[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33589-33612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13517]



[[Page 33589]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 110

June 8, 2011

Part IV





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917 et al.



Standards Improvement Project--Phase III; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 33590]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049]
RIN 1218-AC19


Standards Improvement Project--Phase III

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Phase III of the Standards Improvement Project (SIP-III) is 
the third in a series of rulemaking actions to improve and streamline 
OSHA standards. The Standards Improvement Project removes or revises 
individual requirements within rules that are confusing, outdated, 
duplicative, or inconsistent. OSHA identified several requirements for 
SIP-III (e.g., rigging, NIOSH records, and training certifications) for 
improvement based on the Agency's review of its standards, suggestions 
and comments from the public, or recommendations from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). OSHA believes that improving these 
standards will help employers to better understand their obligations, 
promote safety and health for employees, lead to increased compliance, 
and reduce compliance costs. OSHA estimates that these changes will 
result in annualized savings for employers of over $45 million, and 
will reduce paperwork burden by 1.85 million hours annually.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on July 8, 2011. As this rule 
imposes no new burdens on employers, employers may comply with the 
revised provisions prior to the effective date, which is 30 days after 
publication of this final rule. The Director of the Federal Register 
approved the incorporation by reference of specific publications listed 
in this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51 as of July 8, 
2011

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), OSHA designates the 
Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office 
of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive petitions 
for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camilla McArthur, OSHA Office of 
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Exhibits Referenced in This Rule

    The exhibits referenced by OSHA in this rule are in Docket No. 
OSHA-2006-0049, which is the docket for this rulemaking. The docket is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal. In this notice, OSHA designates exhibits as ``ID.'' The 
digit(s) following this designation refer to the full document number 
at http://www.regulations.gov. For example, the exhibit number 
referenced as ID 0151.1 in this notice is document number OSHA-2006-
0049-0151.1 under the column labeled ``ID'' at http://www.regulations.gov; this document happens to be a comment submitted by 
the National fire Protection Association.
    Most exhibits, including public comments, supporting materials, 
meeting transcripts, and other documents, are available at http://www.regulations.gov; some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not 
available to read or download from that Web page. However, all 
materials in the docket are available for inspection and copying at the 
OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2350.

B. Table of Contents

    The following table of contents identifies the major sections of 
the preamble to the Standards Improvement Project--Phase III (SIP-III) 
final rule:

I. Background
    A. Introduction
    B. Regulatory History
II. Legal Considerations
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
V. Federalism
VI. Unfunded Mandates
VII. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. State Plans
IX. Authority and Signature
X. The Final Standard

I. Background

A. Introduction

    Phase III of the Standards Improvement Project (SIP-III) is the 
third in a series of rulemaking actions to improve and streamline OSHA 
standards. Historically, the Standards Improvement Project removes or 
revises individual requirements within rules that are confusing, 
outdated, duplicative or inconsistent. OSHA believes that improving 
these standards helps employers to better understand their obligations, 
promotes safety and health for employees, and leads to increased 
compliance and reduced compliance costs. OSHA summarizes the revised 
standards and revisions below, and describes them in detail in section 
III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
    First, OSHA is revising the title of 29 CFR part 1910, subpart E, 
of the general industry standard, and is revising Sec.  1910.35 to 
incorporate by reference the most current version of the National Fire 
Protection Association's (NFPA) Life Safety Code. To provide greater 
flexibility, OSHA also added a second compliance alternative. OSHA made 
several minor revisions to other sections in this subpart to correspond 
to the new language in Sec.  1910.35.
    In subpart I, OSHA is deleting requirements that employers prepare 
and maintain written training certification records. OSHA does not 
believe that the training certification records required by the four 
standards provide a safety or health benefit to employees, nor are the 
burden hours and cost to employers justified. These standards are the 
general industry Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standard (Sec.  
1910.132); the shipyard employment PPE standard (Sec.  1915.152); and 
the general industry and construction Cadmium standards (Sec. Sec.  
1910.1027 and 1926.1127).
    There are seven revisions to the Respiratory Protection standard at 
Sec.  1910.134. One revision clarifies which breathing-gas containers 
employers must provide pursuant to the standard (Sec.  1910.134(i)(9)). 
To provide additional clarification, OSHA is revising language in 
Appendix C of Sec.  1910.134, and updating the language of the DOT 
regulations referenced in Sec.  1910.134(i)(4)(i). OSHA also deleted 
duplicative and inconsistent statements in Appendix D of Sec.  
1910.134, and also in the Asbestos standard for shipyards (Sec.  
1915.1001) and construction (Sec.  1926.1101). OSHA revised paragraph 
(c)(4)(iv) of Sec.  1910.1003 to correct an inadvertent omission from 
the respiratory-protection requirements for four of the 13 carcinogen 
standards. Lastly, OSHA also removed the requirement to keep fit-test 
records from the 1,3-Butadiene standard (Sec.  1910.1051 (m)(3)).
    There are two revisions under subpart J. First, OSHA is revising 
and updating the definition of the term ``potable water'' in the 
Sanitation standards for general industry and construction (Sec.  
1910.141(a)(2); Sec.  1926.51(a)(6)), and

[[Page 33591]]

the Field Sanitation standard for agriculture (Sec.  1928.110(b)). 
Second, OSHA is revising the Bloodborne Pathogens standard by removing 
the word ``hot'' from the definition of ``handwashing facilities'' at 
Sec.  1910.1030(b) in the phrase ``hot air drying machines,'' which 
permits employers to use new technologies (e.g., high-velocity air 
blowers) in the workplace. This revision also applies to sanitation 
standards for general industry (Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(iv)), marine 
terminals (Sec.  1917.127(a)(1)(iii)), longshoring (Sec.  
1918.95(a)(1)(iii)), and construction (Sec.  1926.51(f)(3)(iv)).
    OSHA is updating its standards regulating slings for general 
industry (Sec.  1910.184); shipyard employment (Sec. Sec.  1915.112, 
1915.113, and 1915.118), and construction (Sec.  1926.251). 
Modifications to these standards include removing previous load-
capacity tables (Sec.  1910.184, tables N-184-1, N-184-3 through N-184-
22; and G-1 through G-5, G-7, G-8, and G-10) and references to these 
tables (Sec.  1915.112; Sec.  1915.113; and Sec.  1926.251; tables H-1 
and H-3 through H-19). Employers now must use slings with permanently 
affixed identification markings that depict the maximum load capacity. 
The final rule provides similar protection for shackles in Sec. Sec.  
1915.113 and 1926.251.
    In subpart T, OSHA is removing two obsolete recordkeeping 
requirements from the Commercial Diving Operations standard (Sec.  
1910.440 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(5)), and correcting a typographical error 
(Sec.  1910.440 (b)(4)).
    In subpart Z, OSHA also is removing the requirement for employers 
to transfer specific records to the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) (for example, Sec.  1910.1020). Finally, OSHA 
is making several other miscellaneous revisions. For example, OSHA is 
removing duplicative respiratory-protection requirements, and is 
amending the trigger levels in the Lead standards for general industry 
and construction (Sec. Sec.  1910.25 and 1926.62).
    Additional revisions to maritime standards include adding a 
clarification to the definition of ``hot work,'' adding a definition 
for ``ship's stores,'' and updating gear-certification requirements to 
conform to the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention.
    OSHA discusses all of these revisions in detail in the Summary and 
Explanation section of this notice. The revisions above, when 
considered together, will reduce compliance costs, eliminate paperwork 
burdens, and clarify requirements without diminishing worker 
protections.

B. Regulatory History

    The Standards Improvement Project (SIP) began in response to a 1996 
Presidential Memorandum on Improving Government Regulations. SIP-I, 
published on July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37849) effected several changes to 
the general industry and construction standards, including the removal 
of obsolete medical tests and the elimination of unnecessary cross-
references. After the success of SIP-I, OSHA completed SIP-II, which it 
published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1111). SIP-II focused on revising 
health standards to reduce regulatory burden, facilitate compliance, 
eliminate unnecessary paperwork, and revise employee-notification 
requirements.
    SIP-III builds on the success of SIP-I and SIP-II, and continues 
with the removal or revision of out-of-date and inconsistent rules. 
OSHA selected the regulations for improvement in SIP-III based on the 
Agency's review of its standards, suggestions and comments from public 
and private entities either to OSHA directly or in the OMB report, 
Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005).
    SIP-III received support from several stakeholders who provided 
comments to both an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 
published on December 21, 2006 (71 FR 76623), and the proposal 
published on July 2, 2010 (75 FR 38646). SIP-III is consistent with the 
current goals and objectives of this Administration, as evidenced by 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821), titled ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review,'' issued on January 18, 2011, by President Obama. 
Specifically, the Executive Order requests that agencies review 
existing and proposed standards and regulations to ensure they 
effectively protect ``public health, welfare, safety, and our 
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation.'' The Executive Order continues:

    [Our regulatory system] must allow for public participation and 
an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce 
uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative and 
least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take 
into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. 
It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written 
in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek 
to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.

The Executive Order sets forth requirements for agencies to follow when 
promulgating standards. The requirements detail several principles for 
agencies to observe during the rulemaking process, including public 
participation, integration and innovation, flexible approaches, and 
retrospective analysis of existing rules. Specifically, the Executive 
Order provides the following direction to agencies regarding 
retrospective analysis:

    To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant 
regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote 
retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, 
insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 
expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.

    As previously discussed, the SIP process is a proven and successful 
means to review, update, and revise regulations. SIP-III, in 
particular, embodies the goals and objectives specified in the 
Executive Order because it ensures that OSHA's standards are 
understandable, relevant, do not overly burden employers, and, most 
importantly, provide regulations that are effective in keeping 
America's workers safe.

II. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH 
Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) is ``to assure so far as possible every 
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working 
conditions and to preserve our human resources * * *.'' (See 29 U.S.C. 
651(b).) To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of 
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health 
standards, authorizing summary adoption of existing national consensus 
and established Federal standards within two years of the effective 
date of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)); authorizing promulgation of 
standards pursuant to notice-and-comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and 
requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
    An occupational safety or health standard is a standard ``which 
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, 
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or 
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of 
employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially 
reduces or eliminates significant risk. In addition, it must be 
technologically and economically feasible, cost effective, and 
consistent with prior Agency action, or a justified departure from that 
action. Substantial evidence must support the standard, and the 
standard

[[Page 33592]]

must effectuate the OSH Act's purposes better than any national 
consensus standard it supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612-16616, March 30, 
1993.)
    A standard is technologically feasible when the protective measures 
it requires already exist, when available technology can bring the 
protective measures into existence, or when that technology is 
reasonably likely to develop. (See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. 
OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel 
Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (DC Cir. 1991) (AISI)). A standard 
is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass on the costs of 
compliance without threatening its long-term profitability or 
competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 55; AISI, 939 F.2d 
at 980. A standard is cost effective if the protective measures it 
requires are the least costly of the available alternatives that 
achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n. 32; 
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (DC Cir.1994) (LOTO 
II).
    Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include in its 
standards requirements for labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and 
other information-gathering and transmittal provisions (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(7)). OSHA safety standards also must be highly protective. (See 
58 FR at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.) Finally, whenever 
practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of objective 
criteria and of the performance desired'' (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).

III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule

    OSHA proposed a number of actions to amend its standards, including 
revisions to the Agency's general industry, maritime, construction, and 
agricultural standards. A detailed description and the Agency's 
rational for each revision follows. Also discussed are the comments the 
Agency received in response to the changes it proposed. OSHA made some 
of the revisions in more than one industry. For example, the revisions 
to the general industry Slings standard also are made in shipyard 
employment and the construction industry. When revisions in a general 
industry standard are also made in additional industries, OSHA will 
discuss the revisions fully in the general industry section, and then 
reference the provisions affected in the sections covering the other 
industries.

A. Revisions in General Industry Standards (29 CFR 1910)

1. Subpart E
    OSHA is making several revisions to subpart E. First, the title of 
subpart E changes from ``Means of Egress'' to ``Exit Routes and 
Emergency Planning.'' OSHA previously changed the title in 2002 when 
the Agency updated subpart E in its entirety (67 FR 67949); the new 
title was ``Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention 
Plans.'' However, due to a printing error, the change was not made. In 
the SIP-III NPRM, OSHA proposed changing the title of subpart E to the 
more concise ``Exit Routes and Emergency Planning.''
    In response to the NPRM, the National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA) (ID 0151.1) noted that the NFPA Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) and 
the International Code Council (ICC) codes use the term ``means of 
egress,'' and claimed, ``Fire marshals, code officials, architects, 
engineers, and safety managers are familiar with the term `means of 
egress' and understand what components constitute the means of egress * 
* *.'' There were no other comments submitted to the docket on this 
issue.
    While the term ``means of egress'' as used by the NFPA may be 
familiar to many in the fire-regulation community, OSHA's requirements 
of subpart E consistently use the term ``exit routes'' throughout, 
including in the ``Coverage and Definitions'' section. Therefore, OSHA 
is revising the title of subpart E to ``Exit Routes and Emergency 
Planning,'' as proposed.
    OSHA's requirements for exit routes at Sec. Sec.  1910.36, and 
1910.37 of subpart E are general, performance-oriented, and do not 
address every situation that may arise. Section 1910.35 provides 
employers with a compliance alternative to Sec. Sec.  1910.36, and 
1910.37 that they can use to cover a variety of situations. 
Specifically, it permits employers to demonstrate compliance with the 
exit-route provisions of NFPA 101 instead of the requirements in Sec.  
1910.36 or 1910.37. Existing Sec.  1910.35 refers to the 2000 edition 
of the NFPA 101 as the alternative means of compliance. OSHA proposed 
to update this provision to permit employers to comply with Chapter 7 
of the 2009 edition of NFPA 101, which covers means of egress, or exit 
routes. OSHA believed that Chapter 7 of the later edition of NFPA 101 
would provide a level of employee safety equivalent to, or higher than, 
the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
    OSHA also proposed to revise Sec.  1910.35 to add a second 
compliance alternative that would deem employers to be in compliance 
with the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 
1910.37, provided that employers can demonstrate compliance with the 
exit route provisions contained in Chapter 10 of the of the ICC 
International Fire Code (IFC).
    NFPA commented (ID 0151.1) that using only Chapter 7 of NFPA 101 
for the compliance alternative as proposed in the NPRM is inadequate, 
noting that ``a broader reference to the 2009 edition of NFPA 101 is in 
order as those who enforce the OSHA rules understand that supplemental 
egress rules in the occupancy chapters have application.'' After 
considering the NFPA's comment, OSHA agrees that all of the provisions 
contained in the full standard related to exit routes are necessary for 
proper application because other chapters in the NFPA 101 also include 
provisions for means of egress. For example, administrative provisions 
such as scope, applicability, and equivalency are in Chapter 1, while 
definitions for terms used in Chapter 7 are in Chapter 3. Chapter 8 
contains provisions for fire barriers, smoke barriers, and smoke 
partitions that are necessary to achieve the compartmentation features 
(such as stair enclosures) for means of egress. Chapter 11 contains 
provisions for high-rise buildings and other special structures. 
Chapters 12 through 42 have provisions that apply to exit routes for 
buildings of specific occupancy types. Chapters 11 through 42 adapted, 
as appropriate, the basic provisions of the core chapters (1 through 
10) when addressing specific occupancies, differing occupant 
capabilities, and various building types. Some examples of these 
adaptations include sprinkler system trade-offs, conditions where a 
single exit would be acceptable, lengthened or shortened travel 
distance to exits, and wider or narrower aisles based on occupant load. 
Referencing the corresponding portions of the entire 2009 NFPA 101 
standard that relate to exit routes, rather than a single chapter, is 
consistent with the previously existing compliance alternative in Sec.  
1910.35 that referenced the exit-route provisions of the entire 2000 
edition of NFPA 101.
    Similarly, Sec.  1910.35 of the final rule references the entire 
IFC standard, rather than only Chapter 10, as initially proposed. OSHA 
determined that the full IFC standard is necessary for proper 
application of the exit-route requirements. OSHA believes that these 
additional compliance options will benefit employers because they will 
provide employers with flexibility to use the compliance option that 
best

[[Page 33593]]

serves their needs, while maintaining the same level of protection as 
OSHA's subpart E rules. OSHA also is revising the Table of Contents in 
Sec.  1910.33, the definition for ``occupant load'' in Sec.  1910.34, 
and two notes in Sec.  1910.36, consistent with the new language in 
Sec.  1910.35.
    In the NPRM, OSHA explained the suitability of allowing the IFC to 
serve as an equivalent compliance option. Comments received in response 
to the NPRM from ICC (ID 0157.1) and several construction code-
enforcement agencies supported the change to add the IFC compliance 
alternative. The Jefferson County, CO, Division of Building Safety (ID 
0152.1) indicated that this compliance option ``streamlines the design 
and construction process while providing safety for all occupants 
including workers.'' The New York Department of State, Division of Code 
Enforcement and Administration (ID 0158.1), states that this compliance 
option would ``assist in streamlining our regulatory process'' and 
``result in the potential for reduced construction costs without 
reducing the state's established standards for safety.'' As it did in 
response to the ANPR, the City of Hampton (ID 0159.1) agrees that this 
additional compliance option would be beneficial.
    The only opposition to the addition of the IFC compliance option 
came from the NFPA (ID 0151.1 and 0162.3). Similar to its response to 
the ANPR, NFPA did not address whether the IFC provides a level of 
safety equivalent to subpart E, but rather whether the IFC provides a 
level of safety equivalent to the NFPA 101. OSHA finds that the 
information provided by NFPA does not address whether the IFC serves as 
an effective compliance option to subpart E; therefore, OSHA determined 
that compliance with the exit-route provisions of either the NFPA 101 
or the IFC provides protection at least equivalent to the requirements 
of subpart E.
    Another concern raised by NFPA (ID 0151.1 and 0162.3) was that the 
IFC developed the ICC codes under consensus principles that differ from 
those used to develop NFPA codes. OSHA again maintains that the issue 
of concern is whether the ICC codes provide a level of employee 
protection equal to that provided by subpart E, regardless of the 
method of development. While it is true that OSHA must consider 
consensus standards in developing its mandatory standards, in 
conformance with section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), and OMB 
Circular A-119, these documents do not restrict OSHA to using only 
consensus standards. OSHA is not using the ICC codes to promulgate a 
government-unique standard, but rather to allow compliance alternatives 
that provide workers with an equivalent level of safety to that which 
OSHA provides in the existing subpart E requirements.
    NFPA (ID 0151.1) also stated that Section 3(9) of the OSH Act has 
``long established the use of ANSI and NFPA documents as the source of 
OSHA's regulations.'' This provision of the Act, however, does not 
restrict the Agency from using additional standards. OSHA previously 
considered a national consensus standard (NFPA 101), and determined the 
standard was an acceptable compliance alternative. OSHA in this 
rulemaking, however, also determined that the IFC provides at least the 
same level of employee protection as the existing requirement and, 
thus, OSHA has the authority to use the IFC standard, regardless of 
whether it meets the OSH Act's definition of a ``national consensus 
standard'' (as defined in Section 3(9) of the OSH Act).
    The last concern raised by NFPA (ID 0151.1 and 0162.2) is the 
suitability of the IFC codes for existing buildings. IFC Section 1026, 
``Means of Egress for Existing Buildings'' and Section 1027, 
``Maintenance of the Means of Egress,'' address specifically this 
issue. OSHA notes that subpart E does not differentiate between new and 
existing buildings, thus allowing employers to determine the egress 
features needed for employee safety in existing buildings. OSHA further 
notes that paragraph 4.6.5 in the 2009 edition of NFPA 101, allows for 
the modification of any requirements in existing buildings ``where it 
is evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided.'' OSHA, 
therefore, concludes that both the NFPA 101 and the IFC independently 
provide a degree of flexibility for existing buildings comparable to 
subpart E.
    The ICC (ID 0157.1) raised the issue of whether future editions of 
the IFC would serve as acceptable compliance alternatives to Sec.  
1910.35. The Agency notes that it cannot incorporate by reference the 
latest editions of consensus standards without undertaking new 
rulemaking because such action would delegate the government's 
regulatory authority to consensus standards developing organizations, 
as well as deprive the public of the notice-and-comment period required 
by law. Therefore, each compliance option must specify the edition of 
the corresponding standard, in this case NFPA 101-2009 and the IFC-
2009. OSHA only proposed and evaluated those particular editions for 
equivalency in terms of employee protection.
    Most of the information received in response to both the ANPR and 
the NPRM supports the incorporation of the 2009 editions of the NFPA 
101 and IFC standards in Sec.  1910.35 as compliance alternatives for 
Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. The Agency believes these 
changes will increase compliance flexibility, achieve greater 
compatibility with many State and local jurisdictions, while 
maintaining employee protection.
2. Subpart I
a. Training Certification Records
    The Cadmium and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standards 
require employers to verify that affected workers received training 
through a written certification record that includes, at a minimum, the 
name(s) of the workers trained, the date(s) of training, and the types 
of training the workers received. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed removing 
paragraph (f)(4) of the general industry PPE standard, Sec.  1910.132; 
paragraph (e)(4) of the shipyard employment PPE standard Sec.  
1915.152; and paragraph (n)(4) of the general industry and construction 
Cadmium standards, Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127, respectively, 
all of which require employers to prepare and maintain a written record 
certifying compliance with the training requirements of these sections. 
For the NPRM, the Agency estimated that it takes over 1.8 million hours 
annually for employers to develop and maintain the training-
certification records mandated by the PPE standards in Sec. Sec.  
1910.132 and 1915.152, and more than 3,000 hours annually for employers 
to develop and maintain the training-certification records provision 
required by the Cadmium standards for general industry (Sec.  
1910.1027) and construction (Sec.  1926.1127). In the NPRM, OSHA stated 
that it believed that the training-certification records required by 
the four standards do not provide a safety or health benefit sufficient 
to justify the burden hours and cost to employers, and that employers 
ensure that work practices and use of PPE are consistent with the 
training received by observing employees as they work, not through 
maintaining training-certification records.
    Three commenters opposed the removal of these written training-
record requirements. The BCTD, AFL-CIO (ID 0156.1) stated that ``the 
importance of the written certification [is] to reinforce the 
requirement that employers satisfy

[[Page 33594]]

themselves that their employees are appropriately trained.'' Similarly, 
the AFL-CIO (ID 0160.1) said that ``documentation of training is an 
important element of the training process. It not only serves to 
provide written assurance that the training was, in fact, provided but 
also serves to reinforce and remind the employer that training is 
required to be provided in the first place.'' 3M (ID 0154.1) expressed 
concern that eliminating the requirement to document training may 
convey to employers that OSHA is loosening employer obligations for 
providing PPE and training for employees.
    OSHA does not believe that removal of training-certification record 
requirements indicates a weakening of PPE training requirements as 
suggested by these commenters. First, OSHA believes that worker 
training on the proper use of PPE is essential to ensure its 
effectiveness, and OSHA is not deleting any requirements that employers 
train workers appropriately in the use of PPE. However, OSHA believes 
that the workers can demonstrate knowledge of the proper use of PPE, 
and employers can observe easily such use in the workplace, without the 
need for paper certifications. If a worker is not using the PPE 
properly, the employer can retrain the worker as necessary, thereby 
ensuring that the employee obtains the maximum benefit for the PPE.
    OSHA also notes that, of all of OSHA's substance-specific health 
standards, only the Cadmium standards for general industry and 
construction require written certification to document training. 
Furthermore, OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard, Sec.  1910.134, 
requires in paragraph (k) that employers ensure workers ``can 
demonstrate knowledge'' of the capabilities, limitations, and use of 
respiratory protective equipment, and there is no requirement for 
written certification of training. Thus, for all of these health 
standards, with the exception of the Cadmium standards, OSHA relies on 
demonstration of worker knowledge as evidence that employers provided 
workers with adequate training in the use of PPE.
    OSHA considered the above arguments and does not agree with the 
commenters. While OSHA believes that training workers in the proper 
wear and use of PPE and the hazards associated with exposure to 
Cadmium, as well as other hazardous substances, is essential, it is not 
persuaded by the arguments that written certification improves the 
overall effectiveness of the training. Effective training ensures that 
workers understand the proper work practices, and can reduce rates of 
injuries and illnesses. Removing the certification requirements of 
these standards will not change the requirements for employers to 
provide effective training.
    Therefore, OSHA is removing paragraph (f)(4) of the general 
industry PPE standard (Sec.  1910.132), paragraph (e)(4) of the 
shipyard employment PPE standard, Sec.  1915.152, and paragraph (n)(4) 
of the general industry and construction Cadmium standards, Sec. Sec.  
1910.1027 and 1926.1127, which required employers to prepare and 
maintain a written record certifying compliance with the training 
requirements of these sections.
    In the SIP-III proposal, OSHA also requested comment on 12 other 
standards in general industry, construction, and shipyard employment 
that require employers to prepare written records or documents to 
certify that they complied with training requirements. OSHA received no 
comments in support of revoking these additional (12) requirements.
    The BCTD, AFL-CIO (ID 0156.1) stated that OSHA should consider this 
question in the context of a comprehensive examination of its training 
requirements. 3M (ID 0154.1) suggested that OSHA modify all training 
sections in all OSHA standards to include a training documentation 
section that is consistent with section 7.2.2 of the ANSI/ASSE Z490.1-
2009 standard, Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health, and 
Environmental Training, which prescribes that employers record specific 
information related to the training workers receive (i.e., date, 
location, instructor credentials). In the future, OSHA may consider 
consolidating all of its requirements in a comprehensive standard; 
however, for now, OSHA is not removing the existing training 
certification recording requirements for those 12 standards.
b. Respiratory Protection
    OSHA is making seven revisions related to the Respiratory 
Protection standard in Sec.  1910.134. The following paragraphs discuss 
each of these revisions.
(1) Updating DOT Regulations Referenced in Sec.  1910.134(i)(4)(i)
    This provision of the Respiratory Protection standard references 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR 173 and 
178 for retesting air cylinders such as cylinders used with self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs). In August 2002, DOT revised its 
standard, which resulted in the reorganization and renumbering of its 
regulations for testing air cylinders. New subpart C of 49 CFR 180 now 
specifies the general DOT requirements for requalifying air cylinders; 
these requirements replicate the requirements in former 49 CFR parts 
173 and 178 for requalifying air cylinders. In their comments 
supporting this revision, 3M (ID 0154.1) agreed ``that the proposed 
wording will clarify the requirements of the Respiratory Protection 
standard by accurately referring to the appropriate DOT standard.'' 
OSHA did not receive comments opposing this update and, therefore, is 
revising the language in Sec.  1910.134(i)(4)(i) by referencing the new 
DOT standard for cylinder testing at 49 CFR 180 and, accordingly, will 
update this reference as proposed.
(2) Updating the NIOSH Respirator-Certification Requirement in Sec.  
1910.134(i)(9)
    Paragraph (i)(9) of OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard, Sec.  
1910.134, required the employer to use breathing-gas containers marked 
in accordance with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 
CFR 84. NIOSH reported to OSHA that there is confusion in the regulated 
community as to how this provision applied to after-market cylinders, 
and in its comments to OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety 
and Health (ACCSH) (Ex. 12.2, 12/11/2009) requested that OSHA revise 
the provision. The purpose of this modification is to clarify that 
after-market cylinders not manufactured under the quality-assurance 
program incorporated as part of the NIOSH approval process for SCBA are 
not acceptable for use. OSHA's proposed revision read, ``The employer 
shall use only the respirator manufacturer's NIOSH-approved breathing-
gas containers, marked and maintained in accordance with the Quality 
Assurance provisions of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as issued in 
accordance with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 CFR 
part 84.''
    Dr[auml]ger (ID 0150.1) supported the revision, stating that there 
are ``many aftermarket components that * * * when used either cause the 
NIOSH certification to become void until the respirator is returned to 
its approved configuration or that can cause the respirator to function 
improperly.'' Dr[auml]ger (ID 0150.1) also listed a series of cylinder 
assembly problems that may arise as a result of the use of unapproved 
components.
    3M (ID 0154.1) stated that this issue is a concern for all after-
market

[[Page 33595]]

respirator parts (e.g., breathing hoses) and does not involve only air 
cylinders, but also is relevant to other types of respirators (not just 
SCBAs). However, 3M (ID 0154.1) also believed that other paragraphs of 
the Respiratory standard already address this subject adequately and, 
therefore, the revised language was duplicative and unnecessary. 
Specifically, 3M noted that Sec.  1910.134(d)(1)(ii) addresses this 
issue adequately; this provision states: ``The employer shall select a 
NIOSH-certified respirator. The respirator shall be used in compliance 
with the conditions of its certification.'' 3M believes that ``used in 
compliance with the conditions of its certification'' addresses the 
issue of using parts manufactured, marked and maintained in accordance 
with the quality-assurance provisions of NIOSH approval for all 
respirators, including SCBAs, in 42 CFR 84. Furthermore, 3M believes 
that Sec.  1910.134(h)(4)(i) and (ii) provide adequate control over use 
of after-market cylinders. These provisions state: ``Repairs or 
adjustments to respirators are to be made only by persons appropriately 
trained to perform such operations and shall use only the respirator 
manufacturer's NIOSH-approved parts designed for the respirator,'' and 
``Repairs shall be made according to the manufacturer's recommendations 
and specifications for the type and extent of repairs to be 
performed;''
    OSHA agrees with 3M that the current language in paragraphs (d) and 
(h) of the Respiratory Protection standard adequately covers after-
market SCBA cylinders not manufactured in accordance with the quality-
assurance program required for NIOSH approval. OSHA also found the 
current language sufficient for compliance purposes. Nevertheless, OSHA 
notes that neither paragraph (d) nor (h) specifically refers to after-
market SCBA cylinders and, despite the language in the existing 
requirements, users still have questions with respect to the use of 
after-market SCBA cylinders. Therefore, OSHA believes that adding 
clarification by means of one additional sentence may alleviate any 
confusion and enhance worker protection by making clear that, when 
employers use after-market SCBA cylinders, they must use cylinders 
manufactured in accordance with NIOSH requirements. Accordingly, OSHA 
is revising Sec.  1910.134(i)(9) to read: ``The employer shall use only 
the respirator manufacturer's NIOSH-approved breathing-gas containers, 
marked and maintained in accordance with the Quality Assurance 
provisions of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as issued in accordance 
with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 CFR 84.''
(3) Appendix C to Sec.  1910.134
    OSHA is revising question 2a in the OSHA Medical 
Evaluation Questionnaire, Appendix C, Part A, Section 2, of its 
Respiratory Protection standard, Sec.  1910.134, which describes a 
particular medical condition. OSHA believes that the use of the term 
``fits'' is outdated, unnecessary, and offensive. OSHA determined that 
this revision to the questionnaire will have no effect on 
administration of, or responses to, the questionnaire. OSHA received no 
comments opposing this revision. Therefore, OSHA is deleting the word 
``fits,'' leaving only the word ``seizures'' to describe the medical 
condition.
(4) Appendix D to Sec.  1910.134
    To clarify that Appendix D of the Respiratory Protection standard 
(Sec.  1910.34) is mandatory, OSHA is removing paragraph (o)(2) from 
the standard, and revising paragraph (o)(1) of the standard to include 
Appendix D among the mandatory appendices. As discussed in the ANPR and 
the proposal, this revision to paragraph (o)(1) will reduce public 
confusion by clarifying the Agency's purpose regarding Appendix D when 
it published the Respiratory Protection standard on January 8, 1998 (63 
FR 1152): Namely that Appendix D is mandatory. In this regard, 
paragraph (c)(2)(i), the introductory text to paragraph (k), and 
paragraph (k)(6) of the Respiratory standard provided evidence of this 
purpose. These provisions mandate that employers provide voluntary 
respirator users with the information contained in Appendix D. 
Additionally, the title of Appendix D states that it is mandatory.
    In the proposal, OSHA solicited comments from stakeholders 
regarding whether employers understood these provisions, if the 
information was appropriate, and whether clarifying that Appendix D was 
mandatory would increase the burden on employers. The BCTD, AFL-CIO (ID 
0156.1) supported these revisions stating that:

    The proposed changes, which would clearly list Appendix D as a 
mandatory appendix and eliminate regulatory language that suggests 
otherwise, will not impose any new obligations on employers, but 
will instead simply remove a source of confusion and thereby ensure 
that employees are provided with the information they need to use 
respirators properly.

The AFL-CIO (ID 0160.1) also supported the revision, and stated that 
the changes would ensure:

    [T]hat the information contained in Appendix D is required to be 
provided to an employee whenever they voluntarily wear respirators. 
By making it clear that Appendix D is mandatory, doing so now makes 
it conform with paragraph (k)(6) which requires that the information 
in the appendix shall be provided by the employer to workers who 
wear respirators when their use is not required by the respirator 
standard or by the employer. This proposed change eliminates any 
confusion that may occur about the mandatory nature of Appendix D in 
these circumstances and further enhances worker protection with the 
information contained in the appendix.

3M (ID 0154.1) also supported the removal of paragraph (o)(2) from the 
standard. However, 3M expressed concern regarding:

    [W]hether the general reader will note that the title of the 
appendix, ``Appendix D to Sec. 1910.134 (Mandatory) Information for 
Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard'' 
is referring to voluntary use of respirators. Voluntary use of 
respirators is a term understood by most readers of the standard. 
`Information for Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under 
the Standard' may not be clear to the general reader that the title 
refers only to voluntary use. In other words, we believe `voluntary 
use' to be plain English compared to `Information for Employees 
Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard.'

    3M also suggests that OSHA modify the title of the appendix to 
``Mandatory When Voluntary Use Is Allowed,'' claiming that the term 
``voluntary use'' is clearer to an employer than the phrase ``When Not 
Required Under the Standard.''
    OSHA decided to delete the confusing and inconsistent language in 
paragraph (o)(2), and revised the language in paragraph (o) of Sec.  
1910.134 to state, ``Compliance with Appendix A, Appendix B-1, Appendix 
B-2, Appendix C, and Appendix D to this section is mandatory.'' 
Regarding 3M's recommendation to change the title of Appendix D, OSHA 
disagrees with 3M that the title proposed by 3M is clearer than the 
current title because the current title makes clear that the appendix 
refers to use of respirators when the standard does not require 
employers to use them. Therefore, OSHA is retaining the current title 
of Appendix D in Sec.  1910.134, which is ``(Mandatory) Information for 
Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard.''
(5) Asbestos (Sec.  1915.1001)
    SIP-III addresses several outdated and inconsistent provisions 
contained in the Agency's Asbestos standards covering general industry 
(29 CFR 1910), shipyards (29 CFR 1915), and

[[Page 33596]]

construction (29 CFR 1926). Each of these standards include a section 
entitled ``Respirator Program,'' which specifies the requirements for 
using respiratory protection to protect workers from exposure to 
asbestos. In the final rulemaking to revise OSHA's Respiratory 
Protection standard (Sec.  1910.134), the Agency updated the Asbestos 
standards for general industry and construction so that the program 
requirements would be consistent with the provisions of the revised 
Respiratory Protection standard (see 63 FR 1285 and 1298). However, the 
Agency inadvertently omitted revising the respirator-program 
requirements specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard 
for shipyards. OSHA is revising the respirator-program requirements 
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard for 
shipyards, Sec.  1915.1001, to read the same as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of 
the Asbestos standard for general industry, Sec.  1910.1001, and 
(h)(2)(i) of the Asbestos standard for construction, Sec.  1926.1101, 
both of which state, ``The employer must implement a respiratory 
protection program in accordance with Sec.  1910.134(b) through (d) 
(except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).'' These paragraphs specify 
the requirements for an employer's respirator program with respect to 
asbestos exposure.
    OSHA received no comments in opposition to this revision. 3M (ID 
0154.1) supported making Sec.  1915.001(h)(3)(i) consistent with the 
other asbestos standards, and did not believe it would ``create 
additional compliance requirements.''
    Similarly, OSHA is removing paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and 
(h)(4) from the shipyard Asbestos standard at Sec.  1915.1001, which 
address filter changes, washing faces and facepieces to prevent skin 
irritation, and fit testing, respectively. OSHA determined that this 
action is appropriate because paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of 
the Asbestos standard for shipyards duplicate of the continuing-use 
provisions specified in paragraph Sec.  1910.134(g)(2)(ii).
    In addition, the fit-testing requirements provided in paragraph (f) 
of the Respiratory Protection standard either meet or exceed the 
provisions specified in (h)(4) of the shipyard Asbestos standard, 
except that the frequency of fit-testing is different. The shipyard-
employment Asbestos standard at Sec.  1915.1001(h)(4)(ii) previously 
required employers to perform quantitative and qualitative fit testing 
``at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafter 
for each employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator.'' The 
Respiratory Protection standard at Sec.  1910.134(f)(2) requires 
employers to fit test employees using a tight-fitting respirator 
``prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different 
facepiece * * * is used, and at least annually thereafter.''
    By adding the reference to the Sec.  1910.134 Respiratory 
Protection standard to Sec.  1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the shipyard 
Asbestos standard, OSHA incorporates the fit-testing requirements of 
Sec.  1910.134(f), which include the requirement to use the OSHA-
accepted qualitative fit-testing and quantitative fit-testing protocols 
and procedures contained in Appendix A of Sec.  1910.134. Accordingly, 
the-fit testing requirements specified in Appendix C of Sec.  1915.1001 
would be redundant; therefore, OSHA is revising Appendix C from Sec.  
1915.1001 to refer to Sec.  1910.134(f). OSHA received no comments in 
response to these proposed changes.
    The Agency determined that these revisions will not increase 
employers' compliance burden, but instead will reduce the burden by 
providing consistency between the shipyard employment Asbestos standard 
and the requirements of the Asbestos standards for general industry and 
construction.
(6) 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec.  1910.1003)
    In 1996, OSHA combined the 13 separate carcinogen standards into a 
single standard (61 FR 9242, March 7, 1996). As part of this regulatory 
action, the Agency replaced the requirement for use of full-facepiece, 
supplied-air respirators with a requirement to use half-mask 
particulate-filter respirators for the 13 carcinogens. However, four of 
these chemicals (i.e., methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-chloromethyl 
ether, ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone) are liquids, not 
particulates, and, therefore, the use of particulate-filter respirators 
is not appropriate to ensure the protection of workers exposed to these 
chemicals
    Based on a recommendation by the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), OSHA proposed to revise the 13 
Carcinogens standard to require the use of the most protective 
supplied-air respirators available, either a pressure-demand SCBA or a 
full facepiece supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained 
air supply, for these four liquid carcinogens (75 FR 38652). However, 
OSHA invited comment on whether it ``should allow the use of chemical 
cartridges with NIOSH-certified air-purifying half-mask respirators for 
these four liquid carcinogens [on condition that] employers provid[e] 
that the cartridges used to absorb the vapors emitted from these 
chemicals would have an adequate service life.'' (Id.)
    In responding to the SIP-III proposal, 3M recommended that OSHA 
permit the use of organic-vapor chemical cartridges for the four liquid 
carcinogens, provided that employers implement change schedules 
required by paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of OSHA's Respiratory Protection 
standard at Sec.  1910.134 (ID 0154.1). To support this recommendation, 
3M provided information that software models are available that can 
determine the service life of the chemical cartridges used for each of 
the four carcinogens (Id.). Based on this information, 3M concluded 
that ``[t]hese service life estimates and the wide availability of 
organic vapor cartridges indicate organic vapor cartridges are feasible 
options for these four chemicals'' and that ``[t]o require supplied air 
respirators based on old approval criteria appears unnecessary and 
burdensome for employers.'' (Id.)
    However, 3M also acknowledged that no PELs exist for these 
carcinogens that could provide a basis for using the assigned 
protection factors (APFs) listed in Sec.  1910.134 to determine the 
maximum-use concentrations for these chemicals below which employers 
could use half-mask negative-pressure respirators. Therefore, 3M 
believed that it would be ``necessary for OSHA to stipulate either the 
minimum respirator to be used or the minimum respirator assigned 
protection factor required.''
    After reviewing 3M's submission, OSHA determined that the Agency 
does not have sufficient information on the performance of organic-
vapor chemical cartridges with these four substances to include it as 
an alternative. Furthermore, as 3M acknowledged, there are no PELs 
available that would permit employers to determine maximum-use 
concentrations for the purpose of selecting the appropriate type of 
organic-vapor cartridge respirator, nor was sufficient information 
available in the rulemaking record for OSHA to provide guidance on how 
to select the appropriate level of negative-pressure respirator to 
protect employees exposed to these four carcinogens. Given these 
considerations, OSHA concludes that workers would only receive the 
requisite level of protection from a pressure-demand SCBA or a full 
facepiece supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air 
supply. Therefore, OSHA is revising Sec.  1910.1003(c)(4)(iv) 
accordingly.
(7) 1, 3-Butadiene (Sec.  1910.1051)
    OSHA is removing paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-Butadiene standard

[[Page 33597]]

Sec.  1910.1051, which required that employers keep fit-test records 
for employees who use respirators to reduce toxic exposures. The 
Butadiene standard is the only substance-specific standard that 
includes this requirement, and the provision duplicates the requirement 
in OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (Sec.  1910.134) to maintain 
fit test records. Both the American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 
0021.1) and 3M (ID 0154.1) supported OSHA's proposal to remove the 
paragraph and rely instead on the fit-testing recordkeeping 
requirements in Sec.  1910.134. OSHA received no comments in opposition 
to this revision.
3. Subpart J
a. Definition of ``Potable Water'' (Sec.  1910.141(a)(2))
    OSHA is revising the definition of the term ``potable water'' in 
the Sanitation standards for general industry at Sec.  1910.141(a)(2), 
and construction at Sec.  1926.51(a)(6), and the Field Sanitation 
standard for agriculture at Sec.  1928.110(b). As explained in the 
NPRM, OSHA adopted the previous definition from a Public Health Service 
code that no longer exists. The final rule now defines potable water as 
``water that meets the standards for drinking purposes of the state or 
local authority having jurisdiction, or water that meets the quality 
standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR 141).'' The new definition 
will both update, and make consistent, all of the requirements for 
employers to provide potable water to workers.
    In their comment, the AFL-CIO (ID 0160.1) stated, ``We're pleased 
that the agency is revising this requirement to eliminate an outdated 
definition.'' A-Z Safety (ID 0149.1) asked OSHA to update all of Sec.  
1926.51 consistent with the current ANSI A10.25 Construction Sanitation 
standard, which addresses hand washing, water use, Portland cements, 
sanitary washrooms, and other sanitation requirements. Although OSHA 
may consider a full update of Sec.  1926.51 in the future, the Agency 
did not propose such an update and, therefore, cannot update Sec.  
1926.51 in this final rulemaking. OSHA received no comments opposing 
these proposed revisions.
b. Washing Facilities (Sec.  1910.141(d))
    OSHA is revising the Bloodborne Pathogens standard by removing the 
word ``hot'' from the phrase ``hot air drying machines'' in the 
definition of ``handwashing facilities'' at Sec.  1910.1030(b), as 
proposed. This revision will permit employers to use high-velocity air 
blowers in the workplace. The definition previously read: ``Handwashing 
Facilities means a facility providing an adequate supply of running 
potable water, soap, and single use towels or hot air drying 
machines.''
    When OSHA published the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, adequate 
non-heated, high velocity air blowers were not available. Since then, 
OSHA received information that current technology uses high-velocity, 
non-heated air, rather than hot or warm air, to dry hands. (Dyson B2B 
Inc; Dyson; ID 0015) Employers may still use hot-/warm-air drying 
machines, as well as non-heated air blowers or other air-drying 
machines that may become available as technology advances. OSHA is 
similarly revising three other Sanitation standards: The Sanitation 
standards for marine terminals at Sec.  1917.127(a)(1)(iii), 
longshoring at Sec.  1918.95(a)(1)(iii), and construction at Sec.  
1926.51(f)(3)(iv). OSHA received no comments in response to the 
proposal opposing these revisions.
4. Slings (Sec.  1910.184)
    In 1996, the National Association of Chain Manufacturers (NACM) 
petitioned OSHA to adopt requirements of the then-current ANSI B30.9 
standard, as it believed that the existing OSHA standard was not as 
safe as the ANSI standard. Based on the record developed during the 
SIP-III rulemaking, OSHA is updating its standards regulating the use 
of slings at Sec.  1910.184 in general industry, Sec. Sec.  1915.112, 
1915.113, and 1915.118 in shipyard employment, and Sec.  1926.251 in 
construction by removing outdated tables that specify safe working 
loads, and revising other provisions (e.g., Sec. Sec.  1910.184(e)(6) 
and 1915.112) that reference the outdated tables. The load-capacity 
tables previously designated in these standards, based on the 1971 ANSI 
B30.9 standard, are now obsolete and no longer conform to the load-
capacity tables of the updated ANSI B30.9 standard. The outdated tables 
are being replaced with a requirement that prohibits employers from 
loading slings in excess of the recommended safe working load as 
prescribed on permanently affixed identification markings. The 
revisions also prohibit the use of slings that do not have permanently 
affixed identification markings. The revisions are the same as those 
proposed, and no comments were received opposing these revisions.
    The BCTD, AFL-CIO (ID 0156.1) supported the revisions, stating:

    [W]orker safety will be enhanced by removing from the sling 
standard references to outdated working-load tables and by 
strengthening the existing requirements that employers comply with 
the rated capacities specified by the slings' manufacturers. In this 
regard, we agree that employers must ensure that the identification 
markings provided by the manufacturers are affixed to the slings 
whenever they are in use; that in loading slings, employers must be 
prohibited from exceeding the load capacity indicated on the 
identification markings; and that any sling from which the markings 
have become detached must be taken out of service until new labels 
are obtained and affixed.

In response to OSHA's request for information regarding the use of 
slings (see 75 FR 38654), the BCTD, AFL-CIO stresses the following four 
points:

    (1) It is standard practice for manufacturers in this country to 
produce slings in accordance with the specifications prescribed by 
the ASME/ANSI B30.9 slings standard.
    (2) In accordance with B30.9, manufacturers affix labels to 
slings either by wires or chains or, in the case of synthetic 
slings, by sewing them into the fabric.
    (3) The labels provided by sling manufacturers generally list 
their names or trademarks, the safe load capacity, and the type of 
material, which is what Subpart H currently requires for slings made 
of alloy steel chains and synthetic webbing. See 29 CFR 
1926.251(b)(1) and (e)(1)(i)-(iii).
    (4) With use, the tags and markings can become detached or 
damaged. However, just as employers are required to ensure that the 
slings themselves retain their integrity, it is important that they 
be required to replace tags that become detached or otherwise 
unreadable, so the workers loading the slings have readily 
accessible information about the limits of the load capacity.

OSHA determined that these revisions will eliminate duplicative, 
inconsistent, and outdated information, thus minimizing confusion 
regarding the rated capacity of any type of sling used by the 
employers, and also increasing worker safety. Reliance on the 
information marked on the sling simplifies compliance for the employers 
by ensuring that employers use slings with readily available, up-to-
date load ratings. Consequently, OSHA is removing the previous load-
capacity tables for slings from the following standards: Sec.  1910.184 
(general industry; tables N-184-1, and N-184-3 through N-184-22); Sec.  
1915.118 (shipyard employment; tables G-1 through G-5, G-7, G-8, and G-
10), including references to these tables in Sec.  1915.112 and Sec.  
1915.113; and Sec.  1926.251 (construction; tables H-1 and H-3 through 
H-19). In their place, OSHA is adding identical requirements for 
identification markings on wire-, natural-, and synthetic-fiber rope 
slings in Sec. Sec.  1910.184 and 1926.251, as well as for manila rope 
and manila-rope slings, wire rope and wire-rope slings, and

[[Page 33598]]

chain and chain slings in Sec.  1915.112. The final rule provides 
similar requirements for shackles in Sec.  1915.113 and Sec.  1926.251.
    In addition, OSHA is requiring that, in using the sling, employers 
follow the safe working-load capacity information on the identification 
markings affixed to slings by the sling manufacturer. Further, if the 
sling is missing its identification marking, consistent with the latest 
ASME/ANSI B30.9 standard, employers must remove the sling from service 
until they reaffix the identification markings.
5. Subpart T
    OSHA is removing two unnecessary requirements from paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) and (b)(5) of its Commercial Diving Operations standard at 
Sec.  1910.440. Paragraph (b)(3)(i) required employers to retain dive-
team member medical records for five years, even though the standard 
contains no requirement for diver medical examinations. A 1979 court 
decision resulted in the removal of the requirement to provide diver 
medical examinations (formerly located at Sec.  1910.411). This 
revision will merely remove the corresponding medical recordkeeping 
requirement from the standard. Paragraph (b)(5) consists of two 
provisions--paragraphs (5)(i) and (ii). Paragraph (5)(i) requires 
successor employers to receive and retain all diving and medical 
records specified by the standard, while paragraph (5)(ii) requires 
employers to forward these diving and medical records to the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the absence of 
a successor employer. Neither of these requirements is necessary. The 
requirement in paragraph (5)(i) is unnecessary because Sec.  
1910.1020(h), referenced in paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  1910.440, 
specifies the same requirement. OSHA proposed to remove paragraph 
(5)(ii) as part of its effort to remove provisions from its standard 
that require employers to transfer records to NIOSH (see the discussion 
under section A.6.a below). OSHA also is correcting a typographical 
error in paragraph (b)(4) that refers to Sec.  1910.20 instead of Sec.  
1910.1020.
    These revisions duplicate the revisions included in the proposed 
rule. OSHA received no comments on any of these proposed changes.
6. Subpart Z
    OSHA is deleting the requirements to transfer records to the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for 15 
substance-specific standards in subpart Z, as well as from the standard 
that regulates access to employee exposure and medical records (Sec.  
1910.1020). The following paragraphs also describe changes to OSHA's 
general industry and construction Lead standards, and to OSHA's 
Laboratories standard. OSHA received no comments in opposition to these 
proposed changes.
a. Transfer of Exposure and Medical Records to NIOSH
    OSHA proposed removing provisions in its substance-specific 
standards that require employers to transfer exposure and medical 
records to NIOSH. Most of OSHA's existing substance-specific standards, 
as well as the Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records standard 
at Sec.  1910.1020, required employers to transfer specified medical 
and exposure records to NIOSH when an employer ceased to do business 
and left no successor, when the required period for retaining the 
records expired, or when the employer terminates a worker's employment 
(including retirement or death).
    NIOSH provided the following testimony at an ACCSH meeting in 
December, 2009:

    NIOSH believes that at the time the records transfer 
requirements were incorporated into the OSHA standards, it was 
somewhat naively believed that the records would provide a valuable 
research resource. Clearly, however, this has not been the case for 
a number of reasons. Based on our experience over the past 30 years, 
NIOSH believes that the significant costs associated with the 
records transfer requirements cannot be justified in light of the 
complete lack of scientific utility of the records. (OSHA Docket 
No.: OSHA-2009-0030; ID 0025.)

    As a result, OSHA is removing or revising the record-transfer 
requirements, as appropriate, from the following standards:
     Asbestos--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(m)(6)(ii), 
1915.1001(n)(8)(ii), and 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii);
     13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--Sec.  
1910.1003(g)(2)(i);
     Vinyl Chloride--Sec.  1910.1017 (m)(3);
     Inorganic Arsenic--Sec.  1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii);
     Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records--Sec.  
1910.1020(h)(3) and (h)(4);
     Lead--Sec. Sec.  1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and (iii) and 
1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii);
     Benzene--Sec.  1910.1028(k)(4)(ii);
     Coke Oven Emissions--Sec.  1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and (iii);
     Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec.  1910.1030(h)(4)(ii);
     Cotton Dust--Sec.  1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii);
     1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--Sec.  1910.1044(p)(4)(ii) and 
(iii);
     Acrylonitrile--Sec.  1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii);
     Ethylene Oxide--Sec.  1910.1047(k)(5)(ii);
     Methylenedianiline--Sec. Sec.  1910.1050(n)(7)(ii) and 
1926.60(o)(8)(ii); and
     1,3-Butadiene--Sec.  1910.1051(m)(6)(i).
    In addition, OSHA is removing paragraph (b)(5)(ii) from Sec.  
1910.440 (Recordkeeping requirements) of its standards for Commercial 
Diving Operations; this provision required employers to transfer diving 
medical records to NIOSH in the event that no successor employer was 
available.
b. Trigger Levels in the Lead Standards at Sec. Sec.  1910.1025 and 
1926.62
    OSHA's Lead standards for general industry and construction at 
Sec. Sec.  1910.25 and 1926.62, respectively, require the employer to 
initiate specific actions when employee exposures to airborne lead 
levels or workers' blood-lead levels reach defined thresholds. For 
airborne exposure, the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and action 
level for lead serve as triggers for determining the minimum frequency 
of exposure monitoring. The blood-lead level serves as a trigger for 
additional blood-lead testing, as well as for medical-removal 
protection and return to work after medical removal.
    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to modify the language in several 
provisions that rely on the use of airborne exposure and blood-lead 
triggers to rectify inconsistencies both within and between the general 
industry and construction rules. Previously, these rules triggered 
various requirements when airborne exposures or blood-lead levels 
exceeded an action level. For example, paragraph (j)(1)(i) of the 
general industry rule (Sec.  1910.1025) previously required the 
employer to institute a medical-surveillance program ``for all 
employees who are or may be exposed above the action level * * *.'' 
[Emphasis added.] OSHA proposed to change the language in this and 
other provisions to make clear that exposures or blood-lead levels at 
or above the applicable action level trigger the requirements. 
Similarly, both the general industry and construction rules previously 
permitted the employer to return an employee to work following medical 
removal when two consecutive blood-lead tests show blood-lead levels at 
or below the action level of 40 [mu]g/dl. OSHA proposed to change this 
language to permit return to work when blood-lead levels are below the 
action level.
    In the final rule, OSHA is, with one exception, revising the 
provisions in the

[[Page 33599]]

lead standard as proposed, and Table 1 below shows these changes for 
the general industry rule, and Table 2 below shows them for the 
construction rule. These revisions make consistent parallel 
requirements in the general industry and construction lead standards, 
thus reducing potential confusion. In addition, triggering exposure 
monitoring when airborne exposures are at or above the action level is 
consistent with use of the action level in most other substance-
specific standards to establish monitoring requirements.
    The one exception to the proposed changes involves paragraph 
(d)(6)(iii) of the general industry rule, which requires employers to 
conduct exposure monitoring at least quarterly when initial monitoring 
reveals worker exposures above the PEL. OSHA proposed to change the 
provision to require quarterly monitoring when exposures were at or 
above the PEL. However, since issuing the proposed rule, OSHA 
determined that this change would result in paragraph (d)(6)(iii) being 
inconsistent with the same provision of the lead in construction rule 
(at Sec.  1926.62(d)(6)(iii)), as well as with several other substance-
specific standards (see, for example, Chromium (VI) at Sec.  
1910.1026(d)(2)(iv); Benzene at Sec.  1910.1028(e)(3)(ii); Asbestos at 
Sec.  1910.1001(d)(3)).
    Stakeholders supported the proposed revisions. The BCTD, AFL-CIO 
(ID 0156.1) stated, ``The language changes set forth in Tables 1 and 2 
(Fed. Reg. at 28655-56)--which will set all triggers `at or above' a 
specified level--will eliminate confusion about when employers must 
act.'' Similarly, the AFL-CIO (ID 0160.1) indicated these revisions 
``will not only eliminate confusing inconsistencies but will also 
properly initiate certain protective actions at the appropriate 
triggering level of airborne concentration of lead without adding any 
additional obligations on employers.'' Furthermore, the State of 
California Department of Public Health (ID 0161.1-.5) submitted a 
series of additional documents in support of the change to this 
language. OSHA received no comments opposing these revisions.

               Table 1--Sec.   1910.1025 General Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Previous language                   Final rule language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.1025(d)(6)(iii)              ...............................
If the initial monitoring reveals that   No change.
 employee exposure is above the
 permissible exposure limit the
 employer shall repeat monitoring
 quarterly. The employer shall continue
 monitoring at the required frequency
 until at least two consecutive
 measurements, taken at least 7 days
 apart, are below the PEL but at or
 above the action level at which time
 the employer shall repeat monitoring
 for that employee at the frequency
 specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii),
 except as otherwise provided in
 paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
Sec.   1910.1025(j)(1)(i)
The employer shall institute a medical   The employer shall institute a
 surveillance program for all employees   medical surveillance program
 who are or may be exposed above the      for all employees who are or
 action level for more than 30 days per   may be exposed at or above the
 year.                                    action level for more than 30
                                          days per year.
Sec.   1910.1025(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests.          Follow-up blood sampling tests.
 Whenever the results of a blood lead     Whenever the results of a
 level test indicate that an employee's   blood lead level test indicate
 blood lead level exceeds the numerical   that an employee's blood lead
 criterion for medical removal under      level is at or above the
 paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of this          numerical criterion for
 section, the employer shall provide a    medical removal under
 second (follow-up) blood sampling test   paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of
 within two weeks after the employer      this section, the employer
 receives the results of the first        shall provide a second (follow-
 blood sampling test.                     up) blood sampling test within
                                          two weeks after the employer
                                          receives the results of the
                                          first blood sampling test.
Sec.   1910.1025(k)(1)(i)(B)
The employer shall remove an employee    The employer shall remove an
 from work having an exposure to lead     employee from work having an
 at or above the action level on each     exposure to lead at or above
 occasion that the average of the last    the action level on each
 three blood sampling tests conducted     occasion that the average of
 pursuant to this section (or the         the last three blood sampling
 average of all blood sampling tests      tests conducted pursuant to
 conducted over the previous six (6)      this section (or the average
 months, whichever is longer) indicates   of all blood sampling tests
 that the employee's blood lead level     conducted over the previous
 is at or above 50 ug/100 g of whole      six (6) months, whichever is
 blood; provided, however, that an        longer) indicates that the
 employee need not be removed if the      employee's blood lead level is
 last blood sampling test indicates a     at or above 50 ug/100 g of
 blood lead level at or below 40 ug/100   whole blood; provided,
 g of whole blood.                        however, that an employee need
                                          not be removed if the last
                                          blood sampling test indicates
                                          a blood lead level below 40 ug/
                                          100 g of whole blood.
Sec.   1910.1025(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a blood   For an employee removed due to
 lead level at or above 60 ug/100 g, or   a blood lead level at or above
 due to an average blood lead level at    60 ug/100 g, or due to an
 or above 50 ug/100 g, when two           average blood lead level at or
 consecutive blood sampling tests         above 50 ug/100 g, when two
 indicate that the employee's blood       consecutive blood sampling
 lead level is at or below 40 ug/100 g    tests indicate that the
 of whole blood.                          employee's blood lead level is
                                          below 40 ug/100 g of whole
                                          blood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 2--Sec.   1926.62 Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Previous language                   Final rule language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1926.62(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests.          Follow-up blood sampling tests.
 Whenever the results of a blood lead     Whenever the results of a
 level test indicate that an employee's   blood lead level test indicate
 blood lead level exceeds the numerical   that an employee's blood lead
 criterion for medical removal under      level is at or above the
 paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section,     numerical criterion for
 the employer shall provide a second      medical removal under
 (follow-up) blood sampling test within   paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this
 two weeks after the employer receives    section, the employer shall
 the results of the first blood           provide a second (follow-up)
 sampling test.                           blood sampling test within two
                                          weeks after the employer
                                          receives the results of the
                                          first blood sampling test.
Sec.   1926.62(j)(2)(iv)(B)

[[Page 33600]]

 
The employer shall notify each employee  The employer shall notify each
 whose blood lead level exceeds 40 ug/    employee whose blood lead
 dl that the standard requires            level is at or above 40 ug/dl
 temporary medical removal with Medical   that the standard requires
 Removal Protection benefits when an      temporary medical removal with
 employee's blood lead level exceeds      Medical Removal Protection
 the numerical criterion for medical      benefits when an employee's
 removal under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of     blood lead level exceeds the
 this section.                            numerical criterion for
                                          medical removal under
                                          paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this
                                          section.
Sec.   1926.62(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a blood   For an employee removed due to
 lead level at or above 50 ug/dl when     a blood lead level at or above
 two consecutive blood sampling tests     50 ug/dl when two consecutive
 indicate that the employee's blood       blood sampling tests indicate
 lead level is at or below 40 ug/dl.      that the employee's blood lead
                                          level is below 40 ug/dl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories (Sec.  
1910.1450)
    OSHA is revising a statement in the non-mandatory Appendix A of the 
standard that regulates occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in 
laboratories at Sec.  1910.1450. Specifically, OSHA is revising the 
warning statement regarding what action employers should take in the 
event an employee ingests hazardous chemicals. The purpose of the 
statement is to provide guidance to employers on developing a chemical-
hygiene plan. The previous text recommended that when an employee 
ingests a hazardous chemical, responders to the incident should 
``[e]ncourage the victim to drink large amounts of water.''
    As explained in the NPRM, OSHA recognizes that, in some poisoning 
instances, consuming large amounts is contraindicated. Additionally, 
OSHA acknowledges that some labels on chemical products provide warning 
language such as ``Do not give anything by mouth--Contact medical 
advice immediately.'' Based on these conflicting warnings, OSHA is 
revising the language of Appendix A to read, ``This is the one route of 
entry for which treatment depends on the type and amount of chemical 
involved. Seek medical attention immediately.'' OSHA received no 
comments in response to this proposed change.

B. Revisions to the Standards for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915)

    This section identifies and describes the revisions that apply to 
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915).
1. Appendix A of Subpart B
    OSHA's subpart B of 29 CFR 1915, which covers confined and enclosed 
spaces and other dangerous atmospheres, includes a definition of ``hot 
work'' at Sec.  1915.11 that reads as follows:

    [A]ny activity involving riveting, welding, burning, and the use 
of power-activated tools or similar fire-producing operations. 
Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing 
operations are also considered hot work except when such operations 
are isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10 
percent of the lower explosive limit [LEL] of a flammable or 
combustible substance.

Subpart B also includes a non-mandatory Appendix A titled ``Compliance 
Assistance Guidelines for Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other 
Dangerous Atmospheres'' that provides an example of an operation that 
OSHA does not consider to be hot work as defined by Sec.  1915.11. This 
example reads as follows: ``Abrasive blasting of the hull for paint 
preparation does not necessitate pumping and cleaning the tanks of a 
vessel.'' OSHA proposed to add the word ``external'' to this example 
such that it only refers to abrasive blasting of an ``external hull.'' 
OSHA proposed this change to indicate that the example applies only to 
abrasive-blasting work performed on the outside of a vessel. To ensure 
that the regulated community fully understands this exception, OSHA is 
making a minor revision to the proposed language. With this minor 
revision, the exception reads, ``Abrasive blasting of the external 
surface of the vessel (the hull) for paint preparation does not 
necessitate pumping and cleaning the tanks of the vessel.'' By 
implication, the definition of hot work under Sec.  1915.11 generally 
would cover only abrasive blasting performed on the interior of the 
hull. Therefore, OSHA is amending Appendix A as proposed, with the 
minor, non-substantive revision noted above. OSHA received no comments 
in response to the proposed change.
2. Sec. Sec.  1915.112, 1915.113, and 1915.118
    As discussed above in section A.4, OSHA is revising and updating 
the slings provisions of Sec.  1915.112 (Ropes, chains and slings), 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.113 (Shackles and hooks), and Sec.  
1915.118 (Tables).
3. Sec.  1915.154--Respiratory Protection
    As discussed in section A.2.b(2) above, the revision to Appendix C 
of the Respiratory Protection standard at Sec.  1910.134, regarding 
removal of training certification record requirements, will also affect 
shipyard employment through the Respiratory Protection standard at 
Sec.  1915.154.
4. Sec.  1915.1001--Asbestos
    As discussed above in section A.2.b(5), the revision to Sec.  
1915.1001, Asbestos, requires employers to institute a respiratory-
protection program in accordance with Sec.  1910.134, to be consistent 
with changes made to the construction and general industry Asbestos 
standards in the 1998 revision of the Respiratory Protection standard.

C. Revisions to the Standards for Marine Terminals (29 CFR 1917)

1. Sec.  1917.2--Definitions
    OSHA is adding a definition for the term ``ship's stores'' in Sec.  
1917.2. Five provisions in 29 CFR 1910, 1917, and 1918 use the term 
``ship's stores.'' However, OSHA has no definition of the term in any 
of these parts. OSHA uses the term in the definition of ``longshoring 
operation'' in Sec. Sec.  1910.16(c)(1) and 1918.2; in the definition 
of ``vessel cargo handling gear'' in Sec.  1918.2; in the scope and 
application section of the Marine Terminal standard at Sec.  1917.1(a); 
and in Sec.  1917.50(j)(3) (exceptions to the gear-certification 
requirements).
    In a directive published on May 23, 2006 (CPL 02-00-139), OSHA 
defined the term as ``materials which are on board a vessel for the 
upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel; or 
for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew.'' The 
definition in the directive is similar to the U.S. Coast Guard 
definition at 46 CFR 147. OSHA determined that the definition used in 
the directive is appropriate, and, therefore, incorporated it in the 
definitions section of Sec.  1917.2, which will clarify the provisions 
that use the term ``ships stores.'' OSHA received no comments on this 
proposed revision.

[[Page 33601]]

2. Sec.  1917.127--Sanitation
    As discussed above in section A.3.b, OSHA is revising and updating 
the sanitation provisions in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1917.127 by 
removing the word ``warm'' from the phrase ``warm air blowers.'' This 
revision will allow employers to use a variety of non-heated air-drying 
devices as technology advances and improves.

D. Revisions to the Standards for Longshoring (29 CFR 1918)

1. Sec.  1918.2--Definitions
    As discussed in section C.1 above, OSHA is adding a definition in 
Sec.  1918.2 for the term ``ship's stores'' because several provisions 
of this part use the term without any clear definition of what it 
means. OSHA received no comments on this proposed revision.
2. Sec.  1918.95--Sanitation
    As discussed above in section A.3.b, OSHA revised and updated the 
sanitation provisions in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1918.95 by 
removing the word ``warm'' from the phrase ``warm air blowers.'' This 
revision will allow employers to use a variety of mechanical hand-
drying techniques as technology advances and improves.

E. Revisions to the Standards for Gear Certification (29 CFR 1919)

1. Sec. Sec.  1919.6, 1919.11, 1919.12, 1919.15, and 1919.18
    OSHA is updating Sec. Sec.  1919.6(a)(1), 1919.11(d), 1919.12(f), 
1919.15(a), and 1919.18(b) to require employers to inspect a vessel's 
cargo-handling gear as recommended by International Labor Organization 
(ILO) Convention 152. This revision requires employers to test and 
thoroughly examine gear before initial use; thoroughly examine gear 
every 12 months thereafter; and retest and thoroughly examine the gear 
every five years. This revision is consistent with current ILO 
Convention 152. The previous standards, based on outdated ILO 
Convention 32, required testing and examination every four years. OSHA 
believes these revisions represent the usual and customary practice of 
the maritime industry and will reduce employers' compliance burden. 
These revisions also make 29 CFR 1919 standards for gear certification 
consistent with the existing requirements of the Longshoring standard 
at Sec.  1918.11(a). OSHA received no comments on the proposed 
revisions.

F. Revisions to the Construction Standards (29 CFR 1926)

1. Subpart D
a. Sec.  1926.51(a)(6)
    As discussed above in section A.3.a, OSHA revised Sec.  1926.51, 
Sanitation, by updating the definition of the term ``potable water.'' 
OSHA adopted the previous definition from a Public Health Service code 
that no longer exists. The new definition will update and eliminate an 
outdated provision, as well as promote consistency among the OSHA 
sanitation standards.
b. Sec.  1926.51(f)(3)
    As discussed in section A.3.b above, OSHA revised the sanitation 
provisions in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of Sec.  1926.51 by removing the 
word ``warm'' from the term ``warm air blowers.'' This revision will 
allow employers to use a variety of mechanical hand-drying techniques 
as technology advances.
c. Sec.  1926.60
    As discussed above in section A.6.a, OSHA removed paragraph 
(o)(8)(ii) from Sec.  1926.60 (Methylenedianiline (MDA)), which 
required employers to transfer certain employee medical and exposure 
records to NIOSH. In addition, OSHA is amending paragraph (o)(8) to 
replace the existing cross-reference to Sec.  1926.33(h) with a more 
direct cross-reference to Sec.  1910.1020(h), Access to Employee 
Exposure and Medical Records.
d. Sec.  1926.62
    (1) As discussed in section A.6.b above, OSHA revised the trigger 
levels provided in various paragraphs of Sec.  1926.62 at which 
employers must initiate specific actions to protect workers exposed to 
lead. These revisions to the trigger level change the terms ``exceeds'' 
and ``above'' to ``at or above,'' and, similarly, change the term ``at 
or below'' to ``below.'' The consistent use of these terms across 
OSHA's various substance-specific standards will improve compliance and 
result in a clear understanding of these requirements.
    (2) As discussed above in section A.6.a, OSHA removed paragraphs 
(n)(6)(ii) and (iii) from Sec.  1926.62, which required employers to 
transfer certain employee medical and exposure records to NIOSH. In 
addition, OSHA is amending paragraph (n)(6)(ii) to replace the existing 
cross-reference to Sec.  1926.33(h) with a more direct cross-reference 
to Sec.  1910.1020(h), Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records.
2. Subpart H
    As discussed in section A.4 above, OSHA revised and updated the 
slings requirements at Sec.  1926.251 (Rigging equipment for material 
handling). OSHA added the requirement that employers use only slings 
that have identification markings. The final rule provides similar 
protection for shackles.
3. Subpart Z
a. Asbestos (Sec.  1926.1101)
    OSHA is revising (n)(7)(ii) and (n)(7)(iii) and (n)(8)(ii) in the 
following manner:
    (1) OSHA is revising the references to Sec.  1926.33 in paragraphs 
(n)(7)(ii), (n)(7)(iii), and (n)(8) of Sec.  1926.1101 to more directly 
refer to Sec.  1910.1020, Employee Access to Exposure and Medical 
Records. OSHA originally proposed to only correct errors in these 
paragraphs and cross-reference to Sec.  1926.33, which is a note 
requiring employers to comply with Sec.  1910.1020. OSHA received no 
comments on the proposed correction; however, OSHA believes that 
including a direct reference to Sec.  1910.1020 will further clarify 
these provisions.
    (2) As discussed in section A.6.a above, OSHA is removing paragraph 
(n)(8)(ii), from Sec.  1926.1101, which specifies that employers must 
transfer employee medical and exposure records to NIOSH.
b. Cadmium (Sec.  1926.1127)
    (1) As discussed above in section A.2.a, OSHA is removing and 
reserving paragraph (n)(4) of Sec.  1926.1127, which requires employers 
to certify training records. OSHA does not believe that the training-
certification records required by this provision provide a safety or 
health benefit sufficient to justify the burden and cost to employers.
    (2) OSHA is revising the reference to Sec.  1926.33 in paragraph 
(n)(6) of Sec.  1926.1127 to more directly refer to Sec.  1910.1020, 
Employee Access to Exposure and Medical Records. OSHA originally 
proposed to only correct an incorrect reference to Sec.  1926.33(h) in 
this paragraph and cross-reference to Sec.  1926.33, which is a note 
requiring employers to comply with Sec.  1910.1020. OSHA received no 
comments on the proposed correction; however, OSHA believes that 
including a direct reference to Sec.  1910.1020 will further clarify 
this provision.

[[Page 33602]]

G. Revisions to the Agriculture Standards (29 CFR 1928)

Subpart I (General Environmental Controls)
    As discussed above in section A.3.a, OSHA revised Sec.  1928.110(b) 
by updating the definition of the term ``potable water.'' OSHA adopted 
the previous definition from a Public Health Service code that no 
longer exists. The new definition will update and eliminate an outdated 
provision, as well as promote consistency among the OSHA sanitation 
standards.

IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Certification

Overview

    OSHA determined that the final standard is not an economically 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 
E.O.12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct an economic analysis 
of rules that meet certain criteria. The most frequently used criterion 
under E.O.12866 is whether the rule will impose on the economy an 
annual cost in excess of $100 million. This rule has no costs and will 
lead to $45 million per year in cost savings to regulated entities. 
Thus, neither the benefits nor the costs of this rule exceed $100 
million. OSHA provides OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs with this assessment of the costs and benefits to conform with 
the emphasis in both E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866 on the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits.
    OSHA also determined that the final standard is not a major rule 
under the Congressional Review Act (a part of the SBREFA Act of 1996) 
(5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and that the rule does not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, this final 
rule requires no regulatory flexibility analysis.
    The final rule, like the proposed rule, deletes and revises a 
number of provisions in existing OSHA standards. OSHA believes that the 
final rule is technologically feasible because it reduces or removes 
current requirements on employers.
    The Agency considered both regulatory and non-regulatory 
alternatives to the final revisions. Non-regulatory alternatives are 
not an appropriate remedy to effect these revisions because the final 
provisions reduce requirements or provide flexibility to employers by 
revising existing standards. As discussed in the Summary and 
Explanation section above, the Agency considered alternatives for 
amending several provisions. In most instances, the Agency chose to 
revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well as consistency 
with standards more recently promulgated by the Agency. In some 
instances, the final rule provides more flexibility in communicating 
information to employees or the Agency. The purpose of the final 
provisions was to reduce burden on employers, or provide employers with 
compliance flexibility, while maintaining the same level of protection 
for employees.

B. Costs and Cost Savings

1. Removing Requirements To Transfer Records to NIOSH
    The Agency is deleting provisions from Sec. Sec.  1910.1020(h)(3) 
and (4) of its standard regulating access to employee medical and 
exposure records that will end employers' responsibility to send 
specific exposure and medical records to the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Under existing paragraph Sec.  
1910.1020(h)(3), if an employer ceases business operations without a 
successor, the employer must send employee exposure and medical records 
to NIOSH, if required to do so by a substance-specific standard. For 
records associated with other substances, the employer must notify the 
Director of NIOSH in writing three months before disposing of them. 
Under paragraph Sec.  1910.1020(h)(4), an employer who regularly 
disposes of employee records more than 30 years old must notify the 
Director of NIOSH at least three months prior to disposing of records 
planned for disposal in the coming year.
    Deleting these requirements from OSHA standards provides several 
sources of savings to NIOSH. In a comment to the rulemaking record (ID 
0135.1), NIOSH reported that it catalogued about 170,000 employee 
medical and exposure records during the past 30 years. NIOSH noted that 
the records were of no use for research purposes, and estimated that 
removing the duty to collect the records would result in a savings of 
$2 million for long-term storage of the catalogued data. In this 
regard, NIOSH stated that long-term storage costs are currently $0.30/
record/year, which ``represents a total lifetime storage costs of more 
than $2,000,000.'' In addition, NIOSH episodically receives data from 
employers who are terminating business operations. These employers 
often fail to contact NIOSH in advance regarding the appropriateness of 
the records they are sending to NIOSH. NIOSH protocol requires it to 
keep records, even inappropriate records, until it reviews the records; 
NIOSH keeps unreviewed records in temporary storage. Removal of the 
records-transfer requirement would relieve NIOSH of receiving and 
temporarily storing these records.
    The final rule also would save NIOSH the resources it expends on 
processing received data on an on-going basis. NIOSH noted that the 
cost of processing records range from $1.35 to $4.00 per record, but 
the agency did not provide comment on how many records are typically 
processed annually. In its analyses of the paperwork burden associated 
with this records-transfer requirement, OSHA estimated that employers 
expend 688 hours at a cost of $12,576 annually (see section VII ``OMB 
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' below). This savings 
also constitutes a benefit of the final rule.
2. Removing Training-Certification and Other Requirements
    A second source of cost savings is removing the certification 
requirement for employee training under the Personal Protective 
Equipment (PPE) and Cadmium standards. The Agency estimates that this 
action will save employers, across a wide range of industries, about 
1.86 million hours annually, with an estimated value of about $42.9 
million (see OSHA's estimate of paperwork costs below in section VII).
    The final provisions on slings require employers to use only 
equipment (i.e., slings and shackles) marked with safe working loads 
(SWL) and other rigging information. OSHA's current standards require 
this information for three of the five types of slings, and the Agency 
believes that it is industry practice for manufacturers to permanently 
mark or tag all slings with the requisite information. Thus, the Agency 
concludes that these provisions will not impose any new cost burden on 
affected employers. OSHA believes that having the SWL information 
marked on slings (instead of located in tables) would provide employers 
with readily available and up-to-date sling information. Even if the 
Agency has no information to quantify this effect to employers, OSHA 
believes that it will provide benefits to employers by permitting 
readily available and up-to-date sling information.
    The final rule also relaxes the frequency of maritime rigging 
inspections under 29 CFR 1919 from every four years to every five 
years. This provision will provide a cost saving to employers. There 
are 1,504 quadrennial inspections per year, and each

[[Page 33603]]

inspection costs $560 to employers. With the new requirement of rigging 
inspections every five years, the total number of rigging inspections 
per year will be reduced by 20 percent (or by 301 inspections). This 
reduction will result in a cost savings of $168,560 to employers 
annually.

C. Summary

    OSHA concludes that the final provisions of the SIP-III rulemaking 
do not impose any new costs on employers. Since the final rule does not 
impose costs of any significance on any employer, the Agency concludes 
that the final rule is economically feasible. The table below provides 
a summary of the cost savings OSHA estimates will result from the final 
rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Cost savings
                         Item                             (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIOSH record storage (one-time savings)...............              $2.0
Removing requirements that employers transfer records              0.013
 to NIOSH (annual savings)............................
Removing requirements for written certification of                 42.90
 training (annual savings)............................
Changing rigging inspections from every four years to               0.17
 every five years.....................................
                                                       -----------------
  Total...............................................              45.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the 
final rule to determine whether these final requirements would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Since no employer of any size will have new costs, the Agency certifies 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

V. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, 
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior 
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and 
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and 
the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for 
preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. 
Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
(OSH Act; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that States 
may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and 
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that 
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State-Plan 
States.'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards 
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are 
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational 
safety and health standards. While this final rule affects employees in 
every State, Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State-Plan States 
and Territories to develop and enforce their own standards, provided 
the requirements in these standards are at least as safe and healthful 
as the requirements specified in this final rule.
    In summary, this final rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In 
States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from 
this final rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as 
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit State policy 
options.

VI. Unfunded Mandates

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As discussed in section IV (``Preliminary 
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification'') of 
this notice, the Agency determined that this final rule will not impose 
additional costs on any private- or public-sector entity. Accordingly, 
this final rule requires no additional expenditures by either public or 
private employers.
    As noted under section VIII (``State Plans'') of this notice, the 
Agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except 
in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the 
Agency. Consequently, this final rule does not meet the definition of a 
``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see Section 421(5) of the UMRA 
(2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the Agency 
certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, local, or 
tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or 
increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million 
in any year.

VII. Office of Management and Budget Review under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), agencies must 
obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for all 
collection of information requirements (paperwork). As a part of the 
approval process, agencies must solicit comment from affected parties 
with regard to the collection of information requirements, including 
the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for the 
collection of information requirement. The paperwork burden-hour 
estimate and cost analysis that an Agency submits to OMB is termed an 
``Information Collection Request'' (ICR).
    The Standards Improvement Project-Phase III (SIP-III) final rule 
removes collection of information requirements contained in 27 separate 
ICRs currently approved by OMB. In accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), the SIP-III 
proposal solicited public comments on the proposed burden-hour and cost 
reduction. In conjunction with the publication of the SIP-III Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OSHA submitted one ICR titled ``Standards 
Improvement Project--Phase III Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.'' The 
NPRM ICR identified each ICR, the associated OMB Control Number, ICR 
reference number, and the proposed reduction in burden hours, costs, 
and number of responses.
    To better account for the burden-hour and cost reductions 
associated with the SIP-III final rule, the Department of Labor 
submitted 27 separate revised ICRs to OMB for approval. Copies of these 
ICRs are available at http://www.reginfo.gov. OSHA will publish a 
separate notice in the Federal Register that will announce the result 
of OMB's reviews. The Department of Labor notes that a Federal agency 
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB 
approves it under the PRA-95, and the agency displays a currently valid 
OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a 
collection of information if the collection of information does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number.
    The SIP-III final rule removes provisions in OSHA's substance-
specific

[[Page 33604]]

standards that require employers to transfer worker exposure-monitoring 
and medical records to the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) (see Table 3 below for a list of these provisions). 
Many OSHA standards, including its substance-specific standards in 29 
CFR part 1910, subpart Z, and 29 CFR 1910.1020 (Access to Employee 
Exposure and Medical Records), require employers to transfer to NIOSH 
medical and exposure records when: an employer ceases to do business 
and leaves no successor; the period for retaining the records expires; 
or a worker terminates employment (including retirement or death). OSHA 
removed these record-transfer provisions because evidence in this 
rulemaking record submitted by NIOSH indicates that the records serve 
no useful occupational safety and health research purpose (which is 
NIOSH's principle mission).
    In addition, the final rule removes provisions requiring employers 
to prepare and maintain written records certifying training compliance 
in the following sections: (f)(4) of the general industry Personal 
Protective Equipment (PPE) standard (29 CFR 1910.132), paragraph (e)(4) 
of the shipyard employment PPE standard (29 CFR 1915.152), and 
paragraph (n)(4) of the general industry and construction Cadmium 
standards (29 CFR 1910.1027 and 29 CFR 1926.1127) (see Table 4). These 
provisions required employers to verify that affected workers received 
training as required by the standards through a written certification 
record that included, at a minimum, the name(s) of the workers trained, 
the date(s) of training, and the types of training the workers 
received. The Cadmium standards for general industry and construction 
were the only substance-specific standards that required this training 
documentation. OSHA removed the training requirements to reduce burden 
hours and costs on the employers. Effective training ensures that 
workers understand proper work practices, which will reduce rates of 
injuries and illnesses. Removing the certification requirements of 
these standards will not change the requirements for employers to 
provide effective PPE and safety training.

                            Table 3--Burden-Hour and Cost Reductions From Removing Requirements To Transfer Records to NIOSH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control                         Existing       Burden-hour      Requested        Cost
                 Standard and provision                         No.       ICR reference No.   burden hours      reduction     burden hours   reduction *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Diving Operations--29 CFR 1910.440(b)(5)(ii).       1218-0069    200804-1218-002         205,397            -301         205,096       $5,764
Asbestos--29 CFR 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii)....................       1218-0133    201006-1218-003          11,933              -1          11,932           21
Asbestos--29 CFR 1915.1001(n)(8)(ii)....................       1218-0195    200902-1218-008           1,624              -1           1,623           22
Asbestos--29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii)....................       1218-0134    200811-1218-002       4,957,808              -4       4,957,804          101
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--29 CFR                 1218-0085    200811-1218-001           1,604              -6           1,598          139
 1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii)............................
Vinyl Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1017 (m)(3).................       1218-0010    200809-1218-003             712              -1             711           20
Inorganic Arsenic--29 CFR 1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii)       1218-0104    200811-1218-003             385              -1             384           23
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records--29 CFR        1218-0065    201007-1218-004         665,009             -16         664,993          331
 1910.1020(h)(3)(i),(ii) and (h)(4).....................
Lead--29 CFR 1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and (iii)..............       1218-0092    200907-1218-001       1,225,255              -2       1,225,253           42
Lead--29 CFR 1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii)................       1218-0189    200907-1218-002       1,363,803              -1       1,363,802           22
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(6).........................       1218-0185    200902-1218-003          92,259               0          92,259            0
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(6).........................       1218-0186    200902-1218-002          39,331               0          39,331            0
Benzene--29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii).....................       1218-0129    200911-1218-004         126,184              -1         126,183           23
Coke Oven Emissions--29 CFR 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and            1218-0128    200809-1218-004          52,701              -3          52,698           60
 (iii)..................................................
Bloodborne Pathogens--29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii)........       1218-0180    200710-1218-006     14, 059,435               0      14,059,435            0
Cotton Dust--29 CFR 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii).......       1218-0061    200809-1218-007          35,742              -3          35,739           69
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--29 CFR 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii)        1218-0101    200902-1218-007               1               0               1            0
 and (iii)..............................................
Acrylonitrile--29 CFR 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii).....       1218-0126    200809-1218-006           3,166              -3           3,163           74
Ethylene Oxide--29 CFR 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii)..............       1218-0108    200904-1218-001          41,487              -3          41,484           62
Formaldehyde--29 CFR 1910.1048(o)(6)(ii) and (iii)......       1218-0145    201006-1218-006         327,535              -2         327,533           41
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii)..........       1218-0184    200912-1218-015             298              -1             297           18
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1926.60(n)(7)(ii)............       1218-0183    200912-1218-014           1,030              -1           1,029           21
1,3-Butadiene--29 CFR 1910.1051(m)......................       1218-0170    200905-1218-001             955              -3             952           65
Methylene Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(5) **...........       1218-0179    200806-1218-001          67,362              -1          67,361           21
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in                1218-0131    200806-1218-002         281,419            -333         281,086        5,644
 Laboratories--29 CFR 1910.1450(j)(2) **................
                                                                                            ------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................  ..............  .................      23,562,435            -688      23,561,747       12,583
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The cost estimates in this table represent program changes associated with Item 12 of the Supporting Statements.

[[Page 33605]]

 
** OSHA is not modifying the provisions in these standards containing transfer of exposure-monitoring and medical records to NIOSH since these
  provisions reference 29 CFR 1910.1020 rather than specify directly any transfer requirements. However, the ICRs for these standards accounted for
  burden hours and costs for these provisions. Therefore, OSHA included these provisions in this table.


                               Table 4--Burden-Hour and Cost Reductions From Removing Training-Certification Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           OMB  Control                         Existing       Burden-hour      Requested        Cost
                 Standard and provision                         No.       ICR reference No.   burden hours      reduction     burden hours   reduction *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Protective Equipment--29 CFR 1910.132(f)(4)....       1218-0205    201001-1218-002       3,552,171      -1,855,180       1,696,991  $42,743,347
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(4).........................       1218-0185    200902-1218-003          92,259          -1,226          91,033       26,371
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)--29 CFR                    1218-0215    200911-1218-001           2,827          -2,776              51       48,664
 1915.152(e)(4).........................................
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(4).........................       1218-0186    200902-1218-002          39,331          -2,100          37,231       34,218
                                                                                            ------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................  ..............  .................       3,686,588      -1,861,282       1,825,306   42,861,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The cost estimates in this table represent program changes associated with Item 12 of the Supporting Statements.

    As a result of removing the requirements for employers to transfer 
records to NIOSH, and to develop and maintain certification records, 
OSHA is requesting an overall program-change reduction of 1.86 million 
hours to its total burden-hour inventory of 67.49 million, for a 
revised total of 65.63 million hours. Table 5 below summarizes the 
total burden hour reduction. This translates into a reduction of 
$42,874,183 ($42,861,600 from removal of the training-certification 
requirements, and $12,583 since employers will no longer be required to 
transfer records to NIOSH). Finally, there will be a small reduction in 
costs of $2,992 since employers will no longer incur mailing expenses 
to send records to NIOSH.

     Table 5--Burden-Hour Reductions Resulting From the Standards Improvement Project--Phase III Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Existing       Burden-hour      Requested
                      Action in final rule                         burden hours      reduction     burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing the Requirements to Transfer Records to NIOSH (Table 1)      23,562,435            -688      23,561,747
Removing Training-Certification Requirement (Table 2)...........       3,686,588      -1,861,282       1,825,306
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................      27,249,023      -1,861,970      25,387,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories 
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans 
(``State-Plan States'') must amend their standards consistent with the 
new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary, 
e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is ``at 
least as effective'' as the new Federal standard or amendment. (29 CFR 
1953.5(a).) The State standard must be at least as effective as the 
Federal rule, be applicable to both the private and public (State and 
local government employees) sectors, and completed within six months of 
the promulgation date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates 
a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more 
stringent requirements than an existing standard, State-Plan States are 
not required to amend their standards, although the Agency may 
encourage them to do so.
    The 27 States and U.S. Territories with OSHA-approved occupational 
safety and health plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming; Connecticut, 
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-
approved State Plans that apply to State and local government employees 
only.
    OSHA concludes that this final rule, by revising confusing, 
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent standards, will increase the 
protection afforded to employees while reducing the compliance burden 
of employers. Therefore, States and Territories with approved State 
Plans must adopt comparable amendments to their standards within six 
months of the promulgation date of this rule unless they demonstrate 
that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards 
are at least as effective in protecting workers as this final rule.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Abrasive blasting, Carcinogens, Commercial diving, Egress, Hazard 
assessment, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Medical 
records, Occupational safety and health, Personal protective equipment, 
Sanitation, Slings, Training, Training certification records, and 
Respiratory protection.

29 CFR Parts 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1919

    Confined spaces, Dangerous atmospheres, Gear certification, Hazard 
assessment, Hazardous substances, Hot work, Occupational safety and 
health, Personal protective equipment, Sanitation, Shackles, Slings.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction, Hazardous substances, Medical records, Occupational 
safety and health, Potable water, Shackles, Slings.

29 CFR Part 1928

    Agriculture, Sanitation, Potable water.

[[Page 33606]]

IX. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the 
preparation of this final rule. OSHA is issuing this final rule 
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 33 U.S.C. 941, 40 U.S.C. 3701 
et seq., Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 
CFR 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 26, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

X. The Final Standard

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration is amending 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 
1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928 as set forth below:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 
(67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as 
applicable.
    Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR 1911. 
Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5 
U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB 
Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).


0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.6 as follows:
0
a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (q).
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (q)(25) through (q)(35) as paragraphs (q)(26) 
through (q)(36), and add new paragraph (q)(25).
0
b. Add a new paragraph (x).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.6  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (q) The following material is available for purchase from the 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, 
Quincy, MA 02269-7471; telephone: 1-800-344-35557; e-mail: 
custserv@nfpa.org.
* * * * *
    (25) NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, 2009 edition, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.35, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
* * * * *
    (x) The following material is available for purchase from the: 
International Code Council, Chicago District Office, 4051 W. Flossmoor 
Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478; telephone: 708-799-2300, x3-3801; 
facsimile: 001-708-799-4981; e-mail: order@iccsafe.org.
    (1) IFC-2009, International Fire Code, copyright 2009, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  1910.34, 1910.35, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart E--Exit Routes and Emergency Planning


0
3. Revise the authority citation for subpart E to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.


0
4. Revise the heading of subpart E to read as set forth above.
0
5. In Sec.  1910.33, revise the entry listed for Sec.  1910.35 to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1910.33  Table of contents.

* * * * *


Sec.  1910.35  Compliance with Alternate Exit Route Codes.

* * * * *


0
6. Revise the definition of the term ``Occupant load'' in paragraph (c) 
of Sec.  1910.34 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.34  Coverage and definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Occupant load means the total number of persons that may occupy a 
workplace or portion of a workplace at any one time. The occupant load 
of a workplace is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the 
workplace or portion of the workplace by the occupant load factor for 
that particular type of workplace occupancy. Information regarding the 
``Occupant load'' is located in NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, and in 
IFC-2009, International Fire Code (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
1910.6).
* * * * *

0
7. Revise Sec.  1910.35 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.35  Compliance with alternate exit-route codes.

    OSHA will deem an employer demonstrating compliance with the exit-
route provisions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2009 edition, or the 
exit-route provisions of the International Fire Code, 2009 edition, to 
be in compliance with the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.  
1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37 (incorporated by reference, see section 
Sec.  1910.6).


0
8. In Sec.  1910.36, revise the notes to paragraphs (b) and (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1910.36  Design and construction requirements for exit routes.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *

    Note to paragraph (b) of this section: For assistance in 
determining the number of exit routes necessary for your workplace, 
consult NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, or IFC-2009, International 
Fire Code (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1910.6).

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *

    Note to paragraph (f) of this section: Information regarding the 
``Occupant load'' is located in NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, and 
in IFC-2009, International Fire Code (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  1910.6).

* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
9. Revise the authority citation for subpart I to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.
    Sections 1910.132, 1910.134, and 1910.138 of 29 CFR also issued 
under 29 CFR 1911.
    Sections 1910.133, 1910.135, and 1910.136 of 29 CFR also issued 
under 29 CFR 1911 and 5 U.S.C. 553.


Sec.  1910.132  [Amended]

0
10. Remove paragraph (f)(4) from Sec.  1910.132.
0
11. In Sec.  1910.134, revise paragraphs (i)(4)(i), (i)(9), and (o), 
and question 2a in Part A, Section 2 (Mandatory) of Appendix C, to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1910.134  Respiratory protection.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Cylinders are tested and maintained as prescribed in the 
Shipping Container Specification Regulations of the Department of 
Transportation (49 CFR part 180);
* * * * *
    (9) The employer shall use only the respirator manufacturer's 
NIOSH-approved breathing-gas containers,

[[Page 33607]]

marked and maintained in accordance with the Quality Assurance 
provisions of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as issued in accordance 
with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 CFR part 84.
* * * * *
    (o) Appendices. Compliance with Appendix A, Appendix B-1, Appendix 
B-2, Appendix C, and Appendix D to this section are mandatory.
* * * * *

Appendix C to Sec.  1910.134: * * *

* * * * *
    Part A. Section 2. * * *
* * * * *
    2. * * *
    a. Seizures: Yes/No
* * * * *

Subpart J--[Amended]

0
12. Revise the authority citation for subpart J to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) as applicable; 
and 29 CFR 1911.
    Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147 
also issued under 29 CFR 1911.


0
13. Revise the definition of ``Potable water'' in paragraph (a)(2), and 
revise paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of Sec.  1910.141 to read as follow:


Sec.  1910.141  Sanitation.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking 
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water 
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 
141).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper, 
air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling, 
convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided.
* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

0
14. Revise the authority citation for subpart N to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) as applicable; 
and 29 CFR 1911.
    Sections 1910.176, 1910.177, 1910.178, 1910.179, 1910.180, 
1910.181, and 1910.184 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

0
15. Amend Sec.  1910.184 as follows:
0
a. Add new paragraphs (c)(13) and (c)(14).
0
b. Revise paragraphs (e)(6), (e)(8), (f)(1), and (h)(1).
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(5), (g)(6), and (i)(5).
0
d. Remove Tables N-184-1 and N-184-3 through N-184-22.
0
e. Redesignate Table N-184-2 as N-184-1.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.184  Slings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (13) Employers must not load a sling in excess of its recommended 
safe working load as prescribed by the sling manufacturer on the 
identification markings permanently affixed to the sling.
    (14) Employers must not use slings without affixed and legible 
identification markings.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) Safe operating temperatures. Employers must permanently remove 
an alloy steel-chain slings from service if it is heated above 1000 
degrees F. When exposed to service temperatures in excess of 600 
degrees F, employers must reduce the maximum working-load limits 
permitted by the chain manufacturer in accordance with the chain or 
sling manufacturer's recommendations.
* * * * *
    (8) Effect of wear. If the chain size at any point of the link is 
less than that stated in Table N-184-1, the employer must remove the 
chain from service.
* * * * *
    (f) Wire-rope slings--(1) Sling use. Employers must use only 
wire-rope slings that have permanently affixed and legible 
identification markings as prescribed by the manufacturer, and that 
indicate the recommended safe working load for the type(s) of 
hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it is based, and the number of 
legs if more than one.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (h) Natural and synthetic fiber-rope slings--(1) Sling use. 
Employers must use natural and synthetic fiber-rope slings that have 
permanently affixed and legible identification markings stating the 
rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es) used and the angle upon 
which it is based, type of fiber material, and the number of legs if 
more than one.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Subpart T--[Amended]


0
16. Revise the authority citation for subpart T to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 333; 33 U.S.C. 
941; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 
5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) 
as applicable, and 29 CFR 1911.


0
17. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(5), and revise 
paragraph (b)(4), of Sec.  1910.440 to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.440  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) After the expiration of the retention period of any record 
required to be kept for five (5) years, the employer shall forward such 
records to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Department of Health and Human Services. The employer also shall comply 
with any additional requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.1020(h).
    (5) [Reserved]

Subpart Z--[Amended]

0
18. Revise the authority citation for subpart Z to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 
5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 
as applicable, and 29 CFR 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure 
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The 
latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, but not 
under 29 CFR 1911, except for the arsenic (organic compounds), 
benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI) listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR 1911.

[[Page 33608]]

    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 
29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat. 
1901.
    Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 533.


0
19. Amend Sec.  1910.1001 by removing paragraph (m)(6)(ii), and 
redesignating paragraph (m)(6)(i) as paragraph (m)(6).
0
20. Amend Sec.  1910.1003 by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iv) and 
(g)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1003  13 Carcinogens (4-nitrobiphenyl, etc.).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) Employers must provide each employee engaged in handling 
operations involving the carcinogens 4-Nitrobiphenyl, alpha-
Naphthylamine, 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts), beta-
Naphthylamine, Benzidine, 4-Aminodiphenyl, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-
Dimethylaminoazo-benzene, and N-Nitrosodimethylamine, addressed by this 
section, with, and ensure that each of these employees wears and uses, 
a NIOSH-certified air-purifying, half-mask respirator with particulate 
filters. Employers also must provide each employee engaged in handling 
operations involving the carcinogens methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-
Chloromethyl ether, Ethyleneimine, and beta-Propiolactone, addressed by 
this section, with, and ensure that each of these employees wears and 
uses any self-contained breathing apparatus that has a full facepiece 
and is operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode, 
or any supplied-air respirator that has a full facepiece and is 
operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode in 
combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure 
breathing apparatus. Employers may substitute a respirator affording 
employees higher levels of protection than these respirators.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Employers of employees examined pursuant to this paragraph 
shall cause to be maintained complete and accurate records of all such 
medical examinations. Records shall be maintained for the duration of 
the employee's employment.


Sec.  1910.1017  [Amended]

0
21. Remove paragraph (m)(3) from Sec.  1910.1017.


Sec.  1910.1018  [Amended]

0
22. Amend Sec.  1910.1018 by removing paragraphs (q)(4)(ii) and 
(q)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (q)(4)(iv) as paragraph 
(q)(4)(ii).


Sec.  1910.1020  [Amended]

0
23. Remove paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) from Sec.  1910.1020.
0
24. Amend Sec.  1910.1025 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iv), (k)(1)(i)(B), 
and (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
0
b. Remove paragraphs (n)(5)(ii) and (n)(5)(iii), and redesignate 
paragraph (n)(5)(iv) as paragraph (n)(5)(ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1025  Lead.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for 
all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level 
for more than 30 days per year.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a 
blood lead level test indicate that an employee's blood lead level is 
at or above the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(A) of this section, the employer shall provide a second 
(follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer 
receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
* * * * *
    (iv) Employee notification. Within five working days after the 
receipt of biological monitoring results, the employer shall notify in 
writing each employee whose blood lead level is at or above 40 [mu]g/
100 g:
    (A) Of that employee's blood lead level; and
    (B) That the standard requires temporary medical removal with 
Medical Removal Protection benefits when an employee's blood lead level 
exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph 
(k)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) The employer shall remove an employee from work having an 
exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion that the 
average of the last three blood sampling tests conducted pursuant to 
this section (or the average of all blood sampling tests conducted over 
the previous six (6) months, whichever is longer) indicates that the 
employee's blood lead level is at or above 50 [mu]g/100 g of whole 
blood; provided, however, that an employee need not be removed if the 
last blood sampling test indicates a blood lead level below 40 [mu]g/
100 g of whole blood.
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above 
60 [mu]g/100 g, or due to an average blood lead level at or above 50 
[mu]g/100 g, when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that 
the employee's blood lead level is below 40 [mu]g/100 g of whole blood;
* * * * *


0
25. Amend Sec.  1910.1027 by removing paragraph (n)(4), redesignating 
paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) as paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5), and 
revising newly designated paragraph (n)(4)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1027  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, access to all 
records required to be maintained by paragraphs (n)(1) through (3) of 
this section shall be in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 
1910.1020.
* * * * *


0
26. Amend Sec.  1910.1028 revising paragraph (k)(4) as follows:


Sec.  1910.1028  Benzene.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (4) Transfer of records. The employer shall comply with the 
requirements involving transfer of records as set forth in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(h).
* * * * *


Sec.  1910.1029  [Amended]


0
27. Amend Sec.  1910.1029 by removing paragraphs (m)(4)(ii) and 
(m)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (m)(4)(iv) as paragraph 
(m)(4)(ii).
0
28. Amend Sec.  1910.1030 as follows:
0
a. Revise the definition of ``Handwashing facilities'' in paragraph 
(b).
0
b. Remove paragraph (h)(4)(ii) and redesignate paragraph (h)(4)(i) as 
paragraph (h)(4).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  1910.1030  Bloodborne pathogens.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Handwashing facilities means a facility providing an adequate 
supply of

[[Page 33609]]

running potable water, soap, and single-use towels or air-drying 
machines.
* * * * *


Sec.  1910.1043  [Amended]


0
29. Amend Sec.  1910.1043 by removing paragraphs (k)(4)(ii) and 
(k)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (k)(4)(iv) as paragraph 
(k)(4)(ii).


Sec.  1910.1044  [Amended]


0
30. Amend Sec.  1910.1044 by removing paragraphs (p)(4)(ii) and 
(p)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (p)(4)(iv) as paragraph 
(p)(4)(ii).


Sec.  1910.1045  [Amended]


0
31. Amend Sec.  1910.1045 by removing paragraphs (q)(5)(ii) and 
(q)(5)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (q)(5)(iv) as paragraph 
(q)(5)(ii).


Sec.  1910.1047  [Amended]


0
32. Amend Sec.  1910.1047 by removing paragraph (k)(5)(ii), and 
redesignating paragraph (k)(5)(i) as paragraph (k)(5).


Sec.  1910.1050  [Amended]


0
33. Amend Sec.  1910.1050 by removing paragraph (n)(7)(ii), and 
redesignating paragraph (n)(7)(i) as paragraph (n)(7).
0
34. Amend Sec.  1910.1051 as follows:
0
a. Remove and reserve paragraph (m)(3).
0
 Revise paragraph (m)(6) as follows:


Sec.  1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (6) Transfer of records. The employer shall transfer medical and 
exposure records as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.1020(h).
* * * * *


0
35. In Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1450, revise the ``ingestion'' 
paragraph under item (a) under Section E, subsection 1, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.1450  Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in 
laboratories.

* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1450--National Research Council 
Recommendations Concerning Chemical Hygiene in Laboratories (Non-
Mandatory)

* * * * *
    E. * * *
    1. * * *
    (a) Accidents and spills-- * * *
    Ingestion: This is one route of entry for which treatment 
depends on the type and amount of chemical involved. Seek medical 
attention immediately.

* * * * *

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

0
36. Revise the authority citation for part 1915 to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), as applicable.
    Section 1915.100 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 
CFR 1911.

0
37. In Appendix A to subpart B, revise item number 1 under the heading 
``Section 1915.11(b) Definition of `Hot work','' to read as follows:
* * * * *

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 1915--Compliance Assistance Guidelines 
for Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres

* * * * *
    Section 1915.11(b) Definition of ``Hot work.''
* * * * *
    1. Abrasive blasting of the external surface of the vessel (the 
hull) for paint preparation does not necessitate pumping and 
cleaning the tanks of the vessel.
* * * * *


0
38. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), and (c)(3) of Sec.  
1915.112 to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.112  Ropes, chains, and slings.

* * * * *
    (a) Manila rope and manila-rope slings. Employers must ensure that 
manila rope and manila-rope slings:
    (1) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as 
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe 
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it 
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
    (2) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load as 
prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
    (3) Not be used without affixed and legible identification markings 
as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Wire rope and wire-rope slings. (1) Employers must ensure that 
wire rope and wire-rope slings:
    (i) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as 
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe 
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it 
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
    (ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load 
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
    (iii) Not be used without affixed and legible identification 
markings as required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) When U-bolt wire rope clips are used to form eyes, employers 
must use Table G-1 in Sec.  1915.118 to determine the number and 
spacing of clips. Employers must apply the U-bolt so that the ``U'' 
section is in contact with the dead end of the rope.
* * * * *
    (c) Chain and chain slings. (1) Employers must ensure that chain 
and chain slings:
    (i) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as 
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe 
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it 
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
    (ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load 
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
    (iii) Not be used without affixed and legible identification 
markings as required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Employers must note interlink wear, not accompanied by stretch 
in excess of 5 percent, and remove the chain from service when maximum 
allowable wear at any point of link, as indicated in Table G-2 in Sec.  
1915.118, has been reached.
* * * * *

0
39. In Sec.  1915.113, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.113  Shackles and hooks.

* * * * *
    (a) Shackles. Employers must ensure that shackles:
    (1) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as 
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe 
working load;
    (2) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load as 
prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
    (3) Not be used without affixed and legible identification markings 
as

[[Page 33610]]

required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *

0
40. In Sec.  1915.118, remove Tables G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, G-8, 
and G-10, and redesignate Table G-6 as Table G-1, and Table G-9 as 
Table G-2.


Sec.  1915.152  [Amended]

0
41. Remove paragraph (e)(4) from Sec.  1915.152.
0
42. Amend Sec.  1915.1001 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(i).
0
b. Remove paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), (h)(4), and (n)(8)(ii).
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (h)(3)(iv) as paragraph (h)(3)(ii), and 
paragraph (n)(8)(i) as paragraph (n)(8).
0
d. Revise Appendix C.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1915.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) When respiratory protection is used, the employer shall 
institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.134(b) through (d) (except paragraph (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through 
(m) which covers each employee required by this section to use a 
respirator.
* * * * *

Appendix C to Sec.  1915.1001--Qualitative and Quantitative Fit Testing 
Procedures. Mandatory

    Employers must perform fit testing in accordance with the fit-
testing requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(f) and the qualitative and 
quantitative fit-testing protocols and procedures specified in 
Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.134.
* * * * *

PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS

0
43. Revise the authority citation for part 1917 to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.
    Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1917.29 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.


0
44. In Sec.  1917.2, add a definition for the term ``Ship's stores'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1917.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Ship's stores means materials that are aboard a vessel for the 
upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel, or 
for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew.

0
45. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1917.127 to read as follows:


Sec.  1917.127  Sanitation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of 
continuous toweling, or air blowers; and
* * * * *

PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING

0
46. Revise the authority citation for part 1918 to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.
    Section 1918.90 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1918.100 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.



0
47. In Sec.  1918.2, add a definition for the term ``Ship's stores'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1918.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Ship's stores means materials that are aboard a vessel for the 
upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel, or 
for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew.
* * * * *


0
48. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1918.95 to read as follows:


Sec.  1918.95  Sanitation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of 
continuous toweling, or air blowers; and
* * * * *

PART 1919--GEAR CERTIFICATION

0
49. Revise the authority citation for part 1919 to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary 
of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 
(48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.


0
50. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  1919.6 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1919.6  Criteria governing accreditation to certificate vessels' 
cargo gear.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A person applying for accreditation to issue registers and 
pertinent certificates, to maintain registers and appropriate records, 
and to conduct initial, annual and quinquennial surveys, shall not be 
accredited unless that person is engaged in one or more of the 
following activities:
* * * * *


0
51. Revise paragraph (d) of Sec.  1919.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  1919.11  Recordkeeping and related procedures concerning records 
in custody of accredited persons.

* * * * *
    (d) When annual or quinquennial tests, inspections, examinations, 
or heat treatments are performed by an accredited person, other than 
the person who originally issued the vessel's register, such accredited 
person shall furnish copies of any certificates issued and information 
as to register entries to the person originally issuing the register.
* * * * *

0
52. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec.  1919.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  1919.12  Recordkeeping and related procedures concerning records 
in custody of the vessel.

* * * * *
    (f) An accredited person shall instruct the vessel's officers, or 
the vessel's operator if the vessel is unmanned, that the vessel's 
register and certificates shall be preserved for at least 5 years after 
the date of the latest entry except in the case of nonrecurring test 
certificates concerning gear which is kept in use for a longer period, 
in which event the pertinent certificates shall be retained so long as 
that gear is continued in use.
* * * * *

0
53. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  1919.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  1919.15  Periodic tests, examinations and inspections.

* * * * *
    (a) Derricks with their winches and accessory gear, including the 
attachments, as a unit; and cranes and other hoisting machines with 
their accessory gear, as a unit, shall be tested and thoroughly 
examined every 5 years in the manner set forth in subpart E of this 
part.
* * * * *

[[Page 33611]]


0
54. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec.  1919.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  1919.18  Grace periods.

* * * * *

    (b) Quinquennial requirements--within six months after the date 
when due;
* * * * *

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
55. Revise the authority citation for subpart D to read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 
4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.

    Sections 1926.58, 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued 
under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR 1911.
    Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1926.62 of 29 CFR also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4853.
    Section 1926.65 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 note, 
and 5 U.S.C.


0
56. Revise paragraphs (a)(6) and (f)(3)(iv) of Sec.  1926.51 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1926.51  Sanitation.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking 
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water 
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 
part 141).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper, 
air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling, 
convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided.
* * * * *

0
57. Amend Sec.  1926.60 by revising paragraph (o)(8) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1926.60  Methylenedianiline.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (8) Transfer of records. The employer shall comply with the 
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(h).
* * * * *

0
58. Amend Sec.  1926.62 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iv)(B), and (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
0
b. Remove paragraphs (n)(6)(ii), and (n)(6)(iii).
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (n)(6)(iv) as paragraph (n)(6)(ii), and revise 
newly designated paragraph (n)(6)(ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.62  Lead.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a 
blood lead level test indicate that an employee's blood lead level is 
at or above the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph 
(k)(1)(i) of this section, the employer shall provide a second (follow-
up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer receives 
the results of the first blood sampling test.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) The employer shall notify each employee whose blood lead level 
is at or above 40 [mu]g/dl that the standard requires temporary medical 
removal with Medical Removal Protection benefits when an employee's 
blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal 
under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (l) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above 
50 [mu]g/dl when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the 
employee's blood lead level is below 40 [mu]g/dl;
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) The employer shall also comply with any additional 
requirements involving the transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(h).
* * * * *

 Subpart H [Amended]

0
59. Revise the authority citation for subpart H to read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), as applicable. Section 1926.250 also issued under 29 CFR 
1911.

0
60. Amend Sec.  1926.251 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4), (c)(1), (d)(1) and (f)(1).
0
b. Add new paragraphs (c)(16) and (d)(7).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.251  Rigging equipment for material handling.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Employers must ensure that rigging equipment:
    (i) Has permanently affixed and legible identification markings as 
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe 
working load;
    (ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load 
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
    (iii) Not be used without affixed, legible identification markings, 
required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Employers must not use alloy steel-chain slings with loads in 
excess of the rated capacities (i.e., working load limits) indicated on 
the sling by permanently affixed and legible identification markings 
prescribed by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Employers must not use improved plow-steel wire rope and wire-
rope slings with loads in excess of the rated capacities (i.e., working 
load limits) indicated on the sling by permanently affixed and legible 
identification markings prescribed by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (16) Wire rope slings shall have permanently affixed, legible 
identification markings stating size, rated capacity for the type(s) of 
hitch(es) used and the angle upon which it is based, and the number of 
legs if more than one.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Employers must not use natural- and synthetic-fiber rope slings 
with loads in excess of the rated capacities (i.e., working load 
limits) indicated on the sling by permanently affixed and legible 
identification markings prescribed by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (7) Employers must use natural- and synthetic-fiber rope slings 
that have permanently affixed and legible identification markings that 
state the rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es) used and the 
angle upon which it is based, type of fiber material, and the number of 
legs if more than one.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Employers must not use shackles with loads in excess of the 
rated

[[Page 33612]]

capacities (i.e., working load limits) indicated on the shackle by 
permanently affixed and legible identification markings prescribed by 
the manufacturer.
* * * * *

Subpart Z--[Amended]


0
61. Revise the authority citation for subpart Z to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq,; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), or 
4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.
    Section 1926.1102 of 29 CFR not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 
CFR 1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.


0
62. Amend Sec.  1926.1101 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (n)(7)(iii).
0
b. Revise paragraphs (n)(7)(ii) and (n)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1101  Asbestos

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) The employer must comply with the requirements concerning 
availability of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (8) Transfer of records. The employer must comply with the 
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 
1910.1020(h).
* * * * *

0
63. Amend Sec.  1926.1127 by removing paragraph (n)(4), redesignating 
paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) as paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5), and 
revising newly designated paragraph (n)(4)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1127  Cadmium.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, access to all 
records required to be maintained by paragraphs (n)(1) through (3) of 
this section shall be in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 
1910.1020.
* * * * *

PART 1928--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE

0
64. Revise the authority citation for part 1928 to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR 1911.
    Section 1928.21 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 
U.S.C. 533.


0
65. Revise the definition of the term ``potable water'' in paragraph 
(b) of Sec.  1928.110 to read as follows:


Sec.  1928.110  Field sanitation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking 
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water 
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 
part 141).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-13517 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P