Enmienda al Reglamento 4, Parte 1910, 63FR 230 Adiestramiento a los Operadores de Vehículos Industriales Motorizados; Regla Final.

No. 5934 Date: march 5, 1999 9:20AM Approved: COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES Office of the Secretary Asistant Secretary for Services Hato Rey, Puerto Rico RESOLUTION I, Aura L. González Rios, Puerto Rico Secretary of Labor and Human Resources, pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 8 of the Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Act, Act Number 16 of August 5, 1975 as amended (29 LPRA 361 et. seq.), hereby amend the Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Regulation, Number Four, (Part 1910) approved on February 1, 1978 and amended as of February 21, March 16, May 8, July 18, September 8, October 9, 1978; February 16, March 21, March 28, May, 31, September 30, 1979; June 23, October 24, November 13, 1980; May 29, 1981; February 4, June 11, 1982; March 23, May 31, June 14, September 30, 1983; March 29, May 11, November 26, 1984; May 1, June 4, July 10, August 29, November 25, 1985; March 24, May 2, September 18, 1986; April 28, September 14, 1987; March 31, October 4, 1988; March 7, May 23, July 21, 1989; January 18, March 9, April 25, May 11, May 29, June 29, 1990; January 10, December 16, 1991; June 11, August 25, October 6, 1992; March 10, April 14, September 30, December 9, 1993, March 23, June 21, September 29, November 23, 1994; January 18, May 30, November 13, December 13, 1995, February 21, November 13, 1996 and April 16, November 26, 1997, April 28 and July 30, 1998 and November 16, 1998 by adopting the following amendments: Longshoring and Marine Terminals; Final Rule as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 143 of July 25, 1997 (40142- 40234) Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Antophyllite and Actinolite; Final Rule, corrections, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 165 of August 23, 1996 (43454-43459) Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training; Final Rule as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 230, of December 1, 1998 (66238-66274) Permit-Required Confined Spaces; Final Rule, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 230 of December 1, 1998 (66018- 66040) The adoption of this amendments will be effective immediately. Given at San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 3 day of March 1999. AURA a L. GONZALEZ RIOS 5934 68018 Federal Register ol. 63, No. 230/Tuesday, December 1, 1998/Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 and will additionally clarify a number HUMAN SERVICES Animal drugs, Animal feeds. of issues that have arisen since Therefore, under the Federal Food, promulgation of the final Permit- Food and Drug Administration Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under Required Confined Spaces rule in 1993. 21 CFR Part 558 authority delegated to the Commissioner Specifically, OSHA is clarifying and of Food and Drugs and redelegated to strengthening the requirements in New Animal Drugs for Use In Animal the Center For Veterinary Medicine, 21 revised paragraphs (d),Permit-required Feeds; Melengestrol Acetate and CFR part 558 is amended as follows: confined space program, and (e), Permit Lasalocid; Technical Amendment system, to allow for greater employee PART 558-NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR participation in the permit-space AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS program and for employee access to HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR program information developed under arnendment. part 558 continues to read as follows: the standard. The Agency is also revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug specify that employers must provide Administration (FDA) is amending and § 558.342 [Amended] those employees who are authorized 2. Section 558.342 Melengestrol permit space entrants, or their clarifying the animal drug regulations concerning melengestrol acetate (MGA) acetate is amended in paragraph (c) authorized representatives, an and the special considerations related to after the phrase "Type B" each place it opportunity to observe any testing of the making type B and C feeds and lasalocid appears by adding the phrase "or C" space that is conducted prior to entry or and in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) by adding a subsequent to such entry. The Agency type B liquid feed specifications used believes that these revisions are for making lasalocid/MGA type C heifer sentence after the first sentence to read feed. "The liquid medicated feeds are necessary to ensure that permit space entrants, whose work often requires EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1998. required to be manufactured in entry into potentially life-threatening FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack accordance with § 558.311 atmospheres, have the information Caldwell. Center For Veterinary Dated: November 10, 1998. necessary to protect themselves and Medicine (HFV-126). Food and Drug Andrew J. Beaulieu, their co-workers from confined space Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.. Acting Director, Office of New Animal Drug hazards. Allowing authorized entrants Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1638. Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. or their authorized representatives to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pharmacia [FR Doc. 98-31573 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am] observe the testing of the spaces they are & Upjohn Co., 7000 Portage Rd., BILLING CODE 4160-01-F required to enter will help to ensure that Kalamazoo, MI 49001-0199, is sponsor the testing has been done properly, that of NADA's 39-402 and 140-288 that the respirators and other personal provide for combining separately DEPARTMENT OF LABOR protective equipment being worn are approved melengestrol acetate (MGA) appropriate, and that the entrants (dry and liquid) and lasalocid (dry and Occupational Safety and Health understand the nature of the hazards liquid) type A medicated articles to Administration present in the space. In addition, make lasalocid/MGA (dry and liquid) paragraph (k) of the final rule, Rescue type B feeds. The type B feeds are used 29 CFR Part 1910 and emergency services, is being revised to make dry type C feeds for heifers fed [Docket No. S-019A] to clarify the criteria employers must in confinement for slaughter for satisfy when selecting a rescue team or increased rate of weight gain, improved RIN 1218-AA51 service to rescue incapacitated permit feed efficiency, and suppression of estrus (heat). The sponsor requested that Permit-Required Confined Spaces space entrants, and a new paragraph (1). Employee participation, is being added § 558.342 (21 CFR 558.342) be amended AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health to the final rule to ensure employee to change the special considerations in Administration (OSHA), Labor. involvement in permit space program paragraph (c)(1) to read "type B or C ACTION: Final rule. development and implementation. A medicated feeds" and to change the non-mandatory appendix is also being limitations in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) or SUMMARY: This final rule amends the added to the standard to assist adding the specification "The liq 1 Occupational Safety and Health employers in selecting appropriately medicated feeds are required to be Administration (OSHA) standard on trained and equipped rescuers. manufactured in accordance with Permit-Required Confined Spaces EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will $558.311(d)." FDA concurs with the (permit spaces) (29 CFR 1910.146) to become effective February 1, 1999. sponsor's request and extends the provide for enhanced employee amendments to special considerations participation in the employer's permit ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 to include all type B or C feeds for space program, to provide authorized U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates clarity as originally intended. The permit space entrants or their for receipt of petitions for review of the regulations are amended in paragraph authorized representatives with the standard the Associate Solicitor for (c) of § 558.342 as requested. opportunity to observe any testing or Occupational Safety and Health, Office FDA has determined under 21 CFR monitoring of permit spaces, and to of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type strengthen and clarify the criteria Department of Labor, 200 Constitution that does not individually or employers must satisfy when preparing Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. cumulatively have a significant effect on for the timely rescue of incapacitated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. the human environment. Therefore, permit space entrants. The revisions Bonnie Friedman, U.S. Department of neither an environmental assessment being made to the final rule will Labor, Occupational Safety and Health nor an environmental impact statement substantially enhance the protections Administration, Office of Information is required. being provided to permit space entrants and Consumer Affairs, Room N3647. Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 230/Tuesday, December 1, 1998/Rules and Regulations 66019 Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone The NPRM set a 90-day comment teams. Although it is OSHA's view that (202) 693-1999. period, ending on February 27, 1995, to the employee participation revisions it SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: receive written comments on the is making to paragraphs (c) and (d), and proposed revisions and the issues I. Background the addition of paragraph (1), will in fact raised. OSHA received 51 written substantially reduce the risks faced by On January 14, 1993, the comments (Exs. 161-1 through 161-51). permit space entrants, the revisions are Occupational Safety and Health Several commenters (Exs. 161-21, 161- proper so long as they are rationally Administration (OSHA) issued a general 22, 161-38, 161-40, 161-44) requested related to the purposes of the OSH Act industry standard (29 CFR 1910.146) to that OSHA convene an informal public and the standard as a whole, and are require protection for employees who hearing to address their concerns. supported by the rulemaking record. enter permit-required confined spaces OSHA published a notice of informal (permit spaces). The permit space public hearing on August 2, 1995, II. Summary and Explanation of the standard, which provides a scheduling a hearing for September 27, Final Rule comprehensive regulatory framework 1995, in Washington, D.C. In the hearing The revisions to the final rule make for the safe performance of entry notice, OSHA also announced the changes to several provisions of operations in general industry extension, until September 13, 1995, of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (k) of workplaces, became effective on April the public comment period to receive OSHA's permit-space standard (29 CFR 15, 1993. comments relating to the issues raised 1910.146), and add a new paragraph (1). The United Steelworkers of America in the hearing notice. Twenty-seven These changes, and the Agency's (USWA). the American Gas Association, additional comments (Exs. 161-52 rationale for making them, are described and the Edison Electric Institute sought through 161-78) were received as a below. References to exhibits in the judicial review of the standard. In result of the reopening of the record. docket (Docket S-019A) are designated particular, the USWA argued that Twelve participants introduced "Ex.," followed by the exhibit number. paragraph (k)(2) of the standard, which testimony and evidence at the References to the continuously addresses the use of off-site rescue September 27 and 28 public hearing, paginated transcript of the public services, was vague and ineffective. The which was presided over by hearing held on September 27 and 28, USWA also stated that OSHA had Administrative Law Judge Joel 1995 (Exs. 192X. 193X), are designated inappropriately omitted from the final Williams. At the conclusion of the Tr., followed by the page number. rule a provision allowing affected hearing, Judge Williams set a postemployees or their designated hearing period for the submission of Paragraphs (c), General Requirements, representatives to observe any required additional briefs, arguments and (d), Permit-required confined space testing or monitoring of permit spaces summations (ending on December 20, program, and (e), Permit system and a provision granting affected 1995). A total of 12 submissions (Exs. A. Clarification of the Need To Provide employees access to permit space 178 through 189) were received during Authorized Representatives With testing or monitoring results. All three the post-hearing period. On February Information Required by the Standard petitions were subsequently withdrawn 14, 1996, the record for the rulemaking pursuant to settlement agreements. was closed and certified to OSHA. The Paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E), (c)(5)(ii)(H), Based on settlement discussions,with record for this phase of the rulemaking and (c)(7)(iii) have been revised to the USWA, OSHA agreed to initiate contains a total of 90 submissions and specify that OSHA intends authorized further rulemaking, and a notice of more than 470 pages of hearing representative(s) of employees to have proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was transcript. OSHA has carefully access to any information provided to accordingly issued on November 28, considered all of the materials employees under the standard. These 1994. In the notice, the Agency submitted as part of this rulemaking in wording changes are meant to clarify specifically asked for public input the drafting of this final rule. The what has been longstanding OSHA the USWA's suggestion that OSHA add materials submitted are available for policy and practice, i.e., to recognize the provisions to the rule providing review and copying in the OSHA Docket right of authorized representatives of employees the opportunity to observe Office, Docket S-019A. employees to receive the same permit space monitoring or testing as A few commenters appeared to information as employees receive under well as granting them access to the believe that this revision constitutes an the Agency's standards. In recognition results of such testing or monitoring. entirely new rulemaking proceeding of that policy, the Permit Space The notice also proposed changes to (Exs. 161-33, 167). OSHA emphasizes, standard promulgated in 1993 paragraph (k)(2) to clarify that host however, that this proceeding is specifically provides, in paragraph employers must ensure that rescue properly viewed as a continuation of the (c)(4), that the written program, which teams or services selected to perform rulemaking leading to the 1993 contains the employer's procedures and permit space rescues at the host standard. Therefore, the Agency is not policies for implementing that program, employer's facility have the capability required to demonstrate that the be available for inspection and copying to provide rescue in a timely manner, relatively minor changes it is making to "by employees and their authorized depending on the hazard(s) present in the PRCS standard are independently representatives." Thus, the changes the permit spaces at the host employer's justified or that they, by themselves, being made to paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E). facility. In addition, on the basis of effect a substantial reduction in (c)(5)(ii)(H), and (c)(7)(iii) in this revised information received after the 1993 final significant risk. OSHA made that rule merely provide additional rule was published, OSHA proposed to finding for the PRCS standard as a clarification of the Agency's intent. make the requirement for the point of whole in 1993. In this case, the changes The need to clarify these provisions attachment of a retrieval line more OSHA is making to paragraphs (c), (d), was discussed by the USWA, which performance oriented by permitting any (e), and (k) essentially clarify what was noted (Ex. 161-38) that "The right of point of attachment to be used that always the Agency's intent with regard employees and their representatives to enables the entrant's body to present the to employee representatives' access to relevant information has been a regular smallest possible profile during information and employers' evaluation feature of OSHA standards since the removal. and selection of rescue services and beginning." In the same exhibit, the 66020 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 230/Tuesday, December 1, 1998/Rules and Regulations USWA points to several OSHA outside confined spaces, even when the permit space. However, OSHA standards, including the Hazard potential health effects may not occur for concludes that these provisions, Communication standard (29 CFR many years. A worker entering a confined although essential to the safety and 1910.1200), the Employee Access to space risks sudden death if the monitoring health of entrants, are not a substitute Exposure and Medical Records standard was not done properly. Surely that worker should have the right to observe the for the observation of monitoring (29 CFR 1910.1020), and the Process monitoring. (Ex. 161-38). provisions being added to the standard, Safety Management standard (29 CFR for the following reasons. 1910.119) that "give employees and Many commenters argued that it was Having access to the entry permit will their representatives very broad rights to not necessary or appropriate to add an not prevent the kinds of errors that information." The USWA reiterated this observation of monitoring provision to could be detected by having employees view in post-hearing comments (Ex. the Permit Space standard (see, for or their representatives observe the 188). OSHA agrees that it was the intent example, Exs. 161-9, 161-14, 161-20, actual testing of the space. For example, of the Permit Space standard to provide 161-49, 161-55, 161-78, 184, 187, Tr. evidence in the rulemaking record both employees and their authorized 40, 127, 170, 207). The issues raised by shows that monitoring errors, such as representatives with access to the these commenters centered on the using the wrong monitor, monitoring for information addressed by these following points: the wrong substance, or failing to test provisions of paragraph (c), and the (1) That the existing standard is the space thoroughly, contribute to a changes made to the final rule reflect adequately protective and thus that no number of confined space accidents (Tr. this position and bring the Permit Space further changes are necessary; 286, 317). And if the evaluation or standard into conformance with the (2) That the Act does not, at Section testing of the space is improperly language traditionally used in OSHA 8(c)(3), mandate such a requirement for performed, inaccurate information will standards. safety, as opposed to health, standards; unknowingly be recorded on the entry (3) That allowing employees and their permit, and entrants relying on this B. Employee Observation of representatives to observe the testing of inaccurate information could be placed Atmospheric Testing spaces would slow operations without at risk of sudden death or serious injury. Paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(C) and (c)(5)(ii)(F) adding to the safety of the entry and In situations such as these, the presence have been revised by adding a sentence might actually increase risks; and of authorized employees or their to each of them that specifically requires (4) That such a provision has the representatives could well have employers whose employees enter potential for abuse and could become a detected the error and remedied the permit spaces to give these employees, labor-management issue. problem. or their authorized representatives, an These issues, and OSHA's responses The record contains reports of several to them, are addressed in turn below. opportunity to observe the testing of the incidents where employees who Several commenters were of the space during pre-entry (paragraph observed improperly performed (c)(5)(ii)(C)) and during entry (paragraph opinion that adding an observation of atmospheric tests were able to bring the (c)(5)(ii)(F)). In the NPRM, OSHA monitoring provision is unnecessary errors to the attention of the testers solicited comment (59 FR 60737) about because the existing Permit Space before an accident occurred. For revising 29 CFR 1910.146 to allow standard already adequately provides example, in one case, the person doing for the sharing of relevant testing affected employees or their authorized the atmospheric testing calibrated the information with entrants. For example, representatives to observe the testing testing instrument inside the confined and evaluation of confined space the Pennzoil Company (Ex. 161-49) space. The entrant pointed out this error stated, "Existing requirements at conditions, prior to and during entry. and it was corrected (Ex. 161-38, Tr. Section 1910.146(d)(5) and (e)(3) Specifically, the proposal stated, 332-333). In other cases in the record, already provide for adequate employee the Agency is considering whether such employee observation of testing and access to the results of testing and a provision [one requiring affected monitoring might have prevented an monitoring in permit spaces." Arguing accident. The International Chemical employees or their designated along similar lines, Union Electric (Ex. Workers Union described an incident representatives to be permitted to 161-35) noted that the existing standard observe any testing conducted under the involving a vessel that had been tested "already requires that the results of confined space standard] should be by a poorly trained evaluator who had initial and periodic tests performed added to the permit space standard apparently failed to detect a flammable under 1910.146(d)(5) be entered on the based on the concerns expressed and on atmosphere. The vessel later exploded. entry permit, and 1910.146(e)(3) now the record developed as a result of this killing several workers. There are a requires that the permit be made notice." number of other dangerous situations available to all authorized entrants at The USWA (Ex. 161-38), which that could arise that employee requested a hearing on this and other the time of entry. As a practical matter, observation of monitoring could avert. matters, urged OSHA to incorporate affected employees are usually briefed For example, authorized employees and such a provision into the standard both on the results of the exposure their representatives are often aware on the grounds that employee monitoring during the pre-job briefing that significant changes may have protections would be enhanced and that and before entry into the space." occurred in conditions within the space, OSHA is pleased to learn that some Section 8(c)(3) of the Act mandated the e.g., that the employer is considering employers have taken the additional reclassifying the space based on new inclusion of such a provision: safety precaution of providing entrants monitoring data and can be expected to The benefits of employee observation of with a pre-entry briefing that includes a take extra precautions as a result. menitoring are well established. Congress report on the results of the monitoring Observing the testing process would certainly thought employees should have the of the space, and the Agency is also also permit employees or their right to observe the monitoring for air contaminants to which they could be aware that the existing standard representatives to detect human errors, exposed *. We believe employee contains a number of provisions such as the inadvertent recording of observation should be viewed as a matter of requiring employers to provide inaccurate data. In addition, OSHA right. Employees now have the right to information on the results of testing to believes that employees who directly observe the monitoring of air contaminants those employees who are entering a observe the monitoring are likely to gain Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 230/Tuesday, December 1, 1998/Rules and Regulations 66021 an enhanced appreciation for the In fact, OSHA stated in the NPRM its OSHA does not believe that the final hazards they face. position that section 8(c)(3) does not rule's requirements that employers Thus, OSHA believes that providing require inclusion of a requirement for provide affected employees with an employees or their representatives with employee observation of monitoring in opportunity for employee observation, the opportunity to observe the testing safety standards (59 FR 60737). Instead, or those requiring employee and monitoring of permit spaces will the proposal explained that any participation in paragraph (1), are have the same kinds of benefits that decision to add an employee particularly subject to abuse or such observation has had in the context observation provision to the standard constitute an unwarranted infringement of OSHA's health standards: would be based on the record developed on labor-management relations. OSHA knowledgeable employees who are in this proceeding, including the standards frequently require that work given the opportunity to participate concerns expressed about the original be performed in a particular way or by actively in protecting their own safety standard. OSHA does note, however, specific employees. For example, the and health and that of their co-workers that the fact that Congress included a Lockout/Tagout (LO/TO) standard, 29 often identify potentially serious requirement that observation of CFR 1910.147(c)(8), requires that locks problems and help to solve them as monitoring be allowed for toxic and tags be affixed by the workers who substance standards indicates a well. Accordingly, paragraph will be performing the service or (c)(5)(ii)(C) has been revised by adding Congressional preference for wellmaintenance covered by the standard the sentence "Any employee who enters informed and involved employees. And and, as discussed above, numerous toxic the space, or that employee's authorized as explained elsewhere in this section, substance standards provide affected OSHA has determined that the record in representative, shall be provided an employees and their representatives opportunity to observe the pre-entry this rulemaking shows that employee with the right to observe hazardous observation can have substantial testing required by this paragraph.' substance monitoring. The requirement Similarly, the language of paragraph benefits for employee safety and health. that employees who are to enter OSHA believes that this safety benefit (c)(5)(ii)(F) has been revised to add the hazardous confined spaces be allowed adequately justifies any minimal following sentence: "Any employee to observe the required monitoring of slowing of operations caused by the who enters the space, or that employee's those spaces is analogous to these employee observation requirement. In authorized representative, shall be provisions. Like the LO/TO any event, as shown by other evidence provided with an opportunity to observe requirement, it recognizes that the in the record, the employees assigned to the periodic testing required by this employees whose lives could be enter the permit space are often already paragraph." endangered by inadequate completion in the area, waiting to enter it, while the of these preliminary safeguards have the A number of commenters (see, e.g., space is being tested and monitored (Ex. strongest incentive to see that they are Exs. 161-26, 161-35, 161-37, 161-48, 161-25). Indeed, in a great many cases, 161-56, 161-72, 161-60, 187, Tr. 127, performed properly (see Tr. 333). it is the permit space entrants 170) expressed disagreement with the themselves who perform the testing and OSHA also is not persuaded that the USWA's view that Section 8(c)(3) of the monitoring (Ex. 161-09, Tr. 186-187, monitoring observation requirement is Act mandated such observation in the 190). Moreover, as with all of the especially subject to employee abuse. case of safety standards such as the employee participation provisions being Some commenters suggested that during permit space standard. Section 8(r)(3) of added in this revision, the record shows periods of labor management discord, the Act directs OSHA to issue that this practice is already fairly employees could abuse the observation regulations requiring employers to common and indicates that it has not right to slow down or disrupt maintain records of employee exposure caused any production problems (Exs. production (see, e.g., Exs. 161-12, 161- to potentially toxic materials or harmful 161-57, 172, Tr. 202). 25). Others expressed concern that the physical agents and providing A few commenters suggested that provision could cause what one called employees or their representatives with employee observation could actually a "logistical nightmare" if all of the "an opportunity to observe such decrease employee safety, for example employees and representatives insisted monitoring or measuring, and to have when monitoring must take place in a on observing each instance of testing access to the records thereof." This hazardous environment. such as an and monitoring (see, e.g., Exs. 161-12, section of the Act provides the basis for elevated location or one containing a 161-26, 161-35, 161-78). But again, the observation of monitoring toxic atmosphere (Exs. 161-56, 161-74, there was no evidence that this type of provisions in virtually all of OSHA's 167, 181). But the standard does not disruption is caused by the employee health standards (see, for example, the require employees to observe all observation provisions in OSHA's asbestos, benzene, cadmium, lead, monitoring or testing, it merely offers health standards. The standard allows methylenedianiline, methylene them the opportunity to do so. The the opportunity for observation by an chloride, and butadiene standards). employees and their representatives are entrant or his authorized representative, Typical of these comments was one less likely to take advantage of that not by every employee and submitted by the Dow Chemical opportunity in particularly hazardous representative at the workplace. Company (Ex. 161-20): situations. Moreover, even having an Moreover, some employers, either entrant or representative close by contractually or otherwise, already Section 8(c)(3) requires OSHA to observing the actions of the person provide employees with the right to promulgate regulations which provide testing the atmosphere, and checking observe monitoring and testing of employees, and their designated the instruments after the tests are confined space atmospheres (Exs. 161- representatives, with the opportunity to observe the monitoring and measuring of, complete could provide safety benefits. 57, 173-B, Tr. 184-185, 202). One and have access to, employee exposure Employees already have extensive rights witness pointed out that, even in those records (emphasis in the original). The to observe monitoring under OSHA's plants, confined space entrants did not atmospheric tests and space evaluations health standards. OSHA has seen no always choose to observe the monitoring required under the Confined Space Standard evidence, and none was presented in (Tr. 202). And of course nothing in this are not the type of employee exposure this rulemaking, that this observation standard interferes with an employer's monitoring that is envisioned by the Act. creates safety hazards (Tr. 92-93). existing power to direct and control its