Document G6g7Dq4xZE0O36rNwa0eEBNnm

FROM THE DESK OF L.C. AMBLER To s- p. ___ ha ymi U\lp\. K3lt(jK <^-> C'-c'JLiv. Z/ I'l 1*1 Q Cc JfyK'P* 0JU RECEIVED -u8 14 'iSSu xc '-S CertairileedH CTD001722 m ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square 4, Suite 509 Arlington, Virginia 22202 (703)979-1150 FAX (703) 979-1152 February 9, 1990 Memorandum For: Subject: AIA/NA Members Changes in OSHA's Standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos received. 1-tB 12 1990 p&PG SALES The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration's standard for occupational exposure to asbestos was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 1986. This regulation reduced the 8-hour time weighted average permissible exposure limit from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc. This Association, along with the Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO), challenged the 1986 standard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On February 2, 1988, the Court remanded several issues to OSHA. In partial response to the Court's decision, on September 14, 1988, OSHA issued a short term excursion limit (STEL) for asbestos of 1 f/cc averaged over a sampling period of 30 minutes. On October 30 , 1989, the Court ordered OSHA to take action on certain remaining issues that had been remanded and specified a schedule for such action. Accordingly, on December 20, 1989, OSHA removed the ban on spraying of asbestos-containing products (this was result of challenge by AIA/NA in order that spraying of roof coatings and vehicle undercoatings may continue), and also responded to two other issues affecting the construction industry (see News & Notes of December 29, 1989). Presently, by a final rule published in the Federal Register of February 5, 1990 (copy enclosed), OSHA further responds to the Court order. The two items of principal interest to AIA/NA members included in this regulation are: 1. A ban on smoking in work areas where employees are occupationally exposed to asbestos because of activities in that work area, and added training requirements covering the availability of smoking control programs; and CTD001723 Page 2 (Memorandum to AIA/NA Members) 2. A requirement that employers assure that employees working in or contiguous to regulated areas comprehend required warning signs, and requiring that training programs specifically instruct employees about the content and presence of signs and labels. Particular attention should be given to relevant portions of the enclosed regulation. It will become effective May 7, 1990. President Enclosure cc: Joseph A. Artabane, esq, (S&H) Michel Gratton, AI Danial Bouige, AIA Edward W. Warren, esq. (K&E) CTD001724 Wi , iWwl 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 (Docket No. M-033] Occupattona) Exposure to Aebesto* AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Department of Labor. ACTION: Final rule; partial response to court remand. summary: On June 20,1988, at 51 FR 22612, OSHA published revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1001) and construction (29 CFR 1928.58). OSHA reduced the 6-hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 0.2 f/cc and adopted provisions for medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, methods of compliance, respirators and recordkeeping, among others. On February 2, 1988. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Qrall upheld the standard la toost iMMda M mudid th mm to OSHA aeverel (mom. Baifdtng and Construction Trades Department v. Srodk.838F.2d 12SS (D.G Clr. 1988). In partlil response to the decision, on Septamber 111968, OSHA issued a short term excursion limit (STEL) for asbestos, tremolite. enlhophyliite. end actinolite of 1 f/cc averaged over e sampling period of 30 minutes (53 FR 38810). In June and July 1980, the Building end Construction Trades Department of the AFL-C10 (BCTD) and the AFL-CIO petitioned die Court to order OSHA to resolve all remand issues on the record of the 1988 rulemaking proceeding. The court on October 30,1889, ordered OSHA to take action on three of the remand issues by December 14,1989 (Category 1). three other issues by January 28,1990, and die remaining issues by Fehruary 27,1990. OSHA issued its response on the first three remand issues on December 14, 1989 (84 FR 52024. December 20.1089). This document constitutes OSHA's response on the second group of remand issues. OSHA Is (1) expanding its ban on workplace smoking and adding training requirements covering the availability of smoking control programs: (2) explaining how and why OSHA's respirator requirements will result In employee risk being reduced below that remaining at the PEL: end (3) adding a requirement that employers assure that employees working in or contiguous to regulated areas comprehend required warning signs, and requiring that training programs specifically instruct employees about the content and presence of signs and labels. OSHA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking by February 27, 1990, covering the third group of issues and the issue of the exemption for "small-scale, short-duration operations" deferred from the December 1989 response. EFFECTIVE DATE: Amendments to the standard will become effective May 7. 1990. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Foster, OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of Public Affairs. Room N3847. 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington. DC 20210. Telephone (202) 523-8151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Clearance of information Collection Requirements On March 31.1983, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published 5 CFR part 1320, implementing tha InformsBoa auBacMoa pwrisiona of the Paperwork Rsductiaa Act of I960.44 U.S.C 3301 efreq. (46 FR 13666). Part 132a which became affective on April 3a 1983 end was revised May la 1988 (S3 FR 18818), sate forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMB clearance for Information collection requirements. OSHA does not believe that the resolution of these resend Issues results In any substantial change to the information collaction burden which would require OMB paperwork clearance. The new provisions either do not Increase paperwork or simply make explicit requirements which were implicit in the unrevised rules. Even In the latter group, the increase in information gathering burden is dr mimimis. OMB has approved Information collection requests for the exisling asbestos standards in accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act under control numbers 1213-0133 and 1238-0134. Although the additional provisions do not impose any substantial new information gathering burden. OSHA is submitting the paperwork provisions in 29 CFR 19iai001(j)(5)(hrXQ and 29 CFR 1928.58{kJ(4)(lif) for OMB clearance pursuant to 5 CFR part 132a and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 198a IL Background On June 17,1986. OSHA issued revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite for general industry and construction (51 FR 22612 et seq.. June 20,1988). Effective July 21.198a the revised standards amended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. (On October 17, 198a OSHA published a partial stay of the revised standards insofar as they apply to occupational exposure to nonasbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite (51 FR 37002). The stay has been extended to November 30.1990 (see 54 FR 30704), to enable OSHA to complete rulemaking on these nonasbestiform minerals. The partial stay continues to apply to the 1988 standards and all amendments thereto, including the amendments in this notice.) Separate comprehensive standards for general industry and construction were issued which shared the same PEL and most ancillary requirements. The standards reduced the TWA permissible exposure limit tenfold to 0-2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (f/cc) from the previous 2 f/cc limit. Specific provisions were added in .the construction standard to cover unique hazards relating to asbestos abatement and demolition jobs. CTD001725 / VAMuMit H / Uaia>. frtwny S. U80 / later m Savetal iMfor partidpaala to tha rulemaKhgatocreding the AFL-CIO, tha Building and Contraction Trade* Department ("UCl'lF'h and the Asbestos Information Anociation ("ALA"), challenged various provisions of the revised standard*. On February 1 1988, the VS. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColombia Circuit Issued fta decision ophehflng most major challenged provisions, bat remanding certain Issues toOSKA for reconsideration \JKTD. AFL-CIO v. Brock 838 f. 2d 1238). The Court held that where relemaking participants had recommended regelirtory provisions which, on fee reread. appealed to be feasible end to renter more An a dr minimis benefit to reducing significant risk. OSHA meet either adopt them, refute the evidence of feasibility or benefit, as mom persuasively explain why OSHA Ad eat adopt the provisiens. The Court also ordered OSHA to clarify the regulatory text lor two provisions and found one provision, * boa on spraying asbestos-containing product*, unsupported by the record. In addition. OSHX's failure to adopt a STQ. was ordered to be reconsidered within SO daya of (he Court's mandate. In partial response. OSHA issued a STEL called an "excursion limit." of 1 f/cc measured over 30 minutes, on September 14.1988 (33 FR 35610}. On June 10 and July 18,1980, BCTD and the AFL-CIO petitioned the Court to enforce its remand order by ordering OSHA to resolve all remand issues on the record of the 1988 rulemaking proceeding wfthm 7 to 60 days. The Court, to an October 30.1989 order, divided foe remand issues into three categories as follows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take action by December M, 1999. These issues were: (1) Formally delete the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containing materials: (2) Clarify that periodic monitoring in the construction industry must be resumed after conditions change; and (3) Clarify the exemption lor "small- scale, short-duration operations" from the negative-pressure enclosure requirements of the construction standard to limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical to construct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment. OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14.1989 (54 FR 52024, December 20,1989). in that document OSHA (1) removed the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containing materials; (2) changed the regulatory text to clarify when construction employers must resume periodic monilortog: and (3) explained why OSIIA waa not amending tha regulatory text to clarify tha limited anasptfao for "smoll-ecale. shori-durattoa aparetlnae" in tha ouubucttoa Indus*? standard, but Instead would Institute rulemaking oa this issue. With respect to tba second group of issues, the Court ordered OSHA to complete lte response oa tha existing record by January 28.1990. These Issues are: (4) Tha possibility of further regulations governing employee smoking controls: (5) The effectiveness levels of various respirators and OSHA'a policy of requiring respirators to protect workers at only the PEL level: and (8) The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and labels for employers with b significant number of non-Bngfishspeaking employees. The Court started that if OSHA determines that these issues could not be resolved on (he existing record, OSHA may explain why and commence new rulemaking instead. Finally, as to the fcree remaining remand issues,Ike Court eRowed OSHA to publish rulemaking proposals no later than February 27,1990. These issues are: (7) The estabRehmeM of operationspecific permissible exposure finrita; (B) The extension of reporting end transfer requirements; and (9) die expansion of the competent person requirement to all employers engaged in any kind of construction work. This document constitutes OSHA'a response on the second pwp of remand issues. On issue 4. OSHA to adding various smoking control provisions. U is prohibiting workplace smoking in areas where ocrepathmol exposure to asbestos takes place: expanding Warning to include information about available smoking cessation programs and to require the distribution of self-help smoking cessation material, and requiring that foe physician's written opinion state that the employee has been advised of die combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure in producing lung cancer. The Agency is explaining why it is not adopting ALA's additional suggestions for smoking controls. On issue 5. OSHA is explaining bow and why the provisions in the 1986 standards relating to respiratory protection wUl result in employee risk being reduced below that remaining solely as a result of the PEL and that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under rgyiew. On issue 6. OSHA is adding a provision requiring that employers assure that waylay**a wrefctog to ar contiguous to segatotad areas comprehend warning rip*. Bteplojrers may devise thaasaaretsasare* employee comprakaaatote wing symbols, graphic*, ptetogwnhn nr language* othar few Bagfire. 08HA also is requiring that tho tabling program specifically toeknet employees as to the ceiiteat and presence uf signs and label*. Because 06HA has considered there issues In response to the Cowl's remand and te adding reguletwytext hosed on the prior mWmaklng reread developed after notice and comment, fee Agency concludes Hurt additional opportunity for notice and garment to impractical and nnnrrrsury to accordance with the intent of5U.SC: 551(b). III. Summary and wpla--rt of fee Remand Issues Expanded Smoking-Control Regulations In the 1988 standard*. OSHA Included cerlain smoking related requirements in response to fee substantial record evidence that smoking mailipbe* fee lung cancer risk of nebesloe-expoaed workers. Thus, fee mandated twining program must include Information concerning the relationship between smoking and exposure to asbestos in producing lung cancer ( 19101001(j)(5)(iii)(Bk. S 192&58(k)(3)(niXC)k and smoking is prohibited in regulated areas (Si 1910.1001(eX5).192&58(e)l5U. OSHA believed that this approach was consistent wife fee record evidence and with policy considerations of the agency. During the ndeaakiag, A1A suggested expanded smoking control provisions such re banning fee hiring of smokers for asbestos-related work, requiring employer-provided smoking cessation programs, prohibiting work site sale of tobacco products, and banning smoking during work hours. See 51 FR at 22789. OSHA rejected these requests for greater smoking controls. AJA petitioned for review. In its decision, the Court found record evidence showing that (rucking cessation programs can reduce a significant risk and are feasible to implement. It concluded that where there such a prima facie showing of efficacy and feasibility, OSHA must justify its non-adoption of a requirement to offer smoking cessation programs and that "unarticulated `pobey considerations' " are not sufficient justification for its failure to do so. (See 638 F.2d at 1271). OSHA nates that A1A suggested foor amoking control provisions. Only one. CTD001726 f >M&L55S3w2SSi3UbJffi taoUeg cassation fouibfflfy ud tftoctivtnass. The Court held that Afetmy Justification Is required only toe luggsstloaa far which there to recced tvktancs concerning feasibility andeffect!venew. Therefore, the Agency believe* It U required to rccontlder only the smoking-cessation program suggestions. However, becetue the remand order may Include ell suggested sniokjiu controls, 08HA ha* reconsidered AlA's entire smoking control program. OSHA believer that the response moat consistent with itr statutory authority, relevant policy,considerations detailed below and the rulemaking record developed in support of the 1088 tandarda (a to add regulatory provision* which will ban smoking in work areas where occupational exposure to asbestoa exists: to expand the required training programs to Include information concerning available smoking cessation programs and to distribute self-help smoking cessation program material; and to require that during mandated medical examinations physicians inform employees of the combined effect of asbestos arid smoking in producing lung cancer. First OSHA is adding a provision which will prohibit smoking in all work areas where there is "occupational exposure to asbestos" because of activities In such areas. (29 CFR 1910.1001(1X4), 192&58(j)(3).) This is an expansion of the present smoking ban, which, as in most OSHA health standards, is confined to regulated areas where exposures are elevated. "Occupational exposure," as discussed in the preambles to the 1988 asbestos standards, means asbestos exposure which has its source in the workplace. Thus, employees who work in areas where asbestos abatement and renovation activity are ongoing may be occupationally exposed even though they do not disturb or handle asbestos. The new provision will read as follows: "The employer shall ensure thst employees do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because of activities in that area." OSHA is extending the former more limited smoking ban, to reduce residual risk among exposed smokers and nonsmokers. based on the following record evidence and considerations. OSHA appropriately relied on studies that included smokers when it determined 'tjhat workplace asbestos risk for all woftm Is "significant" (DIP. 1288).Thu risk tor smokingWOI exposed to ssbestos to substantially higher. (8m 04. Th 7/1. a. 1M-186.) OSHAdoat not know withcertainty whether banning smoking at the workplace will result In diminished total smoking consumption lor ssbestos workers who smoke. However, given their higher residual risk, and the suggestion that contemporaneous smoking and asbestos exposure Is particularly risky, tha Agency believes that even a small reduction to workplace smoking will reduce risk to smoking employees by more than a do mtmimis amount (See eg. Tr. 7/2, at 153-155.) Feasibility of a workplace smoking ban is apparent from the record. Employers now are required to enforce a ban on smoking to regulated areas; expanding that ban to all areas where there is occupational exposure to asbestos raises no cost issue. OSHA Is also requiring that employers augment their training programs to offer smoking cessation self-help material, such as NIH Publication No. 89-1847, and that physicians certify that they have informed employees of the health risks of smoking and asbestos exposure during required medical examinations. These provisions are the core of AlA's suggestedsmoking cessation program requirement which the court found on the record to be feasible and effective. OSHA ia not adopting two other suggested features of such programs-- providing incentives to participate and requiring smoking cessation activities on at least a quarterly basis--because, as explained below, the record shows such requirements do not appear to provide more than de minima benefit to the affected workforce. OSHA ts providing, in non-mandatory appendices, names, addresses and brief descriptions of public health organizations which provide smoking cessation programs and materials to assist employers in complying with this requirement ( 1910.1001, appendix 1; S 1926.58. appendix )] Although the regulatory text specifically identifies NIH material as appropriate to meet the requirement for employer distribution of self-help smoking cessation material, alternative program material provided by other public health or private organizations may be substituted. Requiring employers to offer smoking cessation self-help material and resource information is intended to reduce residual lung cancer risk by reducing the incidence of employee smoking. During the hearing on the 1986 taatedtfil^wilMM. JohnPtonay, testified (huthe aveJtabta evidence dtmotutratad that most smoking cataation programs, toctoding aelf-help, reault In similar auccaaa ratea of from 10* to 20*. The 30* streets* rate mentioned to tha court'* dedaton ratatea to people enrolled In formal quit smoking cllnica over a three-year period (Tr. 7/10 at 401410), particularly where employer provided Incentives are offered (T7. 7/10, p. 413). Therefore, OSH(k expects tint providing aelf-help material andrequiring medical advice to enhance motivation will provide substantial help to smoking employees toreduce their smoking end thus their risk from asbestos exposure. Mr. Pinney also recommended periodic medical advice to heighten individual motivation for program participants. Therefore, OSHA also la expanding its medical surveillance program by reouiring that the physician certify thathe has informed the employee of the synergistic relationship between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure to developing lung cancer; that stopping smoking will reduce lung cancer risk; and that he has advised the employee to stop smoking. During the rulemaking, Dr. Setikoff, an authority on asbestos-related disease, testified that advising employees to stop smoking would be a significant risk reduction measure (Tr. 7/2,194). OSHA has not adopted the other features of the recommended smoking cessation program because, on the record, they do not appear to offer more than a de minimis benefit. Mr. Pinney testified that an ideal program would provide activities on at least a quarterly basis, and provide monetary incentives to participate. However, the largest group of asbestos-exposed workers do not work in manufacturing workplaces which lend themselves to these features. Rather they work to highly transient, mobile construction worksites, or in brake repair facilities, such as gas stations, with small employee populations and high turnovers not amenable to large scale programs with frequently scheduled activities and awards. The success of these features has been demonstrated only in limited production facilities. Mr. Pinney acknowledged that there "has not been an effort to modify these principles to apply them to a mobile type of setting" (Tr. 7/10, p. 414). Therefore OSHA believes there is inadequate evidence that adopting these additional provisions would result in more than a de minimis benefit to most asbestos-11' exposed employees. CTD001727 1 Theothsrpfpvtoiaus writyAMr- the dit to bod mothsraadchild from banning (heweskptonaauis gftobucuo otorewbo Iwlp wokphet hefav. product* and Iwinfag tire hltog*l Although fcelutsruction between ubwmiwduto in nwi hm kMMnhiU kjr OSHA in tire asbestos axpoouu and smoking k significant It it evident fast "MeatyW context nf too leamd men11* choices by workers incretss fair Agency ha* detetnfeed not to adopt workplan risk la many other situations these ptoirietont bend oa potcy s weH The Agency believes that it Is conatifasetseu uskl the fact el evidence . aufeorixsd to regulate the employees' conasadagfaeirfeesibflfty end personal behavior at the werksHt when worksite risks are elevated, even where The policy conaideretJcc* are paramour*. Adopting a ben ess hiring thel risk nay bo aggravated tar extra* workplace Iehwrier free sp busing smokers would drcasueant toe statutory IndustryAsm. v. Deportmentoflabor goal of pRreidtag ustfe workpieces by Inslttd mtricttag tki vcnkpbct to 77XF. 3d 143$ Or, 1989), However. OSHA believes that 9 ie not authorised "sefs" workers. U could eleo peeusote to regulate personal behavior off die intrusive employer lurreiHence at worksite, even when the risk of such employees' personal Uvea. behavior interacts synergistieaRy arid As noted by the Court, OSKA has workplace risks. Farther, do Agency ie mandated "apccial treatment" of also concerned that by claiming a workers with higher risk factors fa two breeder publichealth rale fa regulating regulatory contexts (838 P. 2d at 1272}. lifestyle issues, it may ho oatering areas However, these regulations, unlike a ban' where ft boa failed expertise. OSHA on hiring smokers, do not protect also notes (hitin so other standard is workers solely by excluding them bom an employer required to provide the workplace. The employer mast first behavior xiodiBcatina programs where attempt a '`workplace'' rotation to conduct is sot waik-fdated. The Agency reducing the susceptible employee's also believes Kshould deploy its limited risk. Thus, were employers are required resources at creeling workplace to remove workers enable to wear hazards caned by weckplace-besed respirators, the need lor respirator ose factare at fins time as an exercise of its must be premised on a showing that the priority-setting authority pursuant to employer cannot institute feasible section 6(g) of the Act engineering and work practice controls. The Agency also rejects AIA's The number of employees who cannot recommendation Ie ban the sale of be fitted with any respirator has been tobacco products at asbestos worksites. shown te be minimal, and the employer First, no evidence of efficacy or must first offer available alternative employment (See eg 29 CFR 13101001 (g)(3Kiv. feasibility was submitted. Therefore, OSHA doe* not befieve it must defend its failure to adopt the recommendation. The other regulatory provision cited Second, the most signcant source of by the coins as mandating "special future asbestos employment, asbestos treatment" far snaoeptiUe workers abatement work, is primarily performed requires that "workers tom their beards to allow a good face-real when using respirators". See 29 CFR by contractors working at premises which they do not control. OSHA does not believe ft is adarinfstrativefy 1910.134{eK5)ll).OSHA nates tint tins is feasible to enforce a ban on tobacco not really comparable to regulating the off ti'e practice of some workers to smoke, because the presence of facial hair directly affects the workplace exposure of employees by interfering sales in these circumstances. Another significant source of asbestos related employment brake repair, is frequently performed si service stations. Public access to stations may create demand with the face to facepiece seal. for on-site tobacco sales. Thns a ban of Also as a matter of policy. OSHA is on-site sales may interfere with the reluctant to reduce workplace risks by employer's economic activity in selling prescribing extra-workplace lifestyles or to the public. Since much brake repair behaviors. This policy is based on the work is intermittent and the sales area following considerations. The issue of is separated from the repair area, a sales extra-workplace factors which interact ban for the entire station would be with workplace conditions to increase difficult lo enforce because it may apply workplace risk is not confined to only while die repair work is underway smoking and asbestos. For example, and may not apply to a separate sale dietary patterns affect the incidence of area. Further, OSHA believes that any coronary disease which affects benefit to employees from such a ban is workplace performance and may result highly speculative, and appears to be de in sudden coronary events at the minimis. The policy considerations workplace, and pregnancy may increase relevant to a ban oo the employment of smokers afaoapp)* to* buns* A*uel* of tobaco* psoam* what tha M o# such pradact* axhmda oeteMs tha workpiece, TharefUs 08HA la determined beseden there considerations, that it is twMwr necessary nor appropriate to adopt a baa on the workplace sale of tobacco predicts. Respirator Policy In lb 1968 asbestos standards, OSHA reaffirmed Ha traditional policy of preferring engineering and went practice contra)* to respirator* to cesrtrel employee expeeure. The bn* of whether OSHA should change this policy fa allow the employer torely on respirators was specifically raised and rejected bv the Agency based an 'overwhelming record support" far OSHA's traditional policy. See SI FR at 22892 et seq. Thus, in tha standards, employer* first mast attempt to reduce exposure* by inflailing engineering controls and instituting work practices. Only when the preferred methods are infeasible, net yet Installed, or insufficient fa meet tbepermbsible limit*, or in situations where ertfowfed exposures are uncertain, does OSHA required respirator ate. Respirator ese fo not required in other situations when engineering and work practice centrals reduce exposure to or below the PELs even though exposure to the JELs still presents a risk to employee* which is not insignificant The FEL* were chosen bated on the technological limitations of engineering and work practice controls, and the limitations of die avaQable monitoring technology. OSHA also requires employers to select required respirators from a class rated by its "protection factor" as able to protect employees at the ambient exposures to which tiiey will be exposed. (See 29 CFR { 1910.1001(g)(2)(i); 1926.58{hH2)(r).} The ratings are expressed as multiples of the PEL: thus a respirator with an assigned protection factor of 10. is reted as able to protect employees m environments up to 2 ifcc. ten times the PEL of 0.2 f/cc. BCTD challenged twe aspects of OSHA's respirator requirements. It objected to OSHA's supplemental respirator policy as allowing "the use of any respirator that can protect employees to the degree that Ihey would be protected ai 0.2 f/cc." "rather then mandating the use of the most protective respirator feasible". As to this claim, OSHA responded that the most protective respirator, i.e. a supplied-air respirator, had safety hazards of its own and therefore should not be mandated in every case. Secondly, BCTD objected to CTD001728 ~=353R>9 iMpSriwdLm, ' contendfutdreyaneoatreiytotb* record ivMtw* (BCTD Br. at 49k 081IA responded that it used pretaction factor* common to other standards and that the atbeatot record did not provide "sufficient evidence to warrant changing this uniform approach at thla time." It further noted that the Agency w*s. undertaking a review ofn general reepiretor atandard (29 CFR 1910.134. see 51FR 38583]-, that questions ceocamlng affactivanew levela for respirator daaaaa would bconsidered during that wlamaking; and if appropria o, conforming changes would be made to the asbestos standards (Seely's Br. at 85). The Court found that OSHA's judgment about supplied air respirators was properly within the Agency's discretion. However, the Court was troubled by the fact that OSHA's respirator requirements appeared to require only that the combined effect of engineering and work practice controls and respira tors limit exposure to the J'EL, where that limit was based on the tedwologfcal limitations of engineering and work'practice controls ana where "the PEL is conceded to leave a significant health risk * * *"(838 F.2d at 1274, emphasis added). The Court ordered OSHA to explicitly justify this policy. In addition, the Court ordered OSHA to complete Its review of the general respirator standard, and "integrate" its results with the psbeslos standards ``without undue delay" (838 F.2d at 1275). OSHA's response to the order is as follows. OSHA reaffirms its previous position concerning effectiveness levels. However, the Agency Is expanding its explanation to demonstrate the correctness of its decision, and the limitations of the protection factor concept itself. BCTD claimed that certain studies in the rulemaking record demonstrated that the performance of half-mask negative pressure respirators in actual use does not warrant OSHA's assigned protection factor of 10. OSHA. however, determined that these studies were flawed, and thuB were an "insufficient basis" to change its historical protection factor assignment of 10. The flaws are serious. OSHA's review of the 1976 early workplace study cited by BCTD (Ex. 208), showed that the probe placement was incorrect, and so virtually guaranteed high and unrepresentative in-mask measurements. Further, the study was conducted on a workforce which received little or no regular fit-testing. i iwponsw ivw piOTmpv ivQiro m that (My to not aMoarla be the result of tha Inherent capaMty of the! respirator typo. but noreUkaly reflect flawed experimentaldeafen. and/or poorly fitting msski BimiW defects meka the result* of tha other studies cited by BCTD unreUabk and thus inadequate to uaa as a batla for salting protection factors. Those studies help Illustrate, as explained more fully below, tehV OSHA regards protection More Of todtoattiig performance eapabUittorofvarious resptretot-typtfpitiylfdiaFaretkeed conpctiy* flttad carefully and maintained accordingtoregulatory requirement*. BCTD alto objected to the feci that OSHA'Stsigned a protection factor of 100 to all powered air-purifying respirator* (PAPR*). OSHA noted that a N10SH recommendation for a lower rating is not binding (Br. at 881. OSHA further notes that NIOSH la also planning to review its recommendations In e rulemaking revising it* respirator approval criteria. NlQSlf* moat recent public recommendations concerning PAPRs assigned a protection factor of 25 to loose fitting PAPRs and 50 to tight fitting PAPRs (See 10 DHHS (N1QSH) Publication No. 87-118, at 211).Thus, NIOSH recommends protection factors which are lower than the 100 Which OSHA assigned. OSHA does not believe,, however, that these differences in assigned protection (actors would significantly affect risk in actual asbestos workplaces. This is because there are few, if any, asbestos workplaces where a PAPR is likely to be selected, with exposures between 25 times the PEL and 100 times the PEL, i.e., between 5 fibers and 20 fibers per cc. Therefore, OSHA believes that adjusting the protection factor for PAPRs to 25 to agree with a NIOSH recommendation would have no real effect on workplace risk. OSHA notes that it is still planning to revise and update its general respirator standard. For the reasons discussed above, it believes that continuing to enforce the current asbestos respirator requirements during this interim period will not expose employees to unnecessary risk. In sum. OSHA believes its protection factor assignments properly reflected the record, are consistent with OSHA's other standards, and if applied as part of an entire respirator program offer effective protection to respirator wearing employees. With respect to the other respirator issue, i.e., tying supplemental respirator protection to meeting the PEL, OSHA CoadudsrfMkiirdteWwifixl tapWM&tf&g ttt respirator program would mult in radwtlnt exposure* Mow llw PEL Tbl* mauas (Ml dak would ba raducadbelow that estimated at thy PEL. Mingany respirator reps approved la tha standards, lais finding was bassd on tha following considerations: OSHA's predictions ofrelatively low amblaat concentrations of asbestos after feasible engineering, work practice and hou&kroptagooQtrols would be Instftutedt.OfiHA's revised and tighlenedrespirator requirements which require more protectiverespirator types, requtm ladlviduaftit testing and PAPRs on employee request Agency assessment-that compliance with the standards* entire respirator program would ensure adequate respirator usage and fit: and provisions unique to asbestos to encourage the oaeof respirator types rated as more protective, . OSHA predicted that most operations, after engineering, work practice and housekeeping controls were instituted would notexpose employees to above 0.2 f/cc, the PEL. However, where controls would not reduce exposures to the PEL, ambient exposure concentrations remaining in most such operations would be 1X5 f/cc or less measured ova- an 8-hour shift. For exaftipie, see 51FR at 22885. tables 22 and 23. In these operations, respirators must supplement other controls. The permitted type Ofrespirator rated as least protective, i-e.. a half mask with a high efficiency filter, is rated as having a protection factor of 10. This means that it is expected to filter out at least 90% of the ambient concentration if properly fitted and worn. The remaining concentration (less than 10%) would leak into the mask through gaps between the wearer's face and tha respirator. Since the standards require high efficiency filters, virtually no fibers will penetrate the filter itself. When a half mask respirator is used in maximum asbestos concentrations of up to 0.5f/cc. the in-mask concentration under optimum fitting conditions may be not more than 0.05 f/cc, well below the PEL Thus in most anticipated situations use of the "lowest" ranking respirator type was expected to reduce actual exposures below the PELs when respirators Gt. and are maintained and worn properly. OSI LA has also required that upon an employee's request, the employer provide a respirator type rated more protective, i.e.. a PAPR with an expected protection factor of 100.29 CFR 1910.1001 (g)(2j(ii), and 1828J8(h)(2)(iii). CTD001729 iU* ^ r-y. 1 Further; he abatement tad renovation work, wfcait expectad ambtaat conoa&trattau an vartabla, additional provision* a&cooraga and require ' supplemental reeptrator ua without , regald toaxpoeure levels. Thu* hi major abatement Job* inranthraa to m th* moetprotectivr u<>< of respiretore, supplied air r*sp.i - ora operated in iha porttive-praeau'e nKida, ait providad by oxemptmg empiovw i who provide ruch respiretola mu ui obligation to monitotaxposurm dally for construction employees working within regulated areas. 28 CFR 192658(0(3). Additionally, in small scale, short term abatement and renovation operations, where glove bags are used, respirators must be worn by employees removing absestos regardless of actual exposures measured m the workplace. 29 CFR 1B2&M, app. G. OSHA believes therefore that its supplemental respirator use requirements will result in employee exposure below the PELs, where employers comply with all respirator program provisions. Further, unlike engineering and work practice controls, the record does not contain evidence that the performance of respirators can now be reliably evaluated by measuring in-mask concentrations and OSHA has declined to set respirator requirements on this basis. Therefore, the respirator selection and use requirements in die standards attempt to cover most aspects of reliable respirator use including selection, fit testing, maintenance, and comfort without reference to numerical performance levels. Thus although the respirator selection tables in the standards rate respirator classes in terms of their estimated capability to meet certain multiples of the PEL, the tables only start the employer's selection process, not end it. Thus. OSHA additionally requires, not only that the respirator chosen be of an appropriate class, i.e., may be used in the concentrations set out in Table L but also that it be certified for use by MSHA/NIOSR and that the individual user be personally fit-tested to account for individual variations in fit, and thus face-seal. Decreasing the inevitable discomfort of respirator wear, and thereby avoiding the temptation to loosen strap tension or remove the respirator for "relief," is provided for, as noted above, by requiring the employer to provider PAPR for employees who ask for one, instead of a half-mask respirator otherwise indicated as appropriate. The relative rankings of respirator effectiveness are crude ' . guidelines which set a floor for respirator selection, which other reouiremanta esmlifr. OSHA Wishad tontshi flexibility to choose among a variety of respirator types to achieve optimum protection for two reasons. It did not prescribe the use of respirator types based only on their protocHon threw ratings, for at this time that rating may be uncertain in actual use. Further any numerical rating now available it mb a partial Indicator of respirator suitability for a Job. For example, OSHA has assigned a protection factor of 10 tolull facepiece air-purifying respirators equipped with high efficiency filters, and a protection factor Of 10 to a half-mask nondisposable air-purifying respirators equipped with high-efficiency filters. Although the nominal protective edge for foefufl-focepiece respirator Is five times greater than for the half-facepiece respirator. OSHA's experience indicates that the haif-focepiece respirator is more comfortable, and that the full facepiece mask can impair vision and contribute to heat stress. None of these factors are reflected in'the current numerical ratings. Therefore, foe Agency is reluctant to require always that foe full facepiece type be used, because foe Agency's experience indicates that it will hot always be more protective. Similar concerns exist relative to all respirator types. The class rated as most protective, a supplied air type, was acknowledged in foe Court's decision to create safety hazards which justified foe Agency'* decision taaUow other respirator types which are free from such concerns. To provide additional protection, OSHA deleted from allowable respirator types in foe asbestos standards respirator types which did not meet extraordinary performance criteria. Thus, OSHA has limited foe flexibility to choose among respirator types by excluding some respirator types which are simply not good enough to protect against asbestos. Thus, dust, mist, and fume filters previously allowed for asbestos exposure, although they are recognized as appropriate against other toxic substances, are prohibited in the 1986 standards. OSHA believed that the high toxicity of asbeBtos requires that only high efficiency filters can be safely used by workers when using negative pressure respirators which depend on filtration. Futhennore, disposable respirators which are often allowed to be used in other OSHA standards are prohibited for use by asbestos exposed workers. OSHA believed that these respirators were not suitable because of the apparent fitting problems. Thus, OSHA has eliminated from possible use against asbestos, entire respirator classes which tba agency behaves do not perform waB enough to reliably protectamployMe spamst a highly toxic contaminant each at aabeetoe. OSHA believee foot lie respirator program requirement*, discussed above, properly reflect foe record of He rulemaking which specifically explored reepintor design meets anti program deficiencies. In addition to foe problematic nature of respirator use. reliance on engineering and work practice controls for aabeetoe Is preferable because they measurably reduce exposures of employees directly Involved in asbestos producing operations, reduce or eliminate bystander exposures, avoid foe deposit of asbestos foist on work surfaces and employee dothing which results in further exposures, and include methods of controls such as Substitution, or fully bonded asbestos-containlng-materiais which will eliminate or reduce future asbestos exposures. The balance in foe asbestos standard was struck therefore to rely on respirators where foe preferred control systems would be Insufficient, but not to elevate reliance on respiratory protection to a level of performance which can neither be measured nor reliably achieved. Therefore OSHA did not mandate reapiretpr choice in this standard baaed primarily on numerical protection factors. As stated above, at this time foe numbers themselves are inconclusive, foe rankings are only partial indicators of respirator effectiveness, and perhaps most importantly, foe rankings now used emphasize a theoretical level of respiratorperfonnance. OSHA believes that this approach is rational and that employees required to wear respirators for supplemental protection will first benefit from all feasible engineering and work practice controls. It Is intended to enhance reliance on favored control strategies such as engineering controls, work practices and housekeeping. Bi-Lingual Signs and Labels In the 1986 standards. OSHA prescribed a comprehensive hazard communication program including formal training, labeling asbestoscontaining products, and erecting signs demarcating regulated areas where exposures exceed the PEL and, in construction, where negative pressure enclosures are erected for major abatement and renovation jobs. The framing program which is required `to be conducted in a manner which the employee is able to understand," CTD001730 AM. Nh. M / Muodp, Mtfmy 4 IfiW Utah* --4 lmdoni - tnCanurttaataMaanlat tka queatity,* locate*. tremor of sea. raleaaa saw atoms of asbestos; Mm haahfc attacks connected with asbestos axposim; and a review of this standard. 29 CFR 181M0UqX8)slMJHftXH Hadfcor warning fens aor Mats nan mM to bo la languages other duoEagtiah. 21 FB 22724. BTCD hadwgoed that ialtore to require waminga is lancingae ether than nliah la hMuffidaody pmaoMaa of noa-RngHeh-aneahiiig eapioyeea and that OSHA ahoiud require algae cad labela "bilingualto the languages that predominate in the'workforce ana." The Court found that* It teem* obvicm* that a wanting rig? or label in BnglUh will ociy rarefy warn er edacale non-ngIi*h-pe*king worker*. The number of *uch workers in the ooutructioo Industry li significant * * * Section (6Xb)(5) direct* the agency to provide lor aU worker*" (B3B F. at 1277). Therefore it ordered OSHA to reconsider its determination not to require sign* and labela to be in language* other than Engtith. OSHA'* respoasels as follow*. After reconsideration of therulemaking record, the Agency i* adding a new element to it* training program specifically covering thecontent and placement of warning labels and signs, and a new requirement thatthe employer assure that employees comprehend wanting sign* required in regulated areas.Such understanding may be obtained by utilizing English, if workers are trained accordingly, or by other means, such as utilizing universal symbols, graphics, or foreign languages. However, OSHA is not requiring similar assurances for warning labels. OSHA is not specifically mandating that warning signs and labels be in languages other than English, because the Agency has deteimined that the benefit of such a specificrequirement is unproven, that it raises policy issues for the agency that go beyond this standard, and that OSHA's entire hazard communication piogram for asbestos, as amended, will ensure that all exposed employees are effectively warned of the presence and hazards of asbestoscontaining materials on worksites. The first new provision will add regulatory text as paragraph (j)(5)(iii)U) of the general industry standard and paragraph (k)(3)(iii)(J) of die construction standard, by adding a new element for inclusion in training programs. Thus, employers must inform employees of "the requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels." Training must cover audited labels wdgtoaa. OtiHA (tends that empteyeetM shews actual slgu wd labels Mdantes* Ihiir eenhmta storing toshting. Man Wngllah quaking tmptoynai thereby wfllbe famtilarired with the wardlagafatone aad labela and lha Wgnfioaooa af Uiom taaaads. OSHA believe* that the additional training oompooent will aaauw Jha oompraheneton by all employees of written wnrnlngs which ait appliedor posted (ohaxnraeua product* and location*. Relying on th* training coaaponent of hazard communicatloo program* to ensure knowledge andoooprehension of written warnings has bean OSHA'a huari communication standard it has promulgated--the generic hazard communication rules covering health related hazards, 28 CPR 1*10.1200. and ths control of hazardous energy aource rule, also known aa lockout/tagout, 29 CFR 1910.147. In the lockout/tagout rule, OSHA allow* machinery to be tagged in certain limited clrcumstanoes to prevent the release ofhazardous energy, when maintenance and servicing are performed. Although the dangers of noncomprehension by employees are Immediate and canlte deadly, OSHA does not require foreign language tagout legends, but relies Instead on training programs to underscore the meaning of tag messages, and requires that tags be "understandable** by all affected employees. 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7). The generichealth hazard communication standard similarly relies on training as the major medium of employee instruction as to hazard*. Aj noted in the Agency's earlier response. OSHA allows the addition offoreign language legends to English language signs and labels, if the employer believes comprehension will thereby be improved. OSHA has also added a requirement that the employer assure that warning signs required for regulated areas bear legends which are understandable to employees working in and contiguous to such posted areas. 29 CFR 1910.1n(j)(l)(iv); 1926.58(k)(l)(ivJ. OSHA will not require that such signs be in a foreign language, but employers must assure comprehension by all affected employees including nonEnglish speaking ones. To convey the meaning of all elements of the required legend, the employer may use symbols, graphics, piclographs or languages used by affected employees, or any other proven means of communication. Posting regulated areas warns two employee groups, those working within me area who undergo training, and thoot who work tetite vtctelty af regulated anas, shsnq not receive asbestos tatola*The Meow) v**P la at risk of sipiMtoant aaboetae exposure tf thay cannot wideratend the eigne which demarcate toe potential htofr-expoeure area. Protection of bystander employee* has acquired special meaning in asbestos work, because ef me historical record of significant disease and death suffered by employees who themselves did not handle asbestos, bot who worked to the vicinity of those who did (See SI FR at22711.1). Therefore, OSHA hat Mad to reduoa Ibe risk for bystander employees where feasible. The provisions added are intended to protect both groups. Aa noted above OSHA baa not added regulatory provisions which require foreign language legends or symbols on wanting labels. OSHA believes that because labeling of asbestos products is done by tire manufacturer, die appropriate language for any downstream work force is unknown. Employees who work with asbestos products are required ta undergo training iftheirexposure wifi be significant, end those who work in areas where exposures will exceed the PEL must be trained end also warned by signs. Thus, although employers may attach foreign language and symbolic legends to product and west* material labels, OSHA does not believe the incremental benefits of such a requirement compels its adoption. One policy concern of the Agency should be noted. Requiring foreign language warnings in (he asbestos standard would constitute the first departmental requirement of this nature. Many departmental requirements across agency tines involve feecommunication of hazards, dangers, risks, and benefits to immigrant or foreign language work forces. The Agency believes that the issue of requiring die public to utilize foreign languages should only be addressed after a broader airing of the concerns about such an approach. The Agency believes that the approach taken in this standard, relying on performance objectives to assure comprehension of warnings, because ii doe3 not raise these policy concerns and because OSHA believes It is effective, is the most appropriate approach to conveying 8Bbestos warnings to affected employees. IV. State Plan Applicability Twenty-five states and U.S. territories have their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans. CTD001731 TwhuMUgftU* / Vol' Mi No. 34 / Monday, Ftbrutty g> 1880 / Rule and jUjahtlOM 3731 Hwh tUtM and tanitoriaa an: Alaska. Arizona. California. Connactlcut (for tata and local govonuMnl tmployna only). Hawaii Indiana. Iowa. Kentucky. Maryland, Michigan. Mlnnaaota. Nevada, New Mexico. New York (for data and local government tmpioyan only). North Carolina. Tannetiea, Utah. Vermont Virginia. Virgin lalanda, Washington, and Wyoming. Those states and territories are to adopt a standard comparable to that of OSHA's within six months of the effective date of the Federal rule. List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 1910 Asbestos. Cancer, Health, Labeling. Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment Respiratory protection. Signs and symbols. 29 CFR Part 1826 Asbestos. Cancer, Construction industry, Hazardous materials, Health. Labeling, Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment Respiratory protection. Signs and symbols. V. Authority This document was prepared under the direction of Gerard F. Scannell Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue. NW,, Washington, DC 20210. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4.6(b), 8(c) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1070 (29 U.S.C. 853. 655,857), section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333), the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), 29 CFR part 1911 and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 9-83 (48 FR 35738). 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1928 are hereby amended as set forth below. Signed al Washington, DC this 29th day of January, 1990. Gerard F. ScanneU, Assistant Secretary ofLabor. Amended Standards Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as follows: PART 1910--(AMENDED) Subpart Z--(Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart Z of part 1910 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 8 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U S C. 855,857: Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754J. 8-76 (41 FR 25059k or 9-83 (48 FR 15738) at applicable; and 29 CFR part MIL Ail of subpart Z Issued under tec. 8(b) of the Occupational Softly and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 6S5(bk axcept those substances listed In the Final Rule Units column ofTable Z-lA which have identical Units listed In the Transitional Limits columns of Ttbla Z-l-A. Table Z-2 or Tibia Z-S.The latter were issued under sec. 8(e) (29 U.8.C. 855{i)). Section 1910:1000, the Transitional Limits columns ofTibia Z-l-A Table Z-2 and 2-3 alto Issued under 9 U.&C. 953. Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-l-A Z-2 and Z-3 not issued under 29 CFR pt>.11911 except for the arsenic, benxene, cotton duet end formaldehyde listings. Section 1910.1001 alto issued under sec. 107 of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 40 UAC. 333. Section 1910.1002 not Issued under 20 U.S.C. 955 or 29 CFR part 1011; also issued under5U.SC 553. Section 1910.1003 through 1010.1015 also issued under 29 U.&.C. 053. Section 1910:1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 953 and 5 U&G 553. Section 1010.1028 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 955. Section 1910.1043 also Issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 eteeq. Sections 1010.1045 and 1910.1047 also Issued under 29 U&C. 853. Section 1910:1045 also Issued under 29 U.S.C. 853. Sections 1910.1200,1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also Issued under 5 US.C. 853. 2. Section 1910.1001 U hereby amended by adding new paragraphs MM. IflMlW). (l)(5)(iii)(l). (j)(5)(iii)()). (flOMivMC). (l(7)(l)(D).-and (o)(4), and new appendix L and by revising paragraph (p)(2), to read as follows: {1910.1001 Asbestos, tromodto, sntbopbytDte, and scttnollts. (i) * * (4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because of activities in that work area. (IP * * U)* * * (iv) The employer shall ensure that employees working in and contiguous to regulated areas comprehend the warning signs required to be posted by paragraph (j)(l)(i) of this section. Means to ensure employee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, pictographs and graphics. (5) ' * * (iii) * * * (1) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations which provide information, materials, and/or conduct programs concerning smoking cessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizations contained In Appendix L to comply with this requirement. (!) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels. (Iv)* * * (C) The employer shall Inform all employees concerning the availability of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No. 891647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published by a public health organization listed in appendix I. 9 4 4 *4 0) * * (7)(i) ` * (D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the Increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. 19 9*8 (o) ' * * (4) Compliance date. The requirements ofparagraphs (i)(4). (MD(lv). (l)(5)(iii){I). 0)(5)(iU)0). (j)(5)(iv)(C). and (1)(7)(1)(D) shall be complied with byMay 7, I960. (PP * * (2) Appendices B,/, G, H. and 1 to this section are informational and are not intended to create any additional obligation not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligation. * Appendix I to f 1910.1001--Smoking Cessation Program Information For Asbestos, Tremotite, Anthopbyillts and Actionaiite-- Non-Mandatory The following organizations provide smoking cessation information and program material. 1. The National Cancer Institute operates a toll-free Cancer Information Service (CIS) with trained personnel to help you. Cali 1800-4-CANCER' Co reach the CIS office serving your area, or write: Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health. Building 31. Room 10A24. Bethesda. Maryland 20892. 2. American Cancer Society. 3340 Peachtree Road. NE.. Atlanta. Georgia 30062. (404) 320-3333 The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization composed of 58 divisions and 3.100 local units. Through "The Great American Smokeout" in November, the annual Cancer Crusade in ApriL and numerous educational materials. ACS helps people learn about the health hazards of smoking and become successful ex-smokers 3. American Heart Association. 7320 Greenville Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75231. (214) 750-5300 CTD001732 WB twtmd la#>>w f VoL W. Mo. M f Mtndsy, Petruwy , 1W0 / Rule tnd~ Rqguhitiofti 1 Tlx A--tranlfoH Asportation (AHA) Is vohmUry organization wMfc 1JMD0 member* (physician*. sriontista. aud bmnoM) t> n ttal* and ragkmal group*. AHA produces wbn of puMeattons and udtovlaaal MtortaU eborit the effects of smpklng on th* heart. AHA alto ha* developed e guidebook (or incoiperotkng a weight-control component Into smoking cetaalloo program*. I American Lung Association. 1740 Broadway, New Talk.New Toik 10019. cmiras-woo A voluntary organization of 7,800 memben (physician*. nurse*. end laypersons). the AMrioenLiUM AeeodetioB (ALA) conducie numerous public inlonnatleii program about the healfli eflMl of wnoUqg. ALA baa 99 tale and 89 local unlit. The organization actively eupporta laglalaiion and infonnation campalgna (or non-tmokera' righta and providee help (or tmokere who want to quit for example, through "Freedom From Smoking." a self-help emoklng cassation program. 8. Office on Smoking and Haaltk. UA Department of Health and. Human Services. 8800 Flahere Lane, Park Building. Room 110. Rockville, Maryland 10857 The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) ia the Department of Health and Human Servicee' lead agency in amoking control OSH baa sponsored <Uattributionof publicaflone no smoking-realted topic*, tucb aa free flyer* on relapse after Initial quitting, helping a friend or (amity member salt smoking, the heaHhhazardsrif smoking. and the effects of parental smoking on teenagers. *ln Hawaii, on Oahu call 829-1291 (call collect (ram neighboring island*). Spanish-speaking staffmembers are available during daytime hours to caller* from the following areas: California. Florida. Georgia. Illinois, New Jersey (area code 210). New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directory lor listings ol local chapters. PANT 1926---(AMENDED) Subpart D--(Amended) 3. The authority citation (or eubpart D of 29 Cm part 1926 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.6, B Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653. 655. 657): sec. 107 Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act). tOll-S-C. 333. end Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754). 8-76 (41 FR 25059). or 9-83 (48 FR 35736) as applicable. Sec. 1928.55(c) and 1926 58 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 4. Section 1920.58 is hereby amended by adding new paragraphs (j)(3). (k)UMrvj, (kH3)(m)(i). immm. (k)(4)(iii), (mpXiXD) and loH3l and appendix ), and by revising paragraph (p)(2). to read as follows: S 1926.58 Asbestos, tremollte, anthophytltte, and sctinollte. nr (3) Smoking in work orcc*. The employer shall eassart that employees do not smoke In work areas where they are oocapatfonaRy exposed to asbestos because of scSJvtttea In that work ana. ttW* * (jlIvvjlllbbaaiemployer aihafl ensure that employees working in andoontiguoue to sagwated anaa oosopiehand Mia warning sign* seqatrisd to be posted by paragraph {k)H)p) efthla eactkm. Means to ensure employe* comprehension may btchde the use offoreign languages, pictographs and graphics. (n3o) ** ** ** (I) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations which provide information, materials and/or conduct programs concerning smoking cessation. Hie employer may distribute the list of such organizations contained In appendix), to comply with this requirement. (J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels. (4) * (iff) The employer shell inform all employees concerning the availability of self-help smoking cessation program material Upon employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No. 891647, or equivalent self-help material, which ia approved or published by a public health organization listed m appendix). b9 ** (m)* * * (4) * * * (i)* * * (D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. ** ** e (o) * * * (3) The requirements of paragraphs (j) (3l (k)(l)(ivl (k)(3)(iii)(I). (k)(31(iii)(J). (k) (4)(iii), and (mK4)(i)(D) shall be complied with by May 7,1990. (Pi*'(2) Appendices B, F. G, H. J and J to this Bection are informational and are not intended lo create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or lo detracl from any existing obligations. Appendix ] lo 11926-58--Smoking Cessation Program information for Asbestos, Tremolile. AnlbojdiylHte and Actionlite--NonMandatory. The following organizations provide smoking cessation information. t.Tba National Cancar tMlflata operates a tolVfrve Cancertofonaerttoa Sanrioe tCIS) with tralofd pertoaswl tahrip yoa. Call 1MM-CANCEA* WroachfoaCBofftae serving your aroa. orrartta: Office of Cancer Communtcathms. Notioaoi Canoar fewUtote. National fawtltutroof Hanilk. Baildtag SI Room WAM. BMhetda. MaiyUnd SBB2. 1 American Cancer Society. *340 Faachtree Road. NX. Atlanta.Ceorgit 80026. (404) 329-4333 Tba'Amarican Caaoar Society (ACS) It a volanlary organ)xatkiioranposed of n divisions and 3.100 local indts. Through 'The Great American Smokaout" in Novas-bet. the annual Cancer Crusade In April and numeroua educational materials, ACS helps people team about the health hazards of smoking and become successful ex-smokers. 3. American Heart Association, 7320 Greenville Avenue. Dalles, Texas 75231. (214)756-8300 The American Heart Association (Al LA) is a voluntary organization with 130.000 memben (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) inSS stets and regional groups. AHA produces a variety ofpublications and audloviiuai materials about the effects of smoking on Iha heart AHA also has developed a guidebook for incorporating a weight-control component into smoking cessation programs. 4. American Long Association. 1740 Broadway, New York. New York 10019. (212)245-6000 A voluntary organization of 7,500 members (physician, mines, and laypersons), the American lung Association (ALA) conducts numerous public information programs about the health effects of smoking. ALA has 59 state and 85 local units.The organization actively supports legislation and Information campaigns for non-amoken* rights and provides help for etaolten who want to quit lot example, through "Freedom From Smoking." a aeK-belp smoking cessation program. 5. Office on Smoking and Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 5600 Fishers Lane. Park Building. Room 110. Rockville, Maryland 20857 The Office on Smoking and Health (OSI i1 is the Department of Health and Human Services' lead agency in smoking control. OSH has sponsored distribution of publications on smoking-related topics, such as free flyers on relapse after initial quitting, helping a friend or family member quit smoking, the health hazards of smoking, and the effects of parental smoking on teenagers 'In Hawaii, on Oahu call 5T4-1234 (call collect from neighboring islands). Spanish-speaking staff members are available during daytime hours to callers from the following areas: California. Florida, Georgia. Illinois, New [eTsey (area code 2TT. 1 New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directory for listings of local chapters. [FR Doc. 90-2527 Filed 2-2-90; 8-45 am| BIU-ING CODE 4510-ZS-M CTD001733