notification. However, OSHA is retaining the requirement that camp 
superintendents immediately notify local health authorities of the 
outbreak of any of the illnesses or medical conditions specified by 
this provision.

B. Reference to First-Aid Supplies in Appendix A to the Standard on 
Medical Services and First Aid (Sec.  1910.151)

    Paragraph (b) Sec.  1910.151, the Agency's standard regulating 
medical services and first-aid supplies, requires employers to ensure 
that ``[a]dequate first aid supplies shall be readily available [at the 
workplace].'' To assist employers in meeting this requirement, OSHA 
added a nonmandatory appendix to this standard. (63 FR 33450, June 18, 
1998). This appendix refers to the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) consensus standard (ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum 
requirements for industrial unit-type first aid kits'', referred to 
hereafter as the ``1978 edition''), which specifies basic first-aid 
supplies for the workplace. The Agency believes that this appendix 
provides employers with helpful information they can use in selecting 
first-aid supplies and containers that are appropriate to the medical 
emergencies and environmental conditions that they may encounter in 
their workplaces. In discussing the addition of Appendix A to this 
standard, OSHA noted that ANSI was developing a new edition of this 
consensus standard (63 FR 33461). The Agency then stated that, once 
ANSI completed this project, it would propose revising Appendix A to 
reference the new edition. However, OSHA stated that it would propose 
such a revision only if it had first determined that ``the new edition 
is as effective [in protecting employees] as the earlier edition,'' and 
that it would also ``consider adding other consensus standards on first 
aid kits as references to the Appendix.''
    ANSI subsequently completed the new edition of the consensus 
standard and published it as ANZI Z308.1-1998 (``Minimum requirements 
for workplace first aid kits'', referred to hereafter as ``the 1998 
edition''). In reviewing the 1998 edition, the Agency found that:
    [sbull] Regarding container requirements, the 1998 edition permits 
more compliance flexibility than the 1978 edition. For example, the 
1998 edition identifies three types of first-aid containers, types I, 
II, and III, designed for stationary indoor use, mobile indoor use, and 
mobile outdoor use, respectively, while the 1978 edition includes only 
two types of containers, (standard and special purpose, with special-
purpose containers designed for use under extreme conditions such as 
example, corrosive, nonsparking, nonmagnetic, or dielectric conditions.
    [sbull] Requirements for the three types of containers identified 
in the 1998 edition are performance based, while the 1978 edition 
provides extensive specifications for each type of container.
    [sbull] Unlike the 1978 edition, the conditioning and drop-test 
procedures described in the 1998 edition for types II and III 
containers, and the procedures for testing type III containers for 
corrosion and moisture resistance, specify the minimum number of 
containers required for testing.
    [sbull] The 1998 edition specifies that each type III container 
subjected to drop testing must also undergo corrosion and moisture-
resistance testing to ensure the structural integrity of the container 
under severe moisture conditions. The 1978 edition appears to allow 
testing of different special-purpose containers under the drop- and 
moisture-testing conditions.
    [sbull] Corrosion and moisture-resistance testing of type III 
containers under the 1998 edition requires exposure of the containers 
to simulated salt spray for 20 days in accordance with the provisions 
of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) consensus standard 
B117 (``Operating salt spray (fog) operations''). The 1978 edition only 
requires exposure of a special-purpose container to fresh water for 15 
minutes.
    [sbull] Regarding the content (fill items) of the containers, the 
1998 edition provides a short list of basic items needed to disinfect 
and cover wounds, including special items for treating burns. However, 
the 1998 edition lists optional fill items for use if an employer 
identifies workplace hazards that may inflict injuries not covered by 
the basic fill items. The 1978 edition has a single list of fill items, 
some of which are unnecessary for many emergencies (for example, 
forceps, metal splints, tourniquets). Additionally, the 1978 edition is 
missing several important

[[Page 66496]]

items (for example, medical-examination gloves, cold packs).
    [sbull] The 1998 edition requires color coding of unit packages 
that contain specific types of fill items (for example, yellow for 
bandages, blue for antiseptics), while the 1978 edition has no such 
requirement.
    [sbull] The 1998 edition, more often than the 1978 edition, 
identifies fill items according to standardized testing and quality-
control methods. For example, the 1998 edition requires that absorbent 
compresses meet the water-absorbency criteria of ASTM consensus 
standard D117 (``Nonwoven fabrics''), and that antiseptics conform to 
the requirements specified by the Food and Drug Administration in 21 
CFR part 333 (``Topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-
counter human use''). The 1978 edition provides no absorbency criteria 
for absorbent gauze compresses, while the antiseptic solution used for 
antiseptic swabs is required only to be ``acceptable to the consulting 
physician.''
    The Agency's review of the two editions demonstrates that, compared 
with the 1978 edition, the 1998 edition: Increases compliance 
flexibility by emphasizing performance-based requirements, including a 
choice of three containers and a list of basic and optional fill items; 
improves the procedures for conditioning and testing first-aid 
containers; and ensures the reliability and efficacy of the fill items 
by basing the selection of these items on standardized testing and 
quality-control methods. Based on this review, OSHA preliminarily finds 
that the provisions of the 1998 edition would provide employers with 
the information they need to select first-aid containers and fill items 
appropriate to the hazards in their workplaces that could injure 
employees. Accordingly, the 1998 edition would protect employees at 
least as well as the requirements of the 1978 edition. Thus, the Agency 
is proposing to replace the reference to the 1978 edition in appendix A 
of Sec.  1910.151 with a reference to the 1998 edition. This revision 
would not impose any additional cost on employers because appendix A is 
nonmandatory.
    OSHA welcomes comment on the extent to which the newer editions of 
the ANSI Z308.1 consensus standard would provide equivalent or better 
protection to employees. The Agency would also appreciate receiving 
information on the availability of other consensus standards and 
guidelines for first-aid kits. Responses to this request for 
information should include, if possible, a detailed description of 
these consensus standards and guidelines, as well as a rationale for 
including them in the proposed revision to appendix A of Sec.  
1910.151.

C. First-aid Supplies in the Telecommunications Standard (Sec.  
1910.268)

    Paragraph (b)(3) of OSHA's telecommunication standard (Sec.  
1910.268) requires an employer to: Provide first-aid supplies (fill 
items) recommended by a consulting physician; ensure that the fill 
items are readily accessible and housed in weatherproof containers if 
used outdoors; and inspect the fill items at least once a month and 
replace expended items. With this rulemaking, the Agency is proposing 
to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read, ``Employers must provide employees 
with readily accessible, and appropriate first-aid supplies. A 
nonmandatory example of appropriate supplies is listed in appendix A to 
Sec.  1910.151.''
    In an earlier rulemaking on June 18, 1998, 63 FR 33461, OSHA 
removed from paragraph (b) of Sec.  1910.151 the requirement that a 
consulting physician approve first-aid supplies. In proposing to remove 
paragraph (b) (61 FR 37850, July 22, 1996), the Agency found that 
``[c]ommercial first-aid kits are readily available and will meet the 
needs of most employers * * *.'' (Ex. 4-23, Docket No. S-778). In 
addition, OSHA noted that it expected employers to modify commercial 
first-aid kits in response to special or unusual workplace hazards, and 
to consult with a medical professional as necessary when doing so. To 
provide employers with helpful information for selecting first-aid 
kits, and to assist them in modifying the kits, the Agency added a 
nonmandatory appendix A to Sec.  1910.151 (63 FR 33461); this appendix 
refers to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus 
standard (ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum requirements for industrial unit-
type first aid kits'') that specifies basic first-aid supplies for the 
workplace. (Note: Section B above discusses OSHA's proposal to update 
this ANSI reference.)
    The Agency preliminarily concludes that substituting the guidance 
of nonmandatory appendix A to Sec.  1910.151 for the requirements 
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1910.268 would reduce the 
regulatory burden on employers in the telecommunications industry by 
increasing their flexibility in meeting OSHA's requirements for first-
aid kits, and would facilitate their compliance by making the 
requirements to provide first-aid kits consistent across the two 
standards. In addition, the Agency believes that the proposed revision 
would afford telecommunication employees with at least the same level 
of protection they currently receive because nonmandatory appendix A to 
Sec.  1910.151, including the reference to the ANSI consensus standard, 
provides more extensive guidelines for selecting appropriate medical 
supplies than paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1910.268 and, in addition, 
provides the recommendation that these supplies include personal 
protective equipment to prevent employee exposure to bloodborne 
pathogens. Accordingly, OSHA requests comments that discuss the 
proposed revision updating the nonmandatory recommendations for first-
aid supplies.

D. 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec.  1910.1003)

    In the 13 carcinogens standard, paragraph (f)(2) of the standard 
requires employers to provide the nearest OSHA Area Director with two 
reports on the occurrence of any incident that results in the release, 
into any area where employees may be potentially exposed, of any of the 
13 carcinogenic substances regulated by the standard. These reports 
consist of an abbreviated preliminary report submitted within 24 hours 
of the chemical release, followed by a detailed report submitted within 
15 calendar days of the incident. OSHA believes that these reports may 
be of little of no utility in view of the fact that recent substance-
specific standards developed by the Agency do not contain this (or any 
other) reporting requirement. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to delete 
this provision from the 13 carcinogens standard to reduce reporting 
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. OSHA requests 
comment on the extent to which this proposed revision would reduce 
reporting burden on employers and on the effect of such a deletion (if 
any) on employee health.

E. Vinyl Chloride (Sec.  1910.1017)

    Paragraph (k)(6) of the vinyl chloride standard specifies that 
laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) under 
42 CFR part 74 ``Clinical laboratories'') must analyze biological 
samples collected during medical examinations. However, 42 CFR part 74 
is outdated, and the USPHS now addresses laboratory-licensing 
requirements under 42 CFR part 493 (``Laboratory requirements''). 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to delete the reference to 42 CFR 
part 74 from paragraph (k)(6) of this standard. OSHA is seeking comment 
on the need to specify a licensing or quality-control

[[Page 66497]]

requirement, the extent to which the requirements specified in 42 CFR 
part 493 would be a suitable substitute for the requirements of former 
42 CFR part 74, and whether any other reference or criteria are 
available that could serve this purpose.

F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure Monitoring

    Several of the Agency's older standards retain provisions that 
require employers to monitor employee exposures either monthly or 
quarterly, depending on the level of the toxic substance found in the 
workplace. These provisions include: Paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and 
(d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride standard (Sec.  1910.1017), which 
require employers to conduct exposure monitoring at least monthly if 
employee exposures are in excess of the permissible exposure limit 
(PEL) and not less than quarterly if employee exposures are above the 
action level (AL); paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the standard 
regulating 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec.  1910.1044), 
specifying that employers must perform exposure monitoring at least 
quarterly if employee exposures are below the PEL and no less than 
monthly if employee exposures exceed the PEL,\1\ and paragraphs 
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard (Sec.  
1910.1045), which contain requirements for employers to conduct 
exposure monitoring at least quarterly for employees exposed at or 
above the AL, but below the PEL, and at least monthly for employees 
having exposures above the PEL. There is little discussion in the 
preambles to these standards explaining the basis for adopting these 
monitoring frequencies, which suggests that OSHA may have relied on 
prevailing practice in establishing these frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This standard does not specify an action level, so employers 
must continue to monitor employee DBCP exposures on a continuing 
basis. See section O (``Additional Issues for Comment'') of this 
Summary and Explanation for a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the substance-specific standards published by the Agency after 
these standards, exposure monitoring is required no more often than 
semiannually if employee exposures are at or above the AL, and no more 
than quarterly if exposures are above the PEL. Thus, OSHA is proposing 
to amend the exposure monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs 
(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of the vinyl chloride standard, paragraphs 
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the acrylonitrile standard and paragraphs 
(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the DBCP standard because they are 
inconsistent with the exposure monitoring protocols established by OSHA 
in its later substance-specified standards and no substantive reason 
for the increased monitoring frequency is apparent. OSHA is proposing 
to revise these paragraphs to require that employers conduct exposure 
monitoring at least quarterly if the results of initial exposure 
monitoring show that employee exposures are above the PEL, and no less 
than semiannually if these results indicate exposures that are at or 
above the AL. The Agency solicits comment on the extent to which, if 
any, this proposed revision would reduce the protection afforded by the 
existing standards to employees exposed to vinyl chloride, 
acrylonitrile and DBCP, and the extent to which the proposed revisions 
would reduce employer burdens, including cost and paperwork reductions.
    OSHA notes that two of its standards (benzene, 1910.1028 and 1,3-
butadiene, 1910.1051) provide for exposure monitoring frequency 
different from the quarterly/semiannual monitoring contained in other 
standards. The Agency is not revising benzene or 1,3-butadiene with 
respect to monitoring frequency. The exposure monitoring provisions in 
those standards have specific basis in their respective rulemaking 
records that preclude changing them for consistency under this standard 
improvement action.

G. Alternative Control Methods for Class 1 Asbestos Removal

    Provisions in OSHA's asbestos standards for shipyard employment and 
construction (Sec. Sec.  1915.1001, paragraph (g)(6)(iii), and 
1926.1101, paragraph (g)(6)(iii), respectively) address alternative 
control methods used to perform Class I asbestos work. Specifically, 
these provisions require an employer to send the evaluation and 
certification of the alternative control method to OSHA's Directorate 
of Technical Support before removing more than 25 linear feet or 10 
square feet or thermal-system insulation or surfacing material. The 
intent of this provision was the development of a database of 
alternative control methods for use in future rulemaking. However, in 
practice, this provision has been little used and no database has been 
developed. OSHA thus believes that this requirement is of little 
utility.
    Current OSHA regulatory policy requires that paperwork provisions, 
such as this, be a benefit to employee health or serve some other 
useful regulatory purpose. Since certification of alternative control 
methods does not appear to meet this requirement, the Agency is 
proposing to delete it from the shipyard-employment and construction 
asbestos standards. OSHA invites comment on any regulatory benefit or 
purpose that removal of this provision would jeopardize.

H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the ILO U/C Rating

    OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(A) of the inorganic 
arsenic standard (Sec.  1910.1018) and paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the coke 
oven emissions standard (Sec.  1910.1029); these provisions require 
that employees' chest x-rays receive an International Labor Office 
UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. Subsequent to the promulgation of 
these provisions, the Agency received information from two physicians 
that the ILO U/C rating is not suitable to evaluate chest x-rays for 
lung cancer. Regarding the use of the ILO U/C ratings specified by the 
inorganic arsenic standard, Stephen Wood, MD, MSPH, Corporate Medical 
Director for the Kennecott Corporation, states in a letter to OSHA (Ex. 
1-1), ``This method of x-ray interpretation was designed specifically 
for use in pneumoconiosis or dust related disease. Arsenic does not 
cause pneumoconiosis. This classification system is unnecessary for 
cancer surveillance and represents a substantial cost and logistical 
burden to industry.'' Later, Steven R. Smith, MD, Director of 
Occupational Health and Occupational Medicine, Community Hospitals 
Indianapolis, wrote to the Agency (Ex. 1-2) addressing the ILO U/C 
rating required by the coke oven emissions standard:

    I am sure you know that the main pulmonary problem with coke 
oven emission exposure is carcinoma of the lung and not 
pneumoconiosis. The main merit of the ILO U/C rating system is that 
it standardizes the reading of films where there are parenchymal 
opacities[,] either round nodules or linar densities. For the 
problem of carcinoma of the lung this system really has little to 
add over the proper interpretation of films by skilled radiologists. 
* * * I think it is of much more importance that the chest films 
done as part of the coke oven emissions exposure surveillance be 
interpreted by expert radiologists who are aware of the fact the 
films are being done primarily for pulmonary carcinoma. To require 
that an ILO U/C rating system be employed as well seems to me as 
though it is going to necessitate an additional expense[,] as well 
as to greatly limit the number of radiologists who are able to 
interpret such films.

    Based on the information provided in these letters, and on the 
opinion of the Agency's Office of Occupational Medicine, OSHA believes 
that the ILO U/C rating may not be a suitable method to use in 
evaluating chest x-rays for lung cancer. Therefore, the Agency is

[[Page 66498]]

proposing to remove the ILO U/C rating requirements specified in the 
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions standards, thereby permitting 
the examining physician to determine the most effective procedure for 
evaluating these chest x-rays. The proposed approach would be similar 
to that taken in recent Agency standards that require the evaluation of 
chest x-rays for cancer (for example, paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of the 
cadmium standard (Sec.  1910.1027)). In this regard, OSHA solicits 
comment and other information regarding the suitability of the ILO U/C 
ratings for evaluating chest x-rays for cancer, the identity of any 
other available method or procedure that could effectively substitute 
for ILO U/C ratings, and the safety and efficacy of the proposed 
elimination of the requirement.

I. Signed Medical Opinion

    Paragraph (l)(7)(i) of the asbestos standard (Sec.  1910.1001), and 
paragraph (l)(10)(i) of the cadmium standard for general industry 
(Sec.  1910.1027) and construction (Sec.  1926.1127), require that the 
examining physician sign the written medical opinion provided as part 
of the medical-surveillance requirements of these standards. The 
preamble to the cadmium standards states that ``the [purpose of the]'' 
requirement that the physician sign the opinion is to ensure that the 
information that is given to the employer has been seen and read by the 
physician and that the physician has personally determined whether the 
employee may continue to work in cadmium-exposed jobs'' (57 FR 42366). 
The requirement that a medical opinion be obtained by the employer is 
not affected by this proposed revision. No other substance-specific 
standard promulgated by OSHA requires that the physician sign the 
medical opinion.
    The Agency believes that the requirement to sign a medical opinion 
written by a physician is unnecessary, precludes electronic 
transmission of the opinion from the physician to the employer, and 
provides no additional benefit to employees. Accordingly, OSHA is 
proposing to remove this requirement from these paragraphs. In this 
regard, the Agency requests comment on whether or not a signed medical 
opinion is necessary to ensure that the examining physician has 
reviewed it prior to submitting it to the employer.

J. Providing Semiannual Medical Examinations to Employees Experiencing 
Long-Term Toxic Exposures

    Three of the Agency's oldest health standards specify that 
employers provide semiannual medical examinations to employees having 
long-term exposures to the toxic substances regulated by these 
standards. However, these standards, which regulate employee exposures 
to vinyl chloride (Sec.  1910.1017), inorganic arsenic (Sec.  
1910.1018), and coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), only require 
that other employees (i.e., those exposed for lesser periods) be given 
annual medical examinations.
    Under paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the vinyl chloride standard, employers 
must provide a semiannual medical examination to employees exposed to 
vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride manufacturing above the action 
level for at least 10 years. The preamble to this standard provides no 
rationale for this requirement.
    Paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of the inorganic arsenic standard specifies 
that employers must offer semiannual medical examinations to employees 
who are 45 years or older or have been exposed above the action level 
to inorganic arsenic for at least 10 years. In justifying this 
requirement, the Agency stated in the preamble to this standard that 
``[l]ong-term employees who have exposures now or in the near future 
below the action level, but have had exposure above the action level 
now or in the recent past, are quite likely to have had substantially 
greater exposures in the more distant past * * * the epidemiological 
studies indicate that risk increases with both degree and duration of 
exposure'' (43 FR 19620). [Italics in original.] OSHA notes that this 
statement addressed high exposures that occurred prior to the 1970's.
    Paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii) of the coke oven emissions 
standard require that employers provide semiannual medical examinations 
for: Employees who are at least 45 years of age or have five or more 
years of employment in a regulated area, and for an employee in this 
age/experience group who ``transfers or is transferred from employment 
in a regulated area * * * [for] as long as that employee is employed by 
the same employer or a successor employer.'' In the preamble to this 
standard, the Agency explains this requirement by stating that ``the 
high risk population requires more frequent and more comprehensive 
testing than the remainder of the population'' (41 FR 46779).
    OSHA believes that the available evidence does not support the 
requirements for semiannual medical examinations offered to employees 
with long-term exposures to vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, and coke 
oven emissions. Based on a review of the existing medical research 
literature, the Agency recently amended the inorganic arsenic and coke 
oven emissions standards by reducing the frequency of chest x-rays from 
semiannually to annually, and by removing the requirement for sputum 
cytology entirely from these standards (63 FR 33450). This review 
indicated that semiannual chest x-rays did not increase employee 
protection through early detection of lung cancer, while sputum 
cytology did not provide additional protection to employee health, over 
and above that provided by an annual chest x-ray. Semiannual medical 
examinations are less useful when the frequency of x-ray has been 
reduced. In addition, no other substance-specific standards promulgated 
by OSHA require semiannual medical examinations.
    Based on the available evidence, the Agency believes that 
semiannual medical examinations are unnecessary, and that annual 
medical examinations are sufficient to detect cancer and other medical 
impairments caused by exposure to vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, 
and coke oven emissions. OSHA also believes that current industry 
practice with regard to employees occupationally exposed to toxic 
substances is to screen these employees annually. Therefore, the Agency 
is proposing to revise the standards regulating these toxic substances 
to be consistent with its other substance-specific standards, which 
require that employers provide annual medical examinations for covered 
employees regardless of the duration of their exposures. The Agency 
request comment and other information comparing the effectiveness of 
annual and semiannual medical examinations in detecting cancer and 
other medical impairments caused by exposure to vinyl chloride, 
inorganic arsenic, and coke oven emissions.
    The proposed revisions to paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii) of 
the coke oven emissions standard do not include removing the 
requirement to conduct semiannual urinary cytology examinations. 
However, OSHA is raising this issue for comment and may include such 
removal in the final rule if warranted, based on comments. The coke 
oven emissions standard (29 CFR 1910.1029) requires that employers 
provide urinary cytology examinations

[[Page 66499]]

(paragraph (j)(2)(vii)) semiannually to certain exposed employees 
(paragraph (j)(3)(ii)). OSHA adopted this requirement based on the 
belief, at the time, that urinary cytology would serve as a useful tool 
in screening for cancer.
    The Agency believes that the utility of urinary cytology as a 
screening tool for cancer should be reexamined. OSHA's Office of 
Occupational Medicine (OOM) reviewed data pertaining to the benefits of 
urinary cytology in the detection of bladder cancer (Ex. 1-3). The 
literature indicates that the sensitivity (i.e., ability to detect 
bladder cancer in those who have it) of urine cytology is not very 
powerful and, thus, not a particularly effective screening test for 
this disease. Although there may be views to the contrary, on balance 
OOM recommends that urinary cytology testing be eliminated from the 
coke oven standard. However, OOM does recommend retaining dipstick 
urinalysis an inexpensive means of maintaining the urologic screening 
program until more effective technology is developed, despite its low 
sensitivity for detecting cancer. Comment is requested on the issue and 
on the OOM recommendation retaining dipstick urinalysis.

K. Notifying OSHA Regarding Use or Regulated Areas

    The Agency is proposing to delete paragraph (d) of the 1,2-dibromo-
3-chloropropane (DBCP) standard (Sec.  1910.1044). This paragraph 
requires employers to submit a report to the nearest OSHA Area Office 
that describes their use of DBCP, and to do so within 10 days of 
introducing the substance into the workplace. The preamble to the 
standard does not provide a rationale for this requirement, and no 
other substance-specific standard published by the Agency has a similar 
requirement. OSHA has not found this provision of the standard useful 
for its inspectors.
    Accordingly, OSHA finds that the provision has little utility in 
practice and thus, it may be appropriate to remove this provision to 
reduce paperwork. OSHA requests comment on this issue and the proposed 
deletion of paragraph (d) of the DBCP standard.
    A number of OSHA standards dating from the 1970s require employers 
to notify the nearest OSHA Area Director/Office if they are required by 
the standard to establish regulated areas in their workplaces. The 
following standards have such a requirement: 13 carcinogens (Sec.  
1910.1003, paragraph (f)(1)), vinyl chloride (Sec.  1910.1017, 
paragraph (n)(1)), inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018, paragraph 
(d)(1)), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045, paragraph (d)(1)).
    The preamble to the vinyl chloride standard explains that the 
purpose of this notification requirement is to ``enable the Agency to 
obtain information on control technology'' (39 FR 35890), while the 
preamble to the acrylonitrile standard notes that the requirement is 
designed to enable OSHA to Abe aware of facilities where substantial 
exposure * * * exists'' (43 FR 45762). Further, in the years since 
these standards were promulgated, OSHA has not found the notification 
provision useful for the purposes described or for inspection purposes. 
In addition, recent substance-specific standards promulgated by OSHA do 
not require such notification. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to 
delete this notification requirement from the 13 carcinogens, vinyl 
chloride, inorganic arsenic, and acrylonitrile standards to reduce 
paperwork. OSHA invites comment on the effect this deletion would have 
in general, and specifically on employee protection, employer burden, 
and paperwork reduction.

L. Reporting Emergencies to OSHA

    Paragraph (n)(2) of the vinyl chloride standard (Sec.  1910.1017) 
and paragraph (d)(2) of the acrylonitrile standard (Sec.  1901.1045) 
require employers to report the occurrence of emergencies involving 
these substances to the nearest OSHA Area Director/Office. The 
preambles to these standards are silent on the reason for this 
reporting requirement and OSHA has not found such reporting, which has 
occurred only rarely, useful. In addition, other Agency substance-
specific standards do not have such a requirement. Accordingly, OSHA is 
proposing to delete these reporting provisions of the vinyl chloride 
and acrylonitrile standards as unnecessary and to reduce paperwork. 
OSHA asks for comment on the proposed deletions and for information on 
any impact such an action might have.

M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance Plans

    The Agency's substance-specific standards typically require 
employers to develop compliance plans to meet the exposure-control 
objectives of the standard. Most of these standards specify that 
employers must update these plans at least annually, and OSHA believes 
that annual updating is sufficient to ensure the continued 
effectiveness of the plans. However, several older substance-specific 
standards promulgated by the Agency require semiannual updating; these 
standards include: Vinyl chloride (Sec.  1910.1017, paragraph (f)(3)); 
inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018, paragraph (g)(2)(iv)); lead (Sec.  
1910.1025, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)); coke oven emissions, paragraph 
(f)(6)(iv); 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropany (DBCP)(Sec.  1910.1044, 
paragraph (g)(2)(ii)); acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045, paragraph 
(g)(2)(v)); and lead in construction (Sec.  1926.62, paragraph 
(e)(2)(v)).
    The preambles to the standards containing this requirement present 
no evidence pointing to the need for such a requirement in facilities 
handling these substances, and OSHA believes that current industry 
practice considers annual updating sufficient. In particular, there is 
no evidence to suggest that employee health protections would be 
lessened by this proposed change. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 
revise its older substance-specific standards to require annual, 
instead of semiannual, updating of compliance plans. OSHA believes that 
the proposed revisions would make this requirement consistent across 
its standards without diminishing employee protection and will reduce 
paperwork. The Agency solicits comment on any impact, particularly on 
employee health that the proposed revision might have.

N. Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Monitoring Results

    Many of OSHA's substance-specific standards require employers to 
notify employees of their exposure monitoring results. These standards 
require the employer to provide written notification to each employee 
included in the monitoring program. However, some of these standards 
also require the employer to post the monitoring results, while others 
allow posting in lieu of individual notification. In addition, the 
number of days that may elapse between receipt of an employee's 
exposure monitoring results and employee notification varies across the 
standards. These periods range from ``as soon as possible'' to 20 
working days after receipt of the monitoring results. Table 1 below 
describes the methods employers are required to use when notifying 
employees and the amount of elapsed time permitted by 15 substance-
specific standards for general industry, one such standard for shipyard 
employment, and four such standards for construction.

[[Page 66500]]



                             Table 1.--Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Standard \1\                     Method of notification          Maximum period for notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1910 (General Industry):
    Asbestos (Sec.   1910.1001(d)(7)(i))  Individually in writing or        15 working days.
                                           posting.
    Vinyl Chloride (Sec.                  Individually in writing only....  10 working days.
     1910.1017(n)(3)).
    Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.               Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
     1910.1018(e)(5)(i)).
    Lead (Sec.   1910.1025(d)(8)(i))....  Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
    Cadmium (Sec.   1910.1027(d)(5)(i)).  Individually in writing and       15 working days.
                                           posting.
    Benzene (Sec.   1910.1028(e)(7)(i)).  Individually in writing only....  15 working days.
    Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.             Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
     1910.1029(e)(3)(i)).
    Cotton Dust (Sec.                     Individually in writing only....  20 working days.
     1910.1043(d)(4)(i)).
    1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (Sec.     Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
     1910.1044(f)(5)(i)).
    Acrylonitrile (Sec.                   Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
     1910.1045(e)(5)(i)).
    Ethylene Oxide (Sec.                  Individually in writing or        15 working days.
     1910.1047(d)(7)(i)).                  posting.
    Formaldehyde (Sec.                    Individually in writing or        15 working days.
     1910.1048(d)(6)).                     posting.
    Methylenedianiline (Sec.              Individually in writing or        15 working days.
     1910.1050(e)(7)(i)).                  posting.
    Butadiene (Sec.                       Individually in writing or        5 working days.
     1910.1051(d)(7)(i)).                  posting.
    Methelene Chloride (Sec.              Individually in writing or        15 working days.
     1910.1052(d)(5)(i)).                  posting.
Part 1915 (Shipyard Employment):
    Asbestos (Sec.   1915.1001(f)(5)(i)   Individually in writing or        As soon as possible.
     and (f)(5)(ii)).                      posting.
Part 1926 (Construction):
    Methylenedianiline (Sec.              Individually in writing or        15 working days.
     1926.60(f)(7)(i)).                    posting.
    Lead (Sec.   1926.62(d)(8)(i))......  Individually in writing only....  5 working days.
    Asbestos (Sec.   1926.1101(f)(5)(i)   Individually in writing or        As soon as possible.
     and (f)(5)(ii)).                      posting.
    Cadmium (Sec.   1926.1127(d)(5)(i)).  Individually in writing and       5 working days.
                                           posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the paragraphs containing the requirements.

    The preambles to these standards generally do not identify 
substance-specific or record-based reasons for these differences in 
notification methods and timing. Further, there is no evidence to 
suggest that differences in timing, within the ranges reflected in 
these standards, have an effect on employee health. Accordingly, OSHA 
believes that making the notification and timing requirements 
consistent across standards will reduce regulatory confusion and 
facilitate compliance without diminishing employee protection. The 
Agency is therefore proposing to allow employees to provide employees 
with their exposure monitoring results either individually in writing 
or by posting the employees' results in a readily accessible location.
    In the case of notification there are a number of considerations. 
Individual notification gives employees a permanent record, employees 
may take the notification more seriously, and there are no privacy 
concerns. However, the paperwork burden is increased for employers and 
employees will have less knowledge of overall trends. Posting has the 
converse strengths and weaknesses. OSHA is proposing to give the 
employer the option of either individual notification or posting, or 
both. The Agency requests comments on these issues.
    The point of notification is to ensure that employees are aware of 
their exposures to OSHA-regulated substances, and the Agency 
preliminarily concludes that this goal can be met either through 
individual written notification or through posting in a location that 
is readily accessible to all employees whose results are being posted. 
OSHA requests comment on this preliminary finding, particularly with 
respect to any impact the proposed changes might have on employee 
protection.
    The Agency is also proposing to require employers regulated by the 
15 substance-specific standards for general industry (see Table 1 
above) to notify their employees of their exposure monitoring results 
within 15 working days of receiving the results. OSHA believes 
consistency of period will simplify compliance and that 15 days is a 
reasonable time frame.
    For employers covered by the four substance-specific standards for 
construction and the asbestos standard for shipyard employment listed 
in the table, OSHA is proposing to require notification as soon as 
possible but no later than five working days after the employer 
receives the results of the exposure monitoring performed under these 
standards. Both the asbestos and cadmium standards established 
different notification intervals based on the industries affected: the 
asbestos standards requires notification within 15 days for general-
industry employers and ``as soon as possible'' for construction and 
shipyard employers which may be involved in more short-term and 
intermittent activities, while the cadmium standards specified a 
maximum period of 15 working days for general-industry employers and 
five working days for construction employers. The preamble to the 
cadmium standard for construction states that the five working-day 
notification period is appropriate ``in light of the short term nature 
of many construction jobs'' (57 FR 42383).
    OSHA is requesting comment on whether a 5 working day or 15 working 
day notification period is more appropriate for the shipyard standard 
due to the nature of the work in that industry.
    The Agency finds that these factors, short-term or intermittent 
projects, may justify retaining the shorter notification period for 
construction activities. OSHA believes that five days is a reasonable 
interval for notification. However, both shipyards and construction are 
covered by the 15 working day requirement for other health standards. 
OSHA is not proposing to change those other standards because they do 
not have as much impact in the construction or shipyard industry and 
they may result in an increase in burden.
    OSHA invites comment and other information on these proposed 
revisions to the notification requirements in OSHA health standards, 
particularly on the differences proposed for employers in different 
industries and any

[[Page 66501]]

reduction in employee protection that may result from the proposed 
revisions.

O. Additional Issue for Comment

Social Security Numbers
    Most of OSHA's substance-specific standards require that records, 
especially exposure monitoring and medical-surveillance records, 
include the employee's social security number (SSN). In the preamble to 
the final methylene chloride standard (62 FR 1598), OSHA justified the 
requirement for employers to document social security numbers by 
stating: ``Social security number * * * are correlated to employee 
identity in other types of records. These numbers are a more useful 
differentiation among employees [than other possible methods] since 
each number is unique to an individual for a lifetime and does not 
change as an employee changes employers.'' In a letter of 
interpretation regarding the use of social security numbers in the 
asbestos standard for construction (April 16, 1999), the Agency 
provided the following rationale for requiring SSNs: ``[M]any employees 
have identical or similar names; identifying employees solely by name 
makes it difficult to determine to which employee a particular record 
pertains. The present system avoids this problem because Social 
Security numbers are unique to the individual.''
    Based on privacy concerns, the Office of Management and Budget 
recently requested OSHA to examine alternatives to requiring social 
security numbers for employee identification. Although the Agency is 
not specifically proposing to delete the requirement for SSNs from its 
standards at this time, OSHA is requesting the public to submit 
comments on: The necessity, usefulness, and effectiveness of social 
security numbers as a means of identifying employee records, notably 
exposure monitoring and medical-surveillance records, and any privacy 
concerns or issues raised by this requirement, as well as the 
availability of other equally effective methods of uniquely identifying 
employees for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.

III. Legal Considerations

    The Agency believes that the proposed rule would not reduce the 
employee protections put into place by the rules being revised; the 
intent of the present rulemaking is to remove outdated, unnecessary or 
duplicative provisions from these older rules and makes them more 
consistent. It is therefore unnecessary to determine significant risk, 
or the extent to which the proposed rule would reduce that risk, as 
would be required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American 
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), the Supreme Court ruling 
applying to standards addressing new hazards, setting more stringent 
standards, or reducing employee protection. Accordingly, no finding of 
significant risk is necessary.

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis

Introduction

    This proposed rule deletes or revises 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 
reducing burden and confusion, enhancing occupational safety and health 
to employees, and improving compliance by employers. For most of these 
changes, economic benefits can be quantified.\2\ By deleting and 
revising these provisions, this Phase II Proposed Revision Standard 
will lessen the burden employers currently experience, which will, in 
turn, generate cost savings. OSHA estimates annual savings of $6.57 
million from these revisions (Table 3). Total burden hours would fall 
by 207892. (The estimates in this Economic Analysis may differ very 
slightly from the estimates in the Paperwork Reduction Analysis because 
of rounding.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OSHA estimates that a few of these revised provisions may 
not have any readily quantifiable reductions in burden hours and/or 
costs, although they normally increase employer flexibility.

Table 3.--Estimated Annual Cost Savings Due to the Standards Improvement
                            Project--Phase 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual cost
                        Provision                             savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Sec.   1910.42, Temporary Labor Camps.................              $0
B Sec.   1910.151(b), Reference to First Aid Supplies in               0
 Appendix A.............................................
C Sec.   1910.268, First Aid Supplies Telecom...........           5,603
D Sec.   1910.1003(f)(2) Incident Reports, 13                     27,284
 Carcinogens............................................
E Sec.   1910.1017(k)(6), Vinyl Chloride................               0
F:
    Sec.   1910.1017(d)(2)(i), Exposure Monitoring,              102,750
     Vinyl Chloride.....................................
    Sec.   1910.1017(d)(2)(ii), Exposure Monitoring,              25,687
     Vinyl Chloride.....................................
    Sec.   1910.1044(f)(3)(i) & f(3)(ii), Exposure                     0
     Monitoring, 1,2-DBCP...............................
    Sec.   1910.1045(e)(3)(ii), Exposure Monitoring,              22,446
     Acrylonitrile......................................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................         150,883
                                                         ===============
G:
    Sec.   1915.1001(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods,                39
     Asbestos Removal...................................
    Sec.   1926.1101(g)(6)(iii), Alt. Control Methods,                39
     Asbestos Removal...................................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................              78
                                                         ===============
H:
    Sec.   1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A), ILO/UC Rating,                      0
     Inorganic Arsenic..................................
    Sec.   1910.1029(j)(2)(ii), ILO/UC Rating, Coke Oven               0
     Emissions..........................................
I:
    Sec.   1910.1001(1)(7)(i), Signed Opinion, Asbestos.               0
    Sec.   1910.1027(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium                0
     Gen. Industry......................................
    Sec.   1926.1127(1)(10)(i), Signed Opinion, Cadmium                0
     Con. Industry......................................

[[Page 66502]]

 
J:
    Sec.   1910.1017(k)(2)(i), Semiannual Medical Exams,          31,064
     Vinyl Chloride.....................................
    Sec.   1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), Semiannual Medical               164,238
     Exams, Inorganic Arsenic...........................
    Sec.   1910.1029(j)(3)(ii-iii), Semiannual Medical           362,443
     Exams, Coke Oven emissions.........................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................         557,745
                                                         ===============
K:
    Sec.   1910.1044(d), Notifying OSHA Regarding                      0
     Regulated Areas, 1,2-DBCP..........................
    Sec.   1910.1003(f)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding                5,457
     Regulated Areas, 13 Carcinogens....................
    Sec.   1910.1017(n)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding                  656
     Regulated Areas, Vinyl Chloride....................
    Sec.   1910.1018(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding                  117
     Regulated Areas, Inorganic Arsenic.................
    Sec.   1910.1045(d)(1) Notifying OSHA Regarding                  647
     Regulated Areas, Acrylonitrile.....................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................           6,876
                                                         ===============
L:
    Sec.   1910.1017(n)(2) Reporting Emergencies, Vinyl           22,503
     Chloride...........................................
    Sec.   1910.1045(d)(2) Reporting Emergencies,                  2,588
     Acrylonitrile......................................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................          25,090
                                                         ===============
M:
    Sec.   1910.1017(f)(3) Semiannual Updating                     7,614
     Compliance Plans, Vinyl Chloride...................
    Sec.   1910.1018(g)(2)(iv), Semiannual Updating                2,284
     Compliance Plans, Inorganic Arsenic................
    Sec.   1910.1029(f)(6)(iv), Semiannual Updating                1,332
     Compliance Plans, Coke Oven Emissions..............
    Sec.   1910.1044(e)(3)(iv), Semiannual Updating                    0
     Compliance Plans, 1,2-DCBP.........................
    Sec.   1910.1045(g)(2)(ii), Semiannual Updating                  448
     Compliance Plans, Acrylonitrile....................
    Sec.   1926.1025(e)(2)(v), Semiannual Updating             4,209,657
     Compliance Plans, Lead, Con........................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................       4,221,334
                                                         ===============
N:
    Sec.   1910.1017(n)(3) Notify Employees of Expos.              2,741
     Monitoring Results, Vinyl Chloride.................
    Sec.   1910.1018(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.           9,393
     Monitoring Results, Inorganic Arsenic..............
    Sec.   1910.1025(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.         891,293
     Monitoring Results, Lead, Gen Ind..................
    Sec.   1910.1027(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.          50,540
     Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Gen Ind...............
     Sec.   1910.1029(e)(3)(i) Notify Employees of                25,765
     Expos. Monitoring Results, Coke Oven...............
    Sec.   1910.1043(d)(4)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.          68,102
     Monitoring Results, Cotton Dust....................
    Sec.   1910.1044(f)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.               0
     Monitoring Results, 1,2-DBCP.......................
    Sec.   1910.1045(e)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.           8,255
     Monitoring Results, Acryonitrile...................
    Sec.   1926.62(d)(8)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.           494,063
     Monitoring Results, Lead Construction..............
    Sec.   1926.1127(d)(5)(i) Notify Employees of Expos.          27,189
     Monitoring Results, Cadmium, Con...................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................       1,454,431
                                                         ===============
      Total.............................................       6,572,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice-and-comment rulemaking is necessary because a number of 
the proposed revisions are substantive. The Agency will base its final 
decisions regarding these proposed revisions on the record developed 
through public comment. The following paragraphs discuss the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis in detail.

Methodology

    This section describes OSHA's development of the total annual 
paperwork requirements for a provision or standard, then presents a 
methodology for aggregating these costs into industry-specific 
estimates of total one-time costs, annualized costs (one-time or 
intermittent costs amortized over a specific number of years), or 
annual costs. For the purposes of this Preliminary Economic Analysis, 
one-time or intermittent costs have been annualized using a discount 
rate of 7 percent\3\, as required by the U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), over a specified period of time using the formula:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Guidelines and Discount 
Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,'' Circular No. 
A-94 Revised (Transmittal Memo No. 64). October 29, 1992.
    Office of Management and Budget, ``Economic Analysis of Federal 
Regulations Under Executive Order 12866.'' January 11, 1996, p. 9.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = (i x (1 + i)\n\)/((1 + i)\n\ - 1),

where
a=annualization factor,
i=discount rate, and
n=economic life of the one-time or intermittent investment

    OSHA uses average hourly earnings, including benefits, to represent 
the cost of employee time. For the relevant occupational categories, 
mean hourly earnings from the Year 2000 National Compensation Survey by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics have been adjusted to reflect the fact 
that fringe benefits comprise about 27.1 percent \4\ of total employee 
compensation in the private

[[Page 66503]]

sector.\5\ The costs of labor used in this analysis are therefore 
estimates of total hourly compensation. These average hourly costs are: 
$38.92 for managers; $27.39 for production supervisors; $24.68 for 
chemical technicians; $18.40 for production workers; and $17.34 for 
clerical workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Straight-time hourly wages and salaries were estimated to be 
72.9 percent of total compensation in 2000. Thus, total 
compensation, including benefits, for workers with average hourly 
earnings of $13.41 would be $13.41/.729 = $18.40.
    \5\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--March 2001, June 29, 
2001, p. 5.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of the number of establishments and the number of 
employees affected by a proposed change are usually either from a 
statement in support of information collection requirements (ICR) or 
from an economic analysis. The number of employees affected and their 
hourly total wages are used to calculate costs. The changes proposed in 
the Phase II Standards Improvement Project pertain to approval of 
equipment, reporting incidents, exposure monitoring, laboratory 
analysis, medical examinations, and employee notification requirements.
    Most of the proposed revised standards reduce costs related to a 
percentage of affected employees in the industry and the number of 
labor hours required to monitor a specific activity. Usually, the 
frequency of an activity, the number of employees requiring the 
activity, and the cost of the activity per employee were used to arrive 
at the estimated costs. In some instances, the costs of the activity 
were calculated according to the number of affected establishments.

A. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec.  1910.42)

    Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Sec.  1910.42 require that the camp 
superintendent immediately report the outbreak of certain diseases to 
the local health authority ``by telegram or telephone.'' OSHA believes 
that because other forms of communication are readily available, the 
requirement for notification via ``telegram or telephone'' is 
unnecessarily restrictive. Thus, the Agency proposes deleting the 
requirements specifying notification by telegram or telephone. The 
Agency believes the revision would give more flexibility to employers 
that can result in cost savings. However, the Agency has not calculated 
the value of such savings.

B. Reference to First-Aid Supplies in Appendix A to the Standard on 
Medical Services and First Aid (Sec.  1910.151)

    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1910.151, the Agency's standard regulating 
medical services and first-aid supplies, requires employers to ensure 
that ``[a]dequate first aid supplies shall be readily available [in the 
workplace].'' OSHA added a nonmandatory appendix to this standard in a 
recent rulemaking (63 FR 33460) to help employers meet this 
requirement. OSHA is proposing to update this appendix. This revision 
would not impose any additional cost on employers because appendix A is 
non-mandatory.

C. First-Aid Supplies in the Telecommunications Standard (Sec.  
1910.268)

    The proposed rule revises Paragraph (b)(3) of OSHA's 
Telecommunications Standard (Sec.  1910.268) that requires an employer 
to: provide first-aid supplies recommended by a consulting physician; 
ensure that the items are readily accessible and housed in weatherproof 
containers if used outdoors; and inspect the items at least once a 
month and replace expended items. The Agency is proposing to revise 
paragraph (b)(3) to read, ``Employers must provide employees with 
readily accessible first-aid supplies in accordance with Appendix A to 
(Sec.  1910.151).''
    The propose rule eliminates the requirements in Sec.  
1910.268(b)(3) 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. OSHA's analysis here 
relies on the assumptions in the Final Economic Analysis in an earlier 
rulemaking (63 FR 33461).\6\ Based on the ICR to that rulemaking, the 
Agency estimates that 10 percent of the establishments would meet these 
criteria. OSHA also estimates that five minutes of a physician's time, 
valued at $100/hr \7\ ($8.33 for five minutes), would be required to 
approve the contents of the first-aid kit at these establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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--63:3350-33469.
    \7\ Opportunity cost is estimated by the market price for 
occupational physical exams, i.e., at the rate of about $100 an 
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA assumes that the physician would need to approve the first aid 
supplies once every 10 years, considering the possibility of the 
development of new kinds of medical supplies and of new hazards at the 
worksite. The cost of five minutes of a physician's time annualized 
over a 10 year period at 7 percent interest is $1.19 per year (5/60 x 
$100 x annualization factor of 0.1424).
    The Agency estimates that there were approximately 47,217 employers 
in the telecommunications industry in 1998 [County Business Patterns, 
1998]. The major sector in the telecommunications industry is telephone 
communications, which consists of establishments that operate both 
wireline and wireless networks. The wireline networks use wires and 
cables to connect customers' premises to central offices maintained by 
the telecommunications companies. The wireless networks on the other 
hand operate through the transmission of signals over networks of radio 
towers and communications satellites [Career Guide to Industries 2000-
01 Edition, Telecommunications (SIC's 481, 482, 489)]. Since first-aid 
supplies have to be approved once every 10 years, each year 
approximately 10 percent of the establishment incur costs to comply 
with the current requirement. Thus, current annualized cost is 
approximately $5,603 ((47,217 x 10%) x $1.19). Eliminating the 
requirement for a physician's approval of an establishment's first-aid 
kit would eliminate this burden of $5,603.

D. 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec.  1910.1003)

    The proposed rule would delete provision Sec.  1910.1003(f)(2) that 
requires reporting of releases of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest 
OSHA Area Director. Deleting this provision results in savings in 
burden hours and associated costs.
    Based on the ICR, the Agency estimates that reportable incidents 
occur once per year at each facility and that about 97 employers fall 
under OSHA jurisdiction and will be affected by the rule. A manager and 
a clerical worker will each take five hours to collect information and 
to report a release of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest OSHA Area 
Director, for a total of 10 hours per employer. Thus, 970 burden hours 
are attributed to this provision (485 burden hours each by a manager 
and a clerk), at an annual cost of $27,286.\8\ By eliminating the 
requirement to report releases of a regulated carcinogen to the nearest 
OSHA Area Director, OSHA will eliminate annual cost burdens to 
employers of $27,286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Annual cost saving ($27,286) due to revision of this 
standard is obtained by multiplying 485 burden hours by each wage 
rate and adding the products, i.e. [485 x ($38.92 + $17.34)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Vinyl Chloride (Sec.  1910.1017)

    Paragraph (k)(6) of the Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec.  1910.1017) 
specifies that

[[Page 66504]]

laboratories licensed by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) under 42 
CFR part 74 (``Clinical laboratories'') must analyze biological samples 
collected during medical examinations. however, 42 CFR part 74 is 
outdated, and the PHS now addresses laboratory licensing requirements 
under 42 CFR part 493 (``Laboratory requirements''). Therefore, the 
Agency is proposing to delete the reference to 42 CFR part 74 from 
paragraph (k)(6) of this standard. There are no cost applications to 
the proposed change since the requirements are almost the same.

F. Monthly and Quarterly Exposure Monitoring (Sec.  1910.1017)(Sec.  
1910.1044) (Sec.  1910.1045)

    Several of the Agency's older standards retain provisions that 
require employers to monitor employee exposures either monthly or 
quarterly, depending on the level of the toxic substance found in the 
workplace. These include: paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of the 
Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec.  1910.1017), requiring employers to 
conduct exposure monitoring at least monthly if employees exposure are 
above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), and not less than quarterly 
if employee exposures are above the action level (AL); paragraphs 
(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 
(Sec.  1910.1044) Standard, requiring exposure monitoring at least 
quarterly if employee exposures are below the PEL, and no less than 
monthly if employee exposures exceed the PEL \9\; and paragraphs 
(e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.  
1910.1045), requiring monitoring at least quarterly for employees 
exposed at or above the AL, but below the PEL, and at least monthly for 
employees exposed above the PEL. Little discussion exists in the 
preambles to these standards regarding the basis for adopting these 
monitoring frequencies, indicating that OSHA relied on prevailing 
practice in making those determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This standard does not specify an action level, so employers 
must continue to monitor employee DBCP exposures on a continuing 
basis. See section O (``Additional Issues for Comment'') of this 
Summary and Explanation for a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For substance-specific standards published by the Agency subsequent 
to these standards, the most frequent exposure monitoring requirement 
is semiannually if employee exposures are at or above the AL, and 
quarterly if they are above the PEL. Thus, OSHA is proposing to amend 
the previously mentioned exposure monitoring requirements because they 
are inconsistent with the exposure monitoring protocols established by 
OSHA in its later substance-specific standards. OSHA is proposing to 
require that employers conduct exposure monitoring at least quarterly 
if the results of initial exposure monitoring show that the employee 
exposures are above the PEL, and no less than semiannually if these 
results are at or above the AL.
    This economic analysis relies on the following assumptions and 
facts of employee exposure to vinyl chloride. The Agency estimates, 
based on OSHA sampling data, that one percent of all employees are 
exposed between the AL and the permissible exposure level (PEL), and 
another one percent are exposed above the PEL. Employees exposed 
between the AL and the PEL must be monitored quarterly, while those 
exposed above the PEL must be monitored monthly. OSHA assumes that 
employers use an organic vapor badge for monitoring because these 
badges do not interfere with employees' work activity. A supervisor, 
earning $27.39 per hour, will spend five minutes to administer, and 
five minutes to collect, each vapor badge, for a total of 0.17 hour. A 
clerical worker, earning $17.34 per hour, will spend five minutes (.08 
hour) to maintain each record of a monitoring event.
    The proposed rule revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec.  
1910.1017(d)(2)(i) to require quarterly rather than monthly exposure 
monitoring if above the PEL. Under monthly monitoring prior to 
revision, burden hours would be 393 hours, assuming that 131 employees 
are monitored 12 times a year, with a supervisor spending 0.17 hour and 
a clerical spending .08 hour each event to administer and collect vapor 
badges. The cost of monitoring would be $9,500 (267 hours x $27.39 per 
hour plus 126 hours times $17.34 per hour). Under the revised rule, 
burden hours would be 131 hours, since the 131 employees would be 
monitored only four times a year. Costs would be reduced to $3,167 (89 
hours x $27.39 plus 42 hours times $17.34). Savings due to the revision 
from monthly to quarterly monitoring thus would be 262 burden hours, 
worth $6,334. There would also be savings of 2/3 of the current cost 
$144,624 for badges and laboratory analysis; that is, $96,416. Thus, 
total annual savings attributed to this provision would be $102,750 
($6,334 + $96,416).
    The proposed rule also revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec.  
1910.1017(d)(2)(ii) to require semiannual rather than quarterly 
exposure monitoring if exposure is at or above the AL. With quarterly 
exposure monitoring, burden hours would be 131 hours, costing $3,167. 
Revising the provision to allow for semiannual monitoring would cut 
burden hours to 66 hours, as 131 employees would be monitored only two 
times a year. The costs of monitoring would be $1,583 (45 hours x 
$27.39 plus 21 hours times $17.34). There would be a saving of 66 
burden hours (quarterly burden hours of 131 hours - semiannual burden 
hours of 66 hours) and a corresponding cost saving of $1,583 (quarterly 
costs of $3,167 - semiannual costs of $1,583). The cost of badges and 
laboratory analysis would fall by one-half, or from $48,208 to $24,104. 
Thus, total annual cost savings due to this revision would be $25,687 
($1,583 + $24,104.
    OSHA is of the opinion that revision of paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and 
(f)(3)(ii) of the standard regulating, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 
(DBCP) (Sec.  1910.1044), would have no effect on cost or burden hours 
since no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP-based end products.
    The proposed revision of paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) of 
the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.  1910.1045) would require semiannual 
monitoring if employee exposures were at or above the AL, and quarterly 
monitoring if these exposures were above the PEL. OSHA estimates that a 
chemical technician, earning $24.68 per hour, requires 30 minutes (0.5 
hour) to obtain and analyze each charcoal-sampling tube, and that each 
exposure monitoring sample represents the exposures of 2 employees 
(i.e., on average, there are two employees involved in the same or 
similar tasks).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supporting Statement for the Information Collection 
Requirements of the Acrylonitrile (AN) Standard (29 CFR 1910.1045), 
OMB 1218-0126 (2000), p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revision from quarterly to semiannual monitoring would save 282 
burden hours and $6,947. The revision from monthly to quarterly 
monitoring would save 628 burden hours and $15,499. Thus, revision of 
the Acrylonitrile Standard would reduce total annual burden by 910 
hours and $22,446.

G. Alternative Control Methods for Class I Asbestos Removal (Sec.  
1915.1001(g)(6)(iii) and Sec.  1926.1101(g)(6)(iii))

    OSHA is proposing to delete provisions in OSHA's Asbestos Standards 
for shipyard employment and for construction (Sec.  1915.1001, 
paragraph (g)(6)(iii), and 1926.1101, paragraph (g)(6)(iii), 
respectively) that require that employers submit, to the Directorate of 
Technical Support, alternative control

[[Page 66505]]

methods used to perform Class I asbestos work. OSHA believes that this 
requirement is unnecessary because the Agency can obtain this 
information from the public through an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Current OSHA regulatory policy requires that paperwork 
provisions such as this requirement demonstrate a benefit to employees 
or serve some other useful regulatory purpose.
    To submit alternative control methods to the Directorate of 
Technical Support, OSHA estimates would require 1 hour and cost $39. 
These estimates are based on the assumption that OSHA would receive 7 
notifications from employers who choose new or modified control 
technology to reduce exposure in Class I asbestos for shipyards. A 
manager, earning $38.92 per hour, would spend on average 10 minutes to 
develop and transmit the information to the Agency for each employer. 
Thus removing this requirement would result in annual cost savings of 
$39.
    For the Asbestos Standard for construction, OSHA again assumes the 
Agency would receive 7 notifications from employers who choose new or 
modified control technology to reduce exposures in Class I asbestos 
work. OSHA estimates a manager, earning $38.92 an hour, would need 10 
minutes to develop and transmit the information to OSHA. Thus, 1 burden 
hour would be spent, at a cost of $39, to submit alternative method 
information to OSHA.
    Total annual savings of $78 would result from deleting these two 
asbestos-related provisions, since the information would no longer have 
to be submitted.

H. Evaluating Chest X-rays Using the ILO U/C Rating (Sec.  
1910.1018(n)(2)(ii)(A) and Sec.  1910.1029(j)(20(ii))

    OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(A) of the Inorganic 
Arsenic Standard (Sec.  1910.1018) and paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the Coke 
Oven Emissions Standards (Sec.  1910.1029); these provisions require 
that employees' chest x-rays receive an International Labor Office 
UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C) rating. Subsequent to the promulgation of 
these provisions, the Agency received information from two physicians 
that the ILO U/C rating is not suitable to evaluate chest x-rays for 
lung cancer. Based on this information, OSHA believes that the ILO U/C 
rating may not be a suitable method to use in evaluating chest x-rays 
for lung cancer. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to remove the ILO 
U/C rating requirements specified in the Inorganic Arsenic and Coke 
Oven Emissions Standards, thereby permitting the examining physician to 
determine the most effective procedure for evaluating these chest x-
rays. Deleting the ILO/UC rating would provide cost savings since it 
allows the examining physician to determine the most effective 
procedure for evaluating chest x-rays. However, the Agency has not 
calculated the value of such savings.

I. Signed Medical Opinions (Sec.  1910.1001(l)(7)(i), Sec.  
1910.1027(l)(10)(i), and Sec.  1926.1127,(l)(10)(i))

    Paragraph (l)(7)(i) of the Asbestos Standard (Sec.  1910.1001) and 
paragraph (l)(10)(i) of the Cadmium Standards for both general industry 
(Sec.  1910.1027) and construction (Sec.  1926.1127), require that the 
examining physician sign the written medical opinion provided as part 
of the medical surveillance requirements of these standards. The 
Preamble to the Cadmium standards states that ``the requirement that 
the physician sign the opinion is to ensure that the information that 
is given to the employer has been seen and read by the physician and 
that the physician has personally determined whether the employee may 
continue to work in cadmium-exposed jobs'' (57 FR 42366). No other 
substance-specific standard promulgated by OSHA requires a signed 
medical opinion.
    The Agency believes that the requirement to sign a medical opinion 
written by a physician is unnecessary, precludes electronic 
transmission of the opinion from the physician to the employer, and 
provides no benefit to employees. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to 
remove this requirement from these paragraph.
    Removal of the requirement that a physician sign the written 
medical opinion provided as part of the medical surveillance 
requirement of these standards would provide more flexibility, but does 
not appear to provide any significant savings in time or burden for 
most employers.

J. Semiannual Medical Examinations (Sec.  1910.1017(k)(2)(i), Sec.  
1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), and Sec.  1910.1029(j)(3)(i))

    Three revisions geared toward reducing burdens are proposed for 
semiannual medical examinations: changing the requirement to an annual 
exam requirement for the Vinyl Chloride, Arsenic, and Coke Oven 
Standards. This analysis presents the burden hours and costs associated 
with the current provisions and then presents estimates of cost savings 
of the proposed revisions.
    The proposed revision of the semiannual requirement for medical 
exams in the Vinyl Chloride Standard Sec.  1910.1017(k)(2)(i) to an 
annual one (for employees working in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl 
manufacturing for 10 years or longer) would generate annual cost 
savings in several ways: less employees' time; fewer medical exams; and 
less clerical time providing the physicians' opinions to the affected 
employees and maintaining medical records.
    Based on estimates in the ICR of the number of facilities, the 
number of employees per facility, and the distribution of employee 
exposures, OSHA estimates that 890 burden hours are incurred for 
medical surveillance under the semiannual examination requirement, with 
183 employees monitored twice a year for two hours and 79 employees 
once a year for two hours at a cost of $16,376 (890 hours x $18.40, the 
wage rate of a production worker). With annual examinations, OSHA 
estimates that 324 burden hours would be required, as 262 employees 
would be monitored only once a year, taking two hours. The cost would 
be $9,642 (524 hours x $18.40). Annual savings of $6,734 would result.
    The revision from semiannual to annual medical exams would result 
in annual savings of $23,790 in the cost of the medical exams 
themselves, at $130 per exam, as 183 employees would have only one, as 
opposed to two, medical exams per year. The change in frequency from 
semiannual to annual medical exams also reduces the number of hours of 
clerical time required from 76 to 45, resulting in annual savings of 
$539.
    When annual savings are combined for the cost of employees' time 
($6,734), medical exams ($23,790), and clerical costs of medical 
records ($539), the revision of the Vinyl Chloride Standard generates 
annual savings of $31,064. Thus, revision of the Vinyl Chloride 
Standard results in reduced burden hours and substantial annual cost 
savings.
    The proposed rule also revises the semiannual medical exam 
requirement in the Arsenic Standard, Sec.  1910.1018(n)(3)(ii), for 
employees who are 45 years old or older with 10 or more years of 
exposure to Inorganic Arsenic (IA) above the AL. Based on the ICR, the 
burden for medical surveillance was estimated to be 5,317 hours. OSHA 
assumes each exam would take one hour and forty minutes and that 50 
percent of the 1,900 employees would require two examinations per year, 
50 percent of 1,990 employees would undergo only one exam per year, and 
an

[[Page 66506]]

additional 10 percent would be subject to one exam per year. The cost 
of the employees' time would be $97,838 (5,317 hours x $18.40 hourly 
wage rate). Requiring only annual medical exams would result in 3,656 
burden hours. The cost of the employees being away from the job would 
be $67,264 (3,565 hours x $18.40 per hour). Thus, replacing semiannual 
medical exams by annual medical exams would result in annual savings of 
1,661 burden hours and $30,574.
    The change in frequency from semiannual to annual contributes 
$129,350 in annual cost savings for the medical exams themselves, at 
$130 per exam. Semiannual medical exams cost $413,920 while annual 
medical exams would cost an estimated $284,570. In addition, the 
clerical costs of medical records would drop by $4,313 ($13,803-
$9,489). Total annual savings resulting from revision of the Inorganic 
Arsenic Standard would be $164,238 ($30,574 + $4,313) and would consist 
of savings in costs of employees' time, medical exams, and clerical 
time for medical records.
    The proposed rule revises the semiannual medical exams requirement 
except for the urinary cytology examination, to annual medical exams in 
the Coke Oven Standard, Sec.  1910.1029(j)(3)(i), for employees who are 
45 years of age or older with five or more years of exposure in 
regulated areas. However, these employees still receive semiannual 
urinary cytology examinations. The proposed revision would generate 
annual cost savings in employees' time, medical exams, and physicians' 
medical opinions. Based on the ICR, medical exams currently require 
14,903 burden hours as 84 percent of the 4,600 employees who work in 
regulated areas require semiannual medical exams, 16 percent require an 
annual medical exam, and 10 percent require an additional medical exam 
per year. Each exam requires an employee to be away from his or her job 
for one hour and 40 minutes, at $18.40 per hour, for a total annual 
cost of $274,217. After the proposed revision, annual medical exams and 
semiannual urinary cytology exams would require 12,005 burden hours at 
a cost of $220,893. Cost savings in employees' time would thus be 
$53,323.
    At a cost of $130 per medical exam and $50 for urinary cytology 
exams per employee, replacing semiannual medical exams (estimated cost 
of $1,425,384) with annual medical exams plus semiannual urinary 
cytology exams (estimated cost of $1,126,264) would result in annual 
cost savings of $309,120. There would be no savings in clerical costs 
of medical records.
    OSHA estimates that revision of the Coke Oven Standard would 
generate total annual savings of $362,443 when the savings in the costs 
of employees' time and medical exams.

K. Notification of Regulated Area (Sec.  1910.1003(f)(1)(i), 
1910.1017(n)(1)(i), 1910.1018(n)(2)(i), and 1910.1045(d)(1)(1))

    The proposed rule would delete the ``13 carcinogens'' provision, 
Sec.  1910.1003(f)(1), that requires employers to notify the nearest 
OSHA Area Director of the established of Regulated Areas. Deleting this 
provision results in savings in burden hours and associated costs. As 
in the ICR, OSHA assumes that changes in operation requiring a report 
to the nearest OSHA Area Director currently occur once a year per 
facility and require one hour each of managerial and clerical time, a 
total of two hours per employer, to report the necessary information. 
OSHA estimates that 97 employers would be affected. Burden hours are 
thus estimated to total 194 hours to report the information. The cost 
is estimated to be $5,457 (97 employers x ($38.92 x 1 hour + $17.34 x 1 
hour)), where $38.92 is the wage rate of a manager and $17.34 is the 
wage rate of a clerical worker. Thus, savings due to deleting this 
provision would be 194 burden hours and $5,457.
    The proposed rule would eliminate the vinyl chloride provision, 
Sec.  1910.1017(n)(1), that requires employers to notify the nearest 
OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas. Based on 
the ICR, the Agency estimates that 13 new regulated areas are 
established each year, and that a manager, at an hourly rate of $38.92, 
takes 15 minutes (0.25 hour) to notify the Area Director of the address 
and the location of the establishment, and the number of employees in a 
new regulated area. Thus, for new regulated areas, OSHA estimates a 
current burden of 3.25 hours at a cost of $126.
    For existing facilities, OSHA assumes that each employer 
experiences one change in a regulated area each year, and that a 
supervisor requires 10 minutes (0.17 hour) to inform the Area Director 
of this change. OSHA estimates that there are 80 facilities, resulting 
in 14 burden hours and a cost of $529 (14 burden hours x $38.92).
    Total burden of the current rules, for new and existing facilities, 
is 17 hours, costing $656. The proposed revision would, thus, save 17 
hours and $656.
    The proposed rule would delete the requirement in the Inorganic 
Arsenic Standard, 1910.1018(d)(1), that employers notify the nearest 
OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas. An OSHA 
report titled ``Sampling Activity by Substance'' determined that 14.1 
percent of establishments had Inorganic Arsenic exposures that exceeded 
the PEL. Based on the Agency's estimate that 42 facilities are covered 
by the standard, six facilities would have employees with IA exposures 
that exceed the PEL (14.1% x 42 = 6). OSHA assumes that these six 
employers have already notified the Agency about establishing regulated 
areas; therefore, only significant changes to existing regulated areas 
or establishments of new regulated areas must be reported to OSHA. The 
Agency assumes that one significant change occurs in, or a new 
regulated area is added to, each of these facilities annually, and that 
a manager, earning $38.92 an hour, will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to 
notify the Agency of the significant change or addition. Thus, OSHA 
estimates it would require three burden hours for six employers to 
notify the Area Director about establishment of regulated areas. 
Estimated cost would be $117 (three burden hours x $38.92 an hour). By 
deleting this provision, savings of three burden hours and $117 would 
be realized.
    The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Acrylonitrile 
Standard, Sec.  1910.1045 (d)(1), that requires employers notify the 
nearest OSHA Area Director of the establishment of Regulated Areas. 
Since there are no new establishments, OSHA assumes that employers will 
not establish new regulated areas during this clearance period, and 
estimates that each of the 23 facilities will make one significant 
change annually in a regulated area. The Agency estimates that 
reporting a significant change to the nearest OSHA Area Office 
currently takes a manager 0.5 hour and a clerical worker 0.5 hour each, 
for a total of one hour for each of the 23 facilities. Thus, it costs 
$647 for the 23 facilities to report a significant change, at $38.92 an 
hour for a manager and $17.34 an hour for a clerical. Savings due to 
deleting this provision would thus be 23 burden hours and $647.

L. Reporting Emergencies and Incidents (Sec.  1910.1017(n)(2) and 
1910.1045(d)(2)(i))

    The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Vinyl Chloride 
Standard, Sec.  1910.1017(n)(2), that requires employers to report 
emergencies, and available facts regarding each emergency, to the 
nearest OSHA Area Director. On request of the

[[Page 66507]]

Area Director, the employer must submit additional information in 
writing describing the nature and extent of employee exposures, and 
measures taken to prevent similar emergencies in the future. OSHA 
estimates that each employer experiences one reportable emergency per 
year, and that a manager and a secretary will each spend five hours, 
for a total of 10 hours, reporting the emergency. OSHA assumes there 
are 80 affected employers; a manager and a secretary would each spend 
five hours to report an emergency for a total of 800 burden hours. The 
cost to the employers would be $22,504 (80 employess x ($38.92 x 5 
hours + $17.34 x 5 hours)), since a manager earns $38.92 an hour and a 
secretary earns $17.34 an hour. Hence, there would be savings of 800 
burden hours and $22,503 by deleting this provision.
    The proposed rule would delete the provision in the Acrylonitrile 
Standard, Sec.  1910.1045(d)(2), that requires employers to report an 
emergency to OSHA within 72 hours and to provide additional information 
in writing to the nearest OSHA Area Office if requested to do so. OSHA 
estimates that two emergencies will occur in each facility annually, 
and that a professional and a secretary each requires one hour for a 
total of two hours to compile and report the necessary information for 
each emergency. OSHA estimates 92 burden hours would be attributed to 
this provision because 23 facilities would report two emergencies per 
year and a manager and a secretary would each spend one hour to compile 
and report the necessary information. The cost of this provision would 
be $2,588, since a manager earns $38.92 per hour and a secretary earns 
$17.34 an hour. Savings due to deleting this requirement would be 92 
burden hours, worth $2,588.

M. Semiannual Updating of Compliance Plans (Sec.  1910.1017(f)(3), 
1910.1018(g)(2)(iv), 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv), 1910.1029(f)(6)(iv), 
1910.1044(g)(2)(ii), 1910.1045(g)(2)(v) and 1926.62(e)(2)(v))

    The Agency's substance-specific standards typically require 
employers to develop compliance plans to meet the exposure-control 
objectives of the standard. Most of these standards specify that 
employers must update these plans at least annually, and OSHA believes 
that annual updating is sufficient to ensure the continued 
effectiveness of the plans. However, several older substance-specific 
standards promulgated by the Agency require semiannual updating, 
including: Vinyl Chloride (Sec.  1910.1017, paragraph (f)(3)), 
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018, paragraph (g)(2)(iv)); Lead (Sec.  
1910.1025, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)); Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  
1910.1029(f)(6)(iv)); 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) (Sec.  
1910.1044, paragraph (g)(2)(ii)); Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045, 
paragraph (g)(2)(v)); and Lead in Construction (Sec.  1926.62, 
paragraph (e)(2)(v)).
    A review of the Preambles to OSHA's substance-specific standards 
found no compelling argument that updating compliance plans 
semiannually provides employees with more health protection than 
updating these plans annually. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 
revise its older substance-specific standards to require annual, 
instead of semiannual, updating of compliance plans. OSHA believes that 
the proposed revisions would make this requirement consistent across 
its standards without diminishing employee protection. Accordingly, the 
proposal would eliminate a significant paperwork requirement that has 
no demonstrated benefit to employees. The following discussion 
estimates the cost savings of the proposed revisions.
    The proposed rule revises the Vinyl Chloride Standard to require 
that employers update compliance plans at least annually, instead of 
semiannually. As in the ICR, the Agency estimates that semiannual 
updates require 480 burden hours (20 facilities, each needing eight 
hours from a manager and four hours from a secretary) to update the 
compliance plans, at a cost of $15,229. On average, a manager earns 
$38.92 an hour while a secretary earns $17.34 an hour. Annual updates 
on the other hand, would require 240 burden hours at a cost of $7,614. 
Thus, revising the standard to allow for annual updates of compliance 
plans instead of semiannual updates would result in savings of $7,614.
    Modifying the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (Sec.  1910.1018) to 
require that employers update compliance plans at least annually 
likewise would reduce burden hours and cost. OSHA estimates there are 
six employers affected by this standard and that a manager and a 
secretary need eight hours and four hours, respectively, to update the 
compliance plans. With semiannual updates, the standard would require 
144 burden hours at a cost of $4,569. Revising the standard to require 
annual compliance updates would entail 72 burden hours at a cost of 
$2,284, thereby resulting in savings of $2,284.
    The proposed revision of the Lead Standard for General Industry 
(Sec.  1910.1025(e)(3)(iv)) would reduce the frequency for updating the 
compliance plan from semiannually to annually for areas with exposures 
over the PEL. OSHA's information on areas over the PEL in general 
industry is relatively old and the standard is almost 25 years old. 
Therefore, a substantial amount of time has gone by to achieve 
exposures below the PEL. Accordingly, OSHA has not assigned a cost 
saving for this provision at this time. Instead, OSHA requests comments 
on the approximate number of general industry lead facilities that 
still have areas over the PEL. Based on such comments and other 
information OSHA may be able to gather, OSHA will attempt to make a 
current estimate of the cost savings from this provision.
    Revision of the Coke Oven Standard (Sec.  1910.1029, paragraph 
(f)(6)(iv)) would allow employers to update their compliance plans 
annually instead of semiannually. OSHA estimates that each of the 14 
plants takes 3 hours to review and update its compliance plan 
semiannually for a total of 84 burden hours. OSHA estimates that a 
manager earning $32.92 takes two hours to update the compliance 
semiannually; and that a clerk earning $17.34 will take one hour 
semiannually to update the plans. Therefore the cost for the 14 plants 
to update their compliance plans semiannually is $2,665. Revising 
semiannual updating to annual the 14 plants would take 42 hours 
annually costing a total of $1,333. The burden hour savings would be 42 
hours and cost saving would be $1,332.
    The proposed revision of the 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 
Standard (Sec.  1910.1044) would have no cost or burden hours to 
employers since no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP-based end 
products.
    Revision of the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.  1910.1045, paragraph 
(g)(2)(v)) would require that employers update compliance plans 
annually instead of semiannually. OSHA assumes that a manager earning 
$38.92 an hour would devote 0.5 hour to update a compliance plan at 
each facility. With semiannual updating of compliance plans, employers 
would require 23 burden hours at a cost of $895 (23 hours x $38.92). 
Revision of the standard to require annual updates would lower this to 
11.5 burden hours at a cost of $448 (11.5 x $38.92). Savings due to 
this revision would thus be $448.
    The proposed revision of the Lead in Construction Standard (Sec.  
1926.62, paragraph (e)(2)(v)) would require employers to update 
compliance plans annually instead of semiannually. Based on the Lead In 
Construction Paperwork Package, which in turn drew upon the Economic 
Analysis for the current rule, OSHA estimates it requires 216,344 
burden hours at a cost of $8,419,313 (216,272 hours x $38.92) to update 
compliance plans semiannually.

[[Page 66508]]

Revising the standard to require annual updates would cut the burden in 
half, to 108,172 hours at a cost of $4,209,657 (108,172 hours x 
$38.92). Thus, the savings due to changing from semiannual to annual 
compliance updates would be $4,209,657.

N. Notifying Employees of Their Exposure Monitoring Results (Sec.  
1910.1017(n)(3), 1910.1018(e)(5)(i), 1910.1025(d)(8)(i), 
1910.1027(d)(5)(i), 1910.1029(e)(3)(i), 1910.1043(d)(4)(i), 
1910.1044(f)(5)(i), 1910.1045(e)(5)(i), 1926.62(d)(8)(i), and 
1926.1127(d)(5)(i))

    Many of OSHA's substance-specific standards require employers to 
notify employees of their exposure monitoring results. However, the 
standards specify several different methods for providing this notice. 
Accordingly, the standards state that an employer must provide such 
notification to employees individually in writing or by posting the 
results in a readily accessible location, or both. In addition, the 
maximum period for notifying employees of their exposure monitoring 
results after the employer receives them varies across the standards. 
These periods range from ``as soon as possible'' to 20 working days 
after receipt of the monitoring results.
    A review of the Preambles to each of the above standards indicates 
that the final choice of notification method and maximum period for 
notification was a matter of convenience and feasibility; none of the 
Preambles provided objective evidence that the final requirements were 
most effective in protecting employees. In view of this finding, OSHA 
believes that making the requirements consistent among the standards 
would reduce confusion and facilitate compliance without diminishing 
employee protection. As a result, the Agency is proposing to revise the 
standards by requiring employers to provide employees with their 
exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the 
employees' results in a readily accessible location. Although the 
posting option would reduce employers' paperwork burden to some extent, 
they must still maintain individual exposure monitoring records for 
employees under Sec. Sec.  1910.1020, 1915.1020, and 1926.33, OSHA's 
records-access standards for general industry, shipyard employment, and 
construction, respectively. Thus, employees could still get subsequent 
access to their exposure monitoring results.
    OSHA is proposing to standardize the period of time for notifying 
employees of their exposure monitoring results after the employer 
receives them across 20 pertinent standards. Currently, the 
notification period ranges from ``as soon as possible'' to 20 working 
days after receipt of the monitoring results. The Agency is proposing 
to standardize the notification period to 15 days for general industry 
and no later than 5 days for construction and shipyards. Making these 
requirements consistent will reduce confusion and facilitate compliance 
with the provisions. However, it will not result in any significant 
cost savings.
    OSHA assumes that the employers will choose to post the employees' 
results in a readily accessible location for all the standards that 
give the option of providing the results individually in writing or by 
posting. This would generate savings in burden hours and costs.
    The proposed rule would revise the Vinyl Chloride Standard (Sec.  
1910.1017 (n)(3)) to require employers to provide employees with their 
exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the 
employees' results in a readily accessible location. Based on the ICR, 
under the present standard for exposure above the AL, but below the 
PEL, 42 burden hours are required at a cost of $727 as 131 employees 
would be notified quarterly by a secretary earning $17.34 an hour who 
would spend 5 minutes per notification. For exposures above the PEL, 
126 burden hours at a cost of $2,181 are required, as the same number 
of employees would be notified monthly by the secretary. Additional 
monitoring involves another 6 burden hours, at a cost of $111. Thus, 
the present Vinyl Chloride Standard requires a total of 174 burden 
hours and a cost of $3,019.
    With the revised standard, for exposure above the AL but below the 
PEL, 3 burden hours at a cost of $55 would be incurred as a secretary 
of each of 20 employers would post monitoring results semiannually at a 
readily accessible location. For exposure above the PEL, a secretary 
would quarterly post monitoring results at 20 facilities in a readily 
accessible location, requiring 6 burden hours at a cost of $111. 
Additional monitoring would require 6 burden hours at a cost of $111. 
Thus, the revised standard would require 15 burden hours at a cost of 
$277. Cost savings would amount to $2,741.
    The proposed rule revises the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (Sec.  
1910.1018(e)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes 
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily 
accessible location.
    The present Arsenic Standard requires employers to notify employees 
individually in writing of their exposure monitoring results. As in the 
Inorganic Arsenic Paperwork Package, OSHA estimates that 7,400 
employees are exposed to IA, 14.1 percent or 1,043 of these are exposed 
above the PEL and will be monitored quarterly, 12.8 percent or 947 of 
these employees are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and will 
receive semiannual monitoring, while the employers must provide 10 
percent or 740 of these employees with the results obtained to meet the 
additional monitoring requirement. OSHA estimates that a secretary, 
earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare each 
notification. Thus, 545 burden hours estimated to cost $9,444 are 
attributed to the present Inorganic Arsenic Standard.
    With the revised standard, employers would have to post monitoring 
results in a readily accessible location, which is cheaper than writing 
to employees individually. For estimating the burden, the assumptions 
would remain the same as under the present standard except employers or 
facilities would post monitoring results. OSHA estimates there are 42 
facilities: 14.1 percent or 6 of these have employees exposed above the 
PEL and will be monitored quarterly; 12.8 percent or 5 of these have 
employees that are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and will be 
monitored semiannually, and an additional 10 percent or 4 facilities 
will be monitored yearly. Thus, the revised standard would require 3 
burden hours at a cost of $51. Cost savings due to changing from 
writing employees individually to employers posting monitoring results 
in a readily accessible location would amount to $9,393.
    The proposed rule revises the Lead General Industry Standard (Sec.  
1910.1025(d)(8)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes 
the employees would post the employees' results in a readily accessible 
location.
    Currently, monitoring is required initially to determine if any 
employees are exposed to lead at or above the action level, and every 
six months if employees are exposed above the AL but below the PEL and 
quarterly if employees are exposed to lead above the PEL. OSHA assumes 
zero burden hours for quarterly monitoring based on the

[[Page 66509]]

assumption in the paperwork burden analysis that no industry sectors 
have working conditions in which employees are being exposed above the 
PEL. The Agency has estimated that about 11,508 employees would receive 
initial monitoring and 377,859 employees may be exposed to lead at 
levels between the AL and the PEL, which would require periodic 
monitoring at six-month intervals. OSHA estimates that a secretary 
earning $17.34 an hour will require five minutes (.08 hour) to prepare 
each of 767,226 employee notifications (11,508 initial notifications 
and 377,859 employees x 2 semiannual notifications).
    Developing 767,226 employees monitoring results to comply with the 
present Lead Standard will take 61,378 burden hours, at a total cost of 
$1,064,296.
    Under the revised standard 9,997 burden hours, at a cost of 
$173,001, would be required for employee notification (secretaries at 
each of the 62,357 employers, spending five minutes each, at $17.34 per 
hour, to post initial and semiannual monitoring results). Cost savings 
would amount to $891,293.
    The proposed rule would revise the Cadmium General Industry 
Standard (Sec.  1910.1027(d)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide 
employees with their exposure monitoring results individually in 
writing or by posting the employees' results in a readily accessible 
location. As posting the monitoring results is cheaper than 
individually writing employees, OSHA assumes the employers would prefer 
to post the monitoring results.
    The present standard requires employers to notify employees 
individually in writing and to post in a centralized location their 
exposure monitoring results. As in the Cadmium General Industry 
Paperwork Package, the Agency estimates that 71,306 employees may need 
periodic monitoring when exposed to cadmium above the AL. OSHA 
estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 
minutes (.08 hour) semiannually to individually inform the employees in 
writing of exposure monitoring results and to also post a copy of the 
results in a centralized location. Included in this five minutes is the 
time to maintain the record as required in paragraph (n)(1). The Agency 
also estimates that the 143 additional samples will occur in 143 
plants. Thus, 11,420 burden hours would be required at a cost of 
$198,030 as 71,306 employees are notified individually in writing and 
143 plants post notices of the employees' exposure monitoring results 
in centralized locations.
    Under the revised standard, 8,517 burden hours at a cost of 
$147,685 would be required (secretaries at each of the 53,161 
employers, and for posting 143 additional samples spending five 
minutes, at $17.34 per hour, to post monitoring results). Cost savings 
due to changing from individually writing employees and posting notices 
in centralized location to employers posting notices in a readily 
accessible location would amount to $50,341.
    The proposed rule would revise the Coke Oven Emissions Standard 
(Sec.  1910.1029 (e)(3)(i)) to require employers to provide employees 
with their monitoring results individually in writing or by posting the 
employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes the 
employees would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily 
accessible location.
    The present standard requires employers to notify employees 
individually in writing to their exposure monitoring results. As in the 
ICR, the Agency estimates that 4,600 employees receive exposure 
measurements (i.e., are ``covered employees'' because they work in 
regulated areas). These measurements include 184,400 quarterly 
measurements (4,600 employees x 4 measurements) and 230 resamplings (5% 
of 4,600 employees), for a total of 18,630 samples. The agency also 
assumes that a secretary, at a wage rate of $17,34 per hour, will take 
5 minutes (.08 hour) to notify each employee of his or her sampling 
results. Thus, 1,490 burden hours would be required at a cost of 
$25,844 at 4,830 employees would be notified individually in writing of 
their exposure monitoring results.
    With the revised standard, 5 burden hours at a cost of $79 would be 
attributed to secretaries at each of the 14 employers who earn $17.34 
per hour and would spend five minutes each to post monitoring results 
at a readily accessible location. Cost savings would amount to $25,765.
    The proposed rule revises the Cotton Dust Standard (Sec.  
1910.1043(d)(4)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes 
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily 
accessible location.
    OSHA estimated the numbers of exposed employees and the number of 
facilities in the industry by utilizing data from Employment and 
Earnings and County Business Patterns. The Agency estimates that 49,628 
employees would be notified in writing of their exposure monitoring 
results. OSHA estimates that a secretary, earing $17.34 per hour, will 
take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 3,970 
burden hours are required at a cost of $68,844 as 53,938 employees are 
notified individually in writing of their exposure monitoring results.
    Under the revision, 43 burden hours at a cost of $742 would be 
required (a secretary at each of the 535 plants, earning $17.34 per 
hour, would spend five minutes (.08 hour) to post monitoring results. 
Cost savings would amount to $68,102.
    The proposed rule would revise the 1,2-Dibro-3-Chloropropane (Sec.  
1910.1044(f)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. No cost or 
burden hours accrue to employers under this standard since OSHA has 
determined that no U.S. employers currently produce DBCP or DBCP-based 
end-use products.
    The proposed rule would revise the Acrylonitrile Standard (Sec.  
1910.1045(e)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes 
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily 
accessible location.
    The Agency estimates that under the present standard 923 employees 
must be informed of sampling results in writing. OSHA estimates that a 
secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 minutes (.08 hour) to 
prepare each notification. Thus, 485 burden hours are required at a 
cost of $8,415.
    Under the revision, 9 burden hours at a cost of $160 would be 
attributed to secretaries at each of the 23 plants, earning $17.34 per 
hour, spending five minutes (.08 hour) each to post quarterly 
monitoring results and one additional monitoring result. Cost savings 
would amount to $8,255.
    The proposed rule would revise the Lead in Construction Standard 
(Sec.  1926.62(d)(8)(i)) to require employers to provide employees with 
their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by posting 
the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA assumes 
the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a readily 
accessible location.

[[Page 66510]]

    As in the Lead in Construction Paperwork Package, the Agency 
estimates that under the present standard, 177,194 employees are 
notified two times a year in writing of their exposure monitoring 
results. OSHA estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will 
take 6 minutes (.10 hour) to prepare each notification. Thus, 38,678 
burden hours are required at a cost of $670,671.
    The revised standard would require that employers post monitoring 
results at readily accessible locations at each facility. Thus, 10,185 
burden hours at a cost of $176,608 would be required in Lead in 
Construction as secretaries of each of 147,073 firms, earning $17.34 
per hour, would spend six minutes (.10 hour) to post monitoring results 
two times a year. Cost savings would amount to $494.063.
    The proposed rule revises the Cadmium in Construction Standard 
(Sec.  1926.1127(d)(5)(i)) to require employers to provide employees 
with their exposure monitoring results individually in writing or by 
posting the employees' results in a readily accessible location. OSHA 
assumes the employers would prefer to post the employees' results in a 
readily accessible location.
    The Agency estimates that under the present standard 7,500 
employees need monitoring when exposed to cadmium above the AL. OSHA 
estimates that a secretary, earning $17.34 per hour, will take 5 
minutes (.08 hour) to individually inform the employees in writing of 
exposure monitoring results and to also post a copy of the results in a 
centralized location. The Agency assumes that the time associated with 
posting a copy of the result is minimal after already completing the 
individual notification; thus no additional time is assumed. Included 
in this five minutes is the time to maintain the record as required in 
paragraph (n)(1). The present standard requires 1,720 burden hours at a 
cost of $32,044.
    With the revised standard, 280 burden hours at a cost of $4,855 
would be required (secretaries at 1000 employers, earning $17.34 per 
hour, would spend 5 minutes each to post monitoring results. The 
revision would result in cost savings of $27,189.

V. Costs, Economic Feasibility, and Technological Feasibility

    The analysis described above indicates that the cost savings 
associated with this rule are $6.7 million per year. Since this is far 
less than $100 million, the proposed rule will not be economically 
significant under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule is 
technologically feasible because it always involves reducing 
requirements on employers. Because this rule provides only cost 
savings, and no costs to affected employers, it is economically 
feasible.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the 
proposed rule to determine if they would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated in 
section IV (``Economic Analysis'') of this preamble, the proposed rule 
is expected to reduce compliance costs and regulatory burden for all 
employers, large and small. The reduction in compliance costs is under 
$100 million. Accordingly, the Agency certifies that the proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

VII. Environmental Impact Assessment

    OSHA has reviewed the proposed rule 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 on 
Environmental Quality (40 U.S.C. part 1500), and the Department of 
Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). The Agency finds that the 
revisions included in the proposal do not directly involve the control 
of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would have no 
additional impact on the environment, including no impact on the 
release of materials that contaminate natural resources or the 
environment, beyond the impact imposed by the existing requirements 
these proposed revisions would amend.

VIII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d), 
and 5 CFR 1320.11) requires Federal agencies to submit collections of 
information (i.e., on provisions requiring paperwork) contained in 
proposed rules to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 
PRA-95 defines a ``collection of information'' to mean, ``[O]btaining, 
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 
third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency 
regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). The paperwork 
burden-hour estimate and cost analysis that an agency submits to OMB is 
termed an ``Information Collection Request'' (ICR).
    The proposed revisions that reduce paperwork burden hours and/or 
costs are contained in the following 12 ICRs currently approved by OMB, 
(OMB approval numbers are in parenthesis): asbestos in construction 
(1218-0134); asbestos in shipyards (1218-0195); 13 carcinogens (1218-
0085); vinyl chloride (1218-0010); inorganic arsenic (1218-0104); lead 
in general industry (1218-0092); lead in construction (1218-0189); 
cadmium in general industry (1218-0185); cadmium in construction (1218-
0186); coke over emissions (1218-0128); cotton dust (1218-0061); and 
acrylonitrile (1218-0126).
    For six ICRs, the proposed revisions do not affect burden hours or 
costs. The six ICRs are: Temporary Labor Camps (1218-0096); 1,2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane (1218-0101); 1,3-Butadiene (1218-0170); 
Asbestos in General Industry (1218-0133); Formaldehyde (1218-0145); 
Methylenedianline in construction (1218-0183).
    This proposal will result in a 207,892 burden hour reduction, from 
357,749 hours to 149,857 hours. The paperwork burden hour reduction 
estimates may differ from the Preliminary Economic Analysis as a result 
of rounding.
    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the Agency 
is providing the following information for the ICRs having reductions 
in burden hours and costs resulting from the proposed revisions: Title 
and section number of the standard covered by the ICR; OMB control 
number; a brief description of the proposed collection-of-information 
revisions, including changes in frequency; total number of respondents 
being impacted by the revision; and an estimate of the reduced annual 
reporting (hour) and cost burdens for the information-collection 
requirements in the standard.\11\ The costs below account for only 
capital, maintenance, and purchasing revision. Hourly wage rate savings 
are fully discussed in the preliminary economic analysis section of 
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In determining these reporting and cost burdens, the Agency 
considers, as appropriate, the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering and maintaining the required data, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has a particular interest in comments on the following 
issues regarding the proposed revisions to the paperwork requirements:
    [sbull] The extent to which the proposed revisions to the 
information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the Agency's functions, including the usefulness of the 
information;

[[Page 66511]]

    [sbull] The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time 
and costs) of the proposed revisions, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    [sbull] The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
    [sbull] Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; 
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and -transmission techniques.
    Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the following ICRs in the 
manner described:
    Title: Temporary labor camps (Sec.  1910.142).
    OMB control number: 1218-0096.
    Proposed revision: Delete the requirement for camp superintendents 
to sue a telegram or telephone when notifying local health authorities 
of the outbreak of specific illnesses and medical conditions among 
employees (Sec.  1910.142 (1)(2)).
    Number of respondents: 838.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed 
revision does to affect burden hours or costs.
    Title: Asbestos in General Industry (Sec.  1910.1001).
    OMB control number: 1218-0133.
    Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that the physician sign 
the physician's written opinion (Sec.  1910.1001(l)(7)(i)).
    Number of respondents: 233.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed 
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
    Title: 13 carcinogens (Sec.  1910.1003).
    OMB control number: 1218-0085.
    Proposed revisions: Remove the requirements that employers notify 
OSHA area directors of regulated areas (Sec.  1910.1003(f)(1)) and the 
incidental release of a specified carcinogen (Sec.  1910.1003(f)(2)).
    Number of respondents: 97.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): Removing these 
two provisions result in a burden hour reduction of 1,164 hours. There 
are no operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: Vinyl chloride (Sec.  1910.1017).
    OMB control number: 1218-0010.
    Proposed revisions: Lower the frequency of employee exposure 
monitoring from monthly to quarterly (Sec.  1910.1017(d)(2)(i)), and 
from quarterly to semiannually (Sec.  1910.1017(d)(2)(ii)); reduce the 
frequency of updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually 
(Sec.  1910.1017(f)(3)); reduce the administration of medical 
examinations from semiannually to annually (Sec.  1910.1017(k)(2)(i)) 
(The reduction in the number of medical examinations results in fewer 
instances that employers must provide a copy of a physician's statement 
to the employee (Sec.  1910.1017(k)(4)) and fewer medical records 
(Sec.  1910.1017(m)(iii)); remove the requirement that employers notify 
OSHA of regulated areas (Sec.  1910.1017(n)(1)) and of emergencies 
(Sec.  1910.1017(n)(2)); and allow employers to post employee exposure 
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and 
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to 
employees from 10 working days to 15 working days (Sec.  
1910.1017(n)(3)).
    Number of respondents: 80.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 1,938 burden hours. Less frequent 
exposure monitoring results in a cost savings of $120,520. The 
reduction in the number of medical examinations results in a cost 
savings of $133,790.
    Title: Inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018).
    OMB control number: 1218-0104.
    Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that employers notify 
OSHA of regulated areas (Sec.  1910.1018(d)(1)); allow employers to 
post employee exposure monitoring results instead of individually 
informing each employee and extend the time for employers to provide 
exposure-monitoring results to employees from 5 working days to 15 
working days (Sec.  1910.1018(e)(5)(i)); reduce the frequency of 
updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually (Sec.  
1910.1018(g)(2)(iv)); reduce the administration of medical examinations 
from semiannually to annually (Sec.  1910.1018(n)(3)(ii)). (The 
reduction in the number of medical examinations results in fewer 
instances that employers must provide information to the physician 
(Sec.  1910.1018(n)(5)) and fewer instances that employers must provide 
a copy of the physician's written opinion to the employee (Sec.  
1910.1018(n)(6)). Also fewer medical records (Sec.  1910.1018(q)(2)) 
will be maintained.)
    Number of respondents: 42.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 2,517 burden hours. The reduction in 
the number of medical examinations results in a cost savings of 
$124,375.
    Title: Lead in general industry (Sec.  1910.1025).
    OMB control number: 1218-0092.
    Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure 
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and 
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to 
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days (Sec.  
1910.1025(d)(8)(i)); reduce the frequency of up-dating compliance plans 
from semi-annually to annually (Sec.  1910.1025(e)(3)(iv)).
    Number of respondents: 61,535.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 51,401 burden hours. There are no 
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: Cadmium in general industry (Sec.  1910.1027).
    OMB control number: 1218-0185.
    Proposed revisions: Remove the requirement that the physician's 
written opinion be signed (Sec.  1910.1027(l)(10)(i)); allow employers 
to either post or individually inform employees of their exposure 
monitoring results (Sec.  1910.1027(d)(5)(i)). (The current exposure 
monitoring notification requirement requires employers to both post and 
individually inform employees of their exposure monitoring results.)
    Number of respondents: 53,161.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): Allowing 
employers to notify employees by posting employee monitoring results 
reduces the burden by 2,902 burden hours. There are no operation and 
maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: Coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029).
    OMB control number: 1218-0128.
    Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure 
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and 
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to 
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days (Sec.  
1910.1029(e)(3)(i)); remove the requirement for semi-annual medical 
examinations, except for urinary cytology examinations, for employees 
45 years of age or older, or for employees with five or more years 
employment in a regulated area (Sec.  1910.1029(j)(3)(i)); reduce the 
frequency from semiannual to annual review of the employers compliance 
plan.
    Number of respondents: 14.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 4,425 burden hours. the reduction in 
the number of medical examinations results in a cost savings of 
$502,320.
    Title: Cotton dust (Sec.  1910.1043).
    OMB control number: 1218-0061.

[[Page 66512]]

    Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure 
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee and 
reduce the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to 
employees from 20 working days to 15 working days (Sec.  
1910.1043(d)(4)(i)).
    Number of respondents: 535.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): The proposed 
revision results in a reduction of 3,927 burden hours. There are no 
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: 1,2-Dibromo-3-chlolropropane (DBCP) (Sec.  1910.1044).
    OMB control number: 1218-0101
    Proposed Revisions: Remove the provision requiring employers to 
notify OSHA when DBCP is introduced into the workplace (Sec.  1910.1044 
(d)(4)); modify monthly exposure monitoring to quarterly when DBCP 
exposure is above the PEL and quarterly exposure monitoring to semi-
annual when exposures are below the PEL (Sec.  1910.1044 (f)(3(ii)); 
extend the time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to 
employees from 5 working days to 15 working days and allow employers to 
inform employees of their exposure monitoring results by posting 
instead of individually informing employees (Sec.  1910.1044 (f)(5)(i)) 
and reduce the frequency of updating compliance plans from semi-
annually to at least annually (Sec.  1910.1044 (g)(2)(ii)).
    Number of respondents: 0.
    Burden hours and costs (operation and maintenance): There are no 
establishments that are currently using DBCP; therefore, there are no 
reductions in burden hours and costs on the public.
    Title: Acrylonitrile (AN) (Sec.  1910.1045).
    OMB control number: 1218-0126.
    Proposed revisions: Remove the reporting provisions requiring 
employers to notify OSHA when a regulated area is established (Sec.  
1910.1045 (d)(1)) and report to the OSHA Area Office within 72 hours 
the occurrence of an emergency (Sec.  1910.1045 (d)(2)); lower the 
frequency of employee exposure monitoring from monthly/quarterly/
semiannually (Sec.  1910.1045 (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii); extend the 
time for employers to provide exposure-monitoring results to employees 
from 5 working days to 15 days and permit employers to post employee 
exposure monitoring results (Sec.  1910.1045 (e)(5)); and, reduce the 
frequency of updating compliance plans from semiannually to annually 
(Sec.  1910.1045(g)(2)).
    Number of respondents: 23.
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 1,511 burden hours. There are no 
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: 1,3 Butadiene (Sec.  1910.1045).
    OMB control number: 1218-0170.
    Proposed revisions: Extend the time for employers to provide 
exposure-monitoring results to employees from 5 working days to 15 
working days (Sec.  1910.1051 (d)(7)(ii).
    Number of respondents: 255.
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): The proposed 
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
    Title: Asbestos in shipyards(Sec.  1910.1001).
    OMB control number: 1218-0195.
    Proposed revisions: Extend the maximum time for employers to 
provide exposure-monitoring results to employees from as soon as 
possible to 5 working days (Sec.  1915.1001 (f)(5)(i)); remove the 
requirement that employers submit their alternative control methods to 
OSHA (Sec.  1915.1001(g)(6)(iii)).
    Number of respondents: 7
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of burden hour. There are no operation 
and maintnace costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: MDA in Construction (Sec.  1926.60).
    OMB control number: 1218-0183.
    Proposed Revisions: Reduce the time for employers must provide 
exposure-monitoring results to employers from 15 working days to 5 
working days (Sec.  1926.60(f)(7)).
    Number of respondents: 66.
    burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): The proposed 
revision does not affect burden hours or costs.
    Title: Lead in construction (Sec.  1926.62).
    OMB control number: 1218-0189.
    Proposed revisions: Allow employers to post employee exposure 
monitoring results instead of individually informing each employee 
(Sec.  1926.62 (d)(8)(i)); reduce the frequency of updating compliance 
plans from semi-annually to annually (Sec.  1926.62 (e)(2)(v)).
    Number of respondents: 147,073.
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 136,665 burden hours. These are no 
operations and maintenance cost associated with these revisions.
    Title: Asbestos in construction (Sec.  1926.1101).
    OMB control number: 1218-0134.
    Proposed revisions: Increase the maximum time for employers to 
provide exposure-monitoring results to employees from as soon as 
possible to 5 working days (Sec.  1926.1101 (f)(5)(i)) and remove the 
requirement that employers submit their alternative control methods to 
OSHA (Sec.  1926.1101 (g)(6)(iii)).
    Number of respondents: 7.
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 1 burden hour. There are no 
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    Title: Cadmium in construction (Sec.  1926.1127).
    OMB control number: 1218-0186.
    Proposed revisions: Allow employers to either post or individually 
inform employees of their exposure monitoring results (Sec.  1926.1127 
(d)(5)(i)). The current exposure monitoring notification requirement 
requires employers to both post and individually inform employees of 
their exposure monitoring results. Remove the requirement that the 
physician's written opinion be signed (Sec.  1926.1127 (l)(10)(i)).
    Number of respondents: 1,000.
    Burden hours and cost (operation and maintenance): These proposed 
revisions result in a reduction of 1,440 burden hours. These are no 
operation and maintenance costs associated with these revisions.
    The Agency has submitted a copy of the above ICRs to OMB for their 
review and approval. Members of the public who wish to provide comments 
on these proposed revisions must submit comments to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20530 (Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).
    The Agency will summarize the comments submitted by the public in 
response to this notice and will include the summaries in its request 
to OMB for approval for the revisions to the 17 final information 
collection requests that result from this proposal. These comments will 
also become part of the record, and will be available for public 
inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office.
    Copies of the individual ICR's detailing the revisions are 
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA or OMB docket offices. 
Members of the public may also receive a copy of one, or all of the 
ICRs, through the mail by contacting Mr. Todd Owen at (202) 639-2444, 
or electronically via OSHA's Web site on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/.

[[Page 66513]]

IX. Unfunded Mandates

    OSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and Executive Order 
12875. As discussed above in section III (``Legal Considerations'') of 
this preamble, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule 
is likely to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on public and 
private employers by the existing requirements these proposed revisions 
would amend. The proposal would not expand existing regulatory 
requirements or increase the number of employers who are covered by the 
existing rules. Consequently, compliance with the proposed rule would 
require no additional expenditures by either public or private 
employers. In sum, the proposed rule does not mandate that state, 
local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory 
obligations.

X. Federalism

    The Agency has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with the 
Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent 
possible, refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with 
states before taking actions that restrict state policy options, and 
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and 
the problem is of national scope. The Executive Order provides for 
preemption of state law only when Congress expresses an intent that a 
Federal agency do so. The Federal agency must limit any such preemption 
to the extent possible.
    With respect to states that do not have occupational safety and 
health plans approved by OSHA under section 18 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the ``Act'') (29 U.S.C. 667), the Agency 
finds that the proposed rule conforms to the preemption provisions of 
the Act. These provisions authorize OSHA to preempt state promulgation 
and enforcement of requirements dealing with occupational safety and 
health issues covered by Agency standards, unless the state has a state 
occupational safety and health plan approved by the Agency. (See Gade 
v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 112 S.Ct. 2374 
(1992).) The provisions of 29 U.S.C. 667 prohibit states without such 
programs from issuing citations for violations of requirements covered 
by Agency standards. The proposed rule would not expand this 
limitation.
    Regarding states that have OSHA-approved occupational safety and 
health plans (``State-plan states''), the Agency finds that the 
proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132 because the proposal 
addresses a problem (i.e., health hazards) that is national in scope. 
After OSHA adopts final revisions based on this proposal, section 
18(c)(2) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)) would not preempt any 
alternative revisions made by State-plan states if these revisions are 
at least as affective as the final revisions developed by the Agency 
from this proposal.
    OSHA invites the states to submit comments and information 
regarding the proposed revisions. In addition to addressing the impact 
of the proposal on employee protection and employer burden, the Agency 
requests the states, especially State-plan states, to identify any 
enforcement issues they believe may result of OSHA adopts the proposed 
revisions.

XI. State-Plan States

    The 24 states and two territories with their own federally-approved 
occupational safety and health plans must develop revisions that are at 
least as effective as the final revisions adopted by the Agency from 
this proposal within six months after OSHA publishes the final rule. 
These states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Connecticut (State and local government employees only), Hawaii, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 
Jersey (State and local government employees only), New Mexico, New 
York (State and local government employees only), North Carolina, 
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.

XII. Public Participation

    The Agency requests members of the public to submit written 
comments and other information concerning this proposal. These comments 
may include comments and data that endorse or support or object to the 
proposed revisions set forth in this notice. OSHA welcomes such 
comments and information so that the record of this rulemaking will 
represent a full public response on the issues involved. See the 
sections above titled Date and Addresses for information on sending 
these submissions to the Agency. Submissions received within the 
specified comment period will become part of the record, and will be 
available for public inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office.
    Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSHA Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, members 
of the public may request an informal hearing by filing a request as 
specified above under the section titled Addresses. However, section 
6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (``the Act'') in 
conjunction with the Administrative Procedures Act does not require the 
Agency to hold a public hearing on proposed revisions involving 
medical-surveillance or exposure monitoring requirements. Requests for 
hearings must include the objections to the proposal that warrant a 
hearing. The party making objections that are part of a hearing request 
must:
    [sbull] Include their name and address;
    [sbull] Ensure that the request has a postmark date no later than 
December 30, 2002;
    [sbull] Separately number each objection;
    [sbull] Specify with particularity the grounds for each objection; 
and
    Include a detailed summary of the evidence supporting each 
objection that they plan to offer at the requested hearing.
    Interested parties may file objections with their comments and they 
will be fully considered by the Agency. Formal objections pursuant to 
the preceding paragraph are only required if a party is requesting a 
hearing.
    Submit three copies of written comments to the Docket Office, 
Docket No. S-778-A, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: (202) 693-
2350). Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less by 
fax to the Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    You may submit comments electronically through OSHA's Homepage at 
http://www.osha.gov. Please note that you may not attach materials such 
as studies or journal articles to your electronic comments. If you wish 
to include such materials, you must submit three copies to the OSHA 
Docket Office at the address listed above. When submitting such 
materials to the OSHA Docket Office, you must clearly identify your 
electronic comments by name, date, and subject, so that we can attach 
the materials to your electronic comments.
    Send requests for a hearing to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 (telephone: 
(202) 693-1999). Submit comments on the reduction of paperwork burden 
described in section VII of this notice to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New

[[Page 66514]]

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20530 (Attention: OSHA Desk Officer).

XIII. Authority

    John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this document.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 15, 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Hazardous substances; Occupational safety and health; Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Hazardous substances; Shipyard employment; Occupational safety and 
health; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Vessels.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry; Hazardous substances; Occupational safety 
and health; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    In accordance with sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657)), section 41 of 
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), 
section 107 of the Contract Work and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 
333), section 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), the Agency 
proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

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, and 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), as applicable.

    Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147 
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

Sec.  1910.142  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  1910.142, remove the words ``by telegram or telephone'' 
at the end of paragraph (l)(2).

Subpart K--Medical and First Aid

    3. 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, and 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147 
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    4. In the first paragraph of Appendix A to Sec.  1910.151, remove 
the words ``American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum 
Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type First-aid Kits'' and add, in 
their place, ``American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-1998 ``Minimum 
Requirements for Workplace First-aid Kits.''

Subpart R--Special Industries

    5. 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, and 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec.  1910.268  [Amended]

    6. In Sec.  1910.268, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.268  Telecommunications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Employers must provide employees with readily accessible, and 
appropriate first aid supplies. A nonmandatory example of appropriate 
supplies is listed in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.151.
* * * * *

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

    7. 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, and 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), I-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.

    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653), except those 
substances that have exposure limits in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, of 
29 CFR1910.1000. Section 1910.1000 also issued under section (6)(a) 
of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911, except for the inorganic 
arsenic, benzene, and cotton dust listings.
    Section 1910.1000 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 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 
29 U.S.C. 655 and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 
29 U.S.C. 653.

    8. in Sec.  1910.1001, revise paragraph (d)(7)(i) to read as set 
forth below and remove the word ``signed'' from the first sentence of 
the introductory text of paragraph (1)(7)(i).


Sec.  1910.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) The employer 
must, within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any 
monitoring performed under this section, notify each affected employee 
of these results either individually in writing or by posting the 
results in an appropriate location that is accessible to affected 
employees.
* * * * *


Sec.  1910.1003  [Amended]

    9-10. Section 1910.1003 is amended by removing and reserving 
paragraph (f).
    11. Section 1910.1017 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of 
paragraph (f)(3) and paragraph (k)(2);
    b. Removing and reserving paragraph (k)(6);
    c. Redesignating paragraph (k)(7) as (k)(6); and
    d. Removing paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) and redesignating 
paragraph (n)(3) as new paragraph (n) and revising it.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1017  Vinyl chloride.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * * (i) Must be repeated at least quarterly for any employee 
exposed, without regard to the use of respirators, in excess of the 
permissible exposure limit.
    (ii) Must be repeated not less than every 6 months for any employee 
exposed without regard to the use of respirators, at or above the 
action level.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * * Such plans must be updated at least annually.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *

[[Page 66515]]

    (2) Examinations must be provided in accordance with this paragraph 
at least annually.
* * * * *
    (n) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must, 
within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any 
monitoring performed under this section, notify each affected employee 
of these results and the steps being taken to reduce exposures within 
the permissible exposure limit either individually in writing or by 
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to 
affected employees.
* * * * *
    12. Section 1910.1018 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)
    b. Revising paragraphs (e)(5)(i), (g)(2)(iv), (n)(2)(ii)(A), 
(n)(3)(i);
    c. Removing paragraph (n)(3)(ii) and redesignating paragraph 
(n)(3)(iii) as new (n)(3)(ii); and
    d. Removing in appendix C section I, second paragraph, item (2), 
the words ``and an International Labor Office UICC/Cincinnati (ILO U/C 
rating''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 workin gdays after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to affected employees.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The plans required by this paragraph must be revised and 
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A standard posterior-Anterior chest x-ray;
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (e) * * * (i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with this 
paragraph at least annually.
* * * * *


Sec.  1910.1025  [Amended]

    13. In Sec.  1910.1025, revise paragraphs (d)(8)(i) and (e)(3)(iv) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1025  Lead.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the receipt of 
the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each 
affected employee of these results either individually in writing or by 
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to 
affected employees.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Written programs must be revised and updated at least annually 
to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
    14. In Sec.  1910.1027 remove the word ``signed'' from the first 
sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (l)(10)(i) and revise 
paragraph (d)(5)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1027  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *


Sec.  1910.1028  [Amended]

    15-16. In Sec.  1910.1028 revise paragraph (e)(7)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.1028  Benzene.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
    17. Section Sec.  1910.1029 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i), (f)(6)(iv), (j)(2)(ii), 
(j)(3)(ii) and (j)(3)(iii);
    b. Removing paragraph (j)(3)(iv);
    c. Redesignating paragraph (j)(3)(v) as (j)(3)(iv); and
    d. Removing the words ``and a ILO/UC rating to assure some 
standardization of x-ray reading'' from the third sentence of Appendix 
B.II. A.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) Written plans for such programs shall be submitted, upon 
request, to the Secretary and the Director, and shall be available at 
the worksite for examination and copying by the Secretary, the 
Director, and the authorized employee representative. The plans 
required under paragraph (f)(6) of this section shall be revised and 
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) A standard posterior-anterior chest x-ray;
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(vi) of this section at least 
annually and provide the examination specified in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) 
at least semi-annually for employees 45 years of age or older or with 
five (5) or more years employment in the regulated area.
    (iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 years of age or older or with 
five (5) or more years employment in a regulated area transfers or is 
transferred from employment in a regulated area, the employer must 
continue to provide the examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) 
through (j)(2)(vii) of this section at the frequencies specified in 
paragraph (j)(3)(ii) as long as that employee is employed by the same 
employer or a successor employer.
* * * * *
    18-19. In Sec.  1910.1043, revise paragraph (d)(4)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.1043  Cotton dust.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
    20. In Sec.  1910.1044, remove and reserve paragraph (d) and revise 
paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), (f)(5)(i) and the last sentence of 
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1044  1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.

* * * * *

[[Page 66516]]

    (f) * * *
    (3) * * * (i) if the monitoring required by this section reveals 
employee exposures to be at or below the permissible exposure limit, 
the employer must repeat these measurements at least every 6 months.
    (ii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee 
exposures to be in excess of the permissible exposure limit, the 
employer must repeat these measurements for each such employee at least 
quarterly. The employer must continue quarterly monitoring until at 
least two consecutive measurements, taken at least seven (7) days 
apart, are at or below the permissible exposure limit. Thereafter the 
employer must monitor at least every 6 months.
* * * * *
    (5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each employee of these results either individually in writing or 
by posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to 
employees.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * * These plans must be revised at least annually to reflect 
the current status of the program.
* * * * *
    21.-22. In Sec.  1910.1045, remove and reserve paragraph (d) and 
revise paragraphs (e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iii), (e)(5)(i) and (g)(2)(v) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1045  Acrylonitrile.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee 
exposure to be at or above the action level but at or below the 
permissible exposure limits, the employer must repeat such monitoring 
for each such employee at least every 6 months. The employer must 
continue these measurements every 6 months until at least two 
consecutive measurements taken at least seven (7) days a part, are 
below the action level, and thereafter the employer may discontinue 
monitoring for that employee.
    (iii) If the monitoring required by this section reveals employee 
exposure to be in excess of the permissible exposure limits, the 
employer must repeat these determinations for each such employee at 
least quarterly. The employer must continue these quarterly 
measurements until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at 
least seven (7) days apart, are at or below the permissible exposure 
limits, and thereafter the employer must monitor at least every 6 
months.
* * * * *
    (5) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) The plans required by this paragraph must be revised and 
updated at least annually to reflect the current status of the program.
* * * * *
    23.-24. In Sec.  1910.1047, revise (d)(7)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1047  Ethylene oxide.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *
    25. In Sec.  1910.1048, revise (d)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1048  Formaldehyde.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) * * * The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees. If employee exposure is above the PEL, 
affected employees shall be provided with a description of the 
corrective actions being taken by the employer to decrease exposure.
    26. In Sec.  1910.1051, revise paragraph (d)(7)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) * * * (i) The employer must, within 15 working days after the 
receipt of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, 
notify each affected employee of these results either individually in 
writing or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is 
accessible to employees.
* * * * *

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD 
EMPLOYMENT

    27. The authority citation for Part 1915 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``the Act''), 29 U.S.C. 
653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 
8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-
96 (62 FR 111), and 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable.
    Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR part 
1911.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

    28. In Sec.  1915.1001, revise paragraph (f)(5) to read as set 
forth below and remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).


Sec.  1915.1001  Asbestos

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must, 
as soon as possible but no later than 5 days after the receipt of the 
results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify each 
affected employee of these results either individually in writing or by 
posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible to 
employees.

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

    29.-30. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 (the ``Act''), 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 
3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    31. In Sec.  1926.60, revise paragraph (f)(7)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1926.60  Methylenedianilene.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (7) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later 
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring 
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these 
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an 
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *

[[Page 66517]]

    32. In Sec.  1926.62, revise paragraphs (d)(8)(i) and (e)(2)(v) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1926.62  Lead.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later 
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring 
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these 
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an 
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Written programs must be revised and updated at least annually 
to reflect the current status of the program.

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

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

    Authority: Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 (``the Act''), 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 
3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Section 1926.1102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 
U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
    34. In Sec.  1926.1101, revise paragraph (f)(5) to read as set 
forth below and remove paragraph (g)(6)(iii).


Sec.  1926.1101  Asbestos

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) Employee notification of monitoring results. The employer must, 
as soon as possible but no later than 5 working days after the receipt 
of the results of any monitoring performed under this section, notify 
each affected employee of these results either individually in writing 
or by posting the results in an appropriate location that is accessible 
to employees.
* * * * *
    35-36. In Sec.  1926.1127 revise paragraph (d)(5)(i) to read as set 
forth below and remove the word ``signed'' from the first sentence of 
the introductory text of paragraph (1)(10)(i).


Sec.  1926.1127  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *(i) The employer must, as soon as possible but no later 
than 5 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoring 
performed under this section, notify each affected employee of these 
results either individually in writing or by posting the results in an 
appropriate location that is accessible to employees.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02-27541 Filed 10-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P