View Rule

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is part of OSHA's response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative, as embodied in the Department of Labor's report of June 15, 1995. In carrying out OSHA's responsibilities under the Presidential directive, and as part of OSHA's reinvention efforts, the Agency is reworking many health and safety standards, particularly those that were first adopted by OSHA in 1971, into standards that are more understandable to employers and employees, are flexible in their means of compliance, and are founded in common-sense approaches to preventing or controlling workplace safety and health hazards. This standards project is a key part of the Agency's initial effort to meet this objective. ^PWorkplace safety and health standards should be both protective of workers and user-friendly for employers and employees. If OSHA standards are duplicative, employers have more difficulty in achieving compliance. For example, rubber insulating equipment requirements in 29 CFR 1910.268(f) should be revoked, because these same requirements appear in a more up-to-date form in 29 CFR 1910.137. Similarly, information given in respirator fit test procedures contained in 29 CFR 1910.1000 is repeated in a number of other locations in OSHA health standards and could be eliminated by the addition of a cross reference to a single source. ^PIn addition, any OSHA standards that are out of date as a result of industry changes in the use of materials or equipment should be revised to accommodate these changes. For example, only approved metal safety cans can be used for the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids in the construction industry, as required in 29 CFR 1926.152(a)(1). Since plastic cans are now also approved and acceptable for this purpose, the OSHA standard should be revised to allow this industry to use such equipment if desired. ^POSHA standards that are preempted by similar standards enforced by other Federal agencies (as specified in Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act) should also be removed from OSHA's regulations. For example, the capacity limits for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders addressed in 29 CFR 1910.110(e)(10) are preempted by regulations enforced by the Department of Transportation for the same equipment. The inclusion of such standards in OSHA regulations unnecessarily increases the burden on employers trying to understand and comply with applicable standards. ^PThere are also some OSHA standards that conflict with the rules of other Federal agencies. For example, OSHA requires empty boxes that previously contained high explosives that are being disposed of to be burned (29 CFR 1910.109(e)(2)), although some employers have been prohibited from burning these boxes by local air pollution requirements. OSHA will be revising these standards to allow flexibility and common-sense alternative methods and procedures. ^PAdministrative actions will also be proposed in this rulemaking to reduce employer burden. These actions include the elimination of obsolete standards that address such matters as effective dates and sources of standards.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered issuing de minimis citations for noncompliance with many of the duplicative, outdated, or confusing standards that would be addressed in this notice. Such enforcement actions, however, do not eliminate the continuing problem for employers who must attempt to identify the standards that apply to their worksites. OSHA believes that the selective elimination of unnecessary standards and the revision and updating of others is the most satisfactory approach to resolving this problem.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: No additional costs are anticipated for employers. Employers should benefit from this action because it will enhance their ability to comply with OSHA standards that are more user-friendly.

Risks: Employee protection is likely to be enhanced to some extent by this action, which will clarify and update regulatory requirements.