Exploration, and Production Safety Network (STEPS Network) for the
hydraulic fracturing industry recommends signs to warn of potential
silica exposure and the requirement for respirator use near exposure
zones (Document ID 4024, Attachment 2, p. 1).
    OSHA finds these arguments persuasive and agrees that it is
appropriate to require signs at entrances to regulated areas, which are
required only in the general industry and maritime standard (see
summary and explanation for Regulated Areas). Employees must recognize
when they are entering a regulated area and understand the hazards
associated with the area, as well as the need for respiratory
protection. Signs are an effective means of accomplishing these
objectives. Therefore, paragraph (j)(2) of the standard for general
industry and maritime requires that regulated areas be posted with
signs that bear the exact cautionary wording specified in the standard.
The required legend, which begins with the word ``Danger'', warns that
respirable crystalline silica is present and may cause cancer, states
that it causes damage to lungs, states that respiratory protection is
required, and indicates authorized personnel only are permitted to
enter. The purpose of these signs is to minimize the number of
employees in a regulated area by alerting them that they must be
authorized by their employer to enter, and to ensure that employees
take appropriate protective measures when entering. The signs will warn
employees who may not know they are entering a regulated area or may
not know of the hazards present in the area. They will supplement the
training that employees are to receive under other provisions of
paragraph (j) of the standard for general industry and maritime because
even trained employees need to be reminded of the locations of
regulated areas and of the necessary precautions they must take before
entering these dangerous areas.
    The required language for the signs is consistent with labeling
requirements in Appendix C of the HCS, which specifies standardized
language to communicate information to employees. The revised HCS
requires the use of one of two signal words--``Danger'' or
``Warning''--on labels of hazardous chemicals. The word ``Danger'' is
used for more severe hazard categories, such as carcinogens. OSHA is
requiring the word ``Danger'' based on the evidence of lung toxicity
and carcinogenicity of respirable crystalline silica. ``Danger'' is
used to alert employees that they are in an area where the permissible
exposure limit (PEL) is or can reasonably be expected to be exceeded
and to emphasize the importance of the message that follows.
    Charles Gordon requested that warning signs also warn about kidney
hazards (Document ID 4236, p. 6). The hazard statements about cancer
and lung damage required on signs are the minimum requirements and
focus on the most prominent adverse health effects associated with
respirable crystalline silica exposure. OSHA concludes that it is
unnecessary to list every relevant hazard warning on signs at entrances
to regulated areas because other sources of information, such as SDSs
and training, will provide more comprehensive information to employees.
In addition, addressing cancer and lung damage is conceptually
consistent with specific wording

suggestions from APHA, National Consumers League, BCTD, HalenHardy, and
AFL-CIO (Document ID 2178, Attachment 1, pp. 2-3; 2373, p. 2; 2371,
Attachment 1, pp. 36-37; 4030, Exhibit D; 4204, p. 101). Including an
abbreviated list of health hazards on signs is also consistent with
other OSHA standards such as lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), benzene (29 CFR
1910.1028), and vinyl chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017). Therefore, OSHA has
decided not to add a requirement to include warnings about kidney
hazards on warning signs. Employers may choose to include a warning
about kidney hazards on the signs required under this standard,
provided that the additional information included is not confusing or
misleading and does not detract from warnings required by the standard.
    The warning sign must include notice about the need for respiratory
protection in regulated areas required under the general industry and
maritime standards. As explained in the summary and explanation of
Regulated Areas, employers covered by the standard for general industry
and maritime are required to provide each employee and his or her
designated representative entering a regulated area with an appropriate
respirator and require the employee and designated representative to
use the respirator while in the regulated area. APHA, National
Consumers League, and Charles Gordon requested that warning signs also
indicate that protective clothing is required (Document ID 2178,
Attachment 1, p. 3; 2373, p. 2; 4236, p. 6). As discussed in the
summary and explanation of Regulated Areas, protective clothing is not
required in this rule, and therefore no corresponding notice is
required on signs.
    Some labor unions that represent construction employees, such as
BCTD, IUOE, and BAC, asked OSHA to include requirements for warning
signs in the construction standard to warn employees about health
hazards or requirements for control measures (e.g., Document ID 2371,
Attachment 1, pp. 36-37; 4025, Attachment 1, pp. 24-25; 4219, p. 27).
Some employers, like construction company Miller and Long, Inc.,
opposed requiring barricades and signs at construction sites (e.g.,
Document ID 3585, Tr. 2967).
    As discussed in the summary and explanation of Regulated Areas,
OSHA is not requiring regulated areas in the standard for construction
because of the impracticality of establishing regulated areas in many
construction settings. Employers using specified exposure control
methods in Table 1 of paragraph (c) of the standard for construction
are not required to conduct exposure assessments and therefore will not
have the information necessary to establish the boundaries for the
regulated area (i.e., the point at which exposures would no longer
exceed the PEL). Even though regulated areas with warning signs are not
required for the construction standard, the employer may choose to
include procedures for posting warning signs in its written exposure
control plan as a method to restrict access to work areas, when
necessary, to limit the numbers of employees exposed to respirable
crystalline silica and the levels to which they are exposed, including
exposures generated by other employers or sole proprietors (paragraph
(g)(1)(iv) of the standard for construction). Because of the unique and
often-changing work areas at construction sites, OSHA concludes that a
universal requirement for regulated areas with signs is unwarranted,
and the construction employer is in the best position to determine when
warning signs should be posted.
    IUOE requested a requirement to affix warning labels listing the
health hazards of respirable crystalline silica on enclosed cabs to
remind operators not to work with windows open (Document ID 2262, pp.
34-35). Where enclosed cabs are used to limit exposures to respirable
crystalline silica, the employer must ensure that these controls are
properly implemented (paragraph (c)(1) of the standard for
construction) and that employees can demonstrate knowledge of the
controls (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for construction).
Therefore, OSHA concludes that a general requirement to affix warning
labels to cabs is unwarranted and construction employers are in the
best position to determine if there is a need for warning labels in
their workplaces as a reminder to properly implement controls. As a
result, OSHA has not included such a requirement in the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2)(i) included the requirements related to
employee information and training. The proposed rule called for the
employer to ensure that each ``affected employee'' can demonstrate
knowledge of the specified training elements discussed below. OSHA
defined ``affected employee'' as any employee who may be exposed to
respirable crystalline silica under normal conditions of use or in a
foreseeable emergency. OSHA received several comments related to a
trigger for training requirements. For example, the American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI) commented that the terms ``each employee'' and
``each affected employee'' were used interchangeably in the proposed
rule and that OSHA needed to clarify which employees needed to receive
training; both Newport News Shipbuilding and AISI commented that
training should be limited to those employees who could foreseeably be
exposed above the PEL (Document ID 2144, p. 2; 3492, p. 3). Southern
Company was concerned that training would be required for all employees
potentially exposed to silica, and although disagreeing with an action
level of 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air ([mu]g/m\3\), requested
an action level-based trigger for training (Document ID 2185, p. 5). In
contrast, CISC supported training for all employees potentially exposed
to respirable crystalline at a construction site (Document ID 4217, p.
25). A number of other employers and industry representatives expressed
views on exposure levels that should trigger training, such as action
levels or PELs (e.g., Document ID 2196, Attachment 1, p. 11; 2279, p.
9; 2301, Attachment 1, p. 4; 2357, pp. 31-32; 2379, Appendix 1, p. 54).
BCTD requested that, in addition to employees performing work covered
by this section, OSHA require training for supervisors and on-site
managers who are responsible for, or who supervise, employees who
perform work covered by the standard (Document ID 4223, p. 117).
    OSHA has clarified the trigger for training requirements in the
rule by aligning these requirements with the scope of the rule.
Paragraph (j)(3)(i) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (i)(2)(i) of the standard for construction) requires
training for each employee covered by the rule. Consistent with the
scope provision in paragraph (a)(2) of the standard for general
industry and maritime, training is required for each employee, unless
the employer has objective data demonstrating that exposures will
remain below 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted average under any
foreseeable conditions. Consistent with the scope provision in
paragraph (a) of the standard for construction, training is required
for all employees who are or could foreseeably be exposed to respirable
crystalline silica at or above the action level of 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as an
8-hour time-weighted average. Therefore, actual or foreseeable exposure
at or above the action level is used to determine which employees are
covered by the rule, and covered employers are required to provide
training for any employee covered by

the rule. OSHA concludes that it is appropriate to train employees
covered by the rule because they will benefit from receiving
information such as the role of controls in reducing exposures and
illnesses associated with respirable crystalline silica.
    Stakeholders also offered comments on the proposed requirement that
employers ensure that affected employees can ``demonstrate knowledge''
of the training subjects in proposed paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)-(D). The
proposed rule did not specify precisely how training should be
accomplished. Instead, it defined the hazard communication requirements
in terms of objectives meant to ensure that employees are made aware of
the hazards associated with respirable crystalline silica in their
workplace and how they can help to protect themselves. The proposed
rule's performance-oriented approach was consistent with the HCS and
many of OSHA's substance-specific standards.
    Some stakeholders commented on OSHA's performance-based approach to
training. For example, Diane Matthew Brown, Health and Safety
Specialist from AFSCME, testified that training should be as
interactive as possible to allow for different learning styles
(Document ID 3585, Tr. 3115). CISC supported the performance-oriented
approach to training but also stated it would support a requirement
that employees be able to ask questions during training (Document ID
4217). IUOE recommended interactive training so that employees could
have their questions answered during the training (Document ID 3583,
Tr. 2369). Although agreeing with the importance of a knowledgeable
person to answer trainee questions, Ameren Corporation considered it
burdensome to have someone immediately available to answer questions
(Document ID 2315, p. 4). The Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North
America (LHSFNA) indicated that hands-on training is the best approach
to training an employee who performs tasks that generate dust in the
proper operation of a tool and associated engineering controls
(Document ID 3589, Tr. 4220-4221).
    After considering the comments on this issue, OSHA has decided that
the training requirements under the respirable crystalline silica rule,
like those in the HCS, are best accomplished when they are performance-
oriented. OSHA concludes that the employer is in the best position to
determine how the training can most effectively 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. However, to ensure
that employees comprehend the material presented during training, it is
critical that trainees have the opportunity to ask questions and
receive answers if they do not fully understand the material that is
presented to them. OSHA reiterates that when videotape presentations or
computer-based programs are used, this requirement may be met by having
a qualified trainer available to address questions after the
presentation, or providing a telephone hotline so that trainees will
have direct access to a qualified trainer. Although it is important
that employees be able to ask questions, OSHA finds that the employer
is in the best position to determine whether an instructor must be
available for questions during training or if a trainer can answer
questions after the training session. 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 for each workplace.
    In addition to asking about how training should be accomplished,
stakeholders posed questions about how employers can determine that
they have fulfilled the training requirements. For example, the
American Foundry Society stated that the term ``demonstrate knowledge''
is vague and requested that the rule include language to specify when a
training requirement is met (Document ID 2379, Appendix 1, p. 72). OSHA
concludes that employers can determine whether employees have the
requisite knowledge through methods such as discussion of the required
training subjects, written tests, or oral quizzes. Retired industrial
hygienist Bill Kojola, testifying on behalf of the National Council for
Occupational Safety and Health (NCOSH), suggested that compliance
officers could question employees to determine if they know about
medical surveillance and work practices or engineering controls to
reduce exposures (Document ID 3586, Tr. 3259). Similarly, UAW
coordinator, Andrew Comai, and a private citizen, Cara Ivens, opined
that compliance officers could ask employees if they are aware that
they are working with hazardous chemicals or know about the health
effects of respirable crystalline silica (Document ID 1801, p. 4; 3582,
Tr. 1869). OSHA concludes that employers can similarly assess their
employees' knowledge and understanding of training topics.
    The proposed rule did not include a provision that required
training to be conducted in a language and manner that the employee
understands. A number of labor unions and employee advocate groups
requested that the rule include a requirement for training to be
conducted in a language and manner that employees understand (e.g.,
Document ID 2240, p. 4; 2282, Attachment 3, p. 25; 3585, Tr. 3115;
3955, Attachment 2, p. 2; 3583, Tr. 2451; 4204, p. 99; 4025, Attachment
1, p. 2; 4219, p. 24).
    OSHA agrees. Paragraph (j)(3)(i) of the standard for general
industry and maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i) of the standard for
construction) requires the employer to ensure that each employee
covered by the standard demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the
required training subjects. The requirement for employers to ensure
that the employee demonstrates knowledge in the training subjects
obligates the employer to provide training in a language and manner
that the employee understands. The employee must understand training in
order to demonstrate knowledge of the specified training elements. To
clarify this requirement, OSHA has revised the proposed text to require
the employer to ensure that employees demonstrate understanding, in
addition to knowledge. This requirement is consistent with Assistant
Secretary David Michaels' memorandum to OSHA Regional Administrators
(Document ID 1499). The memorandum explains that because employees have
varying educational levels, literacy, and language skills, training
must be presented in a language, or languages, and at a level of
understanding that accounts for these differences in order to ensure
that employees understand the training. As stated by Assistant
Secretary Michaels:

. . . an employer must instruct its employees using both a language
and vocabulary that the employees can understand. For example, if an
employee does not speak or comprehend English, instruction must be
provided in a language that the employee can understand. Similarly,
if the employee's vocabulary is limited, the training must account
for that limitation. By the same token, if employees are not
literate, telling them to read training materials will not satisfy
the employer's training obligation (Document ID 1499, p. 2).

    This may mean, for example, providing materials, instruction, or
assistance in Spanish rather than English if the employees being
trained are Spanish-speaking and do not understand English. However,
the employer is not required to provide

training in the employee's preferred language if the employee
understands the language used for training.
    Proposed paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)-(D) specified the contents of
training for affected employees. The proposed list included training on
operations that could result in exposures and methods for protecting
employees from exposure, the contents of the respirable crystalline
silica rule, and the purpose and a description of the employer's
medical surveillance program. The proposed rule did not contain a
provision requiring training on health effects. However, under the HCS,
employers would have to train employees on the health hazards
associated with chemicals in the work area (29 CFR
1910.1200(h)(3)(ii)). In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule
mentioned that training on medical surveillance under proposed
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(D) should cover the signs and symptoms of
respirable crystalline silica-related health effects (78 FR at 56474).
    OSHA asked for comments on the scope and depth of the proposed
training requirements and whether additional training provisions needed
to be added (78 FR at 56291). Stakeholders offered a number of comments
on these proposed provisions. For example, concerned individuals, a
medical school, and labor unions requested that training address the
health effects associated with respirable crystalline silica exposure
(e.g., Document ID 1771, p. 1; 2188; 3479, p. 1; 4025, Attachment 1, p.
2; 4203, p. 7). Training on health hazards of respirable crystalline
silica is consistent with stakeholder practices. For example, health
hazards are addressed in training plans or modules by the National
Precast Concrete Association, IUOE, and the STEPS Network (e.g.,
Document ID 2067, pp. 2-3; 3583, Tr. 2414; 4024, Attachment 2, p. 1).
    Several commenters stated that employees would not ask for or use
appropriate protection without knowledge of health hazards (e.g.,
Document ID 2166, p. 3; 3571, Attachment 1, pp. 2-3, 3585, Tr. 2976).
For example, in discussing her experience with overhead drilling of
concrete, Sandra Darling-Roberts commented:

    I had a dust mask and a pair of safety glasses for my
protection. . . . We were not offered better personal protection
gear and did not request any as we were not made aware of the risks
of silica exposure (Document ID 1758).

    Operating engineer Keith Murphy, representing IUOE, testified that
employees will wear respirators if informed that they are exposed to
dangerous concentrations of respirable crystalline silica (Document ID
3583, Tr. 2375-2376). In testifying about her experiences in training
construction employees, Mari[eacute]n Casillas Pabell[oacute]n,
Director of New Labor, stated:

    [Seventy percent] of these workers were not able to say what
silica was or if they were . . . exposed to it. When they learned
about the long term effects to their health many were alarmed.
Training has been key in getting workers to demand . . . the right
equipment and tools to complete their task safely. Always after
trainings we follow up with the participants to measure the impact
of the trainings. [Fifty-five percent] of the workers that received
training around these issues expressed that they have demanded
personal protective equipment and other tools to do their work
safely after the training (Document ID 3571, Attachment 6, p. 2).

In addition, several employees indicated that neither they nor their
coworkers had received adequate or even any training on silica's health
effects (e.g., Document ID 3582, Tr. 1892-1893; 3589, Tr. 4299-4300;
4032, Attachment 1, p. 1; 3477, p. 1).
    Based on the evidence showing the need for and positive impact of
health hazard training and to ensure that covered employees receive
that training, OSHA is requiring training on health hazards
specifically associated with respirable crystalline silica. The
requirement is contained in paragraph (j)(3)(i)(A) of the standard for
general industry and maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of the standard
for construction).
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) required that employees be trained
on specific operations in the workplace that could result in exposure
to respirable crystalline silica, especially operations where exposures
may exceed the PEL. BCTD recommended that ``tasks'' rather than
``operations'' be used, because operations could include various tasks;
it also requested that OSHA remove the statement ``especially
operations where exposure may exceed the PEL'' (Document ID 2371,
Attachment 1, pp. 23, 35). OSHA agrees that ``tasks'' is the more
appropriate term. The Agency also agrees that employers and employees
must understand all sources of potential respirable crystalline silica
exposure and, therefore, removed the phrase ``especially operations
where exposure may exceed the PEL.'' Therefore, OSHA has revised the
proposed language so that paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B) of the standard for
general industry and maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(B) of the
construction standard) now requires training on specific workplace
tasks that could result in exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2)(i)(B) required that employees be trained
on procedures implemented by the employer to protect them from
respirable crystalline silica exposure, including appropriate work
practices and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as
respirators and protective clothing. Labor unions and employee advocate
groups, such as CWA, UAW, USW, NCOSH, AFSCME, IUOE, and BCTD, requested
that OSHA also specify training on engineering controls (Document ID
2240, p. 4; 2282, Attachment 3, p. 24; 2336, p. 15; 3955, Attachment 2,
p. 2; 4203, p. 7; 4025, Attachment 1, p. 2; 4223, p. 118). The value of
training on engineering controls is demonstrated by the testimony of
construction employee and New Labor Safety Liaison, Norlan Trejo, who
stated that because of his training, he is aware of the types of
engineering controls needed on job sites and he requests such controls
if the employer does not provide them (Document ID 3583, Tr. 2462-
2463).
    Because engineering controls are a vital aspect of reducing
exposures, OSHA has concluded that employees covered by this rule must
understand how they work in order to use the appropriate work practices
to fully and properly implement those controls and to be able to
recognize if engineering controls are malfunctioning. Therefore, OSHA
has revised the proposed provision to also require training on
engineering controls. OSHA has also removed the term ``appropriate''
because it is implicit that any work practice or other methods used to
protect employees be appropriate. In addition, ``personal protective
equipment'' and ``protective clothing'' were removed from the paragraph
because respirators are the only type of PPE required by the rule.
Thus, paragraph (j)(3)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for construction)
requires training on specific measures implemented by the employer to
protect employees from respirable crystalline silica exposure,
including engineering controls, work practices, and respirators to be
used.
    Several labor unions that represent employees in the construction
industry highlighted additional training that they thought necessary
for some construction employees. For example, BCTD requested that OSHA
establish tiered training requirements in the construction standard to
include: (1) Basic awareness training for all

employees potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica, (2)
additional equipment-specific training for employees who perform tasks
that generate respirable crystalline silica, and (3) training for a
competent person. BCTD noted that similar approaches were taken in
other OSHA standards, such as asbestos (29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9))
(Document ID 4223, pp. 114, 116-117). The tiered approach to training
recommended by BCTD was also supported by IUOE, LHSFNA, and BAC
(Document ID 3583, Tr. 2367-2368; 4207, p. 5; 4219, pp. 22-24).
    In supporting a tiered approach, BCTD noted ``the effectiveness of
the standard and the engineering controls used to limit silica exposure
depend heavily on how the controls are used.'' (Document ID 4223, p.
117). Dr. Paul Schulte, Director of the Education and Information
Division at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
testified that engineering controls listed in Table 1 are only
effective if they are maintained and employees are trained on their
correct use (Document ID 3403, p. 6). Similar views regarding training
and effectiveness of controls were expressed by Joel Guth, President of
iQ Power Tools, Bill Kojola, and Tom Nunziata, instructor/training
coordinator for LHSFNA; Mr. Nunziata also noted the importance of
hands-on training (Document ID 3585, Tr. 2982-2983; 3586, Tr. 3204-
3206; 3589, Tr. 4220-4221).
    Evidence in the record further demonstrates knowledge of work
practices that employees must have for controls to function
effectively. For example, the user's manual for Stihl's gasoline-
powered hand-held portable saws recommends training of operators, and
it indicates that operators need to know minimum water flow rates, how
to control flow rate to ensure an adequate volume of water to the
cutting area, and to rinse the screen if no or little water is fed to
the cutting wheel during use (Document ID 3998, Attachment 12a, pp. 3,
15, 23). Similarly, the effectiveness of local exhaust ventilation
systems, another common method used to control exposures to respirable
crystalline silica, is often enhanced by the use of proper work
practices. For instance, when tuckpointing, employees should ensure
that the shroud surrounding the grinding wheel remains flush against
the working surface, when possible, to minimize the amount of dust that
escapes from the collection system. Operating the grinder in one
direction (counter to the direction of blade rotation) is effective in
directing mortar debris into the exhaust system, and backing the blade
off before removing it from the slot permits the exhaust system to
clear accumulated dust (78 FR at 56474). Employees using vacuum
controls also need to be aware of appropriate ways to clean the filter,
such as using a valve on the vacuum to clean the filter with
backpressure instead of pounding the filter on a surface (Document ID
3998, Attachment 13b, p. 460).
    The record also contains evidence demonstrating the importance of
employees understanding how to effectively operate and maintain
controls on heavy equipment to prevent exposures to respirable
crystalline silica in the construction industry. For example, IUOE
noted that the role of operating engineers in ensuring integrity of
enclosed cabs includes keeping windows and doors closed, maintaining
good housekeeping practices, cleaning dust from boots before entering
the cab, and reporting malfunctioning seals and air conditioning
(Document ID 2262, pp. 35-36). In addition, IUOE noted that operator
control of water flow rates for dust suppression is important for
protecting employees from exposure and preventing excessive water
runoff into the environment (Document ID 4234, Part 1, pp. 27-28).
Anthony Bodway, Special Projects Manager at Payne & Dolan, Inc.,
representing the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), noted
that all Payne & Dolan's operators have been trained to conduct daily
maintenance checks of their equipment (Document ID 3583, Tr. 2194-
2195). A best practices bulletin developed in part by NAPA requires
machine operators to demonstrate knowledge of the machine's dust
suppression system including flow rates, maintenance, troubleshooting,
and visual inspections; in addition a letter from manufacturer Wirtgen
America stressed the importance of operator training on operating and
maintaining machines to minimize respirable dust (Document ID 2181, pp.
25, 52).
    OSHA agrees that actions, such as controlling water flow rates,
ensuring integrity of controls, addressing a non-functioning control,
and proper housekeeping in cabs, are work practices that promote
effectiveness of controls. However, the Agency does not agree that
construction employees who perform tasks that generate respirable
crystalline silica dust require training beyond what paragraph
(i)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for construction already requires. As
noted above, paragraph (i)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for construction
requires employers to ensure that employees covered by the standard can
demonstrate knowledge and understanding of specific measures the
employer has implemented to protect them from respirable crystalline
silica exposure, including engineering controls, work practices, and
respirators to be used. Under this provision, the knowledge required of
each employee depends on the tasks he or she performs. That was the
intent of the proposed standard and it has not changed in the standard.
OSHA concludes that this provision, as written, requires employers to
provide employees with the different types and levels of training they
need, depending on the types of tasks they conduct. For example,
laborers who do not operate equipment that generates respirable
crystalline silica dust would only need to be aware of the general
types of controls used, such as water and local exhaust. However, those
laborers would need to know about work practices for tasks they
perform, such as appropriate clean-up of respirable crystalline silica
dust accumulations. On the other hand, employees who operate tools with
built-in controls, such as saws with integrated water delivery systems,
would need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the full and
proper implementation of the controls on those tools.
    OSHA is also not mandating additional training for a competent
person in paragraph (i) of the standard for construction. As discussed
in more detail in the summary and explanation of Written Exposure
Control Plan, the training requirements mandated by this standard
already impart a high level of competence. OSHA recognizes that there
may be situations in which an employee needs additional training in
order to ensure that he or she has the knowledge, skill, and ability to
be a designated competent person, but because of unique scenarios in
construction environments, those training requirements would vary
widely. OSHA concludes, therefore, that it is the employer's
responsibility to identify and provide any additional training that the
competent person would need to implement the written exposure control
plan.
    AFL-CIO and USW requested that the standard for general industry
also mandate a tiered approach that includes a higher level of training
for employees who perform silica dust-generating tasks and training of
a competent person; both those groups and UAW noted the importance of
workplace- or job-specific training on engineering controls and work
practices (Document ID 2282, Attachment 3, p. 24; 4204, p. 99; 4214, p.
14).

    OSHA concludes that employees are already required to demonstrate
workplace- and job-specific knowledge and understanding of work
practices associated with the tasks they conduct under paragraph
(j)(3)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry and maritime. That
was the intent of the proposed standard and it has not changed in the
standard. Engineering controls in general industry commonly involve
measures such as ventilation systems that protect several employees,
and are often not subject to the direct control of the employee
performing the task (see Chapter IV of the Final Economic Analysis and
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). In those cases, training would
include a description of the specific types of engineering controls
used at that facility, including signs that the controls may not be
working effectively (e.g., visible dust emission). Training would also
address any work practices needed for the controls to function
effectively (e.g., not opening windows near local exhaust sources,
positioning the local exhaust hood directly over the exposure source).
If employees covered by the general industry and maritime standard
operate equipment with built in controls that are under their control,
those employees are required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding
of the full and proper implementation of those controls. Therefore,
OSHA is not requiring additional training for general industry and
maritime employees who perform tasks that generate respirable
crystalline silica dust because it is already required by paragraph
(j)(3)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry and maritime.
    Training of a competent person is not applicable to the general
industry and maritime standard because OSHA is not requiring a
competent person. As explained in the summary and explanation of
Written Exposure Control Plan, OSHA is not requiring a competent person
because reasons for designating a competent person in construction are
not applicable to most general industry worksites. For example, general
industry worksites usually have less environmental variability and it
is reasonable and generally feasible to establish regulated areas to
limit access and perform exposure assessments to verify effective
control of exposure.
    OSHA has retained the proposed requirement for training on the
contents of the respirable crystalline silica rule in paragraph
(j)(3)(i)(D) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (i)(2)(i)(D) of the standard for construction). This
paragraph parallels the HCS requirement to inform employees about the
requirements of the HCS section (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2)(i)), and
similar paragraphs have been included in all OSHA substance-specific
standards.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2)(i)(D) required employers to train
employees about the purpose and description of the medical surveillance
program, and OSHA has retained that requirement in the rule under
paragraph (j)(3)(i)(E) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(F) of the standard for construction).
Paragraph (i) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (h) of the standard for construction) describes the
requirements of the medical surveillance program, such as the
examinations that must be offered to qualifying employees. OSHA finds
that employees will benefit from learning about the purpose of medical
surveillance and symptoms associated with respirable crystalline
silica-related diseases, as described in the summary and explanation of
Medical Surveillance. OSHA recommends that employers in construction or
other high-turnover industries inform employees to keep their copy of
the physician or other licensed health care professional's written
medical opinion for the employer as proof of a current medical
examination and that proof of a current examination could ensure that
employees get timely examinations or spare employees from unnecessary
testing, such as X-rays. OSHA also recommends that employers inform
employees that they cannot be retaliated against for participating in
medical surveillance. This information will help to ensure that
employees are able to effectively participate in medical surveillance.
    The proposed rule did not require employees to be trained on the
identity of the competent person. Several labor unions, including IUOE,
LHSFNA, BAC, and BCTD requested that employees receive training on the
written exposure control plan or identity of the competent person
(Document ID 3583, Tr. 2367-2368; 3589, Tr. 4222; 2329, p. 5; 4223, p.
118). Paragraph (g)(4) of the standard for construction requires
employers to designate a competent person to make frequent and regular
inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the
written exposure control plan. The written exposure control plan in the
construction standard describes tasks in the workplace that involve
exposure to respirable crystalline silica; engineering controls, work
practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposures;
housekeeping methods used to limit employee exposures; and procedures
used to restrict access, when necessary, to minimize employees exposed
and their level of exposure, including exposures generated by other
employers or sole proprietors (paragraph (g)(1)(i)-(iv)). OSHA is not
requiring the identity of the competent person to be listed in the
written exposure control plan because it could change daily. However,
construction employees must be able to identify the competent person in
situations where they have a question or concern about the subjects
covered in the written exposure control plan. For example, if an
engineering control is not working properly, an employee may need to
contact the competent person for help in addressing the problem.
Therefore, paragraph (i)(2)(i)(E) of the standard for construction
requires employees to be informed of the competent person's identity.
However, OSHA is not specifying training on the written exposure
control plan because the contents of that plan, including its
availability to employees, is already addressed by training on the
contents of this section under paragraph (i)(2)(i)(D) of the standard
for construction.
    Some stakeholders requested that OSHA provide greater specificity
on training requirements. For example, Fann Contracting, Inc. asked
OSHA to spell out what training is required for different industries
(Document ID 2116, Attachment 1, p. 46). NAHB stated that specifying
training requirements would simplify training for construction
employers (Document ID 2296, p. 44). John Scardella, Program
Administrator for USW, testified that training should not be left to
the discretion of employers because they might not prioritize employee
health and safety (Document ID 3479, p. 2). USW and LHSFNA requested
more detailed training requirements, such as those of the asbestos
standard (29 CFR 1910.1001; 1926.1101) that specify what is to be
addressed under each major training topic (Document ID 2336, pp. 14-15;
3589, Tr. 4219).
    Although OSHA agrees with these commenters that comprehensive
training is a key part of hazard communication, the Agency recognizes
that it is difficult to provide more specificity as a result of unique
scenarios among different employers and industries. However, to help
employers develop training programs that are comprehensive for general
training subjects that apply to most covered industries, OSHA has
developed a number of guidance products that are already available

through its Web site. In addition, the Agency is planning to develop
guidance products specific to the rule, as has been suggested by NAHB
(Document ID 2296, p. 39). Numerous governmental and other
organizations have already developed guidance products for training
(e.g., Document ID 1722; 4025, Attachment 2; 4053, Exhibit 3a-3e and 4;
4073, Attachment 8i). As has been the case with all OSHA standards,
OSHA expects that the private sector will develop training products and
programs, which will further help ensure comprehensive training.
    Commenters also argued that OSHA should include requirements for
training on other topics. For example, IUOE requested training on
topics such as SDSs, signs, use and care of respiratory protection, and
work practices for heavy machine operators (Document ID 2262, pp. 36-
38; 4025, Attachment 1, p. 2). LHSFNA and BCTD requested training on
exposure assessment (Document ID 3589, Tr. 4222; 4223, p. 118). AFSCME
requested training on personal hygiene (Document ID 4203, p. 7).
    OSHA concludes, however, that the employee information and training
provisions in the respirable crystalline silica rule and the HCS are
sufficiently informative. For example, the HCS requires employers to
provide training on SDSs and on the signal words and hazard statements
that are used on the signs required by the general industry and
maritime standard. Under the HCS, employers must also train employees
about the location and availability of the written HCS program,
including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals and SDSs. The HCS
also requires employers to train employees on the methods and
observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a
hazardous chemical in the work area; in the case of respirable
crystalline silica, this could include a description of the employer's
exposure assessments methods (e.g., objective assessments, personal
breathing zone air sampling, direct readings of respirable dust) and
warnings that visible dust emissions might indicate a problem.
    Because employers must meet the requirements of the HCS, OSHA does
not find it necessary to repeat the training requirements of that
standard in their entirety in the respirable crystalline silica rule.
Moreover, even if all training requirements of the HCS were repeated in
the respirable crystalline silica rule, most employers would still have
to consult the hazard communication requirements of other hazardous
chemicals, because they have employees exposed to other chemicals in
their workplace. Consequently, OSHA concludes that these provisions,
and the other requirements of the HCS and this standard, are
sufficient.
    OSHA also concludes that additional training on respiratory
protection or personal hygiene is unnecessary. Training on the use and
care of respiratory protection is already required under the
respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). OSHA similarly
concludes that training in personal hygiene is not needed as a required
training topic in this rule because personal hygiene measures relevant
to respirable crystalline silica exposure, such as avoiding use of
compressed air as a method to clean dust off of clothing, are
adequately addressed by other requirements of the rule and are covered
by training on work practices. Some training topics suggested by
commenters, such as communication methods for employees in enclosed
cabs, are specific to certain work scenarios. OSHA has concluded that
employers are in the best position to determine which additional,
unique training requirements are relevant to their type of industry.
For example, in construction, the competent person might be able to
identify situations where employees need more training because they are
not demonstrating knowledge and understanding of a specific measure the
employee has implemented to protect them.
    OSHA's proposed rule required the employer to make a copy of the
standard readily available without cost to each employee covered by the
respirable crystalline silica rule, and OSHA has retained this
requirement in paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the standard for general
industry and maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of the standard for
construction). This is a common requirement in OSHA standards such as
chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026), acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045), and
cotton dust (29 CFR 1910.1043). The provision leaves employers free to
determine the best way to make the standard available, such as a
printed or electronic copy in a central location that employees can
easily access. OSHA concludes that employees need to be familiar with
and have access to the respirable crystalline silica standard for
general industry and maritime or construction, as applicable, and be
aware of the employer's obligations to comply with it.
    OSHA did not propose a requirement for labels or signs in languages
other than English. Ameren requested the rule include a requirement
that labels include appropriate languages for employees who do not
understand English (Document ID 2315, p. 4). Charles Gordon and BAC
requested that warning signs be presented in a language or manner that
employees can understand, and, as noted by BAC, the method could
include graphics (Document ID 3588, Tr. 3805; 4219, p. 27).
Requirements for labels on hazardous chemicals are set forth in
paragraph (f) of the HCS, which does not require languages other than
English. However, the HCS requires the inclusion of certain information
on labels on shipped containers, including pictograms (29 CFR
1910.1200(f)(1)(iv)), and mandates that containers in the workplace be
labeled either in accordance with the rules for shipping containers or
with product identifier and combinations of words, pictures, or symbols
to warn of hazards. OSHA has concluded that with training required
under the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv)), even employees who are not
literate in English will have sufficient knowledge of respirable
crystalline silica hazards. Likewise, with training, employees will be
able to recognize the meaning of signs at the entrances to regulated
areas and the need for respiratory protection in these areas.
    OSHA's proposed rule did not specify when and how often employees
must be trained. Some stakeholders offered opinions about when an
employer's obligation to train covered employees should begin. For
example, USW, NCOSH, and LHSFNA requested that the rule for respirable
crystalline silica require training before or at the time employees are
assigned or placed in a job with respirable crystalline silica exposure
(Document ID 3479, p.1; 3955, Attachment 2, p. 1; 3589, Tr. 4222). CWA,
Upstate Medical College, UAW, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and BCTD requested that
the rule for respirable crystalline silica require training before
employees are assigned to or placed in a job or task with respirable
crystalline silica exposure (Document ID 2240, p. 4; 2244, p. 4; 2282,
Attachment 3, pp. 24-25; 4203 p. 7; 4204, p. 99; 4223, p. 117).
    OSHA agrees that each employee needs to be trained sufficiently to
understand the specified training elements at the time of initial
assignment to a position involving exposure to respirable crystalline
silica. The rule requires the employer to ensure that each employee can
demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the specified training
elements; this requirement applies from the time that the employee is
covered by the rule. This requirement is consistent with the HCS, which
requires that employers provide employees with

effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work
area at the time of their initial assignment (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1)).
    Stakeholders also commented on how often employers should be
required to train their employees. CWA, Upstate Medical College, UAW,
NCOSH, AFSCME, and LHSFNA recommended periodic refresher training and
additional training if methods, equipment, or controls change (Document
ID 2240, p. 4; 2244, p. 4; 2282, Attachment 3, pp. 24-25; 3955,
Attachment 2, p. 2; 4203 p. 8; 3589, Tr. 4222). Similarly, USW and AFL-
CIO asked that OSHA require periodic refresher training (Document ID
3479, p.1; 4204, p. 99). In addition, BCTD recommended additional
training when the employer believes an employee requires more training
because of a lack of skill or understanding (Document ID 4223, p. 117).
    OSHA agrees with commenters that additional or repeated training
may be necessary under certain circumstances but does not consider it
appropriate to impose a fixed schedule of periodic training. Therefore,
the requirement for training is performance-oriented in order to allow
flexibility for employers to provide training as needed to ensure that
each employee can demonstrate the knowledge and understanding required
under the rule. For example, if an employer observes an employee
engaging in activities that contradict knowledge gained through
training, it is a sign to the employer that the employee may require a
reminder or periodic retraining on work practices.
    Because paragraph (j)(3)(i)(C) of the standard for general industry
and maritime (paragraph (i)(2)(i)(C) of the standard for construction)
requires training on the specific measures the employee has implemented
to protect employees, additional training is already required after new
engineering controls are installed, new work practices are implemented,
or employees are given new types of respirators. Because this provision
requires employers to provide additional training following changes in
protective measures or equipment, they ensure that employees are able
to properly use the new controls, implement work practices relating to
those controls, and properly use respirators to actively protect
themselves under the conditions found in the workplace, even if those
conditions change.
    OSHA did not include a requirement for employees to be certified as
having received training in the proposed rule. Commenters including Dr.
Ruth Ruttenberg, representing the AFL-CIO, have voiced support for a
portable training record or certification-based approach; Dr.
Ruttenberg noted that this would reduce costs by avoiding the need for
each new employer to conduct full training (Document ID 1950, pp. 11-
12; 2256, Attachment 4, p. 5; 4235, p. 14). OSHA is not including a
requirement for a portable training record in the rule. This approach
is consistent with the HCS, which neither requires nor precludes a
training record that could be portable. Employee training requirements
might be partially fulfilled by training obtained through trade
associations, unions, colleges, or professional schools. However, the
employer is always ultimately responsible for ensuring that employees
are adequately trained, regardless of the method relied upon to comply
with the training requirements.
    OSHA concludes that a portable training record is unlikely to
eliminate the need for employer-specific or site-specific training. For
example, Barbara McCabe, Program Manager for IUOE, testified that IUOE
local unions train employees but employees would need site-specific
training when they report to the worksite (Document ID 3583, Tr. 2368).
An example of a case where site-specific training is needed was noted
by BAC, who commented that an employee who operated a saw with water
controls at one site may be given a saw with vacuum controls at another
site (Document ID 4219, p. 23).
    OSHA concludes that some site-specific or employer-specific
training is always necessary, such as training on specific tasks that
could result in exposures, controls or work practices that the employer
has implemented, or the identity of the competent person (paragraphs
(j)(3)(i)(B) and (C) of the standard for general industry and maritime
and paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(B), (C), and (E) of the standard for
construction). Full training would not be required if an employee is
already able to demonstrate knowledge in health hazards, the contents
of the respirable crystalline silica rule, or medical surveillance for
respirable crystalline silica (paragraphs (j)(3)(i)(A), (D), and (E) of
the standard for general industry and maritime, paragraphs
(i)(2)(i)(A), (D) and (F) of the standard for construction). Site-
specific training is unlikely to be costly or time-consuming. OSHA
concludes that assessing an employee's knowledge to determine the type
and level of additional training required is more meaningful than
simply accepting a certificate of training.
    Bill Kojola requested that the rule specify that training be
provided at no cost to the employee and during work hours (Document ID
3955, Attachment 2, p. 2). In addition, Norlan Trejo from New Labor
testified that he never saw an employer pay for training (Document ID
3583, Tr. 2469). As stated above, an employer may rely on an employee's
previous training, if the employee can demonstrate knowledge in
training requisites. Any training provided by the employer to meet the
requirements of the rule must be provided at no cost to the employee.
Employees must also be paid for time spent in training. This is
consistent with other OSHA standards that do not include an explicit
requirement for employer payment for training in the regulatory text,
e.g., the HCS requires training (1910.1200(h)(3)) but does not mention
cost; the compliance directive (CPL 02-02-079 says ``Training is
required to be provided at no cost to the employees. Employees must be
paid for the time they spend at training.)''
    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, OSHA asked whether labeling
of substances containing more than 0.1 percent crystalline silica was
appropriate, as required by the HCS, or if the threshold for labeling
should be greater than 1 percent crystalline silica (78 FR at 56291). A
number of industry groups suggested a threshold for including
respirable crystalline silica on labels or SDSs. With the exception of
NISA, who favored a 0.1 percent threshold, the commenters requested a
threshold of 1 percent or greater or thought that a 0.1 percent
threshold could be problematic (Document ID 1785, p. 4; 2179, pp. 3-4;
2101, pp. 8-9; 2284, p. 10; 2296, p. 44; 2312, p. 3; 2317, p. 3; 2319,
p. 120; 2327, Attachment 1, p. 14; 4208, pp. 19-20). The International
Diatomite Producers Association agreed with NISA that the threshold for
hazard communication should be 0.1 percent for respirable crystalline
silica but requested an exception for respirable crystalline silica in
natural (uncalcined) diatomaceous earth, according to OSHA's current
policy (Document ID 4212, pp. 6-7).
    The classification of hazardous chemicals, including chemicals
containing silica, is determined by the HCS. As explained in Section V,
Health Effects, OSHA has determined, consistent with the National
Toxicology Program and International Agency for Research on Cancer
classifications, that respirable crystalline silica is a carcinogen.
Under the HCS, a mixture that contains a carcinogen must itself be
classified as a carcinogen when at least one ingredient in it has been
classified as a Category 1 or Category 2 carcinogen

and is present at or above the appropriate cut-off value/concentration
limit specified in HCS Table A.6.1 (29 CFR 1910.1200, Appendix A,
A.6.3.1). Table A.6.1 sets the cut-off value at greater than or equal
to 0.1 percent. Footnote 7 to 1910.1200, Appendix A, A.6.3 notes that
the cut-off value is the primary means of classification of carcinogens
and may only be modified on a case-by-case evaluation based on
available test data for the mixture as a whole. Classification of a
chemical under the HCS triggers labeling requirements under that
standard, and OSHA does not find it appropriate to impose different
requirements in this rule. To do so would be at odds with the concept
of harmonizing national and international requirements for
classification and labelling of chemicals that is the basis of the GHS
and HCS.
    OSHA also did not propose requirements related to the creation and
retention of training records, but some commenters expressed opinions
on this issue. For example, CISC commented that they would agree to
document that employees completed training and demonstrated knowledge
(Document ID 4217, p. 25). Consistent with the HCS, employers are not
required to keep records of training under the rule for respirable
crystalline silica, but employers may find it valuable to do so.
Comments on this issue and OSHA's rationale for this decision are
discussed in the summary and explanation of Recordkeeping.
    ASTM standards. The training requirements in the respirable
crystalline silica standards are generally consistent with but differ
slightly from ASTM International (ASTM) standards ASTM E 1132-06,
Standard Practice for Health Requirements Relating to Occupational
Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica and ASTM E 2625-09, Standard
Practice for Controlling Occupational Exposure to Respirable
Crystalline Silica for Construction and Demolition Activities (Section
4.8 in both E 1132-06 and E 2625-09) (Document ID 1466, p. 6; 1504, p.
6). The E 1132-06 standard requires training for employees exposed at
any level and the E 2625-09 standard for construction and demolition
requires training for employees potentially exposed to high levels. The
ASTM standards also include: (1) More specificity on training
requirements such as annual training (E 1132-06 only), training when
employees demonstrate unsafe work practices, training in an appropriate
language and manner, and documentation of training (certification in
the case of E 1132-06); (2) training on tuberculosis and relationships
between smoking and silica exposure in both standards and no training
for autoimmune and kidney hazards in E 2625-09; (3) training on
respirator use and hygiene; and (4) warning signs for construction and
demolition workplaces in E 2625-09.
    OSHA is requiring that each employee covered by the rule receive
training; employees may be at significant risk even if they are not
exposed to ``high levels'' of respirable crystalline silica. In
comparison to the ASTM standards, the requirements for training under
the respirable crystalline silica rule are more performance-based in
terms of when training is required. The health hazards addressed in the
rule are based upon OSHA's health effects assessments and consistency
with health hazard classification in the HCS. OSHA already requires
training on respirator use under its respiratory protection standard
(29 CFR 1910.134). The rule does not specify training on hygiene
because personal hygiene is addressed by other requirements of the rule
and training on work practices. OSHA is not requiring warning signs in
the standard for construction because employers are in the best
position to determine if and when signs are appropriate for restricting
access to work areas to limit employee exposure to respirable
crystalline silica. For the reasons described above, OSHA concludes
that the requirements of the rule better effectuate the purposes of the
OSH Act of 1970 than the ASTM standards.

Recordkeeping

    Paragraph (k) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (j) of the standard for construction) requires employers to
make and maintain air monitoring data, objective data, and medical
surveillance records. The recordkeeping requirements are in accordance
with section 8(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (29
U.S.C. 657(c)), which authorizes OSHA to require employers to keep and
make available records as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement
of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses.
    Paragraph (k)(1)(i) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(i) of the standard for construction) is
substantively unchanged from the proposed rule. It requires the
employer to make and maintain accurate records of all exposure
measurements taken to assess employee exposure to respirable
crystalline silica, as prescribed in paragraph (d) of the standard for
general industry and maritime (paragraph (d)(2) of the standard for
construction). OSHA has added the words ``make and'' prior to
``maintain'' in order to clarify that the employer's obligation is to
create and preserve such records. This clarification has also been made
for other records required by the silica rule. In addition, OSHA now
refers to ``measurements taken to assess employee exposure'' rather
than ``measurement results used or relied on to characterize employee
exposure.'' This change is editorial, and is intended to clarify OSHA's
intent that all measurements of employee exposure to respirable
crystalline silica be maintained. Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the standard
for general industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of the standard
for construction) requires that such records include the following
information: The date of measurement for each sample taken; the task
monitored; sampling and analytical methods used; the number, duration,
and results of samples taken; the identity of the laboratory that
performed the analysis; the type of personal protective equipment, such
as respirators, worn by the employees monitored; and the name, social
security number, and job classification of all employees represented by
the monitoring, indicating which employees were actually monitored.
    OSHA has made one editorial modification that differs from the
proposed rule in paragraph (k)(1)(ii)(B) of the standard for general
industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(B) of the standard for
construction) and that is to change ``the operation monitored'' to
``the task monitored.'' Both ``task'' and ``operation'' are commonly
used in describing work. However, OSHA uses the term ``task''
throughout the rule, and the Agency is using ``task'' in the
recordkeeping provision for consistency and to avoid any potential
misunderstanding that could result from using a different term. This
editorial change neither increases nor decreases an employer's
obligations as set forth in the proposed rule.
    The recordkeeping provision that received the most comments was
proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(G) (now paragraph (k)(1)(ii)(G) of the
standard for general industry and maritime, paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(G) of
the standard for construction), which, consistent with existing
recordkeeping requirements in OSHA health standards, requires the
employer to include in the standard's mandated records the employee's
social security number. Morgan Electro Ceramics, National Electrical
Carbon Products, Inc. (NECP), Southern Company, the National Tile
Contractors

Association (NTCA), Dow Chemical Company, the Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturers Association (ARMA), the American Petroleum Institute
(API), the Marcellus Shale Coalition, Ameren Corporation, the North
American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), the Tile Council of North America (TCNA), the American
Foundry Society (AFS), the Nevada Mining Association (NMA), Newmont
Mining Corporation (NM), and others opposed the requirement (e.g.,
Document ID 1772, p.1; 1785, pp. 9-10; 2185, pp. 8; 2267, p. 7; 2270,
p. 3; 2291, p. 26; 2301, Attachment 1, pp. 80-81; 2311, p. 3; 2315, p.
7; 2348, Attachment 1, p. 39; 2357, pp. 36-37; 2363, p. 7; 2379,
Appendix 1, p. 73; 2107, p. 4; 1963, p. 3). The commenters, citing
employee privacy and identity theft concerns, wanted to be allowed to
use an identifier other than the social security number, such as an
employee identification number, an employee driver's license number, or
another unique personal identification number. For example, NAIMA
stated ``Using social security numbers is a dangerous threat to
personal privacy and identify theft that OSHA should affirmatively
discourage'' (Document ID 2348, Attachment 1, p. 39). Commenters
acknowledged that social security numbers must be used for some reports
to the government and thus are present in some employer records, but
that access to these records is usually more restricted than to air
monitoring records.
    OSHA has considered the comments it received on this issue and has
decided to retain the requirement for including the employee's social
security number in the recordkeeping requirements of the rule. The
requirement to use an employee's social security number is a long-
standing OSHA practice, based on the fact that it is a number that is
both unique to an individual and is retained for a lifetime, and does
not change as an employee changes employers. The social security number
is therefore a useful tool for tracking employee exposures,
particularly where exposures are associated with diseases such as
silicosis that generally have a long latency period and can develop
over a period of time during which an employee may have several
employers.
    OSHA is cognizant of the privacy concerns expressed by commenters
regarding this requirement, and understands the need to balance that
interest against the public health interest in requiring the social
security identifier. Instances of identity theft and breeches of
personal privacy are widely reported and concerning. However, OSHA has
concluded that this rule should adhere to the past, consistent practice
of requiring employee social security numbers on exposure records
mandated by every OSHA substance-specific health standard, and that any
change to the Agency's requirements for including employee social
security numbers on exposure records should be comprehensive. Some
employers who are covered by this rule, such as employers who perform
abrasive blasting on surfaces coated with lead, cadmium, or chromium
(VI), will be covered by more than one OSHA standard. OSHA examined
alternative forms of identification in Phase II of the Agency's
Standards Improvement Project, but did not revise requirements for the
use of social security numbers (70 FR 1111-1144 (1/5/2005)).
Nevertheless, given increasing concerns regarding identity theft and
privacy issues, as evidenced by stakeholder comments in this rulemaking
record, OSHA intends to examine the requirements for social security
numbers in all of its substance-specific health standards in a future
rulemaking. In the meantime, the requirement to use and retain social
security numbers to comply with this rule remains.
    The remaining requirements of paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the standard
for general industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of the standard
for construction) are generally consistent with those found in other
OSHA standards, such as the standards for methylene chloride (29 CFR
1910.1052) and chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026). The additional
requirement to include the identity of the laboratory that performed
the analysis of exposure measurements is for the reason stated in the
preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is that
analysis of crystalline silica samples must conform with the
requirements listed in the rule (i.e., in Appendix A), and that can
only be determined by knowing the identity of the laboratory that
performed the analysis.
    Fann Contracting, Inc. commented that OSHA's proposed rule would
create a ``recordkeeping nightmare'' and raised concerns about the
difficulties of managing air monitoring data for over 200 employees
scattered around the state, with 7 to 8 ongoing projects and 12 to 15
total projects per year (Document ID 2116, Attachment 1, p. 11). The
American Subcontractors Association expressed concerns about the high
costs of transferring data to new technology or keeping records in
paper format (Document ID 2187, p. 7).
    OSHA understands that, as with any recordkeeping requirement in a
comparable rule, there will be time, effort, and expense involved in
developing and maintaining records. However, OSHA expects that even
employers who manage multiple projects will have a system for
maintaining these records, just as they do for their other business
records. As for high expenses of transferring data to new technology,
the Agency understands that there are multiple ways to maintain these
records and there are expenses involved in doing so. Therefore, the
Agency is allowing employers the option to use whatever method works
best for them, paper or electronic.
    Paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of the standard for construction) is
unchanged from the proposed rule. It requires the employer to ensure
that exposure records are maintained and made available in accordance
with OSHA's access to employee exposure and medical records standard,
which specifies that exposure records must be maintained for 30 years
(29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(i)(ii)). Commenters addressed the issue of how
long an employer should maintain exposure records. The National
Industrial Sand Association (NISA) noted that its occupational health
program requires NISA members to retain employee air monitoring records
indefinitely (Document ID 2195, p. 35). NISA supported the proposed
requirement that air monitoring records be retained for 30 years
(Document ID 2195, p. 46). Other commenters advocated recordkeeping
durations ranging from 10 years to 40 years (e.g., Document ID 2210,
Attachment 1, p. 8; 2319, p. 122; 2339, p. 10; 4025, pp. 8-9). The
American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) recommended that air
monitoring records should be retained for 40 years or the duration of
employment plus 20 years, whichever is longer, due to latency periods
of some silica-related illnesses (Document ID 2339, p. 10). The
International Union of Operating Engineers indicated that 10 years is
more than adequate time to retain air monitoring data; it commented
that British Columbia, Canada requires retention for 10 years (Document
ID 4025, pp. 8-9). The Construction Industry Safety Coalition and the
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) expressed the view
that 30 years is too long, but did not make recommendations for what
they considered a suitable duration (Document ID 2319, pp. 121-122;
2210, Attachment 1, p. 8). NFIB alleged that employers will have to
maintain and

make available records of all activities relating to each requirement
of the rule if the company wants to ensure it can show a good-faith
effort to comply, and indicated that keeping records for 30 years would
lead to a ``staggering'' amount of paperwork (Document ID 2210,
Attachment 1, p. 8).
    After reviewing the comments in this record, OSHA has concluded
that the best approach is to maintain consistency with 29 CFR 1910.1020
and its required time period for retention of exposure records of 30
years. OSHA explained in that rulemaking that it is necessary to keep
exposure records for this extended time period because of the long
latency period between exposure and development of silica-related
disease (45 FR 35212, 35268-35271 (5/23/80)). For example, silicosis is
often not detected until 20 years or more after initial exposure. The
extended record retention period is therefore needed because
establishing 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 any objective data relied on by the employer and present
and past medical surveillance records, as discussed below).
    In retaining the 30-year retention period, OSHA does not agree with
commenters who recommended extending it to at least 40 years, or even
indefinitely. The Agency concludes that the 30-year retention period
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1020 represents a reasonable balance between
the need to maintain exposure records and the administrative burdens
associated with maintaining those records for extended time periods.
Because the 30-year records-retention requirement is included in 29 CFR
1910.1020, this duration is consistent with longstanding Agency and
employer practice. Other substance-specific rules are also subject to
the retention requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020, such as the standards
addressing exposure to methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052) and
chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026). The Agency also disagrees that the
30-year retention requirement will lead to a ``staggering'' amount of
paperwork, as NFIB commented (Document ID 2210, Attachment 1, p. 8).
Electronic recordkeeping has become commonplace. Commenters such as the
Association of Energy Service Companies and ASSE support the use of
electronic or digital records to ease paperwork burdens (Document ID
2344, p. 2; 2339, p. 5). Thus, OSHA finds that the 30-year retention
period is necessary and appropriate for air monitoring data.
    Paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(2)(i) of the standard for construction) is
substantively unchanged from the proposed rule. It requires employers
who rely on objective data to keep accurate records of the objective
data. Paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the standard for construction)
requires the record to include: The crystalline silica-containing
material in question; the source of the objective data; the testing
protocol and results of testing; a description of the process, task, or
activity on which the objective data were based; and other data
relevant to the process, task, activity, material, or exposures on
which the objective data were based. Paragraphs (k)(2)(ii)(D) and (E)
of the standard for general industry and maritime (paragraphs
(j)(2)(ii)(D) and (E) of the standard for construction) have been
modified from the proposed rule to substitute the word ``task'' for
``operation'' and to clarify the requirements for records of objective
data. These changes are editorial, and do not affect the employer's
obligations as set forth in the proposed rule.
    Since the rule allows objective data to be used to exempt the
employer from monitoring requirements and to provide a basis for
selection of respirators, OSHA considers it critical that the use of
objective data be documented. As authorized in the rule, reliance on
objective data is intended to provide the same degree of assurance that
employer monitoring of employee exposures by taking air samples does.
The specified content elements are required to ensure that the records
are capable of demonstrating to OSHA a reasonable basis for the
conclusions drawn by the employer from the objective data.
    OSHA considers objective data to be employee exposure records that
must be maintained. Paragraph (k)(2)(iii) of the standard for general
industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(2)(iii) of the standard for
construction) is unchanged from the proposed rule. It requires the
employer to ensure that objective data are maintained and made
available for 30 years in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(ii)).
    The National Asphalt Pavement Association recommended that OSHA
clarify that ``. . . for an operation provided the controls outlined in
Table 1, no further records of objective data would be required''
(Document ID 2181, p. 13). OSHA confirms that an employer who fully and
properly implements the control measures in Table 1 does not need to
have objective data since no exposure assessment (including those based
on objective data) is required when the employer is following Table 1.
Therefore, following Table 1 does not trigger a recordkeeping or
retention requirement.
    Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) and ASSE addressed
the issue of retaining objective data records for 30 years (Document ID
2289, p. 8; 2339, p. 10). ABC expressed concerns that data could be
lost or destroyed during the 30-year period, and thought it would be
difficult to enforce this provision. Furthermore, it commented that
there is a ``. . . large and burdensome amount of records that an
employer would need to store and maintain'' (Document ID 2289, p. 8).
ABC did not make a recommendation on how long employers should maintain
objective data records. ASSE commented that 30 years is too short and
recommended that objective data records be retained for 40 years or the
duration of the employment plus 20 years, whichever is longer, due to
latency periods of some silica-related illnesses (Document ID 2339, p.
10). For the same reasons noted in the explanation above for retaining
air monitoring data pursuant to paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of the standard
for general industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of the
standard for construction), OSHA finds that the 30-year retention
period is necessary and appropriate for objective data.
    Paragraph (k)(3)(i) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(3)(i) of the standard for construction)
requires the employer to make and maintain an accurate record for each
employee subject to medical surveillance under paragraph (i) of the
standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph (h) of the
standard for construction). Paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of the standard for
general industry and maritime (paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the standard for
construction) lists the categories of information that an employer is
required to record: The name and social security number of the
employee; a copy of the PLHCPs' and specialists' written medical
opinions for the employer; and a copy of the information provided to
the PLHCPs and specialists where required by paragraph (i)(4) of the
standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph (h)(4) of the
standard for construction). The information provided to the PLHCPs and
specialists includes the employee's duties as they relate to
crystalline silica exposure, crystalline silica exposure levels,
descriptions of personal protective equipment used by the employee, and
information from employment-related medical

examinations previously provided to the employee (paragraph (i)(4) of
the standard for general industry and maritime, paragraph (h)(4) of the
standard for construction).
    In paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(B) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(3)(ii)(B) of the standard for construction),
OSHA has changed the ``PLHCP's and pulmonary specialist's written
opinions'' to the ``PLHCPs' and specialists' written medical
opinions.'' The change, consistent with paragraph (i) of the standard
for general industry and maritime (paragraph (h) of the standard for
construction), is made to reflect the revised definition for the term
``specialist'' included in the rule.
    Paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime (paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of the standard for construction) is
unchanged from the proposed rule. It requires that medical records must
be maintained for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)(1)(i), which governs application of
the retention requirements in this rule. Pursuant to 29 CFR
1910.1020(d)(1)(i)(C), medical records of employees who have worked for
less than one year for the employer need not be retained beyond the
term of employment if they are provided to the employee upon the
termination of employment. This exception allows employers flexibility
and the option not to retain medical records in these circumstances (53
FR 38140, 38153-38155 (9/29/88)). This provision greatly reduces the
recordkeeping burden on employers of short-term employees, including
many construction employees covered by this rule. Of course, neither
this rule nor 29 CFR 1910.1020 prohibits employers from keeping the
medical records of employees who worked less than one year, and some
employers may choose to keep the records. As indicated earlier,
employers have the option to keep records in electronic or paper form.
    The employer is responsible for the maintenance of records in his
or her possession (e.g., the PLHCP's written medical opinion for the
employer described in paragraph (i)(6) of the standard for general
industry and maritime (paragraph (h)(6) of the standard for
construction)). The employer is also responsible for ensuring the
retention of records in the possession of the PLHCP (e.g., the written
medical report for the employee described in paragraph (i)(5) of the
standard for general industry and maritime (paragraph (h)(5) of the
standard for construction)) that are created pursuant to this rule's
medical surveillance requirements. This responsibility, which derives
from 29 CFR 1910.1020(b), means that employers must ensure that the
PLHCP retains a copy of medical records for the employee's duration of
employment plus 30 years. The employer can generally fulfill this
obligation by including the retention requirement in the agreement
between the employer and the PLHCP.
    Commenters objecting to the recordkeeping requirements for medical
records were concerned with privacy and costs. OSCO Industries asserted
that the medical recordkeeping provisions would be subject to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and thus
employers would be denied access to the records (Document ID 1992, p.
12). The National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) also
expressed concerns about the application of HIPAA (Document ID 2295, p.
2). NECA indicated that the recordkeeping requirements would ``. . .
inundate most businesses with paperwork . . .'' and would be ``. . . an
economic burden to employers in the construction industry . . .''
(Document ID 2295, p. 2). Fann Contracting and Leading Builders of
America said that medical records would be very expensive and difficult
to maintain (Document ID 2116, Attachment 1, p. 11; 2269, p. 19). Fann
Contracting commented that they have multiple projects, as many as 7 to
8 ongoing and 12 to 15 per year, with over 200 employees scattered
around the state, which makes the new requirements ``a recordkeeping
nightmare'' (Document ID 2116, Attachment 1, p. 11).
    As to the expense and difficulty of maintaining the medical
records, OSHA recognizes that there will be time, effort, and expense
involved in maintaining medical records. However, as stated earlier,
OSHA expects that employers who manage multiple projects will have a
system for maintaining these records, just as they do for their other
business records. The adverse health effects associated with
crystalline silica are very serious, and OSHA has concluded that the
recordkeeping requirements are necessary to ensure that records are
available to assist PLHCPs in identifying health conditions that may
place employees at increased risk from exposure, as well as identifying
and treating adverse health effects that may develop among employees.
Therefore, OSHA concludes that the requirements for making and
maintaining medical records are reasonable, and are essential for the
health and safety of employees.
    As to the concerns expressed regarding the application of HIPAA,
the requirement for retention of medical records in this standard (like
those in other OSHA standards) is consistent with HIPAA. HIPAA allows
for disclosure of certain health information to an employer where
needed to comply with OSHA requirements for medical surveillance (45
CFR 164.512). Moreover, this standard's requirement that medical
surveillance reports be provided to workers rather than to employers
eliminates much of this concern.
    Morgan Electro Ceramics, NECP, Southern Company, NTCA, Dow
Chemical, ARMA, API, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, Ameren, NAIMA, EEI,
TCNA, AFS, NMA, NM and others also questioned the requirement that the
employee's social security number be included in medical records
(Document ID 1772, p. 1; 1785, pp. 9-10; 2185, pp. 8; 2267, p. 7; 2270,
p. 3; 2291, p. 26; 2301, Attachment 1, pp. 80-81; 2311, p. 3; 2315, p.
7; 2348, Attachment 1, p. 39; 2357, pp. 36-37; 2363, p. 7; and 2379,
Appendix 1, p. 73; 2107, p. 4; 1963, p. 3).
    As noted above in the discussion on air monitoring data, OSHA finds
the privacy and security issues associated with the required use of
social security numbers are of concern. However, for the same reasons
discussed above with regard to employee exposure records, the Agency
has decided to retain the requirement for use of social security
numbers in medical records. As stated above, OSHA intends separately
from this rulemaking to examine the requirements for social security
numbers in all of its substance-specific health standards in order to
address the issue comprehensively and ensure consistency among
standards.
    In total, the recordkeeping requirements fulfill the purposes of
Section 8(c) of the OSH Act, and help protect employees because such
records contribute to the evaluation of employees' health and enable
employees and their healthcare providers to make informed health care
decisions. These records are especially important when an employee's
medical condition places him or her at increased risk of health
impairment from further exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
Furthermore, the records can be used by the Agency and others to
identify illnesses and deaths that may be attributable to respirable
crystalline silica exposure, evaluate compliance programs, and assess
the efficacy of the standard. OSHA concludes that medical surveillance
records, like exposure records, are necessary and appropriate

for protection of employee health, enforcement of the standard, and
development of information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational illnesses.
    Commenters, such as NISA and ASSE, addressed the issue of duration
of retention of medical records (Document ID 2339, p. 10; 2195, p. 35).
NISA indicated that 30 years is an appropriate retention period
(Document ID 2195, p. 35). ASSE indicated that medical records should
be retained for 40 years or the duration of the employment plus 20
years, whichever is longer, due to latency periods of some silica-
related illnesses (Document ID 2339, p. 10).
    As with exposure records and objective data records, OSHA has
concluded that the best approach is to maintain consistency with 29 CFR
1910.1020 and its required retention period for medical records; that
period is the duration of employment plus 30 years. It is necessary to
keep medical records for this extended time period because of the long
latency period between exposure and development of silica-related
disease (45 FR at 35268-35271). OSHA recognizes that in some cases, the
latency period for silica-related diseases may extend beyond 30 years.
However, the Agency concludes that the retention period specified in 29
CFR 1910.1020 represents a reasonable balance between the need to
maintain records and the administrative burdens associated with
maintaining those records for extended time periods. Because the
duration of employment plus the 30-year records retention requirement
is currently included in 29 CFR 1910.1020, this time period is
consistent with longstanding Agency and employer practice.
    Charles Gordon, a retired occupational safety and health attorney,
advocated for a provision for trade associations, unions, and medical
practices to provide medical exams and keep medical records (Document
ID 2163, Testimony 1, p. 14). After considering this suggestion, OSHA
decided not to incorporate it into the rule. OSHA anticipates that, in
some cases, employers may be able to work with unions or trade
associations to ensure that medical examinations are provided that meet
the requirements of the rule, and that records are maintained. However,
in many cases, unions and trade associations will not be available to
provide such services. And in any case, the employer is ultimately
responsible for ensuring that medical examinations are provided in
accordance with the rule. Consistent with OSHA's access to employee
exposure and medical records standard (29 CFR 1910.1020), the rule
therefore requires the employer to maintain such records, and the
employer must ensure the PLHCP retains the medical records for the
employee's duration of employment plus 30 years. As stated earlier, the
employer can generally fulfill this obligation by including the
retention requirement in the contractual agreement between the employer
and the PLHCP.
    Commenters such as the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craftworkers (BAC) and ASSE stated that records should be made
available to the employee and the employee's designated
representative(s), at the request of the employee (e.g., Document ID
2329, p. 8; 2339, p. 5). OSHA agrees, and employees and their
representatives are permitted to obtain a copy of exposure and medical
records pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(iii).
    Commenters such as the Building and Construction Trades Department,
AFL-CIO (BCTD) and BAC requested the addition of a provision for
retaining training records in the rule (e.g., Document ID 2371,
Attachment 1, p. 50; 2329, p. 8). BAC recommended that employers in the
construction industry could use a portable training management system
that is designed to track employees' training throughout their career
(Document ID 4053, Attachment 1 and Exhibit 2). To keep track of
training records, BCTD recommended that employers could use the same
portable training management system recommended by BAC or use a
portable database, as described in a report by the Mount Sinai Irving
J. Selikoff Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine
(Document ID 4223, p. 126; 4073, Attachment 2b).
    OSHA is not including a provision for retaining training records in
the rule because the Agency has concluded that requiring such records
is not necessary. The performance-oriented requirements for training in
paragraph (j) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (i) of the standard for construction) specify that employees
must be able to demonstrate knowledge of the health hazards associated
with exposure to respirable crystalline silica; tasks that could result
in exposure; procedures to protect employees from exposure; as well as
the silica standard and the medical surveillance program it requires.
These requirements will be sufficient to ensure that employees are
adequately trained with regard to recognizing silica hazards and taking
protective measures. Moreover, adding a provision for retention of
training records would involve additional paperwork burdens for
employers. The absence of a requirement for retention of training
records in the rule is consistent with OSHA's hazard communication
standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), addressing training for all hazardous
chemicals, as well as the most recent OSHA substance-specific health
standards, addressing exposure to 1,3-butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051),
methylene chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052), and chromium (VI) (29 CFR
1910.1026).
    The recordkeeping requirements of the rule are also generally
consistent with the recordkeeping provisions of the industry consensus
standards, ASTM E 1132-06, Standard Practice for Health Requirements
Relating to Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica and
ASTM E 2625-09, Standard Practice for Controlling Occupational Exposure
to Respirable Crystalline Silica for Construction and Demolition
Activities. The main substantive differences are related to the use of
social security numbers and duration of retention of records. ASTM E
1132-06 and ASTM E 2625-09 specify that the employer should include an
identification number for each employee monitored for dust exposure,
but do not indicate that the number must be a social security number,
whereas OSHA's rule requires the employer to include the employee's
social security number. As noted above, although OSHA intends to
reconsider this policy for all standards in a future rulemaking, the
Agency has determined that the use of social security numbers is
appropriate for this rule. ASTM E 1132-06 specifies that medical and
exposure records should be retained for 40 years or the duration of
employment plus 20 years, whichever is longer. ASTM E 2625-09 does not
specify a duration for retaining exposure or medical records. OSHA has
determined that the retention requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020 are
appropriate for exposure and medical records collected under this rule,
because the requirements represent a reasonable balance between the
need to maintain records and the administrative burdens associated with
maintaining those records, and are consistent with longstanding
practice by the Agency with which employers are familiar and to which
they are accustomed; changing the duration of retention requirement for
this one rule could therefore cause confusion.

Dates

    Paragraph (l) of the standard for general industry and maritime
(paragraph (k) of the standard for construction) sets forth the
effective date of the standard and the date(s) for

compliance with the requirements of the standard. OSHA proposed
identical requirements for both standards: An effective date 60 days
after publication of the rule; a date for compliance with all
provisions except engineering controls and laboratory requirements of
180 days after the effective date; a date for compliance with
engineering controls requirements, which was one year after the
effective date; and a date for compliance with laboratory requirements
of two years after the effective date.
    The United Steelworkers supported the proposed effective and start-
up dates, arguing that they provide adequate time for employers to come
into compliance with the rule (Document ID 2336, p. 16). Employers and
industry representatives such as the American Exploration and
Production Council, the Tile Council of North America, and Ameren
requested that the effective date of the rule be extended (e.g.,
Document ID 2147, p. 2; 2267, p. 7; 2315, p. 4; 2375, Attachment 1, p.
3; 2363 p. 7).
    OSHA 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 allows the effective date of a standard
to be delayed for up to 90 days from the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Given the requests by commenters, OSHA's interest in
having employers implement effective compliance efforts, and the
minimal effect of an 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. Accordingly, the rule will become
effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    Paragraphs (l)(2), (3) and (4) of the standard for general industry
and maritime (paragraphs (k)(2) and (3) of the standard for
construction) establish dates for compliance with the requirements of
the standard. Employers and industry representatives such as the
American Petroleum Institute, the National Industrial Sand Association,
Dow Chemical Company, the Glass Association of North America (GANA),
and the American Foundry Society (AFS) contended that substantially
more time was needed to implement engineering controls than the one
year from the effective date that had been proposed (e.g., Document ID
2195, pp. 8, 22; 2147, p. 1; 2267, p. 3; 2149, p. 2; 2277, p. 1; 1992,
pp. 4, 12; 2023, p. 4; 2315 pp. 4, 9; 2137; 2047; 2215, p. 10; 2311, p.
3; 2291, p. 16; 2105. p. 1; 2348, Attachment 1, p. 40; 2357, p. 18;
2365, pp. 10-22; 2301, Attachment 1, pp. 64, 82; 2302, p. 9; 2327,
Attachment 1; 2270, p. 1; 2279, pp. 6, 11; 2290, pp. 3-4; 2296, p. 36;
2384, p. 6; 2493, p. 5; 2379, Appendix 1, pp. 22, 73-74; 2544, p. 11).
    General industry employers and trade associations were concerned
with the length of time needed for the design, approval, and
installation of engineering controls. For example, the AFS provided
examples of how implementation of engineering controls could take
longer than one year for foundries:

    The proposed compliance period fails to account for the
substantial time required for a comprehensive engineering evaluation
of the overall silica exposure at the facility and the design of a
proposed engineering control system. The engineering phase alone for
a 10,000 cfm or larger system typically takes 4 to 6 months--longer
for large or complex exposure problems. This issue is further
complicated by the fact that the current national economy has
substantially reduced the number of firms offering these
environmental services, and all of the affected foundries will be
competing for these limited services. The compliance period also
fails to take into effect the fact that to attempt to meet the
proposed PEL with local exhaust ventilation would require custom
control equipment (primarily baghouses) which are not stock items
and are custom built for each application. These control systems
typically require a minimum of 2 to 4 months for manufacture after
the completion of the engineering specifications and submission of
an order. This period is significantly longer for specialized or
large orders (Document ID 2379, Attachment B, p. 37).

    Another issue raised by general industry representatives and
employers such as Morgan Electro Ceramics, the Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturers Association, the Fertilizer Institute, and the National
Association of Manufacturers, was the potential length of time involved
in environmental permitting processes (e.g., Document ID 1772, p. 1;
1992, Attachment 1, p. 4; 2291, Attachment 1, pp. 16-17; 3487, pp. 26-
27; 3492, Attachment 1, pp. 5-6; 3584, Tr. 2845; 2290, Attachment 1, p.
3; 2380, Attachment 2, p. 20). The AFS testified on the permitting
issue:

    Because many of the controls involve additions or changes to
ventilation systems, OSHA must recognize the additional time
required for modelling and permitting by state or federal EPA
authorities. The proposed one year compliance period is totally
unrealistic. In some states, the mandatory permitting requirement
for both new and modified systems requires up to 18 months, and this
does not include the design and modelling work necessary to prepare
the permit application, or the construction and installation time
after approval. For foundries which have a Title V permit, the
approval includes an additional time period for the US EPA to review
and make comments, and if the facility is subject to the federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) rules the permit approval can take an
additional 6 to 18 months for the detailed review and approval
necessary (Document ID 3487, p. 26).

    OSHA is persuaded that the concerns expressed by commenters
regarding the time needed to implement engineering controls are
reasonable, and is extending the compliance deadline for general
industry and maritime to allow two years from the effective date for
employers to comply with the standard. In extending the proposed
compliance date for engineering controls in the general industry and
maritime standard by one year, OSHA has concluded that engineering
controls can be implemented within two years of the effective date in
most general industry and maritime workplaces. However, because permit
requirements and application processes vary by jurisdiction, OSHA is
willing to use its enforcement discretion in situations where an
employer can show it has made good faith efforts to implement
engineering controls, but has been unable to implement such controls
due to the time needed for environmental permitting.
    OSHA understands that some general industry employers may face
difficulties in implementing engineering controls due to continuous
operation of facilities in particular industries. Trade associations
such as the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
and the GANA noted that their industries have plants that run
constantly and shut down only on rare occasions, making installation of
engineering controls, which would require a shutdown, unusually
difficult and expensive (e.g., Document ID 2348, Attachment 1, p. 40;
2215, Attachment 1, p. 10). OSHA is willing to provide latitude and
work with such employers on an individual basis to schedule
implementation of engineering controls during shutdowns, provided they
are working in good faith toward compliance and that they provide and
assure employees use appropriate respirators until engineering controls
are installed.
    Paragraph (l)(3)(ii) of the standard for general industry and
maritime allows five years from the effective date--four years more
than the proposed standard--for employers to comply with obligations
for engineering controls in hydraulic fracturing operations in the

oil and gas industry. Additional time is provided to implement
engineering controls in this industry to allow employers to take
advantage of further development of emerging technologies discussed in
Chapter IV of the Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FEA). Paragraph (l)(3)(iii) specifies that
obligations for medical surveillance in paragraph (i)(l)(i) commence in
accordance with paragraph (l)(4) for hydraulic fracturing operations in
the oil and gas industry. Paragraph (l)(4) is discussed below.
    Paragraph (k)(2) of the standard for construction allows one year
after the effective date to come into compliance with all obligations
other than the requirements for methods of sample analysis. This
extends the time (one year compared to 180 days) for compliance with
the standard's ancillary provisions and retains the one year period
after the effective date for engineering controls. Commenting on the
proposed compliance dates for construction work, several stakeholders
raised issues that might impact the ability of employers to implement
engineering controls within one year after the effective date (e.g.,
Document ID 2296, Attachment 1, p. 36; 2357, p. 18). OSHA expects that
the vast majority of construction employers will choose to implement
the controls specified in paragraph (c) of the construction standard.
These controls are generally commercial products that are readily
available and can be purchased and put into use in a very short period
of time. For the limited number of construction tasks that require more
sophisticated controls (e.g., enclosed cabs on heavy equipment used
during the demolition of concrete or masonry structures), the controls
are already either commonly in use or could be implemented within one
year. Moreover, by implementing the controls specified in paragraph (c)
of the construction standard, employers will not be required to assess
employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica, so no time will be
needed for assessing employee exposures prior to implementing
engineering controls. OSHA finds that the ready availability of
engineering controls for construction will enable construction
employers to implement engineering controls within one year of the
effective date, and the Agency is therefore requiring that construction
employers implement engineering controls required by the standard
within one year of the effective date.
    In requiring that general industry and maritime employers comply
with most obligations of the standard two years after the effective
date, and in requiring that construction employers comply with all
ancillary and engineering controls one year after the effective date,
OSHA has aligned the compliance dates for other provisions of the
standards with the compliance dates for engineering controls. This will
allow employers to focus their efforts on implementation of engineering
controls. OSHA decided that staggering the compliance dates for some
provisions of the rule could serve to divert attention and resources
away from the implementation of engineering controls. For example, if
respiratory protection were to be required six months after the
effective date (as OSHA proposed), employers would need to assess
employee exposures, and would need to develop a respiratory protection
program and provide appropriate respirators to employees exposed above
the PEL, while simultaneously working to implement engineering
controls. A requirement for respiratory protection prior to
implementation of engineering controls would be particularly
problematic where construction employers implement the controls
specified in paragraph (c) of the construction standard. This is
because those employers would not otherwise be required to assess
employee exposures.
    In determining the compliance dates for provisions other than
engineering controls, OSHA considered the relatively short time period
before engineering controls must be implemented in construction work.
The Agency recognizes the longer time period allowed for general
industry and maritime employers to implement engineering controls.
However, general industry employers must comply with a PEL that is
approximately equivalent to 100 [mu]g/m\3\ during the period before
compliance with the revised PEL of 50 [mu]g/m\3\ is required, whereas
construction work will be subject to a higher PEL of approximately 250
[mu]g/m\3\. The lower PEL of approximately 100 [mu]g/m\3\ that will
apply to general industry will mitigate respirable crystalline silica
exposures in this sector to some extent during the interim period.
Moreover, because employers will be using this time to implement
engineering controls, OSHA expects that exposures will continue to
decline during this period. Construction will continue to be subject to
the higher PEL of approximately 250 [mu]g/m\3\ during this interim, but
that period will only be one year from the effective date, compared to
two years from the effective date for general industry and maritime.
OSHA finds that establishing consistent compliance dates for
engineering controls and other provisions of the standards is less
confusing, more practical, and will better enable employers to focus
their time and resources on implementing the control measures that will
best protect employees. For hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil
and gas industry, OSHA is providing an extra three years--a total of
five years from the effective date--for employers to implement
engineering controls for hydraulic fracturing operations. During these
additional three years, employers must comply with all other
requirements of the standard, including requirements for respiratory
protection to protect employees exposed to respirable crystalline
silica at levels that exceed the revised PEL of 50 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The issue of how much time to allow for laboratories to come into
compliance with respect to methods of sample analysis received
considerable comment during the rulemaking. Employers and trade and
professional associations such as the National Tile Contractors
Association, the Fertilizer Institute, OSCO Industries, Edison Electric
Institute, and Fann Contracting, Inc. expressed concerns about the
proposed rule's provisions that gave all employers one year to
implement engineering controls and allowed two years before employers
would be required to follow requirements for methods of sample analysis
(e.g., Document ID 2267, pp. 6-7; 2149, p. 2; 1992, pp. 10, 12; 2179,
p. 3; 2312, p. 2; 2317, p. 2; 2314, p. 3; 2357, pp. 18-19; 2365, p. 22;
2116, Attachment 1, p. 48; 2327, p. 29; 2368, p. 3; 2379, Attachment B,
p. 37; 3398, pp. 1-2; 3487, p. 27; 3491, p. 5; 2363, p. 6). For
example, Andy Fulton of ME Global stated:

    OSHA is giving laboratories 2 years to improve their procedures
for accurate silica analysis. However, OSHA is requiring foundries
to install expensive engineering controls within one year, before
accurate exposure levels are available. This does not make sense,
especially when it could involve millions of dollars (Document ID
2149, p. 2).

    In proposing to require employers to implement engineering controls
and comply with other provisions of the rule before the laboratory
requirements came into effect, OSHA intended to allow time for
laboratory capacity to develop. As indicated in Chapter IV of the FEA,
OSHA finds that it is feasible to measure exposures to respirable
crystalline silica at the revised PEL and action level with a
reasonable degree of accuracy and precision using methods that are
currently available. Many laboratories are capable of analyzing samples
in accordance with the laboratory requirements of the silica rule; OSHA

encourages employers to follow these requirements prior to the time
that they are mandated. There are approximately 40 laboratories that
are accredited by AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs for the
analysis of crystalline silica (Document ID 3586, Tr. 3284). These
laboratories are already capable of analyzing samples in accordance
with the laboratory requirements of the silica rule.
    OSHA anticipates that the additional demand for respirable
crystalline silica exposure monitoring and associated laboratory
analysis with the rule will be modest. Most construction employers are
expected to implement the specified exposure control measures in
paragraph (c) of the construction standard, and will therefore not be
required to assess employee exposures, thus placing no demands on
laboratories. The performance option for exposure assessment provided
in both the general industry and maritime standard at paragraph (d)(2)
and the construction standard at paragraph (d)(2)(ii) also serves to
lessen the anticipated volume of exposure monitoring. The additional
time allowed for compliance with the general industry and maritime
standard further serves to diminish concerns about laboratory capacity
by providing additional time for laboratory capacity to increase and
distributing demand for sample analysis over an extended period of
time. OSHA therefore concludes that the compliance date for methods of
sample analysis of two years after the effective date is reasonable in
both the general industry/maritime and construction standards. OSHA
also anticipates that construction employers who perform air monitoring
before the laboratory requirements go into effect (see paragraph (k)(3)
of the construction standard) will be able to obtain reliable
measurements of their employees' exposures to respirable crystalline
silica.
    Paragraph (l)(4) of the standard for general industry and maritime
specifies that obligations in paragraph (i)(1)(i) regarding medical
surveillance take effect for employees who will be occupationally
exposed to respirable crystalline silica above the PEL for 30 or more
days per year beginning two years after the effective date. Obligations
in paragraph (i)(l)(i) for employees who will be occupationally exposed
to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level (but at
or below the PEL) for 30 or more days per year will commence four years
after the effective date. In other words, medical surveillance will be
triggered by exposures above the PEL for 30 or more days per year,
beginning two years after the effective date and continuing through
four years after the effective date, and will then be triggered by
exposures at or above the action level for 30 or more days per year
beginning four years after the effective date. As indicated in the
Summary and Explanation for Medical Surveillance, this approach focuses
initial medical surveillance efforts on those employees who are at
greatest risk, while giving most employers additional time to fully
evaluate the engineering controls they have implemented in order to
determine which employees meet the action level trigger for medical
surveillance.
    Commenters such as NAIMA and the National Concrete Masonry
Association voiced concerns about the proposed rule's effects on small
businesses, and asked for compliance extensions for small businesses
(e.g., Document ID 2348, Attachment 1, p. 41; 2279, Attachment 1, p.
10). OSHA has considered these concerns, and has found that the
compliance dates set forth in this section are reasonable for employers
of all sizes. Therefore, OSHA has not created exceptions extending the
compliance period for specific business classes or sizes.
    OSHA also considered comments from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, among others,
expressing concern that the rule would create increased demand for
health and safety professionals and for medical professionals; they
alleged there are not enough professionals in those fields to service
the demand that would be created by the rule (e.g., Document ID 2365,
Attachment 1, p. 10; 2237, Attachment 1, p. 4; 3578, Tr. 1127). The
Agency does not find these arguments convincing. Most of the provisions
of the rule do not generally require the involvement of a health or
safety professional, or require only limited oversight from a health or
safety professional. For example, exposure monitoring does not need to
be performed by certified industrial hygienists; technicians and other
trained employees can perform this task. Employer compliance with the
specified exposure control methods in paragraph (c) of the construction
standard can generally be accomplished without the involvement of a
health or safety professional. Compliance with other obligations, such
as housekeeping and training requirements, can also be achieved without
the involvement of a health or safety professional or with minimal
oversight from them. There are a sufficient number of medical
professionals available for employers to implement the medical
surveillance provisions of the rule. The availability of medical
professionals is confirmed and discussed in detail in the summary and
explanation of Medical Surveillance in this preamble. Therefore, the
Agency finds no evidence in the record that a shortage of available
health and safety professionals, or a shortage of medical
professionals, will preclude employers from complying with the rule by
the dates set forth in this paragraph.
    Thus, the effect of changes made to the proposed rule is that: (1)
All obligations (i.e., exposure assessment and other ancillary
provisions, engineering controls) for general industry and maritime
employers (other than hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and
gas industry and an action level trigger for medical surveillance for
all general industry and maritime employers) will become enforceable
two years after the 90-day effective date of the rule; (2) all
obligations for hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas
industry (except obligations for engineering controls and an action
level trigger for medical surveillance) will become enforceable two
years after the 90-day effective date; (3) obligations for engineering
controls for hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas
industry will become enforceable five years after the 90-day effective
date; (4) obligations for an action level trigger for medical
surveillance in the standard for general industry and maritime,
including hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas industry,
will become enforceable four years after the 90-day effective date; (5)
all obligations (other than requirements for methods of sample
analysis) for construction employers will become enforceable one year
after the 90-day effective date; and (6) requirements for methods of
sample analysis, applicable to laboratories covered by paragraph
(d)(2)(v) of the standard for construction, become enforceable two
years after the effective date, i.e., one year after the other
requirements in the construction standard and on the same date as all
obligations in general industry and maritime (other than hydraulic
fracturing).

Appendix A to Sec.  1910.1053 and Sec.  1926.1153--Methods of Sample
Analysis

    Appendix A, which specifies methods of sample analysis, is included
as part of each standard, 29 CFR 1910.1053 and 29 CFR 1926.1153.
Employers must ensure that all samples taken to satisfy monitoring
requirements of the standards are evaluated by a laboratory that
analyzes air samples for respirable crystalline silica in accordance
with the

procedures in Appendix A (paragraph (d)(5) of the standard for general
industry and maritime and paragraph (d)(2)(v) of the standard for
construction).
    OSHA proposed analysis requirements that it had included as part of
paragraph (d) of both standards. The Southern Company recommended that
OSHA require use of accredited laboratories and move all other
laboratory requirements to an Appendix as a guide for laboratories that
analyze silica samples (Document ID 2185, p. 7).
    OSHA has retained the substance of the proposed provisions
addressing analysis of samples, but has moved these provisions to a new
appendix in each standard. The Agency has decided that segregating
these specifications in an appendix to each final standard provides
greater clarity for both employers and the laboratories that analyze
samples.
    Appendix A specifies procedures for the laboratories conducting the
analysis, but employers must ensure samples taken to satisfy the
monitoring requirements of the standard are analyzed by an accredited
laboratory using the methods and quality control procedures described
in this Appendix. Putting the requirements in a separate appendix,
rather than in the regulatory text, facilitates the communication of
these requirements to the laboratory analyzing samples. The appendix
approach is also meant to clarify that an employer who engages a
laboratory to analyze respirable crystalline silica samples may rely on
an assurance from that laboratory that the specified requirements were
met. For example, the laboratory could include a statement that it
complied with the requirements of the standard along with the sampling
results provided to the employer, or the employer could obtain the
information from the laboratory or industrial hygiene service provider.
    Appendix A to the final standards describes the specific analytical
methods to be used, as well as the qualifications of the laboratories
at which the samples are analyzed. As discussed in greater detail in
Chapter IV of the Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FEA), the sampling and analysis methods required
by the rule are technologically feasible in that they are widely used
and accepted as the best available methods for measuring individual
exposures to respirable crystalline silica. The Agency has determined
that the provisions in Appendix A are needed to ensure the accuracy of
monitoring required by the rule to measure employee exposures.
    OSHA has typically included specifications for the accuracy of
exposure monitoring methods in substance-specific standards, but has
not always specified the analytical methods to be used or the
qualifications of the laboratory that analyzes the samples. Exceptions
are the asbestos standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1001,
Appendix A) and construction (29 CFR 1926.1101, Appendix A), which
specify the sampling and analytical methods to be used, as well as
quality control procedures to be implemented by laboratories.
    Consistent with the evaluation of sampling and analysis methods in
the FEA, under the Appendix (A.1), all samples taken to satisfy the
monitoring requirements of this section must be evaluated using the
procedures specified in one of the following analytical methods: OSHA
ID-142; NMAM 7500, NMAM 7602; NMAM 7603; MSHA P-2; or MSHA P-7. OSHA
has determined based on inter-laboratory comparisons that laboratory
analysis by either X-ray diffraction (XRD) or infrared (IR)
spectroscopy is required to ensure the accuracy of the monitoring
results. The specified analytical methods are the XRD or IR methods for
analysis of respirable crystalline silica that have been established by
OSHA, NIOSH, or MSHA.
    To ensure the accuracy of air sampling data relied on by employers
to achieve compliance with the standard, the standard requires that
employers must have air samples analyzed only at laboratories that meet
requirements listed in A.2 through A.6.3. The requirements were
developed based on recommendations for quality control procedures to
improve agreement in analytical results obtained by laboratories (Eller
et al., 1999, Document ID 1688, pp. 23-24). According to Dr. Rosa Key-
Schwartz, NIOSH's expert in crystalline silica analysis, NIOSH worked
closely with AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs to implement a
silica emphasis program for site visitors who audit accredited
laboratories to ensure that these quality control procedures are being
followed (Document ID 3579, Tr. 153). As discussed in the FEA, analysis
of recent data from the AIHA Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT)
program showed that laboratory performance has improved in recent
years, resulting in greater agreement between labs, and this has been
attributed to improvement in quality control procedures (Document ID
3998, Attachment 8; see also Section IV of the FEA).
    A.2 requires employers to ensure that samples taken to monitor
employee exposures are analyzed by a laboratory that is accredited to
ANS/ISO/IEC Standard 17025 ``General requirements for the competence of
testing and calibration laboratories'' (EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005) by an
accrediting organization that can demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 ``Conformity assessment--General
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment
bodies'' (EN ISO/IEC 17011:2004). ANS/ISO/IEC 17025 is a consensus
standard that was developed by the International Organization for
Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/
IEC) and approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). This standard establishes criteria by which laboratories can
demonstrate proficiency in conducting laboratory analysis through the
implementation of quality control measures. To demonstrate competence,
laboratories must implement a quality control (QC) program that
evaluates analytical uncertainty and provides employers with estimates
of sampling and analytical error (SAE) when reporting samples. ISO/IEC
17011 establishes criteria for organizations that accredit laboratories
under ISO/IEC 17025. For example, the AIHA accredits laboratories for
proficiency in the analysis of crystalline silica using criteria based
on the ISO 17025 and other criteria appropriate for the scope of the
accreditation.
    Appendix A.3-A.6.3 contain additional quality control procedures
for laboratories that have been demonstrated to improve accuracy and
reliability through inter-laboratory comparisons. The proposed rule
would have required that laboratories participate in a round robin
testing program with at least two other independent laboratories at
least every six months. OSHA deleted this requirement in the final rule
since accredited laboratories must participate in the AIHA PAT program.
The laboratory must use the most current National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) or NIST-traceable standards for
instrument calibration or instrument calibration verification (Appendix
A.3). The laboratory must have an internal quality control (QC) program
that evaluates analytical uncertainty and provides employers with
estimates of sampling and analytical error (Appendix A.4). The

laboratory must characterize the sample material by identifying
polymorphs of respirable crystalline silica present, identifying the
presence of any interfering compounds that might affect the analysis,
and making the corrections necessary in order to obtain accurate sample
analysis (Appendix A.5). The laboratory must analyze quantitatively for
respirable crystalline silica only after confirming that the sample
matrix is free of uncorrectable analytical interferences, and corrects
for analytical interferences (Appendix A.6). The laboratory must
perform routine calibration checks with standards that bracket the
sample concentrations using five or more calibration standard levels to
prepare calibration curves, and use instruments optimized to obtain a
quantitative limit of detection that represents a value no higher than
25 percent of the PEL (Appendix A.6.1-A.6.3).
    Several stakeholders commented that requiring employers to analyze
samples for all polymorphs (e.g., quartz, cristobalite, tridymite)
would be unnecessarily burdensome, especially where the employer knows
that some polymorphs are not present in its operations (Document ID
2215, p. 9; 2291, p. 24; 2348, Attachment 1, pp. 33-34; 4213, p. 4;
3588, Tr. 3968). OSHA does not intend for A.5 to require analysis for
all polymorphs for every sample. Employers can consult with their
laboratories or industrial hygiene service providers to determine which
polymorphs are likely to be present in a sample given the nature of the
material and processes employed. For example, if a material used by an
employer is known to contain only quartz, and that material is not
subjected to high temperatures, it is unlikely that cristobalite is
present. Likewise, if prior sampling results failed to find
cristobalite in airborne dust, there would be no need to analyze
samples for cristobalite on a continuing basis. OSHA expects that
laboratories and industrial hygiene service providers will be able to
guide employers on the sample analyses necessary to ensure compliance
with the rule without having to incur unnecessary analytical costs.

Appendix B to Sec.  1910.1053 and Sec.  1926.1153--Medical Surveillance

    Appendix B of each standard, 29 CFR 1910.1053 and 29 CFR 1926.1153,