Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV

Cited as:84 FR 21416
Court:Occupational Safety And Health Administration
Publication Date:14 May 2019
Record Number:2019-07902
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
                [Rules and Regulations]
                [Pages 21416-21598]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-07902]
                [[Page 21415]]
                Vol. 84
                Tuesday,
                No. 93
                May 14, 2019
                Part II
                Department of Labor
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Occupational Safety and Health Administration
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, et al.
                 Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV; Final Rule
                Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2019 / Rules
                and Regulations
                [[Page 21416]]
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                Occupational Safety and Health Administration
                29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, 1915, and 1926
                [OSHA-2012-0007]
                RIN 1218-AC67
                Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV
                AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
                ACTION: Final rule.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order 13563,
                ``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' and consistent with
                Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' OSHA
                is removing or revising outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and
                inconsistent requirements in its safety and health standards. The
                current review, the fourth in this ongoing effort, the Standards
                Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV), reduces regulatory burden while
                maintaining or enhancing worker safety and health, and improving
                privacy protections.
                DATES: This rule is effective on July 15, 2019. The incorporation by
                reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
                Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2019. There are a
                number of collections of information contained in this final rule (see
                Section VI, Paperwork Reduction Act). Notwithstanding the general date
                of applicability that applies to all other requirements contained in
                the final rule, affected parties do not have to comply with the
                collections of information until the Department of Labor publishes a
                separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the Office of
                Management and Budget has approved them under the Paperwork Reduction
                Act.
                ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the agency
                designates Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor of Labor for
                Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004,
                U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
                20210, to receive petitions for review of the final rule.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
                Office of Communications: telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
                [email protected].
                    Technical inquiries: Mr. Vernon Preston, Directorate of
                Construction: telephone: (202) 693-2020; fax: (202) 693-1689; email:
                [email protected].
                    Copies of this Federal Register document. Electronic copies are
                available at www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register document, as
                well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
                available at OSHA's web page at www.osha.gov.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Incorporated Standards
                    The standards published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)
                required in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z; the Federal Highway
                Administration (FHWA) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G; the
                International Labour Organization (ILO) required in 29 CFR part 1910,
                subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart
                Z; the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) required in
                29 CFR part 1926, subpart W; and the Society of Automotive Engineers
                (SAE) required in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, are incorporated by
                reference into these subparts with the approval of the Federal Register
                under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
                Reasonable Availability and Summary of the Incorporated Standards
                American Thoracic Society--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec.  1910.6 and
                1910.1043(h)
                    The American Thoracic Society (ATS) provides free online public
                access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated
                into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online
                viewing and a printable version of Spirometric Reference Values from a
                Sample of the General U.S. Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR,
                Fedan KB. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
                159:179-187, 1999, is available at www.atsjournals.org/.
                    Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) required that health care providers
                conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual values to
                the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH,
                2003), ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011)
                all recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination
                Survey (NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for
                assessing spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population.
                OSHA is now revising this provision to specify use of the NHANES III
                reference data set and to replace the values currently in appendix C
                with the NHANES III values, derived from Spirometric Reference Values
                from a Sample of the General U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999).
                    The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative
                of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference
                values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians,
                African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old.
                Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal
                accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et
                al., 1999).
                Federal Highway Administration--IBR Approval for Sec. Sec.
                1926.200(g)(2) and 1926.201(a)
                    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department
                of Transportation provides free online access to view and print a read-
                only copy of the materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart
                G, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a printable version of
                the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
                (MUTCD), 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May
                2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov.
                    Subpart G has required that employers comply with Part VI of MUTCD,
                1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993 (``1988 Edition'') or
                December 2000 MUTCD (``Millennium Edition''). OSHA is revising 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).
                International Labour Organization--IBR Approval for Sec.  1910.6,
                Appendix E to Sec.  1910.1001, Sec.  1915.5, Appendix E to Sec.
                1915.1001, Sec.  1926.6, and Appendix E to Sec.  1926.1101
                    The International Labour Organization (ILO) provides free online
                access to view and print a read-only copy of the materials incorporated
                into 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart Z, and 29
                CFR part 1926, subpart Z, by this rulemaking. Free online viewing and a
                printable version of the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO
                International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised
                Edition 2011, Occupational safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), is
                available at www.ilo.org.
                [[Page 21417]]
                    Digital radiography systems are rapidly replacing traditional
                analog film-based systems in medical facilities, and both the ILO and
                the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
                recently published guidelines for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at
                68509). OSHA is updating the version of the Guidelines for the Use of
                ILO Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses to the 2011 version
                (from the 1980 version), and clarifying that classification must be in
                accordance with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a
                professionally accepted Classification system'') in appendix E of each
                of the three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
                The International Organization for Standardization and the Society of
                Automotive Engineers--IBR Approval for Subpart W
                    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides
                for purchase materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W,
                by this rulemaking. ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over
                protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements,
                Fourth Edition, Aug. 8, 2008; ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for
                agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--Static test
                method and acceptance conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013; and ISO
                27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object
                protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements,
                First Edition, May 01, 2013, are available for purchase at www.iso.org.
                    The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) provides for purchase
                materials incorporated into 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, by this
                rulemaking. SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
                Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970; SAE J168,
                Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance Requirements,
                approved July 1970; SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-
                Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers,
                revised July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J334a, Protective
                Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements, revised July 1970;
                SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
                Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers,
                approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970); SAE J395, Minimum
                Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler
                Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July 1969 (editorial change
                July 1970); SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969; and SAE
                J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of
                Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969, are
                available for purchase at www.sae.org/standards.
                    The original source standards for subpart W requirements were
                derived from SAE Standards. 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 ISO
                standards. Equipment manufactured after the effective date of this
                final rule must meet the applicable test and performance requirements
                for the ISO standards. Equipment manufactured before the effective date
                of this final rule must meet the former SAE requirements of subpart W,
                or the test and performance requirements for the applicable ISO
                standards that apply to newly manufactured equipment.
                    ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective
                structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth
                Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
                1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c), specifies performance requirements for
                metallic roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for earth-moving
                machinery, as well as a consistent and reproducible means of evaluating
                the compliance with these requirements by laboratory testing using
                static loading on a representative specimen.
                    ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over
                protective structures--Static test method and acceptance conditions,
                Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.1002(c), specifies a static test method and the acceptance
                conditions for roll-over protective structures (cab or frame) of
                wheeled or tracked tractors for agriculture and forestry.
                    ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling
                object protective structures--Test procedures and performance
                requirements, First Edition, May 01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1003(c), sets forth the test procedures and
                performance requirements for a falling object protective structure, in
                the event such a structure is installed on an agricultural or forestry
                tractor.
                    SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection--Test
                Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1003(b), establishes requirements of a frame
                including overhead cover for the protection of operators on wheel type
                agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the possibility of
                operator injury resulting from accidental upsets and overhead hazards
                during normal operation.
                    SAE J168, Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and Performance
                Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b),
                specifies test procedures and performance requirements for wheel type
                agricultural and industrial tractors equipped with protective
                enclosures necessary to fulfill the intended purposes.
                    SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
                Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised July 1969
                (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b),
                provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural
                adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
                    SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
                Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b),
                establishes requirements of a frame for the protection of operators on
                wheel type agricultural and industrial tractors to minimize the
                possibility of operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during
                normal operation.
                    SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
                Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers,
                approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970) IBR approved for
                1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency with a means of testing for
                structural adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
                    SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
                Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, approved July
                1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b),
                provides the testing agency with a means of testing for structural
                adequacy of a roll-over protective structure (ROPS) design.
                    SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective
                Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial change July
                1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), provides the testing agency
                with a means of testing for structural adequacy of a roll-over
                protective structure (ROPS) design.
                    SAE J397, Critical Zone--Characteristics and Dimensions for
                Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969,
                IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b), covers
                [[Page 21418]]
                characteristics and dimensions of a critical zone to prevent crushing
                of an operator during roll-over.
                Dates of Approval and Further Availability
                    The incorporation by reference of materials from the ATS, ILO,
                FHWA, and ISO is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
                July 15, 2019. The incorporation by reference of the various SAE
                standards in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart W, was approved by the Director
                of the Federal Register before January 6, 2015.
                    All approved material is available for inspection at the OSHA
                Docket Office (U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
                Room N-3508, Washington DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350) and is
                available from the sources listed in 29 CFR 1910.6, 29 CFR 1915.5, and
                29 CFR 1926.6. The material is also available for inspection at the
                National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
                the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
                www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
                Table of Contents
                I. Executive Summary
                II. Background
                III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
                IV. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
                Analysis
                V. Legal Considerations
                VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                VII. Federalism
                VIII. State Plans
                IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
                X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
                Health
                I. Executive Summary
                    OSHA is making 14 revisions to existing standards in the
                recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards.
                The purpose of the Standards Improvement Project (SIP) is to remove or
                revise outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent
                requirements in OSHA's safety and health standards, which will permit
                better compliance by employers and reduce costs and paperwork burdens
                where possible, without reducing employee protections. In fact, many of
                the revisions in this rulemaking reduce costs while improving worker
                safety and health or privacy. OSHA is conducting SIP-IV in response to
                the President's Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulations and
                Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821), and consistent with Executive Order
                13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). The
                revisions include an update to the consensus standard incorporated by
                reference for signs and devices used to protect workers near automobile
                traffic, a revision to the requirements for roll-over protective
                structures to comply with current consensus standards, updates for
                storage of digital x-rays, and the method of calling emergency services
                to allow for use of current technology. OSHA is also revising two
                standards to align with current medical practice: A reduction to the
                number of necessary employee x-rays and updates to requirements for
                pulmonary function testing. To protect employee privacy and prevent
                identity fraud, OSHA is also removing from the standards the
                requirements that employers include an employee's social security
                number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and other
                records.
                    SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the Occupational
                Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) to
                provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements. The agency
                estimates cost savings and paperwork reductions for SIP rulemakings.
                The agency estimates that one revision (updating the method of
                identifying and calling emergency medical services) may increase
                construction employers' combined costs by about $32,000 per year while
                two provisions (reduction in the number of necessary employee x-rays
                and elimination of posting requirements for residential construction
                employers) provide estimated combined cost savings of $6.1 million
                annually. This final rule is considered an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771
                deregulatory action. Details on OSHA's cost/cost savings estimates for
                this final rule can be found in the rule's Final Economic Analysis and
                Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis in this preamble. OSHA has
                estimated that, at a discount rate of 3 percent over 10 years, 7
                percent over 10 years, or 7 percent over a perpetual time horizon, this
                final rule yields net annual cost savings of $6.1 million per year.
                    The agency has not estimated or quantified benefits to employees
                from reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to employers for the
                reduced cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-ray films. The
                agency has concluded that the revisions are economically feasible and
                do not have any significant economic impact on small businesses. The
                Final Economic Analysis in this preamble provides an explanation of the
                economic effects of the revisions.
                II. Background
                    The purpose of the SIP-IV rulemaking is to remove or revise
                outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in
                OSHA's safety and health standards. The agency believes that improving
                OSHA standards will increase employers' understanding of their
                obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, improved employee
                safety and health, and reduced compliance costs.
                    In 1995, in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve
                government regulation,\1\ OSHA began a series of rulemakings designed
                to revise or remove standards that were confusing, outdated,
                duplicative, or inconsistent. OSHA published the first rulemaking,
                ``Standards Improvement Project, Phase I'' (SIP-I) on June 18, 1998 (63
                FR 33450).\2\ Two additional rounds of SIP rulemaking followed, with
                final SIP rules published in 2005 (SIP-II) (70 FR 1111) and 2011 (SIP-
                III) (76 FR 33590).\3\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \1\ Clinton, W.J., Memorandum for Heads of Departments and
                Agencies. Subject: Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. March 4, 1995.
                    \2\ Revisions made by the SIP-I rulemaking included adjustments
                to the medical-surveillance and emergency-response provisions of the
                Coke Oven Emissions, Inorganic Arsenic, and Vinyl Chloride
                standards, and removal of unnecessary provisions from the Temporary
                Labor Camps standard and the textile industry standards.
                    \3\ In the final SIP-II rule published in 2005 (70 FR 1111),
                OSHA revised a number of provisions in its health and safety
                standards identified as needing improvement either by the Agency or
                by commenters during the SIP-I rulemaking. These included updating
                or removing notification requirements from several standards,
                updating requirements for first aid kits to reflect newer consensus
                standards, updating requirements for laboratories analyzing samples
                under the vinyl chloride standard, and making worker exposure
                monitoring frequencies consistent under certain health standards,
                among other things. The final SIP-III rule, published in 2011 (76 FR
                33590), updated consensus standards incorporated by reference in
                several OSHA rules, deleted provisions in a number of OSHA standards
                that required employers to prepare and maintain written training-
                certification records for personal protective equipment, revised
                several sanitation standards to permit hand drying by high-velocity
                dryers, and modified OSHA's sling standards to require that
                employers use only appropriately marked or tagged slings for lifting
                capacities.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    As stated above, the President's Executive Order 13563 (E.O.),
                ``Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,'' establishes the goals
                and criteria for regulatory review, and requires agencies to review
                existing standards and regulations to ensure that these standards and
                regulations continue to protect public health, welfare, and safety
                effectively, while promoting economic growth and job creation. The E.O.
                encourages agencies to use the best, least burdensome means to achieve
                regulatory objectives, to perform periodic reviews of existing
                standards to identify outmoded, ineffective, or burdensome standards,
                [[Page 21419]]
                and to modify, streamline, or repeal such standards when appropriate.
                The agency believes that the SIP rulemaking process is an effective
                means to improve its standards.
                    OSHA advised the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
                Health (ACCSH) at a public meeting held on December 16, 2011, that it
                intended to review its standards under the SIP criteria, with
                particular emphasis on construction standards. A transcription of these
                proceedings (ACCSH Transcript) is available at Docket No. OSHA-2011-
                0124-0026.
                    Recognizing the importance of public participation in the SIP
                process, the agency published a Request for Information (RFI) on
                December 6, 2012 (77 FR 72781), asking the public to identify standards
                that were in need of revision or removal, and to explain how such
                action would reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or increasing
                the protection afforded to employees. The agency received 26 comments
                in response to the RFI. Several of the revisions in this rule were
                recommended in the public comments received in response to the RFI.
                Other revisions were identified by the agency's own internal review and
                by ACCSH.
                    On October 4, 2016, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
                (NPRM) titled ``Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV'' (81 FR
                68504). The period for submitting comments was originally 60 days and
                was extended by 30 days to allow parties affected by the rule more time
                to review the proposed rule and collect information and data necessary
                for comments. The comment period ended on January 4, 2017.\4\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \4\ The NPRM was also consistent with Executive Order 13777,
                ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (82 FR 12285). That
                Executive Order requires each agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force
                to identify regulations for ``repeal, replacement, or modification''
                that, among other things, ``eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
                creation;'' ``are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;'' or
                ``impose costs that exceed benefits.'' Id. section 3(d). In OSHA's
                view, the regulatory provisions identified in the NPRM met those
                criteria for repeal, replacement, or modification.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    OSHA received around 700 submissions on the proposed rulemaking,
                with many of the submissions containing comments on more than one of
                the proposed revisions. The proposed revision to the shipyards standard
                to remove ``feral cats'' from the definition of ``vermin'' received
                over 500 comments in support. The proposed revision to the lockout/
                tagout standard in general industry received about 150 comments against
                and seven in favor. The remaining comments cover the other proposed
                revisions. All significant issues raised in the comments are discussed
                in the Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
                    OSHA is moving forward with 14 revisions in its recordkeeping,
                general industry, maritime, and construction standards. OSHA is not
                moving forward with proposed revisions to the lockout/tagout general
                industry standard, personal protective equipment fit in construction,
                the excavation construction standard, or the decompression tables in
                the underground construction standard. OSHA received requests for a
                hearing on the proposal regarding the lockout/tagout standard from some
                commenters that were opposed to that proposal. 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 further consider this issue in light of the overall standard. As
                OSHA is not moving forward with the proposed changes to the lockout/
                tagout standard, the agency determined that a hearing was not required.
                OSHA describes the revisions, including changes from the proposal and
                decisions not to move forward on four proposals, in detail in section
                III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule.
                III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
                A. Revision in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Recording and
                Reporting Standards (29 CFR Part 1904)
                Subpart C--Recording Forms and Recording Criteria, Recording Criteria
                for Cases Involving Occupational Hearing Loss in 29 CFR 1904.10
                    OSHA proposed to revise Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) of the Recordkeeping
                rule with language that will assist employers to comply with
                requirements for recording hearing loss. Title 29 CFR 1904.5 applies to
                the determination criteria for work-relatedness of all occupational
                injuries and illnesses, including hearing loss. OSHA proposed adding a
                cross-reference to this section to clarify requirements for physicians
                or other licensed health care professionals (PLHCPs) when making a
                determination of work-relatedness for cases of hearing loss. The final
                rule is identical to the proposal.
                    The addition of the cross-reference simply emphasizes the pre-
                existing requirement that, if an event or exposure in the work
                environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or
                significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss, the PLHCP, just
                as anybody else evaluating a case involving hearing loss, must consider
                the case to be work-related. Ultimately, the employer is responsible
                for ensuring that the PLHCP applies the analysis in Sec.  1904.5 when
                evaluating work-related hearing loss, if the employer chooses to rely
                on the PLHCP's opinion in determining recordability.
                    Commenters who opposed the addition of this cross-reference at
                Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) represented employers in manufacturing and
                construction sectors. These commenters stated that if OSHA intended for
                Sec.  1904.5, specifically the presumption of work-relatedness, to
                apply to occupational hearing loss cases, the rulemaking to revise the
                hearing loss provisions in the rule on recording and reporting
                occupational injuries and illnesses in 2002 should have contained this
                explicitly (Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting
                Requirements, 67 FR 44037 (July 1, 2002)). (See discussion of specific
                comments below.) However, OSHA notes that the existing regulatory text
                of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) already confirms this where it states, ``You
                must use the rules in Sec.  1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is
                work-related.'' The addition of the new cross-reference is merely to
                reduce any existing confusion. OSHA has received compelling evidence
                from commenters representing workers' unions and the field of audiology
                that there is confusion about the interpretation of Sec.  1904.10(b)(6)
                and what definition of work-relatedness applies. The agency believes
                that the simple addition of this cross-reference to another existing
                requirement adds clarity for PHLCPs and employers, and after
                considering the comments on this proposal, OSHA has decided to add the
                cross-reference to Sec.  1904.5 in Sec.  1904.10(b)(6).
                    Several commenters expressed support for OSHA's proposed cross-
                reference to Sec.  1904.5 in Sec.  1904.10(b)(6). The Laborers' Health
                & Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building
                Trades Union (NABTU) stated that hearing loss among construction
                workers is severely underreported (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, -0757). NABTU
                cited the CPWR Center for Construction Research and Training's Fifth
                Edition of the Construction Chart Book which suggests that rates of
                hearing loss in the construction industry are elevated significantly
                beyond the 1,400 cases that BLS reported from 2004 to 2010:
                    Since employers have no obligation to test workers' hearing
                (audiometric testing) in construction, even if employees experience
                noise levels at or above OSHA's PEL, hearing loss in construction is
                rarely recognized as an
                [[Page 21420]]
                occupational disease. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
                numbers reported to the BLS show a very low rate of hearing loss,
                and for this reason hearing loss data for construction are not
                comparable with data for general industry.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0781). The CPWR Chart Book notes that in the 7 years
                between 2004 and 2010, the BLS reported 1,400 cases of hearing loss in
                construction. They contrasted this number with hearing data that are
                collected by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large
                household survey in the U.S. In the NHIS Survey, at least one in five
                (21.4%) construction workers self-reported some hearing trouble in 2010
                (chart 49b). The CPWR Chart Book indicates that this is nearly one-
                third higher than the proportion of workers with hearing trouble for
                all industries combined (16.3%). Id.
                    NABTU stated that the addition of the cross-reference would clarify
                that a PLHCP has the same responsibilities in evaluating whether
                hearing loss is work-related as in evaluating any other workplace
                injury or illness. NABTU added that OSHA's proposed revision to Sec.
                1904.10 would provide consistency between standards, and that the
                clarification would serve to improve reporting of work-related hearing
                loss (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
                    The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
                Energy, and Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
                (USW) also supported the addition of the cross-reference. USW described
                a case involving USW members in which a health care professional
                consistently ruled that cases of hearing loss were not occupational,
                even though those workers had experienced high workplace noise levels
                for years. Each case was instead attributed to loud music, firing a gun
                while hunting, or some other non-occupational cause (OSHA-2012-0007-
                0764).
                    The AFL-CIO stated that:
                    It appears that many employers are misinterpreting the current
                language in section 1904.10(b)(6) to allow a physician to use
                different criteria for determining work-relatedness than are set
                forth in section 1904.5 of the regulation. This proposal will help
                to make clear that physicians and other health care professionals
                must apply the criteria in section 1904.5 of the recordkeeping rule
                in making determinations whether hearing loss is work-related for
                the purposes of recording the case on the OSHA 300 log. The
                recording of such cases will help identify jobs and operations where
                workers are exposed to excessive levels of noise and assist in
                efforts to control these exposures to prevent further risk to
                workers.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0761).
                    Dr. Alice Suter, Ph.D., provided a link to a position paper from
                the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA), ``NHCA Guidelines
                on Recording Hearing Loss on the OSHA 300 Log.'' It states:
                    Professional reviewers commonly report pressure by their clients
                to make a determination that an STS [Standard Threshold Shift] is
                not recordable. Some have been questioned and challenged on every
                case they have identified as work-related. Others are unsure of
                their obligations under the OSHA regulations . . . To the extent
                that STSs are minimized because of reluctance to report them,
                workers are not getting the necessary counseling, hearing protector
                checking, and noise control remedies that could prevent further
                hearing loss.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
                    In her comments, Dr. Suter stated that (a) the definition of an STS
                is quite lenient--so any STS is already a significant shift in hearing
                threshold level; (b) to qualify for recordability, the hearing loss
                must first exceed a hearing threshold level of 25dB, which is quite a
                significant level itself; and (c) to be in a hearing conservation
                program and to have one's hearing tested, workers are, by definition,
                exposed to levels of 85 dBA or above, where the risk of noise-induced
                hearing loss is well-known (OSHA-2012-0007-0767).
                    Several associations representing employer interests in
                manufacturing and construction industries expressed opposition to this
                revision. The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) and the
                Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS) believed that the addition of a
                reference to Sec.  1904.5 at Sec.  1904.10(b)(6) would substantively
                change the requirements for recording occupational hearing loss cases
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756). This cross-reference creates no new
                requirement. In fact, the same cross-reference to Sec.  1904.5 already
                exists in the language of Sec.  1904.10(b), which is adjacent and
                immediately prior to Sec.  1904.10(b)(6). Section 1904.10(b)(5)
                requires the employer to employ the rules of Sec.  1904.5 to ascertain
                if the hearing loss is work related. The provision also states that the
                hearing loss must be considered work related if an event or exposure in
                the work environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss,
                or significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.
                    The addition of the very same cross-reference in Sec.
                1904.10(b)(6) merely ensures consistency between provisions, provides
                clarity for PLHCPs in the assessment and determination of hearing loss
                cases, and in no way alters interpretation of the existing regulations
                under part 1904.
                    Section 1904.5(a) states that an injury or illness is to be
                considered work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment
                either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or
                significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-
                relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from
                events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an
                exception in Sec.  1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies. Section
                1904.5(b)(1) defines the work environment as ``the establishment and
                other locations where one or more employees are working or are present
                as a condition of their employment.'' OSHA sometimes refers to this
                presumption for injuries and illnesses that occur in the work
                environment to be work-related as the ``geographical presumption.'' In
                their comments, CISC and CWS noted that in OSHA's 2002 preamble to the
                revision of Sec.  1904.10, the agency stated:
                    OSHA agrees . . . that it is not appropriate to include a
                presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases to employees
                who are working in noisy work environments. It is possible for a
                worker who is exposed at or above the 8-hour 85 dBA action levels of
                the noise standard to experience a non-work-related hearing loss,
                and it is also possible for a worker to experience a work-related
                hearing loss and not be exposed to those levels.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0753 and -0756 (quoting 67 FR 44037, 44045)). This
                statement was not addressing the geographic presumption of Sec.
                1904.5, but a different presumption--that of work-relatedness whenever
                the employee was exposed to noise of 85 dBA or greater, as in the 2001
                revision of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5). The current regulations do not contain
                a presumption that hearing loss is work-related when the work
                environment is loud (85 dBA or greater). The clarification to Sec.
                1904.10(b)(6) does not, and could not, create such a presumption.
                    OSHA clarified in the 2002 rulemaking that Sec.  1904.5 is to be
                followed when making work-relatedness determinations. 67 FR 44037,
                44045. The 2001 version of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) had created a special
                rule for noise exposure in the workplace, providing that hearing loss
                is presumed to be work-related if the employee is exposed to noise in
                the workplace at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA or greater,
                or to a total noise dose of 50 percent, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.95.
                For hearing loss cases where the employee is not exposed to this level
                of noise, the rules in Sec.  1904.5 must be used to determine if the
                hearing loss is work-related.
                [[Page 21421]]
                Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements,
                66 FR 5916, 6129 (Jan. 19, 2001). But in 2002, OSHA abandoned the
                special rule and reverted to treating the determination of work-
                relatedness of hearing loss as it does for any other injury or illness
                under the recordkeeping rule: ``Therefore, the final rule states that
                there are no special rules for determining work-relationship and
                restates that the rule's overall approach to work-relatedness--that a
                case is work-related if one or more events or exposures in the work
                environment either caused or contributed to the hearing loss, or
                significantly aggravated a pre-existing hearing loss.'' 67 FR at 44045
                (emphasis added). The text of Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) confirms this: ``You
                must use the rules in Sec.  1904.5 to determine if the hearing loss is
                work-related.''
                    OSHA maintains that indeed it is not appropriate to include an
                outright presumption of work-relatedness for hearing loss cases. For
                example, as stipulated at Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)(ii), if an employee in a
                high-noise work environment meets the recording criteria for hearing
                loss, but a physician discovers that the employee has an inner ear
                infection that is entirely responsible for the loss, the case would not
                be considered work-related. OSHA has consistently interpreted Sec.
                1904.10(b)(6) this way since 2001:
                [T]he provisions allowing for review by a physician or other
                licensed health care professional allow for the exclusion of hearing
                loss cases that are not caused by noise exposure, such as off the
                job traumatic injury to the ear, infections, and the like. OSHA
                notes that this presumption is consistent with a similar presumption
                in OSHA's Occupational Noise standard (in both cases, an employer is
                permitted to rebut this presumption if he or she suspects that the
                hearing loss shown on an employer's audiogram in fact has a medical
                etiology and this is confirmed by a physician or other licensed
                health care professional).
                66 FR 5916, 6012. The addition of a cross-reference in Sec.
                1904.10(b)(6) adds no new requirement and merely clarifies the existing
                requirements for PLCHPs, and ultimately employers, in hearing loss case
                determinations.
                    The Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) submitted comments stating that
                the revision, as proposed, would significantly expand the employer's
                responsibility for hearing loss that may have just as easily been
                incurred through workers' off-duty behaviors including the use of ``ear
                buds'' or headphones, power tools, lawn mowers, chain saws, or
                attendance at music or sporting events. GAC stated that this revision
                would negate workers' non-workplace noise exposures, and increase OSHA
                recordables and enforcement actions unfairly (OSHA-2012-0007-0737).
                    But for a case to be presumed work-related, there must be a causal
                connection between the injury or illness and an event or exposure at
                work. This does not mean that work factors must outweigh non-work
                factors in causing the injury, or that work factors must be
                quantifiable, e.g., a 10% or 20% cause, or that work factors must be
                ``significant.'' Causality for OSHA recordkeeping purposes is
                established if work is a cause. In order to further clarify the issue
                of work-relatedness, in 2001, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement
                with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to resolve NAM's
                challenge to the 2001 recordkeeping final rule. The settlement
                agreement states that ``a case is presumed work-related if, and only
                if, an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernable cause
                of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to pre-
                existing condition. The work event or exposure need only be one of the
                discernable causes; it need not be the sole or predominant cause.''
                Settlement Agreement: Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and
                Reporting, 66 FR 66943, 66944 (Dec. 27, 2001). As a result, the
                geographic presumption treats a case as work-related if work is one
                cause, even if there are also other non-work causes. However, there
                must be a causal relationship between the injury or illness and a work
                event; there is no presumption that an injury is work-related simply
                because it occurs at work (see Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)).
                    GAC and Formosa Plastics also disagreed specifically with the use
                of language from Compliance Directive CPL 02-00-135 in the proposed
                rule preamble, with GAC stating that by incorporating language from a
                compliance directive into the standard, OSHA would in effect be turning
                guidance into a requirement (OSHA-2012-0007-0737, -6333). OSHA
                disagrees. The only revision of the regulatory text is to add the
                cross-reference to the existing regulatory provision at Sec.  1904.5.
                OSHA is adding this cross-reference through the use of notice-and-
                comment rulemaking, in this Standards Improvement Project-IV
                rulemaking, which is the proper and appropriate way to make changes to
                the CFR. This cross-reference adds no new requirement for employers,
                removes ambiguity, and adds clarity to OSHA enforcement policy already
                currently in place.
                    The Flexible Packing Association and Bemis Company also submitted
                comments that emphasized that to enter a hearing conservation program,
                an employee must be exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average sound
                level of 85 dBA or higher (OSHA-2012-0007-0765, -6338). That is
                correct, under 29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1), and is not being changed by this
                rulemaking.
                    The American Petroleum Institute commented that it had no concerns
                about the proposed cross-reference, but it did have concerns about the
                language of the compliance directive (OSHA-2012-0007-0766). The only
                change being made here is the addition of a cross-reference to Sec.
                1904.5.
                    Some organizations that were generally supportive of the cross-
                reference felt that it could be improved by the addition of further
                language. The USW suggested that the cross-reference also be included
                in the occupational noise exposure standard at Sec.  1910.95(g)(8)(ii),
                as follows: ``. . . unless a physician determines in accord with
                Section 1904.5 that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or
                aggravated by occupational noise exposure . . . (bolded italics
                added)'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). While OSHA appreciates that suggestion,
                OSHA is not making any changes to the occupational noise standard that
                were not proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM.
                    NIOSH felt that consistency may not be accomplished by simply
                cross-referencing to Sec.  1904.5, because Sec.  1904.5 differs in some
                respects from the compliance directive. It is OSHA's regulations that
                are enforceable, and OSHA is only adding the cross-reference to the
                existing regulatory definition of work-relatedness here.
                    NIOSH also made the distinction that:
                    Sec.  1904.5 states that determination of whether work
                ``significantly aggravated'' a pre-existing illness or injury is
                made when the work exposure causes one of the following (which would
                not have occurred simply from the pre-existing condition):
                i. Death
                ii. Loss of consciousness
                iii. One or more days away from work, or days of restricted work, or
                days of job transfer
                iv. Medical treatment or a change in medical treatment.
                Occupational noise exposure does not cause i-iv and cross
                referencing to Sec.  1904.5 may be confusing.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA agrees that Sec.  1904.5(b)(4), which NIOSH
                cited, is not applicable to hearing loss. However, as explained above,
                Sec.  1904.10(b)(5) already requires analysis under Sec.  1904.5. OSHA
                will not be
                [[Page 21422]]
                adding language beyond the cross-reference to the text of Sec.
                1904.10(b)(6), and the final text is identical to the proposed text.
                B. Revisions in General Industry Standards, Shipyard Standards, and
                Construction Standards (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926)
                1. Subpart Z of Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926--Toxic and Hazardous
                Substances, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1910.1001, Inorganic Arsenic in 29 CFR
                1910.1018, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1910.27, Coke Oven Emissions in 29 CFR
                1910.29, Acrylonitrile in 29 CFR 1910.1045, Asbestos in 29 CFR
                1915.1001, Asbestos in 29 CFR 1926.1101, Cadmium in 29 CFR 1926.1127.
                    OSHA proposed three revisions. The first revision was to remove the
                requirement in several of its standards that employers provide periodic
                chest X-rays (CXR) to screen for lung cancer. The final rule retains
                that proposed revision without change. The second revision was to allow
                employers to use digital radiography and other reasonably-sized
                standard films for X-rays. The final rule retains that proposed
                revision without change. The third revision was to update terminology
                and references to the International Labour Organization (ILO)
                guidelines included in its asbestos standards (81 FR 68504, 68507-
                68511). The final rule's language is nearly the same as that originally
                proposed, but with some minor changes to respond to concerns raised by
                NIOSH.
                    Several OSHA standards currently require periodic CXR to screen
                exposed workers for lung cancer. Since these standards were
                promulgated, however, large studies with many years of follow-up have
                not shown a benefit of CXR screening in reducing either lung cancer
                incidence or mortality (see 81 FR at 68507-68511). As a result, OSHA
                proposed removing the requirement for periodic CXR in the following
                standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec.  1910.1029, Coke
                Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045, Acrylonitrile. OSHA did not
                propose to remove the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or any
                other, standards, as baseline CXR at pre-placement or at the initiation
                of a medical surveillance program provides benefits to workers exposed
                to lung carcinogens, their employers, and healthcare professionals
                evaluating these workers (see 81 FR at 68509). OSHA also did not
                propose removing the CXR requirements in standards where CXR is used
                for purposes other than screening for lung cancer. For example, OSHA is
                retaining the CXR requirements in the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.
                1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to continue screening for
                asbestosis. OSHA proposed adding the text, ``Pleural plaques and
                thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-mandatory
                appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec.  1910.1001),
                as well as the parallel appendices in the Maritime and Construction
                asbestos standards (Sec.  1915.1001, appendix I; Sec.  1926.1101,
                appendix I) (see 81 FR at 68564, 68662, 68684).
                    OSHA also proposed updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not
                require, the use of digital CXRs, also referred to as digital
                radiographs, in the medical surveillance provisions of its inorganic
                arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), and
                acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards discussed above, and its
                asbestos (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium
                (Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. Digital radiography
                systems are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-based systems in
                medical facilities, and both the ILO and the National Institute for
                Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently published guidelines
                for digital radiographs (see 81 FR at 68509). In addition, OSHA
                proposed allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as
                the 16 inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by
                17 inch film specified in some standards. This proposed change would
                affect the acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045), inorganic arsenic (Sec.
                1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), and asbestos
                (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) standards. Updating
                this requirement, as proposed, would ensure consistency across
                standards as well as conformance with current medical practice (81 FR
                at 68510).
                    Lastly, OSHA proposed replacement of ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-
                ray'' to reflect current terminology and corrections to remove
                references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven
                emissions appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)),
                as these exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR
                1112). OSHA also proposed making changes to conform to the language
                used in the ILO's ``Guidelines for the use of the ILO International
                Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses,'' which refers to a
                classification system as applying to CXR, while interpretation refers
                to the information translated by the physician to the employer. The
                proposed revisions clarified that classification must be in accordance
                with the ILO classification system (rather than ``a professionally
                accepted Classification system'') according to the Guidelines for use
                of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) in appendix E of each of the
                three asbestos standards (81 FR at 68510).
                Comments and Responses on Removing the Requirement To Provide Periodic
                CXR To Screen for Lung Cancer
                    OSHA received several comments supporting the proposal to remove
                the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer screening from the
                inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.
                1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards. These
                comments came from organizations representing labor, industry, and
                NIOSH.
                    Among labor unions, the Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North
                America (LHSFNA) noted, ``Chest X-rays are of very little value in lung
                cancer cases'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). Similarly, the United Steel,
                Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
                and Service Workers International Union (USW) stated, ``There is no
                evidence that ordinary chest x-rays can detect lung cancer in time to
                affect mortality'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW noted that low-dose
                computed tomography (LDCT), unlike CXR, can detect lung cancer while
                treatable, but brings with it the risk of increased radiation exposure
                and false positive results. USW further stated that better equipment
                and protocols have helped with the latter two problems, and that LDCT
                will continue to improve (OSHA-2012-0007-0764). The USW recommended
                that OSHA consider adopting LDCT in the future for high-risk
                populations (OSHA-2012-0007-0764).
                    North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) agreed with OSHA's
                proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement, writing, ``We agree
                that it is long past time to remove requirements for CXRs for the
                screening detection of lung cancer, since they have no benefit and
                offer only harm'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). With regard to LDCT, however,
                NABTU stated that OSHA should replace the CXR requirement with a
                carefully-monitored LDCT screening requirement:
                [W]hile `OSHA will continue to monitor the literature on [whether to
                continue to require] baseline Chest X-rays', the agency offers no
                similar assurance about other forms of screening for lung cancer
                and, in particular, includes an inadequate assessment of the
                [[Page 21423]]
                benefits of LDCT. After citing a Cochran review that is 3 years old
                and opining that it may take NIOSH years to come up with
                recommendations, OSHA effectively absolves employers from any
                requirement to offer an intervention that has been demonstrated to
                save lives. This clearly violates the intent of the standards and
                raises the concern that OSHA intends to wait another 30 years before
                making needed updates.
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
                    NABTU further stated that OSHA is ``repeating the mistakes that
                lead to the CXR requirements and this overdue standard improvement''
                and should ensure that current medical input is considered in this
                standard improvement (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU asserted that LDCT
                screening for lung cancer has been endorsed by most relevant medical
                organizations, as prospective studies have demonstrated LDCT to be an
                effective lung screening method (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Recognizing the
                potential for unnecessary biopsies and surgical interventions from LDCT
                screening, NABTU advocated for LDCT screening only for workers with
                sufficient smoking history and a history of occupational lung
                carcinogen exposure (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU cited the Building
                Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed) as an example, which
                screens former Department of Energy (DOE) construction workers for lung
                cancer with LDCT if they meet the following criteria: Age between 50 to
                79 years; five years of employment at a DOE site; smoking history of 20
                pack-years (number of cigarette packs per day times number of years
                smoked) or evidence of asbestosis on CXR; and not recently treated for
                cancer. The findings among 1,300 scanned workers have included 15 Stage
                1 lung cancers, two Stage 2 lung cancers, and six Stage 4 lung cancers
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). Based on these data, NABTU urged OSHA to adopt
                an LDCT screening requirement using the criteria from the BTMed
                program, and to collaborate with NIOSH and the National Cancer
                Institute (NCI) to continue to evaluate outcomes and modify LDCT
                screening requirements (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). NABTU also submitted to
                the record guidance from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
                (FIOH) and the Lung Cancer Alliance on LDCT screening for asbestos
                workers (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachments 4 and 5, respectively).
                    OSHA acknowledges the concerns of NABTU about not replacing the
                periodic CXR requirement with an appropriate intervention for lung
                cancer screening. OSHA also appreciates the data shared from the BTMed
                Program, which appeared to show LDCT as a useful tool for lung cancer
                detection. However, OSHA believes that the utility of LDCT in
                occupational lung cancer screening remains a complex issue, as the
                agency is not aware of any definitive LDCT screening recommendations
                based upon a large, randomized, controlled study of workers. Instead,
                the screening recommendations have stemmed from a study of smokers
                (i.e., the National Lung Screening Trial), as referenced by NABTU (see
                Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
                    The National Lung Screening Trial enrolled asymptomatic men and
                women (n=53,454), aged 55 to 74, that were current smokers or former
                smokers within the last 15 years and had a smoking history of at least
                30 pack-years. The participants underwent annual lung cancer screening
                with either LDCT or chest radiography for three years. The results
                showed a statistically significant 20 percent relative reduction in
                lung cancer mortality with LDCT screening (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-
                2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). However, the trial also showed that LDCT
                screening results in a high false-positive rate; 24.2 percent of the
                total LDCT screening tests were classified as positive, with 96.4
                percent of these positive results ultimately being false positives. In
                addition, 39.1 percent of the 26,722 (or about 10,450) participants in
                the LDCT screening group had at least one positive screening result
                during the study (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
                Attachment 3). Given that only 649 cancers were diagnosed after a
                positive screening test, and assuming that each of these cancers was in
                a different participant, it follows that only 6.2 percent of those with
                at least one positive test were ultimately diagnosed with lung cancer.
                This means that 36.7 percent of participants in the LDCT screening
                group had at least one false positive result. Most positive initial
                screening results in the National Lung Screening Trial--many of which
                were false positives--were followed up with a diagnostic evaluation
                that included further imaging and, infrequently, invasive procedures
                (Aberle, et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3). The authors
                noted potentially harmful effects that could result, including
                overdiagnosis and the development of radiation-induced cancer (Aberle,
                et al., 2011) (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 3).
                    Based on these findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, the
                U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent, volunteer
                panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine,
                recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT for adults aged
                55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who either
                currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Under USPSTF's
                criteria, screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked
                for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits
                life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung
                surgery (Moyer et al., 2014) (OSHA-2012-0007-0032). However, given the
                high false positive rate and subsequent imaging and resulting radiation
                dose in the National Lung Screening Trial, the USPSTF also noted that
                lung cancer screening with LDCT is not without harm:
                    The benefit of screening varies with risk because persons who
                are at higher risk because of smoking history or other risk factors
                are more likely to benefit. Screening cannot prevent most lung
                cancer deaths, and smoking cessation remains essential. Lung cancer
                screening has substantial harms, most notably the risk for false-
                positive results and incidental findings that lead to a cascade of
                testing and treatment that may result in more harms, including the
                anxiety of living with a lesion that may be cancer. Overdiagnosis of
                lung cancer and the risks of radiation are real harms, although
                their magnitude is uncertain. The decision to begin screening should
                be the result of a thorough discussion of the possible benefits,
                limitations, and known and uncertain harms (Moyer, et al., 2014).
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0032).
                    In addition to the USPSTF, several other organizations have
                recommended similar lung cancer screening protocols for high-risk
                smokers, including the American Cancer Society, American College of
                Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Lung
                Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American
                Association for Thoracic Surgery. Each organization's specific
                screening recommendations are summarized by the U.S. Centers for
                Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf.
                    OSHA is not aware of any definitive recommendations based on a
                large, randomized, controlled study examining the benefit of lung
                cancer screening with LDCT among occupationally-exposed workers. NABTU
                supplied a report by the FIOH that recommended LDCT screening in
                asbestos-exposed individuals if their personal combination of risk
                factors yields a risk for lung cancer equal to that needed for entry
                into the National
                [[Page 21424]]
                Lung Screening Trial (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Similarly, as
                discussed by NABTU, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a
                nonprofit alliance of 27 cancer centers, recommended screening for two
                high risk groups: (1) Current or former smokers within the last 15
                years who are ages 55 to 74 years with a smoking history of 30 pack-
                years or more; or (2) individuals age 50 years or older with a smoking
                history of at least 20 pack-years and with one or more additional risk
                factors; these risk factors include a history of chronic obstructive
                pulmonary disease (COPD) or pulmonary fibrosis, a history of cancer, a
                family history of lung cancer, radon exposure, or occupational exposure
                to asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (VI), nickel,
                silica, or diesel fumes (see www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/pdf/guidelines.pdf). The former criteria are very similar to those
                recommended by the USPTF for heavy smokers, while the latter criteria
                are similar to those used in the NABTU BTMed program: Age 50 to 79
                years, not recently treated for cancer, with five years of employment
                at a Department of Energy (DOE) site and either a 20 pack-year smoking
                history or evidence of asbestosis on CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0742).
                    NABTU submitted to the record a study by McKee et al. (2015, OSHA-
                2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2) in which individuals meeting either NCCN
                group 1 or group 2 criteria (see above) were offered an LDCT screening
                scan between January 2012 and December 2013. The authors examined the
                lung cancer detection outcomes between the two groups, as ``[i]nclusion
                of the group 2 population into annual lung screening has generated
                controversy because this group was not formally evaluated in the NLST
                [National Lung Screening Trial] or other CT lung screening trials''
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 2). Of 1,760 persons scanned (1,296 in
                group 1 and 464 in group 2), there were 481 positive results (365 in
                group 1 and 116 in group 2). Follow-up data were available for 1,328
                (75%) scanned individuals (997 in group 1 and 331 in group 2) and
                indicated 23 diagnosed cancers (17 in group 1 and six in group 2).
                Overall, the group 2 results were substantively similar to the group 1
                results, for both the rate of positive results and the annualized
                cancer detection rates. The authors concluded that screening
                eligibility should be expanded to include group 2 (McKee et al., 2015)
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2).
                    While the published results of the McKee et al. study are somewhat
                encouraging for the potential future use of LDCT, OSHA notes that no
                information was provided about the false positive rate, subsequent
                imaging or invasive procedures, and cumulative radiation dose received.
                The 481 positive results among 1,760 persons screened indicates a total
                positive rate of 27 percent, the majority of which were likely false
                positives given the 23 diagnosed cancers among the 1,328 persons with
                follow-up data. In addition, it is unclear the extent to which persons
                in Group 2 were occupationally exposed, as only 24% (approximately 129)
                of the 538 persons in Group 2 were reported to have carcinogen exposure
                (see Fig. 3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). The carcinogen itself
                or the amount of exposure was not specified, and the majority of
                persons in Group 2 were instead included in the group based on having a
                history of a chronic lung disease or smoking-related cancer (see Fig.
                3, OSHA-2012-0007-0472, Attachment 2). It is also unclear if any of the
                six people diagnosed with cancer in Group 2 had exposure to an
                occupational carcinogen. In addition, lung cancer mortality was not
                studied. Thus, OSHA maintains that additional research, specifically
                well-conducted, randomized, controlled studies of occupationally-
                exposed workers, is needed to establish the efficacy of LDCT screening
                for lung cancer among workers.
                    OSHA's position is further supported by the 2014 FIOH report,
                provided by NABTU (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4), and NIOSH. FIOH
                reviewed the literature on the efficacy of lung cancer screening with
                LDCT in asbestos-exposed workers, and concluded that lung cancer
                screening with LDCT should be considered for those persons with prior
                exposure to asbestos who are at or above the risk threshold (1.34% over
                6 years) set for participation in the National Lung Screening Trial
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). However, FIOH found that none of
                the risk calculators they examined showed a risk approaching the
                National Lung Screening Trial risk threshold for a 50-year-old man with
                a smoking history of 20 pack-years and occupational exposure to
                asbestos; the risk threshold was exceeded in one risk model for a 60-
                year-old man with a smoking history of 10 pack-years, asbestos
                exposure, and a family history of lung cancer (OSHA-2012-0007-0742,
                Attachment 4). It should be noted that asbestos exposure was not
                quantified in these risk calculators, with one model based on data from
                subjects with a minimum duration of five years of employment in an
                occupation at high risk for asbestos exposure, and the other model
                based on data from subjects with at least one year of asbestos exposure
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4). Although FIOH recommended that
                asbestos-exposed individuals be considered for LDCT lung cancer
                screening if their personal combination of risk factors, particularly
                smoking history, yields a risk of lung cancer at or above that needed
                for entry in the National Lung Screening Trial, FIOH also concluded:
                    Much work remains to be done related to risk estimation for lung
                cancer screening eligibility, especially the interplay between age,
                smoking history, other exposures to tobacco smoke, and other risk
                factors such as occupational history or genetic predisposition.
                Going forward it is imperative that efforts are focused on answering
                these key questions about lung cancer risk, patient selection, and
                the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in asbestos-exposed
                adults. (OSHA-2012-0007-0742, Attachment 4).
                    Industry support for the proposal came from the North American
                Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), representing the
                insulation industry (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NAIMA noted that OSHA's
                proposal to remove the periodic CXR requirement for lung cancer
                screening would ``remove costly and burdensome requirements for some''
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0701).
                    NIOSH submitted comments to the record supporting OSHA's proposal
                to remove the CXR requirement for lung cancer screening (other than an
                initial, baseline CXR) in various standards, re-affirming that
                ``current medical literature does not support the effectiveness of
                screening for lung cancer with periodic CXR'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
                NIOSH also agreed with OSHA's assessment that existing evidence is
                insufficient to justify using alternative screening methods to CXR,
                that it may be years before research can provide a recommendation on
                the efficacy of LDCT screening, and that further research is needed on
                the risks associated with LDCT-associated radiation exposure occurring
                during a screening protocol for workers exposed to lung carcinogens in
                the workplace (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
                    NIOSH encouraged OSHA to track new developments that may eventually
                justify requirements for lung cancer screening with LDCT in various
                standards, and pointed to the FIOH recommendations for asbestos-exposed
                workers, as discussed above (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH suggested
                [[Page 21425]]
                that it may, in the future, be possible to conduct lung cancer
                screening with ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) with radiation
                doses similar to conventional CXR (OSHA-2012-0007-0726), pointing to a
                recent study by Huber et al. (2016) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment
                3). In this study, the authors examined a lung phantom with multiple
                nodules of different sizes using both standard CT and ultralow-dose CT,
                and found that 93.3% of lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose
                CT, compared with 95.5% with standard CT (OSHA-2012-0007-0726,
                Attachment 3). Additional post-processing of imaging improved the
                detection rate. The authors concluded that lung cancer screening with
                ultralow-dose CT is feasible, but also acknowledged that the use of a
                lung phantom was a ``major limitation'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0726,
                Attachment 3).
                    NIOSH suggested that OSHA, in potential future requirements for
                LDCT screening, consider setting different threshold levels of exposure
                to occupational carcinogens that trigger screening in nonsmokers
                compared to smokers (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also noted the
                importance of appropriate counseling in LDCT screening, as results
                often lead to repeat CT scans to evaluate changes in nodules over time
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
                    OSHA agrees with NIOSH and its statements regarding the need for
                the agency to stay apprised of developments that may eventually justify
                the use of LDCT or ultralow-dose CT for lung cancer screening in
                workers. There are currently no definitive LDCT lung cancer screening
                recommendations based on a randomized, controlled trial of
                occupationally-exposed workers. Thus, OSHA believes that additional
                scientific study of lung cancer screening with LDCT for workers is
                needed. However, for this rulemaking, the currently available evidence
                on LDCT screening for lung cancer indicates a high rate of false
                positive results (as observed in the National Lung Screening Trial)
                that can lead to unnecessary follow-up and potential harms.
                    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to delete the
                requirement for periodic CXR in 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic;
                Sec.  1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045,
                Acrylonitrile. OSHA has also decided not to require the use of LDCT or
                ultralow-dose CT for periodic lung cancer screening in workers at this
                time.
                Comments and Responses on Allowing Employers To Use Digital Radiography
                and Other Reasonably-Sized Standard Films for CXR
                    OSHA received many comments supporting the proposal to allow, but
                not require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance
                provisions of the inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven
                emissions (Sec.  1910.1029), acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045), asbestos
                (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101), and cadmium (Sec. Sec.
                1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards, and to allow the use of other
                reasonably-sized standard X-ray films. Support was received from NAIMA,
                NIOSH, NABTU, LHSFNA, and USW (OSHA-2012-0007-0701; -0726; -0742, -
                0757; and -0764). LHSFNA summarized, ``The past few years have brought
                rapid digitization to the medical industry. The proposed change to
                allow digital X-ray storage is a necessary consequence of changes in
                technology'' (OSHA-2012-0007-0757). There were no comments opposing the
                use of digital CXRs or other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films.
                After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to allow, but not
                require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions
                of the standards listed.
                Comments and Response on Updating Terminology and References to the ILO
                Guidelines
                    OSHA also received comments on the proposals to replace
                ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, remove
                references to semi-annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven
                emissions appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)),
                update language to refer to classification (not interpretation),
                consistent with the ILO Guidelines, and update references to the ILO
                guidelines in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards. NAIMA
                expressed support for updating the terminology and references to the
                ILO guidelines in the asbestos standards (OSHA-2012-0007-0701). NABTU
                also expressed support for referencing the updated ILO guidelines
                (OSHA-2012-0007-0742). After considering these comments, OSHA has
                decided to finalize its proposals to replace ``roentgenogram'' with
                ``X-ray'' to reflect current terminology, to remove references to semi-
                annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions
                appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), and to
                refer to only classification.
                    NIOSH expressed concern that the ILO's 2011 ``Classification of
                Radiographs of Pneumoconioses'' allows digital CXRs to be printed out
                as hard copies and then classified using the ILO's standard image
                films. NIOSH cited research suggesting that allowing this approach will
                significantly increase the apparent prevalence of small opacities
                (Franzblau, et al., 2009) (OSHA-2012-0007-0726, Attachment 4). In the
                proposal, OSHA recommended that radiographic facilities and physicians
                ``should'' follow the NIOSH Guidelines, ``Application of Digital
                Radiography for the Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis,''
                and noted that NIOSH does not recommend using film-based ILO reference
                radiographs for comparison with digital chest images or printed hard
                copies of the images (81 FR at 68510). Instead, NIOSH recommended that
                OSHA require the use of the NIOSH Guidelines, which state that only ILO
                digital standard images should be used to classify digital CXRs. NIOSH
                noted that the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations already
                promulgated by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) at
                20 CFR part 718 are consistent with the NIOSH Guidelines (OSHA-2012-
                0007-0726).
                    OSHA has carefully considered this concern and believes that NIOSH
                has presented compelling evidence, in the research cited and within the
                OWCP regulation, that digital CXRs should not be printed as a hard copy
                and then compared to ILO film standard images. As such, OSHA has
                incorporated the reference to the 2011 ILO guidelines, but has added
                language reflecting NIOSH's concerns. Specifically, in appendix E to
                the asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and
                1926.1101), OSHA has added a provision requiring that digitally-
                acquired chest X-rays be classified using a complete set of ILO
                standard digital chest radiographic images provided for use with the
                Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification of
                Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). The
                classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays must be performed
                based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies, and not
                based on the viewing of hard copy printed transparencies of the images.
                OSHA believes these edits to the regulatory language address NIOSH's
                concerns and are consistent with the DOL OWCP regulation.
                    In addition, NIOSH expressed concern that the regulatory language
                in appendix E of each of the three asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.
                1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) allows CXR classification by a
                ``B-Reader, a board eligible/certified
                [[Page 21426]]
                radiologist, or an experienced physician with known expertise in
                pneumoconiosis'' (see 81 CFR at 68563, 68661, and 68683). NIOSH
                suggested that OSHA either remove the ``experienced physician'' or more
                specifically define the type of expertise in pneumoconiosis that is
                required to qualify as an ``experienced physician'' and that would
                ensure such a physician is able to accurately classify CXRs using the
                ILO classification system (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA recognizes
                NIOSH's concern, and notes that in the new respirable crystalline
                silica standard, only B-Readers can classify x-rays. See 29 CFR
                1910.1053(i)(2)(iii). However, this change to the asbestos standards
                was not proposed. OSHA will consider making this change in a future
                rulemaking.
                Summary of Changes
                    As proposed, OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic CXR in
                the following standards: 29 CFR 1910.1018, Inorganic Arsenic; Sec.
                1910.1029, Coke Oven Emissions; and Sec.  1910.1045, Acrylonitrile.
                OSHA is not removing the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or
                any other, standards. OSHA is also not removing the CXR requirements in
                standards where CXR is used for purposes other than screening for lung
                cancer; for example, OSHA is retaining the CXR requirements in the
                asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to
                continue screening for asbestosis. OSHA is adding the text, ``Pleural
                plaques and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays'' in the non-
                mandatory appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (Sec.
                1910.1001), as well as appendix I of the maritime and construction
                asbestos standards (Sec. Sec.  1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively).
                    OSHA is also updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not
                require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions
                of the inorganic arsenic (Sec.  1910.1018), coke oven emissions (Sec.
                1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (Sec.  1910.1045) standards, and the
                asbestos (Sec. Sec.  1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium
                (Sec. Sec.  1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. In addition, OSHA is
                allowing other reasonably-sized standard X-ray films, such as the 16
                inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 17 inch
                film specified in some standards.
                    Finally, OSHA is replacing ``roentgenogram'' with ``X-ray'' to
                reflect current terminology and is also eliminating references to semi-
                annual exams for certain employees in the coke oven emissions
                appendices (Sec.  1910.1029, app. A(VI) and app. B(II)(A)), as these
                exams were eliminated in the second SIP rulemaking (70 FR 1112). In
                appendix E of each of its three asbestos standards, OSHA is updating
                terminology and clarifying that classification must be in accordance
                with the ILO classification system according to the Guidelines for the
                use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011). OSHA is also further specifying
                that only ILO standard digital chest radiographic images are to be used
                to classify digital CXRs, and that digital CXRs are not to be printed
                out as hard copies and then classified.
                References
                Aberle, R., Adams, A., Berg, C., Black, W., Clapp, J., Fagerstrom,
                R., et al. (2011). Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose
                Computed Tomographic Screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365(5): 395-409.
                [FIOH] Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (2014). Asbestos,
                Asbestosis, and Cancer: Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and
                Attribution 2014. Helsinki: FIOH.
                Franzblau, A., Kazerooni, E.A., Sen, A., Goodsitt, M.M., Lee, S-Y,
                Rosenman, K.D., Lockey, J.E., Meyer, C.A., Gillespie, B.W., Petsonk,
                E.L., Wang, M.L. (2009). Comparison of Digital Radiographs with Film
                Radiographs for the Classification of Pneumoconiosis. Acad. Radiol.
                16(6): 669-677.
                Huber, A., Landau, J., Ebner, L., Butikofer, Y., Leidolt, L., Brela,
                B., May, M., Johannes, H., Christe, A. (2016). Performance of
                ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer
                screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of
                conventional chest X-ray imaging. Eur. Radiol. 26(10): 3643-3652.
                [ILO] International Labour Organization (2011). Guidelines for the
                Use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
                McKee B.J., Hashim, J.A., French R.J., McKee A.B., Hesketh P.J.,
                Lamb, C.R., Williamson, C., Flacke, S., Wald, C. (2015). Experience
                with a CT Screening Program for Individuals at High Risk for
                Developing Lung Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.12(2): 192-197.
                Moyer, V.A. (2014). Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive
                Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals. Internal Med,
                160 (5).
                [NIOSH] National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2011).
                NIOSH Guideline: Application of Digital Radiography for the
                Detection and Classification of Pneumoconiosis. DHHS (NIOSH)
                Publication No. 2011-198.
                2. Subpart Z of Part 1910--Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Cotton Dust
                in 29 CFR 1910.1043
                    OSHA proposed to update the lung-function testing requirements of
                its cotton-dust standard to align them with current practices and
                technology. The language of the final rule is slightly changed from
                that originally proposed in response to comments from NIOSH.
                    In 1978, OSHA promulgated the standard for occupational exposure to
                cotton dust at 29 CFR 1910.1043 because workers exposed to cotton dust
                are at risk of developing the respiratory disease byssinosis (43 FR
                27350, June 23, 1978). As described in the preambles to the proposed
                and final rules, as well as in the preamble to the SIP-IV NPRM,
                byssinosis is characterized by a continuum of effects (41 FR 56497,
                56500-56501, December 28, 1976; 43 FR 27352-27354; 81 FR 68511). The
                cotton dust standard contains medical-surveillance provisions at 29 CFR
                1910.1043(h). These provisions require initial and periodic medical-
                surveillance examinations that include administration of a medical
                questionnaire to determine if workers are experiencing symptoms (Sec.
                1910.1043(h)(2)(ii) and (h)(3)(i)). Medical surveillance requirements
                also include pulmonary function testing (i.e., spirometry testing) to
                objectively measure lung function and to assess changes in lung
                function (Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii)).
                    To improve the accuracy and consistency of pulmonary function
                testing, OSHA mandated specific requirements in the cotton dust
                standard based on recommendations from the American Thoracic Society
                (ATS) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
                (NIOSH) (43 FR 27391; 29 CFR 1910.1043, appendix D). Since 1978,
                pulmonary function testing procedures and technology have evolved
                significantly, and some of the mandates in the cotton dust standard now
                are outdated. OSHA thus proposed in the SIP-IV NPRM (81 FR 68504) to
                update the lung function testing requirements for the cotton dust
                standard to align them with current practices and technology. Three
                commenters supported OSHA's proposed updates to requirements for
                pulmonary function testing in the cotton dust standard (NIOSH, OSHA-
                2012-007-0726; NABTU, OSHA-2012-0007-0742; and Change to Win, OSHA-
                2012-0007-0759). No comments opposed to these proposed changes were
                submitted to the rulemaking record. After considering these comments,
                OSHA has decided to issue this final rule codifying these updates.
                Proposed and Final Revisions
                    OSHA based the proposed revisions to the cotton dust standard
                pulmonary
                [[Page 21427]]
                function testing requirements on current recommendations from the
                American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS),
                NIOSH, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental
                Medicine (ACOEM). Each of these organizations is a recognized authority
                on generally accepted practices in pulmonary function testing. As in
                the proposal, references to generally accepted practices in this final
                rule refer to only those practices recommended by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, or
                ACOEM.
                    Like other respiratory diseases, byssinosis can slow the speed of
                expired air and/or reduce the volume of air that can be inspired and
                then exhaled. To detect and monitor these impairments, spirometry
                measures the maximal volume and speed of air that is forcibly exhaled
                after taking a maximal inspiration. Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) is
                defined as total exhaled volume after full inspiration. Speed of
                expired air is determined by dividing the volume of air exhaled in the
                first second, i.e., the Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second
                (FEV1), by the total FVC to give the FEV1/FVC
                ratio. Values obtained from accurate and repeatable spirometry testing
                are then compared to reference predicted values, which are averages
                expected for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race as the
                employee being tested. A spirometry result that is 100 percent of the
                predicted value for a person of the same gender, age, height, and race
                indicates that the individual being tested has average lung function
                (OSHA, 2013). Depending upon the race of the individual and the
                reference value group being used, an adjustment may need to be made on
                the basis of race. This issue is discussed at greater length later in
                this section. Values are also compared to the employee's previous
                measurements.
                    Currently, Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) requires that health care
                providers conducting medical surveillance compare the employee's actual
                values to the predicted values in appendix C of the standard. Appendix
                C (29 CFR 1910.1043) contains predicted values derived from equations
                published by Knudson et al. (1976). Currently, NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003),
                ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005), and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) all
                recommend the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
                (NHANES III) as the most appropriate reference data set for assessing
                spirometry results for individuals in the U.S. population. Therefore,
                OSHA proposed (81 FR 68581) and in this final rule is now revising this
                provision to specify use of the NHANES III reference data set and to
                replace the values currently in appendix C with the NHANES III values,
                derived from Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General
                U.S. Population (Hankinson et al., 1999), which are incorporated by
                reference.
                    The NHANES III data set is the most recent and most representative
                of the U.S. population (Hankinson et al., 1999). It lists reference
                values for non-smoking, asymptomatic male and female Caucasians,
                African Americans, and Mexican Americans aged 8- to 80-years old.
                Strict adherence to ATS quality control standards ensured optimal
                accuracy in developing this data set of spirometry values (Hankinson et
                al., 1999).
                    Section 1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) currently specifies that the
                ``predicted FEV1 and FVC for blacks shall be multiplied by
                0.85 to adjust for ethnic differences'' because the Knudson data set
                contains reference values only for Caucasians. However, such an
                adjustment for that race/ethnic group is no longer necessary because
                the NHANES III data set contains reference values for African
                Americans. However, the NHANES III data set does not contain reference
                values for Asian Americans, who typically have smaller lung volumes
                compared to Caucasians of the same age, height, and gender (Pellegrino
                et al., 2005). To obtain Asian American reference values, ATS/ERS
                (Redlich et al., 2014) and ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) recommend that
                Caucasian reference values for FVC and FEV1 be multiplied by
                a factor of 0.88. Therefore, OSHA proposed and this final rule requires
                use of a 0.88 correction factor to obtain Asian American reference
                values for the FVC and FEV1. Because race does not appear to
                affect FEV1/FVC (ratio), OSHA did not propose and is not
                requiring to apply a correction factor to Caucasian values to derive a
                ratio for Asian Americans. If the NHANES data set is updated to include
                Asian American values in the future, and generally accepted practices
                endorse that data set for use in the U.S., OSHA will consider revising
                Sec.  1910.1043(h)(2)(iii) to include that update.
                    In comments to the record, NIOSH supported use of the NHANES III
                spirometric reference values instead of the older Knudson 1976
                spirometric reference values and the use of a correction factor of 0.88
                to reference values for FEV1 and FVC in Caucasians to
                determine reference values for Asian Americans (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
                    While use of the NHANES III data set will simplify interpretation
                of spirometry results by providing reference values for more race/
                ethnic groups, neither the NHANES III nor the correction factor
                addresses every race/ethnic group. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing the
                proposed text indicating that FVC, FEV1, and
                FEV1/FVC values be compared to ``appropriate'' race
                ethnicity specific values. The term ``appropriate'' includes groups
                that are not represented in the NHANES III dataset. For example, using
                Mexican American values for non-Mexican American Hispanic workers may
                be appropriate. Designations of race/ethnicity are self-reported by
                workers, and bi-racial or multi-racial workers should select the race/
                ethnicity category that best describes them. OSHA's guidance document
                on spirometry testing provides some additional guidance on this topic,
                including a recommendation to use Caucasian reference values for Native
                American Indians (OSHA, 2013).
                    The software for most spirometers includes the NHANES III data set,
                which is identified as the Hankinson 1999 data set on some spirometers.
                If software for older spirometers does not include the NHANES III data
                set, users of those spirometers would be able to access the NHANES III
                values online through the NIOSH calculator (CDC/NIOSH, 2010). Tables of
                the NHANES III values are also available in an appendix to OSHA's
                spirometry guidance for healthcare professionals that is available
                online (OSHA, 2013). Therefore, NHANES III values are widely available
                to spirometry providers, including those providers using older
                spirometers.
                    Currently, paragraph (h)(2)(iii) requires an evaluation of
                pulmonary function testing values using predicted values of FVC and
                FEV1, which are the only reference values listed in the
                tables in current appendix C. The NHANES III reference data set
                includes the lower limit of normal (LLN) as well as predicted values
                for FEV1, FVC, and the FEV1/FVC ratio. The LLN
                for these spirometry measurements represents the lower fifth percentile
                of a healthy (normal) population. That is, 95 percent of a healthy
                (normal) population should have spirometry values above the LLN, and
                spirometry values below the LLN could be abnormal (OSHA, 2013).
                Generally accepted practices by ATS/ERS, NIOSH, and ACOEM currently
                compare spirometry values to the LLN values to identify impaired
                pulmonary function.
                    In particular, ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et al., 2005) defines airways
                obstruction as an FEV1/vital capacity (VC) below the LLN.
                ACOEM (Townsend, 2011) and
                [[Page 21428]]
                NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003) define borderline airway obstruction as an
                FEV1/FVC below the LLN, with an FEV1 between the
                LLN and the predicted value; they define airways obstruction as both
                FEV1/FVC and an FEV1 below the LLN. ATS/ERS,
                NIOSH, and ACOEM indicate that an FVC or VC less than the LLN could
                indicate possible restrictive impairment (Pellegrino et al., 2005;
                Townsend, 2011; CDC/NIOSH, 2003).
                    Therefore, OSHA proposed and is finalizing (h)(2)(iii) to require
                an evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against
                the LLN and percent predicted values to fully characterize possible
                pulmonary impairment in exposed workers, which is consistent with
                generally accepted current practices and supported by NIOSH (OSHA-2012-
                0007-0726). OSHA's requirement to evaluate the FEV1/FVC
                ratio in addition to FEV1 and FVC will not affect triggers
                for changes in medical surveillance frequency or referral for a
                detailed pulmonary examination, because the standard bases those
                triggers solely on FEV1 values.
                    OSHA also proposed and is finalizing a change in the triggers for
                the frequency of medical surveillance. Currently, paragraphs
                (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of the standard require frequency of medical
                surveillance based in part on whether the FEV1 is above or
                below 80 percent of the predicted value. OSHA proposed that the basis
                for frequency of medical surveillance be changed to whether the
                FEV1 is above or below the LLN. As noted above, generally
                accepted practices currently use the LLN as the basis for classifying
                possibly abnormal lung function. Pulmonary function normally declines
                with age, and the LLN better accounts for age-related declines than the
                current standard (Townsend et al., 2011). There is evidence that the
                cut-off point used by the standard, 80 percent of the predicted value,
                can result in erroneous lung function interpretation in adults
                (Pellegrino et al., 2005). Therefore, OSHA proposed and is now making
                final the use of the LLN to determine the frequency of lung-function
                testing.
                    OSHA also proposed and is now making a correction to Sec.
                1910.1043(n)(1). Currently, paragraph (n)(1) specifies that appendices
                B, C, and D of the cotton dust standard are mandatory. Since OSHA in
                this rulemaking is removing the old Knudson values from appendix C and
                reserving the appendix for future use, OSHA is modifying Sec.
                1910.1043(n)(1) to now specify that only appendices B and D are
                mandatory.
                    OSHA also makes corrections to Sec.  1910.1043, appendix B-II, B,
                ``Occupational History Table.'' The table's column titled ``Tenure of
                Employment'' contains boxes in which dates of employment are entered.
                To allow the entry of dates that occurred later than 1999, OSHA
                proposed to change the dates to ``From 19____ or 20____'' and ``To
                19____ or 20____ .'' After further consideration, OSHA is finalizing
                this change, but with an alternation that will make the date entry even
                more open-ended. The agency is changing the column's two sub-headers to
                read as follows: ``FROM (year)'' and ``TO (year.)''
                    In reviewing this appendix, OSHA also noticed additional, minor
                technical variations from current practice and other similar forms in
                other health standards. In appendix B-II, A, ``Identification,'' OSHA
                is removing the ``age last birthday'' question because the form already
                asks for the employee's birthday. Additionally, OSHA is changing the
                measurement for height to inches (in) from centimeters (cm) and adding
                that the weight should be listed in pounds (lbs).
                    Section 1910.1043, appendix D, sets standards for spirometric
                measurements of pulmonary function. OSHA based the proposed changes to
                appendix D, which are now finalized, on the most recent spirometry
                recommendations from ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). Many of these
                changes reflect advances in spirometry procedures or methods of
                interpretation.\5\ Other changes reflect technological changes
                associated with the current widespread use of flow-type spirometers, in
                addition to volume-type spirometers, which were in widespread use in
                1978 when OSHA published the current standard, and remain in use today.
                The changes would apply only to equipment purchased one year or more
                after OSHA publishes the final standard in the Federal Register. This
                would give time for distributors to exhaust existing stocks and allow
                medical providers to continue using the older spirometers until they
                buy new ones in the normal course of business. For equipment purchased
                on or before the one year anniversary of the Federal Register
                publication date, the original specifications in appendix D continue to
                apply.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \5\ Appendix D provides minimal standards that must be employed
                when making spirometry measurements. Users of appendix D should also
                consult generally accepted practices from ATS/ERS (Pellegrino et
                al., 2005; Miller et al., 2005), NIOSH (CDC/NIOSH, 2003), and ACOEM
                (Townsend, 2011) for a complete list of current spirometry
                standards. OSHA's spirometry guidance also outlines those practices
                (OSHA, 2013).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Current appendix D(I)(b) specifies volume capacity for spirometers,
                and this final rule is changing it from seven to eight liters in
                appendix (D)(I)(b)(2). Current appendix D(I)(e) specifies flow rates
                for flow-type spirometers, and the final rule is changing it from 12 to
                14 liters per second in D(I)(e)(2). These revisions to appendix D(I)(b)
                and (e) reflect current recommendations by ATS/ERS (Miller et al.,
                2005).
                    Current appendix D(I)(g) requires either a tracing or display, and
                OSHA is revising this language in appendix D(I)(g)(2) to ``paper
                tracing or real-time display.'' When OSHA published the current
                standard in 1978, a pen linked to a physical strip chart generated
                tracings of expiration curves on graph paper during pulmonary testing.
                In contrast, most current flow-type and volume-type spirometers use
                computer-generated displays of expiration curves projected on the
                spirometer or on an attached computer screen.
                    In appendix D(I)(g)(2), OSHA proposed and is adding size
                specifications for computer-generated displays, the technology most
                often used today (Miller et al., 2005). An issue that was critical for
                tracings in 1978, and remains critical for both tracings and displays
                today, is that they be large enough to allow a technician to easily
                evaluate the technical acceptability of the expiration during testing.
                A large real-time display allows the technician to easily view a
                technically unacceptable expiration and coach the worker to achieve
                optimal expirations in subsequent attempts. Current appendix D(I)(g)
                also specifies requirements for paper tracings of the expiration curve,
                and requires that the tracings be of sufficient size for hand
                measurements to conform to appendix D(I)(a). OSHA is revising paragraph
                D(I)(g)(2) to indicate ``If hand measurements will be made.'' OSHA is
                making this change because hand measurements are rarely used, and the
                values currently shown in the expiration curve are usually computer
                generated today.
                    Original appendix D(I)(g) also requires the spirometer to display
                flow versus volume or volume versus time tracings. The revision in
                appendix D(I)(g)(2) requires the spirometer to display both flow-volume
                and volume-time curves or tracings during testing. The flow-volume
                curve emphasizes early expiration and allows the technician to detect
                problems early in the maneuver (OSHA, 2013). The volume-time curve
                emphasizes the end of the expiration and allows the technician to coach
                the patient to achieve a complete expiration
                [[Page 21429]]
                (OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also updating the paragraph to indicate that both
                types of curves or tracings must be stored and available for recall.
                This requirement to store curves will allow the assessment of results
                for acceptability and repeatability, once testing is concluded, and it
                will also make it possible to include the curves in reports to health
                care providers who interpret the results (OSHA, 2013).
                    Current appendix D(I)(h) requires that instruments be capable of
                accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and not stop
                accumulating volume before (1) the volume change for a 0.5-second
                interval is less than 25 millimeters, or (2) the flow is less than 50
                milliliters per second for a 0.5-second interval. As noted by ATS in
                1987, these end-of-test criteria, which were first included in the 1979
                ATS statement, caused premature termination of exhalation and FVCs that
                were falsely reduced by as much as 9 percent (ATS, 1987). To avoid such
                falsely reduced FVCs, ATS defined end-of-test criteria only according
                to volume change from 1987 onward (ATS 1987, 1994, 2005). Therefore,
                OSHA is updating the first clause in appendix D(I)(h)(2) by specifying
                the currently recommended volume change of less than 25 milliliters for
                a 1-second interval (Miller et al., 2005) and is also removing the
                latter clause, i.e., that the instrument shall not stop accumulating
                volume before the flow is less than 50 milliliters per second for a
                0.5-second interval. These changes that were proposed and are now final
                make appendix D consistent with current ATS/ERS recommendations for
                expiratory end-of-test criteria using volume increment only, since flow
                rate criteria were abandoned in 1987 (ATS, 1987; Miller et al., 2005).
                OSHA is also updating this provision by revising the time for which the
                instrument must be capable of accumulating volume to 15 seconds, the
                maximum time for which an exhalation should be done according to ATS/
                ERS (Miller et al., 2005). In 1987, ATS stated that they encourage
                spirometer designs that allowed patients to continue exhaling for as
                long as possible (ATS, 1987).
                    Current appendix D(I)(j), (II)(b), and (IV)(b) provide requirements
                for the calibration of spirometers, and the final rule updates several
                of these requirements. Revisions to appendix D(I)(j)(2), (II)(b), and
                (IV)(b) clarify that the technician must always check the calibration
                of spirometers, and recalibrate them only if the spirometer requires
                the technician to do so. That change is consistent with recommendations
                by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). The reason for the change is that
                while technicians cannot recalibrate many spirometer models in current
                use, they nevertheless must check the volume accuracy of all
                spirometers; this ensures that the spirometers are operating within
                calibration limits, i.e., that the spirometers are accurate (OSHA,
                2013). In addition, appendix D(II)(b) was revised to indicate that the
                calibration check is to assess the volume accuracy of the spirometer
                and that calibration checks be done daily, or more frequently if
                specified by the spirometer manufacturer when the spirometer is in use.
                This language, which is more specific than the proposed ``check all
                spirometers regularly,'' was suggested by NIOSH, based on ATS/ERS
                (Miller et al., 2005) recommendations (OSHA 2012-0007-0726). NIOSH also
                commented that OSHA may want to note that when performing calibration
                checks, it is the volume accuracy of the spirometer that is being
                validated (OSHA-2012-0007-0726).
                    OSHA proposed and is making in the final rule a number of changes
                to appendix D(I)(j): First, it is not including the following text in
                appendix D(I)(j)(2) because it is ambiguous and provides no useful
                information: ``. . . with respect to the FEV1 and FVC. This
                calibration of the FEV1 and FVC may be either directly or
                indirectly through volume and time base measurements.'' The second
                update to appendix D(I)(j)(2) includes the current ATS/ERS requirements
                for calibration-syringe accuracy and volume displacement (Miller et
                al., 2005). As noted above, OSHA is revising the term ``calibration''
                to ``calibration check.'' Another change to paragraph D(I)(j)(2) is to
                revise the term ``calibration source'' to ``calibration syringe''
                because a syringe is the only type of calibration source currently
                used, so specifying a syringe instead of a source would clarify the
                requirement.
                    In addition, OSHA changed the word ``should'' in D(I)(j)(2) to
                ``shall,'' so the new D(I)(j)(2) would read, ``the volume-calibration
                syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at least 3 liters and
                shall be accurate to within 0.5 percent of 3 liters (15
                milliliters).'' The phrase ``should'' sounds advisory, and the current
                practices OSHA is updating are based on the 3 liter size of the
                syringe. There were no comments addressing this point.
                    Current appendix D(II)(b) provides that technicians should perform
                calibrations using a syringe or other source of at least two liters.
                The change in the syringe volume to three liters is consistent with
                current practices. OSHA also is changing the term ``syringe or other
                volume source'' to ``syringe'' for the reasons described above in the
                discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Another change to appendix D(II)(b) is
                to delete the phrase ``or method.'' The meaning of that phrase is
                unclear; the sentence is addressing calibration checks of an instrument
                (i.e., spirometer), not a method. OSHA also is updating calibration
                check procedures for flow-type and volume-type spirometers to determine
                whether a spirometer is recording 3 liters (L) of air 3.5
                percent (Miller et al., 2005; OSHA, 2013). The check of flow-type
                spirometers would involve the injection of air at three different
                speeds, and the check of volume-type spirometers would involve a single
                injection of air and a check for spirometer leakage. Users should refer
                to generally accepted practices and other guidance for complete details
                about calibration checks (see, e.g., Miller et al., 2005; Townsend,
                2011; OSHA, 2013). OSHA is also changing the term ``recalibration'' in
                this provision to ``calibration checks'' for the reasons stated above
                in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j). Finally, OSHA is changing
                ``should'' to ``shall'' in the first sentence of D(II)(b) for the same
                reasons as discussed above regarding paragraph D(I)(j).
                    Appendix D(II)(a) currently contains requirements for measuring
                forced expirations, including having the patient make at least three
                forced expirations. OSHA is updating this paragraph to have the worker
                perform at least three, but no more than eight, forced expirations
                during testing. This change would clarify that up to eight forced
                expirations can be attempted to obtain three acceptable forced
                expirations (Miller et al., 2005). The same paragraph currently states
                that ``The subject may sit, . . .'' OSHA proposed that ``subject'' be
                changed to ``patient'' primarily because ``subject'' implies someone in
                an experimental trial. OSHA further considered this proposed change
                after NIOSH commented that the term ``patient'' can potentially imply a
                person with an illness and that a term such as ``worker'' or ``testing
                participant'' may be a better term (OSHA-2012-0007-0726). OSHA has
                decided that worker is the appropriate term to use since it refers to
                the individual being tested and has updated appendix D(II)(a) to
                indicate ``worker'' instead of ``subject.'' The terms ``patient'' or
                ``subject'' were also revised to ``worker'' in appendix D(I)(g)(2),
                D(III)(a) and D(IV)(c). OSHA also is clarifying the text in paragraph
                D(II)(a) to indicate that the expiration must be repeatable. The term
                [[Page 21430]]
                ``repeatability,'' now used by ATS/ERS, would be an update to the
                existing term ``reproducibility''; paragraph D(II)(a)(7) lists the
                criteria for repeatable (formerly, reproducible) results. In addition,
                appendix D(II)(a) lists elements of ``unacceptable'' efforts in
                paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(7); OSHA revises this language to ``technically
                unacceptable'' to make clear that the problem is not with the worker's
                lungs but with the flaws in how the test is conducted.
                    Appendix D(II)(a)(3) currently specifies that a worker's efforts
                during testing are unacceptable when the expiration does not continue
                for at least five seconds or until an obvious plateau in the volume-
                time curve occurs. The revision to this paragraph clarifies that
                results may be acceptable if the worker attempted to exhale (versus
                actually exhaled) for at least six seconds and the volume-time curve
                shows no change in volume (1 (Miller et al., 2005), but coughing
                toward the end of the expiration does not affect test results (OSHA,
                2013). Glottis closure at any time may result in premature termination
                of the expiration (Miller et al., 2005).
                    Current appendix D(II)(a)(6) provides that the results are
                unacceptable when there is an unsatisfactory start to expiration
                characterized by excessive hesitation, i.e., one with an extrapolated
                volume greater than 10 percent of the FVC on the volume-time curve. As
                noted in the 1987 ATS statement, a criterion of 10 percent could result
                in a falsely elevated FEV1 from a suboptimal effort (ATS,
                1987). The change to appendix D(II)(a)(6) indicates that extrapolated
                volume must be less than 150 milliliters or 5 percent of the FVC,
                whichever is greater, to be unacceptable. This change updates the
                provision to be consistent with the most recent ATS/ERS recommendation
                on criteria for start-of-test so that an accurate time zero is set
                (Miller et al., 2005). All ATS or ATS/ERS statements define acceptable
                start-of-test criteria according to volume, as well as percent FVC,
                using whichever criterion is larger for a given patient (ATS, 1979,
                1987, 1994; Miller et al., 2005), and it is not clear why the volume
                value was excluded from the current cotton dust standard. OSHA is also
                including the 2005 ATS/ERS recommendations for volume, in addition to
                percentage of FVC, for consistency with ATS/ERS. Expressing the values
                as both percentage of FVC and as a volume, and using whichever approach
                gives the larger allowed extrapolated volume, aids in the
                interpretation of results for individuals with very small or very large
                lung volumes. For example, since 5 percent of FVC will be less than 150
                milliliters in individuals with FVC 3.00 L, so in that case
                the 5 percent of FVC criterion would be used to evaluate the start-of-
                test for these patients.
                    As stated above, appendix D(II)(a)(7) contains criteria for
                acceptable repeatability. Editorial changes proposed in appendix
                D(II)(a)(7) are for clarification. Notably, OSHA removed the word
                ``three'' because technicians can examine up to eight acceptable curves
                to select the two highest FEV1 and FVC values (Miller et
                al., 2005). OSHA also changed ``variation'' to ``difference'' because
                ``difference'' is the more appropriate mathematical term to use when
                comparing only two numbers.
                    In appendix D(II)(a)(7), OSHA also revised the maximum difference
                between the two largest FVC values and the two largest FEV1
                values of a satisfactory test to 150 milliliters, a change from the
                current maximum difference of 10 percent or 100
                milliliters, whichever is greater. This revision to the criteria for
                acceptable repeatability reflects current ATS/ERS recommendations
                (Miller et al., 2005). In 2005, ATS/ERS stated that many patients are
                able to achieve repeatability of FEV1 and FVC to within 150
                milliliters (Miller et al., 2005). In 1994, the ATS changed its
                repeatability criterion from a volume and a percentage difference
                between values to a volume difference only, so that the criterion was
                equally stringent for all lung sizes, and also so that it was easy to
                compute during the test if hand-measurements were made (ATS, 1994).
                OSHA is also making editorial changes to make it clear that the
                difference between the two largest acceptable FVC values ``shall'' not
                exceed 150 milliliters and the two largest acceptable FEV1
                values ``shall'' not exceed 150 milliliters. OSHA inadvertently
                proposed that the term ``should not exceed'' be used, and the agency is
                revising the term to indicate ``shall not exceed.'' The change is
                consistent with other changes being made to this regulation because the
                word ``should'' sounds advisory (see, e.g., changes to D(I)(j)(2)).
                    The agency discussed final changes to appendix D(II)(b) above.
                    OSHA is removing appendix D(III)(b). The paragraph refers to a
                NIOSH guideline that specifies an outdated evaluation criterion of
                FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.75 percent, and OSHA is unaware of an
                updated NIOSH cotton dust guideline that more appropriately compares
                the FEV1/FVC ratio to LLN. As noted above, generally
                accepted practices use the LLN as the basis for classifying possibly
                abnormal lung function because it accounts for age-related declines in
                lung function (Townsend, 2011). Appendix D(III)(b) also refers to a
                table that OSHA never included in the final cotton dust standard. That
                table was most likely Table XII-12 in the NIOSH criteria document for
                cotton dust (CDC/NIOSH, 1974). The lack of the table does not appear to
                be a pressing issue since no user complained about the missing table
                after OSHA promulgated the standard. In addition, the information is
                available to users in the NIOSH criteria document.
                    The updates to current paragraphs D(IV)(a) and (d) change
                ``reproducibility'' to ``repeatability'' to conform to the terminology
                now used by ATS/ERS (Miller et al., 2005). ``Repeatability'' would have
                the same meaning as ``reproducibility.'' OSHA also is changing the term
                ``calibration'' in paragraph D(IV)(b) to ``calibration checks'' for the
                reasons stated above in the discussion of paragraph D(I)(j).
                    A commenting organization, Change to Win, generally supports OSHA's
                revisions of the cotton dust standard; however, it articulates the
                following reservations: (1) The lack of accounting for the ``healthy
                worker effect'' seen in epidemiological studies that results from the
                use of the NHANES population-based data, which may result in ``false
                positives'' (i.e., the worker appears to be normal when in
                [[Page 21431]]
                fact they only look normal compared to a ``sicker'' general
                population); and (2) the lack of a requirement for the employer to look
                at results of all the exposed workers to see if trends may indicate an
                inadequacy of exposure control (OSHA-2012-0007-0759). OSHA appreciates
                these concerns and acknowledges that some workers may have above
                average lung function. However, paragraph (h)(3)(iv) requires periodic
                medical examinations for some workers, including comparisons of current
                examinations to previous examinations to determine whether significant
                changes have occurred. This might allow a physician to detect a
                significant change from baseline lung function in a worker who
                otherwise has above average lung function compared to a reference
                population. OSHA agrees that evaluating pulmonary function testing
                results of all exposed workers may provide useful information for
                employers and employees; this action is not required by the agency
                because it goes beyond the scope of this effort, which is to simply
                update the standard to make it consistent with current practices and
                technologies.
                References
                ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
                Lung Association (1979). ATS Statement--Snowbird Workshop on
                Standardization of Spirometry. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 119, 831-838.
                ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
                Lung Association (1987). Standardization of Spirometry--1987 Update.
                Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 136, 1285-1298.
                ATS (American Thoracic Society). Medical Section of the American
                Lung Association (1994). Standardization of Spirometry--1994 Update.
                Am. Resp. Crit. Care Med, 152, 1107-1136.
                CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
                Occupational Safety and Health) (1974). Criteria for a Recommended
                Standard: Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust. Chapter XII: Tables
                and Figures. www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/75-118f.pdf.
                CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
                Occupational Safety and Health) (2003). Spirometry training guide.
                December 1, 2003. www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-154c/pdfs/2004-154c.pdf.
                CDC/NIOSH (Centers for Disease Control/National Institute for
                Occupational Safety and Health) (2010). Spirometry reference value
                calculator. www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spirometry/RefCalculator.html.
                Hankinson, J.L., Odencrantz, J.R. and Fedan, K.B. (1999).
                Spirometric reference values from a sample of the general US
                population. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 159, 179-87.
                Hankinson, J.H., Kawut, S.M. and Shahar, E. (2010). Performance of
                American Thoracic Society-recommended spirometry reference values in
                a multiethnic sample of adults. Chest, 137, 138-145.
                Knudson, R.J., Slatin, R.C., Lebowitz, M.D. and Burrows, B. (1976).
                The maximal expiratory flow-volume curve. Normal standards,
                variability, and effects of age. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 113, 587-
                600.
                Miller, M.R., Hankinson, J., Brusasco, V., Burgos, F., Casaburi, R.,
                Coates, A., Wanger, J. (2005). American Thoracic Society/European
                Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) Task Force: Standardisation of
                Spirometry. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 319-33, www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/pfet/PFT2.pdf.
                OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2013).
                Spirometry testing in occupational health programs. Best practices
                for healthcare professionals. US Department of Labor. www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3637.pdf.
                Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R.O., Burgos, F.,
                Casaburi, R. . . . Wanger, J. (2005). ATS/ERS standardisation of
                lung function testing. Interpretative strategies for lung function
                tests. Eur. Respir. J., 26, 948-968.
                Redlich, C.A., Tarlo, S.M., Hankinson, J.L., Townsend, M.C.,
                Eschenbacher, W.L., Von Essen, S.G., Sigsgaard, T. and Weissman,
                D.N. (2014). American Thoracic Society Committee on Spirometry in
                the Occupational Setting. Official American Thoracic Society
                technical standards: Spirometry in the occupational setting. Am. J.
                Respir. Crit. Care Med., 189(8), 983-93.
                Townsend, M.C. (2011). American College of Occupational and
                Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Occupational and Environmental Lung
                Disorders Committee. Spirometry in the occupational health setting--
                2011 Update. J. Occup. Environ. Med., 53, 569-584. www.acoem.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Affairs/Policies_And_Position_Statements/ACOEM%20Spirometry%20Statement.pdf.
                3. Subpart F of Part 1915--General Working Conditions, Definitions in
                29 CFR 1915.80
                    Existing requirements in the sanitation standard for Shipyard
                Employment, Sec.  1915.88(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.
                    Paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 defines the term ``vermin'' as
                ``insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and feral cats,
                that may create safety and health hazards for employees.'' After
                stakeholders raised concerns about the inclusion of ``feral cats'' in
                the definition of vermin, OSHA proposed to remove the term ``feral
                cats'' from the definition in Sec.  1915.80(b)(33). This final rule
                enacts the proposed removal without change.
                    OSHA received over 700 comments in response to the NPRM, over 500
                of which addressed the removal of the term ``feral cats'' from the
                definition of vermin. Each of the comments favored the proposed change.
                Many of these comments (250) were from a mass mail campaign with the
                following comment:
                    Just because these cats aren't pets doesn't mean they're not
                cared for. Indeed, many shipyard employers and their employees value
                the cats both for companionship and as a means of controlling rodent
                populations. Classifying shipyard cats as ``vermin'' will likely
                lead to their mistreatment and interfere with the trap-neuter-return
                (TNR) programs used to manage their numbers and keep the cats
                healthy. OSHA is a very influential agency. By removing cats from
                the definition of ``vermin,'' OSHA is setting an important example
                for other government agencies to establish policies that more
                effectively protect cats and promote public health and safety.
                    Most of the remaining comments contained similar points, such as,
                OSHA should not classify cats as vermin; cats should be treated
                humanely; and some cats may be mistreated if OSHA left the definition
                as is. In addition, commenters stated that cats in fact assist at
                shipyards in controlling vermin, such as rodents and mice, without the
                hazards associated with the use of pesticides or chemicals.
                    After considering these comments, OSHA has decided to remove the
                term ``feral cats'' from the definition of vermin in Sec.
                1915.80(b)(33). Removing the term ``feral cats'' is consistent with the
                general industry sanitation standard provision on vermin, which
                describes vermin as ``rodents, insects, and other vermin'' (Sec.
                1910.141(a)(5)). 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 vermin. To the
                extent feral cats pose a safety or health hazard at any particular
                shipyard, OSHA will consider the cats to be ``other animals'' under the
                standard. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
                4. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
                Controls, Medical Services and First Aid in 29 CFR 1926.50
                    Under 29 CFR 1926.50, employers must provide specified medical
                services and first aid to employees to address serious injuries that
                may occur on the job. Since 1979, OSHA has required the posting of
                telephone numbers of
                [[Page 21432]]
                physicians, hospitals, or ambulances for worksites located in areas
                where 911 emergency service is not available. OSHA adopted this
                requirement when 911 emergency service was still a relatively new
                concept, and was available only in certain parts of the country. The
                final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
                    Today, 911 emergency service is available almost everywhere in
                North America. In nearly all locations in the United States and Canada,
                a 911 call over a land-line telephone will link the caller to an
                emergency-dispatch center. In the United States, most localities with
                911 service also have so-called ``Enhanced 911,'' which will not only
                connect the land-line caller to a dispatcher, but also will
                automatically provide the caller's location to the emergency
                dispatcher. This automatic-location information is critical for
                emergency responders in cases when the 911 caller does not know his/her
                exact location, or does not have sufficient time to provide such
                information.
                    Although the automatic transmission of location information to
                emergency dispatchers is customary for land-line telephones, the task
                of automatically transmitting location information is more complex when
                the emergency call originates from a wireless telephone. Since 1996,
                the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been phasing in the
                requirement that wireless carriers adopt technologies that provide 911
                caller-location information. The last phase-in benchmark for wireless
                handsets occurs in January of 2019.\6\ As a result, in some remote
                areas of the country, wireless-telephone carriers still are unable to
                provide accurate information about the location of the 911 caller to
                911 answering centers. OSHA proposed revisions to Sec.  1926.50(f) to
                update the 911 service-posting requirements consistent with the current
                status of land-line and wireless-telephone technologies.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \6\ See 47 CFR 20.18--911 Service.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    The proposed revisions addressed the problem of locating callers,
                usually cell-phone callers, in remote areas that do not have automatic-
                location capability. In such areas, the proposed revisions required
                employers to post in a conspicuous location either the latitude and
                longitude of the worksite or other location-identification information
                that effectively communicates the location of the worksite. Employers
                can obtain information about which counties, or portions of counties,
                are exempted from the 911 location accuracy requirements from FCC PS
                Docket No. 07-114, which is publicly available on the FCC's Electronic
                Comment Filing System (ECFS) web page: apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=07-114.
                    The proposed revisions also required employers to ensure that the
                communication system they use to contact ambulance service is
                effective. Under Sec.  1926.50(e), employers are required to provide a
                communication system for contacting ambulance service, or proper
                equipment for transportation of an injured person. When using wireless
                telephones as a communication system, however, that system's
                availability varies based on the location of the caller. If an employer
                is relying upon a communication system at a worksite, it must be
                effective at the worksite. OSHA did not propose any changes to the
                requirement to post telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals, or
                ambulances for worksites located in areas where 911 emergency service
                is not available.
                    OSHA received two comments on the revision of Sec.  1926.50, from
                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 comments supported the revision. The comment from
                LHSFNA noted that ``[m]any construction sites are in remote locations
                (e.g., pipeline work, highway construction and windmill sites) where
                cell phone coverage is inconsistent. . . .This proposed revision could
                save many lives on remote construction sites.'' After considering these
                comments, OSHA is revising the standard as proposed in the NPRM. The
                final rule is identical to the proposed rule.
                5. Subpart D of Part 1926--Occupational Health and Environmental
                Controls, Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists in 29 CFR 1926.55
                    The provisions of Sec.  1926.55 establish permissible exposure
                limits for numerous toxic chemicals used during construction
                activities. These provisions are the construction counterpart to the
                general industry standard at Sec.  1910.1000. OSHA proposed
                clarifications for several of these provisions, notably paragraphs (a)
                and (c) and appendix A to Sec.  1926.55. The final rule is identical to
                the proposed rule, with the addition of an asterisk and a non-
                substantive, formatting change to appendix A to Sec.  1926.55. OSHA
                proposed that the phrase ``threshold limit values'' (TLV) be revised to
                ``permissible exposure limits'' (PELs) and that the references to the
                American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), in
                both paragraph (a) and appendix A, be eliminated, as the original
                language was confusing. While OSHA originally adopted these limits from
                ACGIH recommendations, the limits are OSHA, not ACGIH, requirements.
                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
                [[Page 21433]]
                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).
                [[Page 21434]]
                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
                [[Page 21435]]
                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,
                [[Page 21436]]
                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
                [[Page 21437]]
                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
                [[Page 21438]]
                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
                [[Page 21439]]
                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
                [[Page 21440]]
                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)
                [[Page 21441]]
                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
                [[Page 21442]]
                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,
                [[Page 21443]]
                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
                [[Page 21444]]
                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
                [[Page 21445]]
                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
                [[Page 21446]]
                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
                [[Page 21447]]
                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
                [[Page 21448]]
                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
                [[Page 21449]]
                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,
                the updated DOT rules are already currently in force for all public
                roads. Second, even in the limited circumstances of construction on
                private roads, the MUCTD rules are already likely followed. Finally,
                the changes from the prior editions are minor and could easily be
                outweighed by eliminating the burden created by having conflicting DOT
                and OSHA requirements.
                    Private roads open to public travel are now subject to the same
                traffic control standards as public streets and highways. However, the
                FHWA does not require State and/or local highway agencies to have
                specific authority or enforcement responsibility for traffic control
                devices on private roads to ensure compliance with the MUTCD. Owners or
                parties responsible for such private roads are encouraged to bring the
                traffic control devices into compliance with the MUTCD and other
                applicable State Manuals, and those who do not may find themselves
                exposed to increased tort liability. State and local jurisdictions can
                encourage MUTCD compliance on private roads by incorporating pertinent
                language into zoning requirements, building and occupancy permits, and
                similar controls that they exercise over private properties.
                    As a practical matter, available data on private road construction
                indicate that it represents a very small portion of total road
                construction activity. Data from the Census Construction Spending
                Survey indicate that it represents less than 1 percent of all funds
                dedicated to highway and street construction (Census, 2014).\25\ This
                leaves a very limited scope of construction signage not already
                governed by the updated DOT rules.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \25\ Since private spending on Highway and Street construction
                is relatively small in comparison to other categories of spending,
                it does not appear as a separate item, but can be derived from
                subtracting Total Public Construction spending on Highway and Street
                construction from Total Construction spending on Highway and Street
                construction. 2013 data indicates private spending was well below 1
                percent of total spending in this category. This pattern was
                consistent at least as far back as 2002.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Since all contractors engaged in construction of public roads are
                now required to follow the current MUTCD, only those firms that work
                exclusively on private roads would incur costs associated with this
                proposal. Contractors that work on both public and private roads should
                not see an increased burden because they would already need to be in
                compliance with the MUTCD to work on public roads. Considering that
                there is pressure, both from a regulatory and liability perspective,
                for firms that work exclusively on private roads to follow the MUTCD,
                OSHA believes the total number of these firms potentially incurring
                costs as a result of this proposal would be very small. OSHA received
                no comments on the number of contractors that work exclusively on
                private roads and are therefore not required to follow the MUTCD.
                    For any firms not already complying with the updated MUTCD, the
                cost of compliance would be very limited. As explained in the Summary
                and Explanation, the revisions to the MUTCD make the document more user
                friendly and account for advances in technology. A comparison of the
                1998 and 2009 updates shows fewer and less burdensome new requirements,
                but more guidance and support material which makes the document easier
                to use. This change to the OSHA rule should decrease the burden on
                employers by eliminating confusion as to which edition they must comply
                with. It would also inform employers that compliance with DOT
                regulations will not run afoul of outdated OSHA regulations. Most of
                the new provisions provide more options to employers, which should
                either increase safety or reduce the burden to employers.
                    Nonetheless, the agency has identified one \26\ proposed change in
                the 2009 Edition that could have a very small cost for those employers
                doing construction work exclusively on private roads that are not
                already following the updated MUTCD for these items. The change
                prohibits contractors from relying on hand-signs alone to control
                traffic. This burden would only apply to a subset of contractors that
                use flaggers to control traffic (as opposed to something like automated
                flagger-assistance devices) and choose to only use hand signals to
                accomplish this task. Each of these contractors would need to purchase
                at least one stop sign or flag. OSHA has determined that a flag would
                cost, on average, $8.23 each, dependent on size (ERG, 2015).\27\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \26\ In the proposed rule OSHA mistakenly identified a second
                change in the 2009 Edition as a new requirement. The Agency stated
                that ``[o]ne change is a requirement to use a new symbol and
                additional sign for a shoulder drop-off'' (81 FR 68504, 68534).
                Neither the use of a shoulder drop-off sign nor an additional sign
                is required by the 2009 Edition under Section 6F.44.
                    \27\ Inflated to 2017 dollars using GDP deflator (OSHA 2018).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    The number of signs or flags a contractor needs for these
                situations would presumably be dependent on the number of simultaneous
                projects that the road construction firm engages in during a typical
                season, or how large and complex such projects are. While smaller
                contractors may be more likely to engage solely in private road
                operations, larger, more complex projects demanding more equipment
                would almost certainly fall to larger contractors also employed in
                public road construction. Considering the very limited number of
                contractors and situations that would likely be impacted by this
                proposal, the agency believes that most of the potentially affected
                firms would not need more than a handful of either signs or flags.
                    As indicated in the PEA, it is not clear whether any firm would
                incur new costs as a result of this update to the 2009 Edition, but as
                shown, any such costs would be very limited in nature and
                [[Page 21450]]
                would be an insignificant portion of a contractor's annual profit. OSHA
                therefore did not believe this change would have a significant impact
                to any firm or raise an issue of economic feasibility. The agency did
                not receive any comments to contradict this preliminary conclusion, and
                therefore believes it accurately describes the final rule.
                Load Limit Posting
                    OSHA is removing the load limit posting requirement for single-
                family dwellings and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29 CFR
                1926.250--General Requirements for Storage, paragraph (a)(2). OSHA
                estimates that removing the requirement for employers to post maximum
                safe load limits of floors in storage areas when constructing single-
                family dwellings or wood-framed multi-family structures will result in
                a cost savings to employers engaged in these construction activities of
                approximately $5,806,000.
                    OSHA estimates that it takes the average construction employee
                affected by this requirement 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to develop and
                post the currently required signs, assuming the information is readily
                available from current engineering estimates. The Bureau of Labor
                Statistics' (BLS) 2017 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data
                (BLS, 2017) 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 load limit requirement at such dwellings. 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
                estimates that, based on BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee
                Compensation data, employers pay an additional 46 percent in employee
                benefits,\28\ implying a total employee compensation of $27.38 per hour
                in 2017. This is estimated to save an additional $3.18 in hourly
                overhead costs.\29\ The resulting labor and overhead savings is $30.56
                per hour. According to the U.S. Census, in 2016 there were 738,000
                single-family houses and 11,000 wood-framed multi-family residential
                structures constructed (Census, 2016; pp. 213, 477).\30\ As was
                presented in the PEA, OSHA in this FEA estimates that, on average, each
                single-family house would have one relevant storage area per structure,
                producing one required posting. For the final rule, the definition of
                structures covered by the exemption has been expanded somewhat to
                include wood frame multi-family residential structures. Because such
                structures are more likely to have multiple storage areas, the agency
                estimates that on average they would need to have two required postings
                currently.\31\ Using this data, OSHA estimates that the yearly burden
                on employers affected by this proposed revision will be reduced by
                $7.64 per posting ($30.56/hour x 0.25 hours) for a total cost savings
                of $5,806,000 ($7.64 cost per posting x 738,000 single-family homes
                plus $7.64 x two postings x 11,000 multi-family structures) to the
                industry.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \28\ BLS, 2018. 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).
                    \29\ As indicated previously, overhead is estimated to equal 17%
                of base wages, or $3.18 per hour.
                    \30\ In the 911 Emergency Medical Services section of the FEA
                presented earlier, the Agency examined total construction starts,
                which were estimated using Dodge data. Included within that total
                were new home starts. However, as has historically been the case
                when examining the paperwork burden for 29 CFR 1926.250, the Agency
                is using U.S. Census data rather than the Dodge report. As
                referenced in the PEA, the Dodge report did not include a necessary
                distinction in the data on townhomes separate from condominiums;
                townhomes and condominiums were both grouped together in the Dodge
                report's multifamily category. Therefore, OSHA believes the data
                provided from the U.S. Census was the best available for analyzing
                the proposed update to 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2). While this element in
                the data was not essential for the FEA, due to a change of scope in
                the load limit exemption, the Agency is retaining its consistency
                with the data series used in the PEA. No commenters questioned the
                use of either data series.
                    \31\ Since many multi-family structures have three or more
                levels and may span a considerable horizontal distance, this may
                represent a conservative estimate of the potential cost savings from
                reduced posting requirements per structure.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    No public comments challenged OSHA's preliminary cost methodology.
                Therefore, based on the profile data described above, the final
                estimated burden hours and labor costs reduced by this requirement are:
                Reduced burden hours: 760,000 total postings x .25 hours = 190,000
                hours
                Reduced cost: 190,000 hours x ($27.38 employee compensation + $3.18
                overhead) = $5,806,000
                Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS)
                    OSHA is amending the existing standards in 29 CFR part 1926,
                subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection
                (Sec. Sec.  1926.1001, 1926.1002, and 1926.1003). The existing
                standards, which are based on consensus standards from 1970, are
                amended to remove the provisions that specify test procedures and
                performance requirements. The revised provisions will reference the
                1970 consensus standards for equipment manufactured prior to the
                effective date of this final rule. They also reference the most recent
                ISO standards: ISO 3471:2008, ISO 5700:2013 and ISO 27850:2013, for new
                equipment manufactured after the effective date of this final rule. It
                is OSHA's understanding that all industries affected by this change are
                already following the new ISO standards, and therefore has concluded
                that this change will not create any new costs for employers. OSHA
                received no comments that would rebut the agency's conclusion on
                current adherence to the ISO standards (and therefore the conclusion of
                no new costs) among the affected industries.
                    The agency is also expanding the existing regulatory language of
                Sec. Sec.  1926.1000 and 1926.1001 to cover compactors and skid-steer
                loaders, as indicated previously by reserving existing Sec.
                1926.1000(a)(2). OSHA believes that this new equipment, as with the
                equipment currently covered by the existing standard, already adheres
                to the minimum performance criteria for ROPS as set forth in the recent
                ISO standards, and received no comment on it. OSHA concludes that this
                change will not add any new compliance cost to employers. OSHA received
                no comments on this issue.
                Underground Construction--Diesel Engines
                    Existing regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) requires
                that mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground comply with the
                Mine Safety Health Administration's (MSHA) provisions of 30 CFR part
                32. 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; 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 55411). In 2001, MSHA issued 30 CFR 57.5067
                to allow engines that meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                requirements to be used as an alternative to seeking MSHA approval
                under part 7, subpart E (66 FR 5706). The agency proposes to update the
                regulatory language in Sec.  1926.800(k)(10)(ii) to cross-reference
                these updated provisions.
                    These changes will allow employers who use diesel-powered engines
                on
                [[Page 21451]]
                mobile equipment in underground construction to (1) use current MSHA
                procedures to obtain approval plates to affix to the engines, or (2)
                meet or exceed the applicable EPA requirements listed at MSHA Table
                57.5067-1. Based on available information, OSHA has determined that
                currently manufactured equipment meets the requirements and is
                generally compliant with the more stringent EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4
                emission requirements (ERG, 2015). The agency therefore preliminarily
                concluded that all applicable new equipment currently available in the
                market meets the proposed 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, the agency is allowing 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). OSHA received no comment on the number of engines
                in use that meet the existing standard but will not meet the
                requirements of the new MSHA standard and whether continued use of such
                equipment presents a serious safety or health hazard. However, as
                discussed in the Summary and Explanation, commenters agreed the change
                was desirable. As further indicated in the discussion, the final rule
                has been refined to better reflect the technical needs of underground
                construction environments, at the suggestion of commenters. This change
                does not modify OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this provision,
                eliminating reference to obsolete MSHA standards, will not produce
                significant costs of compliance.
                    In summary, because diesel equipment manufactured for underground
                construction apparently conforms with the newer MSHA standards, and
                because this rule does ``grandfather'' existing equipment, the agency
                believes employers will not have additional expenses in complying with
                the proposed change to the underground construction standard. OSHA
                received no comments on this conclusion and therefore the agency
                carries forward its preliminary assessment to this FEA.
                Coke Oven Emissions
                    Section 1926.1129 regulates exposure to coke oven emissions in
                construction. In the Summary and Explanation, the point was made that
                the provisions of this standard do not fit construction work. Therefore
                OSHA is deleting 29 CFR 1926.1129 (and the reference to it in 29 CFR
                1926.55).
                    An interpretation letter to Mr. Mark D. Katz of the law firm Ulmer
                & Berne LLP from Assistant Secretary Charles Jeffress on June 22, 1999,
                stated that OSHA was removing 29 CFR 1926.1129 from OSHA's internet
                website and intended to delete it from Part 1926 Code of Federal
                Regulations. It also stated that OSHA would formally notify its field
                offices that Sec.  1926.1129 would not to be enforced.\32\ Since OSHA
                is not enforcing Sec.  1926.1129 and it has no applicability to
                construction, this change has no cost.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \32\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Standard Interpretation, Coke
                Oven Emissions, www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22754 (accessed
                November 24, 2017).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Removal of Social Security Number Collection Requirements From OSHA's
                Standards
                    As discussed in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA is deleting the
                requirements in its standards for employers to use social security
                numbers to identify employees in exposure monitoring, medical
                surveillance, and other records. The agency believes that while this
                change will help employers to protect their employees from identity
                theft, it does not impose new costs upon employers. One anonymous
                commenter was concerned that removing social security numbers from all
                existing document would be expensive (OSHA-2012-0007-0647). However,
                the proposed and final changes do not require employers to delete
                social security numbers from existing records, nor do they prohibit
                employers from continuing to use them to identify employees; employers
                are simply no longer required to include employee social security
                numbers on the records. The agency believes that these changes have
                benefits to both employees and employers and cost savings, but OSHA has
                not quantified those benefits and savings for this analysis.
                Summary of Costs
                    Table IV-2 provides a brief summary of the cost savings and
                benefits that OSHA estimates will result from this rule. The expected
                total cost savings per year are approximately $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. As indicated earlier, this
                final estimate includes an overhead factor in the labor costs. This is
                estimated to add an additional savings of $603,500, or 11.3%, on what
                would have been an estimated savings of $5,462,000.
                                               Table IV-2
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Item                        Cost savings/benefits
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Cost Savings:
                    Removes the load limit posting           $5,806,000.
                     requirement for single family
                     dwellings and wood-framed multi-family
                     structures in Sec.   1926.250(a)(2).
                    Removes the requirement for periodic     $292,500.
                     CXR in Sec.  Sec.   1910.1029,
                     1910.1045, and 1910.1018.
                    Revises paragraph (f) in 29 CFR          -$32,440.
                     1926.50--Medical Services and First
                     Aid.
                                                            ----------------------------
                        Total..............................  $6,066,000.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Other Benefits:
                    Adds cross-reference between Sec.  Sec.  Clarifies existing employer
                       1904.5 and 1904.10(b)(6).              obligations regarding
                                                              recording of hearing loss.
                    Allows digital storage of chest          Brings standard up to date,
                     roentgenograms in Sec.  Sec.             simplifies.
                     1910.1029, 1910.1045, 1910.1018,
                     1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101,
                     1910.1027, and 1926.1127.
                    Updates required pulmonary function      Brings OSHA standards up to
                     testing requirements in Sec.             current technology and
                     1910.1043.                               medical practices.
                [[Page 21452]]
                
                    Eliminates ``feral cats'' from           Eliminates the threat of
                     definition of vermin in Sec.             unnecessary extermination.
                     1926.250(b)(3).
                    Clarifies language in Construction       Clarifies existing
                     PELS, 29 CFR 1926.55.                    construction employer
                                                              obligations regarding
                                                              PELs.
                    PSM cross-reference between Sec.  Sec.   Eliminates unneeded
                      1926.64 and 1910.119.                   regulatory text.
                    Lowering lanyard/lifeline break          Harmonizes with fall
                     strength, Sec.   1926.104(c).            protection rule Sec.
                                                              1926.502.
                    Updates 29 CFR part 1926, subpart G, to  Harmonizes nationwide
                     latest DOT MUTCD standards.              rules, greater safety,
                                                              incidental costs.
                    Updates Rollover Protective Structure    Harmonizes OSHA rule with
                     rule (ROPS), 29 CFR part 1926, subpart   more recent consensus
                     W.                                       standards.
                    Update references in Underground         Simplifies/clarifies
                     Construction--Diesel Engines, Sec.       employer obligations.
                     1926.800(k)(10)(ii).
                    Eliminates Coke Oven Emissions in        Eliminates unneeded
                     Construction, Sec.   1926.1129.          regulatory text.
                    Removal of Social Security Number        Provides greater privacy
                     requirements.                            protection for employees.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
                  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis--Safety, 2018.
                Technological Feasibility
                    The purpose of the provisions in this standard is to reduce the
                burden on employers, or provide employers with compliance flexibility
                by removing or revising confusing, outdated, duplicative, or
                inconsistent requirements, while maintaining or enhancing the level of
                protection for employees. This standard deletes and revises a number of
                provisions in existing OSHA standards. In most instances, the agency
                chose to revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well as
                consistency, with standards more recently promulgated by the agency or
                current consensus standards. In other instances, the provisions revise
                standards to improve consistency with current technology or research,
                and to clarify OSHA's original intent. In all cases where a standard
                has been updated to provide new equipment requirements, there are
                products currently on the market that will satisfy the standard. The
                only requirement with significant costs requires posting the latitude
                and longitude in a prominent place. This is easily technologically
                feasible. Because of the reduction or removal of current requirements
                and because many of the updates reflect what is already practiced in
                the applicable industry, OSHA preliminarily concluded that the proposed
                rule would be technologically feasible. The agency received no comments
                to suggest otherwise, and retains that conclusion for the FEA.
                Economic Feasibility
                    OSHA concludes that the final provisions of this standards
                improvement action do not impose costs of any significance on
                employers, providing primarily cost savings, and therefore the agency
                concludes that this rule is economically feasible. The PEA had also
                preliminarily reached this conclusion with regard to the proposal. The
                only provision with significant costs requires approximately three
                minutes of time per establishment. Such a cost is obviously feasible.
                It is possible that a minimal number of construction projects will
                incur costs as a result the changes to MUTCD. However the costs per
                project will be minimal.
                Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
                    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
                seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of this
                rule to determine whether these requirements would have a significant
                economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. Since the
                costs related to this rule (from posting location information in
                limited circumstances) and cost savings (primarily from no longer
                having to post load limit information in many situations) amount to a
                few dollars per construction project, and are widely dispersed
                geographically and throughout the industry, the agency believes this
                rule does not possess the potential to have a significant impact on a
                substantial number of small entities. The agency therefore certifies
                that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
                substantial number of small entities.
                References
                BLS, 2017. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment
                Survey. May 2017. Found at: www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
                Accessed June 2018.
                BLS, 2017a. Nonfatal occupational illnesses by major industry sector
                and category of illness, 2016. TABLE SNR07. Found at: www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm. October 31, 2017 version, accessed September 2018.
                BLS, 2018. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Cost for Employee
                Compensation, December 2017. News Release June 8th 2018. Found at:
                www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Accessed June 2018.
                BLS, 2018a. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2017, Table
                SNR07. Found at: data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oes/current/oes299011.htm. March 30, 2018 version, accessed September 2018.
                Census, 2016. U.S. Census Bureau, ``Characteristics of New Housing
                2016.'' Found at: www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2016.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
                Census, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Construction Spending Survey data,
                available from www.census.gov/econ/currentdata. Accessed September
                2016.
                Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage Rates for
                Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June
                10, 2002 (document ID 2025). This analysis itself was based on a
                survey of several large chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden
                Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under
                the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for
                the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.
                Dodge Data and Analytics, data run, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, New York
                10121. May 2016.
                ERG, 2015. Eastern Research Group, ``Supporting Information for
                Standard Improvement Project 4,'' September, 2015. Docket ID# OSHA-
                2012-0007-0077.
                ERG, 2017a. Eastern Research Group, ``Spirometry and Chest X-Ray
                Information for SIPS IV,'' December 2017.
                ERG, 2017b. Eastern Research Group, ``SIPS 4 Medical Examination
                Calculations,'' Excel Workbook. July 2017.
                [[Page 21453]]
                FCC, 2014. Federal Communications Commission, ``911 Wireless
                Services Guide,'' December 2014.
                NENA, 2001. RCN Commission and the National Emergency Number
                Association (NENA), ``Report Card to the Nation: The Effectiveness,
                Accessibility and Future of America's 911 Service,'' September 2001.
                Found at: c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/collection/7F122EC0-BC5A-46DD-9A65-B39A035E87D5/NENA_Report_to_the_Nation_1.pdf. Accessed November 2017.
                NENA, 2017. National Emergency Number Association, 911 Statistics,
                August 2017. www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics. Accessed November
                2017.
                OSHA, 2012. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Standard
                Interpretations. Asbestos Standards. www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28583. Accessed
                November 24, 2017.
                OSHA, 2018. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ``SIPS 4
                Cost Benefits Estimates FEA,'' Excel Workbook.
                OSHA, 2018a. Supporting Statement for the Information Collection
                Requirement on Recordkeeping and Reporting Occupational Injuries and
                Illnesses (28 CFR part 1904), Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
                Control No. 1218-0176, July 2018. Found at: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201807-1218-002.
                V. Legal Considerations
                    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
                Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) is ``to assure so far as possible every
                working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
                conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)).
                To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
                promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards;
                authorized summary adoption of existing national consensus and
                established Federal standards within two years of the effective date of
                the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)); authorized promulgation of standards
                pursuant to notice and comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and required
                employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
                    An occupational safety or health standard is a standard ``which
                requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
                means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
                appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
                employment.'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or
                appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially
                reduces or eliminates significant risk. In addition, it must be
                technologically and economically feasible, cost effective, and
                consistent with prior agency action, or a justified departure. A
                standard must be supported by substantial evidence, and be better able
                to effectuate the OSH Act's purposes than any national consensus
                standard it supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612-16616, March 30, 1993.)
                    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
                it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
                technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
                expected to be developed. (See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v.
                OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel
                Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI).)
                    A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
                on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term
                profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
                55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
                protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
                alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 452 U.S.
                at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
                Cir. 1994) (LOTO II). Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to
                include among a standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical
                testing, and other information-gathering and transmittal provisions.
                (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)). OSHA safety standards also must be highly
                protective. (See 58 FR at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.)
                Finally, whenever practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of
                objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' (29 U.S.C.
                655(b)(5)).
                VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                A. Overview
                    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
                3501 et seq., include enhancing the quality and utility of information
                the Federal government requires and minimizing the paperwork and
                reporting burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions
                before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information
                (paperwork), including publishing a summary of the collection of
                information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of
                the information. PRA defines ``collection of information'' as ``the
                obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
                disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or
                for an agency, regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
                Under PRA, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
                information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA, and it displays
                a currently valid OMB control number. The public is not required to
                respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
                valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any
                other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for
                failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of
                information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44
                U.S.C. 3512).
                    SIP-IV modifies twenty-five Information Collections currently
                approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA.
                B. Solicitation of Comments
                    The Department is submitting a series of Information Collection
                Requests (ICRs) to revise the collections in accordance to this Final
                Rule, as required by the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Some of these
                revisions will result in changes to the existing burden hour and/or
                cost estimates. Other revisions will be less significant and will not
                change the ICR burden hour and cost estimates.\33\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \33\ The Final Rule contains some revisions to existing standard
                provisions that are not collections of information. These revisions
                are not addressed in this preamble section. However other revisions
                will modify language contained in a currently OMB approved
                information collection (paperwork analysis), though they will not
                change burden hour or cost estimates. These information collections,
                referenced by OMB Control number, are included in this section since
                the Agency will prepare and submit an ICR to OMB to incorporate the
                revised language into the existing information collection.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    The agency solicited comments on the information collection
                requirements contained in the NPRM and did not receive any comments in
                response to the information collection requirements.
                C. Revisions to the Collection of Information Requirements
                    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the
                following paragraphs provide information about the ICRs, including the
                changes in burden associated with the revisions to information
                collection requirements.
                    1. Title: Standards Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP-IV).
                    2. Description of revisions to the ICRs: The SIP-IV Final Rule
                adds, removes, or revises collection of information requirements, as
                further explained in Table 1(a) that identifies those ICRs where the
                Final Rule changed burden hours and costs. For those ICRs, Table 1(b)
                itemizes the responses, frequencies,
                [[Page 21454]]
                time, burden hours, and cost as a result of the program change. Table 2
                identifies those ICRs where the Final Rule will add to or revise the
                text of standards, but do not result in a burden or cost change as
                result.
                                        Table 1(a)--ICRs With Burden Hour Changes as a Result of the Rule
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  OMB control
                                   ICR title                          No.                   Provisions being modified
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029)........       1218-0128  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                                 employees. In addition, OSHA is adding the
                                                                                 option of digital radiography to its existing
                                                                                 standards because digital radiography systems
                                                                                 are rapidly replacing traditional analog film-
                                                                                 based systems in medical facilities.
                Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045)..............       1218-0126  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                                 employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
                                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                                 in medical facilities.
                Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018)..........       1218-0104  OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic
                                                                                 chest x-rays as part of the medical exams for
                                                                                 employees. OSHA is adding the option of digital
                                                                                 radiography to its existing standards because
                                                                                 digital radiography systems are rapidly
                                                                                 replacing traditional analog film-based systems
                                                                                 in medical facilities.
                Construction Standards on Posting Emergency          1218-0093  OSHA is adding to 29 CFR 1926.50(f) a
                 Telephone Numbers and Floor Load Limits (29                     requirement that when an employer uses a
                 CFR 1926.50 and 29 CFR 1926.250).                               communication system for contacting 911
                                                                                 services, if the communication system is in an
                                                                                 area that does not automatically supply the
                                                                                 caller's latitude and longitude to the 911
                                                                                 dispatcher, the employer must post or otherwise
                                                                                 provide to employees the latitude and longitude
                                                                                 of the work site or other information that
                                                                                 communicates the location of the worksite. In
                                                                                 addition, OSHA is removing the load limit
                                                                                 posting requirement for single family dwellings
                                                                                 and wood-framed multi-family structures in 29
                                                                                 CFR 1926.250.
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Table 1(b)--Estimated Burden Hours and Costs
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                          Estimated cost
                                                                                                                           Average time      Estimated       (capital-
                ICR title and paragraph modified    OMB control      Number of       Number of    Frequency per response   per response    burden hour/    operation and
                                                        No.         respondents      responses                                (hours)     program change   maintenance)
                                                                                                                                                            change \34\
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR            1218-0128           2,498           2,498  Annual................            1.42            -624       -$179,357
                 1910.1029) (Sec.
                 1910.1029(j)).
                Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045)       1218-0126             542             542  Annual................            1.25            -135         -38,916
                 (Sec.   1910.1045(n)).
                Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR              1218-0104             589             589  Annual................            1.42            -148         -42,290
                 1910.1018) (Sec.
                 1910.1018(n)).
                Construction Standard on Posting       1218-0093          21,233          21,233  Annual................             .05          +1,062    \36\ +27,761
                 Emergency Telephone Numbers (29
                 CFR 1926.50) \35\ (Sec.
                 1926.50(f)).
                Construction Standard on Floor         1218-0093         760,000         760,000  Annual................            0.25        -190,000          \37\ -
                 Load Limits (29 CFR 1926.250)                                                                                                                 4,966,600
                 (Sec.   1926.250(a)).
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Grand Total.................  ..............         784,862         784,862  ......................  ..............        -189,845      -5,199,402
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \34\ Totals in this column may vary slightly from those in the
                Final Economic Analysis (FEA) due to rounding in the FEA.
                    \35\ Both 29 CFR 1926.50 and 1926.250 are covered by the same
                ICR, 1218-0093.
                    \36\ This cost is under item 12 for posting emergency telephone
                numbers of the ICR, 1218-0093.
                    \37\ This cost is under item 12 for posting floor load limits of
                the ICR, 1218-0093.
                                                    Table 2--ICRs With No Burden Hour Changes
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  OMB control
                                   ICR title                          No.                   Provisions being modified
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Asbestos in General Industry (29 CFR                 1218-0133  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                 1910.1001).                                                     to its existing standards because digital
                                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                                 medical facilities.
                Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101)...       1218-0134  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                                 medical facilities.
                Asbestos in Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001)......       1218-0195  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                                 medical facilities.
                Cadmium in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1127)....       1218-0186  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                                 medical facilities.
                [[Page 21455]]
                
                Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027)       1218-0185  OSHA is adding the option of digital radiography
                                                                                 to its existing standards because digital
                                                                                 radiography systems are rapidly replacing
                                                                                 traditional analog film-based systems in
                                                                                 medical facilities.
                Cotton Dust (29 CFR 1910.1043)................       1218-0061  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 outdated
                                                                                 pulmonary function measurements. OSHA is also
                                                                                 updating paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to require a
                                                                                 determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio, and the
                                                                                 evaluation of FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC against
                                                                                 the lower limit of normal (LLN) for each race/
                                                                                 ethnic group, by age, which is consistent with
                                                                                 generally accepted practices.
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    This final rule will also have an impact on the provisions in
                OSHA's standards that currently require employers to include employee
                Social Security Numbers (SSNs) on exposure monitoring, medical
                surveillance, and other records. As explained above in the Summary and
                Explanation of the Rule section (see Section III.B.17.), the agency
                previously considered stakeholder comments regarding the SSN collection
                requirements in OSHA's standards during the SIP II (70 FR 1112, January
                5, 2005) and Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285, March 25,
                2016) rulemakings. Eliminating SSN collection requirements from OSHA's
                standards will affect several of the ICRs covered under the PRA. Table
                3 shows the control number, title, and section modified for each of the
                ICRs that will be affected. The agency believes removing the SSNs will
                have no measureable impact on employer burden.
                        Table 3--ICRs Affected by Social Security Number Removal
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     OMB control No.                Title             Section modified
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1218-0202................  Hazardous Waste         1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A)
                                            Operations and          ,
                                            Emergency Response      1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A)
                                            for General Industry    .
                                            (29 CFR 1910.120) and
                                            Construction (29 CFR
                                            1926.65).
                1218-0133................  Asbestos in General     1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F
                                            Industry (29 CFR        ),
                                            1910.1001).             1910.1001(m)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1001,
                                                                    appendix D.
                1218-0010................  Vinyl Chloride          1910.1017(m)(1).
                                            Standard (29 CFR
                                            1910.1017).
                1218-0104................  Inorganic Arsenic (29   1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D
                                            CFR 1910.1018).         ),
                                                                    1910.1018(q)(2)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0092................  Lead Standard in        1910.1025(d)(5),
                                            General Industry (29    1910.1025(n)(1)(ii)(
                                            CFR 1910.1025).         D),
                                                                    1910.1025(n)(2)(ii)(
                                                                    A),
                                                                    1910.1025(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1025,
                                                                    appendix B.
                1218-0252................  Hexavalent Chromium     1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F
                                            Standards for General   ),
                                            Industry (29 CFR        1910.1026(m)(4)(ii)(
                                            1910.1026), Shipyard    A),
                                            Employment (29 CFR      1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(
                                            1915.1026), and         F),
                                            Construction (29 CFR    1915.1026(k)(4)(ii)(
                                            1926.1126).             A),
                                                                    1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(
                                                                    F),
                                                                    1926.1126(k)(4)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0185................  Cadmium in General      1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B
                                            Industry Standard (29   ),
                                            CFR 1910.1027).         1910.1027(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1027,
                                                                    appendix D.
                1218-0129................  Benzene (29 CFR         1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D
                                            1910.1028).             ),
                                                                    1910.1028(k)(2)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0128................  Coke Oven Emissions     1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a)
                                            (29 CFR 1910.1029).     ,
                                                                    1910.1029(m)(2)(i)(a
                                                                    ).
                1218-0180................  Bloodborne Pathogens    1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A
                                            Standard (29 CFR        ).
                                            1910.1030).
                1218-0061................  Cotton Dust (29 CFR     1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C
                                            1910.1043).             ),
                                                                    1910.1043(k)(2)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1043,
                                                                    appendices B-I, B-
                                                                    II, B-III.
                1218-0101................  1,2-Dibromo-3-          1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d
                                            Chloropropane (DBCP)    ),
                                            Standard (29 CFR        1910.1044(p)(2)(ii)(
                                            1910.1044).             a).
                1218-0126................  Acrylonitrile Standard  1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D
                                            (29 CFR 1910.1045).     ).
                1218-0108................  Ethylene Oxide (EtO)    1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F
                                            Standard (29 CFR        ),
                                            1910.1047).             1910.1047(k)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0145................  Formaldehyde Standard   1910.1048(o)(1)(vi),
                                            (29 CFR 1910.1048).     1910.1048(o)(3)(i),
                                                                    1910.1048(o)(4)(ii)(
                                                                    D), 1910.1048,
                                                                    appendix D.
                1218-0184................  4,4'-                   1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D
                                            Methylenedianiline      ),
                                            (MDA) for General       1910.1050(n)(4)(ii)(
                                            Industry (29 CFR        A),
                                            1910.1050).             1910.1050(n)(5)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0170................  1,3-Butadiene Standard  1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F
                                            (29 CFR 1910.1051).     ),
                                                                    1910.1051(m)(4)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1051,
                                                                    appendix F.
                1218-0179................  Methylene Chloride (29  1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F
                                            CFR 1910.1052).         ),
                                                                    1910.1052(m)(2)(iii)
                                                                    (C),
                                                                    1910.1052(m)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1910.1051,
                                                                    appendix B.
                1218-0266................  Respirable Crystalline  1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G
                                            Silica Standards for    ),
                                            General Industry,       1910.1053(k)(3)(ii)(
                                            Shipyard Employment     A),
                                            and Marine Terminals    1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(
                                            (29 CFR 1910.1053)      G),
                                            and Construction (29    1926.1153(j)(3)(ii)(
                                            CFR 1926.1153).         A).
                1218-0195................  Asbestos in Shipyards   1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F
                                            Standard (29 CFR        ),
                                            1915.1001).             1915.1001(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1915.1001,
                                                                    appendix D.
                1218-0134................  Asbestos in             1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F
                                            Construction (29 CFR    ),
                                            1926.1101).             1926.1101(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A), 1926.1101,
                                                                    appendix D.
                1218-0186................  Cadmium in              1926.1127(d)(2)(iv),
                                            Construction Standard   1926.1127(n)(1)(ii)(
                                            (29 CFR 1926.1127).     B),
                                                                    1926.1127(n)(3)(ii)(
                                                                    A).
                1218-0183................  4,4'-                   1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F),
                                            Methylenedianiline      1926.60(o)(5)(ii)(A)
                                            (MDA) in Construction   .
                                            (29 CFR 1926.60).
                [[Page 21456]]
                
                1218-0189................  Lead in Construction    1926.62(d)(5),
                                            Standard (29 CFR        1926.62(n)(1)(ii)(D)
                                            1926.62).               ,
                                                                    1926.62(n)(2)(ii)(A)
                                                                    ,
                                                                    1926.62(n)(3)(ii)(A)
                                                                    , 1926.62, appendix
                                                                    B.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    In addition to the above-described changes, the agency made
                adjustments to some ICRs to reflect ongoing PRA interpretations that
                may result in a minor change to the burden hours and/or costs; these
                changes are not a result of this rulemaking. For example, the agency
                has determined that the requirement for employers to make records
                available upon request to the Assistant Secretary is no longer
                considered a collection of information. OSHA typically requests access
                to records during an inspection, and information collected by the
                agency during the investigation is not subject to the PRA under 5 CFR
                1320.4(a)(2). While NIOSH may use records collected from employers for
                research purposes, the agency does not anticipate that NIOSH will
                request employers to make available records during the approval period.
                Therefore, the burden for the employer to make this information
                available to NIOSH is zero where before the burden may have been one
                hour.
                VII. Federalism
                    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive
                Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10,
                1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
                refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior
                to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and
                take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and
                the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for
                preemption of State law only with the express consent of Congress.
                Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
                    Under section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that
                States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
                enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
                obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State
                Plans'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards
                developed by State Plans must be at least as effective in providing
                safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
                standards.
                    While OSHA drafted this rule to protect employees in every State,
                Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State Plans to develop and
                enforce their own standards, provided the requirements in these
                standards are at least as safe and healthful as the requirements
                specified in this final rule.
                    In summary, this rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In
                States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from
                this final rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as
                every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State
                Plans, this final rule would not significantly limit State policy
                options.
                VIII. State Plans
                    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
                amendment to an existing standard, OSHA-approved State Plans must
                either amend their standards to be ``at least as effective as'' the new
                standard or amendment, or show that an existing state standard covering
                this area is already ``at least as effective'' as the new Federal
                standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). State Plan adoption must be
                completed within six months of the promulgation date of the final
                Federal rule. OSHA concludes that this final rule, by revising
                confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent standards, will
                increase the protection afforded to employees while reducing the
                compliance burden of employers. Therefore, within six months of the
                rule's promulgation date, State Plans must adopt amendments to their
                standards that are ``at least as effective,'' unless they demonstrate
                that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards
                are already ``at least as effective'' in protecting workers as this
                final rule.
                    The 28 OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
                Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
                Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New
                York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
                Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. The
                Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and the Virgin
                Islands State Plans cover state and local government employees only,
                while the rest cover the private sector and state and local government
                employees.
                IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
                    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Unfunded
                Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and
                Executive Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As discussed in section IV
                (``Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
                Analysis'') of this document, the agency determined that this final
                rule has one revision with estimated annual new costs of $32,440 but
                all revisions would result in approximately $6.1 million per year in
                overall (net) cost savings to regulated entities.
                    The agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments
                except in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved
                by the agency. Consequently, this rule does not meet the definition of
                a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see section 421(5) of the UMRA
                (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the agency
                certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, local, or
                tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or
                increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million
                in any year.
                X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health
                    OSHA must consult with the ACCSH whenever the agency proposes a
                rulemaking that involves the occupational safety and health of
                construction employees (29 CFR 1911.10, 1912.3). Accordingly, prior to
                the dates of meetings listed below, OSHA distributed to the ACCSH
                members for their review a copy of the proposed revisions that applied
                to construction, as well as a brief summary and explanation of these
                revisions. At the regular meetings on December 15-16, 2011; May 10-11,
                2012; November 29, 2012; March 18, 2013; May 23, 2013; August 22, 2013;
                May 7-8, 2014; December 3-4, 2014; and December 2, 2015, OSHA staff
                presented summaries of the material provided to ACCSH members earlier
                and responded to the members' questions. The ACCSH
                [[Page 21457]]
                subsequently recommended that OSHA publish the proposal.
                List of Subjects
                29 CFR Part 1904
                    Recordkeeping.
                29 CFR Part 1910
                    Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Pulmonary--
                function testing, Social Security numbers on records.
                29 CFR Part 1915
                    Chest X-ray requirements, Incorporation by reference, Sanitation,
                Social Security numbers on records.
                29 CFR Part 1926
                    Airborne contaminants, Chest X-ray requirements, Coke oven
                emissions, Diesel equipment, Emergency services, Incorporation by
                reference, Lanyards, Load limits, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
                Devices (MUCTD), Personal protective equipment (PPE), Process safety
                management (PSM), Roll-over protective structures (ROPs), Social
                Security numbers on records.
                Authority and Signature
                    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
                Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation
                of this document pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
                Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part
                1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
                    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
                ________________________________
                Loren Sweatt,
                Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
                Amendments to Standards
                    For the reasons stated in the preamble of this final rule, the
                Occupational Safety and Health Administration amends 29 CFR parts 1904,
                1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:
                PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND
                ILLNESSES
                0
                1. Revise the authority citation for part 1904 to read as follows:
                    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of
                Labor's Orders No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017) and 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
                applicable, and 5 U.S.C. 553.
                Subpart C--Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria
                0
                2. Revise paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1904.10 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1904.10  Recording criteria for cases involving occupational
                hearing loss.
                * * * * *
                    (b) * * *
                    (6) If a physician or other licensed health care professional
                determines the hearing loss is not work-related, do I still need to
                record the case? If a physician or other licensed health care
                professional determines, following the rules set out in Sec.  1904.5,
                that the hearing loss is not work-related or that occupational noise
                exposure did not significantly aggravate the hearing loss, you do not
                have to consider the case work-related or record the case on the OSHA
                300 Log.
                * * * * *
                PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
                Subpart A--General
                0
                3. The authority citation for part 1910, subpart A, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
                No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
                (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR
                65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR
                3912), as applicable.
                    Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8, and 1910.9 also issued under 29
                CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29
                U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222);
                Pub. L. 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993)
                (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
                0
                4. Amend Sec.  1910.6 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4).
                0
                b. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (z) as follows:
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Old paragraph                                                                                                                                                                   New paragraph
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (i) through (o).......................  (j) through (p).
                (p) through (x).......................  (s) through (aa).
                (y)...................................  (r).
                (z)...................................  (bb).
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                0
                c. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (q).
                    The revisions and additions read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.6   Incorporation by reference.
                    (a) * * *
                    (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this
                part and an official historic file of such changes are available for
                inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the
                Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
                Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
                889-5627).
                    (3) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
                reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
                Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
                To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
                must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
                be available to the public.
                    (4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
                private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
                issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
                information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
                addition, these standards are available for inspection at any Regional
                Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
                at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
                Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
                (TTY number: 877-889-5627). They are also available for inspection at
                the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
                information on the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone:
                202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
                * * * * *
                    (i) The following material is available at the American Thoracic
                Society (ATS), 25 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004; website:
                www.atsjournals.org/.
                    (1) Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S.
                Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of
                Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159:179-187, 1999, IBR approved
                for Sec.  1910.1043(h).
                    (2) [Reserved]
                * * * * *
                    (q) The following material is available from the International
                Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des
                [[Page 21458]]
                Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve 22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22
                799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798 8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
                    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
                of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
                safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
                1910.1001.
                    (2) [Reserved]
                * * * * *
                Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
                0
                5. Revise the authority citation for part 1910, subpart Z, to read as
                follows:
                    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
                No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
                (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72
                FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
                applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
                    All of subpart Z issued under 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those
                substances that have exposure limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and
                Z-3 of Sec.  1910.1000. The latter were issued under 29 U.S.C.
                655(a).
                    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5
                U.S.C. 553, but not under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic
                (organic compounds), benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI)
                listings.
                    Section 1910.1001 also issued under 40 U.S.C. 3704 and 5 U.S.C.
                553.
                    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under
                29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
                    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under
                29 U.S.C. 653.
                    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Public Law 106-430, 114
                Stat. 1901.
                    Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
                U.S.C. 553.
                0
                6. Amend Sec.  1910.1001 by revising paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and
                (l)(3)(ii), the heading to Table 1, and appendices D and E and H,
                sections III and IV, to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1001  Asbestos.
                * * * * *
                    (l) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and
                work history; a complete physical examination of all systems with
                emphasis on the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and
                digestive tract; completion of the respiratory disease standardized
                questionnaire in appendix D to this section, part 1; a 14- by 17-inch
                or other reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior
                chest X-ray; pulmonary function tests to include forced vital capacity
                (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1); and
                any additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician.
                Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance
                with appendix E to this section.
                    (3) * * *
                    (ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance
                with the protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section,
                except that the frequency of chest X-rays shall be conducted in
                accordance with Table 1 to this section, and the abbreviated
                standardized questionnaire contained in part 2 of appendix D to this
                section shall be administered to the employee.
                    Table 1 to Sec.  1910.1001--Frequency of Chest X-ray
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21459]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.000
                [[Page 21460]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.001
                [[Page 21461]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.002
                [[Page 21462]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.003
                [[Page 21463]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.004
                [[Page 21464]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.005
                [[Page 21465]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.006
                [[Page 21466]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.007
                [[Page 21467]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.008
                [[Page 21468]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.009
                [[Page 21469]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.010
                [[Page 21470]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.011
                [[Page 21471]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.012
                [[Page 21472]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.013
                [[Page 21473]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.014
                [[Page 21474]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.015
                [[Page 21475]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.016
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                Appendix E to Sec.  1910.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
                Mandatory
                    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
                Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
                Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
                by reference, see Sec.  1910.6), and recorded on a classification
                form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
                minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
                through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
                NIOSH.
                    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
                eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
                known expertise in pneumoconioses.
                    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
                have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
                standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
                the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
                    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
                physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
                set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
                use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
                Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
                2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
                based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
                shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
                transparencies of images.
                * * * * *
                Appendix H to Sec.  1910.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
                Asbestos Non-Mandatory
                * * * * *
                III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
                    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
                induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
                X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
                plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
                show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
                Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
                pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
                average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
                15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to
                [[Page 21476]]
                be found among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an
                early age. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
                    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
                asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
                coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis
                worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of
                asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to
                asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities,
                end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of
                fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be
                observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease
                even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to
                be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death
                may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.
                IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
                    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
                has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
                gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
                workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
                potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as cancer,
                from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
                tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
                indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
                increasing his or her risk of developing exposure-related chronic
                diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
                the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
                is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
                medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
                When an active employee has been identified as having been
                overexposed to asbestos, measures taken by the employer to eliminate
                or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
                long-term consequences.
                    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
                program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
                or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic
                centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be
                performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a
                reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
                    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
                specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
                OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
                examination:
                    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
                symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
                digestive tract.
                    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
                contained in appendix D of this section.
                    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
                pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
                forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
                second (FEV1).
                    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
                deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
                    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
                at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
                specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
                termination of employment.
                    The employer is required to provide the physician with the
                following information: A copy of the standard in this section
                (including all appendices to this section); a description of the
                employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
                employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
                description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
                used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
                affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
                Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
                evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
                and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
                    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
                examining physician containing the results of the medical
                examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
                any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
                increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
                limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
                equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
                the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
                medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
                explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
                specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
                and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
                * * * * *
                0
                7. Amend Sec.  1910.1018 by revising paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)(A) and
                (n)(3)(i) and (ii), appendix A, section VI, and appendix C, section I,
                to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.
                * * * * *
                    (n) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) * * *
                    (A) A standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
                * * * * *
                    (3) * * *
                    (i) Examinations must be provided in accordance with paragraphs
                (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least annually.
                    (ii) Whenever a covered employee has not taken the examinations
                specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this
                section within six (6) months preceding the termination of employment,
                the employer shall provide such examinations to the employee upon
                termination of employment.
                * * * * *
                Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1018--Inorganic Arsenic Substance Information
                Sheet
                * * * * *
                VI. Medical Examinations
                    If your exposure to arsenic is over the Action Level (5 [mu]g/
                m3)--(including all persons working in regulated areas) at least 30
                days per year, or you have been exposed to arsenic for more than 10
                years over the Action Level, your employer is required to provide
                you with a medical examination. The examination shall be every 6
                months for employees over 45 years old or with more than 10 years
                exposure over the Action Level and annually for other covered
                employees. The medical examination must include a medical history; a
                chest X-ray (during initial examination only); skin examination and
                a nasal examination. The examining physician will provide a written
                opinion to your employer containing the results of the medical
                exams. You should also receive a copy of this opinion. The physician
                must not tell your employer any conditions he detects unrelated to
                occupational exposure to arsenic but must tell you those conditions.
                * * * * *
                Appendix C to Sec.  1910.1018--Medical Surveillance Guidelines
                I. General
                    Medical examinations are to be provided for all employees
                exposed to levels of inorganic arsenic above the action level (5
                [mu]g/m3) for at least 30 days per year (which would include among
                others, all employees, who work in regulated areas). Examinations
                are also to be provided to all employees who have had 10 years or
                more exposure above the action level for more than 30 days per year
                while working for the present or predecessor employer though they
                may no longer be exposed above the level.
                    An initial medical examination is to be provided to all such
                employees by December 1, 1978. In addition, an initial medical
                examination is to be provided to all employees who are first
                assigned to areas in which worker exposure will probably exceed 5
                [mu]g/m3 (after August 1, 1978) at the time of initial assignment.
                In addition to its immediate diagnostic usefulness, the initial
                examination will provide a baseline for comparing future test
                results. The initial examination must include as a minimum the
                following elements:
                    (1) A work and medical history, including a smoking history, and
                presence and degree of respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness,
                cough, sputum production, and wheezing;
                    (2) A 14'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized standard film or
                digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
                    (3) A nasal and skin examination; and
                    (4) Other examinations which the physician believes appropriate
                because of the employee's exposure to inorganic arsenic or because
                of required respirator use.
                [[Page 21477]]
                    Periodic examinations are also to be provided to the employees
                listed in the first paragraph of this section. The periodic
                examinations shall be given annually for those covered employees 45
                years of age or less with fewer than 10 years employment in areas
                where employee exposure exceeds the action level (5 [mu]g/m\3\).
                Periodic examinations need not include sputum cytology or chest X-
                ray and only an updated medical history is required.
                    Periodic examinations for other covered employees shall be
                provided every six (6) months. These examinations shall include all
                tests required in the initial examination, except the chest X-ray,
                and the medical history need only be updated.
                    The examination contents are minimum requirements. Additional
                tests such as lateral and oblique X-rays or pulmonary function tests
                may be useful. For workers exposed to three arsenicals which are
                associated with lymphatic cancer, copper acetoarsenite, potassium
                arsenite, or sodium arsenite the examination should also include
                palpation of superficial lymph nodes and complete blood count.
                * * * * *
                0
                8. Amend Sec.  1910.1027 by revising paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) and
                appendix D to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1027  Cadmium.
                * * * * *
                    (l) * * *
                    (4) * * *
                    (ii) * * *
                    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
                digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the
                frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining
                physician);
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21478]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.017
                [[Page 21479]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.018
                [[Page 21480]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.019
                [[Page 21481]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.020
                [[Page 21482]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.021
                [[Page 21483]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.022
                [[Page 21484]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.023
                [[Page 21485]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.024
                [[Page 21486]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.025
                [[Page 21487]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.026
                [[Page 21488]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.027
                [[Page 21489]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.028
                [[Page 21490]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.029
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                * * * * *
                0
                9. Amend Sec.  1910.1029 by revising paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (j)(3),
                appendix A, section VI, and appendix B, section II(A), to read as
                follows:
                Sec.  1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.
                * * * * *
                    (j) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
                digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray;
                * * * * *
                    (3) Periodic examinations. (i) The employer shall provide the
                examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vi)
                of this section at least annually for employees covered under paragraph
                (j)(1)(i) of this section.
                    (ii) The employer must provide the examinations specified in
                paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least
                annually for employees 45 years of age or older or with five (5) or
                more years employment in the regulated area.
                    (iii) Whenever an employee who is 45 years of age or older or with
                five (5) or more years employment in a regulated area transfers or is
                transferred from employment in a regulated area, the employer must
                continue to provide the examinations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)
                and (iii) through (vii) of this section at least annually as long as
                that employee is employed by the same employer or a successor employer.
                * * * * *
                Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1029--Coke Oven Emissions Substance
                Information Sheet
                * * * * *
                VI. Medical Examinations
                    If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year, your
                employer is required to provide you with a medical examination every
                year. The initial medical examination must include a medical
                history, a chest X-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison,
                skin examination, a urinalysis, and a urine cytology exam for early
                detection of urinary cancer. Periodic examinations shall include all
                tests required in the initial examination, except that (1) the x-ray
                is to be performed during initial examination only and (2) the urine
                cytologic test is to be performed only on those employees who are 45
                years or older or who have worked for 5 or more years in the
                regulated area. The examining physician will provide a written
                opinion to your employer containing the results of the medical
                exams. You should also receive a copy of this opinion.
                * * * * *
                Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1029--Industrial Hygiene and Medical
                Surveillance Guidelines
                * * * * *
                II. Medical Surveillance Guidelines
                    A. General. The minimum requirements for the medical examination
                for coke oven workers are given in the standard in paragraph (j) of
                this section. The initial examination is to be provided to all coke
                oven workers who work at least 30 days in the regulated area. The
                examination includes a 14'' by 17'' or other reasonably-sized
                standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray reading,
                pulmonary function tests (FVC and FEV1), weight,
                urinalysis, skin examination, and a urinary cytologic examination.
                These tests are needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the
                employee's future test results. Periodic exams include all the
                elements of the initial exams, except that (1) the x-ray is to be
                performed during initial examination only and (2) the urine
                cytologic test is to be performed only on those employees who are 45
                years or older or who have worked for 5 or more years in the
                regulated area. The examination contents are minimum requirements;
                additional tests such as lateral and oblique X-rays or additional
                pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed necessary.
                * * * * *
                0
                10. Amend Sec.  1910.1043 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (h)(3)(ii), and (n)(1) and
                appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III; and
                0
                b. Removing and reserving appendix C; and
                0
                c. Revising appendix D.
                    The revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1043   Cotton dust.
                * * * * *
                    (h) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (iii) A pulmonary function measurement, including forced vital
                capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second
                (FEV1), and determination of the FEV1/FVC ratio
                shall be made. FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC ratio
                values shall be compared to appropriate race/ethnicity-specific Lower
                Limit of Normal (LLN) values and predicted values published in
                Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S.
                Population, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
                159(1): 179-187, January 1999 (commonly known as the NHANES III
                reference data set) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1910.6). To
                obtain reference values for Asian-Americans, Spirometric Reference
                Values FEV1 and FVC predicted and LLN values for Caucasians
                shall be multiplied by 0.88 to adjust for ethnic differences. These
                determinations shall be made for each employee before the employee
                enters the workplace on the first day of the work week, preceded by at
                least 35 hours of no exposure to cotton dust. The tests shall be
                repeated during the shift, no less than 4 and no more than 10 hours
                after the beginning of the work shift; and, in any event, no more than
                one hour after cessation of exposure. Such exposure shall be typical of
                the employee's usual workplace exposure.
                * * * * *
                    (3) * * *
                [[Page 21491]]
                    (ii) Medical surveillance as required in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of
                this section shall be provided every six months for all employees in
                the following categories:
                    (A) An FEV1 greater than the LLN, but with an
                FEV1 decrement of 5 percent or 200 ml. on a first working
                day;
                    (B) An FEV1 of less than the LLN; or
                    (C) Where, in the opinion of the physician, any significant change
                in questionnaire findings, pulmonary function results, or other
                diagnostic tests have occurred.
                * * * * *
                    (n) * * *
                    (1) Appendices B and D of this section are incorporated as part of
                this section and the contents of these appendices are mandatory.
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21492]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.030
                [[Page 21493]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.031
                [[Page 21494]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.032
                [[Page 21495]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.033
                [[Page 21496]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.034
                [[Page 21497]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.035
                [[Page 21498]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.036
                [[Page 21499]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.037
                [[Page 21500]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.038
                [[Page 21501]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.039
                [[Page 21502]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.040
                [[Page 21503]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.041
                [[Page 21504]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.042
                [[Page 21505]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.043
                [[Page 21506]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.044
                [[Page 21507]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.045
                [[Page 21508]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.046
                [[Page 21509]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.047
                [[Page 21510]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.048
                [[Page 21511]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.049
                [[Page 21512]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.050
                [[Page 21513]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.051
                [[Page 21514]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.052
                [[Page 21515]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.053
                [[Page 21516]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.054
                [[Page 21517]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.055
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                Appendix C to Sec.  1910.1043 [Reserved]
                Appendix D to Sec.  1910.1043--Pulmonary Function Standards for Cotton
                Dust Standard
                    The spirometric measurements of pulmonary function shall conform
                to the following minimum standards, and these standards are not
                intended to preclude additional testing or alternate methods which
                can be determined to be superior.
                I. Apparatus
                    a. The instrument shall be accurate to within 50
                milliliters or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is
                greater.
                    b. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 should be
                capable of measuring vital capacity from 0 to 7 liters BTPS
                    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 should be capable of
                measuring vital capacity from 0 to 8 liters BTPS.
                    c. The instrument shall have a low inertia and offer low
                resistance to airflow such that the resistance to airflow at 12
                liters per second must be less than 1.5 cm H2 O/(liter/
                sec).
                    d. The zero time point for the purpose of timing the
                FEV1 shall be determined by extrapolating the steepest
                portion of the volume time curve back to the maximal inspiration
                volume (1, 2, 3, 4) or by an equivalent method.
                    e. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 that
                incorporate measurements of airflow to determine volume shall
                conform to the same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this
                section I when presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 12
                liters per second.
                    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 that incorporate
                measurements of airflow to determine volume shall conform to the
                same volume accuracy stated in paragraph (a) of this section I when
                presented with flow rates from at least 0 to 14 liters per second.
                    f. The instrument or user of the instrument must have a means of
                correcting volumes to body temperature saturated with water vapor
                (BTPS) under conditions of varying ambient spirometer temperatures
                and barometric pressures.
                    g. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall
                provide a tracing or display of either flow versus volume or volume
                versus time during the entire forced expiration. A tracing or
                display is necessary to determine whether the patient has performed
                the test properly. The tracing must be stored and available for
                recall and must be of sufficient size that hand measurements may be
                made within the volume accuracy requirements of paragraph (a) of
                this section I. If a paper record is made it must have a paper speed
                of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of at least 10.0 mm of
                chart per liter of volume.
                    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall provide during
                testing a paper tracing or real-time display of flow versus volume
                and volume versus time for the entire forced expiration. Such a
                tracing or display is necessary to determine whether the worker has
                performed the test properly. Flow-volume and volume-time curves must
                be stored and available for recall. Real-time displays shall have a
                volume scale of at least 5 mm/L, a time scale of at least 10 mm/s,
                and a flow scale of at least 2.5 mm/L/s, when both flow-volume and
                volume-time displays are visible. If hand measurements will be made,
                paper tracings must be of sufficient size to allow those
                measurements to be made within the volume accuracy requirements of
                paragraph (a) of this section I. If a paper record is made it must
                have a paper speed of at least 2 cm/sec and a volume sensitivity of
                at least 10.0 mm of chart per liter of volume.
                    h. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 shall be
                capable of accumulating volume for a minimum of 10 seconds and shall
                not stop accumulating volume before (i) the volume change for a 0.5-
                second interval is less than 25 milliliters, or (ii) the flow is
                less than 50 milliliters per second for a 0.5 second interval.
                    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 shall be capable of
                accumulating volume for a minimum of 15 seconds and shall not stop
                accumulating volume before the volume change for a 1-second interval
                is less than 25 milliliters.
                    i. The forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume
                in 1 second (FEV1) measurements shall comply with the
                accuracy requirements stated in paragraph (a) of this section. That
                is, they should be accurately measured to within 50 ml
                or within 3 percent of reading, whichever is greater.
                    j. 1. Instruments purchased on or before May 14, 2020 must be
                capable of being calibrated in the field with respect to the
                FEV1 and FVC. This calibration of the FEV1 and
                FVC may be either directly or indirectly through volume and time
                base measurements. The volume calibration source should provide a
                volume displacement of at least 2 liters and should be accurate to
                within + or-30 milliliters.
                    2. Instruments purchased after May 14, 2020 must be capable of
                having its calibration checked in the field and be recalibrated, if
                necessary, if the spirometer requires the technician to do so. The
                volume-calibration syringe shall provide a volume displacement of at
                least 3 liters and shall be accurate to within  0.5
                percent of 3 liters (15 milliliters).
                II. Technique for Measurement of Forced Vital Capacity Maneuver
                    a. Use of a nose clip is recommended but not required. The
                procedures shall be explained in simple terms to the worker who
                shall be instructed to loosen any tight clothing and stand in front
                of the apparatus. The worker may sit, but care should be taken on
                repeat testing that the same position be used and, if possible, the
                same spirometer. Particular attention shall be given to ensure that
                the chin is slightly elevated with the neck slightly extended. The
                worker shall be instructed to make a full inspiration from a normal
                breathing pattern and then blow into the apparatus, without
                interruption, as hard, fast, and completely as possible. At least
                three and no more than eight forced expirations shall be carried
                out. During the maneuvers, the worker shall be observed for
                compliance with instruction. The expirations shall be checked
                visually for technical acceptability and repeatability from flow-
                volume or volume-time tracings or displays. The following efforts
                shall be judged technically unacceptable when the worker:
                [[Page 21518]]
                    1. Has not reached full inspiration preceding the forced
                expiration,
                    2. Has not used maximal effort during the entire forced
                expiration,
                    3. Has not tried to exhale continuously for at least 6 seconds
                and the volume-time curve shows no change in volume (1s of the satisfactory tracings shall
                not exceed 150 milliliters.
                    b. Calibration checks of the volume accuracy of the instrument
                for recording FVC and FEV1 shall be performed daily or
                more frequently if specified by the spirometer manufacturer, using a
                3-liter syringe. Calibration checks to ensure that the spirometer is
                recording 3 liters of injected air to within 3.5
                percent, or 2.90 to 3.10 liters, shall be conducted. Calibration
                checks of flow-type spirometers shall include injection of 3 liters
                air over a range of speeds, with injection times of 0.5 second, 3
                seconds, and 6 or more seconds. Checks of volume-type spirometers
                shall include a single calibration check and a check to verify that
                the spirometer is not leaking more than 30 milliliters/minute air.
                III. Interpretation of Spirogram
                    a. The first step in evaluating a spirogram should be to
                determine whether or not the worker has performed the test properly
                or as described in section II of this appendix. From the three
                satisfactory tracings, the forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced
                expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) shall be measured
                and recorded. The largest observed FVC and largest observed
                FEV1 shall be used in the analysis regardless of the
                curve(s) on which they occur.
                    b. [Reserved]
                IV. Qualifications of Personnel Administering the Test
                    Technicians who perform pulmonary function testing should have
                the basic knowledge required to produce meaningful results. Training
                consisting of approximately 16 hours of formal instruction should
                cover the following areas.
                    a. Basic physiology of the forced vital-capacity maneuver and
                the determinants of airflow limitation, with emphasis on the
                relation to repeatability of results.
                    b. Instrumentation requirements, including calibration check
                procedures, sources of error, and their correction.
                    c. Performance of the testing including worker coaching,
                recognition of improperly performed maneuvers and corrective
                actions.
                    d. Data quality with emphasis on repeatability.
                    e. Actual use of the equipment under supervised conditions.
                    f. Measurement of tracings and calculations of results.
                0
                11. Revise paragraphs (n)(2)(iii) and (n)(3)(i) and (ii) of Sec.
                1910.1045 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1045   Acrylonitrile.
                * * * * *
                    (n) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (iii) A 14- by 17-inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
                digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray; and
                * * * * *
                    (3) * * *
                    (i) The employer shall provide the examinations specified in
                paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section at least annually
                for all employees specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section.
                    (ii) If an employee has not had the examination specified in
                paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section within 6 months
                preceding termination of employment, the employer shall make such
                examination available to the employee prior to such termination.
                * * * * *
                0
                12. Revise appendix D of Sec.  1910.1048 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1048   Formaldehyde.
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21519]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.056
                [[Page 21520]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.057
                [[Page 21521]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.058
                [[Page 21522]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.059
                [[Page 21523]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.060
                [[Page 21524]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.061
                [[Page 21525]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.062
                [[Page 21526]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.063
                [[Page 21527]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.064
                0
                13. Revise appendix F of Sec.  1910.1051 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1910.1051   1,3-Butadiene.
                * * * * *
                [[Page 21528]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.066
                [[Page 21529]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.067
                [[Page 21530]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.068
                [[Page 21531]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.069
                [[Page 21532]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.070
                [[Page 21533]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.071
                [[Page 21534]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.072
                [[Page 21535]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.073
                [[Page 21536]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.074
                [[Page 21537]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.075
                [[Page 21538]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.077
                [[Page 21539]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.078
                [[Page 21540]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.079
                [[Page 21541]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.080
                [[Page 21542]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.081
                [[Page 21543]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.082
                [[Page 21544]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.083
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                0
                14. Revise appendix B, section IV, of Sec.  1910.1052 to read as
                follows:
                Sec.  1910.1052  Methylene chloride.
                * * * * *
                Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1052--Medical Surveillance for Methylene
                Chloride
                * * * * *
                IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
                    As discussed in sections II and III of this appendix, MC is
                classified as a suspect or potential human carcinogen. It is a
                central nervous system (CNS) depressant and a skin, eye and
                respiratory tract irritant. At extremely high concentrations, MC has
                caused liver damage in animals. MC principally affects the CNS,
                where it acts as a narcotic. The observation of the symptoms
                characteristic of CNS depression, along with a physical examination,
                provides the best detection of early neurological disorders. Since
                exposure to MC also increases the carboxyhemoglobin level in the
                blood, ambient carbon monoxide levels would have an additive effect
                on that carboxyhemoglobin level. Based on such information, a
                periodic post-shift carboxyhemoglobin test as an index of the
                presence of carbon monoxide in the blood is recommended, but not
                required, for medical surveillance.
                    Based on the animal evidence and three epidemiologic studies
                previously mentioned, OSHA concludes that MC is a suspect human
                carcinogen. The medical surveillance program is designed to observe
                exposed workers on a regular basis. While the medical surveillance
                program cannot detect MC-induced cancer at a preneoplastic stage,
                OSHA anticipates that, as in the past, early detection and
                treatments of cancers leading to enhanced survival rates will
                continue to evolve.
                A. Medical and Occupational History
                    The medical and occupational work history plays an important
                role in the initial evaluation of workers exposed to MC. It is
                therefore extremely important for the examining physician or other
                licensed health care professional to evaluate the MC-exposed worker
                carefully and completely and to focus the examination on MC's
                potentially associated health hazards. The medical evaluation must
                include an annual detailed work and medical history with special
                emphasis on cardiac history and neurological symptoms.
                    An important goal of the medical history is to elicit
                information from the worker regarding potential signs or symptoms
                associated with increased levels of carboxyhemoglobin due to the
                presence of carbon monoxide in the blood. Physicians or other
                licensed health care professionals should ensure that the smoking
                history of all MC exposed employees is known. Exposure to MC may
                cause a significant increase in carboxyhemoglobin level in all
                exposed persons. However, smokers as well as workers with anemia or
                heart disease and those concurrently exposed to carbon monoxide are
                at especially high risk of toxic effects because of an already
                reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
                    A comprehensive or interim medical and work history should also
                include occurrence of headache, dizziness, fatigue, chest pain,
                shortness of breath, pain in the limbs, and irritation of the skin
                and eyes.
                    In addition, it is important for the physician or other licensed
                health care professional to become familiar with the operating
                conditions in which exposure to MC is likely to occur. The physician
                or other licensed health care professional also must become familiar
                with the signs and symptoms that may indicate that a worker is
                receiving otherwise unrecognized and exceptionally high exposure
                levels of MC.
                    An example of a medical and work history that would satisfy the
                requirement for a comprehensive or interim work history is
                represented by the following:
                    The following is a list of recommended questions and issues for
                the self-administered questionnaire for methylene chloride exposure.
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21545]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.084
                [[Page 21546]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.085
                [[Page 21547]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.086
                [[Page 21548]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.087
                [[Page 21549]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.088
                [[Page 21550]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.089
                [[Page 21551]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.090
                [[Page 21552]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.091
                [[Page 21553]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.092
                [[Page 21554]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.093
                [[Page 21555]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.094
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                * * * * *
                PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
                EMPLOYMENT
                0
                15. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:
                    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
                Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754); 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
                FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
                50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
                55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553,
                as applicable.
                    Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR part
                1911.
                Subpart A--General Provisions
                0
                16. Amend Sec.  1915.5 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c).
                0
                b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as follows:
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Old paragraph                        New paragraph
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (d)(1)....................................  (d).
                (d)(1)(i) through (xiii)..................  (d)(1) through (13).
                (d)(1)(vi)(A) through (C).................  (d)(6)(i) through (iii).
                (d)(1)(vii)(A) through (C)................  (d)(7)(i) through (iii).
                (d)(1)(viii)(A) through (C)...............  (d)(8)(i) through (iii).
                (d)(2)....................................  (e).
                (d)(2)(i).................................  (e)(1).
                (d)(3)....................................  (f).
                (d)(3)(i).................................  (f)(1).
                (d)(4)....................................  (i).
                (d)(4)(i) through (xviii).................  (i)(1) though (18).
                (d)(5)....................................  (g).
                (d)(5)(i) and (ii)........................  (g)(1) and (2).
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                0
                c. In newly redesignated paragraph (d) introductory text, removing
                ``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph
                (d).''
                0
                d. Adding reserved paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2).
                0
                e. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing
                ``below in this paragraph'' and adding in its place ``in this paragraph
                (g).''
                0
                f. Adding paragraph (h).
                    The revisions and additions read as follows:
                Sec.  1915.5   Incorporation by reference.
                * * * * *
                    (b)(1) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
                reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
                Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
                To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
                must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
                be available to the public.
                    (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this
                part and an official historic file of such changes are available for
                inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the
                Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
                Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-
                889-5627).
                    (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
                private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
                issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
                information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
                addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional
                Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
                at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
                Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
                (TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for
                inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
                For information on the availability of these standards at NARA,
                telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
                * * * * *
                    (h) The following material is available from the International
                Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve
                22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798
                8685; website: www.ilo.org/.
                    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
                of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
                safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
                1915.1001.
                    (2) [Reserved]
                * * * * *
                Subpart F--General Working Conditions
                0
                17. Revise paragraph (b)(33) of Sec.  1915.80 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1915.80   Scope, application, definitions, and effective dates.
                * * * * *
                    (b) * * *
                    (33) Vermin. Insects, birds, rodents and other animals that may
                create safety and health hazards for employees.
                * * * * *
                Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
                0
                18. Amend Sec.  1915.1001 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and
                appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV, to read as follows:
                Sec.  1915.1001   Asbestos.
                * * * * *
                    (m) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) * * *
                    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and
                gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other
                reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
                ray to be administered at the discretion of the
                [[Page 21556]]
                physician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC)
                and forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1).
                Classification of all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance
                with appendix E to this section.
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21557]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.095
                [[Page 21558]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.096
                [[Page 21559]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.097
                [[Page 21560]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.098
                [[Page 21561]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.099
                [[Page 21562]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.100
                [[Page 21563]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.101
                [[Page 21564]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.102
                [[Page 21565]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.103
                [[Page 21566]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.104
                [[Page 21567]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.105
                [[Page 21568]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.106
                [[Page 21569]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.107
                [[Page 21570]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.108
                [[Page 21571]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.109
                [[Page 21572]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.110
                [[Page 21573]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.111
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
                Appendix E to Sec.  1915.1001--Classification of Chest X-Rays.
                Mandatory
                    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
                Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
                Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
                by reference, see Sec.  1915.5), and recorded on a classification
                form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
                minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
                through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
                NIOSH.
                    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
                eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
                known expertise in pneumoconioses.
                    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
                have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
                standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
                the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
                    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
                physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
                set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
                use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
                Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
                2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
                based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
                shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
                transparencies of images.
                * * * * *
                Appendix I to Sec.  1915.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
                Asbestos, Non-Mandatory
                * * * * *
                III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
                    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
                induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
                X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
                plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
                show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
                Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
                pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
                average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
                15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found
                among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age.
                Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
                    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
                asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
                coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of
                [[Page 21574]]
                sickness. When the fibrosis worsens, shortness of breath occurs even
                at rest. The diagnosis of asbestosis is most commonly based on a
                history of exposure to asbestos, the presence of characteristic
                radiologic abnormalities, end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and
                other clinical features of fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques
                and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often
                a progressive disease even in the absence of continued exposure,
                although this appears to be a highly individualized characteristic.
                In severe cases, death may be caused by respiratory or cardiac
                failure.
                IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
                    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
                have been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
                gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
                workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
                potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer,
                from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
                tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
                indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
                increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic
                diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
                the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
                is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
                medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
                When an active employee has been identified as having been
                overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate
                or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
                long-term consequences.
                    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
                program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
                or above the permissible exposure limits (0.1 fiber per cubic
                centimeter of air) for 30 or more days per year and for all
                employees who are assigned to wear a negative-pressure respirator.
                All examinations and procedures must be performed by or under the
                supervision of licensed physician at a reasonable time and place,
                and at no cost to the employee.
                    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
                specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
                OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
                examination,
                    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
                symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
                digestive tract.
                    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
                contained in appendix D to this section.
                    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
                pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
                forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
                second (FEV1).
                    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
                deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
                    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
                at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
                specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
                termination of employment.
                    The employer is required to provide the physician with the
                following information: A copy of the standard in this section
                (including all appendices to this section); a description of the
                employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
                employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
                description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
                used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
                affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
                Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
                evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
                and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
                    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
                examining physician containing the results of the medical
                examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
                any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
                increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
                limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
                equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
                the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
                medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
                explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
                specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
                and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
                * * * * *
                PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
                Subpart A--General
                0
                19. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart A, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657;
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
                2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
                5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912),
                as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
                0
                20. Amend Sec.  1926.6 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c).
                0
                b. Redesignating paragraphs (g) through (ff) as follows:
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Old paragraphs                       New paragraphs
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (g) and (h)...............................  (d) and (e).
                (j).......................................  (g).
                (k).......................................  (i).
                (l).......................................  (h).
                (m) through (p)...........................  (j) through (m).
                (u) through (w)...........................  (n) through (p).
                (x) and (y)...............................  (r) and (s).
                (aa)......................................  (t).
                (dd) and (ee).............................  (u) and (v).
                (ff)......................................  (f).
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                0
                c. Adding reserved paragraph (d)(2).
                0
                d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) and removing
                newly redesignated (f)(3) and (4).
                0
                e. Adding reserved paragraphs (i)(2), (l)(2), and (m)(2).
                0
                f. Revising newly designating paragraph (n).
                0
                g. Adding reserved paragraph (o)(2).
                0
                h. Adding paragraph (q).
                0
                i. Further redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (r)(1) through
                (3) as paragraphs (r)(4) through (6) and adding new paragraphs (r)(1)
                through (3).
                0
                j. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (t)(2) and (u).
                0
                k. Adding reserved paragraph (v)(2).
                0
                l. Removing reserved paragraphs (z), (bb), and (cc).
                    The revisions and additions read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.6  Incorporation by reference.
                    (a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government, and
                organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are
                incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect
                as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e.,
                provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language)
                of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under
                the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
                    (b) The standards listed in this section are incorporated by
                reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the
                Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
                To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, OSHA
                must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must
                be available to the public.
                    (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
                private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
                issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
                information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
                addition, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional
                Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or
                at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
                Avenue NW, Room N-3508, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350
                (TTY number: 877-889-5627). These standards are also available for
                inspection at the
                [[Page 21575]]
                National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
                the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030,
                or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
                * * * * *
                    (f) * * *
                    (1) ANSI B15.1-1953 (R1958), Safety Code for Mechanical Power-
                Transmission Apparatus, revised 1958, IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.300(b)(2).
                    (2) ANSI B30.5-1968, Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,
                approved Dec. 16, 1968, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(a).
                * * * * *
                    (n) The following material is available from the Federal Highway
                Administration, United States Department of Transportation, 1200 New
                Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-366-4000;
                website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/:
                    (1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
                Highways, 2009 Edition, December 2009 (including Revision 1 dated May
                2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012), (``MUTCD'') IBR approved for
                Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g) and 1926.201(a).
                    (2) [Reserved]
                * * * * *
                    (q) The following material is available from the International
                Labour Organization (ILO), 4 route des Morillons, CH-1211 Gen[egrave]ve
                22, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 22 799 6111; fax: +41 (0) 22 798
                8685; website://www.ilo.org/:
                    (1) Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International Classification
                of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses, Revised Edition 2011, Occupational
                safety and health series; 22 (Rev.2011), IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.1101.
                    (2) [Reserved]
                    (r) * * *
                    (1) ISO 3471:2008(E), Earth-moving machinery--Roll-over protective
                structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements, Fourth
                Edition, Aug. 8, 2008 (``ISO 3471:2008''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
                1926.1001(c) and 1926.1002(c).
                    (2) ISO 5700:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Roll-
                over protective structures--Static test method and acceptance
                conditions, Fifth Edition, May 1, 2013 (``ISO 5700:2013''), IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1002(c).
                    (3) ISO 27850:2013(E), Tractors for agriculture and forestry--
                Falling object protective structures--Test procedures and performance
                requirements, First Edition, May.01, 2013 (``ISO 27850:2013''), IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1003(c).
                * * * * *
                    (t) * * *
                    (2) PCSA Std. No. 2, Mobile Hydraulic Crane Standards, 1968 (``PCSA
                Std. No. 2 (1968)''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.602(b) and
                1926.1433(a).
                * * * * *
                    (u) The following material is available from the Society of
                Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
                15096; telephone: 1-877-606-7323; fax: 724-776-0790; website:
                www.sae.org/:
                    (1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
                    (2) SAE J166-1971, Trucks and Wagons, IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.602(a).
                    (3) SAE J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
                Procedures and Performance Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1003(b).
                    (4) SAE J168, Protective Enclosures-Test Procedures and Performance
                Requirements, approved July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
                    (5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access Systems for Off-Road
                Machines, reaffirmed May 2003 (``SAE J185 (May 1993)''), IBR approved
                for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
                    (6) SAE J236-1971, Self-Propelled Graders, IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.602(a).
                    (7) SAE J237-1971, Front End Loaders and Dozers, IBR approved for
                Sec.  1926.602(a).
                    (8) SAE J319b-1971, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.602(a).
                    (9) SAE J320a, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, revised
                July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.1001(b).
                    (10) SAE J321a-1970, Fenders for Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving
                Haulage Equipment, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
                    (11) SAE J333a-1970, Operator Protection for Agricultural and Light
                Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
                    (12) SAE J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance
                Requirements, revised July 1970, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(b).
                    (13) SAE J386-1969, Seat Belts for Construction Equipment, IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
                    (14) SAE J394, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Rubber-
                Tired Dozers, approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR
                approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
                    (15) SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders,
                approved July 1969 (editorial change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.
                1926.1001(b).
                    (16) SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Motor Graders, approved July 1969 (editorial
                change July 1970), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
                    (17) SAE J397, Critical Zone Characteristics and Dimensions for
                Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, approved July 1969,
                IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(b).
                    (18) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice Boom Cranes--Method of
                Test, revised Jun. 2003 (``SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)''), IBR approved for
                Sec.  1926.1433(c).
                    (19) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993), Cantilevered Boom Crane
                Structures--Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993 (``SAE J1063 (Nov.
                1993)''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
                * * * * *
                Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
                0
                21. Revise the authority citation for part 1926, subpart D, to read as
                follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; and
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
                2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-
                2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR
                part 1911.
                    Sections 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5
                U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
                    Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5
                U.S.C. 553.
                    Section 1926.62 also issued under sec. 1031, Public Law 102-550,
                106 Stat. 3672 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
                    Section 1926.65 also issued under sec. 126, Public Law 99-499,
                100 Stat. 1614 (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note) and 5 U.S.C. 553.
                0
                22. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.50   Medical services and first aid.
                * * * * *
                    (f)(1) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are not
                available, the telephone numbers of the physicians, hospitals, or
                ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
                    (2) In areas where 911 emergency dispatch services are available
                and an employer uses a communication system for contacting necessary
                emergency-medical service, the employer must:
                    (i) Ensure that the communication system is effective in contacting
                the emergency-medical service; and
                    (ii)(A) When using a communication system in an area that does not
                [[Page 21576]]
                automatically supply the caller's latitude and longitude information to
                the 911 emergency dispatcher, the employer must post in a conspicuous
                location at the worksite either:
                    (1) The latitude and longitude of the worksite; or
                    (2) Other location-identification information that communicates
                effectively to employees the location of the worksite.
                    (B) The requirement specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this
                section does not apply to worksites with readily available telephone
                land lines that have 911 emergency service that automatically
                identifies the location of the caller.
                * * * * *
                0
                23. Amend Sec.  1926.55 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c);
                0
                b. Removing the heading for appendix A;
                0
                c. Designating the table entitled ``Threshold Limit Values of Airborne
                Contaminants for Construction'' as Table 1 to Sec.  1926.55 and
                revising the table heading;
                0
                d. In newly designated Table 1:
                0
                i. Revising the fourth and fifth column headings;
                0
                ii. Removing the entry for ``Asbestos; see 1926.58'' and adding in its
                place the entry ``Asbestos; see Sec.  1926.1101'';
                0
                iii. Removing the entry for ``Coke oven emissions; see Sec.
                1926.1129'';
                0
                iv. Removing the entry for ``Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos
                limit; see 1926.58'' and adding in its place the entry ``Talc
                (containing asbestos); use asbestos limit; see Sec.  1926.1101''; and
                0
                v. Removing the entry for ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see 1926.58'' and
                adding in its place the entry ``Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.
                1926.1101'';
                0
                e. Designating the table entitled ``Mineral Dusts'' as Table 2 to Sec.
                1926.55;
                0
                f. Following newly designated Table 2, removing the word ``Footnotes''
                and adding in its place ``Footnotes to Tables 1 and 2 of this
                section:'';
                0
                g. Revising footnotes 2 and 3;
                0
                h. Removing and reserving footnote 4;
                0
                i. Revising footnote 5 and the footnote designated by a single
                asterisk; and
                0
                j. Removing the footnote designated by double asterisks.
                    The revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.55  Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists.
                    (a) Employers must limit an employee's exposure to any substance
                listed in Table 1 or 2 of this section in accordance with the
                following:
                    (1) Substances with limits preceded by (C)--Ceiling Values. An
                employee's exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to
                any substance in Table 1 of this section with a permissible exposure
                limit preceded by (C) must at no time exceed the exposure limit
                specified for that substance. If instantaneous monitoring is not
                feasible, then the employer must assess the ceiling as a 15-minute
                time-weighted average exposure that the employer cannot exceed at any
                time during the working day.
                    (2) Other substances--8-hour Time Weighted Averages. An employee's
                exposure, as determined from breathing-zone air samples, to any
                substance in Table 1 or 2 of this section with a permissible exposure
                limit not preceded by (C) must not exceed the limit specified for that
                substance measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average in any work
                shift.
                * * * * *
                    (c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to the
                exposure of employees to airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite,
                or actinolite dust. Whenever any employee is exposed to airborne
                asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, or actinolite dust, the
                requirements of Sec.  1926.1101 shall apply.
                * * * * *
                                Table 1 to Sec.   1926.55--Permissible Exposure Limits for Airborne Contaminants
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Skin
                                    Substance                       CAS No.\d\        ppm \a\        mg/m 3 b      designation *
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                
                                                                  * * * * * * *
                Asbestos; see Sec.   1926.1101..................
                
                                                                  * * * * * * *
                Talc (containing asbestos); use asbestos limit;
                 see Sec.   1926.1101...........................
                
                                                                  * * * * * * *
                Tremolite, asbestiform; see Sec.   1926.1101....
                
                                                                  * * * * * * *
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 * * * * * * *
                \2\ See Table 2 of this section.
                \3\ Use Asbestos Limit Sec.   1926.1101.
                \4\ [Reserved]
                \5\ See Table 2 of this section for the exposure limit for any operations or sectors where the exposure limit in
                  Sec.   1926.1153 is stayed or is otherwise not in effect.
                * An ``X'' designation in the ``Skin Designation'' column indicates that the substance is a dermal hazard.
                \a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
                \b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
                  listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.
                 * * * * * * *
                \d\ The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on the substance name. For an entry covering
                  more than one metal compound, measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS numbers
                  for the individual compounds.
                * * * * *
                0
                24. Revise Sec.  1926.64 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.64  Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.
                    For requirements regarding the process safety management of highly
                hazardous chemicals as it pertains to construction work, follow the
                requirements in 29 CFR 1910.119.
                [[Page 21577]]
                Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
                0
                25. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart E, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657;
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-
                2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or
                1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
                0
                26. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.104 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.104  Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards.
                * * * * *
                    (c) Lifelines used on rock-scaling operations, or in areas where
                the lifeline may be subjected to cutting or abrasion, shall be a
                minimum of \7/8\-inch wire core manila rope. For all other lifeline
                applications, a minimum of \3/4\-inch manila or equivalent, with a
                minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds, shall be used.
                * * * * *
                Subpart G--Signs, Signals, and Barricades
                0
                27. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart G, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 333; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
                Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
                FR 35736), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR
                31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable;
                and 29 CFR part 1911.
                0
                28. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec.  1926.200 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.200   Accident prevention signs, devices, and tags.
                * * * * *
                    (g) Traffic control signs and devices. (1) At points of hazard,
                construction areas shall be posted with legible traffic control signs
                and protected by traffic control devices.
                    (2) The design and use of all traffic control devices, including
                signs, signals, markings, barricades, and other devices, for protection
                of construction workers shall conform to Part 6 of the MUTCD
                (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
                * * * * *
                0
                29. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.201 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.201   Signaling.
                    (a) Flaggers. Signaling by flaggers and the use of flaggers,
                including warning garments worn by flaggers, shall conform to Part 6 of
                the MUTCD (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
                * * * * *
                Sec.  1926.202  [Removed]
                0
                30. Remove Sec.  1926.202.
                Sec.  1926.203   [Removed]
                0
                31. Remove Sec.  1926.203.
                Subpart H--Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal
                0
                32. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart H, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355),
                or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable. Section 1926.250 also issued
                under 29 CFR part 1911.
                0
                33. Revise paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  1926.250 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.250  General requirements for storage.
                    (a) * * *
                    (2)(i) The weight of stored materials on floors within buildings
                and structures shall not exceed maximum safe load limits.
                    (ii) Employers shall conspicuously post maximum safe load limits of
                floors within buildings and structures, in pounds per square foot, in
                all storage areas, except when the storage area is on a floor or slab
                on grade. Posting is not required for storage areas in all single-
                family residential structures and wood-framed multi-family residential
                structures.
                * * * * *
                Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and
                Compressed Air
                0
                34. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart S, continues to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
                Secretary of Labor's Orders 12- 71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059),
                9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-2007 (72
                FR 31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.
                0
                35. Revise paragraph (k)(10) of Sec.  1926.800 to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.800   Underground construction.
                * * * * *
                    (k) * * *
                    (10)(i) Internal combustion engines, except diesel-powered engines
                on mobile equipment, are prohibited underground.
                    (ii) Mobile diesel-powered equipment used underground in
                atmospheres other than gassy operations:
                    (A) Shall comply with MSHA provisions in 30 CFR 57.5067; or
                    (B) If purchased on or before July 15, 2019, may alternatively
                comply with MSHA provisions under 30 CFR part 32 (revised as of July 1,
                1996) (formerly Schedule 24), or be demonstrated by the employer to be
                fully equivalent to such MSHA-approved equipment, and be operated in
                accordance with that part.
                    (iii) For purposes of this paragraph (k)(10), when an applicable
                MSHA provision uses the term ``mine,'' use the phrase ``underground
                construction site.'' (Each brake horsepower of a diesel engine requires
                at least 100 cubic feet (2.832 m\3\) of air per minute for suitable
                operation in addition to the air requirements for personnel. Some
                engines may require a greater amount of air to ensure that the
                allowable levels of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide
                are not exceeded.)
                * * * * *
                Subpart W--Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection
                0
                36. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart W, is revised to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
                2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
                applicable.
                0
                37. Amend Sec.  1926.1000 by revising the section heading and
                paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.1000   Scope.
                    (a) Coverage. This subpart applies to the following types of
                material handling equipment: All rubber-tired, self-propelled scrapers,
                rubber-tired front-end loaders, rubber-tired dozers, wheel-type
                agricultural and industrial tractors, crawler tractors, crawler-type
                loaders, and motor graders, with or without attachments, that are used
                in construction work. This subpart also applies to compactors and
                rubber-tired skid-steer equipment, with or without attachments,
                manufactured after July 15, 2019, that are used in construction work.
                This subpart does not apply to sideboom pipelaying tractors.
                    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. Material handling
                equipment described in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding
                compactors and rubber-tired skid-steer equipment) manufactured before
                July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover protective
                [[Page 21578]]
                structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
                Sec.  1926.1001(b), as applicable. Agricultural and industrial tractors
                used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective
                structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
                Sec.  1926.1002(b), as applicable. When overhead protection is provided
                on agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall
                meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.
                1926.1003(b), as applicable.
                    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. Material
                handling machinery described in paragraph (a) of this section
                manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, shall be equipped with rollover
                protective structures that meet the minimum performance standards
                prescribed in Sec.  1926.1001(c). Agricultural and industrial tractors
                used in construction shall be equipped with rollover protective
                structures that meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in
                Sec.  1926.1002(c). When overhead protection is provided on
                agricultural and industrial tractors, the overhead protection shall
                meet the minimum performance standards prescribed in Sec.
                1926.1003(c).
                * * * * *
                0
                38. Section 1926.1001 is revised to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.1001   Minimum performance criteria for rollover protective
                structures for designated scrapers, loaders, dozers, graders, crawler
                tractors, compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
                    (a) General. This section prescribes minimum performance criteria
                for roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for rubber-tired self-
                propelled scrapers; rubber-tired front end loaders and rubber-tired
                dozers; crawler tractors and crawler-type loaders, motor graders,
                compactors, and rubber-tired skid steer equipment.
                    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment
                listed in paragraph (a) of this section (excluding compactors and
                rubber-tired skid steer equipment) manufactured before July 15, 2019,
                the protective frames shall conform to the following Society of
                Automotive Engineers Recommended Practices as applicable: SAE J320a,
                Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for
                Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers; SAE J394, Minimum Performance
                Criteria for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End
                Loaders and Rubber-Tired Dozers; SAE J395, Minimum Performance Criteria
                for Roll-Over Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-
                Type Loaders; SAE J396, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
                Protective Structure for Motor Graders; and SAE J397, Critical Zone
                Characteristics and Dimensions for Operators of Construction and
                Industrial Machinery, as applicable (each incorporated by reference,
                see Sec.  1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard (ISO
                3471:2008) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
                    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment
                listed in paragraph (a) of this section manufactured on or after July
                15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the test and performance
                requirements of the International Organization for Standardization
                (ISO) standard ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving Machinery--Roll-over
                protective structures--Laboratory tests and performance requirements
                (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
                0
                39. Amend Sec.  1926.1002 by:
                0
                a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);
                0
                b. Removing paragraphs (e) through (i);
                0
                c. Redesignating paragraph (j) as paragraph (e); and
                0
                d. Removing newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3) and paragraph (k).
                    The revisions read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.1002   Protective frames (roll-over protective structures,
                known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used
                in construction.
                    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for frames used
                to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors
                used in construction work that will minimize the possibility of
                operator injury resulting from accidental upsets during normal
                operation. See paragraph (e) of this section for definitions of
                agricultural and industrial tractors.
                    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. For equipment
                manufactured before July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall meet the
                test and performance requirements of the Society of Automotive
                Engineers Standard J334a, Protective Frame Test Procedures and
                Performance Requirements and J168, Protective enclosures-test
                procedures and performance requirements, as applicable (incorporated by
                reference, see Sec.  1926.6), or comply with the consensus standard
                (ISO 5700:2013) listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
                    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. For equipment
                manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the protective frames shall
                meet the test and performance requirements of the International
                Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 5700:2013, Tractors
                for agriculture and forestry--Roll-over protective structures--static
                test method and acceptance conditions or ISO 3471:2008 Earth-Moving
                Machinery--Roll-over protective structures--Laboratory tests and
                performance requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
                    (d) Overhead protection requirements. For overhead protection
                requirements, see Sec.  1926.1003.
                * * * * *
                0
                40. Section 1926.1003 is revised to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.1003   Overhead protection for operators of agricultural and
                industrial tractors used in construction.
                    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements for overhead
                protection used to protect operators of wheel-type agricultural and
                industrial tractors used in construction work that will minimize the
                possibility of operator injury resulting from overhead objects such as
                flying or falling objection, and from the cover itself in the event of
                accidental upset.
                    (b) Equipment manufactured before July 15, 2019. When overhead
                protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial
                tractors manufactured before July 15, 2019, the overhead protection
                shall be designed and installed according to the requirements contained
                in the test and performance requirements of Society of Automotive
                Engineers Standard J167, Protective Frame with Overhead Protection-Test
                Procedures and Performance Requirements, which pertains to overhead
                protection requirements (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1926.6)
                or comply with the consensus standard (ISO 27850:2013) listed in
                paragraph (c) of this section.
                    (c) Equipment manufactured on or after July 15, 2019. When overhead
                protection is provided on wheel-type agricultural and industrial
                tractors manufactured on or after July 15, 2019, the overhead
                protection shall be designed and installed according to the
                requirements contained in the test and performance requirements of the
                International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO
                27850:2013, Tractors for agriculture and forestry--Falling object
                protective structures--Test procedures and performance requirements,
                which pertains to overhead protection requirements (incorporated by
                reference, see Sec.  1926.6).
                    (d) Site clearing. In the case of machines to which Sec.  1926.604
                (relating to site clearing) also applies, the
                [[Page 21579]]
                overhead protection may be either the type of protection provided in
                Sec.  1926.604, or the type of protection provided by this section.
                Appendix A to Subpart W of Part 1926 [Removed]
                0
                41. Remove appendix A to subpart W of part 1926.
                Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
                0
                42. The authority citation for part 1926, subpart Z, is revised to read
                as follows:
                    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
                Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
                25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
                2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
                2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR
                part 1911.
                    Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part
                1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
                0
                43. Amend Sec.  1926.1101 by revising paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(C) and
                appendices D and E and I, sections III and IV(iii), to read as follows:
                Sec.  1926.1101   Asbestos.
                * * * * *
                    (m) * * *
                    (2) * * *
                    (ii) * * *
                    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and
                gastrointestinal systems, including a 14- by 17-inch or other
                reasonably-sized standard film or digital posterior-anterior chest X-
                ray to be administered at the discretion of the physician, and
                pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced
                expiratory volume at one second (FEV1). Classification of
                all chest X-rays shall be conducted in accordance with appendix E to
                this section.
                * * * * *
                BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
                [[Page 21580]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.112
                [[Page 21581]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.113
                [[Page 21582]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.114
                [[Page 21583]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.115
                [[Page 21584]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.116
                [[Page 21585]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.117
                [[Page 21586]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.118
                [[Page 21587]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.119
                [[Page 21588]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.120
                [[Page 21589]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.121
                [[Page 21590]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.122
                [[Page 21591]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.123
                [[Page 21592]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.124
                [[Page 21593]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.125
                [[Page 21594]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.126
                [[Page 21595]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.127
                [[Page 21596]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14MY19.128
                [[Page 21597]]
                Appendix E to Sec.  1926.1101--Classification of Chest X-Rays--
                Mandatory
                    (a) Chest X-rays shall be classified in accordance with the
                Guidelines for the use of the ILO International Classification of
                Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011) (incorporated
                by reference, see Sec.  1926.6), and recorded on a classification
                form following the format of the CDC/NIOSH (M) 2.8 form. As a
                minimum, the content within the bold lines of this form (items 1
                through 4) shall be included. This form is not to be submitted to
                NIOSH.
                    (b) All X-rays shall be classified only by a B-Reader, a board
                eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with
                known expertise in pneumoconioses.
                    (c) Whenever classifying chest X-ray film, the physician shall
                have immediately available for reference a complete set of the ILO
                standard format radiographs provided for use with the Guidelines for
                the use of the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of
                Pneumoconioses (revised edition 2011).
                    (d) Whenever classifying digitally-acquired chest X-rays, the
                physician shall have immediately available for reference a complete
                set of ILO standard digital chest radiographic images provided for
                use with the Guidelines for the Use of the ILO International
                Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses (revised edition
                2011). Classification of digitally-acquired chest X-rays shall be
                based on the viewing of images displayed as electronic copies and
                shall not be based on the viewing of hard copy printed
                transparencies of images.
                * * * * *
                Appendix I to Sec.  1926.1101--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for
                Asbestos, Non-Mandatory
                * * * * *
                III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure-Related Disease
                    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer
                induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest
                X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural
                plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis, and may also
                show asbestosis (i.e., small irregular parenchymal opacities).
                Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath,
                pain in the chest or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much longer
                average latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus
                15-20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found
                among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age.
                Mesothelioma is a fatal disease.
                    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of
                asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath,
                coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis
                worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of
                asbestosis is most commonly based on a history of exposure to
                asbestos, the presence of characteristic radiologic abnormalities,
                end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of
                fibrosing lung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening may be
                observed on chest X-rays. Asbestosis is often a progressive disease
                even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears to
                be a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death
                may be caused by respiratory or cardiac failure.
                IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations
                    As noted in section III of this appendix, exposure to asbestos
                has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma,
                gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed
                workers. Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's
                potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer,
                from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some
                tests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may
                indicate that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos
                increasing his or her risk of developing exposure related chronic
                diseases. It is important for the physician to become familiar with
                the operating conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos
                is likely to occur. This is particularly important in evaluating
                medical and work histories and in conducting physical examinations.
                When an active employee has been identified as having been
                overexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate
                or mitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious
                long-term consequences.
                    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance
                program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at
                or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic
                centimeter of air). All examinations and procedures must be
                performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician, at a
                reasonable time and place, and at no cost to the employee.
                    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing
                specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program,
                OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine
                examination:
                    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to
                symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and
                digestive tract.
                    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire
                contained in appendix D of this appendix.
                    (iii) A physical examination including a chest X-ray and
                pulmonary function test that includes measurement of the employee's
                forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one
                second (FEV1).
                    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician
                deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
                    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available
                at least annually to those employees covered; more often than
                specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon
                termination of employment.
                    The employer is required to provide the physician with the
                following information: A copy of the standard in this section
                (including all appendices to this section); a description of the
                employee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the
                employee's representative level of exposure to asbestos; a
                description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment
                used; and information from previous medical examinations of the
                affected employee that is not otherwise available to the physician.
                Making this information available to the physician will aid in the
                evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties
                and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.
                    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the
                examining physician containing the results of the medical
                examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has
                any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an
                increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended
                limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective
                equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by
                the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any
                medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further
                explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal
                specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos,
                and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.
                * * * * *
                0
                44. Revise paragraph (l)(4)(ii)(C) of Sec.  1926.1127 to read as
                follows:
                Sec.  1926.1127  Cadmium.
                * * * * *
                    (l) * * *
                    (4) * * *
                    (ii) * * *
                    (C) A 14 inch by 17 inch or other reasonably-sized standard film or
                digital posterior-anterior chest X-ray (after the initial X-ray, the
                frequency of chest X-rays is to be determined by the examining
                physician);
                * * * * *
                Sec.  1926.1129   [Removed and Reserved]
                0
                45. Remove and reserve Sec.  1926.1129.
                Sec. Sec.  1910.120, 1910.1001, 1910.1017, 1910.1018, 1910.1025,
                1910.1026, 1910.1027, 1910.1028, 1910.1029, 1910.1030, 1910.1043,
                1910.1044, 1910.1045, 1910.1047, 1910.1048, 1910.1050, 1910.1051,
                1910.1052, 1910.1053, 1915.1001, 1915.1026, 1926.60, 1926.62, 1926.65,
                1926.1101, 1926.1126, 1926.1127, and 1926.1153   [Amended]
                0
                46. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 29 CFR parts
                1910, 1915, and 1926, remove words and punctuation from the following
                sections as follows:
                [[Page 21598]]
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Words and                              29 CFR
                  punctuation to  ------------------------------------------------------
                      remove           Part 1910          Part 1915         Part 1926
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                and social         1910.120(f)(8)(ii  1915.1001(n)(3)(  1926.60(o)(5)(ii
                 security number.   )(A),              ii)(A),           )(A),
                                    1910.1001(m)(3)(   1915.1026(k)(4)   1926.62(d)(5),
                                    ii)(A),            (ii)(A).          1926.62(n)(3)(i
                                    1910.1017(m)(1),                     i)(A), 1926.62,
                                    1910.1025(d)(5),                     app. B, Sec.
                                    1910.1025(n)(3)(                     XII.,
                                    ii)(A),                              1926.65(f)(8)(i
                                    1910.1025, app.                      i)(A),
                                    B, Sec. XII.,                        1926.1101(n)(3)
                                    1910.1026(m)(4)(                     (ii)(A),
                                    ii)(A),                              1926.1126(k)(4)
                                    1910.1028(k)(2)(                     (ii)(A),
                                    ii)(A),                              1926.1127(d)(2)
                                    1910.1030(h)(1)(                     (iv),
                                    ii)(A),                              1926.1153(j)(3)
                                    1910.1043(k)(2)(                     (ii)(A).
                                    ii)(A),
                                    1910.1044(p)(2)(
                                    ii)(a),
                                    1910.1047(k)(3)(
                                    ii)(A),
                                    1910.1048(o)(3)(
                                    i),
                                    1910.1048(o)(4)(
                                    ii)(D),
                                    1910.1050(n)(5)(
                                    ii)(A),
                                    1910.1051(m)(4)(
                                    ii)(A),
                                    1910.1053(k)(3)(
                                    ii)(A).
                social security    1910.1043(k)(1)(i  ................  ................
                 numbers,.          i)(C),
                                    1910.1048(o)(1)(
                                    vi).
                social security    1910.1028(k)(1)(i  ................  ................
                 number,.           i)(D),
                                    1910.1050(n)(3)(
                                    ii)(D),
                                    1910.1052(m)(2)(
                                    ii)(F),
                                    1910.1052(m)(2)(
                                    iii)(C).
                , social security  1910.1001(m)(1)(i  ................  ................
                 number.            i)(F),
                                    1910.1047(k)(2)(
                                    ii)(F),
                                    1910.1050(n)(4)(
                                    ii)(A),
                                    1910.1051(m)(2)(
                                    ii)(F),
                                    1910.1052(m)(3)(
                                    ii)(A).
                , social security  1910.1018(q)(1)(i  1915.1001(n)(2)(  1926.60(o)(4)(ii
                 number,.           i)(D),             ii)(F),           )(F),
                                    1910.1018(q)(2)(   1915.1026(k)(1)   1926.62(n)(1)(i
                                    ii)(A),            (ii)(F).          i)(D),
                                    1910.1025(n)(1)(                     1926.62(n)(2)(i
                                    ii)(D),                              i)(A),
                                    1910.1025(n)(2)(                     1926.1101(n)(2)
                                    ii)(A),                              (ii)(F),
                                    1910.1026(m)(1)(                     1926.1126(k)(1)
                                    ii)(F),                              (ii)(F),
                                    1910.1027(n)(1)(                     1926.1127(n)(1)
                                    ii)(B),                              (ii)(B),
                                    1910.1027(n)(3)(                     1926.1127(n)(3)
                                    ii)(A),                              (ii)(A),
                                    1910.1029(m)(1)(                     1926.1153(j)(1)
                                    i)(a),                               (ii)(G).
                                    1910.1029(m)(2)(
                                    i)(a),
                                    1910.1044(p)(1)(
                                    ii)(d),
                                    1910.1045(q)(2)(
                                    ii)(D),
                                    1910.1053(k)(1)(
                                    ii)(G).
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                [FR Doc. 2019-07902 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P