OSHA received two comments in response to this first proposed revision
of Sec.  1926.55. The North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701) agreed the current language
in the standard is confusing and the proposed revisions were
preferable. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
supported the change to refer to the limits as PELs but requested that
OSHA include a reference to the ACGIH Threshold Limit Values of
Airborne Contaminants for 1970 in the standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0734).
The comment did not state a reason to maintain the reference to ACGIH.
OSHA acknowledges that these PELs are based on the ACGIH values, but
these PELs are enforceable OSHA requirements. After considering these
comments and to avoid possible confusion, OSHA has decided to revise
the standard as proposed to use the phrase ``permissible exposure
limits'' and to not include the references to ACGIH in the regulatory
text and appendix A.
    Second, the phrase ``shall be avoided'' in paragraph (a) is
confusing as to whether it indicates the provision is mandatory, as
intended, or advisory and is not appropriate in regulatory text. OSHA
proposed revising this language to read, ``An employee's exposure . . .
must at no time exceed the exposure limit given for that substance.''
    Third, the words ``inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or
contact'' in paragraph (a) are redundant and confusing. In addition,
the concentrations listed are airborne values, and the standard
addresses exposure through any route. OSHA proposed to delete these
words.
    Fourth, appendix A is not an appendix but an integral part of the
standard. To acknowledge this relationship, OSHA proposed to revise the
heading to read, ``Table A.''
    Fifth, appendix A has a column labelled ``Skin Designation'' under
which an ``X'' demarcates certain substances, although the appendix
provides no definition of ``X.'' The 1970 ACGIH publication, however,
notes that the ``X'' identifies substances that present a dermal
hazard. OSHA proposed adding a footnote to appendix A that clarifies
the meaning of this designation.
    Sixth, appendix A has two footnotes designated by asterisks.
However, there

are no asterisks in the body of the table referencing these footnotes.
The first footnote, designated by a single asterisk, says, ``The PELs
are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a
ceiling limit.'' The second footnote, designated by two asterisks,
states, ``As determined from breathing-zone air samples.'' OSHA
proposed deleting these two footnotes, and moving the content of the
footnotes to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.55.
    Finally, OSHA proposed correcting the cross-references to OSHA's
construction asbestos standard in paragraph (c) and in appendix A. The
correct cross reference is: Sec.  1926.1101. OSHA also proposed
deleting footnote 4, which was also a reference to the asbestos
standard, as footnote 4 does not appear in the body of the table.
    OSHA received two other comments in response to the proposed
revisions of Sec.  1926.55. North America's Building Trades Unions
(NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) submitted comments generally supporting
the revisions. Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA)
(OSHA-2012-0007-0757) supported the revisions but requested that OSHA
revise appendix A to align them with 2009 NIOSH skin classifications
and to add a footnote to appendix A stating that these PELs are from
the 1969 threshold limit values and may not be protective. OSHA
recognizes that most of its PELs were issued shortly after adoption of
the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970, and have not been
updated since that time. However, a standards improvement project is
not the appropriate vehicle to change appendix A.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the standard as
proposed with two additions. First, rather than redesignating appendix
A to Sec.  1926.55 as Table A, OSHA is dividing appendix A into two
tables and designating them as Tables 1 and 2 of Sec.  1926.55. OSHA is
also revising the heading for the footnotes to these tables to
correspond with this change. Appendix A did not conform with criteria
for presenting tables and footnotes in the Code of Federal Regulations.
When appendix A was added to the Code of Federal Regulations in 1993,
OSHA adopted the format used in ACGIH's 1970 TLVs (58 FR 35076; 35089-
35099). This format presented TLVs for most substances in one table and
TLVs for mineral dusts in a separate table, with footnotes following
the two tables. Accordingly, OSHA is designating the first table in
former appendix A as Table 1, with the title ``Permissible Exposure
Limits for Airborne Contaminants'', and the second table as Table 2,
with the title ``Mineral Dusts.'' The footnotes are now preceded by the
heading ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this section'' to make it
clear that the footnotes apply to both tables. This is a non-
substantive, formatting revision. Second, OSHA is adding an asterisk to
``Skin Designation'' in Table 1 to Sec.  1926.55, linked to the
footnote about dermal hazards.
6. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
Controls, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals in 29
CFR 1926.64
    To avoid unnecessary duplication, OSHA proposed replacing the
entire 31 pages of regulatory text for the Process Safety Management of
Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) Standard for construction at Sec.
1926.64 with a cross reference to the identical general industry
standard at Sec.  1910.119. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule. Other construction standards have similar cross references to
corresponding general industry standards; for example, the Respiratory
Protection Standard for construction at Sec.  1926.103 refers to the
general industry Respiratory Protection Standard at Sec.  1910.134. The
PSM standard has limited applicability to construction, mainly through
paragraph (h), Contractors.
    OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec.  1926.64: The
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742),
the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757), and the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). All three comments supported
the revision. After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to
replace the regulatory text of the PSM Standard for construction with a
reference to the identical general industry standard, as proposed. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
7. Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving
Equipment, Safety Belts, Lifelines, and Lanyards in 29 CFR 1926.104
    The breaking strength of a lifeline is the maximum load that it can
carry without failing or breaking. The minimum breaking-strength
requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards
standard, Sec.  1926.104(c), has been 5,400 pounds. OSHA proposed
revising the minimum breaking-strength requirement for these lifelines
from 5,400 to 5,000 pounds. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule.
    As noted by OSHA in the proposed fall protection standard published
on November 25, 1986 (51 FR 42718, 42726), the agency based the 5,400-
pound requirement on the breaking strength of the then-available \3/4\-
inch diameter manila rope used for body-belt systems and not on the
forces generated in a fall. The basis for the requirement of a 5,000
pound minimum breaking-strength for lanyards and vertical lifelines
adopted in the final fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502(d)(9)
is the force generated by a 250-pound employee experiencing a force 10
times the force of gravity, plus a two-fold margin of safety. Id. The
5,000 pound requirement is also consistent with the most recent ANSI/
ASSE standards Z359.1 2007 and A10.32.
    For consistency, OSHA proposed revising the minimum breaking-
strength requirement for lifelines in the safety belts, lifelines, and
lanyards standard to 5,000 pounds. OSHA received comments on the
revision of Sec.  1926.104(c), from the North America's Building Trades
Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742) and the Laborers' Health & Safety
Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Both of these
comments supported the revision.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising the minimum
breaking-strength requirement in Sec.  1926.104(c) to 5,000 pounds.
This revision conforms Sec.  1926.104(c) with the breaking-strength
requirements in the fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502(d)(9).
The agency also concludes that identical specifications for the same
equipment eliminate confusion and, thereby, improve compliance. The
final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
8. Subpart G of Part 1926--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
    Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part 6 of the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1988 Edition,
Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or December 2000 MUTCD
(``Millennium Edition''). OSHA proposed to revise subpart G to update
the incorporation by reference of Part 6 of the MUTCD to the November
4, 2009 MUTCD (``2009 Edition''), including Revision 1 and Revision 2,
both dated May 2012. This version of the MUTCD aims to expedite
traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology
advances in traffic control device application (74 FR 66730, 77 FR
28455, and 77 FR 28460).

The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
    The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that traffic
control signs or devices conform to the 2009 Edition (see 23 CFR
655.601 through 655.603). DOT regulations recognize that the MUTCD is
the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any
street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel (Sec.
655.603(a)). DOT requires compliance with the 2009 Edition for all
federal-aid construction areas (Sec.  655.603(d)(3)). In addition, each
State must have a highway safety program that complies with DOT's
designated national standard, and where State or other federal agency
MUTCDs or supplements are required, they shall be in substantial
conformance with the 2009 Edition (23 U.S.C. 402(a); 23 CFR
655.603(b)(1)). Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or
supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements
included in the 2009 Edition (Sec.  655.603(b)).
    The differences between OSHA's standards that reference the MUTCD's
1988 Edition and the Millennium Edition and DOT's regulations cause
potential industry confusion and inefficiency, without advancing worker
safety. Accordingly, in Directive CPL 02-01-054, dated October 16,
2012, OSHA stated that it would accept compliance with the 2009 Edition
in lieu of compliance with the 1988 Edition or Millennium Edition
referenced in Sec.  1926.200(g) through its de minimis policy.
    OSHA reviewed the differences between the 1988 Edition, the
Millennium Edition, and the 2009 Edition, and has concluded that the
2009 Edition will provide greater employee safety benefits than the
older versions. The 2009 revisions to the MUTCD largely make the
document more accessible and accounts for advances in technology. A
comparison of the 1988 and 2009 Editions shows few new requirements;
rather, the document is easier to use, with more guidance and
supporting material available. The MUTCD is a complex document
comprised of standards, guidance, and supporting material. Under Sec.
1926.6(a), OSHA's subpart G provisions incorporate by reference only
the mandatory provisions of the MUTCD, i.e., those provisions
containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language, and only
those provisions that affect worker safety with regard to the use of
signs, devices, barricades, flaggers, and points of hazard. Previously,
it was difficult to locate these provisions, but the 2009 Edition
clearly labels them ``standards.''
    The revisions to the 1988 and Millennium Editions that affect
worker safety are minimal. DOT identified the following areas as
significant revisions that relate to work safety in the final rule (74
FR 66730):
     The needs and control of all road users through a
temporary traffic-control (TTC) zone apply to all public facilities and
private property open to public travel, in addition to highways.
     Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allows non-compliant
devices on existing highways and bikeways to be brought into compliance
with the current edition of the MUTCD as part of the systematic
upgrading of substandard traffic control devices (and installation of
new required traffic control devices) required pursuant to the Highway
Safety Program, 23 U.S.C. 402(a). If the FHWA establishes a target
compliance date for upgrading such devices, traffic control devices
shall be in compliance by that date. (These target compliance dates
established by the FHWA are shown in Table I-2 of the 2009 Edition.)
     Workers within the public right-of-way must use high-
visibility safety apparel.
     A new section titled ``Automated Flagger Assistance
Devices'' (AFAD). These optional devices enable a flagger to assume a
position out of the lane of traffic when controlling road users through
TTC zones.
     New requirements that flaggers shall use a ``STOP/SLOW''
paddle, flag, or AFAD to control road users; the 2009 Edition prohibits
the use of hand movements alone. In the previous editions, it was not
clear that hand signals alone were insufficient.
     All devices used for lane channelization (i.e., directing
vehicles in a particular direction) must be crashworthy (a
characteristic of a roadside appurtenance that has been successfully
crash tested in accordance with a national standard such as the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350, ``Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway
Features.'')
     Temporary traffic barriers, including their end treatments
(such as an impact attenuator), must be crashworthy.
    There was one major revision to the MUTCD, the 2003 Edition,
between the Millennium Edition and the 2009 Edition. OSHA is providing
a list of the changes between the 2003 Edition and the 2009 Edition in
the record (find 2009 Edition figure changes at www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0007).
    OSHA also proposed to revise Sec. Sec.  1926.200 through 1926.203
in subpart G to clarify their provisions and eliminate duplication.
    Section 1926.200(g)--Traffic signs. Existing paragraph (g)(1) of
Sec.  1926.200 states, ``[c]onstruction areas shall be posted with
legible traffic control signs at points of hazard.'' Accordingly,
paragraph (g)(1) does not explicitly require protection by traffic
control devices. However, paragraph (g)(1) requires legible signs at
points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2) prohibits misuse of both signs
and devices, by requiring their use to conform to the MUTCD. Not
requiring employers to use, but prohibiting the misuse of, protective
devices at points of hazard is an anomaly that causes unnecessary
confusion.
    OSHA proposed to revise paragraph (g)(1) to explicitly require that
employers use traffic control devices at points of hazard. OSHA also
proposed to revise paragraph (g)(2) to clarify that it covers the
design and use of traffic-control devices, and adds a list of those
devices: Signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices.
Consistent with these revisions, OSHA also proposed to revise the
headings of Sec.  1926.200 and paragraph (g) by adding the term
``devices'' to these headings. The agency will retain the requirement
that signs be legible.
    Section 1926.201--Signaling. The agency proposed limiting revisions
to Sec.  1926.201 to the 2009 Edition update discussed above.
    Section 1926.202--Barricades. OSHA proposed deleting this section
because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to paragraph
(g)(1), which require the use of barricades as traffic control devices
at points of hazard, and paragraph (g)(2), which require that the
design and use of barricades conform to the updated MUTCD.
    Section 1926.203--Definitions applicable to this subpart. OSHA
proposed deleting this section because the MUTCD defines or describes
most of the words defined in this section (e.g., barricade, signs, and
signals). To the extent that other provisions of subpart G use the
defined words but do not reference the MUTCD, providing definitions for
these words is unnecessary because the meanings of the words are either
obvious or defined in applicable consensus standards or in other OSHA
standards; for example, an adequate description of a ``tag'' is in
Sec.  1926.200(h).
    OSHA received three comments on the proposed revisions to subpart
G. OSHA received a comment of general support from Laborers' Health &
Safety

Fund of North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). A comment from
North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742)
supporting the proposed revisions also and requested that OSHA ``make
clear that these requirements apply not only to flaggers on road
construction projects, but also pedestrian employees working in the
work zone. Pedestrian workers are at risk of being injured and/or
killed by vehicles inside the work zone. Both flaggers and pedestrian
workers should be protected by the MUTCD provisions.'' The provisions
of Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a) protect all workers in
construction areas with exposure to traffic. The signaling provision,
Sec.  1926.201(a), instructs flaggers to comply with the MUTCD on
signaling and on what garments to wear. Following these provisions
protects all workers, not only flaggers. OSHA does not see a need to
specifically state in the standard that all workers are protected. OSHA
also received a comment from American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0754). This comment supports the
revision and states that updating to the newest edition of the MUTCD
will alleviate uncertainty and confusion caused by OSHA's reference to
multiple versions of the MUTCD in existing standards. The comment also
supports OSHA's clarification of the standards related to signage,
signaling, and barricades in subpart G.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to update the
references to the MUTCD in subpart G to the 2009 Edition as well as
revise Sec. Sec.  1926.200 through 1926.203 as proposed. Updating the
references to the 2009 Edition MUTCD eliminates confusion as to which
edition employers must comply with, and will inform employers that
compliance with DOT regulations will not conflict with outdated OSHA
regulations. The other revisions clarify subpart G's provisions and
eliminate duplication. The final rule is identical to the proposed
rule.
    In summary, OSHA is revising the safety and health regulations for
construction to adopt and incorporate the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD and
clarify the regulatory text. The revisions delete the references in
Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a) to the 1988 Edition and
Millennium Edition of the MUTCD and insert references to the 2009
Edition. The revisions also revise the regulatory text of paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.200 to eliminate confusion regarding
OSHA's interpretation of the existing text. OSHA is deleting Sec.
1926.202 because it duplicates the requirements in the revisions to
Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.203 because the revisions make this
section unnecessary.
9. Subpart H of Part 1926--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and
Disposal, General Requirements for Storage in 29 CFR 1926.250
    Subpart H of OSHA's construction standards governs the handling,
storage, use, and disposal of construction materials on a work site.
Section 1926.250 addresses safe storage of building materials inside
buildings under construction, and Sec.  1926.250(a)(2) requires
employers to post maximum safe load limits of floors in storage areas.
This requirement is important during the construction of large
buildings because employers often store heavy building materials in
these structures on upper floors to accommodate construction staging
and schedules. If the weight of stored materials and equipment exceed
the maximum safe load limit of the floor, then there is a risk of a
localized failure of the floor and structural collapse. However,
requiring employers to post safe load limits is unnecessary in
residential construction because employers do not place heavy materials
in storage areas above floor or slab on grade. Therefore, OSHA proposed
revising Sec.  1926.250(a)(2) to exclude residential construction from
the posting requirement. The final rule differs from the proposed rule.
The final rule uses the term ``all single-family residential structures
and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' instead of
``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that are under
construction.'' The final rule also contains organizational changes to
the proposed language.
    OSHA received three comments on the revision of Sec.
1926.250(a)(2), from the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0701), the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) (OSHA-2012-0007-0747), and the North America's
Building Trades Unions (NABTU) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
    OSHA addresses the comment from NAHB first. The comment supports
the proposal to exclude detached, single family residences and
townhouses from the load limit posting requirements in Sec.
1926.250(a)(2). NAHB suggests the load limits for floors in residential
construction in the United States are uniform and that the weight of
materials stored on upper floors are within the safety factor of the
supporting material. The comment notes that the International
Residential Code (IRC) ``has been adopted and is generally used as a
base building code standard throughout most of the United States.'' The
IRC ``is a comprehensive, stand-alone residential building code
addressing the design and construction of one- and two-family dwellings
and townhouses not more than three stories above grade'' and ``has
specific design requirements for live loads (i.e., weight of occupants,
furnishings, etc.) placed on floors.'' The comment gives an example of
what a larger load imposed on an upper floor of a residential home
under construction might be: ``a stack of 25 (gypsum board or drywall)
is well within the inherent factors of safety, particularly since it is
only imposing a short-term load.''
    While this comment supports OSHA's proposed revisions, it requests
that OSHA change ``detached single-family dwellings or townhouses that
are under construction'' to ``residential home building'' or
``residential home construction'' to be in line with the language used
in OSHA's Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction, STD 03-11-
002. ``Residential construction'' means that the end-use of the
building in question must be as a home or dwelling and must be
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and
methods. A comprehensive explanation of OSHA's definition of
``residential construction'' is in STD 03-11-002, which is located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
    NAIMA submitted a comment in support of the proposed changes,
stating, ``safe load limit requirements are unnecessary for single-
family home construction as they do not store heavy materials that
could endanger employees working at lower levels.''
    The agency received a comment opposed to the proposed revisions
from NABTU. Their comment states that it is possible that during the
construction of townhouses, ``one unit may be used as a material depot
during the procurement and construction phase.'' OSHA understands that
it is possible for excessive loads to be stored on any floor during
residential construction, but it is not industry practice to store
loads for extended periods on the upper floors of the types of
residential buildings excepted by this revision. NABTU's comment goes
on to say that ``[o]btaining maximum safe loads information is not an
extra burden on employers.'' The fact that employers no longer will
need to post signs in storage areas in residential construction does
not mean they are relieved of their duty to know the safe load limits
and ensure the safety of workers. As noted above,

load limit requirements in residential construction are mostly uniform
in the United States, and materials that are typically stored are well
within the safety factor. OSHA has requirements that require safe load
limits not be exceeded without requiring the posting of such limits.
For example, Sec.  1910.22(b) requires that a walking-working surface
support the maximum intended load for that surface and does not require
the posting of the load limit. Finally, this comment correctly notes
that employers must ensure the weight of stored materials does not
exceed safe load limits. It also argues that the posting of signs in
residential construction ``increase awareness'' regarding load limits
``even if the likelihood is low'' for error or incidents. OSHA does not
dispute that more information and sign posting in general can increase
safety on a job-site, but in this case, the posting of load limits in
storage areas of residential construction sites does not increase or
decrease the level of safety.
    After considering these comments, OSHA is revising Sec.
1926.250(a)(2) to exclude all single-family residential structures and
wood-framed multi-family residential structures from the posting
requirement. The final revisions to the regulatory text are somewhat
different than the revisions in the proposed rule. First, OSHA has
named the subsection ``Load Limits'' for identification purposes.
Second, the revision moves the requirement that the weight of storage
materials not exceed safe load limits from the end of the subsection to
the beginning. This change makes clear that the duty to ensure that any
loads placed on floors do not exceed the maximum safe loads of the
floors exists regardless of whether or not employers are required to
post the safe load limits. Third, the revision changes the style of
language used to be more in line with the language used throughout
subpart H. Finally, OSHA agrees with the first commenter and has
determined that the use of the words ``all single-family residential
structures and wood-framed multi-family residential structures'' is
more appropriate than the proposed ``detached single-family dwellings
or townhouses that are under construction.'' OSHA considered using the
words ``residential construction'' to be in line with the language used
in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, and STD 03-11-002, but this would limit
the exception to structures constructed using traditional wood frame
construction materials and methods. The revision covers all single-
family residential structures, regardless of the materials or methods
used during construction, and multi-family residential structures
constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and
methods.
    OSHA finds that the revision will lessen the compliance burden of
employers without jeopardizing the safety of employees. While employers
involved in residential construction do not place heavy loads on the
floors of these structures, the revision does not relieve employers of
the duty to ensure that any loads placed on these floors do not exceed
the maximum safe loads of the floors.
10. Subpart S of Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons,
Cofferdams and Compressed Air, Underground Construction in 29 CFR
1926.800
    OSHA has required, under Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii), that mobile
diesel-powered equipment used in ``other than gassy operations''
underground be approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) in accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR part 32, or that the
employer can demonstrate that the equipment is ``fully equivalent'' to
MSHA-approved equipment. In 1996, MSHA revoked part 32 and replaced it
with updated provisions in 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, and 30 CFR 75.1909
Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment; \7\ design and performance
requirements, 75.1910 Non-permissible diesel-powered equipment;
electrical system design and performance requirements, and 75.1911 Fire
suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel
transportation units (61 FR 55412). Those sections are rules for coal
mines. In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067, which permits operators in
metal and nonmetal mines to use engines that meet Environmental
Protection Administration (EPA) requirements for engines as an
alternative to seeking MSHA approval under part 7, subpart E (66 FR
5706). Under 30 CFR 57.5067, all engines used in underground metal and
nonmetal mines must have an affixed plate evidencing approval of the
engine pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or meet or exceed the
applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA Table 57.5067-1. OSHA
proposed to update the regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii)
to cross-reference these updated provisions. The final rule contains
differences from the proposed rule. The final rule requires compliance
only with Sec.  57.5067, pertaining to underground metal and nonmetal
mines, and not Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i),
pertaining to underground coal mines. The final rule also contains
minor technical changes to the proposed language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Non-permissible equipment may not be used in gassy
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received two comments on the proposed changes. One was from
Caterpillar Inc. (OSHA-2012-007-0762). That comment supported the
changes regarding the substitution of 30 CFR 57.5067 for former part
32, but recommended that OSHA not require compliance with Sec. Sec.
75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30. The comment
explained that requiring compliance with Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910,
and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30, ``would create some conflict or,
at the least, confusion . . . and inappropriately add underground coal-
mining equipment requirements to equipment used in non-coal
environments.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSHA hosted a conference call with Caterpillar to discuss
its comment, a summary of which is found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caterpillar recommended that OSHA not require compliance with
Sec. Sec.  75.1909, 75.1910, and 75.1911(a) through (i) of part 30
because those standards apply to equipment used in underground coal
mines, while 30 CFR 57.5067 applies to equipment used in underground
metal and nonmetal mines. Caterpillar stated, and the agency agrees,
that equipment used for underground construction is more closely
related, and often the same, as equipment used in underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Caterpillar suggested that OSHA look at alternative
standards related to equipment used in underground metal and nonmetal
mines (while maintaining that only requiring compliance with 30 CFR
57.5067 regarding engines is necessary), such as 30 CFR 57.14100
through 57.14162--Safety Devices and Maintenance Requirements or 30 CFR
57.5060 through 57.5075--Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only.
After review of these MSHA standards, OSHA has determined that
requiring compliance with either the Safety Devices and Maintenance
Requirements or Diesel Particulate Matter--Underground Only standards
would go beyond the scope of Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) and be in
conflict with other parts of subpart S. Section 1926.800(k)(10)(ii) is
in the ventilation subsection and is concerned with diesel exhaust and
compliance with 30 CFR 57.5067 is sufficiently equivalent to the
original standard that required compliance with former part 32.
Further, requiring compliance with 30 CFR 75.1909, 75.1910, and
75.1911(a) through (i) is

actually inconsistent with 30 CFR 57.5067, as that latter section
allows engines to be approved pursuant to 30 CFR part 7, subpart E, or
meet or exceed the applicable requirements of the EPA listed in MSHA
Table 57.5067-1. Therefore, OSHA agrees that the proposed rule is
unworkable, and the final rule will require compliance with only 30 CFR
57.5067 as recommended.
    Further, OSHA solicited comment on whether employers use the option
in the current standard to demonstrate that equipment is ``fully
equivalent'' to MSHA-approved equipment. OSHA received no comment on
this provision, therefore all new engines used that are covered by
subpart S will have to comply with 30 CFR 57.5067.
    The other comment was from the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of
North America (LHSFNA) (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). This comment supported
updating the reference to current MSHA regulations, but opposed the
grandfathering of older equipment. As OSHA explains below, to avoid the
cost of replacing current equipment, OSHA will grandfather older
equipment that complies with existing Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii). OSHA
notes, however, that 30 CFR 57.5067 was issued seventeen years ago, so
the amount of equipment that would not be in compliance with the
current requirement is not that large and will continue to diminish.
    Based on available information, OSHA has determined that currently
manufactured equipment meets the proposed requirements and is generally
compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission
requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency concludes that all applicable new
equipment currently available in the market meets the final rule
requirements. OSHA recognizes that there may be some employers using
equipment that predates the newer MSHA standards, and the EPA
requirements referenced in them. To avoid the costs of replacing
existing equipment in use that are compliant with the current standard,
the agency proposes to allow equipment purchased before the effective
date of the final rule to continue to comply with the terms of existing
Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) (including having been approved by MSHA under
30 CFR part 32 (1995) or be determined to be equivalent to such MSHA-
approved equipment).
    Finally, the comment from Caterpillar pointed out that 100 ft\3\
equals 2.832 m\3\ (not 28.32 m\3\ as stated in the existing and
proposed regulatory text) and suggested a reorganization of the
regulatory text for clarity. The agency agrees with this suggestion and
has made the applicable change to Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) in the
final rule.
11. Subpart W of Part 1926--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead
Protection
    Provisions in subpart W specify minimum performance criteria for
rollover protective structures (ROPS) and overhead protection on
construction equipment. The agency proposed to revise the existing
standards in 29 CFR 1926.1000, 1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003 by
removing the provisions that specify the test procedures and
performance requirements, and replacing those provisions with
references to the underlying consensus standards from which they were
derived. The substantive differences between the consensus standards
and OSHA's standards are minimal. The agency also proposed to remove
irrelevant text from Sec.  1926.1000. The final rule is identical to
the proposed rule except for the addition of ISO 3471:2008 to Sec.
1926.1002 and other technical corrections. While reviewing the
incorporated material for this section OSHA found outdated references
to former 29 CFR 1926.1501 in Sec.  1926.6. OSHA is removing those
references in this final rule.
    The original source standards for the current subpart W
requirements are the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards
J320a-1970, J394-1970, J395-1970, J396-1970, J334a-1970, J167-1970,
J168-1970, and J397-1969. The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and SAE subsequently canceled these standards. To design and
develop new equipment, the industry now uses the most recent
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards: ISO
3471:2008; ISO 5700:2013; and ISO 27850:2013. Though the names of the
construction equipment covered by the consensus standards have changed
over time, OSHA believes that all the equipment listed in Sec.
1926.1001(a) is covered by one of those ISO standards.
    For equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final
rule, OSHA proposed that it meet the test and performance requirements
for the applicable ISO standards discussed below. For equipment
manufactured before the effective date of this final rule, OSHA
proposed that it meet the former requirements of subpart W, or the test
and performance requirements for the applicable ISO standards that
apply to newly manufactured equipment.
    OSHA received five comments on these proposed changes. The
Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North
America's Building Trades Union (NABTU) supported the revisions (OSHA-
2012-0007-0757, -0742). The Association of Equipment Manufacturers
(AEM), NIOSH, and Paul Ayers, a private citizen, were generally
supportive of these changes and recommended technical changes (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699, -0726, -0740). OSHA appreciates that input and responds
to specific comments below. After considering these comments, OSHA has
decided to finalize the proposed revisions to subpart W with the minor
changes discussed below.
    OSHA is renaming Sec.  1926.1000 as ``Scope'' because this more
accurately describes what follows in this section. Paragraph (a) lists
the types of equipment covered by subpart W. The agency is also adding
compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment manufactured after the
effective date of the final rule to paragraph (a). The ISO standards
apply to compactors and skid-steer equipment as well as the other
equipment included in the standard, and OSHA concludes that all
compactors and skid steer equipment currently produced meet those
requirements. Paragraph (b) states which standards apply to equipment
manufactured before the publication of this final rule. Paragraph (c)
states which standards apply to equipment manufactured after the
publication of this final rule. OSHA solicited comment on whether
paragraphs (d), ``Remounting,'' (e), ``Labeling,'' and (f), ``Machines
meeting certain existing governmental requirements'' are necessary or
are obsolete, but received no comment in response. These paragraphs are
not in conflict with the final revisions and are unchanged in the final
rule. LHSFNA specifically supported the inclusion of compactors and
rubber-tired skid-steer equipment in the standard, citing research on
fatalities associated with compactors (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). LHSFNA
also recommended that because only equipment manufactured after the
effective date of the standard will be covered by revised subpart W,
OSHA should study the prevalence of ROPS on existing older compactors
and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment and explore the need for a rule
that would require this older equipment to be retrofitted.
    Section 1926.1000(c) limited the application of the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  1926.1001 and 1926.1002 to equipment manufactured after July
1, 1969. OSHA is eliminating this limitation because it is OSHA's
understanding that there are not any

pieces of covered equipment in operation today that are more than 45
years old and do not meet the SAE standards. OSHA received no comment
on this revision.
    Section 1926.1001 provides ROPS requirements for rubber-tired self-
propelled scrapers, rubber-tired front end loaders, rubber-tired
dozers, crawler tractors, crawler-type loaders, and motor graders. The
final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J397-1969--
Critical Zone-Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of
Construction and Industrial Machinery, SAE 320a-1970--Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-
Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, SAE J394-1970--Minimum Performance
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structures for Rubber-Tired Front End
Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers, SAE J395-1970--Minimum Performance
Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and
Crawler-Type Loaders, and SAE J396-1970--Minimum Performance Criteria
for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Motor Graders, as applicable.
The final rule requires equipment manufactured after the effective date
of the final rule (including compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer
equipment) to meet the requirements of ISO 3471:2008, Earth-moving
machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and
performance requirements. This standard contains specifications for
ROPS to protect employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that
covered equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of
ISO 3471:2008, the final rule provides the option for equipment
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards.
    Section 1926.1002 provides ROPS requirements for wheel-type
agricultural equipment and industrial tractors used in construction.
The final rule deletes the ROPS specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J168-1970--
Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance Requirement and
SAE J334a-1970-Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
Requirements, as applicable. The final rule requires equipment
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule meet the
requirements of ISO 5700:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
Roll-over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance
conditions. This standard contains specifications for ROPS to protect
employees. Because, as noted above, OSHA believes that covered
equipment is already being manufactured to the requirements of ISO
5700:2013, the final rule provides the option for equipment
manufactured before the effective date of the final rule to comply with
the ISO standard rather than the SAE standards. OSHA solicited comment
on whether any equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 that complies with
ISO 3471:2008, the standard for earth-moving machinery, should be
considered in compliance for ROPS. The comment from AEM noted that ISO
3471:2008 could be used for equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 (OSHA-
2012-0007-0699). Therefore, because ISO 3471:2008 requires testing at
higher levels of energy than ISO-5700:2013, compliance with either ISO-
5700:2013 or ISO 3471:2008 for equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 is
included in the final rule.
    AEM also recommended updating the consensus standard that is used
in prior Sec.  1926.1002(j)(1) [now Sec.  1926.1002(e)(1)] for the
definition of ``agricultural tractor.'' OSHA is not changing the scope
of equipment covered by Sec.  1926.1002 and believes that the current
definition does not require a change to be compatible with the
revisions. OSHA appreciates AEM's recommendations to update this
definition and to include various other standards as possible options
for Sec.  1926.1002. OSHA acknowledges that there are other consensus
standards that may apply to equipment covered by subpart W. However,
OSHA has chosen to adopt the ISO standards that most closely align to
the current regulatory structure of subpart W.
    Section 1926.1003 provides design and installation requirements for
the use of overhead protection for operators of agricultural and
industrial tractors used in construction. The final rule deletes the
current overhead protection specifications for this equipment, and
replaces it with a requirement that covered equipment manufactured
before the effective date of the final rule comply with SAE J167-1970--
Overhead Protection for Agricultural Tractors--Test Procedures and
Performance Requirements when using overhead protection. The final rule
requires equipment manufactured after the effective date of the final
rule meet the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture
and forestry--Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and
performance requirements when using overhead protection. This standard
contains specifications for overhead protection to protect employees.
Because, as noted above, OSHA concludes that overhead protection, when
used, is manufactured to the requirements of ISO 27850:2013, the final
rule provides the option for equipment manufactured before the
effective date of the final rule to comply with the ISO standard rather
than the SAE standards. NIOSH noted that ISO 27850:2013 is not the most
recent industry standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), but AEM recommended
that OSHA incorporate ISO 27850:2013 in Sec.  1926.1003 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0699). OSHA is finalizing the use of ISO 27850:2013 in Sec.
1926.1003. AEM also recommended that OSHA incorporate ISO 3449:2005 in
subpart W but OSHA is not incorporating it because there is no
equivalent consensus standard in subpart W for this ISO to update.
    The comment from AEM (OSHA-2012-0007-0699) asked that OSHA remove
the references to the outdated SAE standards. NIOSH also noted that SAE
J334a-1970 is not the current version of that standard (OSHA-2012-0007-
0726). OSHA is aware that the old SAE standards have been canceled. But
they were the original source standards for subpart W, and OSHA is
grandfathering older equipment that met the requirements of the
original subpart W and thus the original source standards. For these
reasons, OSHA is retaining these source standards in the final rule but
it will consider this request for any future rulemaking it undertakes
on subpart W. AEM also requested that OSHA remove the prescriptive
tests in subpart W, as proposed, and replace them with the ISO
standards, which OSHA has done in this final rule. Finally, AEM
recommended that OSHA ``acknowledge the protective structures compliant
with the current industry standards incorporated by reference and
judged to fully comply with OSHA 1926.1002 and 1926.1003.'' The final
rule does state older equipment that meets the requirements of the
current standards required for new equipment will be in compliance with
subpart W. AEM and Paul Ayers also noted that there is a conversion
error in subpart W, and Ayers notes that the same error is also in 29
CFR 1928.52, OSHA's rule for agriculture on protective enclosures for
tractors (OSHA-2012-0007-0699, -0740). That error is eliminated in
subpart W, as the prescriptive tests are deleted by this final rule.
Amending the agriculture standard is beyond the scope

of this SIP-IV rulemaking, but OSHA takes note of the error.
12. Subpart Z of Part 1926--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Coke Oven
Emissions in 29 CFR 1926.1129
    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in
construction. In 1993, OSHA incorporated this standard into part 1926
(58 FR 35256, June 30, 1993) and in 1996 revised it to be just a
reference to the identical general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.1029;
61 FR 31428, June 20, 1996). In neither rulemaking did OSHA discuss, in
particular, the application of the coke oven standard to construction,
as it was only one of many standards involved in each rulemaking. The
provisions of the coke oven standard, however, do not fit construction
work. OSHA thus proposed to delete Sec.  1926.1129. The final rule
enacts the proposed deletion without any other changes.
    As just stated, the coke oven standard does not fit construction
work. Much of the standard regulates exposure in the ``regulated
area.'' (See 29 CFR 1910.1029(d)). But this ``regulated area'' is
limited, including only ``[t]he coke oven battery including topside and
its machinery, pushside and its machinery, coke side and its machinery,
and the battery ends; the wharf; and the screening station [and the]
beehive oven and its machinery'' (Sec.  1910.1029(d)(2)(i) and (ii)).
As stated in an interpretation issued nearly contemporaneously with the
general industry coke oven emissions standard, ``[t]he ground level
around the base of the coke oven battery is not generally considered in
the regulated area unless work related to coke oven operations take
place. The coke oven regulation, 29 CFR 1910.1029, does not apply to
employees walking past coke ovens or between them.'' (Interpretation
memorandum to White, May 17, 1977). Any work operating the coke ovens
is general industry work. OSHA recognized this issue in the 1990s, when
it stated that the coke oven construction standard was ``invalid,'' and
that OSHA intended to remove it from the Code of Federal Regulations.
(Interpretation letter to Katz, June 22, 1999). OSHA also advised its
Regional Offices in 2005 of this interpretation and that they should
not enforce Sec.  1926.1129. OSHA's inspection database contains no
record of a citation under this standard since 1997.\9\ For this
reason, OSHA proposed to delete Sec.  1926.1129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ There were a few citations between 1993 and 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received three comments on the proposed deletion, each asking
OSHA to retain Sec.  1926.1129. The North America's Building Trades
Unions commented that, ``there are still 17 coke oven plants, with 54
batteries, that required industrial construction workers to perform
tasks such as patching and replacing refractory bricks and other
maintenance, work that potentially overexposes these workers to coke
oven emissions'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on this limited
information about what the workers are doing, the work described in
this scenario is likely covered by Sec.  1910.1029, even if the work is
done by ``industrial construction workers.'' The United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union (USW) describes work covered by
Sec.  1910.1029 as ``heavy maintenance,'' encompassing ``[r]ebuilding,
and rebricking ovens, changing doors, rebuilding and replacing
equipment'' within the regulated area (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). In this
example as well, based on the limited information about what the
workers are doing, OSHA thinks it is likely that the work described is
covered by Sec.  1910.1029.
    The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America commented that
eliminating Sec.  1926.1129 could cause companies to respond by
``reclassifying work as construction work, thus exempting them from the
regulation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). The USW also states that ``OSHA
should avoid giving [employers] such an incentive'' to reclassify work
(OSHA-2012-0007-0764). Employers do not determine whether or not work
is covered by the construction or general industry standards. The work
itself is used to determine if it will be considered maintenance or
construction. An employer whose employees are engaged in general
industry work may not avoid compliance with general industry standards
by ``classifying'' the work as construction.
    Additionally, the USW commented that construction workers laboring
near a coke oven would be deprived of ``respirators, protective
clothing and personal hygiene measures'' if Sec.  1926.1129 were to be
removed (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). This is not the case. First, Sec.
1910.1029, as discussed above, only covers the ``regulated area.''
Second, 29 CFR part 1926 contains a number of standards that apply to
construction workers laboring near an active coke oven. For example,
the provisions of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart C--General Safety and
Health Provisions, 29 CFR part 1926, subpart D--Occupational Health and
Environmental Controls, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart E--Personal
Protective and Life Saving Equipment apply to construction work near
coke ovens.\10\ Because Sec.  1926.1129 is invalid, employers of
construction workers who work near coke ovens must follow the
provisions of the construction standards as a whole, but do not have to
follow the specific standard Sec.  1910.1029, which applies to general
industry work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Administrative Law Judge with the Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission has upheld a citation for violation of
Sec.  1926.51(f), requiring washing facilities when construction
workers in the regulated area were exposed to coke dust, and a
citation for violation of Sec.  1926.59, requiring employers to
provide employees with information and training on hazardous
chemicals. The Review Commission affirmed the violation of Sec.
1926.51(f) (the other violation was not at issue before the
Commission). McGraw Construction Co, Inc., 1991 WL 494789 (No. 89-
2220, Jan. 11, 1991) (ALJ Decision), aff'd in part, 15 BNA OSHC 2144
(No. 89-2220, Feb. 1, 1993),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because, in effect, the standard does not address construction
worker exposures to coke oven emissions, this removal will not reduce
the level of protection for workers. To the extent any construction
workers would in the future be exposed to coke oven emissions and there
is no applicable construction standard that addresses the specific
hazard, OSHA could cite the employer under the General Duty Clause (29
U.S.C. 654(a)(1)). After considering these comments, OSHA is proceeding
with the removal of Sec.  1926.1129. OSHA is also removing the
reference to Sec.  1926.1129 in Sec.  1926.55, Table 1.
13. Additional Revisions to Paragraphs and Appendices in 29 CFR Parts
1910, 1915, and 1926 To Remove Social Security Number Collection
Requirements
    OMB requires all federal agencies to identify and eliminate
unnecessary collection and use of Social Security Numbers (SSN) in
agency systems and programs (see Memorandum from Clay Johnson III,
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Regarding Safeguarding
Against and Responding to the Breach of Personal Identifiable
Information (M-07-16), May 22, 2007 (available at: georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf)). Recognizing
the seriousness of the threat of identity theft and the availability of
other methods for tracking employees for research purposes, if needed,
OSHA examined

the SSN collection requirements in its standards. Based on this review,
OSHA proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM removing all requirements in its
standards to include employee SSNs on exposure monitoring, medical
surveillance, or other records in order to facilitate employers'
efforts to safeguard employee privacy. Specifically, OSHA proposed
deleting the requirements to include an employee's SSN from 19
standards. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
    The 19 standards proposed for revision are as follows:
     Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response--
Sec. Sec.  1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A) and 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A);
     Asbestos--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F),
(m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D, 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A),
and appendix D, and 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix
D;
     Vinyl Chloride--Sec.  1910.1017(m)(1);
     Inorganic Arsenic--Sec.  1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D) and
(q)(2)(ii)(A);
     Lead--Sec. Sec.  1910.1025(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D),
(n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B and 1926.62(d)(5),
(n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
     Chromium (VI)--Sec. Sec.  1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F) and
(m)(4)(ii)(A), 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A), and
1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A);
     Cadmium--Sec. Sec.  1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(3)(ii)(A),
and appendix D and 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv), (n)(1)(ii)(B), and
(n)(3)(ii)(A);
     Benzene--Sec.  1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D) and (k)(2)(ii)(A);
     Coke Oven Emissions--Sec.  1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a) and
(m)(2)(i)(a);
     Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec.  1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A);
     Cotton Dust--Sec.  1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C), (k)(2)(ii)(A)
and appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
     1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--Sec.  1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d)
and (p)(2)(ii)(a);
     Acrylonitrile--Sec.  1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D);
     Ethylene Oxide--Sec.  1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F) and
(k)(3)(ii)(A);
     Formaldehyde--Sec.  1910.1048(o)(1)(vi), (o)(3)(i),
(o)(4)(ii)(D), and appendix D;
     Methylenedianiline--Sec. Sec.  1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D),
(n)(4)(ii)(A), and (n)(5)(ii)(A) and 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F) and
(o)(5)(ii)(A);
     1,3-Butadiene--Sec.  1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F),
(m)(4)(ii)(A), and appendix F;
     Methylene Chloride--Sec.  1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F),
(m)(2)(iii)(C), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
     Respirable Crystalline Silica--Sec. Sec.
1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G) and (k)(3)(ii)(A) and 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G) and
(j)(3)(ii)(A).
    OSHA received a total of seven comments in response to this
proposal, six of which expressed support for deleting the requirements
to include an employee's SSN from the standards mentioned above.
    The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
stated that they ``strongly support'' the deletion of SSN collection
requirements ``because inclusion of such information on medical
documents compromises employee's personal information and creates a
liability scenario for employers.'' The American Foundry Society (AFS)
also supported removing the SSN collection requirements from OSHA's
standards. AFS stated that there is no justification for including such
sensitive information on data sheets or reports that may go to
analytical laboratories or be seen by dozens of people in non-secure
environments. AFS recommended that employers could instead use the
unique employee identification number that employers may use for
personnel and other records, which can be linked back to an employee's
SSN without compromising security.
    The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) commented that it
``wholeheartedly'' agrees with OSHA's proposal and believes that there
are safer and better alternatives than SSNs to identify employees. CISC
also supported OSHA's statements in the proposal that employers would
not be required to go back and delete employee SSNs from existing
records, would not be required to use an alternative unique employee
identifier on existing records, and would still be permitted to use
SSNs if they wish to do so, and encouraged OSHA to specifically
reference these statements in the final rule to clarify employers'
responsibilities regarding existing and future records. CISC further
recommended that OSHA not mandate a specific type of alternative
identification method for employers to use in lieu of SSNs because
limiting employers' flexibility to come up with an identification
system that works best for their unique situations would be burdensome
and difficult to implement.
    One commenter, an anonymous public citizen, expressed concern that
removing the SSN collection requirements from exposure monitoring and
surveillance records would affect employers' ability to identify
employees on records. The commenter stated that if employers were
required to remove SSNs from existing records, it ``would be daunting
and conflict with NARA requirements.'' The commenter also expressed
concern that using alternative unique employee identifiers could
complicate employer efforts to secure existing records and/or lead to
similar employee privacy concerns as those posed by SSNs. OSHA
appreciates the commenter's concerns; however, OSHA believes that the
seriousness of the threat of identity theft outweighs the concerns
raised by the commenter.
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the
SSN collection requirements from the standards listed above, as
proposed in the NPRM. Consistent with the proposal, OSHA is not
otherwise altering OSHA's requirements for maintaining records, and
employers are expected to continue handling previously-generated
records that contain SSNs as they currently do. Employers are not
required to delete employee SSNs from existing records, nor are
employers required to include an alternative unique employee identifier
on those records. OSHA is not mandating a specific type of
identification method that employers should use on newly-created
records, but is instead providing employers with the flexibility to
develop a system that best works for their unique situations. Although
the revised standards will no longer require it, employers who wish to
do so may continue using SSNs on records developed in compliance with
the standards noted above. Accordingly, removing the SSN collection
requirements will not increase an employer's compliance burden under
any of the revised standards.
    Additionally, as noted in the proposal, when reviewing forms to
remove their SSN collection requirements, OSHA noticed that several
forms from older standards do not comport with OMB's Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, as updated on October 30, 1997 (62 FR 58782-58790). OSHA
thus explained that it was considering revising those forms to either
update the language to ensure compliance with OMB's standards or remove
the question altogether. The final rule makes those revisions to comply
with OMB standards. The final rule also effects a minor change to a
question in a general industry Cadmium standard questionnaire.
    As one example from the proposal, Part 1 (``Initial Medical
Questionnaire'') of appendix D of the asbestos standard for general
industry (29 CFR 1910.1001)

includes a question (currently #15) that states:

Race:
    1. White __
    2. Black __
    3. Asian __
    4. Hispanic __
    5. Indian __
    6. Other __

    To reflect a combined race and ethnicity format (see 62 FR 58782,
58789), OSHA proposed revising the language to state:

Race:
    1. White __
    2. Black or African American __
    3. Asian __
    4. Hispanic or Latino
    5. American Indian or Alaska Native __
    6. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander __

OSHA requested comments on whether it should revise the forms in this
manner, and whether doing so would impose any additional burden hours
or costs on employers.
    The agency only received one comment on this issue. NIOSH
recommended that OSHA continue to collect race and ethnicity
information in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) standards. NIOSH stated that, in some cases, this information may
be necessary to choose the correct reference equation for
interpretation of spirometry results, and that possessing this
information may also be useful for documenting disparities. NIOSH
suggested that OSHA provide instructions to those who provide
information using the combined format that they should check all
categories that apply to them, since race and ethnicity are not
mutually exclusive, and many Americans have mixed racial and ethnic
backgrounds. NIOSH also pointed out that OMB's standards combine
``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' into a single category
and does not separate them, as OSHA appeared to do in the proposal.
OSHA did not propose to separate those two categories; it only appeared
that way due to the spacing in the proposal.
    After considering this comment, OSHA has decided to revise its
older forms to use a combined race and ethnicity format, as
demonstrated above for Part 1 (``Initial Medical Questionnaire'') of
appendix D of the asbestos standard for general industry (29 CFR
1910.1001), in order to bring the forms into compliance with OMB's
standards. The following forms, which are also impacted by the removal
of SSN collection requirements, will be revised to use the combined
race and ethnicity format: Asbestos Standard for General Industry
(Sec.  1910.1001, appendix D), Construction (Sec.  1926.1101, appendix
D), and Maritime (Sec.  1915.1001, appendix D); Cotton Dust (Sec.
1910.1043, appendix B-1, appendix B-II, and appendix B-III); and
Methylene Chloride (Sec.  1910.1052, appendix B). OSHA is accepting
NIOSH's recommendation to adhere to the OMB's Standards and is
inserting a ``Check all that apply'' instruction to all the forms that
are impacted.
    Additionally, when reviewing forms to remove their SSN collection
requirements, OSHA noticed that appendix D of the general industry
Cadmium standard (Sec.  1910.1027) asked workers, ``35. Have you or
your partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still
birth or deformed offspring?'' OSHA recognizes that the phrasing of the
last condition was insensitive and not medically accurate. Therefore,
OSHA is rephrasing that question to read, ``35. Have you or your
partner ever conceived a child resulting in a miscarriage, still birth
or child with malformations or birth defects?''

C. Proposed Revisions Not Being Finalized Today

Subpart J of Part 1910--General Environmental Controls, Control of
Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147
    OSHA proposed making changes to subpart J of part 1910--General
Environmental Controls, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/
tagout) in 29 CFR 1910.147. According to its terms, the lockout/tagout
standard applies to servicing and maintenance operations ``in which the
unexpected energization or startup of the machines or equipment, or the
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees'' (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(i) (emphasis in original)). Because OSHA believes the
word ``unexpected'' has been misinterpreted to exclude some operations
where employees are subject to injury from startup or the release of
stored energy, the agency proposed removing the word ``unexpected''
from Sec.  1910.147(a)(1) and several other places it appears in the
standard.
    OSHA made this proposal as a result of a ruling made by the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), which was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div. (GMC Delco), 17 BNA
OSHC 1217 (Nos. 91-2973, 91-3116, 91-3117, 1995); aff'd 89 F.3d 313
(6th Cir. 1996). Those decisions found that the lockout/tagout standard
did not apply where a startup procedure for a machine provided a
warning to a worker servicing it that it was about to start. In that
case, workers were servicing machines that used an eight-to-twelve-step
startup procedure, including time delays, and audible or visual
warnings. The court and OSHRC held that, because these features would
warn the servicing employees that the machines were about to start, the
startup would not be ``unexpected.'' OSHA believes that the GMC Delco
decisions misconstrued the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/
tagout standard by allowing employers to use warning and delay systems
as alternatives to following the requirements of the standard.
    OSHA received about 155 comments on this issue, though many were
submitted as part of a mass mailing campaign. All but seven of the
comments opposed removing the word ``unexpected.''
    As an example, Davies Molding, LCC, a firm that makes moldings,
commented (as part of a mass mail campaign) that:

    This proposed rule would adversely impact a company's ability to
utilize certain advances in technology such as automated controls
that can eliminate the potential for unexpected energization and
therefore eliminate the need for LOTO. It also contradicts recent
legal precedent (Reich v. General Motors Corp., Delco Chassis Div.,
GMC Delco). In removing the ability of employers to demonstrate the
absence of exposure to unexpected energization, lockout would become
a requirement for all energy sources. . . . Regulatory certainty is
strongly desired, but not every machine is the same and a singular,
generic fix applied to all equipment is not the solution. OSHA's
LOTO rule (29 CFR 1910.147) is complex and outdated. A better
solution to concerns about LOTO and the scope of requirements around
energization is for OSHA to move forward with its plans to review
and potentially update the entire rule in a complete and independent
rulemaking. OSHA has noted review of technological advancements with
computer-based controls, greater acceptance of such methods
internationally, increased requests for variances for these devices,
the utility of understanding new technology and potential hazards to
workers, and the appropriateness of a potential rulemaking process
is necessary.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0581).
    Apogee Designs, a manufacturer, commented:

    Removing ``unexpected'' from the term ``unexpected
energization'' broadens the scope of the rule adding only confusion
to what is already understood and implemented. We agree with the
Plastics Industry Association (PIA) in that OSHA should pursue a
separate rule relating to 29 CFR 1910.147 that would NOT adversely
impact automated controls that eliminate

potential unexpected energization. . . . If changes are made to the
LOTO rule they should be reviewed in their totality in the context
of modern manufacturing techniques and technology. Much has been
said of `Advanced Manufacturing' and its ability to provide jobs for
employees and opportunities for firms who wish to embrace what is no
longer the future but is `the now'. We submit that OSHA focus on how
to minimize risk of personnel harm without placing undue burden on
employees, companies, and regulators. It is not possible to
eliminate accidents, it is possible to minimize their impact.

(OSHA-2012-0007-0733).
    The American National Standards Institute Accredited Z244 Committee
for the Control of Hazardous Energy--Lockout, Tagout and Alternative
Methods also commented that the removal of the word ``unexpected''
would be inconsistent with its standard ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (OSHA-2012-
0007-0714).
    In favor of removal, the AFL-CIO commented:

    This decision [GMC Delco] totally undermines the original intent
of the standard and allows warning systems to be used instead of
following the requirements of the standard. As OSHA points out in
the preamble of the proposed rule, the exclusive use of warning
systems subverts the intent of the standard by removing the control
of the hazardous energy from the individual authorized employee and
instead placing the burden on exposed employees to recognize
warnings so they can escape danger zones . . . . Moreover, this
decision requires OSHA to make a case-by-case determination of
whether or not such warning systems provide adequate and reliable
warnings to workers again undermining the application of the rule
and the protection of workers.
. . . .

    If OSHA choses[sic] to maintain the term ``unexpected'' in the
standard, we urge OSHA to include a definition of the term
``unexpected'' in the final version of this rule similar to the
definition that is included in the OSHA Lockout-Tagout compliance
directive. That directive states that ``the term unexpected refers
to any energization or start-up that is not sanctioned (through the
removal of personal LOTO devices) by each authorized employee
engaged in the servicing and maintenance activity.'' (CPL 02-00-147)

(OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
    OSHA continues to believe that the GMC Delco decisions misconstrued
the ``unexpected'' language of the lockout/tagout standard. However,
OSHA also acknowledges the overwhelming opposition to this change and
agrees with the many comments that cited complications with this issue
due to technological advancements. Further, the AFL-CIO included in its
comment a proposal of a path OSHA could follow to uphold the rigor of
the proposed rule. In light of the information provided by the
comments, OSHA is not in a position at this time to make a final
decision on this issue. As a result, the agency will not finalize its
proposal to remove the word ``unexpected'' from the control of
hazardous energy standard but will further consider this issue in light
of the overall standard.
Subpart E of Part 1926--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment,
Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment in 29 CFR 1926.95
    Section 1926.95 sets out the requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE) in construction. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to revise
this standard to explicitly require that PPE used in construction
properly fit each affected worker.
    OSHA received four comments on this proposal. The Laborers' Health
& Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building
Trades Unions (NABTU) both supported the revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0757,
-0742). A third comment from a safety professional supported the
revision, but mentioned ``significant concerns'' that ``need to be
addressed'' before finalizing the proposal (OSHA-2012-0007-0696). The
comment characterized the change as a ``difficult'' and ``bold step''
with definite compliance challenges. A fourth comment, from the
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC), opposed the revision
(OSHA-2012-0007-0753). CISC, made up of 25 trade associations, stated
that ensuring that PPE properly fits all affected workers in
construction would impose significant additional obligations. CISC
commented in particular that explicitly requiring employers to ensure
that all PPE properly fits would greatly change the standard and place
new responsibilities on employers, and warrants a more fulsome
rulemaking process than that offered in the SIP-IV rulemaking.
    The purpose of SIP-IV is to remove or revise outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in OSHA's safety and health
standards. Given that limited purpose and the comments described above,
OSHA is not finalizing the proposal in this rulemaking. Instead, OSHA
has determined that such a change to the PPE standard should occur in a
separate rulemaking outside the limited SIP process. OSHA anticipates
that this approach would provide the public with broader notice of the
proposal, encourage robust commentary, and better inform OSHA's
approach to employer obligations and worker safety in relation to PPE
used in construction.
Subpart P of Part 1926--Excavations, Specific Excavation Requirements
in 29 CFR 1926.651
    Paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of Sec.  1926.651 specify requirements
for employers to protect employees from (1) loose rock or soil in
excavations, and (2) excavated or other materials or equipment that
could fall or roll into an excavation. Similar provisions were part of
OSHA's subpart P Excavation standard originally issued under the
Construction Safety Act in 1971 as 29 CFR 1518.651(h) and (i) (36 FR
7340, 7389, April 17, 1971), and OSHA retained them when it revised the
standard in 1989 (54 FR 45894, Oct. 31, 1989). The original 1971
standard placed the burden on employers to ensure employees' safety
from loose rock and soil, and excavated or other materials, in or
around excavations (36 FR 7340, 7389). The 1989 revision added to the
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) the phrase ``that could pose a hazard'' when
referring to loose rock or soil and excavated or other materials or
equipment (54 FR 45894, 45924-45925).
    In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA proposed to remove the phrase ``that could
pose a hazard'' from both paragraphs to help clarify that the burden is
on the employer to ensure employees' safety from loose rock and soil,
and excavated or other materials, in or around excavations, and that
OSHA does not have to establish that loose rock or soil or excavated or
other material or equipment poses a hazard to employees before it can
establish a violation of Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (2).
    OSHA received six comments on this proposed change. The Laborers'
Health & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and the North American
Building Trades Union (NABTU) both supported this revision, both
stating that spoil piles pose a recognized hazard (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
-0757).
    Emmanuel Omeike, a safety professional, commented that this
proposal is unnecessary and does not address the ongoing hazards and
high rates of injuries and fatalities due to excavation work. He argued
that the excavations standard is already comprehensive enough, and OSHA
should focus on enforcing the current standard (OSHA-2012-0007-0696).
    The National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA) and
Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) both expressed opposition
to this revision (OSHA-2012-0007-0654, -0753). Both argued that the
1989 revision to the Excavation standard did make a substantive change
to the standard,

which was OSHA's intent when it clarified the standard. They also
argued that the existing language recognizes that loose rock or soil or
excavated or other material or equipment do not always pose a hazard to
employees, and it clearly informs employers that they must protect
employees from loose rock or soil or excavated or other material or
equipment when it does pose a hazard.
    The National Association of Homebuilders (OSHA-2012-007-0747)
joined in the CISC comment, and also recommended that OSHA revise the
excavations standard to add the work practices that are outlined in the
OSHA memorandum ``Suspension of 29 CFR 1926.652 to House Foundations/
Basement Excavations'' for protecting house foundation/basement
excavations in either SIP-IV or a separate rulemaking. That
recommendation is beyond the scope of SIP-IV.
    In the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA also proposed removing the language ``by
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) because that
language is unnecessary while retaining the term ``excavation face'' in
the provision. NUCA opposed the removal of this language for the same
reasons it opposed the removal of ``that could pose a hazard'' (OSHA-
2012-0007-0654).
    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided that it needs to
further consider the possible removal of the phrase ``that could pose a
hazard'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1) and (2) and the language ``by
falling or rolling from an'' from Sec.  1926.651(j)(1). As a result,
OSHA is not making any changes to these two provisions in this final
rule.
Subpart S in Part 1926--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams
and Compressed Air, Compressed Air in 29 CFR 1926.803
    OSHA proposed to revise subpart S--Underground Construction,
Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed Air, by replacing the
decompression tables currently found in appendix A to subpart S with
the 1992 French Air and Oxygen decompression tables (French). OSHA also
requested comment on whether the following decompression tables should
also be permitted as substitutes for the existing tables in appendix A:
The Edel-Kindwall (NIOSH) tables, the Blackpool (British) tables, and
the German Standard Decompression (German) tables. After reviewing the
comments, discussed below, OSHA has determined that while the
decompression tables need to be updated, SIP-IV is not the appropriate
mechanism to carry out a broader update of subpart S. In addition to
the decompression tables, subpart S, as it relates to decompression,
needs to be updated in its entirety. The agency considered the effect
of only updating the tables, as proposed, but has determined they would
conflict with and not solve other problems with the current standard. A
full explanation of the proposal and discussion of the decompression
tables is found at 81 FR 68503, 68520.
    OSHA received three comments, each offering support for the use of
the French tables. The Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America
(LHSFNA) and the North American Building Trades Union (NABTU) stated
they are ``glad to see OSHA's proposal to update this standard and
adopt the French tables, which can also be used for oxygen
decompression and at pressures higher than those in the original OSHA
standard'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757 and OSHA-2012-0007-0742). This comment
highlights the difficulty with only updating the tables without
updating other parts of the standard. While the French tables are
designed to be used at higher pressures and for oxygen decompression,
OSHA did not propose in SIP-IV to revise the parts of subpart S that
limit the amount of pressure an employee can be subjected to or limit
the use of oxygen. OSHA believes that only updating the decompression
tables, without updating other parts of the standard, would lead
employers to believe they can use parts of the French tables that would
violate the current standard. Both commenters also requested that
contractors be given the option to use the British, Edel-Kindwall,
German, or Navy tables. As part of further study of this issue, OSHA
will continue to consider which tables are acceptable for use in
underground construction.
    OSHA also received a comment from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that supported the updating of
the decompression standard in a manner that goes beyond the scope of
the proposed rule. NIOSH recommended that OSHA take the following steps
when updating the decompression tables: ``[r]equire staged
decompression, allow 100 percent oxygen use during decompression, vary
the decompression schedule based on exposure time, and allow for
greater pressures in underground construction projects'' (OSHA-2012-
0007-0726). NIOSH also recommended that OSHA adopt the Edel-Kindwall
tables, and noted that additional decompression tables exist. Finally
NIOSH agreed that the standard would need to be updated if an oxygen-
based set of decompression tables were selected.
    Each of the comments were supportive of OSHA's efforts to update
the decompression standard, including the tables. However, each of the
comments highlighted the challenges and problems that present
themselves by only updating to the French tables (or any of the tables
discussed). OSHA agrees that the limitations on pressure and the use of
oxygen in the current standard are not compatible with any of the
modern decompression tables. OSHA acknowledges that these issues were
discussed in the proposed rule, but has determined that SIP-IV is not
the appropriate mechanism to update subpart S. While OSHA is not
updating the tables in this rulemaking as proposed, the agency is
considering how to best move forward with updating the decompression
standard. The proposed revisions to 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) and appendix
A to subpart S are not being finalized.

IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the
benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations. Executive Orders
12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) also require
OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the
impacts of certain rules that the agency promulgates. Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    This rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, and it is not a ``major rule''
under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). The expected
total cost savings per year are $6,066,000. Given that these are all
annual cost savings, the final estimate is the same when discounted at
either 3 or 7 percent. For the same reason, when the Department uses a
perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 13771,
the annualized cost savings of the final rule are also $6,066,000 with
7 percent discounting. This rule has estimated annual costs of $32,440
and will lead to approximately $6.1 million per year in cost savings to
regulated entities. Thus, neither the benefits nor the costs of this
rule exceed $100 million. In addition, it does not meet any of the
other criteria specified by UMRA or the Congressional Review Act for a
significant regulatory action or major rule. This Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) addresses the

costs, cost savings and benefits of this rule.

Work-Related Hearing Loss

    OSHA is adding a specific cross-reference to 29 CFR 1904.5--
Determination of Work-Relatedness, in Sec.  1904.10--Recording Criteria
for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss, paragraph (b)(6). This
cross-reference clarifies that employers must comply with the
provisions of Sec.  1904.5 when making a determination as to whether a
worker's hearing loss is work-related. This clarification does not
change any of the requirements in 29 CFR 1904.10. In the Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA), OSHA determined that neither new costs nor
compliance burdens would result from adding the cross-reference to an
existing standard. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the
Final Rule (Summary and Explanation), while some commenters, such as
the Construction Industry Safety Coalition (OSHA-2012-0007-0753),
expressed concern that the proposed language may increase their
required reporting of hearing loss cases, the agency explained in
detail in that section why this clarification does not impose any new
obligations on employers.\11\ With that in mind, OSHA retains its
assessment from the PEA that this provision does not impose new costs
on employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA has conducted a sensitivity analysis on the
hypothetical assumption that the clarification will assist some
employers' compliance with their hearing-loss reporting obligations.
For instance, in 2016 BLS reported 100 cases of hearing loss for the
entire construction industry, or 0.2 per 10,000 workers; however,
hearing loss across all industries was much higher, at 1.7 per
10,000 workers (BLS, 2017a). If the construction industry were to
report hearing loss at a rate of 2.0 per 10,000 workers--similar to
other industries--then it would be reporting an additional 900
hearing-loss cases. The average case costs $57, so that would result
in total additional costs of $51,300 ($57 x 900). OSHA assumes that,
across all industries, the clarification may result in a 10%
increase in reported hearing-loss cases (with much of that overall
increase coming from the construction industry). This modest 10%
increase is based on the assumption that the regulation's hearing-
loss reporting requirement is already clear to nearly all employers.
A 10% increase would result in additional costs of $107,700 (18,900
total cases in 2016 x 10% x $57 per case) (BLS, 2017a). (The $57-
per-case estimate is based on the estimated labor costs divided by
the total number of cases reported to BLS (OSHA, 2018a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chest X-Ray Requirements

    Medical surveillance requirements in health standards are designed
primarily to detect the early onset of adverse health effects so that
appropriate interventions can be taken. In certain OSHA standards, the
agency currently requires periodic chest X-rays (CXRs) as a form of
early lung cancer detection. At the time these standards were
promulgated, routine screening for lung cancer with CXR was considered
appropriate; however, recent studies with many years of follow-up have
not shown a benefit from CXR screening for either lung cancer incidence
or mortality. As a result, OSHA is removing the requirement for
periodic CXR in the following standards: Sec. Sec.  1910.1029--Coke
Oven Emissions, 1910.1045--Acrylonitrile, and 1910.1018--Inorganic
Arsenic.
    As OSHA has become increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of CXR
in reducing lung cancer mortality, the agency has moved to decrease CXR
requirements to eliminate unnecessary radiation to workers as well as
reduce the cost to employers to provide CXR as part of medical
examinations. OSHA previously reduced the frequency of CXRs for workers
covered by the arsenic and coke oven emissions standards in the first
phase of the Standards Improvement Process (63 FR 33450, June 18,
1998). Not only does OSHA conclude that the removal of this requirement
will result in a cost savings to employers, but the agency also
believes it will prove to be beneficial to employees by decreasing
their exposure to radiation as well as decreasing the rate of false
positive results. OSHA has not attempted to quantify these benefits in
this final analysis.
    To estimate the annual cost savings to employers for removing the
requirement for periodic CXRs from the listed standards, OSHA, with the
assistance of Eastern Research Group (ERG), estimated the number of
unnecessary CXRs that will be eliminated by this change by drawing on
estimates of the affected number of workers for each standard addressed
in the agency's recent Information Collection Requests (ERG, 2017b).
The numbers presented in this FEA have been revised from the PEA to
reflect the most recent wage, price and industry profile data. These
changes are demonstrated in the SIPS-IV Cost Benefits Estimates
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).\12\ OSHA then analyzed data from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule.
Summary CMS survey data from across the United States indicated a
national average price of $73.11 per CXR (ERG, 2017a).\13\ Finally, the
agency multiplied the average price of a CXR by the number of CXRs to
be eliminated, providing an estimate of $265,326 of exam cost savings.
This information is detailed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition, note that the totals in tables in this
chapter, as well as totals summarized in the text, may not precisely
sum from underlying elements due to rounding. The precise
calculation of the numbers in the FEA appears in the spreadsheet.
    \13\ Exam cost adjusted from PEA to 2017 dollars using the GDP
deflator as indicated in the SIP-IV Cost Benefits Estimates
spreadsheet (OSHA, 2018).

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 2,498 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$182,636
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 542 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$39,627
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):
    Reduced Exam Costs: 589 exams x $73.11 CXR cost per exam =
$43,063
Total Reduced Exam Cost:
    $182,636 + $39,627 + $43,063 = $265,326

    Reducing the time of the medical exam, by removing the CXR
requirement, also saves employers money because the employee is away
from work for a shorter period of time. Based on information from
RadiologyInfo.org, the agency conservatively estimates that the time
employees will be away from work is reduced by 15 minutes when the CXR
component of the exam is eliminated (ERG, 2017a). As indicated below,
OSHA estimates this change will save 907 hours of worker time that
would have been spent during their recurring exams.
    For the calculation of labor-related cost savings for this FEA,
OSHA included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of
labor in its primary cost calculation. Overhead costs are indirect
expenses that cannot be tied to producing a specific product or
service. Common examples include rent, utilities, and office equipment.
Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the cost elements that
fit this definition. The lack of a common definition has led to a wide
range of overhead estimates. Consequently, the treatment of overhead
costs needs to be case-specific. OSHA adopted an overhead rate of 17
percent of base wages. This is consistent with the overhead rate used
for sensitivity analyses in the 2017 Improved Tracking of Workplace
Injuries and Illnesses FEA and the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final
standard on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica. For
example, to calculate the total labor cost for production work related
medical exams for production operator (SOC: 51-000), three components
are added together: Base wage ($18.30) + fringe benefits ($8.49, 46% of
$18.30) \14\ + applicable overhead

costs ($3.11, 17% of $18.30). This increases the labor cost of the
fully-loaded wage (including overhead) for a production worker to
$29.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Wages are based on data from the May 2017 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Standard Occupational
Classification Code 51-000--Production Operation (BLS, 2017), which
lists average base compensation of $18.30. A private industry Fringe
Benefit rate of 31.70 percent was from Source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (BLS 2018). The
multiplier applied to base compensation to determine loaded wages is
1.46 [1/(1 - 31.70 percent)]. Applying the multiplier (1.46) to base
compensation ($18.30) results in loaded wages of $26.79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiplying the reduced exam time by the fully-loaded employee
hourly wages of $29.90, the agency estimates a cost savings of $27,131.
This information is detailed as follows:

Coke Oven Emissions (Sec.  1910.1029):
    Time saved: 2,498 exams x .25 hours = 625 hours \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number here and
elsewhere for presentation in the Final Economic Analysis. See also
fn. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduced Cost: 625 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $18,675
Acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045):
    Time saved: 542 exams x .25 hours = 136 hours
    Reduced Cost: 136 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $4,052
Inorganic Arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018):
    Time saved: 589 exams x .25 hours = 147 hours
    Reduced Cost: 147 hours x ($26.79 employee compensation + $3.11
overhead) = $4,403
Total Employee Time Savings from fewer CXRs:
    625 hours + 136 hours + 147 hours = 907 hours
Total Value of Time Savings plus Overhead from fewer CXRs:
    $18,675 + $4,052 + $4,403 = $27,131

    Combining the value of saved worker time and overhead of $27,131
with the decreased exam cost of $265,326 nets a total potential cost
savings to employers of approximately $292,500. OSHA did not receive
comments questioning the estimates of the cost savings, as presented in
the PEA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The overhead component was not included in the PEA, but has
been added to the FEA in fulfillment of Department of Labor policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to removing the requirement for periodic CXR, OSHA is
updating other CXR requirements in its coke oven emissions,
acrylonitrile, and inorganic arsenic standards, as well as in its three
Asbestos standards--Sec. Sec.  1910.1001 asbestos (General Industry),
1915.1001 Asbestos (Maritime), and 1926.1101 Asbestos (Construction)--
and two cadmium standards--Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 Cadmium (General
Industry) and 1926.1127 Cadmium (Construction).
    In recent years, innovation in medical technology has allowed for
screening with digital CXRs. Reflecting this, OSHA is adding the option
of digital radiography to its existing standards. As a practical
matter, digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional
analog film-based systems in medical facilities.
    There are cost savings to using digital CXRs over analog CXRs.
Traditional analog film-based CXRs are much larger than standard-sized
office documents and weigh more than a piece of paper of the same size.
As such, storing traditional CXRs requires an investment in specialized
storage cabinets, which in turn may require reinforcement of the floor.
Digital CXRs, however, can be stored on a computer. Due to continuing
advances in technology and the emergence of inexpensive and large-
capacity storage devices, digital CXRs can be stored for just a
fraction of a cent each. Digital CXRs also save time and materials
because they can be instantly processed and ready for use as soon as
the CXR is taken.
    OSHA believes that digital storage of CXRs is so common that most
employers are already realizing these cost savings and will thus not
incur any additional savings as a result of this change. As a practical
matter, OSHA already allows digital storage of CXRs. In a letter of
interpretation released on September 24, 2012, entitled ``OSHA's
Position on the Acceptability of Digital Radiography in Place of
Traditional Chest Roentgenograms,'' OSHA stated: ``OSHA would allow,
but would not require, digital radiography in place of traditional
chest roentgenograms for medical surveillance exams under the asbestos
standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards.'' \17\
Although OSHA has not released interpretations specifically allowing
for digital storage of CXRs in other standards, it has become the
agency's practice not to cite or otherwise penalize employers for
storing CXRs digitally. Because it is now current OSHA enforcement
practice to waive the formal requirement for employers to keep analog
copies of CXRs when they store them digitally, the agency concludes
that there is no realized cost savings by changing this requirement.
Even so, OSHA also believes that employers will benefit from the
certainty that comes only from codified regulation. Employers can now
rely on the regulatory text rather than agency discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretations.
Asbestos standards, Sept. 24, 2012, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583 (accessed
November 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revisions in these standards also include replacements of
antiquated terminology such as ``roentgenogram,'' correction of
misspellings in the existing standards, an update to the current ILO
classification guidance, and revisions where inaccuracies exist in
clinical diagnostic language. OSHA is updating the regulatory text to
better distinguish between the appropriate uses of ``classification''
and ``interpretation'' of CXRs. As indicated in the PEA, the agency
believes these changes are merely editorial in nature and reflect
current practices, and therefore do not create new costs or cost
savings for employers. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation,
while commenters generally approved of the changes OSHA was proposing,
the agency did not receive comments questioning the PEA's conclusions.
Cotton Dust
    As explained in greater detail in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA
is making revisions to its medical surveillance program requirements--
more specifically, its pulmonary function testing requirements of the
cotton dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043). Exposure to cotton dust places
employees at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis.
Since the publication of the cotton dust standard in 1978, OSHA has not
updated its pulmonary function testing requirements to match those of
current technology and practices. As a result, OSHA in the proposal
based the proposed revisions on current recommendations from
organizations recognized as authorities on generally accepted practices
in pulmonary-function testing: ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM.
    OSHA is revising paragraph (h) and appendix D of its Cotton Dust
standard. Many of the revisions are simply editorial, to clarify
existing language, as well as to update pulmonary function
measurements. However, for those revisions that may suggest a potential
need to upgrade pulmonary testing equipment, OSHA investigated the
characteristics of equipment currently available in the United States
and whether such equipment met the specifications of OSHA's revisions.
    Paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) give instructions
for pulmonary function testing, measuring Forced Vital Capacity (FVC)
and Forced Expiratory Volume in One second (FEV1) against
the Spirometry Prediction Tables for Normal Males and Females (former
appendix C), adjusting those measurements based on ethnicity, and from
the outcome of such measurements, determining the frequency of medical
surveillance provided to employees. OSHA is

revising this provision to specify use of the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III reference data set and to
replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values.
    Software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set,
which is identified as the Hankinson data set on some spirometers. If
software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data
set, users of those spirometers will be able to access the NHANES III
values online through the NIOSH calculator. Tables of the NHANES III
values are also available online in an appendix of OSHA's spirometry
guidance for healthcare professionals. Therefore, NHANES III values are
widely available to spirometry providers, including those providers
using older spirometers.
    OSHA's use of the NHANES III data set in place of the Knudson
values currently in appendix C simplifies interpretation of spirometry
results by providing reference values for more race/ethnic groups,
thereby reducing the need to adjust values for race/ethnic groups not
included in the Knudson data set. This revision as to how pulmonary
functioning should be tested and measured falls in line with current
generally accepted practices; therefore OSHA does not believe this
revision will pose a compliance burden to affected employers.
    OSHA is also updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require an
evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against the
lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/ethnic group, by age. Modern
spirometers typically provide this information automatically, and no
one in the record argued that this provision would have costs.
Similarly, OSHA has decided that the basis for frequency of medical
surveillance in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) is whether the
FEV1 is above or below the LLN. This technically changes the
required triggers for medical surveillance from the existing standard,
but is consistent with generally accepted current practices. The agency
believes the changes will reduce confusion and have little other
practical effect. The revision to evaluate the FEV1/FVC
ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC does not affect the
triggers for other medical monitoring requirements such as changes in
medical-surveillance frequency or referral for a detailed pulmonary
examination because the standard bases those triggers solely on
FEV1 values.
    Revisions to appendix D address updates to the specifications of
spirometry equipment used in performing pulmonary functioning tests. To
assess whether current readily available spirometry equipment met the
agency's specifications, OSHA investigated the market for spirometry
equipment, with the assistance of a contractor, Eastern Research Group
(ERG). OSHA found that the market has been adapting to similar
consensus standards in this area since as far back as 1994. In its
research of spirometry product specifications collected through
internet searches, interviews with manufacturers, and the consultation
of peer-reviewed literature and voluntary standards published by
respiratory health groups, the agency found that spirometry models
currently sold in the United States, Europe, and Australia meet the
specification revisions of spirometry equipment to be used in the
cotton dust standard. Upon further investigation, ERG determined that
out of a sample of 12 spirometry models from various manufacturers, 11
models were already compliant with the volume, accuracy, and minimum
duration requirements of the 2005 spirometry specification standard
jointly published by ATS/ERS (ERG, 2017a).
    The agency estimates that spirometry equipment has a working life
of approximately ten years. To prevent a potential burden to employers
from having to prematurely purchase new equipment, OSHA is allowing the
revised spirometry specifications to apply only to equipment newly
purchased one year or more after the date of publication of this final
standard in the Federal Register. Combined with evidence that the large
majority of the equipment already on the market is already compliant,
OSHA preliminarily concluded that the revisions to the spirometry
equipment specifications would not impose additional costs or
compliance burdens to employers. OSHA received no comments indicating
substantial costs from these requirements, and therefore stands by its
preliminary conclusions.
Shipyard Employment: Feral Cats
    As stated in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is removing feral
cats from its definition of ``vermin'' in paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.
1915.80--subpart F--Shipyard General Working Conditions. 29 CFR
1915.88--Sanitation, paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), specify that employers
must, to the extent reasonably practicable, clean and maintain
workplaces in a manner that prevents vermin infestation. When employers
detect vermin, they must implement and maintain an effective vermin-
control program.
    OSHA has determined that, although the possibility exists for feral
cats to pose safety and health hazards for employees, the threat is
minor as the cats tend to avoid human contact. Further, stakeholders
and commenters (as discussed in the Summary and Explanation) have
expressed concern that including the term ``feral cats'' in the
definition of ``vermin'' encourages cruel and unnecessary
extermination. OSHA does not believe that removing the term ``feral
cats'' from the definition will reduce worker health and safety, and
notes that feral cats may help reduce the presence of other vermin. To
the extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular
shipyard, OSHA would consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under
the standard. Removing a perceived obligation to exterminate feral cats
does not have any costs to employers; if there is an economic effect,
it would be a potential cost savings to the extent that anyone is now
exterminating feral cats on the basis of that perceived obligation.
911 Emergency Medical Services
    OSHA is revising paragraph (f) in 29 CFR 1926.50--Medical Services
and First Aid. Existing Sec.  1926.50(e) requires employers to provide
a communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper
equipment for transportation of an injured person. Existing Sec.
1926.50(f) requires the posting of telephone numbers of physicians,
hospitals, or ambulances for work sites located in areas where 911
emergency service is not available. OSHA is retaining both of these
requirements. The agency will add to paragraph (f) a requirement that
when an employer uses a communication system for contacting 911
services, the employer must ensure that the communication system can
effectively do so, and, if the system is in an area that does not
automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude to the 911
dispatcher, post or otherwise provide to employees the latitude and
longitude of the work site or other information that communicates the
location of the worksite.
    OSHA has concluded that this requirement will result in annual
costs of $32,440 until 2019, when the FCC expects enhanced 911 wireless
services to be universal, at which time these costs would disappear.
    OSHA calculated the burden hours and wage hour costs for employers
to post the latitude and longitude of the work site location based on
the number of new construction projects started in a given year. To
estimate the number of project sites, OSHA reviewed the most

recent data provided by request from Dodge Data and Analytics.\18\ The
Dodge data show a total of 891,712 new construction project starts in
2016, of which 766,133 were residential buildings, 68,589 were non-
residential buildings, and 56,990 were non-buildings. Of the 766,133
residential buildings, 735,745 were single-family homes, 9,084 were
two-family houses, and 21,304 were apartments.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purpose of this section, in conformance with
previous ICRs on this provision, OSHA deems the Dodge data to be the
best source of information for new construction projects. This
stands in contrast to U.S. Census construction data used later in
the FEA in the context of Load Limit Posting provision because OSHA
is interested in all construction projects started, but not
necessarily completed, in a given year. While the Census
construction data provides more detailed information on residential
housing starts and completions, and total value of construction put
in place, it does not provide information on the total number of
construction projects started in a given year. No commenters
questioned the use of either data series.
    \19\ Dodge defines single-family homes as single-family
detached, stand-alone units. Single-family attached structures,
including such buildings as condominiums and townhomes, are included
in Dodge's multi-family category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA notes that more than one single-family home may be built at a
project site. The agency determined that construction contractors build
approximately one-half of single-family houses at single house project
sites and the other half at project sites holding multiple single-
family homes. As a result, OSHA estimated the number of single-family
homes completed at single house project sites in 2016 to be 367,873,
and 183,936 to be the total of project sites holding two single family-
homes (one-half of single-family houses at single project sites:
735,745/2 = 367,873; one-half of single-family homes at project sites
holding two houses: 367,873/2 = 183,936). As shown below in Table IV-1,
the total number of construction project sites covered by this
provision is: 707,776.

  Table IV-1--Estimated Total Construction Sites in the United States,
                                  2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total number
                                                                of
                Type of construction site                  construction
                                                             projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Residential Buildings...............................          68,589
Non-Buildings Construction Projects.....................          56,990
Residential Buildings...................................         582,197
  One Single-Family Home Per Site.......................         367,873
  Multiple Single-Family Homes Per Site.................         183,936
  Multi-Family Residential Buildings....................          30,388
      Two-Family Houses.................................           9,084
      Apartments........................................          21,304
                                                         ---------------
    Total Construction Sites............................         707,776
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis-Safety, based on Dodge Data
  and Analytics, 2016.

    In the United States, when a 911 call is made from a traditional
telephone or wireline, the call is routed to a Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) that is responsible for assisting people in a particular
geographic area or community. Depending on the type of 911 service
available, the telephone number of the caller and the location or
address of the emergency is either communicated by the caller to the
emergency dispatcher (Basic 911); or automatically displayed to the
dispatcher through the use of equipment and database information
(Enhanced 911). According to a 2001 report produced by the RCN
Commission and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
entitled, Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness, Accessibility
and Future of America's 911 Service,\20\ wireline 911 coverage is
available to 97.8 percent of the U.S. population; however only 93
percent of all U.S. counties have either Basic or Enhanced wireline 911
coverage while 7 percent of U.S. counties are without any 911 services.
NENA reported that these areas without any wireline 911 coverage are
primarily rural in character with sparse population and generally high
poverty levels; as well as inclusive of Native American lands and
military installations (NENA, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Report Card to the Nation (RCN)--An RCN Commission was
formed by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) to review
and grade the performance of 911. NENA serves its members and the
greater public safety community as the only professional
organization solely focused on 911 policy, technology, operations,
and education issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 5, 2014, version of the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) 911 Wireless Service Guide, it was estimated that
about 70 percent of 911 calls were placed from wireless phones (FCC,
2014). The FCC finds using wireless phones creates unique challenges
for emergency response personnel because wireless or mobile phones are
not associated with one fixed location or address. Although the
location of the cell site closest to the 911 caller may provide a
general indication of the caller's location, the FCC finds that the
information is not always specific enough for rescue personnel to
deliver assistance to the caller quickly (FCC, 2014). As a result, the
FCC is now requiring wireless service carriers to implement its
wireless Enhanced 911 program which will provide 911 dispatchers with
additional information on wireless 911 calls. The FCC is allowing the
implementation of its wireless Enhanced 911 program in two parts--Phase
I and Phase II. Phase I requires carriers to provide the PSAP with the
telephone number of the 911 wireless caller as well as the location of
the cell site or base station transmitting the call. Phase II however,
requires carriers to provide more precise information to the PSAP, such
as the latitude and longitude of the caller whereby the accuracy of the
geographical coordinates must be within 50 to 300 meters of the
caller's location (FCC, 2014).
    With the implementation of the wireless Enhanced 911 program, the
total number of U.S. counties with 911 coverage has increased from 93
percent to nearly 97 percent. As of August 2017, NENA reported a total
number of 3,135 U.S. counties, which include parishes, independent
cities, boroughs, and Census areas. Of these counties, 97.7 percent
(3,063) are now capable of receiving some \21\ Phase I location
information and 97.0 percent (3,041) are capable of receiving some
Phase II. All wireless carriers, however, are expected to comply with
Phase II of the FCCs requirements by 2019.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The term ``some,'' as defined by the National Emergency
Number Association, means that some or all wireless carriers have
implemented either Phase I or Phase II service in the County or the
PSAPs. In order for any carrier to provide service, the County or
PSAP must be capable of receiving the service. In most cases, all
carriers are implemented in a County or PSAP, but one or more may be
in the process of completing the implementation. See www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics (NENA, 2017).
    \22\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all 911 emergency calls made are routed to a PSAP or call
center based on the geographic location in which the call was made, for
the purpose of this analysis, OSHA is interested in those U.S. counties
where Enhanced 911 is neither available by wireline nor wireless
device. Using the data provided by NENA, OSHA estimates that of the
3,135 recorded U.S. counties, 3 percent (87) have neither wireline nor
wireless Enhanced 911 capabilities. By extension, for this analysis,
OSHA further assumes that 3 percent of all construction project sites
(21,233 of 707,776 construction project sites) are located within those
counties without wireline and wireless Enhanced 911

capabilities and will therefore be covered by this provision whereby
employers must either post the latitude and longitude of the work site
or other location-identification information that effectively
communicates the location of the work site to the 911 emergency medical
service dispatcher. The agency believes this is likely an overestimate
of the number of construction sites affected by this provision of the
proposal, as construction activity will generally parallel population
concentration. Enhanced cell service, in turn, is more concentrated
around population centers. NENA estimates that 98.7 percent of the
population now has Phase II wireless service; 99.0 percent of PSAPs
have Phase II service. The agency, however, did not receive any
comments on this aspect of analysis, nor for the distribution of
wireline and wireless service at construction sites.
    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee
affected by this requirement 3 minutes (.05 hour) to obtain the
latitude and longitude of worksite locations, write the information on
material, and then to prominently post the information, as required by
proposed Sec.  1926.50(f). The agency posited in the PEA that this
would not pose an issue of technological feasibility as the information
could be easily downloaded from the internet before the crew leaves for
the site; in the large majority of cases this information should be
also be available onsite via common applications for smartphones. This
was not questioned in comments, and OSHA therefore retained this as its
final assessment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2017
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data indicate that the most
common construction occupation is ``construction laborer.'' Partly for
that reason, the agency believes this occupation is most representative
of the workers actually posting the latitude and longitude load
requirements at construction project sites. Consistent with that, OSHA,
based on the OES data, estimates a wage of $18.70 per hour for the
average affected construction worker (BLS, 2017). OSHA also estimated,
based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data, that
construction employers paid an additional 46 percent in employee
benefits,\23\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour
in 2017. In addition, this is estimated to save an additional $3.18 per
hour in overhead costs.\24\ Therefore, the estimated annual burden
hours and labor costs of this requirement are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ BLS, 2017. Employer costs for employee benefits (other than
wage and salary) were estimated to be 31.70 percent of total
compensation for workers employed in construction. The fringe
benefit factor is calculated by 1/(1 - percent of total compensation
attributable to employee benefits, or 1/(1 - .317) = 1.4641. Total
employer cost for employee compensation is calculated by multiplying
the base wages ($18.70) by the fringe benefits factor (1.4641).
    \24\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17%
of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.

Burden hours: 21,233 construction project sites x .05 hour = 1,062
hours
Cost: 1,062 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18 overhead)
= $32,440

    Based on these limited costs, OSHA preliminarily determined that
the provision would be economically feasible; OSHA received no comments
to the contrary and retains this conclusion for the FEA. As noted
previously, the task of communicating relevant site information to
rescue services is gradually being made easier by the spread of
advanced telecommunications technology, such that in the near future
the existing burden should be eliminated. OSHA neither received any
comments on its preliminary estimate, nor on how long the costs will
likely remain in effect. Therefore it retains this estimate, updated to
2017 dollars.
Permissible Exposure Limits Table
    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, 29 CFR 1926.55--Gases,
Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists--is the Construction counterpart to 29
CFR 1910.1000--Air Contaminants, which enumerates hundreds of
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) in its Z tables. Because 29 CFR
1926.55 is not as clear as its General Industry counterpart, OSHA is
updating Sec.  1926.55(a) and appendix A (now Tables 1 and 2) to help
clarify the construction PELs. These updates will: (1) Change the term
``Threshold Limit Values'' to ``Permissible Exposure Limits;'' (2)
eliminate language that sounds advisory; (3) eliminate confusing
language; (4) divide appendix A into Tables 1 and 2; (5) correct
several noted errors in appendix A; and (6) correct cross-references to
the asbestos standard. OSHA deems these changes to be simple
clarifications which will not change the substantive effect of this
rule. OSHA did not receive any comments about any potential costs
because of these changes and therefore concludes that these revisions
will not result in changes to the cost or impact of 29 CFR 1926.55.
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
    OSHA is replacing the regulatory text of its Process Safety
Management (PSM) of Highly Hazardous Chemicals construction regulation,
Sec.  1926.64, with a cross-reference to the corresponding general
industry regulation in 29 CFR 1910.119. The requirements applicable to
construction work in 29 CFR 1926.64 are identical to those set forth in
29 CFR 1910.119. This change will only serve to eliminate duplicative
regulatory text and as such will present no additional compliance
burden to employers. In the absence of public comment to the contrary,
OSHA has determined that this cross-reference to an existing standard
has no cost.
Lanyard/Lifeline Break Strength
    OSHA is lowering the minimum breaking strength requirement in Sec.
1926.104--Safety Belts, Lifelines and Lanyards, paragraph (c), from
5,400 pounds to 5,000 pounds, which is in better accord with market
practice. 5,400-pound breaking strength is not generally offered on the
market. This may have cost savings to the extent that some employers
purchased lanyards/lifelines with much higher strength. As discussed in
the Summary and Explanation of that section, the agency believes a
5,000-pound requirement will still provide a more than sufficient
safety factor. Because this change lowers the minimum requirement,
employers will not be required to purchase new equipment. When
employers do replace their equipment, they could continue to purchase
lifelines with a breaking strength of 5,400 pounds, or with a breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds. This revision also will bring Sec.
1926.104(c) into conformance with the lanyard and lifeline breaking-
strength requirement in the Fall Protection standard, at Sec.
1926.502(d)(9). As a result, OSHA preliminarily concluded that this
change will not add any new compliance costs for employers and,
receiving no comments to the contrary, believes this is descriptive of
the final rule as well. To the extent this eliminates confusion by
employers, this may provide some cost savings.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    Under 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades,
OSHA requires that employers comply with the mandatory provisions of
Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Currently, employers comply with Part 6 when they use one of two
versions of MUCTD: The 1988

Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 MUTCD (``1988 Edition'') or the
Millennium Edition, December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). Since
OSHA's last published update to subpart G, requiring employers to
follow one of the two MUTCD editions above, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) has updated 23 CFR 655.601 through 655.603 to
require adherence to the 2009 Edition, November 4, 2009, MUTCD (``2009
Edition''). The agency is updating subpart G to require employers to
follow the MUTCD 2009 Edition.
    23 CFR 655.603 states that the MUTCD is the national standard for
all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or
bicycle trail open to public travel. It also requires all States,
within two years after a new national MUTCD edition is issued or any
national MUTCD amendments are made, to adopt the new MUTCD in the
State, adopt the national MUTCD with a State Supplement that is in
substantial conformance with the new MUTCD, or adopt a State MUTCD that
is in substantial conformance with the new MUTCD.
    Each State enacts its own laws regarding compliance with standards
for traffic control devices in that State. If the State law has adopted
a State Supplement or a State MUTCD that the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has found to be in substantial conformance with
the national MUTCD, then those State requirements are what the local
road agencies (as well as the State DOT) must abide by. The exception
is traffic control devices installed on a federally aided project, in
which case 23 CFR 655.603(d)(2) specifically requires those devices to
comply with the national MUTCD before the road can be opened or
reopened to the public for unrestricted use.
    The agency believes any employer costs related to incorporating the
updated MUCTD reference into subpart G are very limited because, first,