carbon monoxide) and chest imaging'' (Document ID 2211, p. 4); that the
examination should include ``bronchoalveolar lavage and biopsy, whether
or not a person shows signs or symptoms of frank, chronic beryllium
disease'' (Document ID 2222, Tr. 56); and that ``the services should be
available at the center'' (Document ID 2211, p. 12). NJH recommended
that OSHA follow the American Thoracic Society guidelines recommending
that beryllium sensitized individuals undergo ``[Pulmonary function
testing] and chest imaging (either a chest radiograph or chest CT
[computerized tomography] scan,'' with consideration of bronchoscopy,
depending on

``absence of contraindications, evidence of pulmonary function
abnormalities, evidence of abnormalities on chest imaging, and personal
preference of the patient'' (Document ID 2211, pp. 2, 4, 12).
Similarly, NABTU submitted a description of the Building Trades
National Medical Screening Program recommending that sensitized persons
without clinical signs of CBD undergo pulmonary function testing and a
high resolution chest CT, with lavage or biopsy only if the pulmonary
function tests or CT scans suggest CBD or if the patient prefers to
undergo lavage or biopsy (Document ID 2202, Attachment 4, PDF page 97).
Lisa Barker from NJH testified that if OSHA does not specify such
tests, medical directors may not order some tests because of a lack of
education or information or because the worker feels well and is not
interested in an evaluation (Document ID 2222, Tr. 66-68).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Similar comments regarding the need for certain tests to
diagnose CBD were submitted in response to the general industry NPRM
by ATS, NJH, and AOEC (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0021, p. 3; OSHA-
2018-0003-0022, p. 3; OSHA-2018-0003-0028, p. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing these comments and the remainder of the record on
this issue, OSHA remains convinced that pulmonary function testing,
BAL, and transbronchial biopsies are important diagnostic tools but
finds that the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center is in
the best position to determine which diagnostic tests are appropriate
for particular workers. The agency believes that the modified
definition of the term CBD diagnostic center, which requires the
centers to have the capacity to perform these three tests, will serve
to ensure that healthcare providers at the centers are aware of the
importance of and are able to perform these tests.
    However, OSHA understands that the proposed provision could be
misinterpreted to mean that the employer does not have to make
available additional tests that the examining physician deems
appropriate for reasons such as diagnosing or determining the severity
of CBD. That was never the agency's intent. In fact, OSHA noted the
potential for other tests, as deemed necessary by the CBD diagnostic
center physician, at several points in the preamble to the 2017 final
rule (see, e.g., 82 FR at 2709, 2714). Similar to paragraph
(k)(3)(ii)(G), which provides that the employer must ensure that the
employee is offered as part of the initial or periodic medical
examination any test deemed appropriate by the PLHCP, OSHA intends for
the employer to ensure the employee is offered any tests deemed
appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center,
including tests for diagnosing CBD, for determining its severity, and
for monitoring progression of CBD following diagnosis. Allowing the
physician at the CBD diagnostic center to order additional tests that
are deemed appropriate is also consistent with most OSHA substance-
specific standards, such as respirable crystalline silica (29 CFR
1910.1053) and chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026).
    To clarify the agency's intent that the physician at the CBD
diagnostic center has discretion to order appropriate tests, and to
further respond to stakeholder concerns regarding the necessity of
pulmonary function testing, BAL, and transbronchial biopsies, OSHA is
adding a new paragraph (k)(7)(ii), which focuses on the content of the
examination. This new provision requires that the evaluation include
any tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD
diagnostic center, such as pulmonary function testing (as outlined by
the ATS criteria), BAL, and transbronchial biopsy. OSHA intends for the
new provision to make clear that the employer must provide additional
tests, such as those recommended by NJH, ATS guidelines, and by
Building Trades National Medical Screening Program, at no cost to the
employee, if those tests are deemed necessary by the examining
physician. The agency also believes that explicitly naming the three
examples of tests that may be appropriate will further emphasize their
importance to examining physicians at the CBD diagnostic centers.
    Consistent with OSHA's original intent, those tests are only
required to be offered if deemed appropriate by the physician at the
CBD diagnostic center. For example, if lung volume and diffusion tests
were performed according to ATS criteria as part of the periodic
medical examination under paragraph (k)(3), and the physician at the
CBD diagnostic center found them to be of acceptable quality, those
tests would not have to be repeated as part of a CBD evaluation. The
addition of paragraph (k)(7)(ii) clarifies that the employer must,
however, offer any test that the PLHCP deems appropriate. Consistent
with previous health standards and the meaning of the identical phrase
in paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(G), OSHA intends the phrase ``deemed
appropriate'' to mean that additional tests requested by the physician
must be both related to beryllium exposure and medically necessary,
based on the findings of the medical examination (see 82 FR at 2709;
Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, 81 FR 16286,
16514 (March 25, 2016)). Because of the technical expertise that a
facility must have in order to meet the definition of a CBD diagnostic
center, OSHA is also confident that physicians at those facilities will
have the expertise to identify additional tests that may be useful to
diagnose or assess the severity of CBD.
    New paragraph (k)(7)(ii) also addresses the possibility that a test
that is deemed appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD
diagnostic center might not be available at that center. Although
OSHA's intention has been to require any testing to be provided by the
same CBD diagnostic center unless the employer and employee agree to a
different CBD diagnostic center (see 83 FR at 63758), there may be
cases where the CBD diagnostic center does not perform a type of test
deemed appropriate by the examining physician. In such a case, OSHA
wants to ensure that the employee can receive the appropriate test.
Therefore, OSHA is also including in paragraph (k)(7)(ii) a requirement
that if any of those tests deemed appropriate by the physician are not
available at the CBD diagnostic center, they may be performed at
another location that is mutually agreed upon by the employer and the
employee. This other location does not need to be a CBD diagnostic
center as long as it is able to perform tests according to requirements
under paragraph (k).
    In summary, final paragraph (k)(7)(i) requires that the employer
provide an evaluation at no cost to the employee at a CBD diagnostic
center that is mutually agreed to by the employer and the employee. The
evaluation must be scheduled within 30 days and must occur within a
reasonable time of the employer receiving one of the types of
documentation listed in paragraph (k)(7)(i)(A) or (B). Final paragraph
(k)(7)(ii) requires that the evaluation include any tests deemed
appropriate by the examining physician at the CBD diagnostic center,
such as pulmonary function testing (as outlined by the ATS criteria),
BAL, and transbronchial biopsy. Paragraph (k)(7)(ii) further requires
that if any of the tests deemed appropriate by the examining physician
are not available at the CBD diagnostic center, they may be performed
at another location that is agreed upon by

the employer and employee and at no cost to the employee.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ OSHA is also making a number of minor, non-substantive
revisions to the numbering and cross-references in paragraph (k)(7)
to account for the addition of new paragraph (k)(7)(ii).
Specifically, OSHA is renumbering current paragraphs (k)(7)(ii)-(v)
as (k)(7)(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), and is adding a reference to
new paragraph (k)(7)(ii) to the newly renumbered paragraph
(k)(7)(vi).
    The addition of paragraph (k)(7)(ii) and consequential
renumbering of current paragraphs (k)(7)(ii)-(v) also affects two
other cross-references in the standard. Paragraphs (l)(1)(i)(B) and
(l)(1)(ii) reference paragraphs (k)(7)(ii) and (k)(7)(iii),
respectively. In this final rule, OSHA is updating those references
to reflect the renumbering in paragraph (k)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (m) Communication of Hazards

    Paragraph (m) of the beryllium standards for construction and
shipyards sets forth the employer's obligations to comply with OSHA's
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) relative to
beryllium, and to take additional steps to warn and train employees
about the hazards of beryllium. Under the HCS, beryllium manufacturers
and importers are required to evaluate the hazards of beryllium and
prepare labels and safety data sheets (SDSs) and provide both documents
to downstream users. Employers whose employees are exposed to beryllium
in their workplace must develop a hazard communication program and
ensure that employees are trained on the hazards of beryllium. These
employers must also ensure that all containers of beryllium are labeled
and that employees are provided access to the SDSs. In addition to the
requirements under the HCS, paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of the beryllium
standards specify certain criteria that must be addressed in
classifying the hazards of beryllium. In the standard for shipyards,
paragraph (m)(2) requires employers to provide and display warning
signs with specified wording at each approach to a regulated area.
Paragraph (m)(3) of the shipyards standard, and paragraph (m)(2) of the
construction standard, details employers' duties to provide information
and training to employees.
    In the 2019 NPRM, OSHA proposed three changes to paragraph (m) of
the construction and shipyard standards to align with proposed changes
to other provisions in these standards. First, OSHA proposed to remove
the paragraph (m) provisions that require specific language for warning
labels applied to bags and containers of clothing, equipment, and
materials contaminated with beryllium (paragraph (m)(2) in construction
and paragraph (m)(3) in shipyards).\40\ This is consistent with OSHA's
proposal to remove the corresponding requirements to provide such
warning labels from paragraphs (h)(2)(v) and (j)(3). As explained in
the 2019 NPRM, and earlier in this Summary and Explanation with regard
to paragraphs (h)(2)(v) and (j)(3), OSHA proposed to remove the
requirements in both standards to label PPE removed from the workplace
for laundering, cleaning, maintenance, or disposal and to label
beryllium-containing material destined for disposal in accordance with
the labeling requirements in paragraph (m) of the 2017 final rule. The
agency proposed these changes to reflect its intent that provisions
aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact need not
apply to materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium--like all
beryllium-containing material used in abrasive blasting in the
construction and shipyards industries--in the absence of significant
airborne exposure. OSHA applied the same rationale to the limited
welding operations in shipyards, where the agency had evidence that at
most only trace amounts of particulate beryllium will form (84 FR at
53906); see also the Summary and Explanation for paragraphs (h) and
(j). Accordingly, the agency preliminarily determined that labels are
not necessary to protect employees in the context of trace beryllium in
construction and shipyards, and, therefore, the provisions of paragraph
(m) mandating specific language for such labels are likewise
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ As a result, OSHA proposed to renumber paragraph (m)(4) in
the shipyards standard (29 CFR 1915.1024) as (m)(3), renumber
paragraph (m)(3) in the construction standard (29 CFR 1926.1124) as
(m)(2), and revise the references in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of both
standards accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Jewish Health (NJH) objected to OSHA's proposal, stating
that all PPE and waste that is contaminated with or contains beryllium
should be labeled as such. ``It is not always the case that the
contamination contains only trace amounts of beryllium. . . . It cannot
be overlooked that workers in the construction industries may be
involved in demolition and disassembly of beryllium contaminated
buildings, machines and materials'' (Document ID 2211, p. 13). NJH
further noted that DOE beryllium training materials state, ``Laundry
workers and personnel who are responsible for the cleaning and
maintenance of respirators have a high potential for being exposed to
airborne beryllium dust'' (Document ID 2211, p. 13; COMMUNICATING
HEALTH RISKS WORKING SAFELY WITH BERYLLIUM: Training Reference for
Beryllium Workers and Managers/Supervisors Facilitator Manual,
Beryllium Health Risk Communication Task Force, DOE, April 2002,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/communicating_0.pdf). AFL-CIO similarly expressed concern that without
the labeling requirements of the 2017 standard, downstream recipients
of contaminated PPE and scrap materials generated during renovation or
demolition of beryllium manufacturing sites would not be informed of
the potential for airborne beryllium exposure for workers handling
these items (Document ID 2210, pp. 8-9; 2222, pp. 118-19).
    AFL-CIO also raised concerns about the removal of labeling
requirements for construction materials that are contaminated with
beryllium that are dumped in landfills (Document ID 2244, pp. 3-4).
AFL-CIO indicated that landfill workers are at risk of exposure to
airborne dust that may be created by their work activities. Without
label information on beryllium-containing waste materials sent from
construction activities, they argue, landfill workers may not don
appropriate PPE to protect themselves from beryllium exposure while
performing their work duties. In their comments, NABTU also included
landfill employees as a group of workers with potential beryllium
exposure from construction activities (Document ID 2202, p. 4).
    OSHA has no evidence that laundry or landfill workers who handle
PPE or materials designated for disposal from construction sites or
shipyards would engage in tasks that generate airborne exposure of
concern. First, the agency believes that NJH's reliance on DOE's 2002
instruction manual is misplaced. The manual is directed specifically to
DOE facilities; facilities that processed materials containing
beryllium in more than trace quantities. In fact, for purposes of DOE's
own beryllium regulations, the agency defines beryllium as any
insoluble beryllium compound or alloy containing 0.1 percent beryllium
or greater that may be released as an airborne particulate (10 CFR
850.3). The DOE manual is therefore not relevant to the construction
and shipyards context.
    Furthermore, evidence in the record demonstrates that, with respect
to materials containing only trace quantities of beryllium, airborne
dust concentrations must be very high for exposures to approach even
the action level (AL). For dust containing less than 4 ppm beryllium,
airborne dust concentrations would have to exceed 25 mg/m3 to reach the
beryllium AL of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. This level of dust would

significantly exceed the OSHA PEL for nuisance dust, or Particulate Not
Otherwise Classified (PNOC), of 15 mg/m\3\ (see Document ID 2235, p. 2;
FEA for the 2017 Final Rule, Chapter IV, p. IV-640). OSHA has no reason
to suspect that residual dust on PPE and other materials from
construction and shipyards sites is likely to create this level of
airborne dust from laundry or landfill operations. Therefore, the
agency has determined that recipients of PPE or waste from these
worksites are not expected to be exposed at airborne levels of concern
from re-entrainment of trace beryllium from these materials. And, as
explained previously, provisions aimed at protecting workers from the
effects of dermal contact need not apply to materials containing only
trace amounts of beryllium unless those workers are also exposed to
significant airborne beryllium.
    OSHA has retained certain provisions that protect construction and
shipyard employees whose work activities involve exposures exceeding
the PEL, such as abrasive blasters, from further airborne exposure via
re-entrainment of beryllium-containing dust from PPE or other surfaces
in the workplace. These include requiring the employer to ensure that
each employee removes personal protective clothing and equipment
required by this standard at the end of the work shift or at the
completion of all tasks involving beryllium, whichever comes first
(paragraph (h)(2)(i)); requiring the employer to ensure that personal
protective clothing and equipment required by this standard is not
removed in a manner that disperses beryllium into the air (paragraph
(h)(2)(ii)); requiring the employer to ensure that all reusable
personal protective clothing and equipment required by this standard is
cleaned, laundered, repaired, and replaced as needed to maintain its
effectiveness (paragraph (h)(3)(i)); requiring the employer to ensure
that beryllium is not removed from personal protective clothing and
equipment required by this standard by blowing, shaking or any other
means that disperses beryllium into the air (paragraph (h)(3)(ii)); and
requiring the employer to include procedures for removing, cleaning,
and maintaining personal protective clothing and equipment in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this standard in their written
exposure control plan(s) (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F)).
    OSHA proposed to remove those provisions which would apply only to
employees whose work activities do not involve airborne exposure above
the PEL, for whom potential exposure to re-entrained beryllium from
materials containing trace amounts is not a significant concern. As
OSHA explained in the Summary and Explanation for paragraphs (h)(2)(v)
and (j)(3), this approach is consistent with the general industry
standard as modified by the DFR, which does not require labeling for
materials that contain only trace quantities of beryllium and are
designated for disposal, recycling, or reuse.
    In the case where construction workers are removing materials from
a beryllium manufacturing site covered by the general industry
standard, beryllium-contaminated materials destined for disposal must
be cleaned and labeled by the host employer pursuant to paragraph
(j)(3) of the beryllium standard for general industry. Indeed, even
without the specific requirement in the beryllium standard, OSHA has
had a long-standing interpretation that the HCS requires upstream
suppliers to pass on any information they have regarding known
contaminants of scrap transferred to downstream recipients (see Letter
to Edward L. Merrigan, from John Miles, Jr., Directorate of Field
Operations (May 23, 1986), available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1986-05-23).
    Finally, AFL-CIO quoted a comment previously submitted by
Washington Group International (WGI) (see Document ID 0324) which
includes the proposition that ``it is crucial that government/
industrial buildings be screened for beryllium process operations'' and
appears to suggest that, similar to DOE facilities, all facilities
should do air monitoring and wipe sampling and pass this information on
to future facility users (Document ID 2244, p. 4). It is unclear
whether AFL-CIO intended their presentation of WGI's quote to suggest
that all government and industrial buildings should air-monitor and
sample surfaces for the presence of beryllium. OSHA believes that this
approach may be appropriate for DOE, which has a limited number of
sites that are known to have processed beryllium. However, requiring
all government and industrial sites to do air monitoring and wipe
sampling would be of little value since the likelihood of finding
beryllium would be minuscule. Beryllium, unlike lead and asbestos, is
not found in common building materials or coatings (see Document ID
2237, pp. 2-3). Therefore unless a manufacturing site has evidence that
beryllium is present through the review of SDSs, the likelihood that
workers will encounter materials contaminated with beryllium is low.
And, as noted above, where construction workers are removing materials
from a beryllium manufacturing site covered by the general industry
standard, beryllium-contaminated materials destined for disposal must
be cleaned and labeled by the host employer pursuant to paragraph
(j)(3) of the beryllium standard for general industry.
    Accordingly, OSHA has determined that the previous labeling
provisions in paragraph (m) (paragraph (m)(2) in construction and
(m)(3) in shipyards) are not necessary in the construction and
shipyards contexts and is finalizing the removal of these provisions as
proposed.
    OSHA next proposed to revise the provisions of paragraph (m) for
employee information and training to remove requirements related to
emergency procedures ((m)(3)(ii)(D) in construction and (m)(4)(ii)(D)
in shipyards) \41\ and personal hygiene practices ((m)(3)(ii)(E) in
construction and (m)(4)(ii)(E) in shipyards). These proposed revisions
correspond with OSHA's proposed removal of emergency procedures and
personal hygiene practices from the construction and shipyard
standards. As discussed in the 2019 NPRM and earlier in this Summary
and Explanation, OSHA proposed to remove references to emergencies in
the shipyards and construction standards because OSHA expects that any
emergency in these industries (such as a release resulting from a
failure of the blasting control equipment, a spill of the abrasive
blasting media, or the failure of the ventilation system for welding
operations in shipyards) would occur only during the performance of
routine tasks already associated with the airborne release of
beryllium; i.e., during the abrasive blasting or welding process (84 FR
at 53917; see also the Summary and Explanation for paragraph (g)). As
such, any uncontrolled release of beryllium in these operations would
not create exposures that differ from the normal conditions of work and
workers will already be protected by the other provisions of paragraph
(g). OSHA also proposed to remove the hygiene provisions of the
construction and shipyard standards due to overlap with existing OSHA
standards, the limited operations where beryllium exposure may occur in
construction and shipyards, and the trace quantities of beryllium
present in these operations (84 FR at 53920; see also the Summary

and Explanation for paragraph (i)). As with the previously discussed
labeling requirement, OSHA reasoned that the removal of these
provisions would render the correlating training requirements
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ OSHA proposed to renumber the provisions of paragraph
(m)(3)(ii) in construction and (m)(4)(ii) in shipyards to reflect
the removal of this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to OSHA's proposal to remove the hygiene provisions and
related training requirements from both standards in favor of OSHA's
general sanitation standards, NJH stated that ``beryllium exposure
poses a unique hazard for workers.'' As such, NJH argued that employees
should continue to be trained on beryllium-specific hygiene practices
(Document ID 2211, p. 13). AFL-CIO objected to the removal of
requirements on training for both emergency and hygiene provisions,
though they did not provide any additional explanation of their
opposition (Document ID 2210, p. 10). As stated above, OSHA proposed to
remove the training requirements related to emergencies and hygiene
areas and practices from paragraph (m) because the agency proposed to
remove the underlying requirements from the regulatory text.
    With respect to emergencies, OSHA has determined that the
operations with known beryllium exposure in the construction and
shipyards sectors do not have emergencies in which exposures differ
from the normal conditions of work. As such, workers in these
operations are already protected by other provisions of the beryllium
standards and emergency-specific provisions are not necessary (see the
Summary and Explanation for paragraph (g)). OSHA has also determined
that partial overlap between the hygiene requirements of the beryllium
standards for construction and shipyards and those of existing OSHA
standards, combined with the trace quantities of beryllium present in
these industries, make beryllium-specific hygiene requirements
unnecessary in the construction and shipyards standards (see the
Summary and Explanation for paragraph (i)). OSHA is finalizing the
regulatory text as proposed for these provisions. In light of OSHA's
decision to remove these requirements, OSHA finds that it is
unnecessary to maintain the beryllium-specific training requirements
for these provisions. Accordingly, OSHA is finalizing the removal of
training provisions on emergency procedures ((m)(3)(ii)(D) in
construction and (m)(4)(ii)(D) in shipyards) and hygiene areas and
practices ((m)(3)(ii)(E) in construction and (m)(4)(ii)(E) in
shipyards), as proposed.
    OSHA also proposed to revise paragraphs (m)(3)(i) in construction
and (m)(4)(i) in shipyards--renumbered in the final standards as
(m)(2)(i) and (m)(3)(i), respectively--to remove dermal contact as a
trigger for training. The 2017 final standards for general industry,
construction, and shipyards originally provided for limited training
for each employee who has, or can reasonably be expected to have,
airborne exposure to or dermal contact with beryllium. Specifically,
paragraph (m)(3)(i)(A) in construction and (m)(4)(i)(A) in shipyards
provided for training for each such employee in accordance with the
requirements of the HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200(h)), including specific
information on beryllium as well as any other hazards addressed in the
workplace hazard communication program.\42\ However, in the 2017 final
rule, OSHA recognized that beryllium exposure in the construction and
shipyard industries is narrowly limited to trace quantities contained
in certain abrasive blasting media and to exposure during some welding
operations in shipyards (82 FR at 2690; see also the 2017 FEA, Document
ID 2042, p. III-66). OSHA clarified in the 2018 DFR for general
industry that it did not intend for provisions aimed at protecting
workers from the effects of dermal contact to apply in the case of
materials containing only trace amounts of beryllium (83 FR at 19938).
Therefore, OSHA preliminarily determined in the 2019 NPRM for
construction and shipyards that training in accordance with the HCS
should be provided to each employee who has, or can reasonably be
expected to have, airborne exposure to beryllium, without regard to
dermal contact. OSHA noted that both standards already exempt materials
containing less than 0.1 percent beryllium by weight where the employer
has objective data demonstrating that employee exposure to beryllium
will remain below the action level as an 8-hour TWA under any
foreseeable conditions (See 29 CFR 1926.1124(a)(3) (construction) and
29 CFR 1915.1024(a)(3) (shipyards)). OSHA reasoned that the HCS
training requirements in proposed paragraph (m)(2) for construction and
proposed paragraph (m)(3) for shipyards would continue to apply to all
workers that are covered under these standards, regardless of the
potential for dermal contact (84 FR at 53920-21). OSHA did not receive
any comments on the removal of dermal contact as a trigger for training
in accordance with the HCS and is therefore finalizing it as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Paragraph (m)(3)(ii) in the 2017 construction standard and
paragraph (m)(4)(ii) in the 2017 shipyard standard required the
employer to ensure that each employee who is or can reasonably be
expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium can demonstrate
knowledge of all nine enumerated categories of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA also proposed to revise renumbered paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) in
the construction standard and (m)(3)(ii)(A) in the shipyards standard
to remove references to ``airborne exposure'' and ``dermal contact''
and instead to require training on the health hazards associated with
``exposure to beryllium.'' OSHA likewise proposed to revise renumbered
paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(D) in the construction standard and (m)(3)(ii)(D)
in the shipyards standard to require training on measures employees can
take to protect themselves from ``exposure to beryllium.'' These
revisions, OSHA explained, would maintain OSHA's intent that training
must cover both airborne and skin exposure while both resolving an
inconsistency between the shipyards and construction standards with
respect to references to dermal contact and simplifying the provisions
(84 FR at 53921).
    AFL-CIO commented that ``OSHA should not alter the requirement for
employers to train workers on the health hazards associated with
airborne and dermal exposure to beryllium.'' According to the AFL-CIO,
it is important for a worker to be provided with all potential exposure
scenarios, including airborne and dermal exposures, so they can
understand the full risk of exposure (Document ID 2210, p. 10). As the
agency emphasized in the 2019 NPRM, the phrase ``exposure to
beryllium'' is intended to encompass both airborne and skin exposure to
beryllium (84 FR at 53921). Thus, the proposed language maintains the
requirement to train workers on both airborne and dermal exposures. By
resolving an inconsistency in the previous standards regarding dermal
contact, OSHA intends the proposed change to ensure that employers
include dermal contact when training workers on the specific hazards of
beryllium.
    In previously submitted comments, NABTU has expressed concern that
they do not see a high level of awareness about hazards related to
beryllium among workers in the construction industry apart from
abrasive blasters and contract workers for DOE, citing a survey the
union performed with trainers in the construction industry (Document ID
2202, Attachment 1, p. 8). OSHA believes that a few factors could
explain this lack of awareness outside DOE and abrasive blasting.
First, as explained earlier in this preamble, abrasive blasting is the
primary source of exposure in the construction industry

and even the agency has been unable to obtain reliable data about any
additional sources of exposure in the construction industry. This
suggests that exposures in other contexts, if they occur, are rare (see
the summary and explanation for paragraph (f)). Second, OSHA notes that
while DOE has had a specific beryllium standard in place since 1999 (10
CFR part 850) due to the particular risks of exposure in its
facilities, OSHA's comprehensive standards were only promulgated in
2017.
    OSHA included hazard communication and training provisions in these
standards specifically to ensure awareness in those industries covered
by the standards. As employers implement the beryllium standards for
general industry, construction, and shipyards, the agency expects this
lack of awareness to dissipate. Furthermore, paragraph (e)(2) of the
HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires employers who produce, use, or store
hazardous chemicals at a workplace to ensure that workers have access
to safety data sheets and to inform workers of any precautionary
measures needed during ``normal operation conditions or foreseeable
emergencies.'' These requirements of the HCS further serve to raise
awareness among potentially exposed workers. OSHA has considered the
comments in the record and, for the reasons explained above, is
finalizing the changes to paragraph (m) as proposed.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ OSHA is also removing the heading ``Employee Information''
from paragraphs (m)(2)(iv) in the construction standard and
(m)(3)(iv) in the shipyards standard to comply with the Federal
Register's drafting rules. The requirements of these provisions are
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (n) Recordkeeping

    Paragraph (n) of the beryllium standards for construction and
shipyards requires employers to make and maintain records of air
monitoring data, objective data, medical surveillance, and training. It
also requires employers to make all required records available to
employees, their designated representatives, and the Assistant
Secretary in accordance with OSHA's records access standard, 29 CFR
1910.1020. The 2017 final rule required employers to include employees'
Social Security Numbers (SSNs) in air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)),
medical surveillance ((n)(3)(ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) records.
In the 2019 NPRM, OSHA proposed to revise paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(F),
(n)(3)(ii)(A), and (n)(4)(i) of both the construction and shipyards
standards to remove those requirements (84 FR at 53921). This final
rule adopts the proposed revisions, eliminating the requirements to
include employee SSNs in monitoring data, medical surveillance, and
training records.
    In the 2015 beryllium NPRM which led to the 2017 final rule, OSHA
proposed to require inclusion of employee SSNs in records related to
air monitoring, medical surveillance, and training, as it had done in
several existing substance-specific health standards (80 FR 47566,
47806 (August 7, 2015)). In their comments, some stakeholders objected
to the proposed requirements based on concerns about employee privacy
and the risk of identity theft (82 FR at 2730). In the 2017 final rule,
OSHA acknowledged these concerns, but concluded that, due to the
agency's past consistent practice of requiring an employee's SSN on
records, any change to such requirements should be comprehensive and
apply to all OSHA standards, not just the standards for beryllium (82
FR at 2730).
    After OSHA published the 2015 beryllium proposal but before issuing
the 2017 final beryllium rule, OSHA published its Standards Improvement
Project-Phase IV (SIP-IV) proposed rule (81 FR 68504, 68526-28 (October
4, 2016)), in which the agency proposed to delete all requirements for
employers to include employee SSNs in records required by the agency's
substance-specific standards. Because the beryllium standards had not
yet been finalized, they were not included in the SIP-IV proposal.
Accordingly, the 2017 final rule for beryllium included the SSN
requirements. However, OSHA acknowledged in the preamble that the SIP-
IV rulemaking was ongoing and stated that it would revisit its decision
to require employers to include SSNs in beryllium records in light of
the SIP-IV rulemaking, if appropriate (82 FR at 2730).
    After promulgating the 2017 final rule, OSHA finalized Phase IV of
its Standards Improvement Project (SIP-IV), which removed from OSHA
standards all requirements for employee SSNs in employer records (84 FR
21416, 21439-40 (May 14, 2019)).\44\ As OSHA explained in the SIP-IV
final rule, removing requirements for SSNs results in additional
flexibility for employers and allows employers to develop systems that
best work for their unique situations (84 FR at 21440). OSHA also
explained that the change would protect employee privacy and lower the
risk of identity theft (84 FR at 21439-40). Consistent with the SIP-IV
final rule, OSHA proposed in the 2019 NPRM to modify the beryllium
standards for construction and shipyards by removing the requirements
to include SSNs in the recordkeeping provisions in paragraphs
(n)(1)(ii)(F) (air monitoring data), (n)(3)(ii)(A) (medical
surveillance) and (n)(4)(i) (training) (84 FR at 53921).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Eliminating requirements to include SSNs in records is also
responsive to a directive from OMB that calls for federal agencies
to identify and eliminate unnecessary collection and use of SSNs in
agency systems and programs (See Memorandum from Clay Johnson III,
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to
the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Regarding
Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally
Identifiable Information (M-07-16), May 22, 2007 (available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2007/m07-16.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters, the AFL-CIO (Document ID 2210, p. 10) and NJH
(Document ID 2211, p. 14), expressed general support for the proposed
removal of the requirements to include employees' SSNs in these three
sets of records. No commenter opposed the proposed revisions. However,
after stating their support for the change, NJH noted that ``it is
important that there is an identifying link between exposure monitoring
data and medical surveillance data in order to identify areas of
increased risk'' (Document ID 2211, p. 14).
    OSHA acknowledges NJH's concern but notes that the beryllium
standards have never required employers to link their exposure
monitoring to medical surveillance data in this way. Even so, employers
remain free to utilize SSNs, or any other unique employee identifier,
if doing so helps them to identify areas of increased risk. Regardless,
the agency believes that areas of increased risk will be identifiable
based on the medical surveillance records alone. Paragraph (k)(6)
requires that, with the employee's consent, the licensed physician's
written medical opinion for the employer must include the PLCHP's
recommendations regarding limitations on the employee's airborne
exposure to beryllium, referrals to a CBD Diagnostic Center, continued
medical surveillance, and medical removal. This information will alert
the employer to possible increased risk of exposure in the processes in
which that employee works and the need to reevaluate these processes.
It may also trigger the requirement in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) that the
employer review and evaluate the effectiveness of its written exposure
control plan. Therefore, OSHA has determined that the proposed
revisions to paragraph (n) will not impair the identification of areas
of increased risk within a worksite or facility.
    NJH's comment also touches on a related concern regarding the
removal of requirements to record workers' SSNs in exposure monitoring
and medical

records. As OSHA explained in the SIP-IV NPRM, the agency originally
required the collection of employee SSNs in its standards because SSNs
are assigned at birth and do not change over time. SSNs are therefore
useful for research that tracks employees over time, as is done in some
epidemiological studies of workplace populations (81 FR at 68527).
While OSHA acknowledged the usefulness of SSNs for such research, the
agency further noted that other tracking methods have emerged that
allow researchers to conduct these studies without the use of SSNs.
OSHA stated that due to the seriousness of the threat of identity theft
and the availability of other methods for tracking employees for
research purposes, it was appropriate to reexamine the SSN collection
requirements in its standards (81 FR at 68527). Weighing these
considerations in the SIP-IV final rule, OSHA determined that it was
appropriate to remove from OSHA standards all requirements for employee
SSNs in employer records (84 FR at 21439-40). OSHA reaffirms its
conclusions on this issue here.
    Accordingly, OSHA is finalizing the proposed changes to paragraph
(n) in this final rule, which will align the beryllium standards for
construction and shipyards with OSHA's other substance-specific
standards by removing the requirements to include employees' SSNs in
air monitoring data ((n)(1)(ii)(F)), medical surveillance
((n)(3)((ii)(A)), and training ((n)(4)(i)) records. OSHA expects that
compliance with paragraph (n) as revised will be straightforward for
construction and shipyard employers who already comply with other OSHA
standards that no longer contain requirements to include employee SSNs
in records. Lastly, OSHA notes, as it did in the SIP-IV final rule,
that by removing the requirements to include SSNs in records, OSHA is
not requiring employers to delete SSNs from existing records or
prohibiting employers from using SSNs in records if they wish to do so
(see 84 FR at 21439-40).

IV. Final Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    This Final Economic Analysis (FEA) addresses issues related to the
profile of affected application groups, establishments, and employees;
and the cost savings and the benefits of OSHA's rule to modify several
construction and shipyard ancillary provisions. This rule makes no
changes to the 2017 final rule's TWA PEL and STEL for the shipyard and
construction industries. Relative to the estimated costs in the Final
Economic Analysis (2017 FEA) in support of the January 9, 2017,
beryllium final rule (Document ID 2042), this FEA would lead to total
annualized cost savings of $2.5 million in 2019 dollars at a 3 percent
discount rate over 10 years; and total annualized cost savings of $2.6
million in 2019 dollars at a discount rate of 7 percent over 10 years.
When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost
savings of the rule would be $2.3 million in 2016 dollars at a 7
percent discount rate.
    The rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); nor is it a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the benefits
nor the costs of this rule exceed $100 million. In addition, they do
not meet any of the other criteria specified by the UMRA for a
significant regulatory action or the Congressional Review Act for a
major rule.
    This final rule makes several changes to the beryllium standards
for construction and shipyards. These changes are designed to
accomplish three goals: (1) To more appropriately tailor the
requirements of the construction and shipyards standards to the
particular exposures in these industries in light of partial overlap
between the beryllium standards' requirements and other OSHA standards;
(2) to more closely align the shipyards and construction standards to
the general industry beryllium standard with respect to the medical
definitions and medical surveillance requirements, where appropriate;
and (3) to clarify certain requirements with respect to materials
containing only trace amounts of beryllium.
    This FEA provides OSHA's assessment of how this rule will affect
the costs and benefits of complying with the beryllium standards for
construction and shipyards, including costs adjustments to reflect
changes in exposure rates and baseline compliance rates. All costs are
estimated in 2019 dollars. Costs reported in 2019 dollars were applied
directly in this FEA; wage data were updated to 2019 dollars using BLS
data (BLS, 2020a); \45\ and all other costs reported for years earlier
than 2019 were updated to 2019 dollars using the GDP implicit price
deflator (BEA, 2020).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey--May 2019 (Released March 31, 2020) (Document ID
2248), available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed July
9, 2020) (BLS, 2020a).
    \46\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price
Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (Document ID 2246), available
at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&nipa_table_list=13 (Accessed July
9, 2020) (BEA, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This introduction to the FEA is followed by:

 Section B: Profile of Affected Application Groups,
Establishments, and Employees
 Section C: Technological Feasibility Summary
 Section D: Cost Savings
 Section E: Benefits

B. Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and
Employees

Introduction
    In this section, OSHA presents the profile of industries affected
by this final rule. The profile data in this section are drawn from the
industry profiles in Chapter III and exposure profiles and data in
Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA (Document ID 2042); the PEA for the June 27,
2017 beryllium proposal (2017 PEA) (82 FR 29189-216); and the PEA for
the October 8, 2019 beryllium proposal (2019 PEA) (82 FR at 53922-45).
Much of the analysis here is unchanged from the 2019 PEA because, as
will be explained below, the agency received no new information or data
during the comment period that would alter the agency's analysis.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA first identified the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industries, both in the
shipyard and construction sectors, with potential worker exposure to
beryllium. Next, OSHA provided statistical information on the affected
industries, including the number of affected entities and
establishments, the number of workers whose exposure to beryllium could
result in disease or death (``at-risk workers''), and the average
revenue and profits for affected entities and establishments by six-
digit NAICS industry.\47\ The agency provided this information for each
affected industry as

a whole, as well as for small entities, as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and ``very small'' entities, defined by
OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees, in each affected industry
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). For each industry sector identified, the
agency described the uses of beryllium and estimated the number of
establishments and employees that would be affected by the beryllium
standards. Employee exposure to beryllium can also occur as a result of
certain processes (such as welding) that are found in many industries.
This analysis will use the term ``application group'' to refer to a
cross-industry group with a common process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Census Bureau defines an establishment as a single
physical location at which business is conducted or services or
industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a
business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one
or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that
are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the
establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each
multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within
a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual
payroll are summed from the associated establishments. (U.S. Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, Glossary, 2017, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html (Accessed
March 3, 2017)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Chapter III of the 2017 FEA, OSHA described each application
group; identified the processes and occupations with beryllium
exposure, including available sampling exposure measurements; and
explained how OSHA estimated the number of establishments working with
beryllium and the number of employees exposed to beryllium. Those
estimates and the exposure profiles for abrasive blasting in
construction and shipyards, and welding in shipyards,\48\ are presented
in this section, along with a brief description of the application
groups and an explanation of the derivation of the revised exposure
profiles. For additional information about these data and the
application groups, please see Chapter III of the 2017 FEA.\49\
Finally, this section discusses wage data, the hire rate, and current
industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The exposure profile used for welding in shipyards in this
FEA, and in the 2017 PEA, differs from the exposure profile used in
Chapter III the 2017 FEA because OSHA is now using maritime-specific
data from the appendices to Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA. See 82 FR
29195.
    \49\ OSHA contractor Eastern Research Group (ERG) provided
support for the 2017 FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Application Groups
    OSHA's 2017 FEA identified one affected application group in the
construction sector and two application groups in the shipyard sector
with potential beryllium exposure. Both the shipyard and construction
sectors have affected employees in the abrasive blasting application
group, and the shipyard sector has affected employees in the welding
application group. OSHA's understanding of these affected application
groups has not changed. For a full description of these application
groups, see Chapter III of the FEA for the 2017 final rule (Document ID
2042) and section V.B. of the 2017 construction and shipyards NPRM, the
Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees
within the PEA (82 FR at 29189-29200).
    As discussed throughout this preamble, several commenters to the
October 9, 2019 NPRM took issue with OSHA's focus on abrasive blasters
and welders, arguing that construction and shipyards workers in various
other jobs may be exposed to beryllium. For example, commenters argued
that workers may be exposed to beryllium during the dressing of
beryllium-containing non-sparking tools (Document ID 2208, p. 6; 2211,
p. 7; 2222, Tr. 17-19) and during decommissioning, demolition, or
renovation work at facilities that process beryllium (Document ID 2213,
p. 3; 2239, p. 1; 2222, Tr. 84-85). However, as explained in the
Summary and Explanation for paragraph (f), these commenters did not
provide, nor does the record contain, sufficient data for the agency to
characterize exposures in these or any other application groups outside
of abrasive blasting and welding. The agency suspects that if
additional exposures do occur they are rare, and would not
significantly impact the agency's economic analysis.
    Other commenters, including the CISC and NDA, suggested that the
agency has underestimated the cost of complying with the beryllium
standard for construction because, they contend, all construction
employers must perform exposure assessment to determine whether
beryllium is present at their worksite in trace amounts (Document ID
2203, p. 16; 2205, p. 2). However, as discussed in the Summary and
Explanation, apart from certain abrasive blasting media, those
materials at the typical construction site that the agency has
identified as containing beryllium in trace amounts (i.e., rock, soil,
concrete, and brick) are not likely to release airborne beryllium above
the action level under foreseeable conditions and therefore do not
typically trigger the requirements of the standard. Further, for any
additional materials containing comparably low levels of beryllium, an
employer may rely on objective data that employees will not be exposed
above the PEL for total airborne dust to qualify for the exemption
under paragraph (a)(3). Hence the agency does not expect any workplace
assessments to be needed for construction sites using typical
construction materials containing trace amounts of beryllium.
    Accordingly, the application groups for this FEA remain the same as
those identified in the 2019 PEA; that is, abrasive blasting in
construction and shipyards and certain welding operations in shipyards.
Exposure Profile
    This section summarizes the data from the 2017 FEA (see Document ID
2042, FEA Chapter IV--Technological Feasibility). It is presented here
for informational purposes only. The information in this section is
drawn entirely from the 2017 FEA except for updated revenue data.
Abrasive Blasting in Construction and Shipyards
    The primary abrasive blasting job categories include the abrasive
blasting operator (blaster) and pot tender (blaster's helper or
assistant) during open blasting projects. Support personnel such as pot
tenders or abrasive media cleanup workers might also be employed to
clean up (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) and recycle spent abrasive
and to set up, dismantle, and move containment systems and supplies
(NIOSH, 1976, Document ID 0779; NIOSH, 1993, 0777; NIOSH, 1995, 0773;
NIOSH, 2007, 0770; Flynn and Susi, 2004, 1608; Meeker et al., 2005,
0699).
    Section 15 of Chapter IV of the 2017 FEA included a detailed
discussion of exposure data and analysis for the development of the
exposure profile for workers in abrasive blasting operations. Because
OSHA addressed general industry abrasive blasting operations in other
general industry sections where appropriate, such as in the nonferrous
foundries industry, the exposure profile in Section 15 addressed only
exposure data from construction and shipyard tasks. The exposure
profile for abrasive blasters, pot tenders/helpers, and abrasive media
cleanup workers was based on two National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluations of beryllium exposure from
abrasive blasting with coal slag, unpublished sampling results for
abrasive blasting operations from four U.S. shipyards, and data
submitted by the U.S. Navy (NIOSH, 1983, Document ID 0696; NIOSH, 2007,
0770; OSHA, 2005, 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, 0145).
Welding in Shipyards
    Similar to the profile for abrasive blasting activities, OSHA used
exposure data from the 2017 FEA to develop the exposure profile for
welding in shipyards. OSHA used the exposure data from Chapter IV-10
Appendices 2 and 3 and combined the aluminum base metal and non-
aluminum or unknown base material data. OSHA removed shorter duration
samples that appeared in Appendix 3 of FEA chapter IV-10. Seven
maritime welding samples from

Appendix 3, Table IV.61 with sampling durations of 240 minutes or
greater were used in this profile to represent the 8-hour TWA samples.
    Compared to the 2017 FEA, this caused a change in the exposure
profile for welders in shipyards. The exposure profile for welding in
shipyards is based on data presented in Appendices 2 and 3 of Sections
10.6 and 10.7 of Chapter IV, and again is more fully summarized in
Section IV of the 2017 PEA. Those data measure exposures of shipyard-
based welders, and OSHA has determined that it is a more suitable data
set on which to base the exposure profile of welders in shipyards than
the data used in the 2017 FEA, which were based on general industry
welding exposures.
    Tables IV-1 and IV-2 summarize, from the exposure profiles, the
number of workers at risk of beryllium exposure and the distribution of
8-hour TWA beryllium exposures by affected application group and job
category. Exposures are grouped into ranges (e.g., >0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ and
<0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) to show the percentages of employees in each job
category and sector exposed at levels within the indicated range.
    Table IV-3 presents data by NAICS code on the estimated number of
workers at risk of beryllium exposure for each of the same exposure
ranges, based on the exposure profile data and the estimated number of
workers in each job category and application group. As shown, an
estimated 2,168 workers have beryllium exposures above the TWA PEL of
0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.

                                                Table IV-1--Distribution of Beryllium Exposures by Application Group and Job Category or Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Exposure level ([micro]g/m\3\)
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Job category/activity                    0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0
                                                              (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)         >2.0 (%)    Total (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................            15.2            15.2            25.7             2.5            12.4             4.7             5.4         18.9        100.0
Pot Tender............................................            28.1            28.1            43.8             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0        100.0
Cleanup...............................................            33.3            33.3            26.7             0.0             0.0             0.0             3.3          3.3        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................            15.2            15.2            25.7             2.5            12.4             4.7             5.4         18.9        100.0
Pot Tender............................................            28.1            28.1            43.8             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0        100.0
Cleanup...............................................            33.3            33.3            26.7             0.0             0.0             0.0             3.3          3.3        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welder................................................            47.4            47.4             1.5             0.0             0.0             3.0             0.7          0.0        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
[a] The lowest exposure range in OSHA's technological feasibility analysis is <=0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ (see Chapter IV-02, Limits of Detection for Beryllium Data, in the 2017 FEA (Document ID
  2042)). Because OSHA lacked information on the distribution of worker exposures in this range, the agency evenly divided the workforce exposed at or below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ into the two
  categories shown in this table and in the columns with identical headers in Tables IV-2 and IV-3 of this PEA. OSHA recognizes that this simplifying assumption may overestimate exposure in
  these lower exposure ranges.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-7, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29195).

                                  Table IV-2--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Application Group, Job Category, and Exposure Range (mg/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Exposure level ([micro]g/m\3\)
            Application group/job category             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0      >2.0        Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................             511             511             863              83             416             159             182          636        3,360
Pot Tender............................................             945             945           1,470               0               0               0               0            0        3,360
Cleanup...............................................             560             560             448               0               0               0              56           56        1,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blaster......................................             186             186             314              30             152              58              66          232        1,224
Pot Tender............................................             344             344             536               0               0               0               0            0        1,224
Cleanup...............................................             204             204             163               0               0               0              20           20          612
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welder................................................              13              13               1               0               0               1               1            0           26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.................................           2,016           2,016           2,781              83             416             159             238          692        8,400
Maritime Subtotal.....................................             747             747           1,013              30             152              59              87          252        3,086
Total, All Industries.................................           2,763           2,763           3,794             114             568             218             324          944       11,486
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figures with actual values representing less than one person have been rounded up to one (person).
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-8, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29196).

                                              Table IV-3--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Industry and Exposure Level (mg/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Exposure Level ([micro]g/m\3\)
      Application Group/NAICS               Industry       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0     >2.0      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.............................  Painting and Wall               1,046           1,046           1,443              43             216              82             123        359      4,360
                                      Covering Contractors.
238990.............................  All Other Specialty               970             970           1,337              40             200              76             114        333      4,040
                                      Trade Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a............................  Ship Building and                 734             734           1,013              30             152              58              87        252      3,060
                                      Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding in Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b............................  Ship Building and                  13              13               1               0               0               1               1          0         26
                                      Repairing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.....................................           2,016           2,016           2,781              83             416             159             238        692      8,400
Maritime Subtotal.........................................             747             747           1,013              30             152              59              87        252      3,086
Total, All Industries.....................................           2,763           2,763           3,794             114             568             218             324        944     11,486
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figures with actual values representing less than one person have been rounded up to one (person).
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-9, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29196).

Summary of Affected Establishments and Employers
    As shown in Table IV-4, OSHA estimates that a total of 11,486
workers in 2,796 establishments will be affected by this rule. Also
shown are the estimated annual revenues for these entities. Table IV-5
presents the agency's estimate of affected entities defined as small by
SBA, and Table IV-6 presents OSHA's estimate of affected establishments
and employees by NAICS industries for the subset of small entities with
fewer than 20 employees.\50\ For the tables showing the characteristics
of small and very small entities, OSHA generally assumed that
beryllium-using small entities and very small entities would be the
same proportion of overall small and very small entities as the
proportion of beryllium-using entities to all entities as a whole in a
NAICS industry. OSHA in the 2017 PEA and subsequent rulemaking analyses
has requested public comment on the profile data presented in Tables
IV-4, IV-5, and IV-6, and has received none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Tables IV-5 and IV-6 indicate that small entities affected
by the proposed rule contain 2,714 affected establishments
affiliated with entities that are small by SBA standards and 2,365
affected establishments affiliated with entities that employ fewer
than 20 employees. However, the small and very small entity figures
in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 were not used to prepare the cost savings
estimates in Section D of this FEA. For costing purposes in Section
D, OSHA included small establishments owned by larger entities
versus the figures in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 because such
establishments do not qualify as ``small entities'' for the purposes
of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. To see the difference in the
number of affected establishments by size for costing purposes,
consider the example of a ``large entity'' with 500 employees,
consisting of 50 ten-employee establishments. In Section B., each of
these 50 establishments would be excluded from Tables IV-5 and IV-6
because they are part of a ``large entity''; in Section D., where
all establishments are included because there is no filter for
entity size, each would be considered a small establishment. Thus,
for purposes of Section D., there are 2,399 affected establishments
with fewer than 20 employees, 369 affected establishments with
between 20 and 499 employees, and 28 establishments with more than
500 employees. Census (2015) Statistics of US Businesses data
suggest there are also a total of 3,464 establishments affiliated
with entities in construction and shipyards employing between 20 and
499 employees, of which approximately 157 would be affected by the
rule.

                                                 Table IV-4--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Beryllium Standards--All Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                              Total           Total           Total       Affected        Affected        Affected     revenues    Revenues/       Revenues/
         NAICS code                    Industry              entities     establishments    employees     entities     establishments    employees     ($1,000)    entity [a]  establishment [a]
                                                               [a]             [a]             [a]          [b]             [b]             [b]          [a]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320.....................  Painting and Wall Covering         31,317             31,376      163,073        1,088              1,090        4,360  $21,099,458     $673,738           $672,471
                              Contractors.
238990.....................  All Other Specialty Trade          28,734             29,072      193,631          998              1,010        4,040   42,420,391    1,476,313          1,459,149
                              Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a....................  Ship Building and Repairing.          604                689      108,311          604                689        3,060   28,142,463   46,593,482         40,845,374
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding in Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b....................  Ship Building and Repairing.          604                689      108,311            6                  7           26   28,142,463   46,593,482         40,845,374
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal....................................       60,051             60,448      356,704        2,086              2,100        8,400   63,519,849    1,057,765          1,050,818
Maritime Subtotal........................................          604                689      108,311          610                696        3,086   28,142,463   46,593,482         40,845,374
Total, All Industries....................................       60,655             61,137      465,015        2,696              2,796       11,486   91,662,312    1,511,208          1,499,294
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a] Data may not sum to totals due to rounding. [a] US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).

[b] OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
  number of affected employees.
Source: Table V-4, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29192), with updated revenues as shown in Document ID 2250.

                                   Table IV-5--Characteristics of Construction and Shipyard Industries Affected by OSHA's Beryllium Standards--Small Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       SBA small                                               Affected                     Affected       Total
                                                       business        Small    Establishments     Small        small     Affected small   employees   revenues for   Revenues/      Revenues/
       NAICS code                 Industry          classification   business      for small       entity      business   establishments   for small       small        small          small
                                                      (employees)    entities    entities [b]    employees     entities         [c]         entities     entities       entity     establishment
                                                          [a]           [b]                         [b]          [c]                          [c]      ($1,000) [b]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320..................  Painting and Wall                   100       31,221          31,243      133,864        1,085          1,085         3,579   $17,822,841     $570,861        $570,459
                           Covering Contractors
238990..................  All Other Specialty                 100       28,537          28,605      143,112          991            994         2,986    32,076,205    1,124,022       1,121,350
                           Trade Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a.................  Ship Building and                 1,250          585             629       27,170          585            629           768     6,507,836   11,124,507      10,346,322
                           Repairing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding in Shipyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b.................  Ship Building and                 1,250          585             629       27,170            6              6             7     6,507,836   11,124,507      10,346,322
                           Repairing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal.............................  ..............      59,758          59,848      276,976        2,076          2,079         6,565    49,899,046      835,019         833,763
Maritime Subtotal.................................  ..............         585             629       27,170          591            635           775     6,507,836   11,124,507      10,346,322
Total, All Industries.............................  ..............      60,343          60,477      304,146        2,667          2,714         7,340    56,406,882      934,771         932,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
[a] SBA Size Standards, 2016.
[b] US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
[c] OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
  number of affected employees.
Source: Table V-5, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29194), with updated revenues as shown in Document ID 2250.

                                     Table IV-6--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Beryllium Standards--Entities With Fewer Than 20 Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Affected
                                                                                Employees   Affected      Affected      employees      Total                  Revenue per
                                                                           Entities   Establishments      for      entities   establishments      for     revenues for   Revenues    estab. for
     Application group           NAICS                Industry             with <20    for entities    entities    with <20    for entities    entities     entities    per entity    entities
                                                                           employees     with <20      with <20    employees     with <20      with <20     with <20     with <20     with <20
                                                                              [a]      employees [a]   employees      [b]      employees [b]   employees    employees    employees    employees
                                                                                [a]                                     [b]     ($1,000) [a]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--                 238320  Painting and Wall Covering        29,953          29,957      87,984       1,041           1,041       2,352   $11,448,144    $382,204      $382,153
 Construction.                               Contractors.
Abrasive Blasting--                 238990  All Other Specialty Trade         27,026          27,041       90,82         939             939       1,895    20,708,351     766,238       765,813
 Construction.                               Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--                336611a  Ship Building and Repairing.         380             381       2,215         380             381         381       589,796   1,552,093     1,548,020
 Shipyards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding in Shipyards **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welding in Shipyards......         336611b  Ship Building and Repairing.         380             381       2,215           4               4           4       589,796   1,552,093     1,548,020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal...................................................      56,979          56,998     178,806       1,980           1,980       4,247    32,156,495     564,357       564,169
Shipyards Subtotal......................................................         380             381       2,215         384             385         385       589,796   1,552,093     1,548,020
Total, All Industries...................................................      57,359          57,379     181,021       2,364           2,365       4,632    32,746,291     570,901       570,702
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
[a] US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
[b] OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
  number of affected employees.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
Source: Table V-6, 2017 beryllium proposal (82 FR at 29195), with updated revenues as shown in Document ID 2250.

Loaded Wages and New Hire Rate
    For this FEA, OSHA updated the wage estimates from the 2019 PEA.
Data for base wages by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) are
from the May 2019 Occupational Employment Statistics survey of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). OSHA applied a fringe markup (loading
factor) of 45.8 percent of base wages (see BLS, Employer Costs for
Employee

Compensation, March 2019 (Document ID 2249), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06182019.htm) (BLS, 2020c); \51\
loaded hourly wages by application group and SOC are shown in Table IV-
7. OSHA also used the new hire rate for manufacturing of 31.8 percent
(BLS, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), 2019 (Document ID
2247), available at http://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm) (BLS, 2020b).
Finally, due to changes in data availability in the most recent OES,
the occupation for a PLCHP, which in the PEA used Family and General
Physicians (SOC 29-1062), has been changed to Physicians, All Other;
and Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric (SOC 29-1228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ A fringe markup (loading factor) of 45.8 percent was
calculated in the following way. Employer costs for employee
compensation for civilian workers averaged $36.77 per hour worked in
March 2019. Wages and salaries averaged $25.22 per hour worked and
accounted for 68.6 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged
$11.55 and accounted for the remaining 31.41 percent. Therefore, the
fringe markup (loading factor) is $11.55/$25.22, or 45.8 percent.
Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers
averaged $34.49 per hour worked in March 2019 (BLS, 2020c, Document
ID 2249).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Industry Practices and Existing Regulatory Requirements
(``Current Compliance'') on Hazard Controls and Ancillary Provisions
    Table IV-8 reflects OSHA's estimate of baseline industry compliance
rates, by application group and job category, for each of the ancillary
provisions in the construction and shipyards standards. See Chapter III
of the 2017 FEA (Document ID 2042) for additional discussion of the
baseline compliance rates for each provision, which were estimated
based on site visits, industry contacts, published literature, and the
Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (SBAR,
2008, Document ID 0345). Note that the compliance rate is typically the
same for all jobs in a given sector.
    In the 2017 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive blasters in
construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate with the
PPE requirements in the beryllium standards. The 2017 PEA revised those
estimates to 100 percent compliance based on the belief that 29 CFR
1926.57(f)(5)(v) already required abrasive blasting operators to wear
full PPE, including respirators, gloves, safety shoes, and eye
protection; that 29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3) required full PPE for abrasive
blaster operators performing mechanical paint removal in shipyards.
Some commenters disagreed with this estimate for abrasive blasting
operations. NABTU noted that ``with the exception of abrasive blasting
operators wearing type CE respirators, construction workers' use of PPE
during abrasive blasting operations is extremely limited.'' (Document
ID 2129, p. 11). BHSC also expressed concern about the degree of
protection afforded by the other OSHA standards to workers near
abrasive blasting operations, stating that the estimated 100 percent
PPE use for those workers ``does not have supporting evidence of
consistent and standard use across pot tenders and cleanup activities
supporting abrasive blasting'' (Document ID 2118, p. 5).
    While the agency acknowledges these comments claiming that its
revised 100 percent compliance estimate was too high for abrasive
blasting operations, OSHA is also removing dermal contact with
beryllium as a trigger for PPE requirements. This clarifies and limits
the activities that would trigger PPE requirements under this rule,
making a higher baseline compliance estimate more appropriate. The
agency has determined that a better estimate for PPE for abrasive
blasting operations is in between the two previous estimates of 75
percent and 100 percent. OSHA estimates 90 percent compliance for PPE
for areas where exposures exceed, or can reasonably be expected to
exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL, which are the only areas in which the
standards would require PPE under the revisions.
    For welders in shipyards, OSHA estimated a 0 percent compliance
rate in the 2017 FEA and revised that estimate to 100 percent
compliance in the 2017 PEA because gloves are required under 29 CFR
1915.157(a) to protect workers from hazards faced by welders, such as
thermal burns (82 FR at 29197-201). The agency received no comments on
the compliance rates for welders either from the 2017 PEA or from the
2019 PEA. Hence, OSHA continues to estimate a 100 percent PPE
compliance rate for welders in shipyards in areas where exposures can
exceed the TWA PEL or STEL because of the overlap with 29 CFR
1915.157(a).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In fact, the 0 percent baseline compliance rate for PPE in
shipyard welding in the 2017 FEA was simply a mistake insofar as
baseline compliance rate for PPE for welding in general industry was
100 percent in the same document. 2017 FEA, Ch. III, p. III-188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2017 FEA, for the three occupational groups involved in
abrasive blasting (operators, pot-tenders, and clean-up workers), OSHA
estimated a 75 percent compliance rate with respirators that met the
beryllium standards' requirements. In the 2017 PEA (82 FR at 29197),
operators, but not pot tenders or clean-up workers, were revised to 100
percent compliance due to the strict existing standards for operators
(see Sec. Sec.  1926.57(f) and 1915.34(c)(3)(iv)). This FEA continues
to use these baseline compliance estimates of 100 percent for operators
and 75 percent for pot tenders and clean-up workers.
    For welders in shipyards, the 2017 FEA estimated 0 percent
compliance with proper respirator use and a 25 percent compliance rate
with the requirement to establish a respiratory protection program.
OSHA revised this estimate to 100 percent in the 2019 PEA (84 FR at
53927) because several other standards address respiratory protection
for welders in shipyards, including the Confined and Enclosed Spaces
and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment standards (29
CFR 1915.12(c)(4)(ii)), the Welding, Cutting, and Heating standards for
shipyards (29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv)), and the general Respiratory
Protection standards (29 CFR 1910.134, 1915.154). The agency received
no new comment on these revisions to the compliance rates from either
the 2017 PEA or the 2019 PEA and will use the same estimates in this
FEA.
    The baseline compliance rates for the housekeeping provisions in
the 2017 FEA were 0 percent for welders in shipyards and 75 percent for
blasters, pot tenders, and clean-up workers in abrasive blasting in
both construction and shipyards. In the 2017 PEA, OSHA reviewed
existing housekeeping requirements and updated the estimate from 75
percent to 100 percent for abrasive blasting operations because some
housekeeping is required by existing standards for abrasive blasting
operations in construction and shipyards. The Summary and Explanation
for housekeeping for this rule discusses the agency's finding that
existing standards cover general housekeeping requirements for
blasters, pot tenders, and clean-up workers, though these other
standards allow some cleaning methods that the beryllium standards, and
the revisions, limit, like dry sweeping or brushing and compressed air.
Under this rule, housekeeping requirements would no longer apply when
dust from trace amounts of beryllium could not be expected to cause
airborne exposures above the TWA PEL and STEL. Hence, these
requirements will only affect areas where workers are exposed above the
TWA PEL or STEL in the exposure profile. While the revisions will limit
the methods that employers may use to clean up beryllium, OSHA
estimates that cleaning methods that do not disperse beryllium into the
air take

approximately the same amount of time as cleaning methods already in
use. The agency received no comment on this revision to the compliance
rate from either the 2017 PEA or the 2019 PEA. For abrasive blasting
operations, the agency therefore maintains from the 2017 PEA its 100
percent compliance rate for housekeeping for abrasive blasting
operations.
    For welders in shipyards, OSHA estimated a 0 percent compliance
rate for housekeeping in both the 2017 FEA and the 2017 PEA. As
explained in the Summary and Explanation, OSHA has reason to believe
that skin or surface contamination is not an exposure source of concern
in welding in shipyards. The revisions would also limit the
circumstances in which housekeeping is required. OSHA therefore
estimates that in welding in shipyards, employers will not have to
engage in additional housekeeping to comply with the revisions and is
maintaining its 2019 PEA baseline compliance estimate for housekeeping
to 100 percent for welding in shipyards.
    In the 2017 PEA, OSHA treated the compliance rates for vacuums,
bags, and labels separately from the labor costs of housekeeping. OSHA
estimated a 0 percent compliance rate for all industries in
construction and shipyards for vacuums, bags, and labels because it
believed the cost of such equipment was not covered by other standards.
In this FEA, as in the 2019 PEA, OSHA is setting the compliance rates
under housekeeping for vacuums, bags, and labels to 100 percent as this
rule removes those requirements from the standard.
    The baseline compliance rates for the hygiene areas provisions in
the 2017 FEA were 0 percent for welders in shipyards and 75 percent for
blasters, pot tenders, and clean-up workers in abrasive blasting in
both construction and shipyards. As explained in the Summary and
Explanation section of this preamble, OSHA is removing paragraph (i),
hygiene areas, from the construction and shipyards standards. The
standards as modified by this final rule, as in the NPRM, therefore no
longer require employers to comply with any hygiene-related provisions,
and the baseline compliance is revised to 100 percent to demonstrate
that there will be no cost associated with hygiene areas under the
rule.
    The baseline compliance rate for each of the remaining provisions
was unchanged from the 2017 FEA to the 2017 PEA and remains unchanged
in this FEA.
    As a final point on baseline industry practices, OSHA acknowledges
the possibility of a future decline in the use of coal slag abrasive
materials but did not receive new evidence on this issue. To the extent
that coal slag abrasives are being replaced, for reasons unrelated to
the implementation of this standard, by other blasting materials that
do not have the potential for beryllium exposures of concern, the costs
and benefits of compliance with the TWA PEL and STEL for abrasive
blasting operations would also decrease.

                  Table IV-7--Loaded Hourly Wages for Occupations (Jobs) Exposed to Beryllium and Affected by OSHA's Beryllium Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fringe        Loaded
                                                                                markup      hourly (or
      Provision in the standard                 Job               NAICS       SOC [a]           Occupation           Median     percentage,   daily [d])
                                                                                hourly wage    total [b]       wage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring [c]......................  Industrial Hygienist             N/A          N/A  N/A....................          N/A           N/A      $175.34
                                       Consultant.
Monitoring [d]......................  IH Technician--Initial.  ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............     2,808.63
                                      IH Technician--          ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............     1,379.86
                                       Additional and
                                       Periodic.
Regulated Area/Job Briefing [e].....  Production Worker......        31-33      51-0000  Production Occupations.        17.78          45.8        25.92
Medical Surveillance [e]............  Human Resources Manager        31-33      11-3121  Human Resources                55.29          45.8        80.61
                                                                                Managers.
Exposure Control Plan, Medical        Clerical...............        31-33      43-4071  File Clerks............        16.98          45.8        24.76
 Surveillance, and Medical Removal
 [e].
Training [e]........................  Training Instructor....        31-33      13-1151  Training and                   28.94          45.8        42.19
                                                                                Development
                                                                                Specialists.
Medical Surveillance [e]............  Physician (Employers'          31-33      29-1228  Physicians, All Other;         94.10          45.8       137.19
                                       Physician).                                        and Ophthalmologists,
                                                                                Except Pediatric.
Multiple Provisions [f].............  First Line Supervisor..      Various      51-1011  First-Line Supervisors         30.30          45.8        44.18
                                                                                of Production and
                                                                                Operating Workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2020) (Document ID 2250).
[a] 2010 Standard Occupational Classification System. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/soc/classification.htm.
[b] BLS, 2020c. 45.8 percent represents fringe as a percentage of base wages. BLS-reported data for fringe as a percentage of total compensation is 31.4
  percent.
[c] ERG estimates based on discussions with affected industries, and inflated to 2019 Dollars.
[d] Wages used in the economic analysis for the Silica final rule, inflated to 2019 Dollars.
[e] BLS, 2020a
[f] BLS, 2020a; Weighted average for SOC 51-1011 in NAICS 313000, 314000, 315000, 316000, 321000, 322000, 323000, 324000, 325000, 326000, 327000,
  335000, 336000, 337000, and 339000.

                                                                Table IV-8--Estimated Current Compliance Rates for Industry Sectors Affected by OSHA's Beryllium Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hygiene                                   Respirators                 Housekeeping
                                                      Exposure    Regulated       Medical       Medical      Exposure               -------------------------------             --------------------------------------------------------
       Application group                Job          assessment     areas/     surveillance     removal      control      PPE (%)                                     Training    Employee/    Establishment/                  Vacuum,
                                                        (%)       competent         (%)       program (%)    plan (%)                 Employees    Establishments       (%)       Respirator     Respirator      Labor (%)      Bags,
                                                                  person (%)                                                             (%)             (%)                         (%)         Program (%)                 Labels  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Abrasive Blaster.            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75          100               100          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Pot Tender.......            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Construction  Cleanup..........            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Abrasive Blaster.            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75          100               100          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Pot Tender.......            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  Cleanup..........            0           75              75            0           75           90          100               100           75           75                75          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Welding--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welding--Shipyards.............  Welder...........            0            0               0            0            0          100          100               100            0          100               100          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2020) (Document ID 2250).
[a] Estimated compliance rates for medical surveillance do not include medical referrals. OSHA estimates that baseline compliance rates for medical referrals are zero percent for all application groups shown in the table.
* Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasive to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.

C. Technological Feasibility Summary

    This section summarizes OSHA's technological feasibility findings
made in the 2017 FEA (see Document ID 2042, FEA Chapter IV--
Technological Feasibility). Because this final rule contains no new
requirements that might raise feasibility concerns, OSHA's
technological feasibility analysis remains unchanged from the 2017
final rule. The findings are presented here for informational purposes
only. The information in this section is drawn entirely from the 2017
FEA and contains no new information or assessment.
    Overall, based on the information discussed in Chapter IV of the
2017 FEA, OSHA determined that the majority of the exposures in
construction and shipyards are either already at or below the new final
PEL, or can be adequately controlled to levels below the final PEL
through the implementation of additional engineering and work practice
controls for most operations most of the time. The one exception is
that OSHA determined that workers who perform open-air abrasive
blasting using mineral grit (i.e., coal slag) will routinely be exposed
to levels above the final PEL even after the installation of feasible
engineering and work practice controls, and therefore, these workers
will also be required to wear respiratory protection. Therefore, OSHA
concluded in the January 9, 2017 final rule that the final PEL of 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ is technologically feasible in abrasive blasting in
construction and shipyards and in welding in shipyards.

D. Costs of Compliance

Introduction
    Throughout this section, OSHA presents cost-saving formulas in the
text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of cost-
saving estimates for the individual provisions. Because the values used
in the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal
place, while the spreadsheets supporting the text are not limited to
two decimal places, the calculation using the presented formula will
sometimes differ slightly from the totals presented in the tables.
    These estimates of cost savings are largely based on the cost
estimates presented for Regulatory Alternative 2a in the preamble for
the 2017 final rule (82 FR at 2612-15), which were in turn derived from
the Costs of Compliance chapter (Chapter V) of the 2017 FEA. OSHA has
retained the same calculation methods from the 2017 FEA, detailed in
Chapter V of that document, and has updated all wages and unit costs to
2019 dollars. All cost savings in this FEA similarly are expressed in
2019 dollars and were annualized using discount rates of 3 percent and
7 percent, as required by OMB.\53\ Unit costs developed in this section
were multiplied by the number of workers who would have to comply with
the provisions, as identified in Section B of this FEA (Profile of
Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees). The
estimated number of affected workers depends on what level of exposure
triggers a particular provision and the percentage of those workers
already in compliance. In a few cases, costs were calculated based on
the number of firms. As in the 2017 FEA, OSHA is estimating that the
beryllium standards will reduce the number of workers exposed to
beryllium over the PEL by 90 percent. Therefore, for ancillary
provisions that require employers to take action for employees who
continue to be exposed over the PEL, like respiratory protection and
PPE, OSHA estimates the cost based on ten percent of the number of
employees exposed over the PEL in the exposure profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See OMB Memo M-17-21 (April 5, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf. OSHA included the 3 percent rate in its primary
analysis, but Appendix IV-A of this PEA also presents costs by NAICS
industry and establishment size categories using, as alternatives, a
7 percent discount rate--shown in Table IV-21--and a 0 percent
discount rate--shown in Table IV-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating costs, OSHA assumes a 250-day work
year. This is a standard calculation that OSHA and others use, which
assumes employees work 5 days a week with 2 weeks of vacation,
resulting in 250 work days per year (50 weeks x 5 work days a week).
    Estimated compliance rates are presented in Table IV-8 in Section B
of this FEA. The estimated costs for this beryllium rule represent the
additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full compliance
with the rule. The costs of complying with the beryllium program
requirements therefore depend on the extent to which employers in
affected application groups have already undertaken some of the
required actions. A discussion of affected workers is presented in
Section B of this FEA. Complete calculations are available in the OSHA
spreadsheet in support of the FEA (Document ID 2250). Annualization
periods for expenditures on equipment are based on equipment life, and
one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year period.\54\ The agency
first presents costs for the full 2017 final rule with only updated
wages, unit costs, and hiring rates based on 2019 data, updated from
the PEA for this proposal. All other estimates (compliance rates,
exposure profile, etc.) are the same as the 2017 FEA. This is the
baseline from which all cost savings of the rule are benchmarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Executive Order 13563 directs agencies ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In addition, OMB
Circular A-4 suggests that analysis should include all future costs
and benefits using a ``rule of reason'' to consider for how long it
can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this
time period. Annualization should not be confused with depreciation
or amortization for tax purposes. Annualization spreads costs out
evenly over the time period (similar to the payments on a mortgage)
to facilitate comparison of costs and benefits across different
years. In cases where costs occur on an annual basis, but do not
change between years, annualization is not necessary, and OSHA may
refer simply to ``annual'' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-9 shows these costs, which total for all occupations in
construction and shipyards to $12.8 million at a discount rate of 3
percent, an increase of 4 percent from the equivalent cost for the 2017
FEA ($12.3 million).

  Table IV-9--Total Annualized Costs of Full 2017 Final Beryllium Rule, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry;
                                         Results Shown by Size Category
                                     [3 Percent discount rate, 2019 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Very small
       Application group/NAICS              Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                            establishments     (SBA-defined)       employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Abrasive Blasting--Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238320...............................  Painting and Wall         $4,770,711        $4,018,176         $2,815,214
                                        Covering
                                        Contractors.
238990...............................  All Other                  4,421,009         3,399,888          2,321,792
                                        Specialty Trade
                                        Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                          Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611a..............................  Ship Building and          3,581,319         1,148,925            602,325
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Welding in Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336611b..............................  Ship Building and             75,030            21,996             12,306
                                        Repairing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Subtotal....................................         9,191,720         7,418,064          5,137,007
Maritime Subtotal........................................         3,656,348         1,170,921            614,631
Total, All Industries....................................        12,848,069         8,588,985          5,751,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2020)
  (Document ID 2250).

    To estimate the cost savings of this rule, OSHA estimated the
difference between the costs of the 2017 final rule (with updated
wages, prices, and hiring rate), Table IV-9, and the costs of this
rule. These cost savings are presented and discussed below. Table IV-10
shows first, by affected application group and six-digit NAICS code,
annualized cost savings for all establishments, for all small entities
(as defined by the Small Business Act and SBA's implementing
regulations; see 15 U.S.C. 632 and 13 CFR 121.201), and for all very
small entities (defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees).
OSHA estimates that this rule would yield a total annualized cost
savings of $2.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate across the
shipyard and construction sectors.
    The agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost
either in the 2017 FEA in support of the January 9, 2017 final
standards, the 2017 PEA, the 2019 PEA, or in this FEA. There is not one
broadly accepted overhead rate, and the use of overhead to estimate the
marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be
addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any
specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost
elements that fit the definition of overhead, and there are a range of
overhead estimates currently used within the federal government--for
example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\55\
and government contractors have reportedly used an average 50 percent
for on-site (i.e., company site) overhead.\56\ Some overhead costs,
such as advertising and marketing, vary with output rather than with
labor costs. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new
employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may change
little with the addition of one employee in a 500-employee firm, but
those costs may change substantially with the addition of 100
employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees'
duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs
such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers,
printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002 (document ID 2025). This analysis itself
was based on a survey of several large chemical manufacturing
plants: Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry
Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment
Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, December 14, 1989.
    \56\ For a further example of overhead cost estimates, please
see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at
Grant Thornton LLP, 2017 Government Contractor Survey, https://www.grantthornton.com/-/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2018/2017-government-contractor-survey. According to Grant
Thornton's 2017 Government Contractor Survey, on-site rates are
generally higher than off-site rates, because the on-site overhead
pool includes the facility-related expenses incurred by the company
to house the employee, while no such expenses are incurred or
allocated to the labor costs of direct charging personnel who work
at the customer site. For further examples of overhead cost
estimates, please see the Employee Benefits Security
Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-july-2017.pdf.