Document baL0231E4aK7ZeLE7NjB54ReO

Vol.42--No. 130 9-15-77 PACES 46504-43911 'ighis SUNSHINE ACT MEETINGS................... ......... 46634 CRUDE OIL SHORTAGES PEA seeks comments and announces a hearing date on proposals for alleviating projected shortages for the Nortnern Tier, comments by 10-3-77, hearing on YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Labor/Secy publishes final rules implementing programs under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Proj ects Act of 1377; effective 10-17-77.___________ ____ 46727 MEDICAID HEW/SRS regulates State payments for reserving beds during a recipient's temporary absence from an institu tion; effective 9-16-77................................... ................ 4653S INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT CSC allocates funds for FY 1973____ ___ ____________ 46554 FEDERAL TAXES Treasury/fRS amends Statement of Procedural Rules; effective 9-16-77...................... ............... ........ ............... 46513 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CSC proposes to prohibit discrimination because of a physical or mental handicap; comments by 10-31--77 . 46341 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM State establishes security regulations for information obtained from certain advisory bodies; effective 9-16-77 ............................... ........ _............. ................. 46516 DISASTER UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE Labor/ETA publishes program regulations; effective 10-16-77 (Part IV of this issue)..................... ............... 46711 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY Labor/OSHA extends comment penod and announces hearing date of November 1st 1977 on the issue of protection for workers transferred or removed from lead exposure under the proposed lead standard's medical surveillance provisions; comments by 10-17-77_________________ -....... ......... .....................46547 OFF-SHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES Interior/SIM announces bidding procedures for Alaska Outer Continental Shelf lease sale on 10-27-77.. --50*4 CCrcnNUCD INSIOC L IA 0 3 fc 3 0 N 3740 PROPOSED RULES 48547 written comments was September 1 5. 1077. T.-.i closing date tor the submission at th'se written comments has been ex* ended to September 30. 1977. All other information contained in the Controls* s-m Notice remains the same. was received. In addition, informal pub lic hearings were held cn the proposal in Washington, DC., from March 15. 1977. through April 14.1977, in St. Louis. Mo., from April 25 through April 28. 1977, and In San Francisco. Calif., from May 3 through May 6, 1977. Additional evidence and post-hearing br.eia were are diagnosed only after the employee exhibit* overt pymp'oms. diminished health or life erpnit mo' will frequently result. In audition, tur.eiy medical sur veillance provides an opportunity to treat the occupational illness before it becomes irreversible. Continued expo sures also increase the probability of Issued: September 14. 1977. submitted by participants m the hear material impairment to the employee': I,y the Commission. ings. Consequently, OSHA has collected health. Early medical detection provides a substantial body of information on is essential information for protective ac Janies A. Tobin, Acting Secretary. sues it had previously identified as well tion to prevent these exposures. This is as other issues involved in the proceed particularly important for lead exposures ;FR Doc.77-27208 Piled 9-is-77;8:M sm| ings. since the subtle effects of overexposure One of the issues involved In this pro can be detected b7 current medical prac DEPART.MENT OF US OR ceeding is whether, and to what extent, tice through the use of diagnostic tests. the standard should require employers Positive results on these medical tests Occupational Safety and Health to protect employees who submit to med appear long before overt s7mp:oms ap Administration ical surveillance and as a result are re pear. As a result, an etfKhve medical 123 CFR Part 1910 ] moved from lead exposures in order to surveillance program -. in protect em preserve the employees' health. This is ployees from further impaimant of their (Docket No. H-004| sue is inherent in the proposed standard's health. Moreover, past effect; may be EXPOSURE TO LEAD Prooosed Standard; Additional Comment Period and informal Public Hearing medical surveillance provisions and has teen the subject of a considerable amount of testimony and discussion in the hearings and post-hearing submis reversed/ Recently, a great deal of attention ha t been focused upon the effectiveness of OSKA's medical surveillance provisions AGENCY: Occupational Safety and sions 1 see e.g. statement 0/ OSHA repre because employees are rciuctan: to par Health Administration. Department of sentative Grover Wrerm*. In order to ticipate In medical surveillance programs Labor. provide the public with a clean under such as the one contained la *2be pro ACTION: Notice of additional comment penod and scheduling of informal pub lic hearing. standing of OSHA's intended actions and supporting rationales. OSHA has decided to puolish this notice dis cussing the problem and alternative posed lead standard. There is significant evidence that employees ere unwilling to participate in medical screemn; and ex aminations programs because they fear SVMI.URY: This notice establishes an courses of actions In detail. Written com that the discovery of an abnormal medi additional comment period for the sub ments and the submission 0/ evidence on cal condition resulting from their occu mission of written data, views, and argu this issue are invited. In addition, an pational exposure may lead to the loss ments solely on the issue of appropriate informal public hearing w.l! be held to of employment or other adverse employ protections for workers transferred or receive testimony on-this limited issue. ment efects. removed from lead exposure under the The final lead standard will be based In the final standard for employee ex pro-osed lead standard's medical sur on the total record developed including posure to coke oven emissions. OSHA in veillance provisions. The notice also the public comments, data and testimony dicated that it was concerned about the schedules an informal public hearing to received on the issue of medical transfer plight of workers -.vlio must confront the ?r;v;;e am opportunity to submit oral and removal protections. dilemma of either taking the medical ex testimony on this issue. DATES: Comments and Notices of Ap pearance concerning the proposed rule must be postmarked on or before Octo ber 17, 1977; all materials which will be introduced into the hearing record must be received by Octooer 23. 1977, an in fernal hearing is scheduled to begin November 1. 1977. Introduction It is clear that the Act is intended to assure, to the extent possible, that no employee will suffer diminished health, functional capacity, or life ex pectancy as a result of his or her wort experience. Consistent with this goal, the Secre'ary has been given broad-ranging authority to promulgate comprenensive amination that could ultimately result in. lass of employment, or alternatively re fusing to take the medical examination and thus precluding v.e protections of early medical detection <41 FR 46730'. More evidence on this y-ry difd.-ult issue was presented during the Ieoh proceed ing Several employ.- indicated that they would be extremely re.urt.tnt to submit to medical examinations under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON TACT Mr. James Foster. Office of Public Af fairs. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Third Street and Const.'ution Avenue .V.V., p.oom N-3611, '.V^shir.gton. DC. 20210 'Tel. No. 202533-o151i. spphc.MrirrAP.v info halation ^V. , ;!3er 31 1375- nonte of a propose --:i-ard for occupat.onnl exposure t "i3S put>:ii:ie,i fcv th" Oocupacionc ana Health Adn-.inistratioi 13 the rsscR.ii Registzx (4 ' pl-suan: to sections 4. 6. an - oi .re Occupational Safety and Heal:. 't"-',c:J370 ,e;e Act * 84 Stat. 1591 . -o99; 23 U.S.C. 653. 655, 657). Sec cVV.'- Labor's Order No. 8-76 (4 1 "r 23 CFR Part 1911. A I''1, tf>-e Proposed standard's invi W `-'frosted part.es to subm: comments. & considerabl -u_r.t of relevant information and dat health and safety standards and other implementing regulations. V.'un re.pect to health standards, tne Secretary is empowered to require employers to de termine the extent of employee expo sures; utilise engineering controls and suitable protective equipment to control employee exposures; prescribe medical examinations and otuer diagnostic tests to effectively determine whether the em ployee has beer, adversely arfected by his or her exposures, and inform employees about worup'.ace hu/arcls including the symptumi. treatment and precautions needed to protect themselves isee Sec. 6ib>>7). This integrated approach to employee protection is the cornerstone cf the Act. A successful preventative oc cupational health program cannot suc ceed unless all ot these elements accom plish their intended purposes. A successful medical surveillance pro gram is essential because ic is the only method for the eariy detection of occu pational disease. II occupational Illnesses these circumstances. In /.tuatuins where bl'ood lead levels determine feu* /.si from a job. employees teaw/i-d that .h.-y had sought the use of extrcti.ciy mvc drills from nonmedical sources in order to re duce them bicod lend levels. In addiron. several expert witnesses testih-id cr.at a medical surveillance program could not be successful unaer these circumstances see eg. statement of Amit-ew 1-t. Hric'.to. M.P.H.j This prob!-m h.i,, 0--a recog nised. in part, by .ir.r.-.e employers who currently provide pr j'ec'-.ou to em ployees who are removed from lead ex posure for medical r-w^ons. OSHA is seekuig additional public in put regarding a prc-v ia;on in hie anal lead standard whi.-li would pro-.ect em ployee participation in tne !-vj medical surveillance prr.jri'in Tina provision would extend ampin: meal pr.-t ection to einplovees who participate m the medico! surveillance program and are removed or transferred from them job because of occupational lead Uir.eos. The :oiioivmg DE*AL MOISTE*, VOL 42, NO. ISO--FRIO A V, ScPTSJUMX l*. 197/ Ll^C3fc3A -I6T>43 PROPOSED RULES discussion represent* OSHA's current their families. This Is Intensified for the cost by taking this course of action. Thus, ,:ewj on protected medical surveillance. employees who are at the greatest risk the exposed employee is penalized f.3- Psoticttvc EttFiovrc PAKT:crr\r:o.vt in MEDICI;. SuaVIILLANCE because of long-term exposure to lead. Based upon the foregoing. OSHA's present view is that the medical surveil participating in a medical survsiiUcce program, tin fact, some employers have refused to certify that lead poisoning It appears that there are essentially lance provision should afford significant has resulted in layoffs so that their three alternative approaches to overcom employee protection from serious health worker compensation premiums would ing the employee's reluctance to submit hazards without a consequential loss for sot be affected.) to the medical surveillance program. The me exposed worker. However, If the final lead standard alternatives are: <1) Mandatory medical examinations: <21 medical removal pro tection for employees who are removed Exrostntx LrarrvnoNS. Transfers sms Removal contains a provision which protects em ployees who are removed, the emoloyers1 attention will be focused primarily upon from Their joes because further exposure The medical surveillance provision of preventative health action and cniy to lead cou'.a result in material Impair the proposed standard contemplates that secondarily upon the economic unplica- ment of health; or (3) prohibition employers will limit the exposure of em tlons. On the other hand. OBKA is con against removal of employees. ployees who are at increased risk of ma cerned that respirators will be inappro Mandatory medical surveillance would, terial Impairment of health. Improved priately issued when blood lead levels ex in effect, require employers to discipline engineering controls, work practices, ceed acceptable levels in order to avoid and ultimately discharge employees who hygiene practices, respirators, and the coats of transfer and removal. OSHa refuse to submit to medical surveillance. administrative controls may be utilized requests information on the conditions. Employers who fail to do so would be to reduce employee exposures so that the If any, when respirators may be used to subject to citation and would have no employee is no longer at Increased risk limit employee exposure. choice but to discharge the employee. of material Impairment of ftis or her This approach Intensifies the employee's health. Mxsical Removal PxCTXCTrOXS dilemma in submitting to medical sur OSHA's primary goal is to assure that The medical surveillance provisions of veillance. Either the employee su omits no employee suffers materia: impair the lead standard should include a re to medical examination and risks tus- ment of health or functional capacity. quirement for medical removal protec ohargs for occupational lead illness: or, The Agency does not fayor transfer or tion. This requirement would maintain the employee refuses the medical exam removal as an alternative to controlling the rate of pay, seniority and other rights ination and is automatically discharged. the level of a toxic substance in the of an employee for the time period, or a This is particularly diScuit when the af- workplace environment. Moreover, once portion thereof, that the emcloves is f.--od employee has been employed in full compliance with the permissible ex transferred or removed from his or her :..e lead industry for a relatively long posure level is achieved by engineering job as a result of an increased health time and would find it extremely d::h- controls and work practices, the need to risk from exposure to lead. After a fci- uult to obtain a ;cb in a different indus transfer or remove employees from ex low-up medical examination and opin try. As a result, tne alec ted employees posure to lead should arise infrequently ion. the following options would be avail and their families would bear the pri with only short term transfer or removal able with no loss of earnings or rignts: mary financial responsibility Tor the pre- necessary. Return to the original job, assignment v.-r.::ve health measures mandated by However, it appears that some limita to a different job t transfer), or continu the Act to control occupational disease. tions on exposure such as transfer or ation of the transfer or removal. The result Is inconsistent with the pur removal from occupational exposure The following Is a discussion of several poses of the Act. The Act assigns empiov- may, on occassion, be necessary to ef issues regarding the operation of medi ers the primary responsibility to control fectively protect employees from, mate cal transfer and removal protections. workplace hazards and protect employees rial impairment of health. For example, This discussion is not intended to be ex train oceup.Uw.--u: cuease. This respo.iii- if an employee's blood lead level were haustive. Rather, it presents the Agen bhity necessarily includes the costs to only slightly elevated above acceptable, cy's current position and is intended to protect employees from occupational dis- levels, transfer ("removal") to a job sen's as a fecal point for further public euse tvh:ah will occur as a result of con where the lead expos'ires were consider comment, data and views. tinued exposure. Moreover, a general ably lower might be appropriate preven requirement for mandatory medical ex tive action. Transfer to another job A. MXBICtt BASIS FOR RIAXDATOAY RESIOVAl aminations could inappropriately inter where lead exposures are considerably AMP OTHER LCCTATtONS fere with the employee's privacy. lower is a form of administrative con The operation of the medical surveil Tlie third alternative is to prohibit trol that would comply with the pro lance program raises several issues if the f.fc.xl removal of employees from their posed standard under certain circum medical surveillance section of the !< id . at i wnen medical surveillance indicates stances. standard is expanded to include trans r.r. excessive blood lead level. Qbv.oioly. Of course, this transfer feiust be based fer. remowl and ether limitations. Sev i:-.-s alternative would eliminate the em upon a physician's written opinion. On eral employees testified that they nzd ploye-*' reluctance to participate m med- the other hand, if this same employee's serious doubts about the objectivity or :. ii surveillance based on the fear of re- blood lead levels were substantially ele reliability of medical ooimor_ .-rr.ee: *d m*A--.l. However, tiiis alternative would vated above acceptable levels, removal by physicians currently retained by aieir mt-e;y provide employees with informa- from any occupational exposure to lead employers. One way to ensure greater :i on their current medical status may be necessary in order to significant accuracy in medical diagnosis and to T.iubout any protection from working ly reduce the blood lead level. improve employee confidence in the ccnJltions which materially impair their The present practice of many employ medical examinations would be a pro h-i.rh. Clearly, section 6(b)(7) of the ers is to remove employees from all oc vision that would allow the employee Act anticipated that medical surveillance cupational exposure to lead when blood to challenge the finding made by the Avid be an eSective component in a lead reaches a specific level. These em first physician. This provision could preventive health program directed at protecting employees from material im pairment of their health. The central purpose of the Act Is to prevent illness and injury, not simply to ployees are required to submit to peri odic blood tests. However, their employ ers do not provide appropriate protec tion for employees who are transferred or removed. Therefore, when blood leed allow the affected employee to select a second physician to render a medi cal opinion. This might occur where the first physician's opinion is that tne employee is physically lit to work at the identify it. Furthermore, prevention can levels indicate that employee's exposure same job but the employee contlues to not be achieved when employees must to lead has not been effectively con experience the symptoms of lead poison choose between continued exposure to trolled. employers tend to remove the ing. Conversely, the employee may be a toxic substance with protacted illness employee from exposure completely be healthy and want to continue work, but ar.c tlie employees' means for supporting cause the employer Incurs no substantial the first physician concludes tha em flOCIAl BECtSm. VOL 43, NO. HO--FRIDAY. SIFTIMBSB 16, 1977 L I A 0 313 5 PROPOSED RULES .46549 ployee a not fit to do so. At this stage, seniority protection could last until the cal recommendations to return to the r-. er review by a second physician may Individual employee is able to safely re original job or the appropriateness of .sjult in the first physician reconsider* turn to work. However, if the employee recommended limitations. ~.i 'he original opinion alter compar- is unable to return to the job due to OSHA has already collected a sub s. ' it with the findings of the second occupational exposure to lead, then a stantial body of information on occupa vkysitian. If the second physician's opin certain maximum time period could be tional exposure to lead. Therefore, me ion differs irreconcilably from the first, established. written responses to this notice and testi rhea a third impartial physician would The record Indicates that in some mony at the public hearing thall be lim te chosen by the first two physicians, existing programs the period of earnings ited to those issues directly related to and the third opinion would serve as the and seniority protection la not co-exten- medical removal protection. Issues such baa for the employer's determination stve with the actual transfer or removal as the blood lead level or levels which concerning the particular employee's period. For example, an employee re would trigger limitai.orvs on exposure continued exposure to lead. moved from exposure for four months have already been subjs'ted to extensive OSHA requests information on alter- may receive earnings and seniority pro public comment and testimony and are r.aa-e physician selection procedures. tection for only three months. OSHA re not appropriate for this comment period These medical services would be at the quests information and views on the and hearing. employer s expense. This system of med duration of transfer and removal protec Comments and Information are sought ical examination and review is analogous tion. on any issues raised by the above discus io the system required in the permanent Testimony at the hearings revealed sion. the Issues raised below and any standard on civing operations (42 FS employees occupationally poisoned by other directly related issues: 21630. July 22.1977'. lead receive Workers Compensation pay 1. Whether a provision for removal If exposure limitations including ments in some Stales, such as Missouri. protection is necessary or appropriate. transfer and removal are based exclu These payments do r.c.t equal the salaries 2. What should be the appropriate sively on blood lead levels in excess of of the affected workers nor are they scope of this provision? an established level, then the necessity necessarily co-extensive with the time 3. What earning protection programs cl the second and third medical exam period that the employee has been re are presently in use. and bow do they inations becomes an issue. Since an ex moved from work. Moreover, there is operate? cessive blood lead level is an objective typically & substantial delay before an 4. What impact would this provision criterion. It may be unnecessary to au- employee receives the first payment have on small businesses ? tltj.'.ce a second and perhaps third med under Workers Compensation. There 5. What impact would this provision ical examination. However, the issue re fore, the Agency ncist ooruiiier the rela have on collective ba.-.-aiuici? nt...-- as to whither multiple opinions tion between awards to tne removed em 6. Should employees be permitted to are necessary on the appropriateness cf ployee under Workers' Compensation remain-oq their job despite the risk of a Limitation recommended by the first and payments under the medical sur material impairment of their health? physician. veillance provision. 7. To what extent, if any. should res b. criteria you LurrrAnoNs ox expo- sou 2!ood lead levels may be utilized either as the exclusive biological indicator for a medical opinion or they coula be suppl'-.T.er.ted by additional biological in dicators. The exclusive use of blood lead levels simplifies the medical surveillance process ar.d focuses the physician's at tention on appropriate preventive limita tions. By supplementing blood lead levels with other biological indicators, the em ployer may place limitations on employee exposure based on medical opinion even 'houyh the blood lead levels are within the ->:ceptable level. Data and views on :..x.>e alternatives are sought by the Arency. Comments submitted for the record b7 employers suggested that medical re moval protection should be limited to the transfer of employees to other available positions. This suggestion does not speak to the need to remove employees com pletely from exposure, eg: their home cr hospital. Moreover, employee protec tion becomes entirely dependent on the number of available jobs. If an employee should be removed for medical purposes, then job removal protection must be equally available to all removed em ployees. Another Issue involves the conditions which terminate medical transfer and removal protection. One alternative is to remove an employee for a definite period of time based on the medical rec pirators be permitted to reduce expos ures of employees who are at increased risk of material impairment cf their health? 8. Should a time limitation be placed on the duration of medical removal pro tections for a particular employee? If so. what should that time limit be? 9. Should the initial medi'al opinion be subjected to multiple medical opin ions? 10. Should employee participation In the medical surveillance program be mandatory? U. Should elevated blood lead levels be the exclusive medical criterion for recommending removal from the jop. limitations on exposure, or return to the original job? If not. what supplementary c. rcptis or the provision ok sixoic.m. ommendations. Medical examinations medical entena should be used? removal raoTZcnoM would be scheduled at various intervals 12. To what extent do Workers Com At -he hearings on the proposal, emplcyve and employer groups noted that certain employers currently procect the rate of pay and related rights of em ployees for a period of time after re moval. M.r.ety days was mentioned as one time period for earnings protection r-rate retention"). However, there was alto testimony that in some cases em ployees were not capable of returning ts tr.eir original positions within that time. Thus, an issue is raised as to the appropriate duration of removal protec ts.n. The period of time should refiect the following considerations: The time necessary for employee health and or c.ological indicators to normalize, the nature and extent of physiological dam age from lead poisoning, and the num ber of removed employees who would be covered by this provision. Earnings and within this time frame, and the removed employee would be returned to work when the employee's condition returned to normal A related issue is the medical criteria for returning a removed em ployee to his or her original job. These criteria should insure so far as possible that the returned employee is not re moved Immediately after reassignment as a result of resumed lead exposure. This may require a reassignment cri terion for the employee's blood lead level which Is somewhat lower than the re moval criterion. The provision might also condition the employee's return to exposure on assignment to a job with reduced lead exposures. Since the em ployer's decision to return an employee must be based on a medical opinion, a medical review procedure may be neces sary to resolve disagreements on medi pensation laws cover occupational diseases related to lead exposure.* 13. The economic tmpact of such a provision, including >a> Humber of em ployees affected if this provision becomes operative at 20 mg Pb- lOOg of whole blood. 30 Mg Pb. 40 Pb. 60 ? Pb. or 80 Mg Pb; <b> Cost per employee of this provision for each triggering blood lead levels; <c) Cost impact on cor.s'uners. businesses, markets, or Federal. State. or local government; *a> Effect on pro ductivity of wage earners, businesses (both small and lar-,e or government: (e> Effect on competition: if) Ability of specific lndustr.es to absorb costs of compliance: and <g> Coat impact on the employee, the employee's family, com pensation and disability programs. the health care delivery .svstem, goiemmental and societal institutions ar.d other related cost savings. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 1*0--FRIDAY. StPTIMJU !&, 1*77 LI A 0 31 3 fc 46350 PROPOSED RULES Pwuc Parccxvation notice of Intention to appear. In these in Auditorium. 1347 Broadway. Denve stances where the information contained Colo.; and Mans Harvey College, R'.r HOTICt OP HTAAXK3 In the submission does not justify the gieman Ha'.l. 3770 McCorkle Aveuu Interested persons are invited to sub amount of time requested, a mare appro Charleston. W. Va. mit written data, views and arguments with respect to medical removal protec tion. These comments must be post marked on or before October 17. 1977, aim submitted in Quadruplicate to the Docket Officer, Docket H-C04. Room priate amount of time will be allocated and the participant will be notified. Any party who has not substantially complied with this requirement may be limited to a IS minute presentation, and may be requested to return for question FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COl TACT: Paul Reeves. Office of Surface Mlair. Reciamatica and Enforcement, 202 343-4237. S8212. US. Department of Labor. 3rd ing at a later time. DRAFTING INFORMATION: The prir. Street and Constitution Avenue NW.. Washington. D.O. 20210. Wrv.ten sub missions must clearly identify the posi tion taken with respect to the issue. The data, views, and arguments that are submitted will be available for public In spection and copying at the above ad CONDUCT OP HEARINGS The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on November 1. 1977, with resolu tion of any procedural maters relating to the proceeding. The hearing will be con ducted in and expedited manner consist cipal authors of these corrections are Michael Bradley, Office of Surface Min in? Task Force, and Edward Clair. Offic of the Solicitor. Department of the In tertor. Dated: September 13, 1977. dress. All timely written submissions re ent with the full development of the Carl C. Close. ceived will be made a part of the record record and rights of the parties. Acting Director. Of.ce of Surface for this proceeding. The hearings will be presided over by Mining Task Force. Pursuant to section 6 b) (3) of the Act, an opportunity to submit oral testi mony concerning the issues raised by this notice, including the economic im pact. will be provided at an informal public hearing scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on November 1. 1977. in the Auditorium. New Department of Labor Building. 3rd Street and Constitution Avenue NW.. Washington. DC. 20210. notices op intention to ap?tar All persons desiring to participate at the hearing, must file m quadruplicate, a notice of intention to appear, post marked on or before October 17. 1377, with Clarence Page, the OSKA Division of Consumer Affairs. Docket No. H-004. Room N-3635. U.S. Department o? Labor, 3rd Street and Constitution Avenue NW,, Washington. D.C. 20210, telephone 202523-8024. The notices of intention to ap pear. which will be avada'o'e for in spection and copying at the OSHA Tech nical Data Center--Docket Office (Room S6212), telephone 202-523-7394. must contain the following information: tl) The name, address, and telephone number of each person to appear; <2) The capacity in which the person will appear: an Administrative Law Judge who will have all the powers necessary and ap propriate to conduct a full and fair in formal hearing in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1911. Following the close of the bearing or of any post hearing comment period that might be provided, the Ad ministrative Law Judge will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of La bor for Occupational Safety and Health. The proposal will be reviewed in light of all oral and written submissions re ceived as part of the record, and a stand ard will be issued based on the entire record in the lead proceeding. (Sec. 6. Pub L. 91-596. 34 S:at. 1593 (29 TJ-S.C. 55ii: 29 CFH Part 1911: Secretary of Labor's OrCer No. 6-86 (41 FR 25059).) Signed at Washington, D C., this 13th day of September 1977. Hula Bingham. Assistant Secretary oi labor. [FR Doc.77-27041 Filed 9-15-77:8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [30 CFR Parts 700, 710, 715, 716, 717. The following corrections are made: 1. On pare 44920. under SUMMARY line 6 "These regulations require" is cor rected to read "The Act requires". 2. On page 44320. under SUPPLE MENTARY INFORMATION, line 10 "These regulations, especiaily dealini with" is corrected to rend "The regula tions. especially those dealing with". 3. On puce 44922. the first full para graph. line 3. "that its was necessary" is corrected to read, "that it was necesary" 4. On page 44922 3 715 23. lire 13 strike the comma after "wildlife" and before "habitat". 5. On pcie 44922.1 716 3, line 9, "lcrg- term" is corrected to read "long term". 6. On pace 44923. DRAFTING IN FORMATION. line 3, after "Georgs Davis" insert ", Office or Surface Mining Task Force." 7. On page 44924. "DRAFTING REG ULATION". is cor r-e'ed to read "DRAFTINC INFORMATION". 8. On page 44325. Surface coal mining and reclamation, is corrected in the sec ond line by adding "operations means surface coal miaiog" immediately fol lowing "reclamation" and immediately before "operations". 13) The approximate amount of time requested for the presentation; f4> The specific issues that will be ad dressed: -- 720, 721, 722, 723, 725, 740, 735, 330 j SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS Proposed Rules; Correction 9. On prje 44323. } 700 13<d> (4). The dates" is corrected to read "The date". 10. On pare 44925. i 7CQ.13ie), "Sec retary of" is corrected to read "Secretary or". '5> A detailed statement of the posi tion that will be taken with respect to each issue addressed; and (5) Whether the party intends to sub^ AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Rec lamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior. 11. On page 44927. i 710.5. epprasimate ongir.cl contour, last line, "j 715.7" is corrected to read "3 715.17". 12. On page 44327. j 710.5, HighxeJJ. mic documentary evidence, and if so. & ACTION: Corrections. first line, "face of an exposed" is cor brief summary of that evidence. SUMMARY: This document corrects rected to read "face of exposed". ntecc or testimony and svxasic: before proposed rules that appeared on page 13. On page 44927, I 710.5. "Roads RZAUNO 44920 of the Federal Register on Sep means" is corrected to read "Roads Any party requesting more than 15 tember 7. 1977. FR Doc. 77-25923. minutes for presentation at tne hearing, DATES: Comments must be received by means". 14. On page 44323. "Runnoff wafer" or who will submit documentary evi October 7, 1977. Public hearings will be is corrected to read "Rurjtf icater". . dence. must provide in quadruplicate the held starting at 1 p.m. on September 20. 15. On pace 44923, Wafer table mesas complete tent of testimony, including 1977. and continuing if necessary at 9 upper surface" is corrected to read "Vo any documentary evidence to be pre a.m. on September 21 and 22. 1977. ter table means the upper surface". sented at the hearing, to Clarence Page, the OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs. This materia! must be received by Octo ber 25, 1977, and will be available for in spection and copying at the Technical Data Center--Docket Office. Each such submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of time requested in the ADDRESSE3: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation ar.d Enforcement, Depart ment of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Public hearings wtll be held at the Department of the Interior Auditorium, 18th ar.d C Streets NW.. Washington. D.C.; Kiel Auditorium, 1416 Market Street. St. Louis, Mo.; Public Library 16. Or. pace 44329. j 710.12(0 <1), "no* to exceed l.ooo.ooo tors" is corrected t read "not to exceed too.000 tons". 17. On page 44329. PART 715. under Section heading 715.10 "Dams con* structed of refuse material, general" is corrected to read "Dams constructed of refuse materials." FEDERAL IfSISTER, VOL 42, NO. 1*0--fillOAT, SEPTEMBER 16, 1977 LIAC3637