compliance burdens. This requirement is consistent with the approach of
other recent OSHA standards, such as those for methylene chloride (29
CFR 1910.1052), bloodborne pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030), and
respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134). OSHA received comments from
3M that asked the Agency to broaden its application of this provision
to allow a PLHCP who is licensed in one state to be able to provide
medical surveillance in other states where the employer has employees
covered by the rule (Ex. 47-36). As discussed in detail previously in
this summary and explanation section on paragraph (b) definitions, OSHA
has made a final determination not to broaden the definition of a
PHLCP. OSHA continues to believe that issues regarding a PHCLP's scope
of legal practice reside most appropriately with state licensing
boards.
    In the proposed standard, OSHA also specified how frequently
medical examinations were to be offered to those employees covered by
the medical surveillance program. OSHA proposed that all employers be
required to provide all covered employees with medical examinations
whenever an employee shows signs or symptoms of Cr(VI) exposure; within
30 days after an emergency resulting in an uncontrolled release of
Cr(VI); and within 30 days after a PLHCP's written medical opinion
recommends an additional examination. In addition, employers in general
industry were to provide covered employees with examinations within 30
days after initial assignment unless the employee has received a
medical examination provided in accordance with the standard within the
past 12 months; annually; and at the termination of employment, unless
an examination has been given less than six months prior to the date of
termination.
    OSHA received few comments on the frequency of medical exams. Those
offering comment focused on OSHA's proposed provision for annual
medical exams. Some commenters reported that general medical
surveillance programs were already being offered annually by some
employers (Exs. 38-204; 39-71) implying that an annual requirement for
Cr(VI) medical exams might not be that burdensome. NIOSH supported
OSHA's general approach towards annual medical surveillance but also
recommended that certain tests be done at earlier stages after an
initial baseline assessment (e.g., 3 months after an initial assessment
for a spirometric test, 3 to 6 months after initial assessment for a
chest X-ray) (Ex. 40-10-2). As discussed above, some commenters
expressed concern with the requirement to provide exams within 30 days
after an emergency (Exs. 39-19; 39-47; 40-1-2) and after employees
report signs or symptoms (e.g., Exs. 38-124; 38-205; 47-16; 39-65).
    Having received no comments to the contrary, OSHA is maintaining
its requirement for an initial medical exam within 30 days of
assignment to a job with Cr(VI) exposure. The requirement that a
medical examination be offered at the time of initial assignment is
intended to achieve the objective of determining if an individual will
be able to work in the job involving Cr(VI) exposure without adverse
effects. It also serves the useful function of establishing a health
baseline for future reference. Where an examination that complies with
the requirements of the standard has been provided in the past 12
months, that previous examination would serve these purposes, and an
additional examination would not be needed. In keeping with its final
decision to have the triggers for providing medical surveillance
consistent across general industry, construction and shipyard settings,
OSHA is also expanding the

requirement for initial medical exams to construction and shipyard
settings.
    Similarly, OSHA has made a final determination to expand the
requirement for annual medical exams to construction and shipyard
settings. OSHA believes that the provision of medical surveillance on
an annual basis is an appropriate frequency for screening employees for
Cr(VI)-related diseases. The main goal of periodic medical surveillance
for workers is to detect adverse health effects at an early and
potentially reversible stage. The requirement for annual examinations
is consistent with other OSHA health standards, including those for
cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027), formaldehyde (29 CFR 1910.1048), and
methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). Based on the Agency's
experience, OSHA believes that annual medical surveillance would strike
a reasonable balance between the need to diagnose health effects at an
early stage, and the limited number of cases likely to be identified
through surveillance.
    Although NIOSH suggested that there are other more frequent
intervals where tests such as spirometric examinations or X-rays might
be useful, OSHA believes that the final Cr(VI) standard's requirement
for employers to provide additional tests when recommended by the PLHCP
is sufficient to address situations where additional procedures might
be useful. OSHA continues to believe that a PLHCP is in the best
position to recommend more frequent evaluations in order to follow
developments in a worker's condition, or to allow for specialized
evaluation. Therefore, OSHA is maintaining in the final standard, the
requirement for the provision of medical examinations within 30 days
after a PLHCP recommends additional testing.
    OSHA is also retaining its requirements for medical examinations
within 30 days after an emergency and whenever an employee shows signs
or symptoms of the adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI)
exposure. As discussed earlier in this section, OSHA believes that
despite the non-specificity of some signs and symptoms associated with
Cr(VI)-related effects, it is important to provide an opportunity for
evaluation by a PHLCP after an employee reports signs or symptoms. The
PHLCP can, with work and medical history information, make
determinations as to whether an employee's reported signs and symptoms
are associated with Cr(VI) exposure and recommend appropriate remedies.
Also as discussed previously, OSHA believes that medical examinations
after an emergency also serve an important role because of the nature
of exposures likely to occur in an emergency event and thus retains
this provision in the final standard.
    Similar to OSHA's final determination to expand initial and annual
medical examinations to construction and shipyard settings, OSHA is
also extending the requirement for medical examination at the
termination of employment to these sectors. The requirement that the
employer offer a medical examination at the termination of employment
is intended to assure that no employee terminates employment while
carrying an active, but undiagnosed, disease. In situations where a
previous examination, meeting the requirements of paragraph (k),
(paragraph (i) for construction and shipyards) had been provided with 6
months prior to termination, that previous examination would suffice
for this purpose.
    In the proposed standard, OSHA specified that the examination to be
provided by the PLHCP was to consist of a medical and work history; a
physical examination of the skin and respiratory tract; and any
additional tests considered appropriate by the PLHCP. Special emphasis
was to be placed on the portions of the medical and work history
focusing on Cr(VI) exposure, health effects associated with Cr(VI)
exposure, and smoking. OSHA did not indicate specific tests that must
be included in the medical examination. This was based on the Agency's
belief that there were not any particular tests generally applicable to
all employees covered by the medical surveillance requirements.
Instead, the proposal required that determinations about the need for
any additional tests be left to the discretion of the PLHCP.
    While some commenters agreed that specific tests such as urine
testing should not be included in the content of the required medical
exam (Tr. 2330, Exs. 40-10-2; 38-220; 38-228; 38-235), others
recommended that OSHA include spirometric evaluations, X-rays, and
helical computerized tomography (CT) scans. For example, NIOSH
recommended the addition of baseline and periodic spirometry and
baseline chest X-rays, stating that these are commonly recommended by
various occupational health organizations such as the American Thoracic
Society and the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine and can be useful tools to exclude preexisting abnormalities
when subsequent evaluations are conducted (Tr. 355-360, Ex. 40-10-2)
The AFL-CIO and PACE recommended that OSHA consider adding a
requirement for helical (CT) scans for the purpose of early lung cancer
detection (Tr. 2309, 2317-2333, 2376-2381; Exs. 8-222; 39-71; 44-41.).
Such tests, they stated, have been shown to effectively find early
stage lung cancer that has been curable through surgical intervention.
While PACE acknowledged that the helical CT scan is not yet accepted
medical practice and should be contingent upon employee informed
consent, they argued that the test can be used for high risk factors
based on the results of lung function tests and chest X-rays. Others,
however, supported OSHA's proposal that such tests be provided only
when a licensed health care professional recommends that certain
additional medical tests are necessary. (Exs. 38-203; 38-228; 39-47;
39-56; 39-60). CPMA cautioned that in the ``current malpractice
environment'', a requirement for any additional examination deemed
necessary by the PLHCP would result in licensed health care
professionals ordering a battery of tests in order to prevent the
possibility of malpractice claims, and the employer would be required
to pay for them (Ex. 38-205).
    OSHA acknowledges the value of many of the tests suggested by the
various groups commenting on this issue. However, OSHA continues to
believe that it is more effective to allow the PLHCP the flexibility to
determine when such specific tests might be most useful rather than
requiring them for all employees in the medical surveillance program on
a routine basis. With the basic information gained from the required
medical histories, work histories and a physical examination focusing
on the skin and respiratory tract (the two main targets for Cr(VI)
toxicity), the PLHCPs can use their medical expertise to best determine
what, if any, additional testing is appropriate for any individual
employee. This is especially true for tests such as the helical CT
scan, which although promising, has not been generally proven to be
appropriate on a routine basis. As pointed out by PACE, the helical CT
can be effectively used after identifying high-risk factors. For these
reasons, the final standard does not include any specific tests but
rather includes a physical exam focusing on the skin and respiratory
tract. The physical exam focuses on organs and systems known to be
susceptible to Cr(VI) toxicity. The information obtained will allow the
PLHCP to assess the employee's health status, identify adverse health
effects related to Cr(VI) exposures, and determine if limitations
should be placed on the employee's

exposure to Cr(VI). The examining PLHCP then has the flexibility to
determine any additional tests that might be appropriate for an
individual employee.
    The proposed standard required the employer to ensure the PLHCP has
a copy of the standard, and to provide a description of the affected
employee's former and current duties as they relate to Cr(VI) exposure;
the employee's former, current, and anticipated exposure level; a
description of any personal protective equipment used or to be used by
the employee, including when and for how long the employee has used
that equipment; and information from records of employment-related
medical examinations previously provided to the affected employee,
currently within the control of the employer.
    OSHA received few comments regarding information to be supplied to
the PLHCP. CPMA felt that providing the required information to the
PLHCP would be burdensome and would be of little relevance to the
medical professional and OSHA should instead require that employers
only provide information as warranted by the health care professional
(Ex. 38-205). Ameren Corporation also expressed concerns about the
burden of providing results from previous examinations and suggested
that information gained from the medical and work histories required by
the Cr(VI) standard would suffice (Ex. 39-47).
    OSHA disagrees. OSHA believes that making the required information
available to the PLHCP will aid in the evaluation of the employee's
health and have extreme relevance to the medical professional.
Especially in the case where the PLHCP is evaluating the signs and
symptoms of potential Cr(VI)-related health effects, information on the
employee's exposures to Cr(VI), the employee's use of personal
protective equipment and the results of previous examinations, where
possible, will provide important information that can be used in
conjunction with information gained from the required medical and work
histories, in determining whether the observed symptoms are a result of
Cr(VI) exposure. This information will also aid in the PLHCP's
evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties and
fitness to use personal protective equipment, when necessary. OSHA does
not believe that providing such information to the PLHCP would be
unduly burdensome. Much of this information is already being collected
by the employer for other reasons and therefore the employer is not
likely to have to expend additional energies in providing such
information to the PLHCP. With regard to providing the PLHCP results of
previous examinations, one commenter appears to believe that
extraordinary efforts would be necessary to locate and provide such
information to the PLHCP (Ex. 39-47). However, OSHA has made it
explicit in this provision that it is only requiring those records that
are currently within the control of the employer to be made available
to the PLHCP. Given that they are in control of the employer, this
information should not be overly burdensome to produce. For these
reasons, OSHA is retaining the proposed provisions detailing
information to be provided to the PLHCP in the final standard.
    In addition to providing certain information to the PLHCP, the
proposed standard also would have required employers to obtain from the
examining PLHCP a written opinion containing the results of the medical
examination with regard to Cr(VI) exposure, the PLHCP's opinion as to
whether the employee would be placed at increased risk of material
health impairment as a result of exposure to Cr(VI), and any
recommended limitations on the employee's exposure or use of personal
protective equipment. The PLHCP would also need to state in the written
opinion that these findings were explained to the employee.
    Few comments were received regarding information to be provided to
the employer by the PLHCP. The UAW argued that OSHA should prohibit the
PLHCP from revealing any information to the employer, and that the
written opinion should only go to the employee or the designated
employee representative (Ex. 39-73-2, Tr. 793-795). Ameren Corporation
objected to limiting the written opinion to only diagnoses related to
Cr(VI) exposure and argued that the PLHCP will likely be evaluating
exposure to other OSHA regulated substances such as lead, asbestos,
cadmium and arsenic and it would be burdensome to have the PLHCP write
separate opinions for each substance for any individual employee (Ex.
39-47). They suggested the following language: ``The PLHCP shall not
reveal to the employer specific findings or diagnosis unrelated to
exposure to occupational contaminants''.
    The purpose of requiring the PLHCP to supply a written opinion to
the employer is to provide the employer with a medical basis to aid in
the determination of placement of employees and to assess the
employee's ability to use protective clothing and equipment. If OSHA
were to deny this information to the employer, as requested by the UAW,
this would diminish one of the main benefits of the medical
surveillance requirements of this standard. Employers must be aware of
this information to effectively place employees and select appropriate
protective equipment. Medical findings unrelated to Cr(VI) exposure,
however, are not necessary information for the employer. Under the
final standard, the PLHCP would not be allowed to include findings or
diagnoses which are unrelated to Cr(VI) exposure in the written opinion
provided to the employer. OSHA has included this provision to reassure
employees participating in medical surveillance that they will not be
penalized or embarrassed by the employer's obtaining information about
them not directly pertinent to Cr(VI) exposure. The employee would be
informed directly by the PLHCP of all results of his or her medical
examination, including conditions of non-occupational origin, but the
employer would only receive information necessary to make decisions
regarding employee placement and protective equipment selection
relative to Cr(VI) exposures. OSHA recognizes that some employees who
are exposed to Cr(VI) may also be exposed to other OSHA regulated
substances where a written opinion is required (e.g., exposures to lead
chromate). It is not the Agency's intent to have the PLHCP write
separate written opinions for an employee who is exposed to more than
one OSHA regulated substance. If the employer has an ongoing medical
surveillance program where a PLHCP is providing a written opinion on
other OSHA regulated substances, the PLHCP can combine the written
opinion for an individual employee for all covered substances. The
intent of this requirement is to assure that personal medical
information not necessary for making determinations about employee
placement and selection of personal protective equipment is not shared
with the employer. Sharing personal medical information unrelated to
workplace Cr(VI) exposures is prohibited by the final standard. OSHA
does not believe that it is necessary to change the language of this
requirement as suggested by Ameren Corporation to convey this message.
    The employer is also required to provide a copy of the PLHCP's
written opinion to the employee within two weeks after receiving it, to
ensure that the employee has been informed of the result of the
examination in a timely manner. The employer must obtain the

written opinion within 30 days of the examination; OSHA believes this
will provide the PLHCP sufficient time to receive and consider the
results of any tests included in the examination, and allow the
employer to take any necessary protective measures in a timely manner.
The requirement that the opinion be in written form is intended to
ensure that employers and employees have the benefit of this
information.
    The proposed rule did not include a provision for medical removal
protection (MRP) because OSHA made a preliminary determination that MRP
was not reasonably necessary or appropriate for Cr(VI)-related health
effects. The Supreme Court has held that OSHA does not have authority
to adopt wage and benefit guarantee provisions unless it can make a
finding that such a requirement is ``related to the achievement of a
safe and healthful work environment.'' American Textile Mfr. Inst.,
Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 538 (1981). Consistent with this
decision, OSHA has taken the position that it ``must always ascertain
that MRP is needed for health reasons'' before adopting provisions for
medical removal wage and benefit protection (52 FR 34460, 34557 (Sept.
11, 1987)).
    The need for MRP can vary from health standard to health standard
and is dependent on the nature of the hazard, health effects, and
medical surveillance program involved, and the record evidence obtained
during each rulemaking. Although virtually every previous OSHA health
standard includes provisions for medical surveillance, OSHA has found
MRP necessary for only six of those standards. They are lead,
1910.1025; cadmium, 1910.1027; benzene, 1910.1028; formaldehyde,
1910.1048; methylenedianiline (MDA), 1910.1050; and methylene chloride,
1910.1052.
    Upon consideration of this rulemaking record, relevant court
decisions, and the criteria OSHA has previously applied to determine
when MRP is necessary, OSHA is unable to find that an MRP provision is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for the Cr(VI) standard.
    The purpose of the medical removal protection OSHA has included in
some health standards is to assure employees they will not suffer wage
or benefit loss if they are temporarily removed from further exposure
as a result of findings made in the course of medical surveillance, and
thereby to encourage the employees to participate in the medical
surveillance program. As discussed below, OSHA has determined not to
include MRP in the Cr(VI) standard for the principal reason that the
agency does not anticipate that a significant number of employees will
need to be temporarily removed from their jobs as a result of medical
surveillance. In addition, the Cr(VI) standard's medical surveillance
program is less dependent on employee action than the programs in some
other health standards that include MRP, such as lead and formaldehyde,
and other considerations that have led OSHA to use MRP in the past are
inapplicable in the context of Cr(VI).
    Most of the comments OSHA received regarding MRP were about the
pros and cons of MRP provisions generally, and not about the specific
need, or lack thereof, for MRP in the context of the proposed Cr(VI)
standard. Some of the groups representing workers advocated the
inclusion of MRP with provisions for multiple physician review on the
basis that MRP is generally necessary to encourage worker participation
in medical surveillance programs (Tr. 793-795, 803-806, 2314-2315,
2345, Exs. 38-219-1; 39-71; 39-73-2; 40-10-2; 40-19-1; 47-28;). Some
comments came out against the need for MRP, suggesting, for example,
that MRP was unnecessary in this standard because there are few
instances in which temporary removal from Cr(VI) exposures would be
beneficial. Those commenters noted the permanent nature of the adverse
health effects of Cr(VI) exposure, such as allergic asthma, allergic
dermatitis, and lung cancer (Tr. 629, Exs. 38-220-1; 39-228-1; 39-235;
39-19; 39-47; 40-1-2).
    In its proposal, OSHA preliminarily concluded that MRP appeared
unnecessary because it did not anticipate many circumstances in which
employees would be removed from their jobs under the new standard. The
Agency reasoned that an MRP provision was unnecessary because Cr(VI)-
related health effects generally fall into one of two categories:
either they are chronic conditions that temporary removal from exposure
will not improve or remedy (e.g., lung cancer, respiratory or dermal
sensitization), or they are conditions that can be addressed through
proper application of control measures and do not require removal from
exposure (e.g., irritant dermatitis). The evidence submitted during the
rulemaking has led OSHA to conclude that its preliminary reasoning was
correct and that for the reasons stated in the proposal there will be
few, if any, instances where temporary removal from Cr(VI) exposures
would improve employee health (Tr. 629, Exs. 38-220-1; 39-228-1; 39-
235; 39-19; 39-47; 40-1-2)
    OSHA has declined to adopt MRP provisions in other health standards
under similar circumstances. In the final standard for Ethylene Oxide
(EtO), for example, OSHA did not include MRP provisions, concluding
that ``the effects of exposure to EtO are not highly reversible, as
evidenced by the persistence of chromosomal aberrations after the
cessation of exposure, and the record contains insufficient evidence to
indicate that temporary removal would provide long-term employee health
benefits'' (49 FR at 25788, 6/22/1984). Similarly, the more recent 1,3
butadiene standard, which primarily addresses irreversible effects such
as cancer, does not include MRP provisions (61 FR 56746, 11/4/96).
    OSHA expects that the overall number of medical removals under the
new standard will be very low. OSHA recognizes that a small number of
employees may be removed from their jobs due to the health effects of
Cr(VI) exposure, but the health effects evidence suggests many of the
Cr(VI)-related effects are permanent and thus any such removals are
likely to be permanent, not temporary. OSHA has historically viewed MRP
as a tool for dealing with temporary removals only, as reflected in the
agency's decisions not to adopt MRP in the EtO and 1,3 butadiene
standards discussed above. Workers' compensation is the appropriate
remedy when permanent removal from exposures is required.
    When the D.C. Circuit reviewed OSHA's initial decision not to
include MRP in its formaldehyde standard, it remanded the case for OSHA
to consider the appropriateness of MRP for permanently removed workers.
UAW v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1989). OSHA ultimately
decided to adopt an MRP provision for formaldehyde. However, the agency
did not rely on a need to protect workers permanently unable to return
to their jobs. Indeed, OSHA expressly rejected that rationale for MRP,
noting that ``[t]he MRP provisions [were] not designed to cover
employees * * * determined to be permanently sensitized to
formaldehyde'' (see 57 FR 22290, 22295 (May 27, 1992)).
    Permanent wage and benefit protection would be extremely costly and
is far beyond the scope of the MRP programs OSHA has required. Given
that MRP provides benefits only for a temporary period, it is logical
that eligibility be limited to those who have only a temporary need for
removal. (See, e.g., 1910.1027(l)(12) (MRP benefits available for up to
a maximum of eighteen (18) months); 1910.1028(i)(9) (capping MRP
benefits at six (6)

months); 1910.1052(j)(12) (MRP benefits limited to a maximum of six (6)
months)). The purpose of MRP--to alleviate fear of economic loss--can
only be fulfilled for employees who are concerned about being removed
temporarily. An employee worried that he may be permanently removed
from his job if he participates in medical surveillance is unlikely to
be persuaded by the prospect of a few months protection. In addition,
an important objective of MRP is to prevent permanent health effects
from developing by facilitating employee removal from exposure at a
point when the effects are reversible, and that objective has no
application where the effects are already permanent.
    The evidence in the record does not demonstrate that affected
employees are unlikely to participate in medical surveillance absent
wage and benefit protection. In fact, given the small number of
removals anticipated under the new standard, any economic disincentive
to participate would likely be minimal. In any event, the medical
surveillance programs required under the new Cr(VI) standard are less
dependent on employee action than are the medical surveillance programs
required under some of OSHA's other health standards. For example, OSHA
adopted an MRP provision in the formaldehyde standard because that
standard ``does not provide for periodic medical examinations for
employees exposed at or above the action level'' and instead relies on
``the completion of annual medical questionnaires, coupled with * * *
employees' reports of signs and symptoms''--an approach completely
dependent ``on a high degree of employee participation and
cooperation'' (see 57 FR at 22293). Unlike under the formaldehyde
standard, Cr(VI) medical surveillance programs are not entirely
dependent on employee reports of signs and symptoms. The Cr(VI)
standard requires regular medical examinations and mandates that those
exams include an evaluation of the employee's skin and respiratory
tract. OSHA expects that independent of any subjective symptoms that
may or may not be reported by the employee, practitioners conducting
these examinations can make necessary medical findings based on the
required objective evaluations of the employee's physical condition.
    In the lead standard, OSHA adopted an MRP provision in part due to
evidence that employees were ``desperate * * * to avoid economic loss
no matter what the consequences to * * * [their] health'' and were
therefore using chelating agents to ``effect a rapid, short term
reduction in blood lead levels.'' (see 43 FR 54354, 54446 (Nov. 21,
1978)). In that case ``[t]he success of periodic blood level biological
monitoring depend[ed] * * * on workers refraining from efforts to alter
their blood lead levels.'' Id. Unlike in the case of lead, OSHA is
unaware of any steps employees can take to mask and prevent the
detection of Cr(VI) related health effects. Therefore, OSHA is not
concerned about economic considerations resulting in employees
intentionally sabotaging their examinations in a way that would
undermine the success of the required medical surveillance programs.
    Other reasons OSHA has cited for needing to include MRP in its
health standards are similarly inapplicable to Cr(VI). In lead, for
example, OSHA explained that the new blood lead level removal criteria
for the final lead standard were much more stringent than criteria
currently being used by industry and therefore many more temporary
removals would be expected under the new standard `` thereby increasing
the utility of MRP (see 43 FR at 54445-54446). There is insufficient
evidence in the Cr(VI) rulemaking record to indicate that this would be
the case for Cr(VI). As stated above, OSHA anticipates few
circumstances where medical removal will be needed. Furthermore, there
are no criteria in the new standard that are likely to increase the
small number of medical removals that may be occurring.
    Finally, one reason OSHA adopted MRP in the lead standard was
because it ``anticipate[d] that MRP w[ould] hasten the pace by which
employers compl[ied] with the new lead standard'' (43 FR at 54450).
OSHA reasoned that the greater the degree of noncompliance, the more
employees would suffer health effects necessitating temporary medical
removal and the more MRP costs the employer would be forced to incur.
Thus, in that case OSHA thought that MRP would serve as an economic
stimulus for employers to protect workers by complying with the
standard. With respect to Cr(VI), however, there is no evidence in the
record that employees suffering from the health effects of Cr(VI)
exposure need to be removed from their jobs now--when the PEL and
exposures are significantly higher than they will be under the new
standard; OSHA therefore has no reason to believe that so many
employees would need to be removed once the PEL is lowered that
employers' concerns about the costs of MRP would induce more rapid
compliance on the part of employers. In fact, as stated earlier, OSHA
believes that the health effects of Cr(VI) exposures will result in
only a small number of medical removals. MRP is thus unlikely to work
as a financial compliance incentive in this case.
    OSHA also notes that there are two health standards that provide
limited medical removal protection under their requirements for
respiratory protection. They are asbestos, 1910.1001(g)(2)(iii); and
cotton dust, 1910.1043(f)(2)(ii). These standards require MRP when a
medical determination is made that an employee who is required to wear
a respirator is not medically able to wear the respirator and must be
transferred to a position below the PEL where respiratory protection is
not required. OSHA has determined that such a provision is unnecessary
for the Cr(VI) standard because OSHA has since promulgated a revised
respiratory protection standard that specifically deals with the
problem of employees who are medically unable to wear negative pressure
respirators (29 CFR 1910.134(e)(6)). The respirator standard addresses
the problem, not through MRP, but by requiring the employer to provide
a powered air-purifying respirator instead of a negative pressure
respirator. In the Cr(VI) standard, OSHA requires employers to comply
with the requirements of 1910.134, including medical evaluations
required under that standard. As discussed earlier in the section of
the preamble addressing respiratory protection, there was much support
for referring all aspects of respiratory protection to OSHA's revised
respiratory protection standard. OSHA sees no reason to supersede
1910.134 in the final Cr(VI) standard.
    In sum, OSHA does not expect Cr(VI)-related health exposures to
result in a large number of medical removals, either temporary or
permanent, and because the record shows that any removals that do occur
are likely to be permanent, OSHA concludes that the evidence does not
support a finding that MRP is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
the final Cr(VI) standard. This decision is based on the evidence
obtained during this rulemaking, and is not intended to preclude OSHA
from adopting MRP provisions in the future when it believes that such a
provision would contribute to the well-being of employees.
(1) Communication of Hazards to Employees
    Paragraph (1) of the final rule (paragraph (j) for construction and
shipyards) sets forth requirements intended to ensure that the dangers
of Cr(VI) exposure are communicated to employees in accordance with
existing requirements of OSHA's Hazard

Communication standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200).
    In the proposed standard, requirements for communication of hazards
were designed to be substantively as consistent as possible with OSHA's
existing HCS in order to avoid a duplicative administrative burden on
employers who would need to comply with the requirements of both
standards. However, despite this effort, a number of commenters
expressed the view that OSHA's existing HCS requirements are
sufficient, and that hazard communication provisions in this rule are
not warranted (e.g., Exs. 38-203; 38-244; 38-254; 39-19; 39-40; 39-47;
39-48; 39-51; 39-56; 39-64; 39-72-1; 40-1-2). The Color Pigments
Manufacturers Association supported this position, adding that
additional requirements only serve to increase the complexity of an
already complex and lengthy standard (Ex. 38-205). The North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) claimed that additional
requirements deprive employers of necessary discretion, conflict with
efforts to streamline and simplify hazard communication requirements,
and increase the burden on employers while providing no apparent
benefit (Exs. 38-228; 47-30). Moreover, NAIMA added that relying on the
HCS will, in time, have the added benefit of simplifying implementation
of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification Labeling of
Chemicals (GHS).
    Several other commenters supported OSHA's proposed requirements for
communication of hazards (e.g., Exs. 38-199-1; 38-219-1; 40-10-2). For
example, NIOSH considered that the general requirements of the HCS are
useful for all workplace hazards, but Cr(VI)-specific requirements
provide focused and enhanced protection of workers (Ex. 40-10-2). The
Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO maintained that
the information and training requirements contained in the standard
allow employers to go to a single reference to ensure they are in
compliance, helping employers understand their obligations and
assisting compliance officers assess employer compliance (Ex. 38-219-
1).
    In viewing the comments submitted to the record, it is clear that
there is widespread support for the communication of hazards to
employees. OSHA continues to believe, as stated in the proposal, that
informing employees of the hazards to which they are exposed and
associated protective measures is essential to provide employees with
the necessary understanding of the degree to which they themselves can
minimize potential health hazards. As part of an overall hazard
communication program, training serves to explain and reinforce the
information presented on labels and in material safety data sheets.
These written forms of communication will be successful and relevant
only when employees understand the information presented and are aware
of the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize exposures, thereby
reducing the possibility of experiencing adverse health effects.
    However, OSHA also continues to believe that it is important for
the requirements for communicating Cr(VI) hazards to be consistent with
the requirements in its existing HCS. To better assure this
consistency, OSHA has made a final determination to remove items from
the final rule that duplicate requirements in the HCS. While certain
proposed items are not being retained in the final Cr(VI) standard, the
obligations to provide communication and training on the issues
addressed in these items are required by the HCS. Thus, their removal
does not represent a lessening in worker protection. OSHA believes such
streamlining will provide better consistency and reduce confusion
between the communication of hazards obligations under the final Cr(VI)
rule and the HCS. OSHA acknowledges the comments of the Building and
Construction Trades Department who felt that retaining these items
allows employers to go to a single reference to ensure they are in
compliance. However, since OSHA requires the HCS to be followed and has
not repeated that standard in its entirety in the Cr(VI) standard,
employers would not be able to rely solely on the Cr(VI) standard as a
single reference for complying with the HCS even if such elements were
retained. Moreover, it is a very rare workplace that has only Cr(VI)
and no other hazardous chemicals. Thus, the vast majority of employers
would have to consult the HCS anyway.
    OSHA has retained the proposed provisions requiring that employees
be trained about the contents of the new Cr(VI) final rule and the
purpose and description of the medical surveillance program required
under the final Cr(VI) standard. The final standard also requires that
the employer make a copy of the standard readily available to employees
without cost. These elements are not required to be communicated by the
HCS. However, OSHA believes that it is important for employees to be
familiar with and have access to the final Cr(VI) standard and the
employer's obligations to comply with it. Specifically, with regard to
the purpose and description of the medical surveillance program, OSHA
intends that employees be trained about the signs and symptoms of
Cr(VI)-related adverse health effects. This information, in conjunction
with the training on Cr(VI) hazards required by the HCS, will help to
assure that employees are able to adequately report signs and symptoms
of Cr(VI)-related adverse health effects in order to receive medical
attention from a licensed health care professional (as required by the
medical surveillance section of the final standard and previously
discussed in the preamble).
    Like the HCS, OSHA intends that the required training be
performance-oriented. The standard lists the subjects, in addition to
those that are already covered by the HCS, that must be addressed in
training, but not the specific ways that this is to be accomplished.
Hands-on training, videotapes, slide presentations, classroom
instruction, informal discussions during safety meetings, written
materials, or any combination of these methods may be appropriate. Such
performance-oriented requirements are intended to encourage employers
to tailor training to the needs of their workplaces, thereby resulting
in the most effective training program in each specific workplace.
    OSHA believes that the employer is in the best position to
determine how the training can most effectively be accomplished. The
Agency has therefore laid out the objectives to be met to ensure that
employees are made aware of the hazards associated with Cr(VI) in their
workplace and how they can help to protect themselves. The specifics
regarding how this is to be achieved are left up to the employer.
    The communication of hazards elements proposed, but not included
the final rule, are requirements for:
     Warning signs for regulated areas;
     Warning labels for Cr(VI)-contaminated work clothing and
equipment and Cr(VI) wastes and debris;
     Employees to be provided training and training records;
     Initial training;
     Training that is understandable;
     Certain topics for training; and
     Additional training.
    As discussed below, OSHA believes that these requirements either
duplicate or are inconsistent with requirements in the HCS and are
therefore not necessary in the final Cr(VI) standard.
    Under the proposed standards, OSHA included requirements for
specific language on signs and labels (e.g.,

DANGER; CHROMIUM (VI); CANCER HAZARD; CAN DAMAGE SKIN, EYES, NASAL
PASSAGES, AND LUNGS; AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY; RESPIRATORS MAY BE
REQUIRED IN THIS AREA.) OSHA is deleting the requirement for specific
language on signs for regulated areas and on labels for containers of
contaminated clothing and equipment and containers of Cr(VI)
contaminated waste and debris consigned for disposal. By deleting these
requirements OSHA is only deleting requirements for special signage. As
discussed earlier in this preamble for paragraph (e), regulated areas,
OSHA maintains in the final Cr(VI) standard requirements that regulated
areas in general industry be demarcated but allows them to be
demarcated in any manner that adequately establishes and alerts
employees of the boundaries of the regulated area. OSHA believes that
it is not necessary to require a prescribed sign in order to adequately
demarcate a regulated area. Any manner of demarcation may suffice to
achieve this goal. Similarly, OSHA has removed the requirements for
specific language for warning labels. As discussed earlier in this
preamble for paragraph (h), protective clothing and equipment
(paragraph (g) for construction and shipyards) and paragraph (j),
housekeeping, labels are still required for containers of Cr(VI)-
contaminated work clothing and equipment and containers of Cr(VI) waste
and debris. However, instead of specific mandated signage, OSHA is only
requiring that those containers be labeled in accordance with OSHA's
HCS. OSHA believes this achieves the same primary goal while providing
flexibility for the employer. Moreover, as pointed out by the NAIMA,
prescribed language may interfere with hazard communication
harmonization under the GHS (Ex. 38-228).
    In the proposed rule, OSHA required that training be provided for
all employees who are exposed to airborne Cr(VI) or who have eye or
skin contact with Cr(VI), that employers maintain a record of that
training, and that the training be provided at the time of initial
assignment to a job with potential exposure to Cr(IV). OSHA believes
that these issues are already adequately addressed by the HCS. For
example, paragraph (c) of the HCS defines employee as a worker who may
be exposed to hazardous chemicals under normal operating conditions or
in foreseeable emergencies. Such a definition would encompass those
employees who are exposed to airborne Cr(VI) or who have skin or eye
contact with Cr(VI). In addition, paragraph (e)(1) of the HCS requires
that employers develop and implement a written hazard communication
program that provides for employee training. Finally, paragraph (h)(1)
of the HCS requires that employers provide training at the time of
initial assignment.
    The HCS does not require training records to be kept. OSHA finds no
evidence in this record to support requiring training records in the
final Cr(VI) standard or to justify this inconsistency with the HCS.
This issue is discussed in further detail later in this preamble under
paragraph (m), recordkeeping.
    The proposed standard required that the employer provide training
that is understandable to the employee. Because the HCS requires
training to be ``comprehensible'' to employees (see 4/10/88 letter of
interpretation; http://www.osha.gov/pls/ oshaweb/owadisp.show--

document?p--table= INTERPRETATIONS&p--id=19651), OSHA does not believe
it is necessary to include this provision in the final Cr(VI) standard.
Nevertheless, OSHA emphasizes that in order for the training to be
effective, the employer must ensure that it is provided in a manner
that the employee is able to understand. Employees have varying
educational levels, literacy, and language skills, and the training
must be presented in a language and at a level of understanding that
accounts for these differences in order to meet the requirement that
individuals being trained understand the specified elements. This may
mean, for example, providing materials, instruction, or assistance in
Spanish rather than English if the workers being trained are Spanish-
speaking and do not understand English. The employer is not required to
provide training in the employee's preferred language if the employee
understands both languages; as long as the employee is able to
understand the language used, the intent of the standard will be met.
    OSHA has also removed certain elements addressing topics to be
covered under employee information and training. OSHA believes that the
HCS requires training on such items. The items removed address: the
health hazards associated with Cr(VI) exposure; the location, manner of
use and release of Cr(VI); engineering controls and work practices
associated with the employee's job assignment; the purpose, selection
and use of respirators and protective clothing; emergency procedures;
and measures employees can take to protect themselves. Paragraphs
(h)(2)(ii) and (h)(3)(ii-iii) of the HCS cover these topic areas.
Therefore, OSHA believes that removing these elements from the final
Cr(VI) standard neither removes any employer training requirements nor
diminishes worker protection.
    OSHA has also removed the proposed element for training employees
on their rights to access records under 29 CFR 1910.1020(g). Such
information on employees' rights is already required to be transmitted
to employees under paragraph (g)(1) of OSHA's Access to Employee
Medical and Exposure Records standard, 29 CFR 1910.1020. Therefore,
OSHA sees no need to duplicate that requirement in the final Cr(VI)
standard.
    Finally, OSHA has removed elements addressing additional training.
The proposed rule would have required that additional training be
provided when necessary to ensure that each employee maintains an
understanding of the safe use and handling of Cr(VI) and when workplace
changes result in an increase in employee exposures. While the HCS does
not have a provision requiring periodic retraining, it has been
interpreted to require that employees ``must be aware of the hazards to
which they are exposed . . . and know and follow appropriate work
practice'' (see OSHA Compliance Directive, CPL 2-2.38D, Inspection
Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard) OSHA believes that
since employees are required to be aware of the hazards to which they
are exposed, this would mandate that as new exposures occur because of
changes in the workplace employees must be made aware of them.
Similarly, it would mandate additional training as necessary to
maintain employees' understanding of the safe use and handling of
Cr(VI) as this is critically linked to their awareness of hazards to
which they are exposed.
    In summary, although OSHA has removed a number of items under the
communication of hazards in the final rule, the training obligations
imposed by this final standard have not meaningfully changed. OSHA has
only removed those items that are duplicative or inconsistent with the
HCS, while retaining items not covered by the HCS that the Agency
believes are necessary to ensure employees understand this final Cr(VI)
standard and thereby protect employee health.
(m) Recordkeeping
    Paragraph (m) of the final rule (paragraph (k) for construction and
shipyards) requires employers to maintain exposure and medical
surveillance records. OSHA proposed a requirement for employers to
maintain

records of employees' Cr(VI)-related training. This requirement has not
been included in the final rule. As indicated in the discussion of
paragraph (l) of the standard, OSHA believes that the provisions of the
Agency's Hazard Communication standard (HCS) provide appropriate and
sufficient requirements for training employees who are potentially
exposed to Cr(VI). The HCS does not require retention of training
records, and the addition of such a requirement in this rule would
involve substantial additional paperwork burdens for employers. OSHA
believes that the performance-oriented requirements of the HCS, along
with the requirements of paragraph (l) that employees be able to
demonstrate knowledge of both the Cr(VI) standard and the medical
surveillance program it requires, will be sufficient to ensure that
employees are adequately trained with regard to Cr(VI) hazards and
protective measures. The absence of a requirement for retention of
training records is also consistent with OSHA's two most recent
substance-specific health standards, addressing exposure to methylene
chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052) and 1,3 butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051).
    Relatively few comments addressed the proposed recordkeeping
requirements. However, the final rule's requirements for maintenance of
exposure records have been modified to reflect changes to paragraph (d)
of this section addressing exposure determination. Specifically,
requirements for maintaining exposure data have been added to the
construction and shipyard standards. The requirements for retention of
medical surveillance records are unchanged from the proposal.
    The final recordkeeping requirements are in accordance with section
8(c) of the OSH Act, which authorizes OSHA to require employers to keep
and make available records as necessary or appropriate for the
enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses. The
recordkeeping provisions are also consistent with OSHA's access to
employee exposure and medical records rule (29 CFR 1910.1020).
    Where the employer performs air monitoring to determine employee
Cr(VI) exposures, records must be kept that identify the monitored
employee and all other employees whose exposure the monitoring
represents, and accurately reflect those exposures. The employer is
required to keep records for each exposure measurement taken.
Specifically, records must include the following information: The date
of measurement for each sample taken; the operation involving exposure
to Cr(VI) that was monitored; sampling and analytical methods used and
evidence of their accuracy; the number, duration, and results of
samples taken; the type of personal protective equipment used; and the
name, social security number, and job classification of all employees
represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees were actually
monitored.
    The final rule allows employers the option of relying on historical
monitoring data or objective data to determine employee exposures to
Cr(VI) where appropriate. Historical monitoring data are Cr(VI)
monitoring results obtained prior to the effective date of the standard
that were obtained during work operations conducted under workplace
conditions closely resembling the employer's current operations.
Objective data are information such as air monitoring data from
industry-wide surveys or calculations based on the composition or
chemical and physical properties of a substance demonstrating the
employee exposure to Cr(VI) associated with a particular product or
material or a specific process, operation, or activity. Use of
historical monitoring data and objective data under this final rule is
described in greater detail in the discussion of paragraph (d) above
addressing exposure determination.
    Where historical monitoring data are relied upon to meet the
exposure determination requirements of this standard, records of these
data must be maintained. The records of historical monitoring data must
demonstrate that the data were obtained using a method sufficiently
accurate to be allowed under paragraph (d)(5) of the standard. The
records must also show that the work being performed, the Cr(VI)-
containing material being handled, and the environmental conditions at
the time the historical monitoring data were obtained are the same as
those on the job for which exposure is being determined. Other data
relevant to operations, materials, processing, or employee exposures
must also be included in records.
    Where objective data are used to satisfy the exposure determination
requirement, the employer must establish and maintain an accurate
record of the objective data upon which he or she relied. This record
must include: The chromium-containing material in question; the source
of the objective data; the testing protocol and results of testing, or
analysis of the material for the release of chromium (VI); a
description of the process, operation, or activity involved and how the
data support the determination; and other data relevant to the process,
operation, activity, material, or employee exposures.
    Since historical monitoring data and objective data may be used to
exempt the employer from provisions of the standard or provide a basis
for selection of respirators, it is critical that this determination be
carefully documented. Reliance on historical monitoring data and
objective data is intended to provide the same degree of assurance that
employee exposures have been correctly characterized as air monitoring
would, and records must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the exposure
determination.
    These records are also available to employees so that they can
examine the determination made by the employer and assure themselves
they are being protected by the employer. Moreover, compliance with the
requirement to maintain records of exposure data enables the employer
to easily show at least for the duration of the retention of records
that the exposure determination was accurate and conducted in an
appropriate manner.
    In addition to records relating to employee exposures to Cr(VI),
the employer must establish and maintain an accurate medical
surveillance record for each employee subject to the medical
surveillance requirements of the standard. OSHA believes that medical
records, like exposure records, are necessary and appropriate for the
protection of employee health, the enforcement of the standard, and to
the development of information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational illnesses. Good medical records, including the record of
the examination at termination of employment, are important to the
employee in that this information will assist the employee and his or
her PLHCP in making the best health care decisions. Medical records are
necessary for the proper evaluation of the employee's health. The
employer will benefit from knowing when his or her employees have
Cr(VI) health related problems. The employer can then act to address
workplace conditions that have been associated with Cr(VI) exposure.
Finally the records can be useful to the Agency and others in
enumerating illnesses and deaths attributable to Cr(VI), in evaluating
compliance programs, and in assessing the efficacy of the standard.
    Medical surveillance records are required to include the following
information: The name, social security number, and job classification
of the

employee; a copy of the PLHCP's written opinions; and a copy of the
information provided to the PLHCP. This information includes the
employee's duties as they relate to Cr(VI) exposure, Cr(VI) exposure
levels, and descriptions of personal protective equipment used by the
employee (see paragraph (k)(4) in general industry, paragraph (i)(4) in
shipyards and construction).
    Several commenters expressed the view that requiring a copy of the
information provided to the PLHCP would entail creating and maintaining
an unnecessary duplicate copy of medical records (e.g., Exs. 38-203;
38-254; 39-47; 39-56). OSHA believes it is important for the employer
to maintain medical records, even if duplicate information is
maintained by the PLHCP. As mentioned previously, this information is
useful in evaluating health outcomes, and retention by the employer
ensures that complete records are available from a single source even
if different PLHCPs provide examinations.
    OSHA does not intend for this provision to be interpreted to
require an employer to maintain multiple copies of records. If records
of previous medical exams are within the control of the employer, that
record is sufficient and does not need to be reproduced. For instance,
where an employer maintains a record of medical exams provided to an
employee, a duplicate record does not need to be created in order to
fulfill recordkeeping requirements for a copy of the information
provided to the PLHCP.
    The final rule requires that exposure monitoring and medical
surveillance records include the employee's social security number. The
Color Pigments Manufacturers Association suggested that an employee
identification number be permitted in lieu of a social security number
(Ex. 38-205). OSHA examined alternative forms of identification in
Phase II of the Agency's Standards Improvement Project (70 FR 1112 (1/
5/05)) and did not take any action in that rulemaking concerning the
use of social security numbers, indicating that further investigation
was required.
    For purposes of this rule, OSHA does not believe that alternative
forms of identification, such as employee identification numbers,
represent an acceptable alternative to social security numbers. The
Agency understands the privacy concerns raised by this requirement.
However, social security numbers have much wider application, and are
correlated to employee identity in many other types of records. Social
security numbers are therefore a more useful tool since each number is
unique to an individual for a lifetime and does not change as an
employee changes employers. This requirement is consistent with
previous OSHA substance-specific health standards.
    The final rule also incorporates the requirement that employers
maintain and provide access to records in accordance with OSHA's
standard addressing access to employee exposure and medical records (29
CFR 1910.1020). The medical and exposure records standard requires that
exposure records be kept for at least 30 years and that medical records
be kept for the duration of employment plus thirty years. It is
necessary to keep these records for extended periods because of the
long latency period commonly associated with cancer. Cancer often
cannot be detected until 20 or more years after first exposure. The
extended record retention period is therefore needed because causality
of disease in employees is assisted by, and in some cases can only be
made by, having present and past exposure data as well as the results
of present and past medical examinations.
(n) Dates
    Paragraph (n) of the standard (paragraph (l) for construction and
shipyards) establishes start-up dates for requirements of the standard.
OSHA has extended the effective date from that proposed and provided
more time for employers to comply with most provisions of the final
rule, based on information submitted to the record indicating that
compliance may require additional time (e.g., Exs. 39-19; 39-40; 39-47;
38-202; 38-205; 47-32; 38-233). The dates included in this final rule
are also based on the Agency's experience with other standards
concerning the amount of time required for employers to comply with
similar requirements.
    The standard will become effective on May 30, 2006. This date is 90
days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. The proposed
standard had provided that the final rule would become effective 60
days after publication in the Federal Register. The extension of the
interval between the publication date and the effective date of the
standard is in response to comments indicating that some employers will
need more time to comply than the proposed rule would have allowed
(e.g., Exs. 38-214; 38-218; 38-220; 38-235; 38-254; 39-19; 39-40; 39-
47; 39-48; 39-56; 39-60; 40-1-2).
    The Agency sets the effective date to allow sufficient time for
employers to obtain the standard, read and understand its requirements,
and undertake the necessary planning and preparation for compliance.
Section 6(b)(4) of the OSH Act provides that the effective date of a
standard may be delayed for up to 90 days from the date of publication
in the Federal Register. Given the concerns expressed by commenters,
OSHA's interest in having employers implement effective compliance
efforts, and the minimal effect of the additional 30 day delay, the
Agency has decided that it is appropriate to set the effective date at
90 days from publication, rather than at 60 days.
    The dates for employer compliance with obligations of the final
rule have also been extended from those proposed. Special provision has
been made to account for the needs of small businesses in meeting the
requirements of the new standards. OSHA proposed a requirement that all
employers comply with provisions of the final rule (except those for
engineering controls) 90 days after the effective date. The final rule
requires employers with 20 or more employees to comply with most
requirements 180 days after the effective date. Employers with 19 or
fewer employees must comply with most requirements of the final rule
one year after the effective date. This extension is intended to allow
employers sufficient time to complete initial exposure assessments,
establish regulated areas where required, obtain appropriate protective
work clothing and equipment, and comply with other provisions of the
rule. Several commenters expressed concerns that 90 days did not allow
sufficient time for employers to come into compliance with these
provisions (e.g., Exs. 39-19; 39-40; 39-47; 39-48; 39-51; 39-56; 39-60;
40-1-2). ORC Worldwide expressed this opinion, stating:

    OSHA's proposal that all obligations of the standard except the
engineering control requirement would be fulfilled within 90 days
after its effective date is not enough time for the industries that
have not determined their Cr(VI) sources and characterized their
exposures to complete those tasks and be in compliance. Many are
large companies with extensive operations, and finding all potential
Cr(VI) sources will take time. Once these sources are identified,
the task of characterizing exposures will require additional time.
OSHA should allow a start-up date that is at least six months from
the effective date (Ex. 39-51).

The Society for the Plastics Industry (SPI) concurred with the view
that 90 days was an insufficient amount of time for employers to come
into compliance with the rule, claiming in particular that employers
who do not currently have respiratory protection programs in place

will require more than 90 days to develop a respiratory protection
program, obtain respirators, conduct medical evaluations and fit
testing, and provide training. SPI advocated allowing 180 days after
the effective date before respirator use would be required (Ex. 38-
218).
    The potential difficulties faced by small businesses in meeting the
requirements of the rule were also noted by SPI and others, who urged
OSHA to allow additional time for employers to comply with the
requirements of the final rule (Exs. 38-218, pp. 34-35; 38-233, pp. 33-
34). SPI stated:

    * * * small employers should receive more time to meet the
requirements of the new rule when it becomes effective. Many small
employers in the plastics industry do not have the resources to
provide respirators and implement respirator programs, exposure
monitoring, training and education programs, provide other forms of
protective work clothing and PPE, install warning signs and
regulated areas, and implement medical surveillance programs all
within 90 days of the effective date of the new rule (Ex. 38-218, p.
35).

OSHA believes these concerns regarding the proposed compliance
timetable are reasonable, so the Agency is providing additional time in
order to give employers the ability to comply with these obligations.
Given the large number of small employers covered by the requirements,
and the special problems of many of those employers in identifying and
implementing appropriate control measures, OSHA has decided to permit
these employers a longer time period in which to comply with most
requirements of the standard. OSHA has chosen to specify employment of
19 or fewer employers as the threshold size for allowing additional
time for compliance under the final rule. The Agency believes this is a
reasonable threshold, and is consistent with the threshold applied for
similar requirements in the Methylene Chloride standard (29 CFR
1910.1052). OSHA believes the extended compliance times will allow
affected employers sufficient time to comply with the requirements of
the standard.
    In the proposal, OSHA indicated that change rooms would be required
no later than one year after the effective date of the standard. As
explained in the discussion of paragraph (i), this standard does not
impose new requirements for change rooms beyond those found in 29 CFR
1910.141(e) (for general industry and shipyards) and 29 CFR 1926.51(i)
(for construction). Therefore, because change rooms should already be
established, no effective date is necessary and reference to change
rooms in this paragraph has been deleted to avoid potential confusion.
    Feasible engineering controls must be in place within four years
after the effective date. This is to ensure that employers are provided
sufficient time to complete the process of designing, obtaining, and
installing the necessary control equipment. This represents an
extension of two years beyond that proposed for engineering controls.
Several commenters contended that substantially more time was needed to
implement engineering controls than had been proposed (e.g., Exs. 38-
202; 38-204; 38-205; 38-228-1; 38-233; 39-49; 39-51; 47-32). For
example, Engelhard Corporation indicated that OSHA had underestimated
the complexity involved in meeting the requirements of the standard,
such as testing of new equipment, obtaining building permits for
process changes, and air permit changes (Ex. 38-202). Steel industry
representatives argued that, in addition to time needed to install
adequate engineering controls, additional time should be provided for
the steel industry and other significantly affected industries to
absorb the costs associated with compliance (Ex. 38-233).
    OSHA agrees that additional time may be needed to come into full
compliance with the engineering control requirements of the final rule.
In particular, the Agency is aware that in some cases employers may be
required to reevaluate modified ventilation systems for compliance with
regulations governing discharges of Cr(VI) into the environment (e.g.,
EPA's Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
regulations (40 CFR 63)). OSHA has taken into consideration the need of
many affected employers to coordinate their OSHA compliance efforts
with their other regulatory compliance obligations. The Agency believes
it appropriate to allow sufficient time for modification and
reevaluation of ventilation systems to generally be accomplished during
normal permitting cycles in order to lessen the impact of the standard.
    Other employers who may also need additional time for implementing
engineering controls include employers with certain electroplating
operations and welding operations. For example, in electroplating there
are new fume suppressant technologies that can be used to reduce
airborne exposures created in electroplating baths. However, some of
these technologies have not been fully tested in the variety of
electroplating operations that exist and employers must be careful in
applying this technology for a particular operation so that the fume
suppressant does not adversely affect the quality of the item being
electroplated. Additional time for implementing such an engineering
control would allow employers to gain experience with this technology
and learn more effective ways to control exposures for their particular
plating operations.
    In addition, as discussed previously in this preamble, many welders
will be able to reduce Cr(VI) exposures by switching from shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW) to gas metal arc welding (GMAW). This switch
is not a simple matter. The employer must first research conditions
where such a switch might be possible taking into account the
configuration of the areas where the welding might take place, the
substrate to be welded and the desired quality of the weld. Since
specifications for the desired weld are important, tests of the new
welding technique may be necessary to make sure those specifications
are met. Additionally, extra time is likely to be needed to buy the
necessary equipment and train the employees who will be required to
perform the new welding method. The final rule thus allows four years
from the effective date for employers to institute engineering controls
to comply with the standard. During the period in which employers are
implementing these controls, respirators may be used to comply with the
new PEL.
    The extension of the compliance deadline for implementation of
engineering controls will allow those firms that need extensive
engineering controls time to adequately plan for and implement these
controls. This modification will thus help to ensure adequate
protection for workers. OSHA also believes that the extension will have
the ancillary benefit of limiting the economic impact of the rule by
allowing employers additional time to plan for and absorb the costs
associated with compliance. Based on its review of the rulemaking
record, the Agency has reached the conclusion that employers will be
able to implement engineering controls within the time frame
established in the final rule.
Appendices
    OSHA did not include appendices in the proposed standard. While
some of OSHA's previous standards have included non-mandatory
appendices on topics such as the hazards associated with the regulated
substance, health screening considerations, and sampling and analytical
methods, OSHA made a preliminary determination that topics typically
included in appendices could

be better addressed with guidance materials.
    Various commenters supported guidance materials in conjunction with
the standard (Tr. 1307, 1308, 1309-1312, Exs. 38-214, p. 24; 38-220-1,
p. 35; 39-20, p. 26; 39-60). One commenter noted the utility of OSHA's
compliance assistance tools and preferred the accessibility of those
guidance documents and e-tools to appendices (Ex. 39-60). Others,
however, felt that including appendices as a part of the standard would
make them more directly available for review and determining actions
(Tr. 1099-1100, Exs. 38-218, p. 35; 39-19; 39-60; 40-1-2).
    After consideration of these comments, OSHA has made a final
determination not to include non-mandatory appendices in the Cr(VI)
final rule. First, many of the appendices OSHA has included in the past
such as sampling and analytical methods and respiratory protection fit-
testing procedures are already readily available. For example, fit-
testing procedures are an appendix to the respiratory protection
standard (29 CFR 1910.134), and employers using respirators to comply
with OSHA PELs must consult that standard. OSHA's analytical methods
are also available through OSHA's website. Secondly, OSHA believes that
guidance materials in the form of compliance assistance and outreach
tools are a more flexible means for disseminating current information
to employees and employers than appendices due to the fixed nature of
an appendix as a part of the promulgated standard. For example, OSHA
analytical methods are often updated and thus an appendix with such a
method included might easily become outdated. Appendices on medical
surveillance guidance could also become outdated as advancements in
medical science occur. Guidance documents separate from the standard,
however, could be more easily updated. Finally, guidance materials can
be disseminated in several ways and take several forms. OSHA's
experience with its outreach and compliance assistance tools has shown
these methods are very effective in disseminating information and are
well received by both employers and employees. Thus, the final Cr(VI)
standard will not contain appendices, but OSHA will issue compliance
assistance information to cover areas useful to the implementation of
this final rule.

XVI. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Jonathan L.
Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. The Agency issues the final sections under the
following authorities: Sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (the
Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); section 41, the Longshore and
Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 CFR Part 1911.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926

    Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health, Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Signed at Washington, DC., this 16th day of February, 2006.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

XVII. Final Standards

0
Chapter XVII of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is to be
amended as follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart Z--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for Subpart Z of Part 1910 is revised to read
as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657: Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017),
or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The
latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 but not under
29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds),
benzene, cotton dust, and chromium (VI) listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C.
553.
    Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 but not under
29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and 1910.1200 also issued under 29
U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat.
1901.

0
2-3. In Sec.  1910.1000:
0
a. Table Z-1 is amended by revising ``tert-Butyl chromate (as
CrO3)''; by removing ``Chromic acid and chromates (as
CrO3)''; and by adding ``Chromium (VI) compounds'' and new
footnote 5;
0
b. Table Z-2, the entry ``Chromic acid and chromates (Z37.7-1971)'' is
revised, and a new footnote ``c'' is added.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1000  Air contaminants.

* * * * *

                                     Table Z-1.--Limits for Air Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Substance                CAS No. (c)        ppm(a) \1\         mg/m\3\ (b)\1\     Skin  designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
tert-Butyl chromate (as CrO3);          1189-85-1
 see 1910.1026.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chromium (VI) compounds; See
 1910.1026 \5\.

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Table Z-2 for the exposure limits for any operations or sectors where the exposure limits in Sec.
  1910.1026 are stayed or are otherwise not in effect.''

                                                    Table Z-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Acceptable maximum peak above the
                                                                           acceptable  ceiling concentration for
            Substance                 8-hour time     Acceptable ceiling               an 8-hr shift
                                   weighted  average     concentration   ---------------------------------------
                                                                             Concentration     Maximum duration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chromic acid and chromates        ..................  1 mg/10m\3\.......
 (Z37.7-1971) (as CrO3)\c\.

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ This standard applies to any operations or sectors for which the Hexavalent Chromium standard, 1910.1026, is
  stayed or otherwise is not in effect.''

* * * * *

0
4. A new Section 1910.1026 is added, to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.1026  Chromium (VI).

    (a) Scope. (1) This standard applies to occupational exposures to
chromium (VI) in all forms and compounds in general industry, except:
    (2) Exposures that occur in the application of pesticides regulated
by the Environmental Protection Agency or another Federal government
agency (e.g., the treatment of wood with preservatives);
    (3) Exposures to portland cement; or
    (4) Where the employer has objective data demonstrating that a
material containing chromium or a specific process, operation, or
activity involving chromium cannot release dusts, fumes, or mists of
chromium (VI) in concentrations at or above 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour
time-weighted average (TWA) under any expected conditions of use.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following
definitions apply:
    Action level means a concentration of airborne chromium (VI) of 2.5
micrograms per cubic meter of air (2.5 [mu]g/m\3\) calculated as an 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA).
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Chromium (VI) [hexavalent chromium or Cr(VI)] means chromium with a
valence of positive six, in any form and in any compound.
    Director means the Director of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, or designee.
    Emergency means any occurrence that results, or is likely to
result, in an uncontrolled release of chromium (VI). If an incidental
release of chromium (VI) can be controlled at the time of release by
employees in the immediate release area, or by maintenance personnel,
it is not an emergency.
    Employee exposure means the exposure to airborne chromium (VI) that
would occur if the employee were not using a respirator.
    High-efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filter means a filter that
is at least 99.97 percent efficient in removing mono-dispersed
particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter or larger.
    Historical monitoring data means data from chromium (VI) monitoring
conducted prior to May 30, 2006, obtained during work operations
conducted under workplace conditions closely resembling the processes,
types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental
conditions in the employer's current operations.
    Objective data means information such as air monitoring data from
industry-wide surveys or calculations based on the composition or
chemical and physical properties of a substance demonstrating the
employee exposure to chromium (VI) associated with a particular product
or material or a specific process, operation, or activity. The data
must reflect workplace conditions closely resembling the processes,
types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental
conditions in the employer's current operations.
    Physician or other licensed health care professional [PLHCP] is an
individual whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license,
registration, or certification) allows him or her to independently
provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide some or all of
the particular health care services required by paragraph (k) of this
section.
    Regulated area means an area, demarcated by the employer, where an
employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of chromium (VI)
exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the PEL.
    This section means this Sec.  1910.1026 chromium (VI) standard.
    (c) Permissible exposure limit (PEL). The employer shall ensure
that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium
(VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/
m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
    (d) Exposure determination. (1) General. Each employer who has a
workplace or work operation covered by this section shall determine the
8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI). This
determination shall be made in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2)
or paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (2) Scheduled monitoring option. (i) The employer shall perform
initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each
employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone
air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each
shift, for each job classification, in each work area. Where an
employer does representative sampling instead of sampling all employees
in order to meet this requirement, the employer shall sample the
employee(s) expected to have the highest chromium (VI) exposures.
    (ii) If initial monitoring indicates that employee exposures are
below the action level, the employer may discontinue monitoring for
those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring.
    (iii) If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be at or above
the action level, the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at
least every six months.
    (iv) If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be above the PEL,
the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at least every three
months.
    (v) If periodic monitoring indicates that employee exposures are
below the action level, and the result is confirmed by the result of
another monitoring

taken at least seven days later, the employer may discontinue the
monitoring for those employees whose exposures are represented by such
monitoring.
    (vi) The employer shall perform additional monitoring when there
has been any change in the production process, raw materials,
equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods that may
result in new or additional exposures to chromium (VI), or when the
employer has any reason to believe that new or additional exposures
have occurred.
    (3) Performance-oriented option. The employer shall determine the
8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of any combination
of air monitoring data, historical monitoring data, or objective data
sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposure to chromium
(VI).
    (4) Employee notification of determination results. (i) Where the
exposure determination indicates that employee exposure exceeds the
PEL, within 15 working days the employer shall either post the results
in an appropriate location that is accessible to all affected employees
or shall notify each affected employee individually in writing of the
results.
    (ii) Whenever the exposure determination indicates that employee
exposure is above the PEL, the employer shall describe in the written
notification the corrective action being taken to reduce employee
exposure to or below the PEL.
    (5) Accuracy of measurement. Where air monitoring is performed to
comply with the requirements of this section, the employer shall use a
method of monitoring and analysis that can measure chromium (VI) to
within an accuracy of plus or minus 25 percent (+/- 25%) and can
produce accurate measurements to within a statistical confidence level
of 95 percent for airborne concentrations at or above the action level.
    (6) Observation of monitoring. (i) Where air monitoring is
performed to comply with the requirements of this section, the employer
shall provide affected employees or their designated representatives an
opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to chromium
(VI).
    (ii) When observation of monitoring requires entry into an area
where the use of protective clothing or equipment is required, the
employer shall provide the observer with clothing and equipment and
shall assure that the observer uses such clothing and equipment and
complies with all other applicable safety and health procedures.
    (e) Regulated areas. (1) Establishment. The employer shall
establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne
concentrations of chromium (VI) is, or can reasonably be expected to
be, in excess of the PEL.
    (2) Demarcation. The employer shall ensure that regulated areas are
demarcated from the rest of the workplace in a manner that adequately
establishes and alerts employees of the boundaries of the regulated
area.
    (3) Access. The employer shall limit access to regulated areas to:
    (i) Persons authorized by the employer and required by work duties
to be present in the regulated area;
    (ii) Any person entering such an area as a designated
representative of employees for the purpose of exercising the right to
observe monitoring procedures under paragraph (d) of this section; or
    (iii) Any person authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health
Act or regulations issued under it to be in a regulated area.
    (f) Methods of compliance. (1) Engineering and work practice
controls. (i) Except as permitted in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) and paragraph
(f)(1)(iii) of this section, the employer shall use engineering and
work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to
chromium (VI) to or below the PEL unless the employer can demonstrate
that such controls are not feasible. Wherever feasible engineering and
work practice controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure
to or below the PEL, the employer shall use them to reduce employee
exposure to the lowest levels achievable, and shall supplement them by
the use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements
of paragraph (g) of this section.
    (ii) Where painting of aircraft or large aircraft parts is
performed in the aerospace industry, the employer shall use engineering
and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to
chromium (VI) to or below 25 [mu]g/m3 unless the employer
can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible. The employer shall
supplement such engineering and work practice controls with the use of
respiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this section to achieve the PEL.
    (iii) Where the employer can demonstrate that a process or task
does not result in any employee exposure to chromium (VI) above the PEL
for 30 or more days per year (12 consecutive months), the requirement
to implement engineering and work practice controls to achieve the PEL
does not apply to that process or task.
    (2) Prohibition of rotation. The employer shall not rotate
employees to different jobs to achieve compliance with the PEL.
    (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. The employer shall provide
respiratory protection for employees during:
    (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering
and work practice controls;
    (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities,
for which engineering and work practice controls are not feasible;
    (iii) Work operations for which an employer has implemented all
feasible engineering and work practice controls and such controls are
not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL;
    (iv) Work operations where employees are exposed above the PEL for
fewer than 30 days per year, and the employer has elected not to
implement engineering and work practice controls to achieve the PEL; or
    (v) Emergencies.
    (2) Respiratory protection program. Where respirator use is
required by this section, the employer shall institute a respiratory
protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
    (h) Protective work clothing and equipment. (1) Provision and use.
Where a hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin or eye
contact with chromium (VI), the employer shall provide appropriate
personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and
shall ensure that employees use such clothing and equipment.
    (2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that
employees remove all protective clothing and equipment contaminated
with chromium (VI) at the end of the work shift or at the completion of
their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure, whichever comes first.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that no employee removes chromium
(VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment from the workplace,
except for those employees whose job it is to launder, clean, maintain,
or dispose of such clothing or equipment.
    (iii) When contaminated protective clothing or equipment is removed
for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal, the employer shall
ensure that it is stored and transported in sealed, impermeable bags or
other closed, impermeable containers.
    (iv) Bags or containers of contaminated protective clothing or
equipment that are removed from change rooms for laundering, cleaning,

maintenance, or disposal shall be labeled in accordance with the
requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
    (3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall clean,
launder, repair and replace all protective clothing and equipment
required by this section as needed to maintain its effectiveness.
    (ii) The employer shall prohibit the removal of chromium (VI) from
protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other
means that disperses chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's
body.
    (iii) The employer shall inform any person who launders or cleans
protective clothing or equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) of the
potentially harmful effects of exposure to chromium (VI) and that the
clothing and equipment should be laundered or cleaned in a manner that
minimizes skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) and effectively
prevents the release of airborne chromium (VI) in excess of the PEL.
    (i) Hygiene areas and practices. (1) General. Where protective
clothing and equipment is required, the employer shall provide change
rooms in conformance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Where skin contact with
chromium (VI) occurs, the employer shall provide washing facilities in
conformance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Eating and drinking areas provided by
the employer shall also be in conformance with Sec.  1910.141.
    (2) Change rooms. The employer shall assure that change rooms are
equipped with separate storage facilities for protective clothing and
equipment and for street clothes, and that these facilities prevent
cross-contamination.
    (3) Washing facilities. (i) The employer shall provide readily
accessible washing facilities capable of removing chromium (VI) from
the skin, and shall ensure that affected employees use these facilities
when necessary.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that employees who have skin contact
with chromium (VI) wash their hands and faces at the end of the work
shift and prior to eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum,
applying cosmetics, or using the toilet.
    (4) Eating and drinking areas. (i) Whenever the employer allows
employees to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium
(VI) is present, the employer shall ensure that eating and drinking
areas and surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of chromium
(VI).
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that employees do not enter eating
and drinking areas with protective work clothing or equipment unless
surface chromium (VI) has been removed from the clothing and equipment
by methods that do not disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an
employee's body.
    (5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees
do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in
regulated areas, or in areas where skin or eye contact with chromium
(VI) occurs; or carry the products associated with these activities, or
store such products in these areas.
    (j) Housekeeping. (1) General. The employer shall ensure that:
    (i) All surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of
accumulations of chromium (VI).
    (ii) All spills and releases of chromium (VI) containing material
are cleaned up promptly.
    (2) Cleaning methods. (i) The employer shall ensure that surfaces
contaminated with chromium (VI) are cleaned by HEPA-filter vacuuming or
other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure to chromium
(VI).
    (ii) Dry shoveling, dry sweeping, and dry brushing may be used only
where HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the
likelihood of exposure to chromium (VI) have been tried and found not
to be effective.
    (iii) The employer shall not allow compressed air to be used to
remove chromium (VI) from any surface unless:
    (A) The compressed air is used in conjunction with a ventilation
system designed to capture the dust cloud created by the compressed
air; or
    (B) No alternative method is feasible.
    (iv) The employer shall ensure that cleaning equipment is handled
in a manner that minimizes the reentry of chromium (VI) into the
workplace.
    (3) Disposal. The employer shall ensure that:
    (i) Waste, scrap, debris, and any other materials contaminated with
chromium (VI) and consigned for disposal are collected and disposed of
in sealed, impermeable bags or other closed, impermeable containers.
    (ii) Bags or containers of waste, scrap, debris, and any other
materials contaminated with chromium (VI) that are consigned for
disposal are labeled in accordance with the requirements of the Hazard
Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
    (k) Medical surveillance. (1) General. (i) The employer shall make
medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a
reasonable time and place, for all employees:
    (A) Who are or may be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or
above the action level for 30 or more days a year;
    (B) Experiencing signs or symptoms of the adverse health effects
associated with chromium (VI) exposure; or
    (C) Exposed in an emergency.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that all medical examinations and
procedures required by this section are performed by or under the
supervision of a PLHCP.
    (2) Frequency. The employer shall provide a medical examination:
    (i) Within 30 days after initial assignment, unless the employee
has received a chromium (VI) related medical examination that meets the
requirements of this paragraph within the last twelve months;
    (ii) Annually;
    (iii) Within 30 days after a PLHCP's written medical opinion
recommends an additional examination;
    (iv) Whenever an employee shows signs or symptoms of the adverse
health effects associated with chromium (VI) exposure;
    (v) Within 30 days after exposure during an emergency which results
in an uncontrolled release of chromium (VI); or
    (vi) At the termination of employment, unless the last examination
that satisfied the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section was
less than six months prior to the date of termination.
    (3) Contents of examination. A medical examination consists of:
    (i) A medical and work history, with emphasis on: Past, present,
and anticipated future exposure to chromium (VI); any history of
respiratory system dysfunction; any history of asthma, dermatitis, skin
ulceration, or nasal septum perforation; and smoking status and
history;
    (ii) A physical examination of the skin and respiratory tract; and
    (iii) Any additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining
PLHCP.
    (4) Information provided to the PLHCP. The employer shall ensure
that the examining PLHCP has a copy of this standard, and shall provide
the following information:
    (i) A description of the affected employee's former, current, and
anticipated duties as they relate to the employee's occupational
exposure to chromium (VI);
    (ii) The employee's former, current, and anticipated levels of
occupational exposure to chromium (VI);
    (iii) A description of any personal protective equipment used or to
be used by the employee, including when and for how long the employee
has used that equipment; and
    (iv) Information from records of employment-related medical

examinations previously provided to the affected employee, currently
within the control of the employer.
    (5) PLHCP's written medical opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain
a written medical opinion from the PLHCP, within 30 days for each
medical examination performed on each employee, which contains:
    (A) The PLHCP's opinion as to whether the employee has any detected
medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of
material impairment to health from further exposure to chromium (VI);
    (B) Any recommended limitations upon the employee's exposure to
chromium (VI) or upon the use of personal protective equipment such as
respirators;
    (C) A statement that the PLHCP has explained to the employee the
results of the medical examination, including any medical conditions
related to chromium (VI) exposure that require further evaluation or
treatment, and any special provisions for use of protective clothing or
equipment.
    (ii) The PLHCP shall not reveal to the employer specific findings
or diagnoses unrelated to occupational exposure to chromium (VI).
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the PLHCP's written
medical opinion to the examined employee within two weeks after
receiving it.
    (l) Communication of chromium (VI) hazards to employees.
    (1) General. In addition to the requirements of the Hazard
Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, employers shall comply with
the following requirements.
    (2) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall
ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the
following:
    (A) The contents of this section; and
    (B) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance
program required by paragraph (k) of this section.
    (ii) The employer shall make a copy of this section readily
available without cost to all affected employees.
    (m) Recordkeeping. (1) Air monitoring data. (i) The employer shall
maintain an accurate record of all air monitoring conducted to comply
with the requirements of this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement for each sample taken;
    (B) The operation involving exposure to chromium (VI) that is being
monitored;
    (C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their
accuracy;
    (D) Number, duration, and the results of samples taken;
    (E) Type of personal protective equipment, such as respirators
worn; and
    (F) Name, social security number, and job classification of all
employees represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees
were actually monitored.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that exposure records are
maintained and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (2) Historical monitoring data. (i) Where the employer has relied
on historical monitoring data to determine exposure to chromium (VI),
the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of the
historical monitoring data relied upon.
    (ii) The record shall include information that reflects the
following conditions:
    (A) The data were collected using methods that meet the accuracy
requirements of paragraph (d)(5) of this section;
    (B) The processes and work practices that were in use when the
historical monitoring data were obtained are essentially the same as
those to be used during the job for which exposure is being determined;
    (C) The characteristics of the chromium (VI) containing material
being handled when the historical monitoring data were obtained are the
same as those on the job for which exposure is being determined;
    (D) Environmental conditions prevailing when the historical
monitoring data were obtained are the same as those on the job for
which exposure is being determined; and
    (E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing,
or employee exposures covered by the exception.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that historical exposure records
are maintained and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (3) Objective data. (i) The employer shall maintain an accurate
record of all objective data relied upon to comply with the
requirements of this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The chromium containing material in question;
    (B) The source of the objective data;
    (C) The testing protocol and results of testing, or analysis of the
material for the release of chromium (VI);
    (D) A description of the process, operation, or activity and how
the data support the determination; and
    (E) Other data relevant to the process, operation, activity,
material, or employee exposures.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that objective data are maintained
and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (4) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and
maintain an accurate record for each employee covered by medical
surveillance under paragraph (k) of this section.
    (ii) The record shall include the following information about the
employee:
    (A) Name and social security number;
    (B) A copy of the PLHCP's written opinions;
    (C) A copy of the information provided to the PLHCP as required by
paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that medical records are maintained
and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (n) Dates. (1) For employers with 20 or more employees, all
obligations of this section, except engineering controls required by
paragraph (f) of this section, commence November 27, 2006.
    (2) For employers with 19 or fewer employees, all obligations of
this section, except engineering controls required by paragraph (f) of
this section, commence May 30, 2007.
    (3) For all employers, engineering controls required by paragraph
(f) of this section shall be implemented no later than May 31, 2010.

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); sections 4, 6, 8, Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary
of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83
(48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017) or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable.

    Sections 1915.120, 1915.152 and 1915.1026 also issued under 29
CFR part 1911.
    Section 1915.1001 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. 1915.1000 Air
contaminants.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  1915.1000, Table Z, the entries for ``tert-Butyl chromate
(as CrO3)'', and ``Chromic acid and chromates (as
CrO3)'' are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.1000  Air contaminants.

* * * * *

                                               Table Z.--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Substance                CAS No.\d\          ppm\a*\            mg/m\3\ b *        Skin designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
tert-Butyl chromate (as CrO3);          1189-85-1
 see 1915.1026 \n\.
                1
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chromium (VI) Compounds; see
 1915.1026 \o\.

                                                  * * * * * * *

                                                  * * * * * * *

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Use Asbestos Limit Sec.   1915.1001.
\*\ The PELS are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit. They are to be
  determined from breathing-zone air samples.
\a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25[deg] C and 760 torr.
\b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
  listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.
\d\ The CAS number is for information only. Enforcement is based on the substance name. For an entry covering
  more than one metal compound, measured as the metal, the CAS number for the metal is given--not CAS numbers
  for the individual compounds.
\n\ If the exposure limit in 1915.1026 is stayed or is not otherwise in effect, the TLV is a ceiling of 0.1
  [mu]g/m\3\ (as CrO3).
\o\ If the exposure limit in 1915.1026 is stayed or is otherwise not in effect, the TLV is 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (as
  CrO3) as an 8-hour TWA.

0
7. A new Sec.  1915.1026 is added, to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.1026  Chromium (VI).

    (a) Scope. (1) This standard applies to occupational exposures to
chromium (VI) in all forms and compounds in shipyards, marine
terminals, and longshoring, except:
    (2) Exposures that occur in the application of pesticides regulated
by the Environmental Protection Agency or another Federal government
agency (e.g., the treatment of wood with preservatives);
    (3) Exposures to portland cement; or
    (4) Where the employer has objective data demonstrating that a
material containing chromium or a specific process, operation, or
activity involving chromium cannot release dusts, fumes, or mists of
chromium (VI) in concentrations at or above 0.5 [mu]g/m3 as
an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) under any expected conditions of
use.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following
definitions apply:
    Action level means a concentration of airborne chromium (VI) of 2.5
micrograms per cubic meter of air (2.5 [mu]g/m3) calculated
as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Chromium (VI) [hexavalent chromium or Cr(VI)] means chromium with a
valence of positive six, in any form and in any compound.
    Director means the Director of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, or designee.
    Emergency means any occurrence that results, or is likely to
result, in an uncontrolled release of chromium (VI). If an incidental
release of chromium (VI) can be controlled at the time of release by
employees in the immediate release area, or by maintenance personnel,
it is not an emergency.
    Employee exposure means the exposure to airborne chromium (VI) that
would occur if the employee were not using a respirator.
    High-efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filter means a filter that
is at least 99.97 percent efficient in removing mono-dispersed
particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter or larger.
    Historical monitoring data means data from chromium (VI) monitoring
conducted prior to May 30, 2006, obtained during work operations
conducted under workplace conditions closely resembling the processes,
types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental
conditions in the employer's current operations.
    Objective data means information such as air monitoring data from
industry-wide surveys or calculations based on the composition or
chemical and physical properties of a substance demonstrating the
employee exposure to chromium (VI) associated with a particular product
or material or a specific process, operation, or activity. The data
must reflect workplace conditions closely resembling the processes,
types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental
conditions in the employer's current operations.
    Physician or other licensed health care professional [PLHCP] is an
individual whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license,
registration, or certification) allows him or her to independently
provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide some or all of
the particular health care services required by paragraph (i) of this
section.
    This section means this Sec.  1915.1026 chromium (VI) standard.
    (c) Permissible exposure limit (PEL). The employer shall ensure
that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium
(VI) in excess of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/
m3), calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
    (d) Exposure determination. (1) General. Each employer who has a
workplace or work operation covered by this section shall determine the
8-hour TWA exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI). This
determination shall be made in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2)
or paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (2) Scheduled monitoring option. (i) The employer shall perform
initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour TWA exposure for each
employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone
air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each
shift, for each job classification, in each work area. Where an
employer does representative

sampling instead of sampling all employees in order to meet this
requirement, the employer shall sample the employee(s) expected to have
the highest chromium (VI) exposures.
    (ii) If initial monitoring indicates that employee exposures are
below the action level, the employer may discontinue monitoring for
those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring.
    (iii) If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be at or above
the action level, the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at
least every six months.
    (iv) If monitoring reveals employee exposures to be above the PEL,
the employer shall perform periodic monitoring at least every three
months.
    (v) If periodic monitoring indicates that employee exposures are
below the action level, and the result is confirmed by the result of
another monitoring taken at least seven days later, the employer may
discontinue the monitoring for those employees whose exposures are
represented by such monitoring.
    (vi) The employer shall perform additional monitoring when there
has been any change in the production process, raw materials,
equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods that may
result in new or additional exposures to chromium (VI), or when the
employer has any reason to believe that new or additional exposures
have occurred.
    (3) Performance-oriented option. The employer shall determine the
8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of any combination
of air monitoring data, historical monitoring data, or objective data
sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposure to chromium
(VI).
    (4) Employee notification of determination results. (i) Where the
exposure determination indicates that employee exposure exceeds the
PEL, as soon as possible but not more than 5 working days later the
employer shall either post the results in an appropriate location that
is accessible to all affected employees or shall notify each affected
employee individually in writing of the results.
    (ii) Whenever the exposure determination indicates that employee
exposure is above the PEL, the employer shall describe in the written
notification the corrective action being taken to reduce employee
exposure to or below the PEL.
    (5) Accuracy of measurement. Where air monitoring is performed to
comply with the requirements of this section, the employer shall use a
method of monitoring and analysis that can measure chromium (VI) to
within an accuracy of plus or minus 25 percent (+/-25%) and can produce
accurate measurements to within a statistical confidence level of 95
percent for airborne concentrations at or above the action level.
    (6) Observation of monitoring. (i) Where air monitoring is
performed to comply with the requirements of this section, the employer
shall provide affected employees or their designated representatives an
opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to chromium
(VI).
    (ii) When observation of monitoring requires entry into an area
where the use of protective clothing or equipment is required, the
employer shall provide the observer with clothing and equipment and
shall assure that the observer uses such clothing and equipment and
complies with all other applicable safety and health procedures.
    (e) Methods of compliance. (1) Engineering and work practice
controls. (i) Except as permitted in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this
section, the employer shall use engineering and work practice controls
to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) to or below
the PEL unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not
feasible. Wherever feasible engineering and work practice controls are
not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the
employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest
levels achievable, and shall supplement them by the use of respiratory
protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this
section.
    (ii) Where the employer can demonstrate that a process or task does
not result in any employee exposure to chromium (VI) above the PEL for
30 or more days per year (12 consecutive months), the requirement to
implement engineering and work practice controls to achieve the PEL
does not apply to that process or task.
    (2) Prohibition of rotation. The employer shall not rotate
employees to different jobs to achieve compliance with the PEL.
    (f) Respiratory protection. (1) General. The employer shall provide
respiratory protection for employees during:
    (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering
and work practice controls;
    (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities,
for which engineering and work practice controls are not feasible;
    (iii) Work operations for which an employer has implemented all
feasible engineering and work practice controls and such controls are
not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL;
    (iv) Work operations where employees are exposed above the PEL for
fewer than 30 days per year, and the employer has elected not to
implement engineering and work practice controls to achieve the PEL; or
    (v) Emergencies.
    (2) Respiratory protection program. Where respirator use is
required by this section, the employer shall institute a respiratory
protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
    (g) Protective work clothing and equipment. (1) Provision and use.
Where a hazard is present or is likely to be present from skin or eye
contact with chromium (VI), the employer shall provide appropriate
personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost to employees, and
shall ensure that employees use such clothing and equipment.
    (2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that
employees remove all protective clothing and equipment contaminated
with chromium (VI) at the end of the work shift or at the completion of
their tasks involving chromium (VI) exposure, whichever comes first.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that no employee removes chromium
(VI)-contaminated protective clothing or equipment from the workplace,
except for those employees whose job it is to launder, clean, maintain,
or dispose of such clothing or equipment.
    (iii) When contaminated protective clothing or equipment is removed
for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal, the employer shall
ensure that it is stored and transported in sealed, impermeable bags or
other closed, impermeable containers.
    (iv) Bags or containers of contaminated protective clothing or
equipment that are removed from change rooms for laundering, cleaning,
maintenance, or disposal shall be labeled in accordance with the
requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
    (3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall clean,
launder, repair and replace all protective clothing and equipment
required by this section as needed to maintain its effectiveness.
    (ii) The employer shall prohibit the removal of chromium (VI) from
protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other
means that disperses chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's
body.
    (iii) The employer shall inform any person who launders or cleans

protective clothing or equipment contaminated with chromium (VI) of the
potentially harmful effects of exposure to chromium (VI) and that the
clothing and equipment should be laundered or cleaned in a manner that
minimizes skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) and effectively
prevents the release of airborne chromium (VI) in excess of the PEL.
    (h) Hygiene areas and practices. (1) General. Where protective
clothing and equipment is required, the employer shall provide change
rooms in conformance with 29 CFR 1910.141. Where skin contact with
chromium (VI) occurs, the employer shall provide washing facilities in
conformance with 29 CFR 1915.97. Eating and drinking areas provided by
the employer shall also be in conformance with Sec.  1915.97.
    (2) Change rooms. The employer shall assure that change rooms are
equipped with separate storage facilities for protective clothing and
equipment and for street clothes, and that these facilities prevent
cross-contamination.
    (3) Washing facilities. (i) The employer shall provide readily
accessible washing facilities capable of removing chromium (VI) from
the skin, and shall ensure that affected employees use these facilities
when necessary.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that employees who have skin contact
with chromium (VI) wash their hands and faces at the end of the work
shift and prior to eating, drinking, smoking, chewing tobacco or gum,
applying cosmetics, or using the toilet.
    (4) Eating and drinking areas. (i) Whenever the employer allows
employees to consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium
(VI) is present, the employer shall ensure that eating and drinking
areas and surfaces are maintained as free as practicable of chromium
(VI).
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that employees do not enter eating
and drinking areas with protective work clothing or equipment unless
surface chromium (VI) has been removed from the clothing and equipment
by methods that do not disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an
employee's body.
    (5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees
do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in
areas where skin or eye contact with chromium (VI) occurs; or carry the
products associated with these activities, or store such products in
these areas.
    (i) Medical surveillance. (1) General. (i) The employer shall make
medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a
reasonable time and place, for all employees:
    (A) Who are or may be occupationally exposed to chromium (VI) at or
above the action level for 30 or more days a year;
    (B) Experiencing signs or symptoms of the adverse health effects
associated with chromium (VI) exposure; or
    (C) Exposed in an emergency.
    (ii) The employer shall assure that all medical examinations and
procedures required by this section are performed by or under the
supervision of a PLHCP.
    (2) Frequency. The employer shall provide a medical examination:
    (i) Within 30 days after initial assignment, unless the employee
has received a chromium (VI) related medical examination that meets the
requirements of this paragraph within the last twelve months;
    (ii) Annually;
    (iii) Within 30 days after a PLHCP's written medical opinion
recommends an additional examination;
    (iv) Whenever an employee shows signs or symptoms of the adverse
health effects associated with chromium (VI) exposure;
    (v) Within 30 days after exposure during an emergency which results
in an uncontrolled release of chromium (VI); or
    (vi) At the termination of employment, unless the last examination
that satisfied the requirements of paragraph (i) of this section was
less than six months prior to the date of termination.
    (3) Contents of examination. A medical examination consists of:
    (i) A medical and work history, with emphasis on: past, present,
and anticipated future exposure to chromium (VI); any history of
respiratory system dysfunction; any history of asthma, dermatitis, skin
ulceration, or nasal septum perforation; and smoking status and
history;
    (ii) A physical examination of the skin and respiratory tract; and
    (iii) Any additional tests deemed appropriate by the examining
PLHCP.
    (4) Information provided to the PLHCP. The employer shall ensure
that the examining PLHCP has a copy of this standard, and shall provide
the following information:
    (i) A description of the affected employee's former, current, and
anticipated duties as they relate to the employee's occupational
exposure to chromium (VI);
    (ii) The employee's former, current, and anticipated levels of
occupational exposure to chromium (VI);
    (iii) A description of any personal protective equipment used or to
be used by the employee, including when and for how long the employee
has used that equipment; and
    (iv) Information from records of employment-related medical
examinations previously provided to the affected employee, currently
within the control of the employer.
    (5) PLHCP's written medical opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain
a written medical opinion from the PLHCP, within 30 days for each
medical examination performed on each employee, which contains:
    (A) The PLHCP's opinion as to whether the employee has any detected
medical condition(s) that would place the employee at increased risk of
material impairment to health from further exposure to chromium (VI);
    (B) Any recommended limitations upon the employee's exposure to
chromium (VI) or upon the use of personal protective equipment such as
respirators;
    (C) A statement that the PLHCP has explained to the employee the
results of the medical examination, including any medical conditions
related to chromium (VI) exposure that require further evaluation or
treatment, and any special provisions for use of protective clothing or
equipment.
    (ii) The PLHCP shall not reveal to the employer specific findings
or diagnoses unrelated to occupational exposure to chromium (VI).
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the PLHCP's written
medical opinion to the examined employee within two weeks after
receiving it.
    (j) Communication of chromium (VI) hazards to employees. (1)
General. In addition to the requirements of the Hazard Communication
Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, employers shall comply with the following
requirements.
    (2) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall
ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the
following:
    (A) The contents of this section; and
    (B) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance
program required by paragraph (i) of this section.
    (ii) The employer shall make a copy of this section readily
available without cost to all affected employees.
    (k) Recordkeeping. (1) Air monitoring data. (i) The employer shall
maintain an accurate record of all air monitoring conducted to comply
with the requirements of this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement for each sample taken;
    (B) The operation involving exposure to chromium (VI) that is being
monitored;
    (C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their
accuracy;

    (D) Number, duration, and the results of samples taken;
    (E) Type of personal protective equipment, such as respirators
worn; and
    (F) Name, social security number, and job classification of all
employees represented by the monitoring, indicating which employees
were actually monitored.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that exposure records are
maintained and made available in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.
    (2) Historical monitoring data. (i) Where the employer has relied
on historical monitoring data to determine exposure to chromium (VI),