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

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 231 / Friday, November 29, 1996 / The
                            Regulatory Plan

[[Page 62083]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Labor's mission is to protect and promote the well-
being of workers and retirees as well as those who are seeking new or 
better jobs. The 180 labor laws the Department is charged with 
administering form a framework that defines what the Department of 
Labor (DOL) must do to carry out its mission. This framework is further 
delineated by the implementing regulations issued by the Department. In 
carrying out its mission, DOL has an impact on many of the most 
important aspects of workers' lives--their health and safety; their 
right to a workplace without discrimination; their ability to take job-
protected time off to care for family members in times of family or 
medical crisis; and their desire for job-training so they can meet the 
challenges of a changing economy. Also of great importance to workers 
are the Department's efforts to protect workers' rights to unemployment 
insurance and to provide job market information should they lose their 
jobs; to secure workers' overtime pay when they work long hours; to 
assure their right to a minimum wage; and to guard their hard-earned 
pensions and benefits.
Not only is the Department's mission broad, but its coverage is vast 
and its constituency varied. Over 130 million current and former 
employees, and millions of first-time job applicants and retirees, come 
under the provisions of one or more of the laws and regulations 
administered by the Department. These workers are a very diverse 
group--they range from an 18-year-old cashier in need of job training 
to a 40-year-old laid-off engineer in need of job market information--
and from a 25-year-old seamstress who wants her overtime pay to a 65-
year-old janitor who wants to be sure his retirement pay is safe. In 
addition, these workers perform their jobs in almost 7 million 
establishments across the country. These workplaces range from small 
retail stores to large international software corporations--from local 
weekly newspapers to tractor assembly lines--and from small county 
libraries to large interstate construction companies. Faced with the 
enormous size, diversity and complexity of workers' and employers' 
needs and circumstances, the Department has begun to find new and 
better ways to administer and enforce labor laws--it is traveling along 
a new road, under new rules, with new partners.
As the Department began its journey down this road, it established new 
guiding principles for the development of its rules. First, new rules 
must be both effective and must minimize any burdens on the regulated 
community. In doing so, DOL recognized that new and different 
regulatory approaches may need to be considered. In fact, in some 
cases, different regulatory approaches may be used to solve the same 
problem to allow for the diversity in DOL's constituencies. Second, the 
rules must be easily understood, sensible and consistent, and they must 
be reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure that they continue to be 
effective and are up-to-date. And third, the Department's 
constituencies--workers, employers, labor unions, associations, 
educational institutions, and State and local governments--must not 
only be partners in this journey but must participate in writing the 
new rules.
This regulatory plan is a reflection of the Department's commitment to 
these principles, which will help DOL better fulfill its mission to 
protect and promote the well-being of workers, job applicants, and 
retirees. The Department will use these principles in promulgating new 
regulations or in revising old ones. When writing or revising rules, 
DOL will explore new approaches that achieve our regulatory goals at 
lower costs and with greater flexibility for the regulated community; 
it will produce consistent and easy-to-understand rules; and it will 
make sure that those who are protected by the new rules or must abide 
by them have participated in the rulemaking process and that they have 
been provided timely, user-friendly compliance assistance materials.
DOL's 1996 regulatory plan highlights the Department's 23 most 
important significant regulations from five of our major regulatory 
agencies: Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration 
(PWBA) and Employment and Training Administration (ETA). 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 
commitment to our regulatory principles, these proposals will be 
designed in conjunction with our partners so that they are effective, 
consistent, sensible, and understandable.
Regulatory Priorities
DOL has always recognized that, over time, changes in the workplace 
such as new business practices, improved or safer technologies, or new 
hazards may render existing rules ineffective or demand the creation of 
new ones. The following are the DOL agencies' responses to the most 
important of these workplace changes.
ESA's Wage and Hour Division is responsible for implementing and 
enforcing several statutes establishing minimum labor standards that 
protect the Nation's work force, including 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 requirements for payment 
of minimum wages and overtime pay, protections for working youth under 
child labor standards, job protections for employees who take leave for 
certain family or medical reasons, and 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 affect over 100 million 
employees in the work force. When developing regulatory proposals, the 
Division's focus is on assuring fair, safe and healthful workplaces for 
the Nation's workers, while at the same time minimizing burdens on 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 continuing its 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 
clarifying 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 defining the circumstances in 
which ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and assisted 
construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.
ESA's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is charged 
with enforcing the requirements of Executive Order 11246, selected 
provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans'

[[Page 62084]]

Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), and section 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Regulations issued under the Executive 
order and the two Acts cover nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
obligations for Federal contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP's 
regulatory plan entry, the proposed amendments to regulations 
implementing Executive Order 11246, will streamline and clarify the 
regulatory language and reduce paperwork requirements of covered 
Federal contractors while ensuring that their obligations under the 
Executive order and the two Acts are met. The VEVRAA proposal (an 
Agenda Item) will provide parallel changes conforming the VEVRAA 
regulations to the May 1, 1996, final rule on section 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The mission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration 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 face safety and health hazards daily 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.
Four 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 standard for 
exposure to noise. The proposed noise rule would reexamine the level of 
protection provided by existing standards. Many miners are currently 
exposed to the maximum noise levels currently permitted and, as a 
result, may be suffering hearing impairments.
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 
environment that may contain methane gas. 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 diesel mechanics, and requirements for monitoring miners' exposure 
to diesel exhaust.
To complement the diesel equipment standard, MSHA intends to issue a 
separate proposed rule for diesel particulate to reduce the potential 
health hazards associated with particulate in the exhaust emitted by 
diesel-powered equipment in the mining environment.
While there have been significant reductions in levels of respirable 
coal mine dust over the years, some miners exposed to respirable coal 
mine dust at certain mine operations continue to develop coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis--''black lung''--and silicosis. In February 1996, MSHA 
convened a Federal advisory committee to take a broad look at ways to 
eliminate black lung and silicosis among coal miners. The committee is 
charged with assessing the adequacy of MSHA's current program and 
standards to control respirable dust in underground and surface coal 
mines.
In the past 2 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
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 regulatory 
approach to enable the Agency, for the first time, to establish and act 
on clear and sensible priorities; emphasize consensus-based approaches 
to rulemaking; focus on developing a basic safety and health programs 
rule; and eliminate out-of-date, confusing, or duplicative rules from 
the books. Despite the change in OSHA's methods, OSHA's mission remains 
as important as it was on the day President Nixon signed the OSH Act 
into law in 1970: Saving the lives and improving the safety and health 
of America's working men and women.
Some of OSHA's standards, particularly those adopted wholesale from 
national consensus standards in 1971, have become technologically 
obsolete, while others are written in highly detailed, specification-
driven language that limits compliance flexibility. 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 1996 
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 FY 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 will 
ensure that employers in all industries treat worker protection as a 
fundamental goal of their business and will help employers identify 
job-related hazards in the workplace, correct those so identified, and 
prevent others from occurring. 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. For the past year, OSHA has been 
engaging in a series of stakeholder meetings designed to identify ways 
of meeting the small business community's need for a strong but simple 
rule and of recognizing existing safety and health programs that are 
demonstrably effective. 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.

[[Page 62085]]

In summary, OSHA's new regulatory strategy 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. workforce.
The Pension and Welfare 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's regulatory priorities for 1997 will build on legislative efforts 
to simplify and facilitate compliance with benefit laws, improve 
pension and welfare plan coverage, and protect the benefits of American 
workers. PWBA's top regulatory priorities will implement the 
disclosure, portability, access, and renewability provisions of the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the 
portions of the pension simplification provisions of the Small Business 
Job Protection Act of 1996, for which the Department of Labor has 
responsibility.
With the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), American workers will for the first 
time be guaranteed increased portability of health care coverage 
through restrictions on preexisting condition limitations and 
protection from discrimination in health care coverage on the basis of 
health status. PWBA's most significant regulatory activities will 
include the timely and meaningful implementation of these important 
worker protections, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury 
and the Department of Health and Human Services. Related significant 
regulatory activities include PWBA's implementation of important 
statutory changes to ERISA's disclosure provisions that ensure improved 
and timely disclosure of health plan information to participants and 
beneficiaries.
Also among PWBA's top priorities, in conjunction with the Internal 
Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is the 
release for public comment of simplified annual return/report forms 
(the Form 5500 Series) for all employee benefit plans subject to 
ERISA's annual reporting requirements.
Reinvention
In accord with its regulatory principles, the Department has an on-
going effort to reinvent its regulations. DOL has already eliminated 
over 1,100 pages of out-of-date or obsolete rules in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). DOL is also well on its way to reinventing 
those rules which are difficult to enforce or understand. Almost 500 
CFR pages have been revised (as notices of proposed rulemaking or final 
rules). This regulatory plan reaffirms the Department's commitment to 
make its rules easier to understand and less burdensome while 
increasing their effectiveness.
ESA's OFCCP reinvention efforts include revisions to the Executive 
Order 11246 regulations, which will reduce paperwork burdens, eliminate 
unnecessary provisions, and simplify and clarify the regulations while 
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the contract compliance 
program. The Wage and Hour Division's child labor initiative is 
intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary overlap and duplication in 
rules, provide full opportunity for input from the regulated community, 
and ensure that regulatory standards are easily understood and have 
reasonable compliance standards consistent with the underlying statute 
they implement.
MSHA is continuing work on the noise and longwall rulemakings, two 
reinvention initiatives included in last year's regulatory plan. 
Occupationally induced hearing loss is a serious problem in the 
Nation's mining communities. MSHA estimates that almost 50,000 current 
miners are expected to incur an impairment of their hearing as a result 
of their work during their working lifetimes. MSHA will be proposing a 
rule to reinvent how mining industry resources are utilized to address 
this serious health problem. Consideration will be given to eliminating 
existing requirements that have not been proven to be effective and 
replacing them with practices that have been demonstrated to be 
effective in reducing the risk of hearing loss. Emphasis will be placed 
on performance-oriented requirements to permit mine operators the 
flexibility to address this problem in the context of varying mine 
environments. The Agency is planning to provide compliance assistance 
to mine operators, particularly small mine operators, to facilitate the 
implementation of this important new health standard.
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, MSHA has processed approximately 100 variances. 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 
remained unchanged, is another important aspect of the new OSHA's way 
of regulating. Several of the entries in this year's regulatory plan, 
including ``Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection 
Systems,'' ``Steel Erection,'' and ``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 obsolete 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 this fiscal year, one of OSHA's most dramatic regulatory 
initiatives--rewriting the Agency's detailed, specification-driven 
industry standards in plain language--will become a reality. In the 
next 12 months, OSHA intends to propose streamlined, modern versions of 
its safety rules for Access/Egress (called ``Exit Routes'' in its plain 
language version), Flammable/Combustible Liquids, Dip Tanks, and Spray 
Booths. Based on focus groups' input, stakeholder response to this 
initiative is expected to be overwhelmingly favorable, as employers and 
employees alike find that they can understand--and therefore comply 
with--the new OSHA's rules.

[[Page 62086]]

PWBA is working to simplify and improve the security of the private 
pension system through legislation and other regulatory reform efforts. 
For example, audit legislation has been proposed that will help PWBA 
detect serious problems with a plan's financial security in a timely 
manner and require that the Secretary of Labor be notified more 
promptly when there is evidence that a crime has occurred.
The Employment and Training Administration, as part of the reinvention 
effort, has undertaken a reengineering of the labor certification 
process for the permanent employment of aliens in the United States. 
The labor certification process has been criticized as being 
complicated, time-consuming, costly, and burdensome to employers. ETA's 
goals are to make changes and refinements in that process that will 
better serve customers, streamline the process, improve effectiveness, 
and save resources. The reengineering effort has been a collaborative 
undertaking of Federal and State staff who are involved in the 
administration of alien certification programs. The reengineering 
effort also has involved consultation throughout the process with 
sponsors, stakeholders, State partners, and outside interest groups to 
solicit ideas and suggestions for change.
Through these reengineering efforts, ETA has identified three major 
processes that will benefit from change: The permanent labor 
certification process; the process for determining prevailing wages; 
and the H1-B approval process. Modification of the prevailing wage 
determination process and the H1-B approval process has begun. Although 
changes are being made to the permanent labor certification process 
within the constraints of current law, major modifications must be held 
in abeyance until Congress has completed its deliberations regarding 
the need to make legislative changes to the program.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

55. 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 
occupation 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. Additionally, Congress enacted 
Public Law 104-174 (August 6, 1996), which amended FLSA Section 13(c) 
and requires changes in the regulations under Hazardous Occupation 
Order No. 12, regarding power-driven paper balers and compactors, to 
allow 16- and 17-year olds to load, but not operate or unload, machines 
meeting applicable American National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety 
standards and certain other conditions.


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

[[Page 62087]]

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                                                           12/00/96
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.
Rm S3502, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8305
RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
56. DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE TERM ``ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA 
FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY'' (ESA/W-H)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the 
private sector.


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. In 
addition, a number of court rulings have caused confusion on the 
factors to consider in meeting the regulation's ``salary basis'' 
criteria, in both the public and private sectors.


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.

[[Page 62088]]




Alternatives:


The Department will involve 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                                                           09/00/97
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
57. 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. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the 
private sector.


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. There is no such 
prohibition in the DOL's Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, 
Public Law 104-134 (April 26, 1996). Given the uncertainty of 
continuation of such moratoriums, the Department has determined that 
the helper issue needs to be addressed through further rulemaking. A 
notice inviting public comment on a proposal to continue the suspension 
of the former helper regulations while the Department conducts 
additional rulemaking proceedings was published August 2, 1996 (61 FR 
40366).


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 needs to be addressed 
through further rulemaking. No such prohibition applies under DOL's 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, PL 104-134 (April 26, 1996).


Alternatives:


The Administration has determined that there are only limited 
alternatives to addressing this issue through rulemaking, in addition 
to possible legislative changes.

[[Page 62089]]

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 Continue Su61 FR 40367                                    08/02/96
Final Continue Suspension                                      11/00/96
NPRM                                                           12/00/96
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

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

58. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: NONDISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 
OBLIGATIONS (ESA/OFCCP) (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
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; 38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act of 1974, as amended; and Section 503 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503). 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. The NPRM published 5/21/96 proposed revisions to reduce burdens 
on the regulated community and to improve the administration of the 
Executive Order. 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 DOL to effectively and efficiently 
enforce the provisions of the Executive Order. As a first step in 
updating its Executive Order regulations, the Department proposed 
changes to the provisions that govern preaward 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 evaluation of contractor procedures.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


No aspect of this action is required by statute or court order.


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 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 
increase compliance with the nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
requirements of the Executive Order and reduce compliance costs to 
Federal contractors. The Department will also be able to utilize 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 
Executive Order 11246.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           46 FR 36213                                    07/14/81
NPRM Compliance 61 FR 25516-1)                                 05/21/96
NPRM Compliance 61 FR 25516-60)                                05/21/96
FINAL Compliance Reviews (60-1)                                12/00/96
FINAL Compliance Reviews (60-60)                               12/00/96
NPRM Affirmative Action Plans (60-2)                           02/00/97
FINAL Affirmative Action Plans (60-2)                          06/00/97

[[Page 62090]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


Under the reinventing government initiative, OFCCP's emphasis is on 
regulatory reform, e.g., to revise 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.


Agency Contact:
Joe N. Kennedy
Deputy Director, OFCCP
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue
Room C3325, FP Bldg.
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-9475
RIN: 1215-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
59. 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:


 Final, Statutory, May 13, 1996.


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. In addition, Public Law 
104-49 (November 15, 1995) amended MSPA's private right of action, 
transportation insurance requirements, and disclosure obligations to 
agricultural workers. Implementing regulations were published May 16, 
1996 (61 FR 24858), for the revised transportation insurance 
requirements. The joint employer NPRM was published March 29, 1996 (61 
FR 14035).


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 significant 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

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
Joint Employment
NPRM 03/29/96 (61 FR 14035)
NPRM Comment Period End 06/12/96
Worker's Compensation
NPRM 03/18/96 (61 FR 10911)
NPRM Comment Period End 04/17/96
Final Action 05/16/96 (61 FR 24858)
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--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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

[[Page 62091]]

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                                                           09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
James Norris
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

                              -----------

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


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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:


This project was included in PWBA's Fall 1995 Regulatory Plan and will 
be included in the Fall 1996 Plan. 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, and 
is both an important compliance and research tool for the Department, 
and 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 initiative, the 
Department, the IRS and the PBGC are conducting a comprehensive review 
of the annual return/report forms in an effort to streamline and 
information required to be reported and the methods by which the 
information is filed and processed. The proposed revised Form 5500 
Series and regulations are being developed as a result of this review


Summary of the Legal Basis:


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

[[Page 62092]]

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:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made, in conjunction with other concerned agencies, with regard to the 
scope and nature of the revisions to the Form 5500 Series which are 
necessary.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


By simplifying the Form 5500 Series and creating an automated 
processing system for the filed reports, it is anticipated that filer 
costs of preparing forms, and 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.
This project is expected to reduce Government processing costs.


Risks:


Failure to revise the Form 5500 Series Annual Reports for Employee 
Benefit Plans could deprive plans, sponsors and participants and 
beneficiaries, as well as the Government, of the cost savings and 
related benefits associated with streamlining the forms and their 
processing.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           08/00/97
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: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

62.  REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HEALTH CARE ACCESS, 
PORTABILITY AND RENEWABILITY PROVISION OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE 
PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-91 section 101; 29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 
1171; 29 USC 1172; 29 USC 1177


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 1997.


Per Section 707 of ERISA, as added by Section 101 of HIPAA


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended Title I of ERISA by adding a new Part 7, designed to improve 
health care access, portability and renewability. This rulemaking will 
provide regulatory guidance to implement these provisions.


Statement of Need:


HIPAA added a new part 7 to title I of ERISA, containing provisions 
designed to improve the availability and portability of health 
insurance coverage. Part 7 includes provisions limiting exclusions for 
preexisting conditions and providing credit for prior coverage, 
guaranteeing availability of health coverage for small employers, 
prohibiting discrimination against employees and dependents based on 
health status, and guaranteeing renewability of health coverage to 
employers and individuals. Section 702(g)(4), also added by HIPAA, 
provides that the Secretary shall, consistent with section 104 of 
HIPAA, first issue by not later than April 1, 1997, such regulations as 
may be necessary to carry out these provisions.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made, in conjunction with other concerned agencies, with regard to the 
scope and nature of the regulatory guidance which will be necessary to 
carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 
regulatory actions found to be necessary to implement the new provision 
will be developed once decisions are reached on which specific actions 
are necessary.


Risks:


Failure to provide regulatory guidance necessary to carry out these 
important health care forms would adversely impact the availability and 
portability of health insurance coverage for American families.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel J. Maguire
Senior Legislative and Regulatory Attorney
Plan Benefits Security Division
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N-4611, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-4592
RIN: 1210-AA54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
63.  AMENDMENT OF SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION AND RELATED ERISA 
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT STATUTORY CHANGES IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE 
PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-191 section 101; 29 USC 1021; 29 USC 1022; 29 USC 1024; 29 USC 
1026; 29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1136; 29 USC 1168; 
29 USC 1177

[[Page 62093]]

CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2520.102-3; 29 CFR 2520.102-5; 29 CFR 2520.1042-3; 29 CFR 
2520.1042-4; 29 CFR 2520.1046-1; 29 CFR 2520.1046-3


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 1997.


Per Section 707 of ERISA, as added by Section 101 of HIPAA.


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended ERISA's summary plan description (SPD) and related reporting 
and disclosure provisions to require that participants and 
beneficiaries receive from their group health plans: (i) more timely 
notice if there is a material reduction in services or benefits under 
the plan; (ii) more information regarding the financing and 
administration of the plan; and (iii) specific identification of 
Department of Labor offices through which they can seek assistance or 
information about HIPAA. This rulemaking will amend the Department's 
SPD and related regulations to implement those statutory changes.


Statement of Need:


The existing SPD and related reporting and disclosure provisions need 
to be revised to reflect the changes made by HIPAA. HIPAA's statutory 
changes modify the requirements concerning the manner and timing of how 
certain important plan information is communicated to participants and 
beneficiaries by plan administrators. Without revised regulatory 
guidance, administrators may not be able to improve the timely 
disclosure of plan information on both a quantitative and qualitative 
basis. HIPAA also requires the Secretary to issue regulations within 
180 days after its enactment providing alternative mechanisms to 
delivery by mail through which group health plans may notify 
participants and beneficiaries of material reductions in covered 
services or benefits.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
which will be necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 
regulatory actions found to be necessary to implement the new provision 
will be developed once decisions are reached on which specific actions 
are necessary.


Risks:


The SPD is a critical plan document for participants and beneficiaries. 
Without access to accurate and timely information, participants and 
beneficiaries will not be able to protect their rights under ERISA. 
Improved disclosure requirements also should serve to facilitate 
compliance by plan administrators, thereby reducing litigation and 
penalty risks to plan administrators. The failure to issue revised 
disclosure regulations also may result in a failure to achieve HIPAA's 
objective of improving the disclosure of plan information.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John J. Canary
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N-5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

64. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF PNEUMOCONIOSIS AMONG COAL 
MINERS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 812; 5 USC app


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


The Committee will terminate 180 days from the date of its appointment.


Abstract:


The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established the 
first comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal mines. These 
standards were designed to reduce the incidence of coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis ``black lung'' and silicosis and eventually eliminate 
these diseases. While significant progress has been made toward 
improving the health conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners 
continue to be at risk of developing occupational lung disease, 
according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH). On January 31, 1995, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 
established an advisory committee to make recommendations for the 
elimination of black lung and silicosis among coal miners. The advisory 
committee convened in February 1996, concluded its series of 5 public 
meetings in July 1996, and is due to deliver its recommendations to the 
Secretary by September 1996. The recommendations will cover a number of 
different areas. MSHA anticipates that some of the recommendations may 
only require changes to Agency policies which can be made on a short 
term basis. Other changes to regulations may be of a more long term 
nature.


Statement of Need:


Although respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are 
significantly lower than they were 25 years ago, there continues to be 
concern about the respirable coal-mine-dust sampling program and its 
effectiveness in presenting an accurate picture of exposure levels. In 
response to this concern, MSHA undertook an extensive review of the 
Agency's respirable coal-mine-dust program. The MSHA Coal Mine 
Respirable Dust Task Group Report, issued in June 1992, found that 
vulnerabilities exist which could impact miner health protection and 
made recommendations for improving the monitoring program.
There are, however, significant differences of opinion among 
representatives of industry, labor, and government over the best 
approach to improving the effectiveness of the existing MSHA dust 
control program. These differences involve three primary areas: the 
current risk to miners of developing pneumoconiosis; the strategy for 
monitoring respirable coal mine dust; and the adequacy of existing 
control measures. MSHA has concluded that resolution of these critical 
issues requires a cooperative approach

[[Page 62094]]

between the coal mining industry, labor, and the Federal Government. 
The ultimate objective of this cooperative undertaking is to devise a 
progressive occupational health protection strategy that focuses on 
control of the respirable dust hazard in coal mines to ensure 
elimination of pneumoconiosis.


Alternatives:


MSHA's Dust Task Group Report identified a number of deficiencies in 
the existing dust control program. The report included recommendations 
for improving both MSHA's enforcement and the operator's sampling 
program, the majority of which would require regulatory change. MSHA 
initially planned to proceed to notice and comment rulemaking to 
implement these recommendations, but concluded that a Federal advisory 
committee would provide the best forum for considering the various 
views of the mining community. Consistent with this conclusion, in 
January 1995, the Secretary of Labor announced his intention to convene 
a Federal advisory committee to address these issues. Appropriate 
regulatory action will be initiated after the advisory committee 
delivers its recommendations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


While it is not yet known what changes the Committee will recommend, 
any modifications of the current program will seek a balance between 
anticipated benefits and associated costs. Benefits sought are reduced 
dust levels over a miner's working lifetime--the key to eliminating 
black lung and silicosis as a risk to coal miners. Enhanced protection 
to miners from these diseases will also reduce the cost of future black 
lung benefits and lead to lower operator insurance premiums.


Risks:


Respirable coal mine dust is considered one of the most serious 
occupational hazards in the mining industry. Long-term exposure to 
excessive levels of respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung and 
silicosis, which are both potentially disabling and can cause death. 
There is concern about the adequacy of the respirable coal mine dust 
sampling program, an essential part of the overall strategy to protect 
miners' health. For these reasons, MSHA is seeking recommendations from 
a Federal advisory committee on how to eradicate pneumoconiosis through 
the control of coal mine respirable dust and the reduction of miners' 
exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Recommendations Expected                                       11/00/96
Issue Policy Document Phase 1                                  12/00/96
NPRM - Phase 2                                                 06/00/97
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-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

65. NOISE STANDARD
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


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 62; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Many miners are exposed consistently 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 consistently 
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 
comments and data on a number of issues. Based upon its own research 
and experience, and data and information submitted to the record, MSHA 
has considered numerous alternatives on a wide variety of complex 
issues. For example, MSHA has considered (1) the respective roles of 
personal hearing protection and engineering controls in controlling 
miners' exposures; (2) lowering the permissible exposure level; and (3) 
whether or not to require a hearing conservation program, including 
audiometric testing, exposure monitoring, and miner training. This 
proposed rule will derive from MSHA's deliberations and decisions on 
these issues and alternatives.


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

[[Page 62095]]

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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 50209                                    12/04/89
ANPRM Comment Pe55 FR 6011                                     06/22/90
NPRM                                                           11/00/96
Final Action                                                   09/00/97
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
66. DIESEL PARTICULATE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Several epidemiological studies have found that diesel exhaust presents 
potential health risks to workers. These possible health effects range 
from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In 1988, 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended 
that ``whole diesel exhaust be regarded as a potential occupational 
carcinogen.'' In addition, in 1989 the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer concluded that ``diesel engine exhaust is probably 
carcinogenic to humans.''
In 1988, a Secretarial advisory committee made recommendations to the 
Secretary of Labor concerning safety and health standards for the use 
of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines. One of the 
recommendations was for the Secretary of Labor to set in motion a 
mechanism whereby a diesel particulate standard could be set. Based on 
that recommendation, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, in January 1992, 
seeking information relative to exposure limits, risk assessment, 
sampling and monitoring methods, and control feasibility. Because of 
the potential health risk to miners from exposure to diesel 
particulate, MSHA is investigating a variety of approaches that would 
control the exposure of miners to diesel particulate. In 1995, MSHA 
held a series of three public workshops bringing together U.S. 
organizations having a vested interest in limiting the exposure of 
miners to diesel particulate. The information gathered during these 
workshops supplements the information obtained as a result of the ANPRM 
and includes suggestions for possible approaches that would limit 
miners exposure to diesel particulate.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in both surface and underground 
mines has increased significantly and rapidly during the past decade. 
It is currently estimated that approximately 30,000 miners are 
occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust emissions in underground mines 
and another 200,000 are potentially exposed at surface operations.
Several epidemiological studies have shown a positive carcinogenic risk 
associated with exposure to diesel exhaust. Other reported health 
effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust include dizziness, 
drowsiness, headaches, nausea, decrement of visual acuity, and 
decrement in forced expiratory volume. In addition, studies by MSHA and 
the Bureau of Mines show that miners working in underground dieselized 
mining operations are probably the most heavily exposed workers of any 
occupational group. Based on the levels of diesel particulate measured 
in underground mining operations and the evidence of adverse health 
effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust, MSHA is concerned 
about the potential health risk to miners. MSHA currently has no health 
regulations that specifically address the exposure of miners to diesel 
particulate.


Alternatives:


Over the past 10 years, MSHA and the Bureau of Mines have conducted 
research on methodologies for the measurement and control of diesel 
particulate in the mining environment. This research has demonstrated 
that the use of low sulfur fuel, good engine maintenance, exhaust 
after-treatment, new engine technology, and optimized application of 
ventilating air all play a role in reducing miners' exposure to diesel 
particulate matter. MSHA, therefore, is considering whether or not to 
require any of these methods or other approaches (such as establishing 
a permissible exposure limit -- a PEL) to limit miners' exposure to 
diesel particulate.
To obtain additional information and public input on health risks, 
measurement and control technologies, and alternative approaches 
applicable to limiting miners' exposure to diesel particulate, MSHA 
held public workshops in the fall of 1995.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA is in the early stages of developing potential cost figures 
related to the various possible approaches in a proposed diesel 
particulate standard for surface and underground coal and metal and 
nonmetal mines. Costs will depend on the ultimate approach chosen, but 
will relate to the degree of implementation of engine control 
technology, fuel requirements, ventilation changes, sampling practices, 
and requirements for exhaust control devices on diesel-powered 
equipment.
The projected costs of technology development are expected to be 
somewhat minimized by research and development conducted by the Bureau 
of Mines and others which has resulted in a number of exhaust control 
devices that have proven effective and safe

[[Page 62096]]

when properly maintained. In addition, low sulfur fuel is readily 
available because of current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regulations.
Benefits to health and safety would result from reducing miners' 
exposure to diesel particulate in workplaces where diesel-powered 
equipment is used. One such benefit would be a reduction in the 
incidence of potential illnesses associated with exposure to diesel 
exhaust particulate.


Risks:


Laboratory tests have shown diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic in rats, 
as well as toxic and mutagenic. In addition, several epidemiological 
studies have found that exposure to diesel exhaust presents potential 
health risks to workers. These potential adverse health effects range 
from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In the 
confined space of the underground mine environment, occupational 
exposure to diesel exhaust may present a greater hazard due to 
ventilation limitations and the presence of other airborne 
contaminants, such as toxic mine dusts or mine gases. The Agency 
believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for 
exploring possible methods to reduce miners' exposure to diesel 
particulate.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 500                                      01/06/92
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 7906                                     07/10/92
NPRM                                                           02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Patricia W. Silvey
Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
RIN: 1219-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

67.  STANDARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON METALWORKING FLUIDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 Section 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the OSH Act


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In December 1993, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace 
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) petitioned OSHA to 
take emergency regulatory action to protect workers from the risks of 
occupational cancers and respiratory illnesses due to exposure to 
metalworking fluids. In July 1994, OSHA sent an interim response to the 
UAW stating that the decision to proceed with rulemaking would depend 
on the results of the OSHA Priority Planning Process. Following the 
December 1995 Priority Planning Process report, which identified 
metalworking fluids as an issue worthy of Agency action, the Assistant 
Secretary asked the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety 
and Health (NACOSH) for a recommendation about how to proceed with a 
rulemaking for metalworking fluids. In May 1996, NACOSH unanimously 
recommended that OSHA form a Standards Advisory Committee (SAC) to 
address the health risks caused by occupational exposure to 
metalworking fluids. The Assistant Secretary accepted the 
recommendation of NACOSH; OSHA intends to establish a 15-member SAC to 
make recommendations regarding a proposed rule for occupational 
exposure to metalworking fluids under Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Committee is required to have a 
balanced membership, including individuals appointed to represent the 
following affected interests: industry; labor; federal and state safety 
and health organizations; professional organizations; and national 
standards-setting groups.


Statement of Need:


Under Table Z-1 of the 1971 air contaminants rule, OSHA enforces a 
permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3 for mineral oil mists, but 
evidence suggests this level is outdated and that exposure to 
metalworking fluids can lead to cancer, non-malignant lung disease and 
dermatitis. Giving a SAC the opportunity to examine and comment upon 
current studies and data concerning the risks associated with all 
metalworking fluid mixtures (straight oils, synthetic, and 
semisynthetic) will provide valuable information the Agency can use to 
develop a proposed rule for metalworking fluids. The SAC will also 
report on related regulatory issues such as fluid management, 
engineering controls, medical surveillance, and economic and 
technological feasibility.


Alternatives:


The Agency recognizes the complex and difficult nature of the issues 
surrounding the regulation of metalworking fluids and believes a SAC 
can best alleviate some areas of confusion. The Committee has a unique 
opportunity to provide needed data and academic and professional 
expertise, as well as large and small industry and labor perspectives. 
Through OSHA's exhaustive Priority Planning Process and NACOSH 
recommendation, metalworking fluids was identified as a regulatory 
candidate that could be handled most successfully through a SAC. The 
option of going directly to 6(b) rulemaking has been passed up because 
of the added benefits the Agency will gain from the deliberations of 
the SAC; the ability to learn more from the SAC recommendations than 
from any other data gathering method, and the opportunity to build some 
consensus before the proposal is issued.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because the SAC has yet to meet, the form of the Committee's 
recommendations is unknown at the present time. However, once the SAC 
report is written, the scope of the proposed rule will be determined. 
Quantitative estimates of costs and benefits will be made only after 
the proposed rule has been drafted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Appointed Names                                                11/00/96
Charter                                                        11/00/96

[[Page 62097]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


The Agency is particularly concerned with the potential impact a 
metalworking fluids rule would have on small businesses. OSHA has been 
working closely with the Small Business Administration to reach small 
employers to involve them in the process at the earliest possible time. 
At least 30 small business interests have been identified to date. The 
Agency is required to have balanced committee representation, and small 
business will be represented on the SAC.


Agency Contact:
Adam M. Finkel
Director, Directorate of Health Standards
Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N-3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
RIN: 1218-AB58
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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. 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. Four of the primary issues the committee has 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 Committee 
met 11 times over an 18-month period and completed work on the 
regulatory text for the proposed steel erection standard on December 1, 
1995.
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 develop language for 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 30 workers are killed every year 
during steel erection activities. Falls are currently

[[Page 62098]]

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                                                           12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Russell B. Swanson
Director, Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Rm N3306, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8644
RIN: 1218-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
69. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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. 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.
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 amply 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. The Agency was 
precluded from issuing a standard or guidelines in this area by a rider 
or its FY 96 appropriations bill. It is unclear at this point whether 
similar Congressional restrictions will prevent OSHA from addressing 
this important occupational health issue in FY 97.


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 the 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. An example of the 
increasing magnitude of the problem involves repeated trauma to the 
upper extremity, or that portion of the body above the waist, in forms 
such as carpal tunnel syndrome and shoulder tendinitis. In 1994, 
employers reported 332,000 upper extremity repeated trauma cases to the 
BLS. As a point of comparison, the number of

[[Page 62099]]

reported cases in this category was only 22,700 in 1981. Adjusting the 
data to reflect changes in the size of the employee population 
indicates that there has been a greater than 7-fold increase in such 
cases in the last ten years. In industries such as meatpacking, 13 out 
of every 100 workers report a work related musculoskeletal disorder 
from repeated trauma each year. In automotive assembly, 10 out 100 
workers are affected. The number of work-related back injuries 
occurring each year is even larger. Industries reporting a large number 
of cases of back injuries include hospitals and personal care 
facilities.
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 have also been 
considered. Other alternatives include varying the types of disorders 
intended to be covered by the proposed rule. The agency is still in the 
process of developing and refining a number of regulatory alternatives.


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
70. COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND 
AGRICULTURE)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 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, for 
example, on average about 17 workers were killed each day in 1995 in 
occupational fatalities.
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 serious 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. 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. Employers who have employees with 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

[[Page 62100]]

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. In 
addition, in response to extensive stakeholder involvement, OSHA has, 
among other things, focused the rule on serious hazards, deleted 
required medical surveillance, and reduced burdens on small business.


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 1994 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 
that 6.8 million injuries and illnesses occurred within private 
industry, and in 1995, 6,210 workers lost their lives on the job. 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 serious 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                                                           12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


Separate standards are being developed for the construction (29 CFR 
1926) and the maritime (29 CFR 1915, 1917 and 1918) industries.


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
71. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING 
OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 62101]]

Legal Authority:


 Not yet determined


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 655(b); 29 CFR 657


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the 
permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to 
hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers 
International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group 
(HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for 
chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/
m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This represents a 
significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general 
industries is found in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z and is a ceiling value 
of 100 ug/m3 for ``Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3).'' These are 
measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). 
This equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3 of chromium (VI) measured and 
reported as chromium (VI). This ceiling limit applies to all forms of 
hexavalent chromium (VI) including chomic acid and chromates, lead 
chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for chromium (VI) in the 
construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL.
The major illnesses associated with occupational exposures to 
hexavalent chromium are lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA estimates that 
more than 1 million workers are exposed to hexavalent chromium on a 
regular basis in all industries. The major uses of hexavalent chromium 
are: as a structural and anti-corrosive element in the production of 
stainless steel, ferrochromium, iron and steel, and in electroplating, 
welding, and painting. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the 
request for an ETS and initiated a section (6)(b) rulemaking. OSHA is 
currently pursuing a dialog with interested parties outside the Agency 
with regard to the development of the proposal.


Statement of Need:


In the past several years, a number of agencies have reviewed the 
epidemiological evidence and have classified chromium (VI) as a human 
carcinogen. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have reviewed the 
epidemiological evidence and have classified chromium (VI) as a human 
carcinogen. Estimates of the population exposed to hexavalent chromium 
;(chromium(VI)   suggest that more than 1 million workers are exposed. 
The major industries in which excess cancer mortality has been observed 
are: Chromate production (US, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy); Chrome 
pigment production (US, Germany, France, Norway, UK); Chrome plating 
(US, UK, Japan, Italy); Ferrochromium (Sweden, Norway, USSR); and 
Welding (European countries, WHO) Occupational exposure to chromium 
(VI) occurs primarily via inhalation but can also occur to a lesser 
extent through dermal and oral routes. Exposure to chromium (VI) is 
known to cause lung cancer, bronchial asthma, nasal septum 
perforations, skin ulcers, and irritative dermatitis. Chromium (VI) 
causes ulcers of the skin and acute irritative dermatitis among workers 
exposed to chromium alloys and chromium-plated objects. Inhalation of 
chromium (VI) aerosols at levels of about 100 ug/m3 may give rise to 
necrosis in the nasal septum, leading to perforation. Bronchial asthma 
may occur as a result of inhalation of low levels of chromium (VI) dust 
or fumes. Such asthma occurs among platers, welders, and ferrochromium 
workers. In adults, the lethal oral dose of chromates (chromium (VI)) 
is 50-70 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The clinical features 
of acute poisoning are vomiting, diarrhea, hemorrhage and blood loss 
into the gastrointestinal tract, causing cardiovascular shock. Thirty-
five epidemiological studies of lung cancer among workers exposed to 
chromium have been reviewed extensively by IARC and by other agencies. 
Thirty-three of these 35 studies showed elevated lung cancer death 
rates. In at least 20 studies, lung cancer death rates were 
statistically significantly elevated among workers in either the total 
cohort, or a subset of the cohort. The Mancuso study (1975) of lung 
cancer among workers at a U.S. chromate-production plant has been 
thoroughly reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-Health 
Assessment Document (HAD), 1984). EPA's evaluation of this study has 
formed part of EPA's basis for subsequent regulatory activities to 
reduce exposures to Chromium (VI) - (53 FR 10206, 3/29/88; 57 FR 31576, 
7/16/92; 58 FR 65767, 12/16/93). Reviews of updates of another major 
cohort study (Hayes) are currently underway by the Agency.


Alternatives:


Before deciding to publish a proposal, OSHA has considered a number of 
options including whether or not to develop an ETS, publish an advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking, or enforce the existing PEL. Despite the 
fact that OSHA acknowledges that the risks of serious adverse health 
affects at the current PEL are significant, OSHA denied the petition 
for an ETS and initiated section (6)(b) rulemaking. A Section 6(b) 
rulemaking results in a lower PEL with additional protective provisions 
and allows scientific evaluation of the data as well as public input 
into the standard.
The decision to deny the petition for an ETS was based on the following 
considerations. To promulgate an emergency temporary standard (ETS), 
section 6(c) of the OSH Act requires that the Secretary determine that 
``employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to 
substances...determined to be toxic...and...that such emergency 
standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.'' The Act 
further requires that an ETS take affect immediately upon publication 
in the Federal Register and can remain in effect for no longer than six 
months after such publication, by which time a permanent standard must 
be promulgated. Courts have interpreted these provisions to mean that 
both the ``grave danger'' from which employees must be protected and 
the ``necessity'' for issuing an ETS to protect them must be a danger 
of incurable, permanent or fatal consequences arising from six months 
of exposure to the substance. The ETS must be able to achieve the 
expected benefits in terms of disease avoided within the 6 months.
Although it is unclear from court decisions whether the requisite 
``grave danger'' implies a risk of harm quantitatively and/or 
qualitatively more serious than the significant risk required to 
justify 6(b) standards, it probably does. In light of the legislative 
history of the provision and the courts' general concern to narrowly 
limit exceptions to notice and comment procedures conventionally 
required in rulemakings, the courts have treated an ETS as an 
extraordinary power to be exercised only when drastic measures

[[Page 62102]]

are needed. For example, if a risk of one in a thousand of death from 
cancer over a working lifetime is considered a significant risk, a risk 
of one in a thousand of death from cancer due to exposure for 6 months, 
which would be a greater risk, might well constitute a ``grave 
danger.''
The petition for the ETS points to the evidence of chromium (VI)-
induced lung cancer as the basis for the ``grave danger.'' The risk 
assessment in the petition indicates that over 100 out of 1,000 workers 
would be expected to develop lung cancer with a working lifetime 
hexavalent chromium exposure (45 years) at the current PEL. In addition 
to cancer risk, there is evidence that other adverse health effects may 
occur at exposure levels at the current PEL, e.g., nasal septum 
perforation.
OSHA evaluated the risk estimates of cancer and other advance health 
effects due to exposures to chromium (VI) to determine whether such 
risk constitutes a grave danger. Despite the fact that OSHA 
acknowledges that the risks of serious adverse health affects that the 
current PEL are significant, OSHA denied the petition and initiated 
section (6)(b) rulemaking. A Section 6(b) rulemaking results in a lower 
PEL with additional protective provisions and allows scientific 
evaluation of the data as well as public input into the standard. OSHA 
is preliminarily considering a new TWA PEL in the range of 0.5 - 5.0 
ug/m3, measured and reported as chromium (VI). OSHA has initiated a 
Section 6(b) rulemaking for all hexavalent chromium compounds in all 
industries. OSHA intends to develop a new rule in the general, 
agriculture, and maritime industries and to adapt the rule to reflect 
conditions in the construction industry. OSHA anticipates that these 
two proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register later in 
1997.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


OSHA prepares an Economic Analysis (EA) to accompany each proposed and 
final OSHA standard. This report provides details on the industries 
expected to be affected by a standard; the number of affected workers; 
the economic and technological feasibility of the standard; and the 
health benefits, costs, and impacts associated with the standard. A 
preliminary economic analysis will be published in the Federal Register 
notice containing the proposed standard for chromium (VI), and the 
analysis will be subject to public comment during the public hearings.
The principal industrial uses of chromium (VI) are as a structural 
element and as an anticorrosive. Large quantities are used to make 
stainless steel and to ``chromeplate'' regular steel. In both cases, 
the chromium (VI) protects the iron in steel from corrosion. The 
principal industrial consumers of chromium are the metallurgical, 
refractory, and chemical industries. Other important consumers of 
chromium (VI) are pigment production industries, pigment application 
industries, and industries using chromium alloys or plated (chromium 
(VI)) materials. Chromium (VI) is used in industries that produce the 
following products: ferrochromium, iron and steel, chromates, chromated 
pigments, plating mixtures, chromium catalysts, colored plastics, and 
wood preservatives. Chromium (VI) is also used in electroplating, 
welding, painting, and in printing. Welding on stainless steel will 
generate chromium (VI) fumes. We are currently reviewing information on 
chromium (VI) exposures across many industry processes to determine the 
technological feasibility of achieving compliance with a new PEL. A 
determination of technological feasibility means that OSHA can 
demonstrate that current or immediately forthcoming technologies and 
methods to comply are or will be available for implementation by 
affected industries. This may include technologies and methods that 
will reduce worker exposure during existing chromium (VI) processes or 
substitute technologies and methods that do not make use of chromium 
(VI).
We are in the process of preparing cost estimates for achieving 
compliance with a new standard based on the use of those technologies 
and methods which we believe will be effective in reducing worker 
exposure. We are aware that several small business entities, e.g., 
electroplaters, will be covered by a new OSHA standard. We will conduct 
a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine whether a substantial 
number of small firms will be significantly affected by the forthcoming 
chromium (VI) standard. Information provided by employers in this 
industry sector would help improve the quality of the regulations.
The strength of the epidemiological data leads OSHA to conclude that 
occupational exposures to chromium (VI) must be reduced. There are 
several issues that need to be addressed during the rulemaking. 
Estimates of the number of workers in various industries and the 
population exposed to various levels need to be refined as does 
information on current control technologies. Any new PEL for chromium 
(VI) must be greatly reduced. Assuming that the petitioners' risk 
estimate is approximately correct, technological and economic 
feasibility also need to be addressed during the rulemaking.


Risks:


OSHA has performed a preliminary quantitative risk assessment using all 
epidemiological studies for which dose-response information was 
available. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the risk of excess lung 
cancer deaths over a working lifetime at the current PEL ranges from 88 
to 342 excess lung cancer deaths per thousand exposed workers. OSHA 
preliminarily estimates that the risk of excess lung cancer deaths over 
a working lifetime at a new PEL of 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of 
air ranges from 0.9 to 4.4 excess lung cancer deaths per thousand 
exposed workers. This preliminary risk assessment is available in the 
docket of this rulemaking (Ex. 13-5; Docket H-054a).
OSHA is of the opinion that the epidemiological data on cancer 
mortality associated with chromium (VI) exposures are sufficient for 
the Agency to proceed with reduction of chromium (VI) exposures through 
regulation. The evidence of material impairment from exposure to 
chromium (VI) is strong and of high quality. There appears to be no 
dispute that the current PEL is too high, and the sooner the PELs are 
reduced, the sooner the risk of death from lung cancer due to 
occupational chromium (VI) exposure will be reduced. In addition, the 
number of cases of asthma, dermatitis, nasal septum perforation, and 
skin ulceration due to chromium (VI) will also be reduced. The risk 
estimates for chromium (VI) are similar to risk estimates from 
exposures to other substances that have been regulated through the 
Section 6(b) rulemaking process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined

[[Page 62103]]

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-AB45
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
72. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.1035


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 (e.g., correctional institutions, health-care facilities, 
and homeless shelters), 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 has been 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 has conducted 
stakeholder meetings with representatives of relevant professional 
organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and other groups. 
These meetings provided 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.


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. While a decrease in 
active cases has been observed recently, there were still 22,813 
reported cases in 1995. A large portion of the decrease occurred in 
high incidence areas where intervention efforts have been focused. 
However, over twenty states showed an increase or no change in the 
number of reported cases. In addition, the factors which led to the 
recent resurgence of TB (e.g., increases in homelessness, HIV 
infection, immigration from countries with high rates of infection) 
still exist and the job duties of certain workers require them to be 
exposed to patients and clients with suspected or confirmed infectious 
TB. In addition, strains of tuberculosis have emerged that are 
resistant to several of the first-line anti-TB drugs. This multidrug-
resistant TB (MDR-TB) is often more 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.
Providing health care for individuals with the disease increases the 
risk of 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. In addition, workers outside of health care may provide 
services to patient or client populations that have an increased rate 
of TB. For example, occupational transmission of TB has been documented 
in correctional facilities.


Alternatives:


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

[[Page 62104]]

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:


From 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases of TB in the U.S. 
increased, reversing a previous 30-year downward trend. While there has 
been a recent decrease in the reported number of cases of TB in the 
general population, a large part of this decrease can be attributed to 
focused intervention efforts in areas of high incidence of TB. Over 20 
states showed an increase or no change in the number of reported TB 
cases and the factors that contributed to the resurgence continue to 
exist, along with exposure of certain workers to patient and client 
populations with an increased rate of TB. In addition, strains of 
multidrug-resistant TB have emerged which are more often fatal. 
Therefore, employees in work settings such as health case or 
correctional facilities, who have contact with infectious individuals, 
retain a risk of occupational transmission. 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                                                           11/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


During the rulemaking, OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders 
to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities.


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
73. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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. 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. OSHA 
published (61 FR 1947) the substances selected for proposed new PELs 
for the first update of the air contaminants rule: carbon disulfide, 
carbon monoxide, chloroform, dimethyl sulfate, epichlorohydrin, 
ethylene dichloride, glutaraldehyde, n-hexane, 2-hexanone, hydrazine, 
hydrogen sulfide, manganese and compounds, mercury and compounds, 
nitrogen dioxide, perchloroethylene, sulfur dioxide, toluene, toluene 
diisocyanate, trimellitic anhydride, and vinyl bromide. The specific 
hazards associated with the air contaminants preliminarily selected for 
regulation include cancer, neurotoxicity, respiratory sensitivity, etc. 
As in the

[[Page 62105]]

Priority Planning Process, OSHA evaluated each substance using the 
following criteria: severity of the health effect, the number of 
exposed workers, toxicity of the substance, uses and prevailing 
exposure levels of the substance, the potential risk reduction, 
availability and quality of information useful in quantitative risk 
assessment to 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, often lead to adverse effects when workers are 
exposed to them. 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. 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 approximately 20 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'' clause 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 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                                                           06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


During the rulemaking,OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders 
to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities.


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
74. 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; 29 CFR 1910.35; 29 CFR 1910.36; 29 CFR 
1910.37; 29 CFR 1910.38


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

[[Page 62106]]

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 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 E and subpart H of part H of part 1910 meet 
the criteria for critical review set forth in the Presidential 
initiative. OSHA has identified the means of egress standard from 
subpart E and two standards from subpart H that need to be revised and 
updated to eliminate their complexity and obsolescence. These standards 
include 29 CFR 1910, subpart E - Means of Egress, 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 means of egress 
(exit routes), handling, and use; spray finishing using flammable and 
combustible liquids; and dip tanks containing flammable and combustible 
liquids. The regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.35 through 1910.38, 
1910.107, and 1910.108 have long been noted by labor, management, and 
government for their complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence. 
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 1910.107 and 1910.94(c); 29 CFR 1910.35 through 1910.38 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 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.
In case of an emergency, proper exit routes are needed to protect 
employees from being trapped in hazardous work areas and lead them to 
safety.
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), 1910.107, 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 organizations 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, including small 
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 consensus 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

[[Page 62107]]

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:


Physical 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. 
Without proper exit routes, risk of fatalities and injuries is greatly 
increased when employees cannot quickly exit to safety. 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 Exit Routes61 FR 47712Egress)                             09/10/96
NPRM Dip Tanks                                                 12/00/96
NPRM Spray Finishing                                           12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910 subpart E, Spray Finishing Using Flammable 
and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 1910.107, Dip Tanks Containing 
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.108 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(c) will be combined 
with 29 CFR 1910.107 to eliminate duplicative standards. Flammable and 
Combustible Liquids 1910.106 has been moved to RIN 1218-AB61.


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

                              -----------

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


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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

[[Page 62108]]

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 when employees are working there 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. It will align these standards more 
closely to those used in the model building codes with the result of 
greater compatibility.


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 1994 National 
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries that falls accounted for 10 
percent of all deaths of employees in workplaces.
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 Period End                                        08/22/90
Hearing         55 FR 29224                                    09/11/90
Final Action                                                   09/00/97
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
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
76. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 
(SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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 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, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 
the National Academy of Sciences, the Office of

[[Page 62109]]

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 last 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 efforts, OSHA published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the February 2, 1996 Federal Register 
that contained revised recordkeeping requirements, new recordkeeping 
forms, and new interpretive material. The stated goals of the NPRM are 
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. The original 90-day public 
comment period was extended another 60 days and ended July 1, 1996. In 
addition, two public meetings were held in Washington, DC (March 26-29 
and April 30-May 1). Over 450 sets of comments were entered into Docket 
R-02, along with 1200 pages of input derived from nearly 60 
presentations given at the public meetings.
OSHA is now planning to issue a final rule that incorporates changes 
based upon an analysis of the comments and testimony received during 
the public comment period discussed above.


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.
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 are also 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 also provides OSHA with a means for 
measuring its performance in terms of outcomes--changes in workplace 
injuries and illnesses--rather than activities.


Alternatives:


One alternative to publication of a final rule 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 revise the current rule 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.

[[Page 62110]]

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) 
information for entire construction sites; and (d) greater employee 
involvement.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 4030                                     02/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/02/96
Final Action                                                   06/00/97
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
BILLING CODE 4510-23-F