Document Raa6JLxXQwYGbKz956oQZoGYn

ruHiiturr o I EXHIBIT DUP-13 1UUS AMD KEGUIATTON5 ------------------moT mu 29--Libor = CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SArCTT AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION* OfPARTMENT OF LAIOR PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAPCPT AND HEALTH STANOARDS StarxSard for Exposure ts Asbectee Pursuant to sections 4(b) and 8(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act o( 1970 (84 Stat. 1593. 1591: 29 U.S.C. 455. 657), Secretary of Labor'* Order So. 12-71 (35 TO 8754). and 29 CTO Part 1911. 11910.1001(1X1) of Pan 1910 of Title 29. Code of Federal Regulations, 1* hereby emended Is the manner se-t-forth below. In order to extend the retention period for asbestoa exposure monitoring record* from three years to twenty year*. On December 7. 1971 (38 TO 2J207), OSRA Issued an emerreney temporary standard oe asbestos In resoonse to a pe tition by the Industrial Union Depart ment of the AFL-CIO. pursuant to sec tion 8(e) of the Act (84 Stat. 1598. 29 U.S.C. 855). Thl* emarsmcy ttmporary standard wae designed primarily so Immediately reduce and control occupa tional exposure to asbestos dust concen trations. and did not contain record keeping procedures. However, on Janu- ry 12. 1972 (57 TO 488), OSHA pubshed a proposed comprebenaiee stand ard for asbestos exposure which did Include recordkeeping provisions.^ Para graph (h) (11 of the proposal (37 TO 468) provided that exposure monitoring records, and records of medical exami nations. be maintained for a period of twenty yean. After public hearings the Secretary promulgated a sew, perma nent OSHA standard for asbestos on Juns 7. 1973 (37 TO 11318). In accordancs with section 6(b) of the Act (S4 Slit. 1593. 29 U.S.C. 855). This new reg ulation. which sppesxed as 29 cm 191093a prior to rtcodlficattan. con tained a thrtw-year requirement for re taining exposure monitoring records. 29 CTO 19!0J3s(l) (I) (now 29 CTO 1910 1001(1X1) >. - On July 27. 1972. pursuant to ascttoa 6(f) of the Act. (94 SUL 1897. 29 UA& 655). a petition for judicial review of th* asbestos standard was filed with tha United States Court of Appeals for tha District of Columbia. The principal peti tioner*. the Industrial Union Depart ment. AFL-CIO. objected to several sub stantive portions of the standard, includ ing those dealing with recordkeeping. The Court afilnnsd the Secretary's judgments sod the standard's validity except for two provisions, one of which was tha retention period for sxpoaura monitoring records. "Industrial Union Department. AFL-CIO v. Hodgson." 499 \ 2d 467 ICAD.C. 1974). The Court directed the Secretary to re-examine the standard with respect to the three-year recordkeeping provision and to recon sider whether such time period ade quately assured employee protection from ashestoe-related diseased. __ In discussing this issue, the Court noted tha; many of th* problems facing the Secretary in developing an asbestos standard were directly attributable to the lack of information conetming asbestoe-relsted disease*, and particu larly to the lack of reliable data on past exposure levels. Noting the close func tional relationship between medical rec ords and exposure records, and the fact that the stanoard required that medicSLl records be maintained for at least 20 years, the Court expressed surprise at the short three-year retention period for monitoring records. After reviewing the Secretary's obligation under th* Act to require retention of records neces sary for th* development of inform*tloe concerning the causes of disease and th* Imparlance of exposure data in estab lishing this causal relationship, the Court remanded the recordkeeping require ments to the Secretary "for such modifi cation or clarification as may b* neces sary to ensure that th* statutory objec tives will be fulfilled'' 499 F. 2d at 481. Pursuant to the Court's direction. OSHA has completed Its review, and has concluded that the opinion expressed by th* Court is an accurate reflection of th* record, and that the agency's initial Judgment warrants correction. OSHA believes that extension of the recordkeeping requirement for exposure monitoring irom three years to twenty years as originally proposed would be in harmony with the twenty-year retention period now required for employe* medi cal records. 29 CTO 1910.10010X4X1). As the court noted (499 F. 2d at 419), th* two sets of records when read to gether would provide a more complete record of an employee's history of ex posure. a factor vitally important with respect to asbestos-related diseases. Th* extended period for retention, with re sultant data accumulation, will b* crit ical to medical and scientific Investiga tions studying such questions as dose- response relationships in diseases caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. This decision would also be responsive to the acency't declared concern that the past inadequacy of health and monitor ing records have hindered research Into th* consequences of asbestos exposure at th* worXplac*. 37 TO 11318, June 7.1172. The long latency periods associated with asbestos-related diseases, and tha consequent need for a standard to taka such latency periods Into account, were recognised by both the OSHA Advisory Commute* on Asbestos Dust (proceed ings at pp. 103-105. February 17. 1872) and the N10SH Criteria Document for a Recommended Standard on Asbestos (generally chapters I and Q>. In addi tion. testimony by two witness** at tha OSHA hearings also supported longer re tention periods for exposure monitoring records (Tr. at 527. 531. March 17. 1972). A consensus of the evidencs in the record indicates that exposure monitoring rec ords should be held for at least 20 years in order to make such a requirecnao* meaningful In view of what is generally recognised a* th* minimum latency pe riod for many asbestos-related tllfeaeee. OSHA is of the view that the interests of worker health would be best servad by requiring the retention of exposure mon itoring records for a period which re flect* an appreciation of this recognised latency factor. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court * remand for further consideration of the retention period for momiormg records, wt have concluded, based on the earn ing record and for the reasons stated above, that a 20-ytar retention period is supported by th* evidence and nectssary for the protection of employes. It Is noted that Is a new proposal on ex posure to asbestos (40 TO 47652. October 9. 1975). which reflects the most recent scientific and medical developments in the field, a 40-year retention period tor the duration of employment plus twenty yean) for both exposure measurement and medical records has bees proposed. For the reasons stated above, the ex posure records pronsion of th* asbestoe standard will be corrected to require re tention of exposure monitoring records for at least 20 yean, effeetlvt March 19. 1976. OSHA believes that a delay In the effective date of this requirement is not warranted since this rule only requires that affected employers retain records which they have already compiled and therefore does not Impose a new burden of action, and since the initial three-year retention period for such records has now lapsed and thes* records might be destroyed. Loss of such records would be Irreparable. Continued access to such records by all concerned Is essential in the public interest, and is an appropriate means of effectuattng th* goals of Im proved worker safety and health under the Act. Good cause is found, therefor*, pursuant to section 4(dX3> of th* Ad ministrative Procedure Aet (S Uff.C. 553 (d)(3)), for maktag this rule effective. Accordingly, pursuaat to th* direc tion of the United Etatos Court of Ap peals ("Industrial Union Department. AFIv-CIO . Hodgson, supra"), and the above referenced authority, paragraph (1X1) of 29 CTO 1910.1001 Is hereb amended to read as follow*: | 1910.1001 Ajfeels*. (1) Recordkeeping--(1) Erparurt ree ords. Every employer shall maintain ree ords of any personal or environments monitoring required by this section. Rec ords shall be maintained for a period o at least 20 years and shall bs made avail able upon request to the Assistant Sec retary of Labor for Occupational Safet and Health, the Director of the Nation* Institute for Occupational Safety am Health, and to authorized represents tives of either. (Secs. s. t. Pub. L. 91-S94, *4 Sts*. ISIS. 159 (2* DSC. IIS. 457): Secretary et Labor- * .Order NS. 12-71 (3* r *734): 2* C77t Far 1 111 Signed at Washington, D.C. this I2i day of March 1976. Moerow Coxw. Assistant Secretary ol Labor. {PR DOC.7S-T7S1 riled 9-16-79:9:45 us I DUP 0905063 H098A1 89019711, VOL 41, NO. 59--S*I0AT. MA6CM I*. tT* 000'iSi