[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)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) mission is to protect and promote the 
welfare of those who are employed, those who are retired, and those who 
are seeking a new or better job. In order to successfully fulfill its 
mission, the Department must provide a strong but flexible framework of 
rules for employers and others to follow. This framework is largely 
formed by the more than 180 labor laws and implementing regulations the 
Department administers. It is this framework of rules that guarantees 
workers' rights to a safe and healthful work place; to a minimum wage 
and overtime pay; to freedom from employment discrimination; to family 
and medical leave; and to unemployment insurance. In addition, the 
rules support the Department's effort to protect workers' pension and 
other benefit rights; provide job-training programs; help workers find 
jobs; and work to strengthen free collective bargaining.
DOL's framework of rules undergoes continual change--for instance, it 
must be updated to reflect newly enacted laws that provide protections 
or benefits to workers (such as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
1993). It must also be updated to take into account changes in the work 
place such as improved, safer technologies, or to reflect new workplace 
hazards. In addition, the Department recognizes that a comprehensive 
review of the framework is periodically needed to eliminate those 
sections that are outdated and to reinvent those parts that are 
unreasonably burdensome or confusing. DOL has recently undertaken such 
a review in response to President Clinton's April 24, 1995, 
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.'' The Department, in its 
``Reinventing Labor Regulations'' report, made a commitment to the 
President to expand its efforts to improve DOL regulatory processes and 
regulations. As part of that commitment, each DOL regulatory agency 
conducted a page-by-page review of its rules. This process has led to 
the generation of a DOL regulatory reform strategy, followed by agency 
commitments to change or eliminate specific regulations. DOL's 
regulatory reform strategy is designed to:
 Set clear and sensible priorities for hazards and other issues 
            that need to be addressed;
 Establish basic ``building block'' standards that provide a 
            solid foundation for future regulatory efforts;
 Revise and revoke obsolete, confusing, or unnecessary rules;
 Reduce excessive compliance burden and costs;
 Employ plain language to make rules more user-friendly; and
 Initiate cooperative partnerships with business, labor, State 
            governments, interest groups, professional societies, and 
            other important stakeholder groups.
Some of the specific regulatory changes that were identified in the 
review are found in the eleven ``reinvention'' entries in this plan; 
others will be included in the Department's regulatory agenda. The 
purpose of these reform efforts is to ensure that our framework of 
rules is strong enough to effectively promote and protect workers and 
is built so that it imposes the smallest possible burden on those who 
must abide by the rules.
DOL's 1995 regulatory plan includes 20 of the Department's most 
important significant regulations from 5 of our major regulatory 
agencies: Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Employment and 
Training Administration (ETA), Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and 
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). These regulations 
were selected because of their significant impact on the economy or 
other government agencies and because they are central to each agency's 
mission or to their regulatory reinvention efforts. Although 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.
 Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Labor is one of the largest enforcement agencies 
within the U.S. Government. Its regulations cover an estimated 7 
million establishments and over 125 million current and former 
employees, as well as job applicants and retirees. Given this extensive 
mandate, the entries in the Regulatory Plan were carefully selected as 
the most important: that is, they are essential to the Department's 
mission to improve worker protections and job services. And, in keeping 
with the Department's promise to the President to improve our 
regulatory framework, these proposals will be designed so that they are 
effective, consistent, sensible and understandable. Some, in fact, are 
designed solely to improve existing regulatory requirements and reduce 
compliance costs.
The Employment Standards Administration's Wage and Hour Division is 
responsible for implementing and enforcing a number of statutes 
establishing minimum labor standards that protect the Nation's work 
force, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), the Family and 
Medical Leave Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, and certain 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These labor 
standards include provisions for payment of minimum wages and overtime 
compensation, protection of working youth under child labor standards, 
job protections for employees who take leave for certain covered family 
or medical reasons, and requirements to observe minimum working 
conditions for agricultural workers. The regulatory activities required 
to implement these statutory responsibilities represent a very 
important aspect of the Division's work, the results of which reach 
over 100 million employees in the work force. When developing 
regulatory proposals, the Department's focus is on assuring fair, safe 
and healthful workplaces for workers, while at the same time making 
regulatory standards less burdensome to the regulated community. The 
particular regulations selected for inclusion in this Plan affect a 
wide array of workers and workplaces. Under the FLSA, the Wage and Hour 
Division is undertaking a comprehensive review of the regulatory 
criteria applicable to child labor and to the minimum wage and overtime 
exemption for ``executive,'' ``administrative,'' ``professional,'' and 
``outside sales employees.'' Other regulatory actions include 
clarification of the criteria to be followed in determining whether a 
joint employment relationship exists in the employment of migrant and 
seasonal farm workers under MSPA, and the circumstances in which 
``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and assisted construction 
contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.
ESA is also charged with enforcing the nondiscrimination and 
affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246, section 503 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and section 4212 of the 
Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act. Through these 
regulations, ESA's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs seeks 
to ensure that Federal contractors and subcontractors provide a level 
playing field to all employees and applicants for employment. The 
proposed changes to regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, 
which will streamline, clarify, and reduce paperwork requirements, are 
an important ESA regulatory priority.
The mission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is to 
achieve the goal of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977: 
making the first priority and concern of all in the mining industry the 
health and safety of its most precious resource--the miner. MSHA is 
committed to providing the Nation's miners a safer and healthier 
workplace. Despite MSHA's past efforts, miners daily face safety and 
health hazards at levels unknown in most other professions. Government 
intervention alone cannot eliminate occupational deaths, injuries, and 
illnesses in mining. Effective regulation can best be accomplished 
through the combined commitment of miners, mine operators, and the 
Government to prevent accidents and illnesses. To facilitate this 
commitment, MSHA's Regulatory Plan concentrates on improving existing 
safety and health standards and addressing technological advances in 
mining.
Two significant regulatory actions exemplify MSHA's commitment to 
improving workplace safety and health for miners. The first action 
addresses the need to update the Agency's existing standards for 
exposure to noise. The proposed noise rule would re-examine the level 
of protection provided by existing standards. This examination is 
necessary because many miners, who are exposed to the maximum noise 
levels currently permitted by MSHA regulations, may still be suffering 
hearing impairments.
The second significant regulatory action concerns diesel-powered 
equipment. The introduction of diesel-powered equipment in underground 
coal mines over the past decade has created new hazards associated with 
the presence of a potential ignition source and diesel fuel in an 
already explosive environment. In addition, the exhaust from such 
equipment can expose miners to hazardous airborne contaminants. To 
assure that diesel-powered equipment does not adversely affect the 
safety or health of miners, MSHA plans to issue a final rule that 
includes criteria for the approval of such equipment, safety standards 
for the storage and distribution of diesel fuel, training requirements 
for workers who maintain diesel equipment, and requirements for 
monitoring miners' exposure to diesel exhaust. (Although it will not be 
a Regulatory Plan entry, MSHA does intend to issue a separate proposed 
rule for controlling diesel particulate emissions that would complement 
the diesel equipment standard. This Regulatory Agenda proposal will 
address the potential health hazards associated with particulate in the 
exhaust emitted by diesel-powered equipment in the mining environment.)
In the past 2 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) has changed its fundamental mode of operation from one of 
command and control to one that provides employers with a real choice 
between a partnership with OSHA and a traditional enforcement 
relationship. In the regulatory arena, this means that OSHA has changed 
its approach to regulating to enable the Agency, for the first time, to 
establish and act on clear and sensible priorities, focus on developing 
a basic ``building block'' standard--the safety and health programs 
rule--and eliminate out-of-date, confusing, or duplicative rules from 
the books. Despite the change in OSHA's methods, however, its mission 
remains as important as it was on the day President Nixon signed the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act into law in 1970: this mission is 
that of saving the lives and improving the safety and health of 
America's working men and women.
Over the years, some of OSHA's standards, particularly those adopted 
wholesale from national consensus standards in 1971, have become 
technologically obsolescent, while others are written in highly 
detailed, specification-driven language. To address these problems, 
OSHA has launched a series of initiatives aimed at streamlining and 
rationalizing the Agency's regulations and ensuring that all future 
OSHA rules will pass plain-language and common-sense tests. In 
addition, the Agency is actively soliciting input from stakeholders--
business, labor, small employers, professional associations, and 
affected government entities--as it moves forward on these rulemaking 
initiatives. The OSHA rules featured in the 1995 Regulatory Plan 
reflect the rulemaking approach that is being followed by ``the New 
OSHA.'' For example, the Agency is carefully reviewing the massive 
docket resulting from months of public hearings and comments on one of 
the Agency's highest priorities, a standard for indoor air quality, and 
staff will continue to work on this project over the next year. The 
size of the docket and the complexity of the issues raised by the 
indoor air rulemaking, however, have necessitated a delay in the 
expected promulgation date; as indicated in the regulatory agenda. 
Regulatory action to address the serious risks posed to America's 
workers by environmental tobacco smoke and unhealthful indoor air is 
now planned for fiscal year 1997.
One of the most important regulatory initiatives ever undertaken by 
OSHA--development of a safety and health programs rule--is the 
centerpiece of the Agency's current regulatory plan. This standard, 
which will require employers to develop safety and health programs to 
address occupational safety and health hazards of all types, will 
ensure that employers in all industries treat worker protection as a 
fundamental goal of their business. Evidence of the effectiveness of 
safety and health programs in achieving OSHA's ultimate goal--the 
prevention of deaths, injuries, and illnesses on the job--is widespread 
and growing daily, as more and more companies report that their 
accident rates and their workers' compensation costs have fallen after 
the implementation of such programs. This safety and health program 
standard will assist employers to identify job-related hazards in the 
workplace, correct those so identified, and prevent others from 
occurring. To simplify and streamline the program for employers, OSHA 
has decided to roll a number of separate rulemaking initiatives into 
the safety and health programs rule; these include exposure assessment, 
which was listed in last year's Agenda as a separate rulemaking, and 
consolidated training and records maintenance requirements, which will 
replace the hundreds of procedural training and records maintenance 
requirements currently scattered throughout OSHA's standards. OSHA is 
also seeking input from stakeholders on the need to include an 
exposure-monitoring and a medical surveillance module in the safety and 
health programs rule. The Department believes that, by actively 
involving both employers and employees in the implementation of safety 
and health programs, this standard will help to produce the high-
performance workplaces of tomorrow.
In summary, OSHA's four-point regulatory strategy--to establish clear 
and sensible priorities, to focus on the safety and health programs 
rule, to eliminate or fix problem standards, and to emphasize 
interactions with its stakeholders--is designed to achieve a body of 
standards that will make sense to ordinary people and protect the 
safety and health of the U.S. work force.
The Pension Welfare and Benefits Administration (PWBA) protects the 
integrity of pensions, health plans, and other employee benefits for 
over 150 million workers, retirees, and dependents. PWBA's mission is 
to protect participants and beneficiaries in employment-based benefit 
plans by deterring and correcting violations of the law, by developing 
policies and laws that simplify compliance and encourage the growth and 
preservation of employment-based benefits, by assisting plan officials 
in understanding the requirements of the law, and by ensuring that 
employees receive the information they need to protect and secure their 
benefit rights. PWBA is preparing legislative and regulatory proposals 
to simplify compliance with benefits laws, improve pension and welfare 
benefit plan coverage, and protect the benefits of American workers. 
PWBA's top priority is, in conjunction with the Internal Revenue 
Service, Treasury, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, to 
release for comment, before the end of 1995, a simplified report/return 
form for all employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act's (ERISA) annual reporting requirements.
Reinvention Initiatives
The Department's June 15, 1995, report to the President, ``Reinventing 
Labor Regulations,'' outlined the steps DOL will take to enhance its 
regulatory framework. The Department recognizes that one way to make 
rules more effective is to make them easier to understand and apply. 
This means eliminating duplicative, contradictory, unnecessary, or out-
of-date rules; it means rewriting old rules or promulgating new rules 
that are easy to understand; and it means enlisting the help of the 
regulated community to identify better ways to fulfill our mission 
through changes in regulations. The Department knows that as it strives 
to provide a less burdensome, more effective, and more flexible 
framework, a strong business/labor consensus will be essential to the 
success of our reinvention initiative.
DOL's individual agencies are all taking part in the reinvention 
initiative. For example, the Employment Standards Administration 
conducted a comprehensive review of its existing regulations to 
identify rules that were obsolete or outdated, and those that could be 
streamlined to reduce regulatory burdens and simplify compliance 
obligations. ESA's initiative is designed to eliminate unnecessary 
overlap and duplication in rules wherever possible, provide meaningful 
opportunities for input from the regulated community as part of an 
agency's regulatory reform activities, and ensure that regulatory 
standards are easily understood, with reasonable compliance standards 
consistent with the underlying statutes they are intended to implement.
As a result of the Wage and Hour Division's ``page-by-page review'' of 
existing regulations, half were identified as possible candidates for 
reinvention, consolidation, or revocation. Out of 75 regulatory 
``parts'' in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) administered by 
Wage-Hour, 28 (or 37 percent) were slated for elimination either 
through consolidation or repeal (because they are obsolete). Ten CFR 
parts (or 13 percent) will be reinvented and streamlined. This 
regulatory reform initiative is expected to result in removing 225 
pages or nearly 20 percent of unnecessary regulatory text from the CFR, 
reducing excessive compliance burden and costs and making Wage-Hour's 
rules more ``user-friendly.''
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 
established a system for providing monthly cash payments and medical 
benefits to coal workers who are victims of pneumoconiosis (black lung) 
and to their survivors. The regulations implementing the law were 
reviewed by ESA's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs pursuant to 
the President's Regulatory Reinvention directive through a process 
involving front-line staff and extensive discussions with claimant and 
beneficiary groups. This review has identified areas of program 
administration for reinventing and streamlining so that service will be 
more prompt and economical. Specific modifications of existing 
regulatory impediments are now under development for proposed 
implementation in fiscal year 1996.
Under the reinventing government initiative, the Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Program's emphasis is on regulatory reform, for 
example, revising the Executive Order 11246 regulations to reduce 
paperwork burdens, eliminate unnecessary regulations, and simplify and 
clarify the regulations while improving the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the contract compliance program.
ETA, as part of the reinvention effort, is currently re-engineering the 
labor certification process for the permanent employment of aliens in 
the United States, which has been criticized as being complicated, time 
consuming, costly, and burdensome to employers. ETA's goals are to make 
fundamental changes and refinements in that process that will (a) 
better serve customers, (b) streamline the process, (c) improve 
effectiveness, and (d) save resources. The re-engineering effort is a 
collaborative effort of Federal and State staff who are involved in the 
administration of alien certification programs. The re-engineering 
effort also involves consultation throughout the process with sponsors, 
stakeholders, State partners, and outside interest groups to solicit 
ideas and suggestions for change. Through this re-engineering effort, 
ETA hopes to achieve considerable savings in resources both for the 
Government and employers, without diminishing significant protections 
now afforded U.S. workers by the current regulatory and administrative 
requirements.
MSHA has also reviewed its regulations as part of the reinvention 
initiative. One type of reinvention arises from changes in technology 
that are not reflected in regulations. Thus, certain existing safety 
standards may need to be updated. One such instance is MSHA'S 
electrical standards. Advanced longwall mining systems that employ 
high-voltage electrical circuits have resulted in significant 
production gains for many underground coal mines, with no loss of 
safety, provided certain conditions are met. MSHA's electrical 
standards for underground coal mines currently prohibit high-voltage 
circuits in the area of the mine where coal is produced. As a result, 
mine operators have had to seek variances from MSHA to use high-voltage 
equipment. Over the past decade approximately 100 variances have been 
processed. MSHA intends to issue a final rule allowing the use of this 
type of equipment, reducing the burden on those mines that use this 
safe and highly productive method of mining coal.
The elimination and revision of outdated and restrictive regulations, 
most of which were adopted by OSHA nearly 25 years ago and have not 
been changed since, is another important aspect of the New OSHA's way 
of regulating. Several of the entries in this year's Regulatory Plan, 
including one titled, ``Eliminating and Improving Regulations'' and 
another titled ``Revision of Certain Standards Promulgated under 
Section 6(a) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970,'' reflect the importance OSHA attaches to these projects. 
Finding and fixing confusing, hard-to-follow, and unnecessary 
regulations and streamlining and updating the Agency's excessively 
detailed and technologically obsolescent standards will further OSHA's 
primary goal--the protection of worker safety and health--and make it 
easier and less burdensome for employers to comply.
In addition, consolidating hundreds of procedural training provisions 
that are currently scattered throughout OSHA's general industry, 
construction, and maritime standards into a single module for 
incorporation into the proposed safety and health programs rule is a 
good example of regulating in a smart way. In the future, employers 
will have only a single set of training procedures to follow, 
regardless of which of OSHA's standards requires the training. For 
instance, the length of time an employer must keep OSHA-mandated 
training records will be standardized, as will the frequency of 
required training. Once the safety and health program rule is 
promulgated, OSHA will move to delete hundreds of training-related 
provisions from its existing standards, saving employers duplicative 
paperwork and unnecessary effort.
PWBA has worked with the Administration in developing and implementing 
the President's Pension Simplification Package. PWBA is coordinating 
with the Internal Revenue Service, Treasury, and the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation in order to simplify the Form 5500 Series, the 
annual report filed by over 750,000 employee benefit plans. Future 
plans for lessening the burden of this statutory requirement include 
developing software to allow plans to file electronically. In addition, 
PWBA will be soliciting comments on a proposal for eliminating obsolete 
regulations.
Regulations Included in the Plan
Twenty regulatory proposals are included in DOL's 1995 regulatory plan. 
These regulations acknowledge DOL's important role in rulemaking and 
the need to make regulations easier to understand and apply while 
increasing their effectiveness. As previously mentioned, these 
proposals were also selected because of their significant impact on the 
economy or other Government agencies. A detailed description of each 
follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

65. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: NONDISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 
OBLIGATIONS (ESA/OFCCP)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


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


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 streamlining and clarifying the 
regulatory language and reducing paperwork requirements associated with 
compliance.


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 the Department of Labor (DOL) to 
effectively and efficiently enforce the provisions of the Order. As a 
first step in updating its Executive Order 11246 regulations, the 
Department intends to propose changes to the provisions that govern the 
pre-award review requirements; recordkeeping and record retention 
requirements; certification requirements; and related provisions. In 
addition, revisions will be made that will conform Executive Order 
11246 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 and the 
provisions concerning contractor evaluation procedures.


Alternatives:


After careful review, it was decided that the most effective way to 
improve compliance with the Executive Order 11246 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 Executive Order 11246 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 Affirmative Action Plans (41 CFR 60-2)                    11/00/95
NPRM Compliance Reviews, etc. (41 CFR 60-1)                    11/00/95
FINAL Compliance Reviews, etc. (41 CFR 60-1)                   04/00/96
FINAL Affirmative Action Plans                                 06/00/96
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 Avenue
Room C3325, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-9430
RIN: 1215-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
66. CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION 
(ESA/W-H)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 203(1)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 570


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 3(l) 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 is also 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 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 promoting job opportunities for young 
people and making regulatory standards less burdensome to the regulated 
community.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed based on 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 the avoidance of injuries 
with respect to young workers.


Risks:


An assessment of the magnitude of the risk addressed by this action 
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 Effective Date                                    12/20/91
ANPRM           59 FR 25167                                    05/13/94
ANPRM Comment Pe59 FR 40318                                    08/11/94
NPRM                                                           02/00/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/96
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.
Rm S3502, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
67. DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE TERM ``ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA 
FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY'' (ESA/W-H)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 213(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 541


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations set forth the criteria for exemption from the Fair 
Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements for 
``executive,'' ``administrative,'' ``professional'' and ``outside sales 
employees.'' To be exempt, employees must meet certain tests relating 
to duties and responsibilities and be paid on a salary basis at 
specified levels. A final rule increasing the salary test levels was 
published on January 13, 1981 (46 FR 3010), to become effective on 
February 13, 1981, but was indefinitely stayed on February 12, 1981 (46 
FR 11972). On March 27, 1981, a proposal to suspend the final rule 
indefinitely was published (46 FR 18998), with comments due by April 
28, 1981. As a result of numerous comments and petitions from industry 
groups on the duties and responsibilities tests, and as a result of 
recent case law developments, the Department concluded that a more 
comprehensive review of these regulations was needed. An ANPRM 
reopening the comment period and broadening the scope of review to 
include all aspects of the regulations was published on November 19, 
1985, with the comment period subsequently extended to March 22, 1986.
The Department has revised these regulations since the ANPRM to address 
specific issues. In 1991, as the result of an amendment to the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the regulations were revised to permit 
certain 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 review of these regulations is both necessary and appropriate.


Statement of Need:


These regulations set forth the criteria used in the determination of 
the application of the FLSA exemption for ``executive,'' 
``administrative,'' ``professional,'' and ``outside sales employees.'' 
The existing salary test levels used in determining which employees 
qualify as 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 review of 
these regulations is needed.
These regulations have been revised in recent years to deal with 
specific issues. In 1991, as the result of an amendment to the FLSA, 
the regulations were revised to permit certain 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. This 
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, requires the employee's pay to be reduced 
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. 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.


Alternatives:


The Department has met with affected interest groups in developing 
regulatory alternatives. Following completion of these outreach and 
consultation activities, full regulatory alternatives will be 
developed.
Although legislative proposals have been introduced in the Congress to 
address certain aspects of these regulations, the Department will 
continue to pursue revisions to the regulations as the appropriate 
response to the concerns raised. Alternatives likely to be considered 
include particular changes to address ``salary basis'' and salary level 
issues to a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations that also 
addresses the duties and responsibilities tests.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Some 23 million employees are estimated to be 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, comprehensive, and up-to-date regulations would 
provide for central, uniform control over the application of these 
regulations and ameliorate 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 workforce. Resolution of confusion 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:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


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
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/00/96
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
Phone: 202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
68. MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION (29 CFR PART 
500)
Priority:


Other Significant


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 Hodgson v. 
Griffin and Brand, 471 F.2d 235, are to be followed in determining 
whether a joint employment relationship exists in the employment of 
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 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, 471 F.2d 235, were to be determinative. However, subsequent 
legal developments have created confusion as to appropriate criteria 
for determining the existence of a joint employment relationship. In 
its rulemaking, the Department 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.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed as part of this review.


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.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/96
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
Phone: 202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA93
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
69. 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)
Priority:


Economically Significant


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, 105 Stat. 130,151 (1991), and then through section 
104 of the DOL Appropriations Act of 1994, PL 103-112. Given the 
uncertainty of continuation of such moratoriums, the Department has 
determined that the helper issue may need 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 
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 through appropriations 
riders. Given the uncertainty of continuation of such moratoriums, the 
Department has determined that the helper issue may need to be 
addressed through further rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Administration has determined that there are only limited 
alternatives to addressing this issue through rulemaking, in addition 
to possible legislative changes. Specific regulatory alternatives have 
not yet been developed pending current appropriations actions in the 
Congress.


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 affect prior estimates 
of potential 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:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/96
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
Phone: 202 219-8305
Fax: 202 219-5122
RIN: 1215-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
70.  BENEFITS UNDER THE FEDERAL COAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 
OF 1977, AS AMENDED AFFECTING THE BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 901 et seq


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 718; 20 CFR 722; 20 CFR 725; 20 CFR 726; 20 CFR 727


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation reviewed its existing 
regulations, pursuant to Executive Order 12866, with a goal of 
eliminating outdated and unnecessary rules and streamlining the 
processes. The result is a proposal to revise existing rules to 
facilitate alternative dispute resolution, including the informal 
conference process; streamline the litigation process by encouraging 
the early development and submission of evidence and decentralizing 
control; reduce the costs of copying and mailing; raise the dollar 
limit for prior approval for medical equipment; and rewrite existing 
rules to make them more customer-oriented.
There will be no additional costs associated with these changes, but 
savings can be expected through streamlining.


Statement of Need:


The regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act were last 
significantly revised in 1983. In the spirit of reinvention, the 
program proposes to update the rules to help improve services, 
streamline the adjudication process, and simplify the language.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed based on the public comments 
responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action will be developed once decisions are reached on 
specific changes. Benefits will include a streamlined, more accessible 
process.


Risks:


Groups with a vested interest in a lengthy and expensive adjudication 
process will complain.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James L. DeMarce
Director, Coal Mine Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C3520, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-6692
RIN: 1215-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

71. LABOR CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR THE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS 
IN THE UNITED STATES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 INA 212(a)(5)(A)


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 656


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor (DOL) is currently re-engineering the labor 
certification process that is set forth in DOL regulations at 20 CFR 
656. DOL's goals are to make fundamental changes and refinements that 
will (a) better serve customers, (b) streamline the process, (c) 
improve effectiveness, and (d) save resources. The re-engineering 
effort is a collaborative effort of Federal and State staff who are 
involved in the administration of alien certification programs. The re-
engineering effort also involves consultation throughout the process 
with sponsors, stakeholders, State partners, and outside interest 
groups to solicit ideas and suggestions for change.


Statement of Need:


The labor certification process has been criticized as being 
complicated and time-consuming. It can take up to 2 years or more to 
complete the process; the process requires substantial government 
resources to administer, and it is reportedly costly and burdensome to 
employers. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), therefore, 
is reexamining the effectiveness of the various regulatory requirements 
and the application processing procedure, with a view to achieving 
considerable savings in resources both for the Government and 
employers, without diminishing the significant protections now afforded 
U.S. workers by the current regulatory and administrative requirements.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Before the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service may issue visas and admit certain immigrant aliens to work 
permanently in the United States, the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to 
section 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), must 
certify to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General that: (a) 
there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, 
and available at the time of the application for a visa and admission 
into the United States and at the place where the alien is to work: and 
(b) the employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers (8 USC 
1182(a)(5)(A)). The Department of Labor has promulgated regulations at 
20 CFR 656 pursuant to and to implement section 212(a)(5)(A) of the 
INA. These regulations set forth the fact-finding process designed to 
support the granting or denial of a permanent labor certification.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As indicated above, it is anticipated that the re-engineering effort 
will result in significant cost savings to the Government and to the 
regulated community. DOL will be able to provide a more precise 
estimation of anticipated cost reductions after the re-engineering of 
the permanent labor certification process is completed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
Flora Richardson
Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Certifications
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N4456, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-5263
RIN: 1205-AA66
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

72.  REVISION OF THE FORM 5500 SERIES AND RELATED REGULATIONS 
UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 (ERISA)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1021; 29 USC 1022; 29 USC 1023; 29 USC 1024; 29 USC 1025; 29 
USC 1026; 29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1029; 29 USC 1030; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 
1135; 29 USC 1166; 29 USC 1168


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Each year, pension and welfare benefit plans subject to title I of 
ERISA are generally required to file an annual return/report, the Form 
5500 Series, regarding their financial condition, investments, and 
operations. The Form 5500 Series is the primary source of information 
concerning the operation, funding, assets, and investments of pension 
and other employee benefit plans. The Form 5500 Series is not only an 
important compliance and research tool for the Department, but is also 
a disclosure document for plan participants and beneficiaries and a 
source of information and data for use by other Federal agencies, 
Congress, and the private sector in assessing employee benefit, tax, 
and economic trends and policies. As part of the President's Pension 
Simplification proposal, the agencies are undertaking a comprehensive 
review of the annual return/report forms in an effort to streamline the 
information required to be reported and the methods by which such 
information is filed and processed.


Statement of Need:


In the 20 years since Congress enacted ERISA to protect pension and 
other employee benefit promises made to employees, the laws and 
regulations have become more complex. There are many reasons for this: 
the desire for employers to have a high degree of flexibility in 
designing plans that best suit their work force; policies designed to 
ensure that all employees receive tax and savings benefits from 
retirement and other benefit plans that are comparable to those 
available to highly compensated employees and business owners; the need 
to protect the integrity of Federal tax revenues; and the prevention of 
tax-shelter abuses.
While each of these causes may have merit, and the private sector 
employee benefit system has been greatly strengthened as a result of 
ERISA, the cumulative result--together with frequent legislative 
changes--has been to raise compliance and administrative costs to a 
level that has created a disincentive for employers, and particularly 
small employers, to offer pension and other benefit plans to their 
employees.
A source of complexity and costs has been 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. The proposed 
revision to the Form 5500 Series is being coordinated with the Internal 
Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation as part of the process of implementing the 
President's pension simplification proposal.
Title I of ERISA, sections 101 through 105, 107, 209, and 606, impose 
specific reporting and disclosure obligations on administrators of 
employee benefit plans. Section 104(a)(3) and 110 of ERISA provide the 
Secretary with the authority to prescribe exemptions and alternative 
methods of compliance for employee welfare benefit plans and employee 
pension benefit plans. Section 505 provides the Secretary with general 
authority to prescribe regulations necessary or appropriate to carry 
out the provisions of Title I of ERISA.


Alternatives:


The annual reporting requirement could be left unaltered. However, the 
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) believes that 
compliance with the requirement may be facilitated without harming the 
security of the employment-based benefits system. Simplifying the Form 
5500 Series is one step in improving ERISA's reporting and disclosure 
system. This initiative includes revision of the Form 5500 Series and 
related regulations. Filer costs from preparing forms and government 
costs for processing the Form 5500 Series can be reduced while 
enhancing the ability of the Government to protect workers' benefits by 
receiving more accurate and timely information on the operation, 
funding, investments, usefulness, and safety of employee pension and 
welfare benefit plans.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Meaningful burden, hour, and cost reductions can be achieved only 
through an integrated implementation of changes to both the Form 5500 
Series and the processing system. By simplifying the Form 5500 and 
creating an automated processing system for the filed reports, it is 
anticipated that filer costs of preparing forms, as well as Government 
processing costs, will be reduced. It is the goal of the Department to 
eliminate reporting requirements for information that is not needed to 
discharge its statutory responsibilities, while ensuring that 
participants and beneficiaries have access to the information they need 
to protect their rights and benefits under ERISA.


Risks:


The Form 5500 Series is part of ERISA's reporting and disclosure 
framework, which is intended to assure that employee benefit plans are 
operated and managed in accordance with certain prescribed standards 
and that participants and beneficiaries, as well as regulators, are 
provided or have access to sufficient information to protect the rights 
and benefits of participants and beneficiaries under employee benefit 
plans. Better focused annual reporting, through regulatory changes, 
should serve to facilitate compliance by plan administrators, thereby 
reducing litigation and penalty risks to plan administrators, 
fiduciaries, and sponsors, without increasing risks of benefit losses 
by participants and beneficiaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John J. Canary
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7461
RIN: 1210-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

73. NOISE STANDARD
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


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


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Many miners are exposed to noise levels that are at or near maximum 
levels currently permitted by Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA) regulations. Notwithstanding MSHA's enforcement of its current 
noise regulations, miners are continuing to incur hearing impairment. 
Data indicate that protective action needs to be taken at a lower noise 
level than is currently required. MSHA is developing a proposed rule 
that would establish uniform noise standards to apply to all mining, 
and which will consider requiring additional measures to protect 
miners, such as hearing protection and audiometric testing.


Statement of Need:


MSHA's experience under its current standards for occupational exposure 
to hazardous noise levels indicates that current standards do not 
provide the protection intended. Many miners are exposed to noise 
levels that are near the maximum currently permitted by MSHA 
regulations. Notwithstanding MSHA's enforcement of existing noise 
standards, miners continue to suffer hearing impairment. This proposed 
rule will consider establishing a lower action level for requiring 
hearing protection and will address methods for controlling exposure. 
The proposed rule also will consider requiring hearing conservation 
programs to determine the effectiveness of control measures in reducing 
the amount of hearing damage in exposed miners.
In addition, MSHA's current noise standards for coal mines differ from 
those for metal and nonmetal mines. MSHA's proposed rule would provide 
consistent requirements for all mines.


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 issues. For example, MSHA is considering (a) the respective 
roles of personal hearing protection and engineering controls in 
controlling miners' exposures; (b) lowering the permissible exposure 
level; and (c) whether or not to require a hearing conservation 
program, including audiometric testing, exposure monitoring, and miner 
training. This proposed rule will be derived from MSHA's deliberations 
and decisions on these issues and alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Depending on the form of the rule, MSHA expects costs could be incurred 
for engineering controls, personal hearing protection, exposure 
monitoring, audiometric testing, training, and recordkeeping. The major 
benefit of implementing the protection sought would be an average 
annual reduction of several hundred 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 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 noises 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 State 
workers' compensation data.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 50209                                    12/04/89
ANPRM Comment Pe55 FR 6011                                     06/22/90
NPRM                                                           01/00/96
Final Action                                                   07/00/96
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
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

74. DIESEL-POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 957


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 7; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines poses a 
risk of fire or explosion from two sources: internal combustion engines 
that introduce an ignition source into an environment where methane can 
be present; and underground handling and storage of diesel fuel. The 
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) currently has limited 
approval, safety, and health regulations that address the use of 
diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines. In addition, some 
hazards are currently addressed in the mine ventilation plan. In 1988, 
a Secretarial advisory committee made recommendations concerning safety 
and health standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment in 
underground coal mines. In 1989, MSHA published a proposed rule based 
on those recommendations. This final rule will address criteria for the 
approval of diesel equipment and provisions for the safe use of such 
equipment in underground coal mines.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment is increasing steadily in 
underground coal mines across the United States, from 175 units in 30 
mines in 1977 to more than 2,885 units in 170 mines in 1995. Given the 
current state of the industry and assuming no change in existing 
regulations, MSHA projects that the presence of diesel equipment in the 
industry would increase to about 3,520 units in 250 underground coal 
mines by the year 2000.
Currently, MSHA regulations do not specifically regulate this type of 
equipment, in contrast to other more conventional mining equipment. 
Diesel equipment in underground coal mines poses a risk of fire or 
explosion, as a result of the introduction of an ignition source (the 
diesel engine) into an environment that may contain methane gas. Poor 
fuel handling and fuel transfer procedures underground present 
significant fire hazards. Between 1979 and 1992, MSHA investigated 10 
diesel-equipment-related fires in underground coal mines. Because of 
the methane gas and coal dust present in the underground coal mining 
environment, any fire presents a significant risk of loss of life. 
Without rules for the design, use, and maintenance of diesel-powered 
equipment, the Agency also lacks an effective means to regulate health 
and safety hazards associated with diesel equipment.
Under current regulations, diesel-powered equipment is not required to 
have a number of important safety features that have long been required 
on electric equipment, such as cabs and canopies (which protect 
equipment operators from roof falls), automatic emergency parking 
brakes, and methane monitors, which shut equipment off when methane 
concentrations reach certain levels.
In July 1988, a Federal 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, in 1989 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. 
MSHA is working on a final rule which will provide increased protection 
for miners, allow for flexibility in control technology, and minimize 
recordkeeping requirements.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope and nature of the final rule is currently under development 
and, thus, final estimates of costs and benefits have not been 
determined. MSHA had made a preliminary assessment in 1989 that the 
proposed rule would have had an incremental annual impact of over $20 
million on the mining industry. Subsequent estimates, however, project 
the incremental annual cost to be from $16 million to $35 million, 
depending upon the alternatives selected.
MSHA projects that one benefit of implementing this regulatory 
protection will 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, as well as a reduction in the 
incidence of potential adverse health effects that result from exposure 
to diesel exhaust.
The final rule also will encourage the use of advanced diesel 
technology, such as flame arresters, spark arresters, water scrubbers, 
and exhaust filters in the approval of diesel engine design, all of 
which would improve the safety and health of miners. Also, because some 
hazards are currently addressed in the mine ventilation plan, the final 
rule will reduce the resources and paperwork associated with the 
submission and approval of this aspect of the ventilation plan. It also 
will provide for more uniform requirements, resulting in more 
consistent enforcement.


Risks:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines poses a 
risk of fire or explosion by introducing an ignition source through the 
engine itself and from the underground handling and storage of diesel 
fuel. Without rules for the design, use, and maintenance of diesel-
powered equipment, the Agency lacks an effective means to control 
safety and health hazards associated with diesel-powered equipment in 
the confined environment of the underground coal mine.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            54 FR 40950                                    10/04/89
NPRM Comment Per56 FR 13404                                    05/10/91
Final Action                                                   02/00/96
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
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA27
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
75. LONGWALL EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING HIGH-VOLTAGE)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 957


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 18; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Since 1970 MSHA regulations have required that high-voltage cables and 
transformers be kept at least 150 feet from the coal extraction area. 
The objective of this requirement is to prohibit the use of high-
voltage cables and equipment that could serve as an ignition source for 
methane and coal dust in close proximity to the work area.
The modern development of highly productive longwall mining systems has 
resulted in their widespread use in the mining industry. Mine 
operators, however, currently must apply to MSHA for a variance from 
the existing standards in order to use this high-voltage equipment. The 
increased use of high-voltage longwalls in underground coal mines in 
recent years has led to the design of safe high-voltage electrical 
equipment and associated cables. These improvements have occurred 
specifically in the area of design and construction of explosion-proof 
equipment; insulation, short circuit, ground fault, and mechanical 
protection of cables; and equipment for safe handling of cables. For 
these reasons, in August 1992 MSHA published a proposed rule to 
establish safety requirements for the design, construction, 
installation, use, and maintenance of high-voltage longwall equipment 
and associated cables. The proposal would eliminate the need for a 
variance to use this equipment.


Statement of Need:


Because of the existing regulatory prohibition against using high-
voltage cables and transformers within 150 feet of the extraction area, 
underground coal mine operators who wish to use high-voltage longwall 
equipment must apply for a variance from the standard. Over the years, 
MSHA has granted high-voltage longwall variances which require that the 
mine operator comply with certain requirements, including the use of 
explosion-proof high-voltage equipment, specially designed cable, 
cable-handling systems, and state-of-the-art ground fault and short-
circuit protective devices. Since 1985 MSHA has granted about 90 
variances for use of high-voltage longwalls and has denied only one. 
Since 1992, when the proposed rule was published, MSHA has granted 
about 30 variances for use of high-voltage longwalls.
The variance process involves substantial costs to the industry and 
MSHA. Most mine operators engage an attorney to prepare and submit a 
variance for the use of high-voltage longwall equipment. This part of 
the process alone can cost thousands of dollars. After receipt of the 
variance, MSHA processes the request, publishes a brief description in 
the Federal Register, has an inspector conduct an onsite investigation 
and prepare a report to the Administrator, and prepares a Proposed 
Decision and Order. Costs are incurred by industry in order to submit 
the appropriate documentation to support the variance. Agency costs are 
associated with processing, publication, and investigation of 
variances.


Alternatives:


MSHA intends to revise its regulations to allow underground coal mine 
operators to use high-voltage longwall equipment and associated cables. 
The regulations would be based on the Agency's experience with 
variances, and would require the use of properly designed and 
constructed equipment and cables, as well as electrical and mechanical 
protective devices.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is estimated that the rule would result in a cost savings. In the 
absence of the need to apply for variances, mine operators wishing to 
use high-voltage longwall equipment would realize reduced paperwork and 
significant savings associated with legal and administrative costs. In 
addition, high-voltage longwall equipment could be installed without 
waiting for MSHA to approve a variance. The normal length of time for 
preparing and processing a variance and issuing a decision is about 6 
months to a year; but, on occasion, the entire process has taken 
several years. Eliminating the need to process and investigate 
variances would increase the resources available to both industry and 
MSHA personnel that could be directed to the proper installation, 
inspection, and maintenance of the equipment.
High-voltage longwall systems improve miners' safety from electrical 
hazards through improved technology in the areas of cable design and 
construction, circuit and equipment electrical protection, and cable 
handling and support systems. Additional benefits are realized from the 
convenient location of disconnect devices for the purpose of performing 
electrical work, and the use of barriers and interlock switches in 
electrical equipment to help guard against accidental contact with 
energized circuits.


Risks:


The mining industry, through the variance process, has been using high-
voltage longwalls and associated cables since 1985. The Agency is 
unaware of any accidents attributable to the use of such equipment 
allowed under conditions approved through the variance process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 39036                                    08/27/92
NPRM Comment Per57 FR 46350                                    11/13/92
Re-open Record                                                 10/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


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
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

76. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKING)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


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:


On December 29, 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) announced its intention to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory 
committee to negotiate issues associated with a revision of 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 work practices, 
written construction safety erection plan, and fall protection. The 
Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC), a 20-
member committee, was established, and the SENRAC charter was signed by 
Secretary Reich on May 26, 1994. The first meeting was held in the 
Washington area on June 14-16, 1994, and the Committee has met nine 
times since.
The negotiated rulemaking process has been successful in bringing 
together the interested parties that will be affected by the proposed 
revision to the steel erection rule to work out contrasting positions, 
find common ground on the major issues, and achieve consensus on a 
proposed rule. The use of this process and a neutral facilitator 
allowed the stakeholders to develop an ownership stake in the proposal 
that they would not have had without the use of this process.
The process has led to a draft revision to Subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 
that contains innovative provisions that will help to minimize the 
major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. Many of these 
provisions could not have been developed without this process, which 
has brought together industry experts, via face-to-face negotiations, 
to discuss different approaches to resolving the issues. This process 
has proved mutually beneficial to all the parties involved (including 
OSHA), with each Committee member participating in resolving the issues 
and developing practical and effective rules to make the steel erection 
industry safer.
The Agency benefitted from this process by having industry members 
participate and add to the Agency's knowledge about steel erection. 
Also, the Agency has been able to work together constructively with the 
various parties and has avoided the adversarial environment that 
sometimes develops during OSHA rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking 
process will enable the Agency to publish a proposal and go from 
proposal to final rule more quickly and with less controversy than 
would otherwise have been possible.


Statement of Need:


In 1989, OSHA was petitioned by the Iron Workers Union and National 
Erectors Association to revise its construction safety standard for 
steel erection through the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA asked an 
independent consultant to review the issues involved in a steel 
erection revision, render an independent opinion, and recommend a 
course of action to revise the standard. The consultant recommended 
that OSHA address the issues by using the negotiated rulemaking 
process. Based on the consultant's findings and the continued requests 
for negotiated rulemaking, OSHA decided to use the negotiated 
rulemaking process to develop a proposed revision of Subpart R. The use 
of negotiated rulemaking was thought to be the best approach to 
resolving steel erection safety issues, some of which have proven 
intractable in the past.


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. This 
alternative was therefore rejected. Another alternative would be not to 
revise the Agency's current steel erection rules for construction. This 
alternative was rejected because it would permit steel erection-related 
injuries and fatalities to continue.


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 not likely to exceed $100 million 
annually, and benefits will include the prevention of numerous 
fatalities and hundreds of injuries associated with steel erection 
activities.


Risks:


The magnitude of the risk associated with steel erection activities is 
great. It is estimated that about 40 workers are killed every year 
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 fall hazards, 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                                                           06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Thomas H. Seymour
Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
77. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 
(SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1904.1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:



Over the years, concerns about the reliability and utility of injury 
and illness data derived from the employer-maintained OSHA records have 
been raised by Congress, NIOSH, BLS, the National Statistics (BLS), the 
National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), the General Accounting Office, business, and labor, as well as 
OSHA. In the late 1980s, to facilitate national policy dialogues, OSHA 
brought together representatives of industry, labor, government, and 
academia in a year-long effort to discuss problems with OSHA's injury 
and illness recordkeeping system. Keystone issued a report with 
specific recommendations on how to improve the system. Despite this 
effort, a regulatory revision was not formally begun. Earlier this year 
OSHA initiated an intensified effort to revive the revision process. 
Several meetings were again held with stakeholders from business, 
labor, and government in order to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA 
recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information. As a result 
of these meetings, OSHA is now planning to issue a proposed rule that 
will contain revised recordkeeping requirements, new recordkeeping 
forms, and new interpretive material to improve the Nation's injury and 
illness statistics, simplify the injury and illness recordkeeping 
system, and reduce the burden of the new rule on employers. Benefits 
will include: (1) a system that is more compatible with modern computer 
technology and is easier for employers, employees and government to 
use; (2) more reliable and useful records; (3) for the first time, 
comprehensive injury and illness records for construction sites; and 
(4) greater employee involvement in and awareness of safety and health 
matters.


Statement of Need:


A revision to OSHA's outdated recordkeeping system has been 
contemplated for some time. The process of revision originated in BLS 
in 1987 and moved in 1990 to OSHA, when the recordkeeping function was 
transferred to the Agency.
The proposed rule reflects the input of many stakeholders, including 
OSHA field and national office staff, the participants in the 1987 
Keystone policy dialogue, staff from other government agencies (BLS, 
MSHA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) NIOSH and the States), 
and members of OSHA's advisory committees. OSHA has discussed the 
proposed revision with thousands of employers and representatives of 
the safety/health community in over 100 presentations for employer 
groups, trade associations, safety councils, and union groups.
Recently, OSHA shared copies of the draft proposal with stakeholders 
from labor, industry, trade associations, and other government 
agencies. The proposal also was reprinted in several occupational 
safety and health trade publications, and OSHA held two stakeholder 
meetings to discuss the proposal and obtain feedback. As a result of 
this recent stakeholder input, OSHA made over 50 changes to the 
document. Although the various stakeholders did not agree on every 
detail of the proposal, OSHA is confident that the multiphase process 
followed in developing this proposal has resulted in substantial 
agreement on the issues and consensus on the desirability of publishing 
the proposal in the Federal Register to enable OSHA to obtain input 
from the public at large.
The occupational injury and illness records maintained by employers are 
an important component of OSHA's program. The records are used by 
employers and employees to discover and evaluate workplace safety and 
health hazards, and they provide OSHA personnel with necessary 
information during workplace inspections. The records also provide the 
source data for the Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses conducted by the BLS.
The records have their greatest value when they are used by employers 
and employees to manage and develop workplace safety and health 
programs. These records are an effective way to quantify a firm's 
injury and illness experience. When problems are quantified and 
presented to employers and employees, they are much more likely to be 
solved. Hazardous conditions, departments and jobs also can be 
identified by reviewing injury and illness records. Once hazards are 
discovered and corrective actions are taken, the records can be used to 
monitor the effectiveness of control approaches taken. Employers and 
employees can also use injury and illness records to develop and 
operate safety and health programs. When information on workplace 
injuries and illnesses is not available or is incorrect, the ability to 
identify problems and take corrective action is diminished.
The Government also has several uses for injury and illness records. 
These records are used by OSHA safety and health inspectors during 
worksite visits to highlight potential problems that require additional 
scrutiny. The records are the source documents for the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, the 
nation's primary source of information on workplace injury and illness. 
The resulting statistics on the frequency, rate, and factors 
contributing to job-related injury and illness are used to measure the 
performance of the Nation's safety and health policies, determine 
regulatory actions, and provide a point of comparison for an individual 
company's safety and health performance. The statistics are also used 
by NIOSH, academia, and other safety and health researchers to 
determine trends, discover emerging occupational conditions, and 
evaluate occupational safety and health policies.
The records will also be the source documents for OSHA's data 
collection initiative. This program will allow OSHA to use limited 
resources to focus intervention efforts (e.g., consultation, training, 
outreach, and enforcement) on worksites with the highest injury and 
illness rates. The data collection initiative will also provide OSHA 
with a means for measuring its performance in terms of outcomes--
changes in workplace injury and illness--rather than activities.


Alternatives:


One alternative to publication of the proposed revision is to take no 
action and continue to administer the injury and illness recordkeeping 
system using the current regulation, forms and guidelines. Another 
alternative is to publish the proposal without changing the coverage 
and scope of the rule (i.e., continue the current rule's small employer 
and Standard Industrial Classification exemptions).
The first alternative is unacceptable because it does not address the 
recognized problems of the current system. The second alternative is 
also unacceptable. Evaluation of the most current injury and illness 
data available shows that modification of the existing coverage (of 
small employers and employers in certain Standard Industrial 
Classification Codes) will lead to the collection of more injury and 
illness information and reduce the paperwork burden on employers with 
smaller-sized establishments and those operating in less hazardous 
private industry sectors.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The average establishment affected by the proposed changes to the 
recordkeeping requirements would incur a net reduction in recordkeeping 
costs. Thus the proposed rule will not impose adverse economic impacts 
on firms in the regulated community. The proposed exemption from the 
regulation of all nonconstruction establishments with fewer than 20 
employees will mean that small entities are likely to experience the 
greatest cost savings.


Risks:


Benefits will include: (a) a system that is more compatible with and 
easier for government to use; (b) more reliable and useful records; (c) 
construction sites; and (d) greater employee involvement.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Sectors Affected:


 All


Agency Contact:
Stephen A. Newell
Director, Office of Statistics
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3507, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-6463
RIN: 1218-AB24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
78. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Priority:


Economically Significant


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:


Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a leading cause of pain, 
suffering, and disability in American workplaces. Since the 1980's, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has had a number 
of initiatives related to addressing these problems, including 
enforcement under the general duty clause, issuance of guidelines for 
the meatpacking industry, and development of other compliance-
assistance materials.
Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the increasing magnitude of 
the problem, a regulatory approach should be explored to ensure that 
the largest possible number of employers and employees become aware of 
the problems and ways of preventing work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders. The Agency was precluded from issuing a standard or 
guidelines in this area by a rider on its fiscal year 1995 rescission 
bill. It is unclear at this point whether similar Congressional 
restrictions will prevent OSHA from addressing this issue in fiscal 
year 1996.
An open process to develop and consider regulatory alternatives was 
initiated by the Bush Administration with the publication of an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking on August 3, 1992 (57 FR 34192). About 
300 comments were received in response to that request. In addition to 
the public comments, OSHA has examined and analyzed the extensive 
scientific literature documenting the problem of work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders, the causes of the problem, and effective 
solutions; conducted a telephone survey of over 3,000 establishments 
regarding their current practices to prevent work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders; and completed a number of site visits to 
facilities with existing programs. The Agency has also held numerous 
stakeholder meetings to solicit input from individuals regarding the 
possible contents of a standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders, and on a draft proposed regulatory text and supporting 
documents. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach 
presentations to people who are interested in this subject; consulted 
professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on various aspects 
of the options considered by the Agency; and had some employers field-
test certain requirements under consideration for the standard. A 
quantitative risk assessment has been drafted, as well as a preliminary 
assessment of potential costs and benefits.
OSHA is in the process of refining its regulatory approach based on 
stakeholder input and other information for inclusion in an NPRM. The 
Agency believes that the scientific evidence supports the need for a 
standard and that the availability of effective and reasonable means to 
control these hazards has been demonstrated. The criteria that have 
been developed for setting OSHA priorities support the Agency's 
determination that action is needed now to stop the escalating 
occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders.


Statement of Need:


OSHA estimates that the occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders in the United States ranges from more than 700,000 lost 
workday injuries and illnesses (30% of all lost workdays reported to 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)) to more than 2.7 million annually 
awarded workers' compensation claims. These disorders now account for 
one out of every three dollars spent on workers' compensation. It is 
estimated that employers spend $20 billion a year on direct costs for 
workers' compensation, and up to five times that much for indirect 
costs, such as those associated with hiring and training replacement 
workers. In addition to these monetary effects, these disorders often 
impose a substantial personal toll on workers who experience their 
effects, and as a result are no longer able to work or to perform 
simple personal tasks like buttoning their clothes or brushing their 
hair.
Scientific evidence associates these disorders with stresses to various 
body parts caused by the way certain tasks are performed. The 
positioning of the body and the type of physical work that must be done 
to complete the tasks of a job may cause persistent pain and lead over 
time to deterioration of the affected joints, tissues, and muscles. The 
longer time the worker must maintain a fixed or awkward posture, exert 
force, repeat the same movements, experience vibration, or handle heavy 
items, the greater the chance that such a disorder will occur. These 
job-related stresses are referred to as ``workplace risk factors,'' and 
the scientific literature demonstrates that exposure to these risk 
factors, particularly in combination with each other, significantly 
increases an employee's risk of developing a work-related 
musculoskeletal disorder. Jobs involving exposure to workplace risk 
factors appear in all types of industries and in all sizes of 
facilities. Musculoskeletal disorders occur in all parts of the body--
the upper extremity, the lower extremity, and the back.
The evidence OSHA has assembled and analyzed indicates that there are 
technologically and economically feasible measures available that can 
significantly reduce exposures to workplace risk factors and the risk 
of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many companies 
that have voluntarily implemented ergonomics programs have demonstrated 
that effective ergonomic interventions are available and implementation 
of them is beneficial to the employer and the employee. Many of these 
interventions are simple and inexpensive, but nevertheless have a 
significant effect on the occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders. Substantial savings in workers' compensation costs, 
increased productivity, and decreased turnover are among the benefits 
found.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered many different regulatory alternatives since 
initiating the rulemaking process. These include variations in the 
scope of coverage, particularly with regard to industrial sectors; 
various phasing options related to the size of facility; and 
limitations to the types of disorders to be covered by the proposed 
rule. In particular, OSHA is examining scope options that would narrow 
or focus coverage to a similar percentage of the population at risk. 
The Agency is also looking at different ways to addres the issue, such 
as having a program-oriented approach rather than focusing on the 
process for identifying and controlling hazards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Implementation costs associated with a regulatory approach would 
include those related to identifying and correcting problem jobs using 
engineering and administrative controls. Benefits expected include 
reduced pain and suffering, both from prevented disorders as well as 
reduced severity in those disorders that do occur, fewer workers' 
compensation claims and lower associated costs, and reduced lost work 
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 any proposed standard published in 
the Federal Register.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

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


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB36
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
79. COMPREHENSIVE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS
Priority:


Economically Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


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:


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many of the 
States, members of the safety and health community, insurance 
companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the 
Agency's Voluntary Protection Program, and many proactive employers in 
all industries have recognized the value of worksite-specific safety 
and health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities. The effectiveness of these programs is seen most 
dramatically in the reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, 
workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers 
implement such programs. To assist employers in establishing safety and 
health programs, OSHA in 1989 (54 FR 3904) published nonmandatory 
guidelines that were based on a distillation of the best safety and 
health management practices observed by OSHA in the years since the 
Agency was established. OSHA's decision to expand on these guidelines 
by developing a safety and health programs rule is based on the 
Agency's recognition that occupational injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate. In 
fact, in the most recent year for which data are available--1993--
fatalities rose by 1.7 percent over 1992, and injuries and illnesses 
continued at approximately the same rate as in the past.
Although the precise scope of the standard (e.g., what industries will 
be covered, what sizes of firms will be covered) has not yet been 
determined, the safety and health programs contained in the proposed 
rule will include at least the following elements: management 
leadership of the program; active employee participation in the 
program; analysis of the worksite to identify safety and health hazards 
of all types; requirements that employers eliminate or control those 
hazards in an effective and timely way; safety and health training for 
employees, supervisors, and managers; and regular evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the safety and health program. In addition, in 
response to preliminary meetings with OSHA stakeholders, the Agency has 
decided to incorporate several program elements into this rule that 
were under consideration for separate rulemaking action. These elements 
include exposure assessment and medical surveillance for workers 
exposed to chemical hazards in their places of work. In the last 
Regulatory Plan (see 59 FR 57138, November 14, 1994), for example, OSHA 
presented separate entries for a proposed rule addressing Exposure 
Assessment Programs for Employees Exposed to Hazardous Chemicals and 
for a proposed rule on Medical Surveillance Programs for Employees. At 
the present time, however, OSHA intends to address exposure assessment 
as part of the worksite analysis that will be required of employers by 
the proposed safety and health programs rule and to obtain additional 
input from stakeholders about the need for a medical surveillance 
module in this rulemaking. OSHA has also decided, in response to 
President Clinton's April 24, 1995, Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, 
to undertake a general consolidation of duplicative elements across 
current standards. For example, OSHA plans to consolidate hundreds of 
training and records maintenance provisions, that are currently found 
throughout OSHA's general industry, construction, and maritime 
standards, into the proposed safety and health programs rule. This 
means that, once the programs rule has been promulgated, all of the 
Agency's procedural requirements for training and records maintenance 
(e.g., who must be trained, how often training must be conducted, how 
long training records must be kept) will be found in one place--in the 
programs rule--rather than in hundreds of individual standards, as is 
current practice. In keeping with the President's directive, this 
regulatory consolidation will eliminate duplicative paperwork, make 
compliance easier for employers, and standardize the procedural aspects 
of training and records maintenance. OSHA is also developing a program 
evaluation directive and a program evaluation profile to be used by 
compliance officers to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of 
an employer's safety and health program. Those employers who can 
demonstrate effective and comprehensive programs will receive penalty 
reductions for any cited violations found by the compliance officer. 
OSHA believes that the effect of these enforcement initiatives, coupled 
with the regulatory requirements of the safety and health programs 
rule, will act as incentives to employers to establish safety and 
health programs that protect workers, enhance productivity, and 
decrease employer costs.


Statement of Need:


Worksite-specific safety and health programs are increasingly being 
recognized as the most effective way of reducing job-related accidents, 
injuries, and illnesses. Ten States have to date passed legislation 
and/or regulations mandating such programs for some or all employers, 
and insurance companies have also been encouraging their client 
companies to implement these programs, because the results they have 
achieved have been so dramatic. In addition, all of the companies in 
OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program have established such programs and 
are reporting injury and illness rates that are sometimes only 20 
percent of the average for other establishments in their industry. 
Safety and health programs apparently achieve these results by actively 
engaging front-line employees, who are closest to operations in the 
workplace and have the highest stake in preventing job-related 
accidents, in the process of identifying and correcting occupational 
hazards. Finding and fixing workplace hazards is a cost-effective 
process, both in terms of the avoidance of pain and suffering and the 
prevention of the expenditure of large sums of money to pay for the 
direct and indirect costs of these injuries and illnesses. For example, 
many employers report that these programs return between $5 and $9 for 
every dollar invested in the program, and almost all employers with 
such programs experience substantial reductions in their workers' 
compensation premiums. OSHA believes that having employers evaluate the 
job-related safety and health hazards in their workplace and address 
any hazards identified before they cause occupational injuries, 
illnesses, or deaths is an excellent example of ``regulating smarter,'' 
because all parties will benefit: workers will avoid the injuries and 
illnesses they are currently experiencing; employers will save 
substantial sums of money and increase their productivity and 
competitiveness; and OSHA's scarce resources will be leveraged as 
employers and employees join together to identify, correct, and prevent 
job-related safety and health hazards.


Alternatives:


In the last few years, OSHA has considered both nonregulatory and 
regulatory alternatives in the area of safety and health program 
management. First, OSHA published, in 1989, a set of voluntary 
management guidelines designed to assist employers to establish and 
maintain programs such as the one envisioned by the proposed safety and 
health programs rule. Although these guidelines have received 
widespread praise from many employers and professional safety and 
health associations, they have not been effective in stemming the 
growing tide of job-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses, which have 
continued to occur at unacceptably high levels. Many of the States have 
also recognized the value of these programs and have mandated that some 
or all covered employers establish them; however, this has led to 
inconsistent coverage from State-to-State, with many States having no 
coverage and others imposing stringent program requirements. OSHA 
believes that this experience clearly points to the need for a national 
regulation that will be consistent across State lines, will apply to 
all or to a clearly identified group of employers, will have provisions 
that are widely recognized as being effective, and will be cost-
effective in implementation.


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:


Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to 
experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, 
injuries, and illnesses. In 1993, the latest year for which statistics 
are available, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 5,590 
fatalities and 6.7 million injuries and illnesses occurred within 
private industry. There is increasing evidence that addressing hazards 
in a piecemeal fashion, as employers tend to do in the absence of a 
comprehensive safety and health program, is considerably less effective 
in reducing accidents than a systematic approach. Dramatic evidence of 
the seriousness of this problem can be found in the staggering workers' 
compensation bill paid by America's employers and employees: $54 
billion annually. These risks can be reduced by the implementation of 
safety and health programs, as evidenced by the experience of OSHA's 
Voluntary Protection Program participants, who regularly achieve injury 
and illness rates averaging one-fifth to one-third those of competing 
firms in their industries. Other benefits of reducing accidents include 
enhanced productivity, improved employee morale, and reduced 
absenteeism. Because these programs address all job-related hazards--
including those that are covered by OSHA standards as well as those not 
currently addressed by these standards--the proposed rule will be 
effective in ensuring a systematic approach to the control of long-
recognized hazards, such as lead, and emerging hazards, such as lasers 
and heat stress.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Thomas H. Seymour
Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AB41
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
80. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On August 25, 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(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 TB 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 TB 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 
the biological hazard of bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B) 
under 29 CFR 1910.1030 and believes that development of a TB standard 
is consistent with the Agency's mission and previous activity.
OSHA is currently pursuing a dialog with parties outside of the Agency 
with regard to the developing proposal. The draft preliminary Risk 
Assessment is being peer-reviewed by four individuals with specific 
knowledge in the areas of tuberculosis and risk assessment. One 
reviewer is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
and three are from academia. In addition, OSHA is conducting 
stakeholder meetings with representatives of relevant professional 
organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and other groups. 
These meetings provide the opportunity for both general and frontline 
stakeholder representatives to present OSHA with their individual 
comments, observations, and concerns about the contents of the draft 
proposal. OSHA is also remaining cognizant of the activities of other 
Federal agencies relative to TB. In October of 994, CDC published 
revised guidelines for protection against transmission of TB. 
Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
published new respirator certification procedures in June 1995. OSHA 
will give careful consideration to these documents during development 
of the proposed standard.


Statement of Need:


For centuries, TB has been responsible for the deaths of millions of 
people throughout the world. TB is a contagious disease caused by the 
bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infection is generally acquired 
by the inhalation of airborne particles carrying the bacterium. These 
airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, can be generated when 
persons with pulmonary or laryngeal tuberculosis in the infectious 
state of the disease cough, sneeze, speak, or sing. In some individuals 
exposed to droplet nuclei, TB bacilli enter the alveoli and establish 
an infection. In most cases, the bacilli are contained by the 
individual's immune response. However, in some cases, the bacilli are 
not contained by the immune system and continue to grow and invade the 
tissue, leading to the progressive destruction of the organ involved. 
While in most cases this organ is the lung (i.e., pulmonary 
tuberculosis), other organs outside of the lung may also be infected 
and become diseased (i.e., extrapulmonary tuberculosis).
From 1953, when active cases began to be reported in the United States, 
until 1984, the number of annual reported cases declined 74 percent, 
from 84,304 to 22,255. However, this steady decline in TB cases has not 
continued. Instead, from 1985 through 1992, the number of reported TB 
cases increased 20.1 percent. In 1992, more than 26,000 new cases of 
active TB were reported in the United States. In New York City alone, 
3,700 cases of active TB were reported in 1991. Although a 5.1 percent 
decrease was observed in 1993, this number still represents a 14 
percent increase over the number of cases reported in 1985. In addition 
to the resurgence of TB, strains of tuberculosis have emerged that are 
resistant to several of the first-line anti-TB drugs. This multidrug-
resistant TB (MDR-TB) has a higher probability of being fatal due to 
the difficulty of halting the progression of the disease. Individuals 
with MDR-TB often remain infectious for longer periods of time due to 
delays in diagnosing resistance patterns and initiating proper 
treatment. This lengthened period of infectiousness increases the risk 
that the organism will be transmitted to other persons coming in 
contact with such individuals.
As the number of individuals with tuberculosis who require health care 
for the disease increases, so does occupational exposure to TB among 
health care workers. In fact, several outbreaks of tuberculosis, 
including MDR-TB, have recently occurred in health care facilities, 
resulting in transmission to both patients and health care workers. CDC 
found that factors contributing to these outbreaks included delayed 
diagnosis of TB, delayed recognition of drug resistance, delayed 
initiation of effective therapy, delayed initiation and inadequate 
duration of TB isolation, inadequate ventilation in TB isolation rooms, 
lapses in TB isolation practices, inadequate precautions for cough-
inducing procedures, and lack of adequate respiratory protection. CDC's 
analysis of data collected from three of the health care facilities 
involved in the outbreaks indicated that transmission of TB decreased 
significantly or ceased entirely in areas where recommended TB control 
measures were implemented.


Alternatives:


Before deciding to publish a proposal, OSHA considered a number of 
options, including whether or not to develop an emergency temporary 
standard, publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or 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 TB 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:


Since 1985, the number of reported cases of TB in the United States 
increased, reversing a previous 30-year downward trend. In addition to 
the resurgence of TB, strains of multidrug-resistant TB have emerged 
which are even more likely to be fatal. Along with the increase of TB 
among the general population is an increased risk of occupational 
transmission to employees in work settings such as health care or 
correctional facilities who have contact with infectious individuals. 
TB is a contagious disease spread by airborne particles known as 
droplet nuclei. Active disease can cause signs and symptoms such as 
fatigue, weight loss, fever, night sweats, loss of appetite, persistent 
cough, and shortness of breath, and may possibly result in serious 
respiratory illness or death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
81.  ELIMINATING AND IMPROVING REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
eliminate existing text in the CFR.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1901; 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928; 29 CFR 1950; 29 
CFR 1951


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA has made a continuing effort to eliminate confusing, outdated, and 
duplicative regulations. In 1978 and again in 1984, the Agency 
conducted comprehensive revocation and revision projects that resulted 
in the elimination of hundreds of unnecessary rules. In response to the 
President's Memorandum of March 4, 1995, and the April 24, 1995, 
Presidential Directive, the Agency is again renewing its effort to 
eliminate unnecessary regulations and improve others. Following a page-
by-page review of regulations that was required as part of the 
President's April 24, 1995 regulatory reform initiative, OSHA developed 
a list of standards it proposes to revoke or revise. These standards 
were deemed to be out of date, duplicative, inconsistent with other 
OSHA standards, or preempted by the regulations of other Federal 
agencies. Administrative changes will also be addressed in this 
rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is part of OSHA's response to the President's 
Regulatory Reform Initiative, as embodied in the Department of Labor's 
report of June 15, 1995. In carrying out OSHA's responsibilities under 
the Presidential directive, and as part of OSHA's reinvention efforts, 
the Agency is reworking many health and safety standards, particularly 
those that were first adopted by OSHA in 1971, into standards that are 
more understandable to employers and employees, are flexible in their 
means of compliance, and are founded in common-sense approaches to 
preventing or controlling workplace safety and health hazards. This 
standards project is a key part of the Agency's initial effort to meet 
this objective.
Workplace safety and health standards should be both protective of 
workers and user-friendly for employers and employees. If OSHA 
standards are duplicative, employers have more difficulty in achieving 
compliance. For example, rubber insulating equipment requirements in 29 
CFR 1910.268(f) should be revoked, because these same requirements 
appear in a more up-to-date form in 29 CFR 1910.137. Similarly, 
information given in respirator fit test procedures contained in 29 CFR 
1910.1000 is repeated in a number of other locations in OSHA health 
standards and could be eliminated by the addition of a cross reference 
to a single source.
In addition, any OSHA standards that are out of date as a result of 
industry changes in the use of materials or equipment should be revised 
to accommodate these changes. For example, only approved metal safety 
cans can be used for the storage and handling of flammable and 
combustible liquids in the construction industry, as required in 29 CFR 
1926.152(a)(1). Since plastic cans are now also approved and acceptable 
for this purpose, the OSHA standard should be revised to allow this 
industry to use such equipment if desired.
OSHA standards that are preempted by similar standards enforced by 
other Federal agencies (as specified in Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act) 
should also be removed from OSHA's regulations. For example, the 
capacity limits for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders addressed 
in 29 CFR 1910.110(e)(10) are preempted by regulations enforced by the 
Department of Transportation for the same equipment. The inclusion of 
such standards in OSHA regulations unnecessarily increases the burden 
on employers trying to understand and comply with applicable standards.
There are also some OSHA standards that conflict with the rules of 
other Federal agencies. For example, OSHA requires empty boxes that 
previously contained high explosives that are being disposed of to be 
burned (29 CFR 1910.109(e)(2)), although some employers have been 
prohibited from burning these boxes by local air pollution 
requirements. OSHA will be revising these standards to allow 
flexibility and common-sense alternative methods and procedures.
Administrative actions will also be proposed in this rulemaking to 
reduce employer burden. These actions include the elimination of 
obsolete standards that address such matters as effective dates and 
sources of standards.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered issuing de minimis citations for noncompliance with 
many of the duplicative, outdated, or confusing standards that would be 
addressed in this notice. Such enforcement actions, however, do not 
eliminate the continuing problem for employers who must attempt to 
identify the standards that apply to their worksites. OSHA believes 
that the selective elimination of unnecessary standards and the 
revision and updating of others is the most satisfactory approach to 
resolving this problem.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


No additional costs are anticipated for employers. Employers should 
benefit from this action because it will enhance their ability to 
comply with OSHA standards that are more user-friendly.


Risks:



Employee protection is likely to be enhanced to some extent by this 
action, which will clarify and update regulatory requirements.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Thomas H. Seymour
Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AB53
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
82.  PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655 (b)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic 
air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. These PELs set OSHA-
enforceable limits on the magnitude and duration of employee exposure 
to each contaminant. The amount of exposure permitted by a given PEL 
depends on the toxicity and other characteristics of the particular 
substance. OSHA's PELs for air contaminants are codified in 29 CFR 
1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3. The air contaminant limits were 
adopted by OSHA in 1971 from existing national consensus standards 
issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
and the American National Standards Institute. These PELs, which have 
not been updated since 1971, thus reflect the results of research 
conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, much new information has 
become available that indicates that, in most cases, these early limits 
are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct 
this situation, OSHA published a proposal in 1988 updating the air 
contaminant limits in general industry. That proposal became a final 
rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PEL for 212 toxic 
air contaminants and established PELs for 164 previously unregulated 
air contaminants. On June 12, 1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA proposed a rule 
that would have extended these limits to workplaces in the 
construction, maritime, and agriculture industries. However, on July 
10, 1992, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 1989 final 
rule on the grounds that ``(1) OSHA failed to establish that existing 
exposure limits in the workplace presented significant risk of material 
health impairment or that new standards eliminated or substantially 
lessened the risk; (2) OSHA did not meet its burden of establishing 
that its 428 new permissible exposure limits (PELs) were either 
economically or technologically feasible.'' The Court's decision to 
vacate the rule forced the Agency to return to the earlier, 
insufficiently protective limits.
OSHA continues to believe that establishing a rulemaking approach that 
will permit the Agency to update existing air contaminant limits and 
establish new ones as toxicological evidence of the need to do so 
becomes available is a high priority. The rulemaking described in this 
Regulatory Plan entry reflects OSHA's intention to move forward with 
this process. In determining how to proceed, OSHA is being guided by 
the OSH Act and the Eleventh District Court decision regarding the 
extent of the risk and feasibility analyses required to support revised 
and new air contaminant limits. OSHA is planning to propose new PELs 
for a smaller number of substances (substantially fewer than in the 
1989 rulemaking) by July of 1996. The Agency will rely on a risk-based 
prioritization system to identify those air contaminants that present 
significant risks to exposed employees and for which technologically 
and economically feasible controls exist. State-of-the-art risk 
assessment methodologies will be utilized for both carcinogens and 
noncarcinogens, and the determinations of feasibility contained in the 
economic analysis accompanying the proposal will be extensive. The 
specific hazards associated with the air contaminants to be regulated 
will depend on the particular contaminants selected for rulemaking. 
Using priority planning criteria, such as the severity of the health 
effect, either acute or chronic, and the number of exposed workers, 
will ensure that significant risks are addressed and that workers will 
experience substantial benefits in the form of enhanced health and 
safety. Publication of the proposal will allow OSHA to institutionalize 
a mechanism for updating and extending its air contaminant limits, 
which will, at the same time, provide added protection to many workers 
who are currently being overexposed to toxic substances in the 
workplace.


Statement of Need:


OSHA's current Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 contain approximately 470 PELs 
for various forms (e.g., dust, fumes, vapors) of the regulated 
contaminants, many of which are widely used in industrial settings. 
These PELs, which were adopted wholesale by OSHA in 1971 and have not 
been revised since then, are in many cases seriously unprotective of 
worker health. In addition, new chemicals are constantly being 
introduced into the working environment, and exposure to these 
substances can result in both acute and chronic health effects, with 
chronic effects being the more frequent and serious. Acute effects 
include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular 
damage; chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, 
liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, 
and cancer. For these reasons, it is a high OSHA priority to establish 
an ongoing regular process that will allow OSHA routinely to update 
existing PELs and establish limits for previously unregulated 
substances. The first step in achieving this goal is to publish an air 
contaminants proposal for a limited number of substances that will 
establish streamlined but scientifically sound and defensible 
procedures for conducting risk assessments and performing feasibility 
analyses that will permit regular updating and review of permissible 
exposure limits for air contaminants. The ability to lower existing 
limits and establish limits for new contaminants is an essential 
component of OSHA's mandate to protect the health and functional well-
being of America's workers.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered a variety of nonregulatory approaches to address 
the problem of the Agency's outdated exposure limits for air 
contaminants. These include the issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, 
enforcing lower limits through the ``general duty'' cause of the OSH 
Act in cases where substantial evidence exists that exposure presents a 
recognized hazard of serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard 
alerts. OSHA believes, however, that the problem of overexposure to 
hazardous air contaminants is so widespread, and the Agency's current 
limits are so out of date, that only a regulatory approach will achieve 
the necessary level of protection. The regulatory approach also has 
advantages for employers, because it gives them the information they 
need to establish appropriate control strategies to protect their 
workers and reduce the costs of job-related illnesses. This first phase 
of an ongoing air contaminants updating and revision process thus will 
begin to resolve a problem of long-standing and major occupational 
health import.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development, and thus 
quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined 
at this time. Implementation costs associated with the proposed 
standard include primarily those related to identifying and correcting 
over-exposures using engineering controls and work practices. 
Additional costs may be incurred for the implementation of 
administrative controls and the purchase and use of personal protective 
equipment. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem of occupational 
illnesses, both acute and chronic, vary considerably. In 1989, OSHA 
concluded that its Air Contaminants rule in general industry, which 
lowered 212 exposure limits and added 164 where none had previously 
existed, would result in a reduction of approximately 55,000 illnesses 
and over 23,300 lost-workday illnesses annually. Chronic effects 
include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, 
reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. Acute effects 
include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular 
effects.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
83.  REVISION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 
6(A) OF THE WILLIAMS-STEIGER OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 533


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.106; 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.108; 29 CFR 1910.94(c); 
29 CFR 1910.94(d); 29 CFR 1911


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its 
initial package of workplace safety and health standards from various 
nationally recognized consensus standards and from standards that had 
already been promulgated by other Federal agencies. These standards 
reflected technologies that were current at the time the Williams-
Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) became 
law. Section 6(a) of the Act permitted OSHA to adopt significant 
nationally recognized consensus standards, developed by groups such as 
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI), and existing Federal standards for 
use as OSHA standards without public participation or public comment. 
OSHA refers to the standards it adopted under section 6(a) of the Act 
as ``6(a) standards.'' Since their adoption, many of these 6(a) 
standards have been identified by the regulated community as being 
overly complex, difficult to read and follow, and out of date with 
current technology.
This project is part of a Presidential initiative to respond to the 
general criticism concerning the complexity and obsolescence of certain 
Federal regulations. OSHA believes that some of the Agency's section 
6(a) standards in subpart H of part H of part 1910 meet the criteria 
for critical review set forth in the Presidential initiative. OSHA has 
identified three standards from subpart H that need to be revised and 
updated to eliminate their complexity and obsolescence. These standards 
include 29 CFR 1910.106, Flammable and Combustible Liquids; 29 CFR 
1910.107, Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials; 
and 29 CFR 1910.108, Dip Tanks Containing Flammable or Combustible 
Materials.
With this project, OSHA is initiating three separate rulemakings that 
will revise and update three of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date 
section 6(a) standards. These specific sections address flammable and 
combustible liquid storage, handling, and use; spray finishing using 
flammable and combustible liquids; and dip tanks containing flammable 
and combustible liquids. The regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.106, 
1910.107, and 1910.108 have long been criticized by labor, management, 
and government for their complexity, duplicative nature, and 
obsolescence. 29 CFR 1910.106 contains outdated and duplicative 
standards as well. 29 CFR 1910.107 and 1910.108 also contain 
substantive ventilation requirements that are duplicative with 
ventilation requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.104, paragraphs (c) 
and (d).
OSHA intends to issue three separate proposals individually addressing 
29 CFR 1910.106; 29 CFR 1910.107 and 1910.94(c); and 29 CFR 1910.108 
and 1910.94(d). The purpose of these rulemakings will be to solicit 
public participation in the revision and updating of these standards to 
current levels of technology. It is also the purpose of the rulemakings 
to eliminate the complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence of 
the current existing standards and to write them in ``plain language,'' 
as directed by the President's report.


Statement of Need:


These three OSHA safety standards are being revised and updated as part 
of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the 
U.S. Department of Labor report of June 15, 1995. The Department of 
Labor report was issued in response to the President's Regulatory 
Reform Initiative dated April 24, 1995.
Fire hazards in the workplace associated with exposure to flammable and 
combustible liquids create a variety of safety and health problems, 
including thermal burns, chemical burns, smoke inhalation, respiratory 
inflammations, nausea, dizziness, other serious physical injuries and 
death. Overexposure to vapors, fumes, and mists created during spray 
applications or dipping processes involving flammable or combustible 
liquids create 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.
Fires and explosions continue to occur frequently in the industrial 
environment. Such fires, which are often catastrophic, are often caused 
by improper storage, handling and use of flammable and combustible 
liquids, including improper or inadequate ventilation of their vapors, 
fumes, or mists. Control of the fire and health hazards that employees 
are exposed to during operations involving flammable and combustible 
liquids requires adequate fire control and ventilation procedures. 
These procedures can protect employees from the adverse physical safety 
or health effects resulting from exposure to flammable and combustible 
liquids and their vapor, fumes, or mists.
Employees are also exposed to significant health hazards when they work 
around spray finishing operations or dip tank operations that use 
nonflammable or noncombustible liquids. Many employers will use such 
nonflammable or noncombustible liquids in spray finishing or dipping 
operations to eliminate fire or explosion hazards. However, some 
chemicals, such as perchlorethylene, create significant health hazards 
to employees when used by spray finishing and dip tank operations. 
Health problems such as respiratory infections, nausea, dizziness, 
respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, decreases in 
pulmonary function, other serious illnesses, and death may occur if 
employee exposure to toxic, nonflammable or toxic noncombustible 
liquids are not controlled.
When 29 CFR 1910.94(c), 1910.94(d), 1910-106, 1910.107, and 1910.108 
were promulgated, many of the protective technologies and work 
practices recognized today in industries using flammable and 
combustible liquids did not exist. Advances in fire prevention 
strategies and equipment and in ventilation techniques and equipment 
necessitate the updating of these OSHA standards. Revising and updating 
these sections of Subpart H to recognize these new technologies and 
work practices will improve the occupational safety and health of 
employees by introducing new fire control and ventilation techniques 
into the workplace. The revision of these standards will also make them 
consistent with current nationally recognized consensus standards 
adopted by various authorities having jurisdiction over fire safety and 
health hazards. A consistent set of standards will make compliance with 
these rules easier for the regulated populations of employees and 
employers.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered several alternative approaches to controlling these 
hazards, including issuing guidelines, using the ``general duty 
clause'' of the OSHA Act to cite serious and unsafe work practices not 
regulated by the existing standards, issuing hazard alerts, issuing 
program directives, and revising and updating the current OSHA 
standards to reflect the updated national concensus standards. OSHA 
believes that, in this case, revising and updating these standards is 
the most appropriate way to proceed. It is the only approach that will 
assure public participation in the updating and revision of outdated, 
complex, and obsolete rules. It will also assure that employers will 
provide the most recent technologies to protect their employees from 
fire and explosion hazards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The benefits and costs associated with these revisions are undetermined 
at this time; however, OSHA anticipates that cost savings and increased 
benefits will be associated with these actions due to the use of newer 
technologies, equipment, and procedures to reduce employee injuries and 
fatalities in the workplace.


Risks:


Physicial injuries and fatalities caused by thermal burns, chemical 
burns, smoke inhalation and traumatic injuries are common among 
employees exposed to fire or explosion hazards in the workplace. In 
addition, overexposure to vapors, fumes, and mists created during spray 
applications or dipping processes involving flammable or combustible 
liquids can create 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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


ADDITIONAL INFO: Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.106, 
Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 
1910.107, Dip Tanks Containing Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 
CFR 1010.108 are three standards selected for revision and updating 
under a Presidential Initiative to revise and update outdated, 
duplicative, or obsolete federal regulations. These standards were 
adopted under section 6(a) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970. 29 CFR 1910.106 will be revised and updated to 
be consisted with the current National Fire Protection Association 
source standard. It will also be formatted to make it easier to read. 
29 CFR 1910.94(d) will be combined with 29 CFR 1910.108 to eliminate 
duplicative standards.


Agency Contact:
Thomas H. Seymour
Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
Fax: 202 219-7477
RIN: 1218-AB55
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

84. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (PART 
1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS, AND FALLS PREVENTION)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


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 and working surfaces and personal fall protection 
systems will be issued concurrently as a final rule. The Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) existing standards for 
walking and working surfaces need to be revised because they are out of 
date and limit technological innovation in the means employers can use 
to comply. The final rule is performance-oriented, written in plain 
language, and flexible in the means of compliance permitted. In 
addition, OSHA's existing standards do not contain criteria for 
personal fall protection systems. Consequently, requirements containing 
criteria for such systems will 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 existing standards for walking/working surfaces were originally 
adopted in 1971 under Section 6(a) rulemaking procedures. These 
standards are now out of date, restrict technological innovation, and 
contain gaps in coverage. Currently, there are also no standards for 
personal fall protection systems that cover all general industry 
applications. This rulemaking action will thus revise and update OSHA's 
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 revised rules will be written in plain English so that 
they will be easier for employers and employees to understand.
The new standard will use a performance-oriented approach to permit 
flexibility in the means of compliance and to encourage innovation. New 
criteria for personal fall protection systems will be added to allow 
these systems to be used as additional alternatives to provide fall 
protection and to ensure 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, both 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 standard will reduce risks to workers by providing clearer, up-
to-date requirements to minimize fall hazards. The standard will also 
cover new areas of fall protection such as special surfaces and manhole 
steps, and the use of qualified climbers. The new standard will also 
recognize personal fall protection systems as an acceptable option for 
fall protection, as well as provide the criteria to ensure that such 
systems will safely stop a worker's fall.


Alternatives:


The following alternatives were considered for analysis:
1. Retaining the existing regulation unchanged. A number of the 
existing requirements are specification-oriented provisions that in 
some situations are inappropriate, unnecessarily costly, and 
inflexible. For example, the existing standard mandates guardrails for 
most roof perimeters and requires that fixed ladders on most towers and 
other structures be fitted with cages or ladder safety devices; but in 
some limited circumstances, such requirements are unnecessarily 
restrictive. Also, personal fall protection systems, which are suited 
to many difficult fall protection situations, are not permitted under 
the existing rule.
2. Issuing the final rule without an exemption for qualified climbers. 
This option would require that all fixed ladders over 24 feet in height 
utilize cages or ladder-safety devices. Under this option, the benefits 
of the standard would be about the same as they are for the version 
reflected in the final rule, but the first-year capital cost of 
compliance would be increased by more than a factor of eleven.
3. Issuing the revised final rule as a final standard, including the 
exemption for qualified climbers, requirements for fall protection 
systems, and other flexible provisions for such protective devices as 
guardrails. OSHA believes that this alternative will result in the 
greatest amount of employee protection at the least cost to employers 
of all the alternatives considered.


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 OSHA general-
industry standards are affected by the standards for walking and 
working surfaces. These standards cover about 84 million workers. 
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.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
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 death due to over-the-road motor 
vehicle accidents. Falls are also 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. OSHA's 
preliminary regulatory impact analysis estimated that as many as 
105,000 disabling injuries and 132 fatalities that occur annually are 
potentially preventable by compliance with the revised final rule.
A number of special studies have also been conducted 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 ladder-related 
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 these injury incidents. 
Furthermore, in nearly 60 percent of the incidents, employees were 
carrying something in their hands at the time of the incident. The 
final standard 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 at the time of the accident, and 55 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                                                   04/00/96
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 H. Seymour
Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3605, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
RIN: 1218-AB04
BILLING CODE 4510-23-F