[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27197]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 15, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



29 CFR Part 1910 et al.




Respiratory Protection; Proposed Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. H049]
RIN 1218-0099

 
Respiratory Protection

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to modify its existing standards on 
respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134, 29 CFR 1915.152 and 29 CFR 
1926.103). The current respirator standard was adopted from a voluntary 
consensus standard in 1971. Since that time, changes in methodology, 
technology, and approach related to respiratory protection have 
occurred, which OSHA's standard does not include. The purpose of this 
rulemaking is to update the current standard to reflect these changes 
so that employers will provide effective protection for employees who 
wear respirators.

    The proposed standard includes requirements for a written 
respiratory protection program; procedures for selecting respirators; 
requirements for medical evaluation; procedures for fit testing; 
requirements for using respirators; procedures for maintaining 
respirators; training; criteria for evaluating program effectiveness. 
Public hearings are being scheduled to provide interested parties the 
opportunity to orally present information and data related to the 
issues raised by this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed standard must be postmarked on 
or before February 13, 1995. Notices of intention to appear at the 
informal public hearings on the proposed standard must be postmarked by 
January 27, 1995. Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their 
presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will 
submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full test of 
their testimony and all documentary evidence postmarked no later than 
February 13, 1995. The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C. and 
is scheduled to being on March 7, 1995 and continue until Friday, March 
24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in quadruplicate or 1 
original (hardcopy) and 1 disk (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\) in WordPerfect 5.0, 
5.1, 6.0 or ASCII to: The Docket Office, Docket H-049, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N2625, 
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 219-7894. 
(Any information not contained on disk, e.g., studies, articles, etc., 
must be submitted in quadruplicate.)
    Notices of intention to appear at the informal rulemaking hearing, 
testimony, and documentary evidence are to be submitted in 
quadruplicate to: Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Room N3649, Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 219-8615. Written 
comments received, notices of intention to appear, and all other 
material related to the development of this proposed standard will be 
available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket 
Office, Room N2439, at the above address.
    The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposal: Ms. Anne Cyr, Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N3647, Washington, 
D.C. 20210; (202) 219-8151.
    Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 
N3649, Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 219-8615.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements

    5 CFR Part 1320 sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in 
obtaining OMB clearance for information collection requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
proposed revised respirator standard requires employers to allow OSHA 
access to records. In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, OSHA 
certifies that it has submitted the information collection requirements 
for this proposed rule on respiratory protection to OMB for review 
under Section 3504(h) of that Act. OMB has approved (OMB number 1218-
0099) in concept the submitted information collection activities 
contained in the proposed revision pending public consideration and 
comment.
    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to be five minutes per response. Send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
to the Office of Information Management, Department of Labor, Room N-
1301, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1218-AA05), Washington, DC 20503.

II. Introduction

A. Format of the Preamble

    The preamble accompanying this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
divided into fifteen parts, numbered I through XV. The following is a 
table of contents:

I. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements
II. Introduction
    A. Format of the Preamble
    B. History of the Development of Respiratory Protection
    C. Respirator Use
    D. Types of Respiratory Hazards
    E. Limitations of Respiratory Use
III. Legal Authority
IV. Background
    A. Regulatory History
    B. Need for the Standard
    C. Recognition of the Need for a Standard by Other Groups
V. Certification/Approval Procedures
VI. Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment
VII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
    A. Scope and Application
    B. Definitions
    C. Respiratory Protection Program
    D. Selection of Respirators
    E. Medical Evaluation
    F. Fit Testing Procedures
    G. Use of Respirators
    H. Maintenance and Care of Respirators
    I. Supplied Air Quality and Use
    J. Identification of Filters, Cartridges, and Canisters
    K. Training
    L. Respiratory Protection Program Evaluation
    M. Recordkeeping and Access to Records
    N. Substance Specific Standards
    O. Maritime Standards
    P. Construction Advisory Committee
VIII. References
IX. Public Participation--Notice of Hearings
X. Federalism
XI. State Plan Standards
XII. List of Subjects
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Proposed Standard and Appendices
XV. Proposed Substance Specific Standards Revisions

B. History of the Development of Respiratory Protection

    The concept of using respiratory protective devices to reduce or 
eliminate hazardous exposures to airborne contaminants first came from 
Pliny (c. A.D. 23-79) who discussed the use of loose fitting animal 
bladders in Roman mines to protect workers from the inhalation of red 
oxide of lead (1,2). Later, in the 1700's, the ancestors of modern 
atmosphere-supplying devices, such as the self-contained breathing 
apparatus or hose mask, were developed. Although the devices themselves 
have become more sophisticated in design and materials, respirators' 
performance is still based on one of two basic principles; purifying 
the air by removing contaminants before they reach the breathing zone 
of the worker, or providing clean air from an uncontaminated source.
    In 1814, a particulate-removing filter encased in a rigid container 
was developed--the predecessor of modern filters for air-purifying 
respirators. In 1854, it was recognized that activated charcoal could 
be used as a filtering medium for vapors. World War I and the use of 
chemical warfare also resulted in improvement in the design of 
respirators. Overall, there have been few major developments in the 
basic design of respirators over the years except for the resin-
impregnated dust filter in 1930. This development has made available 
efficient, inexpensive filters that have good dust-loading 
characteristics and low breathing resistance. Another more recent 
development is the ultrahigh efficiency filter made from paper that 
contains very fine glass fibers. These extremely efficient filters are 
used for very small airborne particles and produce little breathing 
resistance.

C. Respirator Use

    The purpose of a respirator is to prevent the inhalation of harmful 
airborne substances. Functionally, a respirator is designed as an 
enclosure which covers the nose and mouth or the entire face or head. 
Respirators are of two general ``fit'' types: Tight fitting (i.e., 
quarter masks, which cover the mouth and nose, and where the lower 
sealing surface rests between the chin and the mouth; the half mask, 
which fits over the nose and under the chin; and the full facepiece, 
which covers from the hairline to below the chin), and loose fitting 
(i.e., hoods, helmets, blouses, or full suits which cover the head 
completely). There are two major classes of respirators: Air-purifying 
respirators (devices which remove contaminants from the air), and 
atmosphere-supplying respirators (those which provide clean breathing 
air from an uncontaminated source).
    Air-purifying respirators are grouped into three general types: 
Particulate removing, vapor and gas removing, and combination. Elements 
which remove particulates are called filters, while vapor and gas 
removing elements are called either chemical cartridges or canisters. 
Filters and canisters/cartridges are the functional portion of air-
purifying respirators, and they can generally be removed and replaced 
once their effective life has expired. The exception would be 
disposable respirators, those which cannot be cleaned and disinfected 
or resupplied with an unused filter after use. Combination elements 
that protect for both particulates and vapors and gases are also 
available.
    Particulate-removing respirators are designed to reduce inhaled 
concentrations of nuisance dusts, fumes, mists, toxic dusts, radon 
daughters, asbestos containing dusts or fibers, or any combination of 
these substances, by filtering some of the contaminants from the 
inhaled air before they enter the breathing zone of the worker. They 
may have single use or replaceable filters. These respirators may be 
non-powered or powered air-purifying (using a blower to pull 
contaminated air through a filter; the resulting cleaned air is blown 
on the face).
    Vapor and gas removing respirators are designed with sorbent 
elements (canisters or cartridges) that adsorb and/or absorb the vapors 
or gases from the contaminated air before they enter the breathing zone 
of the worker. Combination cartridges and canisters are available to 
protect against both particulates and vapors and gases.
    Atmosphere-supplying respirators are respirators which provide air 
from a source independent of the surrounding atmosphere instead of 
removing contaminants from the atmosphere. These respirators are 
classified by the method by which air is supplied and the way in which 
the air supply is regulated. Basically, these methods are: Self-
contained breathing apparatus (air or oxygen is carried in a tank on 
the worker's back, similar to SCUBA gear); supplied air respirators 
(compressed air from a stationary source is supplied through a high 
pressure hose connected to the respirator); and combination self-
contained and supplied air respirators.

D. Types of Respiratory Hazards

    Respiratory hazards may result from either an oxygen deficient 
atmosphere or from breathing air contaminated with toxic particles, 
vapors, gases, fumes or mists. The proper selection and use of a 
respirator depends upon an initial determination of the concentration 
of the hazard or hazards present in the workplace.
    Contaminants are classified as particulate contaminants, which 
include mechanical dispersoids, condensation dispersoids, dusts, 
sprays, fumes, mists, fogs, smokes, and smogs; and vapors or gases 
which include acids, alkalines, organics, organometallics, hydrides, 
and inert materials.
    The particulates may be dusts such as clays, limestone, gypsum, or 
aluminum oxides; inert pulmonary reaction producing substances such as 
silicates; minimal pulmonary fibrosis producing substances such as iron 
oxide or tin oxide; extensive pulmonary fibrosis producing substances 
such as free silica or asbestos; chemical irritants such as acids or 
alkalies; systemic poisons such as pesticides, hydrogen cyanide or 
lead; allergy producing substances such as cotton, isocyanates, 
epichlorohydrin, fur fibers, or vegetable fibers; and febrile-reaction 
producing agents such as bagasse, or copper and zinc oxide; and 
biological materials.
    The gaseous air contaminants include irritants such as nitrogen 
dioxide, phosgene, and arsenic trichloride; asphyxiants such as carbon 
monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide; anesthetics such as nitrous oxide, 
hydrocarbons, and ethyl and isopropyl ether; and systemic poisons such 
as carbon tetrachloride.

E. Limitations of Respirator Use

    Not all workers can wear respirators. Individuals with impaired 
lung function, due to asthma or emphysema for example, may be 
physically unable to wear a respirator. Individuals who cannot get a 
good facepiece fit, including those individuals whose beards or 
sideburns interfere with the facepiece seal, will be unable to wear 
tight fitting respirators. Determination of adequate fit is required 
for a respirator to be effective.
    In addition to the problems with usage already discussed, 
respirators may also present communication problems, vision problems, 
fatigue and reduced work efficiency. Nonetheless, it is sometimes 
necessary to use respiratory protection as the means of control.
    In principle, respirators frequently may be capable of providing 
adequate protection. However, problems associated with selection, fit, 
and use often render them ineffective in actual application, preventing 
the assurance of consistent and reliable protection; regardless of the 
theoretical capabilities of the respirator. Occupational safety and 
health experts have spent considerable effort over the years developing 
fit testing procedures and methods of measuring respirator protection 
so that these adverse variables can be better controlled, thereby 
improving protection for those employees required to wear them.
    The comments which resulted from the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) that was published by OSHA on May 14, 1982 (47 FR 
20803) suggest that one method for controlling some of the problems 
associated with respirator selection, fit, and use is to describe 
clearly the steps to be followed in administering a program to protect 
employees required to wear respirators. The modifications in this 
proposal are also intended to upgrade the provisions in Sec. 1910.134 
to reflect the current state of the art in respiratory methodology and 
technology.

III. Legal Authority

    Authority for issuance of this proposed revised standard is found 
primarily in sections 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g)(2) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and 
657(g)(2).
    Section 6(b) authorizes the Secretary to ``by rule promulgate, 
modify, or revoke any occupational safety and health standard.'' This 
notice is the first mandatory step in the procedure prescribed for 
promulgating such new or modified standards.
    The Congress specifically mandated that:

    The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic 
materials, or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall 
set the standard which most adequately assure, to the extent 
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no 
employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional 
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard 
dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life. 
Development of standards under this subsection shall be based upon 
research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as 
may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment, of highest degree 
of health and safety protection for the employee, other 
considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the 
field, the feasibility of standards, and experience gained under 
this section and other health and safety laws. (Section 6(b)(5).

    The revisions which OSHA proposes would update current standards 
concerning respiratory protection mainly by incorporating technological 
advances and by expanding certain respirator program elements such as 
fit testing and by clarifying other provisions.
    These revisions are intended to ensure that employees who use 
respirators to protect them from workplace atmospheric contamination, 
will be protected to the technical limitations of the devices they 
wear. Protection from exposure to workplace airborne contaminants is 
one of the major goals of the Act and a major mission for the Agency, 
since the risk to employees of chronic and acute disease because of 
exposure to toxic substances is substantial and well documented (see 
e.g., preamble to 29 CFR Part 1910, Air Contaminants, Proposed Rule, at 
53 FR 20960 et seq.)
    Similarly, these regulations need to be updated to assure that 
employees are protected to the extent that currently available 
technology permits. Therefore OSHA finds that revisions to these 
regulations governing respiratory protection are clearly necessary and 
appropriate to protect employees against the risk of material 
impairment of health or functional capacity and are issued pursuant to 
the authority of section 6(b)(5) of the Act).
    Authority to issue this standard is also found in section 8(c) of 
the Act. In general, this section empowers the Secretary to require 
employers to make, keep, and preserve records regarding activities 
related to the Act. In particular, section 8(c) gives the Secretary 
authority to require employers to ``maintain accurate records of 
employee exposures to potentially toxic materials or harmful physical 
agents which are required to be monitored or measured under section 
6.'' Provisions of OSHA standards which require the preparation and 
monitoring of exposure records, such as contained in a written 
respirator program, are also issued pursuant to section 8(c) of the 
Act.
    The Secretary's authority to issue this proposed standard is 
further supported by the general rulemaking authority granted in 
section 8(g)(2) of the Act. This section empowers the Secretary ``to 
prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry 
out [his] responsibilities under the Act''--in this case as part of or 
ancillary to, a section 6(b) standard. The Secretary's responsibilities 
under the Act are defined largely by its enumerated purposes, which 
include:
    Encouraging employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the 
number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of 
employment, and to stimulate employers and employees to institute new 
and to perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthful 
working conditions (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(1));
    Authorizing the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards applicable to business affecting interstate 
commerce, and by creating an Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission for carrying out adjudicatory functions under the Act; (29 
U.S.C. 651(b)(3));
    Building upon advances already made through employee and employer 
initiative for providing safe and health working conditions (29 U.S.C. 
651(b)(5));
    By providing for the development and promulgation of occupational 
safety and health standards; providing for appropriate reporting 
procedures with respect to occupational safety and health which 
procedures will help achieve the objectives of this Act and accurately 
describe the nature of the occupational safety and health problem; 
exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing causal 
connections between diseases and work in environmental conditions * * * 
(29 U.S.C. 651(b)(6));
    Encouraging joint labor-management efforts to reduce injuries and 
diseases arising out of employment (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(13));
    And developing innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for 
dealing with occupational safety and health problems (29 U.S.C. 
651(b)(5)).
    Because this proposed revised standard is reasonably related to 
these statutory goals, the Secretary finds that this standard is 
necessary to carry out his responsibilities under the Act.
    In addition, section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides for OSHA standards 
to apply to construction and other work places where the Secretary 
determines these standards to be more effective than existing standards 
which otherwise apply to those workplaces. So we are applying them to 
construction and maritime.
    The Supreme Court's benzene decision (Industrial Union Department, 
AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute. 448 U.S. 601) requires OSHA, 
in general, to make a ``significant risk determination'' before issuing 
health and safety standards. It is clear that exposure to hazardous air 
contaminants in the workplace poses significant risks to workers. Where 
engineering controls cannot be used to reduce exposures below hazardous 
levels, respirators properly selected, fitted and worn can contribute 
substantially to a reduction in the level of air contaminants reaching 
the employee's breathing zone. Under the current respiratory protection 
standard, which lacks adequate requirements for fit testing, selection, 
medical evaluation, use, maintenance, and respiratory protection 
program provisions, employees wearing respirators are receiving less 
protection than the respirators can potentially give, and in some cases 
may suffer exposure to hazards as a result of improper respirator use. 
The significant risk to employees therefore has not been adequately 
reduced by the existing respirator standard.
    The enforcement experience of OSHA and various state health 
agencies demonstrate the wide-spread nature of defects in respirator 
programs while the unamended respirator standard has been in effect. 
From fiscal 1977 to 1982, 58% of inspected worksites where respirators 
were used to protect against excessive levels of air contamination had 
deficiencies in at least one respirator area, including respirator fit 
condition, unapproved or unsuitable respirators, and lack of continuous 
wear (Ex. 33-5). Inadequate supervision of respirator use was cited as 
a major cause of improper and ineffective usage by the North Carolina 
Department of Labor, Kentucky's Department of Labor and Virginia's 
Bureau of Occupational Health (Docket H-160, Ex. 2-69, 2-103, 2-129). 
These state plan states have respirator standards that are the same as 
OSHA's unamended standard.
    OSHA cannot precisely quantify the risk to employees whose 
employers rely on inadequate respiratory protection programs to protect 
them against excessive levels of atmospheric contamination. However, 
the widespread levels of improper use of respirators put at significant 
risk employees who, at least some of the time, are overexposed to air 
contaminants. Based on OSHA's experience that one half of workplaces 
using respirators use them incorrectly under the current standard, even 
a small improvement in respirator use should work a significant 
reduction in the risk of developing adverse health effects because of 
preventable misuse of respirators. OSHA believes that a greater benefit 
will result from the imposition of these revised requirements for the 
following reason.
    Each controllable variable of respirator performance, i.e., initial 
fit, appropriateness of selection, and consistency of use is addressed 
by these revisions. The proposed requirement for a program 
administrator, for example, addresses the concerns of many commenters 
that proper supervision is the core of an adequate respirator program 
and effective respirator performance. Required fit testing protocols 
are proposed to assure that the respirator does not leak around the 
face, is comfortable and that the employee is taught how to properly 
tension straps for optimum fit and comfort. Thus the proposed revised 
standard with its provisions for quantitative and qualitative fit 
testing, improved and clarified respirator selection, use, and 
maintenance, will increase the effectiveness of respirators worn in the 
workplace and significantly reduce the risks to employees to a greater 
degree than the present standard.
    OSHA has quantified the risk and reduction of risk as part of the 
regulatory analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis, Section VI of 
the preamble. That analysis clearly shows that workers wearing 
respirators under the requirements of the current standard are exposed 
to a significant risk of chronic and acute health effects because of 
the inadequacies of the present standard. OSHA seeks comment on the 
issue of significant risk and how the proposed respirator standard 
revisions will affect that risk, along with any comment on the 
regulatory analysis performed by OSHA and all other issues related to 
significant risk.

IV. Background

A. Regulatory History

    Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) in 1970, and gave it the responsibility for promulgating 
standards to protect the health and safety of American workers. As 
directed by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA 
adopted existing Federal or national consensus standards, developed by 
various organizations such as the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the American National Standard 
Institute (ANSI). The ANSI standard Z88.2-1969, ``Practices for 
Respiratory Protection'' (3), is the origin of the first six sections 
of OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.134, ``Respiratory Protection'' (4). The seventh 
section is a direct, complete inclusion of ANSI Standard K13.1-1969, 
``Identification of Gas Mask Canisters.'' Until the adoption of these 
standards by OSHA, most guidance on respiratory protective device use 
in hazardous environments was advisory rather than mandatory.
    The construction industry standard for respiratory protection, 29 
CFR 1926.103, was promulgated in April 1971. On February 9, 1979, 29 
CFR 1910.134 was formally recognized as also being applicable to the 
construction industry (44 FR 8577) (4). OSHA is required under the OSH 
Act to seek the advice of an existing advisory committee when 
promulgating a rule which will affect an industry represented by the 
committee. In view of the application of the respirator protection 
standard to the construction industry, OSHA distributed copies of the 
draft of this proposed revised standard on September 20, 1985 to the 
Construction Advisory Committee for review and discussion at their next 
meeting in February 1986 so that the Construction Advisory Committee 
could prepare its official response. The response that was received 
from the committee was considered in revising the draft proposal as 
discussed later in this preamble.
    The maritime standards were originally promulgated in the 1960's 
under a different codification in the CFR by agencies which preceded 
OSHA. The present code designations and their promulgation dates are, 
as follows: 29 CFR 1915.82, February 20, 1960 (25 FR 1543); 29 CFR 
1916.82, January 22, 1963 (28 FR 547); 29 CFR 1917.82, March 27, 1964 
(29 FR 4052); and 29 CFR 1918.102, February 20, 1960 (25 FR 1565) (4).
    The current 29 CFR 1910.134 requires that the employer establish 
and implement a comprehensive respiratory protection program. The 
program is to contain written procedures and provide for proper 
cleaning, disinfection, storage, inspection and maintenance of the 
respirators. General provisions are set forth on fitting and training. 
Requirements are included for quality of breathing air and practices to 
ensure that it is not contaminated. Provisions for emergencies and for 
communication and rescue in atmospheres immediately dangerous to life 
or health are specified. A color code for gas mask cansisters is 
detailed and other provisions are included.
    The current standard requires the employer to instruct and train 
employees ``in the proper use of respirators and their limitations.'' 
The additional provisions of the proposal amplify the current 
requirements by specifying, for example, that the training program 
include instruction in procedures for inspection, donning and removal, 
checking the fit, and sufficient practice to enable the employee to 
become thoroughly familiar and confident with the use of the 
respirator. OSHA believes, based on its experience promulgating and 
enforcing respirator provisions in other health standards and 
Sec. 1910.134, that such hands-on training can materially improve the 
effectiveness of respirator use.
    Recent OSHA health standards have imposed respirator related 
requirements not found in 29 CFR 1910.134 (See section 1910.1018(h), 
arsenic; section 1910.1025(f), lead; section 1910.1029(g), coke oven 
emissions; and section 1910.1043(f), cotton dust). These requirements 
include the following provisions.
    * Quantitative fit tests have been required semiannually, (arsenic, 
1910.1018(h)(3)(ii); lead, 1910.1025(f)(3)(ii).
    * Employees have been given the option of using powered air-
purifying respirators (PAPR) upon request (arsenic, 
1910.1018(h)(5)(iii); lead, 1910.1025(f)(2)(ii); coke oven emissions, 
1910.1029(g)(2)(ii); cotton dust, 1910.1043(f)(2)(iv)).
    * Employees have been permitted to change the filter elements of a 
respirator whenever an increase in breathing resistance is detected, 
(arsenic, 1910.1018(h)(4)(ii); lead, 1910.1025(f)(4)(ii); coke oven 
emissions, 1910.1029(g)(4)(ii); cotton dust, 1910.1043(f)(4)(ii)).
    * Employees have been permitted to wash their faces and respirator 
facepieces to prevent skin irritation associated with using 
respirators, (arsenic, 1910.1018(h)(4)(iii); lead 1910.1025(f)(4)(iii); 
coke oven emissions, 1910.1029(g)(4)(iii); cotton dust 
1910.1043(f)(4)(iii).
    * Employers have been required to provide respirators that exhibit 
minimum facepiece leakage, (arsenic, 1910.1018(h)(3)(i); lead, 
1910.1025(f)(3)(i); coke oven emissions, 1910.1029(g)(4)(i); cotton 
dust 1910.1043(f)(4)(i)).
    * Referral of an employee to a physician trained in pulmonary 
medicine has been required for an employee who exhibits difficulty 
breathing either at fit testing or during routine respirator use 
(arsenic, 1910.1018(h)(3)(iv); lead, 1910.1025(f)(3)(iii)).
    The current respirator standard (1910.134(b)(11)) states that 
respirators that are ``approved or accepted shall be used when 
available.'' OSHA has chosen to recognize only those respirators 
approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The 
NIOSH and MSHA respirator performance requirements are given in Title 
30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 11. A revision of that standard 
is now being considered by NIOSH and MSHA.
    Because of differences with the respirator requirements in other 
OSHA standards, changes in respirator methodology and technology, and 
the revision of referenced documents or related codes, OSHA published 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on May 14, 1982 (47 FR 
20803). This notice sought information on the effectiveness of the 
current provisions, the need for revision, and the substance of what 
these revisions might be. Responses were received from 81 interested 
parties, and generally supported revising OSHA's respiratory protection 
provisions and provided suggestions for approaches the Agency might 
take (Ex. 15).
    On September 17, 1985 OSHA announced the availability of a 
preliminary draft of the proposed respiratory protection standard 
revision for public comment (the preproposal draft standard press 
release). This preproposal draft standard reflected the public comments 
received from the May 1982 ANPR and OSHA's own analysis of changes 
needed in the standard to take into account the current state-of-the-
art for respiratory protection. Responses were received from 56 
interested parties (Ex. 36) and their comments have been reviewed in 
preparing this proposal.

B. Need for the Standard

    This rulemaking addresses an existing standard, rather than 
addressing a new subject area, and seeks to correct the inadequacies of 
that existing standard. Since the OSHA standards on respiratory 
protection were adopted, research on the proper use of such equipment 
has resulted in new technology which improves protection for the 
wearers. The current standards do not reflect what is now accepted 
practice for implementation of comprehensive respiratory protection 
programs to protect employees. This is particularly true in the areas 
of fit testing and assignment of protection factors to respirators.
    The wearing of respiratory protective devices to reduce exposure to 
airborne contaminants is widespread in industry. It has been estimated 
that 2.6 million workers wear respirators, either occasionally or 
routinely, in non-emergency work situations. In addition, over 59,000 
facilities maintain respirators for emergency use (5, Ex. 34). Although 
in most situations it is preferred industrial hygiene practice to use 
engineering controls to reduce contaminant emissions at their source, 
there are operations where this type of control is not technologically 
or economically feasible or is otherwise inappropriate. There are many 
variables which affect the degree of protection afforded by these 
respiratory protective devices.
    Indeed, the misuse of respirators can actually be hazardous to 
employee safety and health. Selection of the wrong equipment, one of 
the most frequent errors made in respiratory protection, will result in 
the employee being unknowingly vulnerable to the hazard and thus 
inhaling concentrations of the contaminant that may be harmful. This 
may result in a broad range of health effects caused by airborne 
contaminants, including silicosis, asbestosis, permanent lung damage 
and cancer. In the report by Rosenthal and Paull (Ex. 33-5) it is shown 
that, on the basis of OSHA's citation records, there is a high degree 
of correlation between inadequate respirator programs and overexposures 
to respirator wearers exposed to regulated substances. Respirators 
which are not maintained, inspected, and cleaned, can actually increase 
exposure, as well as cause dermatitis or skin irritation and place a 
greater strain on the respiratory system. Because the wearing of the 
respirator gives the employee a sense of security and presumed 
protection which may be false, an improper respirator program presents 
a high degree of hazard for the employee.
    The devices themselves can only provide the protection they are 
designed for if they are properly selected for the task; if they are 
fitted to the wearer and are consistently donned and worn properly; and 
if they are maintained and cared for so they continue to provide the 
protection required for the work situation. These variables can only be 
controlled if a comprehensive respiratory protection program is 
developed and implemented in each workplace where respirators are used 
to protect employees from inhalation of airborne contaminants. OSHA has 
reviewed the present rulemaking record and the record of citations for 
respirator standard violations. On the basis of that review it is clear 
that to be effective such a program must use an integrated, systematic 
approach that will result in consistent and appropriate choices of 
respiratory equipment to be used; involvement of employees to ensure 
that they understand why respirators are being worn, and how they 
contribute to their effective use; and monitoring of the equipment and 
its use to ensure that respirator effectiveness is optimized.
    There are many examples of how respirators may not provide the 
protection they were designed to provide in the absence of an effective 
respirator program with adequate employee training. When the hazardous 
substance is a dust, mist or fume there are often conditions under 
which it is possible for the inside of the respirator to become 
contaminated with the hazardous substance. For example, the employee 
may have an itch on the cheek and scratch it with a dirty finger thus 
destroying the integrity of the respirator fit.
    An employee may leave the respirator area, remove the respirator, 
and rest it on his or her chest. The inside of the respirator could 
then pick up the contaminant from the air or work clothes and later 
when the respirator is donned the employee will inhale the contaminant 
from within the respirator. If a respirator is not cleaned properly or 
if it is stored in a locker or on a ledge covered with the contaminant, 
the employee will again breathe in the contaminant from within the 
respirator.
    An employee engaged in manual labor may dislodge the respirator 
with a tool or even a normal motion unless the respirator has been 
appropriately fit tested and the employee knows that a readjustment is 
necessary. An employee may be engaged in work which requires good 
vision or extensive communication. Without conscious thought the 
employee may push the respirator into a position that improves vision 
or make talking easier but which would result in a poor facepiece seal.
    As discussed later in this preamble, several studies of the 
performance of respirators worn in the workplace have been submitted to 
the regulatory docket to show that in actual use, respirators can be 
effective. These studies of workplace protection factors (WPFs) are 
necessarily performed in workplaces which have good respiratory 
protection programs. Consequently though the studies on WPFs may 
provide a reasonable criterion for setting maximum protection factors, 
it is not the case that those levels of protection are always achieved 
even if employers have an adequate respirator program. In the case of a 
poor respirator program it should be apparent that these levels would 
seldom be achieved.
    The complexity of the necessary program, and the extensive 
commitment of ongoing resources to maintain that program, are often not 
sufficiently considered when determining control measures to be used. 
As stated in one commonly used industrial hygiene text (6):

    There will always be a temptation to resort to respirators as a 
cheap substitute for a ventilation system. If this is done it is 
clear that management has not carefully considered the alternatives 
since reliance on and effective use of respirators is definitely not 
cheap.

    As discussed above, OSHA's current standard in 29 CFR 1910.134 was 
largely adopted from, and references, the ANSI Z88.2-1969 standard on 
respiratory protection. ANSI issued a revised version of that standard 
in 1980 (ANSI Z88.2-1980) (Ex. 10). ANSI's intent in issuing this 
revision was to ensure that the standard did ``reflect the current 
state of the art.'' ANSI accomplished this by expanding and adding to 
the standard provisions which address technological developments in 
respiratory protection since the 1969 standard was published. 
Techniques in fit testing and the use of protection factors are two 
areas which have been elaborated upon in the 1980 standard to help 
ensure more effective protection for respirator wearers.
    This change highlights the need for revising the OSHA standard, 
particularly since Sec. 1910.134(c) specifies that respirators are to 
be selected according to the 1969 ANSI standard and provides no 
additional guidance for employers. Moreover, it is necessary to change 
OSHA's standard to ensure that it too reflects current respiratory 
protection methodology in order to provide appropriate protection for 
employees.
    The 1980 ANSI standard was a logical extension of the 1969 ANSI 
standard (and thus OSHA's) in many respects. It established 
requirements for a respiratory protection program so that respirator 
selection, fit, and use were standardized, thus controlling some of the 
variables which make respirators ineffective. The program was to 
include written standard operating procedures; assessment of the 
fitness of potential respirator wearers; selection of respirators; 
training; fit testing; maintenance; and program evaluation.
    One regulatory alternative in this regard would have been to adopt 
the ANSI Z88.2-1980 standard, or to at least base the rulemaking 
largely on the latest ANSI standard as was done with the original OSHA 
standard. ANSI, however, was developing a major revision of its 1980 
standard, recently finalized as ANSI Z88.2-1992. OSHA has given this 
latest ANSI standard detailed consideration in preparing this proposal. 
An OSHA standard based entirely on the 1980 ANSI standard would have 
been obsolete as soon as published. OSHA has therefore made the 
decision to pursue a rulemaking based on existing data and the record 
generated thus far by responses to the ANPR and the prepublication 
draft. The proposed standard has included provisions of the 1980 and 
1992 ANSI standards where justified by the record. The reasons for 
provisions which differ from those in the ANSI standards are given in 
this preamble in the discussion of the content of the proposed 
standard. OSHA has chosen not to adopt the ANSI standard per se, but 
many of the provisions, as well as the general approach, are consistent 
with ANSI.
    In the ANPR, OSHA asked if the ANSI Z88.2-1980 standard should be 
adopted. For the most part, respondents did not advocate that the 
Agency simply adopt the ANSI standard (Ex. 15-13, 15-30, 15-34, 15-40, 
15-45, 15-56, 15-73, 15-80). However, a number of respondents did 
advocate that it be used as guidelines or a reference for the OSHA 
standard or that modifications to it might make it appropriate for 
adoption (Ex. 15-19, 15-31, 15-37, 15-43, 15-51, 15-67).
    In the ANPR, OSHA requested comments on the need to revise 
Sec. 1910.134, and 1980 ANSI standard notwithstanding. Only five 
respondents indicated that the standard should not be revised (Ex. 15-
10, 15-35, 15-56, 15-75 (A and B), 15-77). The overwhelming majority of 
respondents, representing a wide range of organizations, stated that 
Sec. 1910.134 needs to be revised to reflect current technology and to 
help ensure appropriate protection of employees (Ex. 15-11, 15-18, 15-
20, 15-26, 15-30, 15-42, 15-50, 15-54, 15-62, 15-74, 15-76, 15-80).
    For example, industry respondents such as the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association (CMA) expressed the view that (Ex. 15-22):

    The requirements of 1910.134 were adequate at the time they were 
adopted, but have been outdated by advances in respirator 
technology. The standard should be updated to reflect current 
conditions and to permit sufficient flexibility for companies to 
respond to continuing technological improvements. Present standards 
tend to suppress innovation and have a potential for harm by 
retarding the adoption of technological advances.

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), an institution which has 
conducted considerable research on respiratory protection, also 
supported the need to revise OSHA's current standard, and commented 
upon the appropriate approach to take (Ex. 15-79):

    Currently standards should be revised to reflect changes in 
respiratory protection capabilities, techniques, and equipment which 
have been developed over the past 10 years. ANSI Z88.2 (1980) 
provides the best basis for developing a new standard. In addition, 
the ``Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection'' (published as Los 
Alamos report LA-6671-M, and Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) 
Publication, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH 76-189) provides detailed information relative to the 
requirements for an adequate respirator program. It is not 
recommended that direct adoption of sections, of either of these 
documents, be the approach used by OSHA. Both documents are several 
years old, and the ANSI document constitutes a compromise between 
various interests involved in developing and adopting a consensus 
standard. Development of a revised standard will require a major 
effort by OSHA to identify, update, and expand those sections of 
ANSI Z88.2 (1980) which should be made part of the new OSHA 
standard.

    Labor representatives also supported revising the standard, as 
represented by this statement of the United Steelworkers of America 
(Ex. 15-28):

    At the present time the respiratory protection standard is not 
effective in providing workers with any great degree of protection 
due to the inadequacies of the standard, lack of requirements for 
employers to follow so that all respiratory protection programs are 
uniform and equally protective, and ineffective enforcement due to 
the vagueness of the requirements.

    Manufacturers of respiratory protective devices are also among 
those who support revising OSHA's current respiratory protection 
standards. For example, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company 
stated (Ex. 15-30):

    When 1910.134 was promulgated nearly a decade ago it reflected 
the state-of-the-art for a good respiratory protection program. The 
state-of-the-art for respiratory protection, however, has rapidly 
advanced since that time and although many of the elements included 
in the original standard retain their relevance and importance, 
other elements have been developed and more efficient means for 
achieving the goals of an effective respiratory protection program 
have been introduced * * *

    There are two issues in particular which have evolved 
technologically since the current OSHA standards were adopted: 
Assignment of protection factors or maximum use concentrations for 
particular models or types of respirators; and the development of fit 
testing procedures.
    With respect to assigned protection factors, OSHA has decided not 
to establish its own set of numbers but instead to defer to NIOSH in 
setting assigned protection factors for the various respirator classes. 
NIOSH will be developing assigned protection factors as part of its 
revised respirator certification standard, 42 CFR Part 84. Since NIOSH 
may not publish 42 CFR Part 84 before this OSHA respirator standard 
revision is finalized, OSHA will in the interim enforce the assigned 
protection factors listed in the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (RDL). 
The concept of protection factors and the decision to defer to NIOSH 
are discussed in more detail in a later section of this preamble.
    Fit testing, the other area in which considerable advances have 
been made since the promulgation of OSHA's current standard, also 
varies among the substance-specific standards. The cotton dust standard 
(29 CFR 1910.1043) requires that the respirator used exhibit minimum 
facepiece leakage and be fitted properly. The coke oven emissions 
standard (29 CFR 1910.1029) requires annual quantitative fit testing, 
but has no protocol for fit testing. The lead standard (29 CFR 
1910.1025) requires either qualitative or quantitative fit testing 
every six months and contains specific qualitative fit test protocols 
to be followed. Although the current respiratory protection standard 
refers to the necessity for proper fit, there are no procedures to 
follow or specific indications of how fit factors are to be taken into 
account in the assignment of respirators.
    There are two types of fit testing that can be used for tight 
fitting facepiece respirators that rely on a facepiece-to-face seal to 
perform adequately. Qualitative fit testing involves the introduction 
of a test agent into the breathing zone of the respirator wearer which 
can be detected by its irritant properties, taste, or smell. If the 
wearer detects the characteristic effect of the test agent used, it 
indicates that the respirator is leaking and does not fit properly, and 
thus a different respirator is needed to protect that employee. 
Quantitative fit testing involves the generation of a known 
concentration of a test agent outside the facepiece, and a measurement 
of the concentration within the facepiece of the respirator. The ratio 
of these concentrations yields a number which indicates the protective 
capability of the device. This approach does not involve the subjective 
response of the wearer as does the qualitative fit test.
    OSHA began including requirements for the use of quantitative fit 
testing in substance-specific standards starting in 1976 with the coke 
oven emissions standard. However, no procedures were provided. In the 
lead standard, OSHA conducted a separate rulemaking proceeding to 
address the appropriateness of QLFT. It was determined at that time 
that qualitative fit testing can be appropriate, but only under certain 
conditions. It was found, for example, that such fit testing can 
provide a reasonable degree of reliability only when specified 
protocols are followed. Thus the lead standard was revised to permit 
qualitative fit testing as well as quantitative fit testing to protect 
employees in atmospheres no greater than ten times the permissible 
exposure limit for lead, when exposed employees are wearing half mask 
negative pressure air-purifying respirators.
    The overall problems with respect to QLFT protocols that came to 
the surface in the lead standard revisions, plus the fact that there 
was no specified QNFT protocol, made it apparent that these subjects 
needed to be addressed in the overall respiratory protection standard. 
Proper fit is so essential to maximizing functioning of respirators 
that OSHA must include in its requirements the latest findings of 
respirator research on means to assess and assure such fit.
    In assessing the need to revise Sec. 1910.134, OSHA reviewed the 
Agency's enforcement statistics related to this standard for a period 
of about ten years, from 1972 to 1982 (9). This standard is one of the 
most frequently cited health standards, which indicates both a lack of 
understanding as to what is required for compliance, and a lack of 
awareness as to the importance of establishing and implementing a 
comprehensive respiratory protection program. During the period 
reviewed, there were 22,662 violations of the standard recorded, of 
which 8,406 were serious violations (37%). Some 3,648 of the violations 
were for not establishing a program (1,752 of these were serious 
because overexposure to hazardous substances were involved). Other 
commonly cited provisions include development of standard operating 
procedures; training and fit testing; cleaning and disinfection of 
equipment; storage of equipment; and use of approved respirators.
    Compliance should be enhanced by the provisions of the proposed 
standard. In those areas which are frequently cited, the new proposal 
provides additional guidance for employers to help ensure that they are 
aware of what is required to comply, and thus protect their employees 
adequately. OSHA expects that these revisions will improve the level of 
protection provided by the current standard: nothing in these revisions 
is intended to decrease protection provided under the current standard.
    To summarize OSHA's position, the Agency has determined that 
promulgating a revised respiratory protection standard is necessary to 
ensure that employees wearing respirators in the workplace are doing so 
under conditions which adequately protect their health. This 
determination by OSHA is supported by the public in responses to the 
ANPR published by the Agency. It is also necessitated by changes in 
respiratory protection methodology and subsequent revisions to the 
consensus standards upon which the current standard is based, thus 
making the current standard outdated. The determination of the need for 
the standard is also supported by OSHA's experiences in promulgating 
substance-specific standards with respiratory protection provisions in 
them, and in the Agency's enforcement experiences with the current 
standard.
    Based on an evaluation of these considerations, OSHA has prepared 
this proposed standard and is hereby initiating the public rulemaking 
process.

C. Recognition of the Need for a Standard by Other Groups

    The need for standardization in this area, particularly for 
consistent guidance and controlled practices, can also be demonstrated 
by the number and extent of voluntary standards that have been adopted, 
as well as by the existence of standards at all levels of government.
    As has already been discussed, the primary voluntary consensus 
standard in this area was that developed by the American National 
Standards Institute as ANSI Z88.2-1980, entitled ``Practices for 
Respiratory Protection'' (Ex. 10). This standard was an updated version 
of the 1969 ANSI standard which was used as the primary basis of OSHA's 
current standard, Sec. 1910.134. Following are some of the 1980 ANSI 
standard changes:
     Oxygen deficiency is more thoroughly discussed.
     Quantitative fit testing is now included and described.
     Qualitative fit testing is more fully described.
     The concept of protection factors is introduced and 
protection factors are assigned.
    ANSI has also developed a new standard on physical qualifications 
for respirator use (ANSI Z88.6-1984) (Ex. 38-10).
    The OSHA standard, based on the outdated 1969 ANSI standard, does 
not address these topics. The ANSI revisions reinforce OSHA's decision 
to revise its standard to address the same and other issues.
    Other countries also recognized the need for standards governing 
the use of respirators. Of particular note is the consensus standard 
recently developed by the Canadian Standards Association (Z94.4-M1982, 
Selection, Care and Use of Respirators) (10). This document is a 
comprehensive treatment of the subject and, similar to OSHA's proposed 
standard, its emphasis is on the establishment and implementation of a 
comprehensive respiratory protection program. As stated in the preface 
to that standard:

    The primary aim of this Standard is to give detailed instruction 
in the selection of the proper respirator and its use and 
maintenance. The emphasis is on the implementation of a respiratory 
protection program developed in a logical progression of steps 
beginning with:
    (a) A very clear definition of the hazards that will be 
encountered and the degree of protection required;
    (b) The selection and fitting of the respirator;
    (c) The required training in the correct use and care of the 
respirator; and
    (d) The implementation of a maintenance program that will ensure 
that a high level of respiratory protection is maintained.

    The Canadian consensus standard deals with several areas in more 
detail than OSHA's current standard, and some of the language used has 
been incorporated into this proposed standard, particularly in the 
areas of training and program evaluation.
    Documents developed by U.S. military organizations also indicate 
the need for comprehensive respiratory protection programs. A military 
standard entitled ``Respiratory Protection Program'' (TB MED 223/AFOSH 
STD 161-1/DLAM 1000.2) has been developed for the use of the Air Force, 
Army, and the Defense Logistics Agency (15). This document is similar 
to OSHA's current standard (Sec. 1910.134), but includes sections which 
expand upon the requirements of that standard and provide additional 
guidance in critical areas. The military standard provides considerable 
direction on the selection of respirators, including the protection 
factor concept, that is not included in OSHA's current standard. It 
also provides additional information on fit testing and training. 
OSHA's proposed standard similarly recognizes the deficiencies of 
Sec. 1910.134, and provides additional guidance to employers in these 
same areas as well as others.
    It can be seen from this brief discussion that there is widespread 
agreement among safety and health professionals that adequate 
respiratory protection cannot be provided in the absence of specific 
procedures. The range of equipment choices available, the diversity of 
hazards against which they are to protect, the differences in work 
situations, and other variables increase the complexity of the decision 
making process in terms of selecting the appropriate respirators, and 
ensuring they fit, are worn properly, and are maintained as necessary. 
OSHA proposes to revise its current standard to ensure that appropriate 
procedures are implemented by employers, and thus increase the 
probability that protection to the extent technologically feasible for 
respirators will be provided for employees.

V. Certification/Approval Procedures

    Section 1910.134 requires that only those respirators approved 
jointly by NIOSH and MSHA be used by the employer when they exist. The 
current respirator testing and approval regulation, 30 CFR 11, which 
authorized the Bureau of Mines (BM) and NIOSH to jointly approve 
respiratory protection devices was promulgated on March 25, 1972 at 37 
FR 6244. On November 5, 1974 the Mine Enforcement Safety Administration 
(MESA) joined NIOSH in jointly approving respirators. Following the 
transfer of MESA to the Department of Labor, where it became the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), authority was transferred on 
March 24, 1978 to MSHA for joint approval with NIOSH of respirators. 
Most of the BM respiratory testing methods, while developed in the 
1950's or earlier, were changed in the 1970's to reflect changes in 
testing technology.
    NIOSH initiated revision of 30 CFR 11 in 1980. A public meeting was 
held in July 1980 to address the certification program. On August 27, 
1987, NIOSH published a notice of proposed rulemaking (52 FR 32402) 
which would allow NIOSH to certify respirators under the new 42 CFR 
Part 84 regulations, replacing the current joint NIOSH/MSHA 30 CFR 11 
certification regulations. The proposed NIOSH certification regulations 
contained new and revised requirements for testing and certification of 
respirators, and included a set of minimum assigned protection factors 
for various classes of respirators. Public hearings on the first draft 
NIOSH proposal were held in January, 1988. On the basis of the comments 
received, NIOSH is preparing a revised proposal for further public 
comment.
    Numerous commenters to the ANPR addressed the issue of NIOSH 
respirator certification (Ex. 15-11, 15-27A, 15-58, 15-14, 15-43, 15-
50) and most agreed that the certification program should be improved. 
Some suggested that OSHA assume the function of certification of 
respirators. OSHA believes it is advisable not to undertake operation 
of the certification program currently operated by NIOSH and MSHA. OSHA 
has neither the expertise nor equipment to perform respirator 
performance testing. OSHA intends that information generated in this 
proceeding will be made available to NIOSH to use in its revision of 
its respirator certification standards, and that NIOSH will make its 
rulemaking record available to OSHA. OSHA believes that, for the 
present, the best course is to continue to require NIOSH respirator 
certification as it has in the past.

VI. Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment

Introduction

    Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact assessment 
be conducted for any rule having an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more, or adversely affecting in a material way the 
economy, sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, or 
state, local or tribal governments. In addition, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-353, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.)) requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) to determine whether a proposed regulation will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, 
et seq.) requires the agency to assess the environmental consequences 
of regulatory actions.
    In order to properly assess potential impacts, in 1988 OSHA 
prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (PRIA) for the proposed revisions to the respiratory 
protection standard. This analysis includes a profile of the affected 
industries, the estimated number of workers who wear respirators, and 
the nonregulatory alternatives, technological feasibility, costs, 
benefits, and an overall economic impact of the proposed standard. The 
PRIA is available in the OSHA Docket Office. OSHA believes the basic 
data and conclusions are still correct. Inflation has increased costs 
but has generally increased profits and sales in reasonably similar 
proportions. This assessment is largely based upon the conclusions of 
the PRIA; cost numbers have been adjusted for inflation.

Data Sources

    The primary sources of information used for this impact analysis 
are a report by Centaur Associates, Inc. entitled, ``Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Alternative Respiratory Protection 
Standards'' and a report by Centaur Associates, Inc. entitled, 
``Compliance Cost Analysis: Current and Proposed Respiratory Protection 
Standards'', available in the docket. Most of the information contained 
in this report was collected from an in-depth sample survey of the 
current work practices in 2,300 manufacturing plants in which 
respirators are used. The results from the manufacturing sector were 
extrapolated to nonmanufacturing plants and construction firms.
    A third source of data are the comments received by OSHA in 
response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). OSHA 
welcomes additional comments and all information supplied will be 
carefully reviewed and evaluated for incorporation into the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) that will accompany the final rule.

Industries and Employees Affected

    The data currently available to OSHA indicate that the proposed 
standard would affect approximately 3.6 million employees of whom 1.6 
million are employed in the manufacturing sector, 1.5 million are 
employed in the nonmanufacturing sector, and 0.5 million are employed 
in the construction sector. Of the 3.0 million employees who wear 
respirators for routine or occasional work, 1.1 million use respirators 
routinely and 1.9 million use respirators occasionally. About 600,000 
employees wear respirators for both routine and emergency use. Of these 
600,000 employees, approximately 150,000 wear respirators only for 
emergencies. Respirators are used routinely or occasionally in about 
606,200 establishments of which 123,200 are manufacturing plants, 
360,100 are nonmanufacturing plants, and 122,900 are construction 
sites. Respirators are also used only for emergencies in another 51,800 
establishments, of which 15,200 are manufacturing plants, 27,300 are 
nonmanufacturing plants, and 9,300 are construction sites. Each general 
industry and construction sector would be affected by this proposed 
standard because respirators are used in many different work activities 
in each of these sectors.

Nonregulatory Environment

    In general, worker compensation systems designed to compensate 
employees for occupationally related illnesses have not had a 
significant impact upon the incidence of long-term chronic occupational 
illnesses. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to determine 
the cause of illness at the time the disease is diagnosed. The long 
latency period between the exposure and the onset of disease, and the 
mobility of employees among occupations and firms combine to make it 
difficult to establish a direct causal relationship between an 
occupational exposure and the resultant illness. The absence of a 
readily observable cause and effect relationship provides a 
disincentive for some firms to establish appropriate safety and health 
measures. In addition, the lack of information regarding health risks, 
inadequate training, or a misunderstanding of the function of a 
respirator may lead to employee exposure to harmful levels of hazardous 
substances. Thus, the nonregulatory environment does not guarantee 
employee safety because the economic incentives are absent, employees 
are improperly trained in respirator use, and employees do not have 
sufficient information on the resultant benefits of respirator use.

Technological Feasibility

    The proposed respirator standard does not require the use of large-
scale capital equipment. All of the provisions involve equipment, 
evaluations, and work practices that are widely used. Thus, on the 
basis of the information currently available, the proposed standard has 
been found to be technologically feasible. Additional information that 
is submitted will be carefully evaluated by OSHA before issuing the 
final rule.

Summary of Cost

    OSHA derived its cost estimates by first examining the cost of 
coming into compliance with both the existing and proposed standards, 
using current work practices as its baseline. This estimate does not 
include the cost of purchasing the respirators; it includes only the 
cost of all the other activities required by the existing and proposed 
respiratory protection programs. The requirement to wear respirators 
comes from other standards or specific conditions--not from this 
standard. Consequently, respirator purchase has been costed in other 
standards which require their use. This standard requires improvements 
in the respirator program when other standards require their use and 
this analysis costs these additional program requirements.
    OSHA estimates that the total annualized incremental cost of the 
proposed revisions to the respirator standard are $106.8 million. As 
shown in Table A, approximately half of this cost ($55.6) is estimated 
to fall on the nonmanufacturing sector, with the remainder in 
manufacturing ($38.2) and construction ($13.1). The largest incremental 
cost is attributable to enhanced requirements for qualitative fit 
testing ($58.5 million). Other enhanced requirements include provisions 
dealing with disposable respirator practices ($16.7 million), 
respirator facepiece selection ($15.2 million), employee training 
($14.4 million) and respirator use in IDLH atmospheres ($10.4 million).
    In reviewing the original standard, some provisions were considered 
to impose costs on employers without providing safety, and have been 
modified. Cost savings would be derived from modified requirements 
regarding air quality in atmosphere-supplying respirators ($8 million) 
and eyeglass mounts ($0.4 million). These estimates are conservative, 
as they do not factor in savings to employers already in compliance 
with existing provisions.
    While the proposed standard clarifies a number of existing 
requirements, several of them were judged in the PRIA not to actually 
impose a new burden on employers. However, the respirator survey found 
significant noncompliance with several provisions of the existing 
standard, and by extension, the proposed standard. Costs relating to 
compliance with these provisions is discussed in depth in the PRIA.

           Table A.--Annualized Costs of Proposed Revisions to Respirator Standard (Millions $1992)\1\          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Sector                          
                      Provision                      -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Manufacturing  Nonmanufacturing  Construction     Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical.............................................          $0.0             $0.0            $0.0         $0.0
Qualitative Fit Testing (with protocols)............          17.3             33.0             8.1         58.5
Employee Training...................................           5.7              6.6             2.1         14.4
Program Administrator Training......................           0.0              0.0             0.0          0.0
Written Procedures..................................           0.0              0.0             0.0          0.0
Program Administration and Respirator Maintenance...           0.0              0.0             0.0          0.0
Storage.............................................           0.0              0.0             0.0          0.0
Eyeglass Mounts.....................................          -0.2             -0.1            -0.0         -0.4
Poor Warning Properties.............................           0.0              0.0             0.0          0.0
Respirator Use in IDLH\2\ Atmospheres...............           6.6              3.2             0.7         10.4
Air Quality in Atmosphere-Supplying Respirators.....          -4.2             -3.1            -0.7         -8.0
Disposable Respirator Practices.....................           9.4              5.6             1.7         16.7
Respirator Facepiece Selection......................           3.6             10.4             1.2         15.2
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................          38.2             55.6            13.1       106.8 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Represents incremental burden over existing standard; numbers may not add precisely due to rounding.         
A\2\Immediately dangerous to life and health.                                                                   
                                                                                                                
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                          
                                                                                                                

Benefits

    The proper use of a respirator when augmented by an appropriate 
respiratory protection program can prevent fatalities and illnesses 
from both acute and chronic exposures to hazardous substances. Based on 
data found in the OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS), 
OSHA determined that there is an annual average of 66,500 illnesses 
that are due to acute exposures to airborne hazardous substances. OSHA 
estimated that compliance with the existing standard could have 
prevented about 20 percent of these incidents, and that the proposed 
revisions to the existing standard could prevent an additional 5 to 10 
percent. Thus, full compliance with proposed revisions to the existing 
standard could prevent between 3,325 and 6,650 illnesses due to acute 
exposures annually.
    In addition, using an Office of Technology Assessment estimate that 
5 percent of all cancers are occupationally related, OSHA estimated 
that there are annually between 9,085 and 15,660 new cancer cases, 
between 6,850 and 11,000 cancer deaths, due to chronic exposures to 
occupational airborne carcinogens. In addition, airborne exposure to 
hazardous substances such as silica are estimated to account for 
another 4,200 chronic illnesses annually. OSHA anticipates that full 
compliance with the existing standard would prevent about 10 percent of 
these cases, and that proposed revisions to the existing standard would 
prevent an additional 2.5 to 5 percent. Thus, after a period of time, 
between 227 and 783 new cancer cases, between 171 and 550 cancer 
fatalities, and between 105 and 210 chronic illnesses could be 
prevented each year by full compliance with the proposed revisions to 
the respirator standard.
    OSHA requests public comment on these benefits estimates in general 
and the methodology used in making them. The agency requests comment on 
how much an effective respiratory protection program, as proposed, 
would reduce the level of occupational illness currently found. In 
addition, information and data are requested on current respirator use 
patterns as related to exposure (i.e. percentage of respirator users 
with potential exposures at levels up to 10 times the PEL; 50 times the 
PEL, etc.) and any anticipated impact this proposed standard would have 
on respirator use.

Economic Impact and Feasibility

    In assessing the economic feasibility of the respirator standard, 
the Agency examined the costs of compliance of the standard, in 
relation to sales and profits in affected industries. This analysis was 
based on data in the 1986 Centaur report for manufacturing, and on 
industry profile information from OSHA's 1989 PPE survey and 1992 Dun 
and Bradstreet financial data.
    OSHA assessed the potential economic impacts and has preliminarily 
determined that the standard is economically feasible for each of the 
major industry groups that will be affected. OSHA conducted its 
analysis at the two-digit SIC level. This has been OSHA's procedure for 
doing regulatory impact analyses for other proposed standards. OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that this is reflective of the actual impact on 
the average firm within each subsector. It does not appear that the 
affected groups will experience significant adverse economic impact as 
a result of the standard. However, if any interested person has 
information to show that the analysis at the two-digit level is not 
representative of the potential economic impact of the proposal, OSHA 
requests the following information: reasons why the preliminary 
regulatory impact analysis is not reflective of the actual anticipated 
costs in any particular sector; specific information as to why the 
analysis at the two-digit level fails to adequately represent the 
economic impact; and specific information to help OSHA to better 
predict the impact on the sector in question. Such information should 
be included in the comments on the proposal.
    As indicated in Table B, OSHA estimates that for all affected 
industries, incremental costs of compliance would amount to less than 
0.1 percent of sales, meaning that less than a 0.1 percent increase in 
prices would be necessary to cover these costs. At this level, 
businesses should have no trouble passing these costs onto consumers, 
as it is unlikely consumers would notice the difference, in the face of 
other market fluctuations. Even if this were somehow not possible, in 
the worst case, any reduction in profits would be less than 1% in any 
industry. For these reasons, the Agency anticipates the standard should 
be economically feasible in all industries.
    The Agency invites comment by any industries that anticipate 
problems with economic feasibility in complying with these revisions to 
the respirator standard.

             Table B.--Cost of Revisions to Respirator Standard as a Percentage of Sales and Profits            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pre-tax       Costs/     Costs/ 
      SIC                  Industry             Costs per       Sales per     profits per     sales     profits 
                                              establishment   establishment  establishment  (percent)  (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07.............  Agricultural Services......           $73         $316,434        29,249       0.023       0.25
08.............  Forestry...................           116          613,039        73,941        .019        .16
13.............  Oil & Gas Extraction.......           117       14,732,157     1,406,260        .001        .01
15,16,17.......  Construction...............           107          895,587        42,998        .012        .25
22.............  Textile Mill Products......         2,409        8,344,061       467,815        .029        .52
24.............  Lumber & Wood Products.....           151        3,152,807       186,290        .005        .08
25.............  Furniture & Fixtures.......           325        1,710,553        94,173        .019        .34
26.............  Paper & Allied Products....           721        3,359,030       196,804        .021        .37
28.............  Chemicals & Allied Products           627       22,228,880     1,234,883        .003        .05
29.............  Petroleum Refining.........           173        2,235,435       169,352        .008        .10
30.............  Rubber & Misc. Plastic                253       29,274,209     2,759,402        .001        .01
                  Products.                                                                                     
32.............  Stone, Clay, Glass &                  171      144,936,193     7,246,699        .000        .00
                  Concrete.                                                                                     
33.............  Primary Metal Industries...         1,120        7,173,641       452,870        .016        .25
34.............  Fabricated Metal Products..           167        6,805,024       436,597        .002        .04
35.............  Machinery (Except                     264        4,377,647       263,117        .006        .10
                  Electrical).                                                                                  
36.............  Electrical & Electronic               121       17,509,789       919,731        .001        .01
                  Equipment.                                                                                    
37.............  Transportation Equipment...           653        4,557,703       269,325        .014        .24
38.............  Measuring & Controlling                74        7,397,676       508,126        .001        .01
                  Instruments.                                                                                  
39.............  Misc. Manufacturing                   142       10,705,268       605,548        .001        .02
                  Industries.                                                                                   
41.............  Passenger Transportation...           146        1,350,813        63,449        .011        .23
42.............  Motor Freight..............            81        1,268,289        56,371        .006        .14
48.............  Communications.............           151       16,162,621     2,816,217        .001        .01
49.............  Utilities..................           792       16,459,198     1,712,408        .005        .05
50.............  Durable Wholesale Trade....           297        2,497,626       126,143        .012        .24
51.............  Nondurable Wholesale Trade.           115        5,059,902       212,107        .002        .05
52.............  Hardware, Garden, Mobile              225          994,229        45,694        .023        .49
                  Home Retail.                                                                                  
55.............  Auto Dealers & Service                 61        1,957,405        59,316        .003        .10
                  Stations.                                                                                     
75.............  Automotive Services........            83          394,881        28,719        .021        .29
76.............  Misc. Repair...............           110          188,739        18,493        .058        .59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                          

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Assistant 
Secretary preliminarily determined that the proposed standard would not 
be a significant burden upon a substantial number of small entities. 
There may, however, be a higher cost per respirator-wearing-employee 
for some small entities. In particular, larger plants that have in-
house testing facilities and in-house medical facilities would be able 
to provide the necessary services at lower unit costs than could 
smaller companies. OSHA is soliciting information on this issue, and 
any comments received will be carefully reviewed and evaluated for 
incorporation into the RIA of the final rule.

Environmental Impact Assessment--Finding of No Significant Impact

     The proposed rule and its alternatives have been reviewed in 
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and the 
Department of Labor's (DOL's) NEPA Procedures (29 CFR Part 11). As a 
result of this review, the Assistant Secretary for OSHA determined that 
the proposed rule will have no significant environmental impact.
    The focus of the proposed standard is on reducing risks to 
employees who must wear respiratory protection in order to reduce their 
exposures to hazardous airborne substances when effective engineering 
controls are not feasible, while they are being installed, or during 
emergencies. The proposed provisions include written respiratory 
protection programs and evaluation, medical evaluation, fit-testing 
procedures, guidance on the maintenance, care, and use of respirators, 
and training. The implementation of the respirator program would remove 
hazardous airborne particulates and contaminants from the breathing 
zone of the worker and not from the general ambient atmosphere in the 
work environment. In general, the procedures and applications of the 
proposed provisions do not impact on air, water or soil quality, plant 
or animal life, the use of land, or other aspects of the environment 
and therefore are not anticipated to have any significant effect on the 
environment.

VII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

    In developing the proposed standard, OSHA received and analyzed all 
of the regulations, documents, and comments described above, as well as 
other information the Agency has obtained during the developmental 
process. This information can be found in the public record, Docket H-
049. The material collected and reviewed generally supports OSHA's 
finding that in order to ensure adequate respiratory protection, 
employers requiring employees to wear respirators must develop and 
maintain an appropriate respiratory protection program.
    Setting clear protective requirements for selecting, fitting, 
using, and maintaining respiratory protective devices will help 
employers to provide the appropriate protection for their employees, 
and thus reduce their exposure to hazardous chemicals.
    This proposal is intended to replace OSHA's current respiratory 
protection standard for general industry, 29 CFR 1910.134, and the 
respiratory protection provisions in the OSHA construction standards, 
29 CFR 1926, and maritime standards, 29 CFR 1915-1918. Although a 
performance standard orientation has been adopted, enforcement 
experience with the current standard has shown that the existing 
requirements do not provide sufficient specific information for 
employers to comply, particularly in the areas of respirator selection, 
medical surveillance, and fit testing. Therefore, this proposal is 
designed to provide employers with a clear description of the 
appropriate steps to follow to establish an effective respiratory 
protection program.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be differing opinions regarding the 
particular provisions that should be included in such a comprehensive 
respiratory protection standard. The Agency is hereby soliciting 
information on alternative requirements to address the problems of 
inadequate or improper respiratory protection. The final standard 
adopted will incorporate whatever means are best for ensuring an 
effective respiratory protection program and which are supported by the 
public rulemaking record. The proposed standard continues the public 
rulemaking process by presenting the Agency's assessment of the best 
method to accomplish the development and maintenance of a respiratory 
protection program given our current state of knowledge.
    The following summary and explanation is designed to clarify the 
intent of the proposed provisions, as well as to identify issues OSHA 
is aware of and would like to receive comments on. Comments are also 
invited on other relevant issues which are not specifically raised in 
this discussion. All such comments should clearly identify the 
provision of the standard to which they apply, as well as the position 
taken on that provision. It is most helpful, and makes the record more 
accessible, when comments are organized in the same order that the 
standard is written and are indexed to the particular provisions of the 
standard to which they refer. It should also be noted that on technical 
issues, substantiation should be presented as well as opinion on the 
appropriateness of a particular requirement. Such substantiation may 
take the form of anecdotal evidence of experience, scientific data, 
etc. Submission of substantive commments helps OSHA build a thorough 
record upon which to base the final standard. A complete record on all 
the issues will help ensure that the final standard is appropriately 
drawn to address the issue of respiratory protection.

(A) Scope and Application

    The existing OSHA respirator standard contains a methods of 
compliance provision (Sec. 1910.134(a)(1)) which establishes a 
hierarchy of control techniques to be used for protecting employees 
from exposure to airborne contaminants, with engineering controls to be 
implemented first and respirators allowed only when engineering 
controls are not feasible or while they are being instituted.
    This provision of the standard is not a subject of this rulemaking; 
only issues relevant to the content of a respirator use program are to 
be addressed at this time. OSHA is reviewing Sec. 1910.134(a)(1) and 
similar hierarchy of controls provisions contained in Sec. 1910.1000 in 
a separate rulemaking.
    In the prepublication draft, OSHA asked whether to make the 
requirements for a respirator program apply whenever the employer 
either required or permitted the use of respirators. The requirement 
that the program be implemented whenever employees were permitted to 
wear respirators on their own was criticized by commenters (Ex. 36-11, 
36-13, 36-38, 36-44, 36-47, 36-48, 36-51A) who felt that this provision 
was inappropriate and would serve to discourage permission to use 
respirators voluntarily and thus, in some situations, could lessen 
workplace protection. Upon consideration of these comments, OSHA is now 
proposing to retain the wording in paragraph (a)(2) of the current 
standard which requires that respirators be provided when such 
equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee.
    Paragraph (a)(2) actually addresses two issues--(1) when 
respirators are required to be used and (2) that of the need to 
implement a full respiratory protection program. Regarding when 
respirators are required to be used, OSHA interprets paragraph (a)(2) 
as clearly requiring their use in the absence of engineering controls 
whenever employee exposures would exceed an OSHA permissible exposure 
limit (PEL) or warrant a 5(a)(1) citation under the OSH Act. Under 
these conditions, the proposal would require respirators to be provided 
by the employer and a respiratory protection program that meets the 
full requirements of the respirator standard to be implemented. This 
interpretation continues OSHA's existing compliance policy covering the 
required use of respirators.
    A respiratory protection program complying with the full provisions 
of this proposal would be required whenever an employer requires any 
employee to wear a respirator, regardless of the exposure level and 
whether the substance is regulated. The use of a respirator in itself 
could constitute a hazard and improper use of a respirator can also 
increase the exposure hazards and in some cases can make the exposures 
more dangerous than if the respirator had not been used in the first 
place.
    However, OSHA requests comments on whether the respirator program, 
when required by the employer in the absence of a regulatory 
requirement of another standard, could be modified for certain 
respirator types, uses, or conditions, to still provide the needed 
protection. Comments with supporting data are requested on what 
specific provisions of the proposal could be reduced or eliminated in 
this case based on respirator type or environmental or workplace 
conditions, and under what specific circumstances the required 
provisions could be changed.
    If a respirator is used by an employee but its use is not required 
by OSHA standards or statute, or by the employer, which is known as a 
voluntary respirator use situation, then the requirements of the 
proposed standard, although recommended, are not proposed to be 
mandatory.
    OSHA is also seeking comment on the appropriateness of the scope of 
the respirator standard, and on whether the scope of the standard 
should go beyond required respirator use to include voluntary 
respirator use situations as well.
    OSHA requests comments on whether there are certain low risk 
respirator use situations which could justify the reduction or 
elimination of certain provisions in the mandatory respirator program 
in order to provide additional compliance flexibility. How such lower 
risk situations could be defined, and which provisions could be 
modified or eliminated should be listed along with a discussion of how 
changing the provisions would effect potential risks of respirator use.
    The proposal contains a threshold of five hours of respirator wear 
in any work week before a medical evaluation must be obtained. Is a 
five hour threshold appropriate, or should it be larger, and if so, 
what specific situations would serve to justify a larger time 
threshold? Should there be any time limit, or should any respirator use 
trigger medical provisions?

(B) Definitions

    The proposed standard includes a number of definitions which are 
unique, and which should be consulted to properly understand the 
standard. The current respiratory protection standard has no 
definitions, which may have contributed to misunderstandings in knowing 
how to comply.
    A number of the definitions deal with specific types of respiratory 
protective devices, or with components of those devices. For example, 
``air-purifying respirator'', ``disposable respirator'', ``filter'', 
and ``positive pressure respirator'' are all defined in this paragraph. 
Most of these definitions are based on generally recognized sources, 
such as the current ANSI standard, or documents from the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Others have been 
developed by OSHA for purposes of this standard. With the few 
exceptions discussed in the following paragraphs, the definitions are 
straight forward and self-explanatory. OSHA invites comment on the 
appropriateness of these definitions and invites the submission of 
alternatives. Some of the definitions require explanation as follows.
    A definition for ``hazardous exposure level'' has been developed 
and included for the following purpose. In order to select a respirator 
which provides the proper degree of protection, it is necessary to know 
both the anticipated ambient airborne exposure level and the exposure 
that is acceptable in the breathing zone. One can then determine the 
extent to which the respirator must reduce the ambient exposure level. 
Thus in the respirator selection scheme, an exposure limit must be used 
to establish a goal to determine the degree of protection needed for 
employees exposed in a given work situation. Although this standard 
does not set specific exposure limits, a concept of exposure must be 
included in the selection criteria to be consistent with current 
practice.
    Since OSHA has permissible exposure limits established for about 
600 substances, and there are thousands of hazardous substances to 
which employees are exposed, other sources of hazard information must 
be used for substances not regulated by OSHA. This does not mean that 
OSHA is in effect establishing permissible exposure limits for these 
other substances. It just means that where employers decide to use 
respirators to control exposure, a target exposure level must be 
established to determine the appropriate respirator to use. Therefore, 
OSHA has defined the term ``hazardous exposure level'' for purposes of 
selecting respirators, as follows.
    Where OSHA does have a PEL, it must be used. If there is no PEL for 
the substance, the employer must use the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) 
for the chemical if one exists.
    If there is no PEL or TLV for the chemical, the employer must 
determine the ``hazardous exposure level'' based on available 
scientific information including the MSDS. In some situations, the 
suppliers of the chemicals may make recommendations for appropriate 
exposure levels based on their own experience. In any event, the 
employer must establish a protective goal, based on available 
information, in order to choose the appropriate respirator, and must be 
able to substantiate how that goal was chosen.
    It should be noted that the OSHA PEL, ACGIH TLV, and other 
available exposure limits are required to be reported on the material 
safety data sheet generated by chemical manufacturers and importers 
under the requirements of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 
1910.1200). This information should assist downstream employers in 
choosing respirators to protect their employees.
    As stated in the scope paragraph, the standard is to apply when 
employees are required to wear respirators to reduce their exposures to 
airborne concentrations of ``hazardous chemicals'' in the workplace. 
For purposes of this standard, ``hazardous chemical'' is defined as a 
substance which meets the definition of ``health hazard'' under OSHA's 
Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). This approach helps 
to ensure that definitions of hazard are consistent in current OSHA 
standards; provides a broad scope of coverage for this standard; and 
incorporates a data base for employers in the form of material safety 
data sheets generated under the requirements of the Hazard 
Communication Standard.
    The Hazard Communication Standard defines ``health hazard'' as a 
substance for which there is statistically significant evidence based 
on at least one study conducted in accordance with established 
scientific principles, showing that acute or chronic health effects may 
occur in exposed employees. The term ``health hazard'' includes 
substances which are carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents, 
reproductive toxins, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers, hepatotoxins, 
nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, agents which act on the hematopoietic 
system, and agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes or mucous 
membranes.
    OSHA notes that the definition of ``hazardous chemical'' is used 
here merely to target the broad range of substances which may entail 
respirator use. However the requirements of this proposed standard only 
apply when a regulated substance is being used or when an employer 
requires the use of a respirator for any reason. One term which is 
frequently used in regard to atmospheres which require respiratory 
protection is ``immediately dangerous to life or health'' or ``IDLH.'' 
Such atmospheres require the most protective types of respirators for 
workers. Although the term is used frequently, there has been no one 
accepted definition of it. In the preproposal draft of the respirator 
standard, OSHA defined an IDLH atmosphere as one ``where the 
concentration of oxygen or hazardous chemical(s) would cause a person 
without respiratory protection to be fatally injured or would cause 
irreversible or incapacitating effects on that person's health.'' In 
addition, the definition stated that in establishing the IDLH for a 
workplace situation, the employer was to consider ``the maximum 
concentration of the hazardous chemical at which one could escape 
within ten minutes without any escape-impairing or immediate or delayed 
irreversible health effects'' and ``the minimum concentration of the 
hazardous chemical at which severe eye or respiratory irritation or 
other reactions would inhibit escape without injury.'' This definition 
was derived from the IDLH definition in the Joint NIOSH/OSHA Respirator 
Decision Logic. An escape time of 30 minutes was considered in the 
Decision Logic as the maximum permissible exposure time for escape from 
an IDLH atmosphere. There has always been disagreement whether the 
maximum escape time should be reduced to 10 minutes as OSHA recommended 
in the preproposal draft, or whether some other time limit such as 15 
or 30 minutes should be used. Since there is no clear evidence as to 
what the time limit should be and just how such a limit would be used 
in determining an IDLH atmosphere, OSHA is proposing a less specific, 
but clearly protective, IDLH definition that does not refer to a 
maximum escape time limit, as described below.
    NIOSH revised its IDLH definition in the August 27, 1987 (52 FR 
32413) proposed revision of the respiratory protective devices 
certification procedures to read:
    ``Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health'' (IDLH): Respiratory 
exposures which:
    (1) Pose an immediate threat of loss of life or of irreversible or 
delayed effects on health or;
    (2) Eye exposures which would prevent escape from such an 
atmosphere.
    The OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 
Standard, 29 CFR 1910.120, contains an IDLH definition that reads as 
follows:
    ``IDLH'' or ``Immediately dangerous to life or health'' means an 
atmospheric concentration of any toxic, corrosive, or asphyxiant 
substance that poses an immediate threat to life or would cause 
irreversible or delayed adverse health effects or would interfere with 
an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.
    The hazardous waste IDLH definition addresses all the issues 
covered in the NIOSH IDLH definition and more clearly addresses 
asphyxiant atmospheres. OSHA has therefore chosen to adopt the 
hazardous waste operations IDLH definition for this respiratory 
protection proposal which, in addition to being most appropriate, will 
also assure consistency between the various OSHA standards that address 
IDLH atmospheres. Comment is requested on this definition of 
immediately dangerous to life or health, and on its appropriateness for 
respiratory protection standards.
    Since the warning properties of a gas or vapor are to be considered 
in the selection of an air-purifying respirator, OSHA has included a 
definition of what constitutes ``adequate warning properties.'' The 
``adequate warning properties'' referred to in regard to respiratory 
protection are ``the detectable characteristics of a hazardous 
chemical, including odor, taste, and/or irritation effects which are 
detectable and persistent at concentrations at or below a hazardous 
exposure level and exposure at these low levels does not cause 
olfactory fatigue.'' This definition combines the definitions for 
warning properties and adequate warning properties from the preproposal 
draft.
    The definitions of ``oxygen deficient atmosphere'' and ``oxygen 
deficient IDLH atmosphere'' have also been changed from the definitions 
in the preproposal draft. An oxygen deficient atmosphere is now defined 
as ``an atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5% by volume 
at altitudes of 8000 feet or below.'' This definition retains the 
traditional 19.5% oxygen level as the point below which an oxygen 
deficient atmosphere exists. It is also consistent with the minimum 
oxygen content of Grade D breathing air. Above 8000 feet, an oxygen 
deficient atmosphere, one with an oxygen level below 19.5%, would also 
be considered an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere (see below) and the 
proposal treats it as such. Thus the definition for ``oxygen 
deficient'' does not address altitudes above 8000 feet. This change in 
definition will allow the use of air-purifying respirators in normal 
atmospheric air for altitudes up to 14,000 feet.
    The oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere definition has been changed to 
``an atmosphere with an oxygen content below 16% by volume at altitudes 
of 3000 feet or below, or below the oxygen levels specified in Table I 
for altitudes up to 8000 feet, or below 19.5% for altitudes above 8000 
feet up to 14,000 feet.'' An oxygen content of 16% at 3000 feet of 
altitude corresponds to an oxygen partial pressure of 100 millimeters 
of mercury in the freshly inspired air in the upper portion of the 
lungs which is saturated with water vapor. This oxygen partial pressure 
is level which the ANSI Z88.2-1980 respirator standard defines as 
``oxygen deficiency, immediately dangerous to life or health''. 
However, rather than using the calculation formula from ANSI, this 
proposal provides an equivalent table of the oxygen percentages for 
oxygen deficient atmospheres and oxygen deficient IDLH atmospheres at 
various altitudes for simplicity of use. The table provides a side-by-
side presentation of the oxygen deficient atmosphere and oxygen 
deficient IDLH atmosphere levels to avoid any confusion between the 
two, and removes the necessity of calculating the values from a 
formula.
    At altitudes above 8000 feet up to 14,000 feet an oxygen deficient 
IDLH atmosphere would exist when the oxygen content in the workplace 
atmosphere falls below 19.5%. The respirator selection provision of the 
proposal require that an atmosphere-supplying respirator with auxiliary 
escape provision or an SCBA be used in such situations. These 
respirators supply the wearer with Grade D breathing air. Since the 
allowable oxygen content in Grade D breathing air can range from 19.5% 
to 23% oxygen, OSHA has chosen the 19.5% lowest allowable oxygen level 
for Grade D air as the level below which an oxygen deficient IDLH 
atmosphere would occur for altitudes above 8000 feet.
    OSHA requests comments and specific data on the effects of reduced 
oxygen content in workplace atmospheres and on the appropriateness of 
the ``oxygen deficient'' atmosphere and ``oxygen deficient IDLH'' 
atmosphere definitions contained in the proposal. Alternatives to the 
OSHA proposed definitions should include the physiologic basis for any 
changes proposed for the oxygen levels used to determine these oxygen 
deficient atmospheres.

(C) Respiratory Protection Program

    Once an employer has decided to use respiratory protection, a 
written respiratory protection program must be developed and 
implemented. This requirement is essentially the same as that in the 
existing respirator standard, 29 CFR 1910.134(b)(1), which requires 
that written standard operating procedures governing the selection and 
use of respirators be established. The purpose of this requirement is 
to ensure that employers establish a standardized procedure for 
selecting, using, and maintaining respirators for each workplace where 
respirators will be used.
    The ANSI Z88.2-1980 standard for respiratory protection states that 
written standard operating procedures covering a complete respirator 
program shall be established and implemented (Ex. 10). This performance 
oriented requirement recognizes the need for a systematic respiratory 
protection program to provide for consistency in protection. The ANSI 
standard does not contain detailed instructions on the content of 
standard operating procedures, but it does describe elements of a 
minimally acceptable respirator program.
    The current OSHA respirator standard requires written standard 
operating procedures covering selection, use, cleaning, maintenance, 
inspections, emergency use, training of supervisors and respirator 
wearers, and recordkeeping. As part of the preliminary regulatory 
impact analysis for this proposal, data were collected on current 
respirator practices and procedures in over 2300 manufacturing plants 
in 15 SIC codes. This sample was extrapolated to produce estimates of 
respirator-related practices for about 123,200 manufacturing plants 
with routine and occasional respirator use. Only 25.5% of these plants 
are estimated to have had written standard operating procedures, and 
only 7.9% had procedures that addressed all seven areas specified. Over 
80% of the large plants (1000 or more employees) had written 
procedures, while in small plants (less than 50 employees) only about 
22% had written procedures. The survey showed that the intent of the 
existing respirator standard as well as the areas to be addressed in 
standard operating procedures were not clear to employers.
    In a review of violations of the OSHA respirator standard from 1977 
to 1982, 13% of the citations were for lack of standard operating 
procedures (Ex. 33-5). This percentage of citations actually 
underrepresents the total number of cases where problems were found 
since it is OSHA policy not to issue citations when no overexposures 
were documented.
    A review of the comments received in response to the ANPR showed 
wide general support for the requirement for written standard operating 
procedures. Only one comment by Western Electric Co. for AT&T (Ex. 15-
51) recommended that the written program requirement be dropped. The 
commenter stated that while many users of respirators require written 
procedures for an effective protection program, OSHA should not be 
concerned about written procedures, but only about the overall 
effectiveness of the respirator program. There were several submissions 
that supported the existing written standard operating procedure 
requirement (Ex. 15-37, 15-42, 15-50, 15-56, 15-77) and recommended 
that OSHA make no significant changes. However, OSHA's compliance 
experience shows that there is a need to clarify the intent of the 
requirement and make it clear to employers what OSHA expects in a 
written respiratory protection program.
    Several ANPR commenters felt OSHA should not include detailed 
specifications in the requirement for written standard operating 
procedures (Ex. 15-13, 15-22, 15-30, 15-55, 15-73, 15-75). Some felt 
the requirement should be written in performance language, with the 
specific contents of the procedures to be left to the employer (Ex. 15-
26, 15-41, 15-44, 15-52, 15-70, 15-76). The ANSI Z88.2-1980 
specifications were considered adequate and were recommended by still 
others (Ex. 15-14, 15-31, 15-33, 15-35, 15-46, 15-58). Certain 
commenters presented lists of recommended elements to be covered where 
appropriate in the procedures (Ex. 15-18, 15-19, 15-22, 15-34, 15-53, 
15-81). These recommended areas for coverage in the written standard 
operating procedures varied slightly among the commenters, but the 
major areas of respirator inspection, cleaning, maintenance, selection, 
training, use, fit testing, recordkeeping and program evaluation were 
common to most of the lists. Others recommended OSHA use the program 
specification in the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) respirator 
training program or in the NIOSH guide to respiratory protection (Ex. 
15-27A, 15-81). The AIHA (Ex. 15-81) also stated that the standard 
operating procedures should be more specific in defining employer/
employee responsibilities and the types of respirators required for 
specific jobs.
    Written standard operating procedures are essential to an effective 
respiratory protection program. Developing and writing down standard 
operating procedures requires employers to think through just how all 
of the requirements of the respiratory protection standard will be met 
in their workplace. The current respirator standard requires that 
employers develop written standard operating procedures that include 
all information and guidance necessary for respirator selection, use, 
and care, along with written procedures covering safe use of 
respirators in dangerous atmospheres that might be encountered in 
normal operations or emergencies. The proposal in section (c) contains 
additional descriptions of the elements to be included in the written 
standard operating procedures to provide additional guidance for 
employers. The requirement is performance oriented since the proposal 
does not contain detailed specifications for the required written 
standard operating procedures. The list of elements to be covered is 
similar to those contained in the ANSI Z88.2-1980 standard, and 
includes many of the recommended elements presented by commenters to 
the preproposal draft (Ex. 15-18, 15-19, 15-22, 15-34, 15-53, 15-81). 
The specific contents of the procedures are left to the employer who 
can tailor them to match the many varied situations that can occur. 
Many of the elements will be common to all respiratory protection 
programs, such as respirator selection, care, use, training, and 
program evaluation. Some elements such as air quality with supplied air 
respirators are required only when those types of respirators are used.
    The elements of the standard operating procedures are part of the 
mandatory provisions of the proposal. Listing the requirements in a 
non-mandatory appendix, as was suggested, would perpetuate a recognized 
problem area. The current standard fails to clearly identify the areas 
to be covered in the written standard operating procedures, and as a 
result only a quarter of the written procedures that were surveyed 
addressed all the needed elements (Ex. 33-5). Placing the elements in a 
non-mandatory appendix would encourage the continuance of current 
practice in writing standard operating procedures. The problem is not 
only poorly written procedures, but failure to address some of the 
necessary elements at all. Only by making the required elements 
mandatory and enforceable can an improvement in written standard 
operating procedures and thus an overall program be assured.
    Employers are required by the proposal to designate a person 
qualified by training and/or experience in the proper selection, use, 
and maintenance of respirators to be responsible for implementing the 
respirator protection program, and for conducting the periodic 
evaluations of its effectiveness. This requirement is similar to that 
in the ANSI standard (Ex. 10) which requires that responsibility and 
authority for the respirator program be assigned to a single qualified 
person with sufficient knowledge of respirator protection to properly 
supervise the program. The OSHA standard is performance oriented since 
it allows the employer to choose the person best qualified for the 
assignment.
    The training requirements of the respirator program supervisors was 
the subject of a question in the ANPR. Several ANPR commenters said 
that specifying the type of training required would be beyond the scope 
of the standard (Ex. 15-13, 15-35, 15-75, 15-75A, 15-75c). Others 
recommended OSHA adopt the performance language of the ANSI standard 
(Ex. 15-26, 15-31, 15-38). Still others recommended that the supervisor 
be under the direction of an industrial hygienist or safety 
professional (Ex. 15-55, 15-70, 15-76). Some wanted the level of 
training required to be commensurate with the complexity of the program 
and the degree of risk. (Ex. 15-18, 15-37, 15-46, 15-47, 15-59). Most, 
however, recommended that OSHA require the supervisor to have knowledge 
of respirators equivalent to that obtained from taking the NIOSH 
occupational respiratory protection course. (Ex. 15-30, 15-33, 15-41, 
15-42, 15-52, 15-53, 15-54, 15-58, 15-62, 15-71, 15-73).
    Specifying in detail the type and extent of training required for 
program supervisors has not been done in this proposal. The level of 
training that would be appropriate for a workplace with limited 
respirator use would be quite different from that required at another 
workplace with extensive respirator use that includes IDLH atmospheres, 
highly toxic chemicals, or other complex respirator use operations. 
Therefore, OSHA has adopted a performance language provision for 
program supervisor training that is similar to the ANSI standard 
requirement. The level of training for the respirator program 
supervisor must be adequate to deal with the complexity of the 
respirator program. OSHA has not established any one training program, 
such as the NIOSH respirator course, as the level of training program 
supervisors must achieve. The NIOSH course covers many different 
respirator types and uses, and may provide too much information on 
certain types of respirators such as SCBAs for program supervisors who 
run simple programs, yet not provide enough information for respirator 
program supervisors with a highly complex respirator program. The 
program supervisor can also use the assistance of industrial 
hygienists, safety professionals, or other respirator experts to help 
run the respirator program. Therefore, the training requirements for 
respirator program supervisors have been written in performance 
language, to allow the training requirements to fit the needs of the 
respirator program.
    A number of commenters on the preproposal draft addressed the issue 
of program administration. Only the American Textile Manufacturer's 
Institute (Ex. 36-18) felt the requirement that a person be designated 
to administer the respiratory protection program should be deleted. 
Other commenters supported the requirement (Ex. 36-14, 36-31, 36-36, 
36-40, 36-44, 36-47). The training requirements for the program 
administrator was also the subject of comments. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (Ex. 36-31) recommended that both training and 6 to 12 
months field experience in using respirators should be required. 
Lawrence Durio (Ex. 36-36) recommended that the person responsible for 
the respirator protection program be a certified industrial hygienist 
or complete a NIOSH sponsored course in respiratory protection designed 
specifically for the training of respiratory protection program 
managers. Richard Boggs of ORC (Ex. 36-47) recommended that the 
qualifications of the administrator reflect the complexity of the 
respirator program. California/OSHA (Ex. 36-44) recommended that all 
program administers at least have demonstrable knowledge of the 
requirements of 1910.134 and where respirators may be used for entry 
into IDLH atmospheres, the program administrator must attend the NIOSH 
respirator course or equivalent. Donald Rapp of the Dow Chemical 
Company (Ex. 36-40) recommended that OSHA allow a committee as well as 
an individual to be the responsible party, since a committee is more 
likely to be responsible for the program than an individual in larger 
companies. ORC (Ex. 36-47) also recommended that OSHA allow 
responsibility to be vested in an individual or in a committee/
department designated as the central authority.
    To assure that the integrity of the respiratory protection program 
is maintained through the continuous oversight of one responsible 
individual, the proposal requires that a qualified person be designated 
as responsible for the management and administration of the program. 
That individual can work with a committee or assign responsibility for 
portions of the program to other personnel, but the overall 
responsibility for the operation of the program remains with the 
designated person. This approach promotes coordination of all facets of 
the program. The training requirement for the program administrator has 
been left performance oriented. With the varying complexity of 
respirator programs, specifying a uniform training requirement would be 
very difficult. The level of training required varies with the 
complexity of the respirator program. OSHA invites further comments on 
whether specific minimum training requirements for program 
administrators should be set, and on what the training should be.
    Employers are required to keep the written respiratory protection 
program current. The preproposal draft required that the written 
respiratory protection program be maintained ``in a current fashion.'' 
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (Ex. 36-37) recommended 
that the phrase ``in a current fashion'' be deleted since requiring 
that the employer maintain the written program implies that it be 
maintained in a current fashion. In order to clarify the intent of the 
provision the phrase ``in a current fashion'' has been removed and the 
wording has been revised to require that the employer maintain a 
written respiratory protection program that reflects current workplace 
conditions and respirator use. As the workplace situation or respirator 
use changes, the program is to be revised. Also the program must be 
made available, upon request, to employees, designated representatives 
and to OSHA.

(D) Selection of Respirators

1. Introduction
    The existing OSHA respiratory standard does not contain specific 
guidance for the selection of respirators. Instead, the standard 
requires that the selection of respirators be made according to the 
guidance of the American National Standard, Practices for Respirator 
Protection Z88.2-1969. The 1969 ANSI standard recommended appropriate 
respirators for use with various categories of contaminants, but did 
not attempt to set individual protection levels for each type of 
respirator. Although the ANSI standard was revised in 1980, the current 
ANSI committee (Ex. 36-55) considered the 1980 standard to be obsolete 
and was in the process of developing another revision with provisions 
that differ substantially from the 1980 version. A consensus on a 
revised 1992 ANSI standard was not reached by ANSI during the time of 
the original OSHA rulemaking comment periods. Therefore there were no 
substantive comments received by OSHA on the provisions of the revised 
1992 ANSI respiratory protection standard. However, as discussed later, 
OSHA has reviewed the new ANSI standard and has given it thorough 
consideration in the preparation of the final OSHA proposed standard.
    The joint NIOSH/OSHA respiratory decision logic, originally 
published in 1975, was an early attempt to develop a logic for 
respirator selection that could easily be followed and would enable an 
individual to pick the appropriate respirator consistently. OSHA 
believes that changes in respirator technology and new data on 
respirator fit and protection levels have rendered this early decision 
logic, as well as the 1980 ANSI standard obsolete, and rules for 
selection are essential to avoid the risk of using respirators which 
are incapable of providing the necessary protection. The current OSHA 
standard lacks such rules, and an analysis of enforcement experience 
(Ex. 33-5) shows that as a result, the selection of inappropriate or 
unapproved respirators and failure to provide suitable respiratory 
protection accounted for 26% of the violations of the respirator 
standard cited during fiscal years 1977 to 1982.
    The proposal requires employers to provide respiratory protection 
at no cost to employees. This is consistent with the provisions of the 
current respiratory protection standard, as well as with the OSH Act, 
to ensure that employers provide whatever controls are necessary to 
protect employees from hazards generated by the work operation.
    Where elastomeric facepieces are to be used, the employer shall 
provide a selection of respirators from an assortment of at least three 
sizes for each type of facepiece from at least two manufacturers. 
Comments were received stating that the cost of maintaining three 
different sizes of two manufacturer's respirators would appear 
excessive if only one or two employees require a respirator (Ex. 36-
32). Others indicated that the assortment should be required for the 
initial fit (Ex. 36-28, 36-36) but not for the annual retest since each 
fit test respirator must be cleaned before its next use. OSHA is 
maintaining in this proposal the requirement for an assortment of 
respirators for both the initial and annual fit tests. OSHA believes 
that nothing in the course of respirator use is more important than 
achieving the best possible fitting respirator and that this is only 
possible where an adequate selection is available. Availability of 
different sizes and types of respirators during retesting is especially 
critical where the employee's physical conditions may have changed as 
the result of a modest weight change or changed facial configuration 
due to surgery or dental work, which may affect respirator fit.
2. Workplace Conditions
    The first step in selecting respirators for a particular workplace 
is to consider available information concerning workplace conditions 
and characteristics of the hazardous chemical. The proposal lists 
eleven such categories of information.
    (i) Nature of the hazard. The nature of the hazard, whether it is 
in the form of a gas, dust, organic vapor, fume, mist, oxygen 
deficiency, or any combination of hazards needs to be taken into 
account.
    (ii) Physical and chemical properties of the air contaminant. The 
physical and chemical properties that affect respirator selection such 
as particle size for dusts, vapor pressure, breakthrough times, and the 
ability of the filter material to remove, adsorb, or absorb the 
contaminant.
    (iii) The adverse health effects of the respiratory hazard. In 
selecting a respirator any adverse physiological effects that may occur 
from exposure to the hazard, including effects that may occur due to 
respirator leaks or failure need to be considered.
    (iv) The relevant permissible exposure limit or recommended 
exposure limit. The OSHA permissible exposure limit, or in its absence, 
any American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
recommended Threshold Limit Value (TLV), NIOSH recommended exposure 
limit, or other exposure limit set by the employer must be considered 
in selecting the appropriate respirator.
    (v) The results of workplace sampling of airborne concentrations of 
contaminants. Sampling and analysis of the workplace air determines 
what degree of exposure is occurring, and thus what degree of 
protection is required. Where such sampling and analysis have been 
done, the results are to be used as a point of comparison for the 
hazardous exposure level i.e. to determine how much the concentration 
must be lowered by the respirator to reduce employee exposure to a safe 
level.
    (vi) Nature of the work operation or process. The type of job 
operation, the equipment or tools that will be used, and any motion or 
travel the job requires can influence the type of respirator selected. 
For example, in the case where respirators are used to protect 
employees who are spray painting or working at an open surface tank, 
the type of operation can affect the type of respirator selected, 
particularly if supplied air respirators, which require a connection to 
a clean air source, are used.
    (vii) Time period respirator is worn. The employer must also 
consider the period of time during which the respirator will be used by 
employees during a work shift. Breakthrough times for different 
chemicals can vary greatly, and are dependent on the concentrations 
found in the workplace. A respirator that provides adequate protection 
for one chemical may be inadequate for another chemical with a 
different breakthrough time. In addition, employees wearing respirators 
for longer periods of time may need different types of respirators for 
more comfortable wear.
    (viii) Work activities and stress. The work activities of employees 
while wearing respirators are also a factor. Heavy work that is 
physically draining may affect an employee's capability of wearing 
certain types of respirators.
    Temperature and humidity conditions in the workplace may also 
affect the stress level associated with wearing a respirator as well as 
the effectiveness of respirator filters and cartridges. These types of 
factors must be assessed in selecting the appropriate equipment for a 
particular work situation.
    (ix) Fit testing. The proposal includes requirements for fit 
testing. The results of these tests are to be used in the selection 
process. Some employees may be unable to achieve an adequate fit with 
certain respirator models or a particular type of respirator--such as 
half mask air-purifying respirators--so an alternative respirator model 
with an adequate fit or other type of respirator that provides adequate 
protection must be used. Fit test results must be used to determine 
when this is the case and what alternative respirator should be 
selected.
    (x) Warning properties. The warning properties of a hazardous gas 
or vapor must also be considered when selecting a respirator. When 
using an air purifying respirator the odor, taste, or irritation 
effects of the substance present should have a threshold concentration 
low enough so that the substance can be detected before health effects 
can occur. Also, the detection threshold should be low enough that 
olfactory fatigue with subsequent loss of the warning properties of the 
chemical cannot occur. This subject is discussed in more detail under 
section 5 below.
    (xi) Physical characteristics, functional capabilities, and 
limitations of respirators. The last category of information to be 
considered when selecting respiratory protection is the physical 
characteristics, functional capabilities, and limitations of the 
respiratory protection equipment itself. For example, airline 
respirators should not be used by mobile employees around moving 
machinery unless entanglement of airlines in equipment is easily 
avoided.
    Once the employer has determined what respirator types are 
appropriate for the workplace, respirators must be selected from among 
those approved and certified according to 42 CFR Part 84 by the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) when such 
respirators exist.
3. Use of NIOSH/MSHA Certified Respirators
    a. Alternatives. Alternatives to requiring that NIOSH/MSHA 
certified respirators be used are limited. Several ANPR commenters 
stated that OSHA should allow the use of non-approved respirators for 
which scientifically valid test data are available (Ex. 15-11, 15-38, 
15-45, 15-53, 15-54, 15-55, 15-56, 15-58, 15-81), where the respirators 
were tested by independent laboratories (Ex. 15-10, 15-53) or where the 
manufacturer has sound test data (Ex. 15-10, 15-19, 15-53, 15-62, 15-
73). Others insisted that OSHA should not accept respirator 
certification from any source other than NIOSH/MSHA (Ex. 15-14, 15-34, 
15-46, 15-48, 15-70, 15-75A, 15-77). OSHA regards all such suggestions 
as having serious flaws.
    Independent certification laboratories for respirators do not yet 
exist. An extensive commitment of money and resources would be required 
by any private organization establishing such a testing system. Some 
believe that if OSHA allows certification of respirators by independent 
laboratories, this will encourage the development of such systems. 
However, it would be very difficult to write a provision allowing 
independent certification systems when none now exist. Developing the 
respirator test protocols such independent laboratories would use would 
involve a considerable level of effort and would duplicate the revision 
efforts already underway by NIOSH to revise the respirator 
certification standards. Moreover it would be necessary to establish a 
program to certify the testing laboratories as well. The Agency does 
not presently have the means to accomplish such assessments, and in 
fact, does not have the personnel or resources to become certifiers of 
respirators.
    OSHA is therefore proposing to maintain the requirement that NIOSH 
approved respirators be used when such respirators exist. For OSHA 
compliance purposes, a respirator certification program is necessary in 
order to assure that respirators used in industry are capable of 
providing the needed protection. OSHA recognizes that there are 
problems with the existing NIOSH/MSHA certification program. Several of 
the comments OSHA received were related to problems with NIOSH/MSHA 
respirator certification, including the issue of modifications to 
respirators, interchanging of respirator parts and the use of 
respirators for which NIOSH has not yet granted approval. Since these 
problem areas are being addressed by NIOSH during its revision of the 
respirator certification program under the new 42 CFR 84, it is 
inappropriate for OSHA to try to correct problems with the present 
NIOSH/MSHA regulations in the revised OSHA respirator standard.
    b. Approval for modified respirators. Several commenters suggested 
that OSHA should not automatically reject the use of approved 
respirators that have modifications (Ex. 15-10, 15-19, 15-22, 15-26, 
15-31, 15-40, 15-41, 15-45, 15-46, 15-52, 15-54, 15-55, 15-56, 15-62, 
15-75c). Modifications could include interchange of parts, canisters, 
air hoses, etc. These modifications would have to be evaluated, whether 
through testing to demonstrate comparable protection and reliability 
(Ex. 15-10, 15-22, 15-31, 15-38, 15-46, 15-50, 15-52, 15-53, 15-54, 15-
55, 15-62, 15-73, 15-75c, 15-81), by requiring that modifications be 
done under the auspices of NIOSH (Ex. 15-18, 15-33, 15-38, 15-76), or 
by allowing minor modifications if approved by a certified industrial 
hygienist (Ex. 15-73). OSHA believes that NIOSH is the appropriate 
Agency to consider this issue and that such consideration should be 
part of the certification process.
    OSHA also believes that the proposed 42 CFR Part 84 is the proper 
forum in which to resolve any problems with respirator modifications. 
Therefore, this proposal does not change OSHA's general policy of 
rejecting modifications to approved respirators.
    OSHA invites comment on the question of whether to require NIOSH 
approval for the respirators selected, and on alternatives to this 
requirement, including practical considerations of compliance and 
enforcement.
    c. Use of non-approved respirators. Several commenters on the 
preproposal draft recommended that OSHA establish procedures for 
permitting the use of non-approved respirators. (Ex. 36-22, 36-28, 36-
29, 36-30, 36-36, 36-41, 36-44, 36-45, 36-47, 36-51A, 36-52, 36-53). As 
was pointed out, there are types of respiratory protection, such as 
supplied air suits for which no NIOSH/MSHA approval schedule currently 
exists (Ex. 36-28, 36-29, 36-36, 36-52, 36-53). California OSHA (Ex. 
36-44) recommended that OSHA add wording that would give OSHA the 
ability to approve respirators that do not have a NIOSH/MSHA approval 
schedule. The Industrial Safety Equipment Association (Ex. 36-45) 
stated that OSHA should allow the use of non-approved respirators if 
data are available to show that they operate satisfactorily. The AIHA 
(Ex. 36-41) also recommended that if an employer can demonstrate 
effective, safe utilization of a device, then its use should be 
permitted. The American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 36-51A) requested that 
OSHA permit the use of non-approved respirators when OSHA accepts these 
devices based on a case-by-case evaluation of evidence provided by the 
employer or manufacturer. They also stated that this method had worked 
well in the past for acrylonitrile, mercury, fluorides and vinyl 
chloride.
    While it is true that OSHA has in the past approved the use of 
certain unapproved respirators, this approval has generally been as the 
result of a thorough review of the respirators capabilities as part of 
a substance specific standard. OSHA does not have the personnel or 
facilities to perform respirator testing, and has no present plans to 
set itself up as a respirator approval agency. Therefore, this proposed 
respirator standard does not contain language which would formalize a 
procedure for approving respirators. OSHA invites comment on whether 
and how such an approval procedure should be added to the standard.
4. Assigned Protection Factors
    The proposal requires that respirators be selected in accordance 
with the respirator selection tables in the NIOSH proposed revision of 
the tests and requirements for certification of respiratory protective 
devices (42 CFR Part 84). The protection factor concept has developed 
over the years since OSHA adopted its current standards. It is a 
recognition of the fact that different types of equipment provide 
different degrees of protection, and equipment limitations must be 
considered in selecting respirators.
    Three commenters in response to the preproposal draft recommended 
that OSHA allow the use of other selection guidelines in addition to 
those in the preproposal draft Appendix A. Motorola (Ex. 36-22) stated 
that there was great controversy over the assigned protection factors, 
and in order to maintain a performance standard approach OSHA should 
allow the use of not only the respirator selection tables but the ANSI 
Z 88.2 selection tables, or other guidelines published and peer 
reviewed by other consensus groups or professional associations. 
Homestake Mining (Ex. 36-30) had a similar recommendation, maintaining 
that it would allow the employer to use the latest and best information 
for respirator selection. They also recommended that a provision be 
added to require that employers demonstrate and support their rationale 
for using values other than those in the respirator selection tables. 
The AIHA (Ex. 36-41) also recommended a similar approach to respirator 
selection guidelines.
    OSHA believes that the foregoing suggestions are inadequate. 
Although the new 1992 ANSI recommendations have now been published, it 
is not sufficient for OSHA to reference the ANSI recommended protection 
factors because ANSI has provided no discussion of the basis for its 
recommendations. Moreover, some of the provisions of the ANSI standard 
appear to contradict specific information which OSHA considers 
reliable. In particular, the ANSI recommended protection factors 
disagree substantially with recommendations by NIOSH. Only if ANSI were 
to supply detailed discussion as to how its protection factors were 
derived--including reference to and complete description of specific 
studies used to derive those APFs--would OSHA be able to evaluate the 
merits of the latest ANSI recommendations. Moreover, allowing employers 
to select respirators on the basis of different guidelines, with 
different APF values, can only bring confusion as to how to comply with 
the standard.
    OSHA considered establishing assigned protection factor tables 
based on existing studies in which performance factors were measured 
both in laboratories and in workplaces. The quality of available data, 
however, was seen to vary substantially from one type of respirator to 
another depending on how much emphasis had been placed on a particular 
type of respirator by the organization doing the testing. Moreover, the 
results of studies which had been done for a particular purpose may not 
necessarily be able to be extrapolated legitimately for use in drawing 
other conclusions.
    As an example of the widely varying results and quality of 
available data, the following is a brief review of studies pertaining 
to negative pressure air-purifying respirators. Similar weaknesses in 
available data exist for other types of respirators as well.

Negative Pressure Air-Purifying Respirators

    Lenhart and Campbell of NIOSH (Ex. 27-2) did workplace performance 
testing in 1984 in a primary lead smelter for half mask negative 
pressure air-purifying respirators. The resulting report stated that 
98% of the workplace protection factors (WPFs) would be at or above 10, 
90% above 30, and 75% above 100. It concluded that ``an assigned 
protection factor of 10 is appropriate for the half mask negative 
pressure air-purifying respirators evaluated in this study'' (Ex. 27-2, 
p. 181). Each individual who participated in the study had first 
achieved a quantitative fit factor of at least 250 with the half mask 
respirator in the fit test booth. For this reason the authors 
emphasized that the study's results may overestimate the WPFs that 
would be achieved by a general worker population that had not achieved 
quantitative fit test results of at least 250.
    Skaggs and Loibl of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 38-3) 
examined the performance of half mask and full facepiece respirators 
under simulated work conditions in a controlled environmental chamber. 
Three different temperatures (0 deg.c, 20 deg.c, 32 deg.c) and two 
humidities (15% and 85%) were examined. Half mask and full facepiece 
respirators were worn by test subjects performing work type exercises 
such as shoveling oiled gravel, walking up and down stairs, pounding 
nails, moving cinder blocks, and pounding with a sledge hammer. During 
the prefit respirator fit testing for the half mask, fit factors 
ranging from a low of 32 to as high as 20,000 were measured. Fit 
factors measured during the simulated work exercises ranged from 16 to 
20,000. However, only one of the 49 test subjects who obtained fit 
factors during the prefit testing of 100 or greater with the half mask 
failed to achieve fit factors of at least 50 during the simulated work 
exercises. For the full facepiece respirator the prefit fit factors 
ranged from 110 to 20,000 and the simulated work fit factors ranged 
between 21 and 20,000. For the 54 test subjects who achieved fit 
factors of 500 or greater with the full facepiece respirator during 
prefit testing, only one filed to achieve a fit factor of 100 or 
greater during the simulated work fit tests.
    In the case of full facepiece respirators tested with QNFT, studies 
performed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in 1972 (Ex. 24-
2) resulted in a recommendation that full facepiece respirators be 
allowed a protection factor of 50. The recommendation was based on QNFT 
performed in a test booth on wearers who had been pre-screened in each 
case with a qualitative test using irritant smoke. Most of the 
respirators tested achieved fit factors into the thousands but one 
respirator only achieved fit factors of less than 100. On the bases of 
that one respirator the decision was made by LANL to restrict their 
recommendation to 50. However, Edward Hyatt, the author of the study, 
in his subsequent response to the ANPR, (Ex. 15-27), and in a later 
comment on a variance application in 1984 (Ex. 24-11), recommended that 
negative full facepiece respirators be assigned a protection factor of 
100 provided a fit factor of 1000 could be obtained in the test booth. 
It was understood (although not stated in his response) that his reason 
for revising his recommendation was that the one respirator which 
performed so poorly in the original tests had been taken off the 
market.
    In November, 1983 researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory published a paper (Ex. 24-9) on reproducibility of fit using 
QNFT. One element of the research described in the paper was the 
measurement of fits of two brands of full facepiece respirators as well 
as fits of half mask respirators of the same two manufacturers. There 
are two important aspects of the measurements. First, the poorest 
fitting of the full facepiece respirators was more than five times 
better than the best fitting half masks respirators. Second; the lowest 
fit factor of the full facepiece models was 1,063. Nevertheless, the 
range of respirators was very limited.
    In October 1984, DuPont submitted to the OSHA asbestos standard 
docket an unpublished study of workplace protection factors (WPF) for 
disposable half mask respirators, and half mask air-purifying 
respirators using either dust/fume/mist filters or high efficiency 
filters (Ex. 38-7). The study concluded that all the respirators tested 
could reliably provide protection factors of 10, except that one of the 
disposable respirators tested could only provide a protection factor of 
5. The lower protection provided by the last disposable respirator was 
attributed to penetration of asbestos fibers through the filter media. 
OSHA considers this study to be inadequate in establishing protection 
factors for several reasons. First, asbestos is not typical, in 
geometry or migration properties, of the broad range of dusts and mists 
that are encountered in workplaces. To assign a general protection 
factor based on the almost unique properties of asbestos would be 
highly inappropriate. In addition, this particular study was conducted 
under special conditions in which the respirators were used in a wet 
environment whose effect on fit is difficult to evaluate and whose 
effect on penetration would be different for asbestos than for most 
other contaminants. In addition the study did not follow NIOSH 
analytical guidelines for sampling and counting asbestos fibers. For 
example, NIOSH recommends that reliable analysis requires that at least 
10 fibers be counted for 100 fields. However, in the DuPont study, 89% 
of the analyzable tests (71 out of 80) and filters with in-mask fiber 
counts for less than 10 per 100 fields.
    The 3M Corporation also submitted an unpublished protection factor 
study for disposable respirators used in the presence of asbestos 
fibers at the Shiloh Brake Corporation (Ex. 40). Once again, asbestos 
fibers, for the reasons given above, are not sufficiently 
representative of dusts and mist in most workplaces for use in 
establishing general protection factors.
    Another unpublished study cited in the record was performed by the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) at a cadmium pigment 
production facility (Ex. 38-22). The entire submission, however, 
consisted of four paragraphs of description accompanied by two computer 
graphs showing results. There is no discussion of how the tests were 
conducted or any description which would enable one to evaluate the 
validity of the study or to duplicate the testing. OSHA considers this 
submission to be inadequate for meaningful review.
    In yet another unpublished study, the 3M Corporation has submitted 
results of measurements of protection factors of disposable dust/mist 
respirators in the presence of aluminum, titanium, and silicon 
particulates (Ex. 41A) The study, which was conducted in October, 1986, 
failed to include basic information on concentrations and particle size 
distributions. In July, 1988 3M returned to the same site to measure 
particle size distribution and in August, 1989 submitted the results to 
the record (Ex. 41B). OSHA believes that, to be valid, all supporting 
measurements of a study must be made at the time the primary 
measurement is made. It is virtually impossible to assure that all 
relevant ambient conditions will be identical almost two years later to 
what they were at the time of the original test. Moreover, the data 
submitted by the 3M Corporation in August, 1989 had serious anomalies 
which were unaccounted for in the accompanying discussion. For example, 
the mass distribution in the stages of various impactors could be 
accounted for only by circumstances which would be very unusual. Some 
impactors had few or no particles of any size. Others had only very 
large particles and very small particles. In the latter case, the 
report referred to the possibility of a bimodal distribution, but 
supplied no physical reasons based on actual workplace conditions to 
account for such a distribution.
    In general, unpublished studies such as those cited above are 
difficult to evaluate since significant details are often absent in the 
discussions and there has been no peer review of the assumptions, 
methods, and plausibility of results.
    By contrast, a published workplace protection factor study by NIOSH 
(Ex. 38-2) of the performance of disposable dust mist respirators 
provides results showing lower protection factors which cannot be 
ignored. The study determined the effectiveness of a disposable dust/
mist respirator against overexposure to nuisance particulate dust (Ex. 
38-2). A total of 25 paired samples were taken, each consisting of a 
measurement inside the probed respirator and one at the lapel. Seven 
workers and two NIOSH industrial hygienists were sampled. Quantitative 
facepiece fit testing was performed to check for gross leakage. NIOSH 
calculated that ``95% of workplace protection factors would be expected 
to be at or above 3, 87% at or above 5, 70% above 10, and only 7% would 
be expected to be above 100.'' Nevertheless, despite the fact that the 
data seemed to predict a protection factor of 3 at the 95% confidence 
level, NIOSH concluded that an ``assigned protection factor of 5 for 
disposable half mask respirators is not discredited by the results of 
this study.'' However, it involved only seven subjects and thus the 
range of facial sizes and structures involved were limited.
    The foregoing studies pertaining to negative pressure air-purifying 
respirators demonstrate the wide variability in applicability of such 
studies in the determination of assigned protection factors. Therefore, 
OSHA decided that these available studies as well as those in other 
respirator categories are inadequate for a well founded assignment of 
protection factors.
    In view of this apparent inadequacy, OSHA has determined that in 
order to establish assigned protection factors, there must be a program 
to conduct experimental evaluations of respirator performance. 
Therefore, OSHA and NIOSH have agreed that the assignment of protection 
factors should be made by NIOSH. It is OSHA's intention in this 
rulemaking that protection factors shall be assigned by NIOSH in its 
ongoing rulemaking for its certification program. (The first phase of 
this rulemaking was published in the Federal Register as a proposed 
rule at 59 FR 26850 on Tuesday, May 24, 1994 as 42 CFR Part 84.) When 
NIOSH completes its rulemaking process of assigned protection factors, 
OSHA will issue a technical amendment to this respiratory protection 
standard referring to the NIOSH final regulation. OSHA does not intend 
to have notice and comment on its technical amendment because NIOSH 
will have notice and comment in its rulemaking. In the period before 
NIOSH has completed promulgating 42 CFR Part 84, OSHA will, in the 
interim, require that respirators be selected in accordance with the 
protection factors assigned by NIOSH in the current NIOSH Respirator 
Decision Logic (Ex. 38-20).
    The NIOSH protection factor values are not intended to replace 
protection factor values which, in individual substance specific OSHA 
standards, are more stringent. Thus, the OSHA provision which defers to 
the NIOSH protection factor tables is not to be interpreted, for 
example, as overriding the OSHA asbestos standard which does not permit 
the use of disposable respirators at all. Nor does this provision 
preclude OSHA's prerogative to assign more conservative protection 
factors under circumstances demonstrated in the records of future 
substance specific rulemakings.
    Finally, it is OSHA's understanding that respirators certified 
under 30 CFR Part 11, depending on the type, will continue to be NIOSH 
certified for a period of time after the effective date of 42 CFR Part 
84. This ``sunset'' provision will continue to allow existing 
certifications while respirators that meet the new requirements of 42 
CFR Part 84 are developed and certified. Following the sunset period 
for each type of respirator, only those certifications granted under 42 
CFR Part 84 will be valid. During the sunset period, OSHA will require 
that protection be assigned as prescribed in 42 CFR Part 84 for 
respirators previously certified under 30 CFR Part 11. The new NIOSH 
regulation will also provide assigned protection factor values for 
respirators certified under the new requirements.
5. Warning Properties
    The question of whether OSHA should permit the use of air-purifying 
respirators where substances have inadequate warning properties has 
been of serious concern for several years. Some commenters to the ANPR 
felt that air-purifying respirators should only be used for chemicals 
that have adequate warning properties (Ex. 15-33, 15-34, 15-46, 15-48, 
15-70). Others felt that respirator use should not be restricted based 
on poor warning properties, but that OSHA should identify a control 
mechanism that would allow their use (Ex. 15-18, 15-19, 15-22, 15-26, 
15-50, 15-54, 15-55, 15-58, 15-62, 15-66, 15-73). Several commenters 
felt it should not be necessary for a chemical always to present 
distinct warning properties (Ex. 15-27A, 15-31, 15-38, 15-41, 15-44, 
15-45, 15-47). For example, reliance on an industrial hygienist's 
professional judgment, along with an evaluation as described in the 
OSHA Industrial Hygiene Field Operations Manual (now called the 
Industrial Hygiene Technical Manual), was recommended by the American 
Iron and Steel Institute (Ex. 15-37). Others stated that if the 
contaminant concentration was monitored and the absorption capabilities 
of the respirator cartridge for that chemical are known, the service 
life of the cartridge can be safely calculated (Ex. 15-17, 15-53). The 
use of a monitoring device that would give sound and visual signals was 
recommended as an alternative to requiring that air-purifying 
respirators be used only for chemicals with adequate warning properties 
(Ex. 15-10).
    OSHA currently does not allow air-purifying respirators to be used 
when a gas or vapor has inadequate warning properties, except in the 
case of a few designated chemicals for which specific standards were 
promulgated, such as vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide and acrylonitrile. 
The departures from the prohibition on using air-purifying respirators 
for substances with poor warning properties were established in each 
case as part of an overall rulemaking for each chemical, which included 
a careful examination of industry exposure levels and respirator use 
factors.
    Allowing such use would require an examination of the toxicity of 
the chemical, its odor threshold, the health consequences of particular 
exposure levels, breakthrough time for the chemical for the type of 
respirator that will be used, how long the respirator will be used 
during the workshift, and the concentrations of the chemical that are 
found in the workplace. Calculating the service life of a particular 
respirator cartridge or canister for a chemical with poor warning 
properties would be possible using these facts and an appropriate 
safety factor. This service life calculation may be difficult where 
workplace exposure levels vary greatly throughout the day and from day 
to day. Using continuous monitoring devices with alarms, as was 
suggested by some of the commenters, is another possibility. Continuous 
monitoring is complicated, expensive, and would require a case-by-case 
review of each plant situation to determine the ability of the 
monitoring system. Therefore, this proposal has not considered the use 
of continuous monitoring devices when determining where respirators can 
be used.
    Motorola (Ex. 36-22) recommended that OSHA allow the use of air-
purifying respirators for chemicals with poor warning properties if the 
respirator had a reliable end of service life indicator or an air-
purifying cartridge and/or filter change schedule had been implemented, 
and the use of supplied air respirators would hamper an operation or 
increase risk. If the employer could not demonstrate the acceptability 
of the respirator according to these conditions, supplied air 
respirators would be required. Homestake Mining (Ex. 36-30) also 
recommended the same conditions along with the requirement for 
biological monitoring to demonstrate respirator effectiveness, where 
applicable. DuPont (Ex. 36-38) also recommended that air-purifying 
respirators be allowed for chemicals with poor warning properties when 
supplied air respirators cannot be used, with the conditions that a 
reliable end of service life indicator and appropriate cartridge change 
schedule be used. The AIHA (Ex. 36-44), Richard Boggs of ORC (Ex. 36-
47), and Thomas Nelson of the ANSI Z 88.2 respirator committee (Ex. 36-
55) described similar conditions for the use of air-purifying 
respirators for chemicals with poor warning properties. Mr. Nelson also 
wanted to limit their use to concentrations of the contaminant less 
than 10 times the PEL or TLV.
    The ANSI Z 88.2-1992 respiratory protection standard in section 
7.2.2.2 (m) would allow the use of an air purifying respirator for a 
gas or vapor with poor warning properties only when (1) the air 
purifying respirator has a reliable end of service life indicator that 
will warn the user prior to contaminant breakthrough, or (2) a 
cartridge change schedule is implemented based on cartridge service 
data including desorption studies (unless cartridges are changed 
daily), expected concentration, pattern of use, and duration of 
exposure have been established, and the chemical does not have a 
ceiling limit.
    OSHA agrees that there are circumstances under which it may be safe 
or necessary to use air-purifying respirators despite the absence of 
adequate warning properties. In doing so, however, two factors must be 
considered: breakthrough of the cartridge and face seal leakage. 
Cartridge breakthrough can be addressed by use of end-of-service-life 
indicators that are approved by NIOSH or by implementation of a filter 
change schedule based on documented service life data, exposure levels 
and exposure durations. Face seal leakage is not addressed directly 
except by requiring fit testing. Therefore, OSHA is proposing that the 
use of air-purifying respirators in the absence of adequate warning 
properties be restricted to situations where the odor, taste, or 
irritation threshold is not more than three times the hazardous 
exposure level. Since the least effective respirator with a chemical 
cartridge in the proposed NIOSH 42 CFR Part 84 respirator selection 
tables has an Assigned Protection Factor of 10, then if the level at 
which the warning property exists is within three times the hazardous 
exposure level, OSHA believes that a sufficient margin of safety will 
be provided, since even a partial breakthrough is unlikely to reduce 
the protection factor from 10 down to three under the foregoing 
restrictions on use.
6. Oxygen Deficient and Oxygen Deficient IDLH Atmospheres
    This proposal requires that only atmosphere-supplying respirators 
be used in oxygen deficient atmospheres. In oxygen deficient IDLH 
atmospheres either a full facepiece pressure demand SCBA or a 
combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air respirator with 
auxiliary self-contained air supply must be used. A critical issue is 
the definition of what constitutes oxygen deficient and oxygen 
deficient IDLH atmospheres.
    Table I of paragraph (d) presents in tabular form the oxygen 
percentages below which the terms oxygen deficient and oxygen deficient 
IDLH atmosphere apply--as a function of altitude above sea level.
    By referring to the information in this table, an employer can 
readily pick out the appropriate type of respirator required at various 
altitudes and oxygen levels. OSHA chose to use an equivalent table of 
oxygen levels for simplicity, rather than incorporating a calculation 
formula as ANSI did in its Z88.2-1980 standard, like the table in the 
ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard on the combined effects of altitude and 
reduced percentage of oxygen.
    Numerous comments were submitted in response to both the 
preproposal draft and the ANPR on the definition of oxygen deficient 
and oxygen deficient IDLH atmospheres (Ex. 15-14, 15-19, 15-26, 15-27A, 
15-31, 15-33, 15-35, 15-37, 15-38, 15-46, 15-52, 15-53, 15-55, 15-58, 
15-62, 15-70, 36-13, 36-17, 36-18, 36-22, 36-26, 36-27, 36-29, 36-30, 
36-31, 36-32, 36-34, 36-38, 36-39, 36-40, 36-41, 36-44, 36-47, 36-52, 
36-53, 36-54, 36-55). All suggestions were based on the concept of a 
minimum value for oxygen partial pressure in the upper portion of the 
lungs. Most commenters agreed with the ANSI Z88.2-1980 partial pressure 
value of 100 mm Hg below which an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere 
exists. There was, however, disagreement as to the oxygen partial 
pressure at which an oxygen deficient atmosphere is considered to 
exist.
Oxygen Deficient Atmospheres
    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) recommended the use of an 
oxygen partial pressure of 125 mm Hg, which corresponds to a 16.5% 
oxygen level at sea level, as the point below which an oxygen deficient 
atmosphere exists for altitudes up to 7,000 feet (Ex. 36-52). Above 
7,000 feet LANL recommended that any reduction in ambient air oxygen 
content (20.95%) be considered oxygen deficient. California OSHA (Ex. 
36-44) recommended oxygen levels below 19.5% for altitudes from 0 to 
5,000 feet, 20.5% for altitudes between 5,001 and 9,000 feet, and 
20.95% for altitudes above 9000 feet be considered as oxygen 
deficiencies.
    The ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard radically lowered the recommendation 
for oxygen-deficiency non-IDLH atmospheres to one with an oxygen 
partial pressure ranging between 95 mm Hg pp O2 (12.5% oxygen at 
sea level atmospheric pressure) to 122 mm Hg (16% oxygen at sea level). 
Under these conditions a supplied air respirator is required. Where 
oxygen levels are 95 mm Hg or less, an oxygen-deficiency IDLH 
atmosphere would exist, and would require the use of a positive 
pressure SCBA or a combination supplied air respirator with SCBA. 
However, where oxygen levels are above 16% supplied air respiratory 
protection would not have to be used for protection against oxygen 
deficiency.
    For confined spaces, the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard would consider 
any reduction in oxygen level below 20.9% an IDLH atmosphere unless the 
source of the oxygen reduction is understood and controlled. However, 
it would permit entry into a confined space that contains between 16% 
and 20.9% oxygen (at sea level) without any respiratory protection if 
extraordinary precautions are taken to assure that the worker would not 
encounter any poorly ventilated areas. OSHA considers any location with 
an oxygen level that is reduced below 19.5% to be an oxygen deficient 
atmosphere requiring the use of at least a supplied air respirator as a 
minimum.
    An incident recently occurred that illustrates the problem with the 
ANSI oxygen deficiency definition. Two well cleaners died in the 
confined space of a shallow well. They had no fans to ventilate the 
well, and only crude homemade equipment for lowering someone into the 
well. After being lowered into the well, the first cleaner complained 
of lightheadedness. His partner was lowered into the well to attempt a 
rescue. The crude retrieval equipment broke under the weight of the two 
cleaners. Both were overcome by the low oxygen levels and died of 
asphyxiation and drowning. The oxygen level in the well was 17%, as 
measured by the firefighters who removed the bodies. By reducing the 
oxygen deficient IDLH level to 16% and permitting entry without 
respiratory protection at oxygen levels between 16% and 19.5%, the ANSI 
standard would permit such dangerous practices. The need for 
extraordinary precautions, as ANSI recommends, will not be recognized 
by many who choose only to see that the oxygen deficiency levels have 
been reduced.
    NIOSH approves air-purifying respirators for use only in 
atmospheres containing 19.5% oxygen. Moreover, Grade D breathing air is 
and has been considered the acceptable standard for such air and Grade 
D breathing air contains, by definition, a minimum of 19.5% oxygen. 
Since OSHA requires that NIOSH approved respirators be used, and that 
grade D breathing air be used for supplied air respirators, OSHA is 
proposing the 19.5% oxygen level as the point below which an oxygen 
deficient atmosphere exists. Oxygen partial pressure decreases as 
altitude increases. At 8,000 feet a 19.5% oxygen level still 
corresponds to an oxygen partial pressure above 100 mm Hg, the level 
where an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere would begin. Therefore, for 
altitudes up to 8,000 feet any decrease in oxygen level below 19.5% is 
considered an oxygen deficient atmosphere and the use of atmosphere-
supplying respirators would be required. For altitudes above 8,000 
feet, an oxygen level below 19.5% would constitute an oxygen deficient 
IDLH atmosphere. Column 2 of Table I presents the percent oxygen levels 
below which an oxygen deficient atmosphere exists for altitudes from 
sea level to 8,000 feet. Comments are requested on the values in the 
table.
Oxygen Deficient IDLH Atmospheres
    Many commenters felt that the ANSI Z88.2-1980 definition of an 
oxygen deficiency-IDLH atmosphere was satisfactory (Ex. 15-14, 15-19, 
15-26, 15-27A, 15-31, 15-33, 15-35, 15-37, 15-38, 15-46, 15-52, 15-53, 
15-55, 15-58, 15-62, 15-70, 15-71). ANSI in its 1980 standard (Ex. 10) 
defines an oxygen deficiency-IDLH atmosphere as one which causes an 
oxygen partial pressure of 100 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) column or 
less in the freshly inspired air in the upper portion of the lungs 
which is saturated with water vapor. This corresponds to an oxygen 
content of from 14% at sea level to 20.95% at 14,000 feet. The oxygen 
content is adjusted using a formula to account for the effects of 
changing altitude. AMAX (Ex. 15-55) felt the ANSI oxygen deficiency 
requirements (and thus the Los Alamos position as well) were overly 
restrictive since they would require people working at altitudes above 
10,000 feet to wear supplied air respirators, and their employees have 
successfully used air-purifying respirators at these high altitudes for 
many years.
    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 36-52), and California OSHA 
(Ex. 36-44), agreed that the 100 mm Hg oxygen partial pressure level 
was the appropriate criterion for defining an oxygen deficient IDLH 
atmosphere, but only for altitudes from sea level to 10,000 feet. For 
altitudes from 10,000 feet to 14,000 feet they recommended that OSHA 
use 20.95% oxygen as the level below which an oxygen deficient IDLH 
atmosphere exists since people who are physiologically acclimated can 
live and work above 10,000 feet without adverse effects and the 
standard should account for this reality. The current ANSI Z88.2 
Respirator Committee (Ex. 36-55) has concluded that for altitudes below 
14,000 feet, work should be permitted without protection for oxygen 
deficiency when the oxygen content of ambient air (20.95%) is not 
reduced.
    The foregoing comments are all in agreement that, up to 8,000 feet 
the oxygen concentration equivalent of an oxygen partial pressure of 
100 mm of Hg in the upper portion of the lungs is appropriate for a 
threshold IDLH level. This is equivalent at sea level to an oxygen 
concentration of 14%. However, NIOSH has pointed out (Ex. 25-4) that in 
the presence of an oxygen concentration of less than 16% at sea level 
one can experience impaired attention, thinking and coordination. At 
14% or below, NIOSH states the possibility of faulty judgment, poor 
muscular coordination, rapid fatigue that could cause permanent heart 
damage, and intermittent respiration. In an IDLH or escape situation 
all of the described effects could place a worker in serious jeopardy. 
Therefore, OSHA believes that an oxygen concentration of 16% or below 
at sea level should require the extra precautions that go with IDLH 
atmospheres. The AMAX comment that its employees have suffered no 
consequences of not having used supplied air respirators at greater 
than 10,000 feet is believed by OSHA to signify that they have not 
worked in atmospheres with less than 19.5% oxygen.
    The ANSI Z 88.2-1992 standard defines an oxygen deficiency IDLH 
atmosphere to be one with an oxygen partial pressure of 95 mm Hg or 
less (12.5% oxygen at sea level). The oxygen deficiency may be caused 
by either a reduction in the normal 20.9% oxygen content, by reduced 
total atmospheric pressure to 450 mm Hg (8.6 psi), equivalent to 14,000 
feet elevation, or any combination of reduced percentage of oxygen and 
reduced pressure. The ANSI rationale as stated in Appendix A.5 for 
these low levels is that the 12.5% oxygen content corresponds to an 
oxygen partial pressure of 48 mm Hg in the alveoli of the lungs, with 
the alveolar blood 83% saturated with oxygen. At higher alveolar oxygen 
partial pressures (60 to 100 mm Hg), as the ANSI appendix points out, 
only slight changes in hemoglobin oxygen saturation are seen. Much 
larger changes occur in the blood oxygen levels as the alveoli oxygen 
levels fall from 60 down to 30 mm Hg. By choosing such a low oxygen 
partial pressure for the start of an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere, 
ANSI has effectively removed any safety margin from its standard. An 
acclimatized individual may be able to effectively operate at the 
equivalent of 14,000 foot altitude. However, individuals normally used 
to the 20.9% oxygen present in the outside air or supplied by their 
respirator are not acclimatized. They could be seriously and rapidly 
debilitated by the quick drop in oxygen partial pressure such a 12.5% 
oxygen deficiency IDLH level represents if their respirator should 
fail. The safety margins in the ANSI Z 88.2-1992 oxygen deficiency IDLH 
and non IDLH definitions have been reduced to their bare minimums. OSHA 
has chosen to reject these less protective ANSI oxygen deficiency 
definitions in favor of the more forgiving levels it is proposing to 
adopt.
    OSHA is proposing a value of 16% oxygen by volume as the level 
below which an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere exists for altitudes 
from sea level to 3,000 feet. For altitudes from 3,001 feet up to 8,000 
feet, percent oxygen levels have been calculated that correspond to a 
value of 100 mm Hg oxygen partial pressure. At altitudes above 8,000 
feet and up to 14,000 feet, OSHA is proposing that an oxygen level 
below 19.5% would be considered an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere. 
This agrees with the ANSI Z 88.2-1980 oxygen deficiency-IDLH level of 
100 mm Hg, which corresponds to the point where the oxygen content of 
the alveolar blood is 90% saturated with oxygen and below which 
symptoms of hypoxia occur. Although OSHA is accepting the claim that 
work can be performed by acclimated persons at altitudes above 10,000 
feet when the ambient air oxygen percentage is not reduced, comments 
and data are requested that will support or contradict this conclusion. 
To avoid possible confusion, OSHA has not used a formula for 
calculating the oxygen deficient IDLH levels as ANSI did, but instead 
presents in Column 3 of Table I in paragraph (d) a list of the percent 
oxygen levels for altitudes from sea level to 14,000 feet.

  Table I.--Oxygen Percentages Constituting Oxygen Deficient and Oxygen 
                       Deficient IDLH Atmospheres                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Column 3 
                                                   Column 2     percent 
                                                    percent     oxygen  
                                                    oxygen       below  
                                                     below     which an 
   Column 1 altitude above sea level (in feet)     which an     oxygen  
                                                    oxygen     deficient
                                                   deficient     IDLH   
                                                  atmosphere  atmosphere
                                                    exists      exists  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 3000.......................................        19.5        16.0
3001 to 4000....................................        19.5        16.4
4001 to 5000....................................        19.5        17.1
5001 to 6000....................................        19.5        17.8
6001 to 7000....................................        19.5        18.5
7001 to 8000....................................        19.5        19.3
Above 8000 to 14,000............................       (\1\)        19.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For altitudes above 8000 feet, an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere   
  exists when the oxygen level falls below 19.5%                        

    (E) Medical Evaluation. Most who responded to the ANPR, although 
divided in their responses to many of the questions on medical 
surveillance, were in general agreement that the provision in the 
present standard is inadequate and that there should be initial and 
follow up evaluations of some sort. In particular, there was a 
consensus that it is not safe to wait for specific complaints or 
problems to arise before conducting such evaluations (Ex. 15-10, 15-26, 
15-27A, 15-31, 15-45, 15-46, 15-48, 15-49, 15-53, 15-54, 15-55, 15-63, 
15-70, 15-75, 15-76).
    Experience in industry shows that most healthy workers do not have 
problems wearing a respirator when it is properly chosen and fitted (1, 
2, 6). The most commonly found problems are claustrophobia--which may 
be an intolerance of feeling enclosed or may give rise to a subjective 
feeling of breathing difficulty. Other common problems are chronic 
rhinitis, catarrh, and nasal allergies where it is necessary to remove 
the respirator frequently to deal with nasal discharge. Some 
individuals with chronic sinusitis may have breathing difficulties 
wearing a respirator.
    Most other difficulties relate to the cardiorespiratory system. The 
wearing of a negative pressure respirator does increase the resistance 
to inspiration. The problem is reduced with powered air-purifying 
respirators and with positive pressure atmosphere-supplying 
respirators. Exhalation resistance with modern negative pressure 
respirators does not significantly increase expiratory effort. The 
types of cardiorespiratory problems which may increase the individual's 
breathing problems when wearing a respirator are chronic obstruction, 
respiratory disease, emphysema, asthma in some cases, and moderate to 
severe pneumoconiosis.
    Cardiac or cardiorespiratory diseases that may affect respirator 
wear include coronary thrombosis, any type of congestive heart disease 
or decompensations cor pulmonale, other ischemic heart disease and some 
cases of hypertension.
    The amount of difficulty will clearly depend on the degree of 
cardiorespiratory inadequacy and also on the amount of physical effort 
required by the work. Some people who may have difficulty wearing a 
negative pressure respirator should be able to manage well with a 
positive pressure type respirator.
    The decision about the fitness of the individual to wear a 
respirator is clearly a judgment that can only be made by the physician 
taking into account the state of the individual's health as well as the 
physical requirements of the job.
    The preproposal draft would have required that employers refer 
employees for medical evaluations if they would be routinely wearing a 
respirator for more than one hour per work shift, or five hours per 
week. This provision would eliminate medical surveillance for employees 
who wear respirators only infrequently, while ensuring that those who 
must rely on respirators for longer periods of time would be 
appropriately evaluated.
    The preproposal draft provision exempting occasional respirator 
users from the medical evaluation requirements was the subject of many 
comments. Some commenters felt there could be problems with 
interpreting the exemption (Ex. 36-32), or that the exemption would be 
difficult to enforce with employers claiming exemptions for employees, 
and the employees claiming they should have the evaluation (Ex. 36-8). 
Dow Chemical (Ex. 36-40) stated that the exemption would be a tough 
administration problem. AMAX Inc. (Ex. 36-27) stated that the exemption 
limits were excessive and burdensome to industry. The Ethyl Corporation 
(Ex. 36-11) felt the exemption limits were too rigid and stated that a 
more appropriate time limit might be 10 to 13 hours per week or 25% to 
33% of working hours. The Amoco Corporation (Ex. 36-35) supported the 
flexibility that the occasional users exemption showed and the American 
Textile Manufacturer's Institute (Ex. 36-18) felt medical evaluations 
should be provided for all individuals who wear respirators for more 
than ``pass through'' activities. Dow Chemical (Ex. 36-40) recommended 
that any employee required to wear respiratory protection for any 
reason be provided a medical evaluation, which may or may not include a 
medical examination.
    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) (Ex. 36-34) felt 
the exemption did not focus on the individuals at risk such as those 
wearing an SCBA in confined spaces for repairs. The AIHA (Ex. 36-41) 
and DuPont (Ex. 36-38) also pointed to the problem of SCBA wearers who 
perform heavy work for short periods of time without having been 
medically evaluated. California OSHA (Ex. 36-44) recommended that the 
occasional use exemption not apply to SCBA wearers. The Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory (Ex. 36-26) felt that the occasional use 
exemption would eliminate physical evaluations for emergency response 
activities and other short use, high risk jobs.
    OSHA is removing the draft requirement that a medical evaluation be 
made available to any worker using a respirator more than one hour per 
work shift. This provision would have required an evaluation if the 
respirator were to be worn for one stretch of 61 minutes even if that 
were the only time it was worn. OSHA believes that such a requirement 
is unreasonable and that repeated use of the respirator will be covered 
by the five hour per week provision. Therefore, the proposal now 
requires that a written opinion be obtained from a physician that each 
employee who needs to wear a respirator for five hours or more during 
any work week is fit to wear one. However, in view of questions that 
have been raised, OSHA invites comments on the duration of respirator 
use that should constitute a threshold for the medical evaluation 
requirement. OSHA recognizes that problems may occur with 
interpretation or enforcement of the occasional use exemption and 
solicits comments on projected problems. OSHA emphasizes that the 
occasional use exemption is intended to apply only to short time 
respirator wearers, not those who wear respirators on a routine basis.
Medical Evaluation Procedures
    Although OSHA believes that a medical evaluation is important, 
there appears to be considerable difference of opinion as to what 
circumstances should trigger a physical examination, what the physical 
examination should consist of, who is to administer such an 
examination, and what the specific criteria should be for passing or 
failing the examination with respect to fitness for wearing a 
respirator. Because there is no definitive information either in the 
record or, as far as OSHA can tell, in the open literature as to how to 
resolve these issues OSHA is raising for comment three alternative 
versions of the medical evaluation provision. The first, which is 
represented by proposed regulatory text, would require that the 
employer obtain a doctor's written opinion on the employee's ability to 
wear a respirator. The nature of the medical evaluation performed would 
be left up to the physician to determine. The second alternative would 
require the performing of a medical evaluation consisting of a medical 
history and medical examination, from which a physician's opinion on 
respirator use would be written. The third alternative would require 
that a health questionnaire be administered to all respirator wearers, 
with a medical evaluation being performed on those whose answers to any 
of the questions on the questionnaire show the need for such an 
evaluation, or who wear an SCBA for emergency or rescue operations. 
After reviewing the questionnaires and any medical evaluation 
performed, a physician's written opinion on respirator use would then 
be prepared.
    OSHA is seeking comment on each of the three alternatives and on 
the specific elements that make up the required procedures of each 
alternative. The comments that will be received to this proposal, along 
with OSHA's review of other medical evaluation information, will be 
used to develop a single medical evaluation procedure for the final 
standard. Therefore, commenters should detail why they prefer one of 
the three alternatives in this proposal above the others, and 
specifically address which required elements should be contained in the 
medical evaluation procedures. A more detailed discussion of each of 
the three alternatives follows.
Alternative 1--Written Physician's Opinion
    The first alternative of the medical evaluation procedures is part 
of the proposed standard as paragraph (e). It would require that, for 
every employee who wears a respirator more than five hours during any 
work week, a written opinion be obtained from a licensed physician as 
to the fitness of the employee to wear a respirator based on the type 
of respirator used, the workplace conditions and the employee's 
physical condition. Information regarding respirator type and workplace 
conditions would be required to be supplied to the physician by the 
employer. The decisions as to whether a physical examination is 
necessary, and if so its content, is left to the judgment of the 
physician. OSHA is proposing suggested elements of a physical 
examination in an appendix to guide the physician should he or she 
choose to perform such an examination. In addition, this proposal 
requires that an annual review, which in the physician's judgment may 
not entail an examination, be conducted by a physician.
    Possible regulatory language for the other two alternatives of the 
medical evaluation section are presented as follows. Although they are 
not included in the text of the standard, OSHA will consider all three 
alternatives in its deliberations leading to a final standard.
Alternative 2--Medical History and Examination
    The second alternative for a medical evaluation provision is a 
requirement for a mandatory medical history and medical examination. 
The preproposal draft standard contained this alternative, but OSHA has 
modified it in response to comments received. As in alternative 1, 
guidance for the elements of the evaluation would be supplied by 
nonmandatory Appendix C.
    These recommended elements are basically the same as were specified 
as mandatory in the prepublication draft and are similar to those 
recommended by ANSI in its standard on physical qualifications for 
personnel using respirators, ANSI Z88.6-1984 (Ex. 38-10).
    The preproposal draft would have required that a medical history be 
taken and a medical examination be conducted for each respirator user 
with exemptions for nonroutine users. Also included were mandatory 
elements to be reviewed during the performance of the medical history 
and medical examination. Several commenters recommended that OSHA adopt 
a more performance oriented approach for the medical evaluation 
provisions while listing in a nonmandatory appendix what the physician 
should consider during the examination (Ex. 36-18, 36-22, 36-38, 36-40, 
36-41, 36-50, 36-55).
    Comment is requested on the individual elements that make up the 
medical history and medical examination recommended provisions listed 
in Appendix C. OSHA also requests comment on whether it should set 
specific medical trigger levels for elements of the medical 
examination, and if so, what these trigger levels should be.
    A mandatory requirement for pulmonary function testing was opposed 
by commenters on the grounds that it is not clear that pulmonary 
function testing would provide information that would not already be 
apparent to the physician from performing a normal physical exam. It 
was also pointed out that there are no specific pulmonary function test 
values that are considered to be clearly suitable thresholds for 
ability to wear a respirator (Ex. 36-3, 36-22, 36-30, 36-32, 36-34, 36-
47, 36-55). The discussion in Appendix C on pulmonary function testing 
states that spirometry including FEV1 and FVC, while not required 
should be performed. The recommendation for screening spirometry 
contains a set of values for FVC and FEV1 which have been adopted 
from the ANSI Z88.6 recommended standard. These values, a FVC of less 
than 80 percent or a FEV1 of less than 70 percent, represent 
levels at which restrictions on respirator use should be considered.
    A study of clinical pulmonary function and industrial respirator 
wear by Raven, Moss, Page, Garmon, and Skaggs (Ex. 38-8) recommended 
that a standard clinical pulmonary function test, the 15 second maximum 
voluntary ventilation (MVV.25), may be the test of choice for 
determining worker capability to wear a respirator. A ``conservative'' 
score on this test, along with other clinical data from the medical 
evaluation would form the basis for screening respirator wearers. OSHA 
requests information and comment on the use of the (MVV.25) as a 
screening test for respirator use, and whether it should be added to 
the nonmandatory recommendation for FEV1 and FVC testing.
    Appendix C also contains recommendations for elements to be covered 
in the medical history. The provision in the preproposal draft stating 
that psychological problems or symptoms be noted in the medical history 
has been removed. Rebecca Eklund of Freeport McMoran Inc. (Ex. 36-28) 
pointed out that the psychological conditions requirement was too 
inclusive since there are many psychological conditions which in no way 
affect the wearing of a respirator. Because the medical examination 
covers psychological conditions relevant to wearing respirators, such 
as claustrophobia or severe anxiety, the recommendation that 
psychological problems be noted in the medical history is redundant and 
therefore has been dropped.
    Comments were also received on the preproposal draft requirement 
that tolerance to tachycardia (i.e. excessively rapid heartbeat) be 
noted. OSHA notes that the recommendation that tolerance to tachycardia 
due to inhaling heated air be noted is part of the ANSI Z88.6 physical 
qualifications for respirator wearers, and for that reason was included 
in the preproposal draft. Closed circuit SCBA units, also known as 
rebreathers, supply air to the wearer at elevated temperatures of 
120 deg. F or greater. A possible physiologic response to breathing 
heated air is tachycardia. Commenters stated that tachycardia produced 
by heated air was called difficult to validate (Ex. 36-8), was not 
necessary to note since few respirators produce heated air (Ex. 36-29), 
difficult to assess and attribute to heated air (Ex. 36-32), not 
generally accepted by the medical profession as a problem (Ex. 36-37), 
challenged any problem with breathing heated air (Ex. 36-47), and 
questioned the necessity to impose the restriction since only 
rebreather respirators produce heated air (Ex. 36-52).
    OSHA agrees with the commenters that few closed circuit SCBAs are 
in use, and that checking every respirator user for tolerance to 
tachycardia is not necessary. Therefore, the recommendation for noting 
tolerance to tachycardia due to inhaling heated air has been removed. 
OSHA requests any information on problems that have occurred with 
tachycardia for wearers of closed circuit SCBAs, and comment on whether 
this recommendation should be included (either as a mandatory 
requirement or in Appendix C only) for those who will be using closed 
circuit SCBAs.
    The suggested elements of the medical examination itself, where one 
is performed, have also been modified and placed in Appendix C. The 
recommendation for the physician to assess facial conditions that may 
interfere with respirator fit has been dropped. As Alan Hack of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory stated, most physicians will not be familiar 
enough with respirator facepieces to be able to make such an evaluation 
(Ex. 36-29). Also, any decision on respirator facepiece fit would more 
properly be made when selecting the best fitting respirators during fit 
testing.
    The need for assessing hearing ability was also questioned by 
commenters on the preproposal draft. Several commenters recommended the 
elimination of the hearing assessment provision since it is irrelevant 
to the wearing of a respirator (Ex. 36-8, 36-13, 36-27, 36-29, 36-47, 
36-52). California OSHA (Ex. 36-44) stated that hearing ability should 
not be a consideration except perhaps where a worker wears a continuous 
flow airline respirator with hood or helmet that covers the head. The 
ability to hear is certainly important during IDLH entry, but this is a 
concern regardless of respirator use. The American Association of 
Occupational Health Nurses (Ex. 36-8) and Alan Hack (Ex. 36-29) pointed 
out that nonaudible alarms such as visual or vibration alarms could be 
used along with the buddy system for such situations. Monsanto (Ex. 36-
32) questioned what level would constitute an acceptable hearing 
ability. ORC (Ex. 36-47) and California OSHA (Ex. 36-44) also 
questioned whether OSHA was requiring audiometric testing.
    Having considered the foregoing comments, OSHA believes that the 
second alternative should retain a recommendation for performing a 
hearing assessment nonmandatory Appendix C. There are situations where 
the wearing of a respirator, particularly one with a full helmet or 
hood, can significantly reduce hearing and the ability to respond to 
emergency alarms or warning devices. However, OSHA recognizes that the 
problem of hearing ability in the workplace is peripheral to the 
ability to wear a respirator. Therefore, OSHA seeks further comment on 
the necessity of assessing hearing ability when wearing respirators and 
on the appropriateness of this recommendation to the respirator 
standard. The assessment of hearing ability to assure communication and 
response to instructions and alarms does not require, in the standard, 
audiometric testing. For most respirator wearers a simple oral 
assessment of hearing ability would be sufficient.
    With respect to the question of perforated tympanic membranes, 
Shell Oil (Ex. 36-50) submitted a report by Dr. Thomas Milby which 
reviewed the issue of potential employee exposure to hydrogen sulfide 
via the route of damaged tympanic membranes. The report stated that 
there was no valid information in the scientific literature supporting 
that perforated eardrums would produce an increased risk of 
contamination for workers. Calculations were performed for the Shell 
report which showed, in a worst case analysis, ambient air 
concentrations of H2S would have to reach some 158 ppm before the 
worst case loss of an ear drum would permit exposure at the PEL of 10 
ppm. Shell also included a study by Richard Ronk and Mary Kay White of 
NIOSH (Ex. 38-11) which concluded that workers with perforated eardrums 
should not be excluded from working in hydrogen sulfide atmospheres. 
They stated that in no reasonable case can the presence of a tympanic 
membrane defect significantly affect respiratory protection. California 
OSHA (Ex. 36-44) cited the NIOSH study as showing that tympanic 
membrane perforation was not a problem. Other commenters also 
recommended that this provision be dropped since it is not specifically 
a respirator related problem (Ex. 36-3, 36-18, 36-35, 36-47, 36-52).
    In light of the scientific review of tympanic membrane perforation 
submitted by Shell Oil, and the report by NIOSH which also reports no 
significant exposure from perforated eardrums, the recommendation for 
checking for perforated tympanic membranes has not been included in 
this proposal. OSHA requests any information and data regarding 
problems with respirator use associated with tympanic membrane defects, 
and any evidence for the need for checking for perforated eardrums for 
respirator wearers.
    The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses (Ex. 36-8), 
commenting on the preproposal draft provision requiring assessment of 
the endocrine system, pointed out that such problems should have been 
noted as a previously diagnosed disease during the medical history. 
They also stated that assessing the endocrine system for all respirator 
wearers would be costly and time consuming. If a history of diabetes or 
other endocrine disease was detected, than evaluations could be done on 
a case by case basis. Other commenters said that physicians would be 
reluctant to accept liability for signing off on such an assessment and 
that the evaluations should be restricted to the employee's pulmonary 
function and cardiovascular system (Ex. 36-10) and should eliminate the 
endocrine test as not relevant to the wearing of respirators (Ex. 36-
13). Alan Hack (Ex. 36-29) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 
36-52) stated that ``Workers so afflicted [with endocrine conditions 
which result in sudden loss of consciousness] will be restricted from 
many employment tasks that do not require use of respirators. Such 
restrictions should not be applied specifically to respirator 
wearers.'' Dow Chemical (Ex. 36-40) stated that the physical 
manifestations of endocrine system disease would be found during the 
neurologic examination.
    OSHA believes that endocrine conditions such as diabetes should be 
considered by the physician when determining whether a respirator can 
be worn. Previously diagnosed endocrine conditions should be picked up 
during the taking of the medical history. However, undiagnosed 
endocrine system problems can still exist. The respirator use 
evaluation may be the only physical examination the employee has had 
for some time, and a diabetic condition could have developed. The 
extent of the assessment suggested, from looking for signs of disease 
during the physical exam to more extensive testing of those with signs 
of disease, is at the discretion of the physician. Any general work 
limitations or restrictions that apply to other work activities of an 
individual due to endocrine disorders should also be considered when 
determining whether a respirator can be used. OSHA does not recommend 
any specific tests for endocrine conditions, leaving the determination 
to the physician's judgment. Because the potential for sudden loss of 
consciousness or response capability is something that should be 
considered when determining an individual's ability to wear a 
respirator, the proposal includes the endocrine system assessment 
recommendation, as derived from the ANSI Z88.6 standard, in Appendix C. 
OSHA requests further comment on the need for assessing the endocrine 
system, and on determining which endocrine system conditions would 
preclude the use of respirators.
    The preproposal draft also contained a requirement that an exercise 
stress test be performed for employees who use SCBA's or rebreather 
type respirators. The American Association of Occupational Health 
Nurses (Ex. 36-8) stated that exercise stress testing would be 
expensive and difficult to obtain for fire departments and small 
companies. Brown and Root (Ex. 36-10) maintained that an exercise 
stress test would be costly (approximately $240) and, if not 
standardized, would mean very little in determining whether an SCBA or 
rebreather respirator can be worn. Other commenters stated that OSHA 
should not require a routine cardiovascular stress test, but require 
one only if requested by the physician (Ex. 36-35, 36-40, 36-47). They 
also opposed the use of electrocardiograms on a routine basis, claiming 
that false positives require expensive follow-up testing. Also the 
nature of the tests required for exercise stress was not specified by 
OSHA, and an example of an exercise stress test was requested. SOCMA 
(Ex. 36-48) commented that exercise stress tests cost between $250 and 
$300, and urged OSHA to consider other testing that would yield similar 
data in a more cost effective manner, using a performance approach. The 
Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (Ex. 36-37) recommended the 
provision be deleted and a simple pulse rate count be substituted.
    The exercise stress testing provision was derived from the maximum 
exercise stress test recommended by the ANSI Z88.6 physical 
qualification standard. The ANSI standard stated that individuals with 
apparent ischemic disease or who cannot perform well on a treadmill due 
to respiratory, musculoskeletal, or other physical problems should not 
use SCBAs or be assigned to emergency response teams. OSHA recognizes 
that exercise stress tests can be expensive, and that criteria for 
evaluating specific conditions that would disqualify workers have not 
yet been developed. Moreover, the requirement in the preproposal draft 
for stress testing would have applied only to a small group of 
respirator wearers, and even then it would be difficult to determine 
whether such a test was really appropriate. OSHA concedes that such 
problems would appear to render inappropriate a mandatory requirement 
for stress testing. Therefore, determining whether an employees' health 
condition precludes the wearing of an SCBA or assignment to an 
emergency response team has been left to the physician. However, 
Appendix C recommends exercise stress testing for workers who were an 
SCBA or rebreather respirator device under strenuous work conditions or 
in emergencies.
    OSHA is seeking further comment on the appropriateness of the 
exercise stress test, the most cost effective method of performing such 
testing and alternative methods of determining an individuals physical 
ability to wear SCBAs and rebreather respirators.
    OSHA is seeking general comment on which recommendations should be 
retained as part of Appendix C, and whether certain provisions such as 
pulmonary function testing and exercise stress testing should be kept 
in the nonmandatory appendix or made mandatory provisions of the 
standard. Additional comment is also sought on whether OSHA should add 
to the nonmandatory appendix a section which further describes health 
conditions that should be considered during the medical evaluation. The 
proposal lists specific areas to be investigated but does not attempt 
to develop a list of medical conditions and diseases that may preclude 
the use of respirators. OSHA requests comment on whether such 
information would be of use for evaluating the ability to wear 
respirators and which medical conditions and diseases should be on such 
a list.
    The proposal contains an exemption from the required initial 
medical evaluation when adequate medical records show that an employee 
has successfully taken a medical examination, or received a written 
opinion from a physician within the past year, on the basis of which 
the employee was determined to be fit to use the same type of 
respirator under similar use conditions. This exemption will help avoid 
the expense of duplicate medical examinations for transient workers who 
have already passed an initial medical evaluation for respirator use on 
one job and later moved on to work for another employer.
    The preproposal draft contained a provision requiring review of the 
employee's medical status when an employee experienced difficulty in 
breathing while using a negative pressure or demand respirator. Alan 
Hack (Ex. 36-29) and Los Alamos (Ex. 36-52) recommended that a review 
occur when an individual experiences difficulty with any respirator, 
not limited to negative pressure devices. Homestake Mining (Ex. 36-30) 
also recommended a review following breathing difficulty with any 
respirator. OSHA agrees that breathing difficulty while wearing any 
type of respirator requires a medical status review, and the language 
of this alternative has been changed accordingly.
    The final departure from the ANSI Z88.6 physical qualification 
recommendations is the requirement in this alternative that the 
employee's medical status be reviewed annually or at any time the 
employee experiences difficult breathing while being fitted for or 
using a respirator. Although the latter requirement is implied by ANSI, 
the annual review is not. By such an annual review, OSHA is not 
necessarily requiring a physical examination. The objective of this 
provision is to provide a mechanism which necessitates routine review 
of any difficulty an employee may be experiencing. Other then being 
performed by or under the supervision of a physician, the specific 
nature of this annual review is left to the physician to determine. 
OSHA invites comments as to the appropriateness of this provision.
    AMAX Inc. (Ex. 36-27) citing experience with the OSHA lead 
standard, stated that an annual review of medical status was not 
required and review should be required only when requested by the 
employee. Air Products and Chemicals Inc. agreed. (Ex. 36-13). OSHA 
requests comment on this approach.
    In the preproposal draft, OSHA included guidelines for medical 
examinations suggesting that they be given every five years for 
employees under forty, every two years for those from forty to fifty 
years of age, and every year for those above fifty. ANSI in its Z88.6-
1984 standard recommended examinations every 5 years for those below 
age 35, every 2 years up to age 45, and annually thereafter. The NIOSH 
Respirator Decision Logic suggests examinations every 5 years for those 
under 35 years of age, every 2 years for those from 35 to 45, and every 
1 to 2 years for those above 45, under most working conditions 
requiring respirators. Under strenuous work conditions with an SCBA, 
NIOSH suggested exams every 3 years for those under 35, every 18 months 
for those from 35 to 45, and annually for those above 45 (Ex. 38-20).
    OSHA requests comment on whether an annual review of medical status 
is needed, or whether a sliding scale of examination dates, such as 
recommended by NIOSH or ANSI, could be substituted for the annual 
medical review.
    Commenters questioned the preproposal draft requirement that the 
medical evaluation be performed by a licensed physician. Many 
commenters pointed out that there were portions of the medical 
evaluation that could be performed by other health professionals such 
as occupational health nurses and physicians assistants, or nurse 
practitioners, certified audiometric technicians, and pulmonary 
function testing technicians (Ex. 36-8, 36-10, 36-13, 36-18, 36-21, 36-
22, 36-30, 36-32, 36-35, 36-37, 36-40, 36-41, 36-51A, 36-53, 36-55). 
OSHA has revised the language for this alternative to permit other 
health professionals to perform whatever medical evaluation procedures 
the physician chooses to delegate to them. OSHA requests comments on 
this issue and on the extent of the role that should be given to these 
health professionals.
    In requiring a medical evaluation, OSHA has proposed in this 
alternative that an examination be given to respirator wearers 
regardless of the type of respirator used or the conditions under which 
it will be used. Commenters have suggested that not all types of 
respirators place the same physical demands upon wearers, and that the 
medical evaluation criteria could be reduced for certain low resistance 
respirators. John Barr of Air Products and Chemicals (Ex. 36-13) stated 
that positive pressure respirators place no significant burdens on 
wearers, and that disposable dust masks have no discernable effect upon 
respiration. He suggested that OSHA exempt such respirators from the 
need for a qualifying medical exam.
    OSHA requests comments on whether the medical evaluation provisions 
should be less extensive for less burdensome respirators, such as 
positive pressure respirators or single use dust masks, and if so, what 
provisions could be reduced or eliminated. More generally, comment is 
sought on whether the medical evaluation provisions should be modified 
to accommodate particular respirator work conditions, and if so, what 
those modifications should be.
    OSHA requests information and data on the breathing resistance 
levels of respirators for wearers, and whether a medical determination 
could be made to select a breathing resistance level which poses no 
problem for respirator wearers.
    OSHA's suggested regulatory language for the second alternative 
medical evaluation procedure reads as follows:
    (e) Medical evaluation.
    (1) The employer shall provide a medical evaluation for each 
employee required to wear a respirator for more than five hours during 
any work week. The medical evaluation shall be performed by a licensed 
physician or by a health professional operating under the physicians 
supervision and shall include completion of a medical history and 
performance of a medical examination. In advance of the medical 
evaluation the employer shall provide the examining professional with 
information concerning:
    (i) The type of respiratory protection to be used;
    (ii) The substances the employee will be exposed to;
    (iii) Description of the work effort required;
    (iv) Duration and frequency of usage;
    (v) The type of work performed, including any special 
responsibilities that affect the safety of others such as fire fighting 
or rescue work;
    (vi) Any special environmental conditions (such as heat or confined 
space entry); and
    (vii) Additional requirements for protective clothing and 
equipment.
    (2) Upon completion of the examination, the employer shall obtain 
from the examining physician a written opinion which states whether the 
employee is fit to wear a respirator and recommends any limitations on 
respirator use. A copy of this written opinion shall be provided to the 
examined employee.
    (3) In the case of new employees, employers may accept an already 
existing medical examination or written opinion from a physician 
provided it was conducted within a year of the date of employment, 
covered the same type of respirator under similar use conditions, and 
meets the requirements of (e)(1).
    (4) The employer shall have the employee's medical status reviewed 
by, or under the supervision of, a licensed physician annually and at 
any time the employee experiences unusual difficulty breathing while 
being fitted for or while using a respirator. The employer shall have 
the responsible licensed physician provide a written opinion resulting 
from the review as required under (e)(2).
Alternative 3--Questionnaire
    A third alternative for medical evaluation would require that a 
medical questionnaire be used to survey respirator users and to 
identify those who require physical examinations on the basis of their 
medical history (Ex. 15-8, 15-22, 15-34, 15-41, 15-42, 15-44, 15-45, 
15-47, 15-68, 15-62). The specific nature of this questionnaire and its 
accompanying procedures was not always clearly presented by the 
commenters, but the health evaluation provisions in the Organization 
Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) recommended respiratory protection 
program (Ex. 36-47) was suggested as a model medical evaluation 
procedure (Ex. 36-3, 36-22, 36-35, 36-38, 36-40, 36-41, 36-47, 36-50, 
36-51A).
    The program recommended by ORC requires that a screening 
questionnaire be administered by a health professional or trained 
person for each respirator wearer, prior to fit testing. Anyone who 
gives a ``yes'' answer to a question on the questionnaire, or who wears 
an SCBA for emergency or rescue operations would receive a medical 
evaluation, performed by or under the direction of a physician. The 
procedures to be used for the medical evaluation would be left to the 
judgment of the health professional performing the evaluation. The 
employer and employee would be notified of any restrictions on 
respirator wear that are identified by the health evaluation. The ORC 
recommended program included a nonmandatory appendix containing sample 
questionnaires and suggestions for medical examinations of individuals 
who answered yes to the screening questions.
    Other commenters who stated that automatic medical exams for all 
respirator wearers were not necessary (Ex. 36-3, 36-13, 36-21, 36-22, 
36-30, 36-35, 36-38, 36-40, 36-41, 36-47, 36-50, 36-51A) also supported 
a medical questionnaire to screen the respirator user population so 
that only those whose medical condition warrants a medical exam would 
get one. The commenters stated that the questionnaire could be 
administered quickly, and the unnecessary expense of medical exams for 
healthy respirator users would be avoided.
    OSHA has suggested in this alternative that the question of who 
should administer the medical questionnaire and determine which 
respirator users should be referred for a medical exam be resolved by 
adopting the recommended procedure in the ORC respiratory protection 
program. Either a health professional or a person trained in 
administering the questionnaire by a physician would have this 
responsibility. This would place this critical part of the medical 
evaluation under a trained individual acting under the direction of the 
physician who has the ultimate responsibility for approving respirator 
use. OSHA requests comments on the administration of the medical 
questionnaire and on the appropriate individuals for performing this 
requirement.
    Employees who are assigned to emergency or rescue operations with 
SCBA respirators would still be required under alternative 3 to have a 
medical examination. These individuals are placed in highly stressful 
environments while wearing a heavy SCBA, which places an added burden 
on their physical condition. A questionnaire would not serve adequately 
as a screening procedure for these respirator wearers, and therefore 
OSHA would follow the ORC recommendation for alternative 3 and require 
that a medical exam be performed. The extent of that examination would 
be left up to the physician to determine. OSHA asks for comments on the 
need for performing a medical exam for these SCBA wearers, and on 
appropriate medical procedures to be used to evaluate their ability to 
perform adequately during emergency or rescue operations.
    As examples of medical questionnaires, OSHA has included in 
Appendix C the ANSI Z88.6 medical questionnaire for respirator use, as 
well as the three sample questionnaires from the ORC Recommended 
Respiratory Protection Program. OSHA has placed these questionnaires in 
this nonmandatory appendix in order to seek comment on the 
appropriateness of using such questionnaires and on which provisions in 
these samples are appropriate for determining an individual's ability 
to wear a respirator. OSHA also requests any alternative questionnaires 
that are used in industry.
    The proposed regulatory language that has been developed for this 
third alternative of the medical evaluation procedures reads as 
follows:
    (e) Medical evaluation
    (1) The employer shall provide a medical evaluation before 
respirator use starts for each employee required to wear a respirator.
    (i) The medical evaluation shall consist of the completion of a 
screening medical questionnaire for all respirator users.
    (ii) A medical examination shall be administered to any employee 
whose answers to any of the questions on the questionnaire show the 
need for such an examination.
    (iii) A medical examination shall be administered to any employee 
who is assigned to emergency or rescue operations while wearing an 
SCBA.
    (iv) The questionnaire shall be administered by a health 
professional or a person trained in its administration by a licensed 
physician.
    (v) Any medical examination administered shall be performed by a 
licensed physician or health professional under the direction of the 
physician. If a medical examination is given, the employer shall obtain 
from the examining physician a written opinion which states whether the 
employee has any detected medical condition which would place the 
employee's health at increased risk or material impairment for 
respirator use and any recommended limitations upon the use of 
respirators.
    (vi) A copy of this written opinion shall be provided to the 
examined employee. In advance of the medical examination the employer 
shall provide the examining professional with information concerning:
    (A) The type of respiratory protection to be used;
    (B) The substances the employee will be exposed to;
    (C) Description of the work effort required;
    (D) Duration and frequency of usage;
    (E) The type of work performed, including any special 
responsibilities that affect the safety of others such as fire fighting 
or rescue work;
    (F) Any special environmental conditions (such as heat or confined 
space entry); and
    (G) Additional requirements for protective clothing and equipment.
    (2) In the case of new employees, employers may accept an already 
existing medical examination or written opinion from a physician 
provided it was conducted within a year of the date of employment, 
covered the same type of respirator under similar use conditions, and 
meets the requirements of (e)(1).
    (3) The employer shall have the employee's medical status reviewed 
by, or under the supervision of, a licensed physician annually and at 
any time the employee experiences unusual difficulty breathing while 
being fitted for or while using a respirator. The employer shall have 
the responsible licensed physician provide a written opinion resulting 
from the review as required under (e)(1).
Other Issues

Medical Removal Protection

    In some substance specific standards (e.g. cotton dust 29 CFR 
1910.1043 and asbestos 29 CFR 1910.1001) OSHA has required economic 
protection for employees who, for medical reasons, cannot wear required 
respirators. California OSHA (Ex. 36-44) and the United Steel Workers 
of America (Ex. 36-46) recommended that OSHA request any data on the 
instances and types of cases where employees have been determined not 
to be able to wear a respirator and what happened to these workers 
under current respirator programs. Determining the prevalence of such 
rejections and the fates of those who were rejected could be useful in 
determining the need of employers to supply alternative respirators or 
the need for OSHA to require that employers provide alternative jobs 
for those who cannot wear a particular type of respirator. Therefore, 
OSHA requests the submission of any data or information regarding 
instances and details of cases where workers were found to be unable to 
wear respirators and how this determination affected the worker's job 
responsibilities. OSHA would also like to receive any available 
information on the frequency with which such situations occur, or 
alternatively on how many such cases are known to have happened.
    Since the inability to wear a respirator, or failing to pass a 
medical evaluation, could result in employees losing their jobs, some 
commenters recommended that OSHA should add provisions to help 
employees in these situations. Medical removal protection, the 
requirement that employers provide employees who are unable to wear 
respirators with alternative assignments at the same seniority and pay, 
was recommended by several commenters (Ex. 36-14, 36-26, 36-44, 36-46). 
Giving employees who fail to pass the initial medical evaluation the 
right to a second opinion, similar to the provision for physician 
review in the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(3)) was suggested by 
other commenters (Ex. 36-44, 36-46). Adding a requirement that the 
employer provide an alternate type of respirator such as a PAPR or 
supplied air respirator in cases where an employee cannot use a 
negative pressure air-purifying respirator due to medical restrictions 
was recommended by California OSHA (Ex. 36-44). Although such 
provisions were included in recent OSHA standards such as cotton dust 
(29 CFR 1910.1043(f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (h)(5)(i)(c)) and asbestos 
(29 CFR 1910.1001(g)(2)(ii)) OSHA does not feel that sufficient 
information has been submitted upon which such provisions could be 
included in this proposal for general application to all workplaces. 
Therefore, additional information and data are requested which address 
these issues.

(F) Fit Testing Procedures

    Although it has long been recognized that respirators must fit 
properly in order to provide protection, it has only been within the 
last few years that systematic approaches for assessing and assuring 
fit have been developed. As a result of continuing research, a number 
of fit testing protocols have been developed and tested (Ex. 2, 8). In 
addition, because of the variability of face size characteristics among 
individuals, different sizes of facepieces are now available, in 
contrast to the recent past when a ``one size fits all'' approach was 
generally taken.
    In general there are two categories of fit testing--qualitative and 
quantitative. Qualitative fit testing involves the introduction of a 
gas, vapor, or aerosol challenge agent into an area around the 
respirator wearer. A determination is then made as to whether the 
respirator wearer can detect the presence of the challenge agent 
through subjective means such as odor, taste, or nasal irritation. If 
the presence is detected, the respirator fit is considered to be 
inadequate.
    In a quantitative respirator fit test the respirator is worn in a 
stable test atmosphere containing a suitable challenge agent. The 
adequacy of the fit is determined by measuring the actual levels of the 
challenge agent, both outside and inside the facepiece of the 
respirator.
    The current standard sets out no specific protocols for fit testing 
although it does require training which provides an opportunity to have 
the respirator ``fitted properly''. It also requires employees to be 
trained to check the fit each time the respirator is put on without 
specifying how the check is to be performed or even what type of check 
is acceptable. Experience and research over the past ten years have 
demonstrated that this is insufficient, as set forth in the following 
discussion.
    Even when fit testing is performed, it may be inadequate. In the 
past, some manufacturers included their own qualitative fit testing 
protocols as part of the manufacturers instructions to the user. 
Numerous commenters complained that NIOSH or OSHA should check the 
manufacturers instructions for adequacy and consistency (Ex. 15-14, 15-
16, 15-36, 15-41, 15-46, 15-47, 15-48, 15-50, 15-52, 15-75A, 15-79), 
since employers often use or attempt to use such instructions to fit 
respirators to their employees faces. Since fit testing is often done 
by the employer, commenters also suggested that the simplicity of the 
protocol be stressed.
    Commenters to the ANPR suggested that a standardized protocol be 
developed which is oriented toward the hazard or level of exposure when 
determining the qualitative efficacy of a respirator (Ex. 15-10, 15-48, 
15-64). In addition, it was suggested that the type of odor or irritant 
used should also be standardized (Ex. 15-54, 15-58, 15-70, 15-71, 15-
76). Correlation of the testing done qualitatively and quantitatively 
would also aid in assuring that respirators being worn are effective 
(Ex. 15-17B, 34-8). The proposed standard attempts to standardize the 
protocol and also simplify the procedures.
    OSHA has recognized the need for fit testing in the development of 
recent substance specific rulemakings. Quantitative fit tests were 
required in such standards as acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045) and lead 
(29 CFR 1910.1025). However, specific protocols were not provided in 
any of these substance specific standards. Later, questions arose 
regarding the feasibility of the requirement for quantitative fit 
testing in the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). As a result OSHA 
conducted a specific rulemaking for the fit testing provisions of the 
lead standard. It was consequently determined that qualitative fit 
testing could be used with half mask negative pressure respirators, 
provided that one of three specified protocols was followed, and 
provided that lead concentrations do not exceed ten times the 
permissible exposure limit (47 FR 51110).
    These specified qualitative fit testing (QLFT) protocols use 
isoamyl acetate, irritant smoke, or saccharin as the test agents. OSHA 
believes, based on the record of the lead supplemental rulemaking (47 
FR 51110), that the three QLFT protocols accepted for use in the lead 
standard are generally appropriate for use with negative pressure half 
mask respirators and has therefore incorporated them.
    This proposal would require that fit testing be performed where 
air-purifying respirators as well as tight fitting atmosphere-supplying 
respirators are used. Either qualitative fit testing or quantitative 
fit testing may be conducted for quarter facepiece, half mask, or full 
facepiece respirators. The proposal details the procedures for 
qualitative and quantitative fit tests in Appendix A. Commenters (Ex. 
36-38) on the preproposal draft stated that the protocol exercise 
regimens and other elements common to both qualitative and quantitative 
fit testing were not consistent. Therefore the common elements of the 
protocols in Appendix A have been standardized in this proposal in 
order to provide consistency.
    It is recognized that one purpose of revising the existing 
respiratory protection standard is to allow for changes in respiratory 
protection technology. Numerous comments were made suggesting that 
limiting the qualitative and quantitative tests to certain specified 
methods would freeze technology at the present state and would not 
allow for future changes nor provide any incentive to develop new test 
methods or test agents (Ex. 36-22, 36-32, 36-35, 36-51, 36-53). OSHA 
agrees and would like to develop more performance oriented criteria by 
which new or modified fit test procedures can be evaluated. Such 
criteria must guarantee a high level of certainty that the fit test 
will in fact select the best fitting respirator and give maximum 
assurance of reliable fit. Performance oriented criteria that will 
enable reliable new fit tests to be developed and implemented do not, 
to OSHA's knowledge, exist at the present time. OSHA seeks comment so 
that it can build a provision into the standard that encourages and 
permits improvements in fit test technology. Such comment should 
include specifications for validation procedures and for what 
organizations can be designated as credible validation performers.
    In the absence of performance oriented criteria for determining the 
reliability of fit tests, OSHA is proposing to allow the use of 
qualitative or quantitative fit tests other than the methods specified 
in Appendix A provided they are validated to provide equivalent or 
better reliability.
    When a qualitative fit test is properly administered for a half 
mask, quarter mask, or full facepiece negative pressure air-purifying 
respirator in accordance with the protocols in Appendix A, OSHA 
proposes to allow the respirator to be used in concentrations up to a 
maximum of ten times the established permissible exposure limit.
    Quantitative fit testing (QNFT), a more recent development, 
measures the efficacy of a respirator by actually measuring and 
comparing the contaminant level inside and outside a respirator 
facepiece. As with qualitative fit testing, commenters stated that 
manufacturers' QNFT protocols differ greatly (Ex. 15-22, 15-26, 15-30, 
15-44). Many objected that different test agents were used (Ex. 15-44, 
15-55, 15-58, 15-79). Some manufacturers protocols only test the 
respirator once instead of using the average of several tests. OSHA in 
reviewing these comments agreed that the QNFT procedure should be 
standardized and for this reason includes a protocol in the proposed 
standard.
    Either qualitative or quantitative fit testing may be used for 
quarter facepiece, half mask, or full facepiece respirators. However, 
OSHA has only limited data on the applicability of the qualitative fit 
test protocols for either quarter facepiece or full facepiece 
respirators. Therefore, although this proposal does allow the use of 
quarter facepiece and full facepiece respirators which pass the QLFT in 
atmospheres up to ten times the established exposure limit, OSHA 
invites interested parties to submit data which demonstrate how well 
the QLFT protocols can detect poor fits for full facepiece and quarter 
facepiece respirators.
    If the employer chooses to use quantitative fit testing, a full 
facepiece respirator may be used up to a maximum of its assigned 
protection factor of 50 as shown in Table I of paragraph (d), provided 
that the fit factor obtained during quantitative fit testing is at 
least 500.
    The proposal requires fit testing of tight fitting atmosphere-
supplying and powered air-purifying respirators. It is recognized that 
demand type atmosphere-supplying respirators have negative air pressure 
inside the facepiece compared to the air pressure outside the 
respirator upon inhalation. The efficacy of these respirators therefore 
relies to a large degree on the integrity of the facepiece to face fit. 
Therefore it is clearly appropriate to require fit testing of demand or 
negative pressure tight fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators. 
Comments were also received regarding positive pressure tight fitting 
atmosphere-supplying respirators (Ex. 36-26, 36-45, 36-44). Such 
comments suggested that it is appropriate to require the fit testing of 
positive pressure devices since it has been determined that positive 
pressure respirators do not always maintain positive pressure. Further, 
the possible adverse effects of the negative pressure spikes can be 
minimized by providing positive pressure respirator users with good 
fitting facepieces. Therefore, it has been suggested that quantitative 
fit testing should be required for positive pressure equipment (Ex. 36-
26). Accordingly, OSHA is proposing that tight fitting atmosphere-
supplying respirators utilizing quarter facepiece, half mask, and full 
facepiece masks be fit tested either by a qualitative or quantitative 
fit test. The proposal specifies that only the mask needs to be tested, 
not the entire respirator unit. Since the testing of entire atmosphere-
supplying respirator units may require even more specialized QNFT 
equipment, and since the fit of the facepiece itself is the basic 
consideration, only the mask is required to be tested. It is recognized 
that most respirator facepieces (i.e brand, model, size) are available 
in air-purifying models as well as atmosphere-supplying units.
    The fit test is to be performed on the same brand, size, and model 
of an air-purifying respirator. Once a fit is achieved with a 
particular mask, a NIOSH approved atmosphere-supplying respirator which 
utilizes the same type of mask as used in the test (i.e., brand, size, 
model) is to be selected for use by the employee. The respirator may 
then be used with an assignment protection factor as noted in Table II.
    OSHA is proposing that fit testing be performed before an employee 
first starts wearing a respirator in the work environment and at least 
annually thereafter. Semiannual respirator fit testing is required 
currently in certain OSHA substance specific standards such as lead, 
inorganic arsenic, acrylonitrile, and asbestos. In the preproposal 
draft respirator standard, OSHA proposed that fit testing be performed 
annually. Testing respirator fit on an annual basis was considered more 
appropriate for a general respirator use standard rather than the 
semiannual fit testing required in some substance specific OSHA 
standards. Commenters on the preproposal draft standard agreed with the 
annual testing requirement (Ex. 36-8, 36-11, 36-26, 36-30, 36-31, 36-
44, 36-45, 36-47). Others disagreed. Michael Stewart of the Boeing 
Company (Ex. 36-24) commented that fit testing should not be required 
at a fixed, arbitrary frequency since changes which affect a proper 
respirator seal occur at random. He proposed that OSHA require fit 
testing whenever an employee experiences difficulty in obtaining an 
adequate face seal during a routinely performed positive/negative fit 
check. However, a study of the negative pressure fit check has shown 
(Ex. 24-21) that this fit check would pass respirator wearers with 
inadequate fits, particularly those that require protection factors 
above 10. Therefore, the use of positive/negative facepiece fit checks 
to determine when a fit test should be given would be an inadequate 
substitute for annual fit testing. The Monsanto Company (Ex. 36-32), 
Amoco Corporation (Ex. 36-35) and the Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 36-40) 
stated that annual fit testing was not necessary and it was their 
experience that fit testing every second year was adequate. It is 
OSHA's belief, however, that fit testing not only determines respirator 
fit, but also provides an opportunity to check on comfort and problems 
with respirator wear, and reinforces respirator training by having 
wearers review the proper methods of donning and wearing the 
respirator. Moreover, a two year interval between fit tests has not 
been shown to provide adequate assurance that necessary respirator fit 
factors will be maintained in the workplace. OSHA encourages these 
companies and others to provide any supporting data or specific 
experiences they have that would support an alternative to annual fit 
testing. OSHA invites comments from all interested parties on the 
annual fit testing requirement and on alternative fit testing 
frequencies. OSHA also requests any experience from fit testing 
programs on how frequently the annual fit test results in the changing 
of the previously assigned respirator for a new model or size.
    The point was raised that either contractors or corporate staff 
members often have sole responsibility to conduct quantitative fit 
testing at local facilities and that a problem is created when new 
hires enter the work force after the annual fit test has been completed 
at the facility (Ex. 36-11). OSHA is proposing that where assigned 
protection factors higher than ten are necessary, requiring 
quantitative fit testing, an employer may utilize a qualitative fit 
test to select respirators for new employees provided that a 
quantitative fit test is administered within thirty days. This is 
allowed only when the employer is relying on an outside party to 
conduct quantitative fit testing. OSHA is also asking for comments on 
whether this provision should be broadened to cover other situations, 
such as when the QNFT equipment is out of service for repairs, where 
the thirty day exemption would prove useful.
    It is generally recognized that facial configuration, and 
ultimately respirator fit, can be affected by factors such as weight 
gain or loss, and can change with time. Comments were submitted 
requesting that specific criteria be provided on the conditions which 
would require a retest, such as a set amount of weight change (Ex. 36-
13, 36-28). To clarify the issue the current proposal states that 
retesting is required as necessary, such as when visual observations 
are noted regarding an employee's condition which could affect 
respirator fit. Further it is stated that such conditions may be facial 
scarring, cosmetic surgery, or an obvious change in body weight. OSHA 
believes that it is not possible to provide specific quantifiable 
criteria for the extent of such changes and that it is unavoidable that 
the employer will need to exercise judgment in deciding when a non-
scheduled fit test is necessary.
    Once fitted the employee shall be given the opportunity to wear the 
respirator for two weeks. If the respirator becomes unacceptably 
uncomfortable the employee must be given an opportunity to select a 
different respirator facepiece and be retested. Employers relying on 
contractors to conduct fit testing may wish to have the employee 
successfully fitted in two different respirators. This would prevent 
having the contractor return to the facility to retest an employee 
whose respirator became uncomfortable.

Appendix A

    Appendix A applies to both qualitative and quantitative fit testing 
of quarter facepiece, half mask, and full facepiece respirators. The 
appendix identifies three established qualitative fit test protocols 
and one quantitative fit test protocol utilizing one of two test 
agents.
    A protocol for the TSI Portacount fit testing method has not been 
included as an established quantitative fit test protocol at this time. 
The use of the Portacount is currently acceptable under a compliance 
interpretation which treats its use as a de minimis violation of the 
substance specific standards which require the use of an aerosol 
generation system for quantitative fit testing. As part of this 
rulemaking a protocol for the Portacount will be reviewed and, if 
appropriate, the existing substance specific standards fit test 
provisions will be revised to permit its use. OSHA invites the 
submission of other fit test protocols for public comment and OSHA 
approval before inclusion as established fit test methods.
    In addition Appendix A contains two sets of ``minimum criteria for 
a valid fit test''. One set of criteria applies to qualitative fit 
tests which utilize a ``non-established'' test agent or method. The 
second set applies to quantitative fit tests which use a ``non-
established'' test agent or test method. The purpose of including these 
criteria is to allow and encourage the development of new qualitative 
and quantitative fit test methods and/or media. This is in response to 
numerous comments stating that any new standard should be flexible 
enough to allow new methods, test agents, and respirator test 
technology to be developed (Ex. 36-22, 36-32, 36-35, 36-51A, 36-53). 
OSHA requests comments as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the 
proposed Minimum Criteria.
    New test methods and/or agents may be accepted by OSHA after their 
use is proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and comments are 
requested, according to a notice and comment rulemaking procedure 
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. OSHA 
believes that this procedure, authorized by the OSH Act in the last 
sentence of section 6(b)(7) will allow relevant public comment to be 
submitted for OSHA's evaluation without the need for public hearings. 
Since the protocols which will be adopted in this standard will have 
been subjected to rulemaking, additional protocols too, should be 
examined in a public proceeding. However, requiring full 6(b) 
rulemaking, with public hearings, would in OSHA's view, unduly delay 
decision making on the validity of new fit testing protocols and would 
be unnecessary. OSHA believes that this procedure strikes an 
appropriate balance between the need to accommodate technological 
advances in fit testing, and the need to obtain input from affected 
employers and employees.
    Both the qualitative and quantitative validation criteria for new 
fit test methods require that the fit test data submitted for approval 
demonstrate statistically that the fit test method would be as 
protective. These requirements set a strict performance criteria for 
new test methods. While these criteria have generally been used in the 
past in evaluating test data it is not clear that these performance 
levels are the most appropriate ones to be used for evaluating new fit 
tests. Some of the existing qualitative fit test methods that are 
generally accepted do not meet these performance levels. The irritant 
smoke (Ex. 24-12) and saccharin (Ex. 24-20) QLFT protocols identified 
92 percent of users with poor fits at the 95% confidence level. The 
isoamyl acetate QLFT protocol identified 93% of the poor respirator 
fits (Ex. 24-19). As an alternative, it has been suggested that OSHA 
allow the use of new fit test methods that are proven to meet or exceed 
the performance levels of the currently accepted methods. OSHA requests 
comments, data, and information on the appropriate performance levels 
that should be required for new fit test methods, and on whether the 
95% of users/95% confidence level requirements contained in the 
validation criteria for new fit test methods should be retained or 
revised.
    The question of whether OSHA should propose standard test aerosol 
particle sizes to be used in validating new qualitative fit test 
methods has been raised. For validation testing of respirators equipped 
with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters a polydisperse test 
aerosol with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of 0.6 micrometers with 
a geometric standard deviation of less than 2 was considered by OSHA. 
For testing respirators equipped with non-HEPA filters a polydisperse 
test aerosol with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of 2.0 micrometers 
and a geometric standard deviation of less than 2 was suggested. These 
are the particle size ranges for silica dust that NIOSH uses for HEPA 
and dust/mist filter certification. Whether these particular aerosol 
sizes are the most appropriate ones to be specified for use in 
validating new qualitative fit test methods is uncertain. In the 
proposal OSHA has not established a standard test aerosol particle 
size. With respect to qualitative fit testing, OSHA invites comments 
and questions as to the size of aerosols acceptable for use in 
qualitative fit test protocols, whether OSHA should establish standard 
test aerosol sizes for validation testing, and if so, what the 
appropriate sizes should be.
    It should be remembered that, regarding the minimum criteria for 
validation of a new fit test procedure, the test subjects of interest, 
and the only ones that enter into the statistical analysis, are those 
who have poor respirator fits. The statistics must be based on the 
ability of the new test procedure to detect an already established 
poorly fitting respirator. It must be kept in mind that the validation 
of a fit test measures the performance of the fit test and not of the 
respirator. The objective of the validation testing is to assure that 
the new test procedure provides results which are at least as reliable 
as those of the existing protocols.
    The validation of new fit testing procedures has to be a carefully 
controlled measurement procedure using test instrumentation with an 
accuracy that exceeds that found in standard quantitative fit testing. 
The validation testing that has been done on the existing fit test 
procedures were performed using laboratory grade instrumentation. As a 
matter of caution, it is recommended that those performing validation 
testing for new fit test procedures submit to OSHA the test parameters 
of the instrumentation that will be used in advance, before extensive 
testing is done. OSHA invites comments to specify more precisely the 
performance parameters that should be established for valid comparison 
measurements. The section in this proposal that describes minimum 
criteria for validation of new QNFT protocols requires that 
instrumentation achieve sufficient accuracy and precision, but does not 
specify values for these parameters. Therefore, OSHA requests comments 
on appropriate values for accuracy and precision of validation 
instrumentation including sampling systems, detectors and processors. 
OSHA is aware that the ANSI Z88 respirator committee is working on 
minimum criteria for fit test instrumentation. If during the rulemaking 
process ANSI finalizes its recommendations, OSHA will give them serious 
consideration with respect to the minimum criteria.

New Fit Testing Technology

    The minimum criteria for fit testing also contains a section that 
deals with minimum criteria for new technology. It contains provisions 
which are general in nature, since without knowing what the new fit 
testing technology will be it is not possible to develop specific 
criteria. Fit testing methods using new technology will have to be 
approved by OSHA on a case by case basis, taking into account the 
specific nature of the new technology. OSHA requests comments on how 
new technology for fit testing should be evaluated, and what ground 
rules for minimum criteria OSHA should establish concerning its use.
    OSHA is aware that there are other fit testing methods under 
development that do not rely on particle counting, such as the 
controlled negative pressure fit test or fit tests that use a gas as 
the fit test agent. Other novel fit test methods using different 
technologies may be developed in the future. OSHA intends to allow for 
the possible acceptance of these novel fit test methods. However, there 
has to be a way to guarantee that any new fit test method is at least 
as effective as the existing particulate methods in screening out poor 
respirator fits. The proposed criteria in Appendix A for new fit test 
methods related to particle counting fit test methods, and may not be 
appropriate for other technologies. OSHA, therefore, would like 
suggestions on what criteria would be appropriate for accepting or 
rejecting fit test methods based on non-conventional principles.

Fit Test Exercises

    Complaints were also registered on the issue that the fit test 
protocols specified in the prepublication draft proposal were not 
consistent in that the exercise regimens, length of test exercises and 
type of exercises were not consistent among the qualitative fit test 
methods and that there were corresponding differences between the 
qualitative and quantitative fit test protocols (Ex. 36-38). For 
example, the isoamyl acetate method consisted of seven exercises; the 
saccharin protocol, five exercises; the irritant fume protocol, six 
exercises; and the quantitative fit test protocol, eight exercises. 
Therefore the initial section of Appendix A contains uniform 
requirements applicable to both qualitative and quantitative fit tests. 
Except for minor modifications, the uniform requirements are the same 
as those identified in the OSHA lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025) as a 
result of the rulemaking on its fit testing provisions. Only those 
areas where substantive changes were made and where comment has been 
received are addressed below.
    In the course of the fit test the test subject is to seat the 
respirator by moving the head from side-to-side and up and down, slowly 
while taking a few deep slow breaths. This represents a change from the 
selection protocol in the lead standard, since the lead standard 
protocol requires the head to be moved ``rapidly'' from side to side 
and up and down. The Los Alamos National Laboratory commented that 
there is uncertainty regarding the ability of rapid head movement to 
seat a respirator, and also indicated that it may actually make the fit 
worse (Ex. 36-52). Therefore OSHA has revised the proposal regarding 
this aspect by removing the word ``rapidly''.
    The employer is to maintain a record of the fit test administered 
to an employee. The fit test record is to include the date and type of 
test, test agent, employee information, and type of respirator. When 
QNFT is administered a record of the test recording (i.e. strip chart, 
computer integration, etc.) is to be maintained. The fit test records 
are to be maintained until the next fit test is administered. A record 
is necessary to enable OSHA to determine compliance by verifying that 
an employee has been fit tested before first starting respirator use 
and at least annually thereafter; that the tested employee passed the 
qualitative fit test, or achieved a sufficiently high fit factor to 
pass the quantitative fit test for the assigned protection factor 
required; that the quantitative fit test was correctly performed and 
the fit factor calculated properly; and that the respirator model and 
size as determined during fit testing are the same as being used by 
that employee in the workplace.
    Initially OSHA proposed that a fit test card be furnished to the 
employee. The card was to contain information regarding the size and 
type of respirator fitted and the date of the test. Comment was made 
(Ex. 36-39) that the requirement for a fit test card created an 
additional recordkeeping burden. Therefore the requirement has been 
deleted in the current proposal.
    An alternative to the required fit test recordkeeping would be to 
allow the employer to sign a certification that fit testing has been 
performed and not require that any fit test records be maintained. This 
certification would state that fit testing had been performed and 
provide the date of the certification, the employee identifier of the 
person certified, and the signature or initials of the responsible 
individual making the certification. Since a certification is not 
considered a record for recordkeeping purposes, and the fit test 
records generated during the fit test would not have to be maintained, 
the recordkeeping burden of the proposed standard would be reduced. 
However, the replacement of the requirement for retaining the fit test 
records by a certification requirement would have an impact on the 
performance of an inspection. Inspectors would have to rely on 
secondary sources such as interviews of employees and fit test 
operators to confirm compliance with the specific fit test requirements 
of the standard. OSHA requests comments on the burden associated with 
maintaining fit test records and on the feasibility of fit test 
certification as an alternative to the recordkeeping currently required 
in the proposal.
    The test subject is to perform eight exercises. Seven of the 
exercises are to be performed for one minute while the grimace exercise 
is to be performed for 15 seconds. The test exercises are: normal 
breathing, deep breathing, turning head side to side, moving head up 
and down, talking out loud, grimace, bending over or jogging in place 
if the test unit is not large enough for the test subject to bend at 
the waist, and normal breathing.
    Comment was received stating that requiring the test subject to 
bend at the waist would in effect eliminate the use of the waist length 
hood or shower curtain type fit test hood (Ex. 36-27, 36-52). 
Therefore, this proposal allows jogging to be performed in lieu of 
bending at the waist when the size of the fit test enclosure will not 
allow the test subject to bend at the waist.
    Objections were also raised over requiring the test subject to 
read, particularly the rainbow passage (Ex. 36-8, 36-27, 36-28, 36-32, 
36-36, 36-39, 36-49). Statements were made that some employees cannot 
read well. Therefore, the proposal now requires that the employee 
either talk out loud or read from a prepared text.
    One comment stated that OSHA has made numerous changes to accepted 
protocols without verifying the effect of the changes on test 
performance (Ex. 36-38). It states further that the isoamyl acetate 
(IAA) and saccharin procedures originally presented in the lead 
standard would take only 3 minutes, but that the proposal changed this 
to 10 minutes without verifying that the concentration in the test 
chamber could be maintained for the duration of the test.
    OSHA does not regard the foregoing as valid. The QLFT test 
validated and adopted in the lead standard as a result of rulemaking 
has 6 exercises (IAA). Five of the exercises are to be performed for 
one minute and the ``talking'' exercise is to be performed for 
``several'' minutes. Thus the total test time would be 7 to 8 minutes. 
In this proposal OSHA is requiring eight exercises of which seven are 
to be performed for one minute and one exercise for 15 seconds, for a 
total time of 7 minutes and 15 seconds. Thus the total time required in 
this proposed standard is essentially the same length as the IAA QLFT 
protocol in the 29 CFR 1910.1025 lead standard. Any differences in 
required time are clearly minimal. Since the length of the two tests 
are the same, OSHA has concluded that the IAA concentration at the end 
of the proposed protocol would be the same as if it were performed 
under the QLFT IAA protocol contained in the lead standard.
Qualitative Fit Test Protocols

Isoamyl acetate protocol

    With the exception of the test exercises described above, the IAA 
test protocol included in the proposal is the same as the IAA protocol 
adopted under the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). Comment was 
received stating that the odor threshold screening test can be 
performed in the same room in which the fit test is conducted, provided 
that ventilation is adequate (Ex. 26-18), or when only a few people at 
a time are tested (Ex. 36-8), and that two rooms on separate 
ventilation systems may not be available and are unnecessary. However, 
in none of these comments was the specific issue of olfactory fatigue 
addressed.
    In the proposal OSHA is requiring the odor threshold screening test 
and fit test to be conducted in separate rooms and that the rooms not 
be connected to the same recirculating ventilation system. In the 
rulemaking in the lead standard on qualitative fit testing OSHA, in 
response to the recognition of one of the shortcomings of the IAA test 
(i.e., olfactory fatigue), deemed it appropriate that separate rooms 
and ventilation systems be required for the IAA fit testing and odor 
threshold screening test (47 FR 51114). Since nothing in the foregoing 
comments responded to the olfactory fatigue concern, OSHA is 
maintaining the requirement for separate rooms and ventilation systems.

Saccharin Solution Aerosol Protocol

    The saccharin solution aerosol protocol in the proposal is 
essentially identical to that contained in the lead standard (29 CFR 
1910.1025 Appendix D II). Comments were received suggesting that OSHA 
not allow the use of saccharin as a test agent since it is a suspect 
carcinogen (Ex. 36-28, 36-36) and that it is listed in the National 
Toxicology Program's Third Annual Report on Carcinogens (Ex. 36-34). 
However, the saccharin fit test protocol is the only QLFT protocol that 
has been validated for use with disposable dust/mist respirators. 
Eliminating the saccharin protocol would result in prohibiting the use 
of disposable dust/mist respirators, since they could not be fit 
tested. Although OSHA acknowledges that saccharin is a suspect 
carcinogen, it is highly unlikely that an annual exposure of 10 
minutes, during most of which time a respirator is worn, could 
constitute any measurable risk. OSHA considers such an exposure to be 
de minimis. Therefore, for the present time OSHA will allow the use of 
saccharin as a test agent for respirators in the absence of an 
acceptable alternative for testing disposable dust respirators. In this 
respect saccharin differs from DEHP, a test agent used in QNFT, for 
which acceptable substitutes exist. OSHA in this proposal is 
encouraging the development of new test agents and test methods as a 
replacement for the use of saccharin by including provisions which 
would allow such new protocols and test agents to be used.

Irritant Fume Protocol

    Comment was received on the irritant fume protocol stating 
correctly that the irritant fume and IAA protocols had inadvertently 
been combined in the prepublication draft and that the cartridges 
required for the respirator are incorrect, i.e., high efficiency 
organic vapor-acid gas, (Ex. 26-18, 36-28, 36-45, 36-52). The 
prepublication draft of this proposal inadvertently contained the above 
referenced requirements which were contained in the amendment to the 
lead standard. The lead standard was corrected at a later date (3-3-
83). The correction required only high efficiency filters and deleted 
all references to the use of IAA in the irritant fume protocol. These 
corrections are accordingly reflected in the current proposal.
    Objections were raised over requiring the use of a low flow air 
pump set to deliver 200 milliliters per minute. Statements were made 
that an aspirator bulb should be acceptable unless justification is 
provided for requiring a low flow air pump (Ex. 36-27, 36-28). OSHA is 
maintaining in the proposal the provision requiring the use of the low 
flow air pump. The purpose of the pump is twofold: to provide the 
challenge agent at a constant and stable rate; and to prevent a large 
amount of irritant from being released at one time. Use of an aspirator 
bulb will not provide delivery of the test agent at a stable, constant 
rate. Further, the use of an aspirator bulb can easily result in a 
large amount of irritant smoke being inadvertently released at one 
time.

Quantitative Fit Test (QNFT)

    Under the QNFT provisions the employer is to assign to one party 
such as a staff member or contractor the duty of implementing the QNFT 
program. The person assigned is to be knowledgeable about the 
instrumentation, calibration, use and administration of the tests. 
Further the employer is responsible for ensuring that the QNFT 
equipment is kept and maintained in such a way that it will operate at 
its original specifications, including maintaining the aerosol size and 
concentration in the test environment. OSHA is requesting comment on 
appropriate means/methods which should be used to ensure that the QNFT 
unit is producing aerosol with the particle size distribution and 
concentration for which the unit was originally designed.
    The quantitative fit test is to be conducted according to 
procedures which are widely recognized and accepted in the industrial 
hygiene community. It is performed in a test environment containing a 
challenge agent such as a hood, portable booth, or chamber. Measurement 
of the challenge agent concentration is made inside the respirator and 
inside the ambient test chamber environment by appropriate detection 
methods such as forward light scattering photometry or flame 
photometry. During the test the respirators are to be fitted with high 
efficiency filters, or otherwise fitted with filters that offer 99.97% 
efficiency against 0.3 micron aerosols according to the NIOSH 
definition of high efficiency as stated in 30 CFR Part 11 or 42 CFR 
Part 84. Therefore virtually any measurable leakage will be the result 
of leaks between the respirator sealing surface and the respirator 
wearers face. If challenge agents other than particulates are used, the 
sorbent/filters must offer a similar degree of collection efficiency 
against the challenge agent.

Challenge Agents

    In the ANPR OSHA requested comment on what test agents are suitable 
for QNFT. The ANPR also raised the question of whether it should be 
allowable to use substances identified as suspected carcinogens and if 
allowable, what basis should be used to determine that the probable 
dose is acceptable or unacceptable. Although it is generally recognized 
that QNFT fit testing equipment using test agents such as di-2-
ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP, commonly referred to as DOP), corn oil, and 
sodium chloride are commercially available at the present time, OSHA 
was and is interested in exploring all possible test agents for use in 
QNFT. On the issue of suitable test agents for QNFT, OSHA received a 
variety of comments. Some commenters suggested that the agency accept 
any agent demonstrated to be effective (Ex. 15-30), relatively 
nontoxic, easily detectable, and relatively stable (Ex. 15-13). Others 
provided lists of agents such as sodium chloride, di-2-ethylhexyl 
phthalate, di-2-ethylhexyl sebacate (DEHS), corn oil, mineral oil, and 
1% ethylene in air (Ex. 15-15). Another list submitted consisted of 
sodium chloride, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, di-2-ethylhexyl sebacate, 
corn oil and mineral oil (Ex. 15-58). Others provided one or two test 
agents: sodium chloride and corn oil (Ex. 15-55); DOP and corn oil (Ex. 
15-37); corn oil and vanilla extract (Ex. 15-10); sodium chloride (Ex. 
15-44); or corn oil (Ex. 15-26, 15-47, 15-50). In response to the 
question of appropriate test agents it was suggested that ``The 
essential characteristics for an acceptable solid or liquid aerosol 
agent for QNFT are described in ANSI Z88.2-1980 and/or the LANL basic 
protocol''. The Dow Chemical Company stated that there are many 
suitable test agents for QNFT (Ex. 15-19). It said that within Dow, 
Freon 12 was used extensively and that to be suitable the agent should 
be readily detectable at low concentrations. Dow later stated 
replacement of their units would be expensive and unnecessary, should 
Freon 12 be excluded as a test agent under this proposal (Ex. 36-40).
    The second question of whether it should be allowable to use test 
agents identified as carcinogens was prompted by animal studies 
concerning DEHP which were positive for carcinogenicity. Several 
commenters declared that suspect carcinogens in general should not be 
allowed to be used (Ex. 15-34, 15-44, 15-48, 15-50, 15-55, 15-58, 15-
70). The St. Joe Lead Company (Ex. 15-44) stated: ``In general, they 
should not be used. The problem is not so much that one could determine 
the doses well below any dose of concern, but rather that the concept 
of a health related test utilizing a known carcinogen would tend to 
undermine the positive psychological value of concern of the employer 
for the worker's health.'' Comment was received stating that there is 
insufficient toxicological evidence to eliminate materials such as DEHS 
or PEG as test agents and that gases should not be precluded (Ex. 36-
52). Any test agent should be allowed as long as the employer can 
assure that employees are not exposed to hazardous concentrations.
    Other comments ranged from declaring that substances known to be 
human carcinogens should not be used as fit test agents (Ex. 15-22, 15-
26) to stating that suspect carcinogens may be used depending on 
potency, concentration, exposure and other safety factors (Ex. 15-22). 
In the information submitted by NIOSH (Ex. 16) which was incorporated 
into a later document entitled ``Alternatives to Di-2-Ethylhexyl 
Phthalate (DOP) Respirator Quantitative Fit Testing'' (Ex. 24-10), it 
was stated that di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) or DOP was recently 
found to be carcinogenic in two rodent species by the National 
Toxicology Program. NIOSH reviewed the evidence for carcinogenic 
potential and overall toxicity of DEHP as it is used in quantitative 
fit testing, and concluded that DEHP should be replaced. The 
carcinogenic risk was estimated to be minimal for the respirator wearer 
under normal conditions. However, NIOSH pointed out that two critical 
exposure factors must be considered in QNFT; (1) Exposures to the DEHP 
aerosol can vary for the respirator wearer being tested if QNFT is 
improperly conducted; (2) Field practitioners administering QNFT, 
especially those using portable testing equipment, where aerosol 
ventilation is difficult to control can be subjected to routine and 
varying exposures. NIOSH tested several agents as possible substitutes 
for DEHP in existing QNFT equipment which was originally made for DEHP 
aerosol. Test results revealed that refined corn oil, di-2-ethylhexyl 
sebacate (DEHS), and dimethecone all exhibited polydisperse aerosol 
particle characteristics essentially equivalent to those generated with 
DEHP. Further tests showed that both refined corn oil and DEHS aerosols 
were highly suited for conducting QNFT. Finally, reports describing the 
toxicity and health effects of each agent were reviewed. The review 
revealed that extensive tests conducted on refined corn oil show that 
its toxicity is very low and that it has not demonstrated carcinogenic 
potential during its use as a control agent in carcinogenic bioassays. 
NIOSH concluded that a refined corn oil aerosol is the best option to 
replace DEHP in quantitative fit testing.
    Monsanto (Ex. 15-26) made reference to the NIOSH work which 
prompted Monsanto to switch from DEHP to corn oil as the prescribed 
challenge agent. After considering the data, OSHA has concluded that 
corn oil or sodium chloride aerosol systems are most appropriate for 
quantitative fit testing and the proposal so specifies in the QNFT 
protocol. OSHA cites the positive carcinogenic findings of DEHP in two 
rodent species by NTP (Ex. 24-10) as sufficient evidence to preclude 
its use in QNFT when suitable substitutes are commercially available. 
Corn oil has exhibited essentially equivalent polydisperse aerosol 
particle characteristics to that of DEHP, and it can be used in 
existing systems designed for DEHP with only slightly more maintenance 
required (Ex. 24-10). Comment was received stating that corn oil does 
require more maintenance and urged OSHA and NIOSH to expedite the 
search for other suitable test agents (Ex. 36-39).
    Other test agents have been suggested such as DEHS, ethylene, 
vanilla extract, freon-12, and mineral oil. OSHA does not intend to 
exclude these test agents. However, there are insufficient data on 
their suitability. For example, questions have been raised on the 
suitability of DEHS since its metabolic fate may be similar to that of 
DEHP. Mineral oil was suggested as a suitable test agent but has been 
observed to remain in the lung for prolonged periods (Ex. 24-10).
    OSHA invites comments on the suitability of other test agents such 
as mineral oil, freon-12, ethylene, and di-2-ethylhexyl sebacate 
(DEHS). OSHA will consider evidence on the suitability and reliability 
of other test agents and the detection systems associated with other 
test agents. Information on the toxicity of the agent, sensitivity and 
limits of detection of the system, and other pertinent data will also 
be useful.

Test Chamber

    The proposal requires that the test chamber be large enough to 
permit the person being tested to freely perform the QNFT exercise 
regimen without disturbing the challenge agent concentration, and that 
the chamber effectively contains the challenge agent in uniform 
concentration. Uniform stable challenge agent concentration is 
important since the ambient challenge concentration is measured from a 
single point, i.e. normally a sample hose suspended from the ceiling of 
the test chamber/hood and connected to the aerosol detection system. 
Therefore, the proposal requires that a stable ambient challenge agent 
concentration be achieved prior to the commencement of the test 
exercise regimen. As long as the concentration is uniform throughout 
the chamber, the concentration at the respirator will be substantially 
the same as the concentration at the location where the ambient chamber 
concentration is measured. Since the results of the QNFT will be 
determined by calculating the concentration of the challenge agent in 
the respirator in relation to the average ambient chamber 
concentration, a large change in the test chamber challenge 
concentration during the course of the test would result in unreliable 
results.

Fit Factor Estimation

    The challenge agent detection system must be coupled to a strip 
chart record, integrator, or computer which creates a record of the 
test in order to enable the calculation of the fit factor following the 
test. The time interval between an event such as side to side head 
movement and its being recorded should be minimal. This is consistent 
with the systems used by Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as 
commercially available systems. In the ANPR, OSHA requested comments on 
two related questions: (1) Should QNFT demonstrate the variation of 
contaminant concentration inside the respirator during the breathing 
cycle, and (2) to be an adequate test, should QNFT evaluate respirator 
performance for each test exercise performed by the test subject? Some 
responses indicated that the QNFT should be able to demonstrate the 
variation of contaminant concentration inside the respirator during the 
breathing cycle (Ex. 15-19, 15-46, 15-48, 15-50, 15-54, 15-58). It was 
stated by one commenter that ``a chart recorder should be considered as 
mandatory since this would be an extremely difficult process to follow 
by using only a dial indicator'', (Ex. 15-50). It was suggested that 
the peak penetration averaging method contained in ANSI Z88.2 1980 is 
the most acceptable method for determining respirator fit and in order 
to achieve this, the QNFT must be capable of demonstrating the peaks of 
penetration associated with the breathing cycle (Ex. 15-58).
    Others disagreed (Ex. 15-15, 15-26, 15-27, 15-31, 15-55). In 
particular, National Draeger Inc. (Ex. 15-15) pointed out a currently 
available quantitative fit test system utilizes a 1% ethylene-in-air 
test gas. By measuring the ethylene concentration inside the respirator 
with a detector tube, a fit factor for the respirator is calculated. 
This system for quantitative fit testing does not provide an 
instantaneous breath-by-breath measurement that has to be averaged, but 
measures the maximum ethylene penetration into the respirator, which 
National Draeger felt was appropriate.
    In response to the question raised on whether the QNFT should 
evaluate respirator performance for each test exercise, some commenters 
indicated that each a determination of efficiency is not necessary (Ex. 
15-31, 15-48, 15-50, 15-62, 15-73). It was stated on one submission 
that there is no need to determine the respirator efficiency for each 
test exercise performed since in actual practice the protection 
achieved in the workplace is not accurately predicted by QNFT (Ex. 15-
73). Other comments suggested that the respirator efficiency for each 
test exercise should be determined. In the data submitted by the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Ex. 15-54) it was suggested that 
``QNFT should be able to distinguish the respirator efficiency for each 
test exercise. The exercise should identify which movement(s) allow for 
facepiece leakage and at what level the leakage occurs.'' The 
Industrial Safety Equipment Association suggested that ``not having the 
ability to distinguish respirator efficiency for each set of exercises 
could result in an overstated assigned protection factor'' (Ex. 15-58). 
The American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection 
(ANSI Z88.2-1980) recommends that the instrument used to measure the 
penetration of the test agent into the respirator be connected to a 
fast-response recorder which records the penetration values 
continuously (Ex. 10). Quantitative fit test methods developed by the 
Los Alamos National Laboratory use a detection and recording system 
which detects the test agent penetration into the respirator facepiece 
during the breathing cycle (Ex. 2, 27-12, 24-18). Notations are made on 
the record at the beginning and end of each test exercise and the 
penetration for each exercise is determined. Comment was received 
following the prepublication version of the proposed standard which 
also stated that the standard should allow the use of other instruments 
such as computers or integrators which would allow integration of the 
aerosol penetration inside the respirator (Ex. 36-34, 36-45, 36-52).
    Having considered the comments and suggestions OSHA is proposing 
that either a strip chart recorder be used to provide a graphic display 
of the fit test or that an integrator or computer be used which 
provides a determination of the aerosol penetration into the respirator 
for each test exercise performed. The detection system shall be capable 
of detecting the challenge agent during the breathing cycle, i.e., 
inspiration and expiration. This will permit the determination of the 
penetration of the test agent during the breathing cycle.
    Comments were requested on the methods used to calculate the 
aerosol penetration into the respirator. Suggestions were made to 
allow: the use of integrator (Ex. 36-29, 36-45, 36-52); the maximum 
peak penetration method (Ex. 36-28, 36-36) and the average peak 
penetration method (Ex. 36-28, 36-36). Upon examination of these 
various methods OSHA has decided to allow any of the three methods to 
be used provided that a determination of the test agent penetration is 
made for each test exercise.
    OSHA is proposing that the fit factor derived from QNFT be 
calculated by dividing the average challenge agent concentration inside 
the chamber, (i.e. the ambient concentration) by the average challenge 
agent concentration inside the respirator. The average ambient 
concentration is derived from the measurement of the challenge agent 
concentration in the test environment (outside the respirator) at the 
beginning and end of the test. The average challenge agent 
concentration inside the respirator is determined from the aerosol 
penetration for each test exercise by using one of the three approved 
methods to calculate the aerosol penetration.
    The test aerosol penetration measured for the grimace exercise is 
not to be used in calculating the average challenge agent concentration 
inside the respirator. The purpose of the grimace exercise is to 
determine whether the respirator being fit tested will reseat itself on 
the face after the respirator seal is broken during the grimace 
exercise. With a properly fitting respirator the test instrumentation 
will record a rise in challenge agent concentration inside the mask 
during the grimace exercise and a drop in challenge agent concentration 
when the respirator reseats itself. If the respirator fails to reseat 
itself following the grimace exercise, the subsequent bending over and 
normal breathing exercises will show excessive leakage of challenge 
agent into the mask and result in failing the fit test. Since even a 
properly fitting respirator may show increased challenge agent 
penetration during the grimace exercise, the penetration measured 
during the grimace exercise is not used in calculating the fit factor.
    OSHA invites comments on the proposed method based upon experience 
with the calculation of fit factors obtained from QNFT.
    As stated previously OSHA is proposing that there be a clear 
association between the event taking place in the test environment and 
its being recorded. This is critical for the proper calculation of 
aerosol penetration for a specific test exercise and ultimately 
determining the fit factor. It is the short duration leaks that can 
occur during and as a result of a particular fit test exercise that 
indicate poor respirator fit. These penetration peaks are used to 
determine the fit factor. An inability to resolve these penetration 
peaks could result in the fit factor being overstated, since by 
averaging all the test exercise penetration levels the high penetration 
levels that occurred with one test exercise would be obscured. Also the 
grimace exercise is designed to cause a leak in the facepiece fit to 
determine if the respirator will reseal. An inability to clearly 
associate the event in the test environment with its recording would 
invalidate this test exercise and make correct calculating of the fit 
factor impossible.
    Several factors can affect the time interval between an event and 
its being recorded, such as sample hose diameter, sampling rate, and 
length of sampling hose. Response time will increase with an increase 
in length of sampling line and/or increase in diameter of sampling 
line. Therefore the length of the sampling lines and their inside 
diameter should be as small as possible. Inside diameters of \1/8\ inch 
or less have been commonly used (Ex. 2). Sampling rates generally vary 
from 1 to 2 liters per minute (Ex. 24-7, 6), depending on the detection 
system used. The tubing used for sampling the test chamber challenge 
agent concentration and the tubing used for testing the challenge agent 
concentration inside the respirator must be of the same length and 
inside diameter. This will result in an equivalent aerosol loss in the 
sampling lines due to aerosol deposition in each sample line.
    In order to minimize potential contamination of the atmosphere in 
the room where tests are being conducted, and to minimize exposure of 
the QNFT test operator to the challenge agent, as well as to prevent 
interference with the detection system from room air contaminated with 
the challenge agent, the proposed protocol requires that any air 
exhausted from the test booth/chamber must pass through a high-
efficiency filter (or sorbent).
    Since the relative humidity in the test chamber may affect the 
particle size of sodium chloride aerosols the protocol further requires 
that the relative humidity be kept below 50 percent (Ex. 25-3 p. 40). 
This is consistent with manufacturer's instructions for sodium chloride 
units.
    It is imperative that the respirator used in QNFT be in proper 
working order. A respirator which may fit an individual better than 
others could be rejected if there is leakage due to problems resulting 
from improper maintenance such as sticking exhalation valves, leakage 
around the probe port, leakage around hose connections, or missing 
gaskets. Therefore the proposal requires that all respirators used in 
QNFT be inspected for defects and cleanliness. Such inspection must 
include checking the condition of the facepiece body for cracking and 
holes or tears in the rubber, checking the inhalation and exhalation 
valve assemblies for cracks and/or tears in valve material, checking 
for foreign material between the valve and valve seats, proper 
installation of the valve body in the facepiece, and warped or wrinkled 
valves. Respirators with such conditions cannot be used for fit 
testing. This is consistent with practices as published by the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 25-3 p. 37, 25-4 p. 34).
    An additional requirement is that either a positive or negative 
pressure fit check be conducted to ensure that the respirator facepiece 
is properly adjusted prior to starting QNFT testing. The test protocol 
in the preproposal draft also required that a screening QLFT be 
conducted after the respirator was worn for a brief time. Comments were 
received stating that a mandatory screening QLFT is unnecessary (Ex. 
36-52). The purpose of the screening QLFT was to minimize the QNFT test 
time by quickly identifying poorly fitting respirators (with gross 
leakage) prior to the commencement of the QNFT. The screening QLFT 
suggested was an abbreviated IAA or irritant fume QLFT. The test agent 
was briefly introduced into the air near the facepiece seal area. If 
the agent was detected then a different respirator was tried. This 
screening QLFT requirement would reduce QNFT test time for employers, 
since poorly fitting respirators that would normally fail a QNFT would 
fail the screening QLFT first. However, a mandatory screening QLFT 
complicates the testing procedure, and poorly fitting respirators would 
be detected during the fit checks before starting the QNFT, or by 
exceeding the maximum peak leakage rate allowed during QNFT. Screening 
QLFT is recommended to reduce expensive testing time, but does not need 
to be mandatory, and therefore this requirement has been dropped.
    Prior to the commencement of the QNFT a stable challenge test agent 
concentration must be achieved. The concentration of some test 
environments such as small booths or waist type hoods may be diluted 
significantly when the test subject enters the booth. Normally the 
ambient challenge agent concentration will stabilize within 2 to 5 
minutes. ANSI Z88.2-1980 addressed this issue by requiring that the 
design of the chamber and equipment used to generate the test 
atmosphere should ensure that the concentration inside the chamber does 
not vary more than 5% during a test (Ex. 10). OSHA is proposing that 
the test system be checked to verify that a stable chamber 
concentration (10%) has been achieved prior to the QNFT and 
at the end of the test. It has been OSHA's experience that a 
10% variation in test agent concentration stability has 
little appreciable effect. OSHA requests comments on any problems with 
test agent concentration stability and on the appropriate percent 
variation that should be allowed.
    OSHA is further proposing that in order to successfully complete a 
QNFT the test subject must complete three separate tests with the same 
respirator. Respirator research has demonstrated that variation occur 
in the fit factors achieved with repeated fit tests on the same 
individual with the same respirator. No wearer can expect to duplicate 
the exact same fit with a particular respirator as the respirator is 
removed and donned repeatedly. If only one fit test is performed, there 
is no guarantee that the level of fit measured during that one test 
will be achieved with repeated wearings. Therefore, OSHA is requiring 
that three tests be performed, with the lowest fit factor obtained 
being used to determine whether the minimum required fit factor is 
exceeded. Using the lowest of the three values, OSHA feels, is the most 
protective approach to make sure that the respirator will not be used 
in an atmosphere which might require a higher fit factor than that 
respirator can consistently give. OSHA requests comments on the three 
quantitative fit test requirement and any data on alternative ways of 
measuring continued protection levels for individual respirator 
wearers.
    OSHA had initially proposed that the results of the three tests 
must be within 10% of each other. However, response to that aspect 
indicated that obtaining three results within 10% were not feasible and 
the suggestion was made that OSHA should reevaluate that requirement 
(Ex. 36-22, 36-29, 36-38, 36-39, 36-41, 36-45). Comment was also 
received stating that three tests were unnecessary (Ex. 36-34).
    OSHA in the current proposal has deleted the requirement for test 
results to be within a 10% range since consistently obtaining tests 
with a 10% range may not be feasible. However, the requirement for 
performing three fit tests is being maintained.
    The results of all three tests must be above the minimum fit factor 
needed for that class of tight fitting air-purifying respirator. The 
required fit factors are established by applying a safety factor of 10 
to the NIOSH APFs. For example, quarter and half mask air-purifying 
respirators with a NIOSH APF of 10 would need to achieve at least a fit 
factor of 100; and full facepiece air-purifying respirators with a 
NIOSH APF of 50 would require a minimum fit factor of 500. Finally the 
lowest of the three values must be used as representing the fit test 
results.
    OSHA has proposed a safety factor of 10 because of variability in 
the fit testing procedures themselves, and to account for other 
variables such as changes in facepiece fit when the respirator is worn 
in the workplace as opposed to during fit testing. A safety factor of 
10 accounts for these variations, and is current practice.
    Adjustments in the respirator are not to be made during the QNFT. 
Any facepiece fit adjustments must be made before starting the exercise 
regimen. This is consistent with existing practices (Ex. 25-3 p. 38) 
and is intended to prevent manipulation of the respirator in order to 
achieve high fit factors.
    The fit test is to be terminated whenever any single peak 
penetration exceeds two percent for half masks and quarter facepiece 
respirators and one percent for full facepiece respirators. Such leaks 
correspond to fit factors of 50 for half masks and 100 for full 
facepiece respirators and indicate an unacceptably poor respirator fit. 
Once the test is terminated the respirator may be refitted or adjusted 
and the subject retested. If any of the subsequent three required QNFT 
tests that are performed after the respirator has been refitted or 
adjusted are terminated because of excessive penetration, then the 
respirator is considered to have an unacceptable fit and a different 
respirator must be selected and tested.

(G) Use of Respirators

    Once the respirator has been properly selected and fitted, its 
protection efficiency must be maintained by proper use. The employer is 
required to ensure that respirators are used properly in the workplace, 
and to include specific procedures for doing so in the written plan for 
compliance. This requirement is written in performance language, with 
the specific content of the written procedures left for the employer to 
establish.
    One area of particular concern involves atmospheres where oxygen 
deficiency or the concentrations of a hazardous chemical are unknown 
and/or potentially immediately dangerous to the life of health (IDLH) 
of employees. Care must be exercised in these situations since failure 
of the respirator to provide the appropriate protection may result in 
serious injury or death. Therefore, the employer is required to 
establish specific written procedures for the use of respirators in 
IDLH atmospheres including four specific use limitations.
    The first provision requires that employees wear only positive 
pressure SCBAs or combination supplied air respirators with auxiliary 
air supply in IDLH atmospheres. Negative-pressure air-purifying 
respirators are subject to face seal leakage, and depend on a filtering 
or adsorption mechanism for protection. The positive pressure supplied 
air respirators allowed in IDLH atmospheres supply air from an 
uncontaminated source, have less of a problem with face seal leakage 
and have no filter penetration problems. Two types of such positive 
pressure respirators are listed in the respirator selection tables in 
paragraphs (d) of the proposed standard for use in IDLH atmospheres; 
the positive pressure SCBA and a positive pressure supplied respirator 
with auxiliary self-contained air supply. They are the only respirators 
to be used in IDLH work conditions to ensure that the employee has the 
greatest degree of protection possible.
    The second IDLH provision requires a ``buddy'' system where 
employees are required to work in IDLH atmospheres. There must be at 
least one additional person present, in communications with the 
worker(s) in the IDLH area but located where he or she will be outside 
the IDLH atmosphere and thus would be able to provide or call for 
emergency assistance if necessary. The third provision specifies that 
retrieval equipment must be supplied or equivalent provisions for 
rescue be made for those entering the IDLH atmosphere. The fourth 
provision states that a positive pressure self-contained breathing 
apparatus must be provided for the person(s) responsible for emergency 
assistance. These provisions are essentially the same as those that are 
in OSHA's current standards.
    A more general issue involves tight fitting facepiece respirators 
which rely on a good facepiece to face seal in order to achieve 
effective protection. Therefore, the employer could not allow employees 
to wear such respirators with conditions which prevent such a seal. 
Facial hair such as a growth of beard or sideburns, absence of 
dentures, or a skull cap that projects under the facepiece seal are 
examples of such conditions. Many ANPR commenters stated that OSHA 
should prohibit facial hair that interferes with the facepiece seal 
(Ex. 15-11, 15-18, 15-26, 15-27A, 15-30, 15-33, 15-35, 15-36, 15-41, 
15-52, 15-58, 15-62, 15-73, 15-77). Others stated that beards should be 
allowed with respirators that do not rely on adequate face seals for 
protection such as supplied air hoods, helmets, or suits. (Ex. 15-14, 
15-31, 15-34, 15-46, 15-47, 15-48, 15-54, 15-55, 15-79, 15-81). 
Research performed with half mask and full facepiece respirators on the 
effects of facial hair on facepiece seal show that fit cannot be 
assured if hair is present. (Ex. 3, 13, 15-50, 23-2, 23-3).
    Two ANPR commenters recommended that OSHA allow beards when the 
results of a fit test indicate that a satisfactory seal has been 
obtained (Ex. 15-38, 15-42). A report of a study by Fergin (23-1) on 
carbon setters with beards which tested the protection factors of 
several types of disposable respirators stated that acceptable 
performance was achieved and that there was no significant difference 
in respirator performance for employees with or without beards under 
pot room conditions. Fergin stated that ``. . . where acceptable 
protection factors can be demonstrated for subjects with facial hair, 
the no-beard rule should be waived from a regulatory viewpoint for such 
proven cases.'' However, the ability to obtain a fit factor for a 
bearded respirator wearer does not mean that the worker can reliably be 
expected to achieve that same protection level each time the respirator 
is used. Beards grow and change daily, even hourly. Each time a 
respirator is donned there is fit variability. Such variability in face 
seal is greatly increased for bearded workers. This large variability 
in fit means that a reliable seal cannot reasonably be expected. OSHA 
believes that the evidence supports the contention that a reliable seal 
cannot be achieved where facial hair interferes with the seal of tight 
fitting respirators.
    In commenting on the preproposal draft the Association of Western 
Pulp and Paper Workers (Ex. 36-2) opposed the facial hair policy 
proposed by OSHA and recommended that OSHA prohibit blanket no beard 
policies of employers. The International Chemical Workers Union (Ex. 
36-14) recommended that the standard specify respiratory types that 
could be used with facial hair. Amoco Corporation (Ex. 36-35) requested 
that more definitive language be added to allow employers clearer 
guidelines to enforce facial hair policies. Allied Corporation (Ex. 36-
49) also wanted a stronger statement prohibiting facial hair. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Ex. 36-31) and the Industrial Safety 
Equipment Association (Ex. 36-45) agreed with OSHA's proposed 
prohibition on beards when wearing tight fitting facepiece respirators. 
The Organization Resources Counselors (Ex. 36-47) and 3M (Ex. 36-54) 
stated that the prohibition on facial hair that interferes with the 
facepiece seal should also include positive pressure respirators that 
depend upon a tight facepiece to face seal.
    The draft provision prohibiting conditions such as beards that 
interfere with the seal of tight fitting respirators has been modified 
after consideration of these comments. Additional wording has been 
added to clarify that the provision covers not only negative pressure 
respirators that require a tight seal but pressure demand and positive 
pressure respirators as well. The provision covers only tight fitting 
respirators and is not meant to be a blanket prohibition on beards with 
respirators. There are other types of respiratory equipment such as 
hoods, helmets and suits which can be worn by employees with beards 
since they do not rely upon a tight facepiece fit. Also the wording in 
the examples has been changed to read ``facial hair that interferes 
with the facepiece seal'' rather than a growth of beard or sideburns 
since it is interference with the facepiece seal that OSHA prohibits, 
not the presence of facial hair. OSHA invites comments on this issue 
and the wording of the proposed provision of the standard, and whether 
OSHA should require that employers provide respirators which do not 
rely upon a tight facepiece fit in such circumstances.
    Corrective glasses or goggles must also be worn in such a way that 
they do not interfere with the seal of the facepiece to the face. 
Although the employer is free to choose any option to comply with this, 
OSHA suggests that full facepiece respirators be worn where either 
corrective glasses or eye protection are required since corrective 
lenses can be mounted into the full facepiece respirators. In addition, 
the full facepiece may be more comfortable, and less cumbersome, than 
wearing a half mask and chemical goggles which seal to the face as 
well.
    OSHA's current respirator standard does not allow contact lenses to 
be worn with respiratory protection. In reviewing this requirement, the 
main justification has been that with full facepiece respirators, if a 
contaminant got into the employee's eye, the involuntary response would 
be to remove the mask to attend to the eye, thus removing the 
respiratory protection. A second possible problem with contact lenses 
is that the dry air inside a positive pressure SCBA facepiece could dry 
out the contact lenses. It has also been suggested that contaminants 
that get into the facepiece can become lodged under the contact lens, 
be held against the eye, and enter into the bloodstream. While these 
possible problem areas have been proposed for contact lenses, OSHA has 
not found evidence of such problems occurring in the workplace. With 
the improvements that have occurred with contact lens technology, 
particularly in soft contact lenses, people who are able to wear 
contact lenses comfortably in everyday life should be able to wear 
contact lenses with a respirator.
    OSHA funded a survey on the use of contact lenses by fire fighters 
which was conducted by the Lawrence National Livermore Laboratory (Ex. 
38-9). Of the 403 fire fighters who regularly wore contact lenses with 
SCBA, only 6 responded that contact lens created a problem such as a 
contact lens being out of place or a particle under the lens causing 
the respirator facepiece to be removed in an environment where the 
facepiece would normally be worn. The wearing of conventional 
eyeglasses inside the respirator facepiece, as is required by the 
current OSHA standard, had a proportionately higher number of problems. 
The study concluded that the prohibition on wearing contact lenses with 
a full facepiece respirator should be withdrawn.
    The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union (Ex. 36-23) supported 
removing the prohibition on the use of contact lenses with respirators. 
Alan Hack of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 36-29) cited the 
Lawrence Livermore contact lens study and the lack of adverse 
experience with contacts as reasons for permitting their use. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Ex. 36-31) agreed that the contact lens 
prohibition needed to be examined and hoped the Lawrence Livermore 
survey on contact lenses would not contradict their use with 
respirators. MSHA (Ex. 36-34) stated that contact lenses should not be 
used with respirators until further data has been developed to indicate 
their safety with the movement of chemicals through the lens, since 
many of the new contact lenses allow passage of air and water through 
the lens. Earle Shoub (Ex. 36-17) stated that if OSHA is determined to 
permit the use of contact lenses under a full facepiece respirator, 
this permission should not extend to IDLH atmospheres.
    OSHA believes the Lawrence Livermore contact lens study of fire 
fighters supports removing the prohibition on the use of contact lenses 
with respirators. No evidence shows that wearing contact lenses with 
respirators increases safety hazards. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to 
remove the prohibition in the current standard on the use of contact 
lenses with respirators. OSHA requests any comments or information as 
to the appropriateness of using contact lenses with respirators, and 
any problems that have occurred with the use of contact lenses in the 
workplace.
    In dealing with skin irritation and contamination, the proposal 
would require the employer to permit employees to leave the respirator 
use area as a necessary to wash their faces and respirator facepieces. 
The preproposal draft provision permitted employees to leave the work 
area is necessary to wash their faces and respirators. Several 
commenters asked that the phrase ``work area'' be changed to 
``respirator area'' (Ex. 36-22, 36-30, 36-40, 36-41), since employees 
can wash their faces and respirators at appropriate cleaning sites 
located outside the respirator use area without necessarily having to 
leave the work area. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (Ex. 
36-37) recommended changing the wording of the provision from ``as 
necessary'' to ``if necessary'' since excessive washing of the skin may 
aggravate an irritated skin by removing protective oils. Richard Boggs 
of ORC (Ex. 36-47) recommended that this requirement be dropped since 
it was a labor relations issue and not all conditions of respirator use 
result in situations where such a requirement would make sense. OSHA 
agrees with the commenters that employees do not necessarily need to 
leave the work area to clean their faces and respirators, and the 
wording of the provision has been changed from work area to respirator 
use area. OSHA believes that potential health problems of skin 
irritation and contamination associated with wearing a respirator 
cannot properly be relegated to a labor relations issue as ORC suggests 
and OSHA has retained this provision in the proposal.
    Another new provision involves the filter elements of air-purifying 
respirators. Employers are to allow employees to change such elements 
whenever employees detect a change in breathing resistance or chemical 
breakthrough. Since breathing rates differ, and workplace contamination 
levels may vary, it is difficult to predict the service life of a 
particular filtering element. Subjectively detected breathing 
resistance indicates that the load on the particulate filter may be 
approaching capacity and that the filter must be changed to ensure 
continuing protection. This decision was supported by several 
commenters in response to ANPR question 29 on service life (Ex. 15-18, 
15-19, 15-38, 15-47, 15-48, 15-52, 15-54, 15-75B).
    Comments on the preproposal draft also recommended that odor or 
chemical vapor breakthrough was a reason for changing an organic vapor 
cartridge or canister (Ex. 36-29, 36-30, 36-32, 36-41, 36-52, 36-55). 
The wording of the proposal has been changed to add chemical vapor 
breakthrough as a cause for changing filters. Wording has also been 
added to permit employees to leave the respirator use area to change 
filters since this should be done only in clean air.
    The proposal also includes a provision that requires respirators be 
repaired or discarded and replaced immediately when they are no longer 
in their original working condition. Examples of these changes in 
condition would be that the strap has broken, the respirator has lost 
its shape, or the face seal can no longer be maintained. Since 
respirators must be in good working condition to function, it is 
imperative that they not be used if they have been impaired in any way. 
The respirator manufacturers can supply replacement parts for damaged 
portions of their elastomeric respirators. Disposable respirators 
cannot be repaired and must be discarded when damaged.
    Many commenters to the ANPR stated that disposable respirators 
should be allowed to be used until they no longer can provide the 
protection for which they were designed (Ex. 15-13, 15-14, 15-19, 15-
22, 15-30, 15-34, 15-36, 15-37, 15-41, 15-44, 15-46, 15-48, 15-53, 15-
58, 15-75A, 15-75B, 15-81). How the useful service life would be 
determined, whether by professional judgment or by having the 
manufacturers of the respirators make a determination, was unclear. 
Such a specific service life determination is difficult to make. 
Support for a one day or one shift limit for the use of disposable 
respirators was presented by several ANPR commenters (Ex. 15-8, 15-18, 
15-26, 15-33, 15-50, 15-54, 15-55, 15-70, 15-75). Disposable 
respirators are designed to be used and discarded. Their durability 
with repeated use is not great, and most of them are not designed to be 
easily cleaned or sanitized.
    The proposal requires that disposable respirators which cannot be 
cleaned and sanitized be discarded at the end of the task or work shift 
whichever comes first. There are some disposable respirators which can 
be cleaned and sanitized after use, but they cannot be resupplied with 
an unused filter, and therefore the proposal would require disposal 
after their useful service life limit has been reached.
    The employer is also to ensure that employees, upon donning the 
respirator, perform a facepiece seal check prior to entering the work 
area when wearing a respirator. The negative-pressure sealing check and 
the positive-pressure sealing check included in Appendix B, or the 
respirator manufacturer's recommended procedures shall be used for all 
respirators on which such checks are possible. The use of such seal 
checks are a way of helping to ensure that attention is paid to 
obtaining an adequate facepiece seal each time a respirator is used.
    An additional requirement being proposed by OSHA is that each self-
contained breathing apparatus used in IDLH atmospheres, or for 
emergency entry or fire fighting, be certified for a minimum service 
life of thirty minutes. Certified SCBA devices are available with 
shorter service lives, but given the types of situations encountered in 
IDLH or emergency situations, OSHA maintains that a minimum of thirty 
minutes would be required to ensure protection in these conditions. The 
thirty minute service life requirement does not apply to combination 
supplied air respirators with auxiliary air supply since the air for 
normal work operations is supplied by an air line. No service life 
requirement has been set for the auxiliary air supply bottle, but the 
auxiliary air supply must be sufficient to permit escape from the IDLH 
atmosphere should the air line fail. Emergency escape SCBAs also do not 
have to meet the thirty minute service life requirement, since their 
intended use is only for escape.
    The preproposal draft contained provisions to allow the use of 
``buddy breathing'' devices and the interchange of air cylinders 
between SCBAs, as is permitted under the OSHA fire brigades standard 
(29 CFR 1910.156(F)). Comments on the preproposal draft by NIOSH (Ex. 
36-42) recommended that OSHA not allow the interchange of respirator 
air cylinders since differences in air cylinder backpack construction 
could result in the cylinder falling off while in an IDLH atmosphere. 
Cylinders come in several different sizes, with varying air capacities 
and operating pressures, and can be constructed of different materials. 
As NIOSH points out, this can present problems with respirator 
operation when some types of cylinders are interchanged. NIOSH also 
considered initiating an approval program for SCBAs with emergency 
escape breathing support systems (buddy breathers) but found from their 
survey of interested parties that a safe and practical emergency escape 
breathing support system could not be certified at this time. Current 
buddy breathing systems have problems with equipment reliability and 
with maintaining adequate airflow in the positive pressure mode. The 
Industrial Safety Equipment Association (Ex. 36-45) also disagreed with 
the air cylinder interchange and buddy breather provisions and stated 
that extending their use to general industry applications would present 
problems since rescue and specialized training are not as prevalent in 
general industry as in fire fighting, and recommended that the practice 
not be allowed. Dow Chemical (Ex. 36-40) recommended that the air 
cylinder interchange and buddy breather provisions be deleted or put in 
a nonmandatory appendix. ORC (Ex. 36-47) also recommended a 
nonmandatory appendix. MSHA (Ex. 36-34) stated that the use of buddy 
breathers or the interchanging of air cylinders voids the NIOSH/MSHA 
approvals and asked whether OSHA was going to certify these changes as 
safe for the wearer. Earle Shoub (Ex. 36-17) also pointed out that the 
use of these modified respirators voids their NIOSH/MSHA approval, and 
suggested OSHA include a specific exemption from the NIOSH/MSHA 
approval requirement when they are used.
    Since there are problems in assuring the proper operation of 
respirators modified to include buddy breathing devices, and there are 
problems with interchanging air cylinders of different construction, 
pressure, and size between different SCBAs, OSHA has decided to delete 
the provisions dealing with buddy breathing devices and air cylinder 
interchange from the proposal. The problems with their use given by the 
preproposal draft commenters and the lack of a demonstrated need for 
their use in general industry work situations has lead OSHA to remove 
these provisions from the proposal. Their use is still allowed for fire 
brigades under the fire brigades standard. OSHA seeks comment on this 
decision and on the performance of such devices in industry.
    Commenters were equally divided on the issue of requiring low flow 
alarms or indicators for PAPRs. The AIHA (Ex. 15-81) thought the issue 
was related more to equipment certification rather than use, and 
suggested that NIOSH consider the advisability of low flow indicators 
as permissible modifications. Some felt OSHA should encourage the 
development of low flow indicators since it is the positive pressure 
generated by the normal PAPR airflow rates that give PAPRs their high 
protection factors (Ex. 15-14, 15-22, 15-34, 15-46, 15-48, 15-50, 15-
51, 15-54, 15-55, 15-62, 15-76, 15-77, 15-79). Since low airflow could 
be detected by the wearer, some commenters felt airflow indicators were 
unnecessary (Ex. 15-16, 15-19, 15-27A, 15-44, 15-53, 15-58, 15-66, 15-
70, 15-73, 15-81).
    OSHA has decided not to require the use of low flow alarms or 
indicators for PAPRs. The protection levels that PAPRs achieve are in 
part dependent upon maintaining an adequate airflow through the 
respirator. OSHA encourages the use of airflow indicators with PAPRs, 
but since they are not currently available on existing PAPRs it has 
been decided not to require them at this time.
    When PAPRs should be used was also the subject of comments. Some 
commenters felt that OSHA should not dictate the circumstances where 
PAPRs should be used (Ex. 15-30, 15-53, 15-58, 15-73). Most commenters 
felt PAPRs should be used where the employer or safety and health 
professionals determine their use is appropriate (Ex. 15-13, 15-14, 15-
19, 15-22, 15-51, 15-62, 15-70, 15-76). Others felt PAPRs should be 
used when a high level of protection must be assured (Ex. 15-27A, 15-
46, 15-79). PAPR use was also recommended where a significant 
physiological burden would be imposed by a negative pressure respirator 
(Ex. 15-38, 15-44, 15-46).
    OSHA has also decided not to dictate the circumstances where PAPRs 
may be used. The employer or safety and health professional in charge 
of the respirator program is in the best position to determine where 
and when PAPR use is most appropriate. The PAPR's ability to provide 
increased protection, easier breathing, and greater worker acceptance 
should be taken into account during respirator selection. However, the 
responsibility for respirator selection has been placed on the 
respirator program administrator, and OSHA relies on the administrator 
to assure that the appropriate respirator is chosen. However, OSHA asks 
for comments on whether employees should be able to choose PAPRs rather 
than negative pressure respirators because of their reduced breathing 
resistance. OSHA has permitted this in several standards such as the 
coke oven emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029) and cotton dust (29 CFR 
1910.1043). However, OSHA's experience is that few employees make the 
request.

(H) Maintenance and Care of Respirators

    In order to ensure continuing protection from respiratory 
protective devices, it is necessary to establish and implement proper 
maintenance and care procedures. A lax attitude toward this part of the 
respiratory protection program will negate successful selection and fit 
because the devices will not deliver the assumed protection unless they 
are kept in good working order.
    OSHA believes that the provisions on maintenance and care that 
exist in the current standard are effective and adequate. Therefore 
this proposal has mainly readopted the current OSHA provisions, the 
primary exception being the provisions which deal with cleaning and 
disinfecting respirators after they are worn. The present standard, 
while requiring cleaning and disinfecting, does not specify when to do 
it or provide guidelines for how it should be done. Consequently many 
employers have not been following these provisions, with the consequent 
result that the cleaning and disinfecting provision is one of the most 
frequently cited for violation by OSHA compliance officers. Respirators 
which are not cleaned and disinfected--particularly those used by more 
than one employee--can cause skin irritation and dermatitis. Where the 
toxin to be protected against is a dust, mist or fume, build up of it 
on the respirator seal or within the respirator will reduce the 
protection factor given by the respirator because the toxin is in the 
breathing zone. In addition, the build-up of contamination on the 
respirator can contribute to the deterioration of the materials, and 
thus deterioration of the protection. Full facepieces must be cleaned 
to ensure that employees can see through the facepieces.
    The proposal requires that routinely used respirators which are 
reserved for the exclusive use of a particular employee be cleaned and 
disinfected at least after each day's use. If a respirator is routinely 
used by more than one employee, it must be cleaned and disinfected 
after each use. Respirators maintained for emergency use must also be 
cleaned and disinfected after each use. Recommended procedures for 
cleaning and disinfection are included in Appendix B of the proposed 
standard.
    In comments on the preproposal draft, Thomas Nelson of the ANSI 
Z88.2 respirator committee suggested that the cleaning instructions of 
the respirator manufacturer be allowed, since they may be different 
than these in Appendix B, or cover contaminants which cannot be cleaned 
using the methods in Appendix B such as radioactive materials. The Dow 
Chemical Company (Ex. 36-40) recommended that the reference to Appendix 
B be deleted and a statement to follow the manufacturer's recommended 
procedures be added. OSHA agrees and has added wording permitting the 
use of manufacturer's cleaning instructions.
    Comments on the proposed draft also addressed the issue of the 
frequency of cleaning and disinfecting of respirators. The American 
Textile Manufacturers Institute (Ex. 36-18) felt that respirators 
should be cleaned after each day's use and disinfected periodically as 
needed. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (Ex. 36-37) stated 
that cleaning and disinfecting of respirators should be required 
periodically. DuPont (Ex. 36-38) felt that the provisions of the 
respirator program suggested by Organization Resources Counselors (ORC) 
(Ex. 36-47 Attachment 1) that requires cleaning frequently enough to 
avoid hazardous exposures to residues was sufficient. Richard Boggs of 
ORC (Ex. 36-47) urged adopting the language in the ORC program since it 
would allow the individual organization to tailor its cleaning and 
sanitizing programs to the needs of the operation.
    OSHA believes that allowing periodic cleaning and disinfecting 
without specifying the time period or requiring only that respirators 
be cleaned frequently enough to avoid hazardous exposures to residues 
are vague concepts which are not defined, which may be difficult to 
enforce and would perpetuate the poor cleaning practices which have 
already been shown to be a compliance problem (Ex. 33-5). Therefore, 
the proposal continues to require that routinely used respirators be 
cleaned and disinfected after each day's use and that respirators used 
by more than one employee be cleaned and disinfected after each use.
    The proposal does not state who should do the cleaning and 
disinfecting, only that it be done. The United Steel Workers of America 
(Ex. 36-46) recommended that OSHA require that the employer do the 
cleaning and repairing of respirators. They stated that when the 
employer requires that employees turn in their respirators at the end 
of each shift to a central cleaning facility for inspection, cleaning, 
and repairs by trained personnel and with the respirators returned to 
the employees the next day, a better cleaning program results. OSHA 
agrees that such a centralized cleaning and repair operation can ensure 
that properly cleaned and disinfected respirators are available for 
use, but it is not the only way to do so. For example, in plants where 
respirator use is infrequent or where the numbers of respirators in use 
are small, central facilities may be inappropriate. The employer is 
allowed to choose the cleaning, disinfecting and repair program that 
best fits the requirements of the standard and the particular 
circumstances of the job. If the employer chooses to require that 
employees do the cleaning of respirators, then the employer must 
provide the cleaning and disinfecting equipment, supplies, facilities, 
and time for the job to be done. The proposal requires that the 
employer ensure that the cleaning is done properly, and that only 
properly cleaned and disinfected respirators are used.
    Storage of respirators must be done properly to ensure that the 
equipment is protected and not subject to environmental conditions that 
may cause deterioration. The proposed provisions for storage are 
essentially the same as the current standard. The employer must protect 
the stored equipment from damage, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, 
excessive moisture, or damaging chemicals. The respirator manufacturer 
will often provide additional information on proper storage procedures 
which should be observed by the employer. Storage conditions are listed 
in performance language. For example, temperature ranges are not 
specified. It appears that the degree of severity of a condition would 
be related to the tolerance of the particular equipment in question and 
would thus vary from model to model. OSHA invites comment on whether 
this approach is appropriate, or whether the conditions of storage 
should be specified in more detail.
    Respirators intended for emergency use shall be kept accessible to 
the work area. Where weathering, contamination or deterioration of the 
respirator could occur compartments shall be used to protect the 
respirator and must be clearly marked to indicate that they contain 
emergency respirators. This represents a change in wording of the 
proposed standard in response to comments on the preproposal draft (Ex. 
36-45, 36-47, 36-55). Since many emergency respirators are stored in 
environmentally controlled areas, according to the ANSI Z88.2 
respirator committee (Ex. 36-55), compartments would be unnecessary. 
The new wording of the proposed standard requires the use of 
compartments only where weathering, contamination or deterioration 
could occur.
    Respirators that are used routinely in the work area are to be 
stored in a plastic bag or otherwise protected from contamination or 
damage. The prohibition on the use of lockers or tool boxes has been 
removed in response to comments in the preproposal draft (Ex. 36-47, 
36-49). The requirement that respirators be stored in such a way as to 
prevent damage should avoid problems of damage from improper storage in 
lockers provided the employer takes appropriate precautions.
    When respirators are packed or stored, the facepiece and exhalation 
valve must be stored in a manner that will prevent deformation. This is 
to prevent impairment of the elastomer due to stretching or reshaping 
of the facepiece or exhalation valve because of positioning of the 
equipment.
    In order to assure the continued reliability of respirator 
equipment it must be inspected on a regular basis. The frequency of 
inspection is related to the frequency of use. Respirators that are 
used routinely are to be inspected before each use, and during cleaning 
after each use. Those that are maintained in the facility for emergency 
use must be inspected at least monthly, and checked for proper function 
before and after each use. However, respirators used for emergency 
escape must be inspected before being carried into the workplace.
    The proposal has changed the requirement that employers make a 
record of inspection dates and findings for emergency use respirators. 
Employers only need certify that the required inspections have been 
made. The employer must perform the respirator inspection as required 
by paragraph (h)(3) to determine that the respirator is functioning 
properly and is fully charged. Then the inspection is certified by 
having the inspector fill in a tag or label kept with the respirator or 
attached to the respirator storage compartment that contains the date 
of the inspection, the name or signature of the inspector, and the 
serial number or other means of identifying the respirator that was 
inspected. The inspection certification need only be maintained until 
it is replaced by the certification of the next inspection. This 
replaces the requirement in the present standard that the inspection 
record be kept as long as the respirator is in the workplace. Since the 
inspection tag or label serves to indicate that the respirator has been 
inspected within the time limit set for inspections there is no need to 
maintain the first certification once a new inspection is performed and 
certified.
    Self-contained breathing apparatus are also to be inspected 
monthly. Air and oxygen cylinders must be maintained in a fully charged 
state and recharged when pressure falls to 90% of the manufacturer's 
recommended pressure level, and the employer must determine that the 
regulator and warning devices function properly.
    The standard specifies what constitutes a minimal respirator 
inspection: Respirator function, the tightness of connections and the 
condition of the facepiece, headstraps, valves, connecting tube, and 
filters, canisters or cartridges must be checked. In addition, the 
rubber and elastomer parts must be evaluated for pliability and signs 
of deterioration. It should be noted that stretching and manipulating 
rubber or elastomer parts with a massaging action will help keep them 
pliable and flexible and prevent them from taking a set during storage.
    The proposed standard also includes provisions related to the 
repair of respirators. Repairs or adjustments are to be made only by 
persons appropriately trained to perform them, using parts designed for 
that respirator. The employer is to ensure that the manufacturer's 
recommendations regarding the type and extent of repairs that can be 
performed are followed. In any case, reducing or admission valves or 
regulators must be returned to the manufacturer or given to an 
appropriately trained technician for adjustment or repair. These 
provisions are consistent with the requirements of the current 
standard.
    OSHA invites comments on the provisions related to the maintenance 
and care of respirators, including suggestions for other items which 
should be considered for inclusion in or deletion from this section 
based on the experience of those currently implementing respiratory 
protection programs.

(I) Supplied Air Quality and Use

    Where atmosphere-supplying respirators are being used to protect 
employees it is essential to ensure that the air being breathed is of 
sufficiently high quality. The current standard and this proposed 
revision reference a number of standard sources which establish 
parameters for breathing air quality.
    For oxygen, the employer is to ensure that it meets the requirement 
of the latest edition of the United State Pharmacopoeia for medical or 
breathing oxygen. This represents no change from the current standard.
    In the ANPR, comments were requested on whether acceptable 
respirator breathing air should continue to meet the specifications for 
Grade D breathing air as described in Compressed Gas Association 
Commodity Specification G 7.1-1966 or whether an alternate 
specification such as Grade E should be used. OSHA received comments 
stating that Grade D air is adequate and should continue to be used 
(Ex. 15-10, 15-18, 15-31, 15-52, 15-73, 15-75). The Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (Ex. 36-52) recommended that Grade E air be used, since most 
air that passes Grade D will also pass Grade E. However, LANL gave no 
specific reasons for doing so. Therefore OSHA does not believe that the 
need for a higher grade has been shown.
    In the proposal, breathing air is to meet the requirements for the 
grade D air classification in the ANSI/Compressed Gas Association 
Commodity Specification G-7.1-1989. This is the revised and current 
version of the G-7.1 1966 Compressed Gas Association Commodity 
Specification. This means that the oxygen content (v/v) must contain 
the amount of oxygen normally present in atmospheric air of 19.5 to 
23.5 percent oxygen for synthesized air; hydrocarbon (condensed) of 5 
milligram per cubic meter of air or less; carbon monoxide of 10 ppm or 
less, and carbon dioxide of 1,000 ppm or less. OSHA invites comments on 
the appropriateness of maintaining Grade D as the required quality of 
air.
    The proposal prohibits the use of compressed oxygen in atmosphere-
supplying respirators or in open circuit self-contained breathing 
apparatus that have previously used compressed air. This is to prevent 
fire or explosion resulting from the high pressure oxygen coming in 
contact with oil or grease (Ex. 10). The proposed standard also 
specifies that oxygen not be used with supplied air respirators. These 
requirements are also in the current standard.
    Both the current standard and the proposal allow air for 
respirators to be provided from cylinders or compressors. Cylinders are 
required to be tested and maintained as prescribed in the Shipping 
Container Specification Regulations of the Department of Transportation 
(49 CFR Part 178).
    Compressors are to be constructed and situated so contaminated air 
cannot enter the air supply system. In addition, the compressors are to 
be equipped with suitable in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and 
filters to clean the air and assure breathing air quality. The 
requirement that air compressors have a receiver of sufficient capacity 
to permit escape from a hazardous atmosphere in the event of compressor 
failure has been dropped. As was pointed out in several comments on the 
preproposal draft, a receiver is necessary only when the wearer cannot 
safely stop work and leave the area without injury (Ex. 36-29, 36-32, 
36-45, 36-47, 36-52, 36-54, 36-55). Since this proposal requires that 
respirators used in IDLH situation be either an SCBA or combination 
supplied air respirator with escape air supply, the need for a receiver 
for air compressors has been eliminated. Also the requirement for 
alarms to indicate compressor failure and overheating have been 
eliminated. In the event of compressor failure with a wearer using a 
combination supplied air respirator with escape air supply, the loss of 
air supply would be readily apparent, and the wearer can switch to the 
auxiliary escape air supply and leave the area.
    In the ANPR, OSHA also requested comments and input on the 
following questions: (1) How frequently should carbon monoxide 
concentrations be measured from an air compressor not equipped with a 
carbon monoxide alarm, and (2) Is there any reason not to require a 
carbon monoxide alarm on all oil lubricated compressors that provide 
breathing air? Responses to the issue of the frequency of carbon 
monoxide measurements ranged from quarterly (Ex. 15-42) to twice a 
month provided the air intake for the compressor is located away from 
contamination (Ex. 15-52), to continuously (Ex. 15-14, 15-31, 15-34, 
15-50, 15-65, 15-73). John L. Henshaw of Monsanto Company stated ``One 
specified frequency would not be applicable under all conditions of 
breathing air compressor use.'' (Ex. 15-26).
    In response to the ANPR question regarding carbon monoxide alarms 
on oil lubricated compressors, numerous comments were received stating 
that there was no reason not to require such an alarm (Ex. 15-10, 15-
18, 15-26, 15-31, 15-46, 15-59, 15-70, 15-81). One commenter, Evan 
Campbell of Diamond Shamrock stated, ``We recommend the installation of 
continuous carbon monoxide monitors with an alarm on oil lubricated air 
compressors operated by internal combustion engines, electric motors or 
auxiliary power takeoff . . .'' (Ex. 15-65). In the comments of the 
National Constructors Association it was indicated that screw type 
compressors or oil free compressors do not need a carbon monoxide alarm 
provided the air intake is not near a potential carbon monoxide source 
(Ex. 15-34).
    There was general recognition in the comments that contamination of 
the intake air on a compressor used to supply breathing air is of 
primary concern. Several comments cited the study published in the 
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal by T.M. Distler of the 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Ex. 32-1) entitled ``Formation of Carbon 
Monoxide in Air Compressors'' (Ex. 15-13, 15-22, 15-26, 15-30, 15-41, 
15-81). The findings of this study revealed that low pressure 
compressors are unlikely to reach temperatures where carbon monoxide 
would be produced from the lubricant; synthetic lubricants do not 
significantly lessen carbon monoxide production; exhaust gases from 
combustion engines are the major threat to the quality of the 
compressed air; high temperature shut-offs or alarms do not 
significantly protect against carbon monoxide contamination of 
compressed air.
    The preproposal draft contained provisions that required oil 
lubricated compressors to have carbon monoxide monitors and high 
temperature alarms. Freuhauf Corporation (Ex. 36-1) requested that 
compressors equipped with a high temperature shutdown device not be 
required to have carbon monoxide monitor since the compressor would be 
shut down before breakdown of the oil could occur. The Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory (Ex. 36-26), citing its study of 
compressors authored by Distler (Ex. 32-1), found no need for carbon 
monoxide monitors and alarms for oil lubricated compressors. However, 
they recommend that carbon monoxide monitoring and alarms be required 
for breathing air compressors powered by internal combustion engines, 
due to the potential for reentrainment of exhaust gases. Alan Hack (Ex. 
36-29) stated that carbon monoxide alarms appear to be unreliable, 
there was little evidence of carbon monoxide production with oil 
lubricated compressors, and that OSHA should not require them. ASARCO 
(Ex. 36-39) recommended that OSHA allow the use of carbon monoxide 
absorption filters with visible color change indicators in place of 
carbon monoxide monitors. Richard Boggs of ORC (Ex. 36-47) recommended 
deleting section (i)(4)(v) requiring carbon monoxide monitors, citing 
the report on compressors performed by Distler. The Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (Ex. 36-52) stated that carbon monoxide alarms currently in 
use were unreliable, and that there was little evidence of carbon 
monoxide production with oil lubricated compressors. Lynnette Hendricks 
of the 3M Corporation (Ex. 36-54) stated that the requirement for 
carbon monoxide alarms added negligibly to the effort to provide 
quality breathing air, and that 3M was aware of no instances where oil 
lubricated compressor failures resulted in carbon monoxide exposure to 
workers. Thomas Nelson of the ANSI Z88.2 respirator committee (Ex. 36-
55) recommended that the need for carbon monoxide alarms be dropped 
when the air intake is located away from sources of carbon monoxide 
contamination. He also recommended dropping the high temperature alarm 
requirement. The State of Wyoming OSHA (Ex. 36-9) recommended that 
continuous carbon monoxide monitors with alarms be required for oil 
lubricated compressors operated by internal combustion engines or 
electric motor auxiliary power takeoffs. The International Chemical 
Workers Union (Ex. 36-14) stated that continuous carbon monoxide 
monitors and alarms for oil lubricated compressors were the only 
effective methods to monitor carbon monoxide concentrations.
    OSHA knows of one such incident which involved carbon monoxide 
production by an oil lubricated compressor. An MSHA Accident 
Investigation Report issued in January 1985 (Ex. 38-12) reported that a 
diesel engine powered two stage rotary air compressor that utilized oil 
for cooling had overheated during a sandblasting operation at a 
limestone quarry. This resulted in the near fatal carbon monoxide 
poisoning of the sandblaster who was wearing a continuous flow abrasive 
blasting hood which received its air from the compressor. The air 
compressor had a thermo bypass valve that should have normally directed 
the oil through a cooling radiator once the oil had reached a 
temperature of 185 deg. F. The thermo bypass valve failed, allowing the 
cooling oil temperature to rise above its flashpoint of 420 deg. F. The 
oil ignited in the oil separator and the fire spread to the combined 
oil receiver/air receiver, producing carbon monoxide. The compressor 
was equipped with a high temperature shutoff switch set for 235 deg. F, 
but it had been disconnected for at least 30 days prior to the 
incident. The compressor was not equipped with a carbon monoxide filter 
or alarm. The air line to the respirator had an inline filter to remove 
oil, water, and particulates from the compressed air as it left the air 
receiver, but it allowed the carbon monoxide to pass through to the 
respirator wearer. The sandblaster collapsed from carbon monoxide 
poisoning. The sandblaster's assistant shut down the compressor, 
removed the victim's abrasive blasting hood, and called for emergency 
assistance. Neither of the employees performing the sandblasting 
operation had received any training in proper respirator use.
    This extremely rare incident raises serious questions about carbon 
monoxide filters and alarms as well as high temperature shutoff 
devices, and whether their use should be required for oil lubricated 
compressors. A properly functioning high temperature shutoff switch 
should have shut down the overheated compressor, but it is unclear 
whether this would have occurred before the carbon monoxide laden air 
went out to the respirator wearer. This compressor had no carbon 
monoxide filter with alarm to warn the respirator wearer. However, 
given that the high temperature alarm was previously disconnected, it 
is unclear whether that alarm would have been disabled as well. OSHA 
requests any further information regarding other incidents involving 
carbon monoxide production by oil lubricated compressors, and any 
comments on the necessity for carbon monoxide filters and alarms as 
well as high temperature alarms for air compressors.
    This proposal does not contain a requirement that carbon monoxide 
alarms or high temperature shutoff devices be used with oil lubricated 
compressors. As the Distler air compressor study (Ex. 32-1) points out, 
air compressors are unlikely to reach temperatures where carbon 
monoxide production would occur. Exhaust gases from internal combustion 
engines and the intake of contaminated air are the major threats to air 
quality, and these threats occur with all compressors, not just oil 
lubricated ones. The proposal requires that the air intake for 
compressors be placed to avoid the entry of contaminated air. One way 
to ensure that contaminated air does not enter the air supply would be 
for OSHA to require carbon monoxide filters with continuous monitoring 
alarms for all breathing air compressors. OSHA requests comments on 
whether it should adopt this requirement for all compressors. OSHA 
requests any information about problems with air compressor air 
quality, filters and alarms, and invites comments on how best to ensure 
breathing air quality for respirators.
    OSHA is aware that in recent years devices known as ambient air 
movers have been developed to provide air to supplied air respirators. 
These units are small compressors which are not oil lubricated and have 
no air receiver. Such compressors may have a use in non-IDLH 
atmospheres. The use of ambient air movers has been allowed under an 
OSHA compliance directive even though such devices do not have an air 
receiver as required by the current standard. The proposal drops the 
requirement for an air receiver for compressors. An ambient air mover 
is just another type of air compressor, and it is treated like any 
other compressor under the proposal.
    Requirements in this proposal regarding the moisture content of 
compressed air for air cylinders and a provision requiring that air 
line couplings be incompatible with outlets for other gas systems are 
consistent with current accepted practice and with OSHA's current 
standard, having simply been updated to reflect the latest versions of 
the references. The proposal establishes a limitation of the moisture 
content of air in compressed air cylinders of no greater than 27 
milliliters per cubic meter of air. This is to prevent freezing of the 
valves. The air coupling provision is also included to prevent 
inadvertent servicing of airline respirators with non-respirable gases 
or vapors. To accomplish this, breathing air couplings are to be made 
incompatible with outlets from non-respirable plant air or other gas 
systems.
    In addition, employers must use breathing gas containers marked in 
accordance with the American National Standard Method of Marking 
Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained, 
Z48.1-1954 (R-1971); Federal Specification BB-A 1034a, June 21, 1968, 
Air, Compressed for Breathing Purposes; or Interim Federal 
Specification GG-13-00675b, September 23, 1976, Breathing Apparatus, 
Self-Contained.

(J) Identification of Filter, Cartridges, and Canisters

    The current standard requires that the employer mark gas mask 
canisters with properly worded labels and color coding to ensure proper 
identification. However, as many commenters on the preproposal draft 
pointed out (Ex. 36-18, 36-19, 36-27, 36-30, 36-32, 36-34, 36-40, 36-
45, 36-47, 36-49, 36-54, 36-55), the marking of filters, cartridges and 
canisters is the responsibility of the respirator manufacturer under 
the NIOSH 30 CFR 11 and 42 CFR 84 respirator certification standards. 
Therefore, this proposal has eliminated the requirements and tables 
relating to the marking of canisters from the standard. Two 
requirements have been added to replace the marking requirements. 
First, the employer must ensure that all filters, cartridges and 
canisters used are properly labeled and color coded. Since the 
manufacturer already does this, the employer need only check that the 
label is there. Second, the label may not be removed, obscured or 
defaced while in service since that would defeat its purpose.

(K) Training

    The most thorough respiratory protection program will not be 
effective if employees do not wear respirators, or if wearing them, do 
not do so appropriately. The only way to ensure that employees are 
aware of the purpose of wearing respirators, and how they are to be 
worn, is to train them. The record shows widespread agreement that 
employee training is an important part of the respiratory protection 
program and is essential for correct respirator use (Ex. 15-13, 15-18, 
15-19, 15-22, 15-30, 15-33, 15-41, 15-45, 15-50, 15-53, 15-54, 15-67, 
15-79).
    The current standard does not contain a separate section for 
training. The minimal requirements it imposes are included within other 
sections of the standard.
    This proposal retains and clarifies the present provisions in a 
separate section for training and provides more comprehensive guidance 
than does the present standard.
    In response to ANPR commenters who urged OSHA to mandate a program 
that is performance oriented and can be presented informally, (Ex. 15-
13, 15-18, 15-22, 15-30, 15-41, 15-47, 15-62, 15-73, 15-75), this 
proposal is performance oriented in that it specfies categories of 
information to cover during training. It neither specifies how the 
training is to be performed nor the format of the employers training 
program. The employer can use whatever training method is effective for 
the particular worksite as long as it contains the topics discussed 
below. Employers can utilize prepared materials such as audio-visuals 
and slide presentations or they can use approaches ranging from formal 
classroom instruction to informal discussions during safety meetings 
(Ex. 15-53), or a combination of methods.
    The first category of information to be included in the training 
program is the nature, extent and effects of respiratory hazards to 
which the employee may be exposed. This includes identification of the 
hazardous chemicals involved, what exposure levels there would be if no 
respiratory protection were being used, and what the potential health 
effects of such exposure would be if the respirator is not worn or not 
worn properly. This type of information will be available on the 
material safety data sheet for the hazardous chemical that the chemical 
manufacturer will be required to produce under the Hazard Communication 
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). These training requirements on health 
hazards of hazardous chemicals are also required under the Hazard 
Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) and could easily be combined 
into the same training program. Many commenters agreed that this 
subject is an essential element of training (Ex. 61-3, 61-8, 15-10, 15-
14, 15-18, 15-19, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-53, 15-62, 15-73). None 
disagreed.
    Once employees are trained regarding the nature of the hazards, 
employers are to provide an explanation of the operation, limitations, 
and capabilities of the respirators selected for the employees to wear. 
This would include, for example, an explanation of how the respirator 
provides protection by either filtering the air, absorbing the vapor, 
or providing clean air from an uncontaminated source. Where 
appropriate, it also should include limitations on the equipment such 
as prohibitions against using an air-purifying respirator in the event 
of an emergency with IDLH atmospheres and an explanation of why they 
should not be used in such situations. In other words the employee 
should be able to understand the operation of the respirator thoroughly 
as a result of this training, and thus know why it was selected for the 
task at hand. Most commenters supported covering this topic in the 
training program. (Ex. 61-3, 15-14, 15-18, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-53, 
15-62, 15-73). There was no disagreement.
    Once the employee understands the nature of the hazards, and the 
particular equipment selected to protect against those hazards, the 
employer is to provide specific instruction regarding the type and 
frequency of respirator inspections. Although the employer is required 
to ensure that such inspections are performed, employees using the 
equipment may frequently be responsible for inspecting the respirators 
assigned to them. Therefore, it is necessary that they have this 
process explained and demonstrated to them so they are capable of 
recognizing any problems that may threaten the continued protective 
capability of the respirator. The training must include the steps 
employees are to follow if they discover any problems during 
inspection, i.e. who this should be reported to and where they can 
obtain replacement equipment if necessary.
    The training must also include the procedures for donning or 
removing the respirator, checking the fit and seals, and actually 
wearing the respirator. It is very important to ensure that the 
everyday respirator fit is as close as possible to the fit obtained 
during fit testing, and therefore employees must be able to duplicate 
that fit through proper donning and removal. The fit testing procedure 
can help in training employees, particularly if quantitative fit 
testing is used since it can demonstrate numerically to employees the 
dramatic differences in measured fit when the respirator is not 
adjusted properly (Ex. 15-44). The proposal requires employers to 
include sufficient practice so that employees can perform these tasks 
effectively. The proposal also includes positive and negative pressure 
facepiece seal checks in non-mandatory Appendix B. If other tests are 
equally effective in testing the face seal, they may be used. Employees 
must be trained regarding the appropriate tests to be used for the 
respirators they are wearing. The inclusion of these topics in training 
was unanimously supported in the record (Ex. 61-3, 61-8, 15-10, 15-14, 
15-22, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-50, 15-62, 15-73).
    The employer is also to explain the procedures for maintenance and 
storage of respirators. This provision may vary by establishment since 
in some cases the employees are responsible for doing some of the 
maintenance and for storing the respirators while not in use, but in 
other facilities specific people are assigned to carry out these 
activities. In any event, employees should be aware of the proper 
procedures to follow. The significance of this point was raised by a 
large number of commenters (Ex. 61-3, 61-8, 15-10, 15-14, 15-27A, 15-
41, 15-46, 15-50, 15-62).
    Respirators do malfunction on occasion, or emergency situations 
occur which require different respirators for the exposure levels 
involved. The training program must include a discussion of these 
possibilities, and the procedures the employer has established to deal 
with them. Most ANPR commenters concurred that comprehensive training 
is necessary where respirators are to be used in situations immediately 
dangerous to life or health, including oxygen deficient atmospheres, 
such as in fire fighting, rescue operations and confined area entry 
(Ex. 15-18, 15-19, 15-26, 15-31, 15-33, 15-37, 15-41, 15-47, 15-48, 15-
50, 15-54, 15-55, 15-56, 15-59, 15-70).
    Several commenters requested that OSHA adopt the applicable 
training requirements of the American National Standard Institute 
(ANSI) Z88.2-1980 Practices for Respiratory Protection which discussed 
the basic training requirements of an acceptable respirator program 
(Ex. 15-13, 15-14, 15-26, 15-27A, 15-31, 15-44, 15-46, 15-50, 15-54, 
15-55, 15-58, 15-70, 15-76, 15-81). The new training requirements are 
similar to the ANSI requirements for training except that the proposal 
does not require a discussion on the role of engineering controls.
    Although some commenters felt that the provisions covering training 
in the present standard are adequate (Ex. 15-37, 15-56, 15-75A), in 
view of the importance of training in motivating employees to wear 
respirators correctly and effectively, the additional information 
required by this proposal is deemed by OSHA to be critical for an 
effective respirator program. With the exception of the American Iron 
and Steel Institute (Ex. 15-37), A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company (Ex. 
15-56), and the Sperry Corporation (Ex. 15-75A), the record supports 
further guidance for training than is currently contained in 1910.134 
(Ex. 15-13, 15-14, 15-26, 15-27A, 15-31, 15-44, 15-46, 15-50, 15-54, 
15-55, 15-58, 15-70, 15-76, 15-81).
    In addition to specific training requirements regarding the proper 
use of respirators, the employer must inform employees of the existence 
and contents of the respirator standard (29 CFR 1910.134). They must 
also be told of the existence and contents of the written respiratory 
protection program required by the respirator standard, where it is 
kept in the facility, and how the employee can arrange to examine it if 
desired.
    The majority of commenters agreed that annual training is necessary 
to assure an effective continuing program (Ex. 15-10, 15-18, 15-19, 15-
20, 15-37, 15-44, 15-47, 15-48, 15-50, 15-54, 15-55, 15-71). The Sperry 
Corporation, however, recommended that employees be retrained every 6 
months, but did not provide a rationale for their contention. In 
response to the preproposal draft, California OSHA (Ex. 36-44) 
recommended that a more comprehensive initial training and more 
frequent refresher training be required for employees assigned to use 
SCBA in potentially IDLH atmospheres; emergency response users of SCBA 
would receive refresher instruction in the operation inspection, and 
wearing of the SCBA at least every three months for the first two years 
following initial training, and thereafter every six months. Frank 
Wilcher of the International Safety Equipment Association (Ex. 36-45) 
also recommended that employees who use SCBAs be trained semiannually 
because of the higher degree of complexity of these units and the 
possibility of greater hazards associated with their use.
    The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (Ex. 36-20) 
recommended that training should be performed at least annually and be 
adjusted to the complexities of the respirator program and the level of 
respirator use. William O'Keefe of the American Petroleum Institute 
(Ex. 15-41) asserted that training should be repeated periodically, but 
at least every 2 years and more frequently as workplace conditions may 
warrant. Richard Boggs of ORC (Ex. 36-47) in response to the 
preproposal draft recommended that a 2 year cycle of retraining and 
refresher instruction after the initial respirator use training was 
reasonable. He recommended that any decision for more frequent training 
should be made by the employer. Annual retraining was called needlessly 
expensive. Amoco Corporation (Ex. 36-35) recommended that the 
retraining frequency for routinely used respirators be a minimum of two 
years, but emergency use respirators would require annual retraining. 
The American Textile Manufacturers Institute (Ex. 36-18) recommended 
retraining every two years for employees requiring an APF of 10 or 
less. Both the ANSI Z88.2-1980 and Z88.2-1993 respiratory protection 
standards call for annual retraining.
    OSHA concurs with the majority of comments contending that annual 
training is sufficiently frequent to ensure employee cooperation and 
active participation in the program. Training every two years instead 
of annually for routinely worn respirators has been rejected, since the 
purpose of the training is not only to instruct wearers in proper 
techniques but also to encourage their cooperation and participation in 
the respirator program. Switching to training every two years would 
tend to diminish attention to proper respirator use. OSHA compliance 
experience has demonstrated that inadequate respirator training is a 
common problem (Ex. 33-5) and is often associated with respirator 
program deficiencies that potentially lead to employee exposures. 
Therefore, the proposal contains the requirement for annual training 
for respirator wearers. Training required by this proposal is to be 
given to the employee before he or she is required to wear a respirator 
in the workplace. Employees must receive training at least annually so 
they will be reminded regularly of the effects of the respiratory 
hazards to which they may be exposed and how they can prevent such 
exposure by proper wearing of respirators. OSHA requests comments on 
the frequency of training, particularly the need for increased training 
and more frequent refresher training for employees using SCBAs or 
emergency use respirators.

(L) Respiratory Program Evaluation

    It is inherent in respirator use that problems with protection, 
irritation, breathing resistance, comfort, etc. will arise. While it is 
not possible to eliminate all problems with wearing a respirator, the 
employer must try to eliminate as many problems as possible to improve 
protection and encourage wearer acceptance of respirators. Eliminating 
problems is accomplished most effectively when the program is evaluated 
carefully and revised as necessary. Although the current standard does 
require that the employer perform periodic checks of the effectiveness 
of the respiratory protection program, little guidance is provided 
regarding how this evaluation is to be done. The proposal includes a 
paragraph dealing with this requirement and provides more information 
regarding what should be assessed by the employer.
    The person responsible for administration of the respiratory 
protection program is to review the program at least annually and is to 
conduct frequent random inspections of the workplace to ensure that the 
provisions of the program are being properly implemented. The annual 
review is to include an assessment of each element of the program that 
is required to be included under paragraph (c)(1).
    In addition to this review of the program itself, the employer is 
to consult employees wearing respirators to ascertain whether they 
perceive any problems with the equipment. Factors to be included in 
this assessment are comfort; resistance to breathing; fatigue; 
interference with vision; interference with communication; restriction 
of movement; interference with job performance; and the employee's 
confidence in the respirators effectiveness. The employer should 
attempt to correct any such problem that is brought forward. Comments 
are requested on these requirements. Companies which have instituted 
similar assessments are encouraged to submit their views.

(M) Recordkeeping and Access to Records

    The final paragraph of the proposal deals with recordkeeping 
related to the respiratory protection program. The employer is to 
record, maintain and provide access to any records of medical 
evaluations performed under paragraph (e) of the proposal. This record 
consists of the employee's name, a description of the employee's 
duties, the physician's written opinion and recommendations on the 
employee's ability to use a respirator, any results of medical 
examinations or tests performed, and a copy of the information provided 
to the physician. Once generated to comply with this standard, the 
records are to be kept, and access is to be provided to them under the 
provisions of 29 CFR 1910.20, OSHA's rule on Access to Employee 
Exposure and Medical Records.
    The present standard does not contain a separate section for 
recordkeeping. It simply requires employers to indicate on the 
respirator to whom it was assigned and the date it was issued. It also 
requires recording of inspection dates and findings for respirators 
used for emergency use.
    The importance of recordkeeping as a means of verifying compliance 
with the respiratory protection program requirements was stated 
frequently in the record (Ex 15-18, 15-22, 15-33, 15-41, 15-47, 15-82). 
Commenters urged OSHA to require only those records necessary to 
demonstrate an effective program (Ex 15-19, 15-21, 15-41, 15-47, 15-
71). However, there was considerable disagreement over what 
recordkeeping items to require. Because OSHA recognizes that 
recordkeeping may be administratively burdensome and time consuming, 
the Agency has only required employers to maintain records that are 
necessary for determining compliance with the requirements of the 
proposal.
    The written respiratory protection program itself needs to be kept 
current as long as respirators are in use in the workplace. However, 
there is no specific retention period as long as the latest version of 
the program is available in the workplace.
    Employee fit testing records are required as part of Appendix A, 
section (1)(L). This record consists of the employee's name, the type, 
brand, and size of the respirator fitted; date of the fit test; and the 
strip chart recording or other record of the test results where 
quantitative fit testing was performed. The fit test record must be 
maintained until the next fit test is administered. The reason for 
requiring that fit test records be maintained is to provide a record of 
the results of fit testing in order to determine whether annual fit 
testing has been done and if the individual tested passed the QNFT with 
a fit factor that was adequate for the type of respirator being used. 
The preproposal draft did not contain a requirement that fit test 
records be maintained, but several commenters had serious doubts that 
OSHA would be able to determine if an individual had been properly 
fitted and was wearing the appropriate respirator by visual observation 
alone (Ex 36-6, 36-17, 36-34, 36-46). OSHA agrees that fit testing 
records must be maintained to ensure that all respirator wearers have 
received a fit test, that the appropriate respirator chosen by fit 
testing is being worn, and that retesting is performed annually. Fit 
testing records can also serve other uses in the respiratory protection 
program. The Ethyl Corporation (Ex 36-11) uses the strip chart 
recording of the fit test as a training tool when it is reviewed with 
the fit test subject.

(N) Substance Specific Standards

    This proposed standard will affect OSHA's substance specific health 
standards. All such standards now incorporate provisions of the 
existing Sec. 1910.134 as part of their requirements. Moreover, some 
respirator related provisions in the substance specific standards 
differ from their counterpart provisions in this proposal, mostly in 
respirator selection and the events which trigger medical examinations 
for respirator users.
    OSHA is proposing to revise all references to Sec. 1910.134 in the 
existing substance specific standards to conform to the proposed 
revised standard. Thus, for standards such as lead, coke oven 
emissions, asbestos, and others which now require that ``the employer 
shall institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.134 (b), (d), (e), and (f)'', the text will read ``the 
employer shall institute a respiratory protection program in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and 
(l).'' The revised provisions cover program elements, selection 
criteria for respirators, fit testing, use of respirators, maintenance 
and care, air quality, training, and program evaluation. Each of these 
subject areas was addressed in previously incorporated paragraphs (b), 
(d), (e), and (f) of the existing standard. For the `` carcinogen'' 
standards (Sec. 1910.1003-1016), which now require that in certain 
instances employees use certain kinds of respirators ``in accordance 
with 1910.134'', the regulatory text will remain unchanged. However, 
the employer will have to comply with the amended provisions of the 
revised Sec. 1910.134 rather than the earlier provisions.
    OSHA is including the proposed revised paragraph (e) covering 
medical surveillance only in the carcinogen standards in 1910.1003-
1910.1016. Each of the other substance specific standards now includes 
in its medical surveillance requirements a provision that the employee 
be evaluated concerning any potential limitations on respirator use. 
OSHA believes that the medical surveillance programs established under 
these substance specific standards are therefore sufficient to protect 
employees who are not medically able to wear respirators. Because each 
medical surveillance requirement in the substance specific standards 
was designed as a comprehensive program to evaluate employees for 
conditions and risks unrelated to respirator usage as well, OSHA 
believes any revision changing the required frequency or content of 
medical examinations would unnecessarily disturb ongoing medical 
surveillance programs. Comments on this approach are solicited from the 
public, especially those who have information concerning the 
sufficiency of medical evaluations for respirator use under substance 
specific standards.
    OSHA has adopted various approaches to deal with respirator 
provisions in those substance specific standards which differ from this 
proposal. Based on the information and data in the respiratory 
protection docket, OSHA believes in order to maintain an effective 
respirator program regardless of the contaminant or workplace 
conditions, there should be a minimum program level. Thus, for 
provisions in substance specific standards which are more protective 
than the counterpart revised provisions of this standard, OSHA does not 
propose any changes. For example, the respirator selection tables of 
some standards provide for more restricted use of respirators than 
would the respirator selection criteria in this proposal. The least 
protective respirator allowed by the ethylene oxide standard is a full 
facepiece respirator with an ethylene oxide canister regardless of 
protection factor required, whereas respirator selection according to 
this proposal would allow a half mask or quarter facepiece cartridge/
canister respirator up to the NIOSH assigned protection factor of 10. 
OSHA believes that the more protective provisions of respirator 
selection adopted for specific substances after rulemaking proceedings 
conducted pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act reflect the content of 
each rulemaking record, the toxicity and circumstances of use of each 
substance and therefore should be retained.
    In keeping with this principle of not going below the minimum 
program, in those cases where existing respirator selection options in 
the substance specific standards are less protective than would be 
permitted by the proposed NIOSH respirator selection tables, OSHA 
proposes to revise such permitted respirator selections to conform to 
paragraph (d). For example, the lead standard (1910.1025 (f)(2)) now 
allows any powered air-purifying respirator with high efficiency 
filters to be used in concentrations up to 1000 times the PEL, and the 
coke oven emissions standard allows the use of PAPRs in any 
concentration, whereas under this proposal respirator selection would 
allow powered air-purifying respirators to be used only in atmospheres 
of 25 and 50 times the PEL for respirators certified under 42 CFR Part 
84, depending on type. In the case of new or modified respirator types 
as well as existing respirator types, OSHA continues to require that 
they be NIOSH certified for the contaminant involved as a prerequisite 
to their permitted use.
    OSHA is also revising the respirator related provisions in the 
following OSHA safety standards, Sec. 1910.94 (Ventilation), 
Sec. 1910.111 (Anhydrous Ammonia), Sec. 1910.252 (Welding), and 
Sec. 1910.262 (Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills) to make them conform 
to the revised requirements for respirator certification, selection, 
and use contained in this proposal.
    In addition to making existing substance specific standards conform 
to the revised provisions of the respiratory protection standard in 
general, OSHA is also requesting comments on specific respirator-
related issues of three specific standards.
    OSHA is intending to reinstate the provision in the lead standard 
that requires the use of high efficiency filters for all air purifying 
respirators used with lead. In 1979, OSHA had stayed that provision to 
allow further administrative reconsideration (44 FR 5446). The recent 
asbestos standard record that has been generated supports requiring the 
use of high efficiency filters with whatever respiratory protection 
equipment is used to protect against highly toxic substances. When OSHA 
announced the stay on the requirement for high efficiency filters in 
the lead standard, it was stated that NIOSH would be asked for further 
interpretation of the record. Partially in response to this request, 
NIOSH performed a study on the effectiveness of various filters in the 
presence of lead aerosols. The results of this study (Ex. 38-6) show a 
substantial difference in penetration between high efficiency filters 
and others. OSHA therefore believes there is a clear increase in 
protectiveness as a result of the use of high efficiency filters in a 
lead aerosol atmosphere. Moreover, OSHA believes the use of high 
efficiency filters does not impose an undue burden on employers in 
relation to the use of less efficient filters, and that requiring the 
use of high efficiency filters in the presence of lead--a highly toxic 
substance--is both appropriate and reasonable. As a result of these 
considerations, OSHA intends to lift the stay on enforcement of the 
requirement that high efficiency filters (type III filters as defined 
under 42 CFR Part 84) be used.
    As a second issue, the OSHA asbestos standard requires the use of 
high efficiency filters with air-purifying respirators and does not 
allow the use of disposable respirators with asbestos. Reasons for not 
permitting the use of such respirators were that it was determined in 
the asbestos standard record that high efficiency filters are necessary 
to provide the necessary protection against penetration; and that 
disposable respirators for the most part also were not shown to provide 
adequate fit and were not by virtue of design amenable to the 
performance of a fit check. However, it has come to OSHA's attention 
that there are disposable respirators with elastomeric facepieces and 
high efficiency filters which are said to provide fits as good as 
provided by half mask elastomeric respirators which have replaceable 
high efficiency filters. Such disposable respirators can be 
quantitatively fit tested, and are designed so that fit check 
procedures can be performed. OSHA is asking for comments on whether 
such respirators should be allowed to be used under the asbestos 
standard.
    The third issue concerns the OSHA standard for inorganic arsenic. 
At the time this standard was promulgated in May 1978, disposable 
respirators with high efficiency filters were not available. Therefore, 
disposable respirators were not addressed in the respirator selection 
tables of the standard. Now that there are such respirators, OSHA needs 
to determine whether they can provide adequate assurance of fit so as 
to be suitable for inorganic arsenic which is known to be carcinogenic. 
OSHA is proposing that disposable respirators not be permitted under 
the inorganic arsenic standard for the same reasons as stated for the 
asbestos standard. OSHA is seeking comment on whether disposable 
respirators with and without elastomeric facepieces should or should 
not be allowed to be used under the inorganic arsenic standard in view 
of facepiece sealability or any other considerations.

O. Maritime Standards: Parts 1915, 1917, 1918

    In this document OSHA is proposing to update the respiratory 
provisions in Shipyards, Sec. 1915.152. OSHA requests comments on the 
proposal and whether any changes in the proposed language is 
appropriate for shipyards based on relevant unique circumstances. 
Currently, the respiratory provision for Marine Terminals is a cross 
reference to Sec. 1910.134. See Secs. 1917.92 and 1917 (a)(2)(viii). 
The current respiratory provision for Longshoring is at Sec. 1918.102 
and is many years out of date. OSHA proposed on June 2, 1994 at 59 FR 
28594, 28622-3, 28690 to replace it with a cross reference to 
Sec. 1910.134. See proposed Sec. 1918.1(a)(12).
    OSHA requests comments on whether the proposed respirator standards 
are appropriately incorporated into the Marine Terminal and Longshoring 
Parts by cross reference or directly. OSHA requests comments on costs 
and feasibility issues for these sectors. OSHA also requests comments 
on whether provisions different from the general industry standard are 
appropriate based on unique circumstances in these sectors.

P. Construction Advisory Committee

    The revised respirator standard that results from this rulemaking 
will replace the existing respiratory protection standards in the 
construction industry (29 CFR 1926.103) and in maritime operations (29 
CFR 1915.152). Since this revision affects the construction industry, 
the September 1985 preproposal draft standard was presented to the 
Construction Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health 
(CACOSH) for their comments. The CACOSH comments, combined with the 
other comments received, were considered in preparing a revision of the 
September 1985 draft proposal.
    As part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) approval 
process, the revised NPRM was presented at the March 1987 CACOSH 
meeting and the Committee's comments were presented to OSHA at the 
August 1987 meeting (Ex. 39). The following discussion summarizes the 
issues raised in these comments and presents OSHA's response to them.
    The proposal would replace the existing construction industry 
standard for respiratory protection, 29 CFR 1926.103, with the 
provisions of the revised 29 CFR 1910.134 respirator standard. The 
Construction Advisory Committee recommended that there should be a 
separate respirator standard for construction. Whether there were 
particular changes that should be made to the provisions of the 
standard to reflect respirator usage in the construction industry was 
not clearly addressed by the Committee since the comments they 
presented were equally applicable to general industry respirator use. 
OSHA believes that there is no need for a separate rulemaking for the 
construction industry since no differences in content would appear to 
be appropriate. Consequently this recommendation was not incorporated. 
However, OSHA is establishing these respiratory provisions explicitly 
in the construction standards as 29 CFR 1926.103.
Paragraph (a)--Scope and Application
    The Construction Advisory Committee recommended that the scope and 
application section, paragraph (a)(1) of the standard, require that all 
feasible engineering controls be used by employers and that the 
employer demonstrate that engineering controls are not feasible before 
respirators are used. The proposed change would eliminate the 
requirement that appropriate respirators be used while engineering 
controls are being installed. Since the only effect of this proposed 
language change would be to eliminate the required use of respirators 
during the installation of engineering controls, it has not been 
adopted.
    The Committee proposed that paragraph (a)(2) be modified to require 
that employers provide respirators at one half the PEL or TLV, and that 
employees be required to wear them before the PEL is exceeded. To 
accompany this revision the Committee proposed a new definition 
establishing an ``action level'' at one half the PEL for all regulated 
substances. OSHA does not believe it to be within the scope of this 
proposed standard for respirator use to trigger action levels and is 
therefore not incorporating this CACOSH recommendation.
Paragraph (b)--Definitions
    The Committee suggested that the definition of an atmosphere-
supplying respirator be revised to include reference to ``Grade D 
breathing air''. This definition was intended by OSHA to describe a 
particular technical device, the atmosphere-supplying respirator. The 
requirement for Grade D breathing air is contained in paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of the proposed standard and is not relevant to the 
definition of the type of respirator. Therefore, the definition of 
atmosphere-supplying respirator has not been changed.
    CACOSH suggested that OSHA add a definition for ``Grade D breathing 
air'' to the proposal. While this term is already described in 
paragraph (i), Supplied Air Quality and Use, a definition for Grade D 
breathing air has been added in the definition section of the proposal.
    A definition for ``competent person'' was proposed to be added as 
follows: ```Competent Person' means one who is capable of identifying 
existing respiratory hazards in the workplace and who has the authority 
to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them, as specified in 
29 CFR 1926.32 (f). The duties of the competent person include at least 
the following: reviewing the respiratory protection program, ensuring 
that the employer conducts the training, fit testing, tests and 
maintains the records for respirators and ensuring that engineering 
controls in use are in proper operating condition and are functioning 
properly.'' This proposed definition would establish duties and 
authority for the competent person, who would perform the function of 
the respiratory program administrator required in paragraph (c)(2) of 
the proposal. However, the definition contains duties and 
responsibilities that go beyond the requirements set for a program 
administrator. These duties, such as ensuring that engineering controls 
are in proper operating condition and are functioning properly, are the 
responsibility of whomever the employer chooses to designate. Although 
the competent person definition has not been included in this proposal, 
OSHA is asking for comments on the need for this definition or for 
alternative definitions to accomplish the same purpose.
    In the proposal's definition of hazardous exposure level, the ACGIH 
TLVs are used to determine the hazardous exposure level in the absence 
of a PEL. The Construction Advisory Committee recommended that the 
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) should also be used along with 
the TLV, and that whichever was lowest to be used in determining the 
hazardous exposure level. OSHA agrees that the NIOSH Recommended 
Exposure Limits are an appropriate source for exposure limits in the 
absence of a PEL. However, it is not clear that the lowest value from 
either the TLV or REL for a particular substance should be used. OSHA 
has received no comment on the appropriateness of the NIOSH RELs in the 
docket, and is requesting comment on how OSHA should require the use of 
the RELs by employers in establishing hazardous exposure levels for 
respirator use. Language has been added to the hazardous exposure level 
definition to require the use of the RELs, but only in the absence of a 
PEL or TLV, since these values are widely recognized as appropriate for 
such uses. OSHA requests comments on this addition and on the use of 
RELs in relation to TLVs.
    The proposal states in paragraph (d)(6) that air-purifying 
respirators may not be used for a hazardous chemical with poor or 
inadequate warning properties. The proposed standard defines adequate 
warning properties as detectable odor, taste, or irritation effects 
which are detectable and persistent at or below the hazardous exposure 
level. CACOSH recommended inclusion of a definition of ``inadequate 
warning properties'' as those associated with an odor or taste 
threshold equal to or greater than one-half of the substance's PEL or 
TLV. The CACOSH definition reduces the cutoff level for warning 
properties to one-half the PEL or TLV. This would reduce the number of 
chemicals with adequate warning properties with which air-purifying 
respirators can be used. OSHA requests comments and information on the 
appropriateness of using a cutoff level of one-half the PEL or TLV as 
the point where inadequate warning properties start, and on the effects 
such a level would have on air-purifying respirator use.
    The definition of ``maximum use concentration'' (MUC) in the 
proposal limits the use of gas and vapor air-purifying elements to a 
maximum level which cannot exceed the NIOSH limits on the respirator 
approval label. CACOSH suggested that OSHA add a sentence to the 
definition to limit the MUC to a maximum of 1000 ppm. NIOSH in Table 5 
of their Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 38-20) presents recommended MUC 
levels for gas and vapor air-purifying elements. The 1000 ppm MUC is 
used only for organic vapor cartridges. Different MUCs are given, based 
on whether the element is a cartridge, chin canister, or front-or-back-
mounted canister. The MUC is limited by the NIOSH Decision Logic to the 
maximum listed in the table or the IDLH level of the specific organic 
vapor, whichever is lower. OSHA requests comments on whether it should 
adopt the NIOSH limitations on MUC for use in the revised OSHA 
respirator standard.
    CACOSH also suggested that OSHA add a definition for ``odor 
threshold'' as the concentration at which 100 percent of a human test 
group would detect the odor of a substance. However, odor thresholds 
vary greatly among individuals, a few of whom may be virtually 
insensitive to a large number of chemicals. A requirement that 100 
percent of a human test group be able to identify the chemical could 
result in the elimination of most chemicals as having no odor 
threshold. OSHA has therefore not adopted this definition. However, 
OSHA is requesting comment on the appropriate levels that should be 
used in determining odor thresholds, the test methods used, and the 
appropriateness of requiring that odor threshold testing be performed 
for individuals who must wear air-purifying respirators.
    The Construction Advisory Committee also recommended replacing the 
proposal's definition of ``respirator'' with the following: 
```Respirator' means any device worn by an individual and intended to 
reduce an exposure to airborne contaminants or supply the wearer with 
Grade D breathing air in a contaminated or oxygen deficient 
atmosphere.'' OSHA believes that performance characteristics of 
respirators should be stated where appropriate in the standard. Some 
respirators are adequate while others are not. However, an inadequate 
respirator is still a respirator. Therefore OSHA has not adopted this 
CACOSH change in the definition of respirator.
    The Committee also proposed revising the language in the definition 
of service life in the proposal with the following: ```Service Life' 
means the period of time it takes for a specified substance to break 
through a chemical or organic vapor cartridge or canister.'' Service 
life, as the definition in the proposal states, is a function not only 
of the type of substance but also of the specific concentration of that 
substance. Removing the specific concentration of the substance from 
the definition, as the CACOSH revised definition does, obscures the 
meaning of the definition, and therefore it has not been adopted. The 
NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 38-20) uses a broader definition 
that covers all air-purifying respirators as well as SCBA. It reads as 
follows: ``SERVICE LIFE: The length of time required for an air-
purifying element to reach a specific effluent concentration. Service 
life is determined by the type of substance being removed, the 
concentration of the substance, the ambient temperature, the specific 
elements being tested (cartridge or canister), the flow rate 
resistance, and the selected breakthrough value. The service life for a 
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) is the period of time, as 
determined by the NIOSH certification tests, in which adequate 
breathing gas is supplied.'' OSHA requests comments on whether it 
should adopt the broader NIOSH definition of service life, replacing 
the definition in this proposal.
Paragraph (c)--Respirator Program
    Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposal contains a requirement that the 
employer establish and implement a written respirator program that 
covers certain elements, as applicable. The Construction Advisory 
Committee recommended that OSHA change the word ``cover'' to 
``include'' and remove the phrase ``as applicable.'' The phrase as 
applicable was included in the requirements to cover situations where 
not all the elements listed in the paragraph would be appropriate for 
some particular written respiratory program. For instance, if only air-
purifying respirators are to be used, it would not be applicable to 
include in the written program the elements covering supplied air 
quality, the maintenance and cleaning of supplied air respirators, or 
fit testing of SCBAs. Therefore, OSHA has not changed the wording in 
the proposal.
    The Committee raised the issue of monitoring exposure levels in 
construction. They recommended that OSHA add a new element to the 
existing elements of the written respirator program in paragraph (c)(1) 
that would read as follows: ``(i) Procedures for monitoring the work 
environment and selecting respirators based on monitoring results for 
use in the workplace.'' Discussion by the Committee brought out that 
construction work situations are not stable, and that monitoring 
results for a particular individual operation would likely not be 
returned in time by a laboratory before that task was completed. 
Previous monitoring results can be used, along with past experience 
with similar work operations, to estimate exposure levels. The 
Committee then recommended that OSHA add to the standard a requirement 
that ``If monitoring is not done, the most protective respirator shall 
be used.'' In most cases this would mean using supplied air respirators 
or SCBAs in the absence of monitoring. The proposal does not now 
require monitoring, but it does require that where monitoring results 
exist, the employer evaluate them in selecting the proper respirator. 
OSHA requests comments and suggestions on whether monitoring should be 
made mandatory for making respirator selections, and what monitoring 
procedures should be used. OSHA also requests comments on the 
recommendation by CACOSH that the most protective respirator must be 
used in the absence of monitoring.
    One of the elements in the written respirator program, paragraph 
(c)(1)(vi), states that the program shall include procedures to ensure 
proper air quality for atmosphere-supplying respirators. CACOSH 
proposed adding the words ``quantity and flow'' to this element on air 
quality procedures. OSHA agrees that adding these words will provide 
more direction for employers on what the procedures should cover, and 
has revised the wording of this element accordingly.
    In paragraph (c)(2) CACOSH recommended that OSHA substitute the 
term ``competent person'' for the language ``person qualified by 
appropriate training and/or experience.'' This has been discussed 
previously in the CACOSH recommendation for a definition of ``competent 
person.'' The language in the proposal has not been changed, but will 
be reviewed in light of any comments received on the ``competent 
person'' definition.
    The written respiratory protection program, in paragraph (c)(3), is 
required to reflect current workplace conditions and respirator use. 
The Committee wanted to add the term ``training'', to require that the 
program reflect current workplace conditions, training and respirator 
use. This suggestion has not been adopted since OSHA believes that 
training should reflect current workplace conditions and the written 
respirator program, and not the reverse. It was recommended by the 
Committee that OSHA add to paragraph (c) a paragraph that would allow 
employees and designated representatives access to exposure and medical 
records maintained by the employer. OSHA has not adopted this 
suggestion, since this requirement is already included in 29 CFR 
1910.20, the medical and exposure records access standard, which is 
referenced in this proposed standard.
    In paragraph (c)(5), the employer is required to make the written 
program available to affected employees, designated representatives, 
and OSHA. The Committee requested that employers be required to send a 
copy of the program to the OSHA Special Assistant for Construction. 
This suggestion has not been adopted, since no procedures exist in the 
Special Assistant's Office that would utilize these written programs if 
they were sent in. However, language has been added that would require 
the sending of a copy of the program to the Assistant Secretary upon 
request. This should meet any possible need that may arise for copies 
of the written program without creating an unreasonable burden.
    The Committee further recommended that the respirator program 
should be maintained and made available to employees at the job site, 
and that the medical and monitoring results pertaining to respirator 
use be available at the work site as well. How the latter would be 
performed, given the highly mobile nature of construction activities, 
was not clear. OSHA requests comments on this recommendation and any 
suggestions on how to provide the above information at the job site in 
a reasonable manner without placing an inappropriate burden on 
employers.
Paragraph (d)--Selection of Respirators
    In its review of paragraph (d) of the proposal on selection of 
respirators, the Committee requested a new provision that would require 
monitoring for contaminants when air-purifying respirators are used to 
be sure that the maximum use concentration for the respirator type 
would not be exceeded. This provision is related to the requirement for 
monitoring that was previously discussed, and on which comments are 
requested.
    In paragraph (d)(3) of the respirator selection section of the 
proposal, the employer is required to evaluate certain information when 
selecting respirators. The information to be evaluated is listed in 
paragraphs (d)(3) (i) to (xi). The Committee recommended that the word 
``obtain'' be added to paragraph (d)(3), to require that employers 
``obtain and evaluate the following information for each work 
situation''. By requiring that employers both obtain and evaluate the 
information, the intent of the provision would be clarified. OSHA has 
adopted this changed language to better clarify the provision for 
employers.
    The proposal in paragraph (d)(4) requires that respirators approved 
by NIOSH be selected when they exist. The Committee wanted to remove 
the phrase ``when they exist'' since they felt that one should use the 
most protective respirator available, an SCBA or supplied air 
respirator, in cases where no approved air-purifying respirator exists. 
As stated in the proposal, OSHA has the option of allowing the use of 
non-approved respirators for certain types of exposures. The option of 
allowing the use of non-approved respirators has been of value in the 
past. An example is the ethylene oxide standard, 29 CFR 1910.1047, 
where the use of certain air-purifying respirators is permitted, while 
the use of these respirators would not have been approved by NIOSH. 
OSHA wants to continue to have this option with any future standard. 
Therefore, this recommendation has not been adopted.
    In paragraph (d)(6) the proposal states that air-purifying 
respirators shall not be used for hazardous chemicals with poor or 
inadequate warning properties. However, in paragraphs (d)(6) (i) and 
(ii) their use with such substances is allowed when permitted under an 
OSHA substance specific standard or when certain conditions for use are 
met. As discussed previously in this section the Committee wanted to 
include poor odor threshold as a reason for prohibiting use, and to 
remove paragraph (d)(6)(ii) which allows their use under limited 
circumstances. OSHA has asked for comments on this issue.
    In oxygen deficient atmospheres, the proposal in paragraph (d)(8) 
allows the use of air-purifying respirators in an atmosphere with an 
oxygen content of 19.5 percent or greater at altitudes of 14,000 feet 
or below. The Committee wanted to remove this provision, thus requiring 
the use of supplied air respirators for many work sites at altitudes 
where the use of air-purifying respirators has caused no problems. 
There was nothing presented at the meeting to support this request. The 
record on the issue has been discussed previously in this preamble, and 
OSHA is inviting further comment on this issue and on the use of air-
purifying respirators at high altitudes on construction worksites.
Paragraph (e)--Medical Evaluations
    In the medical section of the proposed standard, the Committee 
recommended that a mandatory medical examination be required in 
accordance with ANSI Z88.2 and that the standard include a list of 
diseases and conditions which should be considered by the physician in 
determining an individual's ability to wear a respirator. As discussed 
in the section of this preamble on medical surveillance, OSHA is 
inviting comment on three specific alternatives for medical 
surveillance requirements.
    The medical evaluation section of the proposal in paragraph (e)(1) 
states that the medical provisions apply for each employee required to 
wear a respirator for more than five hours in any work week. The 
Committee wanted to eliminate the five hour per work week exemption. 
Their concern was that there would be many times on a construction 
project where employees would use respiratory protection for periods 
much shorter than five hours, and a situation would develop where 
respirators could be used without requiring a respirator physical. This 
issue has been discussed in the medical evaluation section of the 
preamble, and comments have been requested on the five-hour-in-any-
work-week provision. OSHA will consider the Committee's comment, along 
with any other comments received, in resolving this issue.
    In paragraph (e)(1) of the medical evaluation provision that the 
Committee reviewed, the employer is required to obtain a physician's 
written opinion which states whether the employee has any detected 
medical condition which would place the employee's health at increased 
risk of material impairment from respirator use and any recommended 
limitations upon the use of respirators. The Committee suggested that 
OSHA revise the language in this provision to read: ``For each employee 
required to wear a respirator the employer shall obtain from a licensed 
physician a written opinion based upon any detected medical condition, 
which states whether the employee can wear the respirator and perform 
the work or whether there are limitations to type of respirator worn or 
work performed.'' The Committee was concerned that the original 
language could be interpreted as permitting the employer to know what 
the medical conditions were that limit respirator use. They wanted to 
limit the language so that the employer would only receive from the 
physician an opinion on whether the employee can perform the required 
work while wearing a respirator or whether there is some restriction on 
the respirator type that can be used. The current proposal now requests 
comments on three alternatives for medical surveillance requirements, 
one of which is the provision reviewed by CACOSH. OSHA requests 
comments on all three alternatives and, in particular, on the need for 
restricting the medical opinion to only the individual's ability to 
wear a respirator.
    Employers are required in the proposal to provide the physician 
performing a medical evaluation with certain information concerning the 
types of respirators to be used and conditions under which they will be 
used by employees. The Committee recommended that OSHA add a provision 
requiring that the employer inform the physician of the contaminants 
the employee will be exposed to. OSHA agrees with this comment, and has 
added such a provision to paragraph (e)(1).
    In paragraph (e)(2) the employer is allowed to accept a new 
employee's previous medical examination or written physician's opinion 
on respirator use, provided it was conducted within a year of the date 
of employment. The Committee recommended that OSHA also require that 
these previously performed exams or written opinions meet the same 
conditions required of medical evaluations provided by the employer 
under paragraph (e)(1). This suggestion has been accepted, and 
appropriate language has been added to paragraph (e)(2) to require that 
the previously performed exams or opinions meet the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(1) for medical evaluations.
    It was recommended that OSHA add a new provision to paragraph (e) 
to require that the employer provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
or atmosphere-supplying respirator to any employee found medically 
unable to wear a negative pressure respirator but otherwise able to 
perform the task to be done. There is no applicable record in the 
docket upon which to base a decision. OSHA therefore, is requesting 
comments or information on this issue.
Paragraph (f)--Fit Testing
    With respect to fit testing procedures, the Committee recommended 
that paragraph (f)(1) be rewritten to state that respirators shall fit 
the employee so no exposure above the TLV or ceiling level shall occur. 
OSHA has added a new provision to require that the respirator used 
shall reduce employee exposures in the breathing zone to below the 
hazardous exposure limit. This change answers the Committee comment and 
preserves the language of the original proposal.
    In paragraph (f)(2) the Committee suggested revising the language 
to clarify that a fit test is required whenever a different make or 
size respirator is used if the facial characteristics of the employee 
change. Facial changes are already addressed in paragraph (f)(7). 
Passing a fit test with one particular make and size respirator does 
not mean that a different respirator can be used without further fit 
testing. Therefore, reference to different makes and sizes has been 
added to paragraph (f)(2) to cover variations in respirator make and 
size.
    The Committee also wanted to limit fit testing to only tight 
fitting negative pressure respirators. For the reasons previously 
discussed in the fit testing section of the preamble, OSHA does not 
feel this is sufficient. Therefore, the proposal continues to require 
fit testing of both tight fitting air-purifying as well as tight 
fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators.
    In paragraph (f)(9) the employer is allowed to use a qualitative 
fit test for selecting respirators for employees who require fit 
factors greater than 10 in situations where outside contractors who do 
the quantitative fit testing are not available. A thirty day time limit 
is placed on this exemption from the requirement for quantitative fit 
testing. The Committee felt this exemption is not safe and should not 
be allowed. An employee who is hired between the normal visits of the 
quantitative fit test contractor therefore could not be assigned to any 
work area requiring fit factors greater than 10 until a quantitative 
fit test was passed. OSHA requests comments on this issue and on the 
Construction Advisory Committee suggestion to delete paragraph (f)(9) 
from the standard.
Paragraph (g)--Respirator Use
    In paragraph (g)(3) of the respirator use section of the proposal, 
the employer is required to refuse the use of respirators that rely on 
a tight facepiece fit when facial conditions such as a beard or 
scarring would prevent such fits. The Committee wanted this provision 
to cover loose fitting respirators as well as tight fitting ones. 
However, conditions such as a beard or facial scarring would have no 
effect on the performance of loose fitting hoods or helmets, and OSHA 
therefore does not regard it as appropriate to make this change.
    Employees who wear corrective glasses are required in paragraph 
(g)(4) to wear them in a manner that does not interfere with the 
facepiece seal of the respirator. The Committee suggested an additional 
requirement that, where the employee must wear corrective lenses and 
the respirator requires that these be of special design, the employer 
shall provide the lenses at no cost to the employee. The question of 
who pays for respirator corrective lenses has not previously been 
addressed, and OSHA has no information in the docket on this issue. 
Therefore, OSHA requests comments and information on the responsibility 
for paying for specially designed corrective lenses for respirators.
    The cleaning, sanitizing, and discarding of disposable respirators 
is addressed in paragraph (g)(9) of the proposal. The Committee 
recommended that OSHA delete this provision since it refers to 
disposable respirators. In an earlier discussion of assigned protection 
factors, the Committee recommended that OSHA only permit the use of 
respirators that achieve a minimum assigned protection factor of ten. 
Since disposable respirators, in the Committee's opinion, could only 
achieve an assigned protection factor of five, their use should not be 
permitted. The Committee therefore recommended that paragraph (g)(9), 
which refers to disposable respirators, be deleted since it refers to a 
class of respirators which could not be used. However, after further 
discussion the recommendation for a minimum assigned protection factor 
of ten was withdrawn. Since it was this withdrawn provision that 
supported the Committee's recommendation to deleting any reference to 
disposable respirators, and disposable respirators as a class are still 
covered by the proposal, the provision covering their cleaning, 
sanitizing and disposal has not been deleted.
Paragraph (h)--Maintenance and Care of Respirators
    In the Maintenance and Care of Respirators section of the proposal, 
paragraph (h)(1) requires that respirators be cleaned and disinfected 
by following certain procedures. The Committee wanted to add the phrase 
``on paid time'' in order to require that the cleaning not be required 
to be performed by employees on their own time. OSHA believes that this 
is not a respiratory protection issue but a labor relations issue that 
should be addressed by labor/management negotiation. Therefore, the 
suggested wording has not been added.
Paragraph (k)--Training
    The training section of the proposal requires that employers 
provide a training program for employees who are required to wear 
respirators. The Committee wanted to add language to paragraph (k)(1) 
to require employers to provide, conduct and document the effectiveness 
of the training program. The proposal already contains the requirement 
that employers provide a training program, which has always been 
interpreted by OSHA as requiring that the training be conducted. 
Documenting the effectiveness would mean that some sort of testing of 
employee capabilities to properly use respirators after training would 
have to be performed. OSHA currently evaluates training programs by 
other means such as by seeing how respirators are being used by 
employees on the job and by interviewing respirator users. OSHA does 
not regard the suggested additional requirements proposed by the 
Committee as necessary for enforcement of the standard and has 
therefore not included them.
Paragraph (m)--Recordkeeping
    The recordkeeping section of the proposal requires that employers 
maintain the medical evaluation record in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.20, the records access standard. The Committee wanted to add the 
phrase, ``and make available'', to this provision. Although already 
implied by the reference to the records access standard, the suggested 
language has been added to paragraph (m)(1)(iii) to require that 
employers maintain and make available this record in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.20.
    The Committee further wanted to add a provision that all records 
required by this standard be retained for a period of 30 years. The 
records retention provisions of the records access standard already 
address this issue, and duplicating those requirements is felt by OSHA 
to be unnecessary.
Appendix B--Recommended Practices
    Appendix B of the proposal contains recommended practices for 
performing positive and negative pressure faceseal checks. Respirator 
wearers are required by paragraph (g)(10) to perform a faceseal check 
before entering the work area by following either the recommended 
faceseal check methods or by following the respirator manufacturer's 
recommended method. The Construction Advisory Committee wanted OSHA to 
add a new fit check method covering the use of isoamyl acetate or 
irritant smoke in an abbreviated fit check procedure. OSHA request 
comments on the use of isoamyl acetate or irritant smoke fit check 
procedures for daily faceseal tests and on appropriate procedures for 
performing such fit check testing using these test agents.

VIII. References

1. Pritchard, John A., A Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection, 
HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-189, June 1976.
2. Teresinski, Michael F. and Paul N. Cheremisino, Industrial 
Respiratory Protection, Ann Arbor Science Publishers; Ann Arbor, 
Michigan, 1983.
3. American National Standards Institute, Practices for Respiratory 
Protection, ANSI Z88.2-1969.
4. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, General Industry 
Standards, 29 CFR Part 1910, Construction Standards, 29 CFR Part 
1926; and Maritime Standards, 29 CFR Parts 1915 through 1918.
5. Centaur Associates, Inc. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis 
of Alternative Respiratory Protection Standards, 1984.
6. Schulte, Harry F. ``Personal Protection Devices'' in The 
Industrial Environment--Its Evaluation and Control, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
7. American National Standard Institute, Practices for Respiratory 
Protection, ANSI Z88.2-1980.
8. NIOSH/OSHA Respirator Decision Logic, in A Guide to Industrial 
Respiratory Protection, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-189, June 
1976.
9. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Management 
Information System Print-Out, 1983.
10. Canadian Standards Association, Selection, Care, and Use of 
Respirators, Z94.4-M1982, Ontario, Canada, 1982.
11. Luxon, Stuart G. ``Harmonization of Respirator Standards in 
Europe'', American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, April 
1973, pp. 143-149.
12. Ryan C. et. al. ``Critical Review of International Standards for 
Respiratory Protective Equipment--I. Respiratory Protective 
Equipment for Particulate-Laden Atmospheres, American Industrial 
Hygiene Association Journal, 44 (10): 756-761 (1983).
13. Breysse, P.N., et. al. ``Critical Review of International 
Standards for Respiratory Protective Equipment--II. Gas and Vapor 
Removal Efficiency and Fit Testing:, American Industrial Hygiene 
Association Journal, 44 (10): 762-767 (1983).
14. White, N. et. al. ``Critical Review of International Standards 
for Respiratory Protective Equipment III. Practical Performance 
Tests'', American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 44 (10): 
768-773 (1983).
15. Department of the Army, the Air Force, and the Defense Logistics 
Agency. Respiratory Protection Program, TB MED 223/AFOSH STD 161-1/
OCAM 1000.2, Washington, DC, April 1977.

IX. Public Participation--Notice of Hearing

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on all issues with respect to this proposed standard. These 
comments must be postmarked on or before February 13, 1995. Comments 
are to submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original (hardcopy) and 1 disk 
(5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\) on WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, 6.0 or ASCII. Note: any 
information not contained on disk, e.g., studies, articles, etc., must 
be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office, Docket No. H-049, 
Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.
    Writtent submissions must clearly identify the provisions of the 
proposal which are addressed and the position taken with respect to 
each issue.
    All written comments, data, views, and arguments that are received 
within the specific comment period will be made a part of the record 
and will be available for public inspection and copying at the above 
Docket Office address.

Notice of Intention to Appear at the Informal Hearing

    Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Act, an opportunity to submit 
oral testimony concerning the issues raised by the proposed standard 
including economic and environmental impacts, will be provided at an 
informal public hearing to be held in Washington, DC from March 7 to 
March 24, 1995. If OSHA receives sufficient requests to participate in 
the hearing, the hearing period may be extended or shortened if there 
are few requests.
    The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on March 7, 1995, in the 
Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 3rd 
Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
    All persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file in 
quadruplicate a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before 
January 27, 1995. The notice of intention to appear, which will be 
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center 
Docket Office (Room N2625), telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the 
following information:
    1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to 
appear;
    2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
    3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
    4. The issues that will be addressed;
    5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with 
respect to each issue; and
    6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if 
so, a brief summary of it.
    The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to Mr. Thomas 
Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket H-049, Room N3649, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone (202) 219-8617.
    A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by 
facsimile to (202) 219-5986, by the same date, provided the original 
and 3 copies are sent to the same address and postmarked no more than 3 
days later.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing

    Any party requesting more than ten (10) minutes for a presentation 
at the hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide 
in quadruplicate the complete text of the testimony, including any 
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy shall not 
be stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must 
be provided to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs at 
the address above and be postmarked no later than February 13, 1995.
    Each such submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of 
time requested in the notice of intention to appear. In those instances 
where the information contained in the submission does not justify the 
amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be 
allocated and the participant will be notified of that fact prior to 
the informal public hearing.
    Any party who has not substantially complied with this requirement 
may be limited to a ten-minute presentation, and may be requested to 
return for questioning at a later time.
    Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be 
allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the 
discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to 
question witnesses.
    Notice of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be 
available for inspection and copying at the Docket Office at the 
address above.

Conduct and Nature of Hearing

    The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on the first day.
    At that time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding 
will be resolved.
    The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the 
legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act and is reflected by 
OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although 
the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and limited 
questioning by persons who have filed notices of intention to appear is 
allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative 
in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is to provide interested 
persons with an opportunity to make effective oral presentations which 
can proceed expeditiously in the absence of procedural restraints which 
impede or protract the rulemaking process.
    Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information 
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative 
proceeding rather than an adjudicative one. The technical rules of 
evidence, for example do not apply. The regulations that govern 
hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be issued for this hearing 
will ensure fairness and due process and also facilitate the 
development of a clear, accurate and complete record. Those rules and 
guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that furthers that 
development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and participation 
generally will be decided so as to favor development of the record.
    The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1911. 
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies the Assistant Secretary 
may upon reasonable notice issue alternative procedures to expedite 
proceedings or for other good cause.
    The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge 
who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's 
proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to 
ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly 
manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have all the 
powers necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal 
hearing as provided in 29 CFR Part 1911 including the powers:
    1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
    2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable 
matters;
    3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the 
issues raised;
    4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by 
appropriate means;
    5. In the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the 
questioning of any witnesses and to limit the time for questioning; and
    6. In the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a 
reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to 
receive written information and additional data, views and arguments 
from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons or 
organizations who, through their knowledge of the subject matter or 
their experience in the field, would wish to endorse or support the 
whole proposal or certain provisions of the proposal. OSHA welcomes 
such supportive comments, including any pertinent data and cost 
information which may be available, in order that the record of this 
rulemaking will present a balanced picture of the public response on 
the issues involved.

X. Federalism

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been reviewed in accordance 
with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), regarding 
Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, 
refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior 
to taking any actions which would restrict state policy options, and 
take such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and 
the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for 
preemption of state law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) 
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt state laws relating to 
issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and 
health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption only 
if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the 
development of such standards and their enforcement. Occupational 
safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States must, among 
other things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful 
employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Where 
such standards are applicable to products distributed or used in 
interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce and must be 
justified by compelling local conditions (see OSH Act, Section 18 C).
    The proposed Federal standards on respiratory protection addresses 
hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country. 
Nonetheless, states with occupational safety and health plans approved 
under Section 18 of the OSH Act will be able to develop their own state 
standards to deal with any special problems which might be encountered 
in a particular state. Moreover, because this standard is written in 
general, performance-oriented terms, there is considerable flexibility 
for state plans to require, and for affected employers to use, methods 
of compliance which are appropriate to the working conditions covered 
by the standard.
    In brief, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addresses a clear 
national problem related to occupational safety and health in general 
industry. Those states which have elected to participate under Section 
18 of the OSH Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able 
to address any special conditions within the framework of the Federal 
Act while ensuring that the state standards are at least as effective 
as that standard.

XI. State Plan Standards

    The 25 states and territories with their own OSHA-approved 
occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard 
within six months of the publication dates of a final standard. These 
25 states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, New York (for 
state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North 
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 
Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Until such 
time as a state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide 
interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states.

XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

    Health, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

XIII. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and (8)g of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 
Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction 
Safety Act), (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, Longshoremen's and Harbor 
Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); 29 CFR Part 1911 and 
Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 
9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable, 29 CFR Part 
1910 is proposed to be amended as set forth below. In addition, 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, OSHA has determined that this 
amended standard would be more effective than the corresponding 
standards now in Parts 1915 and 1926 of Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations. Therefore, these corresponding standards would be 
superseded by these changes.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of October, 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XIV. Proposed Standard and Appendices

    It is hereby proposed to amend Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 of Title 
29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PARTS 1910, 1915, 1926--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Subpart I of 29 CFR part 1910 is 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-
71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 
FR 9033), as applicable. Section 1910.134 also issued under 29 CFR 
Part 1911.

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

    2. The authority citation for 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 
1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable. Section 1915.99 also issued under 
5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation for Subpart E of 29 CFR part 1926 is 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, 8, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 
FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable. 
Section 1916.103 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.


Secs. 1910.134, 1915.152 and 1926.103  [Amended]

    4. Parts 1910, subpart I; 1915, subpart I; and 1926, subpart E of 
Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended by adding 
identical sections are Secs. 1910.134, 1915.152 and 1926.103 to read as 
follows:


Sec. ****.***  Respiratory protection.

    (a) Scope and application. (1) In the control of those occupational 
diseases caused by breathing air contaminated with harmful dusts, fogs, 
fumes, mists, gases, smokes, sprays, or vapors, the primary objective 
shall be to prevent atmospheric contamination. This shall be 
accomplished as far as feasible by accepted engineering control 
measures (for example, enclosure or confinement of the operation, 
general and local ventilation, and substitution of less toxic 
materials). When effective engineering controls are not feasible, or 
while they are being instituted, appropriate respirators shall be used 
pursuant to this section.
    (2) Respirators shall be provided by the employer when such 
equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee. The 
employer shall provide the respirators which are applicable and 
suitable for the purpose intended. The employer shall be responsible 
for the establishment and maintenance of a respiratory protective 
program which shall include the requirements outlined in paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (b) Definitions. Adequate warning properties means the detectable 
characteristics of a hazardous chemical including odor, taste, and/or 
irritation effects which are detectable and persistent at 
concentrations at or below the hazardous exposure level, and exposure 
at these low levels does not cause olfactory fatigue.
    Air-purifying respirators means a respirator which is designed to 
remove air contaminants (i.e. dust, fumes, mists, gases, vapors, or 
aerosols) from the ambient air or air surrounding the respirator.
    Assigned protection factor means the number assigned by NIOSH to 
indicate the capability of a respirator to afford a certain degree of 
protection in terms of fit and filter/cartridge penetration.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Atmosphere-supplying respirator means a respirator which supplies 
the wearer with air or oxygen from a source independent of the 
immediate ambient atmosphere. This includes air-supplied respirators 
and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) units.
    Canister or cartridge means the element of a gas and vapor or 
particulate air-purifying respirator which contains the sorbent, filter 
and/or catalyst which removes specific contaminants from air drawn 
through it.
    Closed circuit respirator means a SCBA in which the air is 
rebreathed after exhaled carbon dioxide has been removed and the oxygen 
content restored by a compressed or liquid oxygen source or an oxygen 
generating solid.
    Demand means a mode of operation for atmosphere-supplying 
respirators in which air flows into the respirator only when inhalation 
creates a lower pressure within the facepiece than the ambient 
atmospheric pressure.
    Director means the Director of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, or designee.
    Disposable respirator means a respiratory protective device which 
cannot be resupplied with an unused filter or cartridge and which is to 
be discarded in its entirety after its useful service life has been 
reached.
    Filter means a media component used in respirators to remove solid 
and/or liquid particles from the inspired air.
    Fit factor means an estimate of the ratio of the average 
concentration of a challenge agent in a test chamber to the average 
concentration inside the respirator as worn with a high-efficiency 
filter.
    Hazardous chemical means a substance which meets the definitions 
for ``health hazard'' under the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 
1910.1200(c)).
    Hazardous exposure level means:
    (1) The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for the hazardous chemical 
in 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart Z, of the General Industry Standards of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); or,
    (2) If there is no PEL for the hazardous chemical, the Threshold 
Limit Values (TLV) recommended by the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the latest edition of 
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in 
the Work Environment: or,
    (3) If there is no PEL or TLV for the hazardous chemical, the NIOSH 
Recommended Exposure Limit (REL); or,
    (4) If there is no PEL, TLV, or REL for the hazardous chemical, an 
exposure level based on available scientific information including 
material safety data sheets.
    Immediately dangerous to life or health or IDLH means an 
atmospheric concentration of any toxic, corrosive or asphyxiant 
substance that poses an immediate threat to life or would cause 
irreversible or delayed adverse health effects or would interfere with 
an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.
    Maximum use concentration (MUC) means the maximum concentration of 
an air contaminant in which a particular respirator can be used, based 
on the respirator's assigned protection factor. The MUC cannot exceed 
the use limitations specified on the NIOSH approval label for the 
cartridge, canister, or filter. The MUC can be determined by 
multiplying the assigned protection factor for the respirator by the 
permissible exposure limit for the air contaminant for which the 
respirator will be used.
    Negative pressure respirator means a respirator in which the air 
pressure inside the facepiece is positive during exhalation in relation 
to the outside air pressure and negative during inhalation in relation 
to the outside air pressure.
    Oxygen deficient atmosphere means an atmosphere with an oxygen 
content of less than 19.5% by volume at altitudes of 8000 feet or 
below. (For altitudes above 8000 feet, see the oxygen deficient IDLH 
atmosphere definition.)
    Oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere means an atmosphere with an oxygen 
content below 16% by volume at altitudes of 3000 feet or below, or 
below the oxygen levels specified in Table III for altitudes up to 8000 
feet, or below 19.5% for altitudes above 8000 up to 14,000 feet.
    Positive pressure respirator means an atmosphere-supplying 
respirator which is designed so that air pressure inside the facepiece 
is positive in relation to the outside air pressure during inhalation 
and exhalation.
    Powered air-purifying respirator means an air-purifying respirator 
which uses a blower to deliver air through the air-purifying element to 
the wearer's breathing zone.
    Pressure demand means a mode of operation for atmosphere-supplying 
respirators in which the air pressure inside the respirator is 
substantially maintained at a specific positive pressure differential 
with respect to the ambient air pressure. To maintain this pressure 
differential additional air is admitted on demand to the facepiece when 
the wearer inhales.
    Qualitative fit test (QLFT) means an assessment of the adequacy of 
respirator fit by determining whether or not an individual wearing the 
respirator can detect the odor, taste, or irritation of a contaminant 
introduced into the vicinity of the wearer's head.
    Quantitative fit test (QNFT) means an assessment of the adequacy of 
respirator fit by numerically measuring concentrations of a challenge 
agent inside and outside the facepiece. The ratio of the two 
measurements is an index of leakage of the seal between the respirator 
facepiece and the wearer's face.
    Rebreather respirator. See closed circuit respirator.
    Respirator means any device worn by an individual and intended to 
provide the wearer with respiratory protection against inhalation of 
airborne contaminants or oxygen deficient air.
    Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) means an atmosphere-
supplying respirator for which the source of air or oxygen is contained 
within the respirator independent of any other source.
    Service life of a chemical or organic vapor cartridge or canister 
means the period of time it takes for a specified concentration of a 
specific substance to break through the cartridge or canister. This 
concentration is determined by the manufacturer for each type of 
cartridge or canister for particular substances.
    Supplied air respirator means a respirator which receives breathing 
air through an air line or hose from a portable or stationary source of 
compressed air.
    (c) Respiratory protection program--(1) The employer in accordance 
with this section shall establish and implement a written respiratory 
protection program which shall ensure that the respirators are properly 
selected, fitted, used, and maintained as necessary to protect the 
health of employees. The program shall cover the following elements as 
applicable:
    (i) Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;
    (ii) Medical evaluations of employees required to wear respirators;
    (iii) Use of respirators;
    (iv) Fit testing procedures for air-purifying respirators and tight 
fitting positive pressure respirators;
    (v) Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, 
inspecting, repairing, or otherwise maintaining respirators;
    (vi) Procedures to ensure proper air quality, quantity and flow for 
atmosphere-supplying respirator;
    (vii) Training of employees in the respiratory and health hazards 
of the hazardous chemicals to which they are potentially exposed as 
required under the Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200);
    (viii) Training of employees to ensure the proper use and 
maintenance of the respirators; and,
    (iv) Procedures for periodically evaluating the effectiveness of 
the program.
    (2) The employer shall designate a person qualified by appropriate 
training and/or experience to be responsible for the management and 
administration of the respiratory protection program and for conducting 
the required periodic evaluations of its effectiveness.
    (3) The written respiratory protection program shall reflect 
current workplace conditions and respirator use.
    (4) Employers shall, upon request, make the written respiratory 
protection program available to affected employees, their designated 
representatives, the Assistant Secretary, and the Director. A copy of 
the program shall be submitted to the Assistant Secretary and/or the 
Director, if requested.
    (d) Selection of respirators--(1) The employer shall provide 
respirators and respiratory equipment at no cost to employees.
    (2) Where elastomeric facepiece respirators are to be used, the 
employer shall provide a selection of respirators from an assortment of 
at least three sizes for each type of facepiece and from at least two 
different manufacturers.
    (3) In addition, the employer shall obtain and evaluate the 
following information for each work situation:
    (i) The nature of the hazard;
    (ii) The physical and chemical properties of the air contaminant;
    (iii) The adverse health effects of the respiratory hazard;
    (iv) The relevant hazardous exposure level;
    (v) The results of workplace sampling of airborne concentrations of 
contaminants;
    (vi) The nature of the work operation or process;
    (vii) The period of time respiratory protection will be worn by 
employees during the work shift;
    (viii) The work activities of the employees and the potential 
stress of these work conditions on employees wearing the respirators;
    (ix) Fit test results;
    (x) Warning properties of the hazardous chemical; and,
    (xi) The physical characteristics, functional capabilities, and 
limitations of the various types of respirators.
    (4) The employer shall select appropriate respirators from among 
those approved and certified by the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    (5) The employer shall make types of respirators available for 
selection and shall assure that employees use respirators in accordance 
with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH Respirator 
Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from the NIOSH 
Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-108, 
4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the OSHA Docket 
Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) The employer shall not allow use of any respirator where the 
maximum use concentration for an air contaminant exceeds the 
limitations specified on the NIOSH approval label for the cartridge, 
canister or filter for such respirators.
    (8) Air-purifying respirators shall not be used for a hazardous 
chemical with poor or inadequate warning properties unless either:
    (i) Their use is permitted under the provisions of a substance 
specific OSHA standard, or
    (ii) The odor or irritation threshold is not in excess of three 
times the hazardous exposure level and there is no associated ceiling 
limit.
    (9) In addition, in order to use an air-purifying respirator for 
hazardous chemicals with poor or inadequate warning properties, at 
least one of the following conditions must be met:
    (i) The respirator has an end of service life indicator approved by 
NIOSH for use with the specific chemical, or
    (ii) A change schedule has been implemented to assure that air-
purifying cartridges, canisters and/or filters are replaced before 80% 
of their useful service life has expired, based upon documented service 
life data, airborne concentration of the chemical, and duration of 
exposure.
    (10) Where an oxygen deficient atmosphere or an oxygen deficient 
IDLH atmosphere exists, appropriate respirators shall be selected as 
follows:
    (i) Either an air-purifying respirator or atmosphere supplying 
respirator may be used where an atmosphere has a measured oxygen 
content of 19.5% by volume or greater at altitudes of 14,000 feet or 
below.
    (ii) An atmosphere-supplying respirator shall be used for oxygen 
deficient atmospheres with a measured oxygen content level above that 
level defined as oxygen deficient IDLH but which is less than 19.5% by 
volume at altitudes of 8000 feet or below.
    (iii) For oxygen deficient IDLH atmospheres with a measured oxygen 
content below 16% by volume at altitudes up to 3000 feet, or below the 
oxygen levels specified in Table III at altitudes up to 8000 feet, or 
below 19.5% at altitudes above 8000 feet up to 14,000 feet, or in 
atmospheres where the concentration of the hazardous chemical is 
unknown or in other IDLH atmospheres, either a full facepiece pressure 
demand SCBA or a combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied 
air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply shall be used.

  Table I.--Oxygen Percentages Constituting Oxygen Deficient and Oxygen 
                       Deficient IDLH Atmospheres                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Column 3 
                                                  Column 2     percent  
                                                  percent       oxygen  
                                                   oxygen    below which
  Column 1 altitude above sea level (in feet)   below which   an oxygen 
                                                 an oxygen    deficient 
                                                 deficient       IDLH   
                                                 atmosphere   atmosphere
                                                   exists       exits   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 3000.....................................         19.5         16.0
3001 to 4000..................................         19.5         16.4
4001 to 5000..................................         19.5         17.1
5001 to 6000..................................         19.5         17.8
6001 to 7000..................................         19.5         18.5
7001 to 8000..................................         19.5         19.3
Above 8000 to 14,000..........................        (\1\)         19.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For altitudes above 8000 feet, an oxygen deficient IDLH atmosphere   
  exists when the oxygen level falls below 19.5%.                       

    (e) Medical evaluation--(1) For each employee required to wear a 
respirator for more than five hours during any work week, the employer 
shall obtain from a licensed physician a written opinion which states 
whether the employee has any detected medical condition which would 
place the employee's health at increased risk of material impairment 
from respirator use and any recommended limitations upon the use of 
respirators. In requesting the written medical opinion, the employer 
shall provide the licensed physician with information concerning:
    (i) The type of respiratory protection to be used;
    (ii) The substances the employee will be exposed to;
    (iii) Description of the work effort required;
    (iv) Duration and frequency of usage;
    (v) The type of work performed, including any special 
responsibilities that affect the safety of others such as fire fighting 
or rescue work;
    (vi) Any special environmental conditions (such as heat or confined 
space entry); and,
    (vii) Additional requirements for protective clothing and 
equipment.
    (2) In the case of new employees, employers may accept an already 
existing medical examination or written opinion from a physician 
provided it was conducted within a year of the date of employment, 
covered the same type of respirator under similar use conditions, and 
meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1).
    (3) The employer shall have the employee's medical status reviewed 
by, or under the supervision of, a licensed physician annually and at 
any time the employee experiences unusual difficulty breathing while 
being fitted for or while using a respirator. The employer shall have 
the responsible licensed physician provide a written opinion resulting 
from the review as required under paragraph (e)(1).
    (f) Fit testing--(1) The employer shall ensure that the respirator 
selected fits the employee well enough to reduce employee exposures 
inside the mask to below the hazardous exposure level.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that an employee is fit tested prior 
to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different make or size 
respirator is used, and annually thereafter.
    (3) The employer shall fit test employees required to wear tight 
fitting air-purifying respirators and tight fitting atmosphere-
supplying respirators. The fit test shall be administered using either 
an established qualitative or quantitative fit test procedure contained 
in section II of Appendix A or an alternative procedure which has been 
developed and approved which meets the Minimum Criteria as defined in 
section I of Appendix A.
    (4) In order to use an alternative fit test procedure which meets 
the Minimum Criteria as defined in section I of Appendix A, the 
employer shall obtain advance approval from the Assistant Secretary. 
Once such a procedure is published by OSHA as an approved procedure in 
the Federal Register, any employer may use it without further approval.
    (5) The employer shall present relevant data as required by 
Appendix A to demonstrate that any new method used provides results 
comparable to or better than one or more of the established methods 
contained in Appendix A for the type of test, i.e. qualitative or 
quantitative. The employer shall be permitted to use any method for 
which such data have already been submitted to and approved by the 
Assistant Secretary.
    (6) Fit testing protocols.
    (i) The employer shall use either qualitative or quantitative fit 
testing for tight fitting air-purifying respirators with quarter and 
half mask facepieces.
    (A) Qualitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
the established protocols specified in section II of Appendix A or new 
protocols that meet the minimum criteria contained in section I of 
Appendix A. If the respirator passes the qualitative test the employees 
may wear it in atmospheres no greater than ten times the hazardous 
exposure level.
    (B) Quantitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
an established protocol specified in section II of Appendix A or a 
protocol that meets the minimum criteria contained in section I of 
Appendix A. The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half mask 
or quarter facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit factor of one 
hundred (100) is obtained in the test chamber. The respirator may not 
be worn in concentrations greater than ten (10) times the hazardous 
exposure level regardless of the measured fit factor in the chamber.
    (ii) The employer shall use either qualitative or quantitative fit 
testing for tight fitting air-purifying respirators with full 
facepieces.
    (A) Qualitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
the established protocols specified in section II of Appendix A or new 
protocols that meet the minimum criteria contained in section I of 
Appendix A. If the respirator passes the qualitative fit test the 
employees may wear it in atmospheres no greater than ten (10) times the 
hazardous exposure level.
    (B) Quantitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
the established protocol specified in section II of Appendix A or a new 
protocol that meets the minimum criteria contained in section I of 
Appendix A. The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a full 
facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit factor of five hundred (500) 
is obtained in the test chamber. The full facepiece respirator may not 
be worn in concentrations greater than fifty (50) times the hazardous 
exposure level regardless of the measured fit factor in the chamber.
    (iii) Fit testing of tight fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators 
and tight fitting powered air-purifying respirators.
    (A) Tight fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators and tight 
fitting powered air-purifying respirators, i.e. half mask, quarter 
facepiece, and full facepiece, shall be fit tested using either 
qualitative or quantitative fit testing pursuant to paragraphs 
(f)(6)(i) (A) and (B).
    (B) During the test only the facepiece shall be tested without any 
air-supplying equipment or attachments. This may be accomplished by 
testing a particular respirator facepiece make, model and size (which 
is available for use on atmosphere-supplying air units as well as on 
air-purifying respirators) which is equipped with appropriate air-
purifying elements.
    (1) Qualitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
the established protocols specified in section II of Appendix A or a 
new protocol that meets the minimum criteria contained in section I of 
Appendix A. If the respirator wearer passes the fit test then the same 
respirator facepiece (i.e. make and model and size), which is available 
on a NIOSH approved atmosphere-supplying respirator shall be used by 
the employee. The respirator shall be used with an assigned protection 
factor as provided in paragraphs (d) (5) and (6) of this section.
    (2) Quantitative fit testing shall be performed in accordance with 
the protocol specified in Appendix A or a protocol that meets the 
minimum criteria contained in Appendix A. A NIOSH approved atmosphere-
supplying respirator with the same respirator facepiece (make, model, 
size) with which the employee passed the quantitative fit test shall be 
used. The respirator shall be used with an assigned protection factor 
as provided in paragraphs (d) (5) and (6) of this section.
    (7) The employee shall be refitted as necessary, such as when 
visual observations are noted regarding an employee's condition which 
could affect respirator fit. Conditions to look for include facial 
scarring, cosmetic surgery, or an obvious change in body weight.
    (8) The employee, once successfully fitted, shall be given the 
opportunity to wear the respirator for a period of two weeks. If the 
respirator becomes unacceptably uncomfortable at any time, the employee 
shall be given the opportunity to select a different respirator 
facepiece and be retested.
    (9) Where an employer relies on an outside contractor/party to 
conduct quantitative fit testing and the contractor is not readily 
available, and where assigned protection factors greater than 10 are 
necessary, the employer may administer a qualitative fit test to enable 
the selection of a respirator provided that a quantitative fit is 
administered in accordance with Appendix A within thirty (30) days.
    (g) Use of respirators--(1) The employer shall develop and 
implement written standard operating procedures for the use of 
respirators which anticipate possible emergency as well as routine use 
of respirators based on the conditions in the workplace in which they 
are to be used.
    (2) The employer shall develop and implement specific procedures 
for the use of respirators in atmospheres where oxygen deficiency or 
the concentrations of a hazardous chemical are unknown and/or 
potentially immediately dangerous to the life or health (IDLH) of the 
employees. These procedures shall include the following provisions:
    (i) The employees shall wear positive pressure self-contained 
breathing apparatus (SCBA) or combination full facepiece pressure 
demand supplied air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air 
supply.
    (ii) When an employee(s) wears a respirator in IDLH, unknown or 
potentially IDLH atmospheres where the employee(s) could be overcome if 
the respiratory protection fails, the employer shall ensure that at 
least one additional person located outside the IDLH atmosphere is in 
communication with the employee(s) in the IDLH atmosphere, and able to 
provide effective emergency assistance; and,
    (iii) Where employees enter IDLH atmospheres, the employer shall 
ensure that they are equipped with retrieval equipment for lifting or 
removing them from the hazardous area, or shall ensure that equivalent 
provisions for rescue have been made.
    (iv) The emergency assistance personnel present shall be equipped 
with a positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus.
    (3) The employer shall not permit negative pressure, pressure 
demand or positive pressure respirators which depend for effective 
performance on a tight facepiece-to-face seal to be worn by employees 
with conditions that prevent such fits. Examples of these conditions 
include facial hair that interferes with the facepiece seal, absence of 
normally worn dentures, facial scars or headgear that projects under 
the facepiece seal.
    (4) If an employee wears corrective glasses or goggles, the 
employer shall ensure that they are worn in such a manner that they do 
not interfere with the seal of the facepiece to the face of the wearer.
    (5) The employer shall permit employees to leave the respirator use 
area to wash their faces and respirator facepieces as necessary to 
prevent skin irritation associated with respirator use.
    (6) The employer shall permit employees to leave the respirator use 
area to change the filter elements or replace air-purifying respirators 
whenever they detect the warning properties of the contaminant.
    (7) The employer shall permit employees to leave the respirator use 
area to change the filter elements of air-purifying respirators 
whenever they detect a change in breathing resistance or chemical vapor 
breakthrough.
    (8) The employer shall ensure that respirators are immediately 
repaired, or discarded and replaced when they are no longer in proper 
original working condition.
    (9) The employer shall ensure that disposable respirators which 
cannot be cleaned and sanitized are discarded at the end of the task or 
the work shift, whichever comes first. A disposable respirator which 
can be cleaned and sanitized shall be disposed of after its useful 
service life has been reached.
    (10) The employer shall ensure that employees upon donning the 
respirator perform a facepiece seal check prior to entering the work 
area for all respirators on which such a check is possible to be 
performed. The recommended procedures in Appendix B or the respirator 
manufacturer's recommended procedures shall be used.
    (11) The employer shall ensure that each self-contained breathing 
apparatus used in IDLH atmospheres, or for emergency entry or fire 
fighting, is certified for a minimum service life of thirty minutes. 
This requirement does not apply to combination supplied air respirators 
with auxiliary air supply or to emergency escape SCBAs.
    (h) Maintenance and care of respirators--(1) Cleaning and 
disinfecting. The employer shall ensure that respirators are cleaned 
and disinfected using the cleaning procedures recommended by the 
respirator manufacturer or cleaning procedures recommended in Appendix 
B at the following intervals.
    (i) Routinely used respirators issued for the exclusive use of an 
employee shall be cleaned and disinfected after each day's use;
    (ii) Routinely used respirators issued to more than one employee 
shall be cleaned and disinfected after each use; and,
    (iii) Respirators maintained for emergency use shall be cleaned and 
disinfected after each use.
    (2) Storage. The employer shall store respirators as follows:
    (i) All respirators shall be stored in a manner that protects them 
from damage, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, 
or damaging chemicals;
    (ii) Emergency respirators shall be kept accessible to the work 
area. In locations where weathering, contamination, or deterioration of 
the respirator could occur, respirators shall be stored in compartments 
built to protect them. Such compartments shall be clearly marked as 
containing emergency respirators and shall be used in accordance with 
any applicable manufacturer instructions;
    (iii) Non-emergency respirators shall be stored in plastic bags or 
otherwise protected from contamination or damage; and,
    (iv) Respirators shall be packed or stored to prevent deformation 
of the facepiece or exhalation valve.
    (3) Inspection. (i) The employer shall ensure that respirators are 
inspected as follows:
    (A) All respirators used in non-emergency circumstances shall be 
inspected before each use and during cleaning after each use;
    (B) All respirators maintained for emergency situations shall be 
inspected at least monthly, and checked for proper function before and 
after each use. Emergency escape respirators shall be inspected before 
being carried into the workplace; and,
    (C) Self-contained breathing apparatus shall be inspected monthly. 
Air and oxygen cylinders shall be maintained in a fully charged state 
and recharged when the pressure falls to 90% of the manufacturer's 
recommended pressure level. The employer shall determine that the 
regulator and warning devices function properly.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that the respirator inspections 
include the following:
    (A) A check of respirator function, tightness of connections and 
the condition of the facepiece, headstraps, valves, connecting tube, 
and cartridges, canisters or filters; and,
    (B) A check of rubber or elastomer parts for pliability and signs 
of deterioration.
    (iii) The employer shall certify in writing the inspection of 
respirators maintained for emergency use. Certification shall include 
the date the inspection was performed, the name (or signature) of the 
person that made the inspection, and a serial number or other means of 
identifying the inspected respirator. This certification may be in the 
form of a tag or label attached to the storage compartment for the 
respirator, or kept with the respirator, and shall be maintained until 
replaced by the certification of the next inspection.
    (4) Repairs. The employer shall ensure that respirators which fail 
to pass inspection are removed from service and repaired or adjusted in 
accordance with the following:
    (i) Repairs or adjustments to respirators are to be made only by 
persons appropriately trained to perform such operations, using parts 
designed for the respirator;
    (ii) No repairs shall be performed that are outside the 
manufacturer's recommendations concerning the type and extent of 
repairs that can be performed; and
    (iii) Reducing or admission valves or regulators shall be returned 
to the manufacturer or given to an appropriately trained technician for 
adjustment or repair.
    (i) Supplied air quality and use--(1) The employer shall ensure 
that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air, and liquid oxygen 
used for respiration is of high purity, and in accordance with the 
following specifications: Compressed and liquid oxygen shall meet the 
requirements of the latest edition of the United States Pharmacopoeia 
for medical or breathing oxygen; and compressed breathing air shall at 
least meet the requirements of the specification for Grade D breathing 
air as described in ANSI/Compressed Gas Association Commodity 
Specification G-7.1-1989 (oxygen content (v/v) of 19.5-23.5% 
(atmospheric air); hydrocarbon (condensed) of 5 milligrams per cubic 
meter of air or less; carbon monoxide of 10 ppm or less, and carbon 
dioxide of 1,000 ppm or less).
    (2) Compressed oxygen shall not be used in atmosphere-supplying 
respirators or in open circuit self-contained breathing apparatus that 
have previously used compressed air.
    (3) Oxygen shall not be used with supplied air respirators.
    (4) Breathing air to respirators shall be provided from cylinders 
or air compressors:
    (i) Cylinders shall be tested and maintained as prescribed in the 
Shipping Container Specification Regulations of the Department of 
Transportation (49 CFR part 178);
    (ii) Compressors shall be constructed and situated so as to avoid 
entry of contaminated air into the air-supply system and shall be 
equipped with suitable in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and filters 
to further assure breathing air quality, and to minimize moisture 
content so that the dew point at line pressure is 10 deg.C below the 
ambient temperature; and
    (iii) The moisture content in compressed air cylinders shall not 
exceed 27 milliliters per cubic meter.
    (5) The employer shall ensure that breathing air couplings are 
incompatible with outlets for non-respirable plant air or other gas 
systems to prevent inadvertent servicing of air line respirators with 
non-respirable gases or oxygen.
    (6) The employer shall use breathing gas containers marked in 
accordance with the American National Standard Method of Marking 
Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained, 
Z48.1-1954 (R 1971); Federal Specification BB-A-1034a, June 21, 1968, 
Air, Compressed for Breathing Purposes; or Interim Federal 
Specification GG-13-00676b, September 23, 1976, Breathing Apparatus, 
Self-Contained.
    (j) Identification of filters, cartridges, and canisters--(1) The 
employer shall ensure that all filters, cartridges and canisters used 
in the workplace are properly labeled and color coded with the NIOSH 
approval label before they are placed in service.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the existing NIOSH approval 
label on a filter, cartridge, or canister is not removed, obscured or 
defaced while they are in service in the workplace.
    (k) Training--(1) The employer shall provide a training program for 
employees required by the employer to wear respirators which includes 
the following:
    (i) Nature, extent, and effects of respiratory hazards to which the 
employee may be exposed as required under the Hazard Communication 
standard (29 CFR 1910.1200);
    (ii) Explanation of the operation, limitations, and capabilities of 
the selected respirator(s);
    (iii) Instruction in procedures for inspection, donning and 
removal, checking the fit and seals, and in the wearing of the 
respirator, including sufficient practice to enable the employee to 
become thoroughly familiar with, confident, and effective in performing 
these tasks;
    (iv) Explanation of the procedures for maintenance and storage of 
the respirator;
    (v) Instruction on how to deal with emergency situations involving 
the use of respirators or with respirator malfunctions; and
    (vi) The contents of this section (29 CFR 1910.134), and of the 
written respiratory protection program, its location and availability.
    (2) The employer shall provide the training prior to requiring the 
employee to wear a respirator in the workplace, and annually 
thereafter.
    (l) Respiratory protection program evaluation--(1) The employer 
shall review the respiratory protection program at least annually, and 
shall conduct frequent random inspections of the workplace to ensure 
that the provisions of the program are being properly implemented for 
all affected employees. The review of the program shall include an 
assessment of each element required under paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.
    (2) The employer shall periodically consult employees wearing 
respirators to assess wearer acceptance and attempt to correct any 
problems that are revealed during this assessment. Factors to be 
included in the assessment are whether the respirators being used are:
    (i) Preventing the occurrence of illness;
    (ii) Properly fitted;
    (iii) Properly selected for the hazards encountered;
    (iv) Being worn when necessary; and
    (v) Being maintained properly.
    (m) Recordkeeping and access to records----(1) Medical evaluation. 
(i) The employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record for 
each employee subject to medical evaluation required by paragraph (e) 
of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20, Access to Employee 
Exposure and Medical Records.
    (ii) This record shall include:
    (A) The name, social security number and description of the duties 
of the employee;
    (B) The employer's copy of the physician's written opinion on the 
initial, periodic and special examinations, including results of 
medical examination and all tests, opinions and recommendations;
    (C) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required 
by paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain and make available this record in 
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (2) Availability. (i) The employer shall assure that all records 
required to be maintained by this section shall be available or 
submitted upon request to the Assistant Secretary and the Director for 
examination and copying.
    (ii) Employee medical records required by this paragraph shall be 
provided upon request for examination and copying to the subject 
employee, to anyone having the specific written consent of the subject 
employee, and to the Assistant Secretary and the Director in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (3) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the 
requirements involving transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (ii) If the employer ceases to do business and there is no 
successor employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed 
period, the employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior 
to disposal, and transmit them to the Director if requested by the 
Director within that period.
    (n) Effective date. The standard in this section is effective [90 
days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register]
    (o) Appendixes. The protocols in Appendix A on fit testing 
procedures are mandatory. The recommended practices in Appendix B and 
the medical evaluation procedures in Appendix C are nonmandatory.

Appendix A: Fit Testing Procedures (Mandatory)

I. New Fit Test Protocols

    1. In order for a new fit test method to be used by an employer 
a description of the fit test method and validation testing data 
must be submitted to OSHA for evaluation.
    2. OSHA will evaluate the method and data and if the method is 
found to conform to the validation criteria OSHA has established, 
OSHA will publish a proposed revision of 29 CFR 1910.134 under the 
section 6(b)(7) limited rulemaking provision of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 for public comment. OSHA will invite 
comments and make a final decision on the protocol after 
consideration of comments received on the proposal.
    3. OSHA will publish a revised 29 CFR 1910.134 incorporating the 
new fit test method into Appendix A.

A. Minimum Criteria for a Valid Qualitative Fit Test

    1. This section applies in addition to section II.A. of Appendix 
A where a test method and/or test agent not identified in section 
II.B. of Appendix A is to be used for testing the fit of a 
respirator. Fit tests which meet the criteria of this section may be 
used to verify the fit of respirators for use up to the assigned 
protection factors specified in the respirator selection table in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    2. Test Agents. (a) The test agent shall be relatively non, 
toxic. The concentrations generated during the test shall not exceed 
an OSHA permissible exposure limit, the ACGIH threshold limit value, 
or any known recommended exposure limit when there is no OSHA PEL or 
ACGIH TLV, and not create a health or physical hazard for the test 
subject or operator.
    (b) It shall be demonstrated that the test agent used will 
penetrate deficiencies in the respirator facepiece to face sealing 
area.
    (c) It shall be demonstrated that the test agent can elicit a 
subjective response in the test subject without fatiguing the 
response mechanism (i.e., smell, taste, or other relevant sensation) 
of the test subject.
    (d) A reference concentration shall be established for the test 
agent. It shall be demonstrated that the test subject can detect by 
subjective means the test agent at the reference concentration prior 
to commencement of the test.
    (e) A stable test agent concentration shall be established for 
purposes of challenging the fit of the respirator.
    (f) Where a test enclosure is used, the concentration of test 
agent inside the test enclosure shall exceed the product of the 
reference concentration of the test agent, the assigned protection 
factor of the respirator being tested, and a safety factor of 10. 
For example, if the reference concentration is 1 ppm, and the 
respirator being tested is a half mask with an assigned protection 
factor of 10, then the minimum test agent concentration would be 100 
ppm.
    (g) Where gases/vapors are used as test agents to test air-
purifying respirators, an appropriate cartridge/canister shall be 
utilized which affords a high degree of collection efficiency for 
the test agent.
    (h) Precautions shall be taken to avoid allowing the test agent 
from the fit test area to contaminate the area where the test 
subjects are tested to determine their response to the threshold 
screening concentrations. Contamination of the area where the 
threshold screening test is administered by the test agent from the 
fit test area will render any tests unacceptable.

B. Validation Criteria for Qualitative Fit Tests

    1. In order to establish a QLFT method/agent as being acceptable 
for an APF of 10, it shall be demonstrated that at the 95% 
confidence level 95% of the facepieces with a fit factor less than 
100 as determined by an established QNFT method will be identified.
    2. Means of establishing the 95% confidence level shall include 
the following procedures:
    (a) The respirators used in the validation procedure shall be 
equipped so as to permit valid QNFT testing as specified in Appendix 
A of this section.
    (b) The hoses on the test respirators shall be clamped shut and 
the new QLFT test administered. Immediately following the new QLFT 
method a QNFT shall be administered using the protocol established 
in section II.C. of Appendix A except that a strip chart recording 
of the test shall be made. The numbers of respirators, test subject 
size population, exercises sizes of respirators, and numbers of 
tests shall be sufficient to enable a determination to be made as to 
whether or not the 95% confidence level is attained in identifying 
whether 95% of facepieces with less than a fit factor or 100 will be 
identified by the new QLFT method.

C. Minimum Criteria for a Valid Particle Counting Quantitative Fit 
Test

    1. This section applies in addition to sections II.A. and 
II.C.4.(j) of Appendix A where a test method and/or test agent not 
identified in section II.C. of Appendix A is to be used for testing 
the fit of a respirator. Fit tests which meet the criteria of this 
section may be used to verify the fit of respirators for use up to 
the assigned protection factors in paragraph (d) of this section.
    2. Aerosol/Gas Generation.
    (a) The aerosol/gas generator shall produce a stable test agent 
concentration (10%) throughout the test environment. The 
test agent concentration shall not vary as a function of time more 
than 10 percent.
    (b) The concentration of the aerosol/gas shall not exceed an 
OSHA permissible exposure limit, the ACGIH threshold limit value, or 
any known recommended exposure limit when there is no OSHA PEL or 
ACGIH TLV, and not create a health or physical hazard for the test 
subject or operator.
    (c) Aerosols used to test respirators with high efficiency 
particulate air (HEPA) filters shall be polydisperse with a mass 
median aerodynamic diameter of 0.6 micrometers and a geometric 
standard deviation of 2. The test agent shall not be appreciably 
absorbed or retained in the lungs upon inhalation.
    (d) A test agent detection system shall be able to reliably 
monitor the agent concentration in the test environment and inside 
the respirator during the breathing cycle.
    (e) If it is desired to use a test agent aerosol larger than 0.6 
micrometers in diameter to test respirators with other than high 
efficiency filters, it shall be demonstrated that the particle size 
is capable of penetrating deficiencies in the respirator facepiece 
to face sealing area, will be reliably detected by the measurement 
instruments, and that a significant portion will not be retained by 
the lungs upon inhalation.

D. Validation Criteria for Quantitative Fit Test Protocols

    1. In determining the acceptability of a new method, its 
accuracy across the full range of measurement must be at least as 
great as the QNFT protocol established in section II.C. of Appendix 
A.
    2. Means of establishing the accuracy across the full range of 
measurements shall include the following procedures:
    (a) The respirators used in the validation procedure shall be 
probed and equipped with hoses as established in the QNFT procedures 
in Appendix A of this section.
    (b) Validation of a proposed new QNFT shall be accomplished 
using instrumentation with sufficient accuracy and precision. 
Accuracy and precision of the validation instrumentation shall be 
considered by the Assistant Secretary in determining whether to 
approve a proposed new protocol.
    (c) The numbers of respirators, test subject size population, 
exercises sizes of respirators, and numbers of tests shall be 
sufficient to enable a determination to be made as to whether or not 
the 95% confidence level is attained with respect to agreement 
between the two methods.

E. Minimum Criteria for New Technology

    1. Test methods/equipment shall not alter the design, balance, 
integrity, manner of respirator fitting, nor distort the respirator 
in a manner which would result in the test respirator having 
different characteristics than under normal use.
    2. Equipment measuring: respirator efficiency; test agent 
penetration; protection factors; or fit factors must be capable of 
reliably detecting and measuring the test agent, protection factor 
or fit factor with a high degree of accuracy. The limitations of 
detection and test sensitivity must be known.
    3. Test respirators must be donned and adjusted in the same 
manner in which it will be used in the workplace.
    4. It must be demonstrated that the new technology used will 
produce reliable and reproducible results.
    5. There shall be a sufficient safety factor applied to account 
for variations in the use of the respirator and reproducibility of 
test results.
    6. Where test agents, aerosol or gases/vapors are used in a test 
environment the following shall apply:
    (a) The test agent concentration must be maintained below an 
established PEL, ACGIH TLV, or recommended exposure level and not 
create a health hazard or physical hazard for the test subject or 
associated personnel.
    (b) For particulate test agents:

--The particle size must be uniform, the concentration stable.
--Particles must be able to penetrate deficiencies in the respirator 
to face seal, but not be retained by the airways of respiratory 
tract,

    (c) Filters, cartridges used on the test respirator must be 
capable of removing 99.97% of the test agent (i.e. large particles 
collected on dust filters, small particles collected on high 
efficiency filters).
    (d) Detection system for test agents must be capable of 
detecting the concentration of test agent inside the respirator 
during the entire breathing cycle.

F. Validation for New Technological Methods of Determining 
Respirator Fit

    1. In determining the acceptability of a new method, its 
accuracy across the full range of measurement must be at least as 
great as that of the QNFT protocol established in section II.C. of 
Appendix A.
    2. Means of establishing the accuracy across the full range of 
measurements shall include the following:
    (a) For particle counting methods, the respirators used in the 
validation procedure shall be probed and equipped with hoses as 
established in the QNFT procedures in Appendix A of this section.
    (b) For any method, the new test method shall be administered 
first. Immediately following the new method, a QNFT shall be 
administered using the protocol established in section II of 
Appendix A except that a strip chart recording of the test shall be 
made. The numbers of respirators, test subject size population, 
exercises sizes of respirators, and numbers of tests shall be 
sufficient to enable a determination to be made as to whether or not 
the 95% confidence level is attained with respect to agreement 
between the two methods.

II. Current Fit Test Protocols

    A. The employer shall include the following provisions in the 
fit test procedures. These provisions apply to both QLFT and QNFT.
    1. The test subject shall be allowed to pick the most 
comfortable respirator from a selection including respirators of 
various sizes from different manufacturers.
    2. Prior to the selection process, the test subject shall be 
shown how to put on a respirator, how it should be positioned on the 
face, how to get strap tension and how to determine a comfortable 
fit. A mirror shall be available to assist the subject in evaluating 
the fit and positioning the respirator. This instruction may not 
constitute the subject's formal training on respirator use, as it is 
only a review.
    3. The test subject shall be informed that he/she is being asked 
to select the respirator which provides the most comfortable fit. 
Each respirator represents a different size and shape, and if fitted 
and used properly, will provide adequate protection.
    4. The test subject shall be instructed to hold each facepiece 
up to the face and eliminate those which obviously do not give a 
comfortable fit.
    5. The more comfortable facepieces are noted; the most 
comfortable mask is donned and worn at least five minutes to assess 
comfort. Assistance in assessing comfort can be given by discussing 
the points in item II A.6. of this appendix. If the test subject is 
not familiar with using a particular respirator, the test subject 
shall be directed to don the mask several times and to adjust the 
straps each time to become adept at setting proper tension on the 
straps.
    6. Assessment of comfort shall include reviewing the following 
points with the test subject and allowing the test subject adequate 
time to determine the comfort of the respirator:

(a) Position of the mask on the nose
(b) Room for eye protection
(c) Room to talk
(d) Position of mask on face and cheeks

    7. The following criteria shall be used to help determine the 
adequacy of the respirator fit:
    (a) Chin properly placed;
    (b) Adequate strap tension, not overly tightened;
    (c) Fit across nose bridge;
    (d) Respirator of proper size to span distance from nose to 
chin;
    (e) Tendency of respirator to slip;
    (f) Self-observation in mirror to evaluate fit and respirator 
position.
    8. The test subject shall conduct the negative and positive 
pressure fit checks as described in Appendix B or ANSI Z88.2-1980. 
Before conducting the negative or positive pressure test, the 
subject shall be told to seat the mask on the face by moving the 
head from side-to-side and up and down slowly while taking in a few 
slow deep breaths. Another facepiece shall be selected and retested 
if the test subject fails the fit check tests.
    9. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
between the skin and the facepiece sealing surface, such as stubble 
beard growth, beard, or long sideburns which cross the respirator 
sealing surface. Any type of apparel which interferes with a 
satisfactory fit shall be altered or removed.
    10. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during 
the tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician to determine 
whether the test subject can wear a respirator while performing her 
or his duties.
    11. If at any time within the first two weeks of use the 
respirator becomes uncomfortable, the test subject shall be given 
the opportunity to select a different facepiece and to be retested.
    12. The employer shall maintain a record of the fit test 
administered to an employee. The record shall contain at least the 
following information:
    (a) Name of employee;
    (b) Type of respirator;
    (c) Brand, size of respirator;
    (d) Date of test;
    (e) Where QNFT is used: the fit factor, strip chart recording or 
other recording of the results of the test. The record shall be 
maintained until the next fit test is administered.
    13. Exercise regimen. Prior to the commencement of the fit test, 
the test subject shall be given a description of the fit test and 
the test subject's responsibilities during the test procedure. The 
description of the process shall include a description of the test 
exercises that the subject will be performing. The respirator to be 
tested shall be worn for at least 5 minutes before the start of the 
fit test.
    14. Test Exercises. The test subject shall perform exercises, in 
the test environment, in the manner described below;
    (a) Normal breathing. In a normal standing position, without 
talking, the subject shall breathe normally.
    (b) Deep breathing. In a normal standing position, the subject 
shall breathe slowly and deeply, taking caution so as to not 
hyperventilate.
    (c) Turning head side to side. Standing in place, the subject 
shall slowly turn his/her head from side to side between the extreme 
positions on each side. The head shall be held at each extreme 
momentarily so the subject can inhale at each side.
    (d) Moving head up and down. Standing in place, the subject 
shall slowly move his/her head up and down. The subject shall be 
instructed to inhale in the up position (i.e., when looking toward 
the ceiling).
    (e) Talking. The subject shall talk out loud slowly and loud 
enough so as to be heard clearly by the test conductor. The subject 
can read from a prepared text such as the Rainbow Passage, count 
backward from 100, or recite a memorized poem or song.
    (f) Grimace. The test subject shall grimace by smiling or 
frowning.
    (g) Bending over. The test subject shall bend at the waist as if 
he/she were to touch his/her toes. Jogging in place shall be 
substituted for this exercise in those test environments such as 
shroud type QNFT units which prohibit bending at the waist.
    (h) Normal breathing. Same as exercise 1.
    Each test exercise shall be performed for one minute except for 
the grimace exercise which shall be performed for 15 seconds.
    The test subject shall be questioned by the test conductor 
regarding the comfort of the respirator upon completion of the 
protocol. If it has become uncomfortable, another model of 
respirator shall be tried.
    B. Qualitative Fit Test (QLFT) Protocols.

1. General

    (a) The employer shall assign specific individuals who shall 
assume full responsibility for implementing the respirator 
qualitative fit test program.
    (b) The employer shall ensure that persons administering QLFT 
are able to prepare test solutions, calibrate equipment and perform 
tests properly, recognize invalid tests, and assure that test 
equipment is in proper working order.
    (c) The employer shall assure that QLFT equipment is kept clean 
and well maintained so as to operate at the parameters for which it 
was designed.

2. Isoamyl Acetate Protocol

    (a) Odor threshold screening.
    The odor threshold screening test, performed without wearing a 
respirator, is intended to determine if the individual tested can 
detect the odor of isoamyl acetate.
    (1) Three 1 liter glass jars with metal lids are required.
    (2) Odor free water (e.g. distilled or spring water) at 
approximately 25 degrees C shall be used for the solutions.
    (3) The isoamyl acetate (IAA) (also known as isopentyl acetate) 
stock solution is prepared by adding 1 cc of pure IAA to 800 cc of 
odor free water in a 1 liter jar and shaking for 30 seconds. A new 
solution shall be prepared at least weekly.
    (4) The screening test shall be conducted in a room separate 
from the room used for actual fit testing. The two rooms shall be 
well ventilated but shall not be connected to the same recirculating 
ventilation system.
    (5) The odor test solution is prepared in a second jar by 
placing 0.4 cc of the stock solution into 500 cc of odor free water 
using a clean dropper or pipette. The solution shall be shaken for 
30 seconds and allowed to stand for two to three minutes so that the 
IAA concentration above the liquid may reach equilibrium. This 
solution shall be used for only one day.
    (6) A test blank shall be prepared in a third jar by adding 500 
cc of odor free water.
    (7) The odor test and test blank jars shall be labeled 1 and 2 
for jar identification. Labels shall be placed on the lids so they 
can be periodically peeled, dried off and switched to maintain the 
integrity of the test.
    (8) The following instruction shall be typed on a card and 
placed on the table in front of the two test jars (i.e., 1 and 2): 
``The purpose of this test is to determine if you can smell banana 
oil at a low concentration. The two bottles in front of you contain 
water. One of these bottles also contains a small amount of banana 
oil. Be sure the covers are on tight, then shake each bottle for two 
seconds. Unscrew the lid of each bottle, one at a time, and sniff at 
the mouth of the bottle. Indicate to the test conductor which bottle 
contains banana oil.''
    (9) The mixtures used in the IAA odor detection test shall be 
prepared in an area separate from where the test is performed, in 
order to prevent olfactory fatigue in the subject.
    (10) If the test subject is unable to correctly identify the jar 
containing the odor test solution, the IAA qualitative fit test 
shall not be performed.
    (11) If the test subject correctly identifies the jar containing 
the odor test solution, the test subject may proceed to respirator 
selection and fit testing.
    (b) Isoamyl acetate fit test.
    (1) The fit test chamber shall be similar to a clear 55-gallon 
drum liner suspended inverted over a 2-foot diameter frame so that 
the top of the chamber is about 6 inches above the test subject's 
head. The inside top center of the chamber shall have a small hook 
attached.
    (2) Each respirator used for the fitting and fit testing shall 
be equipped with organic vapor cartridges or offer protection 
against organic vapors. The cartridges or masks shall be changed at 
least weekly.
    (3) After selecting, donning, and properly adjusting a 
respirator, the test subject shall wear it to the fit testing room. 
This room shall be separate from the room used for odor threshold 
screening and respirator selection, and shall be well ventilated, as 
by an exhaust fan or lab hood, to prevent general room 
contamination.
    (4) A copy of the test exercises and any prepared text from 
which the subject is to read shall be taped to the inside of the 
test chamber.
    (5) Upon entering the test chamber, the test subject shall be 
given a 6-inch by 5-inch piece of paper towel, or other porous, 
absorbent, single-ply material, folded in half and wetted with 0.75 
cc of pure IAA. The test subject shall hang the wet towel on the 
hook at the top of the chamber.
    (6) Allow two minutes for the IAA test concentration to 
stabilize before starting the fit test exercises. This would be an 
appropriate time to talk with the test subject; to explain the fit 
test, the importance of his/her cooperation, and the purpose for the 
head exercises; or to demonstrate some of the exercises.
    (7) If at any time during the test, the subject detects the 
banana like odor of IAA, the test has failed. The subject shall 
quickly exit from the test chamber and leave the test area to avoid 
olfactory fatigue.
    (8) If the test has failed, the subject shall return to the 
selection room and remove the respirator, repeat the odor 
sensitivity test, select and put on another respirator, return to 
the test chamber and again begin the procedure described in B.2.(b) 
(1) through (7) of this appendix. The process continues until a 
respirator that fits well has been found. Should the odor 
sensitivity test be failed, the subject shall wait about 5 minutes 
before retesting. Odor sensitivity will usually have returned by 
this time.
    (9) When a respirator is found that passes the test, its 
efficiency shall be demonstrated for the subject by having the 
subject break the face seal and take a breath before exiting the 
chamber.
    (10) When the test subject leaves the chamber, the subject shall 
remove the saturated towel and return it to the person conducting 
the test. To keep the test area from becoming contaminated, the used 
towels shall be kept in a self sealing bag so there is no 
significant IAA concentration build-up in the test chamber during 
subsequent tests.

3. Saccharin Solution Aerosol Protocol

    The saccharin solution aerosol QLFT protocol is the only 
currently available, validated test protocol for use with 
particulate disposable dust respirators not equipped with high-
efficiency filters. The entire screening and testing procedure shall 
be explained to the test subject prior to the conduct of the 
screening test.
    (a) Taste threshold screening.
    The saccharin taste threshold screening, performed without 
wearing a respirator, is intended to determine whether the 
individual being tested can detect the taste of saccharin.
    (1) During threshold screening as well as during fit testing, 
subjects shall wear an enclosure about the head and shoulders that 
is approximately 12 inches in diameter by 14 inches tall with at 
least the front portion clear and that allows free movements of the 
head when a respirator is worn. An enclosure substantially similar 
to the 3M hood assembly, parts # FT 14 and # FT 15 combined, is 
adequate.
    (2) The test enclosure shall have a \3/4\-inch hole in front of 
the test subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the nebulizer 
nozzle.
    (3) The test subject shall don the test enclosure. Throughout 
the threshold screening test, the test subject shall breathe through 
his/her wide open mouth with tongue extended.
    (4) Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
the test conductor shall spray the Threshold check solution into the 
enclosure. This Nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it 
from the fit test solution nebulizer.
    (5) The threshold check solution consists of 0.83 grams of 
sodium saccharin USP in 1 cc of warm water. It can be prepared by 
putting 1 cc of the fit test solution (see (b)(5) below) in 100 cc 
of distilled water.
    (6) To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly 
squeezed so that it collapses completely, then released and allowed 
to fully expand.
    (7) Ten squeezes are repeated rapidly and then the test subject 
is asked whether the saccharin can be tasted.
    (8) If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
saccharin is tasted.
    (9) If the second response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
saccharin is tasted.
    (10) The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes 
required to solicit a taste response.
    (11) If the saccharin is not tasted after 30 squeezes (step 10), 
the test subject may not perform the saccharin fit test.
    (12) If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be 
asked to take note of the taste for reference in the fit test.
    (13) Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 cc 
of liquid is used at a time in the nebulizer body.
    (14) The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken 
dry, and refilled at least each morning and afternoon or at least 
every four hours.
    (b) Saccharin solution aerosol fit test procedure.
    (1) The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), or 
chew gum for 15 minutes before the test.
    (2) The fit test uses the same enclosure described in (a) above.
    (3) The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the 
respirator selected in section B.3.(a) of this appendix. The 
respirator shall be properly adjusted and equipped with a 
particulate filter(s).
    (4) A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
is used to spray the fit test solution into the enclosure. This 
nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it from the 
screening test solution nebulizer.
    (5) The fit test solution is prepared by adding 83 grams of 
sodium saccharin to 100 cc of warm water.
    (6) As before, the test subject shall breathe through the wide 
open mouth with tongue extended.
    (7) The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the 
enclosure and the fit test solution is sprayed into the enclosure 
using the same number of squeezes required to elicit a taste 
response in the screening test.
    (8) After generating the aerosol the test subject shall be 
instructed to perform the exercises in section VII. A. 14 of this 
appendix.
    (9) Every 30 seconds the aerosol concentration shall be 
replenished using one half the number of squeezes as initially.
    (10) The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at 
any time during the fit test the taste of saccharin is detected.
    (11) If the taste of saccharin is detected, the fit is deemed 
unsatisfactory and a different respirator shall be tried.

4. Irritant Fume Protocol

    (a) The respirator to be tested shall be equipped with high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.
    (b) The test subject shall be allowed to smell a weak 
concentration of the irritant smoke before the respirator is donned 
to become familiar with its characteristic odor.
    (c) Break both ends of a ventilation smoke tube containing 
stannic oxychloride, such as the MSA part No. 5645, or equivalent. 
Attach one end of the smoke tube to a low flow air pump set to 
deliver 200 milliliters per minute.
    (d) Advise the test subject that the smoke can be irritating to 
the eyes and instruct the subject to keep his/her eyes closed while 
the test is performed.
    (e) The test conductor shall direct the stream of irritant smoke 
from the smoke tube towards the face seal area of the test subject. 
He/She shall begin at least 12 inches from the facepiece and 
gradually move to within one inch, moving around the whole perimeter 
of the mask.
    (f) The exercises identified in section VII. A. 14 above shall 
be performed by the test subject while the respirator seal is being 
challenged by the smoke.
    (g) Each test subject passing the smoke test without evidence of 
a response shall be given a sensitivity check of the smoke from the 
same tube once the respirator has been removed to determine whether 
he/she reacts to the smoke. Failure to evoke a response shall void 
the fit test.
    (h) The fit test shall be performed in a location with exhaust 
ventilation sufficient to prevent general contamination of the 
testing area by the test agent.
    C. Quantitative Fit Test (QNFT) Protocol.

1. General

    (a) The employer shall assign specific individuals who shall 
assume full responsibility for implementing the respirator 
quantitative fit test program.
    (b) The employer shall ensure that persons administering QNFT 
are able to calibrate equipment and perform tests properly, 
recognize invalid tests, calculate fit factors properly and assure 
that test equipment is in proper working order.
    (c) The employer shall assure that QNFT equipment is kept clean 
and well maintained so as to operate at the parameters for which it 
was designed.

2. Definitions

    (a) Quantitative fit test. The test is performed in a test 
chamber. The normal air-purifying element of the respirator is 
replaced by a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter in the 
case of particulate QNFT aerosols or a sorbent offering contaminant 
penetration protection equivalent to high-efficiency filters where 
the QNFT test agent is a gas or vapor.
    (b) Challenge agent means the aerosol, gas or vapor introduced 
into a test chamber so that its concentration inside and outside the 
respirator may be measured.
    (c) Test subject means the person wearing the respirator for 
quantitative fit testing.
    (d) Normal standing position means standing erect and straight 
with arms down along the sides and looking straight ahead.
    (e) Maximum peak penetration method means the method of 
determining test agent penetration in the respirator as determined 
by strip chart recordings of the test. The highest peak penetration 
for a given exercise is taken to be representative of average 
penetration into the respirator for that exercise.
    (f) Average peak penetration method means the method of 
determining test agent penetration into the respirator utilizing a 
strip chart recorder, integrator, or computer. The agent penetration 
is determined by an average of the peak heights on the graph or by 
computer integration for each exercise except the grimace exercise. 
Integrators or computers which calculate the actual test agent 
penetration into the respirator for each exercise will also be 
considered to meet the requirements of the average peak penetration 
method.

3. Apparatus

    (a) Instrumentation. Aerosol generation, dilution, and 
measurement systems using corn oil or sodium chloride as test 
aerosols shall be used for quantitative fit testing except as 
provided for by Section I of this Appendix.
    (b) Test chamber. The test chamber shall be large enough to 
permit all test subjects to perform freely all required exercises 
without disturbing the challenge agent concentration or the 
measurement apparatus. The test chamber shall be equipped and 
constructed so that the challenge agent is effectively isolated from 
the ambient air, yet uniform in concentration throughout the 
chamber.
    (c) When testing air-purifying respirators, the normal filter or 
cartridge element shall be replaced with a high-efficiency 
particulate filter supplied by the same manufacturer.
    (d) The sampling instrument shall be selected so that a strip 
chart record may be made of the test showing the rise and fall of 
the challenge agent concentration with each inspiration and 
expiration at fit factors of at least 2,000. Integrators or 
computers which integrate the amount of test agent penetration 
leakage into the respirator for each exercise may be used provided a 
record of the readings is made.
    (e) The combination of substitute air-purifying elements, 
challenge agent and challenge agent concentration in the test 
chamber shall be such that the test subject is not exposed in excess 
of an established exposure limit for the challenge agent at any time 
during the testing process.
    (f) The sampling port on the test specimen respirator shall be 
placed and constructed so that no leakage occurs around the port 
(e.g. where the respirator is probed), a free air flow is allowed 
into the sampling line at all times and so that there is no 
interference with the fit or performance of the respirator.
    (g) The test chamber and test set up shall permit the person 
administering the test to observe the test subject inside the 
chamber during the test.
    (h) The equipment generating the challenge atmosphere shall 
maintain the concentration of challenge agent inside the test 
chamber constant to within a 10 percent variation for the duration 
of the test.
    (i) The time lag (interval between an event and the recording of 
the event on the strip chart or computer or integrator) shall be 
kept to a minimum. There shall be a clear association between the 
occurrence of an event inside the test chamber and its being 
recorded.
    (j) The sampling line tubing for the test chamber atmosphere and 
for the respirator sampling port shall be of equal diameter and of 
the same material. The length of the two lines shall be equal.
    (k) The exhaust flow from the test chamber shall pass through a 
high-efficiency filter before release.
    (l) When sodium chloride aerosol is used, the relative humidity 
inside the test chamber shall not exceed 50 percent.
    (m) The limitations of instrument detection shall be taken into 
account when determining the fit factor.
    (n) Test respirators shall be maintained in proper working order 
and inspected for deficiencies such as cracks, missing valves and 
gaskets, etc.

4. Procedural Requirements

    (a) When performing the initial positive or negative pressure 
test the sampling line shall be crimped closed in order to avoid air 
pressure leakage during either of these tests.
    (b) An abbreviated screening isoamyl acetate test or irritant 
fume test may be utilized in order to quickly identify poor fitting 
respirators which passed the positive and/or negative pressure test 
and thus reduce the amount of QNFT time. When performing a screening 
isoamyl acetate test, combination high-efficiency organic vapor 
cartridges/canisters shall be used.
    (c) A reasonably stable challenge agent concentration shall be 
measured in the test chamber prior to testing. For canopy or shower 
curtain type of test units the determination of the challenge agent 
stability may be established after the test subject has entered the 
test environment.
    (d) Immediately after the subject enters the test chamber, the 
challenge agent concentration inside the respirator shall be 
measured to ensure that the peak penetration does not exceed 5 
percent for a half mask or 1 percent for a full facepiece 
respirator.
    (e) A stable challenge concentration shall be obtained prior to 
the actual start of testing.
    (f) Respirator restraining straps shall not be overtightened for 
testing. The straps shall be adjusted by the wearer without 
assistance from other persons to give a reasonable comfortable fit 
typical of normal use.
    (g) The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak 
penetration exceeds 5 percent for half masks and 1 percent for full 
facepiece respirators. The test subject shall be refitted and 
retested. If two of the three required tests are terminated, the fit 
shall be deemed inadequate.
    (h) In order to successfully complete a QNFT, three successful 
fit tests are required. The results of each of the three independent 
fit tests must exceed the minimum fit factor needed for the class of 
respirator (e.g. quarter facepiece respirator, half mask respirator, 
full facepiece respirator) as specified in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (i) Calculation of fit factors.
    (1) The fit factor shall be determined for the quantitative fit 
test by taking the ratio of the average chamber concentration to the 
concentration measured inside the respirator for each test exercise 
except the grimace exercise.
    (2) The average test chamber concentration is the arithmetic 
average of the test chamber concentration at the beginning and of 
the end of the test.
    (3) The concentration of the challenge agent inside the 
respirator shall be determined by one of the following methods:
    (i) Average peak concentration
    (ii) Maximum peak concentration
    (iii) Integration by calculation of the area under the 
individual peak for each exercise except the grimace exercise. This 
includes computerized integration.
    (j) Interpretation of test results. The fit factor established 
by the quantitative fit testing shall be the lowest of the three fit 
factor values calculated from the three required fit tests.
    (k) The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half mask 
or quarter facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit factor of 100 
is obtained, or a full facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit 
factor of 500 is obtained.
    (l) Filters used for quantitative fit testing shall be replaced 
at least weekly or whenever increased breathing resistance is 
encountered, or when the test agent has altered the integrity of the 
filter media. Organic vapor cartridges/canisters shall be replaced 
daily (when used) or sooner if there is any indication of 
breakthrough by a test agent.

Appendix B: Recommended Practices (Nonmandatory)

I. Facepiece Seal Checks

A. Positive Pressure Check

    Close off the exhalation valve and exhale gently into the 
facepiece. The face fit is considered satisfactory if a slight 
positive pressure can be built up inside the facepiece without any 
evidence of outward leakage of air at the seal. For most respirators 
this method of leak testing requires the wearer to first remove the 
exhalation valve cover before closing off the exhalation valve and 
then carefully replacing it after the test.

B. Negative Pressure Check

    Close off the inlet opening of the canister or cartridge(s) by 
covering with the palm of the hand(s) or by replacing the filter 
seal(s), inhale gently so that the facepiece collapses slightly, and 
hold the breath for ten seconds. If the facepiece remains in its 
slightly collapsed condition and no inward leakage of air is 
detected, the tightness of the respirator is considered 
satisfactory.

II. Recommended Procedures for Cleaning Respirators

    A. Remove filters, cartridges, or canisters. Disassemble 
facepieces by removing speaking diaphragms, demand and pressure-
demand valve assemblies, hoses, or any components recommended by the 
manufacturer. Discard or repair any defective parts.
    B. Wash components in 50  deg.C water with a mild detergent or 
with a cleaner recommended by the manufacturer. A stiff bristle (not 
wire) brush may be used to facilitate the removal of dirt.
    C. Rinse components thoroughly in clean, warm (50  deg.C 
maximum), preferably running water. Drain.
    D. When the cleaner used does not contain a disinfecting agent, 
respirator components should be immersed for two minutes in one of 
the following:
    1. Hypochlorite solution (50 ppm of chlorine) made by adding 
approximately one milliliter of laundry bleach to one liter of water 
at 50  deg.C; or,
    2. Aqueous solution of iodine (50 ppm iodine) made by adding 
approximately 0.8 milliliters of tincture of iodine (6-8 grams 
ammonium and/or potassium iodine / 100 cc of 45% alcohol) to one 
liter of water at 50  deg.C; or,
    3. Other commercially available cleansers of equivalent 
disinfectant quality when used as directed, unless their use is 
recommended against by the respirator manufacturer.
    E. Rinse components thoroughly in clean, warm (50  deg.C 
maximum), preferably running water. Drain. The importance of 
thorough rinsing cannot be overemphasized. Detergents or 
disinfectants that dry on facepieces may result in dermatitis. In 
addition, some disinfectants may cause deterioration of rubber or 
corrosion of metal parts if not completely removed.
    F. Components should be hand-dried with a clean lint-free cloth 
or air-dried.
    G. Reassemble facepiece, replacing filters, cartridges, and 
canisters where necessary.
    H. Test the respirator to ensure that all components work 
properly.

Appendix C: Medical Evaluation Procedures (Nonmandatory)

    This appendix contains recommended elements that should be taken 
into account during the performance of the required medical 
evaluation for respirator use. These elements should be evaluated in 
taking the medical history and performing the medical examination. 
However, the specific nature of the medical evaluation and the 
extent of testing performed is left for the responsible physician to 
determine. This recommended list of elements to be covered is not 
meant to limit the physician to the testing procedures recommended, 
since the examining physician is free to perform additional tests if 
necessary to determine an individual's ability to wear a respirator. 
This appendix is informational and is not intended, by itself, to 
create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or to 
detract from any existing obligations.
    (A) The medical history should include:
    (1) Previously diagnosed diseases, particularly stressing known 
cardiovascular or respiratory diseases;
    (2) Problems associated with breathing during normal work 
activities;
    (3) Past problems with respirator use;
    (4) Past and current usage of medication;
    (5) Any known physical conditions which may interfere with 
respirator use;
    (6) Previous occupations; and,
    (7) Use of medications whose side effects might impact upon 
cardiopulmonary fitness.
    (B) The medical examination should assess:
    (1) Hearing ability (should be sufficient to assure 
communication and response to instructions and alarm systems);
    (2) Pulmonary function testing including spirometry for 
FEV1 and FVC* (presence and degree of restrictive or 
obstructive disease or perfusion disorders);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *In interpreting spirometry, if the FVC is less than 80 percent 
or the FEV1 is less than 70 percent, restriction from 
respirator use should be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Cardiovascular system (evidence of symptomatic coronary 
artery disease, significant arrhythmias; occurrence of frequent 
premature ventricular contractions (PVC's) with elevated pulse rates 
or uncontrolled hypertension symptoms;
    (4) Endocrine system (conditions which may result in sudden loss 
of consciousness or response capability);
    (5) Neurological system (inability to perform coordinated 
movements and conditions affecting response and consciousness);
    (6) Psychological condition (claustrophobia; severe anxiety);
    (7) Miscellaneous conditions specific to the work situation 
(skin conditions where occlusive materials may result in symptoms or 
aggravation of a pre-existing dermatitis); and,
    (8) Exercise stress (for those employees who use a self-
contained breathing apparatus or rebreather type respirator under 
strenuous work conditions or in emergencies, particularly in fire 
and rescue operations).

XV. Proposed Substance Specific Standards Revisions

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart Z--[Amended]

    5. The authority citation for Subpart Z of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), as applicable, and 29 CFR Part 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b), except those substances 
listed in the Final Rule Limits column of Table Z-1-A, which have 
identical limits listed in the Transitional Limits columns of Table 
Z-1-A, Table Z-2 or Table Z-3. The latter were issued under section 
6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, the Transitional Limits columns of Table Z-1-
A, Table Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 
1910.1000, Tables Z-1-A, Z-2 and Z-3 not issued under 29 CFR part 
1911 except for the arsenic, benzene, cotton dust and formaldehyde 
listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under Sec. 107 of Contract Work 
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333.
    Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR Part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 
653.
    Section 1910.1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653 and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1028 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    Section 1910.1045 and 1910.1047 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1048 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1051 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1200, 1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553.

    6. Section 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(3)(i) 
and (g)(4)(ii) and by removing and reserving Appendix C as follows:


Sec. 1910.1001  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (g) ***
    (3) Respirator program.
    (i) When respiratory protection is required, the employer shall 
institute a respirator program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), 
(c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    (4) ***
    (ii) For each employee wearing negative pressure respirators or 
tight fitting positive pressure respirators, employers shall perform 
either quantitative or qualitative face fit tests at the time of 
initial fitting and at least every six months thereafter. The 
qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the fit of half mask 
respirators where they are permitted to be worn, and shall be conducted 
in accordance with Appendix A of Sec. 1910.134. The tests shall be used 
to select facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed 
in Table I of this section.
* * * * *
    7. Sections 1910.1003, 1910.1004, and 1910.1006 through 1910.1016 
are amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(1) to each section to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1910.1003  4-Nitrobiphenyl.


Sec. 1910.1004  alpha-Naphthylamine.


Sec. 1910.1006  Methyl chloromethyl ether.


Sec. 1910.1007  3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts).


Sec. 1910.1008  bis-Chloromethyl ether.


Sec. 1910.1009  beta-Naphthylamine.


Sec. 1910.1010  Benzidine.


Sec. 1910.1011  4-Aminodiphenyl.


Sec. 1910.1012  Ethyleneimine.


Sec. 1910.1013  beta-Propiolactone.


Sec. 1910.1014  2-Acetylaminofluorene.


Sec. 1910.1015  4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene.


Sec. 1910.1016  N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Respirator program. When respiratory protection is used 
pursuant to this section, employers shall institute a respiratory 
protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), 
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    8. Section 1910.1017 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(3) and 
(g)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1017  Vinyl chloride.

* * * * *
    (g) ***
    (3) A respiratory protection program meeting the requirements of 
Sec. 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) 
shall be estabished and maintained.
    (4) The employer shall make types of respirators available for 
selection and shall assure that employees use respirators in accordance 
with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH Respirator 
Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from the NIOSH 
Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-108, 
4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the OSHA Docket 
Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210. The table that follows shows the NIOSH RDL 
values.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Atmospheric                                                       
 concentration of vinyl                Required respirator              
        chloride                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in excess of 10 ppm  (A) Combination type C supplied air respirator,
 (10x PEL).               demand type, with half facepiece, and         
                          auxiliary self-contained air supply; or       
                         (B) Type C supplied air respirator, demand     
                          type, with half facepiece; or                 
                         (C) Any chemical cartridge respirator with an  
                          organic vapor cartridge which provides a      
                          service life of at least 1 hour for           
                          concentrations of vinyl chloride up to 10 ppm.
Not in excess of 25 ppm  (A) A powered air-purifying respirator with    
 (25x PEL).               hood, helmet, full or half facepiece, and a   
                          canister which provides a service life of at  
                          least 4 hours for concentrations of vinyl     
                          chloride up to 25 ppm, or                     
                         (B) Gas mask, front or back mounted canister   
                          which provides a service life of at least 4   
                          hours for concentrations of vinyl chloride up 
                          to 25 ppm; or                                 
                         (C) Type C supplied air respirator, continuous 
                          flow type, with hood or helmet.               
Not in excess of 50 ppm  (A) Combination type C supplied air respirator,
 (50x PEL).               demand type, with full facepiece, and         
                          auxiliary self-contained air supply; or       
                         (B) Open-circuit self-contained breathing      
                          apparatus with full facepiece, in demand mode;
                          or                                            
                         (C) Type C supplied air respirator, demand     
                          type, with full facepiece; or                 
                         (D) Type C supplied air respirator, continuous 
                          flow type, with half or full facepiece.       
Not in excess of 1000    (A) Type C supplied air respirator, pressure   
 ppm (1000x PEL).         demand type, with half facepiece.             
Not in excess of 2000    (A) Type C supplied air respirator, pressure   
 ppm (2000x PEL).         demand type, with full facepiece.             
Not in excess of 10,000  (A) Combination type C supplied air respirator,
 ppm (10,000x PEL).       pressure demand type, with full facepiece and 
                          auxiliary self-contained air supply; or       
                         (B) Open-circuit, self-contained breathing     
                          apparatus, pressure demand type, with full    
                          facepiece.                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    9. Section 1910.1018 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i), 
Table I and Table II, (h)(2)(iii), (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and 
(h)(4)(i) as follows:


Sec. 1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.

* * * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are required under 
this section the employer shall select, provide at no cost to the 
employee and assure the use of the appropriate respirator or 
combination of respirators in accordance with the assigned protection 
factor tables in the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic published in May 
1987. This is available from the NIOSH Publication Dissemination 
Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-108, 4676 Columbia Parkway, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the OSHA Docket Office, Exhibit No. 38-
20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. 
Table I of this section for inorganic arsenic compounds without 
significant vapor pressure, or Table II of this section for inorganic 
arsenic compounds which have significant vapor pressure show the NIOSH 
RDL assigned protection factor values.
    (ii) * * *

   Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Inorganic Arsenic Particulate   
            Except for Those With Significant Vapor Pressure            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concentration of                                                    
 inorganic arsenic (as                 Required respirator              
AS) or condition of use                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not greater than 100     (A) Half mask air-purifying respirator,        
 g/m\3\ (10x     equipped with high efficiency filters; or\1\  
 PEL).                    \2\                                           
                         (B) Any half mask supplied air respirator.     
Not greater than 250     (A) Powered air-purifying respirator, loose    
 g/m\3\ (25x     fitting hood or helmet, equipped with high    
 PEL).                    efficiency filters; or                        
                         (B) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator,    
                          operated in continuous flow mode.             
Not greater than 500     (A) Full facepiece air-purifying respirator    
 g/m\3\ (50x     equipped with high efficiency filters; or     
 PEL).                                                                  
                         (B) Powered air-purifying respirator with tight
                          fitting half or full facepiece, equipped with 
                          high efficiency filters; or                   
                         (C) Full facepiece supplied air respirator,    
                          operated in demand mode; or                   
                         (D) Self-contained breathing apparatus,        
                          operated in demand mode.                      
Not greater than 10,000  (A) Half facepiece supplied air respirator,    
 g/m\3\ (1000x   operated in pressure demand mode.             
 PEL).                                                                  
Not greater than 20,000  (A) Full facepiece supplied air respirator,    
 g/m\3\ (2000x   operated in pressure demand mode.             
 PEL).                                                                  
Not greater than         (A) Combination full facepiece pressure demand 
 100,000 g/      supplied air respirator with auxiliary self-  
 m\3\ (10,000x PEL).      contained air supply; or                      
                         (B) Full facepiece self-contained breathing    
                          apparatus, operated in pressure demand mode.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\High efficiency filter--99.97% efficiency against 0.3 micrometer     
  monodisperse diethylhexyl phthalate (DOP) particles.                  
\2\This category does not include disposable respirators, use of which  
  is not permitted under this standard.                                 


   Table II.--Respiratory Protection for Inorganic Arsenicals (Such as  
  Arsenic Trichloride\2\ and Arsenic Phosphide) With Significant Vapor  
                                Pressure                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concentration of                                                    
 inorganic arsenic (as                 Required respirator              
AS) or condition of use                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not greater than 100     (A) Half mask23 air-purifying respirator       
 g/m3 (10x       equipped with high efficiency filter1 and acid
 PEL).                    gas cartridge.                                
                         (B) Any half mask23 supplied air respirator.   
Not greater than 250     (A) Powered air-purifying respirator, with     
 g/m3 (25x       loose fitting hood or helmet, equipped with   
 PEL).                    high efficiency filters and acid gas          
                          cartridge; or                                 
                         (B) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator,    
                          operated in continuous flow mode.             
Not greater than 500     (A) Full facepiece front or back mounted gas   
 g/m3 (50x       mask equipped with high efficiency filters and
 PEL).                    acid gas canister; or                         
                         (B) Powered air-purifying respirator with tight
                          fitting half or full facepiece,\2\ equipped   
                          with high efficiency filters and acid gas     
                          canister; or                                  
                         (C) Full facepiece supplied air respirator,    
                          operated in demand mode; or                   
                         (D) Full facepiece self contained breathing    
                          apparatus, operated in demand mode.           
Not greater than 10,000  (A) Half facepiece supplied air respirator,    
 g/m3 (1000x     operated in pressure demand mode.             
 PEL).                                                                  
Not greater than 20,000  (A) Full facepiece supplied air respirator,    
 g/m3 (2000x     operated in pressure demand mode.             
 PEL).                                                                  
Not greater than         (A) Combination full facepiece pressure demand 
 100,000 g/m3    supplied air respirator with auxiliary self-  
 (10,000x PEL).           contained air supply; or                      
                         (B) Full facepiece self contained breathing    
                          apparatus, operated in pressure demand mode.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\High efficiency filter--99.97% efficiency against 0.3 micrometer     
  monodisperse diethyl-hexyl phthalate (DOP) particles.                 
\2\Half mask respirators shall not be used for protection against       
  arsenic trichloride, as it is rapidly absorbed through the skin.      
\3\This category does not include disposable respirators, use of which  
  is not permitted under this standard.                                 

    (iii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved by NIOSH.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The employer shall perform qualitative fit tests at the time 
of initial fitting and at least semiannually thereafter for each 
employee wearing respirators, where quantitative fit tests are not 
required. The protocols for qualitative fit testing set out in Appendix 
A to Sec. 1910.134 shall be followed in administering qualitative fit 
tests pursuant to this section.
    (iii) Employers with more than 20 employees wearing respirators 
shall perform a quantitative face fit test at the time of initial 
fitting and at least semiannually thereafter for each employee wearing 
negative pressure respirators. The test shall be used to select 
facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 
I or II. The protocols for quantitative fit testing set out in Appendix 
A to Sec. 1910.134 shall be followed in administering quantitative fit 
tests pursuant to this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Respirator program. (i) The employer shall institute a 
respiratory protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), 
(c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    10. Section 1910.1025 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 
and Table II, (f)(2)(iii), (f)(3)(ii) and (f)(4)(i) and the fourth 
paragraph of section IV of Appendix B and removing Appendix D as 
follows:


Sec. 1910.1025  Lead.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are required under 
this section the employer shall make types of respirators available for 
selection and shall assure that employees use respirators in accordance 
with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH Respirator 
Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from the NIOSH 
Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-108, 
4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the OSHA Docket 
Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, room N2439, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210. Table II of this section shows the NIOSH RDL 
values.
* * * * *

                               Table II.--Respiratory Protection for Lead Aerosols                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airborne concentration of lead or                                                                              
          condition of use                                     Required respiratory\1\                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in excess of 0.5 mg/m\3\ (10x    (A) Half mask air-purifying respirator equipped with high efficiency       
 PEL).                                filters\2\\3\, or                                                         
                                     (B) Half mask supplied air respirator operated in demand (negative         
                                      pressure) mode.                                                           
Not in excess of 1.25 mg/m\3\ (25x   (A) Powered air-purifying respirator with loose fitting hood or helmet,    
 PEL).                                equipped with high efficiency filters;\3\ or                              
                                     (B) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator, operated in continuous flow    
                                      mode.                                                                     
Not in excess of 2.5 mg/m\3\ (50x    (A) Full facepiece air-purifying respirator equipped with high efficiency  
 PEL).                                filters;\3\ or                                                            
                                     (B) Powered air-purifying respirator with tight fitting half mask or full  
                                      facepiece equipped with high efficiency filters;\3\ or                    
                                     (C) Half mask or full facepiece supplied air respirator, operated in demand
                                      mode; or                                                                  
                                     (D) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus, operated in demand  
                                      mode.                                                                     
Not in excess of 50 mg/m\3\ (1000x   (A) Half mask supplied air respirator, operated in pressure demand mode.\2\
 PEL).                                                                                                          
Not in excess of 100 mg/m\3\ (2000x  (A) Full facepiece supplied air respirator, operated in pressure demand    
 PEL).                                mode.                                                                     
Note in excess of 500 mg/m\3\        (A) Combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air respirator with
 (10,000x PEL).                       auxiliary self-contained air supply; or                                   
                                     (B) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus, operated in pressure
                                      demand mode.                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Respirators specified for high concentrations can be used at lower concentrations of lead.                   
\2\Full facepiece is required if the lead aerosols cause eye or skin irritation at the use concentrations.      
\3\A high efficiency particulate filter means 99.97 percent efficiency against 0.3 micron size particles.       

* * * * *
    (iii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved for protection against lead dust, fume, and mist by NIOSH.
    (3)* * *
    (ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative 
face fit tests at the time of initial fitting and at least every six 
months thereafter for each employee wearing negative pressure 
respirators. The qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the 
fit of half mask respirators where they are permitted to be worn. 
Quantitative and qualitative fit tests shall be conducted in accordance 
with Appendix A of Sec. 1910.134. The tests shall be used to select 
facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 
II of this section.
* * * * *
    (4)* * *
    (i) The employer shall institute a respiratory protection program 
in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), 
(j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *

Appendix B to Section 1910.1025--Employee Standard Summary

* * * * *

IV. Respiratory Protection--Paragraph (F)

* * * * *
    Your employer must assure that your respirator facepiece fits 
properly. Proper fit of a respirator is critical. Obtaining a proper 
fit on each employee may require your employer to make available two or 
three different mask types. In order to assure that your respirator 
fits properly and that facepiece leakage is minimized, your employer 
must give you either a qualitative or quantitative fit test in 
accordance with Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.134.
* * * * *
    11. Section 1910.1029 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) 
and Table I, (g)(2)(iii) and (g)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.

* * * * *
    (g)* * *
    (2) Selection. (i) Where respirators are required under this 
section, the employer shall make types of respirators available for 
selection and shall assure that employees use respirators in accordance 
with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH Respirator 
Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from the NIOSH 
Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-108, 
4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the OSHA Docket 
Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Table I of this section shows the NIOSH RDL 
values.

                            Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Coke Oven Emissions                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airborne concentration of coke oven                                                                             
             emissions                                           Required respirator                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) not in excess of 1500 g/m\3\ (10x PEL).                  respirator;                                                               
                                     or                                                                         
                                     (2) Any particulate filter respirator or combination chemical cartridge and
                                      particulate filter respirator for coke oven emissions; or                 
                                     (3) Half mask supplied air respirator, operated in demand mode; or         
                                     (4) Any respirator listed in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(b) through (f) of this    
                                      section.                                                                  
(b) not in excess of 3750 g/m\3\ (25x PEL).                  equipped with high efficiency filters; or                                 
                                     (2) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator, operated in continuous flow    
                                      mode.                                                                     
(c) not in excess of 7500 g/m\3\ (50x PEL).                  particulate filters or combination chemical cartridge and high efficiency 
                                      particulate filter for coke oven emissions; or                            
                                     (2) Powered air-purifying respirator with tight fitting half mask or full  
                                      facepiece equipped with high efficiency particulate filters or combination
                                      chemical cartridge and high efficiency particulate filter for coke oven   
                                      emissions; or                                                             
                                     (3) Full facepiece supplied air respirator, operated in demand mode; or    
                                     (4) Full facepiece supplied air respirator, operated in continuous flow    
                                      mode.                                                                     
                                     (5) Self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece, operated in    
                                      demand mode.                                                              
(d) not in excess of 150 mg/m\3\     (1) Half mask supplied air respirator, operated in pressure demand mode.   
 (1000x PEL).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
(e) not in excess of 300 mg/m\3\     (1) Full facepiece supplied air respirator, operated in pressure demand    
 (2000x PEL).                         mode.                                                                     
(f) not in excess of 1500 mg/m\3\    (1) Combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air respirator with
 (10,000x PEL).                       auxiliary self-contained air supply; or                                   
                                     (2) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus, operated in pressure
                                      demand mode.                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (iii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved for protection against coke oven emissions by NIOSH.
    (3) Respirator program. The employer shall institute a respiratory 
protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), 
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    12. Section 1910.1043 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i), 
deleting Table I, revising (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(3), and 
adding a new Appendix F to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 1910.1043  Cotton dust.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are required under 
this section, the employer shall make types of respirators available 
for selection and shall assure that employees use respirators in 
accordance with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH 
Respirator Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from 
the NIOSH Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 
No. 87-108, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the 
OSHA Docket Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Table 1 of Appendix F of this 
section shows the NIOSH RDL values.
    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from those tested and 
certified for protection against dust by NIOSH.
    (iii) Whenever negative pressure air-purifying respirators are 
required by this section, the employer shall, upon the request of the 
employee, provide the appropriate powered air-purifying respirator with 
a high efficiency particulate filter selected pursuant to Table 1 of 
this section in lieu of the negative pressure air-purifying respirator 
specified in Table 1 of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Respirator program. The employer shall institute a respiratory 
protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), 
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *

Appendix F--Respirator Selection

                                Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Cotton Dust                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Airborne concentration of cotton                                                                              
                dust                                             Required respirator                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not greater than:                                                                                               
    (a) 5 times the PEL............  Single use or quarter mask respirator.                                     
    (b) 10 times the PEL...........  Half mask or full facepiece air-purifying respirator equipped with any type
                                      of particulate filter.                                                    
                                     Half mask supplied-air respirator operated in a demand (negative pressure) 
                                      mode.                                                                     
    (c) 25 times the PEL...........  Hood or helmet powered air-purifying respirator equipped with any type     
                                      particulate filter.                                                       
                                     Supplied-air respirator equipped with a hood or helmet and operated in a   
                                      continuous flow mode.                                                     
    (d) 50 times the PEL...........  Full facepiece air-purifying respirator equipped with a high efficiency    
                                      filter.                                                                   
                                     Powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece   
                                      and a high efficiency filter.                                             
                                     Full facepiece supplied-air respirator operated in a demand mode.          
                                     Supplied-air respirator with tight-fitting facepiece operated in a         
                                      continuous flow mode.                                                     
                                     Full facepiece self-contained respirator operated in a demand mode.        
    (e) 1,000 times the PEL........  Half mask supplied-air respirator operated in a pressure demand or other   
                                      positive pressure mode.                                                   
    (f) 2,000 times the PEL........  Full facepiece supplied-air respirator operated in a pressure demand or    
                                      other positive pressure mode.                                             
    (g) 10,000 times the PEL.......  Full facepiece self-contained respirator operated in a pressure demand or  
                                      other positive pressure mode.                                             
                                     Full facepiece supplied-air respirator operated in a pressure demand or    
                                      other positive pressure mode in combination with an auxiliary self-       
                                      contained breathing apparatus operated in a pressure demand or other      
                                      positive pressure mode.                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Section 1910.1044 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i), 
(h)(2)(ii) and Table 1, and (h)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1044  1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection (i) Where respirators are required under 
this section, the employer shall select, provide at no cost to the 
employee, and assure that the employee uses the appropriate respirator 
in accordance with the assigned protection factor tables in the NIOSH 
Respirator Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is available from 
the NIOSH Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 
No. 87-108, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 or from the 
OSHA Docket Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Table 1 shows the NIOSH RDL 
values.
    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved by NIOSH.

                                    Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for DBCP                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airborne concentration of DBCP or                                                                              
          condition of use                                         Respirator type                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Less than or equal to 10 ppb     (1) Half mask supplied-air respirator operated in demand mode; or          
 (10x PEL).                          (2) Half mask self-contained breathing apparatus operated in demand mode.  
(b) Less than or equal to 25 ppb     (1) Hood or helmet supplied-air respirator operated in continuous flow     
 (25x PEL).                           mode.                                                                     
(c) Less than or equal to 50 ppb     (1) Full facepiece supplied-air respirator operated in demand mode; or     
 (50x PEL).                                                                                                     
                                     (2) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus operated in demand   
                                      mode; or                                                                  
                                     (3) Half mask or full facepiece supplied air-respirator operated in        
                                      continuous flow mode.                                                     
(d) Less than or equal to 1000 ppb   (1) Half mask supplied air-respirator operated in pressure demand or other 
 (1000x PEL).                         positive pressure mode.                                                   
(e) Less than or equal to 2000 ppb   (1) Full facepiece supplied air-respirator operated in pressure demand or  
 (2000x PEL).                         other positive pressure mode.                                             
(f) Less than or equal to 10,000     (1) Combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air-respirator with
 ppb (10,000x PEL).                   auxiliary self-contained air supply.                                      
                                     (2) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus operated in pressure 
                                      demand or other positive pressure mode.                                   
(g) Firefighting...................  (1) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus operated in pressure 
                                      demand or other positive pressure mode.                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (3) Respirator program. (i) The employer shall institute a 
respiratory protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), 
(c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    14. Section 1910.1045 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) 
and Table 1, (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1045  Acrylonitrile.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respiratory protection is 
required under this section, the employer shall select, provide at no 
cost to the employee, and assure that the employee uses the appropriate 
respirator in accordance with the assigned protection factor tables in 
the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is 
available from the NIOSH Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) 
Publication No. 87-108, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 
or from the OSHA Docket Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Table 1 shows the 
NIOSH RDL values.

                             Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Acrylonitrile (AN)                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration of AN or condition of                                                                             
                use                                                Respirator type                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Less than or equal to 20 ppm     (1) Chemical cartridge respirator with organic vapor cartridge(s) and half 
 (10x PEL).                           mask facepiece; or                                                        
                                     (2) Supplied air respirator with half mask facepiece.                      
(b) Less than or equal to 50 ppm     (1) Hood or helmet powered air purifying respirator with organic vapor     
 (25x PEL).                           cartridge(s); or                                                          
                                     (2) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator operated in continuous flow     
                                      mode.                                                                     
(c) Less than or equal to 100 ppm    (1) Full facepiece respirator with (A) organic vapor cartridges, (B)       
 or maximum use concentration (MUC)   organic vapor gas mask chin style, or (C) organic vapor gas mask canister,
 of cartridges or canisters,          front or back mounted; or                                                 
 whichever is lower (50x PEL).       (2) Half mask or full facepiece powered air purifying respirator with      
                                      organic vapor cartridge/canisters; or                                     
                                     (3) Supplied air respirator with full facepiece operated in demand mode; or
                                     (4) Self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in     
                                      demand mode; or                                                           
                                     (5) Half mask or full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in        
                                      continuous flow mode.                                                     
(d) Less than or equal to 2000 ppm   (1) Half mask supplied air respirator operated in pressure demand or other 
 (1000x PEL).                         positive pressure mode.                                                   
(e) Less than or equal to 4000 ppm   (1) Full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in pressure demand or  
 (2000x PEL).                         other positive pressure mode.                                             
(f) Less than or equal to 20,000     (1) Combination full facepiece supplied air respirator with auxiliary self-
 ppm (10,000x PEL).                   contained breathing apparatus operated in pressure demand or other        
                                      positive pressure mode; or                                                
                                     (2) Self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in     
                                      pressure demand or other positive pressure mode.                          
(g) Firefighting...................  (1) Self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in     
                                      pressure demand or other positive pressure mode.                          
(h) Escape.........................  (1) Any organic vapor respirator; or                                       
                                     (2) Any self-contained breathing apparatus.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved for use with organic vapors by NIOSH.
    (3) Respirator program. (i) The employer shall institute a 
respiratory protection program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 (b), 
(c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
 * * * * *
    (iii) Testing. Fit testing of respirators shall be performed to 
assure that the respirator selected provides the protection required by 
Table 1. Fit testing shall be performed pursuant to the protocols set 
out in Appendix A to Sec. 1910.134.
    (A) Qualitative fit. The employer shall perform qualitative fit 
tests at the time of initial fitting and at least semiannually 
thereafter for each employee wearing respirators.
    (B) Quantitative fit. Each employer with more than 10 employees 
wearing negative pressure respirators shall perform quantitative fit 
testing at the time of initial fitting and at least semiannually 
thereafter for each such employee.
* * * * *
    15. Section 1910.1047 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(2)((i), 
(g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) and redesignating Table 1 of paragraph (h)(2) 
introductory text as Table 1 of paragraph (g)(2)(i) and revising Table 
1 to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1047  Ethylene oxide.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respiratory protection is 
required under this section, the employer shall select, provide at no 
cost to the employee, and assure that the employee uses the appropriate 
respirator in accordance with the assigned protection factor tables in 
the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic published in May 1987. This is 
available from the NIOSH Publication Dissemination Office, DHHS (NIOSH) 
Publication No. 87-108, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 
or from the OSHA Docket Office, Exhibit No. 38-20, Room N2439, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Table 1 shows the 
NIOSH RDL values.

                   Table I.--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection for Airborne EtO                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Condition of use or concentration                                                                              
       of airborne EtO (ppm)                                 Minimum required respirator                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal to or less than 25 ppm (25x    (a) Hood or helmet supplied air respirator operated in continuous flow     
 PEL).                                mode.                                                                     
                                     (b) Hood or helmet powered air purifying respirator with EtO approved      
                                      cartridge/canisters.                                                      
Equal to or less than 50 ppm (50x    (a) Full facepiece air purifying respirator with EtO approved canister,    
 PEL).                                front or back mounted; or                                                 
                                     (b) Full facepiece powered air purifying respirator with EtO approved      
                                      cartridge/canisters; or                                                   
                                     (c) Full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in demand mode; or     
                                     (d) Full facepiece self contained breathing apparatus operated in demand   
                                      mode; or                                                                  
Equal to or less than 2000 ppm       (a) Full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in pressure demand     
 (2000x PEL).                         mode.                                                                     
Equal to or less than 10,000 ppm     (a) Combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air respirator with
 (10,000x PEL).                       auxiliary self-contained air supply; or                                   
                                     (b) Full facepiece self-contained breathing apparatus operated in pressure 
                                      demand mode.                                                              
Firefighting.......................  (a) Pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus equipped with full  
                                      facepiece.                                                                
Escape.............................  (a) Any respirator described above.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note--Respirators approved for use in higher concentrations are permitted to be used in lower concentrations.   

    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those 
approved for protection against EtO by NIOSH.
    (3) Respirator program. Where respiratory protection is required by 
this section, the employer shall institute a respirator program in 
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), 
(k), and (l).
* * * * *
    16. The authority citation for Subpart D of Part 1926 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and 
Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; and 
Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-17 (36 FR 8754, 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 
or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as applicable. Sections 1926.55(c) and 
1926.1101 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.

    17. Section 1926.1101 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(3)(i) 
and (h)(4)(ii) and removing and reserving Appendix C as follows:


Sec. 1926.1101  Asbestos.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * * (i) Where respiratory protection is used the employer 
shall institute a respirator program in accordance with Sec. 1910.134 
(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
    (4) * * * (i) * * *
    (ii) For each employee wearing negative pressure respirators or 
tight fitting positive pressure respirators, employers shall perform 
either quantitative or qualitative face fit tests at the time of 
initial fitting and at least every six months thereafter. The 
qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the fit of half mask 
respirators where they are permitted to be worn, and shall be conducted 
in accordance with Appendix A of Sec. 1910.134. The tests shall be used 
to select facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed 
in Table I of this section.
* * * * *
    18. Section 1926.103 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.103  Respiratory protection.

    Respiratory protection for construction employment is covered by 29 
CFR 1910.134.
    19. The authority citation for Part 1915 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary 
of Labor's Order No. 12-72 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), or 9-83 
(48 FR 35736) as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.

    20. 29 CFR Part 1915 is amended by revising Subpart I to read as 
follows:

Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment


Sec. 1915.152  Respiratory protection.

    Respiratory protection for shipyard employment is covered by 29 CFR 
1910.134.
    21. The authority citation for Subpart G of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059) or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as 
applicable.

    Sections 1910.94 and 1910.99 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
    22. Section 1910.94 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i), 
(a)(5)(iv), (a)(6), (c)(6)(iii)(a), and (d)(9)(vi) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.94  Ventilation.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) Personal protective equipment. (i) Only respiratory protective 
equipment approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) shall be used for protection of personnel against 
dusts produced during abrasive-blasting operations.
* * * * *
    (iv) A respiratory protection program as defined and described in 
Sec. 1910.134 shall be established wherever it is necessary to use 
respiratory protective equipment.
* * * * *
    (6) Air supply and air compressors. The air for abrasive-blasting 
respirators shall be free of harmful quantities of dusts, mists, or 
noxious gases, and shall meet the requirements for supplied air quality 
and use contained in Sec. 1910.134(i).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii)
    (a) When an operator must position himself in a booth downstream of 
the object being sprayed, an air supplied respirator or other type of 
respirator approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) for the material being sprayed shall be used by the 
operator.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (vi) When, during emergencies as described in paragraph (d)(11)(v) 
of this section, workers must be in areas where concentrations of air 
contaminants are greater than the limit set by paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of 
this section or oxygen concentrations are less than 19.5 percent, they 
shall be required to wear respirators adequate to reduce their exposure 
to a level below these limits, or to provide adequate oxygen. Such 
respirators shall also be provided in marked, quickly accessible 
storage compartments built for the purpose, when there exists the 
possibility of accidental release of hazardous concentrations of air 
contaminants. Respirators shall be approved by the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and shall be selected by a 
competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified source. 
Respirators shall be used in accordance with Sec. 1910.134, and persons 
who may require them shall be trained in their use.
* * * * *
    23. The authority citation for Subpart H of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059) or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as 
applicable.

    Sections 1910.106, 1910.107, 1910.108 and 1910.109 also issued 
under 29 CFR Part 1911.
    24. Section 1910.111 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(x) 
and (b)(10)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.111  Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (x) Gas mask--Gas masks approved by the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for anhydrous ammonia.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) All stationary storage installations shall have at least two 
suitable gas masks in readily accessible locations. Full face masks 
with ammonia canisters as approved by the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are suitable for emergency 
action for most leaks, particularly those that occur outdoors. For 
protection in concentrated ammonia atmospheres self-contained breathing 
air apparatus is required.
* * * * *
    25. The authority citation for Subpart Q of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059) or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as 
applicable.

    Section 1910.252 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
    26. Section 1910.252 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(ii), 
(c)(4)(iii), (c)(7)(iii), (c)(9)(i), and (c)(10) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.252  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Airline respirators. In such circumstances where it is 
impossible to provide such ventilation, airline respirators or hose 
masks approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH) for this purpose shall be used.
    (iii) Self-contained units. In areas immediately hazardous to life, 
a full facepiece pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus or 
combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied air respirator with 
auxiliary self-contained air supply approved by NIOSH shall be used.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) Local ventilation. In confined spaces or indoors, welding or 
cutting involving metals containing lead, other than as an impurity, or 
involving metals coated with lead-bearing materials, including paint 
shall be done using local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators. 
Outdoors such operations shall be done using respiratory protective 
equipment approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) for such purposes. In all cases, workers in the 
immediate vicinity of the cutting operation shall be protected by local 
exhaust ventilation or airline respirators.
* * * * *
    (9)* * *
    (i) General. Welding or cutting indoors or in confined spaces 
involving cadmium-bearing or cadmium-coated base metals shall be done 
using local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators unless 
atmospheric tests under the most adverse conditions have established 
that the workers' exposure is within the acceptable concentrations 
defined by Sec. 1910.1000. Outdoors such operations shall be done using 
respiratory protective equipment such as fume respirators approved by 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for 
such purposes.
* * * * *
    (10) Mercury. Welding or cutting indoors or in a confined space 
involving metals coated with mercury-bearing materials including paint, 
shall be done using local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators 
unless atmospheric tests under the most adverse conditions have 
established that the workers' exposure is within the acceptable 
concentrations defined by Sec. 1910.1000. Outdoors such operations 
shall be done using respiratory protective equipment approved by the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for such 
purposes.
* * * * *
    27. The authority citation for Subpart R of Part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059) or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as 
applicable.

    Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.267, 1910.268, 
1910.269, 1910.274 and 1910.275 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
    28. Section 1910.261 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), 
(g)(10), (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.261  Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Personal protective clothing and equipment. Foot protection, 
shin-guards, hard hats, noise attenuation devices, or other personal 
protective clothing and equipment shall be worn when the extent of the 
hazard is such as to warrant their use. Such equipment shall be worn 
whenever specifically required by other paragraphs of this section. All 
equipment shall be maintained in accordance with applicable American 
National Standards. Respirators, goggles, and protective masks, rubber 
gloves, rubber boots, and other such equipment shall be cleaned and 
disinfected before being used by another employee. Eye, head, and ear 
protection, where specified, shall conform to American National 
Standards Z24.22-1957, Z87.1-1968, and Z89.1-1969. Respiratory 
protection shall conform to the requirements of Sec. 1910.134.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (10) Gas masks (digester building). Gas masks shall be available. 
These masks shall furnish adequate protection against sulfurous acid 
and chlorine gases, and shall be inspected and tested at frequent 
intervals, not to exceed 1 month, in accordance with American National 
Standard Z87.1-1968, and Sec. 1910.134.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Gas masks shall be provided for emergency use, in accordance 
with Sec. 1910.134.
    (iv) For emergency and rescue work, a self-contained breathing 
apparatus or supplied air respirator in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 1910.134 shall be provided.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-27197 Filed 11-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M