[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63746-63770]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26448]

Vol. 83

Tuesday,

No. 237

December 11, 2018

Part III

 Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Part 1910

 Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry; Proposed Rule

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

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

Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The public can submit comments, hearing requests, and other
material, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, using any of the
following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing
requests and other information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for submitting comments. Note that this docket
may include several different Federal Register notices involving active
rulemakings, so it is extremely important to select the correct notice
or RIN number (RIN 1218-AD20) when submitting comments for this
rulemaking. After accessing ``all documents and comments'' in the
docket (OSHA-2018-0003), check the ``proposed rule'' box in the column
headed ``Document Type,'' find the document posted on the date of
publication of this document, and click the ``Submit a Comment'' link.
Additional instructions for submitting comments are available from the
http://www.regulations.gov homepage.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments that are
10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Fax these
documents to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA does not
require hard copies of these documents. Instead of transmitting
facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g.,
studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments to
the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, the date, the subject, and the
docket number (OSHA-2018-0003) so that the Docket Office can attach
them to the appropriate document.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
(courier) service: Submit comments and any additional material to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2350. OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of
materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service.
The Docket Office will accept deliveries (express delivery, hand
delivery, messenger service) during the Docket Office's normal business
hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name, the
title of the rulemaking (Beryllium Standard: Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking), and the docket number (OSHA-2018-0003). OSHA will place
comments and other material, including any personal information, in the
public docket without revision, and the comments and other material
will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made
available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal
information (either about themselves or others), such as Social
Security Numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the above address. The electronic docket for this proposed rule
established at http://www.regulations.gov contains most of the
documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not available publicly to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On January 9, 2017, OSHA published the final rule Occupational
Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the Federal Register
(82 FR 2470). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and
beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs)
were at significant risk of material impairment of health, specifically
chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer. OSHA concluded in the
final rule that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ would reduce this significant risk to the maximum extent
feasible. In the final rule OSHA issued three separate beryllium
standards--general industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition
to the revised PEL, for each of the three standards the final rule also
established a new short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\
over a 15-minute sampling period and

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

II. Discussion of Proposed Changes

    OSHA proposes to modify several of the general industry standard's
definitions, along with the provisions for methods of compliance,
personal protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and
practices, housekeeping, medical surveillance, communication of
hazards, and recordkeeping. OSHA believes that the proposed changes
would maintain safety and health protections for workers. The proposed
changes are further designed to enhance worker protections overall by
ensuring that the rule is well-understood and compliance is more
straightforward.

A. Definitions

    Paragraph (b) of the beryllium standard for general industry (82 FR
2470, as modified by 83 FR 19936) addresses changes to the definitions
of specific key terms used in the standard. OSHA is proposing to change
or add six terms in the definitions paragraph.
    OSHA is proposing to add the following definition for beryllium
sensitization: ``a response in the immune system of a specific
individual who has been exposed to beryllium. There are no associated
physical or clinical symptoms and no illness or disability with
beryllium sensitization alone, but the response that occurs through
beryllium sensitization can enable the immune system to recognize and
react to beryllium. While not every beryllium-sensitized person will
develop CBD, beryllium sensitization is essential for development of
CBD.'' The agency is proposing to add this definition in order to
provide additional clarification of other provisions in the standard,
such as the definitions of chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and
confirmed positive and the provisions for medical surveillance (k) and
hazard communication (m). The proposed addition of a definition for
beryllium sensitization would not change employer obligations under
provisions (k) and (m) and would not affect employee protections.
    In the 2017 final beryllium rule (82 FR 2470), OSHA found that
individuals sensitized through either the dermal or inhalation exposure
pathways respond to beryllium through the formation of a beryllium-
protein complex, which then binds to T-cells stimulating a beryllium-
specific immune response (82 FR 2494). The formation of the T-cell-
beryllium-protein complex that results in beryllium sensitization may
not manifest in any outward clinical symptoms in the lung (82 FR 2491),
and most who are sensitized may not show any symptoms at all. While it
may be rare for those sensitized through dermal exposure to exhibit any
outward signs or symptoms, dermal sensitization has been associated
with skin granulomas and contact dermatitis. Dermal exposure may also
result in dermal irritation, which can be indistinguishable from
contact dermatitis (82 FR 2527-2528). It should be noted that
beryllium, beryllium oxide, and other soluble and poorly soluble forms
of beryllium have been classified as a skin irritant (category 2) in
accordance with the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging
Regulation (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1669, p. 2).
    As OSHA determined in the final beryllium rule, after an individual
has been sensitized, subsequent beryllium exposures via inhalation can
progress to serious lung disease through the formation of granulomas
and fibrosis (82 FR 2491-2498). Since the pathogenesis of CBD involves
a beryllium-specific, cell-mediated immune response, CBD cannot occur
in the absence of sensitization (NAS, 2008, Document ID OSHA-H005C-
2006-0870-1355). Therefore, the proposed definition explaining that
beryllium sensitization is essential for development of CBD is
consistent with the agency's findings in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b) of the general industry beryllium standard defines
beryllium work area as any work area containing a process or operation
that can release beryllium and that involves material that contains at
least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight; and, where employees are, or can
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at any
level or where there is the potential for dermal contact with
beryllium. In addition to paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i), which
require employers to establish, maintain, and demarcate a beryllium
work area wherever this definition is met, the presence of a beryllium
work area also triggers several other requirements in the standard:
Paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(D) and (f)(1)(i)(F) (written exposure control plan
requirements); paragraph (f)(2) (required exposure controls);
paragraphs (i)(1) (general hygiene practices) and (i)(2) (change
rooms); paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2) (housekeeping requirements);
and paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B) (employee training).
    OSHA proposes to modify this definition to clarify when an area of
a workplace must be considered a beryllium work area. The proposed
revision would define beryllium work area as any work area where
materials that contain at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight are
processed during an operation listed in Appendix A, regardless of
exposure level; or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected
to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at or above the action level. In
conjunction with this change, OSHA proposes to revise Appendix A so
that it contains proposed Table A.1: Operations for Establishing
Beryllium Work Areas Where Processing Materials Containing at Least 0.1
Percent Beryllium by Weight, which provides a list of operations
commonly performed while processing beryllium metal, beryllium
composites, beryllium alloys, or beryllium oxides that have the
potential for exposure to airborne beryllium through the generation of
dust, mist, and/or fumes. The list of operations in Table A.1 was
compiled based on the experience of Materion Corporation (Materion),
the primary beryllium manufacturer in the United States, and the USW,
the primary union representing employees with beryllium exposure, and
is divided into three categories: (1) Beryllium Metal Alloy

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

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

appropriate diagnostic testing within 24 hours and the pulmonologist or
pulmonary specialist must be able to interpret the biopsy pathology and
the BAL diagnostic test results.
    The proposed definition includes the following changes to the
current definition of CBD diagnostic center. First, the agency is
proposing changing the language to reflect the agency's intent that
pulmonologists or pulmonary specialists be on staff at a CBD diagnostic
center. Whereas the current definition specifies only that a CBD
diagnostic center must have a pulmonary specialist, OSHA is proposing
to add the term ``pulmonologist'' to clarify that either type of
specialist is qualified to perform a clinical evaluation for the
presence of CBD. Additionally, the current definition states that a CBD
diagnostic center has an on-site specialist. OSHA is proposing to
change the language to state that a CBD diagnostic center must have a
pulmonologist or pulmonary specialist on staff, rather than on site, to
clarify that such specialists need not necessarily be on site at all
times.
    An additional proposed change to CBD diagnostic center would
clarify that the diagnostic center must have the capacity to do any of
the listed tests that a pulmonary specialist or pulmonologist may deem
necessary. As currently written, the definition could be misinterpreted
to mean that any clinical evaluation for CBD performed at a CBD
diagnostic center must include pulmonary testing, bronchoalveolar
lavage, and transbronchial biopsy. The agency's intent is not to
dictate what tests a specialist should include, but to ensure that any
facility has the capacity to perform any of these tests, which are
commonly needed to diagnose CBD. Therefore, the agency is proposing to
modify part of the current definition from ``[t]his evaluation must
include pulmonary function testing . . .'' to ``[t]he CBD diagnostic
center must have the capacity to perform pulmonary function testing . .
. '' These changes to the definition of CBD diagnostic center are
clarifying in nature, and OSHA expects they would maintain safety and
health protections for workers.
    The agency is also proposing a clarification to the definition of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD). For the purposes of this standard, the
agency is proposing chronic beryllium disease to mean a chronic
granulomatous lung disease caused by inhalation of airborne beryllium
by an individual who is beryllium-sensitized. The proposed definition
includes several changes to the current definition of chronic beryllium
disease.
    First, OSHA proposes to alter the current definition by adding the
term ``granulomatous'' to better distinguish this disease from other
occupationally associated chronic pulmonary diseases of inflammatory
origin. A granulomatous lung formation is a focal collection of
inflammatory cells (e.g., T-cells) creating a nodule in the lung
(Ohshimo et al., 2017, Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2171). The
formation of the type of lung granuloma specific to a beryllium immune
response can only occur in those with CBD (82 FR 2492-2502).
    An additional proposed clarification to the definition of chronic
beryllium disease would change ``associated with airborne exposure to
beryllium'' to ``caused by inhalation of airborne beryllium.'' This
proposed change would be more consistent with the findings in the
beryllium final rule that indicate beryllium is the causative agent for
CBD and that CBD only occurs after inhalation of beryllium (82 FR
2513). A further proposed change includes the addition of ``by an
individual who is beryllium sensitized.'' This proposed change would
clarify OSHA's finding that beryllium sensitization is essential in the
development of CBD (82 FR 2492).
    OSHA is proposing to modify the definition of confirmed positive to
mean the person tested has had two abnormal BeLPT test results, an
abnormal and a borderline test result, or three borderline test results
obtained within the 30 day follow-up test period required after a first
abnormal or borderline BeLPT test result. It also means the result of a
more reliable and accurate test indicating a person has been identified
as having beryllium sensitization. The proposed definition includes
several changes to the current definition of confirmed positive.
    First, the agency is proposing to change the definition of
confirmed positive by removing the phrase ``beryllium sensitization''
from the first part of the definition, which currently states that the
person tested has beryllium sensitization, as indicated by two abnormal
BeLPT test results, an abnormal and a borderline test result, or three
borderline test results. The proposed change would emphasize OSHA's
intent that confirmed positive should act as a trigger for continued
medical monitoring and surveillance for the purposes of this standard
and is not intended as a scientific or general-purpose definition of
beryllium sensitization.
    The term confirmed positive originates from a study that described
the findings from a large-scale interlaboratory testing scheme (Stange
et al., 2004, Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1402). Stange et al.
demonstrated that when samples with abnormal findings from one lab were
retested in a second lab, the reliability of the results increased. As
OSHA discussed in the preamble to the final rule, individuals who are
confirmed positive through two abnormal BeLPT test results, an abnormal
and a borderline, or three borderlines may be at risk for developing
CBD (82 FR 2646). Whether or not individuals are necessarily considered
to be beryllium-sensitized at the time of the BeLPT findings is less of
a consideration than is the understanding that these individuals may be
at risk for developing CBD and should therefore be offered continued
medical surveillance, an evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center, and
medical removal protection.
    An additional proposed change to confirmed positive would include
clarification that the findings of two abnormal, one abnormal and one
borderline, or three borderline results need to occur within the 30-day
follow-up test period required after a first abnormal or borderline
BeLPT test result. After publication of the final rule, stakeholders
suggested to OSHA that the definition of confirmed positive could be
interpreted as meaning that findings of two abnormal, one abnormal and
one borderline, or three borderline results over any time period, even
as long as 10 years, would result in the employee being confirmed
positive. This was not the agency's intent, as such a timeframe may
lead to false positives and thereby not enhance employee protections.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing a clarification that any combination of
test results specified in the definition must result from the tests
conducted in one 30-day cycle of testing, including the initial test
and the retesting offered when an initial result is a single abnormal
result or borderline, in order to be considered confirmed positive.
    As outlined in paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E), an employee must be offered
a follow-up BeLPT within 30 days if the initial test result is anything
other than normal, unless the employee has been confirmed positive
(e.g., if the initial BeLPT was performed on a split sample and showed
two abnormal results). Thus, for example, if an employee's initial test
result is abnormal, and the result of the follow-up testing offered to
confirm the initial test result is abnormal or borderline, the employee
would be confirmed positive. But if the result of the follow-up testing
offered to confirm the initial abnormal test result

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

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

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

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

B. Written Exposure Control Plan

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

C. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment

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

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

D. Hygiene Areas and Practices

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

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

E. Disposal and Recycling

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

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

F. Medical Surveillance

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

exposure in an emergency to address sensitization or other health
effects?
    As promulgated, paragraph (k)(2)(i)(B) currently requires the
employer to provide a medical examination within 30 days after the
employer determines that an employee has been exposed to beryllium in
an emergency. Under proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iv), the time period for
providing a medical examination begins to run from the date the
employee is exposed during an emergency, regardless of when the
employer discovers that the exposure occurred. Because under this
proposal the medical examination will not occur until at least a year
from the date of the exposure in an emergency, and because OSHA
believes that employers typically will learn of the emergency resulting
in exposure immediately or soon after it occurs, OSHA has preliminarily
determined that it is appropriate to measure the time period from the
date of exposure. OSHA requests comments on the appropriateness of
calculating the time period for a medical examination from the
occurrence of the emergency rather than from the employer's
determination of eligibility.
    Paragraph (k)(7)(i) currently requires that the employer provide,
at no cost to the employee, an evaluation at a CBD diagnostic center
that is mutually agreed upon by the employee and employer within 30
days of the employer receiving one of the types of documentation listed
in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). OSHA is proposing a change to
paragraph (k)(7)(i) to account for the proposed revision to the
definition of CBD diagnostic center discussed earlier in this proposal.
As discussed in more detail above, the current definition of CBD
diagnostic center requires that the evaluation at the CBD diagnostic
center include a pulmonary function test as outlined by American
Thoracic Society (ATS) criteria, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and
transbronchial biopsy. OSHA proposes amending the definition to
indicate that a CBD diagnostic center must be capable of performing
those tests, but need not necessarily perform all tests during all
evaluations. Nonetheless, OSHA intends that the employer provide those
tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD
diagnostic center.
    Accordingly, OSHA proposes expanding paragraph (k)(7)(i) to require
that the employer provide, at no cost to the employee and within a
reasonable time after consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, any
of the following tests if deemed appropriate by the examining physician
at the CBD diagnostic center: A pulmonary function test as outlined by
ATS criteria; BAL; and transbronchial biopsy. The proposed changes
would ensure that the employee receives those tests recommended by the
examining physician and receives them at no cost and within a
reasonable time. In addition, the revision would clarify OSHA's
original intent that, instead of requiring all tests to be conducted
after referral to a CBD diagnostic center, the standard would allow the
examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center the discretion to
select one or more of those tests as appropriate. OSHA further notes
that, by requiring the employer to provide those tests recommended by
the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center that was
previously agreed-upon by the employer and employee, OSHA intends those
tests to be provided by the same CBD diagnostic center unless the
employer and employee agree to a different CBD diagnostic center. OSHA
expects this proposed revision to maintain safety and health
protections for workers.
    In the proposal for the 2017 beryllium rule, OSHA proposed to
require a consultation between the employee and the licensed physician
within 30 days of the employee being confirmed positive to discuss a
referral to a CBD diagnostic center, but there was no time limit for
the employer to provide the evaluation at the CBD diagnostic center (80
FR 47800, Summary and Explanation for proposed paragraph (k)(6)(i) and
(ii)). In the final rule, OSHA altered this requirement, now in
paragraph (k)(7)(i), to require that the examination at the CBD
diagnostic center be provided within 30 days of the employer receiving
one of the types of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or
(B). The purpose of this 30-day requirement was to ensure that
employees receive the examination in a timely manner. This time period
is also consistent with other OSHA standards.
    However, since OSHA published the final rule, stakeholders have
raised concerns that scheduling the appropriate tests with an examining
physician at the CBD diagnostic center may take longer than 30 days,
making compliance with this provision difficult. To address this
concern, OSHA is proposing that the employer provide an initial
consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, rather than the full
evaluation, within 30 days of the employer receiving one of the types
of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). OSHA believes
that such a consultation could be scheduled with a physician within 30
days and could be provided by telephone or by virtual conferencing
methods. Providing a consultation before the full examination at the
CBD diagnostic center demonstrates that the employer has made an effort
to begin the process for a medical examination. It also allows the
employee to consult with a physician to discuss concerns and ask
questions while waiting for a medical examination. This consultation
would allow the physician to explain the types of tests that are
recommended based on medical findings about the employee and the risks
and benefits of undergoing such testing. Although this proposed change
would allow the employer more time to provide the full evaluation, the
proposed requirement to provide any recommended tests within a
reasonable time after the initial consultation would ensure that the
employer secures an appointment for the evaluation in a timely manner.
And this proposed change would not prohibit the employer from providing
both the consultation and the full evaluation at the same appointment,
as long as the appointment is within 30 days of the employer receiving
one of the types of documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or
(B).
    OSHA requests comments on this change, and specifically requests
comment on whether it is appropriate to require the employer to provide
a consultation with the CBD diagnostic center, rather than the full
evaluation, within 30 days. OSHA also requests comment on whether a
consultation via telephone or virtual conferencing methods is
sufficient or whether it is appropriate to require the employer to
provide an in-person consultation upon the employee's request.

G. Hazard Communication

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

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

H. Recordkeeping

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

III. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``the OSH Act'' or ``the Act''), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure
so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29
U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary
of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards
pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. See 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An
occupational safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29
U.S.C. 652(8).
    The Act also authorizes the Secretary to ``modify'' or ``revoke''
any occupational safety or health standard, 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and under
the Administrative Procedure Act, regulatory agencies generally may
revise their rules if the changes are supported by a reasoned analysis,
see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 42 (1983). ``While the removal of a regulation may not entail
the monetary expenditures and other costs of enacting a new standard,
and accordingly, it may be easier for an agency to justify a
deregulatory action, the direction in which an agency chooses to move
does not alter the standard of judicial review established by law.''
Id. at 43.
    The Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with
toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as the January 9,
2017, final rule regulating occupational exposure to beryllium:

    [t]he Secretary . . . shall set the standard which most
adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best
available evidence that no employee will suffer material impairment
of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular
exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of
his working life.

29 U.S.C. 665(b)(5). The Supreme Court has held that before the
Secretary can promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, he
must make a threshold finding that significant risk is present and that
such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. See
Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 641-
42 (1980) (plurality opinion) (``Benzene''). OSHA need not make
additional findings on risk for this proposal because OSHA previously
determined that the beryllium standard addresses a significant risk,
see 82 FR 2545-52, and the changes and clarifications proposed by this
rulemaking do not affect that determination. See, e.g., Pub. Citizen
Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir.
1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ``find that each and every
aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk'').

    OSHA standards must also be both technologically and economically
feasible. See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1248
(D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I''). The Supreme Court has defined
feasibility as ``capable of being done.'' Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-10 (1981) (``Cotton Dust''). The courts have
further clarified that a standard is technologically feasible if OSHA
proves a reasonable possibility, ``within the limits of the best
available evidence, . . . that the typical firm will be able to develop
and install engineering and work practice controls that can meet the
[standard] in most of its operations.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. With
respect to economic feasibility, the courts have held that ``a standard
is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to or imperil
the existence of the industry.'' Id. at 1265 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
    OSHA exercises significant discretion in carrying out its
responsibilities under the Act. Indeed, ``[a] number of terms of the
statute give OSHA almost unlimited discretion to devise means to
achieve the congressionally mandated goal'' of ensuring worker safety
and health. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230 (citation omitted). Thus,
where OSHA has chosen some measures to address a significant risk over
other measures, those challenging the OSHA standard must ``identify
evidence that their proposals would be feasible and generate more than
a de minimis benefit to worker health.'' N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions
v. OSHA, 878 F.3d 271, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
    Although OSHA is required to set standards ``on the basis of the
best available evidence,'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), its determinations are
``conclusive'' if supported by ``substantial evidence in the record
considered as a whole,'' 29 U.S.C. 655(f). Similarly, as the Supreme
Court noted in Benzene, OSHA must look to ``a body of reputable
scientific thought'' in making determinations, but a reviewing court
must ``give OSHA some leeway where its findings must be made on the
frontiers of scientific knowledge.'' Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656. When
there is disputed scientific evidence in the record, OSHA must review
the evidence on both sides and ``reasonably resolve'' the dispute.
Tyson, 796 F.2d at 1500. The ``possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the agency's finding
from being supported by substantial evidence.'' N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades
Unions, 878 F.3dat 291 (quoting Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 523)
(alterations omitted). As the D.C. Circuit has noted, where ``OSHA has
the expertise we lack and it has exercised that expertise by carefully
reviewing the scientific data,'' a dispute within the scientific
community is not occasion for the reviewing court to take sides about
which view is correct. Tyson, 796 F.2d at 1500.
    Finally, because section 6(b)(5) of the Act explicitly requires
OSHA to set health standards that eliminate risk ``to the extent
feasible,'' OSHA uses feasibility analysis rather than cost-benefit
analysis to make standards-setting decisions dealing with toxic
materials or harmful physical agents (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)). An OSHA
standard in this area must be technologically and economically
feasible--and also cost effective, which means that the protective
measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives
that achieve the same level of protection--but OSHA cannot choose an
alternative that provides a lower level of protection for workers'
health simply because it is less costly. See Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA,
37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at
514 n.32. In Cotton Dust, the Court explained:

    Congress itself defined the basic relationship between costs and
benefits, by placing the ``benefit'' of worker health above all
other considerations save those making attainment of this
``benefit'' unachievable. Any standard based on a balancing of costs
and benefits by the Secretary that strikes a different balance than
that struck by Congress would be inconsistent with the command set
forth in Sec.  6(b)(5).

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

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

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

A. Proposed Clarifications

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

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

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

B. Proposed Revisions

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

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

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

4. Hygiene Areas and Practices
    OSHA is proposing two changes to the hygiene areas and practices
provision to account for the proposed changes to the definition of a
beryllium work area and to ensure that the hygiene provisions related
to washing facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees
who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium
regardless of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in
the revised definition. First, OSHA is proposing a change in the
wording of paragraph (i)(1), which specifies the employees for whom
employers must provide washing facilities. As currently written,
paragraph (i)(1) applies to each employee working in a beryllium work
area. OSHA is proposing to apply the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)
to each employee who can reasonably be expected to have dermal contact
with beryllium, in addition to each employee working in a beryllium
work area, to account for the proposed removal of dermal contact with
beryllium as a trigger for establishing a beryllium work area. Second,
OSHA is proposing a change in the wording of paragraph (i)(2) (change
rooms). As currently written, paragraph (i)(2) applies to employees who
work in a beryllium work area. OSHA is proposing to apply the
requirements of paragraph (i)(2) to employees who are required to use
personal protective clothing or equipment under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of
the beryllium standard, instead of to employees who work in a beryllium
work area.
    As discussed in Section B.1 of this PEA, OSHA is proposing several
changes to the definition of beryllium work area to clarify where a
beryllium work area should be established. One of the changes proposed
is to remove dermal contact with beryllium as one of the triggers that
would require an employer to establish a beryllium work area. If this
proposed change to the definition of beryllium work area is finalized,
it is OSHA's intention that the hygiene provisions related to washing
facilities and change rooms will still apply to employees who can
reasonably be expected to have dermal contact with beryllium regardless
of whether they work in beryllium work areas as defined in the revised
definition. OSHA therefore expects that the proposed change to the
definition of dermal contact with beryllium, discussed in Section B.3,