[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Labor Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
1994 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary
In the preamble of Executive Order 12866, President Clinton states that 
the American people deserve a system of government regulations that 
works for them; one that protects and improves their health, safety, 
environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy 
without imposing undue burden on society. The Department of Labor plays 
a major role in achieving this very important goal of the President.
The Department of Labor is one of the largest enforcement agencies 
within the U.S. Government, administering and enforcing over 180 
Federal statutes and their implementing regulations. These regulations 
cover an estimated 7 million establishments and over 100 million 
current and former employees, as well as job applicants and retirees.
DOL's 1994 Regulatory Plan includes 21 of the Department's most 
important significant regulations from five of our major regulatory 
agencies: Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration (PWBA), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 
and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). These regulations 
were selected because of their significant impact on the economy or 
other government agencies and because they comprise the essential 
elements of each agency's regulatory efforts. While these regulations 
represent those that are likely to have the greatest impact, it is 
important to note that the Department views every regulatory effort it 
undertakes as important and necessary.
Equally important to our regulatory responsibilities is the way that we 
regulate. As a Department, we are committed to regulatory policies that 
acknowledge the importance of the private sector and private markets. 
Our goal is to develop regulations that are effective, consistent, 
sensible and understandable. To this end, we are committed to 
coordinating with other government agencies and working closely with 
target populations and the regulated community whenever appropriate.
The DOL Regulatory Role
The Department of Labor's rulemaking work represents one of the most 
important and necessary functions of the U.S. Government. These 
rulemakings directly impact the lives of millions of workers in a wide 
variety of areas as evidenced by the diverse statutes the Department 
administers. The Department is charged with the responsibility for 
protecting America's work force under the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. The Department 
is also charged with enforcing a number of statutes pertaining to labor 
standards for workers, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Employee 
Polygraph Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and certain 
provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Among these labor 
standards are those that guarantee minimum wages and overtime premium 
payments, protect child labor, set minimum working conditions for 
agricultural workers and guarantee family leave to workers for the 
birth or adoption of a child, or if the workers or their family members 
experience a serious health condition. Other labor statutes are 
narrower in scope and relate only to those working for government 
contractors (such as the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and the McNamara-
O'Hara Service Contract Act) or to certain groups of employees (like 
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act or the Black Lung Benefits 
Act).
DOL has also undertaken rulemaking related to laws such as the Job 
Training Partnership Act and the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs 
that provide essential job training services to workers who are just 
entering the job market or who are dislocated. Lastly, the Department 
is charged with enforcing the nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
requirements of Executive Order 11246 and a number of statutes such as 
sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and section 481 of the 
Job Training Partnership Act. Through these regulations, DOL seeks to 
ensure that Federal contractors and certain Federal grant recipients 
provide a level playing field to all applicants, employees and program 
participants.
In addition, workers and beneficiaries are protected through the 
Department's efforts to monitor pension and welfare plans (including 
group health plans) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 
In order to carry out this responsibility, DOL regulations spell out 
the standards and requirements that must be met by plan administrators 
and fiduciaries. DOL is also responsible for overseeing certain aspects 
of the internal affairs of labor organizations under the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Administration of each of these statutes requires the promulgation of 
rules that explain to the affected community exactly what their 
responsibilities are.
DOL's Regulatory Priorities
Given the Department's extensive mandate, our regulatory plan was 
developed around essential regulations necessary to assure American 
workers healthy, safe and fair working conditions. One of the highest 
priorities for the Department is for OSHA to issue its building-block 
standards on exposure assessment, medical surveillance, safety and 
health programs, ergonomics, and recordkeeping. These proposals will 
address multiple hazards present in most workplaces in a generic 
fashion. They are essential to OSHA's standard-setting priorities 
because they will address the potential occupational hazards facing the 
majority of America's work force.
Other important priorities are the proposed amendments to the 
regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 to ensure 
nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations, to the 
regulations pertaining to child labor and the exemption from minimum 
wage and overtime rules for executive, administrative and professional 
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. MSHA will also address 
the need to update the Agency's existing standards on exposure to 
potentially harmful chemical substances and to noise, and will develop 
criteria for the approval of diesel-powered equipment in underground 
mines.
The Department's regulatory plan also reflects the Administration's 
commitment to employment and training. We are focusing on building a 
reemployment system that includes the following features: high quality 
and longer-term training, a focus on customers and feedback from them, 
simplified access to programs and services, and better quality 
information on labor markets and on the performance of service 
providers. During the coming year, ETA and the Veterans Employment and 
Training Service (VETS) will review existing regulations in areas where 
Administration legislative initiatives, such as the proposed 
Reemployment Act, will necessitate regulations being revised, replaced, 
or repealed. Where possible, new and revised regulations will attempt 
to incorporate the features and key principles of the new reemployment 
system. One specific rule being developed by the Department that 
incorporates some features of the new reemployment system is the 
proposed rule to implement amendments to the Trade Act made by Title V 
of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
Regulating in a Smart Way
As a major regulatory agency, DOL recognizes the importance of 
regulating in a smart way. The Department upholds the objectives of the 
Executive Order 12866 to enhance planning and coordination with respect 
to both new and existing regulations and to make the regulatory process 
more accessible to the public. Already, we have made significant 
strides in this area.
The building-block standards proposed by OSHA represent a good example 
of regulating in a smart way. By addressing multiple hazards in a 
generic fashion, these proposals will ensure consistency across 
regulations. For instance, Section 6(b) of the OSH Act requires, where 
appropriate, that OSHA standards include provisions for exposure 
monitoring. Currently, a variety of substance-specific standards 
include requirements for exposure monitoring while hundreds of 
substances in OSHA's Z-tables have no such requirement. A generic 
standard for exposure assessment would satisfy section 6(b)(7) of the 
Act, with respect to Z-table substances in the Air Contaminants 
Standards (29 CFR 1910.1000).
Another example of regulating in a smart way is OSHA's review of 
certain existing standards. For instance, OSHA plans to issue a 
revision to its outdated walking and working surfaces standard with a 
performance-oriented final standard, which will permit more flexibility 
in compliance. OSHA is also utilizing negotiated rulemaking as an 
alternative regulatory approach to address the hazards of steel 
erection.
Similar examples can be found in other areas of the Department. ESA's 
proposal to amend Executive Order 11246 will streamline, clarify and 
reduce paperwork requirements associated with compliance. The Mine 
Safety and Health Administration will soon publish a proposed rule on 
Testing and Evaluation of Mining Products by Independent Laboratories 
and Use of Equivalent Approval Requirements. As recommended by the 
National Performance Review, this rule will allow certain mining 
equipment and products to be tested and approved by nationally 
recognized independent laboratories. This rule benefits from a proper 
use of the private sector to permit the agency to shift resources 
toward product audits in the field.
Regulations Included in the Plan
Twenty-one regulations are included in DOL's 1994 Regulatory Plan. 
These regulations acknowledge DOL's important role in rulemaking and 
the importance of regulating in a smart way. As previously mentioned, 
these regulations were also selected because of their significant 
impact on the economy or other Government agencies. A detailed 
description for each follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
95. CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION 
(ESA/W-H)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 203


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 570


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 3(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act requires the Secretary of 
Labor to issue regulations with respect to minors between 14 and 16 
years of age ensuring that the periods and conditions of their 
employment do not interfere with their schooling, health, or well-
being. The Secretary also is directed to designate occupations that may 
be particularly hazardous for minors 16 and 17 years of age. Child 
Labor Regulation No. 3 sets forth the permissible industries and 
occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and 
specifies the number of hours in a day and in a week, and time periods 
within a day, that such minors may be employed. The Department has 
invited public comment in considering whether changes in technology in 
the workplace and job content over the years require new hazardous 
occupations orders, and review of some of the applicable hazardous 
occupation orders and the method of their promulgation. Comment has 
also been solicited on whether revisions should be considered in the 
permissible hours and time of day standards for 14- and 15-year-olds. 
Comment has also been sought on appropriate changes required to 
implement school-to-work transition programs.


Statement of Need:


Because of changes in the workplace and the introduction of new 
processes and technologies, the Department is undertaking a 
comprehensive review of the regulatory criteria applicable to child 
labor. Other factors necessitating a review of the child labor 
regulations are changes in places where young workers find employment 
opportunities, the existence of differing Federal and State standards, 
and the divergent views on how best to correlate school and work 
experiences.


Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Secretary of Labor is directed 
to provide by regulation or by order for the employment of youth 
between 14 and 16 years of age under periods and conditions which will 
not interfere with their schooling, health and well-being. The 
Secretary is also directed to designate occupations that may be 
particularly hazardous for youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years or 
detrimental to their health or well-being. The Secretary has done so by 
specifying, in regulations, the permissible industries and occupations 
in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and the number of hours 
per day and week and the time periods within a day in which they may be 
employed. In addition, these regulations designate the occupations 
declared particularly hazardous for minors between 16 and 18 years of 
age or detrimental to their health or well-being.


Public comment has been invited in considering whether changes in 
technology in the workplace and job content over the years require new 
hazardous occupation orders or necessitate revision to some of the 
existing hazardous orders. Comment has also been invited on whether 
revisions should be considered in the permissible hours and time-of-day 
standards for the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds, and whether 
revisions should be considered to facilitate school-to-work transition 
programs. When developing regulatory proposals (after receipt of public 
comment on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking), the Department's 
focus will be on assuring healthy, safe and fair workplaces for young 
workers, and at the same time making regulatory standards less 
burdensome to the regulated community.


Alternatives:


Full regulatory alternatives will be developed after receipt and 
analysis of the public comments responding to the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Alternatives likely to be considered include 
specific additions or modifications to the hazardous occupation orders 
and changes to the hours 14- and 15-year-olds may work.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action will be developed once decisions are reached on 
particular proposed changes in the child labor regulations. Benefits 
will include safer working environments and fewer injuries to young 
workers.


Risks:


An assessment of the magnitude of the risk addressed by this action and 
how it relates to other risks within the jurisdiction of DOL will be 
prepared once decisions are reached on particular proposed changes in 
the child labor regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action on 56 FR 5862612                                  11/20/91
Final Action Eff56 FR 58626                                    12/20/91
ANPRM           59 FR 25167                                    05/13/94
ANPRM Comment Pe59 FR 40318                                    10/11/94
NPRM                                                           05/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Maria Echaveste
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm S3502, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
96. DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE TERM ``ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA 
FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY'' (ESA/W-H)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 213(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 541


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations set forth the criteria used in the determination of 
the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for 
``executive,'' ``administrative,'' ``professional'' and ``outside sales 
employees'' from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act. 
A final rule increasing the salary test criteria was published on 01/
13/81 (46 FR 3010) and was scheduled to become effective on 02/13/81. 
On 02/12/81 (46 FR 11972) an indefinite stay of the final rule was 
published. On 03/27/81 (46 FR 18998) a proposal to suspend the final 
rule indefinitely was published with comments due by 04/28/81. As a 
result of numerous comments and petitions received from industry groups 
regarding the duties and responsibilities tests as set forth in the 
regulations, as well as recent case law developments, the Department 
concluded that a more comprehensive review of these regulations was 
needed and decided to reopen the comment period and broaden the scope 
of the review to include all aspects of the regulations. An ANPRM was 
published on 11/19/85 and its comment period was subsequently extended 
to 3/22/86. The Department has revised these regulations since the 
ANPRM to address specific issues. In 1991, as the result of an 
amendment to the FLSA, the regulations were revised to permit certain 
highly skilled computer systems analysts, computer programmers, 
software engineers, and other similarly skilled professional employees 
to qualify for the exemption, including those paid on an hourly basis 
if their rates of pay exceed 6-1/2 times the applicable minimum wage. 
Also, in 1992, the Department issued a final rule which provided, in 
part, that an otherwise exempt public sector employee would not be 
disqualified from the exemption's requirement for payment on a ``salary 
basis'' solely because the employee is paid according to a public pay 
and leave system that, absent the use of paid leave, requires the 
employee's pay to be reduced for absences of less than one workday. 
These revisions were limited in nature and the regulations are still in 
need of updating and clarification. In addition, recent court rulings 
have caused confusion as to what constitutes compliance with the 
regulation's ``salary basis'' criteria in both the public and private 
sectors. All of these factors have led the Department to conclude that 
a comprehensive review of these regulations is both necessary and 
appropriate. The Department intends to solicit input through a public 
hearing process to identify issues and to develop regulatory proposals.


Statement of Need:


These regulations set forth the criteria used in the determination of 
the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for 
``executive,'' ``administrative,'' ``professional'' and ``outside sales 
employees.'' The existing salary test levels used in determining who is 
exempt from the minimum wage and overtime rules were adopted in 1975 on 
an interim basis. These salary level tests are outdated and offer 
little practical guidance in the application of the exemption. In 
addition, numerous comments and petitions have been received in recent 
years from industry groups regarding the duties and responsibilities 
tests in the regulations. These factors, as well as recent case law 
developments, have led the Department to conclude that a comprehensive 
review of these regulations is needed.


These regulations have been revised in recent years to deal with 
specific amendments or issues. In 1991, as the result of an amendment 
to the FLSA, the regulations were revised to permit certain highly 
skilled computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software 
engineers, and other similarly skilled professional employees to 
qualify for the exemption, including those paid on an hourly basis if 
their rates of pay exceed 6-1/2 times the applicable minimum wage.


Also in 1991, the Department undertook separate rulemaking on another 
aspect of the regulations, the definition of ``salary basis'' for 
public sector employers. An interim final rule provided, in part, that 
an otherwise exempt public sector employee would not be disqualified 
from the exemption's requirement for payment on a ``salary basis'' 
solely because the employee is paid according to a public pay and leave 
system that, absent the use of paid leave, reduces the employee's pay 
for absences of less than one workday. (In 1992, the Department issued 
its final rule on this matter.)


Because of the limited nature of these revisions, the regulations are 
still in need of updating and clarification, especially with regard to 
applicability to public sector employment. In addition, recent court 
rulings have caused confusion on what constitutes compliance with the 
regulation's ``salary basis'' criteria in both the public and private 
sectors.


Alternatives:


Because the regulations are sorely out-of-date, a comprehensive 
rulemaking is necessary. The Department intends to reopen the comment 
period of the November 1985 advance notice of proposed rulemaking and 
to obtain additional information pertaining to matters that have arisen 
subsequently through a hearing process. Following these activities, 
full regulatory alternatives will be developed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Some 23 million employees are within the scope of these regulations. 
Legal developments in court cases are causing progressive loss of 
control of the guiding interpretations under this exemption and are 
creating law without considering a comprehensive analytical approach to 
current compensation concepts and workplace practices. These court 
rulings are creating apprehension in both the private and public 
sectors. Clear and comprehensive regulations will once again provide 
for central, uniform control over application of these regulations and 
will eliminate this apprehension.


In the public sector, State and local government employers contend that 
the rules are based on production workplace environments from the 1940s 
and 1950s and that they do not readily adapt to contemporary government 
functions. The Federal Government also has concerns regarding the 
manner in which the courts and arbitration decisions are applying the 
exemption to the Federal work force. Resolution of these conflicts over 
how the regulations are to be applied in the public sector will ensure 
that employees are protected, that employers are able to comply with 
their responsibilities under the law, and that the regulations are 
enforceable.


Preliminary estimates of the specific costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action will be developed once the various regulatory 
alternatives are identified.


Risks:


An assessment of the magnitude of the risk addressed by this action and 
how it relates to other risks within the jurisdiction of DOL will be 
prepared once decisions are reached on specific proposed changes in 
these regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Indefinite Stay 46 FR 11972le                                  02/12/81
Proposal To Susp46 FR 18998definitely                          03/27/81
ANPRM           50 FR 47696                                    11/19/85
Extension of ANP51 FR 2525 Period From 01/21/86 to 03/22/86    01/17/86
ANPRM Comment Pe51 FR 2525                                     03/22/86
ANPRM Second - Hearing Notice                                  11/00/94
NPRM                                                           04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Maria Echaveste
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
97. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: NONDISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 
OBLIGATIONS (ESA/OFCCP)
Legal Authority:


 EO 11246, as amended; 38 USC 4212; 29 USC 793


CFR Citation:


 41 CFR 60-1; 41 CFR 60-2; 41 CFR 60-4; 41 CFR 60-20; 41 CFR 60-30; 41 
CFR 60-50; 41 CFR 60-60; 41 CFR 60-250; 41 CFR 60-741; 41 CFR 60-742


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations cover nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
obligations of Federal contractors under Executive Order 11246, as 
amended; the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 
(38 USC 4212), as amended; and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, as amended. The NPRM published 08/25/81 and supplemented on 04/
23/82 extended the effective date of a final rule published 12/30/80 
and proposed amendments to that rule. OFCCP's review of regulatory 
options continues with emphasis on Executive Order recordkeeping 
requirements, certification requirements and enforcement sanctions.


Statement of Need:


Parts of the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 need to be 
revised, to reflect changes in the law that have occurred over time, 
streamlined, and clarified. Executive Order 11246 requires all Federal 
contractors and subcontractors and federally assisted construction 
contractors and subcontractors to apply a policy of nondiscrimination 
and affirmative action in employment with respect to race, color, 
religion, sex, and national origin. The regulatory revisions are 
necessary in order to allow DOL to effectively and efficiently enforce 
the provisions of the Executive order. As a first step in updating its 
Executive order regulations, the Department intends to propose changes 
to the provisions that govern preaward review requirements; 
recordkeeping and record retention requirements; enforcement sanctions; 
and related provisions. In addition, revisions will be made that will 
conform the Executive order regulations to the recent changes made in 
the Department's regulations implementing section 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act.


A second phase of revision will contain proposals to change provisions 
that govern requirements for written affirmative action plans, 
regarding reporting requirements and the definition good faith efforts; 
the sex discrimination guidelines; and the provisions concerning 
contractor evaluation procedures. A third phase of revision will focus 
on provisions applicable to construction contractors.


Alternatives:


After careful review, it was decided that the most effective way to 
improve compliance with the Executive order provisions, and reduce 
burdens on compliant contractors, was to propose revisions to these 
regulations. Administrative actions alone could not produce the desired 
results. A determination was also made to publish revisions to the 
remaining regulatory provisions of the Executive order at a later date 
so that careful consideration can be given to what changes are needed 
in each of the parts of the regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is anticipated that the net effect of the proposed changes will be 
an increase in the rate of compliance with the nondiscrimination and 
affirmative action requirements of the Executive order and a reduction 
in compliance costs to Federal contractors. The Department will also be 
able to employ its resources more efficiently and more effectively.


Risks:


An assessment of the magnitude of the risk addressed by this action and 
how it relates to other risks within the jurisdiction of DOL will be 
prepared once decisions are reached on specific proposed changes in the 
Executive Order 11246 regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           46 FR 36213                                    07/14/81
NPRM - Compliance Reviews, Recordkeeping and Sanctions (41 CFR 11/00/94
NPRM - Affirmative Action Plans (41 CFR 60-2)                  03/00/95
FINAL - Compliance Reviews, Recordkeeping and Sanctions (41 CFR04/00/95
NPRM - Construction Contractors' Regulations (41 CFR 60-4)     07/00/95
FINAL - Affirmative Action Plans (41 CFR 60-2)                 11/00/95
FINAL - Construction Contractors' Regulations (41 CFR 60-4)    12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Annie A. Blackwell
Director, Division of Policy, Planning and Program Development, OFCCP
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Ave. NW.
Rm C3325, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-9430
RIN: 1215-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
98. LABOR STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS
Legal Authority:


 41 USC 351 et seq; 79 Stat 1034, as amended in 86 Stat. 789; 90 Stat 
2358; 41 USC 38; 41 USC 39; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Service Contract Act (SCA) applies to Federal contracts principally 
for the furnishing of services through the use of service employees 
and, on contracts over $2,500 where the predecessor contract was not 
subject to a collective bargaining agreement, requires the Department 
of Labor to determine prevailing wages and fringe benefits in the 
locality to be paid to various classifications of workers on the 
contract. Prevailing wage determinations issued by the Department, 
which become part of the Federal contract, establish the minimum 
compensation for employees performing on that contract. The Service 
Employees International Union (SEIU) sued DOL in March 1991 over DOL's 
practice, since 1976, of issuing two nationwide rates for health and 
welfare fringe benefits, and for not periodically updating fringe 
benefit levels. The District Court remanded the case to DOL for 
exhaustion of administrative remedies, which led to the DOL's Board of 
Service Contract Appeals decision that remanded the case to the Wage 
Hour Division to consider alternative methods of implementing the 
statute. Proposed regulations are required to resolve this litigation. 
A notice of proposed rulemaking will invite comment on alternatives for 
updating SCA fringe benefits.


Statement of Need:


In order to resolve a lawsuit filed by the Service Employees 
International Union over DOL's long-standing administrative practice of 
issuing two nationwide rates for health and welfare fringe benefits for 
contracts subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA), DOL has decided 
that revisions to its regulations are needed. The McNamara-O'Hara 
Service Contract Act requires the Department of Labor to determine 
locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits to be paid by service 
contractors to service employees working on Federal service contracts 
(unless the predecessor contract was covered by a collective bargaining 
agreement).


An NPRM will be published to solicit comments on alternative 
methodologies for issuing prevailing SCA fringe benefits. It is 
expected that some or all of these alternatives will increase the 
benefit rates required on SCA contracts and thus increase costs for 
Federal agencies using service contracts. Because of the impact on 
Federal agency procurement actions, this action would be considered 
``significant'' under E.O. 12866.


Alternatives:


A number of regulatory alternatives have been considered for inclusion 
in the NPRM. Among the possible alternatives are: The current two-tier 
system that sets two benefit rates using data for large and small 
establishments; a single fringe benefit rate based on the average cost 
of providing health insurance, retirement, and all other benefits not 
legally required for all firms in all industries; different benefit 
rates for each locality; and benefit rates for broad groups of 
occupations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated cost of all the regulatory alternatives to the existing 
methodology for updating SCA health and welfare fringe benefit rates 
may likely exceed the costs associated with the existing methodology. 
Therefore, adoption of an alternative methodology may result in 
increased procurement costs to Federal agencies who let service 
contracts. Estimates of costs for each of the alternatives chosen will 
be prepared for inclusion in the NPRM. The benefit that will result 
from this regulatory action will be establishment of a reasonable and 
fair methodology for setting benefit rates and the resolution of the 
lawsuit.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Maria Echaveste
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA78
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
99.  MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION (29 
CFR PART 500)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1801 to 1872, as amended


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 500


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The legislative history of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act (MSPA) indicates that the principles found in the 
court's decision in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand, 471 F. 2d 235, are to 
be followed in determining whether a joint employment relationship 
exists in the employment in migrant and seasonal farm workers in a 
given fact situation. The Department intends to publish an NPRM to 
solicit comments on a clarification of the regulations to more closely 
comport with the legislative history of MSPA and the principles found 
in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand and also possible modifications to the 
procedures for MSPA hearings, seeking more timely decisions.


Statement of Need:


These regulations need to be revised in order to provide some much 
needed clarifications and to make the hearing process more efficient. 
In the legislative history to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
Worker Protection Act (MSPA), Congress stated that the term joint 
employment in MSPA was to have the same meaning as is found in the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Further remarks in the legislative history 
indicate that the principles found in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand were 
to be determinative. However, subsequent legal developments have 
created confusion as to the appropriate criteria for determining the 
existence of a joint employment relationship. In its rulemaking, DOL 
will solicit comments to clarify the regulatory criteria for 
determining when a joint employment relationship exists between two or 
more employers. The Department will also consider modifying the rules 
relating to procedures for hearings, seeking more timely decisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There is no identifiable cost impact to the contemplated clarifying 
change in the regulations. Employers in the agricultural community will 
benefit from the clearer, more definitive criteria provided regarding 
joint employment relationships. An expedited hearing process will also 
be beneficial to all parties.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Maria Echaveste
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA93
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
100.  PROCEDURES FOR PREDETERMINATION OF WAGE RATES (29 CFR 
PART 1) AND LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS COVERING 
FEDERALLY FINANCED AND ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION (29 CFR PART 5)
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 276a to 276a(7)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1; 29 CFR 5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department attempted to implement revised rules governing the 
circumstances in which ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and 
assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act in May 
1982 (see 47 FR 23644, 23658 (May 28, 1982); 47 FR 32090 (July 20, 
1982). After protracted litigation, a final rule was published in 
January 1989 (see 54 FR 4234) which became effective on February 4, 
1991. Thereafter, on two occasions, Congress acted to prevent the 
Department from expending any funds to implement these revised helper 
regulations--through the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1991, PL 102-27, 10 5 Stat. 130, 151 (1991), and then through 
section 104 of the DOL Appropriations Act of 1994, PL 103-112. Because 
a further extension of the current moratorium is contemplated, the 
Department has determined that the helper issue needs to be addressed 
through rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


The current helper rules are difficult to administer and enforce, and--
as evidenced by the prolonged litigation history and subsequent 
Congressional actions--are highly controversial. In May 1982, the 
Department attempted to implement revised rules governing the 
circumstances in which ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and 
federally assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon 
Act. After protracted litigation, a final rule was published in January 
1989 and became effective on February 4, 1991. Thereafter, on two 
occasions, Congress acted to prevent the Department from expending any 
funds to implement these revised helper regulations. While the current 
appropriation prohibition expires after September 1994, the 
Administration supports an extension of the current moratorium to allow 
additional time for this issue to be addressed through rulemaking. The 
Administration's support for an extension of the current appropriations 
moratorium is premised on a commitment to address the helper issue 
through a rulemaking process in fiscal year 1995.


Alternatives:


None. The Administration has determined that this issue should not be 
addressed through the legislative process in which it seeks other 
reforms to the Davis-Bacon Act. Specific regulatory alternatives have 
not yet been developed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A new rulemaking regarding the helper criteria will seek to make 
administration of the Davis-Bacon Act more efficient by establishing 
reasonable ``helper'' criteria and methodology--thus resolving the 
controversy and uncertainty currently experienced by interested 
parties. Changes in the helper regulations may result in an inability 
to realize some of the construction procurement cost savings 
anticipated from the earlier rulemaking. Estimates of the financial 
impacts of revised ``helper'' regulations will be prepared for 
inclusion in the NPRM.


Risks:


Given the history of challenges to this regulation, it is probable that 
additional litigation will ensue from any new regulatory initiative.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Maria Echaveste
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
101. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS--TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT 
ASSISTANCE NAFTA-TAA
Legal Authority:


 PL 103-182 Title V


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 617


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, January 1, 1995.


Final regulation to be issued to the maximum extent feasible by 1/1/95.


Abstract:


Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 
(PL 103-182) amends Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 by 
adding a new Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program (NAFTA-TAA) for 
workers who lose their jobs because of increased imports from or a 
shift of production to Mexico and Canada. Most of the provisions of 
Title V are in the form of amendments to Chapter 2, Title II, of the 
Trade Act. While some of the provisions are not in the form of 
amendments to the Trade Act, they nonetheless must be given effect in 
implementing the NAFTA-TAA program.


Statement of Need:


The North American Free Trade Agreement will expand trade between the 
U.S., Mexico and Canada. U.S. companies will be able to increase their 
exports and create new jobs. Mexico and Canada will also be able to do 
this; so in certain industries some U.S. workers may lose their jobs. 
It is important that these U.S. workers get assistance in finding new 
jobs, including obtaining training, if necessary.


The proposed regulations are required to establish clear rules, 
procedures and guidelines for the Department, for the States and State 
agencies that serve as agents of the United States, in carrying out 
their responsibilities under the NAFTA-TAA program. This will assure 
that workers who lost their jobs due to NAFTA will receive the 
adjustment assistance they need.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 
(Pub. L. 103-182 enacted December 8, 1993) amends Chapter 2 of Title II 
of the Trade Act of 1974, by adding a new Transitional Adjustment 
Assistance Program (NAFTA-TAA) for workers who lose their jobs because 
of increased imports from or a shift of production to Mexico or Canada.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A cost benefit analysis was not conducted. The regulation codifies 
procedures and responsibilities stipulated by the NAFTA implementing 
legislation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Victor Trunzo
Chief, BDAS
Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C4318, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-5555
RIN: 1205-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
102. REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME 
SECURITY ACT OF 1974
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1029; 29 USC 1143; 29 USC 1021; 29 USC 1022; 29 
USC 1024; 29 USC 1025; 29 USC 1059


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2520


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the current 
reporting and disclosure requirements to ensure that the Department, 
participants and beneficiaries are provided meaningful information and 
that such requirements take into account technological developments 
that result in more effective and timely communication of benefit and 
plan information. As an initial step in this review, the Department 
solicited comments, recommendations and information from the public 
concerning the current disclosure requirements and changes thereto, 
taking into account the experience of the past 20 years and changes in 
communication techniques and types of plans. The public input received 
in response to this solicitation will enable the Department to review 
the current disclosure framework and to develop meaningful proposals 
for changes based on up-to-date information concerning current plan 
practices.


Statement of Need:


Since ERISA's enactment 20 years ago there have been few modifications 
to ERISA's reporting and disclosure provisions. Similarly, there have 
been few changes over the past 10 to 15 years in the Department's 
regulations implementing ERISA's reporting and disclosure provisions. 
During this same period, however, there have been dramatic changes in 
the employee benefit plan area and in the way information is 
communicated. As a result of these and other changes, questions have 
been raised with respect to the adequacy and timeliness of the 
information required to be disclosed to participants and beneficiaries. 
Similar questions have been raised concerning the information required 
to be filed with the Department of Labor. To address these issues, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to conduct a 
comprehensive review of ERISA's reporting and disclosure scheme and, on 
the basis of that review, propose regulatory and/or legislative changes 
necessary to address identified deficiencies.


To assist the Department in its review, the Department published a 
notice in the Federal Register (58 FR 68339, December 27, 1993) 
soliciting public comment on ERISA's provisions and the Department's 
regulations relating to the summary plan description, summary annual 
report and individual benefit reports. The Department is currently 
considering the comments received in response to this Federal Register 
notice.


However, because of the interrelationship of the information disclosed 
to participants and beneficiaries with that information required to be 
filed with the Department of Labor, the Department is expanding its 
review to include ERISA's reporting provisions, including a review of 
the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report Series, which is filed annually by 
an estimated 750,000 employee benefit plans. The Form 5500 Series is a 
joint Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation form and serves as the principal source of 
financial information and data available to the Agencies, and 
participants and beneficiaries, concerning the operations of employee 
benefit plans. This review will be coordinated with the Internal 
Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title I of ERISA imposes specific reporting and disclosure obligations 
on administrators of employee benefit plans. It also provides the 
Secretary with the authority to prescribe exemptions and alternative 
methods of compliance for employee welfare benefit plans and employee 
pension benefit plans and to prescribe regulations necessary or 
appropriate to carry out the provisions of Title I of ERISA.


Alternatives:


ERISA is more prescriptive than most legislation in the degree of 
specificity of reporting requirements explicitly set forth in the 
statute. In developing changes, therefore, the Department will be 
considering changes in the statute which may permit greater flexibility 
in changing reporting requirements over time as the nature of plans 
change. The Department will also focus on regulatory changes that will 
result in more valuable information for beneficiaries and participants, 
while minimizing the burden and cost to administrators. These 
considerations will include the content, form and frequency of 
information provided.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is not yet known what capital or annual costs may result from 
modifications to the current reporting and disclosure framework. In 
developing its regulatory proposal, it is the goal of the Department to 
strike a balance between benefits and costs by ensuring the provision 
of useful and timely information to participants, beneficiaries and the 
Department, while minimizing any costs and burdens to administrators 
that may result from such changes.


Risks:


ERISA's reporting and disclosure framework is intended to assure that 
employee benefit plans are operated and managed in accordance with 
prescribed minimum standards and that participants and beneficiaries, 
as well as regulators, are provided or have access to sufficient 
information to protect their rights and benefits under employee benefit 
plans. Enhanced reporting and disclosure, through regulatory or 
statutory changes, should serve to mitigate risks of benefit losses by 
participants and beneficiaries, as well as facilitate compliance by 
plan administrators, thereby reducing litigation and penalty risks to 
plan administrators, fiduciaries and sponsors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 68339                                    12/27/93
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/25/94
Next Action Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Rudy Nuissl
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-7901
RIN: 1210-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
103. NOISE STANDARD
Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Hearing impairment is a serious occupational hazard in the mining 
industry. Many miners are consistently exposed to noise levels that are 
near maximum levels currently permitted by MSHA. As a result, miners 
may be suffering hearing impairment. MSHA is developing a proposed rule 
which would establish noise standards to apply to all mining.


Statement of Need:


MSHA's experience under its current standards for occupational exposure 
to hazardous noise levels indicates that these standards do not provide 
the protection intended. Many miners are exposed consistently to noise 
levels that are near the maximum currently permitted by MSHA. As a 
result, miners may be suffering hearing impairment notwithstanding 
MSHA's enforcement of existing noise standards. This proposed rule 
would address the permissible exposure levels, methods of measuring 
exposure, and methods for controlling exposure. The proposed rule also 
would include new requirements for audiograms to determine the 
effectiveness of control measures in reducing the amount of hearing 
damage in exposed miners.


In addition, MSHA's noise standards for coal mines differ from those 
for metal and nonmetal mines, and these standards also differ from 
OSHA's noise standards. MSHA's proposed rule would provide consistent 
requirements for all mines and increase the level of consistency 
between OSHA's and MSHA's noise standards.


Alternatives:


MSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking which requested 
industry comments and data on a number of issues. Based upon its own 
research and experience, and data and information submitted to the 
record, MSHA is considering numerous alternatives on a wide variety of 
complex and controversial issues. For example, MSHA is considering (1) 
the respective roles of personal hearing protection and engineering 
controls in controlling miners' exposures; (2) lowering the permissible 
exposure level; or (3) whether or not to require a hearing conservation 
program, including audiometric testing, exposure monitoring, and miner 
training. This proposed rule will derive from MSHA's deliberations and 
decisions on these issues and alternatives and will seek to conform to 
OSHA's rule to the extent practical and appropriate.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Depending on the form of the rule, MSHA expects costs to be incurred 
for engineering controls, personal hearing protection, audiometric 
testing, training, exposure monitoring, and recordkeeping. The major 
benefit of implementing the protection sought would be an average 
annual reduction of about 500 cases of hearing impairment from 
occupational noise exposure in mining, assuming that existing exposure 
levels and the number of miners remained constant and that miners were 
exposed for 20 to 40 years at these levels. The scope and nature of the 
proposed rule is currently under development and, thus, estimates of 
costs and benefits are preliminary.


Risks:


Noise is a serious occupational hazard in the mining industry. 
Occupational exposure to loud noise results in hearing loss and hearing 
impairment which affects both quality of life and functional capacity. 
The Agency believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis 
for proposing revisions to MSHA's existing noise standards. In 
addition, cases of hearing loss reported to MSHA indicate that a 
significant number of these miners received all of their noise exposure 
under existing standards. This MSHA data is supported by States 
workers' compensation data.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 50209                                    12/04/89
ANPRM Comment Pe55 FR 6011                                     06/22/90
NPRM                                                           05/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631, BT3
Arlington, VA 22203
703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
104. CERTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS
Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would provide for Federal certification of certain 
supervisors in mining and the certification and identification of a 
``person-in-charge.'' Currently, under certain circumstances, MSHA 
certifies such individuals for underground coal mines. A Federal 
certification program would ensure that individuals in different States 
meet a minimum, uniform standard of competence for supervising tasks 
essential to maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking would provide for Federal certification of supervisors 
in mining. Currently, many supervisors in mining are certified through 
various State programs with widely ranging requirements and enforcement 
policies. MSHA has accepted most of these State certifications for 
purposes of complying with Federal certification standards. However, 
inadequate workplace examinations frequently are found to be a 
contributing cause to deaths and serious injuries in mines. There is a 
need to ensure that persons in key positions in mining are properly 
trained and aware of responsibilities and to assure consistency 
throughout the States.


Alternatives:


Prior to a decision to pursue rulemaking, MSHA worked within the 
framework of existing State regulations supplemented by Federal 
certification for certain activities and where State certification 
programs were either absent or inadequate. This system was found to be 
inconsistent, ineffective, and inadequate in a number of situations. 
MSHA is in the process of developing and considering alternative 
regulatory approaches to address this problem.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs are expected to be incurred for operator training (both initial 
and continuing education) of foremen and persons in charge; and 
development and administration of State programs. Benefits will include 
greater, and more knowledgeable, compliance with health and safety 
regulations, and a corresponding reduction in accidents and injuries, 
through the enhanced awareness and vigilance of the person in charge of 
the mining operations. The scope and nature of the proposed rule 
currently are under development and, thus, specific estimates of costs 
and benefits have not been determined at this time.


Risks:


MSHA experience over the past two decades indicates that the person in 
charge of specific activities during the mining process is in the best 
position to ensure that miners follow applicable safety procedures and 
to ensure that mine operators and other policy level personnel are 
aware of and correct hazardous conditions and practices. Failure of the 
supervisor to properly carry out this responsibility has resulted in 
accidents, deaths, and injuries. For example, the recent Southmountain 
disaster resulted from smoking in the underground mine. Not only did 
the supervisor fail to conduct the necessary checks to ensure that 
smoking materials were not taken underground, but the supervisor has 
been accused of condoning the practice and participating in it.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631, BT3
Arlington, VA 22203
703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA86
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
105. LEGAL IDENTITY
Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 41


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 103(h) of the Mine Act authorizes MSHA to require mine 
operators to provide any information the Agency needs to perform its 
functions under the Act. MSHA needs to revise its existing regulations 
in 30 CFR part 41 to allow better identification and tracking of the 
controlling entities of mines.


Statement of Need:


Section 109(d) of the Mine Act requires each operator of a mine to file 
with the Secretary of Labor the name and address of such mine, the name 
and address of the person who controls or operates the mine, and any 
revisions in such names and addresses. This proposal would revise 30 
CFR part 41 which implements section 109(d) of the Mine Act. Due to 
changing conditions in the mining industry, MSHA has determined that 
the data currently obtained under 30 CFR part 41 is insufficient to 
allow the Agency to fully enforce the Mine Act. Over the last several 
years, there has been a significant change in the business structure of 
mines. The traditional mine operator is increasingly being replaced by 
contract production operators who have limited authority for decisions 
affecting health and safety. The revisions to part 41 are needed to 
enable the Secretary to identify all persons and organizations at a 
mine responsible for safety and health management decisions. The 
proposal would provide for an updated system for legal identity 
registration that will require disclosure of persons with actual 
authority for operation of the mine and for the decisions necessary for 
the correction of hazards. This will enable MSHA to direct enforcement 
where it will be most effective. All parties who have an investment in 
mining will recognize that safety and health is an important component 
of that investment.


Alternatives:


One nonregulatory alternative being considered is to place greater 
burden on the Agency's enforcement personnel to identify and track the 
many independent contractors currently working on mining property. MSHA 
is in the process of developing further alternative regulatory 
approaches to address this problem.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope and nature of the proposed rule currently are under 
development and, thus, estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined at this time. Costs are expected to be far less than $100 
million annually. Benefits will include increased safety and health 
protection for miners because of improved compliance with health and 
safety regulations by persons who exercise control of mines. The 
proposal, which would require for the first time the listing of the 
Employer Identification Number, would facilitate the Secretary's 
ability to collect delinquent civil penalties.


Risks:


Often the person making the final decisions and controlling the 
allocation of resources for the correction of hazardous conditions is 
removed from the day-to-day operations of the mine. For this reason, 
MSHA is seeking better methods to identify and hold accountable those 
persons and organizations which control mining operations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
Final Action                                                   08/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631, BT3
Arlington, VA 22203
703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
106. DIESEL-POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 957


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 7; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MSHA currently has no approval, safety, or health regulations that 
specifically address the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground 
coal mines. MSHA has a mining equipment approval program which includes 
evaluation criteria for the use and maintenance of approved equipment. 
However, these existing approval regulations do not generally apply to 
the diesel-powered equipment now being used in underground coal mines. 
In 1988, a secretarial advisory committee made recommendations to the 
Secretary concerning safety and health standards for the use of diesel-
powered equipment in underground coal mines. Based on those 
recommendations, MSHA published a proposed rule that included criteria 
for the approval of diesel engines and other related equipment; 
addressed exposure limits, monitoring, and reporting requirements for 
certain diesel emissions; and provided corresponding safety standards 
for the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, 
including the safe storage and transport of diesel fuel and the 
training of mechanics.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines (mines 
that vent large amounts of methane) poses a substantial risk of fire or 
explosion due to the introduction of an ignition source (the engine) 
into a methane environment and due to the need for underground handling 
and storage of diesel fuel. The use of diesel-powered equipment in 
underground coal mines has increased from 175 pieces in 30 mines in 
1977 to over 2,230 pieces in 150 mines by 1993. MSHA projects that, 
given the current state of the industry and assuming no change in 
existing regulations, this number would increase to about 2,720 units 
in 220 mines by the year 2000.


Between 1979 and 1992, MSHA investigated 10 diesel-equipment related 
fires in underground coal mines. Due to the methane gas and coal dust 
present, any fire in an underground coal mine potentially results in 
the loss of life. MSHA's mining equipment approval program includes 
evaluation criteria for the use and maintenance of certain types of 
mining equipment. However, these existing approval regulations do not 
generally apply to the diesel-powered equipment now being used in 
underground coal mines.


In July 1988, an advisory committee convened by the Secretary of Labor 
made recommendations to the Secretary concerning safety and health 
standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal 
mines. Based on those recommendations, MSHA published a proposed rule 
that included criteria for the approval of diesel engines and other 
related equipment; addressed exposure limits, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping requirements for certain diesel emissions; and provided 
corresponding safety standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment 
in underground coal mines, including the safe storage and transport of 
diesel fuel and the training of mechanics.


Alternatives:


On January 6, 1992, MSHA published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking soliciting comments on the problem of health effects from 
occupational exposure to diesel exhaust particulates in the closed 
environment of the underground mine. MSHA has decided to continue to 
address the health effects from exposure to diesel particulates in a 
separate rulemaking.


MSHA considered third-party testing and certification of the results as 
an alternative to MSHA testing for the approval of diesel-powered 
equipment. The final rule may contain a combination of safeguards to 
address this problem.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs are expected to be incurred for testing, modifying, and 
maintaining diesel-powered engines and equipment; maintaining diesel 
fuel storage areas; training diesel personnel; and ventilation and 
sampling procedures related to the control of diesel emissions. The 
major benefit of implementing the proposed regulatory protection would 
be a reduction in the risk of fires and explosions, and corresponding 
injuries, resulting from the use of diesel-powered equipment in 
underground gassy mines. Ensuring that such equipment meet specific 
criteria also would allow the utilization of advanced diesel 
technology, such as flame arresters, spark arresters, water scrubbers, 
and exhaust filters in the approval of diesel engine design. The scope 
and nature of the final rule is currently under development and, thus, 
although final estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined, costs are not expected to exceed $20 million. (MSHA's early 
estimates of $8 million are now considered too low.)


Risks:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground gassy coal mines 
poses a substantial risk of fire or explosion by introducing an 
ignition source through the engine itself and from the underground 
handling and storage of diesel fuel. Also, without specific criteria 
for the design, use, and maintenance of diesel-powered equipment, the 
Agency lacks an effective means to control hazards of acute and long-
term exposure to diesel exhaust on the health of miners.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            54 FR 40950                                    10/04/89
NPRM Comment Per56 FR 13404                                    05/10/91
Final Action                                                   03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631, BT3
Arlington, VA 22203
703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA27
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
107. AIR QUALITY CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 
STANDARDS
Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 58; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 72; 30 
CFR 75; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MSHA's current air quality standards for exposure to hazardous 
substances were promulgated over 20 years ago. This final rule would 
update MSHA's permissible exposure limits applicable to hazards 
encountered in metal and nonmetal and coal mines, revise requirements 
for exposure monitoring, improve precautions for handling restricted-
use chemicals, provide miner observation of monitoring records, and 
establish provisions for medical surveillance and transfer of miners 
required to use respirators and miners using certain carcinogens.


Statement of Need:


MSHA's current air quality standards for exposure to hazardous airborne 
contaminants were promulgated over 20 years ago. More recent medical 
studies and other documentation indicate that these standards may not 
provide the protection intended. For example, in the 5-year period from 
1984-1988, 756 cases of various types of lung disorders in miners from 
a variety of causes were reported to MSHA. Based on this more recent 
information and experience under existing standards, MSHA is revising 
these standards to reduce the number of cases of all types of adverse 
health effects among miners which may result from exposures to airborne 
contaminants.


This generic rule would include a comprehensive revision update of 
MSHA's standards for harmful airborne contaminants; update permissible 
exposure limits; address methods of monitoring and controlling 
exposure; and replace outdated incorporations-by-reference with 
standards for the use of respiratory protection equipment. The final 
rule also would update asbestos standards; establish precautions for 
handling restricted-use chemicals; provide for miner observation of 
exposure monitoring; provide for notification to workers of their 
overexposures; allow miners access to their exposure monitoring 
records; and address medical surveillance and transfer provisions for 
miners required to use respirators and for miners using certain 
carcinogens.


Alternatives:


MSHA published a proposed rule which provided new air quality 
requirements for both coal and metal and nonmetal mines. Several public 
hearings were held. Based upon its own research and experience, public 
comments, and data and information submitted to the record, MSHA 
considered numerous alternatives on a wide variety of complex and 
controversial issues. For example, MSHA considered an alternative which 
would have limited the chemicals addressed to only those for which MSHA 
had knowledge of exposures occurring in mining. MSHA chose to continue 
with a comprehensive list derived, for the most part, from the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) Threshold 
Limit Values. This alternative is consistent with MSHA's existing 
standards and MSHA believes it offers better health protection because 
the potential exists for new chemicals to be brought onto mine property 
in the future and there would be no burden if a listed chemical were 
not present. MSHA's proposal also included medical surveillance and 
transfer for certain carcinogens.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA anticipates that, depending on the alternatives selected under the 
final rule, the mining industry would incur costs for engineering 
controls, exposure monitoring, personal protective equipment, medical 
surveillance, employee notification of overexposures, and 
recordkeeping. MSHA had estimated in its preliminary regulatory 
analysis (PRA), that the proposed rule would have had an incremental 
annual impact well under the $100 million effect on the mining 
industry, assuming full compliance with the existing rule. The PRA also 
projected that one benefit of implementing the protection sought would 
be a significant reduction of 22 fewer cases annually of adverse health 
effects from occupational exposure to airborne contaminants. The scope 
and nature of the final rule is currently under development and, thus, 
final estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined.


Risks:


During the extraction and processing of ore, coal, and rock at mines, 
miners are exposed to many different hazardous substances. These 
substances may be inherent in the ore itself; additives used during 
milling ore processing; chemicals used in cleaning, maintenance of 
equipment, or laboratory testing. The effect of these substances may 
range from allergic reactions to systemic toxicity. Some of them are 
capable of causing cancers, central and peripheral neuropathies, lung 
disease, liver and kidney damage, birth defects, and other systemic 
effects. In some instances, exposure to more than one substance may 
result in greater damage from a combined effect than from exposure to 
the individual substances. Some cause sensory irritation, which causes 
rhinitis, cough, sputum production, chest pain, wheezing and dyspnea. 
MSHA has identified all these health effects as causing a material 
impairment of health or functional capacity. The Agency believes that 
the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for proposing revisions to 
the current levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           48 FR 31171                                    07/06/83
ANPRM           50 FR 47702                                    11/19/85
NPRM            54 FR 35760                                    08/29/89
NPRM Comment Per56 FR 29201                                    08/30/91
Final Action                                                   09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631, BT3
Arlington, VA 22203
703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
108. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.751 (Revision); 29 CFR 
1926.752 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In the December 29, 1992, Federal Register, OSHA announced its 
intention to form a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee to 
negotiate issues associated with a revision to the existing steel 
erection standard. Four of the primary issues to be negotiated include 
the need to expand the scope and application of the existing standard, 
construction specifications and workplaces, written construction safety 
erection plans, and fall protection. Comments on forming the committee 
and nominations for representation on the committee were due by March 
29, 1993. The Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(SENRAC), a 20-member Committee, was established in a Federal Register 
Notice on May 11, 1994; and the SENRAC charter (1898 for 2 years) as 
signed by Secretary Reich on May 26, 1994. The first of a series of 
monthly SENRAC meetings was held in the Washington area on June 14-16, 
1994. Other tentative dates of meeting are: July 11-13, 1994; August 
16-18, 1994; September 20-22, 1994; November 8-10, 1994; and December 
6-8, 1994.


Statement of Need:


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans to 
revise its construction safety standard concerning steel erection 
activities. The existing standard contains requirements for the safe 
erection of steel buildings as well as requirements dealing with fall 
protection for ironworkers during the erection process. OSHA announced 
in the December 29, 1992, Federal Register that it intended to form a 
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee to develop a proposed rule on 
this issue. The notice identified four primary issues to be negotiated 
including: the need to expand the scope and application of the existing 
standard; construction specifications and workplaces; written 
construction safety erection plans; and fall protection. Comments on 
forming the committee and nominations for representation on the 
committee were received through March 29, 1993. On May 11, 1994, OSHA 
announced establishment of the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (SENRAC). The SENRAC has met in Bethesda, MD on June 
14-16, 1994; Denver, CO on July 11-13, 1994; Boston, MA on August 16-
18, 1994; and in Washington, DC on September 20-22, 1994.


The use of the negotiated rulemaking process is thought to be the best 
approach to resolving the issues involving steel erection safety since 
the Agency has attempted other approaches over the last 10 years 
without success. The negotiated rulemaking process is bringing the 
interested parties together in an attempt to achieve consensus on the 
issues of steel erection. Meeting monthly, the negotiated rulemaking 
advisory committee plans to complete the development of draft proposed 
regulatory text by June 1995. That product will be the basis for OSHA's 
notice of proposed rulemaking and public participation.


Alternatives:


An alternative to using the negotiated rulemaking process is to publish 
a notice of proposed rulemaking developed by Agency staff and consider 
the concerns of the affected interests through the public comment and 
public hearing process. It is anticipated that using this alternative 
would result in an extremely long and contentious rulemaking 
proceeding, with subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeals.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope and nature of the proposed rule are currently under 
development, and thus estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined at this time. Costs are likely to exceed $100 million 
annually, and benefits will include the prevention of many of the 
dozens of fatalities and thousands of injuries associated with steel 
erection activities.


Risks:


The magnitude of the risk associated with steel erection activities is 
extremely high. It is estimated that over 100 workers are killed every 
year in falls from elevations during steel erection activities. Falls 
are currently the number one killer of construction workers, and since 
the erection of buildings necessarily involves high exposure to falls, 
the central focus of this rule will be to eliminate or reduce the risks 
associated with falls. All other construction trades are afforded a 
higher level of protection from falls by other rules in the 
construction safety and health standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Commit59 FR 24389shment                              05/11/94
NPRM                                                           00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Thomas J. Shepich
Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
109. MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS FOR EMPLOYEES
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 6(b) of the Act requires, where appropriate, provisions for 
medical surveillance in each 6(b) rulemaking for a harmful substance. A 
generic standard for medical surveillance would satisfy the 
requirements of the Act for future standards promulgated under 
paragraph (6)(b) of the Act, thus making available resources to deal 
with substantive issues. OSHA has collected considerable useful 
information as a result of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on September 27, 1988 (53 FR 37595). OSHA has also consulted 
with the Department of Health and Human Services, and is making full 
use of the expertise within the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health to develop specific criteria to be used to determine 
when and what medical surveillance intervention may be appropriate. 
Medical surveillance requirements in existing standards, such as coke 
ovens, will be addressed in this rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


Overexposure to hazardous substances causes respiratory infections, 
nausea, dizziness, respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, 
decreases in pulmonary function, other serious illnesses, and death.


The number of hazardous substances to which employees are exposed is 
increasing and appropriate medical surveillance may enhance employee 
protection from the adverse health effects caused by exposures to many 
of those substances. With a generic medical surveillance standard, OSHA 
would be able to provide protection for these workers more quickly than 
by using the traditional substance-by-substance rulemaking approach.


Of particular concern are the substances in OSHA's Z-tables (contained 
in 29 CFR 1910.1000). OSHA did not consider medical surveillance 
provisions in setting the permissible exposure limits (PELs) for these 
substances. Thus, there are several hundred toxic substances with PELs, 
but with no provision for any kind of medical oversight. Providing 
medical surveillance on a substance-by-substance basis for all of these 
chemicals would take a very long time. Some form of generic standard 
which would provide for variations in possible toxicity, exposure, and 
workplace conditions would improve worker health in a more efficient 
manner.


A generic rule could also simplify future rulemakings for specific 
substances or for updating the PELs on a regular basis. Depending on 
the ultimate form of the generic standard, it may be possible to devise 
provisions that would be referenced in future standards. In particular, 
those provisions that are essentially the same from standard to 
standard might be promulgated once on a generic basis, and future rules 
could simply deal with substance-specific issues.


OSHA has collected considerable useful information as a result of the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 27, 1988 
(53 FR 37595). OSHA has also consulted with the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and is making full use of the expertise within the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to develop 
specific criteria to be used to determine when and what medical 
surveillance intervention may be appropriate.


Questions which may be considered include: (1) In which situations is 
medical surveillance an effective means of detecting occupational 
illnesses? (2) What would be a good basis for defining those people who 
would benefit from medical surveillance? (3) How should the risks and 
uncertainties inherent in medical tests be evaluated? (4) What tools, 
other than medical exams, does the medical community use to improve 
detection of diseases? OSHA has completed a study of the effectiveness 
of current medical surveillance practices in a broad range of 
workplaces to help provide information on these and other issues.


Alternatives:


OSHA considers a variety of possible approaches to addressing safety 
and health problems, including issuing guidelines, using the ``general 
duty clause'' of the OSH Act to cite employers who are not providing a 
safe workplace, issuing hazard alerts, and issuing standards. OSHA 
believes that in this case, a standard is the appropriate approach. It 
is the only approach that will assure that employers provide employees 
with medical surveillance when they are exposed to the Z-table 
substances. Furthermore, the OSH Act states that where it is 
appropriate, health standards should include medical surveillance.


OSHA has considered several alternatives: (1) require employers to 
institute medical surveillance for all situations where substances in 
the Z-tables are present; (2) require employers to institute medical 
surveillance for all situations where substances in the Z-tables are 
present at exposure levels above an action level that would be 
established; (3) require employers to institute medical surveillance 
for all substances covered by the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 
1910.1200), plus physical and biological hazards; or (4) eligible 
employees to be determined by exposure greater than a certain 
percentage of the PEL, when appropriate; for exposure greater than or 
equal to ceiling values, where appropriate; unexpected exposures 
resulting from spills, fires, explosions or other unplanned releases; 
``substantial'' exposures to chemicals without PELs; ``substantial'' 
exposure to physical or biological hazards as defined by the exposure 
assessment standard; and by development of adverse health effects as a 
result of exposure to chemical, physical, or biological hazards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The major component of costs may include medical examinations of 
eligible employees, while benefits will include the prevention of 
fatalities and illnesses associated with a wide variety of occupational 
health hazards. The scope and nature of the proposed rule are currently 
under development, and thus estimates of costs and benefits have not 
been determined at this time.


Risks:


Overexposure to hazardous substances causes respiratory infections, 
nausea, dizziness, respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, 
decreases in pulmonary function, other serious illnesses, and death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           53 FR 37595                                    09/27/88
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       12/27/88
NPRM                                                           11/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John Martonik
Acting Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3718, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB00
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
110. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS FOR EMPLOYEES EXPOSED TO HAZARDOUS 
CHEMICALS
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 6(b)(7) of the Act requires, where appropriate, provisions for 
exposure monitoring for substances regulated by OSHA. OSHA does not 
have exposure monitoring provisions in the air contaminants standards 
(29 CFR 1910.1000). A generic standard for exposure assessment would 
satisfy the monitoring requirements of the Act, thus enabling the 
Agency to provide relevant protection for workers covered by the air 
contaminants standard OSHA published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking on September 27, 1988 (53 FR 37591). OSHA intends to publish 
a notice of proposed rulemaking by August 1995.


Statement of Need:


Overexposure in the workplace to hazardous substances causes a variety 
of health problems, including respiratory infections, nausea, 
dizziness, respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, decreases 
in pulmonary function, other serious illnesses, and death. Thus, 
exposure-assessment programs are necessary to protect employees from 
adverse health effects resulting from overexposure to hazardous 
substances. Exposure assessments allow an employer to determine the 
health risks to their employees, the effectiveness of control measures, 
and the degree of compliance with the OSHA regulations.


On September 27, 1988, OSHA published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting information on issues regarding exposure 
estimation and monitoring. Analysis of the information submitted 
indicates that exposure assessments are feasible and necessary to 
reduce the significant risk of adverse health effects occurring in 
exposed employees. Employers must know what exposures are occurring in 
order to ensure that they provide the proper protection for their 
workers. Moreover, as indicated by the comments, such exposure 
information may not be generated in the absence of a regulatory 
requirement.


Alternatives:


OSHA considers a variety of possible approaches to addressing safety 
and health problems, including issuing guidelines, using the ``general 
duty clause'' of the OSH Act to cite employers who are not providing a 
safe workplace, issuing hazard alerts, and issuing standards. OSHA 
believes that in this case, a standard is the appropriate approach. It 
is the only approach that will assure that employers determine exposure 
levels in their establishments. Furthermore, the OSH Act states that 
where it is appropriate health standards should include exposure 
monitoring. The Z-table substances have been without an explicit 
monitoring requirement and the continuing number of illnesses indicates 
that the time has come to rectify the situation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Expected costs may include the time required for employers to assess 
whether they utilize the substances covered, and measurement costs when 
necessary. Expected benefits include a reduction in overexposures to 
PEL substances (and perhaps others that have voluntary or recommended 
limits) when employers discover that they exceed the limits, and the 
associated reductions in the illnesses caused by workers' exposures at 
these high levels.


The scope and nature of the proposed rule are currently under 
development, and thus estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined at this time.


Risks:


Overexposure to hazardous substances causes respiratory infections, 
nausea, dizziness, respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, 
decreases in pulmonary function, other serious illnesses, and death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           53 FR 37591                                    09/27/88
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       12/27/88
NPRM                                                           08/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John Martonik
Acting Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3718, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
111. ERGONOMIC PROTECTION STANDARD
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926; 29 
CFR 1928


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported the number of 
reported ``disorders associated with repeated trauma'' have more than 
tripled since 1984. These serious, potentially crippling disorders 
account for 60 percent of all occupational illnesses reported to OSHA 
in 1991. Back injuries, which are reported separately to BLS, are about 
10 times as prevalent as other musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on August 3, 
1992 (57 FR 34192). A 6-month comment period ended February 1, 1993. 
OSHA received about 266 comments. The Agency is currently in the 
process of analyzing these submissions, as well as available scientific 
literature and enforcement data. In addition, OSHA conducted a 
telephone survey of firms to collect more information about current 
programs in industry addressing problems related to ergonomics. All 
information available to OSHA will be used to determine the type of 
standard OSHA will develop as well as the specific requirements of the 
standard.


Statement of Need:


The Ergonomic Protection Standard (EPS) will establish requirements for 
employers to control risk factors that can cause or aggravate 
musculoskeletal disorders in exposed employees.


The occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders in employees is increasing 
rapidly. In 1991, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 60 
percent of the new illnesses in the workplace that year (224,000 cases) 
were ``disorders associated with repeated trauma.'' In 1984, these 
disorders represented only 28 percent of the new illness cases 
reported. In addition to these illnesses, a large number of lower back 
injuries are reported each year.


The costs of musculoskeletal disorders are also increasing rapidly. 
Workers may become permanently disabled, or require costly treatments 
such as surgery. Musculoskeletal disorders account for an increasingly 
large proportion of workers' compensation costs, and for other costs 
such as those related to lost work days.


Alternatives:


OSHA is currently planning to promulgate a rule that applies to all 
industrial sectors. It also plans to cover all types of musculoskeletal 
disorders, in all parts of the body.


Some alternatives considered include limiting the application of the 
rule to certain industrial sectors, or limiting the types of disorders 
covered. Other alternatives will be considered as the rule is 
developed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Implementation costs associated with the proposed standard include 
primarily those related to identifying and correcting problem jobs 
using engineering and administrative controls. Benefits expected are 
those of reduced pain and suffering due to fewer work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders of the lower back, upper extremity and lower 
extremity, as well as lower workers compensation claims and costs, and 
reduced lost time. Secondary benefits may accrue from improved quality 
and productivity due to better designed work systems.


Risks:


The data OSHA has obtained and analyzed indicate that employees are at 
a significant risk of developing or aggravating musculoskeletal 
disorders due to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. In 
addition, information OSHA has obtained from site visits, scientific 
literature, compliance experience, and other sources indicates that 
there are economically and technologically feasible means of addressing 
and reducing these risks to prevent the development or aggravation of 
such disorders, or to reduce their severity. These data and analyses 
will be presented in the preamble to the proposed rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 34192                                    08/03/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/01/93
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Barbara Silverstein
Special Assistant for Ergonomic Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3476, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8020
RIN: 1218-AB36
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
112. COMPREHENSIVE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926; 29 
CFR 1928


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA has long recognized the utility of comprehensive safety and health 
programs, and adopted nonmandatory guidance for safety and health 
program management on January 26, 1989 (54 FR 3904). These guidelines 
were based on a distillation of safety and health management practices 
used by employers that have implemented successful comprehensive 
programs. The major elements OSHA has identified in the guidelines for 
effective occupational safety and health programs are: (1) management 
commitment and employee involvement; (2) worksite analysis to 
anticipate and prevent harmful occurrences; (3) hazard prevention 
afforded to employees; and (4) safety and health training. Successfully 
implemented programs generally have a lower incidence of occupationally 
related illnesses and injuries. In particular, OSHA has found that 
companies that have implemented comprehensive safety and health 
programs and are participating in its Voluntary Protection Program have 
lost-workday case rates that range from one-fifth to one-third the 
rates experienced by average worksites within their industrial 
classification. In addition, participating sites reported improved 
employee morale and productivity as a secondary benefit of their safety 
and health management activities. OSHA plans to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking that will address the need for all employers to 
develop and implement a safety and health program for all their 
workplaces. OSHA will be raising additional issues related to safety 
and health programs as they pertain to small businesses, those with 10 
or fewer employees, and other issues as part of the rulemaking process.


Statement of Need:


This action would propose requirements for employers to develop and 
implement an occupational safety and health program in their 
workplaces. It is anticipated that such a program may include elements 
addressing management commitment, employee participation, worksite 
hazard identification and analysis, hazard prevention and control, and 
safety and health training.


The utility of implementing a safety and health program has been widely 
recognized. As a result, program elements are being developed by 
various organizations, including a number of States which have 
differing mandatory requirements that must be implemented by employers.


It appears that employers and employees would both benefit from a 
single, uniform national approach to the issue. As companies operate in 
various States, a Federal standard would ensure that they will not need 
to develop different programs for facilities in different States. In 
addition, a Federal rule will establish a national level of protection 
for all workers.


A standard for safety and health programs will reduce risks to workers 
by setting up a framework to enhance employer commitment to safety and 
health and by involving employees in the process of identifying and 
reducing hazards. Employees are often the persons most knowledgeable 
about identifying workplace hazards, and can help identify the most 
workable solution to protect themselves. Through the program, the 
employer, in consultation with employees, will be able to identify and 
prioritize hazards so that resources can be applied to maximize their 
impact on reducing injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the workplace.


Alternatives:


Several alternatives being considered include (1) a regulation similar 
to the guidelines previously issued by OSHA for safety and health 
program management (54 FR 3904, January 26, 1989); (2) a regulation 
based on State regulations; (3) or a regulation based on existing 
consensus standards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope and nature of the proposed rule are currently under 
development, and thus estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined at this time. Costs are likely to exceed $1 billion 
annually, and benefits will include the prevention of many of the 
thousands of fatalities and millions of injuries and illnesses 
associated with a broad spectrum of occupational hazards.


Risks:


There is now increasing evidence that a requirement for all employers 
to address occupational safety and health programmatically, rather than 
strictly on a piecemeal, hazard-specific basis, may be beneficial for 
both regulated employers and their employees. Employers with 
successfully implemented programs generally have a lower incidence of 
occupationally related illnesses and injuries. In particular, OSHA has 
found that companies that have implemented safety and health programs 
and are participating in its Voluntary Protection Program have lost-
workday case rates that range from one-fifth to one-third the rates 
experienced by average worksites within their industrial 
classification. In addition, participating sites reported improved 
employee morale and productivity as a secondary benefit of their safety 
and health management activities.


A number of States have promulgated requirements for safety and health 
management programs, and have found them to be an effective tool for 
improving worker safety and health. For example, the State of 
Washington has had requirements for employers to develop accident 
prevention plans for 47 years. Employers implementing such requirements 
have found resulting benefits to include a reduction in reported 
injuries and subsequently in costs for worker's compensation. The 
program requirements vary among the States in terms of employers 
covered, and specific elements to be implemented.


The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a report to 
Congress regarding worksite safety and health programs. Entitled 
Worksite Safety and Health Programs Show Promise, GAO/HRD-92-68 (May 
1992), it concluded that available evidence ``suggests that 
comprehensive safety and health programs can have positive effects on 
safety and health at the worksite.'' GAO indicated that since there are 
limitations in the quantitative data on program burden and impact, they 
were only recommending at this point that OSHA require programs for 
certain high-risk employers. However, they also suggested that further 
information should be collected to determine objectively whether other 
employers should be covered as well.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Thomas J. Shepich
Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AB41
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
113. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On August 25, 1993, OSHA was petitioned by the Labor Coalition to Fight 
TB in the Workplace to initiate rulemaking for a permanent standard to 
protect workers against occupational transmission of tuberculosis (TB). 
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have 
developed recommendations for controlling the spread of tuberculosis in 
several work settings (correctional institutions, health-care 
facilities, homeless shelters, long-term care facilities for the 
elderly, and drug treatment centers), the petitioners stated that in 
every recent TB outbreak investigated by the CDC noncompliance with 
CDC's TB control guidelines was evident. After reviewing the available 
information, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that significant risk of 
occupational transmission of tuberculosis does exist for some workers 
and has decided to initiate a standard 6(b) rulemaking. The Agency is 
currently developing a proposed rule which would require certain 
employers to take steps to eliminate or minimize employee exposure to 
TB. OSHA already regulates biological hazards of bloodborne pathogens 
under 29 CFR 1910.1030 and believes that development of a TB standard 
is consistent with the Agency's mission and previous activity.


Statement of Need:


Since 1985, the rate of new cases of tuberculosis in the general U.S. 
population has increased approximately 23 percent, reversing a 30-year 
downward trend. In 1992, more than 26,000 new cases of active 
tuberculosis were reported in the U.S. In New York City alone, 3,700 
cases of active tuberculosis were reported in 1991.


On August 25, 1993, OSHA was petitioned by the Labor Coalition to Fight 
TB in the Workplace to initiate rulemaking for a permanent standard to 
protect workers against occupational transmission of tuberculosis (TB). 
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have 
developed recommendations for controlling the spread of tuberculosis in 
several work settings (correctional institutions, health care 
facilities, homeless shelters, long-term care facilities for the 
elderly, and drug treatment centers), the petitioners stated that in 
every recent TB outbreak investigated by the CDC, noncompliance with 
CDC's TB control guidelines was evident. After reviewing the available 
information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that significant risk of 
occupational transmission of TB does exist for some workers. The Agency 
is currently developing a proposed rule that would require certain 
employers to take steps to eliminate or minimize employee exposure to 
TB. OSHA already regulates biological hazards of bloodborne pathogens 
(e.g., HIV, hepatitis) under 29 CFR 1910.1030 and believes that 
development of a TB standard is consistent with the Agency's mission 
and previous activity.


Alternatives:


Prior to a decision to publish a proposal, OSHA considered a number of 
options, including whether or not to develop an emergency temporary 
standard, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or to enforce 
existing regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be incurred by employers for engineering controls, 
respiratory protection, medical surveillance, training, exposure 
control, recordkeeping, and work practice controls. Benefits will 
include the prevention of occupationally related tuberculosis 
transmissions and infections, and a corresponding reduced risk of 
exposure among the general population. The scope and nature of the 
proposed rule are currently under development, and thus estimates of 
costs and benefits have not been determined at this time.


Risks:


TB is a contagious disease that causes infections of the lung, 
primarily, but which can occur in other areas of the body. Some of the 
symptoms are fatigue, weight loss, fever, night sweats, loss of 
appetite, persistent cough and shortness of breath, which may result in 
serious respiratory illnesses or death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John Martonik
Acting Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
114. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS 
(PART 1910)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.21; 29 CFR 1910.22; 29 CFR 1910.23; 29 CFR 1910.24; 29 CFR 
1910.25; 29 CFR 1910.26; 29 CFR 1910.27; 29 CFR 1910.28; 29 CFR 
1910.29; 29 CFR 1910.30; 29 CFR 1910.31; 29 CFR 1910.32; 29 CFR 
1910.128; 29 CFR 1910.129; 29 CFR 1910.130; ...


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Standards for walking working surfaces and personal fall protection 
systems will be issued concurrently. Existing standards for walking and 
working surfaces need to be revised because they are out of date and 
restrict technological innovation. The proposed revision is 
performance-oriented and permits flexibility for compliance. In 
addition, existing standards do not contain criteria for personal fall 
protection systems. Consequently, requirements containing criteria for 
personal fall protection systems would be added to 29 CFR part 1910; 
Subpart I, Personal Protection Equipment, to enhance employee 
protection from injury and death due to falls to different elevations.


Statement of Need:


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported from the 1987 and 1988 
annual surveys that falls accounted for 12 percent of all deaths of 
employees in workplaces with 11 or more employees. NIOSH reports that 
deaths from falls are the fourth leading cause of occupational 
fatalities, accounting for 10 percent of all deaths in the workplace.


The existing standards for walking/working surfaces are out of date, 
restrict technological innovation, and contain gaps in coverage. 
Currently, there are no standards for personal fall protection systems 
that cover all general industry applications. This action would revise 
the existing regulations for walking/working surfaces (29 CFR part 
1910, subpart D) and add new coverage for personal fall protection 
systems to the current personal protective equipment standards (29 CFR 
part 1910, subpart I).


The new standards would use a performance-oriented approach to permit 
flexibility for compliance and to encourage innovation. New criteria 
for personal fall protection systems would be added to assure that this 
type of equipment functions properly and is used correctly.


The legal basis for this action is that employees in general industry 
are exposed to a significant risk of falls on the same level and falls 
from an elevation. However, this action is not specifically required by 
statute, and is not required by court order.


The new standards will reduce risks to workers by providing clearer, 
up-to-date requirements to minimize fall hazards. The standards will 
also cover new areas of fall protection such as special surfaces and 
manhole steps, and the use of qualified climbers. The new standards 
will also recognize personal fall protection systems as an acceptable 
option for fall protection, as well as provide the criteria to assure 
that such systems will safely stop a worker's fall.


Alternatives:


The following alternatives were considered for analysis:

 Retaining the existing regulations unchanged. A number of the 
            existing standards are specification-oriented requirements 
            that in some situations are inappropriate, unnecessarily 
            costly, and inflexible. For example, guardrails would be 
            needed for most roof perimeters, and fixed ladders on most 
            towers and other structures would need to be fitted with 
            cages or ladder safety devices. Also, personal fall 
            protection systems, which are suited to many difficult fall 
            protection situations, would not be allowed for use.
 Issuing the proposed rule without the qualified climber 
            exemption. This option would require that all fixed ladders 
            over 24 feet in height utilize cages or ladder-safety 
            devices. Under this option, the benefits would be about the 
            same as the proposed revision (option 3), but the first 
            year capital cost of compliance would be increased by more 
            than a factor of eleven.
 The proposed revision of the existing walking/working 
            surfaces, and the proposed standard for personal fall 
            protection issued on April 10, 1990 (55 FR 13360) which is 
            described above.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Modifications to existing requirements are expected to involve annual 
costs of less than $20 million. Benefits include the prevention of 
dozens of fatalities and thousands of injuries associated with falls 
and other work-surface-related incidents.


Risks:


Nearly all workplaces and employees covered by the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) general-industry standards are 
affected by the standards for walking and working surfaces. These 
standards covered about 84 million workers in 1988. Examples of walking 
and working surfaces included in these standards are stairs, step 
bolts, manhole steps, ramps, ladders, floors, fall-protection systems, 
scaffolds, and mobile ladder stands.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported from the 1987 and 1988 
annual surveys that falls accounted for 12 percent of all deaths of 
employees in workplaces with 11 or more employees.


NIOSH, in their publication ``Fatal Injuries to Workers in the United 
States, 1980-1989: A Decade of Surveillance,'' reports that deaths from 
falls are the fourth leading cause of occupational fatalities, 
accounting for 10 percent of all deaths in the workplace. According to 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, falls are the second 
largest cause of occupational fatalities, next after deaths due to 
over-the-road motor vehicle accidents. Falls are second only to motor 
vehicle accidents as a cause of brain injuries.


OSHA has determined that hazards associated with walking and working 
surfaces persist and must be addressed with improved standards. The 
OSHA preliminary regulatory impact analysis estimated that 105,000 
disabling injuries and 132 fatalities occur annually which are 
addressed by these standards.


Special studies have also been developed in order to gain a better 
understanding of the nature and causes of employee injuries, and the 
methods required for reducing their numbers. One such study on ladders, 
conducted by BLS, indicated that in about 55 percent of the accidents 
where employee injuries occurred, the ladder either moved, slipped, 
fell, or broke. The study also indicated that ladders were not secured 
or braced in about 50 percent of the injury incidents. Furthermore, in 
nearly 60 percent of the incidents, employees were carrying something 
in their hands at the time of the incident. The proposed standards will 
address these problems by requiring design criteria and employee 
training in the use of ladders. Another study of scaffold fatalities 
and catastrophes developed by OSHA indicated that 90 percent of fatally 
injured employees were performing their normal job activities. Fifty-
five percent of these employees were performing their basic or primary 
work tasks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            55 FR 13360                                    04/10/90
NPRM Comment Per55 FR 13360                                    08/22/90
Hearing         55 FR 29224                                    09/11/90
Final Action                                                   06/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Because RINs 1218-AB05 and 1218-AA48 will be issued concurrently, they 
have been combined under this RIN 1218-AB04.


Agency Contact:
Thomas J. Shepich
Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3605, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AB04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
115. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.1033


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Health complaints related to indoor air quality (IAQ) have increased 
significantly following energy conservation measures instituted in the 
1970s. Such measures have reduced the infiltration of outside air, 
allowing the build-up of indoor air contaminants. Adverse health 
effects associated with indoor air contaminants are classified as: (1) 
sick building syndrome, which is characterized by general complaints 
that may include headaches, fatigue, nausea, mucous membrane (eye, 
nose, and throat) irritation, coughs, and muscle pain; and (2) 
building-related illness, which describes those specific medical 
conditions of known etiology which can often be documented by physical 
signs and laboratory findings. These include respiratory allergies and 
Legionnaires' disease. A particular concern with matters dealing with 
indoor air quality is exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). A 
wide range of health effects caused by ETS have been reported by the 
Surgeon General, the National Research Council, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), NIOSH, and private researchers, as well as by 
citizens reporting health effects due to ETS exposure while at work. 
These effects range from acute annoyance and eye and respiratory tract 
irritation to the development of chronic pulmonary disease, 
cardiovascular diseases, and lung cancer. OSHA published a request for 
information on Indoor Air Quality September 20, 1991 (56 FR 47892). 
Comment period was extended to March 20, 1992. After reviewing all 
relevant information, OSHA published a proposal on April 5, 1994 (59 FR 
15968). Following publication of the proposal, OSHA extended the 
comment period to August 13, 1994. Public hearings are scheduled to 
begin on September 20, 1994.


Statement of Need:


Every day, more than 20 million American workers face an unnecessary 
health threat because of poor indoor air quality and environmental 
tobacco smoke (ETS) in the workplace. Thousands of heart disease 
deaths, hundreds of lung cancer deaths, respiratory disease, 
legionnaire's disease, asthma, and other ailments are linked to this 
occupational hazard. More specifically, it is estimated that each year 
there are approximately 700 cases of lung cancer and 13,000 deaths from 
heart disease among nonsmoking workers exposed to ETS. Further, 
America's workers are at risk of developing over a hundred thousand 
upper respiratory symptoms, as well as many thousands of headaches from 
poor indoor air quality. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 
that 20 to 35 percent of all workers in modern mechanically ventilated 
buildings may experience air-quality problems that could result in 
illness, absenteeism, lost productivity, and discomfort.


Surveys have estimated that as many as 85 percent of the polled 
companies had some sort of smoking restriction in place, due to either 
concerns about production safety or employee health and safety. The 
fact that this is a national problem suggests that it should be solved 
at the Federal level.


OSHA published a Request for Information on September 20, 1991, to 
collect information to determine if a standard regulating indoor air 
quality is justified and feasible. Information was requested on the 
ventilation system performance necessary to optimize indoor air 
quality, techniques for improving ventilation, building maintenance 
programs, existing workplace indoor air policies, and local and State 
laws addressing indoor air quality.


After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a 
proposed rule on April 5, 1994. The proposal would require employers to 
write and implement indoor air quality compliance plans that would 
include inspection and maintenance of current building ventilation 
systems to ensure they are functioning as designed. In buildings where 
smoking is allowed, the proposal would require designated smoking areas 
that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted 
directly to the outside. Other proposed provisions would require 
employers to maintain healthy air quality during renovation, remodeling 
and similar activities.


The provisions for indoor air quality would apply to 70 million workers 
and more than 4.5 million nonindustrial indoor work environments, 
including schools and training centers, offices, commercial 
establishments, health care facilities, cafeterias and factory break 
rooms. ETS provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and 
nonindustrial work environments under OSHA jurisdiction.


Alternatives:


Prior to publishing the proposal, OSHA considered three alternatives: 
(1) institute a nonregulatory approach such as guidelines; (2) proceed 
with rulemaking on a comprehensive indoor air quality standard 
including passive tobacco smoke; and (3) proceed with rulemaking but 
issue separate rules for passive tobacco smoke and indoor air quality. 
OSHA determined that a standard was needed to address indoor air 
quality and that a comprehensive standard was optimal from both a 
public health perspective and an efficiency perspective.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


OSHA's preliminary estimate of the annual cost of compliance with the 
indoor air quality standard is $8.1 billion The most costly provision 
is for building systems operation and maintenance, $8.0 billion. 
However, OSHA estimates that employers will save $15 billion annually 
from implementing the standard, including efficiency and productivity 
improvements, cost reductions in operations and maintenance, and 
reduced incidence of property damage.


OSHA preliminary estimates that 5,583 to 32,502 cancer deaths and 
97,700 to 577,818 coronary heart diseases related to occupational 
exposure to ETS will be prevented over the next 45 years. This 
represents 140 to 722 cancer deaths and 2,094 to 13,001 heart diseases 
each year. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the proposed standard will 
prevent 4.5 million upper respiratory problems over the next 45 years. 
This is approximately 105,000 upper respiratory symptoms per year. 
These estimates understate the prevalence of building-related symptoms 
since they only reflect excess risk in air conditioned buildings.


Risks:


Evidence in the record indicates that between 20-30 percent of office 
buildings are ``sick,'' meaning that they have environments that may 
lead to a variety of health effects. Poor indoor air quality has been 
shown to result in serious respiratory illness and related diseases, 
including Legionnaire's disease, pulmonary tract infections, 
respiratory infections, asthma, respiratory allergies, and other 
ailments.


Exposure to ETS has been linked to heart disease, lung cancer, 
decreases in pulmonary function, low birthweight babies, miscarriages, 
birth defects and other illnesses and diseases. It is estimated that 
there will be approximately 700 cases of lung cancer and approximately 
13,000 deaths from heart disease per year among nonsmoking workers 
exposed to ETS in the workplace.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Info56 FR 47892                                    09/20/91
Comment Period E56 FR 47892                                    01/21/92
NPRM            59 FR 15968                                    04/05/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 30560                                    08/13/94
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John Martonik
Acting Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB37
BILLING CODE 4510-23-F