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

    \9\ As explained in the Abrasive Blasting section of the
Technological Feasibility chapter of the FEA, abrasive blasting
cleanup workers are those who are ``responsible for cleaning up
spent abrasive (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) at the end of the
day's blasting.'' Of the 30 cleanup workers in the exposure profile
of the FEA, two had exposures over the new PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\.
One cleanup worker had an 8-hour TWA sample result of 1.1 [micro]g/
m\3\, but blasting took place in the area during this worker's
cleanup task and it is likely that the nearby abrasive blasting
contributed to the sample result. The other cleanup worker had a
sample result of 7.4 [micro]g/m\3\, but that worker's exposure
appears to be associated with the use of compressed air for cleaning
in conjunction with nearby abrasive blasting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table V-11, where current labor compliance rates are 100
percent, OSHA indicates that removal of the ancillary provision in
question would have no effect on labor compliance rates.
    OSHA welcomes comments on the baseline compliance estimates shown
in Table V-11, particularly with respect to PPE and housekeeping.
    As a final point on baseline industry practices, OSHA acknowledges
the possibility of a future decline in the use of coal slag abrasive
materials and welcomes comment and information on this issue. To the
extent that coal slag abrasives are replaced by other blasting
materials which do not have the potential for beryllium exposures of
concern, the costs and benefits of the PELs for abrasive blasting
operations would also decrease.

            Table V-10--Loaded Hourly Wages and Hire Rate for Occupations (Jobs) Exposed to Beryllium and Affected by OSHA's Proposed Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fringe        Loaded
                                                                                Median       markup      hourly (or
      Provision in the standard                 Job               NAICS       SOC \a\           Occupation        hourly wage   percentage,   daily \d\)
                                                                                total \b\       wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring \c\......................  Industrial Hygienist             N/A          N/A  N/A....................          N/A           N/A      $164.81
                                       Consultant.
Monitoring \d\......................  IH Technician--Initial.  ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............          \d\
                                                                                2,642.59
                                      IH Technician--          ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............          \d\
                                       Additional and                                                                                1,321.30
                                       Periodic.
Regulated Area/Job Briefing \e\.....  Production Worker......        31-33      51-0000  Production Occupations.       $16.55            46        24.16
Medical Surveillance \e\............  Human Resources Manager        31-33      11-3121  Human Resources                49.61            46        72.42
                                                                                Managers.
Exposure Control Plan, Medical        Clerical...............        31-33      43-4071  File Clerks............        15.43            46        22.53
 Surveillance, and Medical Removal
 \e\.
Training \e\........................  Training Instructor....        31-33      13-1151  Training and                   28.32            46        41.34
                                                                                Development
                                                                                Specialists.
Medical Surveillance \e\............  Physician (Employers'          31-33      29-1062  Family and General             90.96            46       132.79
                                       Physician).                                        Practitioners.
Multiple Provisions \f\.............  First Line Supervisor..      Various      51-1011  First-Line Supervisors         28.14            46        41.08
                                                                                of Production and
                                                                                Operating Workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance.
\a\ 2010 Standard Occupational Classification System. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/soc/classification.htm.
\b\ BLS, 2016c, Document ID 1980.
\c\ ERG estimates based on discussions with affected industries, and inflated to 2016 dollars (BEA, 2017).
\d\ Wages used in the economic analysis for the Silica final rule, inflated to 2016 dollars. Wage rates shown are estimated daily remuneration for
  industrial hygiene services.
\e\ BLS, 2017a.
\f\ BLS, 2017a; Weighted average for SOC 51-1011 in NAICS 313000, 314000, 315000, 316000, 321000, 322000, 323000, 324000, 325000, 326000, 327000,
  335000, 336000, 337000, and 339000.

                                                    Table V-11--Estimated Current Compliance Rates for Industry Sectors Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action on Beryllium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hygiene
                                                           Exposure    Beryllium    Regulated      Medical      Medical      Exposure                        ----------------------------   Training                           Vacuum,
        Application group                   Job           monitoring   work areas   areas (%)   surveillance  removal (%)    control             PPE            Employee   Establishment      (%)       Housekeeping labor      bags,
                                                             (%)          (%)                      \a\ (%)                   plan (%)                             (%)           (%)                                           labels (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting Construction...  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
Blasting Construction............  Abrasive Blaster....            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Blasting Construction............  Pot Tender..........            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Blasting Construction............  Cleanup.............            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Blasting Shipyards *.............  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
Blasting Shipyards...............  Abrasive Blaster....            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Blasting Shipyards...............  Pot Tender..........            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Blasting Shipyards...............  Cleanup.............            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
Welding Shipyard **..............  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
Welding Shipyard.................  Welder..............            0            0            0             0            0            0  100% No Effect......            0             0             0  0%..................            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2016).
\a\ Estimated compliance rates for medical surveillance do not include medical referrals. OSHA estimates that baseline compliance rates for medical referrals are zero percent for all application groups shown in the table.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.

References
Brush Wellman, 2004. Individual full-shift personal breathing zone
(lapel-type) exposure levels collected by Brush Wellman in 1999 at
their Elmore, Ohio facility were provided to ERG in August 2004.
Brush Wellman, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Document ID 0578.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2017 (BEA, 2017). Table 1.1.9. Implicit
price deflators for Gross Domestic Product. February 28, 2017.
Available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=1929&903=13&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=0 (Accessed March 2, 2017).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010 (BLS, 2011). Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey--May 2010.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011 (BLS, 2012). Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey--May 2011.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016a). Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey--May 2015. (Released March 30, 2016).
Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed February
25, 2017).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016b). Job Openings and
Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS): 2015. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm (Accessed April 25, 2016).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016c). Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation--March 2016. News Release, June 9, 2016.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06092016.htm
(Accessed March 6, 2017).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016 (BLS, 2017a). Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey--May 2016. (Released March 31, 2017).
Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed March 31,
2017).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2017b). Occupational Outlook
Handbook. Painters, Construction and Maintenance. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/painters-construction-and-maintenance.htm#tab-2. December 17, 2015. Accessed April 5,
2017.
ERG, 2014. ``Summary of ERG Interviews on Abrasive Blasters' Use of
Beryllium Blast Media,'' Memo from Eastern Research Group, October
6. Document ID 0516.
Greskevitch, M., 2000. Personal email communication between Mark
Greskevitch of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) and Eastern Research Group, Inc., February 17,
2000. Document ID 0701.
Kolanz, M., 2001. Brush Wellman Customer Data Summary. OSHA
Presentation, July 2, 2001. Washington, DC. Document ID 0091.
Meeker, J.D., P. Susi, and A. Pellegrino, 2006. Case Study:
Comparison of Occupational Exposures Among Painters Using Three
Alternative Blasting Abrasives. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene 3(9): D80-D84. Document IDs 0698; 1606; and
1815, Attachment 93.
NIOSH, 1976. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
1976. Abrasive Blasting Operations: Engineering Control and Work
Practices Manual. NIOSH Publication No. 76-179. March 1976. Document
ID 0779.
NIOSH/KTA-Tator, 1998a. Evaluation of Substitute Materials for
Silica Sand in Abrasive Blasting. KTA-Tator, Inc. Prepared for
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. Contract No. 200-95-2946. September
1998. Document ID 1090; 1815, Attachment 85.
NIOSH/KTA-Tator, 1998b. Evaluation of Substitute Materials for
Silica Sand in Abrasive Blasting. Prepared for Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Prepared by KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Phase 2 (Field Investigations), December 1998. Document ID 0769;
1815, Attachment 86.
The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 1999. (NSRP, 1999)
Feasibility and Economics Study of the Treatment, Recycling and
Disposal of Spent Abrasives. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy,
Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California. NSRP
0529, N1-93-1. April 9. Document ID 0767.
The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 2000. Cost-Effective
Clean Up of Spent Grit. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy, Carderock
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with National
Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California. NSRP 0570,
N1-95-4. December 15. Document ID 0766.
OSHA. (OSHA, 2004). OSHA Integrated Management Information System.
Beryllium data provided by OSHA covering the period 1978 to 2003.
Document ID 0340, Attachment 6.
OSHA. (OSHA, 2005). Beryllium Exposure Data for Hot Work and
Abrasive Blasting Operations from Four U.S. Shipyards (Sample Years
1995 to 2004). Data provided to Eastern Research Group (ERG), Inc.
by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. March 2005. [Unpublished]. Document ID 1166.
Accessed March 10, 2017.
OSHA. (OSHA, 2009). Integrated Management Information System (IMIS).
Beryllium exposure data, updated April 21, 2009. Data provided to
Eastern Research Group, Inc. by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC
[Unpublished, electronic files]. Document ID 1165.
OSHA. (OSHA, 2016). Technical and Analytical Support for OSHA's
Final Economic Analysis for the Final Standard on Beryllium and
Beryllium Compounds: Excel Spreadsheets Supporting the FEA. OSHA,
Directorate of Standards, Office of Regulatory Analysis. December
2016. Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2044.
OSHA. (OSHA, 2017). Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs, Impacts,
and Benefits in Support of OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis
(PEA) for the Proposed Deregulatory Action of Removing the Ancillary
Revisions for the Maritime Sector and the Construction Sector from
the Scope of the New Beryllium Standards: May 2017.
Queensland Government, 1999. Abrasive Blasting Industry Code of
Practice. Department of Employment, Training and Industrial
Relations, Division of Workplace Health and Safety, Queensland
Government, Australia. June 22, 1999. Document ID 0694.
Small Business Advocacy Review, 2008 (SBAR, 2008). SBAR Panel Final
Report, OSHA. Document ID 0345.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. County Business Patterns: 2007. Available
at http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012. County Business Patterns: 2010. Available
at http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html. Document ID 0685.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. County Business Patterns: 2012. Available
at http://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2012/econ/cbp/2012-cbp.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. Statistics of US Businesses: 2012.
Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997a. (EPA, 1997a) Emission
Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 13.2.6, Abrasive Blasting.
Final Report. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. September. Document ID 0784.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b. (EPA, 1997b) EPA Office
of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Shipbuilding
and Repair Industry. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC Document No.
EPA/310-R-97-008. November 1997. Document ID 0783.
U.S. Navy, 2003. 6-19-2: Attachment (1). Navy Occupational Exposure
Database (NOED) Query Report Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling
Results for Beryllium. Document ID 0145. Accessed March 10, 2017.
WorkSafe, 2000. Code of Practice: Abrasive Blasting. WorkSafe
Western Australia Commission. June. Document ID 0692.

C. Costs of Compliance

Introduction
    In this section, OSHA estimates the cost savings to shipyard and
construction establishments in all affected application groups as a
result of this proposal to revoke the ancillary

provisions in the new shipyard and construction beryllium standards.
These ancillary provisions to be revoked encompass the following:
exposure assessment, beryllium regulated areas (and competent persons
in construction), a written exposure control plan, protective work
clothing, hygiene areas and practices, housekeeping, medical
surveillance, medical removal, and worker training. However, affected
employers are estimated to incur a small additional cost to familiarize
themselves with the changes to the ancillary provisions in the final
rule as a result of this proposal. These cost savings incorporate
OSHA's preliminary updated baseline compliance estimates described in
section V.B, on which OSHA seeks comment.
    These estimates of cost savings are largely based on the cost
estimates presented for Regulatory Alternative 2a in the preamble for
the new beryllium standards (82 FR 2470, 2612-2615 (January 9, 2017)),
which were in turn derived from the Costs of Compliance chapter
(Chapter V) of the supporting Final Economic Analysis (``2016 FEA'';
Document ID 2042). Note that, as OSHA has not proposed changing the
permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short-term exposure limit (STEL)
set forth in the new beryllium standards, OSHA has not estimated any
cost savings related to engineering controls or respirators. OSHA
retained the same calculation methodology from the 2016 FEA and has
updated the wages and unit costs from 2015 to 2016 dollars.
    OSHA estimates that this proposal would yield a total annualized
cost savings of $11.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate across
the shipyard and construction sectors. All cost savings in this section
are expressed in 2016 dollars and were annualized using discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent, as required by OMB.\10\ Costs in the 2016
FEA were expressed in 2015 dollars. Cost savings for this proposal have
been updated to 2016 dollars. Unit costs developed in this section were
multiplied by the number of workers who would have to comply with the
provisions, as identified in Section B of this PEA (Profile of Affected
Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees). The estimated
number of affected workers depends on what level of exposure triggers a
particular provision and the percentage of those workers estimated to
already be in compliance. In a few cases, costs were calculated based
on the number of firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See OMB Memo M-17-21 (April 5, 2017). OSHA included the 3
percent rate in its primary analysis, but Appendix V-A of this PEA
also presents costs by NAICS industry and establishment size
categories using, as alternatives, a 7 percent discount rate--shown
in Table V-22--and a 0 percent discount rate--shown in Table V-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost methodology is detailed in Chapter V of the 2016 FEA. A
discussion of affected workers is presented in Section B of this PEA.
Complete calculations are available in the OSHA spreadsheet in support
of this PEA (OSHA, 2017). Annualization periods for expenditures on
equipment are based on equipment life, and one-time costs are
annualized over a 10-year period.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Executive Order 13563 directs agencies ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In addition, OMB
Circular A-4 suggests that analysis should include all future costs
and benefits using a ``rule of reason'' to consider for how long it
can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this
time period. Annualization should not be confused with depreciation
or amortization for tax purposes. Annualization spreads costs out
evenly over the time period (similar to the payments on a mortgage)
to facilitate comparison of costs and benefits across different
years. In cases where costs occur on an annual basis, but do not
change between years, annualization is not necessary, and OSHA may
refer simply to ``annual'' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-12 shows, by affected application group and six-digit NAICS
code, annualized compliance cost savings for all establishments, for
all small entities (as defined by the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Administration's (SBA's) implementing regulations; see 15
U.S.C. 632 and 13 CFR 121.201), and for all very small entities
(defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees).
    The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost
either in the FEA in support of the January 9, 2017 final standards or
in the primary analysis of this PEA. It is important to note that there
is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead
to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that
should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs
of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the
cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range
of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government--for
example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\12\
and government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77
percent.\13\,\14\ Some overhead costs, such as advertising
and marketing, vary with output rather than with labor costs. Other
overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For example, rent
or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1
employee in a 500-employee firm, but those costs may change
substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is
able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then
the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major
office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very
difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated
with 2 hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002.
    \13\ Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey.
(https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-
sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx).
    \14\ For a further example of overhead cost estimates, please
see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal
cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative
adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17
percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA
in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase cost
savings by approximately $238,000 per year, or approximately 2.2
percent above the primary estimate of cost savings.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ OSHA is reluctant to make changes to the primary estimates
in this proposal that create cost savings greater than the original
costs estimated for the beryllium final rule.

    V-12--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
Proposed Shipyard and Construction Beryllium Standards; Results Shown by Size Category (3 Percent Discount Rate,
                                                  2016 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Very small
        Application group/NAICS               Industry               All        Small entities   entities  (<20
                                                               establishments    (SBA-defined)     employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320................................  Painting and Wall           $4,087,412      $3,445,984        $2,420,659
                                         Covering
                                         Contractors.
238990................................  All Other Specialty          3,787,418       2,916,925         1,998,054
                                         Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a...............................  Ship Building and            3,081,907         990,140           524,187
                                         Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Welding in Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b...............................  Ship Building and               34,217          11,283             6,421
                                         Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.................  ....................         7,874,830       6,362,909         4,418,712
Shipyard Subtotal.....................  ....................         3,116,125       1,001,423           530,608
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries.................  ....................        10,990,954       7,364,331         4,949,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.
 Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Estimated baseline compliance rates were presented in Table V-11 in
Section B of this preamble. The estimated costs for the new beryllium
standards represented the additional costs necessary for employers to
achieve full compliance. The cost of complying with the new beryllium
standards' program requirements therefore depended on the extent to
which OSHA believed employers in affected application groups had
already undertaken some of the required actions. For example, paragraph
(e)(1) of the new beryllium standard for shipyards required employers
to provide regulated areas if employee exposures cannot be reduced
below the final PEL by using engineering and work practice controls. If
all employers in an industry have already provided regulated areas,
perhaps by physically isolating high exposure processes and restricting
access, then the industry's compliance rate for that requirement would
be 100 percent, and that industry would incur no new costs for this
provision under the new beryllium standard for shipyards. Similarly, if
all employers in shipyards have already provided regulated areas, cost
savings from removing this requirement would not include the avoidance
of costs already incurred by employers in shipyards prior to enactment
of the new beryllium standards.
    Throughout this section, OSHA presents cost-saving formulas in the
text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of cost-
saving estimates for the individual provisions. Because the values used
in the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal
place, while the spreadsheets supporting the text are not limited to
two decimal places, the calculation using the presented formula will
sometimes differ slightly from the totals presented in the tables.
Program Cost Savings and Definitions of Affected Worker Populations
    This subsection presents OSHA's estimated cost savings from this
proposal due to revoking the ancillary provisions in the new beryllium
standards for shipyards and construction. The ancillary provisions
contained in the new beryllium standards encompass the following nine
employer duties, whose removal would each provide potential cost
savings: (1) Assess employees' exposure to airborne beryllium, (2)
establish beryllium regulated areas (and competent person in
construction), (3) develop a written exposure control plan, (4) provide
personal protective work clothing and equipment, (5) establish hygiene
areas and practices, (6) implement housekeeping measures, (7) provide
medical surveillance, (8) provide medical removal for employees who
have developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium
sensitization, and (9) provide appropriate training. In addition, OSHA
has estimated that employers would incur a modest cost to familiarize
themselves with the changes to the ancillary provisions in the final
rule as a result of this proposal.
    The affected worker population varies by each program element, as
discussed in each subsection below. For example, in the 2016 FEA the
regulated area program requirements triggered by the final PEL of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ would apply to a subset of shipyard workers: those for whom
feasible engineering controls and work practices are not adequate. In
this PEA, OSHA tracks the cost reductions in the same way and would
remove those costs.
    Cost savings for each removed program requirement are aggregated by
employment and by industry. For the most part, unit cost savings do not
vary by industry, and any variations are specifically noted.
Exposure Assessment
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    Under the new beryllium standards, the employer must assess the
exposure of each employee who is, or who may reasonably be expected to
be, exposed to airborne beryllium under either a

performance option or a scheduled monitoring option.
    The employer must reassess exposures whenever a change in the
production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices
may reasonably be expected to result in new or additional exposures at
or above the action level, or when the employer has any reason to
believe that new or additional exposures at or above the action level
have occurred.
Proposal Cost-Savings Estimates
    V-13 shows the unit cost savings for avoided initial monitoring and
subsequent monitoring. These savings are identical to the unit costs
identified in the 2016 FEA when adjusted to 2016 dollars.

            Table V-13--Exposure Monitoring Unit Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Initial       Subsequent
                  Item                      monitoring      monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial hygienist daily rate.........       $2,642.59       $1,321.30
Total samples collected per day \1\.....               6               6
Industrial hygienist cost per sample....         $440.43         $220.22
Laboratory cost to process sample.......         $150.79         $150.79
Total direct cost per time weighted              $591.22         $371.01
 average sample \2\.....................
Total direct cost for two STEL samples         $1,182.44         $742.01
 \3\....................................
Worker productivity loss per sample \4\.           $4.03           $4.03
HR recordkeeping per sample (includes              $6.04           $6.04
 employee notification) \4\.............
Total cost savings per time weighted             $601.28         $381.07
 average sample.........................
Total cost savings for two STEL samples.       $1,202.57         $762.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Assumes two workers sampled per day and three samples (one TWA
  sample and two STEL samples) taken per worker.
\2\ Includes the cost for one TWA sample plus laboratory cost to process
  sample.
\3\ Includes the cost for two short-term samples plus laboratory costs
  to process samples.
\4\ Includes the prorated cost for a single sample from a combination of
  one TWA and two short-term samples.
Sources: OSHA, 2016 (Document ID 2044); BEA, 2016 (Document ID 1970);
  OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory
  Analysis.

    OSHA estimates that the total annualized exposure assessment cost
savings would be $5,359,520 for all affected industries.\16\ These cost
savings, along with the cost savings for each affected NAICS industry,
are shown in Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-savings
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The exposure monitoring cost savings are calculated in the
cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column BL through CY. Initial
monitoring cost savings begin in column BT, additional monitoring
cost savings begin in column CC, and periodic monitoring cost
savings begin in column CI. The annualized cost savings are
calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in columns CQ through CY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beryllium Regulated Areas (and Competent Persons in Construction)
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    The new beryllium standard for shipyards requires the employer to
establish and maintain a regulated area wherever an employee's airborne
exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, either the
time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short
term exposure limit (STEL). A regulated area can include temporary work
areas where maintenance or non-routine tasks are performed. There is no
regulated area requirement for construction.
    Employers with employees in regulated areas must comply with
specific provisions that both limit employee exposure within the
boundaries of the regulated area and curb the migration of beryllium
outside the area.
    The new beryllium standard for the construction industry requires
that, wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be,
exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, the
employer designate a competent person to make frequent and regular
inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the
written exposure control plan.
    OSHA assumed that, in restricting access in construction, employers
would use the briefing option half of the time and direct access
control the other half.
Cost Savings Estimates
    Based on OSHA's cost estimates in the 2016 FEA (adjusted to 2016
dollars), the cost savings involved in removing the requirements of
setting up the regulated area in shipyards include initial set-up time
by a supervisor ($329), tape to demarcate the regulated area ($29
annually), and the one-time cost of warning signs to mark the regulated
area ($144). There is also the annual cost for daily use of disposable
clothing and two disposable respirators by authorized persons who might
need to enter the area in the course of their job duties ($6,900). The
annual total regulated area cost savings in shipyards for the tape,
clothing, and respirators is therefore $6,929, and annualized cost
savings is $55 (including the annualized value of the one-time labor
and sign costs of $329 and $144).
    In the new beryllium construction standard, a competent person must
implement the written exposure control plan to limit access to work
areas and ensure that employees use respiratory protection and personal
protective clothing and equipment. A competent person may implement the
written exposure control plan either by using the briefing option or
the direct access control option.
    As shown in Table V-14,\17\ the annual cost savings of the briefing
option are $90.16 per at-risk worker. These costs savings are drawn
directly from the costs in the 2016 FEA, beginning on page V-169, with
the adjustments previously described in this document. The labor cost
savings for the supervisor to plan and communicate the plan per job
($10.27 and $4.11, respectively), plus the labor cost savings per job
for the production worker to be briefed ($9.66) provides a total job
briefing cost savings per job of $24.04. Assuming an average of 15 jobs
per year (= 150 working days / 10 day average job length), this equates
to a job briefing cost savings per year of ($360.63 = $24.04 cost
savings per job briefing x 15 jobs per year). If the average number of
workers per crew is 4 workers, then the annual cost savings per worker
is

($90.16 = $360.63 cost savings per year / 4 workers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Note that numbers may not add due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost savings of the direct
access control option is $80.45 per at-risk crew member. This cost
savings per at-risk crew member includes the avoided supervisor time to
set up the area per job ($10.27) which, assuming 15 jobs per year,
equals $154.05 per year. Dividing the annual cost savings ($154.05) by
the average number of workers per crew (4) equals the per worker cost
savings for the avoided supervisor time to set up the area ($38.51).
The other unit cost savings are the annualized hazard tape cost savings
per worker ($35.55 = $9.48 hazard tape cost savings per job x 15 jobs
per year / 4 workers per crew). The annualized warning sign cost
savings per worker ($6.38 = $25.54 warning signs cost savings per year
/ 4 workers per crew), which total an annualized materials cost savings
per worker of $41.94. Adding the annualized cost savings per worker to
identify and set up the controlled access area ($38.51) to the
annualized materials cost savings per worker ($41.94) equals the total
cost savings of the direct access control option per worker per year
($80.45). Consequently, as shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost
savings of competent persons restricting access to work areas is $85.30
per at-risk crew member (average of $90.16 and $80.45).

           V-14--Unit Cost Savings for Not Implementing Written Exposure Control Plan in Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item                                                       Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Job Frequency and Crew Size Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average crew size (workers).....................               4
Average job length (days).......................              10
Working days per year...........................             150
Percentage choosing Option 1....................             50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Option 1: Job Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item                                                 Hour burden      Labor cost  Materials cost      Total unit
                                                                                cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisor time to revise plan per job..........            0.25          $10.27             N/A          $10.27
Supervisor and worker time for briefing per job.            0.10           13.77             N/A           13.77
Total per job...................................            0.35           24.04             N/A           24.04
Total cost savings per worker per year..........            1.31           90.16             N/A           90.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Option 2: Direct Access Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisor time to identify and set up work area            0.25           10.27             N/A           10.27
 per job........................................
Supervisor time to identify and set up work area            0.94           38.51             N/A           38.51
 per worker per year............................
Hazard tape cost savings per job (100 ft.)......             N/A             N/A           $9.48            9.48
Hazard tape cost savings per worker per year....             N/A             N/A           35.55           35.55
One-time warning signs cost savings (3 signs)...             N/A             N/A           72.23           72.23
Annualized warning sign cost savings (3%, 3                  N/A             N/A           25.54           25.54
 years).........................................
Annualized warning sign cost savings per worker.             N/A             N/A            6.38            6.38
Total annualized materials cost savings per                  N/A             N/A           41.94           41.94
 worker.........................................
Total cost savings per worker per year..........             N/A           38.51           41.94           80.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Weighted Average Annual Unit Cost Savings per Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual unit cost savings per worker.....             N/A             N/A             N/A           85.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.

    OSHA estimates the total annualized cost savings of regulated areas
and competent person requirements is $261,099 for all affected shipyard
and construction industries, with competent person requirements
accounting for $8,464 of the total.\18\ The cost savings for each
affected NAICS industry is shown in Table V-18 at the end of this
program cost-savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The regulated area cost savings are calculated in the cost
spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column CZ through FS. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3, and 0 percent in
columns FK through FS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written Exposure Control Plan
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    Under the new beryllium standards, employers are required, for
tasks generating airborne beryllium exposure above the action level, to
establish and maintain a written exposure control plan.
    Further, employers must update the exposure control plan when:
    (A) Any change in production processes, materials, equipment,
personnel, work practices, or control methods results or can reasonably
be expected to result in new or additional airborne exposures to
beryllium;
    (B) The employer becomes aware that an employee has a beryllium-
related health effect or symptom; or
    (C) The employer has any reason to believe that new or additional
airborne exposures are occurring or will occur.
    Finally, the employer must make a copy of the written exposure
control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can reasonably be
expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
Cost Savings Estimates
    The estimated cost savings per establishment for an average-sized
firm to develop the initial written exposure control plan is $579.39--
based on a manager spending 8 hours, at an hourly wage of $72.42 (Human
Resources

Managers, SOC: 11-3121), to develop the plan--for an annualized cost of
$67.92.
    In addition, because larger firms with more affected workers will
need to develop more complicated written control plans, OSHA estimated
that the development of a plan would require an extra thirty minutes of
a manager's time per affected employee. The cost for an extra thirty
minutes of a manager's time per affected employee to develop a more
complicated plan is $36.21 (0.5 x $72.42) per affected employee in this
PEA, for an annualized cost of $4.50 per employee.
    Because of various triggers under which the employer would have to
update the plan annually after the first year, the Agency further
estimated that, on average, managers would need 12 minutes (0.2 hours)
per affected employee per quarter--or 48 minutes (4 x 12), which equals
0.8 hours, per affected employee per year--to review and update the
plan. Thus, the cost for managers to review and update the plan would
be $57.94 (0.8 x $72.42 per affected employee for years 2-10.
    Finally, each year, 5 minutes of clerical time for providing each
employee with a copy of the written exposure control plan, at a
clerical wage of $22.53 per hour (File Clerks SOC 43-4071), comes to an
annual cost of $1.88 per employee.
    OSHA estimates that the total annualized cost savings for removing
the requirements for development, implementation, distribution, and
update of a written exposure control plan is $233,032 for all affected
industries in shipyards and construction.\19\ These cost savings, along
with the cost savings for each affected NAICS industry, are shown in
Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The written exposure control plan cost savings are
calculated in the cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column LG
through ML. The annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0
percent in columns MA through ML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    Under the new beryllium standards, personal protective clothing and
equipment are required for workers in shipyards and construction:
    1. Whose airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected
to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; or
    2. Where employees' skin can reasonably be expected to be exposed
to beryllium.
    For the most part, the cost savings for PPE follow the cost
estimates in the 2016 FEA. However, there are two exceptions. First,
the new beryllium standards require shipyard welders to wear gloves
because it is reasonable to expect that their skin will be exposed to
beryllium. In the 2016 FEA OSHA listed the shipyard welders' compliance
rate with this PPE requirement at 0 percent, inadvertently suggesting
that shipyard welders were not already wearing gloves when, in fact,
all shipyard welders are already required to wear gloves. In preparing
this proposal, OSHA reviewed its compliance rates and discovered the
oversight.\20\ As a result of this review, OSHA has preliminarily
adjusted estimated shipyard welding compliance rates with the PPE
requirement from 0 percent in the FEA to 100 percent for this proposal
and calculated proposed cost savings using this preliminary estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Upon review, the Agency now realizes that, under
1915.157(a) for PPE (as well as under OSHA guidance for shipyards
during welding), employers must provide gloves to protect against
burns. In addition, OSHA now understands that gloves for shipyard
welders are standard industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, for the same reason as with welders, the beryllium
standards also require abrasive blasters in shipyards and construction
to wear gloves as PPE. In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive
blasters in construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate
with the PPE requirements in the beryllium standard. However, upon
review, OSHA has preliminarily revised this estimate because the 2016
FEA inadvertantly did not take account of the fact that relevant PPE
was actually already required by other OSHA standards for abrasive
blasters in construction and shipyards. See 1915.34(c)(3)(iv);
1926.57(f)(5)(v). Additionally, OSHA has determined that relevant PPE
is required by the existing Personal Protective Equipment standard
(1926.95) and the existing Hand and Body Protection standard (1915.157)
to protect blasting helpers in construction and shipyards,
respectively, from dermal exposure to beryllium dust. Therefore, for
the purpose of calculating cost savings, the Agency now preliminarily
estimates that all affected employees are already required to be
equipped with PPE 100 percent of the time when exposed to beryllium.
Cost Savings Estimates
    As discussed above, given the existing PPE requirements, OSHA
estimates that there are no estimated cost savings as a result of
revoking the PPE requirements for construction and shipyard employers
in the beryllium final rule.
Hygiene Areas and Practices
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    The new beryllium standards require affected shipyard and
construction employers to provide readily accessible washing facilities
to remove beryllium from the hands, face, and neck of each employee
exposed to beryllium. The employer must also provide a designated
change room in workplaces where employees would have to remove their
personal clothing and don the employer-provided protective clothing.
The employer must ensure that each employee exposed to beryllium uses
these facilities when necessary.
Cost Savings Estimates
    The Agency included in the 2016 FEA no additional cost for readily
accessible washing facilities, under the expectation that employers
already have such facilities in place. OSHA notes that employers of
abrasive blasters exposed to beryllium in shipyards and construction
work are typically already required to provide readily accessible
washing facilities to comply with other OSHA standards.\21\ Therefore,
OSHA is estimating no cost savings from washing facilities due to this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ OSHA's shipyard standard at 29 CFR 1915.58(e) requires
handwashing facilities ``at or adjacent to each toilet facility''
and ``equipped with . . . running water and soap, or with waterless
skin-cleansing agents that are capable of . . . neutralizing the
contaminants to which the employee may be exposed.'' OSHA's
construction standard at 29 CFR 1926.51(f)(1) requires ``adequate
washing facilities for employees engaged in . . . operations where
contaminants may be harmful to the employees. Such facilities shall
be in near proximity to the worksite and shall be so equipped as to
enable employees to remove such substances.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is, however, including cost savings for the removal of
requirements to add a change room and segregated lockers. OSHA included
these costs in the 2016 FEA for acquisition of portable structures, for
employers who would need to add these. OSHA estimates that portable
structures, adequate for 10 workers per establishment, could be rented
annually for $3,579 (adjusted from Lerch, 2003) and that lockers could
be procured for a capital cost of $448--or $53 annualized--per
establishment (adjusted from Lab Safety, 2004). This results in an
annualized cost of $4,027 ($3,579 + $448) per facility for a portable
change room with lockers.
    OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that 10 percent of affected
establishments will be unable to meet the final TWA PEL and will,
therefore, require change

rooms. The Agency expected that, in many cases, a worker will simply be
adding, and later removing, a layer of clothing (such as a lab coat,
coverall, or shoe covers) at work, which might involve no more than a
couple of minutes a day. However, in other cases, a worker may need a
full clothing change. Taking all these factors into account, OSHA
estimated that a worker using a change room would need 5 minutes per
day to change clothes. The annual cost per employee to change clothes
(in a change room) is $480.54. This cost was based on a production
worker earning $24.16 an hour (Production Occupation, SOC: 51-0000) and
taking 5 minutes per day to change clothes for 250 days per year ((5/
60) x $24.16 x 250).
    The Agency estimates the total annualized cost savings of removing
the provision on hygiene areas and practices to be $1,573,230 for all
affected establishments.\22\ The breakdown of these cost savings by
NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-
savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The hygiene areas and practices cost savings are calculated
in the cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column NO through OU.
The annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns OJ through OU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Housekeeping
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    Housekeeping includes following the written exposure control plan,
promptly cleaning up all spills and emergency releases of beryllium,
and, when cleaning, using methods such as HEPA-filtered vacuuming. The
new beryllium standards prohibits cleaning methods that could cause
dust to be airborne, such as dry sweeping or compressed air without
adequate LEV, unless proper respiratory equipment is worn. All methods
must be in accordance with the written exposure control plan. When a
shipyard or construction employer transfers materials containing
beryllium to another party for use or disposal, the employer must
provide the recipient with a copy of the warning label language.
Cost-Savings Estimates
    OSHA estimated the following costs in the 2016 FEA in shipyards
(amounts adjusted for 2016 dollars): A one-time annualized cost per
worker of a HEPA-filtered vacuum ($614); the annual cost per worker of
the additional time needed to perform housekeeping ($503); and the
annual cost of the warning labels per worker ($5). The total annual
per-employee cost was $509, updated to 2016 dollars. Upon further
review, OSHA preliminarily determined that affected employers in
construction are already required to minimize dust accumulations
through compliance with 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(7), which requires that dust
not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up promptly,
and 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(3) and (f)(4), which require exhaust ventilation
and dust collection and removal systems in abrasive blasting operations
in construction. Similarly, the general industry Ventilation standard
requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be
cleaned up promptly in abrasive blasting in shipyards (see 29 CFR
1910.94(a)(7), 1910.5(c)). For these reasons, OSHA preliminarily
determined that affected employers would already have to perform some
housekeeping, and for the purpose of the cost savings estimates in this
proposal, OSHA is only including a cost savings for housekeeping in
abrasive blasting operations in construction and shipyards for the cost
of HEPA-filtered vacuums and similar equipment.
    The Agency estimates that there are 11,460 total affected employees
in blasting in construction and shipyards, as well as 26 affected
employees in shipyard welding, and that the total annualized cost
savings in this proposal of removing this ancillary provision is
$901,335.\23\ Of this, $886,008 is attributed to blasting in
construction and shipyards and encompasses only the cost savings for
HEPA vacuums and associated equipment. As shown in Table V-11 above,
OSHA preliminarily determined that employers in these operations are
already fully compliant with any labor requirements due to existing
requirements. The Agency has preliminarily determined that the shipyard
welding operation would not already be compliant with any labor
requirements; thus, the $15,327 estimated cost savings in this sector
is attributed to both labor and equipment. The breakdown of these cost
savings by NAICS code is shown in Table V-18 at the end of this program
cost-savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The housekeeping cost savings are calculated in the cost
spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column OV through PW. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns PO through PW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical Surveillance
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    The new beryllium standards require affected employers in shipyards
and construction to make medical surveillance available at a reasonable
time and place, and at no cost, to the following employees:
    1. Employees who have been, or are reasonably expected to be,
exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days in the last
12 months;
    2. Employees who show signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium
disease (CBD) or signs or symptoms of other beryllium-related health
effects, such as rashes;
    3. Employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
    4. Employees whose most recent written medical opinion required by
this standard recommends periodic medical surveillance.
Cost Savings Estimates
    OSHA previously identified the fees and other medical expenses that
employers would incur to comply fully with the medical surveillance
requirements in the new standards. Those costs would be saved under
this proposal and are expressed as cost savings in the tables that
follow.
Unit Cost Savings for Medical Surveillance
    Table V-15 below lists the direct unit cost savings for removing
initial medical surveillance activities including: Work and medical
history, physical examination, pulmonary function test, BeLPT, LDCT
scan, and additional tests.

    Table V-15--Direct Unit Cost Savings for the Medical Surveillance
                                 Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                                 Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Initial Medical Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work and medical history................................          $42.83
Physical examination (skin and respiratory tract).......         $128.48

Pulmonary function test.................................          $60.21
Cost Savings of additional tests deemed appropriate by           $220.19
 PLHCP..................................................
Percent of workers requiring additional tests...........             10%
Total initial medical cost savings per worker...........         $253.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Lost Work Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee hours..........................................            2.08
Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
HR manager hours........................................            0.25
HR manager wage.........................................          $72.42
Supervisor hours........................................            0.33
Supervisor wage.........................................          $41.08
Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................          $82.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Total Medical and Lost Work Time Cost Savings per Employee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost savings per employee.........................         $335.68
Annualized total cost savings per employee..............         $211.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  BeLPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BeLPT...................................................         $313.77
Employee hours..........................................            0.08
Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................           $2.01
Unit BeLPT cost savings per employee....................         $315.78
Annualized per employee cost savings of biennial BeLPTs          $198.97
 for 10 years \1\.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                LDCT Scan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDCT scan...............................................         $847.74
Review LDCT Scan with specialist........................         $275.24
Employee hours..........................................            3.50
Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................          $84.56
Unit LDCT scan cost savings per employee................       $1,207.54
Annualized per employee cost savings of biennial LDCT            $612.69
 scan for 10 years \2\..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Total Annualized cost savings per employee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................       $1,023.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Calculated as the annualized discounted present value of $1,640 for
  biennial BeLPTs. See following discussion for more detail.
\2\ Calculated as the annualized discounted present value of $3,363 for
  bi-annual CT scans. See following discussion for more detail.
Sources: National Jewish Medical Center, 2005 (Document ID 2001);
  Intellimed International, 2003, (Document ID 2012); Cost Helper, 2010;
  (Document ID 1990); BLS, 2017a; BLS, 2017c; BLS, 2016c (Document ID
  1980) ; BEA, 2017 (Document ID 1970); US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of
  Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Biennial Examination and Testing and BeLPT Testing
    The fees, in 2016 dollars, for the total unit annual cost savings
for the avoided medical examinations and tests (excluding the BeLPT
test) and the time required for both the employee and the supervisor is
$335.68. The total unit annual cost savings for the avoided BeLPT costs
is $315.78. Because the required medical examination and the BeLPT
would each typically occur only every two years, OSHA calculates the
annualized cost savings of removing that examination and the BeLPT test
as follows: taking the present value (PV) of the costs over 10 years
and then annualizing them over 10 years at 3 percent. Using this
methodology, the unit annualized biennial exam cost savings are $211.50
and the unit annualized BeLPT cost savings are $198.97.
LDCT Scans
    The new beryllium standards require that a low-dose computed
tomography (LDCT scan) be offered to employees eligible for medical
surveillance whenever recommended by the licensed physician.
    As it did with the 2016 FEA costs for LDCT scans, OSHA has based
its cost saving estimates on the eligible employees receiving LDCTs
every two years.
    The total yearly cost savings for biennial LDCT scans consists of
avoided medical costs totaling $1,122.98, comprised of an $847.74 fee
for the scan (CT-scan, 2012, Document ID 0568) and the cost of a
specialist to review the results, which OSHA estimates would cost
$275.24. The Agency estimates an additional cost savings of $84.56 of
lost work time,\24\ for a total of $1,207.54 ($1,122.98 + $84.56). The
annualized cost savings for avoided biennial CT scans is $364.00. The
annualized total

cost savings per employee is $612.69 ($430.13 + $139.65 + $42.91).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Time cost is calculated using a wage rate of $23.87
(Production Worker, SOC 51-0000) and a total of 3.5 hours lost: 60
minutes to travel to and from the appointment, 60 minutes to
administer the scan, 60 minutes to travel to and from a meeting with
a specialist to review the results and 30 minutes to review the
results with the specialist (updated from ERG, 2013) (Document ID
1781).
    \25\ The components represent the annualized unit cost-saving
elements of the LDCT scan, reviewing the LDCT scan with a
specialist, and lost work time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Workers Requiring LDCT Scans
    In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that the number of workers that the
physician recommends to receive LDCT scans would be 25 percent of
workers who are exposed above 0.2 in the exposure profile. The estimate
of 25 percent was based on the fact that roughly this percentage of
workers has 15+ years of job tenure in the durable manufacturing sector
(BLS, 2013, Document ID 0672) and that all those with 15+ years of job
tenure and current exposure over 0.2 would have had at least 5 years of
such exposure in the past. OSHA uses the same estimate in calculating
the cost savings in this PEA.
CBD Diagnostic Center Referrals and Evaluations
    For purposes of costing this consultation, OSHA used the marginal
costs of a physician's time (wages plus fringe benefits) of $132.79 per
hour (Physicians and Surgeons, All Other, SOC: 29-1069); the
physician's cost for the 15 minute consultation is therefore $33.20
((15/60) x $132.79). Similarly the worker's time for this consultation,
with a production worker's hourly wage of $24.16 (updated from
Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000), results in a cost for the
employee's time of $6.04 ((15/60) x $24.16). Hence the total employer
cost savings of avoiding this consultation is $39.24 ($33.20 + $6.04).
These cost savings are included in Table V-16 below.
    Table V-16 also lists the direct unit cost savings for a clinical
evaluation with a specialist at a CBD diagnostic center.

  Table V-16--Unit Cost Savings for Medical Evaluation and Testing per
               Worker Referred to a CBD Diagnostic Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                                 Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               All Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referral examination for new patients \1\...............       $6,456.80
Employer physician hours................................            0.25
Employer physician wage.................................         $132.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Travelling Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee hours..........................................           24.25
Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
Lost work time \2\......................................         $619.09
Cost-savings of travel & living expenses per employee            $620.71
 \3\....................................................
                                                         ---------------
    Total cost savings per travelling employee..........       $7,696.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Workers Tested Locally
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee hours..........................................            4.25
Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
Lost work time \4\......................................         $135.88
                                                         ---------------
    Total cost savings per non-travelling employee......       $6,592.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Weighted Average--All Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost-savings per employee.......................       $7,420.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes an exam with a specialist, blood tests, plethysmography, a
  pulmonary stress test, bronchoscopy with lung biopsy, and a chest CT
  scan. The unit costs of the components of the evaluation are
  considered confidential by Healthcare Facility A.
\2\ For \3/4\ of eligible workers, assumes three 8-hour work days for
  the employee at $24.16/hour as well as a 15 minute discussion between
  the employee and the physician at $132.79/hour. See following
  discussion for more detail.
\3\ Includes out-of-town travel costs and $53/day living expenses for \3/
  4\ of workers. See following discussion for more detail.
\4\ For \1/4\ of eligible workers, assumes four hours for the employee
  at $24.16/hour as well as a 15 minute discussion between the employee
  and the physician at $132.79/hour. See following discussion for more
  detail.
Sources: Healthcare Facility A, 2014 (Document ID 2044): U.S. DOT, 2012
  (PEA) (Document ID 2031); OSHA Estimate (PEA) (Document ID 0385); BLS,
  2016a (Document ID 1978); BLS, 2016 (Document ID 1980); BEA, 2016
  (Document ID 1970): U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
  Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    In addition, as shown in Table V-16, there are cost savings for
avoided lost productivity and travel.
    The total cost of a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD
diagnostic center is equal to the cost of the examination plus the cost
of lost work-time and the cost for the employee to travel to the CBD
diagnostic center. For the two latter types of costs, 75 percent were
based on out-of-town travel to a CBD diagnostic center and 25 percent
were based on a local CBD diagnostic center. The resulting weighted-
average cost-saving estimates of $7,420.62 for testing at a CBD
diagnostic center are presented in Table V-16.
    Employees who are not already diagnosed with CBD can be referred to
a CBD diagnostic center if the employee is confirmed positive
(sensitized to beryllium). OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that during
the first year that the medical surveillance provisions are in effect
14.0 percent of the 640 workers who are tested for beryllium
sensitization will be confirmed positive for sensitization (through
BeLPT tests) and referred to a CBD diagnostic center.

    Based on these unit costs and the number of employees requiring
medical surveillance estimated above, OSHA estimated that the removal
by this proposal of the medical surveillance and referral provisions
would result in an annualized total cost savings of $1,414,112.\26\
These cost savings by NAICS code are shown in Table V-18 at the end of
the program cost-savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The medical surveillance cost savings are calculated in the
cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column FT through KK. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns JT through KK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical Removal Provision
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    For affected construction and shipyard establishments, if an
employee works in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action
level, is diagnosed with CBD or confirmed positive, and provides
documentation of the employee's diagnosis of CBD or confirmed positive
status to the employer, that employee is eligible for medical removal
and has two choices:
    i. Removal from the current job, or
    ii. Remain in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action
level while wearing a respirator in accordance with paragraph (g) of
the standards.
    If the employee chooses removal, the employee must accept
comparable work if such work is available. If comparable work is not
available the employer must offer the employee paid leave for six
months or until such time as comparable work becomes available,
whichever comes first. During that six-month period, whether the
employee is re-assigned or placed on paid leave, the employer must
continue to maintain the employee's base earnings, seniority and other
rights and benefits that existed at the time of removal.
Cost Savings Estimates
    Revoking the medical removal provision would provide cost savings
due to workers no longer being eligible for medical removal. OSHA
estimated that, under the January 2017 final standards for construction
and shipyards, 332 workers would be eligible for medical removal in the
first year and 26 workers each year would be eligible in subsequent
years. OSHA estimated an average medical removal cost per worker
assuming that 75 percent of firms would be able to find the employee an
alternate job, and the remaining 25 percent of firms would not. With
updated hourly wages for a production worker of $24.16 (Production
Occupations, SOC: 51-0000) and for a clerical worker of $22.53 (File
Clerks, SOC: 43-4071), the weighted average of these costs is $7,266
per worker (0.75 x $1,363 + $273 \27\) + 0.25 x ($24,161).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The cost of the salary differential for 6 months of work in
a job with exposures less than the AL plus one month of re-training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above unit costs, OSHA estimates that revoking the
medical removal provision in this proposal would result in an
annualized total cost savings of $471,601.\28\ The breakdown of these
cost savings by NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this
program cost section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The medical removal cost savings are calculated in the cost
spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column KL through LF. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns KX through LF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Familiarization Costs
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    In the new beryllium standards, OSHA included familiarization costs
to account for employers' time to understand the ancillary provisions
and the other new and revised components of the applicable new
standard.
Cost Estimates
    As some employers may already have been reviewing the 2016 FEA, in
an effort to be conservative, OSHA has not assumed any familiarization
cost savings. In the 2016 FEA, the amount of familiarization time
required depended, in part, on the range of beryllium-related
operations. As the focus of this proposal is on removing the ancillary
requirements, this variability of required familiarization time has
been largely eliminated. Employers would thus only need to spend a
brief amount of time reviewing this proposal (if it became final) to
look at the changes from the 2016 FEA. Therefore, OSHA expects that if
this proposal is adopted, employers would spend one-tenth of one hour
per firm (or 6 minutes) reviewing its changed requirements.
    Table V-17 shows the unit costs, by establishment size, of
reviewing the changes in this proposal as a result of removing the
ancillary provisions. These costs will likely be one-time costs
incurred during the first year in which this PEA becomes final, but the
aggregate costs are annualized for consistency with the other estimates
for this proposal. Based on the unit familiarization (negative) cost
savings in Table V-17, the total annualized familiarization costs of
this proposal are estimated to be $1,346.\29\ The breakdown of these
costs by NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this
program cost-savings section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The familiarization cost savings are calculated in the cost
spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column TP through UZ. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns UF through UZ.

            Table V-17--Familiarization--Construction and Shipyards Assumptions and Unit Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Medium (20-
                                                                    Small (<20)        499)        Large (500+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours per establishment.........................................             0.1             0.1             0.1
Total cost savings per establishment............................         ($4.11)         ($4.11)         ($4.11)
Annualized cost savings.........................................         ($0.48)         ($0.48)         ($0.48)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Based on supervisor wage of $41.08, inclusive of benefits (BLS, 2016) (Document ID 1980).
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA
  (2017) (Document ID 2044).

Training
Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
    As specified in both the new shipyard and construction beryllium
standards and the existing OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 on hazard
communication, the employer must provide initial training and repeat
annual training for each employee who is, or who can reasonably be
expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium. The initial training is
required by the time of initial assignment, and will be applicable to
affected shipyard and construction employers.

Cost Savings Estimates
    The cost savings track the training costs in the 2016 FEA to
educate employees about the new requirements of beryllium standards.
This additional training would not be necessary if the only impact on
construction and shipyards is a change to the PEL. In the 2016 FEA,
OSHA determined that training, which includes hazard communication
training, will likely be conducted by in-house safety or supervisory
staff with the use of training modules and videos. It is estimated that
this training will last, on average, eight hours. (Note that this
estimate does not include the time taken for hazard communication
training that is already required by 29 CFR 1910.1200.) The Agency
anticipated that establishments will be able to purchase sufficient
training materials at an average cost of $2.12 per worker, encompassing
the cost of handouts, video presentations, and training manuals and
exercises. For initial and periodic training, OSHA estimated an average
class size of five workers (each at a wage of $24.16 (updated from
Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000)) with one instructor (at a wage
of $41.34 (Median Wage for Training and Development Specialists, SOC:
13-1151)) over an eight hour period. The estimated per-worker cost of
initial training is $259.43 (= (8 x $24.16) + (8 x $41.34/5) +
$2.12).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Note that wages are rounded and may not total exactly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual retraining of workers is also required by the new beryllium
standards. OSHA estimated the same unit costs as for initial training,
so retraining would require the same per-worker cost of $259.43.
    Finally, using these calculations, as well as accounting for
industry-specific baseline compliance rates (from Section V.B. of this
PEA), and based on a 25.7 percent new hire rate (BLS 2016a, annual
manufacturing new hire rate),\31\ OSHA preliminarily estimates that the
removal of the training requirements in this proposal would result in
an annualized total cost savings of $778,371.\32\ The breakdown of
these cost savings by NAICS code is presented in Table V-18 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ OSHA used the same hire rate for abrasive blasters in
construction, judging that abrasive blasters in construction are
more like skilled production workers (including abrasive blasters)
in manufacturing and shipyard than day laborers in construction.
    \32\ The training cost savings are calculated in the cost
spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column PX through QO. The
annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
columns QJ through QO.

                                      Table V-18--Annualized Cost Savings of Program Requirements for Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                                                [In 2016 dollars using a 3 percent discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Written      Protective                                             Total
                                                                             Rule         Exposure    Regulated    Beryllium      Medical      Medical      exposure   work  clothing    Hygiene                               program
         Application group/NAICS                    Industry           familiarization   assessment     areas      work areas  surveillance    removal      control     &  equipment    areas and   Housekeeping   Training      cost
                                                                                ***                     provision       plan          ****        practices                              savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..................................  Painting and Wall Covering             -$525   $2,037,910       $4,393           $0      $536,953     $179,409      $88,335              $0     $610,420      $337,085   $293,431   $4,087,412
                                           Contractors.
238990..................................  All Other Specialty Trade               -486    1,888,339        4,071            0       497,544      166,241       81,852               0      565,618       312,345    271,895    3,787,418
                                           Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.................................  Ship Building and Repairing             -332    1,430,277      252,463            0       376,852      125,915       60,706               0      393,508       236,578    205,940    3,081,907
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding--Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.................................  Ship Building and Repairing               -3        2,994          172            0         2,762           36        2,139               0        3,684        15,327      7,106       34,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...................  ...........................           -1,011    3,926,250        8,464            0     1,034,497      345,650      170,187               0    1,176,038       649,430    565,325    7,874,830
Shipyard Subtotal.......................  ...........................             -335    1,433,271      252,635            0       379,615      125,951       62,845               0      397,192       251,905    213,046    3,116,125
                                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries...................  ...........................           -1,346    5,359,520      261,099            0     1,414,112      471,601      233,032               0    1,573,230       901,335    778,371   10,990,954
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
*** The 2016 FEA also included a requirement for beryllium work areas. As that provision only applied to general industry, it is not relevant, nor discussed, in this proposal, and all references show a zero-dollar cost savings.

Total Annualized Cost Savings
    As shown in Table V-19, the total annualized cost savings of this
proposal, using a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated to be about
$11.0 million.

          Table V-19--Annualized Cost Savings to Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                    [In 2016 dollars using a 3 percent discount rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Engineering
               Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total cost
                                                                                work practices       costs          savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,087,412      $4,087,412
                                                       Contractors.
238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,787,418       3,787,418
                                                       Contractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing.......               0               0       3,081,907       3,081,907
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Welding--Shipyards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing.......               0               0          34,217          34,217
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...............................  ..................................               0               0       7,874,830       7,874,830
Shipyard Subtotal...................................  ..................................               0               0       3,116,125       3,116,125
                                                                                ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries...............................  ..................................               0               0      10,990,954      10,990,954
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

Time Distribution of Costs
    OSHA analyzed the stream of (un-annualized) compliance costs for
the first ten years after the rule would take effect. As shown in Table
V-20, compliance cost savings are expected to decline from year 1 to
year 2 by more than half after the initial set of capital and program
start-up expenditures has been incurred. Costs are then essentially
flat with relatively small variations for the following years.

                                        Table V-20--Distribution of Undiscounted Compliance Cost Savings by Year
                                                                     [2016 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Program cost                                                 Rule
                           Year                                 savings          Respirators        Engineering      familiarization         Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................        $24,009,232                 $0                 $0           -$11,484        $23,997,748
2........................................................          8,173,911                  0                  0                  0          8,173,911
3........................................................          8,951,304                  0                  0                  0          8,951,304
4........................................................          8,332,508                  0                  0                  0          8,332,508
5........................................................          8,834,132                  0                  0                  0          8,834,132
6........................................................          8,418,670                  0                  0                  0          8,418,670
7........................................................          8,770,344                  0                  0                  0          8,770,344
8........................................................          8,466,731                  0                  0                  0          8,466,731
9........................................................          8,733,739                  0                  0                  0          8,733,739
10.......................................................          8,494,159                  0                  0                  0          8,494,159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Table V-21 breaks out total costs by each application group for the
first ten years. Each application group follows the same pattern of a
sharp decrease in compliance costs between years 1 and 2, and then
remains relatively flat for the remaining years.

                                                       Table V-21--Total Undiscounted Cost Savings of the New Beryllium Standards by Year
                                                                                [2016 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Year
                      Application group                       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1            2            3            4            5            6            7            8            9            10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Construction..............................   $17,383,709   $5,814,352   $6,382,594   $5,930,492   $6,296,968   $5,993,216   $6,250,595   $6,028,337   $6,223,603   $6,048,622
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards.................................     6,547,501    2,331,174    2,538,176    2,373,155    2,506,984    2,396,331    2,489,764    2,409,125    2,480,258    2,416,188
Welding--Shipyards...........................................        66,538       28,385       30,533       28,861       30,180       29,123       29,985       29,268       29,877       29,348
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................    23,997,748    8,173,911    8,951,304    8,332,508    8,834,132    8,418,670    8,770,344    8,466,731    8,733,739    8,494,159
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

References
Domestic Product. February 26, 2016. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=13#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2013&903=13&906=a&905=2015&910=x&911=1 (Accessed February 26, 2016).
(Document ID 1970).
BLS, 2017a. Occupational Employment Statistics Survey--May 2016
(Released March 31, 2017). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed April 1, 2017).
BLS, 2017c. 2017 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/.
Telephone Interview between Angie Lerch, Rental Coordinator,
Satellite Shelters, Inc. and Robert Carney of ERG (Document ID
0562).
OSHA, 2016. Cost of Compliance (Chapter V) of the Final Economic
Analysis (``2016 FEA''; Document ID 2042).
OSHA, 2017. Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs, Impacts, and
Benefits in Support of OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA)
for the Proposed Deregulatory Action of Removing the Ancillary
Revisions for the Maritime Sector and the Construction Sector from
the Scope of the New Beryllium Standards: May 2017.

Appendix V-A

Summary of Annualized Costs by Entity Size Under Alternative Discount
Rates

    In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost
analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative
discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-22 and V-23
present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS
industry code and employment size class (all establishments, small
entities, and very small entities).
    As shown in these tables, the choice of discount rate has only a
minor effect on total annualized compliance costs--for example,
annualized costs for all establishments increase from $11.0 million
using a 3 percent discount rate to $11.5 million using a 7 percent
discount rate, and decline to $10.8 million using a 0 percent
discount rate.

V-22--Total Annualized Cost Savings, for Entities Affected by the New Beryllium Standards; Results Shown by Size
                              Category, by Sector, and by Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                   [7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Very small
       Application group/NAICS               Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                             establishments     (SBA-defined)      employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...............................  Painting and Wall          $4,280,908        $3,605,768        $2,527,303
                                        Covering
                                        Contractors.
238990...............................  All Other Specialty         3,966,713         3,050,668         2,084,462
                                        Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..............................  Ship Building and           3,217,754         1,026,481           542,567
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Welding--Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..............................  Ship Building and              35,196            11,599             6,601
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal................  ...................         8,247,620         6,656,436         4,611,766
Shipyard Subtotal....................  ...................         3,252,950         1,038,080           549,167
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries................  ...................        11,500,570         7,694,516         5,160,933
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
``NA'' indicates not applicable because OSHA determined there were no affected entities in a particular industry
  of a particular size.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.

 Table V-23--Total Annualized Cost Savings, for Entities Affected by the New Beryllium Standards; Results Shown
                          by Size Category, by Sector, and by Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                   [0 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Very small
       Application group/NAICS               Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                             establishments     (SBA-defined)      employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...............................  Painting and Wall          $4,002,659        $3,375,763        $2,373,392
                                        Covering
                                        Contractors.
238990...............................  All Other Specialty         3,708,886         2,858,041         1,959,635
                                        Trade Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..............................  Ship Building and           3,021,057           973,324           515,607
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Welding--Shipyards **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..............................  Ship Building and              33,823            11,135             6,336
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal................  ...................         7,711,545         6,233,805         4,333,027
Shipyard Subtotal....................  ...................         3,054,880           984,460           521,943
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries................  ...................        10,766,425         7,218,264         4,854,970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
``NA'' indicates not applicable because OSHA determined there were no affected entities in a particular industry
  of a particular size.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
  mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
  do both welding and abrasive blasting.

Appendix V-B

Summary of Annualized Cost Savings by Cost Type Under Alternative
Discount Rates

    In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost
analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative
discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-24 and V-25
present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS
industry code and type of cost savings.

       Table V-24--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the New Beryllium Standards by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                       [7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Engineering
               Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total costs
                                                                                work practices       costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,280,908      $4,280,908
                                                       Contractors.
238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,966,713       3,966,713
                                                       Contractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0       3,217,754       3,217,754
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Welding--Shipyards **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0          35,196          35,196
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...............................  .................................                0               0       8,247,620       8,247,620
Shipyard Subtotal...................................  .................................                0               0       3,252,950       3,252,950
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries...............................  .................................                0               0      11,500,570      11,500,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the
  surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.

       Table V-25--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the New Beryllium Standards by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                       [0 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Engineering
               Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total costs
                                                                                work practices       costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,002,659      $4,002,659
                                                       Contractors.
238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,708,886       3,708,886
                                                       Contractors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0       3,021,057       3,021,057
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Welding--Shipyards **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0          33,823          33,823
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...............................  .................................                0               0       7,711,545       7,711,545
Shipyard Subtotal...................................  .................................                0               0       3,054,880       3,054,880
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Industries...............................  .................................                0               0      10,766,425      10,766,425
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the
  surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.

D. Foregone Benefits

Estimated Foregone Benefits and Net Benefits by Construction and
Shipyards for the Final Standards for Occupational Exposure to
Beryllium
    In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that, in addition to other health
benefits, the rule would, at the final steady state after a gradual 45-
year phase in period, prevent 86 cases of fatal Chronic Beryllium
Disease, 46 cases of non-fatal CBD morbidity, and 4 fatal cases of lung
cancer annually, the large majority of these cases falling within
General Industry (see FEA Chapter VII, Benefits and Net Benefits in
Document ID 2042). OSHA estimated the net benefits for the rule as a
whole would be worth $487 million ($561 million in benefits minus $74
million in costs). These estimates were midpoints of a very wide range
of estimates. Factors contributing to the range included varying risk
models, varying approaches to occupational tenure, and widely varying
estimates of the effects of ancillary provisions. The construction and
shipyard sectors were only a small fraction of this total.
Specifically, as indicated in Table VIII-12 in the preamble to the
January 9, 2017 final rule (82 FR 2613), the Agency estimated, using
the mid-point of a range of benefits, that the rule would prevent 4
cases of fatal and 2 cases of non-fatal CBD annually in these two
sectors. Almost all of these estimated benefits were the result of the
ancillary provisions. Given uncertainties about possible benefits from
lowering the PEL, the FEA attributed no benefits to implementing the
PEL alone for abrasive blasting operations.\33\ These sectors accounted
for an estimated $11.9 million in costs, or 16.1 percent of the costs
of the final rule, and an estimated $27.6 million in benefits, or 4.9
percent of the total benefits of the final rule. Without the benefits
derived from the construction and shipyards sectors, the net benefit of
the rulemaking was reduced by $15.7 million, or 3.2 percent of the
total net benefits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See footnote 3 on p. VII-10 of Chapter VII, Benefits, for
the FEA for the final beryllium standards. This footnote states:
``Given uncertainties about the level of existing respirator use
among other workers involved in abrasive blasting operations, OSHA
conservatively assigned no benefits related to a reduction in their
airborne exposure to beryllium.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This distribution was due both to the much larger number of workers
exposed in general industry, compared to construction and shipyards,
and uncertainties about how many residual benefits would remain in
abrasive blasting operations after existing regulatory requirements
were taken into account. In short, the net benefits attributable to
these sectors were both small and uncertain.
Review of FEA Benefits Analysis
    In the FEA, OSHA expressed uncertainty about whether there would be
benefits from reduced airborne exposure related to abrasive blasting
operations in both shipyards and construction, as well as a limited
number of welders in the shipyards sector.\34\ OSHA noted that abrasive
blasting operators in construction are already required to wear
respirators and assumed that additional engineering and work-practice
controls for the operators were infeasible. As explained in this
proposal, abrasive blasters in shipyards are often required to wear
respirators under the requirements of the Mechanical paint removers
standard, 29 CFR 1915.34. However, these standards do not necessarily
cover pot tenders or clean-up workers, and may not have required some
pot tenders or clean-up workers exposed above the revised PEL of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\ to wear respirators. The exposure data show some pot tenders
or clean-up workers are exposed above the revised PEL, but the data do
not show whether any of these pot tenders or clean-up workers exposed
above the revised PEL were wearing respirators. This uncertainty about
baseline respirator use led OSHA to take a conservative approach in the
2016 FEA: In the benefits analysis, OSHA assumed no new benefits from
the PEL requirements (thereby potentially underestimating benefits
related to the lower PEL), but in the cost analysis, to err on the side
of overestimating costs, OSHA assumed

that only 75 percent of abrasive blaster helpers, including cleanup
workers, were already provided with the respiratory protection required
by the new standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In the 2016 FEA Industry Profile, OSHA estimated that there
were 26 welders in shipyards who would be affected by the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Welders in shipyards also have some exposures above the PEL.
However, employers are already required to provide welders with
ventilation and air-line respirators under 29 CFR 1915.51.
Nevertheless, in the cost section of the 2016 FEA, OSHA again provided
a conservative estimate for the cost of one new respirator and added a
small increment to benefits as result of the new PEL.
Estimate of Foregone Benefits
    As explained in the Summary and Explanation of this preamble, OSHA
has decided to retain the 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL portion of the current
standards for construction and maritime. Therefore, the key question
with respect to the magnitude of the benefits foregone for this rule is
the effect of the ancillary provisions (over and above their effect in
ensuring compliance with the PEL) in reducing illnesses and fatalities.
    In the FEA, the Agency attributed some reduction in disease to the
standards' new lower PEL and the standards' ancillary provisions.
However, as explained in the FEA, there was uncertainty of the efficacy