[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33590-33612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13517]

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

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

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individual requirements within rules that are confusing, outdated,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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>-002         205,397            -301         205,096       $5,764
Asbestos--29 CFR 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii)....................       1218-0133<PHONE_NUMBER>-003          11,933              -1          11,932           21
Asbestos--29 CFR 1915.1001(n)(8)(ii)....................       1218-0195<PHONE_NUMBER>-008           1,624              -1           1,623           22
Asbestos--29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii)....................       1218-0134<PHONE_NUMBER>-002       4,957,808              -4       4,957,804          101
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--29 CFR                 1218-0085<PHONE_NUMBER>-001           1,604              -6           1,598          139
 1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii)............................
Vinyl Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1017 (m)(3).................       1218-0010<PHONE_NUMBER>-003             712              -1             711           20
Inorganic Arsenic--29 CFR 1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii)       1218-0104<PHONE_NUMBER>-003             385              -1             384           23
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records--29 CFR        1218-0065<PHONE_NUMBER>-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<PHONE_NUMBER>-001       1,225,255              -2       1,225,253           42
Lead--29 CFR 1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii)................       1218-0189<PHONE_NUMBER>-002       1,363,803              -1       1,363,802           22
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(6).........................       1218-0185<PHONE_NUMBER>-003          92,259               0          92,259            0
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(6).........................       1218-0186<PHONE_NUMBER>-002          39,331               0          39,331            0
Benzene--29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii).....................       1218-0129<PHONE_NUMBER>-004         126,184              -1         126,183           23
Coke Oven Emissions--29 CFR 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and            1218-0128<PHONE_NUMBER>-004          52,701              -3          52,698           60
 (iii)..................................................
Bloodborne Pathogens--29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii)........       1218-0180<PHONE_NUMBER>-006     14, 059,435               0      14,059,435            0
Cotton Dust--29 CFR 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii).......       1218-0061<PHONE_NUMBER>-007          35,742              -3          35,739           69
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--29 CFR 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii)        1218-0101<PHONE_NUMBER>-007               1               0               1            0
 and (iii)..............................................
Acrylonitrile--29 CFR 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii).....       1218-0126<PHONE_NUMBER>-006           3,166              -3           3,163           74
Ethylene Oxide--29 CFR 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii)..............       1218-0108<PHONE_NUMBER>-001          41,487              -3          41,484           62
Formaldehyde--29 CFR 1910.1048(o)(6)(ii) and (iii)......       1218-0145<PHONE_NUMBER>-006         327,535              -2         327,533           41
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii)..........       1218-0184<PHONE_NUMBER>-015             298              -1             297           18
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1926.60(n)(7)(ii)............       1218-0183<PHONE_NUMBER>-014           1,030              -1           1,029           21
1,3-Butadiene--29 CFR 1910.1051(m)......................       1218-0170<PHONE_NUMBER>-001             955              -3             952           65
Methylene Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(5) **...........       1218-0179<PHONE_NUMBER>-001          67,362              -1          67,361           21
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in                1218-0131<PHONE_NUMBER>-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.

** 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<PHONE_NUMBER>-002       3,552,171      -1,855,180       1,696,991  $42,743,347
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(4).........................       1218-0185<PHONE_NUMBER>-003          92,259          -1,226          91,033       26,371
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)--29 CFR                    1218-0215<PHONE_NUMBER>-001           2,827          -2,776              51       48,664
 1915.152(e)(4).........................................
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(4).........................       1218-0186<PHONE_NUMBER>-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.

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:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>* * * * *
    (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:<PHONE_NUMBER>, x3-3801;
facsimile: 001-708-799-4981; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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,

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