Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry, 63746-63770 [2018-26448]

Download as PDF 63746 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA–2018–0003] RIN 1218–AD20 Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment. AGENCY: On January 9, 2017, OSHA issued a final rule adopting a comprehensive general industry standard for occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds. In this proposed rule, OSHA is proposing to modify the general industry standard to clarify certain provisions and simplify or improve compliance. Proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers and are designed to enhance worker protections overall by ensuring that the rule is well-understood and compliance is more straightforward. DATES: Comments to this proposal, hearing requests, and other information must be submitted (transmitted, postmarked, or delivered) by February 11, 2019. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. ADDRESSES: The public can submit comments, hearing requests, and other material, identified by Docket No. OSHA–2018–0003, using any of the following methods: Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing requests and other information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. Note that this docket may include several different Federal Register notices involving active rulemakings, so it is extremely important to select the correct notice or RIN number (RIN 1218–AD20) when submitting comments for this rulemaking. After accessing ‘‘all documents and comments’’ in the docket (OSHA–2018–0003), 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 ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ link. Additional instructions for submitting comments are available from the http:// www.regulations.gov homepage. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile 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. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA–2018–0003, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must clearly identify the sender’s name, the date, the subject, and the docket number (OSHA–2018– 0003) so that the Docket Office can attach them to the appropriate document. Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger (courier) service: Submit comments and any additional material to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA–2018–0003, 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’s name, the title of the rulemaking (Beryllium Standard: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), and the docket number (OSHA–2018–0003). OSHA will place comments and other material, including any personal information, in the public docket without revision, and the comments and other material will be 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, birth dates, and medical data. Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. The electronic docket for this proposed rule established at http:// www.regulations.gov contains most of PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not available publicly to read or download through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693– 1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. General information and technical inquiries: William Perry or Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone (202) 693–1950. Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases: Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA’s web page at http:// www.osha.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion of Proposed Changes III. Legal Considerations IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification V. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 VI. Federalism VII. State Plan States VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act IX. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments X. Environmental Impacts XI. Authority List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1910 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). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs) were at significant risk of material impairment of health, specifically chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer. OSHA concluded in the final rule that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 0.2 mg/m3 would reduce this significant risk to the maximum extent feasible. In the final rule OSHA issued three separate beryllium standards— general industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition to the revised PEL, for each of the three standards the final rule also established a new shortterm exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 mg/m3 over a 15-minute sampling period and E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules an action level of 0.1 mg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA, along with a number of ancillary provisions intended to provide additional protections to employees. These included requirements for exposure assessment, methods for controlling exposure, respiratory protection, personal protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, medical surveillance, hazard communication, and recordkeeping similar to those found in other OSHA health standards. This proposal would amend the beryllium standard for general industry to clarify certain provisions—with proposed changes designed to facilitate application of the standard consistent with the intent of the 2017 final rule— and simplify or improve compliance, preventing costs that may flow from misinterpretation or misapplication of the standard. OSHA’s discussion of the estimated costs and cost savings for this proposed rule can be found in the preliminary economic analysis (PEA). The 2017 Beryllium Final Rule went into effect on May 20, 2017, and some compliance obligations began on May 11, 2018. The compliance obligations affected by this rulemaking will begin on December 12, 2018 (83 FR 39351). Other compliance obligations under the standard do not commence until 2019 or 2020. OSHA believes that the standard as modified by this proposal would provide equivalent protection to the current standard. Accordingly, while this rulemaking is pending, compliance with the standard as modified by this proposal will be accepted as compliance with the standard. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 II. Discussion of Proposed Changes OSHA proposes to modify several of the general industry 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. OSHA believes that the proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers. The proposed changes are further designed to enhance worker protections overall by ensuring that the rule is well-understood and compliance is more straightforward. A. Definitions Paragraph (b) of the beryllium standard for general industry (82 FR 2470, as modified by 83 FR 19936) addresses changes to the definitions of specific key terms used in the standard. OSHA is proposing to change or add six terms in the definitions paragraph. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 OSHA is proposing to add the following definition for beryllium sensitization: ‘‘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.’’ 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 (k) and hazard communication (m). The proposed addition of a definition for beryllium sensitization would not change employer obligations under provisions (k) and (m) and would not affect employee protections. In the 2017 final beryllium rule (82 FR 2470), OSHA found that individuals sensitized through either the dermal or inhalation exposure pathways respond to beryllium through the formation of a beryllium-protein complex, which then binds to T-cells stimulating a berylliumspecific immune response (82 FR 2494). The formation of the T-cell-berylliumprotein complex that results in beryllium sensitization may not manifest in any outward clinical symptoms in the lung (82 FR 2491), and most who are sensitized may not show any symptoms at all. While it may be rare for those sensitized through dermal exposure to exhibit any outward signs or symptoms, dermal sensitization has been associated with skin granulomas and contact dermatitis. Dermal exposure may also result in dermal irritation, which can be indistinguishable from contact dermatitis (82 FR 2527–2528). It should be noted that beryllium, beryllium oxide, and other soluble and poorly soluble forms of beryllium have been classified as a skin irritant (category 2) in accordance with the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (Document ID OSHA– H005C–2006–0870–1669, p. 2). As OSHA determined in the final beryllium 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 2491–2498). Since the pathogenesis of CBD involves a beryllium-specific, cell-mediated immune response, CBD cannot occur in the absence of PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63747 sensitization (NAS, 2008, Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006–0870–1355). 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. Paragraph (b) of the general industry beryllium standard defines beryllium work area as any work area containing a process or operation that can release beryllium and that involves material that contains at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight; and, where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any level or where there is the potential for dermal contact with beryllium. In addition to paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i), which require employers to establish, maintain, and demarcate a beryllium work area wherever this definition is met, the presence of a beryllium work area also triggers several other requirements in the standard: Paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D) and (f)(1)(i)(F) (written exposure control plan requirements); paragraph (f)(2) (required exposure controls); paragraphs (i)(1) (general hygiene practices) and (i)(2) (change rooms); paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2) (housekeeping requirements); and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B) (employee training). OSHA proposes to modify this definition to clarify when an area of a workplace must be considered a beryllium work area. The proposed revision would define beryllium work area as any work area where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed during an operation listed in Appendix A, regardless of exposure level; or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. In conjunction with this change, OSHA proposes to revise Appendix A so that it contains proposed Table A.1: Operations for Establishing Beryllium Work Areas Where Processing Materials Containing at Least 0.1 Percent Beryllium by Weight, which provides a list of operations commonly performed while processing beryllium metal, beryllium composites, beryllium alloys, or beryllium oxides that have the potential for exposure to airborne beryllium through the generation of dust, mist, and/or fumes. The list of operations in Table A.1 was compiled based on the experience of Materion Corporation (Materion), the primary beryllium manufacturer in the United States, and the USW, the primary union representing employees with beryllium exposure, and is divided into three categories: (1) Beryllium Metal Alloy E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63748 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules Operations (generally <10% beryllium by weight); (2) Beryllium Composite Operations (generally >10% beryllium by weight) and Beryllium Metal Operations; and (3) Beryllium Oxide Operations. OSHA requests comment on whether the new definition of beryllium work area captures the operations and processes of concern. In particular, OSHA requests comment on whether the operations in Table A.1 are appropriate, whether any operations should be added, and whether any operations listed in one category should also be included in any other category. The listed operations are explained in more detail in a separate document available in the docket (Document ID 0014). This proposed modification to the definition of beryllium work area is intended to improve compliance with the standard by providing greater clarity to employers regarding when and where beryllium work areas should be established in a workplace. Requiring employers to identify, establish, and demarcate beryllium work areas is a novel approach to workplace hazard management in OSHA standards, because beryllium work areas must be established in addition to regulated areas and in some locations where airborne exposures do not exceed the PELs. Based on feedback from stakeholders, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed revision to the definition of beryllium work area would ensure that the standard’s requirements related to beryllium work areas are workable and properly understood. Based on a joint model standard that OSHA received from Materion and the United Steelworkers (USW) that included a similar provision (Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006–0870–0754), OSHA’s original NPRM for the beryllium standard proposed that beryllium work area be defined as any work area where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium (80 FR at 47778). Unlike regulated areas, beryllium work areas were not tied to a specific level of exposure, but rather were triggered by the presence of airborne beryllium at any level. Some stakeholders commented in support of the proposed definition, but others expressed concern that the definition was vague and should be triggered on a measurable threshold level of exposure. Some commenters also expressed concern that the definition was overly broad and could be interpreted as applying to most or all areas of a worksite, regardless of the work processes or operations occurring in those areas (82 FR at 2659– VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 60). NIOSH commented that the proposed definition’s focus on airborne beryllium did not account for the potential contribution of dermal exposure to total exposure. In the final standard, OSHA modified the definition of beryllium work area so that it covered any work area containing a process or operation that can release beryllium where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any level or where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule that triggering the requirement of creating a beryllium work area on a specific threshold level of exposure would be insufficiently protective of workers, but explained that the agency did not intend for a beryllium work area to be established in areas where work processes or operations that release beryllium do not occur, such as where employees handle articles containing beryllium (82 FR at 2659–60). Rather, the purpose of establishing beryllium work areas is to identify and demarcate areas within a facility where processes or operations release beryllium so that necessary control measures can be implemented, such as those designed to prevent the migration of beryllium to other areas where beryllium is not processed or released. The definition of beryllium work area in the final standard clarified this intent by specifying that a beryllium work area contains processes or operations that release beryllium to which workers could be exposed. Additionally, the modified definition in the final standard accounted for NIOSH’s concern by including the potential for dermal contact with beryllium in the definition. OSHA further modified the definition of beryllium work area in the 2018 direct final rule to clarify OSHA’s intent that the provisions triggered by the presence of a beryllium work area only apply to areas where there are processes or operations that involve materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight (83 FR 19936, 19938–39 (May 7, 2018)). By specifying that a beryllium work area is a work area that both contains a process or operation that can release beryllium and involves material that contains at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight, the revised definition was intended to make clear that the provisions associated with beryllium work areas do not apply where processes and operations involve only materials containing trace amounts of beryllium (i.e., less than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight). Additional feedback from stakeholders has led OSHA to believe PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 that the definition of beryllium work area may require further revision in order to make the standard workable and understandable. In particular, stakeholders expressed concern to OSHA that defining a beryllium work area as including areas where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to any level of airborne beryllium, and where the potential for dermal contact with beryllium exists, could lead to the designation of entire facilities as beryllium work areas, because minute quantities of beryllium can be detected in areas of a facility that are distant from areas containing beryllium-releasing processes and operations. As explained in the 2017 final rule preamble, this was not OSHA’s intent (82 FR at 2660). Rather, OSHA intended to capture only those areas of a facility where beryllium-generating processes or operations are located. (Id.) Stakeholders requested that OSHA provide a list of operations that are known to release airborne beryllium, which would allow employers to more accurately identify where beryllium work areas must be established and demarcated at their workplaces. In response to this feedback, OSHA is proposing to further modify the definition of beryllium work area to provide clarity for employers on where and when to establish a beryllium work area so as to minimize beryllium exposure and the migration of beryllium into the general work area. First, OSHA is proposing to provide a list of operations that are commonly performed when processing beryllium materials and are known to generate airborne beryllium (see proposed Appendix A), and proposes to revise the definition of beryllium work area so that any work area where an operation that is listed in proposed Appendix A occurs and involves materials containing at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight is a beryllium work area. For work areas where no operations listed in proposed Appendix A occur, the proposed definition would require a beryllium work area wherever materials containing at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed and where employees are, or can be reasonably expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. Although OSHA has preliminarily determined that the operations listed in proposed Appendix A include the general industry operations that are known to release beryllium, OSHA included this second prong of the proposed definition, which is triggered by actual or reasonably expected E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules airborne exposure at or above the action level, to account for any additional beryllium-releasing operations that may exist or may be developed in the future. OSHA believes these modifications would improve employers’ ability to comply with the standard by clarifying the work areas where a beryllium work area exists without reducing protections for employees. Unlike the current definition, the proposed definition of beryllium work area would not expressly state that a beryllium work area exists where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA believes that removing the reference to dermal contact with beryllium would make it less likely that the definition could be erroneously interpreted as extending to an entire facility and would not reduce employee protection from the effects of skin exposure to beryllium. Requiring employers to establish and demarcate entire facilities as beryllium work areas was not OSHA’s intent (82 FR at 2660). And OSHA is unaware of work areas containing beryllium-releasing processes or operations that have a potential for dermal contact that are not included in the proposed Appendix A or generate airborne exposures at or above the action level. OSHA intends the proposed definition to be as protective as the current definition, while more clearly avoiding the perception that entire facilities need to be treated as beryllium work areas. OSHA requests comment on these issues, and in particular, whether there are any operations or processes that trigger beryllium work areas under the current rule that would not be covered under the proposed definition. OSHA also seeks comment on alternative approaches to identifying beryllium processes and operations that generate exposures of concern, and how those approaches might avoid inclusion of entire facilities. The proposed revised criteria for establishing a beryllium work area would continue to protect workers directly exposed in beryllium work areas, while also reducing potential exposure for workers who work outside these areas through the following provisions that apply in beryllium work areas: • The requirement to establish, implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan, including procedures for minimizing crosscontamination within beryllium work areas and minimizing migration of beryllium from beryllium work areas to other areas (paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D), (f)(1)(i)(F)); VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 • The requirement to provide at least one method of exposure control (material or process substitution, isolation, local exhaust ventilation, or process control) for each operation in a beryllium work area that releases airborne beryllium (paragraph (f)(2)(ii)), unless exempt under paragraph (f)(2)(iii); • The requirement to provide and ensure the use of washing facilities for employees working in a beryllium work area (paragraph (i)(1)); • The requirements to maintain surfaces in beryllium work areas as free as practicable of beryllium and ensure surfaces are appropriately cleaned (paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2)); and • The requirement to ensure that employees know where beryllium work areas in the facility are located (paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B)). Moreover, the standard’s PPE requirements to protect against dermal exposure to beryllium do not depend on the existence of a beryllium work area. The standard requires employers to provide and ensure the use of appropriate PPE whenever there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium, regardless of whether or not the area is a beryllium work area (see paragraph (h)(1)(ii)). OSHA is not proposing to change that requirement. OSHA is also proposing to add two references to dermal contact with beryllium to paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices, to account for the proposed removal of the potential for dermal contact with beryllium from the definition of beryllium work area (see Discussion of Proposed Changes to paragraph (i)). Paragraph (i) currently requires employers to provide washing facilities and a designated change room to each employee working in a beryllium work area (see paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(2)). Because OSHA still intends for the requirements to provide washing facilities and change rooms to apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, regardless of whether they work in a beryllium work area, OSHA is proposing (1) to revise paragraphs (i)(1) so that its requirement to provide washing facilities also applies to any employee who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium; and (2) to revise paragraph (i)(2) so that employers must provide change rooms to employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii), which requires the use of PPE where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium. As explained above, OSHA expects that, PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63749 under the proposed revisions to the definitions, employees working in a beryllium work area would reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. Thus, should the reference to potential dermal contact with beryllium be removed from the definition of beryllium work area as proposed, OSHA believes that these proposed modifications to paragraph (i), together with the existing requirements for PPE where dermal contact with beryllium is reasonably anticipated, would continue to protect employees from the effects of skin exposure to beryllium (see discussion of proposed revisions to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium later in this section for explanation of the impact of the revisions on the hygiene and PPE provisions). In summary, OSHA believes that these proposed changes would improve employers’ ability to comply with the standard by clarifying where beryllium work areas exist, while maintaining the agency’s intent to establish beryllium work areas where processes release significant amounts of airborne beryllium and to protect employees from skin exposure to beryllium. OSHA expects that these proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers. OSHA requests comment on these proposed changes, including whether the list of operations in proposed Appendix A adequately covers the operations where airborne exposures are likely and whether operations that trigger the creation of a beryllium work area also give rise to a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium within the beryllium work area. OSHA is also 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 followup 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 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. 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 a pulmonary specialist or pulmonologist 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. The agency is also proposing a clarification to the definition of chronic beryllium disease (CBD). For the purposes of this standard, the agency is proposing chronic beryllium 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 First, OSHA proposes to alter the current definition by adding the term ‘‘granulomatous’’ to better distinguish this disease from other occupationally associated chronic pulmonary diseases of inflammatory origin. A granulomatous lung formation is a focal collection of inflammatory cells (e.g., Tcells) creating a nodule in the lung (Ohshimo et al., 2017, Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006–0870–2171). The formation of the type of lung granuloma specific to a beryllium immune response can only occur in those with CBD (82 FR 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 beryllium final rule that indicate beryllium is the causative agent for CBD and that CBD only occurs after inhalation of beryllium (82 FR 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 2492). OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of confirmed positive to mean 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. The proposed definition includes several changes to the current definition of confirmed positive. First, the agency is proposing to change the definition of confirmed positive by removing 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 generalpurpose definition of beryllium sensitization. The term confirmed positive originates from a study that described the findings from a large-scale PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 interlaboratory testing scheme (Stange et al., 2004, Document ID OSHA–H005C– 2006–0870–1402). 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 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 2646). Whether or not individuals are necessarily considered to be berylliumsensitized at the time of the BeLPT findings is less of a consideration than is the understanding that these individuals 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. An additional 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 followup test period required after a first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result. After publication of the 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, as 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 followup 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 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules is normal, the employee is not 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 this proposed modification. 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. Examples of the potential types of results a worker may receive from BeLPT testing, including information obtained from split blood samples sent to separate labs or from a blood sample sent to a single lab, can be found in the docket (Document ID 0015). OSHA is proposing to modify the standard’s definition for dermal contact with beryllium. Dermal contact with beryllium appears in several places in the standard: Paragraph (f), Written exposure control plan; paragraph (h), Personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE); paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices; paragraph (k), Medical surveillance; and paragraph (m), Communication of hazards. Paragraph (b) currently defines dermal contact with beryllium as skin exposure to soluble beryllium compounds, beryllium solutions, or dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium, where these materials contain beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. This definition was added to the standard through a direct final rule (83 FR 19936, 19940 (May 7, 2018)) following OSHA’s promulgation of the final standard in January 2017. After publication of the 2017 final rule, stakeholders had raised questions about the meaning of dermal contact with beryllium where work processes involve materials with beryllium at very low concentrations. As a result of discussions with these stakeholders, OSHA added the definition to the general industry standard to clarify that dermal contact with beryllium means skin exposure to materials containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (83 FR at 19940). OSHA is proposing to make two further changes to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium. First, OSHA proposes to add the term ‘‘visible’’ to the definition, so that the third form of dermal contact with beryllium would be skin exposure to visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. Second, OSHA proposes to add a VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 sentence to the definition specifying that handling beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form that are free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered dermal contact with beryllium under the standard. OSHA believes that these proposed changes, in conjunction with other proposed changes (e.g., the definition of a beryllium work area), would allow employers to more accurately identify areas where dermal contact with beryllium could be expected. OSHA is proposing to add the term ‘‘visible’’ to clarify when skin exposure to beryllium-containing dust, fumes, or mist should be considered dermal contact with beryllium. Several of the standard’s provisions are triggered where an employee has, or can be reasonably expected to have, dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA is concerned that, under the current definition, employers will be unable to accurately identify when dermal contact with beryllium has occurred, or should be reasonably expected to occur, for the purposes of compliance with this standard. Beryllium-generating processes can release beryllium in varying particle sizes and amounts, some of which are visible to the naked eye and some of which are not. OSHA is concerned that employers could reasonably interpret the provisions triggered by dermal contact with beryllium (e.g., the use of PPE) as extending to every employee who could potentially encounter a minute and nonvisible amount of beryllium particulate at its facility, irrespective of the employee’s job duties and tasks. Such an interpretation would be contrary to OSHA’s intent and could prompt employers to attempt infeasible compliance measures. OSHA believes that revising the definition is necessary to make the provisions triggered by dermal contact with beryllium understandable and workable. OSHA believes that modifying the definition of dermal contact with beryllium to cover skin exposure to ‘‘visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight’’ may provide a clearer and more workable definition. The proposed change would allow employers to accurately identify the employees, and particularly those working outside of beryllium work areas or regulated areas, to whom the provisions triggered by dermal contact with beryllium apply, including the requirement to provide employees with PPE to protect against reasonably expected dermal contact with beryllium. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63751 OSHA previously proposed using the visibility of beryllium contamination as a trigger for the use of PPE in the proposed rule that preceded the promulgation of the beryllium standard, based in part on the recommendations of a joint model standard that Materion and USW developed in 2012 (80 FR 47566 (Aug. 7, 2015)). That proposed rule would have required employers to provide appropriate PPE where employee exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or STEL; where work clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with beryllium; and where employees’ skin is reasonably expected to be exposed to soluble beryllium compounds (80 FR at 47791– 94). In the final rule (82 FR 2470 (Jan. 9, 2017)), OSHA modified the provision based in part on comments from several public health experts who objected to using the phrase ‘‘visibly contaminated.’’ In particular, public health experts from NIOSH, National Jewish Health (NJH), and the American Thoracic Society, stated that beryllium can accumulate on the skin and on work surfaces without becoming visible, and beryllium sensitization can result from contact with small quantities of beryllium that are not visible to the naked eye (82 FR at 2679–80). Materion, on the other hand, supported using the phrase because relying on visual cues of contamination would make it easier for employers to comply with the PPE provision (82 FR at 2680). OSHA ultimately agreed that skin contact with even small amounts of beryllium can cause beryllium sensitization and that triggering the use of PPE on visible contamination of the skin and clothing would not be sufficiently protective (82 FR at 2680– 81). OSHA was concerned that employers might interpret the proposed ‘‘may become visibly contaminated’’ language as only requiring the use of PPE after work processes release quantities of beryllium sufficient to create deposits visible to the naked eye, by which time workers may have already had skin exposure sufficient to cause beryllium sensitization (82 FR at 2680). Employees should already be using PPE to prevent dermal contact by that time. Thus, to avoid the potential use of ‘‘may become visibly contaminated’’ as a lagging indicator triggering PPE, in the final rule the agency modified the provision to require the use of PPE wherever there is a ‘‘reasonable expectation of dermal contact’’ with beryllium (82 FR at 2680). The current proposal continues to address this concern in two ways. First, E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules it retains the ‘‘reasonable expectation’’ trigger for PPE in the 2017 final rule. Thus, PPE use is required by the proposal before actual exposure occurs, accommodating the central concern of the final rule. Second, the location of the triggering exposure is changed. Where the original proposal required PPE where there may be visible accumulations of beryllium on skin or clothing, the current proposal requires PPE where there are visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in the work area that might come into contact with the skin. Therefore, in this way the current proposal triggers PPE before actual exposure occurs as well. The current proposal also better addresses the practical aspects of a ‘‘reasonable expectation’’ trigger for PPE. OSHA’s 2017 final rule did not address the practical aspects of complying with a trigger that required PPE when any dermal contact with beryllium might be reasonably expected. Although OSHA did not intend beryllium work areas to extend facilitywide, the 2017 final rule could nonetheless be read as effectively requiring employees to wear PPE facility-wide, even when not in proximity to beryllium generating processes (e.g., administrative offices). Where an employer has a reasonable expectation that even very tiny amounts of non-trace beryllium dust, fume, or mist might spread outside of beryllium work areas, it may believe it is required to institute either a comprehensive wipe sampling program, or simply require all employees in the facility to wear PPE all of the time. OSHA did not explicitly cost the 2017 final rule as requiring PPE use to protect against dermal contact with non-visible beryllium dust, fumes, or mists outside of beryllium work areas, and OSHA is concerned that use of PPE in that circumstance is infeasible and unwarranted and would not meaningfully enhance worker protections. OSHA is therefore proposing the addition of a visual cue to enable employers to accurately identify the employees outside of beryllium work areas who need to wear PPE due to their reasonably-expected dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects that the use of PPE will always be required in beryllium work areas because both the operations listed in Appendix A and those that can be reasonably expected to generate exposure at or above the action level would create a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium. This expectation is based, in part, on a study conducted by NIOSH and Materion and published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 Hygiene. This study identified a strong correlation between airborne beryllium concentrations and the amount measured on gloves worn by workers at multiple beryllium facilities and jobs, indicating the potential for skin exposure where airborne beryllium is present (Document ID OSHA–H005C– 2006–0870–0502). The expectation is also based on OSHA’s review of data collected during site visits conducted by the agency that cover a wide range of processes (e.g., furnace and melting operations, casting, grinding/deburring, machining and stamping) and a wide range of materials including beryllium composite, beryllium alloy, and beryllium oxide. The data show that those operations that would create a reasonable expectation of dermal contact, either through beryllium surface contamination or skin contamination, are covered either by proposed Appendix A or have exposures above the action level, (Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006– 0870–0341). As such, both the provisions associated with beryllium work areas (listed above) and the provisions associated with dermal contact with beryllium would apply to employees in a beryllium work area (see Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, for the proposed revision to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium). OSHA requests comments on whether operations that trigger the creation of a beryllium work area also give rise to a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium within the beryllium work area. In light of the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium, in which employees will have such contact if their skin is exposed to visible dusts, fumes, or mists that contain beryllium at the necessary concentration, OSHA also requests comment on whether processes exist that could trigger the creation of a beryllium work area, but could be reasonably expected to release only nonvisible beryllium-containing dusts, fumes, or mists. OSHA requests comment on all aspects of this discussion. In particular, OSHA is interested in learning about any alternative approaches that have been used to trigger PPE use and the basis for them. OSHA is also interested in learning of other reasonable ways to identify non-visible dermal exposures of concern outside of beryllium work areas. OSHA also requests information on the ways employers have implemented the PPE requirements of the current rule, including any difficulties they may have had in this regard. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 OSHA notes that the record is unclear on whether facilities that process beryllium have any employees who work away from beryllium-releasing processes (i.e., outside of beryllium work areas) but who could be reasonably expected to come into contact with solely non-visible particulates of beryllium in the course of their work. OSHA requests comment on whether such employees exist, and if so, whether the use of PPE would be necessary to adequately protect them from adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure. OSHA believes that the proposed change to the definition will likewise render more workable the additional provisions in the standard in which dermal contact with beryllium appears. For example, because it will help employers identify which employees have, or can be reasonably expected to have, dermal contact with beryllium, the proposed definition will allow employers to more accurately comply with the requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) to establish, implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan that includes a list of operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects that the list would likely include all operations and job titles in beryllium work areas, along with any additional operations or job titles for employees whose skin could be exposed to visible beryllium dust, fumes, or mists in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more. Under the current definition, employers could reasonably interpret the standard as requiring them to list the job title for every employee at the facility who could come into contact with a minute and non-visible amount of beryllium particulate, including employees who do not work in proximity to beryllium-releasing processes (e.g., in administrative offices). Adding a visual cue will allow employers to more accurately list the operations and job titles for employees who work outside of beryllium work areas and are reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA requests comment on whether this proposed change would cause an employer to omit any operations and job titles that should be included in the written exposure control plan, and whether it would reduce protections for any employees. Similarly, the proposed definition will facilitate employer compliance with the requirement to provide information and training (in accordance with the Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)) to each E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules employee who has, or can reasonably be expected to have, airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium by the time of the employee’s initial assignment and annually thereafter (paragraphs (m)(4)(i)(A)-(C)). The proposed definition would allow employers to accurately identify which employees must receive this information and training because they have, or can reasonably be expected to have, dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects that the employees who will be required to receive this training will include all employees who work in beryllium work areas as well as any other employees who may not be working directly with a berylliumgenerating process, but may nonetheless reasonably be expected to have airborne exposure and/or skin contact with soluble beryllium, beryllium solutions, or visible beryllium dust, fumes, or mists in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more. As discussed previously, OSHA intends the proposed modification to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium to provide employers with a workable measure for determining which employees outside of beryllium work areas and regulated areas should receive this information and training. OSHA requests comment on whether this proposed change would still capture all of the employees that would benefit from the training required under this standard. Because the change would allow employers to more accurately identify the employees who have had dermal contact with beryllium, the proposed definition would also facilitate proper compliance with paragraph (i)(1)(ii), which requires employers to 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. The addition of the term ‘‘visible’’ to the definition would prevent employers from speculating that all employees in a facility, including those employees who do not work near berylliumreleasing processes (e.g., administrative employees), must wash their exposed skin because they might have come into contact with non-visible beryllium particulate. Such an interpretation would be contrary to OSHA’s intent and could be infeasible in practice. As stated above, it is unclear from the existing record whether there are employees who work exclusively outside of beryllium work areas but who could come into contact with solely nonvisible beryllium particulate during VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 their work and yet not be required to wash their exposed skin under the proposed rule. OSHA requests comment on whether such employees exist, and whether this proposed change would reduce protections for any employees. The proposed definition would further improve employer compliance with the requirements in paragraph (k) to offer employees a medical examination including a medical and work history that emphasizes past and present airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium (paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(A)), and to provide the examining physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) (and the agreed-upon CBD diagnostic center, if such an evaluation is required) with a description of the employee’s former and current duties that relate to the employee’s airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium (paragraph (k)(4)(i)). Because it would improve employers’ ability to identify when dermal contact with beryllium has occurred or could occur, this change would permit employers to accurately complete employee medical and work histories and the reports that they must provide to examining PLHCPs or CBD diagnostic centers. Similar to the change’s effect on the provisions discussed above, adding the term ‘‘visible’’ would prevent employers from including superfluous information in these medical and work histories and reports because they are concerned that an employee might have conceivably come into contact with solely nonvisible beryllium particulate outside of a beryllium work area. Such an expansive interpretation would be contrary to OSHA’s intent. OSHA requests comment on whether this change would cause employers to omit needed information from these medical and work histories and reports, and, as a result, undermine the effectiveness of the medical examinations. Dermal contact with beryllium is also currently mentioned in the requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) that employers update their written exposure control plans when notified that an employee shows signs or symptoms associated with airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium. But as explained in the summary and explanation for proposed changes to paragraph (f), OSHA is proposing to remove the reference to dermal contact with beryllium in that provision so that it would require employers to update exposure control plans when they are notified that an employee shows signs or symptoms associated with any exposure to beryllium. If that proposed change to paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) is PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63753 finalized, the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium will have no effect on that provision. Even if the proposed change to paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) is not finalized, however, OSHA does not anticipate that the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium would have any meaningful impact on that requirement because the signs and symptoms of dermal contact with beryllium are the same regardless of whether the beryllium is visible (82 FR at 2680–81). Dermal contact with beryllium also currently appears in paragraph (h)(3)(iii). That provision requires employers to inform in writing persons or 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 the standard. As explained below, OSHA is proposing to revise that provision so that it requires employers to inform launderers, cleaners, and repairers of the potentially harmful effects of all exposure to beryllium (see discussion of proposed changes to paragraph (h) later in this section). If the proposed revision to this paragraph is not finalized, the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium would still have no impact because the effects of skin contact with beryllium are the same regardless of whether the beryllium is visible (82 FR at 2680–81). OSHA is also proposing to add two additional references to dermal contact with beryllium in paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices, to account for additional proposed changes to the definition of beryllium work area in paragraph (b). Paragraph (i) includes requirements for employers to provide each employee working in a beryllium work area with readily accessible washing facilities (paragraph (i)(1)(i)) and a designated change room where employees are required to remove their personal clothing (paragraph (i)(2)). But, as explained earlier in this section, OSHA is proposing to revise the definition of beryllium work area so that it no longer refers to the potential for dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA intends for the requirements to provide washing facilities and change rooms to apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, regardless of whether they work in a beryllium work area as defined in this proposal. As discussed above, there may be E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules employees outside of the beryllium work area that may have a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to add two additional references to dermal contact with beryllium to paragraph (i). First, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (i)(1) so that the requirements would apply to each employee who works in a beryllium work area or who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. Paragraph (i)(1)(i) would then require employers to provide washing facilities to all employees who can be reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. Second, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (i)(2) so that employers are required to provide change rooms to employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii), if those employees are required to remove their personal clothing. Because paragraph (h)(1)(ii) requires the use of PPE where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium, this proposed change would ensure that, if OSHA finalizes the proposed changes to the definition of beryllium work area, the requirement for change rooms would continue to protect those employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. As discussed above, it is unclear from the existing record whether there are employees working outside of beryllium work areas who could come into contact with solely non-visible beryllium particulate, whose exposure would not trigger the employer’s obligation to provide washing facilities and change rooms under this proposal. OSHA requests comment on whether such employees exist, and if so, whether the use of washing facilities is necessary to adequately protect them from adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure. The second change that OSHA is proposing to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium is to add a sentence specifying that handling of beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form that are free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered ‘‘dermal contact with beryllium’’ under the standard. OSHA explained in the final rule that beryllium-containing solid objects, or ‘‘articles,’’ with uncompromised physical integrity are unlikely to release beryllium that would pose a health hazard for workers (82 FR at 2640). Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2) states that the beryllium standard’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 provisions do not apply to the specified articles that the employer does not process. The proposed addition to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium would clarify that the provisions in the standard related to dermal contact with beryllium do not apply to the handling of solid beryllium-containing objects that the employer does not process, unless visible beryllium particulate has contaminated the surface of the object. As discussed above, in areas where the employer reasonably expects that employees’ skin will be exposed to visible beryllium dust, fumes, or mists, including those that may have contaminated the surface of solid objects, employers would be required to provide, and ensure that employees use, appropriate PPE. Outside of areas where an employer reasonably expects that visible dust, fumes, or mists may be present, such as beryllium work areas, the use of PPE would not be required, and the provisions requiring employers to minimize surface beryllium in paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) of the standard should sufficiently protect employees from contact with berylliumcontaminated objects. OSHA requests comments on these proposed changes. OSHA particularly requests comments on whether it is appropriate to trigger protections that apply to dermal contact with beryllium on skin exposure to dusts, fumes, or mists only if they are visible, and whether this will sufficiently protect employees from exposure to accumulations of beryllium particulate that are not visible to the naked eye but that could cause beryllium sensitization. OSHA also requests comments on whether there are alternative approaches to revising the definition of dermal contact with beryllium that would enhance employer understanding and improve compliance with the provisions in the standard that are triggered by actual or reasonably expected dermal contact with beryllium, while maintaining safety and health protections for workers. B. Written Exposure Control Plan Paragraph (f)(1) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024(f)(1)) addresses the written exposure control plan that the employer must establish, implement, and maintain. Paragraph (f)(1)(i) specifies the information that must be included in the plan and paragraph (f)(1)(ii) addresses the requirements for employers to review each plan at least annually and update it under specified circumstances. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 OSHA is proposing two wording changes to these provisions. Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) addresses procedures for minimizing cross-contamination within beryllium work areas. This includes the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles. This proposal would remove the word ‘‘preventing’’ from the text to clarify that these procedures may not totally eliminate the transfer of beryllium, but should minimize crosscontamination of beryllium, including between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) specifies that when an employer is notified that an employee is eligible for medical removal, referred for evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, or shows signs or symptoms associated with airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium, the employer must update the written exposure control plan as necessary. OSHA is proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium’’ with ‘‘exposure to beryllium.’’ This would simplify the language of the provision while still capturing all potential exposure scenarios currently covered. Because these proposed changes are merely clarifying, OSHA expects they would maintain safety and health protections for workers. C. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment OSHA is proposing two revisions to paragraph (h) of the beryllium standard for general industry, personal protective clothing and equipment (29 CFR 1910.1024(h)). The first proposed revision relates to paragraph (h)(2)(i), which addresses removal and storage of personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE). This provision requires employers to ensure that each employee removes all berylliumcontaminated 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. OSHA is proposing to modify the phrase ‘‘at the completion of tasks involving beryllium’’ in paragraph (h)(2)(i) by changing ‘‘tasks’’ to ‘‘all tasks.’’ This revision would clarify the trigger for when employees must remove beryllium-contaminated PPE. OSHA’s intent, expressed in the final rule, is that PPE contaminated with beryllium should not be worn when tasks involving beryllium exposure have been completed for the day (82 FR 2682). Thus, when employees perform multiple tasks involving beryllium successively or intermittently E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 throughout the day, the employer must ensure that each employee removes all beryllium-contaminated PPE at the completion of the set of tasks involving beryllium, not necessarily after each separate task. If, however, employees perform tasks involving beryllium exposure for only the first two hours of a work shift, and then perform tasks that do not involve exposure to beryllium, the employer must ensure that employees remove their PPE after the beryllium exposure period. Unless the PPE becomes visibly contaminated with beryllium, OSHA does not intend this provision to require continuous PPE changes throughout the work shift. The proposed revision would clarify OSHA’s intent. Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) requires the employer to inform in writing the persons or the business entities who launder, clean or repair the PPE required by this standard of the potentially harmful effects of airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium and that the PPE must be handled in accordance with this standard. OSHA is proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium’’ with ‘‘exposure to beryllium.’’ This would simplify the language of the provision while still capturing all potential exposure scenarios currently covered. An identical language change is being proposed in the methods of compliance paragraph, (f)(1)(ii)(B). Because these changes would merely clarify OSHA’s original intent for these provisions of the standard, the agency anticipates that the proposed revisions to paragraph (h) would maintain safety and health protections for workers. D. Hygiene Areas and Practices OSHA is proposing three changes to paragraph (i) of the general industry standard, Hygiene areas and practices (29 CFR 1910.1024(i)). This paragraph requires that the employer provide employees with readily accessible washing facilities, change rooms, and showers when certain conditions are met; requires the employer to take certain steps to minimize exposure in eating and drinking areas; and prohibits certain practices that may contribute to beryllium exposure. OSHA is proposing the first two changes, which apply to paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2), to maintain the protections included in these paragraphs for employees who have dermal contact with beryllium if the proposed change to the definition of beryllium work area, discussed previously in this Summary and Explanation, is finalized. OSHA is proposing the third change, which VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 applies to paragraph (i)(4), to clarify the requirements for cleaning berylliumcontaminated PPE prior to entering an eating or drinking area. As explained in the previous discussion of proposed changes to the definition of beryllium work area, OSHA is proposing several changes to the definition of beryllium work area to clarify where a beryllium work area should be established. One of the changes proposed is to remove dermal contact with beryllium as one of the triggers that would require an employer to establish a beryllium work area. If this proposed change to the definition of beryllium work area is finalized, it is OSHA’s intention that the hygiene provisions related to washing facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised definition. OSHA accordingly proposes two changes. First, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(1). As currently written, paragraph (i)(1) requires that, for each employee working in a beryllium work area, the employer must provide readily accessible washing facilities in accordance with the beryllium standard and the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141) to remove beryllium from the hands, face, and neck. The employer must also 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. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) to each employee who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium in addition to each employee working in a beryllium work area. This proposed change would ensure that, if OSHA finalizes a definition of beryllium work area that does not require employers to establish a beryllium work area where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium, the requirement for washing facilities would continue to protect those employees who are reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, consistent with OSHA’s original intent. Thus, under the proposed change, the employer still would be required to provide readily accessible washing facilities to all employees with reasonably expected dermal contact in accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(i) and ensure that all such employees wash exposed skin in accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(ii). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63755 Second, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(2). As currently written, paragraph (i)(2) requires that, for employees who work in a beryllium work area, the employer must provide a designated change room in accordance with the beryllium standard and the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141) where employees are required to remove their personal clothing. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(2) to employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the beryllium standard, instead of to employees who work in a beryllium work area. Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the beryllium standard requires the provision and use of appropriate PPE ‘‘[w]here there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium.’’ This proposed change would ensure that, if OSHA finalizes a definition of beryllium work area that does not require employers to establish a beryllium work area where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium, the requirement for change rooms would continue to protect those employees who are reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, consistent with OSHA’s original intent. OSHA is also proposing a third change, which applies to paragraph (i)(4), in order to clarify the requirements for cleaning berylliumcontaminated PPE prior to entering an eating or drinking area. Paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024(i)(4)(ii)) requires the employer to ensure that no employees enter any eating or drinking area with beryllium-contaminated 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. OSHA is proposing to modify this paragraph to require the employer to ensure that, before employees enter an eating or drinking area, beryllium-contaminated PPE is cleaned, as necessary, to be as free as practicable of beryllium by methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or onto an employee’s body. This proposed change would clarify that OSHA does not expect the methods used to clean PPE prior to entering an eating or drinking area to completely eliminate residual beryllium from the surface of the PPE if complete elimination is not practicable. This is consistent with OSHA’s determination, expressed in the preamble to the final rule, that ‘‘as free E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 as practicable’’ is ‘‘the most appropriate terminology for requirements pertaining to surface cleanliness’’ (82 FR 2687). This proposed clarification also aligns the language of paragraph (i)(4)(ii) with the language of paragraph (i)(4)(i), which requires employers to ensure that beryllium-contaminated surfaces in eating and drinking areas are as free as practicable of beryllium. Finally, requiring cleaning only ‘‘as necessary’’ would clarify that cleaning would not be required if the PPE is already as free as practicable of beryllium. OSHA expects these proposed changes to paragraph (i) would maintain safety and health protections for workers. E. Disposal and Recycling Paragraph (j)(3) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024(j)(3)) addresses disposal and recycling of materials that contain beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or that are contaminated with beryllium. That paragraph currently specifies that (1) materials designated for disposal must be disposed of in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3) of the beryllium standard, and (2) materials designated for recycling must be cleaned to be as free as practicable of surface beryllium contamination and labeled according to paragraph (m)(3), or placed in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3). The requirements do not apply to materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium (less than 0.1 percent by weight). OSHA is proposing several changes to these provisions. Generally, OSHA is proposing that provisions pertaining to recycling and disposal also address reuse because in some cases workers may be exposed to materials containing or contaminated with beryllium that are directly reused without first being recycled into a different form. For example, a manufacturer may sell a byproduct from a process to a downstream manufacturer that would reuse the byproduct as a component of a new product. Recycling, on the other hand, typically involves the further processing of waste materials to separate and recover various components of value. OSHA is also proposing some minor changes in terminology and organization to improve the clarity and internal consistency of the standard. Proposed paragraph (j)(3) would be reorganized into three subparagraphs and would identify that the provisions address reuse in addition to disposal and recycling. Proposed paragraph VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 (j)(3)(i) would require employers to ensure that materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or contaminated with beryllium that are transferred to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3) of the standard. This reorganization of the provisions would make it clear that the labeling requirements under paragraph (m)(3) apply regardless of whether the employer transfers materials to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse. Including that information in paragraph (j)(3)(i) avoids the need to repeat the information in paragraph (j)(3)(ii), which addresses disposal specifically, and paragraph (j)(3)(iii), which addresses recycling and reuse. Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would require that with the exception of intraplant transfers, materials designated for disposal that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures, such as bags or containers, that prevent the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport. Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(iii) would require that with the exception of intra-plant transfers, materials designated for recycling or reuse that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures, such as bags or containers, that prevent the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport. The proposed addition of the term ‘‘except for intra-plant transfers’’ to proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) clarifies that the requirements in paragraph (j)(3) do not apply to transfers within a plant. As discussed in the preamble for the beryllium final rule (82 FR 2470, 2696), OSHA did not intend the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of the general industry standard to require employers to clean or enclose materials to be used in another location of the same facility. Since the disposal and recycling provisions would now also address reuse under this proposal, this proposed change would make OSHA’s intent explicit. Under other provisions of the beryllium standard, employers would still be required to communicate possible hazards to employees and protect employees who may be exposed to those materials during intra-plant transfer. OSHA is also proposing that the phrase ‘‘materials that contain beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 weight or more’’ be replaced with the phrase ‘‘materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight’’ in paragraphs (j)(3)(i)–(iii). The change in terminology is to simplify the language and does not change the meaning. The requirement in proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) that materials not otherwise cleaned be placed in enclosures that prevent the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport clarifies the requirement from the final standard that the materials be placed in ‘‘sealed, impermeable enclosures.’’ As discussed in the preamble to the final standard (82 FR 2470, 2695), OSHA disagreed with stakeholders who found the requirement for sealed, impermeable enclosures to be ‘‘problematically vague.’’ As the agency explained, ‘‘OSHA intends this term to be broad and the provision performance-oriented, so as to allow employers in a variety of industries flexibility to decide what type of enclosures (e.g., bags or other containers) are best suited to their workplace and the nature of the beryllium-containing materials they are disposing or designating for reuse outside the facility.’’ Further, the term ‘‘impermeable’’ was not intended to mean absolutely impervious to rupture; rather, OSHA explained that the enclosures should be impermeable to the extent that they would not allow materials to escape ‘‘under normal conditions of use.’’ Since the promulgation of the final rule in 2017, OSHA has learned from stakeholders that further clarification may help eliminate confusion regarding what types of enclosures would be acceptable under the standard. Thus, the proposed change makes explicit what had been intended in the 2017 final rulemaking. In addition, the proposed change would reinforce the requirement that employers select the appropriate type of container to prevent release based on the form of beryllium and how it is normally handled. For example, a container that prevents the release of a beryllium particulate may not be effective in preventing the release of a beryllium solution. Proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) would also clarify the cleaning requirements of the beryllium standard by removing the phrase ‘‘of surface beryllium contamination,’’ which may cause confusion because the term ‘‘surface beryllium contamination’’ does not appear in other provisions of the standard and is not defined in the beryllium standard. Elsewhere in the standard, OSHA uses the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable of beryllium.’’ OSHA has E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules discussed the meaning of this phrase in the summary and explanation of paragraph (j) in the 2017 final rule (82 FR 2690), as well as previously in a 2014 letter of interpretation explaining the phrase in the context of the agency’s standard for hexavalent chromium (OSHA, Nov. 5, 2014, Letter of Interpretation, available at https:// www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardin terpretations/2014-11-05). OSHA believes the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable of beryllium’’ will more clearly convey the cleaning requirements under the beryllium standard than the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable of surface beryllium contamination.’’ Finally, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would allow the same options for either cleaning or enclosure found in the recycling and reuse requirements for materials designated for disposal. The beryllium standard currently does not include an option of cleaning materials designated for disposal and instead requires enclosure in containers. Since the promulgation of the beryllium final rule in 2017, OSHA has learned from stakeholders that in some cases, items that contain or are contaminated with beryllium may not be suitable for enclosure prior to disposal. While OSHA agreed with ORCHSE Strategies in 2017 that municipal and commercial disposal workers should be protected from exposure to beryllium from contact with materials discarded from beryllium work areas in general industry by placing those materials in enclosed containers (82 FR 2695; Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006–0870–1691, p. 5), the agency had not considered situations where it would be impractical to require enclosure because the materials in question were large items such as machines or structures that may contain or be contaminated with beryllium, rather than more common items, such as beryllium scrap metal or shavings. For example, a machine that was used to process berylliumcontaining materials may be contaminated with beryllium. Enclosing the machine in a large container prior to disposal would be less practical, and no more effective, than cleaning the machine to be as free as practicable of beryllium contamination prior to disposal. Thus, OSHA has preliminarily determined that workers handling items designated for disposal, like workers handling items designated for recycling or reuse, will be just as protected from exposure to beryllium if the items are cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium as if the items were placed in containers. Regardless of whether an VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 employer chooses to clean or enclose materials designated for disposal, the labeling requirements under proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would still apply and would require the materials designated for disposal to be labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard. OSHA expects these proposed changes to paragraph (j) to maintain safety and health protections for workers. F. Medical Surveillance Paragraph (k) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024) addresses medical surveillance requirements. OSHA is proposing changes to two medical surveillance provisions. Under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), the employer must provide a medical examination within 30 days after determining that the employee shows signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related health effects or that the employee has been exposed to beryllium in an emergency. OSHA proposes removing the requirement for a medical examination within 30 days of exposure in an emergency and adding paragraph (k)(2)(iv), which would require the employer to offer a medical examination at least one year after but no more than two years after the employee is exposed to beryllium in an emergency. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the requirement to provide a medical examination between one and two years after exposure in an emergency is more appropriate than a 30-day requirement and would enhance worker protections. In the proposal for the 2017 beryllium rule (80 FR 47798, Summary and Explanation for proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B)), OSHA proposed requiring employers to provide medical examinations to employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency, and to those showing signs or symptoms of CBD, within 30 days of the employer becoming aware that these employees met those criteria. During the public comment period for that NPRM, OSHA did not receive any comments from stakeholders about the time period to offer medical examinations following a report of symptoms or exposure in an emergency. The agency determined the 30-day trigger to be administratively convenient for post-emergency surveillance, because it is consistent with other OSHA standards and with other triggers in the beryllium standards (82 FR 2702, Summary and Explanation for paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B)). OSHA therefore retained paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), as proposed, in the final rule. After publication of the final rule, stakeholders suggested to OSHA that PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63757 sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after exposure in individuals who may become sensitized, so a longer timeframe for medical examinations may be more appropriate. OSHA acknowledges uncertainty regarding the time period in which sensitization may occur following a one-time exposure to a significant concentration of beryllium (i.e., exposures exceeding the PEL) in an emergency. Further, as discussed in the final rule (82 FR 2530, 2533), OSHA found that beryllium sensitization can occur several months or more after initial exposure to beryllium among workers with regular occupational exposure to beryllium. Because sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after exposure in individuals who may become sensitized, OSHA believes the proposed time period of one to two years may be more likely to enable detection of sensitization in employees in the first test following exposure in an emergency. OSHA notes that, if an employee exposed during an emergency were to become sensitized and develop signs or symptoms of CBD prior to one year after exposure in an emergency, the employer would still be required to provide that employee a medical examination under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) of the standard. Further, OSHA does not intend this revision to preclude employers from voluntarily providing a medical examination within the first year after an emergency. However, providing a medical examination sooner would not relieve an employer of the duty to provide an exam in the one- to two-year window. For those employees who are already eligible for periodic medical surveillance, the examination for the emergency exposure could be scheduled to coincide with the next periodic examination that is within two years of the last periodic medical examination and at least one but no more than two years after the emergency exposure, satisfying the requirements of both paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) and (iv). OSHA requests comment on the appropriateness of the change from requiring a medical examination within 30 days following an employer’s determination that an employee has been exposed in an emergency to between one and two years following such exposure. Specifically, is a time frame of at least one year but not more than two years appropriate, or are there immediate health effects that would support providing an examination before one year following the emergency? What is the ideal timeframe to offer a medical examination following E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules exposure in an emergency to address sensitization or other health effects? As promulgated, paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) currently requires the employer to provide a medical examination within 30 days after the employer determines that an employee has been exposed to beryllium in an emergency. Under proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iv), the time period for providing a medical examination begins to run from the date the employee is exposed during an emergency, regardless of when the employer discovers that the exposure occurred. Because under this proposal the medical examination will not occur until at least a year from the date of the exposure in an emergency, and because OSHA believes that employers typically will learn of the emergency resulting in exposure immediately or soon after it occurs, OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to measure the time period from the date of exposure. OSHA requests comments on the appropriateness of calculating the time period for a medical examination from the occurrence of the emergency rather than from the employer’s determination of eligibility. Paragraph (k)(7)(i) currently requires that the employer 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). OSHA is proposing a change to paragraph (k)(7)(i) to account for the proposed revision to the definition of CBD diagnostic center discussed earlier in this proposal. As discussed in more detail above, the current definition of CBD diagnostic center 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 the definition to indicate that a CBD diagnostic center must be capable of performing those tests, but need not necessarily perform all tests during all evaluations. Nonetheless, OSHA intends that the employer provide those tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center. Accordingly, OSHA 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 test as outlined by ATS criteria; BAL; and transbronchial biopsy. The proposed changes would ensure that the employee receives those tests recommended by the examining physician and receives them at no cost and within a reasonable time. In addition, the revision would clarify OSHA’s original intent that, instead of requiring all 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. OSHA further notes that, by requiring the employer to provide those tests recommended by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center that was previously agreed-upon by the employer and employee, OSHA intends those tests to be provided by the same CBD diagnostic center unless the employer and employee agree to a different CBD diagnostic center. OSHA expects this proposed revision to maintain safety and health protections for workers. In the proposal for the 2017 beryllium rule, 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 paragraph (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). The purpose of this 30-day requirement was to ensure that employees receive the examination in a timely manner. This time period is also consistent with other OSHA standards. However, since OSHA published the final rule, stakeholders have 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. To address this concern, OSHA is 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 one of the types of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). 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. Providing PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a consultation before the full examination at the CBD diagnostic center demonstrates that the employer has made an effort to begin the process for a medical examination. It also allows the employee to consult with a physician to discuss concerns and ask questions while waiting for a medical examination. This consultation would allow 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 ensure that the employer secures an appointment for the evaluation in a timely manner. And 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 requests comments on this change, and specifically requests comment on whether it is appropriate to require the employer to provide a consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, rather than the full evaluation, within 30 days. OSHA also requests comment on whether a consultation via telephone or virtual conferencing methods is sufficient or whether it is appropriate to require the employer to provide an in-person consultation upon the employee’s request. G. Hazard Communication OSHA is also proposing changes to paragraph (m), communication of hazards, of the beryllium standard for general industry (82 FR 2470). This provision sets forth the employer’s obligations to comply with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) relative to beryllium and to take additional steps to warn and train employees about the hazards of beryllium. Paragraph (m)(3) addresses warning label requirements. This paragraph requires the employer to label each bag and container of clothing, equipment, and materials contaminated with beryllium, and specifies the precise wording on the label. OSHA is proposing to modify the language in paragraph (m)(3) to remove the words ‘‘bag and’’ and insert the descriptive adjective ‘‘immediate’’ to clarify that the employer need only label the immediate container of beryllium-contaminated E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules items. OSHA is proposing this change to be consistent with the HCS regarding bags or containers within larger containers. Under the HCS, only the primary or immediate container must be labeled and not the larger container holding the labeled bag or container. See 29 CFR 1910.1200(c) (definition of ‘‘Label’’). This change would effectuate OSHA’s intent, expressed in the final rule, that the hazard communication requirements of the beryllium standard ‘‘be substantively as consistent as possible’’ with the HCS (82 FR 2724). It would therefore maintain safety and health protections for workers. Paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) addresses employee information and training and requires the employer to ensure that each employee exposed to airborne beryllium can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards associated with airborne exposure to and contact with beryllium, including the signs and symptoms of CBD. OSHA is proposing to modify the language in paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) by adding the word ‘‘dermal’’ to contact with beryllium. This revision would clarify OSHA’s intent that employers must ensure that exposed employees can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards caused by dermal contact with beryllium. Similarly, paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) addresses employee information and training and requires the employer to ensure that each employee exposed to airborne beryllium can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of measures employees can take to protect themselves from airborne exposure to and contact with beryllium, including personal hygiene practices. OSHA is proposing to modify the language in paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) by adding the word ‘‘dermal’’ to contact with beryllium. This revision would clarify OSHA’s intent that employers must ensure exposed employees can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of measures employees can take to protect themselves from dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects these proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 H. Recordkeeping OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (n), Recordkeeping, by removing the requirement to include each employee’s Social Security Number (SSN) in the air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)), medical surveillance ((n)(3)((ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) provisions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 The 2015 beryllium NPRM proposed to require inclusion of the employee’s SSN in records related to air monitoring, medical surveillance, and training, similar to provisions in previous substance-specific health standards. As OSHA explained in the 2017 beryllium final rule, using an employee’s SSN is a useful tool for evaluating an individual’s exposure over time because an SSN is unique to an individual, is retained for a lifetime, and does not change when an employee changes employers (82 FR 2730). OSHA received several objections to the proposed requirement, citing employee privacy and identity theft concerns. OSHA recognized the privacy concerns expressed by commenters regarding this requirement, but concluded that the beryllium rule should adhere to the agency’s past consistent practice of requiring an employee’s SSN on records, and that any change to this requirement should be comprehensive and apply to all OSHA standards, not just the standards for beryllium (82 FR 2730). In 2016, OSHA proposed to delete the requirement that employers include SSNs in records required by its substance-specific standards in the agency’s Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP–IV) proposed rule (81 FR 68504, 68526–68528 (10/4/16)). Consistent with the SIP–IV proposal, OSHA is now proposing to modify the beryllium standard for general industry by removing the requirement to include SSNs in the recordkeeping provisions in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F) (air monitoring data), (n)(3)((ii)(A) (medical surveillance), and (n)(4)(i) (training). This proposed change would not require employers to delete employee SSNs from existing records. It would also not mandate a specific type of identification method that employers should use on newly-created records, but would instead provide employers with the flexibility to develop systems that best work for their unique situations. Therefore, employers would have the option to continue to use SSNs as employee identifiers for their records or to use an alternative employee identifier system. OSHA expects this proposed change would maintain safety and health protections for workers. III. Legal Considerations 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63759 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: [t]he Secretary . . . shall 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 the changes and clarifications proposed by this rulemaking do not affect that determination. See, e.g., 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’’). E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 63760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 almost unlimited discretion to devise means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal’’ of ensuring worker safety and health. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230 (citation omitted). 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 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 costbenefit analysis to make standardssetting decisions dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents (29 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: 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. 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 § 6(b)(5). Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509. Thus, while OSHA estimates the costs and benefits of its proposed and final rules, in part to ensure compliance with requirements such as those in Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, these calculations do not form the basis for the agency’s regulatory decisions. IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification (PEA) Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. For this proposal, possible effects of each provision on costs and benefits appear to be relatively small, and OSHA has not been able to quantify them. Nor has OSHA been able to quantify the cost savings it expects PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 from preventing misinterpretation and misapplication of the standard. OSHA expects that this rule, if finalized, will increase understanding and increase compliance with the standard. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Moreover, and as mentioned above, OSHA expects this proposed rule would maintain safety and health protections for workers. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed rulemaking is not an ‘‘economically significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 or a ‘‘major rule’’ under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and its impacts do not trigger the analytical requirements of UMRA. In promulgating the 2017 final rule, OSHA determined that the beryllium rule was both technologically and economically feasible. See 82 FR 2582– 86, 2590–96, Summary of the Final Economic Analysis. The changes proposed herein are intended to align the rule more clearly with the intent of the 2017 final rule. Because OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposal would decrease the costs of compliance by preventing misinterpretation and misapplication of the standard, OSHA has also preliminarily determined that the proposal is economically feasible. OSHA invites public comment on all aspects of this PEA. A. Proposed Clarifications As previously explained in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, many of the changes proposed in this NPRM are solely for purposes of clarification and therefore would not alter the requirements or scope of the beryllium standard, though they would facilitate its appropriate interpretation and application. These include: The addition of a definition of beryllium sensitization to paragraph (b); minor changes to the definitions of CBD diagnostic center and chronic beryllium disease in paragraph (b); minor changes to the written exposure control plan provisions in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) and paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B); minor changes to provisions for the cleaning of PPE in paragraph (h)(3)(iii); minor changes to the cleaning of PPE upon entry to eating or drinking areas in paragraph (i)(4)(ii); a minor change in the PPE removal provision of paragraph (h)(2)(i); and minor changes to provisions for employee information and training in paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) and E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (m)(4)(ii)(E).1 Because OSHA does not intend or expect these proposed changes to alter the requirements or the scope of the standard, OSHA does not anticipate that these changes would result in costs to employers, and anticipates they would trigger cost savings that follow from simplifying and facilitating compliance. B. Proposed Revisions Some proposed changes would go beyond clarification and alter certain requirements of the beryllium standard while maintaining safety and health protections for workers. The following subsections examine the provisions for which proposed changes may affect costs and the potential cost impact of these provisions, along with associated interrelated provisions. These provisions include: changes to the definitions of beryllium work area, confirmed positive, and dermal contact with beryllium in paragraph (b); a change to the requirements for washing facilities in paragraph (i)(1), a change to the requirements for provision of change rooms in paragraph (i)(2); changes to the requirements pertaining to disposal and recycling in paragraph (j)(3); a change to the requirements for medical surveillance following an employee’s exposure to beryllium in an emergency in paragraph (k)(2); revision to provisions for evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center in paragraph (k)(7)(i); a change to the requirements for warning labels in paragraph (m)(3); and changes to the requirements for recordkeeping in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and (n)(4)(i). The agency preliminarily estimates that there would be no added costs due to the proposed changes to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium, the change rooms provision, the warning labels requirement, or the recordkeeping requirement, but that there would be potential cost savings from improving employer understanding and facilitating application of the rule. OSHA has preliminarily determined that cost savings would also result from the remainder of the changes, which would likewise improve employer understanding and are examined individually after this summary. OSHA has preliminarily identified only one new potential cost, which results from the proposed changes as a whole: a de minimis cost for the time employers will need to become familiar with any changes resulting from this rulemaking. OSHA therefore preliminarily 1 See Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, for a detailed explanation of each proposed change to the standard. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 anticipates that the net effect of the proposed changes would result in some cost savings. 1. Definition of Beryllium Work Area The proposed definition of beryllium work area is any work area where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed either during any of the operations listed in proposed Appendix A; or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. The proposed definition differs from the current definition in that, under the proposal, operations that are reasonably expected to release airborne beryllium only at concentrations below the action level and that do not appear in Appendix A would no longer trigger the establishment of a beryllium work area. In addition, the proposed definition would not trigger the establishment of a beryllium work area for operations where employees have the potential for dermal contact with beryllium, but that do not appear in Appendix A and are not reasonably expected to generate airborne beryllium at concentrations at or above the action level. Under the current definition, any potential for dermal contact results in a beryllium work area. OSHA expects that the proposed definition of beryllium work area would not alter the number or location of beryllium work areas that employers in general industry must establish under the current rule. The proposed modification is not intended to significantly change the operations where a beryllium work area is established. Rather, it is intended to provide greater clarity to employers on when and where beryllium work areas are required and to avoid the potential for confusion—and potential expense inconsistent with the intended application of the rule—in the triggering of a beryllium work area at ‘‘any level of exposure’’ or on ‘‘dermal contact with beryllium.’’ The current standard’s definition of beryllium work area requires, first, the presence of a process or operation that can release beryllium. As discussed in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the operations listed in Appendix A of this proposal include common operations in general industry that can release beryllium, and the agency has requested comment on additional operations capable of releasing beryllium for inclusion in Appendix A. In the FEA supporting the 2017 beryllium final rule, OSHA estimated PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63761 that, on average, one beryllium work area would need to be established for every 12 at-risk workers in the exposure profile (2017 FEA, pp. V–164–165). The FEA defined an at-risk worker as one ‘‘whose exposure to beryllium could result in disease or death’’ and did not account for those workers who may have skin exposure but no airborne exposure to beryllium (2017 FEA, p. III– 1). Because proposed Appendix A is designed to cover the same general industry processes as the current beryllium work area definition based on Chapter IV of the 2017 Beryllium FEA, and because those with dermal contact with beryllium but no airborne exposure were not accounted for in the 2017 cost estimate, OSHA anticipates the same number of beryllium work areas as estimated for the 2017 final rule. OSHA does, however, expect that this proposed clarification would result in reduced employer time for determining which areas should be demarcated as beryllium work areas under the standard. OSHA originally estimated that the initial set-up of a beryllium work area would take a supervisor four hours. OSHA expects that under the proposed revisions to the definition of a beryllium work area, employers will have more clarity about where beryllium work areas should be established and will spend less time identifying such areas. OSHA does not have sufficient information to quantify this time reduction but believes that, overall, this revision to the definition of a beryllium work area would produce a cost savings. OSHA requests comment on this preliminary determination, including comment on how to quantify the effect of greater clarity on the cost of setting up a beryllium work area. OSHA expects the proposed revisions would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 2. Definition of Confirmed Positive OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of confirmed positive to require that the qualifying test results be obtained within one testing cycle (including the 30-day follow-up test period required after a first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result), rather than over an unlimited time period that OSHA believes may lead to false positives that needlessly concern workers and their families and that do not enhance employee protections. 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 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63762 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 results) over an unlimited period of time, but would not have any such combination of results within a single testing cycle. OSHA preliminarily concludes that this change would not increase compliance costs and would incidentally yield some cost savings by lessening the likelihood of false positives. OSHA invites comment on this preliminary conclusion. Again, OSHA expects the proposed change would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 3. Definition of Dermal Contact With Beryllium OSHA is proposing to modify the definition for dermal contact with beryllium, but does not anticipate any cost impact from this change other than possible prevention of expenses that misinterpretation or misapplication of the standard might lead to. Paragraph (b) of the beryllium standard currently defines dermal contact with beryllium as skin exposure to soluble beryllium compounds, beryllium solutions, or dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium, where these materials contain beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. OSHA is proposing two changes to this definition. First, OSHA proposes to add the term ‘‘visible’’ to the definition, so that the third form of dermal contact with beryllium would be limited to contact with ‘‘visible dust, fumes, or mists’’ containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. Second, OSHA proposes to add a sentence to the definition specifying that handling of beryllium materials in a non-particulate solid form that is free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered dermal contact under the standard. The 2017 FEA estimated the costs of provisions related to dermal contact with beryllium based on the number of employees working in application groups where beryllium is processed. Following the publication of the 2017 standard, OSHA received feedback from employers concerned that if the definition was not limited to ‘‘visible’’ dust, fumes, or mist, then all employees in a facility must be considered to have dermal contact with beryllium because they may have come into contact with non-visible beryllium particulate outside of a beryllium work area or when handling beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form. This was not OSHA’s intent, as reflected in OSHA’s previous cost estimates for the relevant beryllium work area and PPE provisions. One employer also VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 expressed concern that handling solid beryllium would fall within the definition of dermal contact with beryllium, but again that was not OSHA’s intent, and OSHA had not estimated costs arising from protection from contact with this form of beryllium. As OSHA explained in the 2017 final rule, beryllium-containing solid objects, or ‘‘articles,’’ with uncompromised physical integrity, are unlikely to release beryllium that would pose a health hazard for workers (82 FR at 2640). The cost of compliance with provisions triggered by dermal contact with beryllium is therefore not expected to increase as a result of either change to this definition.2 OSHA furthermore anticipates its proposed revisions would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 4. Hygiene Areas and Practices OSHA is proposing two changes to the hygiene areas and practices provision to account for the proposed changes to the definition of a beryllium work area and to ensure that the hygiene provisions related to washing facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised definition. First, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(1), which specifies the employees for whom employers must provide washing facilities. As currently written, paragraph (i)(1) applies to each employee working in a beryllium work area. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) to each employee who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, in addition to each employee working in a beryllium work area, to account for the proposed removal of dermal contact with beryllium as a trigger for establishing a beryllium work area. Second, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(2) (change rooms). As currently written, paragraph (i)(2) applies to employees who work in a beryllium work area. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(2) to employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the beryllium standard, instead of to employees who work in a beryllium work area. 2 If there were a change in the cost of compliance with provisions triggered on dermal contact with beryllium, it would be a cost savings because these proposed changes clarify that the definition is not intended to be as broad as some may have believed it to be. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 As discussed in Section B.1 of this PEA, OSHA is proposing several changes to the definition of beryllium work area to clarify where a beryllium work area should be established. One of the changes proposed is to remove dermal contact with beryllium as one of the triggers that would require an employer to establish a beryllium work area. If this proposed change to the definition of beryllium work area is finalized, it is OSHA’s intention that the hygiene provisions related to washing facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised definition. OSHA therefore expects that the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium, discussed in Section B.3, will not increase or decrease the number of change rooms or washing facilities from estimates of the 2017 FEA for these provisions, and thus will have no impact on compliance costs beyond what was originally contemplated in the 2017 final rule. Likewise, OSHA expects the proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 5. Disposal, Recycling, and Reuse Paragraph (j)(3) addresses disposal and recycling of materials that contain beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or that are contaminated with beryllium. That paragraph currently specifies that (1) materials designated for disposal must be disposed of in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3) of the beryllium standard, and (2) materials designated for recycling must be cleaned to be as free as practicable of surface beryllium contamination and labeled according to paragraph (m)(3), or placed in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3). OSHA is proposing several changes to this paragraph, changes that do not increase the costs of complying with the standard and may also result in savings to employers by preventing misinterpretation or misapplication of the rule. First, OSHA is proposing that provisions pertaining to recycling and disposal also address reuse, in addition to disposal and recycling, because in some cases materials may be directly reused without being recycled. This is to ensure that workers exposed to materials designated for reuse are adequately protected from dermal exposure to materials containing or E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules contaminated with more than a trace amount of beryllium. In the 2017 FEA, the costs attributed to the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) for recycling included both direct reuse of materials as well as recycling (82 FR at 2695). Thus, this proposed change to paragraph (j)(3) would not change the costs of compliance with the standard. Second, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would clarify that labeling requirements under paragraph (m)(3) apply when the employer transfers materials to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse. This is not a substantive change to the standard, but rather a reorganization of the existing provisions, and therefore does not impact costs of compliance with the standard. Third, the proposed addition of the phrase ‘‘except for intra-plant transfers’’ to paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) clarifies that the requirements in paragraph (j)(3) do not apply to transfers within a plant, and also would not be a substantive change to the standard. Since this proposed change would not alter the requirements of the standard, it would not affect the costs of compliance with the standard. Fourth, proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) would require that materials not otherwise cleaned be placed in enclosures that prevent the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport. This proposed change would clarify the final standard’s requirement that the materials be placed in ‘‘sealed, impermeable enclosures.’’ As discussed in the preamble to the final standard (82 FR 2470, 2695), OSHA intended this requirement to be broad and the provision performance-oriented, so as to allow employers in a variety of industries flexibility to decide what type of enclosures (e.g., bags or other containers) are best suited to their workplace and the nature of the beryllium-containing materials they are disposing or designating for reuse outside the facility. The term ‘‘impermeable’’ was not intended to mean absolutely impervious to rupture; rather, OSHA explained that the enclosures should be impermeable to the extent that they would not allow materials to escape ‘‘under normal conditions of use’’ (82 FR 2695). Thus, the proposed change merely makes explicit what had been intended in the 2017 final rule, and would not increase or decrease the costs of compliance with the standard beyond saving expense that could follow from its misinterpretation or misapplication. Fifth, paragraph (j)(3)(iii) would also clarify the cleaning requirements of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 beryllium standard by removing the requirement that contaminated areas be cleaned ‘‘of surface beryllium contamination.’’ Elsewhere in the standard, OSHA uses the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable of beryllium,’’ and OSHA proposes to use that phrase in place of ‘‘of surface beryllium contamination.’’ OSHA has discussed the meaning of the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable’’ in the summary and explanation of paragraph (j) in the 2017 final rule (82 FR 2690), as well as previously in a 2014 letter of interpretation explaining the phrase in the context of the agency’s standard for hexavalent chromium.3 OSHA believes the phrase ‘‘as free as practicable of beryllium’’ will more clearly convey the cleaning requirements under the beryllium standard than requiring cleaning ‘‘of surface beryllium contamination.’’ The proposed change would not substantively alter any of the employers’ cleaning process costed in the 2017 FEA, and therefore would not increase or decrease the costs of compliance with the standard beyond saving expense that could follow from misunderstanding. Finally, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would incorporate a new option for cleaning materials designated for disposal, using the same ‘‘as free as practicable of beryllium’’ language used in the recycling and reuse provisions in proposed (j)(3)(iii). The beryllium standard currently does not include an option of cleaning materials designated for disposal and instead requires enclosure of all materials in containers. The agency had not previously considered situations where it would be impractical to require enclosure because the materials in question were large items such as machines or structures that may contain, or be contaminated with, beryllium, rather than more common items, such as beryllium scrap metal or shavings. It is OSHA’s understanding that these larger items need not be enclosed when they are cleaned in accordance with the existing housekeeping provisions, which also require employers to keep their work areas as free as practicable of beryllium. Regardless of whether an employer chooses to clean or enclose materials designated for disposal, the labeling requirements under proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would still apply and would require the materials designated for disposal to be labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard. This proposed change would merely allow another option for materials 3 OSHA, Nov. 5, 2014, Letter of Interpretation, available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/ standardinterpretations/2014-11-05. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63763 designated for disposal. Because it would impose no additional requirements beyond the existing housekeeping duties already necessary before larger beryllium-contaminated items could be moved away from beryllium work areas, there is no additional cost. OSHA expects employers to choose the lowest-cost option, so there may be cost savings in some individual cases as compared to the cost of enclosing. However, OSHA does not know how many employers may choose this option and therefore does not have sufficient information to quantify this potential cost savings at this time.4 OSHA expects the proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 6. Medical Surveillance Provisions Under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), the employer must provide a medical examination including a BeLPT within 30 days after determining that the employee shows signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related health effects or the employee is exposed to beryllium in an emergency. The standard provides that these employees must also be offered a BeLPT every two years following their initial BeLPT unless they are confirmed positive (paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E)). OSHA proposes to remove the requirement for a medical examination within 30 days of determining that an employee has been exposed in an emergency and add paragraph (k)(2)(iv), which would require the employer to offer a medical examination at least one year after, but no more than two years after, the employee is exposed to beryllium in an emergency. As discussed in the Discussion of Proposed Changes, testing within the first 30 days may be premature because beryllium sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after exposure in all individuals who may become sensitized. OSHA believes that the proposed time period for providing a medical examination would be more likely to enable detection of sensitization in more employees in the first test following exposure in an emergency, providing better worker protection. 4 The 2017 FEA did not estimate a cost for enclosures for materials designated for disposal because OSHA judged that beryllium materials not used in a final product would typically either be large enough to provide sufficient economic incentive for recycling, or small enough that they could be vacuumed up (FEA, p. V–188). Therefore, in addition to having no basis to quantify how many employers may choose cleaning over containers, OSHA does not have a basis for estimating the amount of any potential cost savings for such employers. E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63764 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 In the agency’s FEA for the January 2017 final rule, the agency estimated that a very small number of employees would be affected by emergencies in a given year, likely less than 0.1 percent of the affected population, representing a small addition to the costs of medical surveillance for the standard (FEA, p. V–196). Under the current rule, some employees may require two examinations to be confirmed positive: An initial test within the initial 30-day period and (assuming the first test is normal) a second BeLPT at least two years later. Under the proposed rule, OSHA expects more of the employees who become sensitized from exposure in an emergency to be confirmed positive through a single test cycle because that test will be administered one to two years following the emergency. The general result is the elimination of one cycle of testing that appears to be premature, ensuring better detection for more employees and incidentally triggering some cost savings.5 To the extent that lengthening the time period in which the test must be offered from within 30 days to between one and two years leads to earlier confirmed positive results (within two years, as opposed to within two years plus 30 days), the proposed change would slightly accelerate costs to the employer for earlier CBD diagnostic center referral and medical removal protection. OSHA estimates that this proposed change would affect a very small percentage of an already very small population. And this proposed revision would only potentially change the timing of the already-required BeLPT, CBD diagnostic center referral, and medical removal protection. The end result from a cost perspective is that the cost savings from the potential avoidance of a premature BeLPT within 30 days following an emergency is likely to be largely canceled out by the acceleration of the cost of the CBD diagnostic center evaluation and medical removal protection. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the net cost impact 5 Employees already participating in a medical surveillance program are entitled to a BeLPT screening every two years, even absent an emergency, but the initial 30-day screening following an emergency, required under the existing rule, would also satisfy the requirement for the medical surveillance two-year screening. Assuming that this initial analysis does not result in a confirmed positive diagnosis, that employee would not be confirmed positive until a second test two years later under the current rule. Under the proposal, the second test could be forgone and detection could occur sooner than it would under the current rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 would be slight, with some possible cost savings. Paragraph (k)(7)(i) requires that the employer provide an evaluation at no cost to the employee at a CBD diagnostic center that is mutually agreed upon by the employee and employer within 30 days of the employer receiving a medical opinion or written medical report that recommends referral to a CBD diagnostic center, or a written medical report indicating that the employee has been confirmed positive or diagnosed with CBD. OSHA is proposing a change to paragraph (k)(7)(i) to account for the proposed revision to the definition of CBD diagnostic center discussed earlier in this proposal. As explained in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, OSHA is proposing to amend this definition to clarify that a CBD diagnostic center 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. Nonetheless, OSHA intends that the employer provide those tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center. Accordingly, 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 one of the types of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). As explained in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, this consultation would allow the employee to speak with a physician to discuss concerns and ask questions prior to a medical evaluation for CBD, and would allow the physician to explain the types of tests that are recommended based on the employee’s medical findings. The proposed provision could result in cost savings. This initial consultation can be done in conjunction with the tests but it is not required to be. As the PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 physician and would not have to include any travel or accommodation. 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). In the 2017 FEA, OSHA accounted for the cost of both the employee’s time and a physician’s time for a 15-minute discussion (2017 FEA, p. V–206). 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. To the extent that it takes longer than 30 days to schedule the tests at the CBD diagnostic center, employers may realize a cost savings due to retaining funds during the delay. OSHA cannot quantify the effect of this flexibility on any cost savings at this time, but travel and accommodation costs related to the CBD diagnostic center evaluation are only six percent of total CBD diagnostic center referral costs. The agency therefore preliminarily concludes these changes would produce minor, if any, cost savings. OSHA invites comment on this preliminary assessment. OSHA also notes that the proposed changes described here would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 7. Labeling Paragraph (m)(3) addresses warning label requirements. This paragraph requires the employer to label each bag and container of clothing, equipment, and materials contaminated with beryllium, and specifies precise wording on the label. OSHA is proposing to modify the language in paragraph (m)(3) to remove the words ‘‘bag and’’ and insert the descriptive adjective ‘‘immediate’’ to clarify that the employer need only label the immediate container of beryllium-contaminated items. The proposed clarification would be consistent with the hazard communication standard (HCS (§ 1910.1200) regarding bags or containers within larger containers. Under the HCS, only the primary or immediate container must be labeled E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules and not the larger container holding the labeled bag or container. In the 2017 Beryllium FEA, costs were taken only for the bag label and not for the label of any larger container holding the bag. Thus, this proposed clarification has no cost implications. And the revision would maintain safety and health protections for workers. 8. Recordkeeping OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (n), Recordkeeping, by removing the requirement to include each employee’s Social Security number (SSN) in the air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)), medical surveillance ((n)(3)((ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) provisions. This proposed change would not require employers to delete employee SSNs from existing records, or to include an alternative unique employee identifier on those records. Furthermore, it would not mandate a specific type of identification method that employers should use on newlycreated records, but would instead provide employers with the flexibility to develop systems that best work for their unique situations. As a result, OSHA estimates that this proposed revision has no cost implications—and it would maintain safety and health protections for workers. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Additional Familiarization OSHA expects that if this proposal is finalized, employers will spend a small amount of time reviewing these proposed changes. This amount of time would be negligible compared to the amount of time employers spent reviewing the 2017 final beryllium rule. In addition, OSHA notes that many affected employers would already be familiar with the proposed changes because the proposed regulatory text changes were made public in April 2018 (Document ID OSHA–H005C–2006– 0870–2156). OSHA therefore expects the cost of familiarization with this proposal would be de minimis and welcomes comment on this preliminary determination. D. Economic and Technological Feasibility In the FEA in support of OSHA’s 2017 Beryllium Final Rule, OSHA concluded that the general industry beryllium standard was economically and technologically feasible (82 FR 2471). As explained above, OSHA anticipates that none of the changes in this proposal would impose any new employer obligations or increase the overall cost of compliance, while some of the changes in this proposal would clarify and simplify compliance in such a way VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 that results in cost savings. OSHA expects that the cost of any time spent reviewing the changes in this proposal, as described above in Section C, will be more than offset by cost savings. None of the revisions to the standard requires any new controls or other technology. OSHA has therefore preliminarily determined that this proposal is also economically and technologically feasible. E. Effects on Benefits In the 2017 FEA, OSHA attributed approximately 67 percent of the beryllium sensitization cases and the CBD cases avoided, and none of the lung cancer cases avoided, solely to the ancillary provisions of the standard. (2017 FEA, Document ID OSHA– H005C–2006–0870–2042, p. VII–4–VII– 5, VII–24.) This estimate was based on the ancillary provisions as a whole, rather than each provision separately. As described in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, the proposed changes are intended to clarify and simplify compliance with certain ancillary provisions of the 2017 general industry beryllium standard and facilitate employer understanding of its requirements. This NPRM does not propose to remove any ancillary provision. Thus, the group of ancillary provisions that would result from finalizing these proposed revisions to the beryllium standard includes a provision similar to each of those in the 2017 final rule. Furthermore, the agency considered the potential effect of each proposed change to ancillary provisions on employee protections. OSHA believes that the proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for workers while aligning the standard with the intent behind the 2017 final rule and otherwise preventing costs that could follow from misinterpretation or misapplication of the standard. Moreover, facilitating employer understanding and compliance has the benefit of enhancing worker protections overall. Because the proposed revisions to the standard would not remove or change the general nature of any ancillary provisions, and because the agency expects proposed revisions to maintain safety and health protections for workers and facilitate employer understanding and compliance, OSHA preliminarily determines that the effect of these proposed changes on benefits of the standard as a whole would be to increase them by enhancing worker protections overall and by preventing costs that follow from misunderstanding the standard. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63765 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as amended), OSHA has examined the regulatory requirements of this proposal to revise the general industry beryllium standard to determine whether they would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposal would modify the general industry standard to clarify certain provisions and simplify or improve compliance. It would not impose any new duties or increase the overall cost of compliance and would provide some cost savings. OSHA therefore expects that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on any small entities. Accordingly, OSHA certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 A. Overview The standard for occupational exposure to beryllium in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024) contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The agency is proposing to revise the existing previously approved paperwork package under OMB control number 1218–0267 for general industry. This proposal would remove provisions in the beryllium standard for general industry that require employers to collect and record employees’ social security numbers; modify the housekeeping requirements that require employers to label those materials designated for disposal, recycling, or reuse that either contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium; and clarify what tests are required when an employee is referred to a CBD diagnostic center. The PRA defines a collection of information as ‘‘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 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63766 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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). amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Solicitation of Comments OSHA prepared and submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB proposing to remove the current collection of information that requires employers to collect and record social security numbers from the existing OMB approved paperwork package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The ICR also reflects proposed changes to the beryllium standard’s housekeeping and medical surveillance provisions, described below. The agency solicits comments on these proposed changes to the collection of information requirements and reduction in estimated burden hours associated with these requirements, including comments on the following items: • Whether the proposed 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. 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 this ICR. 1. Title: The Occupational Exposure to Beryllium Standard for General Industry 2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would remove the collection and recording of social security numbers in general industry and modify housekeeping and CBD diagnostic center requirements for the beryllium in general industry ICR. 3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements: The proposed beryllium ICR would remove and revise the collection of information requirements contained in the beryllium general industry standard by modifying and clarifying the intent for certain collection of information requirements. The proposed changes to the beryllium VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 general industry standard would remove the collection and recording of Social Security Numbers from air monitoring, medical surveillance, and training provisions under paragraph (n) of the standard. In addition, OSHA is proposing to update paragraph (j)(3) by clarifying the labeling requirements for berylliumcontaminated materials designated for disposal, recycling, or reuse. The proposed change will also clarify how materials designated for recycling or reuse that either contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the release of berylliumcontaining particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers. OSHA is also proposing to revise both the definition of a CBD diagnostic center and paragraph (k)(7)(i) to indicate that the evaluation at the CBD diagnostic center must include a pulmonary function test as outlined by American Thoracic Society criteria, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and transbronchial biopsy, only if deemed appropriate by an examining physician. These proposed changes clarify the original intent of these requirements. The agency believes that these changes would have benefits to both employees and employers and overall cost savings, but OSHA has not quantified those benefits and savings for this analysis. These proposed changes to the information collection requirements in this information collection request would affect the existing ICR but would have no measureable impact on employer burden, and would therefore impose no additional burden hours or costs for the employer. Totals estimated for burden hours and cost: 4. OMB Control Numbers: 1218–0267. 5. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. This standard applies to employers in general 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 (a)(3). 6. Number of Respondents: [5,872]. 7. Frequency of responses: On occasion; quarterly, semi-annually, annually; biannually. 8. Number of responses: [141,749]. 9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 83,694. 10. Estimated Cost: [$20,585,273]. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 D. Submitting Comments Members of the public who wish to comment on 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– AD20), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–6929/Fax: 202–395–6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email: OIRA_submission@ omb.eop.gov. The agency encourages commenters also to submit their comments on these paperwork requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA–2018–0003), 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 notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in response to this notice 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 notice 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 Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, telephone (202) 693–2222. VI. 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 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 OSHAapproved 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. VII. 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 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 is clarifying and simplifying in nature and would impose no new requirements. Therefore, no new State standards would be required beyond those already required by the promulgation of the January 2017 beryllium standard for general industry. State-Plan States may nonetheless choose to conform to these proposed revisions. VIII. 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. IX. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63767 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. 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, water, or soil quality; plant or animal life; the use of land; or aspects of the external environment. XI. Authority Signed at Washington, DC, on November 30, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 Beryllium, General industry, Health, Occupational safety and health. Amendments to Standards For the reasons stated in the preamble of this notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA is amending 29 CFR part 1910 to read as follows: PART 1910—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED] 1. The authority section for subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 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. Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106–430, 114 Stat. 1901. Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. 2. Amend § 1910.1024 as follows: a. Add a definition for ‘‘Beryllium sensitization’’ in paragraph (b); ■ b. Revise in alphabetical order the definitions of ‘‘Beryllium work area,’’ ‘‘CBD diagnostic center,’’ ‘‘Chronic beryllium disease (CBD),’’ ‘‘Confirmed positive,’’ and ‘‘Dermal contact with beryllium’’ in paragraph (b); ■ c. Revise paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(B); ■ ■ E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63768 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules d. Revise paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (3)(iii); ■ e. Revise paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (4)(ii); ■ f. Revise paragraph (j)(3); ■ g. Revise paragraphs (k)(2)(i)(B), (iv), and (7)(i); ■ h. Revise paragraphs (m)(3), (4)(ii)(A), and (E); ■ i. Revise paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F), (3)(ii)(A), and (4)(i); and ■ j. Revise paragraph (p). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 1910.1024 Beryllium. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (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 berylliumsensitized person will develop chronic beryllium disease (CBD), beryllium sensitization is essential for development of CBD. Beryllium work area means any work area where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed either: (1) During any of the operations listed in Appendix A of this Standard; or (2) where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 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. * * * * * Dermal contact with beryllium means skin exposure to: (1) Soluble beryllium compounds containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; (2) solutions containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; or (3) visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. The handling of beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form that are free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered dermal contact under the standard. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * (i) * * * (D) Procedures for minimizing crosscontamination, including the transfer of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and articles within beryllium work areas; * * * * * (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 exposure to beryllium; or * * * * * (h) * * * (2) * * * (i) The employer must ensure that each employee removes all berylliumcontaminated personal protective clothing and equipment at the end of the work shift, at the completion of all tasks involving beryllium, or when personal protective clothing or equipment becomes visibly contaminated with beryllium, whichever comes first. * * * * * (3) * * * (iii) 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 exposure to beryllium and that the personal protective clothing and PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 equipment must be handled in accordance with this standard. (i) * * * (1) General. For each employee working in a beryllium work area or who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, the employer must: * * * * * (2) Change rooms. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this standard, the employer must provide employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this standard with a designated change room in accordance with this standard and the Sanitation standard (§ 1910.141) where employees are required to remove their personal clothing. * * * * * (4) * * * (ii) No employees enter any eating or drinking area with berylliumcontaminated personal protective clothing or equipment unless, prior to entry, it is cleaned, as necessary, to be as free as practicable of beryllium by methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or onto an employee’s body; and * * * * * (j) * * * (3) Disposal, recycling, and reuse. (i) When the employer transfers materials that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse, the employer must label the materials in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard; (ii) Except for intra-plant transfers, materials designated for disposal that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers; and (iii) Except for intra-plant transfers, materials designated for recycling or reuse that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the release of berylliumcontaining particulate or solutions under normal conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers. * * * * * (k) * * * (2) * * * (i) * * * E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules (B) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B). * * * * * (iv) At least one year but no more than two years after an employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C). * * * * * (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) * * * (3) Warning labels. Consistent with the HCS (§ 1910.1200), the employer must label each immediate container of clothing, equipment, and materials contaminated with beryllium, and must, at a minimum, include the following on the label: DANGER CONTAINS BERYLLIUM MAY CAUSE CANCER CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS AVOID CREATING DUST DO NOT GET ON SKIN (4) * * * (ii) * * * (A) The health hazards associated with airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium, including the signs and symptoms of CBD; * * * * * (E) Measures employees can take to protect themselves from airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium, including personal hygiene practices; * * * * * (n) * * * (1) * * * (ii) * * * (F) The name and job classification of each employee represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees were actually monitored. * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * 63769 (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. * * * * * (p) Appendix. Appendix A to § 1910.1024—Operations for Establishing Beryllium Work Areas Paragraph (b) of this standard defines a beryllium work area as any work area where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed (1) during any of the operations listed in Appendix A of this Standard, or (2) where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. Table A.1 in this appendix sets forth the operations that, where performed under the circumstances described in the column heading above the particular operations, trigger the requirement for a beryllium work area. * amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE A.1—OPERATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING BERYLLIUM WORK AREAS WHERE PROCESSING MATERIALS CONTAINING AT LEAST 0.1 PERCENT BERYLLIUM BY WEIGHT Beryllium metal alloy operations (generally <10% beryllium by weight) Beryllium composite operations (generally >10% beryllium by weight) and beryllium metal operations Abrasive Blasting ................................................................ Abrasive Processing ........................................................... Abrasive Sawing ................................................................. Annealing ............................................................................ Bright Cleaning ................................................................... Brushing .............................................................................. Buffing ................................................................................. Burnishing ........................................................................... Casting ................................................................................ Centerless Grinding ............................................................ Chemical Cleaning ............................................................. Chemical Etching ................................................................ Chemical Milling ................................................................. Dross Handling ................................................................... Deburring (grinding) ............................................................ Electrical Chemical ............................................................. Machining (ECM) ................................................................ ............................................................................................. Electrical Discharge ............................................................ Machining (EDM) ................................................................ Extrusion ............................................................................. Forging ................................................................................ Grinding .............................................................................. Heat Treating (in air) .......................................................... High Speed Machining (≤10,000 rpm) ............................... Hot Rolling .......................................................................... Lapping ............................................................................... Abrasive Blasting ..................................... Abrasive Processing ................................ Abrasive Sawing ...................................... Annealing ................................................. Atomizing ................................................. Attritioning ................................................ Blanking ................................................... Bonding .................................................... Boring ....................................................... Breaking ................................................... Bright Cleaning ........................................ Broaching ................................................. Brushing ................................................... Buffing ...................................................... Burnishing ................................................ Casting ..................................................... Abrasive Blasting. Abrasive Processing. Abrasive Sawing. Boring. Brazing (>1,100 °C). Broaching with green ceramic. Brushing. Buffing. Centerless grinding. Chemical Cleaning. Chemical Etching. CNC Machining. Cold Isostatic Pressing (CIP). Crushing. Cutting. Deburring (grinding). Centerless Grinding ................................. Chemical Cleaning ................................... Deburring (non-grinding). Destructive Testing. Chemical Etching ..................................... Chemical Milling ....................................... CNC Machining ........................................ Cold Isostatic Pressing ............................ Cold Pilger ............................................... Crushing ................................................... Cutting ...................................................... Laser Laser Laser Laser Deburring ................................................. Dicing ....................................................... Drawing .................................................... Drilling ...................................................... Dicing. Drilling. Dry/wet Tumbling. Extrusion. Filing by Hand. Firing of Green Ceramic. Firing of Refractory Metallization (>1,100 °C). Grinding. Honing. Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP). Lapping. Cutting ...................................................................... Machining ................................................................. Scribing ..................................................................... Marking ..................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Beryllium oxide operations E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2 63770 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules TABLE A.1—OPERATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING BERYLLIUM WORK AREAS WHERE PROCESSING MATERIALS CONTAINING AT LEAST 0.1 PERCENT BERYLLIUM BY WEIGHT—Continued Beryllium metal alloy operations (generally <10% beryllium by weight) Beryllium composite operations (generally >10% beryllium by weight) and beryllium metal operations Melting ................................................................................ Photo-Etching ..................................................................... Pickling ............................................................................... Point and Chamfer ............................................................. Polishing ............................................................................. Torch Cutting (i.e., oxy-acetylene) ..................................... Tumbling ............................................................................. Water-jet Cutting ................................................................. Welding ............................................................................... Sanding ............................................................................... Slab Milling ......................................................................... Dross Handling ........................................ Electrical Chemical Machining (ECM) ..... Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) .... Extrusion .................................................. Filing by Hand .......................................... Forging ..................................................... Grinding ................................................... Heading .................................................... Heat Treating ........................................... Honing ...................................................... Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) .................... Lapping .................................................... Laser Cutting ........................................... Laser Machining ...................................... Laser Scribing .......................................... Laser Marking .......................................... Machining ................................................. Melting ..................................................... Milling ....................................................... Mixing ....................................................... Photo-Etching .......................................... Pickling ..................................................... Piercing .................................................... Pilger. Plasma Spray. Point and Chamfer. Polishing. Powder Handling. Powder Pressing. Pressing. Reaming. Roll Bonding. Rolling. Sanding. Sawing (tooth blade). Shearing. Sizing. Skiving. Slitting. Snapping. Sputtering. Stamping. Spray Drying. Tapping. Tensile Testing. Torch Cutting (i.e., oxy acetylene). Trepanning. Tumbling. Turning. Vapor Deposition. Water-Jet Cutting. Welding. * * * * Beryllium oxide operations Laser Cutting. Laser Machining. Laser Scribing. Laser Marking. Machining. Milling. Piercing. Mixing. Plasma Spray. Polishing. Powder Handling. Powder Pressing. Reaming. Sanding. Sectioning. Shearing. Sintering of Green Ceramic. Sintering of refractory metallization (>1,100 °C). Snapping. Spray Drying. Tape Casting. Turning. Water Jet Cutting. * [FR Doc. 2018–26448 Filed 12–10–18; 8:45 am] amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 4510–26–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Dec 10, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM 11DEP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63746-63770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26448]



[[Page 63745]]

Vol. 83

Tuesday,

No. 237

December 11, 2018

Part III





 Department of Labor





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





Occupational Safety and Health Administration





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





29 CFR Part 1910





 Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 63746]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003]
RIN 1218-AD20


Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: On January 9, 2017, OSHA issued a final rule adopting a 
comprehensive general industry standard for occupational exposure to 
beryllium and beryllium compounds. In this proposed rule, OSHA is 
proposing to modify the general industry standard to clarify certain 
provisions and simplify or improve compliance. Proposed changes would 
maintain safety and health protections for workers and are designed to 
enhance worker protections overall by ensuring that the rule is well-
understood and compliance is more straightforward.

DATES: Comments to this proposal, hearing requests, and other 
information must be submitted (transmitted, postmarked, or delivered) 
by February 11, 2019. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide 
other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: The public can submit comments, hearing requests, and other 
material, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, using any of the 
following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing 
requests and other information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 
the instructions online for submitting comments. Note that this docket 
may include several different Federal Register notices involving active 
rulemakings, so it is extremely important to select the correct notice 
or RIN number (RIN 1218-AD20) when submitting comments for this 
rulemaking. After accessing ``all documents and comments'' in the 
docket (OSHA-2018-0003), 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 ``Submit a Comment'' link. 
Additional instructions for submitting comments are available from the 
http://www.regulations.gov homepage.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile 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. OSHA does not 
require hard copies of these documents. Instead of transmitting 
facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., 
studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments to 
the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must 
clearly identify the sender's name, the date, the subject, and the 
docket number (OSHA-2018-0003) so that the Docket Office can attach 
them to the appropriate document.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger 
(courier) service: Submit comments and any additional material to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, 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's name, the 
title of the rulemaking (Beryllium Standard: Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking), and the docket number (OSHA-2018-0003). OSHA will place 
comments and other material, including any personal information, in the 
public docket without revision, and the comments and other material 
will be 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, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the 
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office 
at the above address. The electronic docket for this proposed rule 
established at http://www.regulations.gov contains most of the 
documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted 
material) is not available publicly to read or download through this 
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available 
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket 
Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Discussion of Proposed Changes
III. Legal Considerations
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Certification
V. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995
VI. Federalism
VII. State Plan States
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
X. Environmental Impacts
XI. Authority
List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1910

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). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and 
beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs) 
were at significant risk of material impairment of health, specifically 
chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer. OSHA concluded in the 
final rule that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 0.2 
[micro]g/m\3\ would reduce this significant risk to the maximum extent 
feasible. In the final rule OSHA issued three separate beryllium 
standards--general industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition 
to the revised PEL, for each of the three standards the final rule also 
established a new short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ 
over a 15-minute sampling period and

[[Page 63747]]

an action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA, along with a 
number of ancillary provisions intended to provide additional 
protections to employees. These included requirements for exposure 
assessment, methods for controlling exposure, respiratory protection, 
personal protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, medical 
surveillance, hazard communication, and recordkeeping similar to those 
found in other OSHA health standards.
    This proposal would amend the beryllium standard for general 
industry to clarify certain provisions--with proposed changes designed 
to facilitate application of the standard consistent with the intent of 
the 2017 final rule--and simplify or improve compliance, preventing 
costs that may flow from misinterpretation or misapplication of the 
standard. OSHA's discussion of the estimated costs and cost savings for 
this proposed rule can be found in the preliminary economic analysis 
(PEA). The 2017 Beryllium Final Rule went into effect on May 20, 2017, 
and some compliance obligations began on May 11, 2018. The compliance 
obligations affected by this rulemaking will begin on December 12, 2018 
(83 FR 39351). Other compliance obligations under the standard do not 
commence until 2019 or 2020.
    OSHA believes that the standard as modified by this proposal would 
provide equivalent protection to the current standard. Accordingly, 
while this rulemaking is pending, compliance with the standard as 
modified by this proposal will be accepted as compliance with the 
standard.

II. Discussion of Proposed Changes

    OSHA proposes to modify several of the general industry 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. OSHA believes that the proposed changes 
would maintain safety and health protections for workers. The proposed 
changes are further designed to enhance worker protections overall by 
ensuring that the rule is well-understood and compliance is more 
straightforward.

A. Definitions

    Paragraph (b) of the beryllium standard for general industry (82 FR 
2470, as modified by 83 FR 19936) addresses changes to the definitions 
of specific key terms used in the standard. OSHA is proposing to change 
or add six terms in the definitions paragraph.
    OSHA is proposing to add the following definition for beryllium 
sensitization: ``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.'' 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 (k) and 
hazard communication (m). The proposed addition of a definition for 
beryllium sensitization would not change employer obligations under 
provisions (k) and (m) and would not affect employee protections.
    In the 2017 final beryllium rule (82 FR 2470), OSHA found that 
individuals sensitized through either the dermal or inhalation exposure 
pathways respond to beryllium through the formation of a beryllium-
protein complex, which then binds to T-cells stimulating a beryllium-
specific immune response (82 FR 2494). The formation of the T-cell-
beryllium-protein complex that results in beryllium sensitization may 
not manifest in any outward clinical symptoms in the lung (82 FR 2491), 
and most who are sensitized may not show any symptoms at all. While it 
may be rare for those sensitized through dermal exposure to exhibit any 
outward signs or symptoms, dermal sensitization has been associated 
with skin granulomas and contact dermatitis. Dermal exposure may also 
result in dermal irritation, which can be indistinguishable from 
contact dermatitis (82 FR 2527-2528). It should be noted that 
beryllium, beryllium oxide, and other soluble and poorly soluble forms 
of beryllium have been classified as a skin irritant (category 2) in 
accordance with the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging 
Regulation (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1669, p. 2).
    As OSHA determined in the final beryllium 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 2491-2498). 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 OSHA-H005C-
2006-0870-1355). 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.
    Paragraph (b) of the general industry beryllium standard defines 
beryllium work area as any work area containing a process or operation 
that can release beryllium and that involves material that contains at 
least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight; and, where employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any 
level or where there is the potential for dermal contact with 
beryllium. In addition to paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i), which 
require employers to establish, maintain, and demarcate a beryllium 
work area wherever this definition is met, the presence of a beryllium 
work area also triggers several other requirements in the standard: 
Paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D) and (f)(1)(i)(F) (written exposure control plan 
requirements); paragraph (f)(2) (required exposure controls); 
paragraphs (i)(1) (general hygiene practices) and (i)(2) (change 
rooms); paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2) (housekeeping requirements); 
and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B) (employee training).
    OSHA proposes to modify this definition to clarify when an area of 
a workplace must be considered a beryllium work area. The proposed 
revision would define beryllium work area as any work area where 
materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are 
processed during an operation listed in Appendix A, regardless of 
exposure level; or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected 
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. In 
conjunction with this change, OSHA proposes to revise Appendix A so 
that it contains proposed Table A.1: Operations for Establishing 
Beryllium Work Areas Where Processing Materials Containing at Least 0.1 
Percent Beryllium by Weight, which provides a list of operations 
commonly performed while processing beryllium metal, beryllium 
composites, beryllium alloys, or beryllium oxides that have the 
potential for exposure to airborne beryllium through the generation of 
dust, mist, and/or fumes. The list of operations in Table A.1 was 
compiled based on the experience of Materion Corporation (Materion), 
the primary beryllium manufacturer in the United States, and the USW, 
the primary union representing employees with beryllium exposure, and 
is divided into three categories: (1) Beryllium Metal Alloy

[[Page 63748]]

Operations (generally <10% beryllium by weight); (2) Beryllium 
Composite Operations (generally >10% beryllium by weight) and Beryllium 
Metal Operations; and (3) Beryllium Oxide Operations. OSHA requests 
comment on whether the new definition of beryllium work area captures 
the operations and processes of concern. In particular, OSHA requests 
comment on whether the operations in Table A.1 are appropriate, whether 
any operations should be added, and whether any operations listed in 
one category should also be included in any other category. The listed 
operations are explained in more detail in a separate document 
available in the docket (Document ID 0014).
    This proposed modification to the definition of beryllium work area 
is intended to improve compliance with the standard by providing 
greater clarity to employers regarding when and where beryllium work 
areas should be established in a workplace. Requiring employers to 
identify, establish, and demarcate beryllium work areas is a novel 
approach to workplace hazard management in OSHA standards, because 
beryllium work areas must be established in addition to regulated areas 
and in some locations where airborne exposures do not exceed the PELs. 
Based on feedback from stakeholders, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that the proposed revision to the definition of beryllium work area 
would ensure that the standard's requirements related to beryllium work 
areas are workable and properly understood.
    Based on a joint model standard that OSHA received from Materion 
and the United Steelworkers (USW) that included a similar provision 
(Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0754), OSHA's original NPRM for the 
beryllium standard proposed that beryllium work area be defined as any 
work area where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, 
exposed to airborne beryllium (80 FR at 47778). Unlike regulated areas, 
beryllium work areas were not tied to a specific level of exposure, but 
rather were triggered by the presence of airborne beryllium at any 
level. Some stakeholders commented in support of the proposed 
definition, but others expressed concern that the definition was vague 
and should be triggered on a measurable threshold level of exposure. 
Some commenters also expressed concern that the definition was overly 
broad and could be interpreted as applying to most or all areas of a 
worksite, regardless of the work processes or operations occurring in 
those areas (82 FR at 2659-60). NIOSH commented that the proposed 
definition's focus on airborne beryllium did not account for the 
potential contribution of dermal exposure to total exposure.
    In the final standard, OSHA modified the definition of beryllium 
work area so that it covered any work area containing a process or 
operation that can release beryllium where employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any 
level or where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium. 
OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule that triggering the 
requirement of creating a beryllium work area on a specific threshold 
level of exposure would be insufficiently protective of workers, but 
explained that the agency did not intend for a beryllium work area to 
be established in areas where work processes or operations that release 
beryllium do not occur, such as where employees handle articles 
containing beryllium (82 FR at 2659-60). Rather, the purpose of 
establishing beryllium work areas is to identify and demarcate areas 
within a facility where processes or operations release beryllium so 
that necessary control measures can be implemented, such as those 
designed to prevent the migration of beryllium to other areas where 
beryllium is not processed or released. The definition of beryllium 
work area in the final standard clarified this intent by specifying 
that a beryllium work area contains processes or operations that 
release beryllium to which workers could be exposed. Additionally, the 
modified definition in the final standard accounted for NIOSH's concern 
by including the potential for dermal contact with beryllium in the 
definition.
    OSHA further modified the definition of beryllium work area in the 
2018 direct final rule to clarify OSHA's intent that the provisions 
triggered by the presence of a beryllium work area only apply to areas 
where there are processes or operations that involve materials that 
contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight (83 FR 19936, 19938-39 
(May 7, 2018)). By specifying that a beryllium work area is a work area 
that both contains a process or operation that can release beryllium 
and involves material that contains at least 0.1 percent beryllium by 
weight, the revised definition was intended to make clear that the 
provisions associated with beryllium work areas do not apply where 
processes and operations involve only materials containing trace 
amounts of beryllium (i.e., less than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight).
    Additional feedback from stakeholders has led OSHA to believe that 
the definition of beryllium work area may require further revision in 
order to make the standard workable and understandable. In particular, 
stakeholders expressed concern to OSHA that defining a beryllium work 
area as including areas where employees are, or can reasonably be 
expected to be, exposed to any level of airborne beryllium, and where 
the potential for dermal contact with beryllium exists, could lead to 
the designation of entire facilities as beryllium work areas, because 
minute quantities of beryllium can be detected in areas of a facility 
that are distant from areas containing beryllium-releasing processes 
and operations. As explained in the 2017 final rule preamble, this was 
not OSHA's intent (82 FR at 2660). Rather, OSHA intended to capture 
only those areas of a facility where beryllium-generating processes or 
operations are located. (Id.) Stakeholders requested that OSHA provide 
a list of operations that are known to release airborne beryllium, 
which would allow employers to more accurately identify where beryllium 
work areas must be established and demarcated at their workplaces.
    In response to this feedback, OSHA is proposing to further modify 
the definition of beryllium work area to provide clarity for employers 
on where and when to establish a beryllium work area so as to minimize 
beryllium exposure and the migration of beryllium into the general work 
area. First, OSHA is proposing to provide a list of operations that are 
commonly performed when processing beryllium materials and are known to 
generate airborne beryllium (see proposed Appendix A), and proposes to 
revise the definition of beryllium work area so that any work area 
where an operation that is listed in proposed Appendix A occurs and 
involves materials containing at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight 
is a beryllium work area. For work areas where no operations listed in 
proposed Appendix A occur, the proposed definition would require a 
beryllium work area wherever materials containing at least 0.1 percent 
beryllium by weight are processed and where employees are, or can be 
reasonably expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above 
the action level. Although OSHA has preliminarily determined that the 
operations listed in proposed Appendix A include the general industry 
operations that are known to release beryllium, OSHA included this 
second prong of the proposed definition, which is triggered by actual 
or reasonably expected

[[Page 63749]]

airborne exposure at or above the action level, to account for any 
additional beryllium-releasing operations that may exist or may be 
developed in the future. OSHA believes these modifications would 
improve employers' ability to comply with the standard by clarifying 
the work areas where a beryllium work area exists without reducing 
protections for employees.
    Unlike the current definition, the proposed definition of beryllium 
work area would not expressly state that a beryllium work area exists 
where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA 
believes that removing the reference to dermal contact with beryllium 
would make it less likely that the definition could be erroneously 
interpreted as extending to an entire facility and would not reduce 
employee protection from the effects of skin exposure to beryllium. 
Requiring employers to establish and demarcate entire facilities as 
beryllium work areas was not OSHA's intent (82 FR at 2660). And OSHA is 
unaware of work areas containing beryllium-releasing processes or 
operations that have a potential for dermal contact that are not 
included in the proposed Appendix A or generate airborne exposures at 
or above the action level. OSHA intends the proposed definition to be 
as protective as the current definition, while more clearly avoiding 
the perception that entire facilities need to be treated as beryllium 
work areas. OSHA requests comment on these issues, and in particular, 
whether there are any operations or processes that trigger beryllium 
work areas under the current rule that would not be covered under the 
proposed definition. OSHA also seeks comment on alternative approaches 
to identifying beryllium processes and operations that generate 
exposures of concern, and how those approaches might avoid inclusion of 
entire facilities.
    The proposed revised criteria for establishing a beryllium work 
area would continue to protect workers directly exposed in beryllium 
work areas, while also reducing potential exposure for workers who work 
outside these areas through the following provisions that apply in 
beryllium work areas:
     The requirement to establish, implement, and maintain a 
written exposure control plan, including procedures for minimizing 
cross-contamination within beryllium work areas and minimizing 
migration of beryllium from beryllium work areas to other areas 
(paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D), (f)(1)(i)(F));
     The requirement to provide at least one method of exposure 
control (material or process substitution, isolation, local exhaust 
ventilation, or process control) for each operation in a beryllium work 
area that releases airborne beryllium (paragraph (f)(2)(ii)), unless 
exempt under paragraph (f)(2)(iii);
     The requirement to provide and ensure the use of washing 
facilities for employees working in a beryllium work area (paragraph 
(i)(1));
     The requirements to maintain surfaces in beryllium work 
areas as free as practicable of beryllium and ensure surfaces are 
appropriately cleaned (paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2)); and
     The requirement to ensure that employees know where 
beryllium work areas in the facility are located (paragraph 
(m)(4)(ii)(B)).
    Moreover, the standard's PPE requirements to protect against dermal 
exposure to beryllium do not depend on the existence of a beryllium 
work area. The standard requires employers to provide and ensure the 
use of appropriate PPE whenever there is a reasonable expectation of 
dermal contact with beryllium, regardless of whether or not the area is 
a beryllium work area (see paragraph (h)(1)(ii)). OSHA is not proposing 
to change that requirement.
    OSHA is also proposing to add two references to dermal contact with 
beryllium to paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices, to account for 
the proposed removal of the potential for dermal contact with beryllium 
from the definition of beryllium work area (see Discussion of Proposed 
Changes to paragraph (i)). Paragraph (i) currently requires employers 
to provide washing facilities and a designated change room to each 
employee working in a beryllium work area (see paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and 
(i)(2)). Because OSHA still intends for the requirements to provide 
washing facilities and change rooms to apply to employees who can 
reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, 
regardless of whether they work in a beryllium work area, OSHA is 
proposing (1) to revise paragraphs (i)(1) so that its requirement to 
provide washing facilities also applies to any employee who can 
reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium; and (2) 
to revise paragraph (i)(2) so that employers must provide change rooms 
to employees who are required to use personal protective clothing or 
equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii), which requires the use of PPE 
where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with 
beryllium. As explained above, OSHA expects that, under the proposed 
revisions to the definitions, employees working in a beryllium work 
area would reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with 
beryllium. Thus, should the reference to potential dermal contact with 
beryllium be removed from the definition of beryllium work area as 
proposed, OSHA believes that these proposed modifications to paragraph 
(i), together with the existing requirements for PPE where dermal 
contact with beryllium is reasonably anticipated, would continue to 
protect employees from the effects of skin exposure to beryllium (see 
discussion of proposed revisions to the definition of dermal contact 
with beryllium later in this section for explanation of the impact of 
the revisions on the hygiene and PPE provisions).
    In summary, OSHA believes that these proposed changes would improve 
employers' ability to comply with the standard by clarifying where 
beryllium work areas exist, while maintaining the agency's intent to 
establish beryllium work areas where processes release significant 
amounts of airborne beryllium and to protect employees from skin 
exposure to beryllium. OSHA expects that these proposed changes would 
maintain safety and health protections for workers. OSHA requests 
comment on these proposed changes, including whether the list of 
operations in proposed Appendix A adequately covers the operations 
where airborne exposures are likely and whether operations that trigger 
the creation of a beryllium work area also give rise to a reasonable 
expectation of dermal contact with beryllium within the beryllium work 
area.
    OSHA is also 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

[[Page 63750]]

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.
    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 a pulmonary specialist or pulmonologist 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.
    The agency is also proposing a clarification to the definition of 
chronic beryllium disease (CBD). For the purposes of this standard, the 
agency is proposing chronic beryllium 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 alter the current definition by adding the 
term ``granulomatous'' to better distinguish this disease 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). The 
formation of the type of lung granuloma specific to a beryllium immune 
response can only occur in those with CBD (82 FR 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 
beryllium final rule that indicate beryllium is the causative agent for 
CBD and that CBD only occurs after inhalation of beryllium (82 FR 
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 2492).
    OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of confirmed positive to 
mean 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. The proposed definition includes 
several changes to the current definition of confirmed positive.
    First, the agency is proposing to change the definition of 
confirmed positive by removing 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 OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1402). 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 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 2646). Whether or not individuals are necessarily considered 
to be beryllium-sensitized at the time of the BeLPT findings is less of 
a consideration than is the understanding that these individuals 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.
    An additional 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 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, as 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

[[Page 63751]]

is normal, the employee is not 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 this 
proposed modification. 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.
    Examples of the potential types of results a worker may receive 
from BeLPT testing, including information obtained from split blood 
samples sent to separate labs or from a blood sample sent to a single 
lab, can be found in the docket (Document ID 0015).
    OSHA is proposing to modify the standard's definition for dermal 
contact with beryllium. Dermal contact with beryllium appears in 
several places in the standard: Paragraph (f), Written exposure control 
plan; paragraph (h), Personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE); 
paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices; paragraph (k), Medical 
surveillance; and paragraph (m), Communication of hazards. Paragraph 
(b) currently defines dermal contact with beryllium as skin exposure to 
soluble beryllium compounds, beryllium solutions, or dust, fumes, or 
mists containing beryllium, where these materials contain beryllium in 
concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. This 
definition was added to the standard through a direct final rule (83 FR 
19936, 19940 (May 7, 2018)) following OSHA's promulgation of the final 
standard in January 2017. After publication of the 2017 final rule, 
stakeholders had raised questions about the meaning of dermal contact 
with beryllium where work processes involve materials with beryllium at 
very low concentrations. As a result of discussions with these 
stakeholders, OSHA added the definition to the general industry 
standard to clarify that dermal contact with beryllium means skin 
exposure to materials containing beryllium in concentrations greater 
than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (83 FR at 19940).
    OSHA is proposing to make two further changes to the definition of 
dermal contact with beryllium. First, OSHA proposes to add the term 
``visible'' to the definition, so that the third form of dermal contact 
with beryllium would be skin exposure to visible dust, fumes, or mists 
containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight. Second, OSHA proposes to add a sentence to the 
definition specifying that handling beryllium materials in non-
particulate solid form that are free from visible dust containing 
beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 
weight is not considered dermal contact with beryllium under the 
standard. OSHA believes that these proposed changes, in conjunction 
with other proposed changes (e.g., the definition of a beryllium work 
area), would allow employers to more accurately identify areas where 
dermal contact with beryllium could be expected.
    OSHA is proposing to add the term ``visible'' to clarify when skin 
exposure to beryllium-containing dust, fumes, or mist should be 
considered dermal contact with beryllium. Several of the standard's 
provisions are triggered where an employee has, or can be reasonably 
expected to have, dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA is concerned 
that, under the current definition, employers will be unable to 
accurately identify when dermal contact with beryllium has occurred, or 
should be reasonably expected to occur, for the purposes of compliance 
with this standard. Beryllium-generating processes can release 
beryllium in varying particle sizes and amounts, some of which are 
visible to the naked eye and some of which are not. OSHA is concerned 
that employers could reasonably interpret the provisions triggered by 
dermal contact with beryllium (e.g., the use of PPE) as extending to 
every employee who could potentially encounter a minute and non-visible 
amount of beryllium particulate at its facility, irrespective of the 
employee's job duties and tasks. Such an interpretation would be 
contrary to OSHA's intent and could prompt employers to attempt 
infeasible compliance measures. OSHA believes that revising the 
definition is necessary to make the provisions triggered by dermal 
contact with beryllium understandable and workable.
    OSHA believes that modifying the definition of dermal contact with 
beryllium to cover skin exposure to ``visible dust, fumes, or mists 
containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight'' may provide a clearer and more workable definition. 
The proposed change would allow employers to accurately identify the 
employees, and particularly those working outside of beryllium work 
areas or regulated areas, to whom the provisions triggered by dermal 
contact with beryllium apply, including the requirement to provide 
employees with PPE to protect against reasonably expected dermal 
contact with beryllium.
    OSHA previously proposed using the visibility of beryllium 
contamination as a trigger for the use of PPE in the proposed rule that 
preceded the promulgation of the beryllium standard, based in part on 
the recommendations of a joint model standard that Materion and USW 
developed in 2012 (80 FR 47566 (Aug. 7, 2015)). That proposed rule 
would have required employers to provide appropriate PPE where employee 
exposure exceeds or can reasonably be expected to exceed the TWA PEL or 
STEL; where work clothing or skin may become visibly contaminated with 
beryllium; and where employees' skin is reasonably expected to be 
exposed to soluble beryllium compounds (80 FR at 47791-94).
    In the final rule (82 FR 2470 (Jan. 9, 2017)), OSHA modified the 
provision based in part on comments from several public health experts 
who objected to using the phrase ``visibly contaminated.'' In 
particular, public health experts from NIOSH, National Jewish Health 
(NJH), and the American Thoracic Society, stated that beryllium can 
accumulate on the skin and on work surfaces without becoming visible, 
and beryllium sensitization can result from contact with small 
quantities of beryllium that are not visible to the naked eye (82 FR at 
2679-80). Materion, on the other hand, supported using the phrase 
because relying on visual cues of contamination would make it easier 
for employers to comply with the PPE provision (82 FR at 2680).
    OSHA ultimately agreed that skin contact with even small amounts of 
beryllium can cause beryllium sensitization and that triggering the use 
of PPE on visible contamination of the skin and clothing would not be 
sufficiently protective (82 FR at 2680-81). OSHA was concerned that 
employers might interpret the proposed ``may become visibly 
contaminated'' language as only requiring the use of PPE after work 
processes release quantities of beryllium sufficient to create deposits 
visible to the naked eye, by which time workers may have already had 
skin exposure sufficient to cause beryllium sensitization (82 FR at 
2680). Employees should already be using PPE to prevent dermal contact 
by that time. Thus, to avoid the potential use of ``may become visibly 
contaminated'' as a lagging indicator triggering PPE, in the final rule 
the agency modified the provision to require the use of PPE wherever 
there is a ``reasonable expectation of dermal contact'' with beryllium 
(82 FR at 2680).
    The current proposal continues to address this concern in two ways. 
First,

[[Page 63752]]

it retains the ``reasonable expectation'' trigger for PPE in the 2017 
final rule. Thus, PPE use is required by the proposal before actual 
exposure occurs, accommodating the central concern of the final rule. 
Second, the location of the triggering exposure is changed. Where the 
original proposal required PPE where there may be visible accumulations 
of beryllium on skin or clothing, the current proposal requires PPE 
where there are visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in 
the work area that might come into contact with the skin. Therefore, in 
this way the current proposal triggers PPE before actual exposure 
occurs as well.
    The current proposal also better addresses the practical aspects of 
a ``reasonable expectation'' trigger for PPE. OSHA's 2017 final rule 
did not address the practical aspects of complying with a trigger that 
required PPE when any dermal contact with beryllium might be reasonably 
expected. Although OSHA did not intend beryllium work areas to extend 
facility-wide, the 2017 final rule could nonetheless be read as 
effectively requiring employees to wear PPE facility-wide, even when 
not in proximity to beryllium generating processes (e.g., 
administrative offices). Where an employer has a reasonable expectation 
that even very tiny amounts of non-trace beryllium dust, fume, or mist 
might spread outside of beryllium work areas, it may believe it is 
required to institute either a comprehensive wipe sampling program, or 
simply require all employees in the facility to wear PPE all of the 
time. OSHA did not explicitly cost the 2017 final rule as requiring PPE 
use to protect against dermal contact with non-visible beryllium dust, 
fumes, or mists outside of beryllium work areas, and OSHA is concerned 
that use of PPE in that circumstance is infeasible and unwarranted and 
would not meaningfully enhance worker protections. OSHA is therefore 
proposing the addition of a visual cue to enable employers to 
accurately identify the employees outside of beryllium work areas who 
need to wear PPE due to their reasonably-expected dermal contact with 
beryllium.
    OSHA expects that the use of PPE will always be required in 
beryllium work areas because both the operations listed in Appendix A 
and those that can be reasonably expected to generate exposure at or 
above the action level would create a reasonable expectation of dermal 
contact with beryllium. This expectation is based, in part, on a study 
conducted by NIOSH and Materion and published in the Journal of 
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. This study identified a strong 
correlation between airborne beryllium concentrations and the amount 
measured on gloves worn by workers at multiple beryllium facilities and 
jobs, indicating the potential for skin exposure where airborne 
beryllium is present (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0502). The 
expectation is also based on OSHA's review of data collected during 
site visits conducted by the agency that cover a wide range of 
processes (e.g., furnace and melting operations, casting, grinding/
deburring, machining and stamping) and a wide range of materials 
including beryllium composite, beryllium alloy, and beryllium oxide. 
The data show that those operations that would create a reasonable 
expectation of dermal contact, either through beryllium surface 
contamination or skin contamination, are covered either by proposed 
Appendix A or have exposures above the action level, (Document ID OSHA-
H005C-2006-0870-0341). As such, both the provisions associated with 
beryllium work areas (listed above) and the provisions associated with 
dermal contact with beryllium would apply to employees in a beryllium 
work area (see Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, for the 
proposed revision to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium). 
OSHA requests comments on whether operations that trigger the creation 
of a beryllium work area also give rise to a reasonable expectation of 
dermal contact with beryllium within the beryllium work area. In light 
of the proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with 
beryllium, in which employees will have such contact if their skin is 
exposed to visible dusts, fumes, or mists that contain beryllium at the 
necessary concentration, OSHA also requests comment on whether 
processes exist that could trigger the creation of a beryllium work 
area, but could be reasonably expected to release only non-visible 
beryllium-containing dusts, fumes, or mists.
    OSHA requests comment on all aspects of this discussion. In 
particular, OSHA is interested in learning about any alternative 
approaches that have been used to trigger PPE use and the basis for 
them. OSHA is also interested in learning of other reasonable ways to 
identify non-visible dermal exposures of concern outside of beryllium 
work areas. OSHA also requests information on the ways employers have 
implemented the PPE requirements of the current rule, including any 
difficulties they may have had in this regard.
    OSHA notes that the record is unclear on whether facilities that 
process beryllium have any employees who work away from beryllium-
releasing processes (i.e., outside of beryllium work areas) but who 
could be reasonably expected to come into contact with solely non-
visible particulates of beryllium in the course of their work. OSHA 
requests comment on whether such employees exist, and if so, whether 
the use of PPE would be necessary to adequately protect them from 
adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure.
    OSHA believes that the proposed change to the definition will 
likewise render more workable the additional provisions in the standard 
in which dermal contact with beryllium appears. For example, because it 
will help employers identify which employees have, or can be reasonably 
expected to have, dermal contact with beryllium, the proposed 
definition will allow employers to more accurately comply with the 
requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) to establish, implement, and 
maintain a written exposure control plan that includes a list of 
operations and job titles reasonably expected to involve airborne 
exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects that the 
list would likely include all operations and job titles in beryllium 
work areas, along with any additional operations or job titles for 
employees whose skin could be exposed to visible beryllium dust, fumes, 
or mists in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more. Under the 
current definition, employers could reasonably interpret the standard 
as requiring them to list the job title for every employee at the 
facility who could come into contact with a minute and non-visible 
amount of beryllium particulate, including employees who do not work in 
proximity to beryllium-releasing processes (e.g., in administrative 
offices). Adding a visual cue will allow employers to more accurately 
list the operations and job titles for employees who work outside of 
beryllium work areas and are reasonably expected to have dermal contact 
with beryllium. OSHA requests comment on whether this proposed change 
would cause an employer to omit any operations and job titles that 
should be included in the written exposure control plan, and whether it 
would reduce protections for any employees.
    Similarly, the proposed definition will facilitate employer 
compliance with the requirement to provide information and training (in 
accordance with the Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)) 
to each

[[Page 63753]]

employee who has, or can reasonably be expected to have, airborne 
exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium by the time of the 
employee's initial assignment and annually thereafter (paragraphs 
(m)(4)(i)(A)-(C)). The proposed definition would allow employers to 
accurately identify which employees must receive this information and 
training because they have, or can reasonably be expected to have, 
dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects that the employees who will 
be required to receive this training will include all employees who 
work in beryllium work areas as well as any other employees who may not 
be working directly with a beryllium-generating process, but may 
nonetheless reasonably be expected to have airborne exposure and/or 
skin contact with soluble beryllium, beryllium solutions, or visible 
beryllium dust, fumes, or mists in concentrations of 0.1 percent by 
weight or more. As discussed previously, OSHA intends the proposed 
modification to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium to 
provide employers with a workable measure for determining which 
employees outside of beryllium work areas and regulated areas should 
receive this information and training. OSHA requests comment on whether 
this proposed change would still capture all of the employees that 
would benefit from the training required under this standard.
    Because the change would allow employers to more accurately 
identify the employees who have had dermal contact with beryllium, the 
proposed definition would also facilitate proper compliance with 
paragraph (i)(1)(ii), which requires employers to 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. The addition of the term ``visible'' to the definition would 
prevent employers from speculating that all employees in a facility, 
including those employees who do not work near beryllium-releasing 
processes (e.g., administrative employees), must wash their exposed 
skin because they might have come into contact with non-visible 
beryllium particulate. Such an interpretation would be contrary to 
OSHA's intent and could be infeasible in practice. As stated above, it 
is unclear from the existing record whether there are employees who 
work exclusively outside of beryllium work areas but who could come 
into contact with solely non-visible beryllium particulate during their 
work and yet not be required to wash their exposed skin under the 
proposed rule. OSHA requests comment on whether such employees exist, 
and whether this proposed change would reduce protections for any 
employees.
    The proposed definition would further improve employer compliance 
with the requirements in paragraph (k) to offer employees a medical 
examination including a medical and work history that emphasizes past 
and present airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium 
(paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(A)), and to provide the examining physician or 
other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) (and the agreed-upon 
CBD diagnostic center, if such an evaluation is required) with a 
description of the employee's former and current duties that relate to 
the employee's airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium 
(paragraph (k)(4)(i)). Because it would improve employers' ability to 
identify when dermal contact with beryllium has occurred or could 
occur, this change would permit employers to accurately complete 
employee medical and work histories and the reports that they must 
provide to examining PLHCPs or CBD diagnostic centers. Similar to the 
change's effect on the provisions discussed above, adding the term 
``visible'' would prevent employers from including superfluous 
information in these medical and work histories and reports because 
they are concerned that an employee might have conceivably come into 
contact with solely non-visible beryllium particulate outside of a 
beryllium work area. Such an expansive interpretation would be contrary 
to OSHA's intent. OSHA requests comment on whether this change would 
cause employers to omit needed information from these medical and work 
histories and reports, and, as a result, undermine the effectiveness of 
the medical examinations.
    Dermal contact with beryllium is also currently mentioned in the 
requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) that employers update their 
written exposure control plans when notified that an employee shows 
signs or symptoms associated with airborne exposure to or dermal 
contact with beryllium. But as explained in the summary and explanation 
for proposed changes to paragraph (f), OSHA is proposing to remove the 
reference to dermal contact with beryllium in that provision so that it 
would require employers to update exposure control plans when they are 
notified that an employee shows signs or symptoms associated with any 
exposure to beryllium. If that proposed change to paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(B) is finalized, the proposed change to the definition of 
dermal contact with beryllium will have no effect on that provision. 
Even if the proposed change to paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) is not 
finalized, however, OSHA does not anticipate that the proposed change 
to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium would have any 
meaningful impact on that requirement because the signs and symptoms of 
dermal contact with beryllium are the same regardless of whether the 
beryllium is visible (82 FR at 2680-81).
    Dermal contact with beryllium also currently appears in paragraph 
(h)(3)(iii). That provision requires employers to inform in writing 
persons or 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 the standard. As explained below, 
OSHA is proposing to revise that provision so that it requires 
employers to inform launderers, cleaners, and repairers of the 
potentially harmful effects of all exposure to beryllium (see 
discussion of proposed changes to paragraph (h) later in this section). 
If the proposed revision to this paragraph is not finalized, the 
proposed change to the definition of dermal contact with beryllium 
would still have no impact because the effects of skin contact with 
beryllium are the same regardless of whether the beryllium is visible 
(82 FR at 2680-81).
    OSHA is also proposing to add two additional references to dermal 
contact with beryllium in paragraph (i), Hygiene areas and practices, 
to account for additional proposed changes to the definition of 
beryllium work area in paragraph (b). Paragraph (i) includes 
requirements for employers to provide each employee working in a 
beryllium work area with readily accessible washing facilities 
(paragraph (i)(1)(i)) and a designated change room where employees are 
required to remove their personal clothing (paragraph (i)(2)). But, as 
explained earlier in this section, OSHA is proposing to revise the 
definition of beryllium work area so that it no longer refers to the 
potential for dermal contact with beryllium.
    OSHA intends for the requirements to provide washing facilities and 
change rooms to apply to employees who can reasonably be expected to 
have dermal contact with beryllium, regardless of whether they work in 
a beryllium work area as defined in this proposal. As discussed above, 
there may be

[[Page 63754]]

employees outside of the beryllium work area that may have a reasonable 
expectation of dermal contact with beryllium. Therefore, OSHA is 
proposing to add two additional references to dermal contact with 
beryllium to paragraph (i). First, OSHA is proposing to revise 
paragraph (i)(1) so that the requirements would apply to each employee 
who works in a beryllium work area or who can reasonably be expected to 
have dermal contact with beryllium. Paragraph (i)(1)(i) would then 
require employers to provide washing facilities to all employees who 
can be reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium. 
Second, OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (i)(2) so that employers 
are required to provide change rooms to employees who are required to 
use personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph 
(h)(1)(ii), if those employees are required to remove their personal 
clothing. Because paragraph (h)(1)(ii) requires the use of PPE where 
there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with beryllium, 
this proposed change would ensure that, if OSHA finalizes the proposed 
changes to the definition of beryllium work area, the requirement for 
change rooms would continue to protect those employees who can 
reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium.
    As discussed above, it is unclear from the existing record whether 
there are employees working outside of beryllium work areas who could 
come into contact with solely non-visible beryllium particulate, whose 
exposure would not trigger the employer's obligation to provide washing 
facilities and change rooms under this proposal. OSHA requests comment 
on whether such employees exist, and if so, whether the use of washing 
facilities is necessary to adequately protect them from adverse health 
effects associated with beryllium exposure.
    The second change that OSHA is proposing to the definition of 
dermal contact with beryllium is to add a sentence specifying that 
handling of beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form that are 
free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater 
than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered ``dermal 
contact with beryllium'' under the standard. OSHA explained in the 
final rule that beryllium-containing solid objects, or ``articles,'' 
with uncompromised physical integrity are unlikely to release beryllium 
that would pose a health hazard for workers (82 FR at 2640). 
Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2) states that the beryllium standard's 
provisions do not apply to the specified articles that the employer 
does not process.
    The proposed addition to the definition of dermal contact with 
beryllium would clarify that the provisions in the standard related to 
dermal contact with beryllium do not apply to the handling of solid 
beryllium-containing objects that the employer does not process, unless 
visible beryllium particulate has contaminated the surface of the 
object. As discussed above, in areas where the employer reasonably 
expects that employees' skin will be exposed to visible beryllium dust, 
fumes, or mists, including those that may have contaminated the surface 
of solid objects, employers would be required to provide, and ensure 
that employees use, appropriate PPE. Outside of areas where an employer 
reasonably expects that visible dust, fumes, or mists may be present, 
such as beryllium work areas, the use of PPE would not be required, and 
the provisions requiring employers to minimize surface beryllium in 
paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) of the standard should sufficiently 
protect employees from contact with beryllium-contaminated objects. 
OSHA requests comments on these proposed changes. OSHA particularly 
requests comments on whether it is appropriate to trigger protections 
that apply to dermal contact with beryllium on skin exposure to dusts, 
fumes, or mists only if they are visible, and whether this will 
sufficiently protect employees from exposure to accumulations of 
beryllium particulate that are not visible to the naked eye but that 
could cause beryllium sensitization. OSHA also requests comments on 
whether there are alternative approaches to revising the definition of 
dermal contact with beryllium that would enhance employer understanding 
and improve compliance with the provisions in the standard that are 
triggered by actual or reasonably expected dermal contact with 
beryllium, while maintaining safety and health protections for workers.

B. Written Exposure Control Plan

    Paragraph (f)(1) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 
CFR 1910.1024(f)(1)) addresses the written exposure control plan that 
the employer must establish, implement, and maintain. Paragraph 
(f)(1)(i) specifies the information that must be included in the plan 
and paragraph (f)(1)(ii) addresses the requirements for employers to 
review each plan at least annually and update it under specified 
circumstances.
    OSHA is proposing two wording changes to these provisions. 
Paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) addresses procedures for minimizing cross-
contamination within beryllium work areas. This includes the transfer 
of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, and 
articles. This proposal would remove the word ``preventing'' from the 
text to clarify that these procedures may not totally eliminate the 
transfer of beryllium, but should minimize cross-contamination of 
beryllium, including between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, 
and articles.
    Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) specifies that when an employer is notified 
that an employee is eligible for medical removal, referred for 
evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, or shows signs or symptoms 
associated with airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium, 
the employer must update the written exposure control plan as 
necessary. OSHA is proposing to replace the phrase ``airborne exposure 
to and dermal contact with beryllium'' with ``exposure to beryllium.'' 
This would simplify the language of the provision while still capturing 
all potential exposure scenarios currently covered. Because these 
proposed changes are merely clarifying, OSHA expects they would 
maintain safety and health protections for workers.

C. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment

    OSHA is proposing two revisions to paragraph (h) of the beryllium 
standard for general industry, personal protective clothing and 
equipment (29 CFR 1910.1024(h)). The first proposed revision relates to 
paragraph (h)(2)(i), which addresses removal and storage of personal 
protective clothing and equipment (PPE). This provision 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. OSHA is proposing to modify the 
phrase ``at the completion of tasks involving beryllium'' in paragraph 
(h)(2)(i) by changing ``tasks'' to ``all tasks.''
    This revision would clarify the trigger for when employees must 
remove beryllium-contaminated PPE. OSHA's intent, expressed in the 
final rule, is that PPE contaminated with beryllium should not be worn 
when tasks involving beryllium exposure have been completed for the day 
(82 FR 2682). Thus, when employees perform multiple tasks involving 
beryllium successively or intermittently

[[Page 63755]]

throughout the day, the employer must ensure that each employee removes 
all beryllium-contaminated PPE at the completion of the set of tasks 
involving beryllium, not necessarily after each separate task. If, 
however, employees perform tasks involving beryllium exposure for only 
the first two hours of a work shift, and then perform tasks that do not 
involve exposure to beryllium, the employer must ensure that employees 
remove their PPE after the beryllium exposure period. Unless the PPE 
becomes visibly contaminated with beryllium, OSHA does not intend this 
provision to require continuous PPE changes throughout the work shift. 
The proposed revision would clarify OSHA's intent.
    Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) requires the employer to inform in writing 
the persons or the business entities who launder, clean or repair the 
PPE required by this standard of the potentially harmful effects of 
airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium and that the PPE 
must be handled in accordance with this standard. OSHA is proposing to 
replace the phrase ``airborne exposure to and dermal contact with 
beryllium'' with ``exposure to beryllium.'' This would simplify the 
language of the provision while still capturing all potential exposure 
scenarios currently covered. An identical language change is being 
proposed in the methods of compliance paragraph, (f)(1)(ii)(B). Because 
these changes would merely clarify OSHA's original intent for these 
provisions of the standard, the agency anticipates that the proposed 
revisions to paragraph (h) would maintain safety and health protections 
for workers.

D. Hygiene Areas and Practices

    OSHA is proposing three changes to paragraph (i) of the general 
industry standard, Hygiene areas and practices (29 CFR 1910.1024(i)). 
This paragraph requires that the employer provide employees with 
readily accessible washing facilities, change rooms, and showers when 
certain conditions are met; requires the employer to take certain steps 
to minimize exposure in eating and drinking areas; and prohibits 
certain practices that may contribute to beryllium exposure. OSHA is 
proposing the first two changes, which apply to paragraphs (i)(1) and 
(i)(2), to maintain the protections included in these paragraphs for 
employees who have dermal contact with beryllium if the proposed change 
to the definition of beryllium work area, discussed previously in this 
Summary and Explanation, is finalized. OSHA is proposing the third 
change, which applies to paragraph (i)(4), to clarify the requirements 
for cleaning beryllium-contaminated PPE prior to entering an eating or 
drinking area.
    As explained in the previous discussion of proposed changes to the 
definition of beryllium work area, OSHA is proposing several changes to 
the definition of beryllium work area to clarify where a beryllium work 
area should be established. One of the changes proposed is to remove 
dermal contact with beryllium as one of the triggers that would require 
an employer to establish a beryllium work area. If this proposed change 
to the definition of beryllium work area is finalized, it is OSHA's 
intention that the hygiene provisions related to washing facilities and 
change rooms will still apply to employees who can reasonably be 
expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless of whether 
they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised definition. 
OSHA accordingly proposes two changes.
    First, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph 
(i)(1). As currently written, paragraph (i)(1) requires that, for each 
employee working in a beryllium work area, the employer must provide 
readily accessible washing facilities in accordance with the beryllium 
standard and the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141) to remove 
beryllium from the hands, face, and neck. The employer must also 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. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of 
paragraph (i)(1) to each employee who can reasonably be expected to 
have dermal contact with beryllium in addition to each employee working 
in a beryllium work area. This proposed change would ensure that, if 
OSHA finalizes a definition of beryllium work area that does not 
require employers to establish a beryllium work area where there is 
potential for dermal contact with beryllium, the requirement for 
washing facilities would continue to protect those employees who are 
reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, consistent 
with OSHA's original intent. Thus, under the proposed change, the 
employer still would be required to provide readily accessible washing 
facilities to all employees with reasonably expected dermal contact in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(i) and ensure that all such employees 
wash exposed skin in accordance with paragraph (i)(1)(ii).
    Second, OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph 
(i)(2). As currently written, paragraph (i)(2) requires that, for 
employees who work in a beryllium work area, the employer must provide 
a designated change room in accordance with the beryllium standard and 
the Sanitation standard (29 CFR 1910.141) where employees are required 
to remove their personal clothing. OSHA is proposing to apply the 
requirements of paragraph (i)(2) to employees who are required to use 
personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of 
the beryllium standard, instead of to employees who work in a beryllium 
work area. Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of the beryllium standard requires the 
provision and use of appropriate PPE ``[w]here there is a reasonable 
expectation of dermal contact with beryllium.'' This proposed change 
would ensure that, if OSHA finalizes a definition of beryllium work 
area that does not require employers to establish a beryllium work area 
where there is potential for dermal contact with beryllium, the 
requirement for change rooms would continue to protect those employees 
who are reasonably expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, 
consistent with OSHA's original intent.
    OSHA is also proposing a third change, which applies to paragraph 
(i)(4), in order to clarify the requirements for cleaning beryllium-
contaminated PPE prior to entering an eating or drinking area. 
Paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 
CFR 1910.1024(i)(4)(ii)) requires the employer to ensure that no 
employees enter any eating or drinking area with beryllium-contaminated 
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. OSHA is proposing to modify this paragraph to require 
the employer to ensure that, before employees enter an eating or 
drinking area, beryllium-contaminated PPE is cleaned, as necessary, to 
be as free as practicable of beryllium by methods that do not disperse 
beryllium into the air or onto an employee's body. This proposed change 
would clarify that OSHA does not expect the methods used to clean PPE 
prior to entering an eating or drinking area to completely eliminate 
residual beryllium from the surface of the PPE if complete elimination 
is not practicable. This is consistent with OSHA's determination, 
expressed in the preamble to the final rule, that ``as free

[[Page 63756]]

as practicable'' is ``the most appropriate terminology for requirements 
pertaining to surface cleanliness'' (82 FR 2687). This proposed 
clarification also aligns the language of paragraph (i)(4)(ii) with the 
language of paragraph (i)(4)(i), which requires employers to ensure 
that beryllium-contaminated surfaces in eating and drinking areas are 
as free as practicable of beryllium. Finally, requiring cleaning only 
``as necessary'' would clarify that cleaning would not be required if 
the PPE is already as free as practicable of beryllium. OSHA expects 
these proposed changes to paragraph (i) would maintain safety and 
health protections for workers.

E. Disposal and Recycling

    Paragraph (j)(3) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 
CFR 1910.1024(j)(3)) addresses disposal and recycling of materials that 
contain beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or 
that are contaminated with beryllium. That paragraph currently 
specifies that (1) materials designated for disposal must be disposed 
of in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that 
are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3) of the beryllium standard, 
and (2) materials designated for recycling must be cleaned to be as 
free as practicable of surface beryllium contamination and labeled 
according to paragraph (m)(3), or placed in sealed, impermeable 
enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to 
paragraph (m)(3). The requirements do not apply to materials containing 
only trace amounts of beryllium (less than 0.1 percent by weight).
    OSHA is proposing several changes to these provisions. Generally, 
OSHA is proposing that provisions pertaining to recycling and disposal 
also address reuse because in some cases workers may be exposed to 
materials containing or contaminated with beryllium that are directly 
reused without first being recycled into a different form. For example, 
a manufacturer may sell a by-product from a process to a downstream 
manufacturer that would reuse the by-product as a component of a new 
product. Recycling, on the other hand, typically involves the further 
processing of waste materials to separate and recover various 
components of value. OSHA is also proposing some minor changes in 
terminology and organization to improve the clarity and internal 
consistency of the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3) would be reorganized into three 
subparagraphs and would identify that the provisions address reuse in 
addition to disposal and recycling. Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would 
require employers to ensure that materials containing at least 0.1% 
beryllium by weight or contaminated with beryllium that are transferred 
to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse are labeled 
according to paragraph (m)(3) of the standard. This reorganization of 
the provisions would make it clear that the labeling requirements under 
paragraph (m)(3) apply regardless of whether the employer transfers 
materials to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse. Including 
that information in paragraph (j)(3)(i) avoids the need to repeat the 
information in paragraph (j)(3)(ii), which addresses disposal 
specifically, and paragraph (j)(3)(iii), which addresses recycling and 
reuse.
    Proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would require that with the exception 
of intra-plant transfers, materials designated for disposal that 
contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with 
beryllium be cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or 
placed in enclosures, such as bags or containers, that prevent the 
release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal 
conditions of use, storage, or transport. Proposed paragraph 
(j)(3)(iii) would require that with the exception of intra-plant 
transfers, materials designated for recycling or reuse that contain at 
least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium be 
cleaned to be as free as practicable of beryllium or placed in 
enclosures, such as bags or containers, that prevent the release of 
beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal conditions 
of use, storage, or transport.
    The proposed addition of the term ``except for intra-plant 
transfers'' to proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) clarifies that 
the requirements in paragraph (j)(3) do not apply to transfers within a 
plant. As discussed in the preamble for the beryllium final rule (82 FR 
2470, 2696), OSHA did not intend the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of 
the general industry standard to require employers to clean or enclose 
materials to be used in another location of the same facility. Since 
the disposal and recycling provisions would now also address reuse 
under this proposal, this proposed change would make OSHA's intent 
explicit. Under other provisions of the beryllium standard, employers 
would still be required to communicate possible hazards to employees 
and protect employees who may be exposed to those materials during 
intra-plant transfer.
    OSHA is also proposing that the phrase ``materials that contain 
beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more'' be 
replaced with the phrase ``materials that contain at least 0.1 percent 
beryllium by weight'' in paragraphs (j)(3)(i)-(iii). The change in 
terminology is to simplify the language and does not change the 
meaning.
    The requirement in proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) that 
materials not otherwise cleaned be placed in enclosures that prevent 
the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under 
normal conditions of use, storage, or transport clarifies the 
requirement from the final standard that the materials be placed in 
``sealed, impermeable enclosures.'' As discussed in the preamble to the 
final standard (82 FR 2470, 2695), OSHA disagreed with stakeholders who 
found the requirement for sealed, impermeable enclosures to be 
``problematically vague.'' As the agency explained, ``OSHA intends this 
term to be broad and the provision performance-oriented, so as to allow 
employers in a variety of industries flexibility to decide what type of 
enclosures (e.g., bags or other containers) are best suited to their 
workplace and the nature of the beryllium-containing materials they are 
disposing or designating for reuse outside the facility.'' Further, the 
term ``impermeable'' was not intended to mean absolutely impervious to 
rupture; rather, OSHA explained that the enclosures should be 
impermeable to the extent that they would not allow materials to escape 
``under normal conditions of use.''
    Since the promulgation of the final rule in 2017, OSHA has learned 
from stakeholders that further clarification may help eliminate 
confusion regarding what types of enclosures would be acceptable under 
the standard. Thus, the proposed change makes explicit what had been 
intended in the 2017 final rulemaking. In addition, the proposed change 
would reinforce the requirement that employers select the appropriate 
type of container to prevent release based on the form of beryllium and 
how it is normally handled. For example, a container that prevents the 
release of a beryllium particulate may not be effective in preventing 
the release of a beryllium solution.
    Proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) would also clarify the 
cleaning requirements of the beryllium standard by removing the phrase 
``of surface beryllium contamination,'' which may cause confusion 
because the term ``surface beryllium contamination'' does not appear in 
other provisions of the standard and is not defined in the beryllium 
standard. Elsewhere in the standard, OSHA uses the phrase ``as free as 
practicable of beryllium.'' OSHA has

[[Page 63757]]

discussed the meaning of this phrase in the summary and explanation of 
paragraph (j) in the 2017 final rule (82 FR 2690), as well as 
previously in a 2014 letter of interpretation explaining the phrase in 
the context of the agency's standard for hexavalent chromium (OSHA, 
Nov. 5, 2014, Letter of Interpretation, available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2014-11-05). OSHA 
believes the phrase ``as free as practicable of beryllium'' will more 
clearly convey the cleaning requirements under the beryllium standard 
than the phrase ``as free as practicable of surface beryllium 
contamination.''
    Finally, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would allow the same options 
for either cleaning or enclosure found in the recycling and reuse 
requirements for materials designated for disposal. The beryllium 
standard currently does not include an option of cleaning materials 
designated for disposal and instead requires enclosure in containers. 
Since the promulgation of the beryllium final rule in 2017, OSHA has 
learned from stakeholders that in some cases, items that contain or are 
contaminated with beryllium may not be suitable for enclosure prior to 
disposal. While OSHA agreed with ORCHSE Strategies in 2017 that 
municipal and commercial disposal workers should be protected from 
exposure to beryllium from contact with materials discarded from 
beryllium work areas in general industry by placing those materials in 
enclosed containers (82 FR 2695; Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1691, 
p. 5), the agency had not considered situations where it would be 
impractical to require enclosure because the materials in question were 
large items such as machines or structures that may contain or be 
contaminated with beryllium, rather than more common items, such as 
beryllium scrap metal or shavings. For example, a machine that was used 
to process beryllium-containing materials may be contaminated with 
beryllium. Enclosing the machine in a large container prior to disposal 
would be less practical, and no more effective, than cleaning the 
machine to be as free as practicable of beryllium contamination prior 
to disposal. Thus, OSHA has preliminarily determined that workers 
handling items designated for disposal, like workers handling items 
designated for recycling or reuse, will be just as protected from 
exposure to beryllium if the items are cleaned to be as free as 
practicable of beryllium as if the items were placed in containers. 
Regardless of whether an employer chooses to clean or enclose materials 
designated for disposal, the labeling requirements under proposed 
paragraph (j)(3)(i) would still apply and would require the materials 
designated for disposal to be labeled in accordance with paragraph 
(m)(3) of this standard. OSHA expects these proposed changes to 
paragraph (j) to maintain safety and health protections for workers.

F. Medical Surveillance

    Paragraph (k) of the beryllium standard for general industry (29 
CFR 1910.1024) addresses medical surveillance requirements. OSHA is 
proposing changes to two medical surveillance provisions.
    Under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), the employer must provide a medical 
examination within 30 days after determining that the employee shows 
signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related health effects or 
that the employee has been exposed to beryllium in an emergency. OSHA 
proposes removing the requirement for a medical examination within 30 
days of exposure in an emergency and adding paragraph (k)(2)(iv), which 
would require the employer to offer a medical examination at least one 
year after but no more than two years after the employee is exposed to 
beryllium in an emergency. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the 
requirement to provide a medical examination between one and two years 
after exposure in an emergency is more appropriate than a 30-day 
requirement and would enhance worker protections.
    In the proposal for the 2017 beryllium rule (80 FR 47798, Summary 
and Explanation for proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B)), OSHA proposed 
requiring employers to provide medical examinations to employees 
exposed to beryllium during an emergency, and to those showing signs or 
symptoms of CBD, within 30 days of the employer becoming aware that 
these employees met those criteria. During the public comment period 
for that NPRM, OSHA did not receive any comments from stakeholders 
about the time period to offer medical examinations following a report 
of symptoms or exposure in an emergency. The agency determined the 30-
day trigger to be administratively convenient for post-emergency 
surveillance, because it is consistent with other OSHA standards and 
with other triggers in the beryllium standards (82 FR 2702, Summary and 
Explanation for paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B)). OSHA therefore retained 
paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), as proposed, in the final rule.
    After publication of the final rule, stakeholders suggested to OSHA 
that sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after exposure 
in individuals who may become sensitized, so a longer timeframe for 
medical examinations may be more appropriate. OSHA acknowledges 
uncertainty regarding the time period in which sensitization may occur 
following a one-time exposure to a significant concentration of 
beryllium (i.e., exposures exceeding the PEL) in an emergency. Further, 
as discussed in the final rule (82 FR 2530, 2533), OSHA found that 
beryllium sensitization can occur several months or more after initial 
exposure to beryllium among workers with regular occupational exposure 
to beryllium.
    Because sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after 
exposure in individuals who may become sensitized, OSHA believes the 
proposed time period of one to two years may be more likely to enable 
detection of sensitization in employees in the first test following 
exposure in an emergency. OSHA notes that, if an employee exposed 
during an emergency were to become sensitized and develop signs or 
symptoms of CBD prior to one year after exposure in an emergency, the 
employer would still be required to provide that employee a medical 
examination under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) of the standard. Further, OSHA 
does not intend this revision to preclude employers from voluntarily 
providing a medical examination within the first year after an 
emergency. However, providing a medical examination sooner would not 
relieve an employer of the duty to provide an exam in the one- to two-
year window. For those employees who are already eligible for periodic 
medical surveillance, the examination for the emergency exposure could 
be scheduled to coincide with the next periodic examination that is 
within two years of the last periodic medical examination and at least 
one but no more than two years after the emergency exposure, satisfying 
the requirements of both paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) and (iv).
    OSHA requests comment on the appropriateness of the change from 
requiring a medical examination within 30 days following an employer's 
determination that an employee has been exposed in an emergency to 
between one and two years following such exposure. Specifically, is a 
time frame of at least one year but not more than two years 
appropriate, or are there immediate health effects that would support 
providing an examination before one year following the emergency? What 
is the ideal timeframe to offer a medical examination following

[[Page 63758]]

exposure in an emergency to address sensitization or other health 
effects?
    As promulgated, paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) currently requires the 
employer to provide a medical examination within 30 days after the 
employer determines that an employee has been exposed to beryllium in 
an emergency. Under proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iv), the time period for 
providing a medical examination begins to run from the date the 
employee is exposed during an emergency, regardless of when the 
employer discovers that the exposure occurred. Because under this 
proposal the medical examination will not occur until at least a year 
from the date of the exposure in an emergency, and because OSHA 
believes that employers typically will learn of the emergency resulting 
in exposure immediately or soon after it occurs, OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that it is appropriate to measure the time period from the 
date of exposure. OSHA requests comments on the appropriateness of 
calculating the time period for a medical examination from the 
occurrence of the emergency rather than from the employer's 
determination of eligibility.
    Paragraph (k)(7)(i) currently requires that the employer 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). OSHA is proposing a change to 
paragraph (k)(7)(i) to account for the proposed revision to the 
definition of CBD diagnostic center discussed earlier in this proposal. 
As discussed in more detail above, the current definition of CBD 
diagnostic center 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 the definition to 
indicate that a CBD diagnostic center must be capable of performing 
those tests, but need not necessarily perform all tests during all 
evaluations. Nonetheless, OSHA intends that the employer provide those 
tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD 
diagnostic center.
    Accordingly, OSHA 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 that the employee receives those tests recommended by the 
examining physician and receives them at no cost and within a 
reasonable time. In addition, the revision would clarify OSHA's 
original intent that, instead of requiring all 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. OSHA further notes 
that, by requiring the employer to provide those tests recommended by 
the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center that was 
previously agreed-upon by the employer and employee, OSHA intends those 
tests to be provided by the same CBD diagnostic center unless the 
employer and employee agree to a different CBD diagnostic center. OSHA 
expects this proposed revision to maintain safety and health 
protections for workers.
    In the proposal for the 2017 beryllium rule, 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 paragraph (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). The purpose of this 30-day requirement was to ensure that 
employees receive the examination in a timely manner. This time period 
is also consistent with other OSHA standards.
    However, since OSHA published the final rule, stakeholders have 
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. To address this 
concern, OSHA is 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 one of the types 
of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). 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. Providing a consultation before the full examination at the 
CBD diagnostic center demonstrates that the employer has made an effort 
to begin the process for a medical examination. It also allows the 
employee to consult with a physician to discuss concerns and ask 
questions while waiting for a medical examination. This consultation 
would allow 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 ensure that the 
employer secures an appointment for the evaluation in a timely manner. 
And 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 requests comments on this change, and specifically requests 
comment on whether it is appropriate to require the employer to provide 
a consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, rather than the full 
evaluation, within 30 days. OSHA also requests comment on whether a 
consultation via telephone or virtual conferencing methods is 
sufficient or whether it is appropriate to require the employer to 
provide an in-person consultation upon the employee's request.

G. Hazard Communication

    OSHA is also proposing changes to paragraph (m), communication of 
hazards, of the beryllium standard for general industry (82 FR 2470). 
This provision sets forth the employer's obligations to comply with 
OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) relative 
to beryllium and to take additional steps to warn and train employees 
about the hazards of beryllium.
    Paragraph (m)(3) addresses warning label requirements. This 
paragraph requires the employer to label each bag and container of 
clothing, equipment, and materials contaminated with beryllium, and 
specifies the precise wording on the label. OSHA is proposing to modify 
the language in paragraph (m)(3) to remove the words ``bag and'' and 
insert the descriptive adjective ``immediate'' to clarify that the 
employer need only label the immediate container of beryllium-
contaminated

[[Page 63759]]

items. OSHA is proposing this change to be consistent with the HCS 
regarding bags or containers within larger containers. Under the HCS, 
only the primary or immediate container must be labeled and not the 
larger container holding the labeled bag or container. See 29 CFR 
1910.1200(c) (definition of ``Label''). This change would effectuate 
OSHA's intent, expressed in the final rule, that the hazard 
communication requirements of the beryllium standard ``be substantively 
as consistent as possible'' with the HCS (82 FR 2724). It would 
therefore maintain safety and health protections for workers.
    Paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) addresses employee information and training 
and requires the employer to ensure that each employee exposed to 
airborne beryllium can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the 
health hazards associated with airborne exposure to and contact with 
beryllium, including the signs and symptoms of CBD. OSHA is proposing 
to modify the language in paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) by adding the word 
``dermal'' to contact with beryllium. This revision would clarify 
OSHA's intent that employers must ensure that exposed employees can 
demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards caused by 
dermal contact with beryllium.
    Similarly, paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) addresses employee information 
and training and requires the employer to ensure that each employee 
exposed to airborne beryllium can demonstrate knowledge and 
understanding of measures employees can take to protect themselves from 
airborne exposure to and contact with beryllium, including personal 
hygiene practices. OSHA is proposing to modify the language in 
paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) by adding the word ``dermal'' to contact with 
beryllium. This revision would clarify OSHA's intent that employers 
must ensure exposed employees can demonstrate knowledge and 
understanding of measures employees can take to protect themselves from 
dermal contact with beryllium. OSHA expects these proposed changes 
would maintain safety and health protections for workers.

H. Recordkeeping

    OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (n), Recordkeeping, by 
removing the requirement to include each employee's Social Security 
Number (SSN) in the air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)), medical 
surveillance ((n)(3)((ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) provisions.
    The 2015 beryllium NPRM proposed to require inclusion of the 
employee's SSN in records related to air monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and training, similar to provisions in previous 
substance-specific health standards. As OSHA explained in the 2017 
beryllium final rule, using an employee's SSN is a useful tool for 
evaluating an individual's exposure over time because an SSN is unique 
to an individual, is retained for a lifetime, and does not change when 
an employee changes employers (82 FR 2730). OSHA received several 
objections to the proposed requirement, citing employee privacy and 
identity theft concerns. OSHA recognized the privacy concerns expressed 
by commenters regarding this requirement, but concluded that the 
beryllium rule should adhere to the agency's past consistent practice 
of requiring an employee's SSN on records, and that any change to this 
requirement should be comprehensive and apply to all OSHA standards, 
not just the standards for beryllium (82 FR 2730). In 2016, OSHA 
proposed to delete the requirement that employers include SSNs in 
records required by its substance-specific standards in the agency's 
Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV) proposed rule (81 FR 
68504, 68526-68528 (10/4/16)). Consistent with the SIP-IV proposal, 
OSHA is now proposing to modify the beryllium standard for general 
industry by removing the requirement to include SSNs in the 
recordkeeping provisions in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F) (air monitoring 
data), (n)(3)((ii)(A) (medical surveillance), and (n)(4)(i) (training).
    This proposed change would not require employers to delete employee 
SSNs from existing records. It would also not mandate a specific type 
of identification method that employers should use on newly-created 
records, but would instead provide employers with the flexibility to 
develop systems that best work for their unique situations. Therefore, 
employers would have the option to continue to use SSNs as employee 
identifiers for their records or to use an alternative employee 
identifier system. OSHA expects this proposed change would maintain 
safety and health protections for workers.

III. Legal Considerations

    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:

    [t]he Secretary . . . shall 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 the changes and clarifications proposed by this 
rulemaking do not affect that determination. See, e.g., 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'').

[[Page 63760]]

    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 almost unlimited discretion to devise means to 
achieve the congressionally mandated goal'' of ensuring worker safety 
and health. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230 (citation omitted). 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 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:

    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. 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 Sec.  6(b)(5).

Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509. Thus, while OSHA estimates the costs and 
benefits of its proposed and final rules, in part to ensure compliance 
with requirements such as those in Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, 
these calculations do not form the basis for the agency's regulatory 
decisions.

IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Certification (PEA)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 
1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net 
benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that 
OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, 
and promoting flexibility. For this proposal, possible effects of each 
provision on costs and benefits appear to be relatively small, and OSHA 
has not been able to quantify them. Nor has OSHA been able to quantify 
the cost savings it expects from preventing misinterpretation and 
misapplication of the standard. OSHA expects that this rule, if 
finalized, will increase understanding and increase compliance with the 
standard. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 
deregulatory action. Moreover, and as mentioned above, OSHA expects 
this proposed rule would maintain safety and health protections for 
workers.
    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed rulemaking is 
not an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866 or a ``major rule'' under the Congressional Review Act (5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and its impacts do not trigger the analytical 
requirements of UMRA.
    In promulgating the 2017 final rule, OSHA determined that the 
beryllium rule was both technologically and economically feasible. See 
82 FR 2582-86, 2590-96, Summary of the Final Economic Analysis. The 
changes proposed herein are intended to align the rule more clearly 
with the intent of the 2017 final rule. Because OSHA has preliminarily 
determined that this proposal would decrease the costs of compliance by 
preventing misinterpretation and misapplication of the standard, OSHA 
has also preliminarily determined that the proposal is economically 
feasible.
    OSHA invites public comment on all aspects of this PEA.

A. Proposed Clarifications

    As previously explained in Section II, Discussion of Proposed 
Changes, many of the changes proposed in this NPRM are solely for 
purposes of clarification and therefore would not alter the 
requirements or scope of the beryllium standard, though they would 
facilitate its appropriate interpretation and application. These 
include: The addition of a definition of beryllium sensitization to 
paragraph (b); minor changes to the definitions of CBD diagnostic 
center and chronic beryllium disease in paragraph (b); minor changes to 
the written exposure control plan provisions in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D) 
and paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B); minor changes to provisions for the 
cleaning of PPE in paragraph (h)(3)(iii); minor changes to the cleaning 
of PPE upon entry to eating or drinking areas in paragraph (i)(4)(ii); 
a minor change in the PPE removal provision of paragraph (h)(2)(i); and 
minor changes to provisions for employee information and training in 
paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) and

[[Page 63761]]

(m)(4)(ii)(E).\1\ Because OSHA does not intend or expect these proposed 
changes to alter the requirements or the scope of the standard, OSHA 
does not anticipate that these changes would result in costs to 
employers, and anticipates they would trigger cost savings that follow 
from simplifying and facilitating compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, for a 
detailed explanation of each proposed change to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Revisions

    Some proposed changes would go beyond clarification and alter 
certain requirements of the beryllium standard while maintaining safety 
and health protections for workers. The following subsections examine 
the provisions for which proposed changes may affect costs and the 
potential cost impact of these provisions, along with associated 
interrelated provisions. These provisions include: changes to the 
definitions of beryllium work area, confirmed positive, and dermal 
contact with beryllium in paragraph (b); a change to the requirements 
for washing facilities in paragraph (i)(1), a change to the 
requirements for provision of change rooms in paragraph (i)(2); changes 
to the requirements pertaining to disposal and recycling in paragraph 
(j)(3); a change to the requirements for medical surveillance following 
an employee's exposure to beryllium in an emergency in paragraph 
(k)(2); revision to provisions for evaluation at a CBD diagnostic 
center in paragraph (k)(7)(i); a change to the requirements for warning 
labels in paragraph (m)(3); and changes to the requirements for 
recordkeeping in paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and 
(n)(4)(i). The agency preliminarily estimates that there would be no 
added costs due to the proposed changes to the definition of dermal 
contact with beryllium, the change rooms provision, the warning labels 
requirement, or the recordkeeping requirement, but that there would be 
potential cost savings from improving employer understanding and 
facilitating application of the rule. OSHA has preliminarily determined 
that cost savings would also result from the remainder of the changes, 
which would likewise improve employer understanding and are examined 
individually after this summary. OSHA has preliminarily identified only 
one new potential cost, which results from the proposed changes as a 
whole: a de minimis cost for the time employers will need to become 
familiar with any changes resulting from this rulemaking. OSHA 
therefore preliminarily anticipates that the net effect of the proposed 
changes would result in some cost savings.
1. Definition of Beryllium Work Area
    The proposed definition of beryllium work area is any work area 
where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight 
are processed either during any of the operations listed in proposed 
Appendix A; or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to 
be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. The 
proposed definition differs from the current definition in that, under 
the proposal, operations that are reasonably expected to release 
airborne beryllium only at concentrations below the action level and 
that do not appear in Appendix A would no longer trigger the 
establishment of a beryllium work area. In addition, the proposed 
definition would not trigger the establishment of a beryllium work area 
for operations where employees have the potential for dermal contact 
with beryllium, but that do not appear in Appendix A and are not 
reasonably expected to generate airborne beryllium at concentrations at 
or above the action level. Under the current definition, any potential 
for dermal contact results in a beryllium work area.
    OSHA expects that the proposed definition of beryllium work area 
would not alter the number or location of beryllium work areas that 
employers in general industry must establish under the current rule. 
The proposed modification is not intended to significantly change the 
operations where a beryllium work area is established. Rather, it is 
intended to provide greater clarity to employers on when and where 
beryllium work areas are required and to avoid the potential for 
confusion--and potential expense inconsistent with the intended 
application of the rule--in the triggering of a beryllium work area at 
``any level of exposure'' or on ``dermal contact with beryllium.'' The 
current standard's definition of beryllium work area requires, first, 
the presence of a process or operation that can release beryllium. As 
discussed in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the operations listed in Appendix A of 
this proposal include common operations in general industry that can 
release beryllium, and the agency has requested comment on additional 
operations capable of releasing beryllium for inclusion in Appendix A.
    In the FEA supporting the 2017 beryllium final rule, OSHA estimated 
that, on average, one beryllium work area would need to be established 
for every 12 at-risk workers in the exposure profile (2017 FEA, pp. V-
164-165). The FEA defined an at-risk worker as one ``whose exposure to 
beryllium could result in disease or death'' and did not account for 
those workers who may have skin exposure but no airborne exposure to 
beryllium (2017 FEA, p. III-1). Because proposed Appendix A is designed 
to cover the same general industry processes as the current beryllium 
work area definition based on Chapter IV of the 2017 Beryllium FEA, and 
because those with dermal contact with beryllium but no airborne 
exposure were not accounted for in the 2017 cost estimate, OSHA 
anticipates the same number of beryllium work areas as estimated for 
the 2017 final rule. OSHA does, however, expect that this proposed 
clarification would result in reduced employer time for determining 
which areas should be demarcated as beryllium work areas under the 
standard. OSHA originally estimated that the initial set-up of a 
beryllium work area would take a supervisor four hours. OSHA expects 
that under the proposed revisions to the definition of a beryllium work 
area, employers will have more clarity about where beryllium work areas 
should be established and will spend less time identifying such areas. 
OSHA does not have sufficient information to quantify this time 
reduction but believes that, overall, this revision to the definition 
of a beryllium work area would produce a cost savings. OSHA requests 
comment on this preliminary determination, including comment on how to 
quantify the effect of greater clarity on the cost of setting up a 
beryllium work area. OSHA expects the proposed revisions would maintain 
safety and health protections for workers.
2. Definition of Confirmed Positive
    OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of confirmed positive to 
require that the qualifying test results be obtained within one testing 
cycle (including the 30-day follow-up test period required after a 
first abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result), rather than over an 
unlimited time period that OSHA believes may lead to false positives 
that needlessly concern workers and their families and that do not 
enhance employee protections. 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

[[Page 63762]]

results) over an unlimited period of time, but would not have any such 
combination of results within a single testing cycle. OSHA 
preliminarily concludes that this change would not increase compliance 
costs and would incidentally yield some cost savings by lessening the 
likelihood of false positives. OSHA invites comment on this preliminary 
conclusion. Again, OSHA expects the proposed change would maintain 
safety and health protections for workers.
3. Definition of Dermal Contact With Beryllium
    OSHA is proposing to modify the definition for dermal contact with 
beryllium, but does not anticipate any cost impact from this change 
other than possible prevention of expenses that misinterpretation or 
misapplication of the standard might lead to. Paragraph (b) of the 
beryllium standard currently defines dermal contact with beryllium as 
skin exposure to soluble beryllium compounds, beryllium solutions, or 
dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium, where these materials 
contain beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
percent by weight. OSHA is proposing two changes to this definition. 
First, OSHA proposes to add the term ``visible'' to the definition, so 
that the third form of dermal contact with beryllium would be limited 
to contact with ``visible dust, fumes, or mists'' containing beryllium 
in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. 
Second, OSHA proposes to add a sentence to the definition specifying 
that handling of beryllium materials in a non-particulate solid form 
that is free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations 
greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered dermal 
contact under the standard.
    The 2017 FEA estimated the costs of provisions related to dermal 
contact with beryllium based on the number of employees working in 
application groups where beryllium is processed. Following the 
publication of the 2017 standard, OSHA received feedback from employers 
concerned that if the definition was not limited to ``visible'' dust, 
fumes, or mist, then all employees in a facility must be considered to 
have dermal contact with beryllium because they may have come into 
contact with non-visible beryllium particulate outside of a beryllium 
work area or when handling beryllium materials in non-particulate solid 
form. This was not OSHA's intent, as reflected in OSHA's previous cost 
estimates for the relevant beryllium work area and PPE provisions. One 
employer also expressed concern that handling solid beryllium would 
fall within the definition of dermal contact with beryllium, but again 
that was not OSHA's intent, and OSHA had not estimated costs arising 
from protection from contact with this form of beryllium. As OSHA 
explained in the 2017 final rule, beryllium-containing solid objects, 
or ``articles,'' with uncompromised physical integrity, are unlikely to 
release beryllium that would pose a health hazard for workers (82 FR at 
2640). The cost of compliance with provisions triggered by dermal 
contact with beryllium is therefore not expected to increase as a 
result of either change to this definition.\2\ OSHA furthermore 
anticipates its proposed revisions would maintain safety and health 
protections for workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If there were a change in the cost of compliance with 
provisions triggered on dermal contact with beryllium, it would be a 
cost savings because these proposed changes clarify that the 
definition is not intended to be as broad as some may have believed 
it to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Hygiene Areas and Practices
    OSHA is proposing two changes to the hygiene areas and practices 
provision to account for the proposed changes to the definition of a 
beryllium work area and to ensure that the hygiene provisions related 
to washing facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees 
who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium 
regardless of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in 
the revised definition. First, OSHA is proposing a change in the 
wording of paragraph (i)(1), which specifies the employees for whom 
employers must provide washing facilities. As currently written, 
paragraph (i)(1) applies to each employee working in a beryllium work 
area. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) 
to each employee who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact 
with beryllium, in addition to each employee working in a beryllium 
work area, to account for the proposed removal of dermal contact with 
beryllium as a trigger for establishing a beryllium work area. Second, 
OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(2) (change 
rooms). As currently written, paragraph (i)(2) applies to employees who 
work in a beryllium work area. OSHA is proposing to apply the 
requirements of paragraph (i)(2) to employees who are required to use 
personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of 
the beryllium standard, instead of to employees who work in a beryllium 
work area.
    As discussed in Section B.1 of this PEA, OSHA is proposing several 
changes to the definition of beryllium work area to clarify where a 
beryllium work area should be established. One of the changes proposed 
is to remove dermal contact with beryllium as one of the triggers that 
would require an employer to establish a beryllium work area. If this 
proposed change to the definition of beryllium work area is finalized, 
it is OSHA's intention that the hygiene provisions related to washing 
facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees who can 
reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless 
of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised 
definition. OSHA therefore expects that the proposed change to the 
definition of dermal contact with beryllium, discussed in Section B.3, 
will not increase or decrease the number of change rooms or washing 
facilities from estimates of the 2017 FEA for these provisions, and 
thus will have no impact on compliance costs beyond what was originally 
contemplated in the 2017 final rule. Likewise, OSHA expects the 
proposed changes would maintain safety and health protections for 
workers.
5. Disposal, Recycling, and Reuse
    Paragraph (j)(3) addresses disposal and recycling of materials that 
contain beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or 
that are contaminated with beryllium. That paragraph currently 
specifies that (1) materials designated for disposal must be disposed 
of in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that 
are labeled according to paragraph (m)(3) of the beryllium standard, 
and (2) materials designated for recycling must be cleaned to be as 
free as practicable of surface beryllium contamination and labeled 
according to paragraph (m)(3), or placed in sealed, impermeable 
enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled according to 
paragraph (m)(3). OSHA is proposing several changes to this paragraph, 
changes that do not increase the costs of complying with the standard 
and may also result in savings to employers by preventing 
misinterpretation or misapplication of the rule.
    First, OSHA is proposing that provisions pertaining to recycling 
and disposal also address reuse, in addition to disposal and recycling, 
because in some cases materials may be directly reused without being 
recycled. This is to ensure that workers exposed to materials 
designated for reuse are adequately protected from dermal exposure to 
materials containing or

[[Page 63763]]

contaminated with more than a trace amount of beryllium. In the 2017 
FEA, the costs attributed to the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) for 
recycling included both direct reuse of materials as well as recycling 
(82 FR at 2695). Thus, this proposed change to paragraph (j)(3) would 
not change the costs of compliance with the standard.
    Second, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would clarify that labeling 
requirements under paragraph (m)(3) apply when the employer transfers 
materials to another party for disposal, recycling, or reuse. This is 
not a substantive change to the standard, but rather a reorganization 
of the existing provisions, and therefore does not impact costs of 
compliance with the standard.
    Third, the proposed addition of the phrase ``except for intra-plant 
transfers'' to paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) clarifies that the 
requirements in paragraph (j)(3) do not apply to transfers within a 
plant, and also would not be a substantive change to the standard. 
Since this proposed change would not alter the requirements of the 
standard, it would not affect the costs of compliance with the 
standard.
    Fourth, proposed paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and (iii) would require that 
materials not otherwise cleaned be placed in enclosures that prevent 
the release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under 
normal conditions of use, storage, or transport. This proposed change 
would clarify the final standard's requirement that the materials be 
placed in ``sealed, impermeable enclosures.'' As discussed in the 
preamble to the final standard (82 FR 2470, 2695), OSHA intended this 
requirement to be broad and the provision performance-oriented, so as 
to allow employers in a variety of industries flexibility to decide 
what type of enclosures (e.g., bags or other containers) are best 
suited to their workplace and the nature of the beryllium-containing 
materials they are disposing or designating for reuse outside the 
facility. The term ``impermeable'' was not intended to mean absolutely 
impervious to rupture; rather, OSHA explained that the enclosures 
should be impermeable to the extent that they would not allow materials 
to escape ``under normal conditions of use'' (82 FR 2695). Thus, the 
proposed change merely makes explicit what had been intended in the 
2017 final rule, and would not increase or decrease the costs of 
compliance with the standard beyond saving expense that could follow 
from its misinterpretation or misapplication.
    Fifth, paragraph (j)(3)(iii) would also clarify the cleaning 
requirements of the beryllium standard by removing the requirement that 
contaminated areas be cleaned ``of surface beryllium contamination.'' 
Elsewhere in the standard, OSHA uses the phrase ``as free as 
practicable of beryllium,'' and OSHA proposes to use that phrase in 
place of ``of surface beryllium contamination.'' OSHA has discussed the 
meaning of the phrase ``as free as practicable'' in the summary and 
explanation of paragraph (j) in the 2017 final rule (82 FR 2690), as 
well as previously in a 2014 letter of interpretation explaining the 
phrase in the context of the agency's standard for hexavalent 
chromium.\3\ OSHA believes the phrase ``as free as practicable of 
beryllium'' will more clearly convey the cleaning requirements under 
the beryllium standard than requiring cleaning ``of surface beryllium 
contamination.'' The proposed change would not substantively alter any 
of the employers' cleaning process costed in the 2017 FEA, and 
therefore would not increase or decrease the costs of compliance with 
the standard beyond saving expense that could follow from 
misunderstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OSHA, Nov. 5, 2014, Letter of Interpretation, available at 
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2014-11-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed paragraph (j)(3)(ii) would incorporate a new 
option for cleaning materials designated for disposal, using the same 
``as free as practicable of beryllium'' language used in the recycling 
and reuse provisions in proposed (j)(3)(iii). The beryllium standard 
currently does not include an option of cleaning materials designated 
for disposal and instead requires enclosure of all materials in 
containers. The agency had not previously considered situations where 
it would be impractical to require enclosure because the materials in 
question were large items such as machines or structures that may 
contain, or be contaminated with, beryllium, rather than more common 
items, such as beryllium scrap metal or shavings. It is OSHA's 
understanding that these larger items need not be enclosed when they 
are cleaned in accordance with the existing housekeeping provisions, 
which also require employers to keep their work areas as free as 
practicable of beryllium. Regardless of whether an employer chooses to 
clean or enclose materials designated for disposal, the labeling 
requirements under proposed paragraph (j)(3)(i) would still apply and 
would require the materials designated for disposal to be labeled in 
accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard. This proposed change 
would merely allow another option for materials designated for 
disposal. Because it would impose no additional requirements beyond the 
existing housekeeping duties already necessary before larger beryllium-
contaminated items could be moved away from beryllium work areas, there 
is no additional cost. OSHA expects employers to choose the lowest-cost 
option, so there may be cost savings in some individual cases as 
compared to the cost of enclosing. However, OSHA does not know how many 
employers may choose this option and therefore does not have sufficient 
information to quantify this potential cost savings at this time.\4\ 
OSHA expects the proposed changes would maintain safety and health 
protections for workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2017 FEA did not estimate a cost for enclosures for 
materials designated for disposal because OSHA judged that beryllium 
materials not used in a final product would typically either be 
large enough to provide sufficient economic incentive for recycling, 
or small enough that they could be vacuumed up (FEA, p. V-188). 
Therefore, in addition to having no basis to quantify how many 
employers may choose cleaning over containers, OSHA does not have a 
basis for estimating the amount of any potential cost savings for 
such employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Medical Surveillance Provisions
    Under paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B), the employer must provide a medical 
examination including a BeLPT within 30 days after determining that the 
employee shows signs or symptoms of CBD or other beryllium-related 
health effects or the employee is exposed to beryllium in an emergency. 
The standard provides that these employees must also be offered a BeLPT 
every two years following their initial BeLPT unless they are confirmed 
positive (paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E)).
    OSHA proposes to remove the requirement for a medical examination 
within 30 days of determining that an employee has been exposed in an 
emergency and add paragraph (k)(2)(iv), which would require the 
employer to offer a medical examination at least one year after, but no 
more than two years after, the employee is exposed to beryllium in an 
emergency. As discussed in the Discussion of Proposed Changes, testing 
within the first 30 days may be premature because beryllium 
sensitization might not be detected within 30 days after exposure in 
all individuals who may become sensitized. OSHA believes that the 
proposed time period for providing a medical examination would be more 
likely to enable detection of sensitization in more employees in the 
first test following exposure in an emergency, providing better worker 
protection.

[[Page 63764]]

    In the agency's FEA for the January 2017 final rule, the agency 
estimated that a very small number of employees would be affected by 
emergencies in a given year, likely less than 0.1 percent of the 
affected population, representing a small addition to the costs of 
medical surveillance for the standard (FEA, p. V-196). Under the 
current rule, some employees may require two examinations to be 
confirmed positive: An initial test within the initial 30-day period 
and (assuming the first test is normal) a second BeLPT at least two 
years later. Under the proposed rule, OSHA expects more of the 
employees who become sensitized from exposure in an emergency to be 
confirmed positive through a single test cycle because that test will 
be administered one to two years following the emergency. The general 
result is the elimination of one cycle of testing that appears to be 
premature, ensuring better detection for more employees and 
incidentally triggering some cost savings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Employees already participating in a medical surveillance 
program are entitled to a BeLPT screening every two years, even 
absent an emergency, but the initial 30-day screening following an 
emergency, required under the existing rule, would also satisfy the 
requirement for the medical surveillance two-year screening. 
Assuming that this initial analysis does not result in a confirmed 
positive diagnosis, that employee would not be confirmed positive 
until a second test two years later under the current rule. Under 
the proposal, the second test could be forgone and detection could 
occur sooner than it would under the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that lengthening the time period in which the test 
must be offered from within 30 days to between one and two years leads 
to earlier confirmed positive results (within two years, as opposed to 
within two years plus 30 days), the proposed change would slightly 
accelerate costs to the employer for earlier CBD diagnostic center 
referral and medical removal protection. OSHA estimates that this 
proposed change would affect a very small percentage of an already very 
small population. And this proposed revision would only potentially 
change the timing of the already-required BeLPT, CBD diagnostic center 
referral, and medical removal protection.
    The end result from a cost perspective is that the cost savings 
from the potential avoidance of a premature BeLPT within 30 days 
following an emergency is likely to be largely canceled out by the 
acceleration of the cost of the CBD diagnostic center evaluation and 
medical removal protection. OSHA has preliminarily determined that the 
net cost impact would be slight, with some possible cost savings.
    Paragraph (k)(7)(i) requires that the employer provide an 
evaluation at no cost to the employee at a CBD diagnostic center that 
is mutually agreed upon by the employee and employer within 30 days of 
the employer receiving a medical opinion or written medical report that 
recommends referral to a CBD diagnostic center, or a written medical 
report indicating that the employee has been confirmed positive or 
diagnosed with CBD. OSHA is proposing a change to paragraph (k)(7)(i) 
to account for the proposed revision to the definition of CBD 
diagnostic center discussed earlier in this proposal. As explained in 
Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, OSHA is proposing to amend 
this definition to clarify that a CBD diagnostic center 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. Nonetheless, OSHA intends that the employer provide those 
tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD 
diagnostic center. Accordingly, 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 one of the types 
of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). As explained 
in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, this consultation would 
allow the employee to speak with a physician to discuss concerns and 
ask questions prior to a medical evaluation for CBD, and would allow 
the physician to explain the types of tests that are recommended based 
on the employee's medical findings.
    The proposed provision could result in cost savings. 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 physician and would 
not have to include any travel or accommodation. 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). In the 
2017 FEA, OSHA accounted for the cost of both the employee's time and a 
physician's time for a 15-minute discussion (2017 FEA, p. V-206). 
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. To the extent that it takes longer than 30 days to schedule 
the tests at the CBD diagnostic center, employers may realize a cost 
savings due to retaining funds during the delay. OSHA cannot quantify 
the effect of this flexibility on any cost savings at this time, but 
travel and accommodation costs related to the CBD diagnostic center 
evaluation are only six percent of total CBD diagnostic center referral 
costs. The agency therefore preliminarily concludes these changes would 
produce minor, if any, cost savings. OSHA invites comment on this 
preliminary assessment.
    OSHA also notes that the proposed changes described here would 
maintain safety and health protections for workers.
7. Labeling
    Paragraph (m)(3) addresses warning label requirements. This 
paragraph requires the employer to label each bag and container of 
clothing, equipment, and materials contaminated with beryllium, and 
specifies precise wording on the label. OSHA is proposing to modify the 
language in paragraph (m)(3) to remove the words ``bag and'' and insert 
the descriptive adjective ``immediate'' to clarify that the employer 
need only label the immediate container of beryllium-contaminated 
items. The proposed clarification would be consistent with the hazard 
communication standard (HCS (Sec.  1910.1200) regarding bags or 
containers within larger containers. Under the HCS, only the primary or 
immediate container must be labeled

[[Page 63765]]

and not the larger container holding the labeled bag or container.
    In the 2017 Beryllium FEA, costs were taken only for the bag label 
and not for the label of any larger container holding the bag. Thus, 
this proposed clarification has no cost implications. And the revision 
would maintain safety and health protections for workers.
8. Recordkeeping
    OSHA is proposing to modify paragraph (n), Recordkeeping, by 
removing the requirement to include each employee's Social Security 
number (SSN) in the air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)), medical 
surveillance ((n)(3)((ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) provisions. 
This proposed change would not require employers to delete employee 
SSNs from existing records, or to include an alternative unique 
employee identifier on those records. Furthermore, it would not mandate 
a specific type of identification method that employers should use on 
newly-created records, but would instead provide employers with the 
flexibility to develop systems that best work for their unique 
situations. As a result, OSHA estimates that this proposed revision has 
no cost implications--and it would maintain safety and health 
protections for workers.

C. Additional Familiarization

    OSHA expects that if this proposal is finalized, employers will 
spend a small amount of time reviewing these proposed changes. This 
amount of time would be negligible compared to the amount of time 
employers spent reviewing the 2017 final beryllium rule. In addition, 
OSHA notes that many affected employers would already be familiar with 
the proposed changes because the proposed regulatory text changes were 
made public in April 2018 (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2156). OSHA 
therefore expects the cost of familiarization with this proposal would 
be de minimis and welcomes comment on this preliminary determination.

D. Economic and Technological Feasibility

    In the FEA in support of OSHA's 2017 Beryllium Final Rule, OSHA 
concluded that the general industry beryllium standard was economically 
and technologically feasible (82 FR 2471). As explained above, OSHA 
anticipates that none of the changes in this proposal would impose any 
new employer obligations or increase the overall cost of compliance, 
while some of the changes in this proposal would clarify and simplify 
compliance in such a way that results in cost savings. OSHA expects 
that the cost of any time spent reviewing the changes in this proposal, 
as described above in Section C, will be more than offset by cost 
savings. None of the revisions to the standard requires any new 
controls or other technology. OSHA has therefore preliminarily 
determined that this proposal is also economically and technologically 
feasible.

E. Effects on Benefits

    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA attributed approximately 67 percent of the 
beryllium sensitization cases and the CBD cases avoided, and none of 
the lung cancer cases avoided, solely to the ancillary provisions of 
the standard. (2017 FEA, Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2042, p. VII-
4-VII-5, VII-24.) This estimate was based on the ancillary provisions 
as a whole, rather than each provision separately.
    As described in Section II, Discussion of Proposed Changes, the 
proposed changes are intended to clarify and simplify compliance with 
certain ancillary provisions of the 2017 general industry beryllium 
standard and facilitate employer understanding of its requirements. 
This NPRM does not propose to remove any ancillary provision. Thus, the 
group of ancillary provisions that would result from finalizing these 
proposed revisions to the beryllium standard includes a provision 
similar to each of those in the 2017 final rule.
    Furthermore, the agency considered the potential effect of each 
proposed change to ancillary provisions on employee protections. OSHA 
believes that the proposed changes would maintain safety and health 
protections for workers while aligning the standard with the intent 
behind the 2017 final rule and otherwise preventing costs that could 
follow from misinterpretation or misapplication of the standard. 
Moreover, facilitating employer understanding and compliance has the 
benefit of enhancing worker protections overall. Because the proposed 
revisions to the standard would not remove or change the general nature 
of any ancillary provisions, and because the agency expects proposed 
revisions to maintain safety and health protections for workers and 
facilitate employer understanding and compliance, OSHA preliminarily 
determines that the effect of these proposed changes on benefits of the 
standard as a whole would be to increase them by enhancing worker 
protections overall and by preventing costs that follow from 
misunderstanding the standard.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA has examined the regulatory requirements of 
this proposal to revise the general industry beryllium standard to 
determine whether they would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The proposal would modify the 
general industry standard to clarify certain provisions and simplify or 
improve compliance. It would not impose any new duties or increase the 
overall cost of compliance and would provide some cost savings. OSHA 
therefore expects that this proposal would not have a significant 
economic impact on any small entities. Accordingly, OSHA certifies that 
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

V. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

A. Overview

    The standard for occupational exposure to beryllium in general 
industry (29 CFR 1910.1024) contains information collection 
requirements that are subject to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 
1320. The agency is proposing to revise the existing previously 
approved paperwork package under OMB control number 1218-0267 for 
general industry. This proposal would remove provisions in the 
beryllium standard for general industry that require employers to 
collect and record employees' social security numbers; modify the 
housekeeping requirements that require employers to label those 
materials designated for disposal, recycling, or reuse that either 
contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with 
beryllium; and clarify what tests are required when an employee is 
referred to a CBD diagnostic center.
    The PRA defines a collection of information as ``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

[[Page 63766]]

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 an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
to OMB proposing to remove the current collection of information that 
requires employers to collect and record social security numbers from 
the existing OMB approved paperwork package in accordance with 44 
U.S.C. 3507(d). The ICR also reflects proposed changes to the beryllium 
standard's housekeeping and medical surveillance provisions, described 
below. The agency solicits comments on these proposed changes to the 
collection of information requirements and reduction in estimated 
burden hours associated with these requirements, including comments on 
the following items:
     Whether the proposed 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.

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 this ICR.
    1. Title: The Occupational Exposure to Beryllium Standard for 
General Industry
    2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would remove the collection 
and recording of social security numbers in general industry and modify 
housekeeping and CBD diagnostic center requirements for the beryllium 
in general industry ICR.
    3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements: The 
proposed beryllium ICR would remove and revise the collection of 
information requirements contained in the beryllium general industry 
standard by modifying and clarifying the intent for certain collection 
of information requirements. The proposed changes to the beryllium 
general industry standard would remove the collection and recording of 
Social Security Numbers from air monitoring, medical surveillance, and 
training provisions under paragraph (n) of the standard.
    In addition, OSHA is proposing to update paragraph (j)(3) by 
clarifying the labeling requirements for beryllium-contaminated 
materials designated for disposal, recycling, or reuse. The proposed 
change will also clarify how materials designated for recycling or 
reuse that either contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are 
contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as 
practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the 
release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal 
conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers.
    OSHA is also proposing to revise both the definition of a CBD 
diagnostic center and paragraph (k)(7)(i) to indicate that the 
evaluation at the CBD diagnostic center must include a pulmonary 
function test as outlined by American Thoracic Society criteria, 
bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and transbronchial biopsy, only if deemed 
appropriate by an examining physician. These proposed changes clarify 
the original intent of these requirements. The agency believes that 
these changes would have benefits to both employees and employers and 
overall cost savings, but OSHA has not quantified those benefits and 
savings for this analysis. These proposed changes to the information 
collection requirements in this information collection request would 
affect the existing ICR but would have no measureable impact on 
employer burden, and would therefore impose no additional burden hours 
or costs for the employer.
    Totals estimated for burden hours and cost:
    4. OMB Control Numbers: 1218-0267.
    5. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. This standard 
applies to employers in general 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 (a)(3).
    6. Number of Respondents: [5,872].
    7. Frequency of responses: On occasion; quarterly, semi-annually, 
annually; biannually.
    8. Number of responses: [141,749].
    9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 83,694.
    10. Estimated Cost: [$20,585,273].

D. Submitting Comments

    Members of the public who wish to comment on 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-AD20), Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, 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-2018-0003), 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 notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in 
response to this notice 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 notice 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 Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, 
telephone (202) 693-2222.

VI. 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

[[Page 63767]]

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.

VII. 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 is clarifying and simplifying in nature and would 
impose no new requirements. Therefore, no new State standards would be 
required beyond those already required by the promulgation of the 
January 2017 beryllium standard for general industry. State-Plan States 
may nonetheless choose to conform to these proposed revisions.

VIII. 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.

IX. 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.

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

XI. Authority

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 30, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Beryllium, General industry, Health, Occupational safety and 
health.

Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated in the preamble of this notice of proposed 
rulemaking, OSHA is amending 29 CFR part 1910 to read as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority section for subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  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.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat. 
1901.
    Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.1024 as follows:
0
a. Add a definition for ``Beryllium sensitization'' in paragraph (b);
0
b. Revise in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Beryllium work 
area,'' ``CBD diagnostic center,'' ``Chronic beryllium disease (CBD),'' 
``Confirmed positive,'' and ``Dermal contact with beryllium'' in 
paragraph (b);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(B);

[[Page 63768]]

0
d. Revise paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (3)(iii);
0
e. Revise paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (4)(ii);
0
f. Revise paragraph (j)(3);
0
g. Revise paragraphs (k)(2)(i)(B), (iv), and (7)(i);
0
h. Revise paragraphs (m)(3), (4)(ii)(A), and (E);
0
i. Revise paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F), (3)(ii)(A), and (4)(i); and
0
j. Revise paragraph (p).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1910.1024   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 chronic beryllium disease (CBD), beryllium 
sensitization is essential for development of CBD.
    Beryllium work area means any work area where materials that 
contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are processed either: 
(1) During any of the operations listed in Appendix A of this Standard; 
or (2) where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, 
exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level.
    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.
* * * * *
    Dermal contact with beryllium means skin exposure to: (1) Soluble 
beryllium compounds containing beryllium in concentrations greater than 
or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; (2) solutions containing beryllium 
in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; or 
(3) visible dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in 
concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight. The 
handling of beryllium materials in non-particulate solid form that are 
free from visible dust containing beryllium in concentrations greater 
than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight is not considered dermal contact 
under the standard.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Procedures for minimizing cross-contamination, including the 
transfer of beryllium between surfaces, equipment, clothing, materials, 
and articles within beryllium work areas;
* * * * *
    (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 exposure to beryllium; or
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The employer must ensure that each employee removes all 
beryllium-contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment at 
the end of the work shift, at the completion of all tasks involving 
beryllium, or when personal protective clothing or equipment becomes 
visibly contaminated with beryllium, whichever comes first.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) 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 exposure to beryllium and that the personal 
protective clothing and equipment must be handled in accordance with 
this standard.
    (i) * * *
    (1) General. For each employee working in a beryllium work area or 
who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium, 
the employer must:
* * * * *
    (2) Change rooms. In addition to the requirements of paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of this standard, the employer must provide employees who are 
required to use personal protective clothing or equipment under 
paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this standard with a designated change room in 
accordance with this standard and the Sanitation standard (Sec.  
1910.141) where employees are required to remove their personal 
clothing.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) No employees enter any eating or drinking area with beryllium-
contaminated personal protective clothing or equipment unless, prior to 
entry, it is cleaned, as necessary, to be as free as practicable of 
beryllium by methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or 
onto an employee's body; and
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Disposal, recycling, and reuse.
    (i) When the employer transfers materials that contain at least 
0.1% beryllium by weight or are contaminated with beryllium to another 
party for disposal, recycling, or reuse, the employer must label the 
materials in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard;
    (ii) Except for intra-plant transfers, materials designated for 
disposal that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or are 
contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as 
practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the 
release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal 
conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers; 
and
    (iii) Except for intra-plant transfers, materials designated for 
recycling or reuse that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight or 
are contaminated with beryllium must be cleaned to be as free as 
practicable of beryllium or placed in enclosures that prevent the 
release of beryllium-containing particulate or solutions under normal 
conditions of use, storage, or transport, such as bags or containers.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 63769]]

    (B) An employee meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(B).
* * * * *
    (iv) At least one year but no more than two years after an employee 
meets the criteria of paragraph (k)(1)(i)(C).
* * * * *
    (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) * * *
    (3) Warning labels. Consistent with the HCS (Sec.  1910.1200), the 
employer must label each immediate container of clothing, equipment, 
and materials contaminated with beryllium, and must, at a minimum, 
include the following on the label:

DANGER
CONTAINS BERYLLIUM
MAY CAUSE CANCER
CAUSES DAMAGE TO LUNGS
AVOID CREATING DUST
DO NOT GET ON SKIN

    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The health hazards associated with airborne exposure to and 
dermal contact with beryllium, including the signs and symptoms of CBD;
* * * * *
    (E) Measures employees can take to protect themselves from airborne 
exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium, including personal 
hygiene practices;
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (p) Appendix. Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1024--Operations for 
Establishing Beryllium Work Areas
    Paragraph (b) of this standard defines a beryllium work area as any 
work area where materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium 
by weight are processed (1) during any of the operations listed in 
Appendix A of this Standard, or (2) where employees are, or can 
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above 
the action level. Table A.1 in this appendix sets forth the operations 
that, where performed under the circumstances described in the column 
heading above the particular operations, trigger the requirement for a 
beryllium work area.

    Table A.1--Operations for Establishing Beryllium Work Areas Where
Processing Materials Containing at Least 0.1 Percent Beryllium by Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Beryllium
                                       composite
                                      operations
Beryllium metal alloy operations    (generally >10%     Beryllium oxide
   (generally <10% beryllium by      beryllium by         operations
             weight)                  weight) and
                                    beryllium metal
                                      operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting...............  Abrasive Blasting.  Abrasive Blasting.
Abrasive Processing.............  Abrasive            Abrasive
                                   Processing.         Processing.
Abrasive Sawing.................  Abrasive Sawing...  Abrasive Sawing.
Annealing.......................  Annealing.........  Boring.
Bright Cleaning.................  Atomizing.........  Brazing (>1,100
                                                       [deg]C).
Brushing........................  Attritioning......  Broaching with
                                                       green ceramic.
Buffing.........................  Blanking..........  Brushing.
Burnishing......................  Bonding...........  Buffing.
Casting.........................  Boring............  Centerless
                                                       grinding.
Centerless Grinding.............  Breaking..........  Chemical Cleaning.
Chemical Cleaning...............  Bright Cleaning...  Chemical Etching.
Chemical Etching................  Broaching.........  CNC Machining.
Chemical Milling................  Brushing..........  Cold Isostatic
                                                       Pressing (CIP).
Dross Handling..................  Buffing...........  Crushing.
Deburring (grinding)............  Burnishing........  Cutting.
Electrical Chemical.............  Casting...........  Deburring
Machining (ECM).................                       (grinding).
                                  Centerless          Deburring (non-
                                   Grinding.           grinding).
Electrical Discharge............  Chemical Cleaning.  Destructive
Machining (EDM).................                       Testing.
Extrusion.......................  Chemical Etching..  Dicing.
Forging.........................  Chemical Milling..  Drilling.
Grinding........................  CNC Machining.....  Dry/wet Tumbling.
Heat Treating (in air)..........  Cold Isostatic      Extrusion.
                                   Pressing.
High Speed Machining (>10,000     Cold Pilger.......  Filing by Hand.
 rpm).
Hot Rolling.....................  Crushing..........  Firing of Green
                                                       Ceramic.
Lapping.........................  Cutting...........  Firing of
                                                       Refractory
                                                       Metallization
                                                       (>1,100 [deg]C).
Laser Cutting...................  Deburring.........  Grinding.
Laser Machining.................  Dicing............  Honing.
Laser Scribing..................  Drawing...........  Hot Isostatic
                                                       Pressing (HIP).
Laser Marking...................  Drilling..........  Lapping.

[[Page 63770]]

 
Melting.........................  Dross Handling....  Laser Cutting.
Photo-Etching...................  Electrical          Laser Machining.
                                   Chemical
                                   Machining (ECM).
Pickling........................  Electrical          Laser Scribing.
                                   Discharge
                                   Machining (EDM).
Point and Chamfer...............  Extrusion.........  Laser Marking.
Polishing.......................  Filing by Hand....  Machining.
Torch Cutting (i.e., oxy-         Forging...........  Milling.
 acetylene).
Tumbling........................  Grinding..........  Piercing.
Water-jet Cutting...............  Heading...........  Mixing.
Welding.........................  Heat Treating.....  Plasma Spray.
Sanding.........................  Honing............  Polishing.
Slab Milling....................  Hot Isostatic       Powder Handling.
                                   Pressing (HIP).
                                  Lapping...........  Powder Pressing.
                                  Laser Cutting.....  Reaming.
                                  Laser Machining...  Sanding.
                                  Laser Scribing....  Sectioning.
                                  Laser Marking.....  Shearing.
                                  Machining.........  Sintering of Green
                                                       Ceramic.
                                  Melting...........  Sintering of
                                                       refractory
                                                       metallization
                                                       (>1,100 [deg]C).
                                  Milling...........  Snapping.
                                  Mixing............  Spray Drying.
                                  Photo-Etching.....  Tape Casting.
                                  Pickling..........  Turning.
                                  Piercing..........  Water Jet Cutting.
                                  Pilger............
                                  Plasma Spray......
                                  Point and Chamfer.
                                  Polishing.........
                                  Powder Handling...
                                  Powder Pressing...
                                  Pressing..........
                                  Reaming...........
                                  Roll Bonding......
                                  Rolling...........
                                  Sanding...........
                                  Sawing (tooth
                                   blade).
                                  Shearing..........
                                  Sizing............
                                  Skiving...........
                                  Slitting..........
                                  Snapping..........
                                  Sputtering........
                                  Stamping..........
                                  Spray Drying......
                                  Tapping...........
                                  Tensile Testing...
                                  Torch Cutting
                                   (i.e., oxy
                                   acetylene).
                                  Trepanning........
                                  Tumbling..........
                                  Turning...........
                                  Vapor Deposition..
                                  Water-Jet Cutting.
                                  Welding...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-26448 Filed 12-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P