Document JVEQ6eBk9pN230aBv250Q1Ya

ST0070352 Lr DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT MICHIGAN DIVISION February 20, 1990 MiDLANO MICHIGAN *3667 P. Brownson M. Carson M. Matthews, 47 Building A. Pollock, 258 Building F. Richardson R. Vitek cc: Olson, 1803 Building T. Venman ASBESTOS REGULATIONS Please read carefully the attached. It appears the training of asbestos workers needs to contain certain statements regarding smoking and the synergism with asbestos exposure and the prohibition of smoking in posted areas. Incorporate the information as soon as possible if not already in place. Medical will develop a form to give to employees (members of asbestos cohort) and potentiallyexposed workers (employees and contractors) regarding advisability of not smoking. Cohort employees and Dow potential-exposure employees should also be placed on the UWL mailing for smoking cessation if they desire. This aye or nay of smokers (Dow employees) to be placed on the UWL smoking cessation mailing list must be documented as well in the~medical record (electronic or hard copy). It is also suggested Contractor Safety check with appropriate contractors to see if they are aware of the new regulations. T^fpps Medical Director fgr 377609 AN OPERATING UNIT OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY RESTRICTED FOR USE WITHIN THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY =Quality= Performance Means More ai Dow ! THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 1803 BUILDING February 13, 1990 MlOLAND MICHIGAN 486*4 ST0070353 D. L. Albert, Laporte F. D. Axe, Pittsburg M. J. Blankenship, Sun Building J. A. Boice, Pittsburg W. H. Braun, Larkin Lab K. J. Chicoine, Cincinnati S. G. Cole, 3502E, Plaquemine T. S. Cox, Clifton D. E. Cragar, B-101, Freeport M. F. Currier, Plaquemine R. L. Daniel, B-101, Freeport S. L. Dombrowski, 2020 Dow Center R. D. Egedahl, Sarnia B. A. Elmer, B-251, Freeport G. W. Engdahl, 1803 Building W. C. Hayes, 2020 Dow Center S. Hearn, 2020 Dow Center J. M. Lanham, 1803 Building W. E. Ledford, Plaquemine T. E. Lingafelter, 1091, Pittsburg T. E. Lipps, 607 Building R. M. Lutz, Sarnia G. L. Meier, Strongsville S. K. Norwood, 1803 Building G. K. Orgler, 1803 Building F. P. Palopoli, 25-1, Cincinnati A. F. Pollock, 258 Building M. L. Rainey, Sun Building L. W. Rampy, 1803 Building C. A. Richie, 9008 Building F. L. Sabel, 258 Building R. S. Sayad, Sun Building J. A. Saunders, B-101, Freeport A. W. Schaffer, 1803 Building J. P. Schroeder, 219, Indianapolis R. C. Schumann, Sun Building T. A. Threet, 2030 Building R. W. Warila, 210, Indianapolis J. G. Wood, Jr., Mauldin cc J. R. Keith, 1803 Building OSHA/Asbestos file Enclosed is a copy of additions to the asbestos regulation put out by OSHA in partial answer to the court remand. More changes will be occurring in the future. The additions require that: 1. Employer ensure no smoking where exposure to asbestos may occur because of activities in that work area. 2. Employer ensure employees working in and around asbestos regulated areas shall comprehend the required warning signs. 377610 RESTRICTED FOR USE WITHIN THE DOW CHEUlCAl COMPANY ST0070354 3. Employees shall be informed of names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations which provide materials on or have smoking cessation programs. 4. Employers must inform employees of the sign posting requirements and the meaning of the legends. 5. Employers must inform employers of availability of smoking cessation programs and distribute materials if requested by employees. 6. The physicians written statement shall include a statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the increased risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure and smoking. The compliance date for these additional requirements is May 7, 1990. An appendix to the standard enclosed gives information on some smoking cessation programs. OSHA will be asked to clarify item #1 above. Looked at in its most extreme view, this could mean that OSHA has instituted a smoking ban in every workplace where asbestos exists. It is believed that OSHA did not intend to do this. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Richard D. Olson Regulatory Compliance Health and Environmental Sciences 6-8295 cja Attachment 377611 ST0070355 S7ZX iederai RegiUst ( VoL 55. No. 24 / Manriry. February S. 1990 / Rides and Refutation* able Z-l-A. table Z-i oriabdaZ-J. Th Idttet wemasuedimnat eacsfc8t*k U.S.C.&S6UI1. Section 1910.1000. die Transitional f.imin calumni of table Z-I-A. tabfte Z-i and table Z-3 alio issued aodarS U-S.C. SS3.Sartioc '.910.:CDQ. tbe Tramiuoaai Umiti columns oi table Z-l-A. table Z-lanet table-3 ool muea under 23 CF3. part 1911 except for the arienic. benzene, cotton dual and formaldehyde liatingi. 1910.1000 [Anmdadl 1. Section 19T0.1CXXJ. table 3-1--A is amended by revising the Note at the end of the Table to read as foffows: .Vote: Pursuant to administrative itays effective-September 1.1989 and published m the Federal Register on September 5.1909. and extended m part by nodcei published in the Federal Register on October fl. 1989. December 8.1969 and oa February S. I960 the September 1.1989 start-up ipeailed in 29 CFR 1910.100010(2>(il is stayed aa follows: Until April 1.1990 far nuraglycenn end i-ihvlene slycoi dinitrate in the explosives industry: until October 1.198B for prrcnloroethylene in the drydcamntj nausirj" or.nl Sepiemoer 1.1990 for tne icetone TWA for certain "doflera" in the cellulose acetate fiber industry: and until the decision on the merits of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Courtauids F-bers. Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor. No. 89-7071 and consolidated cases, for the Ceiling for carbon monoxide for blast furnace operations, vessel blowing at basic oxygen i jmaers and aimer plants m the steel industry (SIC 03). OSHA will publish In the Federal Regular notice of the termination of the carbon monoxide slay. |FR Doc. 90-2579 Filed 2-2-90: 8:45 am| BILLWC coot UlO-Zt-M 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 I Docket No. H-0331 Occupational Exposure to Asbestos agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Department of l^ibor. action: Final rule: partial response to court remand. Summary: On |une 20.1988. at 51 FR 22512. OSHA published revised standards governing occupational rxposure to asbestos, tremalite. anlhophyllite and actinoiite in general indurtry (29 CFR 1910.1001) and construction (2D CFR 1928.58). OSHA reduced the 8-hour time weighted n erase (TWA) permissible exposure limit |PEL) to 0.2 f/cc and adopted provisions for medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, methods of cumpliance. respirators and recordkeeping, among others. On February 2.1988. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the standard rn moat respects but remandad the case to OSHA on several issues. Bailding and Construction Trades Department v. Brock. 838 F.2d 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In partial response to the decision, oa September 14.1388. OSHA issued a short term excursion limit (STELJ for asbestos, tremolite. anlhophyllite. and actinoiite of 1 f/cc averaged over a sampling period of 30 minutes (53 FR 356M|. In June and )uly 1989. the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO (BCTD) and the AFL-CIO petitioned the Court to order OSHA to resolve ail remand issues on the record of the 1988 rulemaking proceeding. The court, on October 30.1S89. ordered OSHA to take action on three of tha remand issues by December 14.1989 [Category I). three other issues by January 28.1990. and the remaining issues by February 27.199& OSHA issued its response on the first three remand issues on December 14. 1989 (54 FR 52024. December 20. 1989). 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 requirement* will result in employee risk being reduced below that remaining at the PEL: and (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" defened 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 N3647. 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Washington. DC 20210. Telephone (202) 520-8151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements On March 31. 1983. the Office of Management and Budget (OMBT published 5 CFR part 1320. implementing the information coITectfoa previsions oi the Paperwork Reduction Act ai 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. (48 FR 13888)1 Parr 132a which became effective on April 30.1983 and wu revised Mby IS, 1988 (53 FR 16518). seta forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining CMS clearance for information collection requirements. OSHA does not believe that the resolution of these remand issues results in any substantial change to the information collection burden which would require QMB paperwork clearance. The new provisions either do not increase paperwork or sfmply make explicit requirement* which were implicit in the unrevised rules. Even in the latter group, the increase in information gathering burden is de mimimis. QMB has approved information collection requests for the existing asbestos standards in. accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act under control numbers 1218-0133 and 1218-0134- Aithough the additional provisions do oot impose any substantial new information gathering burden. OSHA is submitting the paperwork provisions in. 29 CFR 19iai001(j)(5)(tv)(C) and 29 CFR I92S.5S(k}(<)(iii) forOMB efearener pursuant to 5 CFR part 13201 and the Paperwork Reduction Aci of 1988. II. Background On June 17.1988. OSHA issued revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite. anlhophyllite and actinoiite for general industry and construction (51 FR 22812 et seq_ June 28 1988). Effective July 21. 1988. the revised standards amended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. (On October 17. 1906. OSHA published a partial stay of the revised standards insofar as they apply to occupational exposure to nonasbestiform tremolite. anlhophyllite and actinoiite (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. 377612 ST0070356 Fadnrd. Register l Voi 55t No. 24 / Monday. February 5. 1960 / Ruha and Regulation* 372S Several major pattidpant* in the. monitoring:and (3] explained why assure that employe** working, hr or rulemaking prnceadingincluding the- OSHA was. not amending tha regulatory contiguoua to regulated area* AFL-ClO. the Huilding and Conaimclion text to elarify tha Limdedexemption, for comprehend wa ni mg. signi-Employers. Trade* Department ("BUilTT. and the "small-scale, short-duratron operetiona" may devise tha means toosure Asbestos Information Association in the conittuciina industry standacd employes comprehension, using ("AIA'7- challenged various provisions but instead would lothtuts ndamaking symbols, graphics, pictography or .of the revised standards. On February 2. on this, issue. languages other than Engliah. OSHA 1988; the U.S. Court of Appeals Tor the With reaped to the second group of also is requiring that tha (ringing District of Columbia Circuit issued Us issues, the Court ordered OSHA to program specifically instruct employees decision upholding most major complete its response-on.the existing as to the content and presence of signs challenged provisions, burremanding record by January 28.. 1990. These issues and Labels. certain issues to-OSHA for reconsideration (3C7Z2 AFL-CIOr. Brock. 838 F.2d 125Hf. The Court held thar where ruiemaking participants had recommended regulatory proviafons which, on tha record, appeared hr befeasible and to confer more than a-dr minimis benefit lir reducing significanr risk. OSHA must either adapt them refute the evidenceoffeasibility or are: (4) The possibility of further regulations governing employee smoking controls: (51 The effectiveness levels ofvarious respirators-and OSHA'i policy of requiring respirators to protect workers at only the PEL level: and (6) -The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and.rebels for employers with Because OSHA has considered these issues in response to the Court's remand andii adding regulatory text based on the prior ruiemaking record developed after notice and comment, the Agency concludes, that additional opportunity for notice andijuinnenr is impractical and unnecessary is accordance with, the intent of 5 LLS.C. 553(b). benefit, or more-persuasively explain a stguificairrnumherofnon-English- HI. Summary and Explanation, of th* why OSHA. did not adopt the provisions. speaking-employees: Remand Issues The Court also ordered QSl-LA. to clorify The Court stated that rf OSHA the regulatory text for two provisions determines that these issues couid not Expanded Smoking-Control Regulations and found one provision, a ban on be resoived on-the existing record. In the 1988 standards. OSHA included spraying asbesios-conraining products, OSHA may explain why and commence certain uniting related requirements in unsupported by the record.In addition. new rulemaking instead response to. the substantial record QSHA's failure to adopt a. Slut- was- Finally, as to the-three remaining evidence that smoking multiplies tha N ordered to be reconsidered within 60. days of the Court's.mandate. In partial, remand issues, the Court allowed OSHA lung cancer risk of asbestos-exposed to publish rulemaking proposals no later workers.Thus, the mandated training response OSHA issued a STEL called than February 27.1990. These issues are: program must include information an "excursion Limit." of 1 f/cc measured (7) The establishment of operation- concerning the relationship between over 3Q minutes, on September 14.. 1388 (53 FR 35610). ____ On June 10 and July 18.1989. BCTO and the AFL-CIO petitioned tha Court to enforce its remand order by ordering OSHA to resolve all remandissueron the record of the 1986 rulemaking proceeding within-7 tirtO days. The Court in an October 30.1989 order, divided the remand issues into three categories as fallows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take acnon by December 14.1989. These issues were: (11 Formally delete the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containing specific permissible exposure limit*: (8) -The extension of reporting and transfer requirements: and (9) tfaa expamnon of the competent person requirement to ad employers engaged in any kind of amsmuctioa work. This document constitutes QSHA's response an the second group of remand issues. On issue 4. OSHA is adding various smoking control provisions. It is prohibiting workplace smoking in areas where occupational exposure to asbestos takes place: expanding training to include information about available smoking cessation programs and to smoking and exposure to asbestos in. producing lung cancer ($ 19iai001(j)(5)(lu)(B): J 192858fk)(3)(iii)(C)). and smoking ia prohibited in regulated areas (}} 1910.1D01fe)(5). 192858(e)(5))- OSHA believed that this approach was consistent with the record evidence and with policy considerations of the agency. During the rulemaking. ALA suggested expanded smoking control provisions such aa banning the hiring of smokers for asbestos-related work, requiring employer-provided smoking cessation programs, prohibiting work materials:. (2) Clarify that periodic monitoring in require the distribution of self-help smoking cessation material, and site sale of tohacco products, and banning smoking during work, hours. See the construction industry must be requiring that the physician's written 51 FR at 22700. OSHA rejected these resumed after conditions changer and opinion state that the employee has requests Cor greater smoking controls. (3) Clarify the exemption foe "sraali- been advised of the combined effect of A1A petitioned for review. In its scaie. short-duration operations" from smoking and asbestos exposure in decision, the Court found record the negative-pressure enclosure producing lung cancer. The: Agency is evidence showing that smoking requirements of the construction explaining why it is not adopting AIA's cessation programs can reduce a standard to limit the exemption to work additional suggestions foe smoking significant risk and ace feasible to operations where it is impractical to controls. implement. It concluded that, where construct an enclosure because of the On issue 5. OSHA ia explaining how there is such a prisn facie showing of configuration of the work environment. and why the provisions in tbe 1988 efficacy and feasibility. OSHA must OSHA issued its response on these standards relating to respiratory justify its non-adoption of a requirement issues on December 14.1980 (54 FR protection will result in employee risk to offer smoking cessation programs and S2024. December 20.1989). In that being reduced below that remaining that "unarticulated 'policy document OSHA(l) removed the ban on solely as a result of the PEL and that the consideration!' " are not sufficient the spraying of asbestos-containing effectiveness levels of respirators are- justification for its failure to do so-. (See materials: (2) changed the regulatory under review. 838 F.2d at 1271). lext to clarify when construction On issua 9. OSHA It adding a OSHA notes that ALA suggested four -mployers must resume periodic provision requiring that employers. smoking control provisions. Only one. 37?613 .1728 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 24 / Monday, February 5. 1990 / Rules and Regulations the suggestion that OSHA mandate employer-sponsored smoking cessation programs, was supported by evidence introduced by A1A concerning feasibility and effectiveness. The Court held that Agency justification is required only for suggestions for which there is record evidence concerning feasibility and effectiveness. Therefore, the Agency believes it is required to reconsider only the smoking<essation program suggestions. However, because ihe remand order may include all suggested smoking controls, OSHA haa reconsidered AlA's entire smoking control program. OSHA believes that the response most consistent with its statutory authority, relevant policy considerations detailed below and the rulemaking record developed In support of the 1986 standards is to add regulatory provisions which will ban smoking in work areas where occupational exposure to asbestos exists: to expand tiie required training programs to include information concerning available smoking cessation program* and to distribute self-help smoking cessation program material; and to require that during mandated medical examinations physicianj inform employees of the combined effect of asbestos and 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(i)(4). 1928.58(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 ontamoles to the 1986 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 that employees do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed in asbestos because of activities in that area." OSHA is extending the former more united smoking ban. to reduce residual f'sk among exposed smokers and nonmokers. based on the following record evidence and considerations. OSHA .'cpropriately relied on studies that included smokers when it determined that workplace asbestos risk for all workers is "significant" (838 F. 2d at 1285). The risk for smoking workers exposed to asbestos is substantially higher. (See e.g. Tr. 7/2. p. 153-158.) OSHA does not know with certainty whether banning smoking at the workplace will result In diminished total smoking consumption for asbestos workers who smoke. However, given their higher residual risk, and the suggestion that contemporaneous smoking and asbestos exposure is particularly risky, the Agency believes that even a small reduction In workplace smoking will reduce risk to smoking employees by more than a de mimimis amount. (See e.g. 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 in regulated areas: expanding that ban to ail aress 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'i suggested smoking cessation program requirement, which the court found on the record to be feasible and effective. OSHA is 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 minimis benefit to the affected workforce. OSHA is providing, in non-mandatory appendices, names, addresses and brief descriptions of public health organization! which provide smoking cessation programs and materials to assist employers in complying with this requirement (5 1910.1001. appendix I: 5 1928.58. 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 1988 standard*. ALA's witness. John Plnney, testified that the available evidence demonstrated that most smoking cessation programs, including seif-help, resuit in similar success rates of from 10% to 20%. The 30% success rate mentioned in the court's decision relates to people enrolled in formal quit smoking clinics over a three-year period (Tr. 7/10 at 404.410). particularly where employer provided incentives are offered (Tr. 7/10. p. 413). Therefore. OSHA expects that providing self-help material and requiring medical advice to enhance motivation will provide substantial help to smoking employees to reduce their smoking and thus their risk from asbestos exposure. Mr. Pinney also recommended periodic medical advice to heighten Individual motivation for program participants. Therefore. OSHA also is expanding its medical surveillance program by requiring that the physician certify that he has informed the employee of the synergistic relationship between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure in 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. Selikoff. 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 in highly transient mobile construction worksites, or in brake repair facilities, such es 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 ds minimis benefit to most asbestosettposed employees. 377614 ST 0070357 I ST0070358 Federal. Ragiata / Val. 55, No. 24 / Monday. Fe&ruary 5. 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3727 The other provision*urgedhy ALA.-- banning the-warkpiacaaglg:of tohacco pmrlurra. anri. hwnmrj tire tunny n asbestos workerawbaare smokss-- have beertceggginaieiibyCWHAm the context of theremand. ontet-Ua. Agency ha* detsmined nor to. adopt these provubana based an. pnficy rnnmHfrjitinnr nit rtn lack oi evidence concerning then-feasibility and effectiveness. The polity: consideration* are paramount Adopting'a ban on hiring smokers would cizcum*eat til* statutory goaLof providing safe workplaces, by instead mancing the. wnrkpiaca. to "safe" waxkea. ItcooMalao promote intrusive empLoyar rurveiJlancfcof. employees' personal llvest As noted by the Court, OSHA ha* mandated "lpadal treatment**' of workers with, higher risk factor*-in. two regulatory cantexw(838.F,Zd at TZ77). However, these regulations; unlike a ban on hiring smokers, do not protect workers solely by excluding, them fmnr the workplace. The- employmmuatfiat attempte"workplace" mlntiflnta reducing the susceptible employee's, risk. Thus, were employers are required to remove-workers unnhia to. wear respirators, the need, fur respirator use must be premised on. a: showing that dm employercannnr inalilute. feasible: engineering and work practice, controls. The number of employees who cannot be fitted with any respiratorhas been shown to he minimal, and the employer must first offer available.alternanu* employment. (See eg. 29 CFR. 1910.1001 (gl(3)(ivH. The otherregulalory provision cited by the court as mandating "special treatment" for susceptible workers requires that "workers, trim, their beards to allow a good face-seal when using respirators". See23.CFE 1910.1841 e)(5)(i), OSHA notes that this is not really comparable to regulating the off site practice of some, workers to smoke, because the presence of facial hair direcrly affects the workplace exposure of employees.by interfering with the face to facepiece seal. Also asa matter of policy. OSHA is reluctant to reduce workplace risks by prescribing extra-workplace lifestyles or behaviors,This policy is based on the following considerations. The issue-of extra-workplace factors which interact witb workplace conditions to increase workplace risk is not confined to smoking and asbestns.For example, dietary patterns affect the:incidence of coronary disease which.affects workplace performance andmay result in sudden coronary eventual the workplace, and pregnancy may increase the ask to both motherand child front otherwise- bemgn workplace factors; Although the ttiterecaon between asbestos exposure and smoking'is . significant it fa evident that "fifestyle"" choices by worker* increase-their workplace-risk in-many other situations as well. The- Agency believes that it is authorized to regulate-the-employees' personal behavior at the worksite when worksite risks are elevated even where that risk may be aggravated by extraworkpiaca behavior (see-ay Forging Industry Asent v. Department ofLabor 773 F. 2tfP#3S'(4th Cm. 19B5T- However. OSHA believe* that it is not authorized to regulate penonat behavior off the worksite, even when the risk ofsuch behavior Interact*' synergistically with workpiaceriskt. Further, the Agency is also concerned that by claiming a broader public health role hr regulating lifestyle issues, it may beantering areas where it baa limited expertise. OSHA also notes that in no-other standard i aaemployer required to-provide behavior-modification programs where condacris not work-related. The Agency also believe* it should deploy its limited resources.at correcting workplace hazards caused byworkplace-based factors at this time aa an axerciee of Us priority-setting authority pursuant to section 6(g) of the Act The Agency also rejects AlA's recommendation to ban the sale of tobacco-product* at asbestos worksites. First, no evidence ofefficacy or feasibility was submitted. Therefore. OSHA doe* not believe it must defend its failure to adopt the recommendation. Second the most significant source of future asbestos employment asbestos abatement work, is primarily performed by contractor* working at premises which they do not control. OSHA does not believe it is administratively feasible to enforces ban on tobacco sale* in these circumstances. Another significant source of asbestos related employment.brake repair, is frequently performed at service stations. Public access to stations may create demand for on-site tobacco sales. Thus a ban of on-site salesmay interfere-with the employer's economic activity in selling to the public. Since much brake repair work is intermittent and the sales area is separated from the repair area-, a sales ban for the entire station would be difficult to enforce because it may apply only while the repair work is underway and may not apply to a separate sale area. Further. OSHA believes that any benefit to employees from such- a ban is highly speculative, and appear* to bo de minimis, The policy considerations relevant to-a ban on the employment of smokers also apply to a ban on the sale of tobacco products when the ose of such products extends outside the workplace. Therefore OSHA ha* determined, based on these considerations, that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to adopt a bare on the workplace sale of tobaccoproduct*. Respirator Policy In-the 1988 asbestos standards. OSHA reaffirmed if* traditional policy of preferring engineering and work practice controls to respirators to control employee exposure. The issue of whether OSHA should change this policy to allow die employer to refy on respirators was specifically raised and rejected bythe Agency based on"ovorwhalraiitg record support" for OSHA'* traditional policy. See 51 FR at 22692 at seq. Thu*, in the standards, employer* ftrsrmuat attempt to-reduce exposures by installing engineering controls and instituting work practices. Onlywhen the preferred methods areinfeasible. noryet installed, or insufficient to meet the permissible limits, or in situations where estimated exposures are uncertain, does OSHA required respirator use. Respirator use is not required in other situations whenengineering and work practice controls reduce exposure to or below- the PELs even though exposure to the PELs still presents a risk to employees which is not insignificant The PELs were chosen based on the technological limitations of engineering and work practice controls, and the limitations of the available 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 they will be exposed. (See 29 CFR 1 1910.1001 (g)(2)(i): 1926.58(h)(2)(i).) The ratings are expressed as multiples of the PEL thus a-respirator with an assigned protection factorof 10. is rated as able to protect employees in environments up to 2 f/cc. ten times the PEL of 0.2 f/cc. BCTD challenged two 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 they would be protected at 0.2 f/cc." "rather than 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 377615 3728. Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 24 / Monday. February 5. 1990 / Rule* and Regulation* the protection factor* assigned by OSHA to various respirator classes, contending they are contrary to the record evidence (BCTD Br. at 49). OSHA responded that it used protection factors common to other standards and that the asbestos record did not provide "sufficient evidence to warrant changing this uniform approach at this time." It further noted that the Agency was undertaking a review of its general respirator standard (29 CFR 1910.134, see 51 FR 38593): that questions concerning effectiveness levels for respirator classes wouid be considered during that rulemaking: and If appropriate, conforming changes would be made to the asbestos standards (Secty'i Br. at 85). The Court found that OSHA'a judgment about supplied air respirators ' was properly within the Agency's discretion. However, the Court was troubled by the fact that OSHA'a respirator requirements appeared to require only that the combined effect of engineering and work practice controls and respirators limit exposure to the PEL where that limit was based on the technological limitations of engineering and work practice controls and where "the PEL is conceded to leave a significant health risk * * *" (838 F_2d at 1274. emphasis added). Tbe 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 asbestos standards "without undue delay" (838 F.2d at 1275). OSHA's response to the order is as follows. OSHA reaffirms its previous posilion concerning effectiveness levels. 1 lowever. the Agency is expanding its explanation to demonstrate the correctness of its decision, and the limitations of the protection factor concept itself. BCTO 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'a assigned protection factor of 10. OSHA. however, determined that these studies were flawed, and thus were an "insufficient basis" to change its historical protection factor assignment of 10. The flaws are serious. OSHA's review of the 1978 early workplace study cited by BCTD (Ex. 208). showed that the probe placement was incorrect and so \ irtually guaranteed high and unrepresentative in-mosk measurements. Further, the study was c onducted on a workforce which received little or no regular fit-testing. Thui. reported low protection factors in that study do not appear to be the result of the inherent capability of that respirator type, but more likely reflect flawed experimental design, and/or pooriy fitting masks. Similar defecU make the results of the other studies cited by BCTD unreliable and thus inadequate to use at a basis for setting protection factors. These studies help illustrate, as explained more fully below, why OSHA regards protection factors as Indicating performance capabilities of various respirator types only If they are osed correctly, fitted carefully and maintained according to regulatory requirements. BCTD also objected to the fact that OSHA assigned a protection factor of 100 to all powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). OSHA noted that a NIOSH recommendation for a lower rating is not binding (Br. at 85). OSHA further notes that NIOSH is also planning to review its recommendations in a rulemaking revising its respirator approval criteria. NIOSH's most recent public recommendations concerning PAPRs assigned a protection factor of 25 to loose fitting PAPRs and 50 to tight fitting PAPRs (See 10 DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-110, at 211). Thus. NIOSH recommends protection facton which are lower than the 100 which OSHA assigned. OSHA does not believe, however, that these differences In assigned protection facton 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 Le, 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 note* that it ia 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, sre 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>,, tying supplemental respirator protection to meeting the PEL OSHA concluded that the result of implementing the entire required respirator program would result In reducing exposures below the PEL This means that risk would be reduced below that estimated at the PEL using any respirator type approved in the standards. This finding was based on the following considerations: OSHA's predictions of relatively low ambient concentrations of asbestos after feasible engineering, work practice and housekeeping controls would be instituted: OSHA's revised and tightened respirator requirements which require more protective respirator types, require Individual fit 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 use of respirator types rated as more protective. OSHA predicted that most operations, after engineering, work practice and housekeeping controls were instituted would not expose 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 0.5 f/cc or less measured over an 8-hour shift For example, see 51 FR at 22885. tables 22 and 23. In these operations, respirators mast supplement other controls. The permitted type of respirator rated as least protective, /.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 903 of the ambient concentration if properly fitted and worn. The remaining concentration (less than 103) would leak into the mask through gap* between the wearer's face and the 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 05f/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 fit. and are maintained and worn properly. OSHA has also required that upon an employee's request, the employer provide a respirator type rated more protective. ie_ a PAPR with an expected protection factor of 100. 29 CFR 1910.1001(gK2)(ii). and 192858(h)(2)(iii]. ST0070359 377616 S.T0070360 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 24 / Monday, February 5. I960 / RuJaa and Regulation* 3729 . Further. In abatement and renovation work, where expected ambient concentrations are variable, additional proviaions encourage and require supplemental respirator use without regard to exposure levels. Thus in major abatement jobs, incentives to use the most protective class of respirators, supplied air respirators operated in the positive-pressure mode, are provided by exempting employers who provide such respirators from the obligation to monitor exposures daily for construction employees working within regulated areas. 29 CFR 1929^(1(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 in the workplace. 29 CFR 1925^8. app. G. OSHA believes therefore that its supplemental respirator usa requirements will result in employee exposure below the PELi. where employers comply with ail 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 the 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/NIOSH and that the individual user be personally Tit-tested to account for individual variations in Tit, 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 provide a 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 requirements amplify. OSHA wished to retain 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 protection factor ratings, for at this time that rating may be uncertain in actual use. Further any numerical rating now available is only a partial Indicator of respirator suitability for a job. For example. OSHA has assigned a protection factor of 50 to full facepiece air-purifying respirators equipped with high efficiency filters, and a protection factor of 10 to a half-mask non disposable air-purifying respirators equipped with high-effidency filters. Although the nominal protective edge for the full-facepiece respirator is five times greater than for the half-facepiece respirator. OSHA's experience indicates that the half-facepiece 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, the Agency is reluctant to require always that the full facepiece type be used, because the Agency's experience indicates that it will not always be more protective. Similar concerns exist relative to all respirator types. The daas rated as most protective, a supplied air type, was acknowledged in the Court's decision to create safety hazards which justified the Agency's decision to allow other respirator types which are free from such concerns. To provide additional protection. OSHA deleted from allowable respirator types in the asbestos standards respirator types which did not meet extraordinary performance criteria. Thus. OSHA has limited the 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 asbestos requires that only high efficiency fillers can be safely used by workers when using negative pressure respirators which depend on filtration. Futhermore. 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 the agency believes do not perform well enough to reliably protect employees against a highly toxic contaminant such as asbestos. OSHA believes that Its respirator program requirements, discussed above, properly reflect the record of Its rulemaking which specifically explored respirator design defects and program deficiencies, in addition to the problematic nature of respirator use. reliance on engineering and work practice controls for asbestos is preferable because they measurably reduce exposures of employees directly involved in asbestos producing operations, reduce or eliminate bystander exposures, avoid the deposit of asbestos dust on work surfaces and employee clothing which results in further exposures, and include methods of controls such as substitution, or fully bonded asbestos-containing-materials which will eliminate or reduce future asbestos exposures. The balance in the asbestos standard was struck therefore to rely on respirators where the 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 respirator choice in this standard based primarily on numerical protection factors. As slated above, at this time the numbers themselves are inconclusive, the rankings are only partial indicators of respirator effectiveness, and perhaps most Importantly, the rankings now used emphasize a theoretical level of respirator performance. 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 }988 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 training program which is required 'to be conducted in a manner which the employee is able to understand." 377617 ST007036 I 3730 Federal Register / VoL 55. Na 24 / Monday, February 5. 1090 / Rule* sod Regulations Includes coaveying to seek employee information mnr^mn^ the quantity, location, manner of use, release and storage of asbestos; the health effects connected with asbestos exposure; and a review of this standard. 29 CFR 1910.10Cl(j)(5J: 192fl-S8(k)(3). Neither warning signs oor labels were required to be in languages other than English. 51 FR 22724. BTCO had argued that failure to require warnings in languages other than English is insufficiently protective of non-English-speaking employees and that OSHA should require signs and labels "bilingual in the lanpiaget that predominate in the workforce area." The Court found that It seems obvious that a wvnuog sign or label m English will aniy mety warn or educate ooo-English-rpeaJasg workers. The number of such workers la tte eoasmirsioa industry is significant * * * Srrlnn (6)(b)(5) directs the agency tn provide for all worker*'' (838 F. at 1277). Therefore it ordered OSHA to reconsider its determination not to require signs and labels to be in languages other than English. OSHA's response is as follows. After reconsideration of the rulemaking record, the Agency is adding a new element to its training program specifically covering the content and placement of warning labels and signs, and a new requirement that the employer assure that employees comprehend warning signs required in regulated areas. Such understanding may be obtained by utilizing English, if workers are trained accordingly, or by other means, such as utilising 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 determined that the benefit of such a specific requirement is unproven, that it raises policy issues for the agency that go beyond this standard, and that OSHA's entire hazard communication program 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)(J) of the general industry standard and paragraph (k)(3)[iii](J)of the 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 the location, posting, and con tents of mandated labels and aignm OSHA intends that employees be shown sctual signs and labels and review their contents during tratnisg. .'*oo-ngliah speaking employees theraoy will be familiarized with the wording of signs and labels and the signfinance of those legends. OSHA believes that the additional training component will assure the comprehension by all employees of written warnings which are applied or posted to hazardous products and locations. Relying on the training component of hazard rrirnmnntriiHnn programs to ensure knowledge and comprehension of written warnings has been OSHA's regulatory approach in the two generic hazard mmmnnlrHnn farwirr(y it h promulgated--the generic hazard communication rules covering health related hazards. 29 CFR 1910.1200, and the control of hazardous energy source rule, also known as lockout/tagout. 29 CFR 1910.147. In the lockout/tagout rule. OSHA allows machinery to be tagged in certain limited circumstances to prevent the release of hazardous energy, when maintenance and servicing are performed. Although the dangers of noncomprehension by employees are Immediate and can be 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 generic health hazard communication standard similarly relies on training as the major medium of employee instruction as to hazards. As noted in the Agency's earlier response. OSHA allows the addition of foreign 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 lSn0.1001(j)(I)(iv): 1828-5S(k)('l)(iv). 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, pictographs or languages used by affected employees, or any other proven means of communication. Posting regulated areas warns two employee groups, those working within the area who undergo training, and those who work in the vicinity of regulated areas, who may not receive asbestos training. The second group is at risk of significant asbestos exposure if they cannot understand (be signs which demarcate the potential high-exposure arse. Protection of bystander employee* baa acquired special meaning in asbestos work, because of the historical record of significant disease and death suffered by employees who themselves did not handle asbestos, but who worked in the vicinity of those who did (See 51 FR at 22711. lj. Therefore, OSHA has tried to redoes the risk for bystander employees where feasible. The provisions added ere intended to protect both groups. As noted above OSHA hae not added regulatory provisions which require foreign language legends or symbols on warning labels. OSHA believes that because labeling of asbestos products is done by the manufacturer, the appropriate language for any downstream work force is unknown. Employees who work with asbestos products are required to undergo training if their exposure will be significant and those who work in areas where exposures will exceed the PEL must be trained and also wanted by signs. Thus, although employers may attach foreign language and symbolic legends to product and waste material labels. OSHA does not believe the incremental benefits of such requirement compels its adoption. One policy concern of the Agency should be noted. Requiring foreign language warnings in the asbestos standard would constitute the first departmental requirement of this nature. Many departmental requirements across agency lines involve the communication of hazards, dangers, risks, and benefits to immigrant or foreign language work forces. The Agency believes that the issue of requiring the 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 objective* to assure comprehension of warnings, because it does not raise these policy concerns and because OSHA believes it is effective, is the most appropriate approach to conveying asbestos warnings to affected employees. IV. State Plan Applicability Twenty-five states and U.S. territories have their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plana. 377618 ST0070362 Federal Register / VoL 55. No, 24. / Monday, February 5. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2731 These state* and territories are: Alaska. Arizona. California. Connecticut (for state and local government employees only). Hawsii. Indiana. Iowa. Kentucky. Maryland. Michigan. Minnesota. Nevada. New Mexico. New York (for state and local government employees only). North Carolina. Tennessee. Utah. Vermont. Virginia. Virgin Islands. 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 23 CFR Part 2310 Asbestos. Cancer. Health. Labeling. Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment. Respiratory protection. Signs and symbols. 23 CPU Pan 1328 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). 6(c) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1S70 (29 U.S.C. 053. 655.657). 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 35736). 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926 are hereby amended as set forth below. Signed at Washington. DC this 29th diy of January. 1990. Csrard F. ScannelL 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--[Amendedl 1. The authority citation for subpart Z of pan 1910 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. & A Occupational Safety and Health Act. 29 U.S.C- 855. 657; Secretary of Labor's Order* 12-71 (36 FR 5754). 6-78 (41 FR 250591. or 9-63 (46 FR 35736) as epplleible: and 29 CFR part 1911. All of subpart Z Issued under sec. 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 29 U.S.C. 655(b). except those substances listed in the Final Rule Limits column of Table 2-1- A which havs Identical limits listed In tha Transitional Limits columns of Tabts Z-l-A Table 2-2 or Table Z-3. Tha latter were issued under sec 6(e) (29 U.S.C. 655(e)). Section 1910.1000. the Trantidonal limits columns of Table Z-l-A. Table Z-2 and 2-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1000. Tables Z-l-A Z-2 and Z-3 not Issued under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic benzene, cotton dust end formaldehyde listings. Section 1910.1001 also issued under sec 107 of Contract Work Hour* and Safety Standards Act 40 U.S.C. 333. Section 1910.1002 not tsiued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 19U:'aiso issued under S U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also Issued under 29 LLS.C. 653. ' Section 1910.1025 also Issued under 29 U.S.C. 653 and 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1028 also Issued under 29 USXL 653. Section 1910.1043 also issued under 9 UAC.S51.at*** .- . Sections 19iai045 and 1910.1047 also Issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. Section 191CL1048 aleo Issued unde; 29 U.S.C 653. . Sections 1910.1200.1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also Issued under 8 UAC. 553. " 2. Section 1910.1001 Is hereby amended by adding new paragraphs (0(4). OKlXlv). (J)(5)(iil)m. (j)(5)(iii)(J), (iKSHivUC), (l(7)(i)(D). and (o)(4). and new appendix L and by revising paragraph (p)(2). to read as follows: 11910.1001 Asbestos, tremodt*. antbopriylllta, and actinoutn. (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. (1) * * * (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) * * * (lii) * * * (I) 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 I. to comply with this requirement 0) 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 NTH Publication No. 891647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published by a public health organization listed in appendix L * * (1)* * * (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. to)--------- (4) Compliance date. The requirements of paragraphs (i)(4). mnXiv). (J)(5)(ili)(T). (j)(5)(ili)0). (i)(S)(lv)(CT. and (l)(7)(i)(D) shall be complied with by May 7,189Q. Cp) * * * (2) Appendices B, F. G. H. and I 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 i 1910.1001--Smoking Cassation Program Inform*boa For Asbestos. Tremolit*. Anthophyillt* and Aebon*tile-- Noo-M*adatory Th# following orginizations 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. Call 1600-4-CANCER* to reich the CIS office. serving your area, or write: Office of Cancer Communication*. National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health. Building 31. Room 10A24. Bethesda. Maryland 20892. 2. American Cancer Society. 3340 Peachtree Road. NE- Atlanta. Ceorgia 30062, (404) 320-3333 Tha American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization-composed of 58 divisions and 3.100 local units. Through "The Crest American Smokeout" In November, the annual Cancer Crusade In ApriL and numerous educational materials. ACS helps people learn about the health hazards of smoking tnd become successful ex-smokers. X American Heart Association. 7320 Greenville Avenue. Dallas. Text* 75231. (214)750-5300 377619 3732 ' Fadarai R*iaster / VoL 55. No. 24 / Monday, February 5. 1990 / Rules and Regulations Tha American Hid Association (AHA) ts voluntary organization *hi iM.fflO membert (physicians. taenaiu. and laypertonj) m 55 ut aad regional group*. AHA produce* a variety of publications and aodioviauai material* aboot tht effect* of moking on the heart. AHA alio ha* developed a guidebook (or incorporating a weight-control component into amoicmg ceiialion program*. 4. American Lung Allocation. 1740 Broadway. New York. New York 10019. (211) 245-8000 A voluntary organization of 7J00 member* (phyncno*. nurse*, and laypersons). tha American Lang Aaaodaeoa (ALA] conduct* numeroat politic krfannation program* aboot the health effeca of azsniatig. ALA baa 99 tale and SS local unita. The orgacmatxm actively iupporta legislation and information campaign* for non-amoker*' rights and providei help for smoker* who wanUo quit, for example, through "Freedom Prom banking." a self-help smnkiag pea* s bon program. 5. Office on Smoking and Health. U-S. Department of Health and. Human Services. 5600 Fisher* Lane. Park Building. Room 110. Rockville. Maryland 20557 The Ofllce on Smoking and Health (OSH) is the Department of Health and Human Service!' lead agency in sawtang control. OSH has sponsored disatnbuliao of publications on araoking-tealled topics, such as free Dyers on relapse after Initial quitting helping a friend or family member quit moking. the health hazards of smoking, and tha effects of parental smoking on teenagers. 'In Hawaii on Oahu call 524-1234 (call collect from neighboring island*). Spanish-speaking staff members are available during daytime bourn to callers from the following aresi: California.Florida. Ceorgia. Illinois. New Jersey (srea code 210). New York, and Texts. Consult your local telephone directory for listings of local chapters. PART 1926--(AMENDED] Subpart 0--[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart 0 of 29 CFR part 1928 continue* to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.5. 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (3 UiC. 651 851 657): sec. 107 Contract Work Hours juA Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act). 40 U.S.G. 333. and Secretary of Labor s Order* 12-71 (36 FR 8754). 5-76 (41 FR 25059|. or 9-83 (48 FR 35738) s applicable. Sec. 1928.55(c) and 192S.58 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 4. Section 1928.58 is hereby amended by adding new paragraphs (j)[3). (V)(l)(iv). (k)(3)(iii)[l). (k)(3]{iii){JJ. (k)(4)(iii). (m)(4)(i)(D) and (o)(3L and appendix (. and by revising paragraph (p](2). to read as follows: { 1926.53 Asbestos, tretnokJ*. anthophytlite, and actinotita. (!) (3)Smoking in work areas. The employer a ball ensure that employee* do not smoke in work area* where they ere occupatiomdly exposed to atbeslo* because of activities In that work area, Mil) * * * (iv) The employer shall ensure that employee* working in and contiguoua to regulated area* comprehend the warning signs required to be posted by paragraph fk)(l)(i} of this section. Mean* to ensure employee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, pictographs and graphics. P) ' * * fii) * * * (I) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health organization* which provide Information. materials and/or conduct programs concerning amolong cessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organization* contained In appendix J, 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]------(iiT) The employer shall Inform all employees concerning the availahility of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request the employer shall distribute such material, consirtmg ef NIH Publication No. 891847. or equivalent self-help materiaL which is approved or published by a public health organization listed in appendix ). fm) * * ()* (1) * * * (] A statement that the employee has been informed by the pbyrici&n of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. to) * * * [3) The requirements of paragraphs UH3). (k)[l)(ivj. (k)(3)(iii)P). (k)(3)(iii)(J). (k)(4)(iii). and (m)(4)(i)(D) shall be complied with by May 7.199a (Pi* ' * (2) Appendices B. F. G. H. I and f to this section are informauonai and are not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations. Appendix ] to { 192838--Smoking Cessation Program Information for Asbeitoa. Tremolita. AntbnphyHlta and Actionlife--NonMandatory. The following organization* provide smoking cessation information. 1. Tha National Cancer bnmine operate* a toll-free Cancer Information Service (CIS) with trained personnel to help yon. Call 1800-4-CANCER* to reach tha CIS offiaa serving yonr area, or wntc Offlc* oi Cancer Communication*. National Cancer institute. National Institutes of Health. Bmlding 31 Room 10A24. Bethesd*. Maryland 20882. 2. American fanner Society. 3340 Peachtre* Road. N. Atlanta. Ceorgia 30038. (404) 320-1333 The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organzation camposed of 51 division* and 3.100 local amts. Throogh "The Great American Smokeout" in November, the annual Cancer Crusade in ApriL and numerous educational material*. ACS helps people leant about tba health hazards of moking and become successful ex-smoker*. 3. American Heart Association. 7320 Creenville Avenue. Dallas. Texts 75231. (214)750-8300 The American Heart Association (AHA) la a voluntary organization with 130.000 member* (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) tn 55 state and regional groups. AHA produces a variety of publications and audiovisual materials about the effect* of smoking on tha heart AHA also hat developed a guidebook for incorporating a weight-control component into mnkmg cessation programs. 4. American Long Association. 1740 Broadway. New York. New York 10019. (212) 24S-8000 A voluntary organization of 7.500 membea (physicians. nerve*, and laypersons), the America* Lang Association (ALA) conducts nameroos pubDc Information programs aboot the health effects of smoking. ALA haa 69 flats and 85 local anils. Tha organization actively supports legislation and inform*tion campaigns for noc-tmoker*' rights sad providei help lor smokers who want to quit, for example, throe gb "Freedom From Smoking." a aeJt-hop smoking cessation program. 5. Office on Smoking and Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 5800 Fishers Lane. Park Building. Room 110. Rockville. Maryland 20857 The Office on Smoking end Health (OSH) ia 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 effecti of parental smoking on teenagers. `In Hawaii on Oahu call 524-1234 (call collect from neighboring islands). Spanish-speaking staff member* are available during daytime hours to callers from the following areas: California. Florida. Ceorgia. Illinois. New Jersey (area code 2tn). New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directory far listings of local chapters. [FR Doc. 90-2527 Filed 2-2-90: 8:45 am[ hjjsm cooc 4SI0-M-M 377620 ST007 0363 1