of the act (29 U.S.C.

will be subject to monthly exposure to redetermine exposures. 657) requires employers to promptly monitoring pursuant to paragraph (e). The final standard requires measurenotify an employee who is exposed in Employees in regulated areas willl be ment every 3 months for employees excess of the permissible exposure prohibited from smoking and eating in exposed between the action level and limit. The standard requires the emthese areas, and may be covered by the TWA limit, and monthly for) employer to notify each employee in writprotective clothing and equipment and ployees exposed above the TWA limit. ing of that employee's measurement hygiene requirements under other sec- The higher the measurement frewithin 5 working days after the retions of the standard. quency, the higher the accuracy of the ceipt of the results of any measure- The limitation on eating, smoking, employee exposure profile. The selecments required under paragraph (e). and applying cosmetics in regulated tion of an appropriate interval be- Notification in writing need not be an areas is necessary to prevent unnecestween monitoring efforts is judgmenindividual letter to the employee, but sary exposure to AN. Potential routes tal. OSHA has determined that requirmay be a notice prominently displayed of exposure to AN are ingestion, skin ing monthly and quarterly monitoring on a bulletin board or similar workabsorption, and inhalation. All' of for AN exposures will reflect employee place location. these routes must be limited by OSHA exposure with sufficient accuracy to OSHA has determined that the proin order to protect employees from the assure that suitable precautions will posed paragraph (e)(7), requiring a carcinogenic hazard posed by AN exbe taken as needed. weekly survey of operations involving posure. Periodic measurement is appropriate liquid AN, should be deleted from the Paragraph (d) of this standard rewhen exposures are in the 1-2 ppm monitoring provisions of the final quires the employer to notify the range because of the possibility that standard. The data in the record indi- OSHA Area Office within 30 days of minor changes in process, materials, or cates that the purposes of the weekly the establishment of regulated areas weather conditions may raise exposure survey (i.e., detection of leaks and in his workplace. This requirement is to above the TWA limit, and to comspills of liquid AN) can be achieved more limited than was proposed, in pensate for the possibility that such through a less elaborate and detailed order to concentrate on exposure conmeasurements are falsely low. leak detection program. ditions above the PEL. It enables the Periodic monitoring and measure- The unpredictable nature of fugitive Agency to be aware of facilities where ment are not required when initial emissions from valves, pumps, and the substantial exposure to AN exists. measurements are below 1 ppm. It is like, makes it unlikely that a survey Methods of compliance: Paragraph unlikely, when exposures are at this performed on a weekly basis will (g). The final standard requires that level, that minor fluctuations in procdetect all, or even most, of the leaks by November 2, 1980, engineering coness, materials, or weather or measureand spills that occur in liquid AN opertrols and work practices be used to ment accuracy would result in false ations. Further, such a weekly survey control employee exposure to acryloninegative readings below the TWA would add little to the exposure monitrile, except to the extent that the emlimit. It would not be appropriate to toring required by the standard, in deployer can show that they are not fearequire periodic measurements in termining employee exposure to AN. sible. If all feasible engineering and FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45801 work practice controls do not succeed except in circumstances where there is CFR 1910.1000(e) and with good indusin reducing exposure below the perno feasible alternative to more subtrial hygiene practice. missible exposure limit, they must be stantial reliance on respiratory protec- Many comments cited problems assoimplemented and supplemented by tion. ciated with respirators (Exs. 92; respiratory protection. OSHA's experi- Even in situations in which engineer- 11(27)). Respirators are to be considence has been that engineering coning controls will not succeed in reducered secondary to the objective of trols must be coupled with suitable ing exposure levels below the TWA limiting emissions at the source. work practices to maximize their effeclimit, it is still appropriate to require Proper facial fit is essential, but due to tiveness. Respiratory protection may all feasible engineering controls to be variations in individual factal dimenbe used only during the time period installed, even though they would sions, as well as facial hair, scars, or necessary to install engineering conhave to be supplemented by the use of growths, it is difficult to maintain. Fatrols, where engineering controls may respirators. The engineering controls, tigue and reduced efficiency may be inappropriate, such as during some by minimizing the amounts of AN in occur more rapidly among workers maintenance operations, or in those the workplace environment, will also wearing respirators due to increased cases when both engineering controls minimize the potential for overexpobreathing resistance, heat stress, and and work practices do not succeed in sure to AN resulting from poorly fitreduced vision. Additional problems reducing exposures below the permisting respirators, and will usually include the entanglement of hoses of sible exposure limit. Respirators are reduce the number of employees who air-supplied respirators, as well as limalso to be used in emergencies. will need to wear respirators at all. ited mobility resulting from hose This compliance strategy has been The standard places the burden on length and bulkiness of the apparatus. consistently OSHA's policy and has the employer for proving or disproving (Ex. 19). been followed in prior standards and feasibility. The employer is in the best It is clear, and generally agreed to proposed standards. This policy is position to gather evidence on feasibilby the affected employers, that respibased upon the view that the most efity in a particular workplace. He is rators cannot generally be considered fective means of controlling employee exposure is to contain emissions of most familiar with his own production as the primary means of employee processes and engineering modificahealth protection. It is also recognized toxic substances at their source tions which can be made. Further, it is by OSHA that there will be certain opthrough the use of mechanical means erations in which the use of respiracombined with work practices. This is the policy of the OSHA Act that emfar more effective than reliance on the ployers be required to take steps to intors will be necessary to protect emhighly variable human behavior so vestigate the feasibility of controls ployees from exposure to AN. This aspect was recognized in the preamble critical to the successful use of respiraand install them as necessary. to the proposal. tors. As discussed below, respirators In addition to the obligation to insti- OSHA has concluded that if the perhave many disadvantages which pretute engineering and work practice missible exposure limit is exceeded, clude primary reliance or coreliance controls, except to the extent that employees must use respirators. This on respiratory protection on an equal such controls are not feasible, the is necessary in order to provide the basis with engineering and work pracfinal standard also requires that each maximum amount of protection availtice controls. Furthermore, the burden employer establish and implement a able in situations where engineering of reducing employee exposure should plan for reducing exposures to within controls and work practices do not sucmore properly rest on the employer in the permissible exposure limits solely ceed in reducing exposures below perwhose establishment toxic substances by engineering and work practice conmissible levels. are released, rather than placing the trols. These written plans must be fur- The affected employers have indiburden of respirator use on the exnished upon request for examination cated that they have endeavored to posed employee. and copying to representatives of the determine, under the ETS, those job The Council on Wage and Price Sta- Assistant Secretary and the Director. positions for which respirator use will bility suggested a control strategy in- These plans must be reviewed and upbe necessary for a large part of the volving principal reliance on respiradated periodically to reflect the curworkshift, under a 2 ppm standard. tory protection, to reduce the cost of rent status of exposure control. The This achievement places the employcompliance (Ex. 27). However, the afwritten plan is an essential part of the ers in a position to develop a detailed fected companies themselves readily compliance program, since it will enrespirator program directed primarily acknowledge the many difficulties incourage employers to implement the at these employees. Items which herent in reliance upon respiratory necessary technology for reducing emmight be considered for such a deprotective devices (Exs. 11:(27); 92). ployee exposures. It also provides the tailed program include making availa- These difficulties were also discussed information to allow OSHA, the emble a greater variety of respirators by respirator expert Darell Bevis (Ex. ployers, and employees to examine the from which employees can choose, 19). Because of the difficulties in obcontrol methods chosen and the having a technician fully trained in taining and maintaining a proper fit extent to which these planned conrespirator use and selection, and orgaand seal of the respirator facepiece, it trols are being implemented in the nizing the work so that part of the day is difficult to know whether the respiworkplace. can be spent in clean rooms or control rators actually provide adequate pro- Respirators: Paragraph (h). The rooms where the exposure limits are tection. Respirators, by interfering standard requires that respirators be not exceeded. The nature of the work with vision, hearing, and mobility, can used only during the time period necin many monomer and polymer manucause safety problems. Some employessary to install or implement feasible facturing facilities, much of which is ees cannot wear respirators because of engineering and work practice conhighly automated, lends itself to this breathing difficulties. Finally, it is not trols, in operations in which such contype of program. The employer should appropriate to place the burden of trols are not appropriate, such as ceralso investigate the possibility for rescompliance principally on the employtain maintenance operations, in work pirators with microphones, should ee, as would be the case if respiratory operations in which such controls are communication on the job prove to be protection were the principal means of not feasible or are not yet sufficient to a problem. reducing employee exposure. Therereduce exposure to the permissible Respiratory protection also has a fore, OSHA retains in the standard limits, or in emergencies. These rerole during maintenance operations as the policy of principal reliance on enstrictions on the use of respirators are well as during emergency situations. gineering controls and work practices, consistent with the requirements of 29 We realize that respirators may be FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45802 RULES AND REGULATIONS needed in these types of operations, breathes. This may result in workplace ing proper protection to the employee. even over the long run. The standard air entering the facepiece through Whereas the qualitative fit test is subis designed to control AN workplace gaps and leaks in the facepiece seal, jective, relying upon the employee's emissions at the source, and, thus, to instead of passing through the sorbent sense of smell, the quantitative fit test minimize the need for general use of material. Obtaining a proper fit on uses instrumentation inside the facerespirators by employees. each employee may require the empiece to determine the integrity of the In the proposal, OSHA included a ployer to provide two or three differseal. One type of quantitative fit test proposed table of respirators for use ent mask styles. involves using a simple hood, sodium with AN. The primary basis for the se- The employee must be properly chloride vapor, and automated instrulection and evaluation of respirators in trained to wear the respirator, to know mentation. At least one such device is this table (Table I) was the NIOSHwhy the respirator is needed, and to commercially available at less than OSHA respirator decision logic. The understand the limitations of the res- $10,000. These tests can be performed protection factors supplied in the pirator. An understanding of the rapidly (10 to 20 minutes) and are relatable were based on qualitative fit testhazard involved is necessary to enable tively easy to perform. Since the ing, which involves only the facepiecethe employee to take steps for his or standard will apply almost exclusively to-face seal. (Ex. 19). In addition to her own protection. The respiratory to monomer and polymer producers, it the Table, several other requirements protection program implemented by is reasonable to assume that these for respirator usage were included in the employer must conform to that set the proposal, concerning approval of large companies can obtain the equipforth in 29 CFR 1910.134. This proviment for such testing. respirators, replacement of cartridges sion contains basic requirements for and/or canisters, and cleaning of respi- OSHA requested views, arguments, proper selection, use, cleaning, and and other comments on the issue of rators. maintenance of respirators. A number of changes have been quantitative fit testing in the course of Under § 1910.134, the employer must made from the proposed provisions, this rulemaking proceeding. The use check to see that the employees' respibased primarily upon the recommenrators fit properly and that leakage is of such testing has been endorsed by dations of Darell Bevis, an acknowlthe Z88.2 subcommittee of ANSI as at a minimum. A rapid simple fit test edged expert in the field of respiratory can be performed at the start of each noted by Bevis in his testimony (Ex. protection. These changes will be disshift by each employee wearing a neg- 19). The equipment has been develcussed below. ative-pressure respirator. This test can oped which makes quantitiative fit The proposal specified that where be either a positive pressure test, in testing relatively easy to carry out, air-purifying respirators were to be which the exhalation valve is closed and it is universally recognized that it used, they would have to be approved and in which the wearer exhales into provides greater assurance of proper by NIOSH specifically for use with the facepiece to produce a positive protection. We believe, therefore, that AN. NIOSH has since informed OSHA pressure, or a negative pressure test, it is appropriate for employers with that they will not grant such approval in which the inlet is closed and the significant numbers of employees because of AN's poor warning qualiwearer inhales so that the facepiece wearing negative pressure on respiraties. Since AN cannot be detected by collapses slightly. Employees must be tors to be required to provide quantiodor until concentrations reach the trained to perform this test. tative fit testing for those employees. 13-19 ppm range, it is not possible for The standard requires a qualitative Under the ETS, employers were rethe respirator wearer to detect leakage fittest at the time of initial fitting and quired to implement any practicable or breakthrough within the facepiece semiannually thereafter. Isoamyl acecombination of engineering, work until he is clearly overexposed. Under tate can be used to qualitatively test practices, and respiratory protective the respirator decision logic, the use of facepiece fit. If the employee can devices to lower their employees' AN air-purifying respirators should not be smell the isoamyl acetate while wearexposures below a 2 ppm TWA. Much permitted for AN, because of this ing the respirator, it can be concluded of the compliance activity under the factor. However, OSHA has deterthat the particular respirator will not ETS involved the implementation of mined that air-purifying respirators, provide suitable protection for that respiratory protection programs. when used in a rigidly controlled proemployee. Therefore, there should be no need for gram of proper fitting and frequent The proposal contained no specific a "transition period" for the implesorbent replacement, should be perrequirement for periodic fit testing. mentation of respirator programs mitted for protection against low con- However, as noted below, the issue was under the final standard. The standcentrations of AN, as prescribed in raised by OSHA in the proposal as to ard requires that the employees ex- Table I of the standard. When the whether the more sophisticated quanposed above the PEL as of the effecprotection factors in the respirator titative fit test should be generally retive date of the standard must be protable are followed, organic vapor carquired. We have concluded that the vided with and must wear appropriate tridges and canisters can provide properiodic qualitative fit test can serve respirators in accordance with the setection for employees. as a preliminary screening for all reslection criteria in Table I. Therefore, OSHA has revised its propirator users, to determine whether an The proposal provided for the reposal to permit organic vapor caremployee's face-to-face piece seal is placement of "filters" if an employee tridges and canisters to be used for sufficient to permit the use of respirareported breathing resistance. This AN. These sorbent containers must be tors designated in Table 1. provision has been deleted from the approved by NIOSH for use with or- The standard also requires that each final standard. As was noted at the ganic vapors. We must not however, employer with 10 or more employees hearing, organic vapor cartridges do that there are numerous factors which who must wear negative pressure resnot use "filters," which are generally affect the performance of air-purifypirators must provide quantitative fit used for protection against particulate ing respirators, including the sorbent testing for those employees at the hazards (Ex. 19). The vapor hazard asmaterial itself and the fit of the facetime of initial fitting and semiannualsociated with AN in the workplace piece on the wearer. Other important ly thereafter. In a quantitative fit test, should not present any breathing refactors include wearer acceptance and the level of leakage and degree of prosistance difficulties, since there is no training. tection are specifically measured by problem of clogged filters in this situa- Proper fit of the respirator is critisensitive instruments. These tests are tion. Therefore, the requirement is not cal. A negative pressure is created more accurate and provide greater asappropriate for a regulation on AN exwithin the facepiece when the wearer surance that the respirator is providposure. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45803 Perhaps the most controversial ele- On questioning, he elaborated on The alarm system will, in most cases, ment of the proposed respirator secthe practice of labeling used cartridges involve the installation of a continution involved the frequency of replaceas an alternative to replacement each ous monitoring system which will ment of cartridges or canisters. It was shift: detect AN concentrations at the ceilcontended by many in industry that the daily replacement of cartridges or It's my firm opinion that when using soring limits to activate the alarm. Such bent-type cartridges and canisters (,) the monitoring systems have already been canisters was wasteful, particularly if most conservative approach must be taken installed by some companies and are they were only used briefly during the I never recommend-in fact, I'm a crubeing used for generating area moniworkshift. A system of labeling of carsader against-reuse of sorbent type cartoring data in addition to detecting tridges, it was argued, would assure tridges and canisters because I don't feel ceiling concentrations of AN (Exs. that cartridges and canisters were rethat they can safely be reused (Tr. 191). 11:(10); 87). placed before the expiration of their We agree that in the limited use of The need for an alarm system has service life (Ex. 92). OSHA does not the sorbent-type air purifying respirabeen recognized by many of the affectagree with these contentions. As noted tors, the most conservative approach ed companies (Exs. 11:(10); 11:(14); earlier, the very use of organic vapor must be taken in order to assure the 11:(27)). cartridges and canisters for AN, which most protection from that device. Protective clothing and equipment: does not have good warning proper- As noted in the proposal, the wear- Paragraph (j). The standard requires ties, runs totally counter to the respiing of a respirator can result in facial the employer to provide and assure rator decision logic and to good indusirritation at the face seal surface. To that employees use protective clothing trial hygiene practice. However, OSHA prevent this irritation and to minimize and equipment wherever there is pohas determined that it is necessary to the discomfort of respirator use, the tential for exposure to liquid AN. This allow their use under a limited set of proposal would have permitted emprovision is considerably narrower in circumstances, provided that that use ployees to periodically "wash" their scope than that in the proposal. It reis very narrowly restricted. The lack of faces and respirator facepieces. This flects the determination that solid end-of-service-life indicators for organprovision has been modified in the PAN and other finished polymers do ic vapor cartridges used with AN final standard. It was noted at the not represent significant sources of masks it is necessary for OSHA to rehearing that an employee who AN exposure. The new provisions require the replacement of the sorbent "washed" his respirator facepiece quire appropriate protective clothing at the completion of each shift (Ex. might also wet the sorbent cartridge and equipment only for "liquid AN," 11:(16)). or canister, possibly rendering it inefas defined in the standard, including It should be noted, in addition, that fective or less effective. The employpolymer intermediates produced even changing the sorbent container ee's role, it was argued, was to make during the polymerization process. each shift may not assure protection. sure that he wore the facepiece prop- The protective clothing provisions of Testing data submitted by a respirator erly (Tr. 193-4). We believe that the the proposal elicited much comment manufacturer and by NIOSH indicate standard should reflect these conand testimony from interested perthat some organic vapor cartridges cerns. The provision in the final standsons. The detailed requirements for used for AN may not last for 8 hours, ard has, therefore, been clarified to providing, maintaining, and replacing and that they may last for only 4 allow washing of the face, but only a protective clothing and equipment hours under humid conditions (Ex. were criticized as not being sufficientwiping of the facepiece-to-face seal of 11:(12L); 11:(13L); 11:(14L)). This findly performance-oriented Some comthe respirator itself. Cleaning of the ing is particularly important in the ments noted that impermeable clothactive elements of the respirator context of this standard, since there ing was provided to the employee to should be in the hands of a trained are numerous monomer and polymer protect him from skin contact with person as part of a respirator program. production facilities which operate AN. Thus, when such AN-impermeable OSHA believes that if an employee under conditions of high humidity. It clothing became wet with AN, there receives training as to the purpose of is clear that where the service life of a was no need for the employee to his respirator and the proper method cartridge or canister is less than 8 remove the clothing immediately, as of wearing it, he will be less likely to hours, that cartridge or canister may the proposal would have required, bedo anything which will limit the prohave to be replaced again at some time cause there would be no skin exposure. tectiveness of the respirator program. during the workshift. The standard Dow Badische recommended that the Emergency situations: Paragraph (i). allows for such a situation by requirstandard provide separate require- The emergency provisions are substaning the employer to replace cartridges ments for the handling of impermetially unchanged from those of the or canisters before the end of their able clothing, such as rubber gloves proposal. However, the revised definiand suits, as opposed to coveralls and service life or at the completion of tion of the term "emergency" limits other permeable clothing (Ex. 149). each shift, whichever comes first. The the types and number of situations for employer has the obligation to ascer- We have determined that these sugwhich a written plan will be required. gestions have merit, and the final tain the service life of the cartridges OSHA has determined that not all instandard incorporates appropriate and canisters to be used in his workstances of release of AN above the ceilchanges. Where it is likely that imperplace, in order to assure that they are ing limit should be viewed as emergenmeable clothing has contacted liquid replaced as required by the standard. cies. Only the "massive release" of AN AN such clothing must be washed On the issue of frequency of replaceis termed an emergency under the down with water before being removed ment of the cartridges Bevis stated: final standard. by the employee. The employee may I am in full support of the change of the It should be noted that the standard then remove the clothing in the cartridge after each shift has ended, whethstill requires the installation of an change room and proceed to shower. er it has been, used for 15 minutes or 8 alarm system, to be activated by re- The clothing must then be placed in a hours, since it is virtually impossible to leases of AN above the ceiling. Alregulated area and decontaminated. assure how much air has been drawn though not an "emergency" per se as through that cartridge or canister or to de- A more complicated situation arises termine the specific minutes or hours of defined in the standard, the exceeding if an employee wearing AN-permeable life. The activated charcoal sorbents in the of the ceiling limit does necessitate clothing becomes wet with liquid AN. organic vapor cartridges will sorb not only the taking of protective action to Understandably, this should only organic vapors but also moisture, shortening assure that employees are not overexoccur in accidental spills and emergentheir service life (Ex. 19). posed. cies. In this situation, the employee FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45804 RULES AND REGULATIONS shall remove the wetted clothing and been sharply criticized as redundant monitoring systems and portable deshower immediately. The clothing with the permissible exposure limits, tection units will be used both for deshall then be placed in a regulated since the presence of even small tecting sources of AN and for deterarea and decontaminated in the same amounts of liquid AN on a work surmining whether an area has been demanner as impermeable clothing. face would result in exposures above contaminated. Clothing and equipment worn for the PEL (Exs. 148; 11:(13)). Other par- The proposal required that AN and protection from liquid AN must, of neties contended that the term "accumu- PAN waste materials be placed in a cessity, be impermeable to AN. The lations" needed to be defined more closed container, labeled, and disposed proposal would have required replaceprecisely. The use of wipe tests and of. The employer was required to ment of such clothing on at least a bulk liquid samples, it was argued, inform those persons handling the maweekly basis. We have noted, however, could lead to citations for the detecterials of the AN content and the hazthat the actual need to provide retion of "accumulations" of "nanogram ards of exposure to AN. These proviplacement varies greatly with the conquantities" of AN (Ex. 160). sions drew strong comment from interditions of use. We believe that the em- Other provisions of the housekeepested parties. It was contended that ployer should be required to replace ing section were found by some parties the enclosure of these materials conprotective clothing and equipment as to be unnecessary and not in accordstituted a fire and explosion hazard, necessary to assure its protectiveness. ance with OSHA's intention to use since AN might be concentrated Whereas this does not specify a given performance language wherever pracwithin the containers. It was also interval, it does require frequent inticable (Ex. 148). Vistron determined argued that the downstream handler spection of clothing to make sure that that the housekeeping section restrictof the materials would face a serious it remains impermeable. ed the use of water flushing to wash exposure potential when the container The washing down of impermeable down work surfaces. Such washing was opened (Ex. 149). suits, gloves, and the like before rewould take advantage of the solubility The record clearly reflects that the moval is intended to minimize the poof AN in water, as well as its capacity provisions in the proposal which dealt tential of skin contact with AN. The for biodegradation by bacteria (Exs. with waste disposal are not supported washdown should be sufficient to 92; 146). by the record and are inappropriate assure that the clothing will not re- In light of these comments, and in for the proper handling of AN. Therelease AN. The employee shall, noneorder to provide a more performance fore, these provisions have been retheless, shower at the end of the workoriented standard, OSHA has detervised accordingly. Waste materials shift. mined that there is no need for a decontaining or contaminated with The provision for decontamination tailed housekeeping section in the liquid AN are to be placed in a regulatof wetted protective clothing and final AN standard. Where there may ed area. The materials may then be equipment helps to resolve a major be skin or eye contact with liquid AN, treated in one of two ways: They may area of difficulty surrounding both the employer is already required to either be placed under ventilation, or the ETS and the proposal. The proprovide impermeable protective clothwashed with water into the plant's posal required protective clothing to ing and equipment to his employees. process waste water system. When the be placed in a closed container after The detailed requirements as proposed materials no longer release AN in airuse. This presented a problem of possiwould appear to add little, if any, proborne concentrations above the action ble skin contact with and inhalation tection to that provided by the permislevel, they may then be disposed of in exposure to AN by persons opening sible exposure limits. They would also the normal manner (clearly, if the mathese containers, as well as by persons have limited the use of water washterial is incapable of releasing AN who had to handle the clothing for downs of work surfaces, which the above the action level, there would be disposal or laundering. In addition, the final standard expressly requires in no need for the employer to carry out closing of the containers posed a pocertain circumstances, as a means of this washing or ventilation step on tential for fire or explosion due to the controlling the potential for AN expothat material). The purpose of this volatility of the AN within the consures. Recommended housekeeping acnew provision is threefold: First, it retainers. The final standard deals with tivities are contained in appendixes A duces the number of employees with these problems by ventilating and & B. potential for exposure to AN; second, washing down the contaminated cloth- The final standard requires the emit provides a means of dispensing with ing and equipment to remove their poployer to assure that surfaces are the detailed disposal and labeling retential to release AN above 1 ppm. maintained free of visible accumulaquirements contained in the proposal; Many maintenance operations, partions of liquid AN. In addition, the emand, third, it provides a way for the ticularly those involving reactor cleanployer must decontaminate (as defined employer to assure that the material ing, involve the potential of skin conin paragraph (b)) areas where spills will not expose downstream handlers. tact with liquid AN. The impermeable are detected. As with protective "clothing, many clothing requirements, along with res- The housekeeping provisions have waste materials will not release AN piratory protection requirements, are also been revised from the proposal to above 1 ppm, even without the types essential to the protection of employinclude a lead detection program for of treatment provided for in paraees engaged in these operations. operations involving liquid AN. OSHA graph (1). It is clear that the standard Housekeeping and waste disposal: has determined that it is appropriate does not require such treatment in Paragraphs (k) and (Z). The proposal to require direct action by the employthis case. contained detailed housekeeping reer to detect leaks and spills of liquid The discussion of the revised exempquirements for AN and PAN. As noted AN which may result in employee extion provisions of the standard makes above, the final standard removes all posure. The details and frequency of clear that solid polymeric materials references to PAN, since the new defisuch a program are not specified in are not considered to be a significant nition of "liquid AN" will cover any the standard, because of the wide varisource of AN exposure. Therefore, the polymers and polymer intermediates ation of workplace conditions and AN disposal of PAN scrap or debris, other deemed to carry a significant skin exsources among the affected employers. than for those materials defined under posure potential. However, the housekeeping provisions "liquid AN," does not require the spe- Paragraph (k)(1) of the proposal respecify that the employer must deconcial treatment prescribed under paraquired the employer to maintain work taminate those areas in which leaks graph (1). The deletion of the term surfaces free of "accumulations" of and spills are found. OSHA anticipates "PAN" has been made in this para- AN and PAN. This paragraph has that the use of real-time continuous graph, accordingly. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45805 Hygiene facilities and practices: tered, positive pressure air supply in trile (Exs. 128; 149). The purpose of Paragraph (m). The proposal referlunchrooms (Ex. 156). Second, the these requirements is to make an inienced § 1910.141 and its existing restandard already prohibits eating, tial medical assessment of each emquirements for hygiene facilities and drinking, and smoking in regulated ployee and to establish a baseline practices in all workplaces. In addiareas. Employees are not permitted to health condition against which future tion, the change room and shower fahave food, beverages, or smoking prodchanges in an employee's health may cility provisions, § 1910.141 (e) and (d) ucts in areas above the permissible exbe compared. (3), respectively, were specifically inposure limits. Third, the final stand- The medical surveillance provisions corporated into the standard. OSHA ard retains the requirement for emof the standard contain specific testbelieves that these provisions are parployees exposed above the TWA to ing requirements, with concentration ticularly important where there is powash before eating. Airborne concenon the peripheral and central nervous tential for contact with liquid AN, and trations above the PEL imply the consystems, respiratory system and gaswhere protective equipment and clothcurrent possibility of skin contact with trointestinal system. Based upon the ing may be required. AN. Even though the standard condata from the du Pont and MCA stud- The proposed shower provisions tains a separate requirement for emies of exposure to AN, these vital sites would have required all employees ployees who contact liquid AN to must be considered to be possible "exposed to liquid AN and PAN" to shower afterwards, OSHA believes target sites for AN-induced cancer. shower at the end of the work shift. that this additional precautionary However, due to the lack of site- This requirement has drawn considermeasure is appropriate in light of the specificity associated with AN-induced able comment from affected employnature of the AN exposure hazard. cancer, all systems must be examined ers. The term "exposure" caused con- Medical surveillance: Paragraph (n). thoroughly (Exs. 42; 89; 92; 160). siderable confusion, since it was un- The final standard, like the ETS and OSHA believes that these provisions clear what constituted exposure to AN the Proposal, requires that each emwill enable the examining physician to in these circumstances (Ex. 149). It ployer institute a medical surveillance detect and hopefully make possible was suggested that the term be program for all employees who are or early treatment for any cancers which changed to "contact or suspected conwill be exposed to AN at or above the may develop due to past exposures to tact." In addition, it was argued that action level. OSHA finds that a medi- AN. skin contact with PAN did not constical surveillance program is both neces- The standard requires fecal occult tute a significant risk of AN exposure sary and appropriate to most effectiveblood testing for workers over 40 years (Exs. 11:(14); 148). ly determine whether the health of of age. This is a nontraumatic, nonin- Several parties contended that the employees exposed to AN is adversely vasive procedure for the early detecrequirement for a shower at the end of affected by such exposure, and to detion of gastrointestinal disease which a shift would not provide sufficient velop information on occupational illis available and commonly used mediprotection for an employee who has nesses. The authority to include such cally as a screening technique. OSHA had skin contact with liquid AN. Such a provision in this standard is set forth has therefore deleted the provision reemployee should be required to in section 6(b)(7) of the Act. quiring the routine proctosigmoidoshower immediately after such con- The standard requires that the scopic examination of workers exposed tact, it was argued, because of the medical surveillance program provide to AN. However, should the results of rapid absorption of AN through the each covered employee with an opporthe fecal occult blood testing (as well skin (Exs. 11:(14); 149). tunity for medical examination. All exas other medical tests or examination) OSHA has determined that the aminations and procedures are reindicate that, in the judgment of the shower provisions should be revised to quired to be performed by or under examining physician, further testing is reflect the comments and data rethe supervision of a licensed physician, necessary, such additional testing ceived. The term "PAN", as has been and provided without cost to the emwould then be performed (cf. Exs. noted elsewhere, is being deleted from ployee. While the physician will usual- 14:(37); 42; TR. 704; 708; 710). this and other provisions of the standly be selected by the employer, the The standard requires that the emard. The list included in the definition standard does not so mandate, leaving ployer provide the physician with cerof "liquid AN" includes those materithe employer free to institute alternatain information. This includes the als containing or made from AN which tive procedures such as joint selection following: (1) A copy of the regulation; would be most likely to present a sigwith employee or selection by the em- (2) a description of the affected emnificant risk of skin exposure to AN. ployee. Clearly a medical examination ployee's duties as they relate to the The final standard contains a reis most appropriately conducted by a employee's exposure; (3) the results of quirement for employees who have licensed physician. However, certain the employee's exposure monitoring; had or are suspected of having had parts of the required medical surveil- (4) the employee's anticipated exposkin contact with liquid AN to shower lance program do not necessarily resure level; (5) whether any personal immediately after the contact is disquire a physician's specific expertise protective equipment has been or will covered. In addition, employees reand may be conducted by another be used; and (6) information from prequired to wear protective clothing to person under the supervision of the vious medical examinations of the afprevent skin contact with liquid AN physician (Ex. 141). As mandated by fected employee which is not otherare required to shower at the end of section 6(b)(7) of the Act, the medical wise readily available to the physician. the shift. These requirements recogexaminations and procedures required The purpose of making this informanize the nature of the skin exposure by OSHA standards must be provided tion available to the physician is to aid hazard, and effectively limit the need at no cost to the employee. in the evaluation of the employee's for showers to those employees who The standard requires that the health in relation to his assigned may have contacted liquid AN. medical examination include a work duties and fitness to wear personal The lunchroom provisions of the history, a medical history and a physiprotective equipment when required. proposal have also come under close cal examination of the affected em- The employer is required to obtain a scrutiny. OSHA has determined that ployees. The content of the examinawritten opinion from the examining lunchroom provisions are not required tion is based upon recommendations physician containing the following inin the final standard for several reafrom NIOSH (Exs. 42; (41) and upon formation: (1) The results of the medisons. First, because the airborne procedures presently followed by sevcal tests performed; (2) the physician's hazard involves vapor rather than pareral companies in their clinical evaluaopinion as to whether the employee ticulate, there is not a need for a filtion of employees exposed to acrylonihas any detected medical conditions FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45806 RULES AND REGULATIONS which would place the employee at in- It has been suggested that provision must, at the minimum, apprise the emcreased risk of material impairment of be made for medical surveillance to inployee of the specific hazards associathealth from exposure to AN; (3) any clude those employees who have a hised with his or her work environment. recommended limitations upon the tory of AN exposure but are no longer For this reason, the employer is reemployee's exposure to AN or upon actively working with AN (Ex. 11:(2)). quired to inform each employee exthe use of protective clothing and No such provision has been included in posed to AN of the nature of the relatequipment, such as respirators; and (4) the standard, as OSHA has detered health problems, the necessity for a statement that the employee has mined that the inclusion of past emexposure control, and the medical and been informed by the physician of the ployees in a medical surveillance proindustrial hygiene programs. Such an test results of the medical examinagram would be unnecessarily burdeneducational program will go far in astion and of any medical conditions some and administratively infeasible. suring that employees know the facts which require further examination or It would be extremely difficult, if not about AN and its proper handling. treatment. This written opinion must impossible, to determine which em- The content of the training program not reveal specific findings or diagployees may have been exposed to AN is intended to apprise the employees noses which are unrelated to occupaand for how long, and to locate many of several factors: (1) The hazards to tional exposure. A copy of the written such employees so as to inform them which they are exposed; (2) the action opinion must be provided to the afof the medical surveillance program. they can take to protect themselves, fected employee by the employer. In addition, where the employee has including avoiding exposure, using res- Commentors have objected to the reworked for more than one employer, it piratory protection and taking medical quirements for the physician's written would be difficult to determine which examinations; (3) their role in reducopinion as unnecessary and burdenemployer should bear the cost of such ing exposures; and (4) the contents of some (Exs. 11: (25) Ex. 148; 160). They medical surveillance. this standard. Section 6(b)(7) of the believe the requirements should be Medical removal protection. Medical Act makes it clear that these are aplimited to situations where the findremoval protection was raised as an propriate goals of an employee trainings are adverse (Exs. 73; 153). issue in the AN proposal. This requireing program, and the standard, there- These views are unacceptable to ment would maintain the rate of pay, fore, includes such provisions. OSHA. Since the employer has the ulseniority and other rights of an em- The employer is also required to protimate responsibility to assure the proployee who is transferred or removed vide, upon request, all materials relattection of the worker's health, where from his job to protect him from maing to the training program to the Asthe worker's health has not been adterial impairment of health, as a result sistant Secretary and the Director. versely affected, transmittal of the of an increased health risk from expo- This is intended to provide an objecdoctor's opinion serves to inform both sure to AN. tive check of compliance with the repatient and employer and provides OSHA's primary goal is to assure quirements of the standard. documentary evidence that the prethat no employee suffers material im- OSHA recognizes that AN may be scribed tests were performed and evalpairment of health or functional caone of many chemicals to which an uated. The requirement that the empacity. The Agency does not favor employee may be exposed simultaployee be provided with a copy of the transfer or removal as an alternative neously in the workplace. The educaphysician's written opinion will assure to controlling the level of a toxic subtion and training requirements in this that the employee is informed of the stance in the workplace environment. standard contain those elements results of the medical examination Moreover, once full compliance with which OSHA believes to be basic. The and may take any necessary or approthe permissible exposure limits is format of the training and informapriate action. This is consistent with achieved by engineering controls and tion program is not rigid. An employer those provisions of the Act which eswork practices, the need to transfer or may, if he chooses, incorporate the retablish and implement the employee's remove employees from exposure to quired information for AN into a total right to know about occupational haz- AN should arise infrequently. program of training and education ards and their effects. The purpose of Limited evidence on this issue was which is to be provided to his employrequiring that specific findings or direceived during this proceeding. OSHA ees (Ex. 11:(14)). agnoses unrelated to occupational exhas conducted extensive hearings on Signs and labels: Paragraph (p). The posure not be included in the written medical removal protection in connecrequirement of the standard regarding opinion is to encourage employees to tion with the development of a standthe posting of warning signs and affixsubmit to medical examination by reard for occupational exposure to lead. ing caution labels remains primarily moving the fear that employers may The final lead standard, including resthe same as that in the proposal. The find out information about their physolution of the question of medical rebroadening of the exemption proviical condition that has no relation to moval protection, is expected to issue sions of the standard will result in a their occupational exposures. shortly. Once the lead standard is minimum of products and materials It has been suggested that physical issued, OSHA will consider the extent which will be required to be labeled. In examinations are not necessary for to which the conclusions reached addition, the wording of the signs for people under 40 and in good health therein on medical removal protection regulated areas has been slightly (Ex. 160). This is contrary to the are appropriate for acrylonitrile, and changed. These requirements are conintent of medical surveillance. Workwill propose the inclusion of any apsistent with section 6(b)(7) of the Act, ers under 40 may already have been propriate provisions in the AN standwhich prescribes the use of labels or exposed to AN for 15 to 20 years. Since ard. other appropriate forms of warning to the carcinogenic response may vary Employee information and training: apprise employees of the hazards to widely depending to a great extent on Paragraph (o). The standard requires which they are exposed. individual susceptibilities the long lathe employer to provide a training Signs. The standard requires the tency periods associated with carcinoprogram for employees exposed to AN. posting of warning signs in regulated gens may also vary greatly among OSHA believes that an information areas. These signs are intended to supthose exposed to cancer-causing suband training program is essential for plement the training which employees stances. In addition medical surveilthe protection of employees, because are required to receive under the lance is intended to aid in the early dean employee can do much to protect standard. Even trained employees will tection of cancer and other chronic efhimself if aware of the nature of the need to be reminded of the locations fects so as to facilitate treatment of hazards in the workplace. To be effecof regulated areas and the dangers of these conditions. tive, an employee education system entering those areas. In addition, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45807 other workers, such as employees of Only those materials which pose a sigthe final standard makes it clear that independent maintenance contractors nificant potential for exposing emthese specific products do not have to who are authorized to enter particular ployees to AN are required to be be labeled. Other than liquid AN regulated areas, need to be warned of labled under the standard. itself, OSHA does not anticipate that the hazard and reminded to use pro- The standard requires that the many products containing and/or tective equipment. OSHA believes that labels remain affixed when the AN made for AN will require labeling both signs and training are necessary and AN-based materials leave the emunder the final standard. This reflects to adequately apprise employees of ployer's workplace. Some comments the recognition that most AN-based the hazards of acrylonitrile exposure. questioned OSHA's jurisdiction to materials in downstream workplaces The standard specifies the wording impose such a requirement (Exs. 156; do not have a significant potential to of the warning signs for regulated 11:(14); 146). The purpose of this reexpose employees to AN during proareas, in order to assure that the quirement is to assure that all employcessing use, and handling. proper warning is given to employees. ees, not only those of a particular em- Recordkeeping: Paragraph (q). Sec- Some participants in the rulemaking ployer, are apprised of the hazardous tion 8(c)(3) of the Act provides for the have suggested that the word nature of acrylonitrile exposure. It is promulgation of regulations requiring "Cancer" on the signs be replaced by OSHA's view that informing employemployers to maintain accurate rec- "Cancer-Suspect Agent", or "Toxic ees of the hazards to which they are ords of employee exposures to poten- Substance" (Exs. 146; 149). OSHA does exposed is an important element in retially toxic or harmful physical agents not believe that the use of the term ducing occupational disease and which are required to be monitored or "Cancer Hazard" overstates the injury, and one of the significant purmeasured. hazard. The reference to cancer proposes of the Occupational Safety and The standard provides that records vides the necessary warning as to the Health Act. Section 6(b)(7) of the Act, must be kept to identify the employee hazard associated with exposure to which explicitly provides for regulaand to accurately reflect the employacrylonitrile. tions which require the use of labels ee's exposure. Specifically, it must in- It has been further suggested that or other appropriate forms of warning, clude the following information: (a) the word "Danger" be replaced by the is broadly drawn. This section does not The names, social security numbers, word "Caution". OSHA feels that the limit the employer's obligation of inand job classifications of the employword "Danger" is appropriate in light forming employees of hazardous conees monitored; (b) the dates, number, of the evidence of carcinogenicity of ditions to the employer's own employduration, and results of each of the acrylonitrile. Furthermore, the word ees. When an employer manufactursamples taken, including a description "Danger" is used to attract the atteners, formulates, or sells a product conof the representative sampling procetion of workers, to alert them to the taining a toxic substance, that employdure and equipment used to determine fact that they are in a hazardous area, er is exposing not only his own ememployee exposure where applicable; i.e., an area where the permissible exployees, but also the employees of (c) the type of respiratory protective posure limit is exceeded, and to emother employers involved in handling, devices if any, worn by the employee; phasize the importance of the message transporting, or using the product. and (d) a description of the sampling to follow. The use of the word The extent of the obligation to inform and analytical methods used, and evi- "Danger" is consistent with recent should be commensurate with the dence of their accuracy. OSHA health standards dealing with extent of the exposure. This is espe- The standard also requires that the carcinogens. cially true where the manufacturer, employer keep an accurate medical The signs have been changed from formulater, or seller will, in many record for each employee who is subthe proposal to read "Respirators May cases, be the only employer capable, ject to medical surveillance. Section Be Required," instead of "Respirators through his knowledge of the product, 8(c) of the Act authorizes the promul- Required." The reason for this inof providing the information necessary gation of regulations requiring any volves the difference between the air for protection of employees. A narrowemployer to keep such records regardconcentrations in the regulated area er reading of the statutory authority ing the employer's activities relating and an employee's TWA exposure. would defeat the protective purposes to the Act as are necessary or appro- There are many areas in which AN of the Act by effectively preventing priate for the enforcement of the Act concentrations exceed 2 ppm, but the downstream employee from obor for developing information regardwhere the employee's TWA exposures taining adequate information as to the ing the causes and prevention of occuwill not exceed the permissible limits. hazard. Furthermore, the use of the pational illnesses. OSHA believes that Such an employee would not be relabels required by the standard will medical records (like exposure moniquired to wear a respirator, even alert other employers who utilize or toring records) are necessary and apthough the proposed sign would have handle the product and who would not propriate to both the enforcement of indicated otherwise. The final standotherwise know of the presence of the standard and the development of ard has been revised to provide a more acrylonitrile in their workplace, of information regarding the causes and appropriate warning to employees entheir obligation to comply with the prevention of illness. tering the regulated area. standard. OSHA, therefore, feels that As explained above, it is necessary to Labels. The standard requires the this requirement is necessary and aprelate employees' medical conditions use of warning lablels on all containers propriate to effectuate the purposes of with their exposures in order to develof liquid AN and materials made from the Act. op information regarding cause and and/or containing AN which are not The standard prescribes the legend prevention. Medical records are necesexempted from the standard under that must be included on the label. sary and appropriate for this purpose. paragraph (a)(2). This requirement This is to assure that employees are In addition, medical records are necesimposes upon the employer the obligaalerted to the fact they they are hansary for the proper evaluation of an tion to assure that all such containers dling acrylonitrile and to the hazards employee's health. For all of these within his workplace are at all times involved. reasons, medical records have been reproperly labeled, in order that his em- The issue of labeling was of great quired in the final standard. ployees be apprised of the hazard. concern as proposed, because' the The standard requires that employ- The revision of the exemption provinumber of products which potentially ees or their designated representatives sions in the final standard will greatly might have required lablels was subbe provided access to examine and relieve the burden of labeling of matestantial. The listing of exempted polycopy records of required monitoring. rials made from and/or containing AN. mer products in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of The purpose of this provision is to FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 45808 RULES AND REGULATIONS assure employees that their exposure quiring these employers to implement should be construed as establishing a is being properly monitored and that the provisions of the standard. In admandatory requirement not otherwise they are working in a safe and healthdition, the standard permits monitorimposed by the standards, or as deful environment. Section 8(c)(3) of the ing results and medical examinations tracting from an obligation which the Act explicitly provides "employees or obtained under the ETS to serve as standard does impose. their representatives with an opportuinitial monitoring and initial medical The information contained in appennity to observe and to have surveillance under the final standard. dices A and B is designed to aid the access to the records thereof." Employers are required to reduce employer is complying with require- The final standard requires that ememployee exposures to the permissible ments of the standard. The informaployee medical records be made availaexposure limits solely by means of feation in appendix C primarily provides ble upon request for examination and sible engineering controls and work information needed by the physician copying by the affected employee or practices within 2 years of the effecto evaluate the results of the medical former employee, or a physician desigtive date of the standard, or November examination. It should be noted that nated by the affected employee or 2, 1980. The record reflects a wide paragraph (o) specifically requires former employee. The purpose of this range of present exposure situations that the information contained in approvision is to protect the employee's and capabilities of engineering develpendices A and B be provided to emhealth by authorizing his designated opment. Some companies have reportployees as part of their information physician to have access to medical ed that most of their opreations are aland training program. records which may be useful in the diready below 2 ppm (Exs. 11:(14); A new appendix D has been added to agnosis of illness. 11:(10); 2:(21)). One producer expects the final standard. This appendix The standard requires employers reto have engineering controls in place gives the details of NIOSH method S- lying upon objective data for exempshortly (Ex. 92). One major company 156, together with the NIOSH and tion under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to has predicted that the completion OSHA variations on that method, for maintain records of that data and of schedule for engineering projects to use in monitoring employee exposures the basis for their reliance on that reach 2 ppm may take 2 to 3 years (Ex. to acrylonitrile. Other methods of data. These records shall be main- 11:(27)). Other companies which have sampling and analysis are available in tained for the duration of the employdeveloped plans for engineering conthe record of the rulemaking, and may er's reliance on that data for exemptrols to reach 2 ppm have indicated be obtained from the OSHA Docket tion. that they will need leadtime, but have Office. Observation of monitoring: Paranot established any timetable for im- The contents of the appendices have graph (r). Section 8(c)(3) of the Act replementation (Tr. 1016-1017; 978). been revised to reflect changes from quires that employers provide employ- An SPI witness estimated that projthe proposal. In addition, efforts have ees and their representatives with the ect definition for engineering solutions been made to clarify those sections in opportunity to observe monitoring of to reach 2 ppm/10 ppm would take the appendices as proposed which employee exposures to toxic subabout 6 months, and that implementawere either inconsistent or unclear in stances or harmful physical agents. In tion of those solutions would take up relation to the standard. accordance with this section, the to 24 additional months (Ex. 74). AUTHORITY standard contains provisions for such OSHA has determined that a 2-year observation of monitoring of acryloniperiod for installation of engineering This document was prepared under trile exposures. To assure that the controls is reasonable for the AN inthe direction of Eula Bingham, Assistright to observe is meaningful, observdustry as a whole. Although some emant Secretary of Labor for Occupaers are entitled to receive an explanaployers will be able to complete impletional Safety and Health, U.S. Departtion of the measurement procedure, to mentation of controls well within the ment of Labor, Third Street and Conobserve all steps related to the mea- 2-year time frame, OSHA believes that stitution Avenue NW., Washington, surement procedure, and to record the certain sectors of the industry, primar- D.C. 20210. results obtained. ily resin and elastomer manufacturing, Accordingly, pursuant to sections The observer, whether an employee may require the full 2 years to comply. 4(b)(2), 6(b), 6(c), and 8(c) of the Occuor a designated representative, must While employers are not required to pational Safety and Health Act of be provided with, and is required to complete installation of engineering 1970 (84 Stat. 1592, 1593, 1596, 1599; 29 use, any personal protective equipcontrols until November 2, 1980, they U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), the specific statment required to be worn by employare required to develop a compliance utes referred to in section 4(b)(2), Secees working in the area that is being program which provides for compleretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 monitored, and must comply with all tion of controls by that date, and to FR 25059), and 29 CFR part 1911, part other applicable safety and health follow the schedule set out in the pro- 1910 of title 29, Code of Federal Reguprocedures. gram. Failure to develop an adequate lations, is hereby amended by deleting Effective date: Paragraph (s). The efprogram, or failure to implement the the emergency temporary standard for fective date of the standard is Novemprogressive steps set out in the prooccupational exposure to acrylonitrile ber 2, 1978, thirty days from publicagram to achieve compliance by Novemat § 1910.1045 and adding a new pertion. OSHA has determined that the ber 2, 1980, will subject the employer manent standard for occupational excircumstances of this rulemaking to citation. posure to acrylonitrile as $ 1910.1045, make it unnecessary to allow a longer Training programs are to be impleand by deleting the reference to acryperiod of time. Under the ETS, emmented within 60 days of the effective lonitrile from table Z-1 of $ 1910.1000. ployers were required to perform date of the standard. OSHA believes In addition, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) many of the activities, such as initial that this should provide sufficient of the act, OSHA has determined that monitoring, respiratory protection, lead time, particularly in light of the this new standard in $ 1910.1045 is and engineering control plans, which training requirements of the ETS. more effective than the corresponding are to be required under the final standards now in subpart B of part APPENDICES standard. Since the scope of the final 1910, and in parts 1915, 1916, 1917, standard is narrower than that of the Four appendices have been included 1918, and 1926 of title 29, Code of Fed- ETS, it is anticipated that all employin this permanent standard. These aperal Regulations. Therefore, these corers covered by the final standard were pendices have been included primarily responding standards are superseded also subject to the ETS. There should for purposes of information. None of by this new § 1910.1045. This determibe, therefore, no need for delay in rethe statements contained therein nation, and the application of the new FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 192-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45809 standard to the maritime and con- (i) ABS resins, SAN resins, nitrile having jurisdiction over the geographstruction industries, are implemented barrier resins, solid nitrile elastomers, ic area where the affected workplace is by revising paragraph (c) to § 1910.19. and acrylic and modacrylic fibers, located. In conjunction with the publication when these listed materials are in the (c) Permissible exposure limits. (1) of the emergency temporary standard form of finished polymers, and prod- Inhalation. (i) Time weighted average (43 FR 2586; Jan. 17, 1978), pursuant ucts fabricated from such finished limit (TWA). The employer shall to sections 4(b)(2), 6(c), and 8(c) of the polymers; assure that no employee is exposed to Act (84 Stat. 1592; 1996; 1599; 29 (ii) Materials made from and/or conan airborne concentration of acryloni- U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), title 29 of the taining AN for which objective data is trile in excess of two (2) parts acrylon- Code of Federal Regulations was reasonably relied upon to demonstrate itrile per million parts of air (2 ppm) amended by adding a new paragraph that the material is not capable of reas an eight (8)-hour time-weighted (c) to § 1910.19, and by deleting the leasing AN in airborne concentrations average. reference to acrylonitrile from table in excess of 1 ppm as an eight (8)-hour (ii) Ceiling limit. The employer shall Z-1 of $ 1910.1000. The authority for time-weighted average, under the exassure that no employee is exposed to these amendments pursuant to section pected conditions of processing, use, an airborne concentration of acryloni- 6(c) of the act has expired. These and handling which will cause the trile in excess of ten (10) ppm as averamendments are to be carried forward greatest possible release; and aged over any fifteen (15)-minute in accordance with the promulgation (iii) Solid materials made from and/ period during the working day. of the new permanent standard, as or containing AN which will not be (2) Dermal and eye exposure. The noted above, pursuant to sections heated above 170° F during handling, employer shall assure that no employ- 4(b)(2), 6(b), 6(c), and 8(c) of the act use, or processing. ee is exposed to skin contact or eye (84 Stat. 1592, 1593, 1596, 1599; 29 (3) An employer relying upon excontact with liquid AN. U.S.C. 653, 655, 657). emption under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) (d) Notification of regulated areas Signed at Washington, D.C., this 22d shall maintain records of the objective and emergencies. (1) Regulated areas. day of September 1978. These amenddata supporting that exemption, and Within thirty (30) days following the ments are effective on November 2, of the basis of the employer's reliance establishment of a regulated area pur- 1978 on the data, as provided in paragraph suant to paragraph (f) of this section, (q) of this section. EULA BINGHAM, (b) Definitions. "Acrylonitrile" or the employer shall report the follow- Assistant Secretary of Labor. "AN" means acrylonitrile monomer, ing information to the OSHA Area Office: Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of chemical formula CH,=CHCN. Federal Regulations is hereby amend- "Action level" means a concentra- (i) The address and location of each establishment which has one or more ed as follows: tion of AN of 1 ppm as an eight (8)- hour time-weighted average. regulated areas; 1. Paragraph (c) of 1910.19 is re- "Assistant Secretary" means the As- (ii) The locations, within the estabvised to read as follows: sistant Secretary of Labor for Occupalishment, of each regulated area;