[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53902-53954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21038]



[[Page 53901]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 195

October 8, 2019

Part III





Department of Labor





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





Occupational Safety and Health Administration





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





29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926





Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in 
Construction and Shipyard Sectors; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 53902]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870]
RIN 1218-AD29


Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in 
Construction and Shipyard Sectors

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments and notice of public 
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to revise the standards for occupational 
exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds in the construction and 
shipyards industries. These proposed changes are designed to accomplish 
three goals: To more appropriately tailor the requirements of the 
construction and shipyards standards to the particular exposures in 
these industries in light of partial overlap between the beryllium 
standards' requirements and other OSHA standards; to aid compliance and 
enforcement across the beryllium standards by avoiding inconsistency, 
where appropriate, between the shipyards and construction standards and 
proposed revisions to the general industry standard; and to clarify 
certain requirements with respect to materials containing only trace 
amounts of beryllium. This proposal would lead to total annualized cost 
savings of $2.5 million at a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years; at 
a discount rate of 7 percent over 10 years, the annualized cost savings 
would be $2.5 million. OSHA has preliminarily determined that these 
proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for 
workers, while facilitating compliance with the standards and yielding 
some cost savings. This proposal does not affect the general industry 
beryllium standard.

DATES: Written Comments: Written comments on this NPRM must be 
submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 7, 2019 in Docket 
Number OSHA-H005C-2006-0870. Comments on the information collection 
determination described in Section VI of the preamble (OMB Review under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995) may be submitted (postmarked, 
sent, or received) by December 9, 2019 in Docket Number OSHA-2019-0006. 
OSHA will consider comments on the information collection determination 
submitted in either docket, but requests that commenters submit 
relevant comments to Docket Number OSHA-2019-0006.
    Informal Public Hearing: The agency will hold an informal public 
hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, in the Frances Perkins Building, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20210. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and OSHA expects the hearing 
to last until 5:30 p.m., ET. A schedule will be released prior to the 
start of the hearings and may be amended at the discretion of the 
presiding administrative law judge (ALJ).
    Notice of Intention to Appear at the Hearing: Interested persons 
who intend to present testimony or question witnesses at the hearing 
must submit (transmit, send, postmark, deliver) a notice of intention 
to appear by November 7, 2019 in Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870.
    Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence: Interested persons who 
request more than 10 minutes to present testimony or intend to submit 
documentary evidence at the hearing must submit (transmit, send, 
postmark, deliver) the full text of their testimony and all documentary 
evidence by November 7, 2019 in Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870.

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You may submit written comments, notices 
of intention to appear, written hearing testimony, and documentary 
evidence, identified by Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870 for the NPRM 
and Docket No. OSHA-2019-0006 for the information collection 
determination, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well other 
information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the 
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for 
submitting comments. After accessing ``all documents and comments'' in 
the docket (OSHA-H005C-2006-0870 for the NPRM or OSHA-2019-0006 for the 
information collection determination), check the ``proposed rule'' box 
in the column headed ``Document Type,'' find the document posted on the 
date of publication of this document, and click the ``Comment Now'' 
link. When uploading multiple attachments into Regulations.gov, please 
number all of your attachments because www.Regulations.gov will not 
automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in 
identifying all attachments in the rule. For example, Attachment 1--
title of your document, Attachment 2--title of your document, 
Attachment 3--title of your document. Specific instructions on 
uploading all documents are found in the Frequently Asked Questions 
portion and the Commenter's Checklist on Regulations.gov.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows fax transmission of comments that are 10 
pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Fax these documents 
to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger 
(courier) service: Submit comments and any additional material to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870 for the NPRM or 
Docket No. OSHA-2019-0006 for the information collection determination, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone: (202) 693-2350. OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627. Contact 
the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures 
concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, 
and messenger service. The Docket Office will accept deliveries 
(express delivery, hand delivery, messenger service) during the Docket 
Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870 for 
the NPRM or Docket No. OSHA-2019-0006 for the information collection 
determination). All comments, including any personal information you 
provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 
cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made 
available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal 
information (either about themselves or others), such as Social 
Security Numbers, birthdates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments, notices of intention to 
appear, and other materials submitted in response to this Federal 
Register document, go to Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870 for the NPRM 
or Docket No. OSHA-2019-0006 for the information collection 
determination at http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket 
Office at the above address. All comments and submissions are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., 
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to

[[Page 53903]]

read or download through that website. All comments and submissions are 
available for inspection and, where permissible, copying at the OSHA 
Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA 
Office of Publications; telephone (202) 693-1888. This document, as 
well as news releases and other relevant information, is also available 
at OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
    Citation Method: In the docket for the beryllium rulemaking, found 
at http://www.regulations.gov, every submission was assigned a document 
identification (ID) number that consists of the docket number (OSHA-
H005C-2006-0870) followed by an additional four-digit number. For 
example, the document ID number for OSHA's Preliminary Economic 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is OSHA-H005C-
2006-0870-0426. Some document ID numbers include one or more 
attachments (see, e.g., Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2142).
    When citing exhibits in the docket, OSHA includes the term 
``Document ID'' followed by the last four digits of the document ID 
number, the attachment number or other attachment identifier, if 
necessary for clarity, and page numbers (designated ``p.'' or ``Tr.'' 
for pages from a hearing transcript). In a citation that contains two 
or more document ID numbers, the document ID numbers are separated by 
semicolons.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of 
Communications; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: 
[email protected].
    General information and technical inquiries: Mr. William Perry or 
Ms. Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance; telephone: 
(202) 693-1950; email: [email protected].
    Copies of this Federal Register document and news releases: 
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page 
at https://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Content

I. Background
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis
V. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plan States
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Environmental Impacts
XI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Authority and Signature
Amendments to Standards

I. Background

    On January 9, 2017, OSHA published the final rule Occupational 
Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the Federal Register 
(82 FR 2470-2757). Subsequently, on June 27, 2017, OSHA proposed to 
revoke the ancillary provisions for both construction and shipyards 
adopted in the January 9, 2017, final rule and to retain the new lower 
PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for those sectors 
(82 FR 29182).\1\ OSHA discussed in the proposal its consideration of 
extending the compliance dates in the January 9, 2017, final rule by a 
year for the construction and shipyard standards. OSHA reasoned that 
this potential extension would give affected employers additional time 
to come into compliance with the final rule's requirements, which could 
be warranted by the uncertainty created by the proposal. OSHA also 
stated in the proposal that it would not enforce the construction and 
shipyard standards without further notice while the rulemaking was 
underway.\2\ OSHA provided a sixty-day comment period and received over 
70 unique comments in response to this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a full discussion of the events leading to the proposed 
rule, see the preamble to the 2017 NPRM (82 FR at 29185-88).
    \2\ Subsequently, in March 2018, OSHA stated that it would begin 
enforcing the PEL and STEL on May 11, 2018 (see Memorandum for 
Regional Administrators, Delay of Enforcement of the Beryllium 
Standards under 29 CFR 1910.1024, 29 CFR 1915.1024, and 29 CFR 
1926.1124, Mar. 2, 2018, available at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2018-03-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 7, 2018, OSHA issued a direct final rule (DFR) adopting a 
number of clarifying amendments to address the application of the 
beryllium standard for general industry to materials containing trace 
amounts of beryllium (83 FR 19936). The DFR amended the text of the 
general industry standard to clarify OSHA's intent with respect to 
certain terms in the standard, including the definition of beryllium 
work area, the definition of emergency, and the meaning of the terms 
dermal contact and beryllium contamination. The DFR also clarified 
OSHA's intent with respect to provisions for disposal and recycling and 
with respect to provisions that the agency intended to apply only where 
skin can be exposed to materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by 
weight. The DFR became effective on July 6, 2018, because OSHA did not 
receive significant adverse comment in response to the DFR (see 83 FR 
31045 (7/3/18)).
    On June 1, 2018, OSHA published a proposal to extend the compliance 
date for certain ancillary requirements of the general industry 
beryllium standard, from March 12, 2018, to December 12, 2018 (83 FR 
25536). OSHA proposed an extension of the compliance date for the 
following provisions in the general industry standard: Beryllium work 
areas and regulated areas (paragraph (e)), written exposure control 
plans (paragraph (f)(1)), personal protective clothing and equipment 
(paragraph (h)), hygiene areas and practices (paragraph (i) except for 
change rooms and showers), housekeeping (paragraph (j)), communication 
of hazards (paragraph (m)), and recordkeeping (paragraph (n)). OSHA 
reasoned that: (1) It planned to propose modifications to ancillary 
provisions of the beryllium general industry standard in response to 
stakeholder questions and concerns; (2) it would be undesirable for 
both the agency and the regulated community to begin enforcement of the 
ancillary provisions of the standard that would be affected by the 
upcoming rulemaking; (3) enforcing compliance with the relevant 
ancillary requirements, as currently written, before publishing the 
agreed-upon proposal, would likely result in employers taking 
unnecessary measures to comply with provisions that OSHA intended to 
clarify; and (4) the proposed compliance date extension would give OSHA 
time to prepare and publish the planned substantive general industry 
NPRM to amend the standard before employers were required to comply 
with the affected provisions of the rule. At that point OSHA could rely 
on its de minimis policy and allow employers the option of complying 
with the proposed provisions of the substantive NPRM without risk of a 
citation. OSHA adopted the extension of the compliance dates, as 
proposed, on August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39351).
    On December 11, 2018, OSHA published the substantive NPRM to modify 
several of the general industry beryllium standard's definitions, along 
with the provisions for methods of compliance, personal protective 
clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, housekeeping, 
medical surveillance, communication of hazards, and recordkeeping (83 
FR 63746). OSHA reasoned that the proposed modifications would provide 
clarification and simplify or improve compliance.
    In a document published September 30, 2019, OSHA issued a final 
rule

[[Page 53904]]

extending the compliance dates for the construction and shipyards 
ancillary provisions by one year from the publication date of the final 
and reaffirming the significant risk findings from the January 9, 2017, 
final rule (84 FR 51377). In this notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA 
is considering relevant comments to the June 2017 construction and 
shipyards proposal, as well as general industry stakeholder input that 
led to the 2018 DFR and 2018 substantive NPRM, to propose revisions to 
the ancillary provisions of the construction and shipyard standards 
that are tailored to these sectors. While OSHA will consider comments 
on the June 2017 proposal to the extent they continue to be relevant in 
this rulemaking, OSHA requests that stakeholders, including those who 
commented on the June 2017 proposal, also comment on the proposed 
revisions to the ancillary provisions in this proposal.
    OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety & 
Health (ACCSH) regarding this proposal on September 9, 2019. ACCSH 
recommended that OSHA proceed with the proposal to ``revise the 
beryllium standard for construction to ensure that the ancillary 
provisions are tailored to the construction industry and align with the 
general industry standard, where appropriate,'' and unanimously 
recommended that OSHA do so as soon as possible. OSHA will publish 
meeting minutes and copies of materials presented to the Committee in 
the ACCSH docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=OSHA-2018-0012.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
(``the OSH Act'' or ``the Act''), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure 
so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and 
healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 
U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary 
of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards 
pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. See 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An 
occupational safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires 
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, 
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate 
to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29 
U.S.C. 652(8).
    The Act also authorizes the Secretary to ``modify'' or ``revoke'' 
any occupational safety or health standard, 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and under 
the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies generally may 
revise their rules if the changes are supported by a reasoned analysis, 
see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 
U.S. 29, 42 (1983). ``While the removal of a regulation may not entail 
the monetary expenditures and other costs of enacting a new standard, 
and accordingly, it may be easier for an agency to justify a 
deregulatory action, the direction in which an agency chooses to move 
does not alter the standard of judicial review established by law.'' 
Id. at 43.
    The Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with 
toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as the January 9, 
2017, final rule regulating occupational exposure to beryllium, the 
Secretary must set the standard which most adequately assures, 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. 29 U.S.C. 
665(b)(5). The Supreme Court has held that before the Secretary can 
promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, he must make a 
threshold finding that significant risk is present and that such risk 
can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. See Indus. 
Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 641-42 
(1980) (plurality opinion) (``Benzene''). OSHA need not make additional 
findings on risk for this proposal because OSHA previously determined 
that the beryllium standard addresses a significant risk, see 82 FR 
2545-52, and reaffirmed that finding in the rule finalizing the 2017 
shipyards and construction proposal, the final rule published September 
30, 2019. See Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 
1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must 
``find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a 
significant risk'').
    OSHA standards must also be both technologically and economically 
feasible. See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1248 
(D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I''). The Supreme Court has defined 
feasibility as ``capable of being done.'' Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. 
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-10 (1981) (``Cotton Dust''). The courts have 
further clarified that a standard is technologically feasible if OSHA 
proves a reasonable possibility, ``within the limits of the best 
available evidence, . . . that the typical firm will be able to develop 
and install engineering and work practice controls that can meet the 
[standard] in most of its operations.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. With 
respect to economic feasibility, the courts have held that ``a standard 
is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to or imperil 
the existence of the industry.'' Id. at 1265 (internal quotation marks 
and citations omitted).
    OSHA exercises significant discretion in carrying out its 
responsibilities under the Act. Indeed, a number of terms of the 
statute give OSHA wide discretion to devise means to achieve the 
congressionally mandated goal of ensuring worker safety and health. See 
Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230. Thus, where OSHA has chosen some measures to 
address a significant risk over other measures, those challenging the 
OSHA standard must ``identify evidence that their proposals would be 
feasible and generate more than a de minimis benefit to worker 
health.'' N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 F.3d 271, 282 (D.C. 
Cir. 2017).
    Although OSHA is required to set standards ``on the basis of the 
best available evidence,'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), its determinations are 
``conclusive'' if supported by ``substantial evidence in the record 
considered as a whole,'' 29 U.S.C. 655(f). Similarly, as the Supreme 
Court noted in Benzene, OSHA must look to ``a body of reputable 
scientific thought'' in making determinations, but a reviewing court 
must ``give OSHA some leeway where its findings must be made on the 
frontiers of scientific knowledge.'' Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656. When 
there is disputed scientific evidence in the record, OSHA must review 
the evidence on both sides and ``reasonably resolve'' the dispute. 
Tyson, 796 F.2d at 1500. The ``possibility of drawing two inconsistent 
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the agency's finding 
from being supported by substantial evidence.'' N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades 
Unions, 878 F.3dat 291 (quoting Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 523) 
(alterations omitted). As the D.C. Circuit has noted, where ``OSHA has 
the expertise we lack and it has exercised that expertise by carefully 
reviewing the scientific data,'' a dispute within the scientific 
community is not occasion for the reviewing court to take sides about 
which view is correct. Tyson, 796 F.2d at 1500.
    Finally, because section 6(b)(5) of the Act explicitly requires 
OSHA to set health standards that eliminate risk ``to the extent 
feasible,'' OSHA uses feasibility analysis rather than cost-benefit 
analysis to make standards-setting decisions dealing with toxic 
materials or harmful physical agents (29

[[Page 53905]]

U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). An OSHA standard in this area must be 
technologically and economically feasible--and also cost effective, 
which means that the protective measures it requires are the least 
costly of the available alternatives that achieve the same level of 
protection--but OSHA cannot choose an alternative that provides a lower 
level of protection for workers' health simply because it is less 
costly. See Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 
1994); see also Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 514 n.32. In Cotton Dust, the 
Court explained that Congress itself defined the basic relationship 
between costs and benefits, by placing the ``benefit'' of worker health 
above all other considerations save those making attainment of this 
``benefit'' unachievable. The court further stated that any standard 
based on a balancing of costs and benefits by the Secretary that 
strikes a different balance than that struck by Congress would be 
inconsistent with the command set forth in section 6(b)(5). Cotton 
Dust, 452 U.S. at 509. Thus, while OSHA estimates the costs and 
benefits of its proposed and final rules, partly in accordance with 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, these calculations do not form the 
basis for the agency's regulatory decisions.

III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    The following discussion summarizes and explains the changes OSHA 
is proposing to the beryllium standards for construction and shipyards 
and the rationale for each proposed change.
    The 2017 final rule promulgated three standards designed to protect 
workers from the serious health effects caused by occupational exposure 
to beryllium and beryllium compounds (see 82 FR 2470 (Jan. 9, 2017)). 
The three standards, which cover general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024), 
construction (29 CFR 1926.1124), and shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1024), each 
contains a comprehensive set of protections, consisting of the exposure 
limits in paragraph (c) and a number of ancillary provisions, typical 
of OSHA health standards, in paragraphs (d) through (n) (see 82 FR at 
2476). The ancillary provisions encompass requirements for exposure 
assessment, competent person (construction) or regulated areas 
(shipyards), methods of compliance, respiratory protection, personal 
protective clothing and equipment, hygiene, housekeeping, medical 
surveillance and medical removal, communication of hazards, and 
recordkeeping (29 CFR 1915.1024(d)-(n); 29 CFR 1926.1124(d)-(n)).
    Since the publication of the 2017 final rule, OSHA has sought to 
revise the beryllium standards in a number of separate rulemakings. 
Those bearing on this proposal include: (1) The June 27, 2017, 
construction and shipyards proposal (82 FR at 29182); (2) the May 7, 
2018, general industry DFR (83 FR at 19936); and (3) the December 11, 
2018, general industry proposal (83 FR at 63746) (see Section I, 
Background, above for more details). In light of the comments OSHA 
received on these rulemakings, and other information the agency 
received following the publication of the 2017 final rule, OSHA is 
proposing revisions to several paragraphs of the beryllium standards 
for construction and shipyards.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that, taken together, the limited 
exposures in the construction and shipyards industries and the partial 
overlap between the beryllium standards and other OSHA standards make 
revisions to both the construction and shipyards beryllium standards 
appropriate. The rationales for these proposed revisions fall into 
three categories. First, OSHA is proposing to remove or modify some 
provisions which--although appropriate in the general industry 
context--may be unnecessary or require revision to appropriately 
protect employees in the construction and shipyards industries. As will 
be explained further below, operations with beryllium exposure in the 
construction and shipyards industries are significantly less varied and 
employees are exposed to materials with significantly lower content 
beryllium than in the general industry sector. In addition, employees 
in these industries receive the protections of several other OSHA 
standards, as the agency explained both in the June 27, 2017, 
construction and shipyards proposal and in the final rule published 
September 30, 2019.
    Second, OSHA is proposing to revise some provisions of the 
construction and shipyard standards to avoid inconsistencies with the 
clarifying changes the agency proposed in the December 11, 2018, 
general industry proposal. OSHA seeks to align these standards to the 
extent possible because the agency believes that, where there is no 
substantive difference among industries with respect to a particular 
provision, applying similar requirements across industries aids both 
compliance and enforcement.
    Conversely, applying different requirements to identical situations 
may lead to confusion. While most of the proposed changes in the 
December 2018 proposed rule were designed specifically for general 
industry, OSHA is proposing to align changes to paragraph (b), medical 
definitions; paragraph (k), medical surveillance; and paragraph (n), 
recordkeeping for workers' Social Security Numbers (SSNs) (83 FR at 
63746), because the rationale underlying these proposed changes applies 
equally in the construction and shipyards contexts.
    Third, OSHA is proposing to revise certain paragraphs of the 
construction and shipyard standards to address the application of 
provisions related to dermal contact to materials containing beryllium 
in trace quantities. In the general industry DFR, OSHA clarified that 
provisions triggered by dermal contact with beryllium or beryllium 
contamination would apply only for dust, fumes, mists, or solutions 
containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight (83 FR at 19939).
    OSHA's rationale regarding this final set of proposed changes dates 
back to the agency's August 7, 2015, beryllium NPRM (which led to the 
2017 final rule) (80 FR at 47565). Therein, OSHA proposed to exempt 
materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight on the premise 
that workers exposed only to beryllium as a trace contaminant are not 
exposed at levels of concern (80 FR at 47775). However, the agency 
noted evidence of high airborne exposures in construction and shipyard 
sectors, in particular during blasting operations and cleanup of spent 
media (80 FR at 47733). Therefore, OSHA proposed for comment several 
regulatory alternatives, including an alternative that would expand the 
scope of the proposed standard to also include all operations in 
general industry where beryllium exists only as a trace contaminant (80 
FR at 47730) and an alternative that would expand the scope to include 
employers in the shipyard and maritime sectors (80 FR at 47777).
    In the 2017 final rule, after considering stakeholders' comments, 
OSHA decided to apply the exemption for materials containing less than 
0.1% beryllium by weight only where the employer has objective data 
demonstrating that employee exposure to airborne beryllium will remain 
below the action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\, measured as an 8-hour TWA, 
under any foreseeable conditions (82 FR at 2643). OSHA noted that the 
action level exception ensured that workers with airborne exposures of 
concern were covered by the standard. OSHA agreed with the many 
commenters and hearing testimony expressing concern that hazardous 
exposures to beryllium can occur with materials containing trace

[[Page 53906]]

amounts of beryllium. While the agency acknowledged concerns expressed 
by ABMA and EEI that processing materials with trace amounts of 
beryllium may not necessarily produce significant exposures to 
beryllium, evidence in the record showed significant exposures in some 
operations using materials with trace amounts of beryllium. OSHA 
explicitly identified abrasive blasting as one such operation. The 
agency determined that preventing airborne exposures at or above the 
action level, even to trace amounts of beryllium, reduces the risk of 
beryllium-related health effects to workers (82 FR at 2643; see also 82 
FR at 2552).
    While adopting this limited exemption for trace materials, OSHA 
also adopted the regulatory alternative expanding the scope of the rule 
to include both construction and shipyards, but recognized that these 
sectors had limited operations that generated airborne exposures to 
beryllium of concern and issued separate standards for these sectors.
    Nonetheless, OSHA applied similar ancillary requirements across the 
general industry, construction, and shipyards beryllium standards. At 
the same time, the agency acknowledged that different approaches may be 
warranted for some provisions in construction and shipyards than for 
general industry due to the nature of the materials and work processes 
typically used in those industries (82 FR at 2690). Specifically, 
exposures to beryllium in construction and shipyards are limited to 
only a few operations, primarily abrasive blasting in construction and 
shipyards and some welding operations in shipyards (see Document ID 
2042, FEA Chapter III, pp. 103-11 and Table III-8e). While the 
extremely high airborne exposures during the blasting operation can 
expose workers to beryllium in excess of the PEL, the blasting 
materials contain only trace amounts of beryllium (materials such as 
coal slag normally contain approximately 11[micro]g/g or 0.0001 
percent) (Document ID 2042, Chapter IV, Technological Feasibility, 
Table IV.69).
    Furthermore, the rulemaking record contains evidence of beryllium 
exposure during only limited welding operations in shipyards (only 4 of 
127 sample results showed detectable levels of airborne beryllium) 
(Document ID 2042, Chapter IV, Technological Feasibility, p. IV-580).
    As the regulatory history above suggests, OSHA intended to protect 
employees working with trace beryllium when those employees experience 
significant airborne exposures. OSHA did not intend for provisions 
aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact to apply 
in the case of materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium in 
the absence of significant airborne beryllium exposure. For this 
reason, OSHA clarified in the general industry DFR that provisions 
triggered by dermal contact with beryllium or beryllium contamination 
would apply only for dust, fumes, mists, or solutions containing 
beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 
weight (83 FR at 19939). In construction and shipyards, where beryllium 
exposure occurs almost exclusively from materials that contain 
beryllium in concentrations less than or equal to 0.1 percent by 
weight, OSHA is now proposing to remove provisions triggered by dermal 
contact or beryllium contamination entirely.
    Additionally, although limited welding operations in shipyards may 
include base materials or fume containing more than 0.1 percent 
beryllium by weight, OSHA has reason to believe that skin or surface 
contamination is not an exposure source of concern in these operations. 
A 2007 study by Cole indicated that the beryllium content of beryllium-
aluminum alloy welding fume samples was lower than expected given the 
beryllium content of the base metal (see Document ID 0885, p. 685).\3\ 
OSHA therefore believes the amount of beryllium oxide to form on the 
surface of materials being welded in shipyards is likely far lower than 
would be expected based solely on the percentage of beryllium in the 
base metal. OSHA therefore expects that skin or surface contamination 
from beryllium dust, fumes, mists, or solutions in concentrations of 
0.1 percent by weight or more is unlikely to result from the welding 
operations for beryllium/aluminum alloys sometimes found in shipyards. 
While OSHA is proceeding on this assumption for purposes of this 
proposal, the agency specifically requests comments and data on the 
potential for skin and surface contamination from materials containing 
more than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight in shipyard welding 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The alloy examined by Cole et al. contained .0007 percent 
beryllium. As the study explained, ``[b]ecause of its higher 
reactivity, beryllium should readily oxidize and be present in the 
weld fume. However, all results from this filler alloy showed 
beryllium emissions of <0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ even though the 
concentration of particulate matter exceeded 600 mg/m\3\.'' Applying 
the 0.0007 percent beryllium content of the alloy to the 600 mg/m\3\ 
of the particulate generated yields an expected 4.2 [micro]g/m\3\ of 
beryllium in the welding fume, about thirty times the observed 
quantity of less than 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\. (Document ID 0855, pp. 684-
85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, OSHA is proposing a number of revisions to 
the beryllium standards for construction and shipyards. These revisions 
apply to the following: Paragraph (b), definitions; paragraph (f), 
methods of compliance; paragraph (g), respiratory protection; paragraph 
(h), personal protective equipment (PPE); paragraph (i), hygiene areas 
and practices; paragraph (j), housekeeping; paragraph (k), medical 
surveillance; paragraph (m), communication of hazards; and paragraph 
(n), recordkeeping. The remainder of this summary and explanation 
provides detail on these proposed changes, including the agency's 
reasoning for each.

Paragraph (b) Definitions

    Paragraph (b) of the beryllium standards for both construction and 
shipyards provides definitions of terms used in the beryllium 
regulatory text. OSHA is proposing to modify several existing 
definitions: CBD diagnostic center, chronic beryllium disease (CBD), 
and confirmed positive; to add a definition of beryllium sensitization; 
and to eliminate the definition of emergency. All proposed changes to 
paragraph (b) would apply to both the construction and shipyards 
standards.
    OSHA is proposing to modify the definitions of CBD diagnostic 
center, chronic beryllium disease (CBD), and confirmed positive and add 
a definition of beryllium sensitization to align with changes the 
agency has proposed to the beryllium standard for general industry. 
OSHA proposed these modifications for the general industry standard in 
December 2018 to clarify the meaning of the terms used in that standard 
(83 FR at 63747). OSHA provided a sixty-day comment period for the 
general industry proposal, which closed on Feb. 11, 2019. OSHA's 
rationale for including these definitions applies equally in the 
construction and shipyards contexts. Accordingly, OSHA will consider 
the comments that were submitted in response to the proposed changes to 
definitions in the general industry standard along with any comments 
received during this rulemaking on the proposed definitions in 
determining whether to finalize the proposed definitions in the 
construction and shipyards standards. The comments to the general 
industry proposal can be found in Docket OSHA-2018-0003 at http://regulations.gov.
    Beryllium sensitization. OSHA is proposing to add a definition for 
beryllium sensitization that encompasses the following concepts:

[[Page 53907]]

That beryllium sensitization is a response in the immune system of a 
specific individual who has been exposed to beryllium; that there are 
no associated physical or clinical symptoms and no illness or 
disability with beryllium sensitization alone, but the response that 
occurs through beryllium sensitization can enable the immune system to 
recognize and react to beryllium; and finally that while not every 
beryllium-sensitized person will develop CBD, beryllium sensitization 
is essential for development of CBD. The agency is proposing to add 
this definition in order to provide additional clarification of other 
provisions in the standard, such as the definitions of chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD) and confirmed positive and the provisions for 
medical surveillance (paragraph (k)) and hazard communication 
(paragraph (m)). This proposed revision is identical to the change 
proposed in the December 2018 general industry proposal and serves the 
same purpose (see 83 FR at 63747). The proposed addition of a 
definition for beryllium sensitization would not change employer 
obligations under paragraphs (k) and (m) and would not affect employee 
protections.
    As OSHA determined in the 2017 final rule, after an individual has 
been sensitized, subsequent beryllium exposures via inhalation can 
progress to serious lung disease through the formation of granulomas 
and fibrosis (82 FR at 2491-98). Since the pathogenesis of CBD involves 
a beryllium-specific, cell-mediated immune response, CBD cannot occur 
in the absence of sensitization (NAS, 2008, Document ID 1355). 
Therefore, the proposed definition explaining that beryllium 
sensitization is essential for development of CBD is consistent with 
the agency's findings in the final rule.
    In response to the December 2018 general industry proposal, several 
commenters expressed support for OSHA's inclusion of a definition of 
beryllium sensitization in the beryllium general industry standard, 
including National Jewish Health (NJH) (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-
0022, p. 2), the United Steelworkers (USW) (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-
0033, p. 1), Materion (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0038, p.8), the US 
Department of Defense (DoD) (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0029, p.1), and 
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0031, p. 
2). Two commenters agreed with OSHA's proposed definition with no 
changes (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0033, p. 1; 0038, p. 2).
    While OSHA received no objections to including a definition of 
beryllium sensitization in the beryllium standard for general industry, 
The National Supplemental Screening Program (NSSP), a U.S. Department 
of Energy Former Worker Medical Screening Program and NJH recommended 
alternative text for the definitions (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0027 
p. 1; 0022, p. 2; see also Document ID 0364, pp. 1, 44). Other 
commenters had concerns about specific statements in the definition 
(Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0033, p. 1; 0027, p.1). As stated above, 
OSHA will consider these comments along with any comments submitted 
during this rulemaking in determining whether to finalize the proposed 
definition in the construction and shipyards standards.
    CBD diagnostic center. OSHA is proposing to amend the definition of 
CBD diagnostic center to clarify certain requirements used to qualify 
an existing medical facility as a CBD diagnostic center. The proposed 
clarification would not change the employer requirement to offer a 
follow-up examination at a CBD diagnostic center to employees meeting 
the criteria set forth in paragraph (k)(2)(ii). OSHA is proposing CBD 
diagnostic center to mean a medical diagnostic center that has a 
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on staff and on-site facilities 
to perform a clinical evaluation for the presence of CBD. The proposed 
definition also states that a CBD diagnostic center must have the 
capacity to perform pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the 
American Thoracic Society criteria), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. In the proposed definition, the CBD diagnostic 
center must also have the capacity to transfer BAL samples to a 
laboratory for appropriate diagnostic testing within 24 hours and the 
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist must be able to interpret the 
biopsy pathology and the BAL diagnostic test results.
    As discussed in the December 2018 general industry proposal (83 FR 
at 63747), the proposed definition includes the following changes to 
the current definition of CBD diagnostic center. First, the agency is 
proposing changing the language to reflect the agency's intent that 
pulmonologists or pulmonary specialists be on staff at a CBD diagnostic 
center. Whereas the current definition specifies only that a CBD 
diagnostic center must have a pulmonary specialist, OSHA is proposing 
to add the term ``pulmonologist'' to clarify that either type of 
specialist is qualified to perform a clinical evaluation for the 
presence of CBD. Additionally, the current definition states that a CBD 
diagnostic center has an on-site specialist. OSHA is proposing to 
change the language to state that a CBD diagnostic center must have a 
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on staff, rather than on site, to 
clarify that such specialists need not necessarily be on site at all 
times.
    An additional proposed change to CBD diagnostic center would 
clarify that the diagnostic center must have the capacity to do any of 
the listed tests that the examining physician may deem necessary. As 
currently written, the definition could be misinterpreted to mean that 
any clinical evaluation for CBD performed at a CBD diagnostic center 
must include pulmonary testing, bronchoalveolar lavage, and 
transbronchial biopsy. The agency's intent is not to dictate what tests 
a specialist should include, but to ensure that any facility has the 
capacity to perform any of these tests, which are commonly needed to 
diagnose CBD. Therefore, the agency is proposing to modify part of the 
current definition from ``[t]his evaluation must include pulmonary 
function testing . . .'' to ``[t]he CBD diagnostic center must have the 
capacity to perform pulmonary function testing. . . .'' These changes 
to the definition of CBD diagnostic center are clarifying in nature, 
and OSHA expects they would maintain safety and health protections for 
workers.
    OSHA received comments on this definition during the December 2018 
general industry rulemaking. Materion submitted comments supporting 
OSHA's intent to specify the required capacities of a CBD diagnostic 
center, rather than the contents of a CBD evaluation, in the definition 
of CBD diagnostic center (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0038, pp. 16-17). 
NJH expressed concern that this change to the definition may indicate 
that the clinical evaluation for CBD need not include certain aspects 
of a CBD evaluation, which NJH, the Association of Occupational and 
Environmental Clinics (AOEC), and the ATS recommend should typically 
include full pulmonary function testing (lung volumes, spirometry, and 
diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide), chest imaging, and 
cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and may also include bronchoscopy in 
some cases (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0022, p. 3; 0028, p. 2; 0021, 
pp. 1-2). OSHA will consider these comments, along with any comments 
submitted during this rulemaking, in developing the final beryllium 
standards for construction and shipyards.
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD). For the purposes of this standard, 
the agency is proposing chronic beryllium

[[Page 53908]]

disease to mean a chronic granulomatous lung disease caused by 
inhalation of airborne beryllium by an individual who is beryllium-
sensitized. The proposed definition includes several changes to the 
current definition of chronic beryllium disease.
    First, OSHA proposes to add the term ``granulomatous'' to the 
phrase ``lung disease'' to better distinguish CBD from other 
occupationally associated chronic pulmonary diseases of inflammatory 
origin. A granulomatous lung formation is a focal collection of 
inflammatory cells (e.g., T-cells) creating a nodule in the lung 
(Ohshimo et al., 2017, Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2171, p. 2). 
The formation of the type of lung granuloma specific to a beryllium 
immune response can only occur in those with CBD (82 FR at 2492-2502).
    An additional proposed clarification to the definition of chronic 
beryllium disease would change ``associated with airborne exposure to 
beryllium'' to ``caused by inhalation of airborne beryllium.'' This 
proposed change would be more consistent with the findings in the 2017 
final rule that indicate beryllium is the causative agent for CBD and 
that CBD only occurs after inhalation of beryllium (82 FR at 2513). A 
further proposed change includes the addition of ``by an individual who 
is beryllium sensitized.'' This proposed change would clarify OSHA's 
finding that beryllium sensitization is essential in the development of 
CBD (82 FR at 2492).
    In response to the December 2018 general industry proposal, NJH, 
USW, and Materion agreed with OSHA that the 2017 final standard's 
definition of chronic beryllium disease should be clarified (Document 
ID OSHA-2018-0003-0022, p. 2; 0033, p. 5; 0038, p. 17). However, some 
commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of chronic 
beryllium disease does not provide sufficient information to guide 
diagnosis of CBD, and specifically that OSHA's emphasis on the role of 
sensitization in the development of CBD may confuse diagnostic efforts 
(Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0021, pp. 4-5; 0023, p. 2). Other 
commenters suggested alternative language for the definition of CBD 
(OSHA-2018-0003-0027, pp. 3-4; 0022, p. 2). OSHA will consider these 
comments, along with any comments submitted during this rulemaking, in 
developing the final beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards.
    Confirmed positive. OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of 
confirmed positive to mean that an employee has had two abnormal BeLPT 
test results, an abnormal and a borderline test result, or three 
borderline test results obtained within the 30 day follow-up test 
period required after a first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result. 
It also means the result of a more reliable and accurate test 
indicating a person has been identified as having beryllium 
sensitization. The proposed definition includes several changes to the 
current definition of confirmed positive.
    First, OSHA is proposing to remove the phrase ``beryllium 
sensitization'' from the first part of the definition, which currently 
states that the person tested has beryllium sensitization, as indicated 
by two abnormal BeLPT test results, an abnormal and a borderline test 
result, or three borderline test results. The proposed change would 
emphasize OSHA's intent that confirmed positive should act as a trigger 
for continued medical monitoring and surveillance for the purposes of 
this standard and is not intended as a scientific or general-purpose 
definition of beryllium sensitization.
    The term confirmed positive originates from a study that described 
the findings from a large-scale interlaboratory testing scheme (Stange 
et al., 2004; Document ID 1402). Stange et al. demonstrated that when 
samples with abnormal findings from one lab were retested in a second 
lab, the reliability of the results increased. As OSHA discussed in the 
preamble to the 2017 final rule, individuals who are confirmed positive 
through two abnormal BeLPT test results, an abnormal and a borderline, 
or three borderlines may be at risk for developing CBD (82 FR at 2646). 
OSHA intends the term confirmed positive in the beryllium standards to 
identify those individuals who may be at risk for developing CBD and 
should therefore be offered continued medical surveillance, an 
evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, and medical removal protection, 
regardless of whether they might otherwise be identified as 
``sensitized.''
    The next proposed change to confirmed positive would include 
clarification that the findings of two abnormal, one abnormal and one 
borderline, or three borderline results need to occur within the 30-day 
follow-up test period required after a first abnormal or borderline 
BeLPT test result. After publication of the 2017 final rule, 
stakeholders suggested to OSHA that the definition of confirmed 
positive could be interpreted as meaning that findings of two abnormal, 
one abnormal and one borderline, or three borderline results over any 
time period, even as long as 10 years, would result in the employee 
being confirmed positive. This was not the agency's intent. Such a 
timeframe may lead to false positives and thereby not enhance employee 
protections. Therefore, OSHA is proposing a clarification that any 
combination of test results specified in the definition must result 
from the tests conducted in one 30-day cycle of testing, including the 
initial test and the retesting offered when an initial result is a 
single abnormal result or borderline, in order to be considered 
confirmed positive.
    As outlined in paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E), an employee must be offered 
a follow-up BeLPT within 30 days if the initial test result is anything 
other than normal, unless the employee has been confirmed positive 
(e.g., if the initial BeLPT was performed on a split sample and showed 
two abnormal results). Thus, for example, if an employee's initial test 
result is abnormal, and the result of the follow-up testing offered to 
confirm the initial test result is abnormal or borderline, the employee 
would be confirmed positive. But if the result of the follow-up testing 
offered to confirm the initial abnormal test result is normal, the 
employee would not be confirmed positive. The initial abnormal result 
and a single abnormal or borderline result obtained from the next 
required BeLPT for that employee (typically, two years later) would not 
identify that employee as confirmed positive under the proposed 
definition of that term. OSHA requests comments on the appropriateness 
of this proposed time period for obtaining BeLPT test samples that 
could be used to determine whether an employee is confirmed positive.
    Some commenters on the December 2018 general industry NPRM agreed 
with OSHA's proposed definition of confirmed positive (OSHA-2018-0003-
0033, p. 5; 0038, p. 17-19), while other commenters expressed concerns 
over several aspects of the definition. OSHA received comments on the 
removal of the term ``beryllium sensitized'' from the definition 
(Document ID OSHA-2018-000-0022; p. 4; 0021, p. 3; 0028, p. 2; 0027, p. 
3). OSHA also received several comments regarding OSHA's proposal to 
require that the test results specified in the agency's definition of 
confirmed positive must occur within a single testing cycle. These 
comments focused on several aspects of the proposed timing. First, many 
of the comments focused on the logistics of OSHA's proposed change 
(Document ID 0038, p. 17; 0022, p. 4; 0021, p. 4; 0024, p.1; 0033, p. 
5; 0027, p. 3). Secondly, stakeholders commented on the

[[Page 53909]]

appropriateness of limiting the use of the BeLPT from one test cycle in 
determining if a worker is confirmed positive (Document ID OSHA 2018-
0003-0022, p. 4; 0021, p. 4; 0023, p. 2; 0027, pp 2-3; and 0024, p. 1). 
OSHA will consider these comments, along with any comments submitted 
during this rulemaking, in developing the final beryllium standards for 
construction and shipyards.
    Finally, OSHA is proposing to remove the term emergency from 
paragraph (b) of the standards for construction and shipyards. As 
discussed later in this section, unlike general industry, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the construction and shipyards 
industries--where beryllium occurs primarily in trace quantities and 
exposure occurs during abrasive blasting and welding operations--do not 
have emergencies in which exposures to beryllium will differ from the 
normal conditions of work. Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that no requirements should be triggered for emergencies in 
construction and shipyards. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to remove 
references to emergencies in provisions such as medical surveillance 
and hazard communication (see the summary and explanation of paragraphs 
(k) and (m)). Because OSHA is proposing to remove the term emergency 
from the standard, the definition is no longer needed. OSHA welcomes 
comment on the proposed removal of the definition of emergency from the 
beryllium standards for construction and shipyards.

Paragraph (f) Methods of compliance

    Paragraph (f) of the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards, like the corresponding general industry provision (29 CFR 
1910.1024(f)), requires that employers implement methods for reducing 
employee exposure to beryllium through a detailed written exposure 
control plan, engineering and work practice controls, and a prohibition 
on rotating employees to achieve compliance with the PEL. In the 2017 
final rule, OSHA determined that written plans would ``be instrumental 
in ensuring that employers comprehensively and consistently protect 
their employees'' (82 FR at 2668). OSHA also concluded that requiring 
reliance on engineering and work practice controls is consistent with 
good industrial hygiene practice and with OSHA's traditional approach 
for health standards (82 FR at 2672).
    While extending these provisions to the construction and shipyards 
industry in the 2017 final rule, OSHA acknowledged that exposures to 
beryllium in these industries are limited to only a few operations; 
abrasive blasting in construction and shipyards and some welding 
operations in shipyards. With respect to abrasive blasting, while the 
extremely high airborne exposures during the blasting operation can 
expose workers to beryllium in excess of the PEL, the blasting 
materials contain only trace amounts of beryllium (materials such as 
coal slag normally contain approximately 11[micro]g/g or 0.0001%) 
(Document ID 2042, Chapter IV, Technological Feasibility, Table IV.69). 
Moreover, OSHA had evidence of beryllium exposure during only limited 
welding operations in shipyards (only 4 of 127 sample results showed 
detectable levels of airborne beryllium) (Document ID 2042, Chapter IV, 
Technological Feasibility, p. IV-580). Nonetheless, OSHA applied the 
same requirements to these industries as to general industry, where the 
operations with beryllium exposure are significantly more varied and 
employees are exposed to materials with significantly higher beryllium 
content.
    OSHA is proposing to revise the requirements in paragraph (f) in 
light of the very narrow set of affected operations and the limited 
extent of beryllium exposure in the construction and shipyards 
industries. OSHA believes that some provisions in paragraph (f)--
although appropriate in the general industry context--may be 
unnecessary to protect employees in the construction and shipyards 
industries. Likewise, as discussed in the introduction of the summary 
and explanation section, OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
provisions relating solely to dermal contact with beryllium should not 
apply in the construction and shipyards industries, where exposures 
involve materials containing or producing only trace amounts of 
beryllium (see the summary and explanation for paragraph (h), Personal 
Protective Clothing and Equipment). Accordingly, OSHA is proposing 
several revisions to both paragraph (f)(1) (Written exposure control 
plan) and (f)(2) (Engineering and work practice controls) in the 
construction and shipyards standards.

Paragraph (f)(1) Written Exposure Control Plan

    Paragraph (f)(1) in both the construction and shipyards standards 
requires employers to establish, implement, and maintain a written 
exposure control plan containing the following: (1) A list of 
operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve airborne 
exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A)); 
(2) A list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve 
airborne exposure at or above the action level (paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(B)); (3) A list of operations and job titles reasonably 
expected to involve airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL 
(paragraph (f)(1)(i)(C)); (4) Procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D)); (5) Procedures for minimizing 
the migration of beryllium within or to locations outside the workplace 
(paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E)); (6) A list of engineering controls, work 
practices, and respiratory protection required by paragraph (f)(2) of 
the standard (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F)); (7) A list of personal 
protective clothing and equipment required by paragraph (h) of the 
standard (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(G)); and (8) Procedures for removing, 
laundering, storing, cleaning, repairing, and disposing of beryllium-
contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment, including 
respirators (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H)). Written exposure control plans in 
construction additionally must contain procedures used to restrict 
access to work areas when airborne exposures are, or can reasonably be 
expected to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL, to minimize the number of 
employees exposed to airborne beryllium and their level of exposure, 
including exposures generated by other employers or sole proprietors 
(paragraph (f)(1)(i)(I)).
    OSHA is proposing several revisions to paragraph (f)(1). First, 
OSHA proposes to revise paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) by removing the words 
``airborne'' and ``or dermal contact with'' as qualifiers for exposure 
to beryllium. As revised, the provision would require simply a list of 
operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve exposure to 
beryllium, which would include abrasive blasting and welding operations 
where exposures at or above the action level are reasonably foreseeable 
based on objective data, in accordance with paragraph (a)(3), Scope. At 
the same time, OSHA is proposing to revoke paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B) and 
(C), which require additional lists of operations and job titles 
involving exposure above the action level and above the TWA PEL or 
STEL, respectively. Given the small number of operations with beryllium 
exposure in these industries, the operations and job titles in these 
categories would be largely the same as those for which exposure to 
beryllium is reasonably expected. OSHA therefore believes that it is 
sufficient that an

[[Page 53910]]

employer identify those operations and job titles that result in 
exposure to beryllium in any form and that fall within the scope of the 
standards, and that any additional lists would be unnecessary and 
redundant.
    OSHA is also proposing to revoke the requirements that the written 
exposure control plan must include procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D)) and procedures for minimizing 
the migration of beryllium within or to locations outside the workplace 
(paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E)). The purpose of these requirements was to 
ensure that workers not involved in beryllium-related operations would 
not be unintentionally exposed to beryllium in excess of the PELs. 
Instead, for the construction standard, OSHA is retaining the 
requirement for the written plan to include procedures to restrict 
access to work areas where exposures to beryllium could reasonably be 
expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL (renumbered as paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(D)), and the requirement that these procedures are to be 
implemented by a competent person (paragraph (e)(2)). For the shipyard 
standard, OSHA is retaining requirements for regulated areas (paragraph 
(e)), which require that employers designate areas where exposures to 
beryllium could exceed the PELs and limit access to authorized 
employees. In addition, OSHA is also proposing to add a new paragraph 
in both the construction ((f)(1)(i)(E)) and shipyards ((f)(1)(i)(D)) 
standards to require that the written exposure control plan include 
procedures used to ensure the integrity of each containment (such as 
tarps or structures used to keep sandblasting debris within an enclosed 
area) used to minimize exposures to employees outside the containment. 
The purpose of this proposed revision is to ensure that any containment 
used is not compromised such that employees outside of the containment 
are potentially exposed to beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or 
STEL. OSHA believes that these requirements will adequately ensure that 
workers not directly involved in beryllium-related work are not exposed 
to beryllium in excess of the TWA PEL or STEL.
    OSHA is further proposing to remove the requirement for written 
plans to contain procedures for removing, laundering, storing, 
cleaning, repairing, and disposing of beryllium-contaminated personal 
protective clothing and equipment, including respirators (paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(H)). As discussed below, OSHA is proposing to remove 
requirements in paragraph (h)(2) of the construction and shipyard 
standards that relate to removing, storing, maintaining, cleaning, and 
disposing of PPE (see the summary and explanation for paragraph (h), 
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment); therefore, OSHA believes 
that it is not necessary to include such procedures in the written 
plan.
    Paragraph (f) retains the requirements that the written exposure 
control plan include a list of engineering controls, work practices, 
and respiratory protection required by paragraph (f)(2) and a list of 
personal protective clothing and equipment required by paragraph (h), 
renumbered as paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B) and (C), respectively. Likewise, 
the standards retain paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), which provide the 
requirements for maintaining, reviewing, and evaluating the written 
exposure control plan and providing access to the plan to each employee 
who can reasonably be exposed to airborne beryllium. OSHA is proposing 
only one change in these requirements, to revise paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(B) to refer simply to ``exposure'' rather than ``airborne 
exposure to or dermal contact with.'' This change is consistent with 
other paragraphs where OSHA is proposing to simplify the language in a 
similar manner (e.g., paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A), Written exposure control 
plan; paragraphs (k)(3)(ii)(A) and (k)(4)(i), Medical surveillance).

Paragraph (f)(2) Engineering and Work Practice Controls

    Paragraph (f)(2) of the construction and shipyards standards lists 
the requirements for the use of engineering and work practice controls 
to reduce and maintain employee airborne exposure below the TWA PEL and 
STEL. Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires that, where exposures are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, at or above the action level, the 
employer must ensure that at least one of the following is in place to 
reduce airborne exposure: (1) Material and/or process substitution 
(paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A)); (2) isolation, such as ventilated partial or 
full enclosures (paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B)); (3) local exhaust 
ventilation, such as at the points of operation, material handling, and 
transfer (paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C)); or (4) process control, such as wet 
methods and automation (paragraph (f)(2)(i)(D)). Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) 
exempts an employer from this requirement to the extent that the 
employer can establish that the controls are infeasible or that 
airborne exposure is below the action level, using no fewer than two 
representative personal breathing zone samples taken at least 7 days 
apart, for each affected operation.
    If, after implementing the controls required by paragraph 
(f)(2)(i), airborne exposures still exceed the TWA PEL or STEL, 
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) requires the employer to implement additional or 
enhanced engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposure 
below these limits. Finally, if the employer demonstrates that it is 
not feasible to reduce exposures below the TWA PEL and STEL through 
engineering and work practice controls, paragraph (f)(2)(iv) requires 
the employer to implement controls to reduce exposure to the extent 
feasible and supplement the controls through the use of respirators in 
accordance with paragraph (g) of the standard.
    In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement to 
implement the controls currently listed in paragraph (f)(2)(i) where 
exposures are or can reasonably be expected to meet or exceed the 
action level. This requirement in the construction and shipyard 
standards was derived from the general industry standard, which 
requires that employers establish beryllium work areas where operations 
could release airborne beryllium and that employers implement at least 
one type of engineering control where exposures could reasonably be 
expected to exceed the action level within the work area. In 
reconsidering this requirement, OSHA believes that requiring 
implementation of engineering controls where exposures exceed the 
action level may not be reasonably appropriate for construction and 
shipyard operations. In the 2017 final rule, OSHA acknowledged that 
this approach to engineering and work practice controls was ``not 
typical for OSHA standards'' in that OSHA health standards usually 
require such controls to be implemented where exposures exceed the PEL 
(82 FR at 2673). Furthermore, OSHA's analysis of the technological 
feasibility of the PELs concluded that workers performing open-air 
blasting with mineral grit would ``routinely'' experience exposures in 
excess of the PEL even after implementing engineering controls, thus 
triggering requirements for respirator use (82 FR at 2584). Therefore, 
OSHA is proposing to rescind the requirement to trigger use of 
engineering and work practice controls by the action level.
    Paragraph (f)(2) continues to require employers to implement 
engineering or work practice controls if needed to reduce airborne 
exposures to or below the TWA PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2.0 
[mu]g/m\3\ unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are 
not feasible. Where it is not feasible to

[[Page 53911]]

implement engineering and work practice controls to comply with the 
exposure limits, paragraph (f)(2) requires the employer to implement 
and maintain engineering and work practice controls to reduce airborne 
exposure to the lowest levels feasible and supplement these controls by 
using respiratory protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of the 
proposed standard. These are the same requirements currently found in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (iv) of the standards. Accordingly, OSHA is 
proposing to condense the portions of paragraphs (f)(2)(i)-(iv) that it 
proposes to retain into a single paragraph (f)(2), which would not have 
any subparagraphs or items.
    The requirement to implement engineering and work practice controls 
is consistent with several other standards in both construction and 
shipyards that require the use of engineering controls to minimize 
toxic dust. For example, the ventilation standard in construction (29 
CFR 1926.57(f)(2)(ii)) requires ``[t]he concentration of respirable 
dust or fume in the breathing zone of the abrasive-blasting operator or 
any other worker'' to remain ``below the levels specified in Sec.  
1926.55.'' Similarly, the use of ventilation in shipyards is required 
under other OSHA standards such as the Ventilation standard for 
abrasive blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)), which also applies to abrasive 
blasting in shipyards.
    The reliance of proposed paragraph (f)(2) on the hierarchy of 
controls likewise reflects OSHA's approach in other standards covering 
welding in shipyards. For example, 29 CFR 1915.51 requires that 
ventilation be used to keep welding fumes and smoke within safe limits, 
and 29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv) specifically covers welding involving 
beryllium, and states that ``[b]ecause of its high toxicity, work 
involving beryllium shall be done with both local exhaust ventilation 
and air line respirators.''
    In response to the 2017 proposal to rescind the ancillary 
provisions of the construction and shipyard standards, OSHA received 
comments from AFL-CIO on the importance of maintaining the hierarchy of 
controls and that primary reliance on PPE absent a specific requirement 
would not address bystander exposure to beryllium (Document ID 2140, p. 
8). AFL-CIO also pointed out that the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) stresses the importance of 
reducing exposures to carcinogens first through engineering controls 
(including elimination and substitution) and work practices prior to 
the use of respirators in a recently updated chemical carcinogen policy 
(Document ID 2140, p. 8). OSHA agrees with AFL-CIO that it is important 
that the hierarchy of controls be followed to ensure that exposures are 
minimized, not only to abrasive blasting operators and welders, but 
also to bystanders or other workers nearby. Therefore, to ensure that 
employers apply the hierarchy principle to reduce exposures to or below 
the PELs for beryllium, and to ensure that all potentially affected 
workers are appropriately so protected, OSHA is proposing to retain a 
specific requirement for construction and shipyard employers to 
implement engineering and work practice controls to achieve compliance 
with the PEL and STEL, as OSHA has required in all of its other health 
standards.
    OSHA notes this proposal retains, without revision, paragraph 
(f)(3) of both the construction and shipyards standards, which 
prohibits employers from rotating employees to different jobs in order 
to achieve compliance with the PELs. OSHA continues to believe, as it 
found in the 2017 final rule, that it is important to prohibit this 
practice to ensure that employers do not expose more people than 
necessary to the hazards of beryllium solely to achieve the PEL instead 
of using engineering controls or work practices to reduce exposures (82 
FR at 2675).

Paragraph (g) Respiratory Protection

    Paragraph (g) in the beryllium standards for both construction and 
shipyards, like the corresponding general industry standard, requires 
the provision and use of respiratory protection from exposures to 
beryllium under specific conditions. Paragraph (g) also provides that 
required respiratory protection must be selected and used in accordance 
with OSHA's general Respiratory Protection standard at 29 CFR 1910.134. 
Finally, paragraph (g) requires employers to provide a powered air-
purifying respirator (PAPR) when an employee entitled to a respirator 
under the beryllium standard requests one, as long as the PAPR provides 
adequate protection.
    Paragraph (g)(1) requires employers to provide respiratory 
protection at no cost to employees and ensure that employees utilize 
such protection in five circumstances: (i) During periods necessary to 
install or implement feasible engineering and work practice controls 
where airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to 
exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL (paragraph (g)(1)(i)); (ii) during 
operations, including maintenance and repair activities and non-routine 
tasks, when engineering and work practice controls are not feasible and 
airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the 
TWA PEL or STEL (paragraph (g)(1)(ii)); (iii) during operations for 
which an employer has implemented all feasible engineering and work 
practice controls when such controls are not sufficient to reduce 
airborne exposure to or below the TWA PEL or STEL (paragraph 
(g)(1)(iii)); (iv) during emergencies (paragraph (g)(1)(iv)); and (v) 
when an employee who is eligible for medical removal under the standard 
chooses to remain in a job with airborne exposure at or above the 
action level (paragraph (g)(1)(v)).
    In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph 
(g)(1)(iv), which requires the use of respiratory protection during 
emergencies.\4\ OSHA has preliminarily determined that this amendment 
is justified because other respiratory protection requirements make it 
likely that construction and shipyard workers will be using respiratory 
protection during normal tasks or activities (i.e., prior to any 
emergency), and thus provide adequate protections in the absence of the 
paragraph addressing respiratory protection in emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As a result, OSHA is also proposing to renumber paragraph 
(g)(1)(v) as (g)(1)(iv) in both standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An emergency is currently defined in paragraph (b) of both the 
construction and shipyards standards as ``any uncontrolled release of 
airborne beryllium.'' As explained above in the summary and explanation 
of paragraph (b), OSHA is proposing to remove this definition entirely 
from the construction and shipyards standards because the agency 
expects that, in these industries, an uncontrolled release of airborne 
beryllium (such as a release resulting from a failure of the blasting 
control equipment or a spill of the abrasive blasting media) would 
occur only during the performance of routine tasks already associated 
with the airborne release of beryllium--i.e., during abrasive blasting 
or welding processes. During these processes, OSHA anticipates that 
employees working in the immediate vicinity of an uncontrolled release 
of airborne beryllium would already be using respiratory protection 
required by paragraph (g) of the standards (because, for example, 
controls are not sufficient to reduce airborne exposure to or below the 
TWA PEL or STEL (paragraph (g)(1)(iii))).
    Although OSHA is not proposing to remove any of the other 
respiratory

[[Page 53912]]

protection requirements in paragraph (g), the agency recognizes that 
other provisions in the beryllium standards and in other OSHA standards 
may address respiratory protection in the construction and shipyards 
sectors. For example, current paragraph (j)(2)(iv) in the beryllium 
standards for construction and shipyards, renumbered as paragraph 
(j)(1)(iii) in this proposal, requires respirators where employees use 
dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air to clean. Other potentially 
applicable standards in construction include the Ventilation standard 
(29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)), the Personal Protective and Life Saving 
Equipment standard (29 CFR 1926.95), and the general Respiratory 
Protection standards (29 CFR 1910.134, 1926.103). In shipyards, other 
standards addressing respiratory protection include the Mechanical 
Paint Removers standard (29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3)), the Confined and 
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment 
standards (29 CFR 1915.12(c)(4)(ii)), the Welding, Cutting, and Heating 
standards for shipyards (29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv)), as well as the 
general Respiratory Protection standards (29 CFR 1910.134, 1915.154).
    In response to the 2017 NPRM, some commenters expressed concern 
about the degree of protection afforded by other OSHA standards 
(Document ID 2135, p. 7; 2118, p. 5). For example, NABTU ``strongly 
disagree[d]'' with the notion that baseline usage of respirators and 
PPE ``is far higher in construction and shipyards'' than it is in other 
sectors (Document ID 2135, p. 7). Likewise, BHSC questioned the degree 
of protection afforded by the other OSHA standards to workers near 
abrasive blasting operations, stating that the estimated 100 percent 
PPE use for those workers ``does not have supporting evidence of 
consistent and standard use across pot tenders and cleanup activities 
supporting abrasive blasting'' (Document ID 2118, p. 5).
    OSHA requests comments both on its proposal to delete paragraph 
(g)(1)(iv) and on whether it is necessary to maintain the other general 
provisions for respiratory protections in the beryllium standards in 
light of protections afforded by other OSHA standards.

Paragraph (h) Personal Protective Equipment

    Paragraph (h) of the beryllium standards for the construction and 
shipyards industries (29 CFR 1926.1124(h) and 1915.1024(h), 
respectively) requires employers to provide and ensure the use of 
personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE) where employees have 
actual or reasonably expected dermal exposure or high levels of 
airborne exposure to beryllium, and also contains provisions pertaining 
to the removal, storage, cleaning, and replacement of the PPE. To 
comply with paragraph (h), employers are expected to choose the 
appropriate type of PPE for their employees based on the results of the 
employer's hazard assessment (82 FR at 2682).
    Specifically, paragraph (h)(1) requires employers to provide and 
ensure that each employee uses appropriate PPE in accordance with the 
written exposure control plan and OSHA's general PPE standards for the 
construction and shipyards industries (29 CFR part 1926, subpart E, and 
part 1915, subpart I), in two situations: (1) Where airborne exposure 
exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL 
(paragraph (h)(1)(i)), and (2) where there is a reasonable expectation 
of dermal contact with beryllium (paragraph (h)(1)(ii)).
    Paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of the construction and shipyards 
beryllium standards provide requirements for removal, storage, 
cleaning, and replacement of the PPE required by paragraph (h)(1). 
Paragraph (h)(2)(i) requires employers to ensure that each employee 
removes all beryllium-contaminated PPE at the end of the work shift, at 
the completion of tasks involving beryllium, or when PPE becomes 
visibly contaminated with beryllium, whichever comes first. Paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii) requires employees to remove PPE consistent with the written 
exposure control plan required by paragraph (f)(1), and paragraph 
(h)(2)(iii) requires employers to ensure both that protective clothing 
is kept separate from employees' street clothing, and that storage 
facilities prevent cross-contamination as specified in the written 
exposure control plan. Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) requires employers to 
ensure that beryllium-contaminated PPE is only removed from the 
workplace by employees who are authorized to do so for the purpose of 
laundering, cleaning, maintaining, or disposing of such PPE, and 
paragraph (h)(2)(v) requires that PPE removed from the workplace for 
laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal be placed in closed, 
impermeable, and appropriately labeled bags or containers.
    Paragraph (h)(3) of the standards establishes several requirements 
with respect to cleaning and replacement of PPE. Paragraph (h)(3)(i) 
requires employers to ensure that all reusable PPE is appropriately 
cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as needed to maintain its 
effectiveness, while paragraph (h)(3)(ii) mandates that employers 
ensure that beryllium is not removed from PPE by blowing, shaking or 
any other means that disperses beryllium into the air. Paragraph 
(h)(3)(iii) requires employers to inform in writing the persons or the 
business entities who launder, clean, or repair the PPE used to comply 
with paragraph (h) of the potentially harmful effects of airborne 
exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium, and that the PPE must be 
must be handled in accordance with the beryllium standard.
    In the 2017 NPRM, OSHA identified several other OSHA standards that 
require employees engaged in abrasive blasting operations (in 
construction and shipyards) and welding operations (in shipyards) to 
use PPE during their work. Additionally, subsequent to the 2017 final 
rule, OSHA clarified in the general industry DFR that the agency only 
intended to regulate contact with trace beryllium to the extent that it 
caused airborne exposures of concern. OSHA never intended for 
provisions aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal 
contact to apply in the case of materials containing only trace amounts 
of beryllium absent significant airborne exposures (83 FR at 19938).
    In response to the 2017 proposal, commenters criticized OSHA's 
estimates regarding the existing use of PPE in the affected 
construction and shipyard operations. NABTU ``strongly disagree[d]'' 
with OSHA's statement in the 2017 NPRM (82 FR at 29216) that 
``[b]aseline usage of respirator and PPE is far higher in construction 
and shipyards'' than in general industry (Document ID 2135, p. 7). 
Members of Congress commented that OSHA's preliminary estimate that all 
affected employees already use full PPE 100 percent of the time (see 82 
FR at 29197) did ``not appear to be supported by testimony from the 
hearing, which suggests that while the abrasive blasters may have 
protections, there is limited or no protection for many other workers, 
including bystanders, who are exposed to beryllium-containing dust 
under the pre-existing standards'' (Document ID 2135, p. 7). BHSC also 
expressed concern about the degree of protection afforded by the other 
OSHA standards to workers near abrasive blasting operations, stating 
that the estimated 100 percent PPE use for those workers ``does not 
have supporting evidence of consistent and standard use across pot 
tenders and cleanup activities supporting abrasive blasting'' (Document 
ID 2118, p. 5). Commenters

[[Page 53913]]

also noted that generalized PPE requirements do not always signal to 
employers and employees that PPE is needed to protect against beryllium 
(see, e.g., Document ID 2124, pp. 10-11; 2129, p. 7; 2129, pp. 9-10; 
2135, pp. 5-6).
    In light of these comments and its review of existing standards, 
OSHA determined in the rule finalizing the 2017 proposal (the final 
rule published September 30, 2019) that existing OSHA standards 
applicable to construction and shipyards do not provide complete 
overlap with the PPE provisions of the beryllium standards for 
construction and shipyards. Consistent with OSHA's usual approach to 
regulating employee exposure to other harmful substances (see, e.g., 52 
FR 46168, 46271-72 (Dec. 4, 1987) (discussing the PPE provisions in the 
formaldehyde standard)), OSHA expects a specific PPE requirement in the 
beryllium standards will provide a valuable supplement to the 
generally-applicable PPE standards by clearly explaining when PPE is 
necessary to protect employees from beryllium exposure. OSHA believes 
it is necessary to retain the provisions that are aimed at protecting 
employees who are exposed at airborne levels of concern from inhalation 
of re-entrained beryllium-containing dust, including the requirement to 
provide and use appropriate PPE when airborne exposure exceeds, or can 
be reasonably expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, as well as some 
requirements pertaining to removal, storage, cleaning, and replacement 
of PPE. As NABTU commented in response to the 2017 proposal, PPE 
requirements are necessary because they address the risk of exposure 
during the PPE removal process and the risk of additional inhalation 
exposure from accumulation on clothing, shoes, and equipment (Document 
ID 2129, p. 7 (citing 82 FR at 2678)).
    At the same time, in light of the clarifications in the DFR and 
other comments on the 2017 proposal, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that some revisions to paragraph (h) in the beryllium standards for the 
construction and shipyards industries are warranted. Accordingly, OSHA 
is proposing a number of changes to paragraph (h) of the construction 
and shipyards standards.
    First, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement to provide and 
ensure the use of PPE when there is reasonably expected dermal contact 
with beryllium (paragraph (h)(1)(ii)). OSHA clarified in the 2018 DFR 
for general industry that it did not intend to require employers who 
only work with materials containing trace amounts of beryllium to 
protect employees or other individuals against dermal contact with 
beryllium absent significant airborne exposures. As discussed above, in 
the construction and shipyards sectors, the operations that cause 
airborne exposure to beryllium that can exceed the TWA PEL or STEL are 
either blasting operations that involve materials or generate 
particulate matter containing less than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight 
or are welding operations in shipyards where there is minimal or no 
skin contamination. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to remove the 
requirement to provide and ensure the use of PPE when there is 
reasonably expected dermal contact with beryllium because it is not 
aware of any operations in the construction or shipyard sectors in 
which dermal contact with beryllium would occur at levels above trace 
amounts, making such a provision unnecessary.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As a result of the proposed elimination of paragraph 
(h)(1)(ii), OSHA is also proposing to collapse paragraph (h)(1)(i) 
into paragraph (h)(1), which would have no subparagraphs or items. 
Where airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to 
exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require 
employers to provide at no cost, and ensure that each employee uses, 
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance 
with the written exposure control plan required under paragraph 
(f)(1) of this standard and OSHA's Personal Protective and Life 
Saving Equipment standards for construction (29 CFR part 1926, 
subpart E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA proposes to modify the PPE removal and storage provisions of 
paragraph (h)(2). OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (h)(2)(i) by 
removing the requirement that PPE be removed when it becomes visibly 
contaminated with beryllium. OSHA is also proposing to revise (h)(2)(i) 
to remove the qualifier of ``beryllium-contaminated'' and add 
``required by this standard'' so that the provision would apply to all 
PPE required by the beryllium construction and shipyard standards. The 
2018 DFR modified the general industry beryllium standard to define 
contaminated with beryllium and beryllium-contaminated as 
``contaminated with dust, fumes, mists, or solutions containing 
beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 
weight'' (83 FR at 19939). As explained above, OSHA believes there are 
no operations covered by the construction or shipyard beryllium 
standards that would create such a beryllium-contaminated surface. In 
fact, the vast majority of the operations (abrasive blasting) involve 
beryllium in concentrations of less than 0.1 percent by weight. In 
blasting operations, the requirement to remove PPE visibly contaminated 
with beryllium would thus rarely, if ever, be triggered. Likewise, 
there would be no beryllium-contaminated PPE at any of these covered 
worksites. OSHA has preliminarily determined, however, that if workers 
are using PPE because they are working with trace amounts of beryllium 
but nevertheless have the potential for airborne exposure above the TWA 
PEL or STEL, they are likely in highly dusty environments and 
accumulating large amounts of dust on their PPE. OSHA therefore 
believes it is necessary to continue to require employees to remove 
their PPE at the end of the work shift or all tasks involving beryllium 
because otherwise, this highly dusty PPE could be re-entrained into the 
air and contribute to the airborne exposure of workers who already are, 
or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL.
    OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (h)(2)(ii) to ensure that PPE 
is not removed in a manner that disperses beryllium into the air. This 
can be accomplished by cleaning the PPE prior to removal or carefully 
removing the PPE so as not to disturb the dust. OSHA is proposing to 
remove the requirement for employers to ensure that employees remove 
PPE in accordance with the written exposure control plan because, as 
explained above in the summary and explanation of paragraph (f)(1), 
OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement in the written exposure 
control plan (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(H)) to include procedures for 
doffing, laundering, storing, cleaning, repairing, and disposing of 
beryllium-contaminated PPE, including respirators. This proposed 
language is similar to that in paragraph (h)(3)(ii), which addresses 
the cleaning of PPE rather than the removal of PPE.
    OSHA is proposing to remove paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (iv) from 
the construction and shipyard standards. Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) requires 
the employer to ensure that each employee stores and keeps beryllium-
contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment separate from 
street clothing and that storage facilities prevent cross-contamination 
as specified in the written exposure control plan required by paragraph 
(f)(1) of this standard. Paragraph (h)(2)(iv) requires employers to 
ensure that beryllium-contaminated PPE is only removed from the 
workplace by employees who are authorized to do so for the purpose of 
laundering, cleaning, maintaining, or disposing of such PPE. As 
explained in the 2018 general industry DFR, OSHA defined ``beryllium-
contaminated'' as

[[Page 53914]]

contaminated with dust, fumes, mists, or solutions containing beryllium 
in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight 
because the agency never intended for provisions aimed at protecting 
workers from the effects of dermal contact with beryllium to apply in 
the case of materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium. 
Because OSHA believes there are no operations covered by the 
construction or shipyard beryllium standards involving beryllium dust, 
fumes, mists, or solutions in more than trace amounts, the requirements 
pertaining to beryllium-contaminated PPE in the construction and 
shipyard standards would never be triggered and are unnecessary.
    With regard to the cleaning and replacement procedures in paragraph 
(h)(3) of the standards, OSHA is proposing to clarify that paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii) applies to PPE required by the beryllium standard. This 
proposed change would assure employers that if dust containing trace 
amounts of beryllium migrates to the PPE of employees who are not 
reasonably expected to have airborne exposure to beryllium above the 
TWA PEL or STEL, the beryllium standard allows the employer to provide 
employees the opportunity to clean their PPE in a manner that disperses 
that dust into the air. This proposed change is consistent with OSHA's 
goal of protecting employees who are already exposed at airborne levels 
of concern from inhalation of re-entrained beryllium-containing dust.
    OSHA is proposing to remove paragraphs (h)(2)(v) and (h)(3)(iii) 
from the standards. Paragraph (h)(2)(v) requires that PPE removed from 
the workplace for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal be 
placed in closed, impermeable bags or containers labeled in accordance 
with paragraph (m)(2) of the construction standard and paragraph (m)(3) 
of the shipyards standard, as well as the Hazard Communication 
standard. Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) requires employers to inform, in 
writing, any person or business entity who launders, cleans, or repairs 
PPE required by the standards of the potentially harmful effects of 
exposure to airborne beryllium and dermal contact with beryllium, and 
of the need to handle the PPE in accordance with the standards. These 
provisions are in place to protect individuals who later handle 
beryllium-contaminated items (82 FR at 2683). Because, as explained in 
the 2018 general industry DFR, OSHA never intended for provisions aimed 
at protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact with beryllium 
to apply in the case of materials containing only trace amounts of 
beryllium, OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is not necessary 
to protect downstream handlers of PPE that have only come in contact 
with dust containing beryllium in trace amounts. OSHA has no reason to 
expect these downstream handlers are engaging in tasks that generate 
airborne exposures of concern such that re-entrainment of the dust 
would exacerbate an already-significant lung burden. OSHA therefore 
proposes to remove these two paragraphs from the construction and 
shipyard beryllium standards.
    The agency welcomes comment on these proposed revisions to 
paragraph (h).

Paragraph (i) Hygiene Areas and Practices

    Paragraph (i) of the 2017 final rule established requirements for 
hygiene areas and practices in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024), 
construction (29 CFR 1926.1024), and shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1024). As 
promulgated, paragraph (i) requires employers in all three industries 
to: (1) Provide readily accessible washing facilities to remove 
beryllium from the hands, face, and neck (paragraph (i)(1)(i)); (2) 
ensure that employees who have dermal contact with beryllium wash any 
exposed skin (paragraph (i)(1)(ii)); (3) provide change rooms if 
employees are required to use personal protective clothing and are 
required to remove their personal clothing (paragraph (i)(2)); (4) 
ensure that employees take certain steps to minimize exposure in eating 
and drinking areas (paragraph (i)(3)); and (5) ensure that employees do 
not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in areas 
where there is a reasonable expectation of exposure above the TWA PEL 
or STEL (paragraph (i)(4)).
    While emphasizing the importance of hygiene areas and practices in 
the final rule, OSHA also acknowledged that the sanitation standards in 
general industry (29 CFR 1910.41), construction (29 CFR 1926.51), and 
shipyards (29 CFR 1915.88) include provisions similar to some of those 
in the beryllium standards. For example, the sanitation standards 
include hygiene provisions requiring the employer to provide change 
rooms with separate storage facilities for protective clothing whenever 
employees are required by an OSHA standard to wear protective clothing. 
The sanitation standards also require employers to provide wash 
facilities and prohibits storage or consumption of food or beverages in 
any area where employees are exposed to a toxic material (82 FR at 
2684). While extending these provisions to the construction and 
shipyards industry in the 2017 final rule, OSHA acknowledged that 
exposures to beryllium in these industries are limited to only a few 
operations. OSHA further acknowledged this overlap in the FEA for the 
2017 final rule, stating that employers of abrasive blasters exposed to 
beryllium in construction and shipyards are typically already required 
to provide readily accessible washing facilities to comply with other 
OSHA standards (see 82 FR at 2609). Nonetheless, OSHA applied similar 
requirements to these industries as to general industry, where the 
operations with beryllium exposure are significantly more varied and 
employees are often exposed to materials with significantly higher 
beryllium content and where dermal contact can be of particular 
concern.
    After publishing the 2017 final rule, OSHA clarified in the general 
industry DFR that the agency only intended to regulate contact with 
trace beryllium to the extent that it causes airborne exposures of 
concern. OSHA did not intend for provisions aimed at protecting workers 
from the effects of dermal contact to apply in the case of materials 
containing only trace amounts of beryllium (83 FR at 19938). Unlike in 
general industry, where processes involving exposure to beryllium are 
varied and employees are exposed to a large variety of materials that 
can contain high concentrations of beryllium, exposures in the 
construction and shipyards industries are limited to abrasive blasting 
operations in construction and shipyards and a small number of welding 
operations in shipyards (Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter III, pp. 103-11 
and Table III-8e). While the extremely high airborne exposures during 
abrasive blasting operations can expose workers to beryllium in excess 
of the PEL, the blasting materials contain only trace amounts of 
beryllium (Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter IV, p. 612). Moreover, the 
record before the agency contains evidence of beryllium exposure during 
only limited welding operations in shipyards (Document ID 2042, FEA 
Chapter III, Table III-8e) and as discussed above, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that for these limited welding operations the 
exposure of concern is exposure to airborne beryllium and not dermal 
contact.
    Unlike the general industry standard, which triggers PPE as well as 
other provisions on both the PELs and the potential for dermal contact 
or beryllium-contaminated surfaces,

[[Page 53915]]

construction and shipyards activities under this standard do not have 
operations where skin contact is the exposure of concern. In light of 
the existing OSHA standards providing many of the same protections as 
the beryllium standards, the limited operations where beryllium 
exposure may occur in construction and shipyards, and the trace 
quantities of beryllium present in these operations, OSHA now believes 
that the requirements for hygiene areas and practices in the 2017 
beryllium standards for construction and shipyards may be unnecessary 
to protect employees in these industries. Accordingly, the agency is 
proposing to remove paragraph (i) from the construction and shipyard 
standards.
    In response to the 2017 NPRM proposing to revoke the ancillary 
provisions from the shipyards and construction standards, OSHA received 
only two comments that specifically addressed paragraph (i). One 
comment, from NABTU, expressed the need for hygiene requirements such 
as washing facilities, change rooms, and eating and drinking areas to 
prevent the spread of beryllium, noting that ``[w]hen beryllium-exposed 
workers are afforded washing and clean-up areas, all construction 
workers on the site are protected from exposure'' (Document ID 2129, p. 
7). On the other hand, the Abrasive Blasting Manufacturers Alliance 
(ABMA) identified a number of existing standards, including the 
sanitation standards, applicable to employees in construction and 
shipyards, and argued that these provisions provide adequate protection 
from exposure to beryllium. ABMA also indicated that hygiene practices 
are utilized during abrasive blasting regardless of the beryllium 
standard due to other substance-specific standards, such as lead, 
hexavalent chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, which require employees who 
are exposed to these materials through abrasive blasting to wash their 
hands and face. Though not a requirement, they also cite OSHA's 2006 
guidance on abrasive blasting for shipyards, which recommends good 
hygiene practices (Document ID 2142, pp. 9-10; 2124 attachment 1, p. 
6).
    OSHA agrees with both commenters: beryllium-exposed workers should 
have access to washing facilities, and existing standards require the 
use of washing facilities for those workers in construction and 
shipyards. In addition, the sanitation standard for construction (29 
CFR 1926.51(f)) requires employers to provide adequate washing 
facilities maintained in a sanitary condition for employees engaged in 
operations where contaminants may be harmful to the employees. It also 
requires that these washing facilities must be in proximity to the 
worksite and must be so equipped as to enable employees to remove such 
substances. Lavatories are also required at all places of employment 
and must be equipped with hot and cold running water, or tepid running 
water. Hand soap or similar cleansing agents must be provided along 
with hand towels, air blowers, or clean continuous cloth toweling, 
convenient to the lavatories.
    The sanitation standard for shipyards (29 CFR 1915.88(e)) similarly 
requires employers to provide handwashing facilities at or adjacent to 
each toilet facility. The criteria for these handwashing facilities are 
similar to the construction industry in that they must be equipped with 
hot and cold running water or tepid running water, soap, or skin 
cleansing agents capable of disinfection or neutralizing the 
contaminant, and drying materials and methods. This standard further 
requires the employer to inform each employee engaged in operations in 
which hazardous or toxic substances can be ingested or absorbed about 
the need for removing surface contaminants from their skin's surface by 
thoroughly washing their hands and face at the end of the work shift 
and prior to eating, drinking, or smoking (see 29 CFR 1915.88(e)(3)).
    Even though the sanitation standards do not specifically mention 
beryllium, the use of the terms harmful substances in the construction 
sanitation standard and hazardous or toxic substance in the shipyard 
sanitation standard encompass beryllium exposure where airborne 
exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL 
or STEL. With respect to abrasive blasting, the sanitation standards' 
washing facilities requirements are triggered by the use of blasting 
media; either due to contaminants in the blasting media (which may 
include beryllium, lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium, and arsenic) or 
contamination from the substrate or coatings on the substrate. 
Similarly, in the limited welding operations involving beryllium 
exposure, workers will likely be exposed to other hazardous chemicals 
(including hexavalent chromium, lead, and cadmium) (see https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/weldingcuttingbrazing/chemicals.html), triggering the 
requirements of the sanitation standards. Accordingly, the sanitation 
standards provide comparable protections to the washing facilities 
requirements that OSHA is proposing to remove from both the 
construction and shipyard standards (paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (ii)).
    OSHA is also proposing to remove the requirement for employers to 
provide change rooms where employees are required to remove their 
personal clothing (paragraph (i)(2)), because the sanitation standards 
already provide comparable protections. The sanitation standard for 
construction (29 CFR 1926.51(i)) requires employers to provide change 
rooms if a particular standard requires employees to wear protective 
clothing because of the possibility of contamination with toxic 
materials. The change rooms must be equipped with storage facilities 
for street clothes and separate storage facilities for the protective 
clothing shall be provided.
    Similarly, the sanitation standard for shipyards (Sec.  1915.88(g)) 
requires change rooms when the employer provides protective clothing to 
prevent employee exposure to hazardous or toxic substances. 
Furthermore, the employer must provide change rooms that provide 
privacy and storage facilities for street clothes, as well as separate 
storage facilities for protective clothing. Because these proposed 
beryllium standards would require PPE where exposures may exceed the 
TWA PEL or STEL, employers would be required to provide change rooms 
under the sanitation standards (if employees were required to remove 
their personal clothing),\6\ just as they would have been required by 
the beryllium standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Through interpretive guidance, OSHA has explained that the 
sanitation standards require the provision of change rooms only 
where employees must change their clothes (i.e., remove their street 
clothes) (see OSHA, Letter of Interpretation, Feb. 22 1996, 
available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-02-22-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is further proposing to remove paragraph (i)(3), which 
establishes provisions for eating and drinking areas, from the 
construction and shipyard standards. The provisions in the sanitation 
standards for construction (Sec.  1926.51(g)) and shipyards (Sec.  
1915.88(h)) already require employers to ensure that food, beverages, 
and tobacco products are not consumed or stored in any area where 
employees may be exposed to hazardous or toxic materials.
    OSHA is also proposing to remove paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of 
the construction and shipyards standards, which require that surfaces 
in eating and drinking areas be kept as free as practicable of 
beryllium (paragraph (i)(3)(i)) and that employees remove or clean 
contaminated clothing prior to entering these areas (paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii)). These provisions relate to

[[Page 53916]]

minimizing dermal contact. However, as explained above, OSHA intends 
that provisions meant to reduce dermal contact should typically be 
applied to materials containing trace amounts of beryllium only where 
there is also the potential for significant airborne exposure. OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the processes in construction and 
shipyards creating exposure to beryllium are either processes that 
involve materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight or 
processes that do not produce surface or skin contamination.
    OSHA further believes that other parts of the beryllium standard 
will reduce the potential for airborne beryllium in eating and drinking 
areas. For example, when employees are cleaning up dust resulting from 
operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause airborne 
exposures over the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer must ensure the use of 
methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure. 
And under proposed paragraph (h)(2)(ii), employers must ensure that PPE 
required by the standard is not removed in a manner that disperses 
beryllium into the air. Given that construction and shipyard operations 
primarily involve only trace amounts of beryllium, and other provisions 
of the beryllium standard such as engineering controls and housekeeping 
requirements serve to minimize airborne exposures, OSHA believes that 
existing standards adequately protect employees in eating and drinking 
areas.
    OSHA is also proposing to remove the reference in paragraph 
(i)(3)(iii) requiring that eating and drinking facilities provided by 
the employer must be in accordance with the sanitation standards. OSHA 
does not believe it is necessary to maintain this reference, as this 
would be the only requirement remaining in paragraph (i) and employers 
are required to comply with the sanitation standards regardless.
    Finally, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (i)(4), concerning 
prohibited activities, which requires the employer to ensure that no 
employees eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in 
work areas where there is a reasonable expectation of exposure above 
the TWA PEL or STEL. The sanitation standards prohibit consuming food 
or beverages in areas exposed to toxic material and therefore provides 
the appropriate protections for areas where exposures are above the 
PEL. The sanitation standards are substantially similar to paragraph 
(i)(4) and provide appropriate protections for areas where exposures 
are above the PEL.
    In summary, for the reasons discussed above, OSHA is proposing to 
remove paragraph (i), hygiene areas and practices, from the beryllium 
standards for construction and shipyards. OSHA requests comment on the 
proposed removal of paragraph (i). OSHA particularly welcomes comments 
and data on the use of wash facilities and changes rooms in 
construction and shipyards for operations that would be covered by the 
beryllium standards.

Paragraph (j) Housekeeping

    The 2017 final beryllium rule includes provisions for housekeeping. 
It requires employers in both construction and shipyards to follow the 
cleaning procedures in their written exposure control plan, clean up 
spills and emergency releases promptly, use appropriate cleaning 
methods, and provide recipients of beryllium containing materials for 
disposal with a copy of the warnings described in paragraph (m) (82 FR 
at 2688). In the preamble to the 2017 final rule, OSHA indicated that 
these provisions are important because they minimize sources of 
exposure to beryllium that engineering controls do not completely 
eliminate. Good housekeeping measures are a cost-effective way to 
control worker exposures by removing settled beryllium that could 
otherwise become re-entrained into the surrounding atmosphere by 
physical disturbances or air currents and could enter an employee's 
breathing zone and increase potential dermal contact (82 FR at 2689).
    OSHA also acknowledged that different approaches may be warranted 
for the housekeeping provisions for construction and shipyards than for 
general industry due to the nature of the materials and work processes 
typically used in construction and shipyards (82 FR at 2690). As 
discussed previously with respect to paragraph (f), although OSHA 
extended these provisions to the construction and shipyards industry in 
the 2017 final rule, OSHA also recognized that beryllium exposure in 
these industries is mainly limited to abrasive blasting in construction 
and shipyards and a small number of welding operations in shipyards 
(Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter III, pp. 103-11 and Table III-8e). While 
the extremely high airborne exposures during abrasive blasting 
operations can expose workers to beryllium in excess of the PEL, the 
blasting materials contain only trace amounts of beryllium (Document ID 
2042, FEA Chapter IV, p. 612). Moreover, the record before the agency 
contains evidence of beryllium exposure during only limited welding 
operations in shipyards (Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter III, Table III-
8e). Nonetheless, OSHA applied most of the same requirements to these 
industries as to general industry,\7\ where the operations with 
beryllium exposure are significantly more varied and employees are 
exposed to materials with significantly higher content beryllium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Due to the transient nature of the work processes in 
construction and shipyards and the fact that most of the work occurs 
outside, OSHA decided not to require employers in these industries 
to maintain all surfaces as free as practicable of beryllium, as it 
had done in general industry. Rather, the agency required employers 
in these industries to follow their written exposure control plan 
when cleaning beryllium-contaminated areas (82 FR at 2690).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is reconsidering this approach in the construction and 
shipyards industries. In June 2017, OSHA proposed to rescind the 
ancillary provisions for the construction and shipyard beryllium 
standards, citing previously-existing OSHA standards that the agency 
surmised could duplicate some provisions of the 2017 standards. OSHA 
cited the construction ventilation standard, which requires that dust 
not be allowed to accumulate outside abrasive blasting enclosures and 
that spills be cleaned up promptly (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(7)). Likewise, 
certain provisions of OSHA's general ventilation standard for abrasive 
blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)) also apply to shipyards. Similar to the 
construction ventilation standard, the general ventilation standard 
contains the following requirements for abrasive blasting: ``[d]ust 
shall not be permitted to accumulate on the floor or on ledges outside 
of an abrasive-blasting enclosure, and dust spills shall be cleaned up 
promptly. . . .'' (29 CFR 1910.94(a)(7)).
    While some comments OSHA received on the proposed revocation of 
paragraph (j) supported revocation on the basis of overlapping and 
duplicative provisions (e.g., ABMA, Document ID 2142), several 
commenters argued that the 2017 provisions offer beryllium-exposed 
workers significant additional protection. For example, NABTU indicated 
that the ventilation standard does not prohibit dry sweeping or 
brushing, which are prohibited by the 2017 beryllium standards except 
in rare circumstances (Document ID 2129, p. 7). AFL-CIO similarly 
commented that the use of dry sweeping and compressed air increase 
exposures in workers' breathing zone, and should be prohibited 
(Document ID 2140, p. 8).
    In light of these comments and the agency's review of existing 
standards, OSHA acknowledged in the rule finalizing the 2017 proposal, 
published

[[Page 53917]]

on September 30, 2019, that existing standards do not duplicate all of 
the protections provided by paragraph (j). OSHA believes that some of 
these beryllium-specific provisions remain necessary to protect workers 
in the construction and shipyards industries. At the same time, given 
the very narrow set of affected operations and the existence of some 
overlap between the 2017 standards and already-existing rules, OSHA 
also believes that some provisions in paragraph (j)--although 
appropriate in the general industry context--may be unnecessary to 
protect employees in the construction and shipyards industries.
    Moreover, as discussed above in the Introduction, after publishing 
the 2017 final rule, OSHA clarified in the general industry DFR that 
the agency only intended to regulate contact with trace beryllium to 
the extent that it caused airborne exposures of concern. OSHA never 
intended for provisions aimed at protecting workers from the effects of 
dermal contact to apply in the case of materials containing only trace 
amounts of beryllium (83 FR at 19938). OSHA also discusses in the 
Introduction that the agency has preliminarily determined that the 
limited welding processes in shipyards create only a trace amount of 
surface contamination. Because exposures in the construction and 
shipyards industries are limited almost entirely to abrasive blasting 
with materials containing trace amounts of beryllium or welding on 
materials where surface contamination is not a source of exposure, OSHA 
believes additional revisions to paragraph (j) may be warranted. For 
these reasons, OSHA is proposing several revisions to paragraph (j) in 
both the construction and shipyards standards.
    First, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (j)(1) (general 
requirements for housekeeping) from the construction and shipyards 
standards. This provision currently requires employers to follow the 
written exposure control plan when cleaning beryllium-contaminated 
areas (paragraph (j)(1)(1)) and to ensure that spills and emergency 
releases of beryllium are cleaned up promptly (paragraph (j)(1)(2)). As 
discussed above, the ventilation standard for construction (29 CFR 
1926.57(f)(7)) and OSHA's general ventilation standard (29 CFR 
1910.94(a)) require prompt cleanup of spills during abrasive blasting 
in construction and shipyards, the primary sources of beryllium 
exposure in these industries. OSHA believes that routine general 
housekeeping and housekeeping related to spills are adequately covered 
by the existing ventilation standards in these sectors, and is 
proposing to eliminate paragraph (j)(1) of the final standards. 
Additionally, because the housekeeping provisions are triggered by only 
one operation (abrasive blasting) in construction and shipyards, this 
operation uses materials with only trace quantities of beryllium, and 
the main objective of these provisions is to minimize airborne 
exposure, OSHA has preliminarily determined that a unique written plan 
for how to clean is unnecessary in this context. OSHA notes that this 
is in contrast to general industry, where there is the concern for 
protecting from both dermal contact and airborne exposures over a 
variety of materials and processes and where employers may need to have 
more complicated or unique cleaning procedures to adequately protect 
workers.
    With respect to cleaning methods currently required by paragraph 
(j)(2), OSHA agrees with comments submitted by NABTU and AFL-CIO in 
response to the 2017 NPRM that the cleaning provisions in existing 
ventilation standards (29 CFR 1926.57(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.94(a)) do 
not provide the additional protections of prohibiting methods of 
cleaning that are likely to increase exposure in the breathing zone of 
the workers. Therefore, OSHA is retaining the existing requirements in 
the following paragraphs, renumbered in this proposal: Paragraph 
(j)(1), with revision (requiring the use of cleaning methods that 
minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure); (j)(2) 
(prohibiting dry sweeping or brushing unless other methods are not safe 
or effective); (j)(3), with revision (limiting the use of compressed 
air for cleaning); (j)(4), with revision (requiring respirator use and 
PPE where employees use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air to 
clean); and (j)(5) (requiring cleaning equipment to be handled and 
maintained so as to reduce airborne exposure and re-entrainment of 
airborne beryllium). Specific proposed revisions to these paragraphs 
are discussed below.
    First, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (j)(2)(i), renumbered 
as paragraph (j)(1), to remove the reference to ``HEPA filtered 
vacuuming.'' In the unique context of abrasive blasting, where 
operations produce copious amounts of dust, the use of HEPA vacuums may 
be problematic due to filter overload and clogging which in fact may 
cause additional exposures. This, too, is in contrast to general 
industry, where the content and amount of beryllium-containing dust or 
debris are varied and where HEPA filters can minimize the amount of 
beryllium that is re-entrained into the air.
    Next, OSHA is proposing to revise both paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and 
(ii)--renumbered as paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), respectively--to remove 
the phrase ``beryllium-contaminated areas.'' Proposed paragraph (j)(1) 
would now require the use of methods that minimize the likelihood and 
level of airborne exposure when cleaning up dust resulting from 
operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne 
exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL. Similarly, proposed paragraph 
(j)(2) would prohibit dry sweeping or brushing for cleaning dust 
resulting from operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to 
cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL, unless methods that 
minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure are not safe and 
effective.
    OSHA intends for these provisions to still apply where workers are 
either working in regulated areas in shipyards or in areas with 
exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL in construction. In the 2018 DFR, 
OSHA modified the general industry beryllium standard to define 
``contaminated with beryllium'' and ``beryllium-contaminated'' as 
contaminated with dust, fumes, mists, or solutions containing beryllium 
in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (83 FR 
at 19939-40). As explained above, OSHA believes there are no operations 
covered by the construction or shipyard beryllium standards that would 
create such a beryllium-contaminated surface. In fact, the vast 
majority of the operations (abrasive blasting) involve beryllium in 
concentrations of less than 0.1 percent by weight. If OSHA maintained 
the term ``beryllium-contaminated,'' the requirements for when and how 
employers can use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air would 
rarely, if ever, be triggered and workers already exposed could have 
additional exposures.
    Accordingly, OSHA is instead proposing to trigger the requirements 
in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) on the presence of dust produced by 
operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne 
exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL to ensure that beryllium is not re-
entrained in areas where there are already high exposures. By 
referencing the presence of dust produced by these operations, rather 
than the operation itself, OSHA intends for these requirements to apply 
regardless of whether the operation is ongoing (i.e. whether abrasive 
blasting is taking place at the time of the cleaning).
    Similarly, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (j)(2)(iii), 
renumbered

[[Page 53918]]

as paragraph (j)(3), to remove the reference to ``beryllium-
contaminated areas'' and to prohibit the use of compressed air for 
cleaning where the use of compressed air causes, or can reasonably be 
expected to cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL. This is 
a change from the existing requirement, which prohibits the use of 
compressed air ``unless the compressed air is used in conjunction with 
a ventilation system designed to capture the particulates made airborne 
by the use of compressed air.'' This change limits when an employer can 
use compressed air for cleaning under these standards. In the 2017 
final rule, OSHA determined that the use of compressed air might 
occasionally be necessary in general industry (82 FR at 2693). 
Similarly, for construction and shipyards, OSHA intended to prohibit 
the use of compressed air during cleaning of beryllium contaminated 
areas or materials designated for recycling or disposal unless used in 
conjunction with a ventilation system. This is similar to other 
construction standards such as lead (29 CFR 1926.62) and silica (29 CFR 
1926.1153).
    However, OSHA has reconsidered whether the use of ventilation with 
compressed air is practical when cleaning areas with copious amounts of 
dust produced during abrasive blasting. Therefore, OSHA is proposing a 
practical measure for when the use of compressed air for cleaning is 
allowed. OSHA is proposing to limit the use of compressed air to 
circumstances in which there is a limited quantity of dust which, if 
re-entrained, would not result in exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL. 
OSHA requests comment on whether compressed air is used in construction 
for cleaning abrasive blasting areas and the feasibility or 
practicality of the use of ventilation systems under these conditions.
    The agency is next proposing to revise paragraph (j)(2)(iv), 
renumbered as paragraph (j)(4), to remove the phrase ``in beryllium-
contaminated areas,'' for the reasons already discussed. Because under 
this proposal, the rest of paragraph (j) would no longer reference 
beryllium-contaminated areas, OSHA is proposing to remove the reference 
from paragraph (j)(4) and to require the use of respiratory protection 
and PPE in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) whenever employees 
use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This proposal retains existing paragraph (j)(2)(v) without 
any changes, but renumbers it as paragraph (j)(5). Also, OSHA is 
proposing to remove the heading for ``Cleaning Methods'' and refer 
to these requirements only as ``Housekeeping,'' as is its usual 
treatment of such requirements in health standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (j)(3) of the 
standards, which requires that, when transferring beryllium-containing 
materials to another party for use or disposal, employers provide the 
recipient a copy of the warning label currently required by paragraph 
(m). As part of this proposal, OSHA is also proposing to remove the 
labeling requirement in paragraph (m). As noted above, all beryllium-
containing materials in the shipyard and construction industries 
contain or produce only trace amounts of beryllium. Accordingly, this 
proposed revision is consistent with OSHA's intention, explained in the 
May 2018 general industry DFR, that provisions aimed at protecting 
workers from the effects of dermal contact do not apply to materials 
containing only trace amounts of beryllium, such as abrasive blasting 
media, unless those workers are also exposed to airborne beryllium at 
or above the action level (83 FR at 19940). It also aligns with the 
housekeeping provisions of the general industry rule (as modified by 
the DFR), which do not require labeling for materials which contain 
only trace quantities of beryllium and are designated for disposal, 
recycling, or reuse.
    In response to the July 2017 NPRM, Materion commented that labeling 
requirements found in the Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 
1910.1200) are an appropriate standard to apply under these 
circumstances (Document ID 2145, p. 40). OSHA preliminarily agrees with 
Materion that the HCS requirements provide the appropriate information 
for spent abrasive blasting media containing only trace amounts of 
beryllium, where the material may be contaminated with several toxic 
chemicals such as hexavalent chromium or lead from the blasted 
substrate or coating on the substrate (see OSHA Fact Sheet, Protecting 
Workers from the Hazards of Abrasive Blasting Materials, available at 
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3697.pdf). OSHA is concerned that 
providing warnings specific to beryllium for materials that contain 
trace beryllium and where airborne exposures are not anticipated to be 
significant might overshadow or dilute other hazard warnings (e.g., 
lead). Therefore, OSHA is proposing to remove the specific labeling 
requirements for beryllium. However, OSHA continues to require that 
these materials be labeled according to the Hazard Communication 
standard and that, if appropriate, the hazards of beryllium must be 
addressed on the label and Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
    The agency welcomes comment on these proposed revisions to 
paragraph (j). In particular, OSHA is interested in methods employers 
are using to clean abrasive blasting areas and how they minimize 
workers' exposures.

Paragraph (k) Medical Surveillance

    The 2017 final beryllium rule includes provisions for medical 
surveillance. It requires employers in both construction and shipyards 
to offer eligible employees, at no cost to the employee, participation 
in the medical surveillance program. Paragraph (k) specifies 
requirements of the medical surveillance program, such as which 
employees are eligible for medical surveillance, as well as frequency 
and content of medical examinations.
    As explained in the 2017 final rule, the purposes of medical 
surveillance for beryllium are: (1) To identify beryllium-related 
adverse health effects so that appropriate intervention measures can be 
taken; (2) to determine if an employee has any condition that might 
make him or her more sensitive to beryllium exposure; and (3) to 
determine the employee's fitness to use personal protective equipment 
such as respirators (82 FR at 2696). The inclusion of medical 
surveillance in the beryllium standard for construction and shipyards 
is consistent with section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(7)), which requires that, where appropriate, medical 
surveillance programs be included in OSHA health standards to aid in 
determining whether the health of employees is adversely affected by 
exposure to the hazards addressed by the standard.
    In light of information the agency received following the 
publication of the 2017 final rule, including comments submitted in 
response to the 2017 NPRM and through the general industry rulemaking, 
OSHA is proposing several revisions to paragraph (k). First, OSHA is 
proposing to remove paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C), which requires employers to 
make medical surveillance required by this paragraph available to each 
employee who is exposed to beryllium during an emergency. As discussed 
previously in the summary and explanation for paragraph (g), OSHA is 
proposing to remove references to emergencies in the shipyards and 
construction standards because OSHA expects that any emergency in these 
industries (such as a release resulting from a failure of the blasting 
control equipment, a spill of the abrasive blasting media or the 
failure of the ventilation system during welding

[[Page 53919]]

operations in shipyards) would occur only during the performance of 
routine tasks already associated with the airborne release of 
beryllium; i.e., during the abrasive blasting or welding process (see 
the summary and explanation for paragraph (g)). Therefore, employees 
would already be protected from exposure in such circumstances. 
Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to remove emergencies as a trigger for 
all provisions of the construction and shipyards standards, including 
medical surveillance (paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C)).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Due to the proposed removal of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C), OSHA 
is also proposing to add the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph 
(k)(1)(i)(B) (following the semi-colon), remove a reference to 
paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C) from paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), and redesignate 
paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) as paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C). In addition, to 
correspond with that redesignation, OSHA is proposing to replace the 
reference to paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) with a 
reference to proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OSHA is proposing minor changes to paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(A), 
which currently requires the employer to ensure that the employee is 
offered a medical examination that includes a medical and work history, 
with emphasis on, among other things, past and present airborne 
exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium, and paragraph (k)(4)(i), 
which currently requires the employer to ensure that the examining 
physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) (and the 
agreed upon CBD diagnostic center, if an evaluation is required under 
paragraph (k)(7) of this standard) has certain information, including a 
description of the employee's former and current duties that relate to 
the employee's airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium, 
if known. Specifically, OSHA is proposing to clarify these provisions 
by replacing the phrase ``airborne exposure to and dermal contact with 
beryllium'' in these provisions with the simpler phrase ``exposure to 
beryllium.'' OSHA reasons that employees with beryllium exposure of any 
kind should have access to records of their exposure, and this 
information should also be made available to an examining PLHCP and CBD 
diagnostic center, if applicable. OSHA intends for this proposed change 
to alleviate any unnecessary confusion created by the use of the term 
``dermal contact,'' which is defined in the general industry standard, 
but not in the construction and shipyards standards.
    Third, OSHA is proposing two revisions to paragraph (k)(7)(i) of 
the construction and shipyards standards, which currently requires the 
employer to provide, at no cost to the employee, an evaluation at a CBD 
diagnostic center that is mutually agreed upon by the employee and 
employer within 30 days of the employer receiving one of the types of 
documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). These proposed 
changes are consistent with changes the agency proposed to paragraph 
(k)(7)(i) of the beryllium standard for general industry in December 
2018.
    The first change relates to a proposed change to the definition of 
the term CBD diagnostic center. As discussed in more detail above, the 
current definition of that term in the construction and shipyards 
standards requires that the evaluation at the CBD diagnostic center 
include a pulmonary function test as outlined by American Thoracic 
Society (ATS) criteria, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. OSHA proposes amending that definition to 
indicate that a CBD diagnostic center must be capable of performing 
those tests, but need not necessarily perform all the tests during all 
evaluations. OSHA intended for the employer to provide those tests if 
deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic 
center. Therefore, the agency proposes expanding paragraph (k)(7)(i) to 
require that the employer provide, at no cost to the employee and 
within a reasonable time after consultation with the CBD diagnostic 
center, any of the following tests if deemed appropriate by the 
examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center: A pulmonary function 
test as outlined by ATS criteria; BAL; and transbronchial biopsy. The 
proposed changes would ensure the employee receives those tests if 
recommended by the examining physician and receives them at no cost and 
within a reasonable time (83 FR at 63764). In addition, the revision 
would clarify its original intent that, instead of requiring all of 
those tests to be conducted after referral to a CBD diagnostic center, 
the standard would allow the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic 
center the discretion to select one or more of those tests as 
appropriate.
    The second proposed change relates to the timing of the evaluation 
at the CBD diagnostic center. In the proposal for the 2017 final rule 
(the 2015 NPRM), OSHA proposed to require a consultation between the 
employee and the licensed physician within 30 days of the employee 
being confirmed positive to discuss a referral to a CBD diagnostic 
center, but there was no time limit for the employer to provide the 
evaluation at the CBD diagnostic center (80 FR 47800, Summary and 
Explanation for proposed paragraphs (k)(6)(i) and (ii)). In the final 
rule, OSHA altered this requirement, now in paragraph (k)(7)(i), to 
require that the examination at the CBD diagnostic center be provided 
within 30 days of the employer receiving one of the types of 
documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B).
    Following the publication of the 2017 final rule, stakeholders 
raised concerns that scheduling the appropriate tests with an examining 
physician at the CBD diagnostic center may take longer than 30 days, 
making compliance with this provision difficult. In the 2018 general 
industry NPRM, OSHA addressed this concern by proposing to revise 
paragraph (k)(7)(i) of the general industry standard to require that 
the employer provide an initial consultation with the CBD diagnostic 
center, rather than the full evaluation, within 30 days of the employer 
receiving one of the types of documentation listed in paragraph 
(k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). OSHA is proposing an identical change in this 
rule.
    As explained in the 2018 general industry NPRM, OSHA believes that 
such a consultation could be scheduled with a physician within 30 days 
and could be provided by telephone or by virtual conferencing methods 
(83 FR at 63758). Providing a consultation before the full examination 
at the CBD diagnostic center demonstrates that the employer made an 
effort to begin the process for a medical examination. It also allows 
(1) the employee to consult with a physician to discuss concerns and 
ask questions while waiting for a medical examination, and (2) the 
physician to explain the types of tests that are recommended based on 
medical findings about the employee and the risks and benefits of 
undergoing such testing. Although this proposed change would allow the 
employer more time to provide the full evaluation, the proposed 
requirement to provide any recommended tests within a reasonable time 
after the initial consultation would also ensure that the employer 
secured an appointment for the evaluation in a timely manner. This 
proposed change would not prohibit the employer from providing both the 
consultation and the full evaluation at the same appointment, as long 
as the appointment is within 30 days of the employer receiving one of 
the types of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B).
    OSHA received several comments on the proposed changes to the 
medical surveillance provisions discussed above from American Thoracic 
Society (ATS), NJH, Department of Defense (DoD), and Materion (Document 
ID OSHA-2018-

[[Page 53920]]

003-0021, p. 3; 0022, p. 3-6; 0029, p. 2; 0038, p. 34). Materion agreed 
with OSHA's proposed changes (Document ID OSHA-2018-003-0038, p. 34). 
Other commenters including ATS, NJH and DoD expressed some concerns. 
ATS and NJH also commented that an examination at the CBD diagnostic 
center should not be required to occur within 30 days of the referral 
because it may take weeks or months before the CBD diagnostic center 
has an opening for an evaluation. However, they opposed the proposed 
requirement for a consultation that can be performed via telephone or 
virtual conferencing within 30 days of the employer receiving 
documentation, commenting that it would just add cost and logistics to 
scheduling and is not necessary (Document ID OSHA-2018-003-0022, p. 6; 
0021, p. 3). DoD opposed the proposed change for a telephone or virtual 
consultation, arguing that an ill worker should be examined immediately 
(Document ID 0029, p. 2). As stated above, OSHA will consider these 
comments, along with any comments submitted during this rulemaking, in 
developing the final beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards. The agency welcomes comment on these proposed revisions to 
paragraph (k).

Paragraph (m) Communication of Hazards

    Paragraph (m) of the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards sets forth the employer's obligations to comply with OSHA's 
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) relative to 
beryllium, and to provide warnings and training to employees about the 
hazards of beryllium.
    In the 2017 final rule, OSHA discussed the importance of the 
communication of hazards provision (see 82 FR at 2724-29). The agency 
pointed out the need for employees to understand the hazards of 
beryllium exposure, the protective measures necessary to minimize 
potential health hazards, and the rights afforded them under these 
standards. OSHA also noted that the training requirements serve to 
explain and reinforce the information available on labels and SDSs, 
which are most effective when employees understand the information (82 
FR at 2724). Because beryllium is a hazardous chemical with serious and 
debilitating health effects, it is imperative that employers ensure 
that employees can demonstrate that they understand the training 
materials and have knowledge of the topics covered during the training 
sessions.
    OSHA intended for the hazard communication requirements in the 2017 
final rule to be consistent with the HCS, while including additional 
specific requirements needed to protect employees exposed to beryllium 
to ensure that they have access to the relevant information concerning 
the hazards to which they are exposed. While incorporating the 
requirements of the HCS in the beryllium standards, OSHA further 
required that employers not only incorporate information about 
beryllium into their hazard communication programs and training but 
also provide training specifically on the hazards associated with 
beryllium on an annual basis.
    OSHA is proposing three changes to paragraph (m) in both the 
construction and shipyard standards to align with proposed changes to 
other provisions in these standards. First, OSHA is proposing to remove 
the paragraph (m) provisions that require specific language for warning 
labels applied to materials designated for disposal or PPE when removed 
from the workplace (paragraph (m)(2) in construction and paragraph 
(m)(3) in shipyards).\10\ This is consistent with OSHA's proposal to 
remove the corresponding requirements to provide such warning labels. 
As explained above with regard to paragraphs (h)(2)(v) and (j)(3), OSHA 
is proposing to remove the requirements in both standards to label PPE 
removed from the workplace for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or 
disposal and beryllium-containing material destined for disposal. The 
agency is proposing these changes to reflect its intent that provisions 
aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact do not 
apply to materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium--like all 
beryllium-containing material used in abrasive blasting in the 
construction and shipyards industries--unless those workers are also 
exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. Similarly, 
for the limited welding operations in shipyards, OSHA has evidence that 
at best only trace amounts of particulate beryllium will form (see the 
summary and explanation for paragraphs (h)(2)(v) and (j)(3)). Without 
these underlying requirements to provide labels, the provisions of 
paragraph (m) mandating specific language for such labels become 
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As a result, OSHA is also proposing to renumber paragraph 
(m)(4) in the shipyards standard (29 CFR 1915.1024) as paragraph 
(m)(3), renumber paragraph (m)(3) in the construction standard (29 
CFR 1926.1124) as paragraph (m)(2), and revise the references in 
paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of both standards accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OSHA is proposing to revise the provisions of paragraph (m) 
for employee information and training related to emergency procedures 
(paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(D) in construction and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D) in 
shipyards) \11\ and personal hygiene practices (paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(E) 
in construction and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) in shipyards), for 
consistency with OSHA's proposed removal of emergency procedures and 
personal hygiene practices from the construction and shipyard 
standards. As discussed previously with respect to paragraph (g), OSHA 
is proposing to remove references to emergencies in the shipyards and 
construction standards because OSHA expects that any emergency in these 
industries (such as a release resulting from a failure of the blasting 
control equipment, a spill of the abrasive blasting media, or the 
failure of the ventilation system for welding operations in shipyards) 
would occur only during the performance of routine tasks already 
associated with the airborne release of beryllium; i.e., during the 
abrasive blasting or welding process (see the summary and explanation 
for paragraph (g)). As such, employees would already be protected 
through the use of respiratory protection from exposure in such 
circumstances. OSHA is also proposing to remove the hygiene provisions 
due to overlap with existing OSHA standards, the limited operations 
where beryllium exposure may occur in construction and shipyards, and 
the trace quantities of beryllium present in these operations (see the 
summary and explanation for paragraph (i)). As with the labeling 
requirement, the removal of these provisions renders the correlating 
training requirements unnecessary. OSHA requests comment on these 
proposed changes. OSHA specifically requests comment on the proposed 
removal of the requirement to train employees on personal hygiene 
practices and whether the agency should instead require training on the 
hygiene requirements of the relevant sanitation standard (29 CFR 
1926.51 for construction and 29 CFR 1915.88 for shipyards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA is also proposing to renumber the provisions of 
paragraph (m)(3)(ii) in construction and paragraph (m)(4)(ii) in 
shipyards to reflect the removal of this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is also proposing to revise paragraph (m)(3)(i) in 
construction and paragraph (m)(4)(i) in shipyards--renumbered as 
paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(3)(i), respectively--to remove

[[Page 53921]]

dermal contact as a trigger for training. Again, OSHA clarified in the 
2018 DFR for general industry that it did not intend for provisions 
aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact to apply 
in the case of materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium, 
absent significant airborne exposures (83 FR at 19938). In the 2017 
final rule, OSHA recognized that beryllium exposure in construction and 
shipyard industries is narrowly limited to trace quantities contained 
in certain abrasive blasting media and to exposure during some welding 
operations in shipyards (82 FR at 2690; Document ID 2042 III-66). 
Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily determined that training in shipyards 
and construction should be provided to each employee who has, or can 
reasonably be expected to have, airborne exposure to beryllium, without 
regard to dermal contact. OSHA notes that both standards already exempt 
materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight where the 
employer has objective data demonstrating that employee exposure to 
beryllium will remain below the action level as an 8-hour TWA under any 
foreseeable conditions (see 29 CFR 1926.1124(a)(3) (construction) and 
29 CFR 1915(a)(3) (shipyards)). Therefore, OSHA anticipates that the 
training requirements in proposed paragraph (m)(2) for construction and 
proposed paragraph (m)(3) for shipyards will continue to apply to all 
employees that are covered under these standards.
    OSHA is also proposing to revise paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(A) in the 
construction standard and paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(A) in the shipyards 
standard to require training on the health hazards associated with 
``exposure to beryllium.'' Likewise, OSHA is proposing to revise 
paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(D) in the construction standard and paragraph 
(m)(3)(ii)(D) in the shipyards standard to require training on measures 
employees can take to protect themselves from ``exposure to 
beryllium.'' OSHA intends for this phrase to encompass both airborne 
and skin exposure to beryllium. These revisions would resolve an 
inconsistency between the shipyards and construction standards with 
respect to references to dermal contact and would simplify these 
provisions.
    The agency welcomes comment on these proposed revisions to 
paragraph (m) for the construction and shipyards sectors.

Paragraph (n) Recordkeeping

    Paragraph (n) of the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards requires employers to make and maintain records of air 
monitoring data, objective data, medical surveillance, and training. It 
also requires employers to make all required records available to 
employees, their designated representatives, the Assistant Secretary, 
and the Director of NIOSH, in accordance with OSHA's records access 
standard, 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    OSHA proposes to revise paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), 
and (n)(4)(i) of both the construction and shipyards standards to 
remove requirements for workers' Social Security Numbers (SSNs) in air 
monitoring, medical surveillance, and training records. As promulgated 
in the 2017 final rule, paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(F) requires employers to 
include employees' SSNs in exposure measurement records. Paragraph 
(n)(3)(ii)(A) similarly requires SSNs in medical surveillance records. 
Finally, paragraph (n)(4)(i) requires SSNs in training records.
    OSHA is proposing to remove the requirements for SSNs in these 
records in order to make the beryllium standards for shipyards and 
construction consistent with OSHA's other health standards. After 
promulgating the 2017 final rule, OSHA finalized Phase IV of its 
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-IV), which removed from OSHA 
standards all requirements for employee SSNs in employer records (84 FR 
21416, 21439-40 (May 14, 2019)).\12\ As OSHA explained in the SIP-IV 
final rule, removing requirements for SSNs results in additional 
flexibility for employers and allows employers to develop systems that 
best work for their unique situations (84 FR at 21440). OSHA also 
explained that the change would protect employee privacy and lower the 
risk of identity theft (84 FR at 21439-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Eliminating requirements to include SSNs in records is also 
responsive to a directive from OMB that calls for federal agencies 
to identify and eliminate unnecessary collection and use of SSNs in 
agency systems and programs (see Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, 
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to 
the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Regarding 
Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally 
Identifiable Information (M-07-16), May 22, 2007 (available at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2007/m07-16.pdf)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removing requirements for SSNs from the construction and shipyard 
standards, as proposed, would not require employers to delete SSNs from 
existing records or prohibit employers from using SSNs on records if 
they wish to do so. OSHA believes that compliance with the 
recordkeeping provisions in the proposed beryllium standards would be 
straightforward for construction and shipyard employers that already 
comply with other OSHA standards that no longer contain requirements 
for SSNs.
    OSHA welcomes comments on its proposal to revise paragraphs 
(n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and (n)(4)(i) to remove requirements for 
SSNs in air monitoring, medical surveillance, and training records.

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    This Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related 
to the profile of affected application groups, establishments, and 
employees; the cost savings and the benefits of OSHA's proposal to 
modify several construction and shipyard ancillary provisions. The 
proposal makes no changes to the 2017 final rule's TWA PEL and STEL for 
the shipyard and construction industries. Relative to the estimated 
costs in the Final Economic Analysis (2017 FEA) in support of the 
January 9, 2017, beryllium final rule (Document ID 2042), this NPRM 
would lead to total annualized cost savings of $2.5 million in 2018 
dollars at a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years; at a discount rate 
of 7 percent over 10 years, the annualized cost savings are 
approximately the same at $2.5 million. When the Department uses a 
perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost savings of the proposal 
would be $2.3 million in 2016 dollars at a 7 percent discount rate.
    The proposal is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA; nor, if finalized as 
proposed, is it a ``major rule'' under the Congressional Review Act (5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the benefits nor the costs of this 
proposal exceed $100 million. In addition, they do not meet any of the 
other criteria specified by UMRA for a significant regulatory action or 
the Congressional Review Act for a major rule.
    OSHA is proposing changes to several provisions. These proposed 
changes are designed to accomplish three goals: (1) To more 
appropriately tailor the requirements of the construction and shipyards 
standards to the particular exposures in these industries in light of 
partial overlap between the beryllium standards' requirements and other 
OSHA standards; (2) to aid compliance and enforcement across the 
beryllium standards by avoiding inconsistency, where appropriate, 
between the shipyards and construction standards and proposed revisions 
to the general industry standard; and (3) to clarify certain 
requirements with respect to

[[Page 53922]]

materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium.
    This PEA provides OSHA's preliminary assessment of how this NPRM 
would affect the costs and benefits of complying with the various 
proposed beryllium provisions, including costs adjustments to reflect 
changes in exposure rates and baseline compliance rates. All costs are 
estimated in 2018 dollars. Costs reported in 2018 dollars were applied 
directly in this PEA; wage data were updated to 2018 dollars using BLS 
data (BLS, 2018a); and all other costs reported for years earlier than 
2018 were updated to 2018 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator 
(BEA, 2019).
    This introduction to the PEA is followed by:
     Section B: Profile of Affected Application Groups, 
Establishments, and Employees.
     Section C: Technological Feasibility Summary.
     Section D: Cost Savings.
     Section E: Benefits.

B. Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and 
Employees

Introduction
    In this section, OSHA presents the preliminary profile of 
industries affected by this proposal to modify certain ancillary 
provisions for the shipyard and construction sectors. The profile data 
in this section are drawn from the industry profiles in Chapter III and 
exposure profiles and data in Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA, as well as 
the PEA in the June 27, 2017, beryllium proposal (2017 PEA; Document ID 
2076). Where this analysis discusses comments, those comments were 
received in response to this 2017 PEA.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA first identified the North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industries, both in the 
shipyard and construction sectors, with potential worker exposure to 
beryllium. Next, OSHA provided statistical information on the affected 
industries, including the number of affected entities and 
establishments, the number of workers whose exposure to beryllium could 
result in disease or death (``at-risk workers''), and the average 
revenue and profits for affected entities and establishments by six-
digit NAICS industry.\13\ This information was provided for each 
affected industry as a whole, as well as for small entities, as defined 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and for ``very small'' 
entities, defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees, in 
each affected industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). For each industry 
sector identified, the agency described the uses of beryllium and 
estimated the number of establishments and employees that potentially 
would be affected by this rulemaking. Employee exposure to beryllium 
can also occur as a result of certain processes (such as welding) that 
are found in many industries. This analysis will use the term 
``application group'' to refer to a cross-industry group with a common 
process. OSHA requests comment, including data, on other potentially 
affected industries and occupations in the construction and shipyard 
sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Census Bureau defines an establishment as a single 
physical location at which business is conducted or services or 
industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a 
business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one 
or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that 
are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the 
establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each 
multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within 
a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual 
payroll are summed from the associated establishments. (U.S. Census 
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, Glossary, 2017, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html (Accessed 
March 3, 2017)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Chapter III of the 2017 FEA, OSHA described each application 
group; identified the processes and occupations with beryllium 
exposure, including available sampling exposure measurements; and 
explained how OSHA estimated the number of establishments working with 
beryllium and the number of employees exposed to beryllium. Those 
estimates and the exposure profiles for abrasive blasting in 
construction and shipyards, and welding in shipyards,\14\ are presented 
in this section, along with a brief description of the application 
groups and an explanation of the derivation of the revised exposure 
profiles. For additional information about these data and the 
application groups, please see Chapter III of the 2017 FEA.\15\ 
Finally, this section discusses wage data, the hire rate, and current 
industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The exposure profile used for welding in shipyards in this 
PEA, and in the 2017 PEA, differs from the exposure profile used in 
Chapter III the 2017 FEA because OSHA is now using maritime-specific 
data pulled from the appendices to Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA. See 
82 FR 29195.
    \15\ OSHA contractor Eastern Research Group (ERG) provided 
support for the 2017 FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Application Groups
    OSHA's 2017 FEA identified one affected application group in the 
construction sector and two application groups in the shipyard sector 
with potential beryllium exposure. Both the shipyard and construction 
sectors have affected employees in the abrasive blasting application 
group, and the shipyard sector has affected employees in the welding 
application group. OSHA's understanding of the affected application 
groups has not changed so for a description of these application 
groups, please see Chapter III of the 2017 FEA and section V.B. of the 
2017 construction and shipyards NPRM, the Profile of Affected 
Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees within the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis (82 FR 29189-29200). The agency requests 
comment on whether there are any other application groups in the 
construction and shipyard sectors with potential beryllium exposure.
Exposure Profile
    This section summarizes the data from the 2017 FEA (see Document ID 
2042, FEA Chapter IV--Technological Feasibility). It is presented here 
for informational purposes only. The information in this section is 
drawn entirely from the 2017 FEA and contains no new information.
Abrasive Blasting in Construction and Shipyards
    The primary abrasive blasting job categories include the abrasive 
blasting operator (blaster) and pot tender (blaster's helper or 
assistant) during open blasting projects. Support personnel such as pot 
tenders or abrasive media cleanup workers might also be employed to 
clean up (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) and recycle spent abrasive 
and to set up, dismantle, and move containment systems and supplies 
(NIOSH, 1976, Document ID 0779; NIOSH, 1993, 0777; NIOSH, 1995, 0773; 
NIOSH, 2007, 0770; Flynn and Susi, 2004, 1608; Meeker et al., 2005, 
0699).
    Section 15 of Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA included a detailed 
discussion of exposure data and analysis for the development of the 
exposure profile for workers in abrasive blasting operations. Because 
OSHA addressed general industry abrasive blasting operations in other 
general industry sections where appropriate, such as in the nonferrous 
foundries industry, the exposure profile in Section 15 addressed only 
exposure data from construction and shipyard tasks. The exposure 
profile for abrasive blasters, pot tenders/helpers, and abrasive media 
cleanup workers was based on two National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluations of beryllium exposure from 
abrasive blasting with coal slag, unpublished sampling results for 
abrasive blasting operations from four U.S. shipyards, and data 
submitted by the U.S. Navy (NIOSH, 1983,

[[Page 53923]]

Document ID 0696; NIOSH, 2007, 0770; OSHA, 2005, 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, 
0145).
Welding in Shipyards
    Similar to the profile for abrasive blasting activities, OSHA used 
exposure data from the 2017 FEA to develop the exposure profile for 
welding in shipyards. OSHA used the exposure data from Chapter IV-10 
Appendices 2 and 3 and combined the aluminum base metal and non-
aluminum or unknown base material data. OSHA removed shorter duration 
samples that appeared in Appendix 3 of FEA chapter IV-10. Seven 
maritime welding samples from Appendix 3, Table IV-10.6 with sampling 
durations of 240 minutes or greater were used in this profile to 
represent the 8-hour TWA samples.
    Compared to Chapter III of the 2017 FEA, this caused a change in 
the exposure profile for welders in shipyards. The exposure profile for 
welding in shipyards is based on data presented in appendices 2 and 3 
of Section 10.6 of Chapter IV, and again is more fully summarized in 
Section IV of the 2017 PEA. Those data measure exposures of shipyard-
based welders, and OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is a more 
suitable data set on which to base the exposure profile of welders in 
shipyards than the data used in the 2017 FEA, which were based on 
general industry welding exposures.
    Tables IV-1 and IV-2 summarize, from the exposure profiles, the 
number of workers at risk of beryllium exposure and the distribution of 
8-hour TWA beryllium exposures by affected application group and job 
category. Exposures are grouped into ranges (e.g., > 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and < 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) to show the percentages of employees in each job 
category and sector exposed at levels within the indicated range.
    Table IV-3 presents data by NAICS code on the estimated number of 
workers at risk of beryllium exposure for each of the same exposure 
ranges, based on the exposure profile data and the estimated number of 
workers in each job category and application group. As shown, an 
estimated 2,168 workers have beryllium exposures above the TWA PEL of 
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.

                                                Table IV-1--Distribution of Beryllium Exposures by Application Group and Job Category or Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Job category/activity                    0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0
                                                              (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)        >2.0  (%)    Total  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................            15.2            15.2            25.7             2.5            12.4             4.7             5.4         18.9        100.0
Pot Tender............................................            28.1            28.1            43.8             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0        100.0
Cleanup...............................................            33.3            33.3            26.7             0.0             0.0             0.0             3.3          3.3        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................            15.2            15.2            25.7             2.5            12.4             4.7             5.4         18.9        100.0
Pot Tender............................................            28.1            28.1            43.8             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0        100.0
Cleanup...............................................            33.3            33.3            26.7             0.0             0.0             0.0             3.3          3.3        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welder................................................            47.4            47.4             1.5             0.0             0.0             3.0             0.7          0.0        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
\a\ The lowest exposure range in OSHA's technological feasibility analysis is <=0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (see Chapter IV-02, Limits of Detection for Beryllium Data, in the 2017 FEA (Document ID 2042) in
  support of the new beryllium standards). Because OSHA lacked information on the distribution of worker exposures in this range, the agency evenly divided the workforce exposed at or below
  0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ into the two categories shown in this table and in the columns with identical headers in Tables IV-2 and IV-3 of this PEA. OSHA recognizes that this simplifying assumption may
  overestimate exposure in these lower exposure ranges.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-7, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29195).


                                  Table IV-2--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Application Group, Job Category, and Exposure Range (mg/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Application group/job category                0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0
                                                              (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)        >2.0  (%)    Total  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................             511             511             863              83             416             159             182          636        3,360
Pot Tender............................................             945             945           1,470               0               0               0               0            0        3,360
Cleanup...............................................             560             560             448               0               0               0              56           56        1,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................             186             186             314              30             152              58              66          232        1,224
Pot Tender............................................             344             344             536               0               0               0               0            0        1,224
Cleanup...............................................             204             204             163               0               0               0              20           20          612
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welder................................................              13              13               1               0               0               1               1            0           26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.................................           2,016           2,016           2,781              83             416             159             238          692        8,400
Maritime Subtotal.....................................             747             747           1,013              30             152              59              87          252        3,086
Total, All Industries.................................           2,763           2,763           3,794             114             568             218             324          944       11,486
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figures with actual values representing less than one person have been rounded up to one (person).
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-8, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29196).


[[Page 53924]]


                                              Table IV-3--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Industry and Exposure Level (mg/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Exposure level ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Application group/NAICS               Industry          0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0               Total
                                                                  (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)       >2.0  (%)     (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.............................  Painting and Wall               1,046           1,046           1,443              43             216              82             123        359      4,360
                                      Covering Contractors.
238990.............................  All Other Specialty               970             970           1,337              40             200              76             114        333      4,040
                                      Trade Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a............................  Ship Building and                 734             734           1,013              30             152              58              87        252      3,060
                                      Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Welding in Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b............................  Ship Building and                  13              13               1               0               0               1               1          0         26
                                      Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.....................................           2,016           2,016           2,781              83             416             159             238        692      8,400
Maritime Subtotal.........................................             747             747           1,013              30             152              59              87        252      3,086
Total, All Industries.....................................           2,763           2,763           3,794             114             568             218             324        944     11,486
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figures with actual values representing less than one person have been rounded up to one (person).
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-9, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29196).

Summary of Affected Establishments and Employers
    As shown in Table IV-4, OSHA estimates that a total of 11,486 
workers in 2,796 establishments will be affected by this proposal. Also 
shown are the estimated annual revenues for these entities. Table IV-5 
presents the agency's preliminary estimate of affected entities defined 
as small by SBA, and Table IV-6 presents OSHA's preliminary estimate of 
affected establishments and employees by NAICS industries for the 
subset of small entities with fewer than 20 employees.\16\ For the 
tables showing the characteristics of small and very small entities, 
OSHA generally assumed that beryllium-using small entities and very 
small entities would be the same proportion of overall small and very 
small entities as the proportion of beryllium-using entities to all 
entities as a whole in a NAICS industry. OSHA in the 2017 PEA requested 
public comment on the profile data presented in Tables IV-4, IV-5, and 
IV-6, and received none. OSHA continues to welcome comment on the 
number of affected establishments, entities, and employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Tables IV-5 and IV-6 indicate that small entities affected 
by the proposed rule contain 2,714 affected establishments 
affiliated with entities that are small by SBA standards and 2,365 
affected establishments affiliated with entities that employ fewer 
than 20 employees. However, the small and very small entity figures 
in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 were not used to prepare the cost savings 
estimates in Section D of this PEA. For costing purposes in Section 
D, OSHA included small establishments owned by larger entities 
versus the figures in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 because such 
establishments do not qualify as ``small entities'' for the purposes 
of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. To see the difference in the 
number of affected establishments by size for costing purposes, 
consider the example of a ``large entity'' with 500 employees, 
consisting of 50 ten-employee establishments. In Section B., each of 
these 50 establishments would be excluded from Tables IV-5 and IV-6 
because they are part of a ``large entity''; in Section D., where 
all establishments are included because there is no filter for 
entity size, each would be considered a small establishment.
    Thus, for purposes of Section D., there are 2,399 affected 
establishments with fewer than 20 employees, 369 affected 
establishments with between 20 and 499 employees, and 28 
establishments with more than 500 employees. Census (2015) 
Statistics of US Businesses data suggest there are also a total of 
3,464 establishments affiliated with entities in construction and 
shipyards employing between 20 and 499 employees, of which 
approximately 157 would be affected by the rule.

                                      Table IV-4--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action for Beryllium--All Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        Total
                                                              Total           Total           Total       Affected        Affected        Affected     revenues    Revenues /      Revenues /
         NAICS code                    Industry             entities a   establishments a  employees a   entities b   establishments b  employees b   ($1,000) a    entity a    establishment a
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.....................  Painting and Wall Covering         31,317             31,376      163,073        1,088              1,090        4,360  $19,595,278     $625,707           $624,531
                              Contractors.
238990.....................  All Other Specialty Trade          28,734             29,072      193,631          998              1,010        4,040   39,396,242    1,371,067          1,355,127
                              Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a....................  Ship Building and Repairing.          604                689      108,311          604                689        3,060   26,136,187   43,271,832         37,933,508
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Welding in Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b....................  Ship Building and Repairing.          604                689      108,311            6                  7           26   26,136,187   43,271,832         37,933,508
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal....................................       60,051             60,448      356,704        2,086              2,100        8,400   58,991,520      982,357            975,905

[[Page 53925]]

 
Maritime Subtotal........................................          604                689      108,311          610                696        3,086   26,136,187   43,271,832         37,933,508
Total, All Industries....................................       60,655             61,137      465,015        2,696              2,796       11,486   85,127,707    1,403,474          1,392,409
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. [a] U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
\b\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
  number of affected employees.
Source: Table V-4, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29192).


[[Page 53926]]


                                                  Table IV-5--Characteristics of Construction and Shipyard Industries Affected by OSHA's Proposed Action for Beryllium--Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Affected                       Affected
                                                                             SBA small        Small      Establishments                      small      Affected small    employees    Total revenues
                 NAICS code                            Industry              business        business       for small      Small entity     business    establishments    for small       for small     Revenues/small   Revenues/small
                                                                          classification     entities     entities \b\     employees \b\    entities          \c\          entities       entities          entity        establishment
                                                                          (employees) \a\      \b\                                            \c\                            \c\        ($1,000) \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320......................................  Painting and Wall                       100       31,221            31,243         133,864        1,085             1,085        3,579       $16,552,251        $530,164          $529,791
                                               Covering Contractors.
238990......................................  All Other Specialty Trade               100       28,537            28,605         143,112          991               994        2,986        29,789,492       1,043,890         1,041,409
                                               Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.....................................  Ship Building and                     1,250          585               629          27,170          585               629          768         6,043,893      10,331,440         9,608,732
                                               Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Welding in Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.....................................  Ship Building and                     1,250          585               629          27,170            6                 6            7         6,043,893      10,331,440         9,608,732
                                               Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal..................................................  ................       59,758            59,848         276,976        2,076             2,079        6,565        46,341,743         775,490           774,324
Maritime Subtotal......................................................  ................          585               629          27,170          591               635          775         6,043,893      10,331,440         9,608,732
Total, All Industries..................................................  ................       60,343            60,477         304,146        2,667             2,714        7,340        52,385,636         868,131           866,208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
\a\ SBA Size Standards, 2016.
\b\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
\c\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the number of affected employees.
Source: Table V-5, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29194).


                                             Table IV-6--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action for Beryllium--Entities With Fewer Than 20 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                  Affected
                                                                                                                                     Employees     Affected       Affected       employees   Total revenues
                                                                                                       Entities    Establishments       for        entities    establishments       for       for entities     Revenues     Revenue per
                 Application group                       NAICS                  Industry               with <20     for entities      entities     with <20     for entities      entities      with <20      per entity    estab. for
                                                                                                      employees       with <20        with <20    employees       with <20        with <20      employees      with <20    entities with
                                                                                                         \a\        employees \a\    employees       \b\        employees \b\    employees    ($1,000) \a\    employees    <20 Employees
                                                                                                                                        \a\                                         \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Construction...................          238320  Painting and Wall Covering            29,953            29,957       87,984        1,041             1,041        2,352     $10,632,006     $354,956        $354,909
                                                                     Contractors.
Abrasive Blasting--Construction...................          238990  All Other Specialty Trade             27,026            27,041        90,82          939               939        1,895      19,232,052      711,613         711,218
                                                                     Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards......................         336611a  Ship Building and Repairing....          380               381        2,215          380               381          381         547,749    1,441,445       1,437,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Welding in Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welding in Shipyards..............................         336611b  Ship Building and Repairing....          380               381        2,215            4                 4            4         547,749    1,441,445       1,437,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal..............................................................................       56,979            56,998      178,806        1,980             1,980        4,247      29,864,058      524,124         523,949
Shipyards Subtotal.................................................................................          380               381        2,215          384               385          385         547,749    1,441,445       1,437,661
Total, All Industries..............................................................................       57,359            57,379      181,021        2,364             2,365        4,632      30,411,807      530,201         530,016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
\a\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
\b\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the number of affected employees.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-6, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29195).


[[Page 53927]]

Loaded Wages and New Hire Rate
    For this PEA, OSHA updated the 2017 PEA wage estimates from 2016 to 
2018 levels using data for base wages by Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) from the March 2018 Occupational Employment 
Statistics survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. OSHA applied a 
fringe markup (loading factor) of 46.6 percent of base wages (BLS, 
2018b, Document ID 2186); \17\ loaded hourly wages by application group 
and SOC are shown in Table IV-7. OSHA also updated the new hire rate 
for manufacturing from its 2017 PEA estimate of 25.7 percent to a final 
estimate of 34.7 percent (BLS, 2018c, Document ID 2173). The agency 
applied the updated rate (34.7 percent) in this preliminary profile and 
requests public comment on the preliminary wage and hire rates shown in 
Table IV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A fringe markup (loading factor) of 46.6 percent was 
calculated in the following way. Employer costs for employee 
compensation for civilian workers averaged $36.32 per hour worked in 
March 2018. Wages and salaries averaged $24.77 per hour worked and 
accounted for 68.2 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged 
$11.55 and accounted for the remaining 31.8 percent. Therefore, the 
fringe markup (loading factor) is $11.55/$24.77, or 45.6 percent. 
Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers 
averaged $34.17 per hour worked in March 2018 (BLS, 2018b, Document 
ID 2186).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Industry Practices and Existing Regulatory Requirements 
(``Current Compliance'') on Hazard Controls and Ancillary Provisions
    Table IV-8 reflects OSHA's estimate of baseline industry compliance 
rates, by application group and job category, for each of the ancillary 
provisions that, under the 2017 final rule, would affect the 
establishments that are subject to this preliminary deregulatory 
action. See Chapter III of the 2017 FEA for additional discussion of 
the current baseline compliance rates for each provision, which were 
estimated based on site visits, industry contacts, published 
literature, and the Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review 
(SBAR) Panel (SBAR, 2008, Document ID 0345). Note that the compliance 
rate is typically the same for all jobs in a given sector.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive blasters in 
construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate with the 
PPE requirements in the beryllium standards. The 2017 PEA revised those 
estimates to 100 percent compliance based on the belief that 29 CFR 
1926.57(f)(5)(v) already required abrasive blasting operators to wear 
full PPE, including respirators, gloves, safety shoes, and eye 
protection; that 29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3) required full PPE for abrasive 
blaster operators performing mechanical paint removal in shipyards; and 
that 29 CFR 1915.157(a) required welders in shipyards to wear gloves. 
(82 FR 29197). Some commenters disagreed with this estimate for 
abrasive blasting operations. NABTU noted that ``with the exception of 
abrasive blasting operators wearing type CE respirators, construction 
workers' use of PPE during abrasive blasting operations is extremely 
limited.'' (Document ID 2129, p. 11). BHSC also expressed concern about 
the degree of protection afforded by the other OSHA standards to 
workers near abrasive blasting operations, stating that the estimated 
100 percent PPE use for those workers ``does not have supporting 
evidence of consistent and standard use across pot tenders and cleanup 
activities supporting abrasive blasting'' (Document ID 2118, p. 5).
    While the agency acknowledges these comments claiming that its 
revised 100 percent compliance estimate was too high for abrasive 
blasting operations, OSHA is also proposing to remove dermal contact 
with beryllium as a trigger for PPE requirements. This clarifies and 
limits the activities that would trigger PPE requirements under this 
proposal, making a higher baseline compliance estimate more 
appropriate. The agency has preliminarily determined that a better 
estimate for PPE for abrasive blasting operations is in between the two 
previous estimates of 75 percent and 100 percent. OSHA preliminarily 
estimates 90% compliance for PPE for areas where exposures exceed, or 
can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, which are 
the only areas in which the standards would require PPE under the 
proposed revisions. For welders in shipyards, OSHA estimated a 0% 
compliance rate in the 2017 FEA and revised that estimate in the 2017 
PEA because gloves are required under 29 CFR 1915.157(a) to protect 
workers from hazards faced by welders, such as thermal burns. OSHA 
continues to estimate a 100% PPE compliance rate for welders in 
shipyards in areas where exposures can exceed the TWA PEL or STEL 
because of the overlap with 29 CFR 1915.157(a).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In fact, the 0 percent baseline compliance rate for PPE in 
shipyard welding in the 2017 FEA was simply a mistake insofar as 
baseline compliance rate for PPE for welding in general industry was 
100 percent in the same document. 2017 FEA, Ch. III, p. III-188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2017 FEA, for the three occupational groups involved in 
abrasive blasting (operators, pot-tenders, and clean-up workers), OSHA 
estimated a 75% compliance rate with respirators that met the beryllium 
standards' requirements. In the 2017 PEA, operators, but not pot-
tenders or clean-up workers, were revised to 100% compliance due to the 
strict existing standards for operators (see Sec. Sec.  1926.57(f) and 
1915.34(c)(3)(iv)). This PEA continues to use these baseline compliance 
estimates of 100% for operators and 75% for pot tenders and clean-up 
workers. For welders in shipyards, the 2017 FEA estimated 0% compliance 
with proper respirator use and a 25% compliance rate with the 
requirement to establish a respiratory protection program. OSHA is 
revising this estimate to 100% in this PEA because in shipyards, other 
standards addressing respiratory protection include the Mechanical 
Paint Removers standard (29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3)), the Confined and 
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment 
standards (29 CFR 1915.12(c)(4)(ii)), the Welding, Cutting, and Heating 
standards for shipyards (29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv)), as well as the 
general Respiratory Protection standards (29 CFR 1910.134, 1915.154).
    The baseline compliance rates for the housekeeping provisions in 
the 2017 FEA were 0% for welders in shipyards and 75% for blasters, pot 
tenders, and clean-up workers in abrasive blasting in both construction 
and shipyards. In the 2017 PEA, OSHA reviewed existing housekeeping 
requirements and updated the estimate from 75% to 100% for abrasive 
blasting operations because some housekeeping is required by existing 
standards for abrasive blasting operations in construction and 
shipyards. The Summary and Explanation for housekeeping for this NPRM 
discusses the agency's preliminary finding that existing standards 
cover general housekeeping requirements for blasters, pot tenders, and 
clean-up workers, though these other standards allow some cleaning 
methods that the beryllium standards, and the proposed revisions, 
limit, like dry sweeping or brushing and compressed air. Under this 
proposal, housekeeping requirements would no longer apply when dust 
from trace amounts of beryllium could not be expected to cause airborne 
exposures above the TWA PEL and STEL. Hence, these requirements are 
estimated to only affect areas where workers are exposed above the TWA 
PEL or STEL in the exposure profile. While the proposed revisions will 
limit the methods that employers may use to clean up beryllium, OSHA 
estimates that cleaning methods that do not disperse

[[Page 53928]]

beryllium into the air take approximately the same amount of time as 
cleaning methods already in use. For abrasive blasting operations, the 
agency therefore maintains from the 2017 PEA its 100% compliance rate 
for housekeeping for abrasive blasting operations. OSHA requests 
comment on the compliance rate with the proposed housekeeping 
provisions in the abrasive blasting industries in construction and 
shipyards.
    For welders in shipyards, OSHA estimated a 0% compliance rate for 
housekeeping in both the 2017 FEA and the 2017 PEA. As explained in the 
Summary and Explanation, OSHA has reason to believe that skin or 
surface contamination is not an exposure source of concern in welding 
in shipyards. The proposed revisions would also limit the circumstances 
in which housekeeping is required. OSHA therefore estimates that in 
welding in shipyards, employers will not have to engage in additional 
housekeeping to comply with the proposed revisions and is revising its 
baseline compliance estimate for housekeeping to 100% for welding in 
shipyards.
    In the 2017 PEA, OSHA treated the compliance rates for vacuums, 
bags, and labels separately from the labor costs of housekeeping. OSHA 
estimated a 0% compliance rate for all industries in construction and 
shipyards for vacuums, bags, and labels because it believed the cost of 
such equipment was not covered by other standards. In this PEA, OSHA is 
setting the compliance rates under housekeeping for vacuums, bags, and 
labels to 100% as this proposal removes those requirements from the 
standard.
    The baseline compliance rates for the hygiene areas provisions in 
the 2017 FEA were 0% for welders in shipyards and 75% for blasters, pot 
tenders, and clean-up workers in abrasive blasting in both construction 
and shipyards. As explained in the Summary and Explanation section of 
this preamble, OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (i), Hygiene 
areas, from the construction and shipyards standards. The standards as 
modified by this proposal therefore no longer require employers to 
comply with any hygiene-related provisions, and the baseline compliance 
is revised to 100% to demonstrate that there will be no cost associated 
with hygiene areas under the proposal.
    The baseline compliance rate for each of the remaining provisions 
was unchanged from the 2017 FEA to the 2017 PEA and remains unchanged 
in this PEA. OSHA welcomes comments on the baseline compliance 
estimates shown in Table IV-8, particularly with respect to PPE and 
housekeeping.
    As a final point on baseline industry practices, OSHA acknowledges 
the possibility of a future decline in the use of coal slag abrasive 
materials and welcomes comment and information on this issue. To the 
extent that coal slag abrasives are being replaced, for reasons 
unrelated to the implementation of this standard, by other blasting 
materials that do not have the potential for beryllium exposures of 
concern, the costs and benefits of compliance with the TWA PEL for 
abrasive blasting operations would also decrease.

      Table IV-7--Loaded Hourly Wages and Hire Rate for Occupations (Jobs) Exposed to Beryllium and Affected by OSHA's Proposed Beryllium Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Fringe        Loaded
                                                                                                                     Median       markup      hourly (or
      Provision in the standard                 Job               NAICS       SOC \a\           Occupation        hourly wage   percentage,   daily \d\)
                                                                                                                                 total \b\       wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring \c\......................  Industrial Hygienist             N/A          N/A  N/A....................          N/A           N/A      $172.28
                                       Consultant.
Monitoring \d\......................  IH Technician--Initial.  ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............          \d\
                                                                                                                                                2,759.73
IH Technician--Additional and         .......................  ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............     1,379.86
 Periodic.
Regulated Area/Job Briefing \e\.....  Production Worker......        31-33      51-0000  Production Occupations.       $17.37          46.6        25.47
Medical Surveillance \e\............  Human Resources Manager        31-33      11-3121  Human Resources                53.38         46.6%        78.27
                                                                                          Managers.
Exposure Control Plan, Medical        Clerical...............        31-33      43-4071  File Clerks............        16.85          46.6        24.71
 Surveillance, and Medical Removal
 \e\.
Training \e\........................  Training Instructor....        31-33      13-1151  Training and                   28.99          46.6        42.51
                                                                                          Development
                                                                                          Specialists.
Medical Surveillance \e\............  Physician (Employers'          31-33      29-1062  Family and General             88.95          46.6       130.43
                                       Physician).                                        Practitioners.
Multiple Provisions \f\.............  First Line Supervisor..      Various      51-1011  First-Line Supervisors         29.59          46.6        43.39
                                                                                          of Production and
                                                                                          Operating Workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2019).
\a\ 2010 Standard Occupational Classification System. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/soc/classification.htm.
\b\ BLS, 2018b. 46.6 percent represents fringe as a percentage of base wages. BLS-reported data for fringe as a percentage of total compensation is 31.8
  percent.
\c\ ERG estimates based on discussions with affected industries, and inflated to 2018 Dollars.
\d\ Wages used in the economic analysis for the Silica final rule, inflated to 2018 Dollars.
\e\ BLS, 2018a.
\f\ BLS, 2018a; Weighted average for SOC 51-1011 in NAICS 313000, 314000, 315000, 316000, 321000, 322000, 323000, 324000, 325000, 326000, 327000,
  335000, 336000, 337000, and 339000.


[[Page 53929]]


                                                           Table IV-8--Estimated Current Compliance Rates for Industry Sectors Affected by OSHA's Proposed Beryllium Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Hygiene                                   Respirators                 Housekeeping
                                                      Exposure    Regulated                     Medical      Exposure               -------------------------------             --------------------------------------------------------
       Application group                Job          assessment     areas/        Medical       removal      control      PPE (%)                                     Training    Employee/    Establishment/                  Vacuum,
                                                        (%)       competent    surveillance   program (%)    plan (%)                 Employees    Establishments                 respirator     respirator      Labor (%)      bags,
                                                                  person (%)                                                             (%)             (%)                         (%)         program (%)                  labels (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Abrasive Blaster.            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75          100               100          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Pot Tender.......            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Cleanup..........            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Abrasive Blaster.            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75          100               100          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Pot Tender.......            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Cleanup..........            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Welding--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welding--Shipyards.............  Welder...........            0            0               0            0            0          100          100               100            0          100               100          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2019).
\a\ Estimated compliance rates for medical surveillance do not include medical referrals. OSHA estimates that baseline compliance rates for medical referrals are zero percent for all application groups shown in the table.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasive to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding--Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.


[[Page 53930]]

C. Technological Feasibility Summary

    This section summarizes OSHA's technological feasibility findings 
made in the 2017 FEA (see Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter IV--
Technological Feasibility). It is presented here for informational 
purposes only. The information in this section is drawn entirely from 
the 2017 FEA and contains no new information or assessment.
    Overall, based on the information discussed in Chapter IV of the 
2017 FEA, OSHA determined that the majority of the exposures in 
construction and shipyards are either already at or below the new final 
PEL, or can be adequately controlled to levels below the final PEL 
through the implementation of additional engineering and work practice 
controls for most operations most of the time. The one exception is 
that OSHA determined that workers who perform open-air abrasive 
blasting using mineral grit (i.e., coal slag) will routinely be exposed 
to levels above the final PEL even after the installation of feasible 
engineering and work practice controls, and therefore, these workers 
will also be required to wear respiratory protection. Therefore, OSHA 
concluded in the January 9, 2017 final rule that the final PEL of 0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\ is technologically feasible in abrasive blasting in 
construction and shipyards and in welding in shipyards.

D. Costs of Compliance

Introduction
    Throughout this section, OSHA presents cost-saving formulas in the 
text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of cost-
saving estimates for the individual provisions. Because the values used 
in the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal 
place, while the spreadsheets supporting the text are not limited to 
two decimal places, the calculation using the presented formula will 
sometimes differ slightly from the totals presented in the tables.
    These estimates of cost savings are largely based on the cost 
estimates presented for Regulatory Alternative 2a in the preamble for 
the 2017 final rule (82 FR at 2470, 2612-2615), which were in turn 
derived from the Costs of Compliance chapter (Chapter V) of the 2017 
FEA. OSHA has retained the same calculation methods from the 2017 FEA, 
detailed in Chapter V of that document, and has updated all wages and 
unit costs to 2018 dollars. All cost savings in this PEA similarly are 
expressed in 2018 dollars and were annualized using discount rates of 3 
percent and 7 percent, as required by OMB.\19\ Unit costs developed in 
this section were multiplied by the number of workers who would have to 
comply with the provisions, as identified in Section B of this PEA 
(Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and 
Employees). The estimated number of affected workers depends on what 
level of exposure triggers a particular provision and the percentage of 
those workers already in compliance. In a few cases, costs were 
calculated based on the number of firms. As in the 2017 FEA, OSHA is 
estimating that the beryllium standards will reduce the number of 
workers exposed to beryllium over the PEL by 90 percent. Therefore, for 
ancillary provisions that require employers to take action for 
employees who continue to be exposed over the PEL, like respiratory 
protection and PPE, OSHA estimates the cost based on ten percent of the 
number of employees exposed over the PEL in the exposure profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See OMB Memo M-17-21 (April 5, 2017). OSHA included the 3 
percent rate in its primary analysis, but Appendix IV-A of this PEA 
also presents costs by NAICS industry and establishment size 
categories using, as alternatives, a 7 percent discount rate--shown 
in Table IV-21--and a 0 percent discount rate--shown in Table IV-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating costs, OSHA assumes a 250-day work 
year. This is a standard calculation that OSHA and others use, which 
assumes employees work 5 days a week with 2 weeks of vacation, 
resulting in 250 work days per year (50 weeks x 5 work days a week). 
OSHA requests comment on the appropriateness of this estimate for both 
the construction and shipyard industries.
    Estimated compliance rates are presented in Table IV-8 in Section B 
of this preamble. The estimated costs for this beryllium proposal 
represent the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full 
compliance with the proposed rule. The costs of complying with the 
beryllium proposal's program requirements therefore depend on the 
extent to which employers in affected application groups have already 
undertaken some of the required actions. A discussion of affected 
workers is presented in Section B of this PEA. Complete calculations 
are available in the OSHA spreadsheet in support of this PEA (OSHA, 
2019). Annualization periods for expenditures on equipment are based on 
equipment life, and one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year 
period.\20\ The agency first presents costs for the full 2017 final 
rule with only updated wages, unit costs, and hiring rates based on 
2018 data. All other estimates (compliance rates, exposure profile, 
etc.) are the same as the 2017 FEA. This is the baseline from which all 
cost savings of the proposal are benchmarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Executive Order 13563 directs agencies ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In addition, OMB 
Circular A-4 suggests that analysis should include all future costs 
and benefits using a ``rule of reason'' to consider for how long it 
can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this 
time period. Annualization should not be confused with depreciation 
or amortization for tax purposes. Annualization spreads costs out 
evenly over the time period (similar to the payments on a mortgage) 
to facilitate comparison of costs and benefits across different 
years. In cases where costs occur on an annual basis, but do not 
change between years, annualization is not necessary, and OSHA may 
refer simply to ``annual'' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-9 shows these costs, which total for all occupations in 
construction and shipyards to $12.7 million at a discount rate of 3 
percent, an increase of 3% from the equivalent cost for the 2017 FEA 
($12.3 million).

[[Page 53931]]



  Table IV-9--Total Annualized Costs of Full 2017 Final Beryllium Rule, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry;
                                         Results Shown by Size Category
                                     [3 Percent Discount Rate, 2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Very small
       Application group/NAICS              Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                            establishments     (SBA-defined)       employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...............................  Painting and Wall         $4,704,939        $3,962,355         $2,775,400
                                        Covering
                                        Contractors.
238990...............................  All Other                  4,360,056         3,352,464          2,288,751
                                        Specialty Trade
                                        Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..............................  Ship Building and          3,531,117         1,131,837            593,268
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Welding in Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..............................  Ship Building and             74,259            21,743             12,163
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal................  ..................         9,064,995         7,314,819          5,064,151
Maritime Subtotal....................  ..................         3,605,376         1,153,580            605,431
Total, All Industries................  ..................        12,670,371         8,468,399          5,669,582
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    To estimate the cost savings of the proposal, OSHA estimated the 
difference between the costs of the 2017 final rule (with updated 
wages, prices, and hiring rate), Table IV-9, and the costs of this 
proposal. These cost savings are presented and discussed below. Table 
IV-10 shows first, by affected application group and six-digit NAICS 
code, annualized cost savings for all establishments, for all small 
entities (as defined by the Small Business Act and SBA's implementing 
regulations; see 15 U.S.C. 632 and 13 CFR 121.201), and for all very 
small entities (defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees). 
OSHA estimates that this proposal would yield a total annualized cost 
savings of $2.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate across the 
shipyard and construction sectors.
    The agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost 
either in the 2017 FEA in support of the January 9, 2017 final 
standards, the 2017 PEA, or in this PEA. There is not one broadly 
accepted overhead rate, and the use of overhead to estimate the 
marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be 
address before being applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of 
any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the 
cost elements that fit the definition of overhead, and there are a 
range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal 
government--for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 
17 percent,\21\ and government contractors have reportedly used an 
average 50 percent for on-site (i.e., company site) overhead.\22\ Some 
overhead costs, such as advertising and marketing, vary with output 
rather than with labor costs. Other overhead costs vary with the number 
of new employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may 
change little with the addition of one employee in a 500-employee firm, 
but those costs may change substantially with the addition of 100 
employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees' 
duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs 
such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers, 
printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage 
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory 
Program,'' June 10, 2002 (document ID 2025). This analysis itself 
was based on a survey of several large chemical manufacturing 
plants: Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry 
Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment 
Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association, December 14, 1989.
    \22\ For a further example of overhead cost estimates, please 
see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at 
Grant Thornton LLP, 2017 Government Contractor Survey, https://www.grantthornton.com/-/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2018/2017-government-contractor-survey. According to Grant 
Thornton's 2017 Government Contractor Survey, on-site rates are 
generally higher than off-site rates, because the on-site overhead 
pool includes the facility-related expenses incurred by the company 
to house the employee, while no such expenses are incurred or 
allocated to the labor costs of direct charging personnel who work 
at the customer site. For further examples of overhead cost 
estimates, please see the Employee Benefits Security 
Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-july-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal 
cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative 
adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 
percent on base wages, the cost savings of this proposal would increase 
by approximately $237,000 per year, or approximately 10 percent above 
the primary estimate of cost savings.

[[Page 53932]]



Table IV-10--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
     Shipyard and Construction Beryllium Standards (by Size Category, 3 Percent Discount Rate, 2018 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Very small
     Application group/NAICS             Industry               All           Small entities     entities (<20
                                                           establishments     (SBA-defined)        Employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...........................  Painting and Wall              $931,193           $766,473           $507,332
                                    Covering
                                    Contractors.
238990...........................  All Other Specialty             862,849            640,416            409,777
                                    Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..........................  Ship Building and               652,718            168,693             84,478
                                    Repairing.
----------------------------------
                                             Welding in Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..........................  Ship Building and                20,525              5,419              3,007
                                    Repairing.
----------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal..................................          1,794,042          1,406,889            917,110
Shipyard Subtotal......................................            673,243            174,112             87,485
Total, All Industries..................................          2,467,286          1,581,001          1,004,594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Program Cost Savings
    This subsection presents OSHA's estimated cost savings from this 
proposal for each provision individually. Each provision will be 
discussed separately below. Where there is either no change from the 
2017 final rule or a change that does not alter the underlying 
methodology, such as a change in compliance rates or the elimination of 
the dermal contact trigger, no underlying methodology or unit cost 
estimates are presented as they are the same, updated to 2018 dollars, 
as the 2017 FEA. In other cases both the initial methodology and unit 
cost estimates are presented. All cost savings by program element, 
along with the cost savings for each affected NAICS industry, are shown 
in Table IV-15 at the end of this program cost-savings section.
Exposure Assessment
    Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule and 
Proposed Changes OSHA is not proposing any changes to paragraph (d), 
Exposure assessment. OSHA is also not changing any estimates to the 
baseline compliance rate with this paragraph. Hence, there are no cost 
savings for this provision.
Beryllium Regulated Areas (Shipyards) And Competent Person 
(Construction)
    OSHA is not proposing any changes to paragraph (e), the regulated 
areas provision in shipyards or the competent person provision in 
construction, nor are there any changes to compliance rates. Hence, 
there are no cost savings for this provision.
Methods of Compliance
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    Under the current beryllium standards, employers are required to 
establish and maintain a written exposure control plan.
    Further, employers must review it at least annually, and must 
update the exposure control plan when:
    (A) Any change in production processes, materials, equipment, 
personnel, work practices, or control methods results or can reasonably 
be expected to result in new or additional airborne exposures to 
beryllium;
    (B) The employer becomes aware that an employee has a beryllium-
related health effect or symptom, or is notified that an employee is 
eligible for medical removal; or
    (C) The employer has any reason to believe that new or additional 
airborne exposures are occurring or will occur.
    Finally, the employer must make a copy of the written exposure 
control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can reasonably be 
expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the 2017 final standards requires employers 
to use at least one engineering or work practice control where 
exposures are, or can reasonably be expected to be, above the action 
level unless the employer can establish that such controls are not 
feasible or that airborne exposure is below the action level. Paragraph 
(f)(3) prohibits rotation of workers among jobs to achieve compliance 
with the TWA PEL and STEL.
Cost Savings Estimates of This Proposal
    For the written exposure control plan, OSHA is proposing several 
revisions. First, OSHA proposes to remove the words ``airborne'' and 
``or dermal contact with'' as qualifiers for exposure to beryllium. 
This would not change coverage of workers for which a written exposure 
control plan is needed for these sectors, and would therefore have no 
impact on costs. This proposal would reduce the number of elements that 
must explicitly be listed in the plan. The elements OSHA is proposing 
to eliminate are: Procedures for minimizing cross contamination and the 
migration of beryllium within or to locations outside the workplace; 
procedures for removing, laundering, cleaning, storing, repairing, and 
disposing of beryllium contaminated PPE, including clothing, and 
equipment including respirators; a separate listing of operations and 
job titles for those that would entail beryllium exposure above action 
level; and a separate listing of those that would be above the TWA PEL 
or STEL. This streamlined written

[[Page 53933]]

control plan would still include a list of operations and job titles 
that involve exposure to beryllium; a list of engineering controls, 
work practices, and respiratory protection; and procedures for 
restricting access to work areas where airborne exposures are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, above the TWA PEL or STEL. OSHA is also 
proposing a new requirement to list procedures used to ensure the 
integrity of each containment used to minimize exposures to employees 
outside the containment.
    The agency estimates that the cost for the written exposure control 
plan will be cut in half due to the reduced requirements in this 
proposal. This estimate includes the additional time needed for the new 
paragraph that requires including procedures for containment. OSHA 
estimated in the current beryllium standards that the time burden per 
establishment for an average-sized firm to develop the initial written 
exposure control plan was 8 hours. With the simplified written plan 
requirements, the agency thus judges that a manager will need only 4 
hours, a reduction of 4 hours, for a per establishment cost savings of 
$313.08 at an hourly wage of $78.27 (Human Resources Managers, SOC: 11-
3121), to develop the plan.
    In addition, because larger firms with more affected workers will 
need to develop more complicated written control plans, OSHA estimated 
for the current beryllium standards that the development of a plan 
would require an extra thirty minutes of a manager's time per affected 
employee. The reduced number of job titles and operations that would 
need to be listed in some cases for this proposal, as well as other 
elements, will decrease this burden, and the agency has lowered the 
time per affected employee to 15 minutes, a reduction of 15 minutes. 
The cost savings for 15 minutes less of a manager's time per affected 
employee to develop a less complicated plan is $19.57 (0.25 x $78.27) 
per affected employee in this PEA.
    Because of various triggers under which the employer would have to 
update the plan at least annually after the first year, the agency 
further estimated that in the current beryllium standards, on average, 
managers would need 12 minutes (0.2 hours) per affected employee per 
quarter--or 48 minutes (4 x 12), which equals 0.8 hours, per affected 
employee per year--to review and update the plan. The streamlined plan 
will similarly be simpler to update, and the agency assumes the amount 
will be cut in half, from 48 minutes per employee per year to 24 
minutes, a reduction of 24 minutes. Thus, the cost savings for managers 
to review and update the plan would be $31.31 (0.4 x $78.27 per 
affected employee) for years 2-10.
    Finally, OSHA estimated 5 minutes of clerical time each year per 
employee for providing each employee with a copy of the written 
exposure control plan. This will not change under this proposal, so 
there are no cost savings for this element. See Table IV-11 for a 
summary of these unit cost saving estimates.

    Table IV-11--Unit Cost Savings for Written Exposure Control Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Item                                Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Develop Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR Manager Hour Decrease per Establishment...................          4
HR Manager Hour Decrease per Employee........................       0.25
HR Manager Wage..............................................     $78.27
Unit Cost Savings per Establishment..........................    $313.08
Unit Cost Savings per Employee...............................     $19.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Review Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR Manager Hour Decrease per Employee........................       0.10
Times Reviewed per Year......................................          4
HR Manager Wage..............................................     $78.27
Unit Cost Savings per Employee...............................     $31.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Cost Savings per Establishment..........................    $313.08
Unit Cost Savings per Employee...............................     $50.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: BLS, 2019a; BLS, 2018; U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards
  and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    OSHA estimates that the total annualized cost savings for reducing 
the requirements for development and update of a written exposure 
control plan is $122,989 for all affected industries in shipyards and 
construction.
    In addition, OSHA proposes to revise paragraph (f)(2) concerning 
engineering and work practice controls by removing the requirement to 
implement one engineering or work practice control where exposures are 
between the action level and the PEL. However, based on the 
technological feasibility analysis presented in Chapter IV of the 2017 
FEA, OSHA determined that there were no instances in construction or 
shipyards where this provision would apply (see pp. V-11/12 of the 2017 
FEA). Thus, this proposed revision has no effect on costs.
    OSHA is not proposing to revise paragraph (f)(3), which prohibits 
rotation of workers to achieve the TWA PEL and STEL, so there are no 
cost savings associated with this provision.
    OSHA is not proposing to revise the baseline compliance estimates 
for the requirements of paragraph (f), so there are no associated cost 
adjustments.
Respiratory Protection
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    The employer must provide respiratory protection at no cost to the 
employee and ensure that each employee uses respiratory protection: 
During periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
and work practice controls where airborne exposure exceeds, or can 
reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; during 
operations, including maintenance and repair activities and non-routine 
tasks, when engineering

[[Page 53934]]

and work practice controls are not feasible and airborne exposure 
exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; 
during operations for which an employer has implemented all feasible 
engineering and work practice controls when such controls are not 
sufficient to reduce airborne exposure to or below the TWA PEL or STEL; 
during emergencies; and when an employee who is eligible for medical 
removal under paragraph (l)(1) chooses to remain in a job with airborne 
exposure at or above the action level, as permitted by paragraph 
(l)(2)(ii) of this standard.
    The selection and use of such respiratory protection must be in 
accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). 
The employer must provide at no cost to the employee a powered air-
purifying respirator (PAPR) instead of a negative pressure respirator 
when respiratory protection is required, an employee requests one, and 
the PAPR would provide adequate protection to the employee.
Cost Savings Estimates of This Proposal
Proposed Changes
    OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (g) by removing the 
requirement to provide respiratory protection during emergencies. In 
the 2017 final rule, OSHA stated that emergencies should be rare and 
therefore did not account for any respirator costs due to emergencies. 
The cost adjustments described in this section are due to revised 
baseline compliance estimates and are discussed below.
Updated Baseline Compliance Estimates
    As discussed in section IV.B of this NPRM, the compliance rate for 
respirator use, for abrasive blast operators only, is estimated to be 
100% in this PEA, due to closer analysis of existing standards for 
operators. The 2017 FEA estimated compliance rates for respirators for 
all abrasive blasting occupations as 75%. Hence, there is a cost 
adjustment due to the 25% of operators who will not need to be provided 
respirators as estimated under the 2017 final rule. For pot tenders and 
helpers, OSHA is not estimating a change in the compliance rate for 
respiratory protection. For welders in shipyards, the change in the 
exposure profile from the 2017 FEA to the 2017 PEA (as explained above 
in section IV.B.), and retained in this PEA, slightly decreased 
respirator use as well. The 2017 FEA estimated a 0% compliance rate for 
respiratory protection and a 25% compliance rate for setting up a 
respiratory protection program, while this PEA estimates a 100% 
compliance rate for both. The 2017 FEA estimated 29.7% of welders in 
shipyards had beryllium exposures over the new PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\. The 2017 PEA and this PEA estimate that only 3.7% of welders in 
shipyards have beryllium exposures over the new PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/
m\3\. As in the 2017 FEA, OSHA is estimating that the beryllium 
standards will reduce the number of workers with exposures above the 
PEL by 90 percent.
    The cost method that follows is largely the same as that used in 
the 2017 FEA with updated 2018 wage rates, with two exceptions. First, 
blasting operators, due to other existing standards (1926.57(f), 
1915.34(c)), must use supplied air respirators (SARs) and will not have 
the option of requesting a PAPR. Second, no cleaning costs for a PAPR 
were estimated in the 2017 FEA. This is revised below because OSHA now 
estimates that PAPRs will need to be cleaned periodically.
Unit Cost Estimates
    There are five primary costs for respiratory protection. First, 
there is a cost per establishment to set up a written respirator 
program in accordance with the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 
1910.134). The respiratory protection standard requires written 
procedures for the proper selection, use, cleaning, storage, and 
maintenance of respirators. OSHA estimates that these procedures will 
take a human resources manager 8 hours to develop, at an hourly wage of 
$78.27 (Human Resources Managers, SOC: 11-3121), for an initial cost of 
$626 (8 x $78.27). Every year thereafter, OSHA estimates that the same 
employee will take 2 hours to update the respirator program, for an 
annual cost of $157 (2 x $78.27).
    The four other major costs of respiratory protection are the per-
employee costs for all aspects of respirator use: equipment, training, 
fit testing, and cleaning.
    In the 2017 FEA, no respirator cleaning was assumed to be required 
for PAPRs. OSHA now believes that despite the fact that PAPRs are 
assigned to individual employees, PAPRs, like half-mask respirators, 
will need periodic cleaning. This cleaning cost for a PAPR is estimated 
to be the same as for a half mask respirator. Periodic cleaning of a 
PAPR is estimated to be needed every two days, or 125 times annually 
(250/2). Each cleaning is estimated to take 5 minutes, or 0.08 (5/60) 
hours, and the wage cost per hour is $25.47 ((Production Occupations, 
SOC: 51-0000). Multiplied together, this gives an annual respirator 
cleaning cost of $265.30 (125 x 0.08 x $25.47). Summing these costs 
together, the total annualized per-employee cost for a full-face 
powered air-purifying respirator is $1434.50 ($145.27 + $94.33 + 
$929.60 + $265.30).
Cost Savings Estimates
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated that PAPRs would be used 10 percent 
of the time in situations where only the APF of 10 provided by a half-
mask negative pressure respirator would normally be required to comply 
with the final beryllium TWA PEL and STEL. For the 25% of pot tenders 
and clean-up workers who need respirators (accounting for an unchanged 
baseline compliance rate of 75%), this amounts to 2.5% of the pot 
tenders and clean-up workers who are still exposed over the PEL after 
the standards take effect who will use PAPRs. OSHA is therefore 
adjusting the costs by including the cost of cleaning PAPRs for that 
2.5% of workers.
    For the revised compliance rate for abrasive blasting operators, 
from 75% in the 2017 FEA to 100% in this PEA, there is a cost 
adjustment due to the 25% of overexposed operators after the standards 
take effect who should not have had costs taken in the 2017 FEA. Since 
the 2017 FEA did not estimate cleaning costs for PAPRs, the cost 
savings here will not include such cleaning costs. This cost savings 
consists of the cost of PAPRs minus cleaning costs (10% of 
respirators), and the cost of half-mask respirators (90% of 
respirators).
    The cost adjustment due to the change in the exposure profile for 
welders discussed in section IV.B of this PEA uses this same 
methodology of accounting for savings due to PAPRs (minus cleaning 
costs) and half-mask respirators. Furthermore, OSHA notes there is a 
change in the exposure profile for welders in shipyards from the 2017 
FEA, but because the revised baseline compliance rate for these workers 
is 100%, this does not affect the cost adjustment.
    The exposure profile (Table IV-2) shows the number of abrasive 
blasting operators that are above the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ PEL. This PEA 
follows the 2017 FEA of estimating 10% of workers will still be above 
the PEL after the standards take effect. The compliance rate for 
operators went from 75% in the 2017 FEA to 100% in this PEA, so 25% of 
operators above the PEL after the rule is in place were assigned costs 
in the 2017 FEA that, with the 100% compliance rate, should no longer 
be taken. In the 2017

[[Page 53935]]

FEA, OSHA estimated the average cost of a respirator for an abrasive 
blasting operator as 90% of the cost of a half-mask respirator and 10% 
of a PAPR. For the abrasive blasting operators above the PEL, this 
gives a total cost adjustment of $40,915.
    As discussed above, 2.5% of pot-tenders and clean-up workers still 
exposed above the PEL after the standards take effect will be using 
PAPRs. The total number of such workers can be found in Table IV-2, and 
when multiplied by cleaning costs of PAPRs, this gives the additional 
cost adjustment of $12,238 for the revision from the 2017 FEA of 
including cleaning costs for PAPRs for these workers.
    Welders in shipyards were inadvertently assigned a 0% compliance 
rate in the 2017 FEA, revised in the 2017 PEA and this PEA to 100%. 
Hence all welders in shipyards, found in Table IV-2, will be affected. 
Like all others needing respirators, in the 2017 FEA, 90% were assigned 
half-mask respirators and 10% were assigned PAPRs. These two groups of 
welders, multiplied by the costs of their respective type of 
respirators, but without cleaning costs since cleaning costs were not 
included in the 2017 FEA, gives the cost adjustment of $858 for welders 
in shipyards.
    The reduction in workers needing respirators and needing to 
participate in respiratory protection programs due to the update of the 
compliance rate for abrasive blasting operators in both construction 
and shipyards and welders in shipyards, the extra cleaning costs for 
pot-tenders and clean-up workers who opt for PAPRs, and the updated 
unit costs give a total cost adjustment of $54,011, as shown in Table 
IV-16.
    Tables IV-12 and IV-13 summarizes the unit cost estimates for the 
two types of respirators.

       Table IV-12--Unit Respiratory Protection Cost per Employee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Value
                  Item                   -------------------------------
                                             Half mask         PAPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class size..............................               4               4
Hours...................................               2               4
Employee wage...........................          $25.47          $25.47
Supervisor wage.........................           43.39           43.39
Hourly cost per employee................           36.32           36.32
Annual Cost Savings per Employee........           72.63          145.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Respirator Cleaning Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency per year......................             125             125
Employee hours..........................            0.08            0.08
Employee wage...........................          $25.47          $25.47
Annual Cost Savings per Employee........          265.30          265.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Fit Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing group size......................            4.00            2.00
Employee hours..........................            1.00            2.00
Employee wage...........................          $25.47          $25.47
Supervisor wage.........................           43.39           43.39
Annual Cost Savings per Employee........           36.32           94.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Equipment Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respirator..............................          $33.68         $971.11
Respirator service life (years).........               2               3
Annualized respirator cost savings (3%).          $17.60         $343.32
Annual accessory cost savings...........          210.42          586.29
Total Annualized Equipment Cost Savings           228.02          929.60
 (3%)...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment...............................         $228.02         $929.60
Training, cleaning, and fit testing.....         $374.26         $504.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Sources: BLS, 2019a; BLS, 2018; Magidglove, 2012; Grainger, 2012e;
  Restockit, 2012; Spectrumchemical, 2012; Conney, 2012a; Conney, 2012b;
  Zoro Tools, 2012a; Grainger, 2019c; Grainger, 2019d; Advanz Lens
  Goggles, 2019; Gemplers, 2012; Buying Direct, 2012; Amazon.com, 2013;
  Zoro Tools, 2013; Grainger, 2013b; EnviroSafety Products, 2013; BEA,
  2019; U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of
  Regulatory Analysis; Grainger, 2019a; Grainger, 2019b.


 Table IV-13--Half-Mask and Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Unit
                                  Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Half-mask         PAPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Respirator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respirator..............................          $33.68         $971.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53936]]

 
                              Annual Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training................................          $72.63         $145.27
Cleaning................................         $265.30         $265.30
Fit Testing.............................           36.32           94.33
Accessories.............................          210.42          586.29
Annual Subtotal.........................          584.67        1,091.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years...................................               2               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Unit Cost (3%)...............         $602.28       $1,434.51
Annualized Unit Cost (7%)...............         $603.30       $1,461.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Magidglove, 2012; Grainger, 2012e; Restockit, 2012;
  Spectrumchemical, 2012; Conney, 2012a; Conney, 2012b; Zoro Tools,
  2012a; Grainger, 2019c; Grainger, 2019d; Advanz Lens Goggles, 2019;
  Gemplers, 2012; Buying Direct, 2012; Amazon.com, 2013; Zoro Tools,
  2013; Grainger, 2013b; EnviroSafety Products, 2013; Grainger, 2019a;
  Grainger, 2019b.

Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment

Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    Under the 2017 final rule, personal protective clothing and 
equipment are required for workers in shipyards and construction where 
exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL, or where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with 
beryllium.
    The employer must ensure that each employee removes all beryllium-
contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment at the end of 
the work shift or, at the completion of all tasks involving beryllium, 
or when personal protective clothing or equipment becomes visibly 
contaminated with beryllium, whichever comes first. All such personal 
protective clothing and equipment must be removed as specified in the 
written exposure control plan. Personal protective clothing and 
equipment must be kept separate from street clothing and the employer 
must ensure that storage facilities prevent cross-contamination. The 
employer must ensure that personal protective clothing and equipment is 
not removed from the workplace except by authorized personnel, with 
appropriate containers and labels that are in accordance with paragraph 
(m)(2). All reusable personal protective clothing and equipment must be 
cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as needed.
    The employer must ensure that beryllium is not removed from 
personal protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any 
other means that disperses beryllium into the air. The employer must 
inform in writing the persons or the business entities who launder, 
clean or repair the personal protective clothing or equipment required 
by this standard of the potentially harmful effects of airborne 
exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium and that the personal 
protective clothing and equipment must be handled in accordance with 
this standard.
Cost Savings Estimates of This Proposal
    OSHA is proposing several revisions to the PPE provisions of the 
standards. OSHA proposes to remove the requirements regarding storage 
facilities, providing PPE when there is a reasonable expectation of 
dermal contact with beryllium, removal of PPE when it becomes visibly 
contaminated with beryllium, storing and keeping PPE separate from 
employees' street clothing, removal of beryllium-contaminated PPE from 
the workplace, and transportation and labeling of PPE that is removed 
from the workplace. OSHA is also proposing to remove the qualifier 
``beryllium-contaminated'' and replace it with ``required by this 
standard.''
    Under these proposed changes, the PPE provisions will only apply to 
employees who are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed over 
the TWA PEL or STEL. In the 2017 FEA, OSHA also estimated PPE costs for 
the 25% of employees who would be exposed below the PEL but who 
nevertheless may have dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA also 
estimated ten minutes of clerical time for each establishment with 
laundry needs to notify the cleaners in writing of the potentially 
harmful effects of beryllium exposure and how the protective clothing 
and equipment must be handled in accordance with the beryllium 
standard, so the proposed removal of that provision would result in a 
cost savings. OSHA did not estimate costs for storage facilities 
because it judged that no employers would need them.
    As stated in the compliance section in IV.B, above, OSHA 
preliminarily estimates a 90% compliance rate for all PPE for workers 
who have exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL. This is a change from the 
2017 FEA, which estimated a 75% compliance rate for PPE for all 
workers, not just those exposed above the TWA PEL or STEL, because of 
the proposed change to the PPE provisions that would only require PPE 
where exposures can exceed the TWA PEL or STEL. Hence, there is an 
adjustment to costs due to the decreased number of workers, from 25% to 
10%, with exposures above the TWA PEL or STEL who will need PPE. The 
exposure profile (Table IV-2) shows the number of workers who are 
exposed above the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ PEL. For those above the PEL, the 
decrease in the compliance rate from 25% to 10%, or 15%, along with 
OSHA's standard calculation that 10% of those workers will continue to 
be exposed above the PEL after the standards take effect, means 1.5% of 
these workers will no longer need PPE. This number of workers times the 
unit costs (discussed below) gives the cost adjustment for this group. 
For those workers whose exposures are below the TWA PEL and STEL, there 
will also be a cost savings for the 25% that the 2017 FEA estimated did 
not have proper PPE, due to the proposed removal of the dermal contact 
trigger for PPE. The exposure profile (Table IV-2) shows the number of 
workers below the PEL. OSHA is proposing to revise the compliance rate 
from 75% to 100%, so 25% will no longer need PPE. This

[[Page 53937]]

number of workers times the unit costs (discussed below) gives the cost 
adjustment for this group.
    The cost savings due to the proposed removal of the requirement to 
notify laundries is per-establishment, not per-worker, and the number 
of establishments can be found in Table IV-4. The total number of 
affected establishments times the cost of clerical time, below, gives 
the cost savings for this proposed revision.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated that employers would rent rather 
than purchase PPE. The annual cost for rental would be $53.67 per 
employee, inflated from the 2017 FEA estimate of $48.62. The per-
establishment annual cost savings for the ten minutes of clerical time 
required to notify laundries is $4.12 ($24.71 hourly wage, File Clerks 
SOC 43-4071).
    After accounting for the 25% of employees who no longer need PPE 
due to the removal of the dermal contact trigger, the change in the 
compliance rate from 75% to 90%, and the removal of the ten minutes of 
clerical time for notifying laundries, the total annualized cost 
savings and adjustment for the proposed revisions to the PPE paragraph 
is estimated to be $164,330 at a 3 percent discount rate.
Hygiene Areas and Practices
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    The 2017 final rule requires affected shipyard and construction 
employers to provide readily accessible washing facilities to remove 
beryllium from the hands, face, and neck of each employee exposed to 
beryllium; ensure that employees who have dermal contact with beryllium 
wash any exposed skin at the end of the activity, process, or work 
shift and prior to eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum, 
applying cosmetics, or using the toilet; and provide employees required 
to use PPE with a designated change room where employees are required 
to remove their personal clothing. Wherever the employer allows 
employees to consume food or beverages at a worksite where beryllium is 
present, the employer must ensure that surfaces in eating and drinking 
areas are as free as practicable of beryllium and no employees enter 
any eating or drinking area with personal protective clothing or 
equipment unless, prior to entry, surface beryllium has been removed 
from the clothing or equipment by methods that do not disperse 
beryllium into the air or onto an employee's body. The employer must 
also ensure that no employees eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, 
or apply cosmetics in work areas where there is a reasonable 
expectation of exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL.
Cost Savings Estimates in This Proposal
    OSHA is proposing to rescind this paragraph in its entirety. Both 
washing facilities and change rooms would no longer be directly 
required under this proposal. However, because PPE is still required 
where airborne beryllium exceeds the TWA PEL or STEL, employers will 
still need to provide change rooms where exposures are above the TWA 
PEL or STEL pursuant to the sanitation standards.
    The 2017 FEA estimated no costs for readily accessible washing 
facilities, under the expectation that employers already have such 
facilities in place where needed, and this PEA retains this estimate. 
Therefore, OSHA is estimating no cost savings from washing facilities 
due to this proposal. The 2017 FEA did include costs for disposable 
head coverings that would be purchased for processes where hair may 
become contaminated by beryllium. OSHA now believes that employers in 
construction and shipyards will not incur these costs under the 
existing standards because unlike in general industry, there are no 
requirements in construction or shipyards to provide showers where hair 
can become contaminated with beryllium. OSHA is therefore making a cost 
adjustment to account for this. The annual cost for one disposable head 
covering per day in 2018 dollars is $30.78 (Grainger, 2013). The number 
of workers estimated to need such head coverings in the 2017 FEA is 
542; so the total annual cost adjustment is $16,669 ($30.78 x 542).
    The agency is not estimating cost savings for the proposed removal 
of requirements to add a change room and segregated lockers. The 
sanitation standards (29 CFR 1926.51 and 29 CFR 1915.88) require 
employers to provide change rooms whenever they require employees to 
wear PPE to prevent exposure to hazardous or toxic substances. Under 
this proposal, employers would still be required by the sanitation 
standards, combined with the PEL requirements in 2017 beryllium final 
rule, to provide PPE to employees to prevent exposure to beryllium. 
Therefore, no cost savings would arise from this proposed change.
    The proposed revisions to the PPE paragraph would remove the need 
for employees to change out of PPE, generally at the end of a shift, 
for those not exposed to airborne beryllium above the TWA PEL and STEL. 
In the 2017 FEA, OSHA included the cost of changing clothes in the 
costs for the hygiene provisions rather than the PPE provisions. The 
cost for a clothing change is the same as in the 2017 FEA, updated to 
2018 dollars. The agency expected that, in many cases, a worker will 
simply be adding, and later removing, a layer of clothing (such as a 
lab coat, coverall, or shoe covers) at work, which might involve no 
more than a couple of minutes a day. However, in other cases, a worker 
may need a full clothing change. Taking all these factors into account, 
OSHA estimated that a worker using PPE would need 5 minutes per day to 
change clothes (Document ID 2042, p. V-185). The annual cost per 
employee to change clothes is $530.61. This cost is based on a 
production worker earning $25.47 an hour (Production Occupation, SOC: 
51-0000) and taking 5 minutes per day to change clothes for 250 days 
per year ((5/60) x $25.47 x 250).
    OSHA's proposed removal of the eating and drinking areas and 
prohibited activities provisions of paragraph (i) have cost 
implications only for training, which is discussed later in this cost 
section.
    The agency estimates the total annualized cost savings of the 
proposed removal of paragraph (i) to be $304,052 for all affected 
establishments. The breakdown of these cost savings by NAICS code can 
be seen in Table IV-15 at the end of this program cost-savings section.

Housekeeping

Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    The housekeeping provisions require the employer to follow the 
written exposure control plan when cleaning beryllium-contaminated 
areas, ensure that all spills and emergency releases of beryllium are 
cleaned up promptly and in accordance with the written exposure control 
plan required under paragraph (f)(1) of this standard. The provisions 
require the employer to ensure the use of HEPA-filtered vacuuming or 
other methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne 
exposure when cleaning beryllium-contaminated areas, and prohibit the 
employer from allowing dry sweeping or brushing for cleaning in such 
areas unless HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the 
likelihood and level of airborne exposure are not safe or effective. 
The provisions also prohibit the employer from allowing the use of 
compressed air for cleaning in beryllium-contaminated areas unless the 
compressed air is used in conjunction with a ventilation system 
designed to capture the particulates made airborne

[[Page 53938]]

by the use of compressed air. Where employees use dry sweeping, 
brushing, or compressed air to clean in beryllium-contaminated areas, 
the employer must provide, and ensure that each employee uses, 
respiratory protection and personal protective clothing and equipment 
in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of the standards. The 
employer must also ensure that cleaning equipment is handled and 
maintained in a manner that minimizes the likelihood and level of 
airborne exposure and the re-entrainment of airborne beryllium in the 
workplace. When the employer transfers materials containing beryllium 
to another party for use or disposal, the employer must provide the 
recipient with the warning required by paragraph (m).
Cost Savings Estimates in this Proposal
    OSHA is proposing to remove the requirements to follow the written 
exposure control plan when cleaning and to promptly clean up spills and 
emergency releases. OSHA is also proposing to revise the cleaning 
methods requirements to remove the reference to HEPA-filtered vacuuming 
and to trigger these provisions on the presence of dust resulting from 
operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne 
exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL, rather than on the presence of a 
``beryllium-contaminated area.'' In addition, OSHA is proposing to 
remove the qualifier ``in beryllium-contaminated areas'' from the 
requirement to provide PPE and respiratory protection in accordance 
with other provisions in the standards. Next, OSHA is proposing to 
prohibit the use of compressed air for cleaning where the use of 
compressed air causes, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne 
exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL. Finally, OSHA is proposing to 
remove the requirement to provide a warning when transferring materials 
containing beryllium to another party for use or disposal.
    The agency is estimating cost savings for removing the requirement 
to use HEPA-filtered vacuums for shipyards and construction and for 
removing the need for a warning label when transferring materials 
containing beryllium to another party for use or disposal. The other 
cost included for this provision is labor time spent doing housekeeping 
tasks, and the agency estimates the proposed revisions do not alter its 
2017 FEA estimate of an additional 5 minutes per day for each employee.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated a compliance rate for the 
housekeeping provisions of 75% for all workers in abrasive blasting 
based on the agency's determination that other standards required some 
housekeeping for abrasive blasting in both construction and shipyards. 
As discussed above, a further review of other standards has led the 
agency to revise its compliance rate for housekeeping to 100%. While 
the proposed revisions will limit the methods that employers may use to 
clean up beryllium, OSHA estimates that cleaning methods which do not 
disperse beryllium into the air take approximately the same amount of 
time as cleaning methods already in use. OSHA is making a cost 
adjustment in this PEA for the additional 25% of workers in abrasive 
blasting operations who are now estimated to be performing housekeeping 
tasks. Furthermore, while those areas that are below the TWA PEL and 
STEL no longer have any requirements for housekeeping tasks, OSHA is 
not estimating an additional cost savings because its revised 
compliance estimate is already at 100%. OSHA estimated in the 2017 FEA 
that welding in shipyards had a 0% compliance rate for housekeeping. 
This has also been changed to 100% compliance in this PEA, as explained 
in section B of this PEA. OSHA is also making a cost adjustment for 
this change in the compliance rate.
    OSHA estimated the following costs for the housekeeping provisions 
in the 2017 FEA (Document ID 2042, pp. V-187-190, amounts adjusted for 
2018 dollars): A one-time annualized cost per worker of a HEPA-filtered 
vacuum ($640); the annual cost per worker of the additional time needed 
to perform housekeeping ($531); and the annual cost of the warning 
labels per worker ($6). The total annual per-employee cost was $1,177 
($640 + $531 + $6). This per-employee cost is then multiplied by the 
25% of workers in abrasive blasting operations and 100% of the welders 
who are now estimated to be in compliance versus the 2017 FEA to 
calculate the cost adjustment due to the revised baseline compliance 
rates.
    The total annualized cost adjustment in this proposal due to 
revisions to this ancillary provision are $1,734,022. The breakdown of 
these cost savings by NAICS code is shown in Table IV-15 at the end of 
this program cost-savings section.

Medical Surveillance

Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    The 2017 final rule requires affected employers in shipyards and 
construction to make medical surveillance available at a reasonable 
time and place, and at no cost, to the following employees:
    1. Employees who are, or are reasonably expected to be, exposed at 
or above the action level for more than 30 days per year;
    2. Employees who show signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium 
disease (CBD) or signs or symptoms of other beryllium-related health 
effects;
    3. Employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
    4. Employees whose most recent written medical opinion required by 
this standard recommends periodic medical surveillance.
    The medical surveillance paragraph also specifies the frequency 
with which examinations must be provided, the required contents of the 
examination, the information that the employer must provide to the 
physician or other licensed healthcare provider (PLHCP), the 
information that must be contained in the physician's written medical 
report for the employee, the information that must be contained in the 
physician's written medical opinion for the employer, and procedures 
and requirements related to referral to a CBD diagnostic center.
Cost Savings of This Proposal
    OSHA is proposing minor changes to the medical surveillance 
provision of the 2017 final rule.
    First, OSHA proposes to remove the emergency trigger for medical 
surveillance. The 2017 FEA did not break out a separate cost for 
emergencies, stating that ``a very small number of employees will be 
affected by emergencies in a given year'' (p. V-196). The agency 
therefore preliminarily concludes that removing the emergency trigger 
will result in de minimis cost savings.
    OSHA also proposes to replace the phrase ``airborne exposure to and 
dermal contact with beryllium'' in these provisions with the simpler 
phrase ``exposure to beryllium.'' As explained in the Summary and 
Explanation section, this is not a substantive change and has no cost 
implications.
    One proposed change would clarify the definition of CBD diagnostic 
center, that a center has a pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on 
staff and must be capable of performing a variety of tests commonly 
used in the diagnosis of CBD, but need not necessarily perform all of 
the tests during all CBD evaluations. The 2016 FEA in fact did not 
estimate that all tests would be performed during all CBD evaluations, 
and so the agency takes no cost savings for this change.

[[Page 53939]]

    To account for the proposed revision to the definition of CBD 
diagnostic center, OSHA is proposing to amend paragraph (k)(7)(i) to 
clarify that the employer must provide, at no cost to the employee and 
within a reasonable time after consultation with the CBD diagnostic 
center, any of the following tests that a CBD diagnostic center must be 
capable of performing, if deemed appropriate by the examining physician 
at the CBD diagnostic center: a pulmonary function test as outlined by 
American Thoracic Society criteria testing, bronchoalveolar lavage 
(BAL), and transbronchial biopsy. This proposed change to paragraph 
(k)(7) would not change the requirements of the beryllium standard and 
therefore would not change the costs of compliance with the standard.
    OSHA is also proposing that the employer provide an initial 
consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, rather than the full 
evaluation, within 30 days of the employer receiving notice that a full 
evaluation must be performed. This initial consultation can be done in 
conjunction with the tests but it is not required to be. As the initial 
consultation may be conducted remotely, by phone or virtual 
conferencing, the cost of the consultation would consist only of time 
spent by the employee and the PLHCP and would not have to include any 
travel or accommodation. In the 2017 FEA, and the 2018 PEA in support 
of the proposal to revise the general industry beryllium standard, OSHA 
accounted for the cost of both the employee's time and the examining 
physician's time for a 15-minute discussion (2017 FEA, p. V-206; 83 FR 
at 63764). Because the consultation would replace this initial 
discussion, there would be no additional cost. Furthermore, OSHA 
expects that allowing more flexibility in scheduling the tests at the 
CBD diagnostic center would allow employers to find more economical 
travel and accommodation options. As in the 2018 PEA in support of the 
proposed revisions to the general industry beryllium standard, the 
agency therefore preliminarily concludes these changes would produce 
minor, if any, cost savings, and no additional costs.
    Another proposed change with potential implications for medical 
surveillance costs is a proposed change in the definition of confirmed 
positive. OSHA is proposing to clarify that the set of test results 
must all be obtained from a single 30-day testing cycle. The exact 
effect of this proposed change is uncertain as it is unknown how many 
employees would have a series of BeLPT results associated with a 
confirmed positive finding (two abnormal results, one abnormal and one 
borderline result, or three borderline results) over an unlimited 
period of time, but would not have any such combination of results 
within a single testing cycle. As in the PEA in support of the 2018 
proposed revisions to the general industry standard, OSHA preliminarily 
concludes that this proposed change would not increase compliance costs 
and would incidentally yield some cost savings by lessening the 
likelihood of false positives.
    Other proposed changes are to align these standards with the 
(proposed) general industry standard and, similar to the economic 
analysis there, are also estimated to only have de minimis effects on 
costs.

Medical Removal

Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    OSHA is not proposing any changes to paragraph (l), Medical removal 
protection. OSHA is also not proposing any changes to the baseline 
compliance rate with this paragraph. Therefore, there are no cost 
savings associated with this provision.

Communication of Hazards

Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the 2017 Final Rule
    Paragraph (m) of the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards sets forth the employer's obligations to comply with OSHA's 
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) relative to 
beryllium, and to provide warnings and training to employees about the 
hazards of beryllium.
Cost Savings in This Proposal
    OSHA is proposing three changes to paragraph (m) in both the 
construction and shipyards standards. First, OSHA is proposing to 
remove the paragraph (m) provisions that require specific language for 
warning labels applied to materials designated for disposal or PPE when 
removed from the workplace (paragraph (m)(2) in construction and 
paragraph (m)(3) in shipyards). This is consistent with OSHA's proposal 
to remove the corresponding requirements to provide such warning labels 
and any cost implications are accounted for in the sections on those 
corresponding provisions.
    Second, OSHA is also proposing to revise paragraph (m)(3)(i) in 
construction and paragraph (m)(4)(i) in boatyards--renumbered as 
paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(3)(i), respectively--to remove dermal 
contact as a trigger for training. This is not a substantive change, so 
OSHA expects no cost implications.
    Third, OSHA is proposing to revise the provisions of paragraph (m) 
for employee information and training related to emergency procedures 
(paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(D) in construction and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D) in 
shipyards) and personal hygiene practices (paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(E) in 
construction and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) in shipyards), for consistency 
with OSHA's proposed removal of emergency procedures and personal 
hygiene practices from the construction and shipyards standards. OSHA 
estimates that this proposed change will lead to a cost savings.
    Below the agency first presents the methodology for training from 
the 2017 final rule with unit cost estimates updated to 2018 dollars, 
and then discusses and estimates the cost effects of this proposal.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated that training, which includes 
hazard communication training, would be conducted by in-house safety or 
supervisory staff with the use of training modules and videos and would 
last, on average, eight hours. (Note that this estimate does not 
include the time taken for hazard communication training that is 
already required by 29 CFR 1910.1200.) The agency judged that 
establishments could purchase sufficient training materials at an 
average cost of $2.21 per worker, encompassing the cost of handouts, 
video presentations, and training manuals and exercises. For initial 
and periodic training, OSHA estimates an average class size of five 
workers (each at a wage of $25.47 (updated from Production Occupations, 
SOC: 51-0000)) with one instructor (at a wage of $42.51 (Median Wage 
for Training and Development Specialists, SOC: 13-1151)) over an eight 
hour period. The per-worker cost of initial training is therefore 
$273.99 ((8 x $25.47) + (8 x $42.51/5) + $2.21).
    Annual retraining of workers is also required by the standards. 
OSHA estimates the same unit costs as for initial training, so 
retraining would require the same per-worker cost of $273.99.
    The first cost savings comes explicitly from the training provision 
itself, where the proposal rescinds training about emergency 
procedures. The agency estimates that this will decrease training time 
by 15 minutes. Other decreases in training time come from rescinded 
portions of hygiene requirements, including: Washing areas, change

[[Page 53940]]

rooms, eating and drinking areas, and cross-contamination. The agency 
estimates that this would decrease needed training by another hour.
    Together this would decrease the required per-employee training 
from 8 hours to 6.75 hours. Hence, the per-worker cost of initial and 
retraining is $231.52 ((6.75 x $25.47) + (6.75 x $42.51/5) + $2.21).
    Finally, using these unit cost estimates, as well as accounting for 
industry-specific baseline compliance rates (which, as explained in 
section IV.B of this PEA, are unchanged from the 2017 FEA), and based 
on a 34.7 percent new hire rate (BLS 2018c, using the annual 
manufacturing new hire rate, as was done in the 2017 FEA), OSHA 
estimates that the proposed revisions to the training requirements in 
the standards would result in an annualized total cost savings of 
$102,102. The breakdown of these cost savings by NAICS code is shown in 
Table IV-15 at the end of this program cost-savings section.

Familiarization Costs

    In the 2017 final rule, OSHA included familiarization costs to 
account for employers' time to understand the ancillary provisions and 
the other new and revised components of the applicable new standard. 
The changes that OSHA is proposing to most provisions are not 
extensive. Employers would thus only need to spend a brief amount of 
time reviewing them. OSHA expects that if this proposal is adopted, 
employers would spend one hour per firm reviewing its changed 
requirements.
    Table IV-14 shows the unit costs, by establishment size, of 
reviewing the changes in this proposal. These costs will likely be one-
time costs incurred during the first year after the effective date of a 
final rule resulting from this proposal, but the aggregate costs are 
annualized for consistency with the other estimates for this proposal. 
Based on the unit familiarization (negative) cost savings in Table IV-
14, the total annualized familiarization costs of this proposal are 
estimated to be $14,221. The breakdown of these costs by NAICS code is 
in Table IV-15 at the end of this program cost-savings section, and 
these costs are reflected in the tables as a negative cost savings.

           Table IV--14: Familiarization--Construction and Shipyard Assumptions and Unit Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Establishment size (employees)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                              Item                                                 Medium  (20-
                                                                   Small  (<20)        499)        Large  (500+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours per establishment.........................................             1.0             1.0             1.0
Total cost savings per establishment............................         -$43.39         -$43.39         -$43.39
Annualized Cost Savings (3 Percent).............................          -$5.09          -$5.09          -$5.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.


                Table IV-15--Annualized Cost Savings of Program Requirements for Industries Affected by the Re-Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                                        [in 2018 Dollars using a 3 Percent Discount Rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Regulated                               Written    Protective                                       Total
                                                         Rule          Exposure        areas/        Medical      Medical    exposure      work      Hygiene                            program
Application group/NAICS          Industry          familiarization    assessment     competent    surveillance    Removal    control    clothing &  areas and  Housekeeping  Training     cost
                                                                                       person                    Provision     plan     equipment   practices                           savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.................  Painting and Wall                 -$5,545              $0           $0              $0         $0    $46,627      $61,974   $115,657     $653,601    $38,490   $910,805
                          Covering Contractors.
238990.................  All Other Specialty               -$5,138               0            0               0          0     43,205       57,426    107,168      605,630     35,665    843,957
                          Trade Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a................  Ship Building and                 -$3,505               0            0               0          0     32,027       43,418     81,172      458,720     27,014    638,846
                          Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b................  Ship Building and                    -$34               0            0               0          0      1,129        1,512         55       16,072        932     19,667
                          Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal............................         -$10,682               0            0               0          0     89,833      119,400    222,825    1,259,230     74,156  1,754,762
Maritime Subtotal................................          -$3,538               0            0               0          0     33,157       44,930     81,227      474,792     27,946    658,513
Total, All Industries............................         -$14,221               0            0               0          0    122,989      164,330    304,052    1,734,022    102,102  2,413,275
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Total Annualized Cost Savings

    As shown in Table IV-16, the total annualized cost savings of this 
proposal, using a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated to be about 
$2.5 million.

[[Page 53941]]



Table IV-16--Annualized Cost Savings to Industries Affected by the Re-Proposed Beryllium Standard, by Sector and
                                            Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                     [2018 Dollars, 3 percent discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Engineering
                                                                controls    Respirator    Program     Total cost
       Application group/NAICS               Industry           and work       cost         cost       savings
                                                               practices     savings      savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..............................  Painting and Wall                $0      $20,389     $910,805     $931,193
                                       Covering Contractors.
238990..............................  All Other Specialty              $0      $18,892     $843,957     $862,849
                                       Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.............................  Ship Building and                 0       13,873      638,846      652,718
                                       Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Welding--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.............................  Ship Building and                 0          858       19,667       20,525
                                       Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.......................................            0       39,281    1,754,762    1,794,042
Maritime Subtotal...........................................            0       14,730      658,513      673,243
Total, All Industries.......................................            0       54,011    2,413,275    2,467,286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Time Distribution of Cost Savings

    OSHA analyzed the stream of (un-annualized) compliance cost savings 
for the first ten years after the proposed rule would take effect. As 
shown in Table IV-17, total compliance cost savings are expected to 
decline from year 1 to year 2 by almost half after the initial set of 
capital and program start-up expenditure savings has been incurred. 
Cost savings are then essentially flat with relatively small variations 
for the following years.

               Table IV-17--Distribution of Undiscounted Compliance Costs and Cost Savings by Year
                                                 [2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Program cost                     Engineering         Rule
              Year                   savings       Respirators      controls     familiarization       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................      $4,215,199         $86,195              $0        -$121,305      $4,180,088
2..............................       2,178,201          46,071               0                0       2,224,272
3..............................       2,178,201          47,743               0                0       2,225,944
4..............................       2,178,201          51,427               0                0       2,229,628
5..............................       2,178,201          47,743               0                0       2,225,944
6..............................       2,178,201          46,071               0                0       2,224,272
7..............................       2,178,201          53,098               0                0       2,231,300
8..............................       2,178,201          46,071               0                0       2,224,272
9..............................       2,178,201          47,743               0                0       2,225,944
10.............................       2,178,201          51,427               0                0       2,229,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Table IV-18 breaks out total cost savings by each application group 
for the first ten years. Each application group follows the same 
pattern of a sharp decrease in cost savings between years 1 and 2, and 
then remains relatively flat for the remaining years.

                               Table IV-18--Total Undiscounted Cost Savings of the Re-Proposed Beryllium Standard by Year
                                                                     (2018 Dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Year
        Application group        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1           2           3           4           5           6           7           8           9          10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Construction.  $3,039,516  $1,617,334  $1,618,538  $1,621,189  $1,618,538  $1,617,334  $1,622,392  $1,617,334  $1,618,538  $1,621,189
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards....   1,103,334     588,796     589,234     590,200     589,234     588,796     590,639     588,796     589,234     590,200
Welding--Shipyards..............      37,239      18,142      18,172      18,239      18,172      18,142      18,269      18,142      18,172      18,239
    Total.......................   4,180,088   2,224,272   2,225,944   2,229,628   2,225,944   2,224,272   2,231,300   2,224,272   2,225,944   2,229,628
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


[[Page 53942]]

Appendix IV-A

Summary of Annualized Cost Savings by Entity Size Under Alternative 
Discount Rates
    In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost 
analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative 
discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables IV-19 and IV-20 
present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS industry 
code and employment size class (all establishments, small entities, and 
very small entities).
    As shown in these tables, the choice of discount rate has only a 
minor effect on total annualized compliance cost savings--for example, 
annualized cost savings for all establishments remain flat/slightly 
increase to $2.5 million using a 7 percent discount rate, and remain 
flat/slightly decrease to $2.5 million using a 0 percent discount rate.

Table IV-19--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
                                  Shipyard and Construction Beryllium Standards
                            [By size category, 7 percent discount rate, 2018 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Very small
   Application group/NAICS            Industry        All establishments    Small entities       entities (<20
                                                                             (SBA-defined)        employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.......................  Painting and Wall                $950,654            $782,690            $518,407
                                Covering Contractors.
238990.......................  All Other Specialty              $880,881            $654,058            $418,827
                                Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a......................  Ship Building and                $666,280            $172,674             $86,542
                                Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Welding in Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b......................  Ship Building and                 $21,028              $5,583              $3,100
                                Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...............................          $1,831,536          $1,436,748            $937,234
Shipyard Subtotal...................................            $687,308            $178,257             $89,641
Total, All Industries...............................          $2,518,843          $1,615,005          $1,026,876
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


Table IV-20--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
                                  Shipyard and Construction Beryllium Standards
                            [By size category, 0 percent discount rate, 2018 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Very small
   Application group/NAICS            Industry        All establishments    Small entities       entities (<20
                                                                             (SBA-defined)        employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.......................  Painting and Wall                $929,939            $765,329            $506,383
                                Covering Contractors.
238990.......................  All Other Specialty              $861,686            $639,408            $408,952
                                Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a......................  Ship Building and                $651,883            $168,209             $84,196
                                Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Welding in Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b......................  Ship Building and                 $20,479              $5,387              $2,988
                                Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...............................          $1,791,625          $1,404,737            $915,335
Shipyard Subtotal...................................            $672,362            $173,596             $87,184
Total, All Industries...............................          $2,463,987          $1,578,333          $1,002,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


[[Page 53943]]

Appendix IV-B

Summary of Annualized Cost Savings by Cost Type Under Alternative 
Discount Rates
    In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost 
analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative 
discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables IV-21 and IV-22 
present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS industry 
code and type of cost savings.

   Table IV-21--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the Re-Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                       [7 Percent discount rate, in 2018 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Engineering
         Application group/NAICS                        Industry               controls and     Respirator cost      Program cost     Total cost savings
                                                                              work practices        savings             savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...................................  Painting and Wall Covering                     $0             $20,892            $929,762            $950,654
                                            Contractors.
238990...................................  All Other Specialty Trade                      $0             $19,358            $861,523            $880,881
                                            Contractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..................................  Ship Building and Repairing......              $0             $14,196            $652,084            $666,280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Welding--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..................................  Ship Building and Repairing......              $0                $873             $20,154             $21,028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal....................  $0...............................         $40,250          $1,791,285          $1,831,536  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Subtotal........................  $0...............................         $15,069            $672,238            $687,308  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries....................  $0...............................         $55,319          $2,463,524          $2,518,843  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


   Table IV-22--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the Re-Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                       [0 Percent discount rate, in 2018 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Engineering
        Application group/NAICS                      Industry              controls and work    Respirator cost      Program cost     Total cost savings
                                                                               practices            savings             savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.................................  Painting and Wall Covering                       $0             $20,334            $909,605            $929,939
                                          Contractors.
238990.................................  All Other Specialty Trade                         0              18,842             842,845             861,686
                                          Contractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a................................  Ship Building and Repairing....                   0              13,834             638,049             651,883
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Welding--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b................................  Ship Building and Repairing....                   0                 855              19,623              20,479
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...................................................                   0              39,176           1,752,450           1,791,625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Subtotal.......................................................                   0              14,690             657,672             672,362
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries...................................................                   0              53,865           2,410,122           2,463,987
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


[[Page 53944]]

E. Benefits
    The changes proposed in this NPRM are designed to accomplish three 
goals: (1) To more appropriately tailor the requirements of the 
construction and shipyards standards to the particular exposures in 
these industries in light of partial overlap between the beryllium 
standards' requirements and other OSHA standards; (2) to aid compliance 
and enforcement across the beryllium standards by avoiding 
inconsistency, where appropriate, between the shipyards and 
construction standards and proposed revisions to the general industry 
standard; and (3) to clarify certain requirements with respect to 
materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium. As to the first 
group of changes, this NPRM clarifies that OSHA did not, and does not, 
intend to apply the provisions aimed at protecting workers from the 
effects of dermal contact to industries that only work with beryllium 
in trace amounts where there is limited or no airborne exposure. In the 
prior FEA, OSHA did not isolate any quantifiable benefits from avoiding 
beryllium sensitization from dermal contact (see discussion at p. VII-
16 through VII-18). Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the 
proposed revisions in this NPRM that focus on dermal contact will not 
have any impact on OSHA's previous benefit estimates for the standards 
as a whole.
    OSHA also does not expect the second and third groups of proposed 
changes, i.e., those intended to more closely tailor the standards' 
requirements to the construction and shipyard industries and closely 
align them to the general industry standard's requirements, where 
appropriate, to result in a reduction in benefits. Rather, as explained 
in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA believes that the proposed changes 
would maintain safety and health protections for workers while aligning 
the standards with the intent behind the 2017 final rule and otherwise 
preventing costs that could follow from misinterpretation or 
misapplication of the standards. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily 
determines that the effect of these proposed revisions on the benefits 
of the standards as a whole would be negligible. OSHA invites comment 
on this preliminary determination.
References
Advanz Goggles #A030 72-Pack $10.29 (USD) each, for Spray Painting 
and Spray Foam Installation. https://www.advanzgoggles.com/advanz-goggles-72-pack.html (accessed August 19, 2019).
Amazon, 2013. Cartridge/Filter Adapter 701. Per cartridge (15.098 
per case of 20), $0.75. Cost assumes 50 used per year. Accessed 2013 
from http://www.amazon.com/3M-Cartridge-Respiratory-Protection-Replacement/dp/B004RH1RXG. Document ID 1969.
Brush Wellman, 2004. Individual full-shift personal breathing zone 
(lapel-type) exposure levels collected by Brush Wellman in 1999 at 
their Elmore, Ohio facility were provided to ERG in August 2004. 
Brush Wellman, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Document ID 0578.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019 (BEA, 2019). Table 1.1.9. Implicit 
price deflators for Gross Domestic Product. Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=11 (Accessed 
June 19, 2019).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2017). Occupational Outlook 
Handbook. Painters, Construction and Maintenance. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/painters-construction-and-maintenance.htm#tab-2. December 17, 2015. Accessed April 5, 
2017.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 (BLS, 2018a). Occupational 
Employment Statistics Survey--May 2018. (Released March 29, 2019). 
Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed June 19, 
2019). Document ID 2172.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 (BLS, 2018b). 2018 Employer Costs 
for Employee Compensation, March, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06082018.htm (Accessed June 19, 2019). Document ID 2186.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 (BLS, 2018c). Job Openings and 
Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS): 2018. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm (Accessed June 19, 2019). Document ID 2173.
Burgess, W.A., 1991. Potential Exposures in the Manufacturing 
Industry--Their Recognition and Control. In Patty's Industrial 
Hygiene and Toxicology, 4th Edition, Volume I, Part A. G.D. Clayton 
and F.E. Clayton (editors). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Pages 
595-598. Document ID 0907.
Buyingdirect, 2012. 3M Powerflow Face-Mounted Powered Air Purifying 
Respirator (PAPR), 1/Case, $595. From http://www.buyingdirect.net/3M_Powerflow_Powered_Air_Purifying_Respirator_p/3m6800pf.htm. 
Document ID 0576.
Conney, 2012a. North CFR-1 Half-Mask Filter: N95 Filter, 20/Pkg, 
$18.90. From http://www.conney.com/Product_-North-CFR-1-Half-Mask-Filter_50001_10102_-1_65100_11292_11285_11285. Document ID 1986.
Conney, 2012b. 3M 5N11 filter replacement, N95 for 6000 series full/
half respirator masks; 10 per box, $15. Document ID 1987.
ERG, 2014. ``Summary of ERG Interviews on Abrasive Blasters' Use of 
Beryllium Blast Media,'' Memo from Eastern Research Group, October 
6. Document ID 0516.
ERG, 2015. ``Support for OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) 
for the Proposed Beryllium Standard: Excel Spreadsheets of Economic 
Costs, Impacts, and Benefits,'' Eastern Research Group. Document ID 
0385.
EnviroSafety Products. 2013. 3M 6898 Lens Assembly. Available at 
http://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/3m-6898-lens-assembly.html 
(Accessed August 21, 2019; unit cost estimate in PEA reflects 2013 
sourcing).
Gemplers, 2012. GVP 6000 Series Full-face Powered Air Purifying 
Respirator System, $1,096. From http://www.gemplers.com/product/127566/GVP-6000-Series-Full-face-Powered-Air-Purifying-Respirator-System. Document ID 0565.
Grainger, 2012f. SUNDSTROM SAFETY Half Mask, Silicone, Small/Medium. 
Available at http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/SUNDSTROM-SAFETY-Half-Mask-Silicone-SmallMedium-6GGT3 (Accessed August 15, 2014). Document 
ID 2007.
Grainger, 2013. Bouffant Cap, White, Universal, PK100. Available at 
http://www.grainger.com/product/CONDOR-Bouffant-Cap-WP10400/_/N-/Ntt-hair+net?sst=subset&s_pp=false (Accessed March 13, 2013). 
Document ID 2009.
Grainger, 2019a. Honeywell North CF7000 series abrasive blast 
supplied-air respirator https://www.grainger.com/search/safety/respiratory/supplied-air-respirators?brandName=HONEYWELL+NORTH&filters=brandName (accessed 
August 19, 2019).
Grainger, 2019b. Honeywell North P100 Respirator Cartridge 
(replacements) https://www.grainger.com/product/HONEYWELL-NORTH-Respirator-Cartridge-16M232 (accessed August 19, 2019).
Grainger, 2019c. Honeywell North Inhalation Valve, for use with 
Half-Mask Respirators. https://www.grainger.com/product/HONEYWELL-NORTH-Inhalation-Valve-3PRH4 (accessed August 19, 2019).
Grainger, 2019d. Honeywell Exhalation Valve, for use with Half-Mask 
Respirators. https://www.grainger.com/product/HONEYWELL-Exhalation-Valve-3PRN5 (accessed August 19, 2019).
Grainger, 2019f. Hallowell Light Gray/Black Box Locker. Available at 
https://www.grainger.com/product/HALLOWELL-Light-Gray-Black-Box-Locker-35UW78?internalSearchTerm=Light+Gray%2FBlack+Box+Locker%2C+%281%29+Wide%2C+%286%29+Tier+%2C+Openings%3A+6%2C+12%22+W+X+18%22+D+X+72%22+H&suggestConfigId=8&searchBar=true (Accessed August 21, 2019; unit cost 
in 2017 FEA based on 2016 sourcing).
Grant Thornton LLP. 2017 Government Contractor Survey, https://
www.grantthornton.com/-/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/

[[Page 53945]]

surveys/2018/2017-government-contractor-survey.
Greskevitch, M., 2000. Personal email communication between Mark 
Greskevitch of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) and Eastern Research Group, Inc., February 17, 
2000. Document ID 0701.
Kolanz, M., 2001. Brush Wellman Customer Data Summary. OSHA 
Presentation, July 2, 2001. Washington, DC. Document ID 0091.
Lerch, A., 2003. Telephone Interview between Angie Lerch, Rental 
Coordinator, Satellite Shelters, Inc. and Robert Carney of ERG. 
Document ID 0562.
Magidglove, 2012. North by Honeywell 7700 Series Silicone Half Mask 
Respirator, $28.60. From http://www.magidglove.com/North-Safety-7700-Series-Silicone-Half-Mask-Respirator-N770030S.aspx?DepartmentId=224. Document ID 2018.
Meeker, J.D., P. Susi, and A. Pellegrino, 2006. Case Study: 
Comparison of Occupational Exposures Among Painters Using Three 
Alternative Blasting Abrasives. Journal of Occupational and 
Environmental Hygiene 3(9): D80-D84. Document IDs 0698; 1606; and 
1815, Attachment 93.
NIOSH, 1976. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
1976. Abrasive Blasting Operations: Engineering Control and Work 
Practices Manual. NIOSH Publication No. 76-179. March 1976. Document 
ID 0779.
NIOSH, 1995. NIOSH ECTB 183-16a. In-Depth Survey Report: Control 
Technology for Removing Lead-Based Paint from Steel Structures: 
Power Tool Cleaning at Muskingum County, Ohio Bridge MUS-555-0567 
and MUS-60-3360, Olympic Painting Company, Inc., Youngstown, Ohio. 
November. Document ID 0773.
The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 1999. (NSRP, 1999) 
Feasibility and Economics Study of the Treatment, Recycling and 
Disposal of Spent Abrasives. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy, 
Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with 
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California.
NSRP 0529, N1-93-1. April 9. Document ID 0767.
The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 2000. Cost-Effective 
Clean Up of Spent Grit. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy, Carderock 
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with National 
Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California. NSRP 0570, 
N1-95-4. December 15. Document ID 0766.
OSHA, 2004 (OSHA, 2004). OSHA Integrated Management Information 
System. Beryllium data provided by OSHA covering the period 1978 to 
2003. Document ID 0340, Attachment 6.
OSHA, 2005 (OSHA, 2005). Beryllium Exposure Data for Hot Work and 
Abrasive Blasting Operations from Four U.S. Shipyards (Sample Years 
1995 to 2004). Data provided to Eastern Research Group (ERG), Inc. 
by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. March 2005. [Unpublished]. Document ID 1166. 
Accessed March 10, 2017.
OSHA, 2009 (OSHA, 2009). Integrated Management Information System 
(IMIS). Beryllium exposure data, updated April 21, 2009. Data 
provided to Eastern Research Group, Inc. by the U.S. Department of 
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC 
[Unpublished, electronic files]. Document ID 1165.
OSHA, 2016 (OSHA, 2016). Cost of Compliance (Chapter V) of the Final 
Economic Analysis. Document ID 2042.
OSHA, 2016 (OSHA, 2016a). Technical and Analytical Support for 
OSHA's Final Economic Analysis for the Final Standard on Beryllium 
and Beryllium Compounds: Excel Spreadsheets Supporting the FEA. 
OSHA, Directorate of Standards, Office of Regulatory Analysis. 
December 2016. Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2044.
OSHA, 2017 (OSHA, 2017). Cost of Compliance (Chapter V) of the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis. Document ID 2076.
OSHA, 2019 (OSHA, 2019). Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs, 
Impacts, and Benefits in Support of OSHA's Final Economic Analysis 
(FEA) for the Final Deregulatory Action of the Ancillary Revisions 
for the Maritime Sector and the Construction Sector from the Scope 
of the 2017 Final Rule: September 2019.
Restockit, 2012. AO Safety R5500 5-star Rubber Halfmask Respirator, 
From http://www.restockit.com/r5500-5-star-rubber-halfmask-respirator-(247-50089-00000).html. Document ID 2024.
Rice, Cody. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage Rates for 
Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June 
10, 2002. Document ID 2025.
Small Business Advocacy Review, 2008 (SBAR, 2008). SBAR Panel Final 
Report, OSHA. Document ID 0345.
Spectrumchemical, 2012. Willson 6100 Series Half-Mask Air Purifying 
Respirator, From https://www.spectrumchemical.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?section_name=Half-Mask&item=1&itemGrpNum=303964&isSupply=1&section=12187&minisite=10020&respid=50577. Document ID 2028.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. County Business Patterns: 2012. Available 
at http://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2012/econ/cbp/2012-cbp.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. Statistics of US Businesses: 2012. 
Avaiable at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997a. (EPA, 1997a) Emission 
Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 13.2.6, Abrasive Blasting. 
Final Report. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina. September. Document ID 0784.
U.S. Navy, 2003. 6-19-2: Attachment (1). Navy Occupational Exposure 
Database (NOED) Query Report Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling 
Results for Beryllium. Document ID 0145. Accessed March 10, 2017.
U.S. Small Business Administration, 2016. Table of size standards: 
2016. Available at https://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.
WorkSafe, 2000. Code of Practice: Abrasive Blasting. WorkSafe 
Western Australia Commission. June. Document ID 0692.
Zorotools, 2012a. N99--Replacement Filters (Filter Respirator, For 
Welding Respirator and 7190N99, Package 2), $4.75. From http://www.zorotools.com/g/00066271/k-G0408886?utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google_Shopping_Feed&kw={keyword{time} &gclid=CJy14uPdwbECFQp66wodMlsAdw. 
Document ID 0554.
Zorotools, 2013. 3M Breathing Tube; Breathing Tube, For Use With 
Mfr. No. 7800S, 6000 DIN Series, Includes Connectors, $75.89. Cost 
assumes 3 used per year. Accessed 2013 from http://www.zorotools.com/g/00052249/k-G2062776?utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google_Shopping_Feed&kw={keyword{time} &gclid=CL-Rz96Hj7kCFZSi4AodPw4AYQ. 
Document ID 2038.

Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Economic Feasibility Analysis

    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA concluded that the beryllium standards for 
construction and shipyards were both economically feasible (see 82 FR 
at 2471). OSHA is proposing to modify some of the ancillary provisions 
in both standards and has preliminarily concluded that the proposed 
revisions would, overall, reduce costs for employers in both sectors 
(see section D, Costs of Compliance, in this PEA). Because the effect 
of this proposed rule is a net reduction in costs, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that this proposal is economically feasible in 
both the construction and shipyard sectors.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA has examined the regulatory requirements of the 
proposal for construction and shipyards to determine whether they would 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This proposal would modify certain ancillary provisions for 
shipyards and

[[Page 53946]]

construction, resulting in a reduction of overall costs. Furthermore, 
the agency believes that this proposal would not impose any additional 
costs on small entities. Accordingly, OSHA certifies that the proposal 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017), OSHA has estimated the total annualized cost savings of this 
proposed rule, using a 3 percent discount rate, to be about $2.5 
million, or using a 7 percent discount rate, to be about $2.5 million. 
Therefore, this proposed rule, if finalized, is expected to be an 
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    OSHA is proposing to update the beryllium standards for the 
construction and shipyards industries, which contain collections of 
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The beryllium 
standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024), construction (29 CFR 
1926.1124), and shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1024)--contain collection of 
information (paperwork) requirements that have been previously approved 
by OMB. The requirements of all three standards are currently contained 
in the approved information collections request (ICR) under OMB control 
number 1218-0267. For purposes of OMB review under the PRA, OSHA is 
proposing to separate the collections of information in the beryllium 
standards for construction and shipyards from those in the general 
industry standard. Therefore, the agency is submitting two ICRs--one 
for the construction industry and one for the shipyards sector--and the 
agency is requesting two new OMB control numbers 1218-0NEW and 1218-
NEW2. In addition, since OSHA is proposing to separate the collections 
of information in the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards in this proposal, OSHA is also proposing to remove the 
collections of information that are related to construction and 
shipyards from the collections of information previously approved by 
OMB under control number 1218-0267. There is a separate rulemaking that 
addresses changes to the collection of information for general industry 
under number 1218-0267 (see 83 FR 63746-63770). The PRA defines 
``collection of information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be 
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or 
the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of 
form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal 
agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB 
approves it, and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control 
number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with 
a collection of information if the collection of information does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).

B. Solicitation of Comments

    OSHA prepared and submitted two revised ICRs to OMB, separating the 
collections of information in the shipyards and construction standards 
from the existing OMB-approved paperwork package, and proposing to 
remove certain collections of information for those industries 
currently contained in that paperwork package, in accordance with 44 
U.S.C. 3507(d). The agency solicits comments on the removal of these 
collection of information requirements and reduction in estimated 
burden hours associated with these requirements, including comments on 
the following items:
     Whether the collections of information are necessary for 
the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the 
information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
cost) of the collections of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for 
example, by using automated or other technological techniques for 
collecting and transmitting information (78 FR at 56438).

C. Proposed Information Collection Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the 
following paragraphs provide information about these two ICRs.
    Construction (ICR):
    1. Title: Occupational Exposure to Beryllium for the Construction 
Industry.
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would separate the 
construction standards from the currently approved Beryllium ICR and 
remove existing collection of information requirements currently 
approved by OMB.
    3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements:
    The proposed standard for occupational exposure to beryllium and 
beryllium compounds in construction would revise the collection of 
information requirements contained in the existing ICR for that 
industry, approved under OMB under control number 1218-0267. OSHA is 
proposing, first, to separate the construction collection of 
information requirements from those of the general industry and 
shipyards standards, and requests a new control number specific to the 
construction standard (1218-0NEW). Next, OSHA is proposing to update 
the new ICR to reflect its proposal to (1) remove provisions in the 
construction standard that require employers to collect and record 
employees' social security number; (2) revise the contents of the 
written exposure control plan; and (3) remove certain requirements 
related to written warnings. See Table VI.1.

   Table VI.1--Collection of Information Requirements Being Revised in the Beryllium Standard for Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Currently approved collection of
       Section number and title                 information requirements                  Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1926.1124(f)(1)(i)--Methods of   A list of operations and job       Remove paragraphs
 Compliance--Written Exposure Control   titles reasonably expected to involve       (f)(1)(i)(B) through (E) and
 Plan.                                  airborne exposure to or dermal contact      (H), written exposure
                                        with beryllium;                             control plan.
                                        A list of operations and job       Revise paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A)
                                        titles reasonably expected to involve       to list operations and job
                                        airborne exposure to or dermal contact      titles reasonably expected
                                        with beryllium;                             to involve exposure to
                                                                                    beryllium.

[[Page 53947]]

 
                                        A list of operations and job       Add a new requirement,
                                        titles reasonably expected to involve       paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E), to
                                        airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or      list procedures used to
                                        STEL;                                       ensure the integrity of each
                                                                                    containment used to minimize
                                                                                    exposures to employees
                                                                                    outside the containment.
                                        Procedures for minimizing cross-   .............................
                                        contamination;
                                        Procedures for minimizing the      .............................
                                        migration of beryllium within or to
                                        locations outside the workplace;
                                        A list of engineering controls,    .............................
                                        work practices, and respiratory
                                        protection required by paragraph (f)(2)
                                        of the standard;
                                        A list of personal protective      .............................
                                        clothing and equipment required by
                                        paragraph (h) of the standard;
                                        Procedures for removing,           .............................
                                        laundering, storing, cleaning, repairing,
                                        and disposing of beryllium-contaminated
                                        personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment, including respirators;
                                        Procedures used to restrict        .............................
                                        access to work areas when airborne
                                        exposures are, or can reasonably be
                                        expected to be, above the TWA PEL or
                                        STEL, to minimize the number of employees
                                        exposed to airborne beryllium and their
                                        level of exposure, including exposures
                                        generated by other employers or sole
                                        proprietors.
Sec.   1926.1124(h)(2)(v)--Personal    When personal protective clothing or        Remove this labeling
 Protective Clothing and Equipment--    equipment required by this standard is      requirement from the
 Removal and Storage.                   removed from the workplace for              beryllium standard for
                                        laundering, cleaning, maintenance or        construction and therefore
                                        disposal, the employer must ensure that     from the ICR.
                                        personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment are stored and transported in
                                        sealed bags or other closed containers
                                        that are impermeable and are labeled in
                                        accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of the
                                        standard and the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Sec.   1926.1124(h)(3)(iii) --         The employer must inform in writing the     Remove this requirement from
 Personal Protective Clothing and       persons or the business entities who        the beryllium standard for
 Equipment--Cleaning and Replacement.   launder, clean or repair the personal       construction and therefore
                                        protective clothing or equipment required   from the ICR.
                                        by this standard of the potentially
                                        harmful effects of airborne exposure to
                                        and dermal contact with beryllium and
                                        that the personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment must be handled in accordance
                                        with the standard.
Sec.   1926.1124(k)(7)--Medical        The employer must provide an evaluation at  Add an initial consultation
 Surveillance-- Referral to the CBD     no cost to the employee at a CBD            with the CBD diagnostic
 Diagnostic Center.                     diagnostic center that is mutually agreed   center, as follows:
                                        upon by the employer and the employee.     The employer must also
                                        The examination must be provided within     provide, at no cost to the
                                        30 days of either of the events in          employee and within a
                                        paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B).              reasonable time after the
                                                                                    initial consultation with
                                                                                    the CBD diagnostic center,
                                                                                    any of the following tests
                                                                                    if deemed appropriate by the
                                                                                    examining physician at the
                                                                                    CBD diagnostic center:
                                                                                    pulmonary function testing
                                                                                    (as outlined by the American
                                                                                    Thoracic Society criteria),
                                                                                    bronchoalveolar lavage
                                                                                    (BAL), and transbronchial
                                                                                    biopsy. The initial
                                                                                    consultation with the CBD
                                                                                    diagnostic center must be
                                                                                    provided within 30 days of
                                                                                    either of the events in
                                                                                    paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or
                                                                                    (B).
Sec.   1926.1124(n)(1)(ii)(F)--        The name, social security number, and job   Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping --Air Monitoring Data.   classification of each employee             collect and record social
                                        represented by the monitoring, indicating   security numbers, as
                                        which employees were actually monitored.    follows:
                                                                                   The name and job
                                                                                    classification of each
                                                                                    employee represented by the
                                                                                    monitoring, indicating which
                                                                                    employees were actually
                                                                                    monitored.
Sec.   1926.1124(n)(3) (ii)(A)--       The record must include the following       Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping-- Medical Surveillance.  information about the employee: Name,       collect and record social
                                        social security number, and job             security numbers, as
                                        classification.                             follows:
                                       ..........................................  The record must include the
                                                                                    following information about
                                                                                    the employee: Name and job
                                                                                    classification.

[[Page 53948]]

 
Sec.   1926.1124(n)(4)(i)--            At the completion of any training required  Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping--Training.               by the standard, the employer must          collect and record social
                                        prepare a record that indicates the name,   security numbers, as
                                        social security number, and job             follows:
                                        classification of each employee trained,
                                        the date the training was completed, and
                                        the topic of the training.
                                       ..........................................  At the completion of any
                                                                                    training required by the
                                                                                    standard, the employer must
                                                                                    prepare a record that
                                                                                    indicates the name and job
                                                                                    classification of each
                                                                                    employee trained, the date
                                                                                    the training was completed,
                                                                                    and the topic of the
                                                                                    training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. OMB Control Number: 1218-0NEW.
    5. Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit. This standard 
applies to employers in the construction industry who have employees 
that may have occupational exposures to any form of beryllium, 
including compounds and mixtures, except those articles and materials 
exempted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of the standard.
    6. Number of Respondents: 2,520.
    7. Frequency of Responses: On occasion; quarterly, semi-annually, 
annual; biannual.
    8. Number of Reponses: 29,330.
    9. Average Time per Response: Various.
    10. Estimated Annual Total Burden Hours: 18,075.
    11. Estimated Annual Total Cost (Capital-operation and 
maintenance): $5,611,902.
    Shipyards (ICR):
    1. Title: Occupational Exposure to Beryllium for the Shipyards 
Sector.
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would separate the 
shipyards standards from the currently approved Beryllium ICR and 
remove existing collection of information requirements currently 
approved by OMB.
    3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements:
    The proposed standard for occupational exposure to beryllium and 
beryllium compounds in shipyards would revise the collection of 
information requirements contained in the existing ICR for that 
industry, approved under OMB under control number 1218-0267. OSHA is 
proposing, first, to separate the shipyards collection of information 
requirements from those of the general industry and construction 
standards, and requests a new control number specific to the shipyards 
standard (1218-0NEW2). Next, OSHA is proposing to update the new ICR to 
reflect its proposal to (1) remove provisions in the shipyards standard 
that require employers to collect and record employees' social security 
number; (2) revise the contents of the written exposure control plan; 
and (3) remove certain requirements related to written warnings. See 
Table VI.2.

    Table VI.2--Collection of Information Requirements Being Revised in the Beryllium Standard for Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Currently approved collection of
       Section number and title                 information requirements                  Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.1024(f)(1)(i)--Methods of  The employer must establish, implement,     Remove paragraphs
 Compliance--Written Exposure Control   and maintain a written exposure control     (f)(1)(i)(B) through (E) and
 Plan.                                  plan, which must contain:                   (H), the written exposure
                                        A list of operations and job        control plan.
                                        titles reasonably expected to involve      Revise paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A)
                                        exposure to or dermal contact with          to list operations and job
                                        beryllium;                                  titles reasonably expected
                                        A list of operations and job        to involve exposure to
                                        titles reasonably expected to involve       beryllium.
                                        airborne exposure at or above the AL;      Add a new requirement,
                                        A list of operations and job        paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) to
                                        titles reasonably expected to involve       list procedures used to
                                        airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or      ensure the integrity of each
                                        STEL;                                       containment used to minimize
                                        Procedures for minimizing cross-    exposures to employees
                                        contamination;                              outside the containment.
                                        Procedures for minimizing the
                                        migration of beryllium within or to
                                        locations outside the workplace;
                                        A list of engineering controls,
                                        work practices, and respiratory
                                        protection required by paragraph (f)(2)
                                        of the standard;
                                        A list of personal protective
                                        clothing and equipment required by
                                        paragraph (h) of the standard; and
                                        Procedures for removing,
                                        laundering, storing, cleaning, repairing,
                                        and disposing of beryllium-contaminated
                                        personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment, including respirators;

[[Page 53949]]

 
Sec.   1915.1024(h)(2)(v)--Personal    When personal protective clothing or        Remove this labeling
 Protective Clothing and Equipment--    equipment required by this standard is      requirement from the
 Removal and Storage.                   removed from the workplace for              beryllium standard for
                                        laundering, cleaning, maintenance or        shipyards and therefore from
                                        disposal, the employer must ensure that     the ICR.
                                        personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment are stored and transported in
                                        sealed bags or other closed containers
                                        that are impermeable and are labeled in
                                        accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of the
                                        standard and the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200).
Sec.   1915.1024(h)(3)(iii) --         The employer must inform in writing the     Remove this requirement from
 Personal Protective Clothing and       persons or the business entities who        the beryllium standard for
 Equipment--Cleaning and Replacement.   launder, clean or repair the personal       shipyards and therefore from
                                        protective clothing or equipment required   the ICR.
                                        by this standard of the potentially
                                        harmful effects of airborne exposure to
                                        and dermal contact with beryllium and
                                        that the personal protective clothing and
                                        equipment must be handled in accordance
                                        with the standard.
Sec.   1915.1024(k)(7)--Medical        The employer must provide an evaluation at  Add an initial consultation
 Surveillance-- Referral to the CBD     no cost to the employee at a CBD            with the CBD diagnostic
 Diagnostic Center.                     diagnostic center that is mutually agreed   center.
                                        upon by the employer and the employee.     Proposing: The employer must
                                        The examination must be provided within     provide an evaluation at no
                                        30 days of either the events in paragraph   cost to the employee at a
                                        (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B).                        CBD diagnostic center that
                                                                                    is mutually agreed upon by
                                                                                    the employer and the
                                                                                    employee. The employer must
                                                                                    also provide, at no cost to
                                                                                    the employee and within a
                                                                                    reasonable time after the
                                                                                    initial consultation with
                                                                                    the CBD diagnostic center,
                                                                                    any of the following tests
                                                                                    if deemed appropriate by the
                                                                                    examining physician at the
                                                                                    CBD diagnostic center:
                                                                                    pulmonary function testing
                                                                                    (as outlined by the American
                                                                                    Thoracic Society criteria),
                                                                                    bronchoalveolar lavage
                                                                                    (BAL), and transbronchial
                                                                                    biopsy. The initial
                                                                                    consultation with the CBD
                                                                                    diagnostic center must be
                                                                                    provided within 30 days of
                                                                                    either the events in
                                                                                    paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or
                                                                                    (B).
Sec.   1915.1024(n)(1)(ii)(F)--        The name, social security number, and job   Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping --Air Monitoring Data.   classification of each employee             collect and record social
                                        represented by the monitoring, indicating   security numbers, as
                                        which employees were actually monitored.    follows:
                                                                                   The name and job
                                                                                    classification of each
                                                                                    employee represented by the
                                                                                    monitoring, indicating which
                                                                                    employees were actually
                                                                                    monitored.
Sec.   1915.1024(n)(3)(ii)(B)--        The record must include the following       Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping-- Medical Surveillance.  information about the employee: Name,       collect and record of social
                                        social security number, and job             security numbers, as
                                        classification.                             follows: Name and job
                                                                                    classification.
Sec.   1915.1024(n)(4)(i)--            At the completion of any training required  Remove the requirement to
 Recordkeeping--Training.               by this standard, the employer must         collect and record social
                                        prepare a record that indicates the name,   security numbers, as
                                        social security number, and job             follows:
                                        classification of each employee trained,   At the completion of any
                                        the date the training was completed, and    training required by this
                                        the topic of the training.                  standard, the employer must
                                                                                    prepare a record that
                                                                                    indicates the name and job
                                                                                    classification of each
                                                                                    employee trained, the date
                                                                                    the training was completed,
                                                                                    and the topic of the
                                                                                    training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. OMB Control Number: 1218-NEW2.
    5. Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit. This standard 
applies to employers in the shipyards industry who have employees that 
may have occupational exposures to any form of beryllium, including 
compounds and mixtures, except those articles and materials exempted by 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of the standard.
    6. Number of Respondents: 925.
    7. Frequency of Responses: On occasion; quarterly, semi-annually, 
annual; biannual.
    8. Number of Reponses: 10,794.
    9. Average Time per Response: Various.
    10. Estimated Annual Total Burden Hours: 6,609.
    11. Estimated Annual Total Cost (Capital-operation and 
maintenance): $2,057,856.

D. Submitting Comments

    In addition to the 30 days provided for public comment on this 
proposal, OSHA is providing an additional 30 days--for a total of 60 
days from the date this document is published in the Federal Register--
for public comment on the information collection requirements contained 
in the proposed updates to the beryllium standards for construction and 
shipyards, as required by 5 CFR 1320.11(c).
    Members of the public who wish to comment on the revisions to the 
paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written 
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB 
Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN 1218-AD29), Office 
of Management and Budget, Room 10235,

[[Page 53950]]

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these 
are not toll-free numbers), email: [email protected]. The 
agency encourages commenters also to submit their comments on these 
paperwork requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-
2019-0006), along with their comments on other parts of the proposed 
rule. For instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking 
docket, see the sections of this Federal Register document titled DATES 
and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in response to this document are 
public records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting 
personal information such as Social Security Numbers and dates of 
birth.

E. Docket and Inquiries

    To access the docket to read or download comments and other 
materials related to this paperwork determination, including the 
complete ICR (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments 
describing the paperwork determinations in detail) use the procedures 
described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES.
    You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by 
visiting the web page at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 
scroll under ``Currently Under Review'' to ``Department of Labor 
(DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's ICRs, including those ICRs submitted 
for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other 
information, contact Ms. Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and 
Guidance, telephone (202) 693-2222.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposal in accordance with the Executive Order 
on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which 
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any 
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions 
only when clear constitutional and statutory authority exists and the 
problem is national in scope. E.O. 13132 provides for preemption of 
State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such 
preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that 
States and U.S. territories may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan 
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health 
standards. OSHA refers to such States and territories as ``State Plan 
States'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards 
developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State Plan States are 
free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for 
safety and health standards.
    OSHA previously concluded that promulgation of the beryllium 
standard complies with E.O. 13132 (82 FR at 2633), so this proposal 
complies with E.O. 13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, 
Congress expressly provides for OSHA standards to preempt State 
occupational safety and health standards in areas addressed by the 
Federal standards. In these States, this proposal would limit State 
policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by 
OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking would 
not significantly limit State policy options.

VIII. State Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 28 States and U.S. territories 
with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and health plans 
(``State Plan States'') must amend their standards to reflect the new 
standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary, 
e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is ``at 
least as effective'' as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 
1953.5(a). The State standard must be at least as effective as the 
final Federal rule. State Plans must adopt the Federal standard or 
complete their own standard within six months of the promulgation date 
of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or 
amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent 
requirements than an existing standard, State Plan States are not 
required to amend their standards, although the agency may encourage 
them to do so. The 28 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved 
occupational safety and health plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. 
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin 
Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and local 
government employees only.
    This proposal applies to the construction and shipyards industries. 
If adopted as proposed, the revised standards, in conjunction with 
other existing OSHA standards, would provide equivalent protection to 
the 2017 beryllium standards. Therefore, State Plan States whose 
current laws are at least as effective as the 2017 final rule would not 
have to revise these laws. State Plan States may nonetheless choose to 
conform to these proposed revisions if finalized.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposal according to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in Section IV 
(``Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification'') of this preamble, the agency preliminarily determined 
that this proposal would not impose significant additional costs on any 
private- or public-sector entity. Further, OSHA previously concluded 
that the rule would not impose a Federal mandate on the private sector 
in excess of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in 
expenditures in any one year (82 FR at 2634). Accordingly, this 
proposal would not require significant additional expenditures by 
either public or private employers.
    As noted above under Section VII (``State-Plan States''), the 
agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except 
in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved 
by the agency. Consequently, this proposal does not meet the definition 
of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see Section 421(5) of the 
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the 
agency certifies that this proposal would not mandate that State, 
local, or Tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations 
of, or increase expenditures by the private sector by, more than $100 
million in any year.

X. Environmental Impacts

    OSHA has reviewed this proposed beryllium rule according to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 
part 1500), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 
11). OSHA has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule 
would have no significant impact on air,

[[Page 53951]]

water, or soil quality; plant or animal life; the use of land; or 
aspects of the external environment.

XI. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13175 (65 
FR 67249) and determined that it does not have ``tribal implications'' 
as defined in that order. This proposal does not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926

    Beryllium, Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health, 
Occupational safety and health.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Loren Sweatt, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety 
and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
    The agency issues the sections under the following authorities: 29 
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 33 U.S.C. 941; Secretary of 
Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)); and 29 CFR part 1911.

[Corrected]Signed at Washington, DC, on September 24, 2019.

_____________________________________

Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety 
and Health.

Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XVII of title 
29, parts 1915 and 1926, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD 
EMPLOYMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary 
of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754); 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 
(48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, 
as applicable.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1915.1024 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b):
0
i. Add a definition for ``Beryllium sensitization'' in alphabetical 
order;
0
ii. Revise the definitions of ``CBD diagnostic center,'' ``Chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD),'' and ``Confirmed positive''; and
0
iii. Remove the definition of ``Emergency'';
0
b. Revise paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A);
0
c. Remove paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B), (C), (D), (E), and (H);
0
d. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(F) and (G) as paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i)(B) and (C);
0
e. Add new paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D);
0
f. Revise paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(2), and (g)(1)(iii);
0
g. Remove paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
0
h. Redesignate paragraph (g)(1)(v) as paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
0
i. Revise paragraphs (h)(1) introductory text and (h)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
j. Remove paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v);
0
k. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(ii);
0
l. Remove paragraph (h)(3)(iii);
0
m. Remove and reserve paragraph (i);
0
n. Revise paragraphs (j) and (k)(1)(i)(B);
0
o. Remove paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C);
0
p. Redesignate paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) as paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C);
0
q. Revise paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), (k)(2)(ii), (k)(3)(ii)(A), (k)(4)(i), 
(k)(7)(i) introductory text, and (m)(1)(ii);
0
r. Remove paragraph (m)(3);
0
s. Redesignate paragraph (m)(4) as paragraph (m)(3);
0
t. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (m)(3)(i) introductory text and 
(m)(3)(ii)(A);
0
u. Remove newly redesignated paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(D);
0
v. Further redesignate paragraphs (m)(3)(ii)(E) through (I) as 
paragraphs (m)(3)(ii)(D) through (H); and
0
w. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (m)(3)(ii)(D) and paragraphs 
(n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and (n)(4)(i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1915.1024  Beryllium.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Beryllium sensitization means a response in the immune system of a 
specific individual who has been exposed to beryllium. There are no 
associated physical or clinical symptoms and no illness or disability 
with beryllium sensitization alone, but the response that occurs 
through beryllium sensitization can enable the immune system to 
recognize and react to beryllium. While not every beryllium-sensitized 
person will develop CBD, beryllium sensitization is essential for 
development of CBD.
    CBD diagnostic center means a medical diagnostic center that has a 
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on staff and on-site facilities 
to perform a clinical evaluation for the presence of chronic beryllium 
disease (CBD). The CBD diagnostic center must have the capacity to 
perform pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the American 
Thoracic Society criteria), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. The CBD diagnostic center must also have the 
capacity to transfer BAL samples to a laboratory for appropriate 
diagnostic testing within 24 hours. The pulmonologist or pulmonary 
specialist must be able to interpret the biopsy pathology and the BAL 
diagnostic test results.
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) means a chronic granulomatous lung 
disease caused by inhalation of airborne beryllium by an individual who 
is beryllium-sensitized.
    Confirmed positive means the person tested has had two abnormal 
BeLPT test results, an abnormal and a borderline test result, or three 
borderline test results obtained within the 30-day follow-up test 
period required after a first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result. 
It also means the result of a more reliable and accurate test 
indicating a person has been identified as having beryllium 
sensitization.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) A list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to 
involve exposure to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (D) Procedures used to ensure the integrity of each containment 
used to minimize exposures to employees outside of the containment.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The employer is notified that an employee is eligible for 
medical removal in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) of this standard, 
referred for evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, or shows signs or 
symptoms associated with airborne exposure to beryllium; or
* * * * *
    (2) Engineering and work practice controls. The employer must use 
engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee 
airborne exposure to beryllium to or below the TWA PEL and STEL, unless 
the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible. 
Wherever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to reduce 
airborne exposure to or below the PELs with engineering and work 
practice controls, the employer

[[Page 53952]]

must implement and maintain engineering and work practice controls to 
reduce airborne exposure to the lowest levels feasible and supplement 
these controls by using respiratory protection in accordance with 
paragraph (g) of this standard.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) During operations for which an employer has implemented all 
feasible engineering and work practice controls when such controls are 
not sufficient to reduce airborne exposure to or below the TWA PEL or 
STEL; and
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Provision and use. Where airborne exposure exceeds, or can 
reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer 
must provide at no cost, and ensure that each employee uses, 
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance 
with the written exposure control plan required under paragraph (f)(1) 
of this standard and OSHA's Personal Protective Equipment standards for 
shipyards (subpart I of this part):
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The employer must ensure that each employee removes all 
personal protective clothing and equipment required by this standard at 
the end of the work shift or at the completion of all tasks involving 
beryllium, whichever comes first.
    (ii) The employer must ensure that personal protective clothing and 
equipment required by this standard is not removed in a manner that 
disperses beryllium into the air.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The employer must ensure that beryllium is not removed from 
personal protective clothing and equipment required by this standard by 
blowing, shaking or any other means that disperses beryllium into the 
air.
* * * * *
    (j) Housekeeping. (1) When cleaning dust resulting from operations 
that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne exposure 
above the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer must ensure the use of methods 
that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure.
    (2) The employer must not allow dry sweeping or brushing for 
cleaning up dust resulting from operations that cause, or can 
reasonably be expected to cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or 
STEL unless methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne 
exposure are not safe or effective.
    (3) The employer must not allow the use of compressed air for 
cleaning where the use of compressed air causes, or can reasonably be 
expected to cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL.
    (4) Where employees use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air 
to clean, the employer must provide, and ensure that each employee 
uses, respiratory protection and personal protective clothing and 
equipment in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this standard.
    (5) The employer must ensure that cleaning equipment is handled and 
maintained in a manner that minimizes the likelihood and level of 
airborne exposure and the re-entrainment of airborne beryllium in the 
workplace.
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Who shows signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related 
health effects; or
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) of 
this standard.
    (ii) At least every two years thereafter for each employee who 
continues to meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) 
of this standard.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A medical and work history, with emphasis on past and present 
exposure to beryllium, smoking history, and any history of respiratory 
system dysfunction;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) A description of the employee's former and current duties that 
relate to the employee's exposure to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) The employer must provide an evaluation at no cost to the 
employee at a CBD diagnostic center that is mutually agreed upon by the 
employer and the employee. The employer must also provide, at no cost 
to the employee and within a reasonable time after the initial 
consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, any of the following tests 
if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic 
center: pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the American 
Thoracic Society criteria), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. The initial consultation with the CBD diagnostic 
center must be provided within 30 days of:
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Employers must include beryllium in the hazard communication 
program established to comply with the HCS. Employers must ensure that 
each employee has access to labels on containers of beryllium and to 
safety data sheets, and is trained in accordance with the requirements 
of the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200) and paragraph (m)(3) of this standard.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) For each employee who has, or can reasonably be expected to 
have, airborne exposure to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The health hazards associated with exposure to beryllium, 
including the signs and symptoms of CBD;
* * * * *
    (D) Measures employees can take to protect themselves from exposure 
to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) The name and job classification of each employee represented by 
the monitoring, indicating which employees were actually monitored.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Name and job classification;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) At the completion of any training required by this standard, 
the employer must prepare a record that indicates the name and job 
classification of each employee trained, the date the training was 
completed, and the topic of the training.
* * * * *

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances

0
3. The authority citation for subpart Z of part 1926 continues to read 
as follows:

     Authority:  40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-
2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912) as applicable; and 29 CFR 
part 1911.

[[Page 53953]]

    Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
4. Amend Sec.  1926.1124 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b):
0
i. Add a definition for ``Beryllium sensitization'' in alphabetical 
order;
0
ii. Revise the definitions of ``CBD diagnostic center,'' ``Chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD),'' and ``Confirmed positive''; and
0
iii. Remove the definition of ``Emergency'';
0
b. Revise paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A);
0
c. Remove paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B), (C), (D), (E), and (H);
0
d. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(F), (G), and (I) as paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i)(B), (C), and (D);
0
e. Remove the period at the end of newly redesignated paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(D) and adding ``; and'' in its place;
0
f. Add new paragraph (f)(1)(i)(E);
0
g. Revise paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(2), and (g)(1)(iii);
0
h. Remove paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
0
i. Redesignate paragraph (g)(1)(v) as paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
0
j. Revise paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
k. Remove paragraphs (h)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v);
0
l. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(ii);
0
m. Remove paragraph (h)(3)(iii);
0
n. Remove and reserve paragraph (i);
0
o. Revise paragraphs (j) and (k)(1)(i)(B);
0
p. Remove paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C);
0
q. Redesignate paragraph (k)(1)(i)(D) as paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C);
0
r. Revise paragraphs (k)(2)(i)(B), (k)(2)(ii), (k)(3)(ii)(A), 
(k)(4)(i), and (k)(7)(i) introductory text;
0
s. Remove paragraph (m)(2);
0
t. Redesignate paragraph (m)(3) as paragraph (m)(2);
0
u. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (m)(2)(i) introductory text and 
(m)(2)(ii)(A);
0
v. Remove newly redesignated paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(D);
0
w. Further redesignate paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(E) through (I) as 
paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(D) through (H); and
0
x. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(D) and paragraphs 
(n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and (n)(4)(i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1926.1124  Beryllium.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Beryllium sensitization means a response in the immune system of a 
specific individual who has been exposed to beryllium. There are no 
associated physical or clinical symptoms and no illness or disability 
with beryllium sensitization alone, but the response that occurs 
through beryllium sensitization can enable the immune system to 
recognize and react to beryllium. While not every beryllium-sensitized 
person will develop CBD, beryllium sensitization is essential for 
development of CBD.
    CBD diagnostic center means a medical diagnostic center that has a 
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on staff and on-site facilities 
to perform a clinical evaluation for the presence of chronic beryllium 
disease (CBD). The CBD diagnostic center must have the capacity to 
perform pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the American 
Thoracic Society criteria), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. The CBD diagnostic center must also have the 
capacity to transfer BAL samples to a laboratory for appropriate 
diagnostic testing within 24 hours. The pulmonologist or pulmonary 
specialist must be able to interpret the biopsy pathology and the BAL 
diagnostic test results.
    Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) means a chronic granulomatous lung 
disease caused by inhalation of airborne beryllium by an individual who 
is beryllium-sensitized.
* * * * *
    Confirmed positive means the person tested has had two abnormal 
BeLPT test results, an abnormal and a borderline test result, or three 
borderline test results obtained within the 30-day follow-up test 
period required after a first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result. 
It also means the result of a more reliable and accurate test 
indicating a person has been identified as having beryllium 
sensitization.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) A list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to 
involve exposure to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (E) Procedures used to ensure the integrity of each containment 
used to minimize exposures to employees outside the containment.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The employer is notified that an employee is eligible for 
medical removal in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) of this standard, 
referred for evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, or shows signs or 
symptoms associated with airborne exposure to beryllium; or
* * * * *
    (2) Engineering and work practice controls. The employer must use 
engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee 
airborne exposure to beryllium to or below the TWA PEL and STEL, unless 
the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible. 
Wherever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to reduce 
airborne exposure to or below the PELs with engineering and work 
practice controls, the employer must implement and maintain engineering 
and work practice controls to reduce airborne exposure to the lowest 
levels feasible and supplement these controls by using respiratory 
protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this standard.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) During operations for which an employer has implemented all 
feasible engineering and work practice controls when such controls are 
not sufficient to reduce airborne exposure to or below the TWA PEL or 
STEL; and
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Provision and use. Where airborne exposure exceeds, or can 
reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer 
must provide at no cost, and ensure that each employee uses, 
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance 
with the written exposure control plan required under paragraph (f)(1) 
of this standard and OSHA's Personal Protective and Life Saving 
Equipment standards for construction (subpart E of this part).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The employer must ensure that each employee removes all 
personal protective clothing and equipment required by this standard at 
the end of the work shift or at the completion of all tasks involving 
beryllium, whichever comes first.
    (ii) The employer must ensure that personal protective clothing and 
equipment required by this standard is not removed in a manner that 
disperses beryllium into the air.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The employer must ensure that beryllium is not removed from 
personal protective clothing and equipment required by this standard by 
blowing, shaking or any other means that disperses beryllium into the 
air.
* * * * *
    (j) Housekeeping. (1) When cleaning up dust resulting from 
operations that cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, airborne 
exposure above the

[[Page 53954]]

TWA PEL or STEL, the employer must ensure the use of methods that 
minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure.
    (2) The employer must not allow dry sweeping or brushing for 
cleaning up dust resulting from operations that cause, or can 
reasonably be expected to cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or 
STEL unless methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne 
exposure are not safe or effective.
    (3) The employer must not allow the use of compressed air for 
cleaning where the use of compressed air causes, or can reasonably be 
expected to cause, airborne exposure above the TWA PEL or STEL.
    (4) Where employees use dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air 
to clean, the employer must provide, and ensure that each employee 
uses, respiratory protection and personal protective clothing and 
equipment in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this standard.
    (5) The employer must ensure that cleaning equipment is handled and 
maintained in a manner that minimizes the likelihood and level of 
airborne exposure and the re-entrainment of airborne beryllium in the 
workplace.
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Who shows signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related 
health effects; or
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B) of 
this standard.
    (ii) At least every two years thereafter for each employee who 
continues to meet the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) 
of this standard.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A medical and work history, with emphasis on past and present 
exposure to beryllium, smoking history, and any history of respiratory 
system dysfunction;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) A description of the employee's former and current duties that 
relate to the employee's exposure to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) The employer must provide an evaluation at no cost to the 
employee at a CBD diagnostic center that is mutually agreed upon by the 
employer and the employee. The employer must also provide, at no cost 
to the employee and within a reasonable time after the initial 
consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, any of the following tests 
if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic 
center: pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the American 
Thoracic Society criteria), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 
transbronchial biopsy. The initial consultation with the CBD diagnostic 
center must be provided within 30 days of:
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) For each employee who has, or can reasonably be expected to 
have, airborne exposure to beryllium:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The health hazards associated with exposure to beryllium, 
including the signs and symptoms of CBD;
* * * * *
    (D) Measures employees can take to protect themselves from exposure 
to beryllium;
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) The name and job classification of each employee represented by 
the monitoring, indicating which employees were actually monitored.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Name and job classification;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) At the completion of any training required by this standard, 
the employer must prepare a record that indicates the name and job 
classification of each employee trained, the date the training was 
completed, and the topic of the training.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21038 Filed 10-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P