Document R2JoN9ZxdXw17goVyg3XK7VjE

r jam RULES AND REGULATIONS por your information D. W. BROWN director OF afstic (TAT Srew- corwjratwr PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT DISTRIBUTION: (5/25/76) Plaat Managers Safety Supervisors A. P. Arndt (1) M. Karr (1) C. F. Harris (1) W. J. Rowles (4) C. N. Ludman (3) S. E. Ault (2) M. Y. Mullen (8) G. P. Hogg (1) J. D. Covin (1) FOR YOUR WFORUMWH AMO UK R. F. STUART ABDiv. - UBBB TWa 29--labor CHAPTER XVU--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY . AND HEALTH ABMMKIRATION, DC- NURMENT OF LABOR PART 1910 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS Pumuaat to aaottona 1(b) and 1(0 of too Occupational Safatar and Health Act of 1970 (HBUtUn, UN: 29D&C. 065,187). Bacratary of labor** Order Wo. ia-Tl (N IB S7M). and SO cm Part mi, imoAWKDU) of put mo of Title to, Code of Haderal Regulations, U hmabr amended in tha manDeraet forth baton, ta order to extend the retention period for aabestoa exposure monKoctog reooede from three years to twenty years. On Deoamber 7. 19T1 CM IB 33907). OSHA taaoafl an emaagnacy temporary etandardon aabestoa tnymponae to a pe- ttttoa by the industrial Union Depart ment of the AFXt-CEO. pwranent to eee- tton 0(e) of toe Art (04 Mat. liM. 30 UjfcC. <59>. Thia amerxency temporary ste&dwd m datfcnad to Immediately raduoe and control occupa tional expoauro toeabastoa daat concen trations, and did not aontatn reeord- tiianluo prooednras. However, on Janu ary 13. 1073 (37 IB -4M), OBHA ptd>- ltabad a proposed aomprahanstve atand- ard for aabaetos axposura which did raoordkaeptnc proviatous. Para graph (h)(1) of the proposal (37 IB 4M) provided that exposure monitoring reoords, and reoorde of madloal exami nations. bo aaittflUtflad for a period of ; hearings the Beerata "fc new. perma nent C Mr aebesto* on June T, IN), in aooord- hf the Act (M ltlOJte tatoeda tatninc aa 30 Cm L eon- ___ for re* 'finitortosHMorto, t raa hi totaioi. 'to ei, no. ss--nuoay, kaacm i*. w* KUUf AND REOULATtONS C9 l*10.*3e(i> (1) (now .M OB ?njyUtl?1*73, pursuant to eeetton g(f)of the Act, (NMilRltUa M). * petition for fcaflctal review of the asbestos itndud mi fflol with tbo UBtted State* Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The principal peti tionees, the Industrial Union Depart ment, AFL-CXO, objected to esmal sub stantive portion* of the standard. Includtog those dealing with raoordkeeptag. Tbs Court affirmed the Secretary'll lodgment* and the standard's validity asospt lor two provisions, one of which was the retention period lor exposure mooltociny records. "Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO t. Hodgson." 4*0 the deelaied aonciem that the past inadequacy of health and monitor ing records have hindered reesatth Into the uunssqnmoes of asbestos exposure at the workplace. J7 Fit 11111, June 7,1S73. The long latency periods associated with asbestos-related dissaves, and the consequent need for a standard to take such latency periods Into account, ware recognised by both the 08HA Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust (proceed ings at pp. 1OS-106, February 17, 1972) and the NK18H Criteria Document for a Reeommended Standard on Asbestos (generally chapters I and ID. In addi tion, testimony by two wltnssns at the OSHA hearings also supported longer re tention periods for exposure monitoring (D(l> of 96 cm 1916.1991 is hereby iswidsdtereadasfoDowsi 11916.1961 Asbsmn. ' " f*< e ti) Jtsoordfcespbvp--(1) Kxjotwri rec ords. Cray employer shall maintain rec ords of any personal or enviranwntal monitoring required by this section. Rec ords shall be maintained for a period of at least 99 years and shah be madeavail able upon request to the 4 MistsnV Sec retary of Labor tor Ooctmational Safety and Health, the Director of the National Institute tor Occupational Safety and Health, and to authorised representa tives of either. ^ 3 F. 9d 47 (CJLDJC. 1074). The Court reoords (Tr. at 627,8X8, March 17,1*73). directed the Secretary to re-examine the A consensus of the evidence in the raoord standard with respect to the three year Indicates that exposure monitoring rec recordkeeping provision and to reoan- ords should be held for at least 90 yean sldtr whether such time period ade in order to make such a requirement quately assured employee protection meaningful In view of what is generally Iran asbestos-related disease*. recognised as the minimum latency pe Xn discussing this issue, the Court riod for many asbestos-related diseases. noted that many at Dm problems taring OSHA is of the view that the interests of the Secretary in developing,an asbestos worker health would be best served by standard were directly attributable to requiring the retention of exposure mon the lade of inlormation concerning itoring records far a period which re asfasrtos-rslated diseases, and particu flects an appreciation of this recognised larly to the lack ol reliable data on past latency factor. ssposure levels. Noting the close func- Accordingly, pursuant to the Court's tional relationship between medical rec- remand for further conatdcratton of the ords and exposure record*, and the laet retention period for monitoring records, that the standard required that medical we have concluded, baaed on the exist reoords he maintabled lor at least 90 ing record and for the reasons stated years, the Court expreseed surprise at above, that a 90-year retention period is the abort three-year retention period supported by tike evldaaoe and neces for monitoring records. After reviewing sary for the protection at employees. It the Secretary's obligation under the Act is noted that In a new proposal on ex to require retention of records neeesssry for the development ol information ocnoerning the cause* of disease and the Importance of exposure data in estab lishing this causal relationship, the Court raaanded the recordkeeping require ments to the Secretary Tor such modifi cation or clarification as may be neces sary to ensure that the statutory objec tive* wffl be fulfilled" 4M F. 9d at 4M. Pursuant to the Court's direction, OSSA has completed its review, and has eondoded that the opinion expressed by the Court Is an accurate reflection of the reoord, and that the agency's initial Judgment warrants correction. posure to asbestos (40 Fit 47682, October 8, 1976), which reflects the most recent scientific and medical development* in the field, a 40-year retention period (or the duration of employment plus twenty years) for both exposure measurement and medical reoords has been proposed. For the reasons stated above, the ex posure records provision at the asbestos standard will be corrected to require re tention ot exposure monitoring reoord* for at least 20 years, effective March 19, 1976. OSHA believe* that a delay In the effective date of this requirement Is not warranted since this rule only requires that affected employer* retain reoords CSKA behoves that extension of the which they have already compiled and raoocdfceeplnc requirement for exposure therefore does not impose a new burden monitoring Iran three years to twenty of action, and since the Initial three-year (Sees. , I, Pub. L. VX-SM. M (Mat. 1SS*. U06 ( PJU3. see. *07); geccetsry ef labors O1*M11s)r. No. 19-71 (** m STM); 10 com Part- Signed at Washington. D.C. this 12th day of March 1976. Mossow Co**, Assistant Secrttanr of Labor, ^ (PR DOO.TS-77VI Piled S-l*-Tt:S:t M] years as originally proposed would be In harmony with tbg tMBfcr-yeex retention period now employee meth od reoorda. ? <> u>. retention period tor such reoords has now lapsed and these records might be destroyed. Loss of such records would be Irreparable. Continued access to such the two w&jn read to-' gvther wouJ4 ruCiSi ........ ... 1 record of -- MrjjBijiiiltf|rr of ex posure ^a f i *l*h records by all concerned is essential in the public Interest, and Is an appropriate means of effectuating the goals of Im proved worker safety and health under the Act. Good cause Is found, therefore, octended Pt^lod^SSa&n,with re- rattant data aoonuhmttan. win be crit ic to medical and scientific investiga tions studying such question* as doeerssjwmse relattnrihlps in (Biessrjs caused pursuant to section 4(d) (1) of the Ad ministrative Procedure Act (5 UJS.C. 663 <d) (3)), tor making this rule effective. Accordingly, pursuant to the direc tion of the United State* Court at Ap peals (`Industrial union Department, 7 occupational exposure to asbestos. AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, supra"), and the This decision would also be responsive to above referenced authority, paragraph hxwai Mom**, voc Si, mo. ss--raDAr, match iv, ivy*