A representative of a local union and individual employees
recommended specific respirators that they believed should be used to
protect employees exposed to respirable crystalline silica (Document ID
1763, p. 3; 1798, p. 6; 2135). OSHA is not singling out silica-specific
respirators but concludes instead that, for purposes of consistency and
to ensure that the appropriate respirator is used, the provisions of
the respiratory protection standard should apply to substance-specific
standards unless there is convincing evidence that alternative
respirator selection requirements are justified. The commenters who
recommended specific respirators did not provide any evidence to
support their recommendations. As no basis has been established for
distinguishing respirator requirements for respirable crystalline
silica from other air contaminants, OSHA finds it appropriate to adopt
its usual policy of requiring employers to follow the provisions of the
respiratory protection standard.
    Paragraph (e)(3) of the standard for construction states that, for
the tasks listed in Table 1 in paragraph (c), if the employer fully and
properly implements the engineering controls, work practices, and
respiratory protection described in Table 1, the employer shall be
considered to be in compliance with paragraph (e)(1) of the standard
for construction and with the requirements for selection of respirators
in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.134. Employers
following Table 1 must still comply with all other provisions of 29 CFR
1910.134. Paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.134 require
the employer to evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace, identify
relevant workplace and user factors, and base respirator selection on
these factors. Because Table 1, in specifying the required respiratory
protection and minimum APF for a particular task, has already done
this, employers following Table 1 are considered to be in compliance
with paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.134 for exposure
to respirable crystalline silica. While not required for employers
fully and properly implementing Table 1, paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of the
respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), which includes a
table that can be used to determine the type or class of respirator
that is expected to provide employees with a particular APF, can help
employers determine the type of respirator that would meet the required
minimum APF specified by Table 1. For example, Table 1 requires
employers to provide employees with respiratory protection with an APF
of 10 for some of the listed tasks. An employer could consult the table
in 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A) to find the types of respirators (e.g.,
half-mask air-purifying respirator) that provide at least an APF of 10.
    Unions, labor groups, and others urged OSHA to include a provision
in the rule that allows employees to choose a powered air-purifying
respirator (PAPR) in place of a negative pressure respirator (Document
ID 2106, p. 3; 2163, Attachment 1, pp. 15-16; 2173, p. 5; 2244, p. 4;
2253, p. 7; 2256, Attachment 2, pp. 13-14; 2336, p. 7; 2371, Attachment
1, pp. 33-34; 3581, Tr. 1668-1669; 3955, Attachment 1, p. 2; 4204, pp.
78-79). They asserted that employees are more likely to get better
protection from PAPRs, since they are more comfortable and thus, more
likely to be used. They also argued that this will allow employees who
may encounter breathing resistance or other difficulty in wearing a
negative pressure respirator the ability to continue working in a job
where silica exposures cannot feasibly be controlled below the PEL
using engineering and work practice controls, without revealing their
health status or health condition to their employer. They noted that
previous health standards, such as the standards for asbestos (29 CFR
1910.1001(g)(2)(ii)) and cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027(g)(3)(ii)), include
provisions that allow employees to request and obtain a PAPR without
revealing their health status or health condition to their employer.
    In some cases, employers are already providing PAPRs to employees
who request them. The North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association reported that some member companies provide PAPRs upon
employee request in certain circumstances, including accommodating
religious practices and where the work is physically taxing (Document
ID 4213, pp. 4-5). James Schultz, a former foundry employee from the
Wisconsin Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, testified that
he was able to get his employer to provide a PAPR in some, but not all,
instances when he requested one (Document ID 3586, Tr. 3201).
    OSHA has long understood that it is good industrial hygiene
practice to provide a respirator that the employee

considers acceptable. Under the respiratory protection standard,
employers must allow employees to select from a sufficient number of
respirator models and sizes so that the respirator is acceptable to and
correctly fits the user (29 CFR 1910.134 (d)(1)(iv)). In addition, fit
testing protocols under the respiratory protection standard require
that an employee has an opportunity to reject respirator facepieces
that the employee considers unacceptable (see 29 CFR 1910.134 Appendix
A). The Agency also recognizes that in some circumstances employees may
prefer PAPRs over other types of respirators. However, the rulemaking
record does not provide a sufficient basis for OSHA to conclude that a
requirement for employers to provide PAPRs upon request would lead to
any meaningful additional benefit for employees exposed to respirable
crystalline silica.
    With regard to employees who have difficulty breathing when using a
negative pressure respirator or cannot wear such a respirator, the
respiratory protection standard requires employers to provide a PAPR if
the employee's health is at increased risk if a negative pressure
respirator is used (29 CFR 1910.134(e)(6)(ii)). Under the medical
surveillance provisions of this rule, as well as the medical
determination provisions of the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR
1910.134(e)(6)), the PLHCP's written medical opinion for the employer
must contain any recommended limitations on the employee's use of
respirators. Thus, including a provision in this rule that provides
employees the ability to choose a PAPR in place of a negative pressure
respirator would not appreciably add a benefit to what is already
provided pursuant to required medical determinations. Therefore, OSHA
finds that a provision specific to this rule permitting employees to
request and receive a PAPR in place of a negative pressure respirator
is neither necessary nor appropriate in this rule.
    These requirements are consistent with ASTM E 1132-06, Standard
Practice for Health Requirements Relating to Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica, and ASTM E 2625-09, Standard Practice
for Controlling Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica
for Construction and Demolition Activities, the national consensus
standards for controlling occupational exposure to respirable
crystalline silica in general industry and in construction,
respectively. Each of these standards requires respirators to be used
in work situations in which engineering and work practice controls are
not sufficient to reduce exposures of employees to or below the PEL.
Like the consensus standards, where the use of respirators is required,
the standards that comprise this rule require employers to establish
and enforce a respiratory protection program, as specified in 29 CFR
1910.134.

Housekeeping

    Paragraph (h) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (f) of the standard for construction) requires employers to
adhere to housekeeping practices. This is a new paragraph in the rule,
but it is derived from the proposed requirements for cleaning methods
(included in the Methods of Compliance paragraph in the proposed rule)
and revised in response to further analysis and public comments. The
requirements apply to all employers covered under this rule, including
where the employer has fully and properly implemented the control
methods specified in Table 1 in the standard for construction.
    OSHA proposed a requirement that accumulations of crystalline
silica be cleaned by high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filter
vacuuming or wet methods where such accumulations could, if disturbed,
contribute to employee exposure that exceeds the PEL. The proposed rule
would also have prohibited the use of compressed air, dry sweeping, and
dry brushing to clean clothing or surfaces contaminated with
crystalline silica where such activities could contribute to exposures
exceeding the PEL. OSHA included these provisions in the proposed rule
because evidence shows that use of HEPA-filtered vacuums and wet
methods instead of dry sweeping, dry brushing and blowing compressed
air effectively reduces worker exposure to respirable crystalline
silica during cleaning activities. For example, a study of Finnish
construction workers compared respirable crystalline silica exposure
levels during dry sweeping to exposure levels when using alternative
cleaning methods. Compared with dry sweeping, estimated worker
exposures were about three times lower when workers used wet sweeping
and five times lower when they used vacuums (Document ID 1163).
    Some commenters, including the International Union of Bricklayers
and Allied Craftworkers (BAC), the United Steelworkers (USW), the
Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (BCTD), the United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), BlueGreen Alliance (BGA), and Upstate Medical University,
expressed support for the proposed requirement to use HEPA-filtered
vacuums and wet methods and to prohibit the use of compressed air and
dry sweeping for cleaning activities (e.g., Document ID 2282,
Attachment 3, pp. 2, 18-19; 2329, p. 6; 2336, pp. 8-10; 2371, Comment
1, pp. 32-33; 2176, p. 3; 2244, p. 4). For example, UAW stated that the
prohibitions on the use of compressed air and dry sweeping constitute
sound industrial hygiene and are necessary to ensure that dust is
controlled (Document ID 2282, Attachment 3, p. 18). Similarly, BCTD
argued that the record firmly supports the use of HEPA-filtered vacuums
and wet methods in lieu of compressed air and dry sweeping. BCTD
pointed to specific studies referenced in OSHA's Preliminary Economic
Analysis (PEA) that it believes demonstrate that performing
housekeeping duties using compressed air or dry sweeping is a major
source of silica exposure in a number of work operations (Document ID
2371, p. 34). BCTD also noted and agreed with studies in the PEA that
recommend reducing silica exposure by eliminating these practices and
instead relying on HEPA-filtered vacuums and wet methods (Document ID
2371, p. 34). Based on this evidence, BCTD agreed with the inclusion of
the cleaning provisions. However, as discussed more extensively below,
BCTD, and many of the other commenters that supported these provisions,
argued that OSHA should expand the requirement to apply to cleaning
whenever silica dust is present, not only where employee exposure could
exceed the PEL (e.g., Document ID 2240, p. 3; 2256, Attachment 2, p.
13; 2282, Attachment 3, p. 2; 4204, p. 77).
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
also supported OSHA's proposed requirement to use wet methods and HEPA-
filtered vacuums and prohibit the use of dry sweeping and compressed
air during cleaning activities. In its written comments and testimony
during the hearings, NIOSH cited U.S. Bureau of Mines research
indicating that dry sweeping can increase respirable dust exposures,
and provided several recommendations, including using water to wash
down facilities that may have silica contamination, and using portable
or centralized vacuum systems to clean off equipment (Document ID 2177,
Attachment B, p. 38; 3579, p. 142).
    Other commenters, such as Ameren, Acme Brick, the American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI), Fann Contracting, Inc., Leading Builders of
America (LBA), Edison Electric Institute (EEI),

the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Eramet and Bear
Metallurgy Company, Accurate Castings, the Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturers Association (ARMA), the Small Business Administration's
Office of Advocacy, the Glass Association of North America (GANA), the
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Foundry
Society (AFS), the Ohio Cast Metals Association (OCMA), the Tile
Council of North America (TCNA), the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), the Non-Ferrous Founders Society
(NFFS), the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), and the
American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), objected to the proposed
provisions (e.g., Document ID 2023, pp. 5-6; 2082, pp. 5-7; 2116,
Attachment 1, pp. 9-10, 32-33; 2261, p. 3; 2269, pp. 4, 22-23; 2291,
pp. 2, 13, 18-20, 27; 2296, pp. 9, 41-42; 2315, p. 8; 2339, p. 9; 2349,
pp. 4-5; 2357, pp. 7, 24-25; 2381, p. 2; 3432, p. 3; 3492, p. 2; 2119,
Attachment 3, p. 7; 2215, p. 9; 2248, p. 8; 2279, pp. 7-8; 2348,
Comment 1, p. 37; 2363, p. 3; 3490, p. 3; 3581, Tr. 1726-1727; 4213, p.
5). Many of these commenters cited problems with the use of wet methods
or HEPA-filtered vacuums in particular circumstances, or noted specific
circumstances where they believed dry sweeping or using compressed air
was necessary.
    For example, AISI indicated that using wet methods in areas of
steel making facilities where molten metal is present creates the
potential for a significant and immediate safety hazard from steam
explosions (Document ID 2261, p. 3; 3492, p. 2). The National Concrete
Masonry Association argued that wet methods cannot generally be used in
concrete block and brick plants:

    In general, wet methods to control dust are NOT appropriate in
the concrete masonry as a replacement for dry-sweeping . . . Not
only do wet floors create fall hazards, any dust or debris that
contains cement dust will react and harden in the presence of water,
creating additional problems in concrete block production facilities
(Document ID 2279, pp. 7-8).

EEI and Ameren indicated that the use of wet methods can also cause fly
ash to harden (Document ID 2357, pp. 24-25; 2315, p. 8).
    NAHB indicated that use of wet methods in residential construction
would damage many surfaces and could lead to structural problems,
indoor air quality degradation, and the development of molds (Document
ID 2296, p. 37). It argued that there are many circumstances in
residential construction where dry sweeping is the only alternative for
cleanup activities (Document ID 2296, pp. 41-42). LBA indicated that
HEPA-filter vacuums will not collect large debris and that, during the
collection process, dirt will clog the HEPA filter, preventing
cleaning. It stressed that dry sweeping must be used (Document ID 2269,
pp. 4, 22-23). Ameren and EEI argued that dry sweeping should be
allowed because wet methods cannot be used around certain electrical
equipment and when temperatures are below freezing (Document ID 2315,
p. 8; 2357, pp. 7, 24-25). Fann Contracting said that it is necessary
to dry sweep at the end of the milling process when milling roadways in
order to clean the loose leftover material. It indicated that if water
is used, it would create a thin layer of mud on the bottom of the
milled trench, which would interfere with the paving process (Document
ID 2116, Attachment 1, pp. 9-10, 32-33).
    Commenters representing foundries argued that wet methods and HEPA-
filtered vacuuming were not appropriate for cleaning in foundries. For
example, Accurate Castings explained that wet methods would result in
water going into the shell sand mold and would eventually lead to an
explosion when molten metal enters the mold. It stressed that it must
use compressed air for these applications (Document ID 2381, p. 2).
Similarly, ESCO Corporation commented that it cannot use water in
foundries due to potential for fire and explosion hazards. ESCO
Corportation stressed that it also must use compressed air to clean
castings (Document ID 3372, pp. 2-3). AFS also argued that the use of
wet methods in foundries increases the likelihood of explosions as well
as tripping hazards (Document ID 3490, p. 3). OCMA argued that vacuums
can cause damage to molds and using wet methods would damage equipment,
make floors slippery, and cause explosions (Document ID 2119,
Attachment 3, p. 7). NFFS argued that compressed air is ``the only
viable means of cleaning complex or intricate castings'' (Document ID
2247, p. 8; 2248, p. 8). AFS argued that a ban on dry sweeping would
require the vacuuming of hundreds of tons per week in many foundry
operations, and that collecting this amount of sand with a vacuum
system is not feasible. AFS also expressed concern that the proposed
rule would prohibit use of operator-driven power (dry) sweepers in
foundries, arguing that power sweepers substantially reduce the release
of fugitive dust from aisles and other vehicle traffic areas and that
these machines cannot be replaced with wet sweepers because the
quantity of material handled would gum up the sweeping mechanism with
sludge (Document ID 2379, Attachment B, pp. 33-34).
    Several commenters indicated that compressed air is needed to clean
difficult to reach places (e.g., Document ID 2215, p. 9; 2279, pp. 7-8;
3581, Tr. 1726; 2023, p. 5; 2348, Comment 1, p. 37; 3544, pp. 15-16;
4213, pp. 5; 2119, Attachment 3, p. 7). For example, GANA stressed that
it is ``not technologically feasible to prohibit completely the use of
compressed air for clean-up,'' because tight spaces and hard-to-reach
crevices can only be cleaned using compressed air (Document ID 2215, p.
9). NAM testified to the need to use compressed air in space-restricted
situations and where there is a potential for explosions when using
water and there are no other alternatives (Document ID 3581, Tr. 1726).
Acme Brick also indicated that compressed air must be used in tight
spaces or under equipment because these areas cannot be accessed by
brooms or vacuums (Document ID 2023, p. 5).
    After reviewing the evidence in the record, OSHA concludes that use
of wet methods and HEPA-filter vacuums, as proposed, is highly
effective in reducing respirable crystalline silica exposures during
cleaning and that compressed air, dry sweeping, and dry brushing can
contribute to employee exposures. However, OSHA finds convincing
evidence that wet methods and HEPA-filtered vacuums are not safe and
effective in all situations. Therefore, the Agency has revised the
proposed language to take these situations into account. Paragraph
(h)(1) of the standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph
(f)(1) for construction) allows for the use of dry sweeping and dry
brushing in the limited circumstances where wet methods and HEPA-
filtered vacuuming are not feasible. Paragraph (h)(2) of the standard
for general industry and maritime (paragraph (f)(2) for construction)
allows employers to use compressed air for cleaning where the
compressed air is used in conjunction with a ventilation system that
effectively captures the dust cloud created by the compressed air, or
where no alternative method is feasible. These limited exceptions will
encompass the situations described above by commenters, and give them
the necessary flexibility in permitting the use of compressed air, dry
sweeping, or dry brushing in situations where wet methods or HEPA-
filtered vacuums are infeasible, or where the dust cloud created by use
of compressed air is

captured and therefore does not present a hazard to employees. Thus, in
situations where wet methods or HEPA-filtered vacuuming would not be
effective, would cause damage, or would create a hazard in the
workplace, the employer is not required to use these cleaning methods.
OSHA concludes that these limited exceptions balance the need to
protect employees from exposures caused by dry sweeping, dry brushing,
and the use of compressed air with stakeholder concerns about the need
to use such methods under certain circumstances.
    Although OSHA is allowing for dry sweeping and dry brushing and the
use of compressed air for cleaning clothing and surfaces under these
limited circumstances, the Agency anticipates that these circumstances
will be extremely limited. The ``unless'' clause indicates that the
employer bears the burden of showing that wet methods are not feasible
in a particular situation, and OSHA expects that the vast majority of
operations will use wet methods that minimize the likelihood of
exposure. Where the employer uses dry sweeping, therefore, the employer
must be able to demonstrate that HEPA-filtered vacuuming, wet methods,
or other methods that minimize the likelihood or exposure are not
feasible. Similarly, where compressed air is used to clean clothing and
surfaces without a ventilation system designed to capture the dust
cloud created, the employer must be able to demonstrate that no
alternative cleaning method is feasible.
    OSHA has also revisited the triggers for these provisions based on
stakeholder comments. Some stakeholders disagreed with triggering these
provisions based on the PEL. For example, the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO),
BCTD, BAC, UAW, USW, and others argued that dry sweeping and use of
compressed air should be prohibited at any exposure level, not just
where the use of such measures contributes to exposures that exceed the
PEL (e.g., Document ID 2142, p. 3; 2257, Attachment 2, p. 13; 2282,
Attachment 3, pp. 18-19; 2329, p. 6; 2336, p. 10; 2371, Comment 1, pp.
32-33). AFL-CIO stated:

    OSHA has determined that exposure at the PEL still poses a
significant risk to workers. All feasible efforts should be made to
reduce those risks. OSHA should follow the well-established approach
in its other health standard[s] and prohibit practices of dry
sweeping, [use of] compressed [air] and require HEPA-filter[ ]
vacuuming or wet methods whenever silica dust is present (Document
ID 2257, Attachment 2, p. 13).

    Similarly, AFSCME indicated that there is no reason why cleaning
methods need to be tied to the PEL. It argued that requiring that all
accumulations be dealt with in a uniform way would provide clarity for
employers and employees alike (Document ID 2142, p. 3). BCTD argued
that OSHA's proposed requirements would be unenforceable because they
are tied to overexposure (Document ID 2371, Attachment 1, p. 33).
Finally, AFL-CIO also recommended that OSHA expand the proposed
requirements to require that accumulations of dust be kept as low as
practicable. It noted that this requirement has appeared in previous
OSHA health standards that regulate exposure to dusts, such as asbestos
(29 CFR 1910.1001), lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), and cadmium (29 CFR
1910.1027).
    On the other hand, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
argued that a general prohibition on the use of compressed air, dry
brushing, and dry sweeping to clean areas where silica-containing
material has accumulated is too broad, and not directly related to a
particular exposure risk. It maintained that the use of compressed air
and dry sweeping should be permitted as long as silica exposures are
below the PEL (Document ID 4029, Cover Letter 1, p. 3). Similarly, the
National Tile Contractors Association (NTCA) and TCNA both recommended
that the proposed language be changed to read as follows:

    To the extent practical compressed air, dry sweeping, and dry
brushing shall not be used to clean clothing or surfaces
contaminated with crystalline silica where such activities could
contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica
that exceeds the PEL (Document ID 2267, p. 3; 2363, p. 3).

    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has decided to revise
the trigger for the housekeeping provisions in the rule to apply to
situations where dry sweeping, dry brushing or use of compressed air
could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica,
regardless of whether that exposure exceeds the PEL. OSHA finds this
change is necessary because the risk of material impairment of health
remains significant at and below the revised PEL of 50 [mu]g/m\3\,
including at the new action level of 25 [mu]g/m\3\. By triggering the
housekeeping provisions wherever the use of dry sweeping, dry brushing,
and compressed air could contribute to employee exposures, OSHA aims to
minimize this risk. The Agency concludes that the limited exceptions
discussed above not only balance the concerns of employers with the
need to protect employees, but align the rule with the realities of the
workplace, which do not always lend themselves to the method that
produces the lowest silica exposure.
    OSHA has decided not to include an affirmative requirement to clean
accumulations of crystalline silica that could, if disturbed,
contribute to employee exposure that exceeds the PEL. In addition, the
Agency has determined that it is not appropriate for the respirable
crystalline silica rule to require accumulations of dust to be kept at
the lowest level practicable. As noted above, OSHA recognizes that
exposure to respirable crystalline silica is hazardous at
concentrations below the PEL. However, crystalline silica is ubiquitous
in many work environments. Crystalline silica is a component of the
soil and sand at many construction sites and other outdoor workplaces,
and may be present in large quantities at many other workplaces such as
foundries and oil and gas drilling sites where hydraulic fracturing is
performed. For purposes of cleaning, the employer may not be able to
distinguish large crystalline silica particles from the fine particles
which can, if airborne, be respirable. In many cases, the employer may
not be able to distinguish crystalline silica particles from other
workplace dusts. Because of these factors, many unique to respirable
crystalline silica, OSHA is convinced that the best approach to address
potentially hazardous exposures from cleaning is by requiring proper
housekeeping practices to minimize exposure to respirable crystalline
silica.
    OSHA also received a number of miscellaneous comments on the
proposed provisions, including suggestions for items the Agency should
or should not include in the final rule and questions about the
application of the proposed provisions to particular situations. For
example, ARMA argued that OSHA should not require HEPA filters on
central vacuum systems that discharge outdoors or into a non-occupied
area, such as a baghouse (Document ID 2291, pp. 19-20). GPI also
indicated it uses central vacuum systems, and argued that OSHA should
allow for vacuum systems that discharge outside the facility (Document
ID 2290, pp. 4-5). OSHA agrees that a prohibition on central vacuum
systems that discharge respirable crystalline silica outside of the
workplace is unnecessary, because such systems do not contribute to
employee exposure. OSHA clarifies that the rule therefore

allows for use of vacuum systems that discharge respirable crystalline
silica outside of the workplace. These requirements are similar to
housekeeping requirements in other OSHA health standards, such as the
standards for lead (29 CFR 1910.1025) and cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027).
Discharge of respirable crystalline silica from such systems may be
subject to environmental regulations; see Section XIV, Environmental
Impacts.
    Occupational & Environmental Health Consulting Services (OEHCS)
urged OSHA to require vacuums that meet the definition of a Portable
High-Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) device (Document ID 1953,
Comment 1, pp. 4-6). This suggested revision would involve a
requirement for field testing of portable air filtration devices using
a laser particle counter to ensure that HEPA filters function as
intended. OEHCS argued that, in many cases, HEPA filters do not perform
effectively in the field due to inadequate, damaged, or deteriorating
sealing surfaces; replacement filters that do not fit correctly; filter
cabinets that are damaged; filters that are punctured; and other
problems (Document ID 1953, Comment 1, p. 2). OEHCS further indicated
that it is participating in an ongoing, multi-year research effort with
the National Institutes of Health to test HEPA-filtered equipment
(Document ID 1953, Comment 1, p. 2). However, OEHCS did not provide
documentation to support the use and effectiveness of meeting the
requirements and definition of this device, nor is there other evidence
in the rulemaking record supporting such a requirement. OSHA encourages
employers to ensure that HEPA filters function as intended in the
field. However, lacking adequate documentation and support in the
record, OSHA has concluded that it is not appropriate to include a
requirement that HEPA vacuums meet the PHEAF standards in the rule.
    OSHA also received a few comments related to the use of compressed
air, dry sweeping, and dry brushing to clean clothing. Specifically,
NIOSH and ASSE maintained that there are ways that clothing can be
safely cleaned using compressed air. The two organizations advocated
for the use of clothes cleaning booths, also referred to as mobile air
showers (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 15, 38; 3403, p. 5; 2339,
p. 9). This technology uses compressed air to clean clothes by blowing
dust from an employee's clothing in an enclosed booth. Dust is blown
out of the employee's breathing zone and is captured by a filter. NIOSH
argued that the booths adequately capture the dust and prevent exposure
to employees and the environment (Document ID 3403, p. 5). OSHA
recognizes that this technology may be useful for cleaning dust off of
clothing, and the rule does not prohibit the use of such systems.
Clothes cleaning booths that use compressed air to clean clothing are
permitted under the rule, as long as the compressed air is used in
conjunction with a ventilation system that effectively captures the
dust cloud created by the compressed air. The provision has been
modified from that proposed to clearly allow the use of compressed air
in conjunction with a ventilation system that effectively captures the
dust cloud that is created, preventing it from entering the employee's
breathing zone.
    In addition, the American Subcontractors Association (ASA) offered
a comment related to dry brushing. It argued that the term ``dry
brushing'' could be misunderstood, and that an employer could receive a
citation if an employee reflexively brushes visible dust off clothing
(Document ID 2187, p. 6). OSHA's intent in the proposed rule was to
restrict dry brushing activity that was comparable to dry sweeping,
such as using a brush as a tool to clean clothing or surfaces. OSHA
clarifies that the rule does not prohibit employees from using their
hands to remove small amounts of visible dust from their clothing.
    Finally, OSHA received comments on how often or at what point
employers need to clean up dust in their facility. For instance,
HalenHardy, a firm that provides products and services to limit
exposures to dangerous dusts, argued that there should be some visible
evidence of silica dust in order to require cleaning (Document ID 3588,
Tr. 3920-3922). NCMA commented that dry sweeping can produce dust and
indicated that best practices suggest that it is important to prevent
the dust or debris from reaching the floor. If not cleaned regularly,
this can lead to buildups of dust on the floor (Document ID 2279, p.
7).
    The proposed rule would have required accumulations of crystalline
silica to be cleaned by HEPA-filtered vacuuming or wet methods where
such accumulations could, if disturbed, contribute to employee exposure
to respirable crystalline silica that exceeds the PEL. As explained
above, OSHA's final rule does not require employers to clean up dust.
However, OSHA agrees that housekeeping is an important work practice to
be used to limit employee exposures. And, as discussed in Chapter IV of
the Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
some employers will need to perform housekeeping in order to limit
employee exposures to the PEL. In recognition of this fact and because
some cleaning methods can contribute to employee exposure, OSHA has
included housekeeping as one of the items employers must address in
their written exposure control plans (see the summary and explanation
of Written Exposure Control Plan).
    Moreover, for employers following the general industry and maritime
standard and, in construction, for tasks not listed in Table 1, or
where the employer does not fully and properly implement the control
methods described in Table 1, the rule requires employers to assess the
exposure of each employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be
exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level.
Where exposure assessment reveals that an employee's exposure exceeds
the PEL, the rule requires employers to use engineering and work
practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below
the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not
feasible. Good housekeeping is one such work practice control that
employers should consider. And, as NCMA suggests, employers may choose
to clean up dust regularly as a best practice.
    In addition, paragraph (c) of the standard for construction
includes several housekeeping provisions that apply to employers who
choose to follow Table 1. For instance, paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and
(c)(1)(viii) of the standard for construction require employers whose
employees are engaged in a task using handheld or stand-mounted drills
(including impact and rotary hammer drills) or dowel drilling rigs for
concrete to use a HEPA-filtered vacuum when cleaning holes. Similarly,
under paragraph (c)(1)(xiii), when using a walk-behind milling machine
or floor grinder indoors or in an enclosed area, milling debris must be
cleaned up using a HEPA-filtered vacuum prior to making a second pass
over an area. This prevents the milling debris from interfering with
the seal between machine and floor and minimizes the gap. Additionally,
it prevents debris from being re-suspended and acting as another source
of exposure.
    If an employer chooses to follow paragraph (c) of the standard for
construction, then the employer must implement any applicable
housekeeping measures specified in Table 1. An employer who does not do
so has not fully and properly implemented the controls identified on
Table 1 and, thus, will be required to assess and limit the

exposure of employees in accordance with paragraph (d). For example, if
an employer has an employee who is using a handheld or stand-mounted
drill, the employee must use a HEPA-filtered vacuum when cleaning
holes. Any method for cleaning holes can be used, including the use of
compressed air, if a HEPA-filtered vacuum is used to capture the dust.
If a HEPA-filtered vacuum is not used when cleaning holes, then the
employer must assess and limit the exposure of that employee in
accordance with paragraph (d).
    While the paragraph on housekeeping (paragraph (f) of the
construction standard) also applies when employers are following
paragraph (c), the employer must ensure that all of the engineering
controls and work practices specified on Table 1 are implemented. For
example, paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the construction standard permits the
use of compressed air when used in conjunction with a ventilation
system that effectively captures the dust cloud. However, to fully and
properly implement the controls on Table 1, an employer using
compressed air when cleaning holes drilled by handheld or stand-mounted
drills or dowel drilling rigs for concrete must use a HEPA-filtered
vacuum to capture the dust, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and
(c)(1)(viii), not just a ventilation system as specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(i).
    The housekeeping requirements of the rule are generally consistent
with the provisions of the industry consensus standards, ASTM E 1132-
06, Standard Practice for Health Requirements Relating to Occupational
Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, and ASTM E 2626-09, Standard
Practice for Controlling Occupational Exposure to Respirable
Crystalline Silica for Construction and Demolition Activities. Both
consensus standards specify that compressed air shall not be used to
blow respirable crystalline silica-containing materials from surfaces
or clothing, unless the method has been approved by an appropriate
Regulatory agency (<IP_ADDRESS>. and <IP_ADDRESS>, respectively). Both consensus
standards also list HEPA vacuums, water spray, and wet floor sweepers
among available means to reduce exposure to dust (<IP_ADDRESS>. and <IP_ADDRESS>,
respectively). In addition, ASTM E 1132-06 includes restrictions on dry
sweeping (<IP_ADDRESS>).

Written Exposure Control Plan

    Paragraph (f)(2) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (g) of the standard for construction) sets forth the
requirements for written exposure control plans, which describe methods
used to identify and control workplace exposures, such as engineering
controls, work practices, and housekeeping measures. OSHA did not
propose a requirement for a written exposure control plan, but raised
it as an issue in the preamble of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in Question 53 under Methods of Compliance (78 FR 56273, 56289
(9/12/13)). Written exposure control plans are included in ASTM
International (ASTM) standards, E 1132-06, Standard Practice for Health
Requirements Relating to Occupational Exposure to Respirable
Crystalline Silica (Section 4.2.6) and E 2625-09, Standard Practice for
Controlling Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica for
Construction and Demolition Activities (Section 4.2.5), and in a draft
standard by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
(BCTD) (Document ID 1466, p. 2; 1504, p. 2; 1509, pp. 3-4).
    The only written plan that OSHA proposed was an access control
plan, which was an alternative approach to establishing regulated
areas; it described methods for identifying areas where exposures
exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL), limiting access to those
areas, communicating with others on the worksite, and providing
personal protective equipment (PPE) to individuals entering those
areas. Several stakeholders commented on the proposed written access
control plans, whether or not the rule should contain a written plan,
and their preference for the type of written plan.
    A number of commenters questioned the practicality of a written
access control plan in workplaces with continually changing tasks,
conditions, or materials, which they argued can lead to the need for
multiple plans and subsequent costs. The National Stone, Sand, and
Gravel Association (NSSGA) commented that written access control plans
and establishing boundaries are not feasible in many workplaces, such
as aggregate facilities or large construction sites, because of varying
silica amounts in materials (Document ID 2327, Attachment 1, p. 20).
The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) stated that a written
access control plan is impractical in construction and especially
difficult and costly for small businesses because a different plan
would need to be developed for each project, as a result of changing
materials, tasks, and environmental conditions (Document ID 2319, pp.
5-6, 91-92). Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC),
Associated General Contractors of America, and American Society of
Safety Engineers (ASSE) expressed similar concerns about constantly
changing conditions on construction sites (Document ID 2289, pp. 6-7;
2323, p. 1; 4201, p. 2). The National Federation of Independent
Business and Leading Builders of America also expressed concerns about
time and resource burdens that a requirement for a written access
control plan would impose on construction companies or small businesses
(Document ID 2210, Attachment 1, p. 7; 2269, p. 22). ABC and CISC
further stated that a written access control plan is not needed if
employees are trained (Document ID 2289, pp. 6-7; 4217, p. 25).
    CISC noted that section 4.2.5 of the ASTM standard E 2625-09 limits
the need for a written exposure control plan to areas where
overexposures are persistent, and contemplated that it is not needed
when the PEL may be exceeded on a particular day because of conditions
such as weather or silica content in a material. CISC stated that
OSHA's requirement for a regulated area or written access control plan
when exposures can reasonably be expected to exceed the PEL deviated
from section 4.2.5 of the ASTM standard (Document ID 2319, p. 89; 1504,
p. 2). OSHA clarifies that a written access control plan, which
describes specified methods for limiting access to high-exposure areas,
is different from a written exposure control plan, which can address
specified protections for controlling exposure other than limiting
access to high-exposure areas.
    Commenters representing industry, labor, and employee health
advocate groups addressed the issue of what, if any, type of written
plan should be required and what level of respirable crystalline silica
exposure should trigger that requirement. Some industry representatives
favored a written access control plan over a regulated area, while
others opposed a written exposure control plan. For example, in
comparing regulated areas and the written access control plan, Edison
Electric Institute favored the flexibility of the written access
control plan and stated that it might use that option in larger areas
or for activities that can change over time. It opposed a written
exposure control plan, asserting that the training required by OSHA's
hazard communication standard (HCS) was sufficient to keep employees
informed (Document ID 2357, pp. 33, 37). The Non-Ferrous Founders'
Society expressed concerns about costs if a consulting industrial
hygienist would need to be hired to develop a written access control
plan (Document ID 2248, p. 13). The National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) stated that some of its members would

prefer a written access control plan over regulated areas, while other
members expressed concern that developing a written access control plan
might be difficult for many small companies. NAHB also commented that
many small companies would not have the knowledge to develop a written
exposure control plan and would have to hire a professional to develop
it. NAHB opposed a written exposure control plan, stating that a
standard checklist was adequate for protecting employees from exposure
(Document ID 2296, pp. 40 and 41). On the other hand, National
Electrical Carbon Products (NECP) commented that if OSHA required a
written plan, NECP would prefer an exposure control plan rather than an
access control plan. It stated that OSHA's proposed access restrictions
do not relate to the goal of ensuring compliance with the PEL (Document
ID 1785, pp. 6-7).
    Commenters from labor organizations and employee health advocate
groups supported the inclusion of a written exposure control plan. For
example, BCTD stated that the proposed written access control plan
could be used as a starting point for the development of a written
exposure control plan, which it said should be required for every
employer that has employees who may be exposed to respirable
crystalline silica (Document ID 2371, Attachment 1, pp. 14-16).
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Public Citizen,
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO), and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers (BAC) also supported a requirement for a written plan for
all covered employers and not just those with regulated areas or
exposures exceeding the PEL (Document ID 2262, p. 42; 2249, p. 3; 4204,
p. 62; 4219, pp. 25-26; 4223, p. 119).
    Other commenters, such as ASSE, favored a written exposure control
plan for suspected or documented overexposure scenarios (Document ID
2339, p. 8). The National Industrial Sand Association (NISA) originally
opposed a written exposure control program in its prehearing comments
(Document ID 2195, p. 38). However, in its post-hearing comments, it
supported one, stating that formulating and writing down an exposure
control program would ensure that an employer thinks through the
engineering and administrative controls required to achieve compliance
in situations with persistent overexposures. NISA also stated that the
plan would help employers defend against potential liability by
documenting due care (Document ID 4208, pp. 20-21).
    The American Foundry Society (AFS) disagreed with the need for a
separate written exposure control plan and instead called for planning
as part of other business initiatives. It supported written exposure
control plans in enforcement situations. AFS favored an approach
similar to that in the ASTM standard. AFS stated that the ASTM's
approach, which involves identifying and analyzing dust sources in
scenarios with overexposures to determine effective controls, was more
effective in reducing exposures than requiring controls to be installed
by a certain date (Document ID 2379, Appendix 1, pp. 61-62; 4229, p.
26).
    Advocates of written exposure control plans explained why they
supported those plans. The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) stated that written exposure control plans could be
a simple mechanism for ensuring performance of maintenance checks and,
for construction employers, maintaining Table 1 conditions (Document ID
2177, Attachment B, pp. 16-17). Dr. Paul Schulte, Director of the
Education and Information Division at NIOSH, testified that ``. . . a
written plan would greatly improve reliability of the protection
provided.'' (Document ID 3403, p. 5). AFL-CIO, NISA, and BCTD agreed
(Document ID 4204, p. 61; 4208, pp. 20-21; 4223, p. 74). Eileen Betit,
representing BCTD, testified:

    Written exposure control plans are important for identifying
operations that will result in exposures, the specific control
measures, and how they will be implemented and the procedures for
determining if controls are being properly used and maintained. Such
plans also facilitate the communication of this information to other
employers on multi-employer worksites so that they, in turn, can
take steps to protect their employees. Without such plans, there's
no assurance that employers and employees will take a systematic and
comprehensive approach to identifying, controlling, and sharing
information about silica exposures on job sites (Document ID 3581,
Tr. 1569-1570).

The United Steelworkers (USW), Public Citizen, the United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and AFL-
CIO also supported a requirement for a written exposure control plan as
a method to continually, systematically, or comprehensively identify or
control exposures (Document ID 2336, p. 9; 2249, p. 2; 2282, Attachment
3, p. 17; 4204, p. 60). NIOSH, Public Citizen, and BAC also stated that
written exposure control plans are a useful way to communicate
protections to employees (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 16-17;
2249, p. 3; 2329, p. 5).
    BlueGreen Alliance, UAW, USW, and AFL-CIO also supported a written
plan because requiring the written plan would be consistent with the
many other OSHA substance-specific standards that include written plans
or programs (Document ID 2176, p. 3; 2282, Attachment 3, p. 17; 3584,
Tr. 2540; 4204, p. 62). In addition, commenters observed that other
U.S. and Canadian regulatory agencies require written plans. Frank
Hearl, Chief of Staff at NIOSH, stated that the Mine Safety and Health
Administration requires a dust control plan to be filed at coal mines
(Document ID 3579, Tr. 235-236). In addition, AFL-CIO and BCTD noted
that written dust or silica control plans are included in a proposed
standard for the Canadian Province of British Columbia and a standard
promulgated in the Canadian Province of Newfoundland (Document ID 4204,
p. 61; 4223, p. 73 Fn. 14; 4072, Attachment 38, pp. 6-7, Attachment 41,
p. 7).
    BCTD stated that a requirement for a written exposure control plan
would not be unduly burdensome to employers because creating such plans
is an extension of planning functions in construction (Document ID
4223, pp. 74-80). In fact, several hearing participants testified that
written safety or hazard control plans are already being developed and
used in the construction industry (Document ID 4223, pp. 74-80; 3580,
Tr. 1383-1385; 3583, Tr. 2267-2268, 2385; 3585, Tr. 3093-3094; 3587,
Tr. 3560). For example, Kevin Turner, Director of Safety at Hunt
Construction Group and representing CISC testified: ``. . . we require
a site-specific safety plan which addresses the hazards dealt with in
that [particular] contractor's scope of work.'' (Document ID 3580, Tr.
1383).
    In addition, written plans are consistent with general industry
practices. For example, the National Service, Transmission,
Exploration, and Production Safety Network (STEPS Network), whose
members are involved in the oil and gas industry, recommends a written
plan that describes how exposures to respirable crystalline silica will
be reduced or prevented (Document ID 4024, Attachment 2, p. 1). Member
companies of the National Ready Mix Concrete Association, who hire
third-party contractors to chip out their drum mixers, follow strict
written practices and procedures to ensure that exposures do not exceed
the PEL. Specifically, they require the contractors to submit to them a
company-approved safety and health policy and procedures and plans
(Document ID 2305, pp. 8-9). AFL-CIO

submitted to the record a silica dust control plan developed by Sonic
Drilling (Document ID 4072, Attachment 11).
    BCTD stressed that preparing a written exposure control plan does
not have to be burdensome and, along with BAC and AFL-CIO, pointed to
online tools that are available to help users create written exposure
control plans, such as the CPWR-Center for Construction Research and
Training (CPWR) tool, available free of charge, on the silica-safe.org
Web site (Document ID 2329, p. 5; 4204, p. 61; 4223, pp. 80-81; 4073,
Attachment 5a and 5b). AFL-CIO and BCTD also pointed to guidance
products and model exposure control plans from the Canadian Province of
British Columbia as additional resources for assisting users in
developing written exposure control plans (Document ID 4204, p. 61;
4223, p. 81; 4072, Attachment 14, 19, 20). Industry associations are
another resource to help employers prepare written plans. For example,
Anthony Zimbelman, general contractor, representing NAHB, testified
that his industry association teaches courses and helps businesses
develop safety plans (Document ID 3587, Tr. 3559-3560).
    OSHA finds the evidence on the benefits of a written exposure
control plan--as distinct from the proposed written access control
plan--convincing and has concluded that a requirement for a written
exposure control plan is needed for both the standard for general
industry/maritime and the standard for construction because the plan
will improve employee protections. OSHA agrees with commenters who
stated that a written plan should not be limited to scenarios where the
PEL is exceeded. Therefore, OSHA concludes that it is appropriate for
the rule to require a written exposure control plan, instead of a
written access control plan that would only apply to restricting access
to areas where exposures to respirable crystalline silica exceed the
PEL. Requiring a written exposure control plan for all employers
covered by the rule is more protective than the ASTM approach of only
requiring written exposure control plans for persistent overexposures.
Even if exposures are below the PEL due to the use of engineering
controls or work practices, a systematic approach for ensuring proper
function of engineering controls and effective work practices is
crucial for ensuring that those controls and practices remain
effective. Thus, OSHA finds that a written exposure control plan is
integral to preventing overexposures from occurring.
    OSHA agrees with NISA that requiring employers to articulate
conditions resulting in exposure and how those exposures will be
controlled will help to ensure that they have a complete understanding
of the controls needed to comply with the rule. OSHA expects a written
exposure control plan will be instrumental in ensuring that employers
comprehensively and consistently protect their employees. Even in cases
where employees are well trained, the written plan can help to ensure
that controls are consistently used and become part of employees'
routine skill sets. Employers could opt to use the plans to ensure that
maintenance checks are routinely performed and optimal conditions are
maintained. In addition, OSHA concludes the written plans are a useful
method for communicating protections to employees.
    Requiring a written plan maintains consistency with the majority of
OSHA substance-specific standards for general industry and
construction, such as lead (29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62) and cadmium
(29 CFR 1910.1027 and 1926.1127), which require written compliance
plans. A requirement for a written exposure control plan is also
consistent with Canadian standards. In addition, it is generally
consistent with industry practices, as evidence in the record indicates
that some employers in general industry and construction are already
developing and using written plans. OSHA concludes that even for small
businesses, preparing a written exposure control plan based on
identifying and controlling respirable crystalline silica hazards will
not be unduly burdensome, because of the widespread availability of
tools and guidance from groups such as CPWR and the Canadian
government. In addition, OSHA anticipates that industry associations
will provide guidance on developing written exposure control plans for
respirable crystalline silica.
    Contrary to the concerns indicated by comments from representatives
from the construction industry, OSHA does not intend or expect that
employers will need to develop a new written plan for each job or
worksite. Many of the same tasks will be conducted using the same
equipment and materials at various worksites. For example, a stationary
masonry saw used outdoors to cut concrete will perform similarly in any
outdoor setting. Most construction employers are expected to use the
specified exposure control methods in Table 1 of paragraph (c), which
will help them identify tasks and controls to be included in the
written exposure control plan. Table 1 does not usually specify
different controls for different types of crystalline silica-containing
materials, thus supporting the conclusion that a new plan does not need
to be continually developed. Table 1 does list some conditions, such as
time performing tasks or use of equipment in enclosed areas, that would
require respirator use in addition to the specified controls; those
different scenarios can be indicated in the written exposure control
plan, as applicable. Therefore, the written exposure control plan does
not have to be limited by materials, tasks, and conditions for a
particular job site and can include all materials, tasks, and
conditions typically encountered. In many cases there will be no need
to modify the written plan just because the location has changed.
However, the plan must address all materials, tasks, and conditions
that are relevant to the work performed by a particular company. OSHA
is including in the docket a sample written exposure control plan for a
bricklaying company for reference.
    OSHA concludes that it is appropriate to include a requirement for
a written exposure control plan in the respirable crystalline silica
standards for general industry/maritime and construction. Therefore
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (g)(1) of the standard for construction) requires the
employer to establish and implement a written exposure control plan
that contains at least the elements specified in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i)(A)-(C) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (g)(1)(i)-(iv) of the standard for construction). This
provision not only requires that a written exposure control plan be
established but also implemented. OSHA does not consider it sufficient
to develop a plan and have a copy of it on a shelf. It must be followed
in the day-to-day performance of tasks identified.
    OSHA considered existing written exposure control plans, such as
the ASTM plans, and commenter suggestions to determine what should be
included in a written exposure control plan. Section 4.2.5 of ASTM
standard E 2625-09 concerning construction and demolition provides:

    In areas where overexposures are persistent, a written exposure
control plan shall be established to implement engineering, work
practice, and administrative controls to reduce silica exposures to
below the PEL, or other elected limit, whichever is lower, to the
extent feasible. Conduct a root cause analysis for all exposures in
excess of the PEL that cannot be accounted for. Root cause analysis

involves investigating cause(s) for the excessive exposure,
providing remedies, and conducting follow-up sampling to document
that exposures are below the PEL (Document ID 1504, p. 2).

    The exposure control plan described in section 4.2.6 of ASTM
standard E 1132-06 is substantively consistent with the approach
described by section 4.2.5 of ASTM standard E 2625-09 (Document ID
1466, p. 2; 1504, p. 2).
    Several stakeholders commented on what should be included in
provisions for a written exposure control plan. ASSE described an
approach similar to that in the ASTM standards, and AFS preferred the
ASTM approach during enforcement actions (Document ID 2339, p. 8; 2379,
Appendix 1, pp. 61-62).
    NIOSH stated that the exposure control plan could be based on
OSHA's Job Hazard Analysis approach (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, p.
16; OSHA document 3071, Revised 2002). The OSHA job hazard analysis
form calls for descriptions of tasks, hazards, hazard controls, and
rationale and comments (OSHA document 3071, Revised 2002, Appendix 3).
Similarly, NISA recommended that written exposure control programs
convey an understanding of work processes and their appropriate
controls for managing exposures (Document ID 4208, p. 21).
    Some labor unions, such as AFL-CIO and BCTD, recommended more
extensive requirements for a written exposure control or compliance
program that included identification of exposures and controls, in
addition to exposure assessment methods or results, and descriptions of
the respiratory protection, medical surveillance, and training programs
(Document ID 2371, Attachment 1, pp. 16-17; 4204, p. 62; 4223, p. 82).
    Commenters such as Public Citizen, USW, UAW, and BCTD all agreed
that the value of a written exposure control plan is that it allows for
consistent identification and control of respirable crystalline silica
hazards (Document ID 2249, p. 2; 2336, pp. 8-9; 2282, Attachment 3, p.
17; 3581, Tr. 1569-1571; 4204, p. 60). OSHA affirms that the purpose of
the written exposure control plan is the consistent identification and
control of respirable crystalline silica hazards, and it is basing the
requirements for a written exposure control plan on that purpose.
    As discussed more fully below, the written exposure control plan
required under this rule for respirable crystalline silica is similar
to the ASTM standards in most, but not all, respects. The major
difference between the written plans in the ASTM standards and in this
rule is that written exposure control plans in this rule are not
limited to overexposure scenarios.
    OSHA thus considered the ASTM standards and commenter suggestions
to develop requirements for a written exposure control plan. The Agency
also considered which aspects of the proposed written access control
plan should be retained or modified. Therefore, the requirement for a
written exposure control plan evolved from comments on OSHA's proposed
written access control plan and in response to OSHA raising the
possible inclusion of a written exposure control plan as an issue.
    Requirements for the written exposure control plan. Paragraphs
(f)(2)(i)(A)-(C) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(iv)) of the standard for construction) identify
the elements to be addressed in a written exposure control plan.
Requirements for the written exposure control plan are performance-
based to allow employers to tailor written exposure control plans to
their particular worksites. The following discussion describes the
minimum requirements for the written exposure control plan and the
evidence that supports those requirements. It also recommends general
information to include for each section of the plan.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(i)) of the standard for construction)
requires a description of tasks involving exposures to respirable
crystalline silica. The proposed written access control plan called for
identification of areas where respirable crystalline silica exposure
may exceed the PEL. Communication Workers of America (CWA), Public
Citizen, USW, AFL-CIO, NISA, and BCTD recommended that the written
exposure control plan describe tasks, operations, or work processes
that result in exposures to respirable crystalline silica (Document ID
2240, p. 2; 2249, p. 3; 2336, p. 9; 4204, p. 62; 4208, p. 21; 4223, p.
82). A description of tasks involving exposures to respirable
crystalline silica is consistent with the first step of the root cause
analysis in the ASTM exposure control plans, which involves
investigating sources of overexposures (Document ID 1466, p. 2; 1504,
p. 2). It is also consistent with the identification of tasks and
hazards in the OSHA Job Hazard Analysis approach that is recommended by
NIOSH as a model for a respirable crystalline silica written exposure
control plan (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, p. 16; OSHA Document
3071, Revised 2002, Appendix 3).
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the standard for construction)
reflects OSHA's agreement with commenters that it is important for
employers to consistently identify tasks resulting in exposure to
ensure that appropriate employee protections are applied when needed.
The identification of tasks with potential respirable crystalline
silica exposure is no longer limited to exposures above the PEL, as it
was in the proposed written access control plan. This is more
protective because it identifies all tasks that could contribute to
employee exposures, thereby furthering the purpose of the rule.
    In preparing this section of the written plan, employers must list
all tasks that employees perform that could expose them to respirable
crystalline silica dust. This section of the written plan could include
a description of factors that affect exposures, such as types of
silica-containing materials handled in those tasks (e.g., concrete,
tile). It could also describe factors such as weather (e.g., wind,
humidity) and soil compositions (e.g., clay versus rock) (Document ID
3583, Tr. 2350-2352, 2356-2360; 4234, Part 2, pp. 37-38). Another
factor that could affect exposure and protective requirements and thus
could be described in the written plan is the location of the task, for
instance, whether the task is performed in an enclosed space (Document
ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 16-17). For example, the Table 1 entry for
walk-behind saws with integrated water delivery systems indicates that
a respirator is only required when the equipment is used indoors or in
an enclosed area.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the standard for construction)
requires a description of engineering controls, work practices, and
respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable
crystalline silica for each task. CWA, Public Citizen, USW, AFL-CIO,
NISA, and BCTD requested that the written plan describe controls for
managing exposures. Engineering and work practice controls were
specifically mentioned by Public Citizen, USW, AFL-CIO, and BCTD
(Document ID 2240, p. 2; 2249, pp. 3-4; 2336, p. 9; 4204, p. 62; 4208,
p. 21; 4223, p. 82). AFL-CIO further recommended that the written plan
describe jobs where respiratory protection is required (Document ID
4204, p. 62). BCTD also requested that the written plan describe
procedures for implementing the controls and for determining if the

controls are being used and maintained correctly (Document ID 4223, p.
82). NIOSH stated that a written exposure control plan can be a simple
mechanism for ensuring that maintenance checks are conducted and Table
1 conditions are maintained (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 16-
17).
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the standard for construction)
reflects OSHA's agreement that the written exposure control plan must
address controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to
manage exposures for each task identified in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of
the standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(i) of
the standard for construction). The purpose of this requirement is to
ensure that exposures to respirable crystalline silica hazards are
consistently controlled. Therefore, written exposure control plans must
include information such as types of controls used (e.g., dust
collector with manufacturer's recommended air flow and a filter with 99
percent efficiency), effective work practices (e.g., positioning local
exhaust over the exposure source), and if required, appropriate
respiratory protection (e.g., a respirator with an assigned protection
factor (APF) of 10) for each task. The requirement is consistent with
the exposure control plans in the ASTM standards that address
implementation of engineering controls and work practices to reduce
respirable crystalline silica exposures (Document ID 1466, p. 2; 1504,
p. 2). It is also consistent with OSHA's Job Hazard Analysis approach,
which is recommended by NIOSH as a model for the exposure control plan
and calls for a description of controls (Document ID 2177, Attachment
B, p. 16; OSHA document 3071, Revised 2002, Appendix 1 and 3).
    OSHA also agrees with NIOSH and BCTD about the necessity of
addressing the proper implementation and maintenance of controls for
each task. This is reflected in paragraph (c) of the standard for
construction, in the Table 1 requirements to operate or maintain tools
according to manufacturers' instructions. Proper implementation and
maintenance of controls is also necessary to meet the PEL under
paragraph (c) of the standard for general industry and maritime and
paragraph (d)(1) of the standard for construction for construction
employers who choose or are required to follow the alternative exposure
control methods. Therefore, to help ensure compliance with the rule,
the employer, in this section of the written exposure control plan,
could indicate signs that controls may not be working effectively
(e.g., dust is visible, no water is delivered to the blade). The plan
could also include a description of procedures the employer uses for
verifying that controls are functioning effectively (e.g., pressure
checks on local exhaust ventilation) and schedules for conducting
maintenance checks.
    OSHA finds the written exposure control plan especially important
for construction employers who use the specified exposure control
methods in Table 1 of paragraph (c). For them, the description of
engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection is
especially necessary to ensure adequate protection of employees and the
use of controls according to the manufacturer's instructions, since
employers are not required to conduct exposure assessments to verify
that controls are working properly. In cases where the employer owns a
particular type of equipment and it is repeatedly used at different job
sites, describing the manufacturer's instructions for operating the
dust controls in a written exposure control plan will demonstrate that
the employer has a complete understanding of and is applying those
specifications needed to control dust emissions. Describing those
specifications in the written exposure control plans will also serve as
a convenient reference for employees.
    As an example, in completing this section of the written plan, an
employer whose employees use a Stihl[supreg] Model TS 410 saw to cut
concrete could consult the user's manual to list or summarize those
instructions in his or her written exposure control plan. Based on the
user's manual, this section of the plan could indicate that (1) before
using a Stihl[supreg] Model TS 410 saw for cutting concrete, the
employee must examine the diamond cutting wheel for signs of excessive
wear, damage, or ``built-up edges'' (i.e., a pale, grey deposit on the
top of the diamond segments that clogs and blunts them) and (2) while
cutting, the employee must use a water flow rate no less than 0.6
liters (20 fluid ounces) per minute, stop and rinse the screen on the
water connection if no or too little water is delivered while cutting,
and not cut into the ballast layer of road surfaces to avoid excessive
wear on the cutting wheel (Document ID 3998, Attachment 12a, pp. 9, 21-
23). The specified exposure control methods in Table 1 indicate that
the employee must wear a respirator with an APF of 10 when using this
saw outdoors for more than 4 hours a day, and this type of information
must be included in this section, if applicable.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the standard for construction)
requires a description of the housekeeping measures used to limit
employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica. BCTD requested that
the exposure control plan describe housekeeping methods (Document ID
2371, Attachment 1, pp. 16-17). Similarly, CWA and USW recommended that
the written plan describe procedures for preventing the migration of
silica, and USW further noted that the plan should address keeping
surfaces visibly clean (Document ID 2240, p. 2; 2336, p. 9). USW also
requested that the written exposure control plan describe procedures
for removing, laundering, storing, cleaning, repairing, or disposing of
protective clothing and equipment (Document ID 2336, p. 9).
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(1)(iii)) of the standard for construction)
reflects OSHA's agreement that housekeeping needs to be addressed in
the written exposure control plan because some cleaning methods can
contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica. OSHA
intends this requirement to help ensure that employers identify and
implement appropriate cleaning methods so that employees are protected
from respirable crystalline silica dust that can become airborne while
performing housekeeping activities. Ensuring safe housekeeping methods
helps to consistently control exposures and hazards related to
respirable crystalline silica. Housekeeping is another type of work
practice to be used to limit employee exposures, and thus, it is
consistent with the written exposure control plans in the ASTM
standards, which call for implementing work practices to decrease
exposures (Document ID 1466, p. 2; 1504, p. 2). It is also consistent
with OSHA's Job Hazard Analysis approach, which is recommended by NIOSH
as a model for the exposure control plan and calls for a description of
controls (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 16-17; OSHA document
3071, Revised 2002, Appendix 1 and 3).
    OSHA concludes that requiring the written exposure control plan to
include a description of housekeeping methods is important because
acceptable housekeeping methods can vary among different companies. As
described more fully in the summary and explanation of Housekeeping,
certain housekeeping practices, such as wet sweeping, are infeasible in
some work scenarios.

Therefore, OSHA modified proposed prohibitions on cleaning activities,
such as dry sweeping or compressed air, to indicate that those
housekeeping methods can be used if there are no other feasible
methods. However, to comply with the rule, employers must ensure that
wet sweeping, HEPA-filtered vacuuming, or other appropriate cleaning
methods are used wherever feasible, if dry sweeping or dry brushing
could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
It is therefore important for the employer to specify in the written
exposure control plan the housekeeping practices the employer uses to
limit employee exposures and any special protections that are needed
when a particular housekeeping method is used.
    To ensure that cleaning methods used comply with paragraph (h) of
the standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph (f) of the
standard for construction), this section of the written plan could
include a description of acceptable and prohibited cleaning methods
used by the employer to minimize generation of airborne dust and
special instructions regarding cleaning methods (e.g., using local
exhaust ventilation if compressed air must be used). Hygiene-related
subjects, such as not using compressed air to clean clothing, could
also be addressed in this section of the written exposure control plan.
    Paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of the standard for construction requires a
description of the procedures used to restrict access to work areas,
when necessary, to limit the number of employees exposed to respirable
crystalline silica and the levels to which they are exposed, including
exposures generated by other employers or sole proprietors. No such
requirement is included in the written exposure control plan provision
for general industry and maritime. The reasons for the differing
requirements in the two standards are discussed below.
    The proposed written access control plans for general industry and
maritime and construction called for procedures for notifying employees
about the presence and location of areas where respirable crystalline
silica concentrations are or can be reasonably expected to exceed the
PEL and for demarcating those areas from the workplace if needed. Also
included in the proposed access control plan were provisions for
limiting access to areas where respirable crystalline silica exposures
may exceed the PEL, in order to minimize the numbers of employees
exposed and employee exposure levels.
    AFL-CIO and BCTD recommended that written plans describe procedures
that employers will use to limit exposure to employees who are not
performing respirable crystalline silica-related tasks (Document ID
4204, p. 63; 4223, p. 82). Similarly, BAC stated that the written plan
should contain provisions for a regulated area (Document ID 2329, p.
5). USW requested the written plan address labeling of areas with
potential respirable crystalline silica exposure (Document ID 2336, p.
14).
    Paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of the standard for construction reflects
OSHA's agreement that written exposure control plans must address
limiting exposure to construction employees who are not engaged in
respirable crystalline-silica-related tasks. However, as explained in
the summary and explanation of Regulated Areas, regulated areas are not
required in the standard for construction because most employers are
expected to rely on the specified exposure control methods in Table 1
of paragraph (c) and, therefore, will not have air monitoring data to
estimate boundaries of the regulated area. In the summary and
explanation of Regulated Areas, OSHA also acknowledges the
impracticality of demarcating regulated areas in many construction
scenarios. Nonetheless, it remains crucial that access to high-exposure
areas and employee exposure levels be limited at construction
worksites. A written description of the employer's plan for limiting
access is another tool the employer has that helps to consistently
control hazards.
    The exposure control plans in the ASTM standards do not
specifically call for procedures used to restrict access. However, they
do call for a description of administrative controls used to reduce
exposures (Document ID 1466, p. 2; 1504, p. 2). An example of an
administrative control that can be used to minimize the number of
employees exposed to respirable crystalline silica is scheduling high-
exposure tasks when others will not be in the area (Document ID 3583,
Tr. 2385-2386). For example, Anthony Zimbelman stated that when granite
countertops are being installed, silica dust may be generated when
drilling holes for plumbing fixtures or grinding to make adjustments,
but the installers are usually the only employees at the job site at
that time (Document ID 3521, pp. 6-7). CISC stated that in lieu of
developing a written access control plan, employers could instruct
employees to stay out of areas where dust is generated or, if employees
have to be in those areas, to avoid dust clouds (Document ID 2319, pp.
91-92). OSHA considers the CISC recommendation to be an additional
example of administrative controls for limiting access or exposures
that could be addressed in the written exposure control plan.
Similarly, a written exposure control plan could include guidance
requiring employees to maintain a safe distance from dust created by
the use of explosives in demolition and to stay out of the affected
area until the dust sufficiently dissipates; this would also serve as
an acceptable administrative control. Therefore, a requirement for the
written plan in the construction standard to address minimizing the
number of employees exposed and their exposure levels is consistent
with the exposure control plans in the ASTM standards.
    OSHA concludes that the written exposure control plan for the
construction standard must address restricting access of those
employees who are not engaged in tasks that generate respirable
crystalline silica (i.e., bystanders). Therefore, as noted above,
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of the standard for construction requires a
description of the procedures used to restrict access to work areas,
when necessary, to limit the number of employees exposed and their
exposure levels, including exposures generated by other employers or
sole proprietors (i.e., self-employed individuals). Restricting access
is necessary where respirator use is required under Table 1 or an
exposure assessment reveals that exposures are in excess of the PEL.
The competent person, who is designated by the employer to implement
the written exposure control plan under paragraph (g)(4) of the
standard for construction, could further identify situations where
limiting access is necessary. For example, limiting access may be
necessary when an employer or sole proprietor exposes another company's
employees to respirable crystalline silica levels that could reasonably
be considered excessive (e.g., above the PEL).
    Such a situation might occur when an employee engaged in a Table 1
task with fully and properly implemented controls is exposed to clearly
visible dust emissions by an employee or sole proprietor who is
performing a task not listed on Table 1, is not fully and properly
implementing Table 1 controls, or is performing a Table 1 task
requiring a higher level of respiratory protection. In that case, the
competent person would assess the situation to determine if it presents
a reasonably anticipated hazard, and if it does, take immediate and
effective steps to protect employees by implementing the procedures
described in the written exposure control plan. Actions by the
competent

person could include reminding employees to stay out of the areas where
respirable crystalline silica is being generated or repositioning
employees so that they will not be exposed to respirable crystalline
silica.
    This approach is consistent with current industry practices. For
example, Anthony Zimbelman testified that in his experience,
implementing a safety plan was sufficient to protect employees in
situations where subcontractors that are not required to comply with
the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act are working alongside
employees. Mr. Zimbelman further testified that in the home building
industry, this situation does not happen often and contractors would
stop working with a subcontractor who does not comply with OSHA
standards (Document ID 3587, Tr. 3547-3549). OSHA expects that
excessive exposures created by sole proprietors not covered by the
respirable crystalline silica rule will be an infrequent occurrence
because, as CISC indicated in its post-hearing brief, employers and
general contractors will likely demand that everyone on the site follow
regulatory requirements (Document ID 4217, Appendix B, p. 16). OSHA
thus expects that the employers or their competent persons will work
with general contractors of construction sites to avoid high exposures
of employees working alongside others generating respirable crystalline
silica. For example, the competent person could ask the general
contractor to schedule high-exposure tasks when employees will not be
in the area.
    OSHA is not retaining the proposed requirement in the written
access control plan that the employer describe how employees will be
notified about respirable crystalline silica exposures and how areas
will be demarcated. The requirements of the written exposure control
plan are more performance-oriented to permit each employer to address
unique scenarios of worksites. Demarcation (i.e., direct access
control), notifying or briefing employees, and scheduling high-exposure
tasks when others are not around, are likely to be the most common
methods of restricting access. Demarcating areas is not required
because, as noted above, it is not applicable to many construction
scenarios. However, if it is possible to demarcate areas, such as by
posting a warning sign, and that is the employer's chosen method for
limiting access or exposures, it must be described in this section of
the written exposure control plan. If notifying or briefing employees
is the method chosen to limit access or exposures, the procedures for
doing that must be described under this section of the written exposure
control plan.
    As noted above, the standard for general industry and maritime does
not require the written exposure control plan to address how access to
high-exposure areas or employee exposures will be limited. As described
in more detail in the summary and explanation of Regulated Areas, OSHA
concludes that establishing regulated areas is reasonable and generally
feasible in general industry and maritime workplaces. Therefore, the
standard for general industry and maritime clearly specifies
establishment of regulated areas that are demarcated and have warning
signs posted at the entrances to those areas (paragraph (e)(1) and
(2)(i) and (ii)). With the procedure clearly laid out in the standard,
there is no reason to address it in the written exposure control plan.
However, employers can address more than the minimum requirements for a
written exposure control plan, and general industry and maritime
employers always have the option of describing methods for limiting
access in their written exposure control plan.
    The proposed written access control plan called for a description
of the methods that employers at multi-employer sites would use to
notify other employers about the presence and location of areas where
respirable crystalline silica may exceed the PEL and any precautionary
methods needed to protect employees. AFL-CIO, BAC, and BCTD commented
that written plans should provide for a method of communication at
multi-employer sites (Document ID 4204, pp. 62-63; 4219, pp. 25-27;
4223, pp. 83-84). BCTD stated that a requirement for a written plan to
describe methods of communication at multi-employer sites was not
sufficient and requested that employers also be required to give their
written plan to a general contractor or other ``controlling employer''
at a multi-employer construction site. The controlling employer would
be required to share that information with other employers or use the
plan to coordinate activities to reduce exposures to employees
(Document ID 4223, pp. 118-123). AFL-CIO and BAC endorsed BCTD's
approach and/or recommended a similar method for using the written
exposure control plan to communicate at multi-employer worksites
(Document ID 4204, p. 63; 4219, pp. 25-27). Similarly, ASSE stated that
employers who generate respirable crystalline silica exposures at
multi-employer sites should inform the general contractor or host
employer about the need for access control and work cooperatively with
the general contractor or host employer to ensure compliance and notify
other employers at the site (Document ID 2339, p. 8).
    In contrast, NSSGA commented that the HCS already requires
employers to establish methods for communicating hazards to employees
of other employers (Document ID 2327, Attachment 1, p. 11). NAHB
commented that ``. . . the imposition of multi-employer burdens in the
proposed rule is inconsistent with the clear wording of Sec.
1910.12(a) requiring a construction employer to protect `each of his
employees engaged in construction work' (Emphasis added)'' (Document ID
2296, pp. 27-28). OSHA disagrees that a requirement to communicate the
presence of crystalline silica to other employers contradicts the 29
CFR 1910.12(a) requirement that employers protect their employees.
Communication among employers about areas where respirable crystalline
silica exposures may exceed the PEL will provide each employer with the
information needed to protect its own employees.
    OSHA nonetheless concludes that the written exposure control plan
need not specify communication methods at multi-employer sites, or
require that employers share their written exposure control plans at
multi-employer sites. Communication at multi-employer worksites is
already addressed in the HCS. As part of the written hazard
communication program required under the HCS, employers who use
hazardous chemicals in such a way that employees of other employers may
be exposed must include specific information in the written hazard
communication program. This includes methods the employer will use to
inform the other employers of any precautionary measures that need to
be taken to protect employees (29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(2)(ii)). Because the
provisions for a written hazard communication program under the HCS
already require employers to share relevant information on hazards and
protective measures with other employers in multi-employer workplaces,
OSHA does not find it necessary to restate a requirement for sharing of
information between employers in the respirable crystalline silica
rule. However, as discussed above, written exposure control plans are
useful for communicating information, and employers may decide that
they are a convenient way for sharing information with other employers
at multi-employer workplaces.
    Additional provisions that were part of the proposed access control
plan but

are not required for the written exposure control plan are procedures
for providing employees and their designated representatives an
appropriate respirator, protective clothing, or a means for cleaning
clothing when entering areas where exposures exceed the PEL or where
clothing could become grossly contaminated with finely divided
material. OSHA is not requiring the written exposure control plan to
address this subject because procedures related to providing employees
with appropriate respirators, such as selection of respirators, medical
evaluations, and training, must already be described in a written
respiratory protection program (29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)). In most cases,
the designated representative, who requires entry into a regulated area
or an area with restricted access for purposes such as observing air
monitoring, is likely to have access to appropriate respiratory
protection and be medically cleared to wear it (see summary and
explanation of Exposure Assessment). As OSHA determined in the summary
and explanation of Exposure Assessment, requirements of the written
respiratory protection program related to providing an appropriate
respirator would also apply to the designated representative in the
very rare case where the representative does not have a respirator.
Protective clothing is not addressed in the written exposure control
plan because it is not required by the rule. Recommendations concerning
cleaning of clothing, such as not using compressed air, could be
addressed as part of housekeeping measures or work practice controls.
    Some commenters requested that written plans address additional
topics and requirements. For example, Public Citizen, BCTD, and AFL-
CIO, requested that the written exposure control plan describe exposure
assessment methods or programs (e.g., air monitoring or objective data)
and results (Document ID 2249, pp. 3-4; 2371, Attachment 1, p. 16;
4204, p. 62; 4223, p. 82). Public Citizen indicated that this should
include detailed descriptions of analytical methods and air sampling
protocols or objective exposure assessment methods, and BCTD stated
that employers using Table 1 could indicate the portion of Table 1 upon
which they are relying (Document ID 2249, pp. 3-4; 4223, p. 82). BCTD
and AFL-CIO recommended that the written plan address respiratory
protection, medical surveillance, and training programs, including
documentation that employees have received respiratory fit testing,
medical evaluations or examinations, and training (Document ID 4204, p.
62; 4223, p. 82). Public Citizen requested that the plan be prepared by
a technically qualified person if the employer lacks the expertise to
prepare and implement the plan (Document ID 2249, p. 4). ASSE preferred
that the plans be developed by a certified safety professional or
certified industrial hygienist (CIH) (Document ID 2339, p. 8). NAHB
expressed concern about costs if small companies had to hire safety
consultants or industrial hygienists to develop the plan (Document ID
2296, p. 41).
    OSHA disagrees with commenters that the written exposure control
plan needs to address these topics. The major purpose of a written
exposure control plan is to ensure that respirable crystalline silica
hazards are consistently identified and controlled. OSHA concludes that
this purpose is best served if the written plan is limited to
information useful for the employer or the employer's designated
representative who will conduct inspections on job sites to ensure that
employees are adequately and consistently protected. Requiring a
written exposure control plan to contain information that is not
directly relevant to identifying and controlling hazards at job sites
would needlessly increase the burdens to employers preparing the
written plans and could make the plans cumbersome for them to use on
job sites. In addition, OSHA does not see the need for including a
description of the respiratory protection program because employers are
already required to develop a written respiratory protection program
under the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134(c)).
Recordkeeping requirements are clearly specified for fit testing and
medical evaluations in the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR
1910.134) and for medical examinations and exposure assessments in this
rule. The respirable crystalline silica rule does not require employers
to keep training records. As explained in more detail in the summary
and explanation of Recordkeeping, the rule does not require training
records because employers must instead ensure that employees
demonstrate knowledge and understanding of training subjects and in
addition, such a requirement would increase paperwork burdens for
employers and would not be consistent with the HCS and most OSHA
standards.
    Therefore, OSHA is neither requiring nor precluding employers to
include in written exposure control plans descriptions of exposure
assessment methods and results or information on respiratory
protection, medical surveillance, and training programs. Requiring
information, such as highly technical details on analytical methods,
would increase the likelihood that small employers would need to hire a
safety and health professional to develop the plans, thus increasing
the costs and burdens to those employers. Although OSHA encourages
companies to seek professional assistance when needed to develop the
plans, requiring a plan that is so complex that many employers would
not develop it themselves defeats the advantage of employers gaining an
increased understanding of the rule by articulating its requirements.
The additional information may be useful as part of a compliance plan,
and employers have the option to develop such a plan if they find it
helpful.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(2) of the standard for construction) requires
the employer to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the written
exposure control plan at least annually and update it as necessary. A
similar requirement was included in the proposed written access control
plan. Public Citizen requested revisions of written exposure control
plans as needed, including after annual review of exposure assessment
methods (Document ID 2249, p. 4). OSHA agrees with Public Citizen that
the written exposure control plan needs to be periodically reviewed and
updated as needed because work conditions can change (e.g., the
employer purchases a new type of equipment). As discussed above, a
written exposure control plan will not likely need to be updated often
because employees tend to use the same equipment to perform the same
tasks at many locations. However, a yearly review is needed to ensure
that all current scenarios are captured in the plan.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (g)(3) of the standard for construction) requires
that the employer make the written exposure control plan readily
available for examination and copying, upon request, to each employee
covered by this section, his or her designated representative, the
Assistant Secretary (i.e., OSHA), or the Director (i.e., NIOSH). A
similar requirement was included in the proposed written access control
plan. Public Citizen, USW, BCTD, and AFL-CIO requested a requirement to
make written exposure control plans available upon request by employees
or their representatives (Document ID 2249, p. 4;

2336, p. 9; 2371, Attachment 1, p. 17; 4204, p. 63). NIOSH, Public
Citizen, and BAC also stated that written exposure control plans are a
useful way to communicate protections to employees (Document ID 2177,
Attachment B, pp. 16-17; 2249, p. 3; 2329, p. 5). OSHA agrees with
commenters that a written exposure control plan is an effective method
for communicating protections to employees and their designated
representatives. Making the written plan readily available to employees
and their designated representatives upon request empowers and protects
employees by giving them and their representatives the information to
question employers if controls are not fully and properly implemented
or maintained. Similarly, making written exposure control plans readily
available to OSHA or NIOSH allows them to verify effectiveness of
employee protections.
    BCTD also requested that the rule require employers to address in
their written plans how temporary workers will be protected and that
the rule require staffing agencies and employers who use temporary
staff to share their written exposure control plans (Document ID 4223,
pp. 83-84). OSHA disagrees with BCTD that the rule needs to include a
requirement for host employers and temporary staffing agencies to share
their written exposure control plans with each other. However, OSHA
agrees with the importance of ensuring that temporary workers receive
the protections they are entitled to under the OSH Act. As BCTD noted
in its comments, OSHA addresses the issue of temporary employee
protections in its July 15, 2014, memorandum titled Policy Background
on the Temporary Worker Initiative (Document ID 4223, p. 84). The
policy memorandum indicates that both the host and staffing agency are
responsible for the health and safety of temporary employees and
encourages compliance officers to review written contracts between the
staffing agency and host employer to determine if they have fully
addressed employee health and safety. For example, the policy
memorandum indicates that host employers are well suited for assuming
responsibility for compliance related to workplace hazards, while
staffing agencies may be best positioned to provide medical
surveillance. The memorandum also states that although the host
employer has the primary responsibility for assessing hazards and
complying with occupational safety and health rules in his or her
workplace, staffing agencies must also ensure that they are not sending
employees to workplaces where the employees would be inadequately
protected from or trained about hazards. A temporary staffing agency
could review a host employer's written exposure control plan to verify
that the employer has identified hazards and is implementing the
appropriate controls. Staffing agencies and host employers would have
the option to supplement their written contract with a written exposure
control plan if that is useful for them. OSHA is not requiring that
host employers and staffing agencies share written exposure control
plans for respirable crystalline silica because sharing information is
an issue that affects all OSHA safety and health regulations and is
therefore most efficiently addressed through general policy statements.
    Competent Person (Construction). In paragraph (b) of the standard
for construction, OSHA defines competent person as an individual who is
capable of identifying existing and foreseeable respirable crystalline
silica hazards in the workplace and who has authorization to take
prompt corrective measures to eliminate or minimize them. The
definition also specifies that the competent person have the knowledge
and ability necessary to fulfill the responsibilities set forth in
paragraph (g). In paragraph (g)(4) of the standard for construction,
the employer is required to designate a competent person to make
frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment
to implement the written exposure control plan.
    OSHA included a competent person requirement in the draft general
industry/maritime and construction standards presented for review to
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) review
panel. In the draft standards submitted for SBREFA review, duties of
the competent person included evaluating workplace exposures and the
effectiveness of controls, implementing corrective measures to maintain
exposures at or below the PEL, establishing and maintaining boundaries
of regulated areas, and evaluating alternate media for abrasive
blasting operations. Small entity representatives (SERs) from the
construction industry who reviewed the SBREFA draft standard found the
requirements for a competent person hard to understand, reasoning that
(1) the competent person required a high skill level, (2) a large
proportion of their employees would need to be trained, and (3) the
requirements would be costly and difficult to comply with (78 FR at
56443-56444).
    OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH), made up of representatives of employees, employers, and state
and federal governments, recommended that the Agency retain a competent
person requirement in the proposed construction standard because many
OSHA standards include that requirement, it is an accepted approach for
construction, many small construction employers do not have full-time
health and safety staff, it can ensure that designated employees get
training on hazards and proper use of controls, and it can increase
confidence that controls and PPE are being used and maintained
correctly (Document ID 4073, Attachment 14g, pp. 2-3).
    OSHA included a competent person provision in the proposed
standards, but the only duty that OSHA proposed for the competent
person was identifying areas where respirable crystalline silica
concentrations are, or could reasonably be expected to be, in excess of
the PEL when the employer chose to develop a written access control
plan in lieu of establishing regulated areas. OSHA proposed this
limited competent person duty because the Agency thought that
provisions of the proposed standard, such as requirements for
engineering controls and work practices to reduce and maintain employee
exposure to respirable crystalline silica at or below the PEL, would
effectively communicate the requirements of the rule, without
involvement of a designated competent person. However, the Agency was
aware that competent person requirements have been included in other
health and safety standards and that some parties thought such
requirements would be useful in the silica rule (78 FR at 56443-56444).
Therefore, OSHA requested comments regarding the appropriateness of the
limited competent person requirement, whether a competent person
provision should be included, and if the proposed duties for a
competent person should be modified or deleted (78 FR at 56288).
    Many commenters representing labor unions and employee health
advocate groups disagreed with OSHA proposing to include only a limited
role for the competent person in construction. Commenters such as
NIOSH, the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA),
ASSE, IUOE, and BCTD supported an expanded competent person role
because many construction companies are small and cannot afford safety
or health professionals, but as NIOSH stated, small companies can have
trained and authorized employees ensure employee protections (Document
ID 3403, p. 4;

3589, Tr. 4256-4257; 4201, pp. 2-3; 4025, Attachment 1, p. 2; 4223, pp.
107-109). OSHA estimates that approximately 93 percent of construction
companies covered by the respirable crystalline silica standard have
fewer than 20 employees (see Chapter III of the Final Economic Analysis
and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). In further explaining why a
competent person is needed in construction, Dr. Schulte testified:

    The need for expanding the duties of the silica-competent person
is especially important when employers plan to rely on Table 1
because it is less likely that an industrial hygienist will visit
the project to evaluate the job, collect air samples, or check the
effectiveness of controls. Effectiveness deteriorates when controls
or personal protective equipment (PPE) are not maintained; this
performance degradation may not be obvious to workers using the
devices (Document ID 3403, p. 4).

    The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), IUOE, and BCTD
agreed that a competent person is needed to ensure that Table 1
controls are functioning effectively (Document ID 3578, Tr. 1030; 3583,
Tr. 2347; 4223, pp. 109-110). BCTD stated:

. . . because the technology for controlling silica exposures
largely consists of equipment that is attached to or directed at the
tools the workers use in their silica-generating tasks, the manner
in which it is deployed and maintained is critical to its success.
Thus, whether these controls are effective depends on successfully
combining the engineering controls with work practices: Accurately
assessing the potential exposures, selecting the proper control for
the job, using the equipment properly, and making sure the equipment
is functioning effectively. All of this must be done on an on-going
basis (Document ID 4223, p. 109).

    Exposure variability in construction is another reason that
commenters cited in support of expanded competent person duties. For
example, ASSE commented that varying silica exposures can occur as a
result of wind pattern and geological changes as contractors move from
one site to another or to a new area at the same site (Document ID
4201, p. 2). LHSFNA explained that a competent person can help to
reduce exposure variability by identifying major sources of variability
and ensuring that controls are used and maintained effectively
(Document ID 4207, p. 4). Similarly, NIOSH stated that a competent
person could reduce exposure variability by recognizing sources of
variability, such as tasks done in an enclosed area or equipment that
is not working correctly (Document ID 3579, Tr. 175-176, 194-195). In
explaining how a competent person could reduce exposure variability,
Kyle Zimmer, Director of Health and Safety for IUOE Local 478,
testified that the competent person could respond to changing
conditions by repositioning equipment so that employees are upwind of
the dust created, adjusting water controls based on environmental
factors, or addressing an unexpected encounter of a concrete sub-base
during asphalt milling (Document ID 3583, Tr. 2351-2352).
    Commenters also addressed a competent person's role regarding
bystanders (i.e., employees working nearby other employees who are
engaged in tasks that generate respirable crystalline silica but are
not themselves engaged in those tasks). BCTD commented that the
potential for bystander exposure is another reason why competent
persons are needed in construction (Document ID 4223, p. 110). Hearing
participants described how a competent person could minimize bystander
exposure. For example, Travis Parsons, Senior Safety and Health
Specialist for LHSFNA, stated that the competent person could ensure
communication about exposures being generated between employees from
different trades working at the same construction site (Document ID
3589, Tr. 4232). Donald Hulk, Safety Director for Manafort Brothers,
Inc. and representing IUOE, testified that a sufficiently trained
competent person would be able to recognize when secondary exposures
could occur, and in those situations, subcontractors might be able
reschedule activities to avoid bystander exposures (Document ID 3583,
Tr. 2385-2386).
    Another reason why commenters stated that a competent person is
needed in construction is because they thought that employers are not
adequately recognizing respirable crystalline silica-related health
hazards. As evidence that employers do not believe that respirable
crystalline silica is an issue, Chris Trahan, CIH, representing BCTD,
pointed to the volume of testimony claiming that declining silicosis
mortality rates are evidence that silicosis is not a problem and that
respirable crystalline silica is an ``alleged carcinogen.'' Ms. Trahan
disagreed with these commenters and said their testimony demonstrates
the hurdles that the industry must overcome before silica is recognized
as a hazard and controlled (Document ID 3581, Tr. 1641-1642; 4223, pp.
108-109). LHSFNA claimed that most contactors have not adequately
addressed respirable crystalline silica-related health hazards because
of the long latency of silica-related disease compared to the common
short tenure of employment at any one company. LHSFNA commented that
this blunted the ability of workers' compensation to provide an
incentive for disease prevention (Document ID 4207, p. 3). In support
of the importance of a competent person for preventing disease, LHSFNA
and BCTD pointed to the following statement in the AIHA White Paper on
competent persons (Document ID 3589, Tr. 4199; 4223, p. 106).

    A key component in preventing overexposure to silica and
subsequent disease is to have at least one individual on the jobsite
who is capable of recognizing and evaluating situations where
overexposure may be occurring; who knows how to evaluate the
exposure potential; and who can make an initial recommendation on
how to control that exposure. This is the role of the silica
competent person (Document ID 4076, p. 3).

    Commenters stressed that the competent person is a well-known
concept in construction. LHSFNA and BCTD commented that requiring a
competent person under the silica regulation maintains consistency with
19 OSHA construction standards (Document ID 4207, p. 3; 4223, p. 107).
Standards requiring a competent person include asbestos (29 CFR
1926.1101), lead (29 CFR 1926.62), and cadmium (29 CFR 1926.1127)
(Document ID 4223, p. 107). In addition, NIOSH and LHSFNA commented
that competent person provisions are commonly included in American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards for construction (Document
ID 2177, Attachment B, p. 8; 3589, Tr. 4200). NIOSH further said that
it and its state partners routinely recommend the need for, and role
of, designated competent persons in investigation reports conducted
under NIOSH's Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation program
(Document ID 2177, Attachment B, p. 8).
    The competent person requirement is also consistent with
construction industry practices. For example, Donald Hulk testified
that at Manafort Brothers construction sites, a highly trained person
has the authority to ensure that best practices are implemented
(Document ID 3583, Tr. 2380). Anthony Zimbelman testified that owners
or competent persons of subcontracting companies conduct assessments
and develop procedures for controlling dust before remodeling or
construction of homes (Document ID 3587, Tr. 3538-3539). Safety
Director Francisco Trujillo from Miller and Long, Inc. testified ``. .
. we have competent persons for almost everything . . .'' and explained
that competent persons are required to

evaluate the adequacy of protective equipment when dust collection
systems are used because of the limitations of those systems and
changing site conditions (Document ID 3585, Tr. 2963-2964, 2980).
    Specific duties for a competent person were recommended by a
diverse group of commenters, including AIHA, NIOSH, National Asphalt
Pavement Association (NAPA), IUOE, National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA), retired occupational safety and health attorney
Charles Gordon, LHSFNA, and BCTD (Document ID 2169, p. 5; 2177,
Attachment B, pp. 9-10, 14; 2181, pp. 10-11; 2262, pp. 38-39, 42-43;
2365, pp. 19-20; 3588, Tr. 3800-3801; 3589, Tr. 4197-4201; 4223, pp.
106-114). BCTD, which had among the most extensive recommendations,
noted that OSHA standards for lead, asbestos, and cadmium specify
duties for a competent person (Document ID 4223, p. 112). For the
respirable crystalline silica standard, BCTD requested that the
employer designate a competent person to be on site whenever work
covered by the standard is being conducted to ensure that the
employer's written exposure control plan is implemented, and to:

. . . use the written exposure control plan to identify locations
where silica is present or is reasonably expected to be present in
the workplace prior to the performance of work. In addition the
competent person's duties shall include ensuring: (1) The employer
has assessed the exposures as required by this section; (2) where
necessary, regulated areas are established and access to and from
those areas is limited to authorized persons; (3) the engineering
controls and work practices required by this standard, including all
elements of Table 1 (if it is being used), are fully and properly
implemented, maintained in proper operating condition, and
functioning properly; (4) employees have been provided with
appropriate PPE, including respiratory protection, if required; and
(5) that all employees exposed to silica have received the
appropriate silica training . . . (Document ID 4223, p. 113).

    NIOSH recommended similar duties in addition to indicating that the
competent person should assure proper hygiene to prevent employees from
taking home silica dust on clothing and to conduct daily checks of
engineering controls and respirators in abrasive blasting operations
involving sand (Document ID 2177, Attachment B, pp. 9-10, 14). IUOE
stated that the competent person could assist with employee training,
ensure good housekeeping in heavy equipment cabs, and assume
responsibility for exposure assessments (Document ID 2262, p. 41; 3583,
Tr. 2369-2370; 3583, Tr. 2345). NISA stated that a competent person
could conduct qualitative objective exposure assessments or determine
frequency of exposure estimates under the performance option (Document
ID 2195, pp. 35-36).
    CISC opposed a requirement for a competent person and stated that
thorough training eliminated the need for a competent person and access
control plan (Document ID 4217, pp. 25-26). In disputing the value of
expanding the competent person role in the standard, CISC claimed that
the ubiquitous presence of silica in construction precluded the need
for a designated person who is capable of identifying existing and
predictable respirable crystalline silica hazards and has authorization
to take prompt corrective actions (Document ID 2319, p. 127).
    Commenters also addressed the practicality of a competent person
requirement. IUOE commented that an employer would not need to hire
additional personnel to serve as silica competent persons because they
could designate a competent person to oversee more than one
construction activity or task, as long as that person is able to
identify existing and predictable hazards and is authorized to take
prompt corrective action (Document ID 4234, Part 3, pp. 62-63). In
contrast, CISC commented that requiring a competent person at all
construction sites is not realistic for small companies and pointed to
testimony from Kellie Vazquez, Vice President of Holes Incorporated, as
an example (Document ID 4217, pp. 26-27). Ms. Vazquez testified:

. . . my guys are one-man crews. So I will have one operator in a
truck and that truck is loaded with his equipment to go do his
multiple jobs per day. He is his own operator, his own equipment
operator, his own supervisor, his own foreman. He has the right to
shut down any job he feels that is not safe. I don't have a second
man, or a competent person, or a supervisor go with him on site to
look at the job and verify if it is safe or not. That's his
responsibility. That's what he is trained to do. My operators have
30-hour OSHA [training]. They are trained in trenching and
excavation. They are competent people in trenching and excavation.
They are scaffold builders. They get aerial lift trained (Document
ID 3580, Tr. 1389).

    OSHA observes that the description of Ms. Vazquez's employees is
consistent with the definition of a competent person for safety issues
(i.e., extensive training on safety issues and the authority to close
down a job site if they feel that it is not safe), and Ms. Vazquez
admitted that her employees are already competent persons in trenching
and excavation. It is likely that her employees already have the
knowledge to fully and properly implement controls on the tools they
use and recognize if they are not functioning properly. With the
training required under paragraph (i) of the standard for construction
and the authority to take corrective actions, those employees could be
designated as competent persons for respirable crystalline silica. OSHA
concludes there is no need to designate a separate competent person in
that situation.
    In addition, any prompt corrective measures that competent persons
would take to eliminate or minimize respirable crystalline silica
hazards would likely have minimal impact on work activities in most
cases. Such measures might include briefly stopping work to clear a
clogged water line on a tool with wet method controls or clean a filter
on a tool with vacuum controls if the competent person sees signs that
controls are not functioning effectively. OSHA concludes that even for
small businesses, a competent person requirement will not be unduly
burdensome because knowledgeable employees, who will already be on
site, can be designated as competent persons.
    OSHA concludes that the ubiquitous presence of respirable
crystalline silica and the many variables that can affect employee
exposure when performing construction tasks justify a requirement for a
competent person in construction, who is not only trained to identify
and correct respirable crystalline silica hazards, but also is
authorized to take immediate corrective actions to eliminate or
minimize them.
    Exposures and hazards can vary according to environmental
conditions such as wind and humidity, geological profile of soil, if
work is performed indoors or outdoors, or how well exposure controls
are maintained. Consequently, there is an obvious need for a competent
person to frequently inspect the construction job site, identify
respirable crystalline silica hazards, and verify that effective
control measures are being used. Site assessment is a continuous
process because of changing environmental and work conditions as a
construction job is being completed. In cases where the competent
person is the only person from his or her company on a job site,
frequent inspections of the job site would equate to continuous
assessment of variables associated with the job that the competent
person is conducting (e.g., signs that the controls are not functioning
effectively, a change in weather condition that might require an
adjustment of controls, or moving from an outdoor area to an enclosed
area).

Therefore, paragraph (g)(4) of the standard for construction requires
an employer to designate a competent person to make frequent and
regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement
the written exposure control plan. OSHA concludes that the uniqueness
and complexity of scenarios on construction sites justify the
designation of a competent person.
    OSHA agrees with commenters that a competent person is needed in
construction because employers who use the specified exposure control
methods in Table 1 are not required to conduct exposure assessments and
because large numbers of small construction companies do not typically
employ health and safety professionals. Another reason for including a
competent person provision in the construction standard is because at
multi-employer worksites, the actions of one employer may expose
employees of other employers to hazards. For these reasons, OSHA agrees
with ACCSH and commenters from NIOSH, labor unions, and employee health
advocate groups that a requirement for a designated competent person is
needed and will improve employee protections in construction.
    In addition, as noted above, a requirement for a competent person
is consistent with OSHA substance-specific standards for construction,
such as lead (29 CFR 1926.62), asbestos (29 CFR 1926.1101), and cadmium
(29 CFR 1926.1127). OSHA's general safety and health provisions for
construction require the employer to initiate and maintain programs for
accident prevention, as may be necessary, and such programs require
frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment
by a designated competent person (29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1) and (2)).
Designating a competent person is consistent with current construction
industry practices because, as the record indicates, employers in the
construction industry are already using competent persons.
    OSHA is requiring that the competent person implement the written
exposure control plan because, as discussed above, the plan specifies
what must be done to consistently identify and control respirable
crystalline silica hazards on a job site. In construction, a competent
person is needed to ensure that the requirements of the written
exposure control plan are being met under variable conditions. The
subjects that must be described in the written exposure control plan
for construction--tasks involving exposure to respirable crystalline
silica; engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory
protection; housekeeping methods for limiting exposure; and procedures
for restricting access when needed to minimize exposures or numbers of
employees exposed--are consistent with the duties of a competent person
suggested by representatives from NIOSH, labor unions, employee health
advocates, and some industries. Therefore, having the competent person
implement the written exposure control plan is consistent with many of
the competent person duties recommended by commenters. It also makes
the competent person requirements easy to understand.
    Implementation of the written exposure control plan does not
address every competent person duty that was recommended by commenters,
such as training or specific duties related to abrasive blasting with
sand. OSHA is not mandating that the competent person conduct training
because training could, in many cases, be performed by other
individuals. For example, ensuring that an employee can demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of health hazards, contents of the rule,
and medical surveillance, and providing the employee with any needed
training, may be better addressed by an individual other than the
designated competent person, or at another location before the employee
reports to the job site. A competent person could use the written
exposure control plan to recognize employees who are not knowledgeable
about full and proper implementation of controls or work practices and
take appropriate action, such as reminding them of proper practices or
recommending additional training to the employer.
    The standard does not specify a duty for the competent person
regarding abrasive blasting with sand, but unique aspects of that
operation, such as more frequent checks of controls, could be specified
in the written exposure control plan. OSHA reasons that evaluating
alternate media for use in abrasive blasting, as was recommended in the
draft standard for SBREFA, requires specialized knowledge in toxicology
or a related science, and is thus beyond the knowledge of a typical
employee who would be designated a competent person and unduly
burdensome to employers. Also, as discussed in the summary and
explanation section of Methods of Compliance, OSHA recognizes that
alternative media may present health risks. Other duties that
commenters recommended, such as conducting exposure assessment, are
usually done by professionals such as industrial hygienists. Requiring
an industrial hygienist to be on worksites daily would be very
burdensome, especially to small employers. In addition, OSHA expects
the need for exposure assessments in construction to be limited because
most employers will likely rely on Table 1 in paragraph (c) rather than
do exposure assessments, based on the number of comments OSHA received
about exposure assessments being impractical in construction (see
summary and explanation of Exposure Assessment).
    In its prehearing comments, BCTD also requested that the exposure
control plan list the identity of the competent person (Document ID
2371, Attachment 1, pp. 16-17). OSHA is not requiring that the written
exposure control plan include the identity of the competent person
because it is both impractical and unnecessary. Construction companies
could have more than one designated competent person because they need
a backup competent person or they have jobs being conducted at various
construction sites. Therefore the identity of the competent person
could change from day to day if employees work at different job sites,
or if a backup person is sent to a particular job site. However, it is
important for employees to be able to identify the competent person.
Therefore, OSHA is requiring that employers covered by the standard for
construction notify employees about the identity of the competent
person as part of the training provision under paragraph (i)(2)(i)(E).
OSHA expects this could simply involve announcing the identity of the
competent person at the start of each work shift.
    As stated above, paragraph (b) (Definitions) of the standard for
construction specifies that the competent person have the knowledge and
ability necessary to fulfill his or her responsibilities. The proposed
rule did not specify particular training requirements for competent
persons. Rather, the requirement for a competent person was
performance-based in that the competent person needed to be capable of
effectively performing the duty assigned under the standard, which was
to identify, in advance, areas where exposures were reasonably expected
to exceed the PEL. In the standard for construction, the duties of the
competent person have been expanded, and expanded training requirements
for the competent person therefore need to be considered.
    OSHA received many comments regarding knowledge and competencies
for a competent person. IUOE recommended inclusion of specific training
requirements for competent persons in the standard for construction

because it thought that without them, competent persons may not get the
training needed to train employees in the implementation and
maintenance of controls or understand and adjust to variables that
affect exposures, smaller employers might not understand the scope of
appropriate training, employers might avoid expenditures for
appropriate training, and the standard would be more difficult to