Document reexjrQmezKabVz9oEyY22w5a

GENERAL INFORMATION BULLETIN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Inspections, Citations and Proposed Penalties Sec.1903.7(b) Conduct of Inspections--Samples Use of Personal Sampling Devices According to the interpretation published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the February 12 Federal Register (pp. 6530-4, attached), the use of personal sampling devices as an aid in workplace inspections is permitted under 29 CFR 1903.7(b). OSHA issued the interprative and procedural rule in order to clarify the existing regulation concerning sampling of employee exposures during inspection and investigation of workplaces sub ject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. At the same time, the agency proposed to amend Section 1903.7 by issuing a legislative rule to expressly authorize its compliance officers to use personal sampling devices and to attach such devices to employees during the conduct of workplace inspections. The proposed rule would remove any questions concerning OSHA's auth ority to use personal sampling devices as an aid in its work place inspections. Comments on the issues raised by the use of personal sampling devices should be submitted by April 13 to: Docket Officer Docket No. W-300 U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room S-6212 Washington, D.C. 20210 Effective date of interpretation: February 12, 1982. VVC 000009197 THE SOAP AND DETERGENT ASSOCIATION 475 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 * (212)725-1262 ) Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 30 / Friday, February 12, 1982 / Rules and Regulations ASTMENT OF LABOR .,: Tiional Safety and Health nitration 7 Part 1903 ... Personal Sampling Devices . inspection 'Y: Occupational Safety and h Administration (OSHA); Labor. ON: Issuance of interpretative and .niural rule. varv: This interpretation of 29 CFR "! ij] cianfies the existing regulation 1 rung sampling of employee Mi es during inspection and iqation of workplaces subject to "jcupational Safety and Health Act i). Specifically, the interpretation ; dear that the term "employ other :tble investigative techniques" : s the attachment of personal ung devices to employees in order . i tor their exposures. In addition, . .:y's Federal Register, OSHA is ung and inviting public comment amendment to 1903.7(b) which adopt this interpretation a6 a ;ve rule. See Notice of Proposed ..lung. Docket No, W-300. which i in Part II of today's Federal ,. r. . . 1 his interpretation is effective an, 12, 1982. :UTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: -aster, Office of Information, U,S, uneut of Labor, 200 Constitution NW,, Room N-3637, nnn, D.C, 20210. (202-523-8151). MSNTARY INFORMATION*. ..diction Occupational Safety and Health ..stiation ("OSHA" or "the \ "! has been utilizing personal . '.'2 devices as an aid in workplace i .'cms throughout its enforcement The most common personal . in: devices presently in use are . > dosimeter and air sampling i ;te doaiir.eter is designed to uound levels in the workplace ! ne compliance with the . ..Published in the Secretary's . ;ma) noise exposure standard at !ul0.9->. The device is - vmately the size of a pack of and weighs approximately 9 it has a small ware extending mam unit to the microphone i - about the size of a quarter. The :d may be attached to the -a s belt or pocket, and the l.mu: to the shirt lapel. The bne wire may be attached tightly ..... ipluyoe by running it across and/or pinning, taping or clipping it to his clothing. A personal air sampling device is.a small--about the size of two packs nf cigarettes--battery operated pump which monitors the exposure to air contaminants of the individual wearing it. As with the dosimeter, the main part of the unit, which is a vacuum pump, is attached to the belt and connected by a flexible hose running along the subject's clothing to a silver-dollar-size cassette, impinger or charcoal tube, depending on the substance to be monitored. The pump most commonly used by OSHA weighs approximately 31 ounces. As discussed below in detail, questions have recently been raised regarding the authority of the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to use these devices. Accordingly, this interpretation is published to make clear that the authority conferred by the regulation at 29 CFR 1903.7(b) includes the attachment of personal sampling devices to employees in order to monitor their exposures. Of course, as with all regulations that confer authority, implicit in the regulation is the employer's obligation, consistent with his rights under Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978), to permit and to take no action to impede the Compliance Officer's exercise of the granted authority. II. Background A. Promulgation of29 CFR 1903.7. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. (the Act) was enacted "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources." In order to carry out these purposes, section 8(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 657(a), specifically authorizes the Secretary, upon presenting appropriate credentials to the owner, operator, or agent in charge: (1) To enter without delay und al reasonable times anj factory, p*ant. establishment, construction site, or other area workplace or environment where work is performed by an ompln.i r nf ;m employer: and (2) To inspect and invesnu.ia: during regular working horns and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place nf employment and al! pertin< nt conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices. equipment and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee. The Act was passed on December 29. 1970 and became effective on April 28. 1971. One week later, the Secretary proposed, pursuant to his rulemaking authority under section 8(g)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 657(g);,;). to add a new Part 1903 la Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations whose purpose was "to provide procedures and policies fer the inspection, investigation * * provisions of the Act." 30 FR 8376 et see. Included 'among these "procedures and policies" was a provision (proposed 1903.5(b)) authorizing Compliance Officers "to take photographs and samples, (and) employ other reasonable investigative techniques * * during an inspection. 36 FR 8376. After the close of the comment period, the "Conduct of Inspections" provision (renumbered 1903.7) was adopted with some changes and made effective immediately upon its publication in the Federal Register on September 4,1971. 36 FR 17850.17851. Specifically. 1903.7 provided in pertinent part: 1903.7 Conduct of Inspections. (b) Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall have authority to take environmental samples and to take or obtain photographs related to the purpose of the inspection, employ other reasonable investigative techniques, and question privately any employer, owner, operator, agent or employee of an establishment. (See 1903.9 on trade secrets.) (c) In taking phutographs and samples. Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall take reasonable precautions to insure that such actions with flash, spark-producing, or other equipment would not be hazardous. Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall comply with all employer safety and health rules and practices at the establishment being inspected, and they shall wear and use appropriate protective clothing and equipment. (cl) The conduct of inspections shall be such as to preclude unreasonable disruption of the operations of the employer's establishment. Thus, the promulgated regulation specifically authorized OSHA compliance officers "to take environmental samples" and to employ "reasonable investigative techniques" during the conduct of inspections. B. The Srcieiary's interpretation of 29 CFR 1903.7(b). Shortly after Part 1903 was adopted, the Secretary issued his first OSl 1A Compliance Operations Manual (COM), a manual of guidelines to assure effective und uniform implementation of the Act. Chapter XIII of the COM. entitled "Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Health." contained instructions regarding sampling methods t VVC 000009198 Federal! Register / Vol. 47, No. 30 / Friday, February 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations 6531 to be used to determine employee exposure to hazardous airborne contaminants. That section provided ihul air samples must relate ouvrtH' to li.e exposure of one emr loyeo or more if the samples ere to be of use in the compliance program, and that the most satisfactory method of meeting this icquirement is to use of a personal sampler with the sampling head as close as is conveniently possible to ihe employee s head- COM at XI1I-12. The serhon also provided that area samples are useful as an index of general contamination but cautioned that they usually are only remotely related to the actual exposure of the employee. Id. On July 1,1974. OSHA replaced the COM with the Field Operations Manual (FOM). Department of Labor, OSHA Field Operations Manual (July-1974). Section N of Chapter XIII uf the FOM was identical to its predecessor section in the COM and, despite other changes to the FOM, has been essentially retained in every subsequent version of the manual, including the current version. On August 15; 1976. the Secretary's first Industrial Hygiene Held Operations Manual (IHFOM) became effective. In addition to detailing various standard methods which utilize personal sampling equipment, that manual provided that before citations for violating air quality standards (29 CFR 1910.1000 and 1010.1001} and the noise standard (29 CFR 1910.95) issue, "|a]n exposure to an employee must occur. This requires the use of personal sampling techniques." IHFOM at IX-1. The version of the IIIFOM effective June 4.1979 also specified that personal sampling is the standard method for measuring air contaminants. IHFOM at X-l. and that breathing zone samples are required to determine compliance with aii quality standards. Ibid, at II-1 ihe current version provides that compliance with Hir qualify standards shall be determined by measuring exposures within the breathing zone and states that "OSHA defines the breathing zone to be a sphere approximately 2 feet m diameter surrounding the head " IHFOM at II-I. Thus, there can be no doubt that sincp the adoption of 29 CFR 1903.7. which authorized the taking of environmental samples and the use of reasonable investigative techniques, the agency has consistently and urarnbiguouslv interpreted that provision lo allow ,ind in fact encourage the use of personal sampling devices during OSHA inspections. C. 7'hc Secretary s policy cri pn.o'tn e in monitoring employe.? exposures. Consistent with the above intiupreuibon are the Secretary 's policy and practice in monitoring employee fixpownes, In the preamble to his standard insulating exposure to coke oven emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029). the Secretary stated generally th.it "[i]1 is OSHA policy to monitor exposures by taking personal samples whenever possible Area samples are generally not as direct u measure of employee exposure as are personal breathing zone samples " 41 FR 46750 (October 22,1976) Several health standards require employers to measure employee exposure by taking personal samples. See 29 CFR 1910.1029(e)! l)(iii) (coke oven emissions); 29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(l)(iii) (lead): 29 CFR 1910.1018(e)(l)(iiiJ (arsenic). The asbestos standard requires samples to be collected from within the breathing zone of employees. 29 CFR 1910.1001{f)(2)(i). Other standards state that breathing zone samples should be taken. See 29 CFR 1910-1045 Appendix B (JV)(A)(1) (acrylonitrile). 29 CFR 1910,1044 Appendix B (iV)(A)Fl) (1,2dibromo-3-chloropropanej. These Federal Register statements and standards demonstrate that the Secretary has always considered the use of personal sampling devices to be authorized and appropriate. In addition, the Secretary's longstanding practice of using personal sampling devices and the acknowledgement of that practice in various administrative and court decisions, confirms his interpretation that using those devices is included within the authorization of 1903.7 to employ "`reasonable investigative techniques.*' D. Judicial decisions concerning 1903.7 and the Secretary's authority to use persona! sampling devices. 1. The Plum Creek decisions. The first case to address issues concerning the Secretary's authoritv to require the use of personal sampling devices during OSHA inspections was Plum Clock lumber Co. v. Hutton. 452 F. Sapp 575 (D. Mont. 19"8). affd 008 F. 2d 1283 (9h Cir. 1979). In that case. OSHA attempted on January 17. 1978. to conduct an inspection of Plum Creek's !:btr board plant, sawmill and plywood plant in Columbia Falls. Montana. The agenev informed the company that employees would be requested to wear personal sampling devices during the inspection When the company responded that its employees would be forbidden to wear the testing devices. OSHA -aft the workplace end obtained an inspection warrant from a United States Magistrate. A secur'd inspection was attempted on February 6 19?.?, bat ihe company refused to comply with the warrant. OSHA then obtained a second warrant which specifically authorized "air sampling and noise level testing in a reasonable manner and to a reasonable extent." On February 13,1978, following a series of court proceedings, OSHA began the inspection of Plum Creek's facilities. At that time, the agency observed a February 10,1978 notice to employees which stated that the wearing of noise and air sampling devices was against company policy When OSHA requested twenty-two employees to wear the devices, sixteen refused. Of the six who agreed, three changed work shifts and only three actually wore the samplers, As a result, the inspection produced inconclusive results. OSHA then asked the district court to enjoin Plum Creek from impeding the inspection through its policy prohibiting employee cooperation in sampling. As a result, a hearing was held on ?httwo separate questions involved: (l j Thu Secretary's authority to conduct sampling by attaching personal sampling devices to workers and (2} tindistrict court's authority to order the rescission of the company's policy prohibiting employee cooperation with such sampling. The district court upheld the Secretary's authority to conduct personal sampling if the employees agreed to cooperate, 452 F, Supp. at 57b and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on appeal, affirmed the district court's order and judgment. 608 F. 2d at 1290. The district court also held that it had no power to order rescission of the company policy, 432 F Supp. at 577; the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed this is3ue on appeal and agreed with the lower ce :! 608 F. 2d at 1289-90. Thus, the Plum Creek courts held that, although a cnjrt could not order rescission of a company policy prohibiting employees from wearing personal sampling devices iibsent a regulation or law specifying Iheir use, the Secretary is authorized in conduct such personal sampling and that the use of those devices is a "reasonable" investigative technique 2. Subsequent court decisions. One eonrl of appeals has refused to follow the Ninth Circuit's holding in Plum Creek that the court is without authority to order an employer to permit Ms employees to wear personal sampling devices contrary to the employer's written policy, In re Establishment Inspection of Keokuk Steel Castings.. Division of Kast Meta/s, 638 F. 2d 42. 4t> (8lh Cir. 1981), aff'g 493 F. Supp. 842 (S.U. Iowa 1980). Several district courts also have declined to follow7 the Ninth Circuit's decision and have concluded that persona] sampling is a reasonablr- VVC 000009199 6532 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 30 / Friday, February 12, 1982 / Rules and Regulations technique which the Secretary can employ. E.g., In re Establishment Inspection of Cleveland Electric Illumination Co., No. M80-2118 [N.D. Ohio), appeal docketed, No. 81-3159 (6th Cir. March 20.19B1); Marshall v. Rochester Shoe. Tree Co., Inc., Mis. No. 306 (N.D. N.Y. 1981); Marshall v. Miller Tube Carp., 1978 CCH OSHD \ 23,212 at 28,059 (E.D. N.Y. 1978). However, on August 3,1981, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reached a different result. In re Establishment Inspection ofMetro-East Mfg. Co. and In re Establishment Inspection of Century Casting Corp., 655 F. 2d 805 (7th Cir. 1981). The Court agreed that the use of persona] sampling devices is reasonable but concluded that 29 CFR 1903.7 did not give employers "fair warning" of what is required or prohibited because it failed to specify the use of personal samplers as a "reasonable investigative technique." 655 F. 2d at 810-12. The Court therefore affirmed two district court orders limiting the terms of inspection warrants so as to preclude the use of personal sampling devices on employees, even if the employees agreed to wear the devices. The Court suggested that the Secretary amend the regulation to clarify its meaning and give employers fair warning of the type of investigation deemed reasonable. See id. at 812. III. Reasons for Issuance of an Interpretative Rule As discussed above, the Secretary has always interpreted 5 1903.7 to permit attachment of personal sampling devices to employees as an aid in workplace inspections. Indeed, the Secretary's practice has been to use such devices whenever possible. However, since a question has been raised about the meaning of the term used in the regulation and to remove any doubt on this matter, this interpretation is being published to make clear that the term "employ other reasonable investigative techniques'' includes attachment of personal samplers to employees to monitor their exposures. Since this rule is an interpretative rule and a rule of agency procedure and practice, general notice of proposed rulemaking, public participation therein and delay in effective date are not required by 5 U.S.C. 553. Specifically, the rule interprets the term "employ other reasonable investigative techniques" as it is used in 29 CFR 1903.7(b) in order to clarify a provision believed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be ambiguous. The rule also makes explicit a longstanding and consistently applied agency practice and procedure which is used in the course of an inspection or investigation. Thus, this interpretation does not effect a change in the substantive rights of any person. In addition, general rulemaking procedures are unnecessary since this rule does not have a substantial impact on the persons regulated under the Act. For example, since the Secretary has always used personal samplers as an aid in OSHA inspections, there can be no justifiable reliance on a contrary prior practice. Furthermore, there is no prior interpretation of 1903.7(b) which would preclude the use of persona! samplers, and the Seventh Circuit did not adopt a contrary interpretation. Additionally, this rule doss not alter the criteria used in making the ultimate decision in OSHA enforcement actions, i.e., whether a company has violated the Act. Accordingly, notice and public procedure are unnecessary in this instance. For the same reasons, under the "good cause" exceptions to the general rulemaking requirements, 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (d), the agency is not required in this instance to provide notice of rulemaking, public participation therein and delay in effective date. Moreover, notice and comment rulemaking in this instance would create a delay that would be contrary to the public interest. The use of personal sampling devices is necessary to the conduct of effective and efficient OSHA health inspections. The decision in Metro-East, supra, renders the agency unable to conduct any non-consensual personal sampling in the Seventh Circuit; under Plum Creek, supra, the agency's ability to conduct personal sampling in the Ninth Circuit has been severely restricted. Thus, in these circuits, and perhaps elsewhere, the effective conduct of virtually all OSHA health inspections has been impeded. The consequent health detriment to employees that results from OSHA's inability to effectively monitor their exposure to noise and air contaminants justifies the immediate effective date of this rule. IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis In accordance with Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193. February 17.1981). OSHA has carefully assessed the potential impact of the interpretation of 29 CFR 1903.7(b). Based on the guidelines of the Executive Order, OSHA has concluded that the interpretation is not a "major" action which would necessitate further economic impact evaluation and the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. This conclusion is predicated on several factors. First, as noted above, it has always been the Secretary's practice to use personal sampling devices on employees whenever possible. The Secretary's experience indicates that these devices are compact, take minimal time to attach to the employee, and neither hinder nor obstruct the employee's performance of his job. Thus, there are no substantive adverse labor productivity effects. Second, since OSHA is required to provide the personal samplers for use by its compliance officers, employers are not required to pay for these devices. Third, the Secretary is unaware of any injuries or accidents caused by the use of personal samplers. Therefore, these factors strongly indicate that this amendment would not increase costs to employers and would have little effect on the economy. Finally, OSHA finds that the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 001 et seq., which require an assessment of the impact of certain regulatory actions upon small entities, are inapplicable to this interpretative and procedural rule. V, Authority This document was prepared under the direction of Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. 200 Constitution Avenue NW,, Washington, D.C. 20210, This interpretation'm issued pursuant to section B(g)(2j of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 hR 25059) in implementation of the general inspection and investigation authority conferred by section 8(a) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 657(h). VVC 000009200 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 30 / Friday, February 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations PART 1903--INSPECTIONS. CITATIONS AND PROPOSED PENALTIES In accordance with above. 29 CFR 1903.7 is hereby amended by adding the following interpretative note at the end of 1903.7(b): 1903.7 Conduct of inspections. *i *i Cb]" * ` Interpretative Note: As used herein, the term "employ other reasonable investigative techniques" includes, but is not limited to. the use of devices to measure employee exposures and the attachment of personal sampling equipment such as dosimeters, pumps, badges and other similar devices to employees in order to measure their exposures. (29 U.S.C, 657(a), Br.7(g|; 5 VS C. Signed at Washington. D.C.. this 4th day of February 1902. Thome G. Aticbtsr, Asvistaui Secivtun nf Labor. |IK 0o<. Iia-34*s Fill'll J 11-fU. 11:45 -.mi BILLING CODE 4S1C-2C-M 6533 VVC 000009201 6534 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 30 / Friday. February 12, 1982 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1903 iDocket No. vV-3001 Use of Personal Sampling Devices During Inspection AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): iV: tment of Labor. action: .Notice ot proposed rulemaking. summary: in !ori jv's Federal Register. OSH A tv\Ho.s 2d CFR 1903.7(b) by inuhne .in interpretative note to make clo..i `.nut the term ' employ other jiMson iU.e estigat;'. p techniques" as us"u in rv-di'jpjn includes but is not I nation m me arrachment of personal sampling unvicus to employees in order In monitor mmr exposures. In this dnoumen:. CDSIiA proooses to amend l*K).; " In issuing a i igislative rule to expressh authorize its compliance officers to use personal sampling devices and to attach such devices to empiuve-. s during th? conduct of wnikpian? inspections. The proposed rut,- u'oaid remove anv questions .:umv,!u:u the agency's authority to use personal sampling devices as an aid in its workplace inspections. dates: Comments on th? issues raised by the use of personal sampling devices must be postmarked by April 13,1982. address: Comments are to be sent to: Do.-kc: Officer. Docket No. VV-300, US. ib'pa.-im.'nt nj Labor. 200 Constitution Avenue. N\Y.. Room cj-6212. Wusn.ndm: D.C. 20219- FOB FCrtThER INFORMATION CONTACT: rosier. Office of Information, U.S. D>'OsU iv. of Laonr. 200 Constitution Avenue NVY . Room N-T637. Washington. D C 20210 1202-523-8151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The discussion ir. tne interpretative and procedural ruie of Par; II of today's Federal Register s 'is forth the histoiy of 29 CFR !;id.br;bl and the reasons for the issuance oi rhrt interpretative and j>rn ;u rule wn:,,;- appears Iheruin. II ih's .uirurni;:-.;. Lie agency announces its i.i'oiii'Mi to amor . the regulation to I'xpiivU\ .iuihouompliance officers lo mv.ror fm.piovaes exposures by u'.bhd'md personal samplin': devices to tLpel sons liuvir.u OSi t\ inspections, l iv; p'.b'ic ir- invited to submit comments on the issues involved in the ise <;i such dunce*. and particularly on the issue u; whether the placement of the device on an employe* may under certain circumstances constitute an inherent hazard which subjects the employee to potential accident and injury. With respect to the safely issue, all courts that have considered the issue have concluded that the attachment of a personal sampler to an employee is a reasonable investigative technique that presents minimal risk, if any. Indeed, the Secretary is unaware of any accident or Injury caused by the use of such devices during the more than ten-year enforcement history of the Act. encompassing widespread use of personal samplers by many employers as well as by the Secretary. Moreover, the use of personal sampling devices is considered by the Secretary to be at least as safe as other sampling techniques of equivalent efficiency. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments with respect tc this proposal and all issues involved therein. These comments must bo postmarked on or before April 13.1982. and submitted in quadruplicate to: Docket Officer. Docket No. W-300, Room S-6212, 200 Constitution Avenue MW.. Washington. D.C. 20210. The data, views and arguments that are submitted will be available for public inspection and copying at the above address. All timely written submissions received wiil be made part of the record of this proceeding and will be considered in formulating the final rule. Regulatory Impact Analysis The economic analysis under Executive Order 12291. which appears in connection with the interpretative and procedural rule in Part II of today's Federal Register is equally applicable lo this proposal and is incorporated herein. Additionally, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub L. 96-353, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)), OSHA has carefully assessed the impact of the amendment upon small entities. Initially, the agency notes that to the extent that any costs occur, they would directly relate to the number of workers sampled. As proportionately more workers would be sampled in larger establishments, the costs per unit of output of the amendment are expected to be the same for both smaller and larger establishments. Moreover. m additional costs result from the amendment since it has always been and continues to be OSHA practice to use personal sampling devices whenever possible and whenever there is no judicial ruling to the contrary. Accordingly, OSHA hereby certifies; that this proposed rule does not have h significant economic impact on a substantia! number of small entities. The Regulatory Impact Assessment has identified several benefits which realized as a result of the promulgation of the amendment. As has been noted n* connection with the interpretative and procedural rule, the use of personal sampling devices attached to employer* not only increases the effectiveness of OSHA inspections but also minimizes potential reduction in employee productivity. The use of personal sampling devices attached to employees is therefore the most cost effective means of promoting occupational sJe;y and health. Authority-. This document was ptxquuvnl under tho direction.of Thqme G. Aucjitur, Assistant Secret,'try of Labor for Ot cupwtiorau Safety ami Health. 200 Constitution Awmie MW.. Washington, D C. 20210. PART 1903--INSPECTIONS, CITATIONS, AND PROPOSED PENALTIES Accordingly, pursuant to section B'tij and 0(g)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 657}al and 657(g)(2). and the Secretary of Labor's Order 8-76, 41 FR 25059, if it proposed to amend part 1903 of Title 2t-n of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below. It is proposed to revise 29 CFR 1903.7(b) lo read as follows: 1903.7 Conduct of inspections. (!>J Compliance Safety and Health Officers shall have authority to take environmental samples and lo tax*-.- < obtain photographs related to the purpose of the inspection, employ o'Ljc'f reasonable investigative technique*, .uni question privately any employer, operator, agent or employee of an establishment. (See 1903.9 on trada sounds.) As used herein, the term "employ other reasonable investig dr;c* techniques" includes, but is not lhrs to, the use of devices to measure employee exposures and the att<'ici/OU"-i of personal sampling equipment su< h dosimeters, pumps, budges and oHn' similar devices to employees in ned; i monitor their exposures. (29 U.S.C. 657(u]. 057(g): 5 U.S.C, 553) Signed at Washington. D.C. this 4?h it..* i ; February 1982. Thorne G. Auditor, Assistant Secretory of Labor. |FR Hor.. Hi- .i-Lln Kl.,,1 2-n-HP.- 3-4S .ir.ll BILLING CODE 4510-26-M vve 000009202