Document oeQgvg2kdqJNYXjwRDOweX7L8

22614 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1966 / Rules and Regulations emissions, including work practices that average (TWA) and a peak exposure separate proposal applicable to the must be followed to minimize the level of 10 f/cc. construction industry, no such proposal release of asbestos fibers during the In June 1972, OSHA promulgated a was published. handling of asbestos waste materials. new Anal standard that established an In 1976, the National Institute for EPA regulations promulgated under the 8-hour time-weighted average PEL of 5 Occupational Safety and Health l'oxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR f/cc and a ceiling limit of 10 f/cc. These (N10SH), and in 1980 a NIOSH/OSHA Part 763, Subpart F) address the problem limits were intended primarily to protect task force, recommended that OSHA of asbestos construction materials used employees against asbestosis, and it reduce the permissible exposure limit in schools..These regulations require was hoped that they would provide for asbestos to 0.1 f/cc, based on that all schools be inspected to some incidental degree of protection evidence of the carcinogenicity of determine the presence and quantity of against asbestos induced forms of asbestos (Ex. 84-320). OSHA has aabestos-contBining materials in school cancer. Effective July 1976, OSHA's 8- considered these recommendations in facilities. Corrective actions are left to hour TWA limit was reduced to 2 f/cc determining what regulatory response is the discretion of school officials. EPA and this limit remained in effect up to necessary to provide exposed regulations promulgated under the Clean the present; the Final rules published employees with effective protection. Water Act set standards for asbestos today revise the PEL for 8-hour On May 24,1983, OSHA consulted levels in effluents to navigable waters. employee exposures to asbestos, with the Advisory Committee for Throughout this rulemaking, OSHA tremolite. anthophyllite, and actinolite Construction Safety and Health has consulted with the EPA on various to a level of 0.2 fiber/cc. (referred to as "CACOSH") concerning regulatory aspects of dealing with the OSHA's 1972 asbestos standard was the applicability of any new asbestos asbestos hazard. EPA has reviewed and reviewed by the court and upheld in alt standard to the construction industry. critiqued OSHA's quantitative risk major respects; however, the court CACOSH endorsed OSHA's position assessmenlfor asbestos (Exs. 84-292. remanded two issues for OSHA's that any new PEL adopted for general 88-6), and both EPA and OSHA belong reconsideration [IUD v. Hodgson. 449 F. industry should also apply to the to the Federal Asbestos Task Force, 2d 487 (CADC1974)). These issues were construction industry (Ex. 84-424). On established in June 1983. to coordinate whether the July 1976 effective date for November 4.1083, OSHA published an Federal regulatory actions with regard the 2 f/cc standard should be Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to asbestos. The Consumer Product accelerated for some industries and for asbestos (48 FR 51086). The ETS Safety Commission is also a member of whether the standard's 3-year retention marked a new regulatory initiative, this task force because of its mandate to period for employee exposure related to, but not part of, the 1975 protect consumers from health and monitoring records was.adequate. In proceeding. The ETS was held invalid safety hazards. response to the remand. OSHA by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for C. State Plan Revisions increased the record retention period to 20 years (41 FR 11504), and the passage the Fifth Circuit on March 7,1984. Subsequently, OSHA published a The 25 states and territories with their of time mooted the acceleration issue. notice of proposed rulemaking (49 FR own OSHA-approved occupational In October 1975, OSHA published a 14116, April 10,1984) for a standard safety and health plans must revise their notice of proposed rulemaking (40 FR covering occupational exposure to existing standard within 6 months of 47652) to revise the asbestos standard asbestos in all of the industries this publication date or show OSHA because the Agency believed that , governed by the Act: maritime, why there is no need for action; for "sufficient medical and scientiFic construction, and general industry. example, because an existing State evidence has been accumulated to Pursuant to Section 8(c) of the Act, the standard covering this area is already warrant the designation of asbestos as a ETS also served as a proposed rule. "at least as effective" as the revised human carcinogen" and that advances - Public hearings were held in . Federal standards. These states or In monitoring and protective technology Washington, D.C., from June 19 to July territories are: Alaska, Arizona, made reexamination of the standard 10,1984, to provide interested parties California, Connecticut, Hawaii, "desirable." This proposal would have and the public with the opportunity to Indiana.jowa, Kentucky, Maryland, reduced the 8-hourtlme-weighted - comment on the proposed revisions, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New average to 0.5 f/cc and imposed a ceiling pursuant to notice and section 6(b) of Mexico. New York, North Carolina, limit of 5 f/cc for 15 minutes. the Act (29 U.S.C. 855(b)(3)). The Oregoic Puerto Rico, South Carolina, The basis for the 1975 proposal's hearings were presided over by Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, the reduction in the permissible exposure Administrative Law Judge Robert G. Virgin Islands, Washington, and limit to 0.5 f/cc was OSHA's then- Mahoney. Post-hearing submissions of Wyoming. (In Connecticut and New. current policy for carcinogens that data, comments, and briefs were York, the plan covers only State and assumed that no safe threshold level received through November 1,1984. The local government employees.) .was demonstrable andtherefore that the entire record, including over 340 exhibits II: Regulatory History ' Act required the Agency to set the PEL at a level as low as technologically and and approximately 55.000 pages of material, was certiFied by Judge OSHA has regulated asbestos.since economically feasible. This policy was Mahoney on September 27,1985, in 1971; A12 f/cc permissible exposure rejected by the Supreme Court in the accordance with 29 CFR 1911.17. Copies limit (PEL) for asbestos was included in benzene decision [IUD v. API. 448 U.S. of materials contained in the record may the initial promulgation on May 29,1971 601 (1980)) (see the discussion of the be obtained from the OSHA Docket (36 FR 10466) of OSHA standards implications of the benzene decision for Office, Room N3670, U.S. Department of pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. In OSHA rulemaking in the Significance of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.. Response to a petition by the Industrial Risk 'section of the preamble, section Washington, DC 20210. These Final Union Department of the AFL-CIO, VI). The 1975 proposal would have standards on occupational exposure to OSHA issued an ETS oh asbestos on applied to all industries except asbestos in construction and general December 7,1971, which established a construction. Further, although OSHA industry are based on a thorough PEL of 5 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted announced its Intention to develop a consideration of the entire record of this GLEASON-000862