Document daQdO4EppwLOvw7jnepgXpQxe

SM-32 (REV. 5-78) Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum MARCH 13, 1990 FROM: L. C. WADDELL, M.D., CORPORATE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT TO: H. BONFILI, M.D., WOOD RIVER MANUFACTURING COMPLEX R. JUDICE, M.D., NORCO MANUFACTURING COMPLEX R. HUGHES, M.D., DEER PARK MANUFACTURING COMPLEX E. SHEPPER, M.D., DEER PARK MANUFACTURING COMPLEX SUBJECT: REVISED ASBESTOS STANDARD Attached for your information is the revised asbestos standard. The written physician's statement will have to be changed to include the mention that the employee has been informed about the combined effects of asbestos exposure and smoking. Dr. Cowles is revising the asbestos examination physician written opinion sheet and the generic written opinion sheet to reflect that change. Sometimes the form making process can take a while and it is possible that those forms might not be avail able by the May 7 implementation date. You might want to use a stamp with the appropriate words if the forms are not available by that time. The two changes that will affect the medical program are found on page 3731. CT9007202 - 0001.0.0 LAM 001725 DPMC-17420 3724 federal Register /ol. No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 1 , / 1 .`3 and Regulations ^-p table Z-l-A. table Z-2 or table Z-3. The latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Section 1910.1000. the Transitional Limits columns of table Z-I-A. table Z-2 and table Z-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C 553. Section 1910.1000. the TransitionaL Limits columns of table Z-l-A. table Z-2 and table Z-3 not issued under 29 CFR port 1911 except for the arsenic, benzene, cotton dust, and formaldehyde listings. 1910.1000 [Amended] 2. Section 1910.1000. table Z-l-A is amended by revising the Note at the end of the Table to read as follows: Note: Pursuant to administrative stays effective September 1.1969 and published in the Federal Register on September 5.1939. and extended in part by notices published in the Federal Register on October 6.1969. December C. 1989 and on February 5.1990 the September 1.1989 start-up specified in 29 CFR 1910.1C0Olf)(2)(i) is stayed as fellows: Until April 11930 for nitroglycerin and ethylene glycol dinitrate in the explosives industry: until October 1.1989 for pcrchloroethylene in the dry-cleaning industry: until September 1.1990 for the acetone TWA for certain "doffers" in the cellulose acetate fiber industry: and until the decision on the merits of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Ccurtculds Fibers. Inc. v. U.S. Department ofLabor. No. 89-7073 and consolidated cases, for the Ceiling for carbon monoxide for blast furnace operations, vessel blowing at basic oxygen furnaces and sinter plants in the steel industry (SIC 23). OSHA will publish in the Federal Register notice of the termination of the carbon monoxide stay. (FR Doc. 90-2579 Filed 2-2-90: 8:43 am] BILLING COOf 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 192S [Docket No. H-033J Occupational Exposure to Asbestos 4 tv'~ J V ..id Health Administration. Department of Labcr. action: Final rule: partial response to court remand. summary: On June 20, I960, at 51 FR 22512. OSHA published revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite,. anthophyllite and aclinolite in general industry' (29 CFR 1910.1001) ar.d construction (29 CFR 1926.58). OSHA reduced the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 0.2 f/cc ar.d adopted provisions for medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, methods of compliance, respirators and recordkeeping, among others. On February 2.1988. the U.S~Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the standard in most respects but remanded the case to OSHA on several issues. Building and Construction Trades Department v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In partial response to the decision, on September 14,1988, OSHA issued a short term excursion limit (STEL) for asbestos, tremolite. anthophyllite. and actinolite of 1 f/cc averaged over a ' sampling period of 30 minutes (53 FR 35610). In June and July 1939, the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO [ECTD] and the AFL-CIO petitioned the Court to order OSHA to resolve all remand issues on the record of the 1986 rulemaking proceeding. The court, on October 30,198S, ordered OSHA to take action cn three cf the remand issues by December 14.1939 (Category I), three other issues byJanuary 28.1990. and the remaining issues by February 27,1990. OSHA issued its response on the first three remand issues on December 14. 1909 (54 FR 52024, December 20,1989). This document constitutes-OSHA's response on the second group of remand issues. OSHA is (lj expanding its ban on workplace smoking and adding training requirements covering the availability of smoking control ' programs; (2) explaining how and why OSHA's respirator requirements will result in employee risk, being reduced below that remaining at the PEL: 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 instructemployees about the content and presence of signs and ' labels: OSHA intends to publish a notice of , proposed rulemaking by February 27. > tU. ii,c uliL~J glOup Oi ISSUES and the issue of the exemption for - "small-scale, short-duration operations" deferred from the December 1989 response. ___ effective date: Amendments to the \ standard will become effective May T. I 1990. / FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTS Mr. James Fester. OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of PublicAffairs. Room N'3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.. Washington. DC 20210. Telephone (202) 523-8151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements On March 31,1983, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published 5 CFR part 1320,implementing the information collection provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. (48 FR T3G66). Part 1320. which became effective on April 30, ISOS' and was revised May 10.1968 (53 FR 16618), sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMB 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 OMB paperwork clearance. The new provisions either do not increase paperwork or simply make explicit requirements which were implicit in the unrevised rules. Even in the latter group, the increase in information gathering burden is da mimimis. CMS 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. Although the additional provisions do not impose any substantial new information gathering burden, OSHA is submitting the paperwork provisions in 23 CFR.1910.1001(j)(5)(ivl[C) and 29 CFR 1926.53(k)(4)(iii) for OMB clearance pursuant to 5 CFR part 1320, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. II. Background On June 17.1986, OSHA issued revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite for general industry and construction (51 FR 22612 etseq., June 20,1986). Effective July 21.1986. the revised standards amended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. (On October 17. 1986. OSHA published a partial stay of the revised standards insofar as they apply to occupational exposure fo nonasjesLiiL'iiii treniomc, actinolite (51 FR 37602). The stay has been extended to November 30,1950 (see 54 FR 30704), to enable OSHA to complete rulemaking cn these nenasbestiform minerals. The partial stay continues to apply to the 1986 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 cabic 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. LAM 001726 DPMC-17421 Federal Register / '"'->1. 55 \'o. 24 / Monday, February 5, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 3725 Several major participants in the rulemaking proceeding including the AFL-CIO. the Building and Construction Trades Department ("BCTD"), and the Asbestos Information Association ("AIA"). challenged various provisions of the revised standards. On February 2, 1988. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision upholding most major challenged provisions, but remanding certain issues to OSHA for reconsideration (BCTD. AFL-CIO v. Brock. 838 F. 2d 1258). The Court held that where rulemaking participants had recommended regulatory provisions which, on the record, appeared to be feasible and to confer more than a ce r::r.:n'.is benefit in reducing signifienru risk. OSHA must either adopt them, refute the evidence of feasibility or benefit, or more persuasively explain why OSIiA did not adopt the provisions. The Court also ordered OSHA to clarify the regulatory text for two provisions and found one provision, a ban on spraying asbestos-containing products, unsupported by the record. In addition. OSHA's failure to adopt a STEL was ordered to be reconsidered within 80 days of the Court's mandate. In partial response, OSHA issued a STEL called an "excursion limit" of 1 f/cc measured over 30 minutes, on September 14.1988 (53 FR 35G10). " On June 10 and July 18,1939. BCTD and the AFL-CIO petitioned the Court to enforce its remand order by ordering OSHA to resolve all remand issues on the record of the 1986 rulemaking proceeding within 7 to 60 days. The Court, in an October 30,1989 order, divided the remand issues into three categories as follows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take action by December 14,1989. These issues were: (1) Formally delete the bar. on the spraying cf asbestos-cor.tainir.:: materials: (2) Clarify that periodic monitoring in the construction industry must be resumed after conditions change: and (3) Clarify the exemption for "smallscale, short-duration operations" from the negative-pressure enclosure requirements of the construction, standard to limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical to construct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment. OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14,1989 (54 FR 52024. December 29.1939). In that document OSHA (1) removed the bun on the spraying of asbestos-containing materials: (2) changed the regulatory text to clarify when construction employers must resume periodic monitoring: and (3) explained why OSHA was not amending the regulator)' text to clarify the limited exemption for "small-scale, short-duration operations" in the construction industry standard, but instead would institute rulemaking on this issue. With respect to the second Broun of issues, the Court ordered "OSHA to complete its response on the existing record by January 28.1990. These issues are: (4) The possibility of further regulations governing employee smoking controls: (5) The effectiveness levels of various respirators and OSHA's policy of requiring respirators to protect workers at only the PEL level: and (5J The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and labels for employers with a significant number of ncn-English- spenking employees. The Court stated that if OSHA determines that these issues could not be resolved on the existing record. OSHA may explain why and commence new rulemaking instead. Finally, as to the three remaining remand issues, the Court allowed OSHA to publish rulemaking proposals no later than February 27,1990. These issues are: (7) The establishment of operationspecific permissible exposure limits; (BJ The extension of reporting and transfer requirements: and (9) the expansion of die competent person requirement to ail employers engaged in any kind of construction work. This document constitutes OSHA's rc'spanstrcinne second group ol 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 smekire c?.*i`ion pregrem; and : require the tiisuibuhon oi s=u-;i=.p smoking cessation material, and requiring that the physician's written opinion state that the employee has been advised cf the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure in producing lung cancer. The Agency is explaining why it is not adopting AIA's additional suggestions for smoking controls. On issue 5. OSHA is explaining hew ar.d why the provisions in the 19S6 standards relating to respiratory rotection will result in employee risk eing reduced below that remaining solely as a result of the TEL ar.d that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under review. On issue 6, OSHA is adding a provision requiring that employers assure that employees working in or contiguous to regulated areas comprehend warning signs. Employers may devise the means to assure employee comprehension, using symbols, graphics, pictographs or languages other than English. OSHA also is requiring that the training program specifically instruct employees as to the content and presence of signs and labels. Because OSHA has considered these issues in response to the Court's remand ar.d is adding regulatory text based or. the prior rulemaking record developed after r.odce and comment the Agency concludes that additional opportunity for notice and comment is impractical and unnecessary in accordance with thu intent of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). III. Summary and Explanation of the Remind Issues Expended Sncking-Co.itrcfRegulations In the 198G standards. OSHA included certain smoking related requirements in response to the substantial record evidence that smoking multiplies the lung cancer risk of asbestos-exposed workers. Thus, the mandated training program must include information concerning the relationship between smoking and exposure to asbestos in producing lung cancer (5 19IG.lCCl(j){5j(ii:){B); 1925.58(k)l3)(iii)(C}), and smoking is prohibited in regulated areas (5 1910.1001(e)(5), 1926.58(e)(5)). OSHA believed that this approach was consistent with the record evidence and with policy considerations of the agency. During the rulemaking. AIA suggested expanded smoking control provisions such as banning the hiring cf smokers for asbestos-related work, requiring employer-provided smoking t'on iroorams. nrohibiiiuc vork- banning smokies during work hems. See 51 FR a! 227CO. OSHA rejected those requests for greater smoking controls. AIA petitioned for review. In its decision, the Court found record evidence showing that smoking cessation programs can reduce a significant risk and are feasible to implement. It concluded that, where there is such a priroa facie showing of efficacy and feasibility, OSHA must justify its non-adoption of a requirement to offer smoking cessation programs and that "unarticulated 'policy considerations' " are not sufficient justification for its failure to do so. (See 838 F.2d at 1271). OSHA notes that AIA suggested four smoking control provisions. Only one. LAM 001727 DPMC-17422 S726 .. Federal Register Vol. No. 24 / Monday, February-5, 3 / 23 and. Regulations die suggestion that OSHA mandate ' workers is "significant" (838 F. 2d at standards, AIA'b witness, John Pinney, employer-sponsored smoking cessation 1265). The risk for smoking workers testified that the available evidence programs, was supported by evidence exposed to asbestos is substantially demonstrated that most smoking ' introduced by AJA concerning ' higher. (See e.g. Tr. 7/2, p. 153-156.) cessation programs, including self-help, feasibility and effectiveness. The Court OSHA does not know with certainty result in similar success fates of from held that Agency justification is . whether banning smoking at the 10% to 20%. The 30% success rate required only for suggestions for which workplace will result in diminished total mentioned in the court's decision relates there is record evidence concerning smoking consumption for asbestos to people'enrolled in formal quit feasibility and effectiveness. Therefore, workers who smoke. However, given smoking clinics over a three-year period the Agency believes it is required to their higher residual risk, and the (Tr. 7/10 at 404,410), particularly where reconsider only the smoking-cessation suggestion that contemporaneous employer provided incentives are program suggestions. However, because smoking and esbestos exposure is offered (Tr. 7/10, p. 413). Therefore, the remand order may include all ' particularly risky, the Agency believes OSHA expects that providing self-help suggested smoking controls, OSHA ha3 that even a small reduction in material and requiring medical advice to reconsidered AIA.'s entire smoking workplace smoking will reduce risk to enhance motivation will provide control program. OSHA believes that the response smoking employees by more than a de mimimis amount. (See e.g. Tr. 7/2, at substantial help to smoking employees to reduce their smoking and thus their mo3t consistent with its statutory - 153-155.) risk from asbestos exposure. authority, relevant policy considerations Feasibility of a workplace smoking detailed below and the rulemaking ban is apparent from the record. record developed in support of the 1938 Employers now are required to enforce a standards is to add regulatory ban oh smoking in regulated areas; provisions which will ban smoking in expanding that ban to all areas where Work areas where occupational there is occupational exposure to exposure to asbestos exists; to expand asbestos raises no cost issue. the required training programs to . OSHA is also requiring that include information concerning ' employers augment their training ' available smoking cessation programs programs to offer-smoking cessation and to distribute self-help smoking self-help material, such as NIH^s. cessation program material; and to ' Publication No. 89-1647, anjnSa^; 'Mr. Pinney also recommended eriodic medical advice to heighten idividual motivation for program articipants. 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 require that during mandated medical : examinations physicians inform ' : employees of die combined effect Of ' - - physicians certify that they have : ' informed employees of the health risksi_ : .of smoking and asbestos exposure f';y cancer risk; and that he bas advised the employee to stop smoking. During the rulemaking, Dr. Selikoff, an authority on * asbestos and smoking in producing lung ' -^during required medical examinations^-^'* asbestos-related disease,'testified that .cancer. " . '/ . ' ' These provisions are the core of AIA's -` ` advising employees to stop smoking - First, OSILAis adding a provision- " .suggested smoking cessation program which will prohibit smoking in all work I requirement, which the court found on . would be a significant risk reduction measure (Tr. 7/2,194).', ~ areas where there is "`occupational _ -the record to be feasible and effective. " - . GSHAhas not adopted the other .- exposure to asbestos" because 'of-; .OSHA is not adopting two other. - features of the recommended smoking p activities in such areas. (29 CFR - suggested features of such programs-- . cessation program because, on the . - 1910.1001(0(4), 1926.58(j)(3).) This is an " providing incentives to participate and - record, they do not appear to offer more expansion of the present smoking ban, which, as in most OSHA health requiring smoking cessation activities on than a de minimis benefit Mr. Pinney at least a quarterly basis--because, as - testified that ah ideal program would standards.'is confined to regulated areas ' explained below, the record shows such " provide activities on at least a quarterly where exposures are elevated. , requirements do not appear to provide basis, and provide monetary incentives "Occupational exposure," as discussed in the preambles to the 1966 asbestos more than de minimis benefit to the affected workforce. ` to participate. However, the largest group of asbestos-exposed workers do ' standards, means asbestos exposure, OSHA is providing, in nra-inand.-riory not work in manufacturing workplaces which has'its source in the workplace, appendices, names, addresses and brief which lend themselves to these features. Thus, employees who work in areas . descriptions of public health Rather they work in highly transient where asbestos abatement and. organizations which provide smoking mobile construction worksites, or in renovation activity are ongoing may be t cessation programs and materials to brake repair facilities, such as gas occupationally exposed even though: assist employers in complying with this stations, with small employee they do not'distiirb oYhahdle asbestos. - requirement ( 1910.1001, appendix I; populations and high turnovers not The new provision will read as follows: 1926.58, appendix J). Although the amenable to large scale programs with . "The employer shall ensure that < regulatory text specifically identifies frequently scheduled activities and employees do not smoke in work areas j NIH material as appropriate to meet the awards. The success of these features - where they are occupationally exposed requirement for employer distribution of has been demonstrated only in limited _to esbestos because of activities in that' self-help smoking cessation material, production facilities. Mr. Pinney area." alternative program material provided acknowledged that there "has not been OSHA is extending the former more by other public health or private an effort to modify these principles to limited smoking ban, to reduce residual organizations may be substituted. apply them to a mobile type of setting" risk among exposed smokers and non- Requiring employers to offer smoking (Tr. 7/10, p. 414). Therefore OSHA smokers. based on the following record cessation self-help material end believes there is inadequate evidence evidence and considerations. OSH^V. resource information is intended to that adopting these additional appropriately relied on studies that. reduce residual lung cancer risk by provisions would result in more than a included smokers when it determined reducing the incidence of employee de minimis benefit to most asbestos- that workplace asbestos risk for all smoking. During the hearing on the 1986 exposed employees. ~ LAM 001728 DPMC-17423 Federal Register / 1r -1. 55 Mo.' 24 / Monday, February 5. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 3727 The other provisions urged by AIA-- banning the workplace sale of tobacco products, and banning the hiring of asbestos workers who are smokers-- have been reevaluated by OSHA in the context of the remand order. The Agency has determined not to adopt these provisions based on policy considerations and the lack of evidence concerning their feasibility and effectiveness. The policy considerations are paramount. Adopting a ban on hiring smokers would circumvent the statutory goal of providing safe workplaces by instead restricting the workplace to "safe" workers. It could also promote intrusive employer surveillance of employees' personal lives. As noted by the Court. OSHA has mandated "special treatment" of workers with higher risk factors in two regulatory contexts (838 F. 2d at 1272). However, these regulations, unlike a ban on hiring smokers, do not protect workers solely by excluding them from the workplace. The employer must First attempt a "workplace" solution to reducing the susceptible employee's risk. Thus, were employers are required . to remove workers unable to wear respirators, the need for respirator use . must be premised on a showing that the employer cannot institute feasible engineering and work practice controls. The number of employees who cannot be fitted with any respirator has been shown to be minimal, and the employer must First offer available alternative employment. [See e.g. 29 CFR 1910.1001 fe)[3)(iy. The other regulatory 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". See 29 CFR 1910.124[e)[5)(i). OSHA notes that this is r.o: ready comparable to .-eguir.-Lng die off site practice of seme workers to smoke, because the presence of facial hair directly affects the workplace exposure of employees by interfering with the face to facepiece seal. Also as a 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 with workplace conditions to increase workplace risk is not confined to smoking and asbestos. For example, dietary patterns affect the incidence c: coronary disease which affects workplace performance and may result in sudden coronary events at the workplace, and pregnancy may increase the risk to both mother and child from otherwise benign workplace factors. Alihough the interaction between asbestos exposure and smoking is significant, it is evident that "lifestyle" choices by workers 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 extra workplace behavior [see e.g. Forging Industry Assr.. v. Dencrtment ofLabor 773 F. 2d 143S (4th Cir., 1S8S1. However, OSHA believes that it is not authorized to regulate personal behavior off the worksite, even when the risk of such behavior interacts synergistically with workplace risks. Further, the Agency is also concerned that by claiming a broader public health role in regulating lifestyle issues, it may be entering areas where it has limited expertise. OSHA also notes that in no other standard is an employer required to provide behavior modiFication programs where conduct is not work-related. The Agency also believes it should deploy its limited resources at correcting workplace hazards caused by workplace-based factors at this time as an exercise of its priority-setting authority pursuant to section 6(g) of the Act. The Agency also rejects AIA's recommendation to ban the sale of tobacco products at asbestos worksites. First no evidence of efficacy or feasibility was submitted. Therefore, OSHA does r.ot believe it must defend its failure to adopt the recommendation. Second, the most signfficant source of future asbestos employment, asbestos abatement work, is primarily performed by contractors working at premises which they do not control. OSHA does not believe it is administratively feasible to enforce a ban on tobacco in uiese i.-iicuiiisioiiiicS. 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 sales may 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. C-SHA believes that any benefit to employees from such a ban is highly speculative, and appears to be de minimis. The policy considerations relevant to a ban on the employment of smokers also apply to a ben or. the sale of tobacco products when the use of such products extends outside the workplace. Therefore OSHA has determined, based on these considerations, that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to adopt a ban on the workplace sale of tobacco products.. Respirator Policy In the 1986 asbestos standards. OSHA reaffirmed its 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 the employer to rely on respirators was specifically raised and rejected by the Agency based on "overwhelming record support" for OSHA's traditional policy. See 51 FR at 22692 et seq. Thus, in the standards, employers first must attempt to reduce exposures by installing engineering controls and instituting work practices. Only when the preferred methods are infeasible, not yet 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 when engineering 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 e.xnosed. (See 29 CFR 1C 10. ;02:.(c](C](i]: 3S(f.;.-2}'.)0 The ratings are expressed as multiples of the PEL: thus a respirator with an assigned protection factor of 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 supp;;ed-air respirator, had safety hazards of its own and therefore should not be mandated in every case. Secondly, BCTD objected to LAM 001729 DPMC-17424 3728 Federal Regis!' ` Vc' -5, No. 24 / Monday, February 5. "190 / nules and Regulations the proteclion factors assigned by OSKA to various respirator classes, contending they are contrary to the record evidence {BCTD Br. at 43). 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 3C593); that questions concerning effectiveness levels for respirator classes would be considered during that rulemaking; and if appropriate, conforming changes would be made to the asbestos standards (Seely's Br. at 85). The Court found that OSHA's judgment about supplied air respirators was properly within the Agency's discretion.'However, the Court was troubled by the fact that OSHA's respirator requirements appeared to require only that the combined effect of engineering and work practice controls and 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). The Court ordered OSHA to explicitly justify this policy. In addition, the Court ordered OSHA to complete its review of the genera] respirator standard, end "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 ' position concerning effectiveness levels. However, the Agency is expanding its explanation to demonstrate the correctness of its decision, and the limitations of the protection factor cc:*.ccpt itself. BCTD claimed that certain studies in the rulemaking record demonstrated that the performance of half-mask neguthe pressure respirators in actual use does not warrant OSHA's 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 1976 rnriy workplace study cited by BCTD (Ex. 208), showed that the probe placement was incorrect,'and so virtually guaranteed high and unrepresentative in-mask measurements. Further, the study was conducted on a workforce which received little or no regular fit-testing. Thus, reported low protection factors in concluded that the result of that study do not appear to be the result implementing the entire required of the inherent capability of that . . respirator program would result in respirator type, but more likely reflect reducing exposures below the PEL This flawed experimental design, and/or means that risk would be reduced below poorly fitting masks. Similar defects that estimated at the PEL using any make the results of the other studies respirator type approved in the cited by BCTD unreliable and thus standards. This finding was based on inadequate to use as a basis for setting the following considerations: OSHA's protection factors. predictions of relatively low ambient These studies help illustrate, as concentrations of asbestos after feasible explained more fully below, why OSHA engineering, work practice and regards protection factors as indicating housekeeping controls would be performance capabilities of various instituted; OSHA's revised and respirator types only if they are used tightened respirator requirements which correctly, fitted carefully and 'require more protective respirator types, maintained according to regulatory require individual fit testing and PAPRs requirements. on employee request; Agency BCTD also objected to the fact that assessment that compliance with the OSHA assigned a protection factor of standards' entire respirator program - 100 to all powered air-purifying would ensure adequate respirator usage respirators (PAPRs). OSHA noted that a and fit; and provisions unique to NIOSH recommendation for a lower asbestos to encourage the use of rating is not binding (Br. at 85). OSHA respirator types rated as more further notes that NIOSH is also . protective. planning to review its recommendations . OSHA predicted that most operations, in a rulemaking revising its respirator -. after engineering, work practice and approval criteria. NIOSH's most recent housekeeping controls were instituted public recommendations concerning would not expose employees to above PAPRs assigned a protection factor of 25 0.2 f/cc, the PEL However, where to loose fitting PAPRs and 50 to tight . . . controls would not reduce exposures to fitting PAPRs (See 10 DHHS (NIOSH) the PEL ambient exposure . Publication No. 87-116, at 211). Thus, .. concentrations remaining in most such NIOSH recommends protection factors ' operations would be 0.5 f/cc or less which are lower than the 100 which measured over an 8-hour shift. For - OSHA assigned. OSHA docs not example, see 51 FR at 22665, tables 22 believe, however, that these differences and 23. In these operations, respirators in assigned protection factors would must supplement other controls. The significantly affect risk in actual ; -permitted type of respirator rated as - asbestos workplaces. This is because ' least protective, i.e., a half mask with a ' there are few, if any, asbestos high efficiency filter, is rated as having a workplaces where a PAPR is likely to.be ' protection factor of lO.This means that selected, with exposures between 25 it is expected to filter out at least 90% of times the PEL and 100 times the PEL, i.e., the ambient concentration if properly between 5 fibers and 20 fibers per cc. fitted'and worn. The remaining Therefore, OSHA believes that adjusting concentration (less than 1C%) would the protection factor for PAPRs to 25 to leak into the mask through gaps agree with a NIOSH recommendation between the wearer's face and the vculd have no real effect on workplace respirator. Since the standards require risk. high efficiency filters, virtually no fibers OSHA notes that it is still planning to revise and update its general respirator standard. For the reasons discussed above, it believes that continuing to enforce the current asbestos respirator requirements during this interim period will not expose employees to unnecessary risk. In sum, OSHA believes its protection factor 1 assignments properly reflected the will penetrate the filter itself. When a half mask respirator is used in maximum asbestos concentrations of up to 0.5f/cc. the in-mask concentration under optimum fitting conditions may be not more than 0.05 f/cc, well below the PEL Thus in most anticipated situations use of the "lowest" ranking respirator type was expected to reduce actual exposures below the FELs when record, are consistent with OSHA's respirators fit, and are maintained and other standards, and if applied as part of worn properly. an entire respirator program offer OSHA has also required that upon an effective protection to respirator employee's request, the employer wearing employees. . provide a respirator type rated more With respect to the other respirator protective, i.e.. a PAPR with an expected issue, i.e., tying supplemental respirator protection factor of 100. 29 CFR. protection to meeting the PEL, OSHA 1910.1C01(g)(2)(ii). and 1926.58(h)(2)(iii). LAM 001730 DPMC-17425 Federal Register 1 vol. No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 3729 Further, in abatement and renovation work, where expected ambient concentrations are variable, additional provisions 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. 23 CFR 1926.58(fi(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 1928.58, app. G. OSHA believes therefore that its supplemental respirator use requirements will result in employee exposure below the PELs, where employers comply with all respirator program provisions. Further, unlike engineering and work practice controls, the record does not contain evidence that the performance of respirators can now be reliably evaluated by measuring in-mask . concentrations and OSHA has declined to set respirator requirements on this basis..Therefore, the respirator selection and use requirements in 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 I, but also that it be certified for use by MSHA/NIOSH, and that the individual user be personally fit-tested to account for individual variations in fit and thus face-seal. Decreasing the inevitable discomfort of respirator wear, and thereby avoiding the temptation to loosen strap tension or remove the respirator for "relief." is provided for. as noted above, by requiring the employer to 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-efficiency 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 class 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 v.-mch 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 filters 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. OSF1A believes that its respirator ' program requirements, discussed above. properly reflect the record of its i 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 stated 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 pracdos 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 1988 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," LAM 001731 DPMC-17426 &730 Federal Regui / V. 35. No. 24 / Monday. February 5 90 , Jes and Regulations includes .conveying to each employee .- the location, posting; and contents of : information concerning the quantity, - mandated labels and signs. OSHA .1 - location, manner of use. release and . intends that employees be shown actual storage of asbestos; the health effects - signs and labels and review their '* connected with asbestos exposure; and contents during training. Non-English . a review of this standard. 29 CFR " speaking employees thereby will be - - 1310.1001(j](5}; 1926Jj8(k](3). Neither familiarized with the wording of signs warning signs nor labels were required and labels and the aigoficance of those to be in languages other than English. 51 legends: OSHA believes that the -J . FR 22724. BTCD had argued that failure additional training component will > to require warnings in languages other assure the comprehension by all > than English is insufficiently protective of non-English-speaking employees and that OSHA should require signs and labels "bilingual in the languages that predominate in the workforce area." The Court found that; It seems obvious that a warning sign or label in English will only rarely wain or educate non-English-speaking workers. The number of such workers in the construction industry is significant * * ' Section (6){b)(5) directs the agency to provide for all workers" employees of written warnings which are applied or posted to hazardous products and locations. - * Relying on the training component of hazard communication programs to ensure knowledge and comprehension of written warnings has been OSHA's regulatory approach in. the two generic hazard communication standards it has promulgated--the generic hazard communication rules covering health related hazards, 29 CFR 1910.1200, and [83S F. at 1277]. the control of hazardous energy source Therefore it ordered OSHA to . . rule, also known as Iockout/tagout, 29 - reconsider its determination not to require signs and labels to be in . languages other than English.' ..... OSHA`a response is as follows. After reconsideration of the rulemaking record, tbe-Agency is adding a new elementto its training program r.~ specifically-covering the:content and r.v .. placement of warning labels end signs, . and a new requirement that the Lv., . . CFR 1910J.47. In the Iockout/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 noncomprehensfon by employees are immediate and can be deadly, OSHA"'' ! does notrequire foreignlanguage tagout legends, but relies instead on-training ' programs'(o'underscore the meaning of * employer assure that employees . ... tag messages, and requires that tags be * -comprehend warning-signs required in regulated areas. Such understanding - * . "understandable" by all affected employees. 29 CFR 191tr.l47(c](7j. The ; may be obtained by utilizing English; if 1 generic health hazard communication.; workers are-trained accordingly, or by s . standard suhHarly relies oh training as other means, such as utilizing universal ' the major medium of employee ' ' . ._ symbols, graphics, or foreign languages.' instruction as to hazards. As noted in . - However, OSHA is hot requiring similar the Agency's earlier response, OSHA assurances for warning labels.' ; allows the addition of foreign language OSHA is not specifically mandating legends to English langnage signs and that warning signs and labels be in - labels, if the employer believes languages other than English, because comprehension will thereby be the Agency has determined that the improved. benefit of such a specific requirement is OSHA has also added a requirement = unproven, that it raises policy issues for that the employer assure that warning the agency that go beyond this standard, signs required for regulated areas bear and that OSHA's entire hazard legends which are understandable to communication program for asbestos, as employees working in and contiguous to amended, will ensure that all exposed such posted areas. 29 CFR employees are effectively warned of the 19iai001(j)(l)[iv}; 192&58(k](l}{iv). presence and hazards of asbestos- OSHA will not require that such signs containing materials on worksites. be in a foreign language; but employers The first new provision will add . must assure comprehension by all . regulatory text as paragraph (j)(5)(iii](J) affected employees including non- < of the general industry standard and English speaking ones. To convey the paragraph (k)(3)(iii]Q) of the meaning of all elements of the required construction standard by adding anew legend, the employer may use symbols, element for inclusion in training graphics, pictographs or languages used programs. Thus, employers must inform, by affected employees, or any other employees of "the requirements for proven means of communication. posting signs and affixing labels and the Posting regulated areas warns two meaning of the required legends for such employee groups, those working within signs and labels." Training must cover 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 the signs'which demarcate the potential high-exposure ~ area. : ' ' Protection of bystander employees has acquired speciel 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 22711,1). Therefore, OSHA has tried to reduce the risk for bystander employees where feasible. The provisions added are intended to protect both groups. As noted above OSHA has 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'unknoivn-' ': :- 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 warned by :r-"\ signs.' 7" - ' - s 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 a requirement compels its adoption. " : One policy concern of the Agency , ' should be noted. Requiring foreign' , : language wamings'in the asbestos standard would constitute the first departmental requirement of this nature. Many departmental requirements across agency lines involve the communication cf hazards, dangers, risks, and benefits to immigrant or foreign language work fcrces. 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 objectives 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 pfans. LAM 001732 DPMC-17427 Federal Register Vol. No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 100Q / F'-'es and Regulations 3731 These states and territories are: Alaska, FR 25059). or 9-83 (48 FR 35736) as applicable: contained in Appendix 1. to comply with Arizona, California, Connecticut (for and 29 CFR part 1911. this requirement state and local government employees only), Hawaii. 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. 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 Z-lA which have.identical limits listed in the Transitional Limits columns ofTable Z-l-A. Table Z-2 or Table Z-3. The latter were issued under sec. 6(a) (29 US.C. 655(a)). Section 1910.1000, the Transitional Limits columns of Table Z-l-A Table Z-2 and Z-3 also Issued under 5 U.S.C. 533. Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-l-A Z-2 and Z-3 not issued under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic, benzene, cottoa dust ar.d (J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels. (iv) * * * (C) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No. 891647, or equivalent self-help material, List of Subjects formaldehyde listings. which is approved or published by a 29 CFR Part 1910 Section 1910.1001 also issued under sec. 107 public health organization listed in of Contract Work Hours and Safety appendix I. Asbestos, Cancer, Health, Labeling, Standards Act 40 U.S.C. 333. ** * Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment, Respiratory protection. Signs and symbols. 29 CFR Part 1926 Asbestos, Cancer, Construction industry, Hazardous materials. Health. Labeling, Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment. Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also issued under 29 U.S.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 U.S.C. 653. . Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 (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. -* * * * Respiratory protection, Signs and symbols. . V.Authority ' '' - - . U.S.C. 551 et teg. Sections 1910.1045 and 1910.1047 also . issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1910.1048 also issued under 29 . This document was prepared under . the direction of Gerard F. Scannell,.. Assistant Secretary of Labor for U.S.C.653. . Sections 19rt0.120a'l9lb.i499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 U-S.C. 553. Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. r 2. Section 1910.1001 is hereby Department of Labor, 200 Constitution amended by adding new paragraphs . Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. . (i)(4). O)W(iv). UK5)(iii)(D. (i)(5)[iii}0). Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), -G)(5)(iv)[C),' (l(7][i](D], and (o](4), and 6(c) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety . new appendix L and by revising ' and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, ; paragraph (p)(2). to read as follows: . - 655, 657). section 107 of the Contract :. Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 1910.1001 Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actlnoEte. ' 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 day of January, 19S0. Gerard F. Scannell. . (0* *.* (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. . (j) * * * (1) * * * (iv) The employer shall ensure that Assistant Secretary ofLabor. employees working in and contiguous to (or * * (4) Compliance date. The requirements of paragraphs (i)(4), fflfflflv]. 0K5){iii)(I). G)(5)[iii)0). ' (j)(5)(iv)(C). and (l)(7)(i)[D) shall be complied with by May 7,1990, '(P) * * * (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 1910.1001--Smoking Cessation Program Information For Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actionalite-- Non-Mandatory The following organizations provide smoking cessation information and program material. . 1. The National Cancer Institute operates a toll-free Cancer Information Sen-ice (CIS) with trained personnel to help you. Call 1800-4-CANCER' to reach the CIS office serving your area, or write: Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, Amended Standards Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as follows: 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, National Institutes of Health. Building 31. Room 10A24, Bethesda. Maryland 20892. 2. American Cancer Society. 3340 Peachtree Road. NE_ Atlanta, Georgia 30062. (404) 320-3333 PART 1910--[AMENDED] pictographs and graphics. - * . * The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization composed of 58 Subpart Z--[Amended] . 1. The authority citation for subpart Z (5) * * * (iii) * * * (I) The names, addresses and phone divisions and 3.1C0 local units. Through `The Great American Smokeout" in November, the annual Cancer Crusade in April and numerous educational materials, ACS helps of part 1910 continues to read as numbers of public health organizations people learn about the health hazards of follows: which provide information, materials, smoking and become successful ex-smokers. Authority: Secs. 6. 8. Occupational Safety and/or conduct programs concerning and Health Act 29 U.S.C. 655, 657: Secretary smoking cessation. The employer may 3. American Heart Association. 7320 Greenville Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75231, of Labors Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 distribute the list of such organizations (214) 750-5300 LAM 001733 DPMC-17428 3732 Federal Registei Vo! . No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 1 / es and Regulations The American Heart Association (AHA) is a voluntary organization with. 130.000 members (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) in 53 state and regional groups. AHA produces a variety of publications and audiovisual materials about the effects of smoking on the heart. AHA also has developed a guidebook for incorporating a weight-control component into smoking cessation programs. 4. American Lung Association, 1740 Broadway, New York. New York 1C019. (212) 245-8000 A voluntary organization of 7,500 members (physicians, nurses, and laypersons), the American Lung Association (ALA) conducts numerous public information programs about the health effect of smoking. ALA has 59 state and 85 local units. The organization actively supports legislation and information campaigns for non-smokers' rights and provides help for smokers who want to quit, for example, through "Freedom From Smoking." a self-help smoking cessation program. 5. Office on Smoking and Health. U.S. Department of Health and. Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane. Park Building. Hoorn 110, Rockville, Maryland Z0857 . The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH). Is the Department of Health and Human Services' lead agency in smoking control. OSH has sponsored disstribution of publications on smoking-realted topics, such as free flyers on relapse after initial quitting, helping a friend or family member quit smoking, the health hazards of smoking, and the effects of parental smoking on teenagers. *ln Hawaii, on Oahu call 524-1234 (call collect from neighboring islands). Spanish-speaking staff members are available during daytime hours to callers from the following areas: California. Florida. Georgia, Illinois. New Jersey (area code 210), New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directory for listings of local chapters. PART 1925--[AMENDED] ^ Subpart D--(Amended) 3. The authority citation for subpart D of 23 CFR part 1926 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.6.8 Occupational Safety and Health Act or1970 (29 U.S.C. 653.655, 657): sec. 107 Contract Work Hours and Safely Standards Act (Construction Safety Act], 40 If.S.C 233. and Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (3S FR 8754). 8-76 (41 FR 25055], cr 9-63 (48 FR 35736) as applicable. Sec. 1526.55(c) and 1926.58 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 4. Section 1925.58 is hereby amended bv adding new paragraphs (jj[3}, MPJflv]. (k){3J(iii)(I), (k}(3](iii)(J), (k)(4)(iii). (m)(4)[i)[D) and (o](3). and appendix J. and by revising paragraph (p)[2), to read as follows: 1926.58 Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and aciinollta. ***** 0) (3) 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 are3. OOP)------(iv) The employer shad ensure that employees working in and contiguous to regulated areas comprehend the warning signs required to be posted by paragraph (k}(l)(i) of this section. Means to ensure employee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, pictographs and graphics. (l) 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 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) * * * (iii) 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 J. ***** (m) * ` * (4) * * * (1) * * * CD) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable tc the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. ***** (o) * * * (3) The reauirements of paragraphs (jj[3j. (k)(l)(iv). (k)(3Kiii)iIMk)(3}(iii)(j). (k)(4)(iii), and (m){4)(i)[D) shall be complied with by May 7.1S3G. IP)* * * (2) Appendices B, F, G, H, I and J to this section are informational and are not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations. ***** Appendix J to 102556--Smoking Cessation Program Information for Asbestos. Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actionlite--NonMandatory. The following organizations provide smoking cessation information. 1. The National Cancer Institute operates a toll-free Cancer Information Service (CIS) with trained personnel to help you. Call I800-4-CANCER* to reach the CIS office serving your area, or write: Office of Cancer Communications. National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health. Building 31 Room 10A24. Bethesda. Maryland 20892. 2. American Cancer Society. 3340 Peachtree Road. NZ. Atlanta. Georgia 30026. (404) 320-3333 The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization composed of 53 divisions and 3,300 local units. Through "The Great American Smokeout" in November, the annual Cancer Crusade in April, and numerous educational materials. ACS helps people learn about the health hazards of smoking and become successful ex-smokers. 3. American Heart Association. 7320 Greenville Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75233. (234) 750-53C0 The American Heart Association (AHA) is a voluntary organization with 130.000 members (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) in 55 slate and regional groups. AHA produces a variety of publications and audiovisual materials about the effects of smoking on the heart. AHA also has developed a guidebook for incorporating a weight-control component into smoking cessation programs. 4. American Lung Association, 1740 Broadway, New York, New York 10019, (212)245-8000 A voluntary organization of 7500 members (physicians, nurses, and laypersons), the American Lung Association (ALA) conducts numerous public information programs about the health effects of smoking. ALA has 59 state and 85 local units. The organization actively supports legislation and information, campaigns for non-smokers' rights and provides help for smokers who want to quit, for example, through "Freedom From Smoking." a self-help smoking cessation program. 5. Office on Smoking and Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 55C-0 Fishers Lane. Park Building. Rocm 130. Rockville. Maryland 20S57 The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) is the Department of Health and Human Services' lead agency in smoking control. OSH has sponsored distribution of publications cn smoking-related topics, such as free flyers on relapse after initial quitting, helping a friend or family member quit smoking, the health hazards of smoking, and the effects of parental smoking on teenagers. 'In Hawaii, on Oahu call 524-3234 (call collect from neighboring islands). Spanish-speakir.3 staff members are available during daytime hours to callers from the following areas: California. Florida, Georgia. Illinois. New Jersey (area code 201). New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directory for listings of local chapters. [FR Doc. 90-2527 Hied 2-2-SO; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 4510-2S-M LAM 001734 DPMC-17429 M; .-&T ft? vj -r i _ 2 i R'C- ^ f-W-Arw-, ( f~y L/< *JUo~*i *4o,U2 f? o. fc= Sgo) Mr - - S'rCA-VNir-v gwA -- '3 ^ 4- c*X( /W< 2 5) `T ( _ i *f o ^ # 'v^s^- . ^ <~ - Bn? v M^vP Q f - \$iS _ qJIJsjX ljLi/v'^-> Wt^a cU CC-u4-*-''^^-^7 1I c^U~-y 2 t. T^=i j ("t j ^ y--- jV^^VW--; *"V? Cer\^ i c^L''^4>?^ cv cl^ - '---o-t 6'*-- /E^?^ |)4>0^_\A_ . f"f^ viT^ -vv^/\tyv-v r<Xt'^ \S--{~0 Of" 0'iy^^<9.2i'VL--w-v C-^y^--J__ ib^s^j Cp Jciy--VAA. C^OirS^3.' AA-a.*? 2g? <X? 1*4 3S~ - fcj2, ^ P) A _ Xrt^uji' 0-- 7,* -H-4 ^7 c^X^c-te^, W^li' I k'-'tix p.'V^T CV? p'0-_^/"o-v zj 0^-y(/-C-^^^J f A^C?"t rvc 4 V't "f\> 'VW. j vv ^'''V'-^vw^' ^ ?i-c ' 0^ _ |l Ms'-V ^ 2- * (ooo - /4pxa Ct-J^ CvUtv |2> y ( Cv S^-Xa-V ^-2 rpy-w-t-.^^ T3 ^7~* ^(f~ 4c. CXc^$~~ '|^ ^VaJ^ l)( cvvt; L& /Lo~~r< '"'^W =U_ C>Cyl fV* rvj-4>2 ^aA-> C^cJ2~-v 'u, t-OA' .frvy^ '2" c M> . ^"Pe <S> t> Is / M t: ^P*Jt -2r*/v^ ` .^w. ~"(^ Mr ^rftAif- AA/rt(;^ ^UaJ< A-!^ A o_vX*yf-> Ou*, cJ~ Z^I.^SfeS' . 4!^^^ sAm /Vv'^ ^>_ /^~\*~ 4o y~~t CHA-f" Jp- LAM 001735 DPMC-17430 /3 fKr^i 7. /K . (nr,^_ < (,4-0 _ *+3 5^ f-WXCX i^f-^ Offfc^. -^Vei ..Sjfcr ^OT~^i rv*-, -fl~*X~ /Wi^'f'O'vv, rv-^W-XX^ ^ $r-<*~$~ s*^a^~ ^~5 X-JU- c ^ Iolx^vvvN^t-^^ Picbiltt^ a$~ b <2 - H ' 3/7CX 'f'tvi-^ cU^.fr'JjW'tes /t^c^rsii c^-*j>-^ Cfvv "^o c^j>^cq^c\c^^ljp Co vw>!^ . <V "f^ 'fN Cv^| " _ o|_- Hm _ cU^ ' ^359^. ^"*- ^j7 > 3^-^^ p- J^wf ^ ^ r'tvww ux a U*&?( 1> C ^v^.Ww ^-t~ A/^sZ ----- lt^v-4, 5fxX cL^ -v^?f _______ * At,'I'V-v k-* \^siZ2 c"/X^, ro/^rl aa^Xir) (^ 3- _ i31 r (flJci^ Kr&Jk- (r^ ^C'vvXr ^ dr^&sL ' ^ ^/\/v0L. -<l-wv. 'KA^Cpt P\f CCa^<( CXxv^ C'-o-'Ct'Ls-, ^XAyC/^AO 0-^,-C\ ""f ^ /^W< -'J-fc'Wvt PPWw.. ^^7;00447>w^a . ^ ^ c\-^7 .^v-0 ^C-v^~ jj- cX'Wa*^ .^CK>i^ (T-tJ^/vL.^ ^ L"*--'y^<r<Sj ( i--w, ^ /Vw^iv~'\j? wi~(. f^Lvt/'i |,4&>A'*a'A__^^*a^/vsi_-7, rv-^Q'Xi-^i ___ i^ns L'~VaX2/VLcX- ~C v^j< ^-v (^^^-|-^,VvV\.ci -- - ^ ^>--A iA^ 3^ ^1j'^*'2aAa^ 1_jX ivvttii-.y-e -t. ^ {L-A_ Z& c/ 0'~* UftNI 00AT36 DPMC-17431 0 OM Fo (K. Re \T) /4r> VI.'-C^'cTL^v-fi. c( <^> ( 2- *5^ _ ^ .J | Lf `i | (P ^a^J-3_ 6v^t| 3<^^fVVcj '., S-^. , 'ftyAjP l^B-SUx -Uca^Ifee. Q-^-iv^rc 1 I ct^Lzid -fo Jir . M tf'-^ ( 7 *7 - *5 n *{/) CX --. A^-<jX-7 ^r&ol^Cvj c^i ^ 'fbsv^La^ *\i**A>$ | lw\ f^Vvu. ^1/^ O1^. tu-y^K-j^O - 'f"J ^--r /-J^vo-^ ^ X-aw-t-^-C'-, VpX? i^lodlS*-^ jL32ji/T.'^v'----- lyVX A^jL LP^y'-*- -y^'^-'*-' yF ^ A^i( U, (Kj/iA/Lra Ca^ *"vyv lyv-lwO - .b - ^ (XsJLlijJt v-^. i~i_ U^O-V-^X C-O^--,; ito Oywiw^rw--,? 'f^~* ^>~`--^CZs~^ \J^_ <yww ty%KV'X'\ywv^ -0-<3 ^ ^ ^--y-SyFy-^ -^-<3 <y^. -- yX-c^ jL~ f O A/*o c^- r\t-tF /C -- "S X. ^~W-L-=_, Flv*A/t t\i--i lyy^ -V~2^ -itiyyv O^-a^ ^yW^. fj .C- "31 rOVfv 4" Qju>t~ "ytjJlJt ^s-w^- <-si~I(ax^. ofcj'T. cl _ 4rf i^-vJ6C pAv^XPi tyv Gs--jl, cL/-\lo^ -U? <5~hzC^ ^ JljrJ$~ Iruji^ ivw- ^er^6-^_ LAM 001737 DPMC-17432