Document gbRv2Np9JXdDOwMbMmMX4kLyN

Federal Register / ' 48, No. 36 / Tuesday. February 22, It / Proposed Rules 7473 Alternative #2: eeventy (70) percent of the average acquisition emit of crude oil for domestic refiners for the three moat recent months for which data are available from the Energy information Administration, as set forth in Table I of { 271.101(a). ** e e 2. Section 271.704 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(5) and by revising paragraph (c) (1) (v) to read as follows: 9 271.704 QualMed production enhancement gas. ee a a a (b) Definitions. * * ' (5) "Imputed commodity value" means: Alternative #1: the average cost of No. 6 fuel oil to electric utility facilities [the average retail price of No. 2 heating oil) less the average cost of transporting and distributing natural gas for the three most recent months for which data are available from the Energy Information Administration, period, as set forth in Table I of 5 271.101(a). Alternative #2: seventy (70) percent of the average acquisition cost of crude oil for domestic refiners for the three most recent months for which data are available from the Energy Information Administration, as set forth in Table I of S 271.101(a). (c) Qualifiedproduction enhancement gas. For purposes of this section: (1) Qualified production enhancement gas is natural gas: * * * (v) The production of which (as calculated by the seller for a five-year period beginning from the month of application ("test period")), baaed on estimates filed pursuant to 9 274.205(f)(4) will result in a projected increase in revenue which, when divided by the projected increase in units of production, does not exceed: (A) For wells on which production enhancement work was commenced on or before February 22.1983.208 percent of the maximum lawful price epecified for Subpart C of Part 271 in Table I 9 271.101(a) for the month that the application is filed; (B) For wells on which production enhancement work waa commenced after Ithe data of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register], the lesser of (7) the imputed commodity value for the month that the application is filed, or (2) 208 percent of the maximum lawful price epecified for Subpart C of Part 271 in Table I of 1271.101(a) far the month that the dpptlWfopnts filed. * ** (m Doc. a .mu pukI a-w-t* aw u>| aauaa coot sm-ei- DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food andDrug Administration 21 CFR Parts 182 and 184 [Docket No. 7M4-0372J Stearic AcM and Calcium Stearate; Proposed Affirmation of GRAS Status Correction in FR Doc. 83-2484, beginning on page 4486, in the issue of Tuesday, February 1.1963, make tile following corrections. 1. On page 4486, third column, second paragraphed *tM*UUMNTARY iMronaMriON". first tine. "Stearic and acid" should read "Stearic acid". 2. On page 4488, first column, fifth and eighth lines. "NCR" should read "NRC". BHXINO CCOb WSS-SI-a DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Rtoobol, Tobacco and rVWmwm 27 CFR Port t [Notice NOu4M) FMdtetovm Viticulture! Area Correction In FR Dec. 83-4871 beginning on page 8724 in the Issue of Tuesday. February IS. 1083, die comment date should read March 17.1883. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Ocpupatldnd Safety and Health 28 CFR Part 1810 [Docket No. H-KOJ AOONCV: Occupational Safety and Health Adnunlatration. Labor. AC1MNK Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. ____________ SUMHANV: The Occupational Safety and Health Adfntoielration (OSHA) is reviewing las pricy relating to the use of engineering oontrole and respirators for air contaminants. Currant OSHA standards require that employers implement feasible engineering controls to maintain air contaminant concentrations in the workplace to within the prescribed permissible exposure limits. The use of respirators is permitted only in those cases where engineering controls are not feasible, are not yet installed or are not adequate. This policy has been criticized as being too inflexible, not cost-effective and often unnecessary for health protection. OSHA intends to perform a careful review of the relevant issues and to consider, as a first action, the possible revision of two standards, 29 CFR 1910.1008(e) (Air Contaminants) and 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1) (Respiratory Protection). DATE Comments should be submitted by June 22,1983. adomsscs: Written submissions in response to this notice should be sent to the OSHA Docket Officer. Docket No. H-ie0, Room S-6212, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW,, Washington, D.C. 211210; telephone 202523-7884. All submissions will be available for inapection and copying in Room S-8212 at this address. FON FUNTNMR INPONMAHON CONTACT; Mr. James Foster, Office of Information, Room N-3B37, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. U.S. Department of Labor, ZOO Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone 202523-8148. 8UMMJUMNTAIIY iNfONtSATtow: Various OSHA health standards require that employee exposure to toxic materials and harmful physical agents not exceed specified limits. In achieving compliance with these standards employers can use engineering oontrole, administrative controls, work practice controls and personal protective equipment. Engineering controls are modifications to plant equipment, processes or materials to reduce an employee's exposure. Administrative controls include scheduling or rotating assignments so as to reduce individual exposures. Work practice controls can reduce exposures by modifying the way in which a task is performed. Personal protective equipment includes devices, such as respirators, that are worn by an employee for protection egainet a contaminant in die immediate work environment It has boan OSHA's policy to require that employers use feasible engineering, work praottes and administrative oontrole to prevent employas exposures above permtsaihU limits, and that respireton may be used as an alemative dTH 000016089 747l FiwkiiiriJJRgbrt only whan other methods an not adequate, an not feasible, or have not yat bean iiutalted. This policy is, in particular, stated in the OQHA Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1). which applies to all exposures to airborne toxins, and in the Air Contaminant Standard, 29 CFR 19iaiQQQ(e), which applies to exposures to all substances listed in Tables Z~l, Z~ 2, and Z-3. The policy was inherent in national consensus standards which were adopted by OSHA in 1071 pursuant to section 8(a) rulemaking provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 855, et seq.j. These standards were adopted without rulemaking proceeding under Section 8(b) of the Act with its extensive public record and public input. They are, therefore, appropriate for reconsideration. Many other health standards also require the same preference for engineering end work practice controls over respirators. Each of thasa later standards, however, applies only to a specific substance and waa developed on the basie of a public record developed through section 0(b) rulemaking proceedings. Although the present proceeding may develop information that would be relevant to a reexamination and raviakm of these substance-specific standards, OSHA has chosen not to reexamine thee# standards at this time. Responses to this notice will be analysed with respect to drafting propoaad revisions to 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1) and 29 CFR 19101000(e). Reasons For This Proceeding There are (bur considerations which motivate this proceeding. The first ia health protection. There is greet diversity hr the types and sisea of workplaces that ara affected by OSHA standards, lacauaa conditions in thaaa workptaoos ara ao variable, it ia important ta be sum that methods of compHaaca for each MUthjiacB are the most affective in echievini the objective of protection against the peeticuler haaMdfs) involved. Such aaauranoe may sometimes be achieved by eagineering or adtetotalretive controls, be* there may be cbcwmelaaceain which r*^fw>eadTim^ respirator technology sad application* hava experienced siyitflnint pragmas quantified and applied to requirements for particular categories of air contaminants, has been developed. The powered air purifying respirator has bean introduced. Numbers rtf types of respirators and filters hava incraasad substantially, especially typea and sixes of inexpensive, disposable respirators. Different size facepieces ere now available, thus providing fur better fit and more reliable protection. As a result of many of thaaa advances, the consensus of industry concerning what constitutes a reasonable, effective respirator program hue changed, as demonstrated by the recent issuance of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Zaa^-1080 standard, entitled "Practices For Respiratory Protection," a revision of the I960 ANSI standard. All of the foregoing raprment improvements which would give respirators e more significant role in air contaminant protection than they have had before. The third consideration is coateffectiveness. There may be instances where the expected coats of engineering controls exceed the expected costs of respiratory protection and yet the use of respirators can dearly provide adequate employee protection. Should such instances axial, reasonable allowances for their consideration should be made. Hie fourth consideration involves the scope of effect of the current OSHA policy. Pieces of employment affected range from Iboee with few emntoyeee to others wife many thouaande They involve exposures to toxic materiel* which are relatively innocuous, such as the chlorofluorocarbons, and these which ara haxanioua to lift and health, such aa parathion. A more flexible policy may be better suited to providing adequate health protection under such disparate drcuautencea. For the foregoing reeaona, OSHA has conduded that it la timely and 1. To explore whetiter a revised policy will allow employers ta Mediate more coat-effective compliance strategies. respirator deign, technology Hod application may pannit Mctmaeed reliance an raapiretere. 3. To attempt to identify processes, operations and circumatoaces' appropriate for pertimler compliaiice pnnashasafbr fit taetteg^havn baen faetosa. wirtm nfrSk^SmefCtSelisas of ilifflwil types of wephatcre can be 4, To aeeeee wqrfcptaoe fliaroetrai Related Information In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning respiratory protection (Docket No. H-040) that was published on May 14,1982 (47 FR 29603), OSHA sought data and views on a number of issues regarding the adequacy of respiratory protection programs and equipment. In that notice OSHA solicited general comment from the public cuncening the existing policy of primary reliance on engineering controls. The present notice discusses these issues in greater detail. Comments submitted in response to the May 14 notice and which address issues set forth here (i.e., answers to questions 30b and 32-34 of the May 14 notice) will be made a part of the record of this proceeding as well. As indicated in the earlier notice, rational decisions concerning reliance on the use of respirators depend upon detailed knowledge of types and applications of respirators, the effectiveness of programs for their use and specific knowledge of their performance. Similarly, decisions concerning the use of any particular engineering control method must be baaed on valid information about the level of effectiveness that will result The rulemaking on the respiratory protection standards will provide this necessary base of information with respect to respirators and respiratory protection programs. OSHA hopes to develop a similar base of data on engineering control* as a result of this notice. In addition, each of OSHA's substance-specific health standards, as well aa the. Carcinogen Policy (20 CFR Part 1090), have considered the use of engineering controls and respirators in controlling exposures. To the extent practical OSHA will abstract from the venous rulemaking records of these standards information which may be relevant to this proceeding. Conunentors responding to tide notice may wish to make UtaMfic reference to data cantaiasd id other OSHA dockets to avoid MteMmttingjms terial already submitted by thenfimlvea or other*. Data, views, end arguments ara solicited on all of the issues described below aa wail aa an other relevant issues. Since this policy affects a wide variety of indusUM*, each commentar should provfata as much detail as possible concerning conditions or circiuneMnoea used a* a basis for the information submitted. To enable OSHA DTH 000016090 h No. 36 / Tuesday, February 22, 1883 Opposed Rules ______ 7475 lo group and compare responses, plaaae describe your work operation in term* of 'Ha following element*: a. Job(s), operstion(s) and proces(e), b. Toxic material(s) present; c. Level of exposure without regard to respirators: d. Frequency and duration of exposure; e. Type and amount of work or physical labor, including frequency and duration; f. Medical screening or surveillunce already practiced; g. Applicable environmental conditions--high or low temperatures, high humidity, skin irritants present, indoor or outdoor operation, etc.; h. Description of work schedule, including breaks and rest periods; i. Description of engineering controls already in use; j. Size of facility, both in terms of space and in number of employees; and k. Age of affected employees and any identifiable health conditions which would affect their ability to use respirators. Issues In this notice the Agency is soliciting comments from all interested parties on issues related to its policy with respect to engineering controls and respirators. These issues are presented in the form of questions to assist interested persons in developing their responses. Interested person#, of course, may wish to submit information and views on issues that are not specifically addressed by the questions or to respond only to some of the queelions of special interest to themselves. All comments submitted will become part of the public record of any resulting rulemaking proceeding and will be carefully considered in the development of any proposed regulation on these matters, in the questions that follow, the term engineering controls is intended to include the use of administrative or work practice controls as well. La. Should OSHA require the use of feasible engineering controls in preference lo the use of respirators? b. What factors indicate that engineering controls in the workplace better protect employee health? c. What factors indicate that respirators in the workplace provide better protection of employee health? d. On what basis could one conclude that, in some given situation, engineering controls and respirators provide a degree of protection that is equal or indeterminate? e. What factors about a particular ' .ltuation indicate that respirators will give protection at least equal lo that provided by feaaibie angineering f*Arallire rllsons to prefer ttfl$use ' of engineering controls over the use of respirators despite analytical determinations that yteld indeterminate or equal results concerning the degree of protection afforded? 2. In deciding on the use of engineering controls or respirators for a particular situation, or in general, how should OSHA or the employer take the following factor* into account? a. Number of exposed employees and number of employees with respirator fitting problems; b. severity of effects of chronic exposure; c. severity of effects of acute exposure; tL length of periods of exposure; c. frequency of periods of exposure; f. availability and type of biological monitoring; g. effectiveness of engineering controls; h. effectiveness of respirators; i. ability of the employer to measure and to ensure the adequacy of exposure control; j. work rate (level of exertion) required of employees; k. temperature and humidity of workplace; l. reliability of both engineering controls and respirators; and m. costs of angineering controls and of an effective Knpirator program. n. What other factors should be considered? 3. The comparison of engineering controls and reapimturs can be based on the possible lapse of protection due to defects or malfunctions and on employee acceptance. a. How are tiw respective probabilities of protection failure to be assaanad? b. How are the respective consequences of protection failure to be MMiWHli? c. How are engineering controls snd respirators to be compared with respect to the degree of warning conveyed to the affected employees when protection lapses? d. Mow can an employer guarantee that respirators are worn for all required periods? e. How can employers ensure employee acceptance of respirators? 4. Is it practical to compare in general terms the overall effectiveness of engineering controls and respirators? a. If yes, how is the comparison to be structured end evaluated? b. If no, why not? 5.u. Can the peformance of engineering controls be predicted accurately at the design stage? Explain. b. Can the effectiveness of engineering controls be described accurately for large classes or groups of controls or operations and processes controlled? Explain. O.a. In instituting an employee protection program based on ruspirutors, what suurces of indirect or hidden costs are there, in addition to the obvious direct costs? b. What are these costs on a per employee basis and on a plant wide basis? c. What economies, either direct or indirect, will be realized from the institution of such a program (other than avoidance of engineering control costa]? 7. a. In instituting an employee protection program based on engineering controls, what sources uf indirect or hidden costs are there in addition to the obvious direct costs? b. What are these costs on a per employee basis and on a plant wide basis? 8. Have there been instances where the installation of engineering controls for industrial hygiene purposes has resulted in tower overuli costs due lo economy of resources, increased productivity, less employee time spent on the various aspects of a respirator program, or other reasons? If yes. please describe. 9. a. In what situations should engineering controls and respirators be used in combination for the reduction uf exposure to the tame hazard? b. On what basis is die relative emphasis between the two to he untived at? 10. Should OSi IA assign a preferred hierarchy to different forms of engineering controls such as: (i) Material substitution. (ii) Process change, (iii) Equipment changes, (iv) Local exhaust ventilation, (v) General dilution ventilation, Ivi) Equipment enclosures, and (vii) Employee enclosures? a. Is this an appropriate priority list? b. Is some other priority list preferable? c. Should employers be required to justify the use of lower priority measures when higher priority measures are feasible? If so, on what basis? 11. U OSHA allows employers to choose compliance strategies, should OSHA also require each employer who relies on respirators to prepare a compliance plan Justifying the use of respirators and including such items as: DTH 000016091 747 Federal Register / jl. 48. No. 36 / Tuesday, February 22, / Proposed Rules (I) Exposure level of aach affected employee; (ii> Review of possible conaaqaenoaa of exposure. both acute and chronic; (iii) Complete schedule of frequency and duration of exposure; (ivj Potential for emergency exposure situations; (v) Engineering analysis of least expensive feasible engineering controls; (vi) Justification for reliance on respirators instead of feasible engineering controls; (vii) Estimated costs of installing engineering controls; (viii) Description of appropriate respiratory protection programs; (ix) Costs of instituting respiratory protection program; and (x> Comparison of estimated costs to other company financial data? 12. In those cases where respirators have never been relied on and engineering control* have always been used to control toxic material exposure, a. What property of the toxic material precludes the use of respirators? b. Is there some specific reason respirators are not used? c. When were the engineering controls installed, what was the cost, and what percentage is this of the yearly capital budget? d. To what exposure level are the engineering controls designed to reduce airborne contaminants? 13. If OSHA regulations permitted more extensive reliance on respirators. a. Would existing engineering controls be shut down or removed. If ye* explain reasons. b. What additional biological monitoring or medical testing, if any, should be instituted? c. What type of respirator would be used? d Would other additional personal protective equipment also ba required? e. Should same exception be made for the pulmonary dtaeaatid employee? 14. In those cases where respirators are relied on, a. How many employees use respirators? b. What type of respirator is used (e.g. half mash cartridge; fidl facepieces air line; etc)? c. What methods era qsed to determine that the respirator program la effective? d. To what extent are engineering controls also used? e. Whet medical surveillance (urine testa, x-rays, physical exams, etc.) is practiced? f. Does employee resistance limit greater uaa of renintors? g. Do inherent limitations of reapUfncm limit greater use? to ensure profwrraspirator use pen any difficulties? 15. a. What programmatic or personnel problems have arisen attendant to the use of respirators? b. How many people were affected?c. Waa the problem with the respirator itself, the fitting, or with the respirator program? Explain. d. For what specific jobs or operations can respirators not be worn? Why? 10. In those cases where the use of respirators has been partially or completely abandoned in favor of engineering controls, a. What factors) were instrumental in the decision to curtail the use of respirators? b. What proplems were there with the use of respirators? What percentage of the workers were affected? c. Wan OSHA enforcement activity involved in die decision? d. Hpvf the engineering controls been effective? e- Hqye the engineering controls created any problems? f. To what sxposura level are the engineering controls designed to reduce g. What engineering controls ware installed wbai was the cost and percentage of yearly capital coats for the facility? 17. In soma instances, feasible engineering coulrala significantly reduce the levels f airborne toxic materials yat fail to achlnie full compliance with applicable standards. a. Should such engineering controls nevertiwgHte be required? b. Weald such controls reduce employee eMptMtilM even where respirators are also used? All conunems In response to this notice ahaedd be sent by June 2&1083, to the OSHA Docket Officer, Docket No. H-10B. Rpm HMI2. U.S. Department of Labor, HI Constitution Ave., NW., Wtnaismhminwrge ton, 0.C. 20210; telephone 202- List *f Saliecte la 20 CFR Part till Chemtaab. Hiring, Electric power, Electronic products. Fire prevention. Cns^t|>a^M^erials. Health safety and health. Radiation protection. This decugoent was prepared under. the direrjlin of Thoms G. Auditor. Assistant Secretory for Occupational Safety aed Health. UA. Department of Labor, amffeqatitutien Ave.. NWWashington. 0.C. ffleto. (Sec. a Pub. L 91-508, 84 Slat IMS (to U.S.C. 66). CFIt ten; Secretary of Labor's Older No. 8-78 (41 FR 29000)1 Signed at Washington, U.C. this 14lh day uf February. 1*83. Thome Aucbter, Assistant Secretary of Labor. |FH Due. U-tlJO Kited li-18-Cl. Ml m| Btcuno com uw-ss-e DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Const Quard 33 CFR Part 117 [CQ0S-S3-01] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Kent Island Narrows. Md. AOCNCY: Coast Guard, DOT. action: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: At the request of the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Coast Guard is considering a change in the regulations that govern the operation of the Kent Island Narrows Drawbridge at Crasonvilla, Maryland which will change the number and times of openings during summer weekend peak traffic periods. This proposal is being made because some summer weekend draw openings have contributed to large traffic backups in the vicinity of the drawbridge. This action is intended to accomodate the needs of vehicular traffic and still provide for the reasonable needs of navigation. The Commander. Fifth Coust Cuard District has authorized a public hearing to be held to receive comments on the proposed regulation. DATSg: (a) The hearing will be held on March 24,1903 ut 7:30 p.m. (b) Written comments on this proposal may be submitted on or before April 8,1883. AOOWgg--; (a) The locution of the hearing will be at Chesapeake College, Route* 50 and 213, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, (b) Written comments cm this proposal may be submitted to and will be available for examination from 8:00 a m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the office of Commander (o*n). Fifth Coast Guard District. Room flog, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23705. Comments may also be hand-delivered to this address. FOR FUR1MM INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne J. Creed. Bridge Administrator, Aids to Navigation Branch. Fifth Coast Guard District. Portsmouth, Virginia 23705 (804) 388-6222. DTH 000016092