Document B56wnJ27ppodeKvy5Q088kXEX

G-87 > FEDERAL LEVEL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Respiratory Protection M The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced that it is seeking public comments on plans to revise its standards covering res pirators used to limit worker exposure to toxic substances in the work place (Federal Register, May 14, 1982, pp.20803-9, attached). OSHA's current regulations were issued in 1971 based on then-current national consensus standards developed by the American National Standards In stitute. Since that time, "the field of'- industrial respiratory protec tion has advanced significantly", but the OSHA standard has not been amended to relect these advances. Current regulations require engineering controls to be used to reduce excessive employee exposure to airborne contaminants, and permit res- irator use only while feasible engineering controls are being installed or when such controls are not considered feasible. This requirement "is the subject of continuing controversy" where respi rator programs are considered "more cost effective than engineering con trols," the agency stated. Evaluation of the technical aspects of respirator effectiveness is con sidered by the agency "to be an important and crucial first step in re examining the broad policy of the priority of engineering controls over respirators," OSHA declared. The subject of "hierarchy of controls" will be addressed in a separate request for comment "in the near future," the notice said. OSHA's request for data addressed such matters as respirator testing criteria; surveillance of working conditions where respirators are used; effectiveness of powered air purifying respirators, protection factors, appropriate respiratory protection standards for construction and mari time industries; special problems for small business; effect of respirator wear on productivity; cost of respirator programs; requirements for effec- DTH 00003687 5 THE SOAP AND DETERGENT ASSOCIATION 475 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 ------- 262 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20333 appeared in the Federal Register for Tuesday. February 9,1982 (47 FR 5902). The rules of 601.601(a)(3) of the "Statement of Procedural Rules" (26 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and also desire to present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should submit an outline of the comments to be presented at the hearing and the time they wish to devote to each subject by June 8,1902. Each speaker will be limited to 10 minutes for oral presentation exclusive of time consumed by questions from the panel for the government and answers to these questions. Because of controlled access restrictions, attendees^cannot be admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m. An agenda showing the scheduling of (he speakers will be made after outlines are received from the speakers. Copies of the agenda v'ill be available free of charge at the hearing. This document does not meet the criteria for significant regulations set forth in paragraph 0 of tire Treasury Directive for improving government regulations appearing in the Federal Register for Wednesday, November 8, 1970. By direction of the Commissioner of internal Revenue. David E. Dickinson, Director, Legislation and Regulations Division. [FR Doc. 82-13217 Filed 5-1J-82:8:45 ara| BILLING COOS 4SC2-01-M DEPAnTf'nriT OF LACCD Occupational Safety and Health Adminicfratian 29 Cm Fart 1910 (Docket No. H-0221 Haaard CennvjRication; Public Hearings Note.--This document originally appeared in the Federal Register for Wednesday. May 12.1G22. It is reprinted in this issue to meet requirements for publication on the Tuesday/ Friday schedule assigned to the Department of Labor. agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. action: Notice of proposed rulemaking; lodification of hearing notice. r'Jf.r.nY: On March 19.1982, OSHA Published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on hazard communication in the Federal Register (47 FR 12092). A notice announcing dates and locations for public hearings on the NPRM war published on April 18, 1982 (47 FR 16348). The locations announced for the hearings were Washington, D C., Houston, San Diego and Detroit. The selection of those sites was based primarily cn geographical considerations. Interested parties have since suggested that participation cn the West Coast cculd be significantly increased by moving the hearing site there from San Eiego to Lcs Angeles. OSHA has agreed to this suggestion and is hereby announcing that the hearing originally scheduled for San Diego on July 20,1982, will take place instead in Los Angeles at the address indicated below. The other hearings will take place on the dates and at the locations announced in the April ICih notice at 47 FR 16343. The hearings will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in die March 19th NPRM at C? iTM.MIO. In order to allow interested parties more opportunity to decide to participate in the regional hearings, OSHA is eico hereby extending the time for submission of notices of intention to appear and statements for these regional hearings. Notices end statements for participants in the Washington, D.C. hearing are still due May 18,1982, and June 1,1S32, respectively. DATES; Notices of intention to appear at the regional hearings must be received on or before June 15,1902. Statements and any documentary evidence to be presented at these hearings must be submitted by July 1,1932. The date each hearing will begin and the cities in which they will bo hold are as follows: Dale hearing begins 1. June IS, 1982 2. July 13, 1982.. 3. July 20. 1982 .. 4. July 27. 19C2 . City Washington. 0 C. Houston. Texas. Los Angeles. CaiJornia. OctiOit, K!.4.htgin. ADDRESSES: Notices of intention to appear at the hearings, statements and documentary evidence should be submitted to Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 200 Constitutuien Avenue, N.W., Room N3635, Washington, DlC. 20210, (202) 523-8024. The address for the hearing on July 20. 1982 is: Santa Barbara (A) Room, Western Bonaventure Li. j Angeles Hotel. Fifth and Figueroa Streets, Los Angeles, California. Notices of intention to appear at the public hearings, as well as any other information gathered by the Agency during this rulemaking, will be available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office. Docket H-022, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution A\ unue NW,, Room S3212, Washington, D.C. 20210; (2J2) 523-7C94. fch Fu;.7r.-ri ccntact: Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, FJW,, Room N3035, Washington, D.C. 2021C: (202) 523-C024. Proposal: Ms. Jennifer Silk, Office of Special Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2C0 Constitution Avenue, NW,, Room N2C33, Washington, D.C. 20210; (202] 523-71C3. This document was prepared under the direction of Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Departii.eiii of labor, 2G0 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210. (Sec3. I .b), 0(c) and (ij). Pub. L. 01-003,04 Slat. 1503, 150J, ICC!): C9 U.S.C. C55. 057: 29 CFIl Part 1311; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-7G (41 Fit MU53)) Signed at Washington, D.C., this IGih Hay of May 1032. Thome G. Auchtdr, Assistant Secretaryfor Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 82-12975 Hied 5-10-82: 1203 pci) billing core <5is-;c-:.i ?9 Cm Pcrtc 1913,131C-1913, end 1923 (Docket No. 0-040] Hccpirstcr/ Prstcctien agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Labor. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. summary: This notice requests data, views, and arguments concerning possible revisions to OSHA standards on respiratory protection in 29 CFR 1910.124, 29 CFR 1915.02, 29 CTR 1916.82, 29 CFR 1917.82, 29 CTR 1918.102, and 29 CI'R 1920.103 including the need to regulate, relevant alternatives, and economic impact. datcm; Data, views and arguments should be submitted by September 13, 1982. ADDRESSER: Written submissions in response to this notice should be submitted to Me Docket Officer, Docket DTH 000036 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday. May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20805 respirator suppliers have claimed to be mk<bited from developing improved rators which do not fit into existing cu .agones or which provide protection from chemicais not included in present approval criteria because of the time involved from respirator development to ultimate approval. Suggestions on regulatory or other changes to further encourage the development of improved respirators and to permit their approval are requested. It has become evident to OSHA that there is a good deal of confusion among respirator users over the distinction between the "fit factor" as determined by QNFT and the true, effective 'protection factor" which is the actual protection afforded by a respirator when in use. The manufacturers of quantitative fit test equipment have correctly emphasized that their equipment does not take account of the normal filter leakage and measures only the leakage around the face/sealing area of the mask plus any contribution from exhalation valve leakage. In addition, it has become apparent that the laboratory type testing of QNFT may tend to overestimate how well a respirator fits when an employee wearing it is working at his job. Therefore there is uncertainty now about how high an apparent protection factor (actually fit factor) must be demonstrated by QNFT to insure that employees are properly protected on the job. OSHA has also been evaluating the appropriateness of improved methods of qualitative fit testing as an alternative to the quantitative fit testing required by the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). Although that issue is being dealt with in a separate rulemaking proceeding (see 46 FR 27358, May 19,1981), the arguments and information involved are also relevant to this advance notice. Therefore the record of that rulemaking (docket no. H-049A) will also be placed in the record of this proceeding. One of the major questions involved in that rulemaking is whether qualitative fit testing (QLFT) can be so arranged and conducted as to properly determine whether a respirator is in fact adequate for a specific application. Another important question is whether di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), the most widely used challenge agent for QNFT, should continue to be used for QNFT in view of the recent finding by the National Toxicology Program that DEHP caused cancer in rats and mice in a two year feeding st- Jv. This study is reported ift "NTP 1 deal Report on the Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Di-2-ethylhexyi phthalate-- CAS 117-81-7," DHHS Publn. No. NIH- 81-1773, which is available in draft form (dated Oct. 15,1980) in the OSHA docket office (Docket file H-049A, exhibit 12). There are several substitute challenge agents that can be used to conduct QNFT. thereby considerably reducing the importance of DEHP. Examples include corn oil and di-2ethylhexyl sebacate. All of these factors indicate to OSHA that existing standards related to respiratory protection should be reexamined in light of current knowledge and accepted industrial hygiene practice. If OSHA does not respond to this situation, many employees may be needlessly ^overexposed to a variety of airborne toxic materials because of inappropriate respirator programs. Such exposure could result in severe illness and disability. Alternatively, obsolete regulation may unnecessarily limit an employer's options in providing respiratory protection, or restrict innovation in respiratory protection devices. Inadequate regulations may also impose unnecessary costs. Consequendy, OSHA is interested in receiving data and views from all interested parties on a wide variety of issues related to the revision of OSHA's respiratory protection standards. These issues are presented in the form of questions to assist interested persons in developing their responses. These questions represent issues that have already been brought to the Agency's attention. Some are of general nature and others address specialized technical issues which may be principally of interest only to the technical community. Interested persons, of course, may wish to submit information and views on issues that are not addressed by the questions or to respond only to some of the questions of special interest to themselves. Paragraph (a)(1) of 1910.134 requires that engineering controls be used to reduce excessive employees exposures to airborne contaminants and permits the use ofTespirators only while feasible engineering controls are being installed or when such controls are not feasible. This requirement is the subject of continuing controversy in those situations where respiratory protection programs are thought to be more cost effective than engineering controls. This rulemaking on respiratory protection standards is a necessary prerequisite in addressing this policy. Although the agency is inviting comment on this subject (see question 30), OSHA regards the evaluation of the technical aspects of respirator adequacy and effectiveness, as well as respirator program requirements, to be an imporant and crucial first step in reexamining the broad policy of the priority of engineering controls over respirators. Rational decisions concerning when it is appropriate to use respirators must be based on prior knowledge of the effectiveness of respirators and respiratory protection programs. The factors that determine the performance levels of respirator programs are independent of decisions to employ respiratory protection in some particular situation. In a like manner, judgements as to cost effectiveness must also be based on prior knowledge of the costs associated with respiratory protection programs. Thus, OSHA will address the technical aspects of respiratory protection in this rulemaking before addressing the larger subject of the relationship between engineering controls and personal protective equipment. General policy with respect to engineering controls is a controversial standards policy important enough to be treated separately from the technical aspects of respirators and respiratory protection programs. Therefore OSHA will in the neaT future publish a separate notice discussing in detail this subject ofthe hierarchy of controls and requesting comment separately on issues relevant to it. In order to assist the public and the Agency in evaluating these issues, OSHA has compiled the following background information and reports. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) of the University of California at Los Alamos, New Mexico, has done considerable work on respiratory protection. Their report LA-60S4-MS, issued January 1976, entitled "Respirator Protection Factors," is the basic source for the protection factors now commonly applied to various respirators. This report also discusses quantitative fit testing. Other LANL reports that may be of interest include LA-5488, issued March 1974, "Selection of Respirator Test Panels Representative of U.S. Adult Facial Sizes"; LA-8722-PR, issued February 1977, "Respirator Studies for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: July, 1975--Dec. 31, 1976," which discusses various aspects of quantitative fit testing and respirator evaluation; and LA-7317-PR, issued June 1978, "Respirator Studies for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Jan. 1-Dec. 31,1977," which discusses the testing of powered air purifying respirators, interlaboratory comparison of data for dust-fume-mist filters, and fit testing for gas and vapor respirators. The LANL work has also resulted in reports in the literature, including "Effect of Facial Hair on DTH 000036!:T7 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20307 e. Should it be allowable to use ' ^stances identified as potential inogens as fit test challenge agents? ii so, what basis should be used to determine that the probable dose is acceptable or unacceptable? f. What basis should OSHA use to determine the acceptability of suggested QLFT protocols? g. With the use of nonirritating -test agents, does test subject bias significantly affect the usefulness of qualitative testing, or affect the test results a significant amount of the time? h. Should increased testing or more frequent testing be required for respirators with facepieces that need adjustment other than strap tension to fit properly? i. Under what circumstances and using what testing protocol would QLFT be sufficient to ensure that an employee's respirator fits sufficiently well? 6.a. What protocol(s), if any, for quantitative fit testing (QNFT) should be specified as acceptable testing method(s) in any new OSHA standards? b. To be an adequate test, should QNFT be able to distinguish the respirator efficiency for each test exercise performed by the test subject? c. To be an adequate test, should QNFT be able to demonstrate the variation of contaminant concentration behind the respirator during the breathing cycle? d. What exercises should be performed by the test subject during QNFT, and for how long? e. What test agents are suitable for QNFT, end what are the essential characteristics of an appropriate aerosol for solid and liquid agents? f. What algorithm should be used to calculate the protection factor from QNFT? g. What situations require QNFT? h. What is an acceptable accuracy for a QNFT test? i. Should it be allowable to use substances identified as suspect carcinogens as test agents? ff so, what basis should be used to determine that the probable dose is acceptable or unacceptable? j. Should increased testing (i.e. repetitions) be required for respirators with facepieces that need adjustment other than strap tension to fit properly? k. For each required protection factor, how high a fit factor, determined by QNFT, should be required to ensure proper employee protection? 1 How will the fit factor determined \ vith different testing equipment, challenge agents, procedures, and test conditions? 7. Which respirator related provisions, if any, of the more recent OSHA health standards (eg. 8 1910.1018(h)--arsenic, 8 1910.1029(g)--coke oven emissions, 8 1910.1043(f)--cotton dust, etc.) should be made generally applicable by incorporation into 1910.134, Parts 1915-1918, or 8 1920.103? o-ft. What lYBfi and level uf training f^egjjjkfl^igSj^iigj?jj^,519i^15j.i8129faialfi43)4. (b]^2i|l- fi. In such training, what topics should be covered and how thoroughly? c. )n which rasas should Tr^Tra___ specialized or comprehensive training d. How should required training and retraining be specified? 9. What specifications should be made concerning the content of standard operating procedures presently required in 8 1910.134(b)(1) and (e)(3)? 10. a. What medical screening, if any, of potential users of respirators should be required? b. For those employees who use respirators, is it safe to require medical examinations only in those cases where there is some complaint by the employee or a problem is noticed by the fit te$ting technician? c. Should the regulations limit an employer's choice of type, class or specialty of health care provider in obtaining these medical examinations? d. Could a questionnaire be used to select those few individuals who should be medically examined? e. What medical conditions, if any, of an employee should preclude the wearing of a respirator? Explain. f. What medical conditions, if any, could be aggravated by wearing a respirator? g. Could the wearing of a respirator medically endanger an employee? If so, with what respirator, and as a result of what medical condition? fltafja uyd at . (jCsSilI and the Mine Safety and jjjRT rnarrmif^i.T w:mietvi iFR be in need of extensive Revision. a. Should OSHA independently address the adequacy and application of some or all types or models of respirators? If yes, specify in detail. b. Should OSHA always accept the adequacy of MSHA/NIOSH approved respirators without additional requirements (eg. higher performance requirements for use against certain substances)? c. Under what circumstances, if any, should OSHA allow the use of respirators not approved by MSHA/ NIOSH under 30 CFR Part 11? d. Should OSHA automatically reject any modification to approved respirator^? organizations' (other than NIOSH) testing and certification of respirators? g. Are there changes in regulations or procedures that would encourage more rapid development and utilization of respirators to provide protection from chemicals for which there are no currently approved respirators? h. Are there changes in regulations or procedures which would encourage more rapid development and utilization of respiratoro which would provide immediate warning of over exposure; improved communication capabilities: reduced skin irritation, breathing resistance or heat stress; or other improvements? i. In order for negative pressure air purifying respirators to be permitted for protection fiom a gaseous chemical, should that chemical always present adequate warning properties? j. How, if at all, should OSHA eddress physical aspects of respir ator performance dnd suitability such as abrasion resistance, tear strength, withstanding temperature extremes, corrosion resistance, and field of vision? 12. Should OSHA continue to accept as adequate all manufacturers' instructions for fit checking (8 1910.134 (e)(5J(i))? 13. When, if at all, should OSHA limit the amount of time in a single shift that employers may require their employees to wear respirators? (The lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025 (f)(l)(i) imposes a limit of 4.4 hours in some cases.) 14. In determining compliance with exposure standards for those employees wearing respirators, should OSHA assume that an employee's exposure has been reduced by a factor equal to the assigned protection factor of the respirator? Such an assumption is already part of the enforcement policy for the cotton dust standard. (See 46 FR 85730, Dec. 30,1980.) It allows an employee to wear a respirator for only part of the work shift when respirators are relied upon to achieve compliance with permissible exposure levels. 15.a. What degree of suryiellance of work area conditions anadegree of employee exnnsnre and stress nre adequate to ensure safe use of Icl.S ffrlh 138. PTH 0000368 '8 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20?^T) Washington, D.C 20210; telephone 202-7894. .his document was prepared under the direction of Thome Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20210. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1010, 1015-1918,1028 Occupational safety and health, Respiratory protection. (Sec. 0. Pub. L 91-590,84 Stat 1593 (29 U.S.C. 055), 29 CFR Part 1911; 40 U.S.C. 333; 33 U.S.C. 941; 41 U.S.C. 35,38; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 0-70 (41FR 25059)) Signed at Washington D.C., thi910th day of May 1982. Thome Auchter, Assistant Secretary ofLabor. |FR Doc. 82-13103 Filed 6-13-82; MS am] billing cooe asto-so-ci DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of the Secretary 34 CFR Subtitle A end Chs. MV, VI end VII Department of Education Semiannual Regulations Agenda end Review List aqeksv: Office of the Secretary, Ed. action; Publication of the semiannual agenda of regulations. ' CUMMAnv: The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of regulations as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12291 ("Federal Regulations"]. This agenda provides a brief description of regulations being developed or reviewed by the Department of Education. The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by giving the public early information about pending regulatory activities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the contact person listed for that set of regulations. Questions or comments on the overall agenda should ba direct'd to A. Neal Shudd, Director, Division of Regulations Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Education, Room 2129 FOB-9,400 Maryland Avenue, S\V,, Washington, D.C. 20202. Telephone (202) 245-7091. su"?Lcr.t::;7c.Rv iH-cnusTtoa: Executive Order 12291, dated February 17,1901, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 83-354, enacted September 19,1880, require the Department of Education to publish, in October and April of each year, an agenda of regulations that the Department expects to issue and currently effective regulations that are under review. The agenda includes both notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) currently being drafted and ponding final regulations (FR) for which NPRMS have been published. For each set of proposed or final regulations listed, the agenda provides a: (1) Title, (2) summary, (3) contact person, and (4) decision date (expected month of publication of the final regulations (FR) or (MPRM). The summary of each eoi of regulations includes; (1) A brief description of the proposed or final regulations; (2) notice whether a regulatory impact analysis is required by Executive order 12291; (3) notice whether a regulatory flexibility analysis is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act; (4) a brief statement of the Department's objectives in issuing on- reviewing the regulations; (5) the legal basis for the regulations; and (6) the Code of Federal Regulations part number assigned to the regulations. The Department is requiivi by Executive Order 12291 to prop uo n regulatory impact analysis* fo; cmy cel of regulations thut is a "major n lj" as defined by the order, and th.it is not exempted from the requiivii . nts in the order. This semiannual tgoa ii'ies whether or not a isolator/ h \r..;a! analysis will bo prepared fc-r c... h sat of regulations listed. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that Federal agencies take into account the impact of their regulations on "small entities," including email businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and other email organisations. The Department must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for nny proposed regulations for which a notice of props cod rulemaking la issued on or after January 1.1831 if the proposed regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department's plun for review of regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act was published on August 5.1831 at 43 FR 38332. A referonco las been included In this agenda to Indicate whether o regulatory flexibility analysis is required. This publication in the Fedora! Register does not impose any binding obligation on the Department with regard to any specific item on the agenda. Regulatory action in addition to the items listed is not precluded. Dated: May 7,1982. T. tt Del!, Secretary ofEducation. Department of Education Semiannual Regulations Agenda and Review List Tito Summary Contact Earned axpoctad dudsion <Li* A. OncnpHoa Tha wnendment would exempt Irom eerteki eccess end note* Antonio J. Cam, (202) NPRM May 1C3Z provfatan* ol tha Privacy Act investigatory material* compted tor tev Morcomant 245-2104 purpoaa* and contained In to* complaint Co and log ayatom of record* of too Office tor CNN Rights. \ 0. Ctpacton- The amendment would enhance to* ability el too department to acquire fritormeten pamnant.lc toe compliance statu* ol recipient* and to achieve comptenc* by voluntary moan*, E Legal basis.' Section S ol toe Privacy Act el 1974 (S U.S.C. SS2a(kn_________ F ONttvr !>e C*n cm m ..... ..................................... Sducafen Department Omni AdnMekel** Reg A Detatptijru Th* regulation] under review eaUMieh procedure* tor grant awards Cheater Qtod. (202) ulation* (EDGAR)--Grant Program* without Spa- tmdar * program tool doe* not have propanKpedte regulations 246-7810. NPRM May IMS. 0. Obiiacfkear Amendments. 1 any, to to* regulations would b* doafgned to sheet regulatory relief, induing reduction ol paperwork and comptianco hudorts and irrprwement of com aNactlvanes*. E Legal basis: Section 414, of Sto Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3474). ----- c ntMot 34 RFR Pena 75 and 7S.... _................. ... A. Descriptors Th* regulation* under review implement too** provision* of tha Alic* Ford, (202) 246- NPRMMte 1*02. Indian Education Act ol 1972 that apply to Indian students applying tor and 7525. receiving fellowships for study In ad specified fields. DTH 0000368'/9