Alert: Due to routine maintenance on the OSHA website, some pages may be temporarily unavailable.
To report an emergency, file a complaint with OSHA or ask a safety and health question, call 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA).

  [Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
  [Proposed Rules]
  [Pages 19989-20001]
  From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
  [FR Doc No: 2018-09307]
  
  
  =======================================================================
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
  
  Occupational Safety and Health Administration
  
  29 CFR Part 1910
  
  [Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003]
  RIN 1218-AB76
  
  
  Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry
  
  AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); 
  Department of Labor.
  
  ACTION: Proposed rule.
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  SUMMARY: On January 9, 2017, the Occupational Safety and Health 
  Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule adopting a comprehensive 
  general industry standard for exposure to beryllium and beryllium 
  compounds. In this proposed rule, OSHA is proposing to adopt a number 
  of clarifying amendments to address the application of the standard to 
  materials containing trace amounts of beryllium. OSHA believes this 
  proposal will maintain safety and health protections for workers while 
  reducing the burden to employers of complying with the current rule.
  
  DATES: Comments to this proposal, hearing requests, and other 
  information must be submitted (transmitted, postmarked, or delivered) 
  by June 6, 2018. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other 
  evidence of the submission date.
  
  ADDRESSES: The public can submit comments, hearing requests, and other 
  material, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, using any of the 
  following methods:
      Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing 
  requests and other information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 
  the instructions online for submitting comments. Note that this docket 
  may include several different Federal Register notices involving active 
  rulemakings, so it is extremely important to select the correct notice 
  or its ID number when submitting comments for this rulemaking. After 
  accessing ``all documents and comments'' in the docket (OSHA-2018-
  0003), check the ``proposed rule'' box in the column headed ``Document 
  Type,'' find the document posted on the date of publication of this 
  document, and click the ``Submit a Comment'' link. Additional 
  instructions for submitting comments are available from the http://www.regulations.gov homepage.
      Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments that are 
  10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Fax these 
  documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648. OSHA does not 
  require hard copies of these documents. Instead of transmitting 
  facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., 
  studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments to 
  the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, Occupational Safety 
  and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 
  Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must 
  clearly identify the sender's name, the date, the subject, and the 
  docket number (OSHA-2018-0003) so that the Docket Office can attach 
  them to the appropriate document.
      Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger 
  (courier) service: Submit comments and any additional material to the 
  OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003, Occupational Safety and 
  Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 
  Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
  2350. (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627.) Contact the OSHA Docket 
  Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of 
  materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. 
  The Docket Office will accept deliveries (express delivery, hand 
  delivery, messenger service) during the Docket Office's normal business 
  hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
      Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name, the 
  title of the rulemaking (Beryllium Standard: Notice of Proposed 
  Rulemaking), and the docket number (OSHA-2018-0003). OSHA will place 
  comments and other material, including any personal information, in the 
  public docket without revision, and the comments and other material 
  will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 
  cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made 
  available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal 
  information (either about themselves or others), such as Social 
  Security Numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
      Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the 
  docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office 
  at the above address. The electronic docket for this proposed rule 
  established at http://www.regulations.gov contains most of

  
  the documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., 
  copyrighted material) is not available publicly to read or download 
  through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, 
  are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the 
  OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
  
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
      Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of 
  Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
  Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 
  Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: 
  meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
      General information and technical inquiries: William Perry or 
  Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational 
  Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
  3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 
  693-1950.
  
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
  
  Table of Contents
  
  I. Background
  II. Consideration of Comments
  III. Direct Final Rulemaking
  IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes
  V. Legal Considerations
  VI. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
  Certification
  VII. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review Under the 
  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
  VIII. Federalism
  IX. State Plan States
  X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  
  I. Background
  
      On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule Occupational 
  Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the Federal Register 
  (82 FR 2470). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and 
  beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs) 
  were at significant risk of material impairment of health, specifically 
  chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. OSHA concluded that the new 
  8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ reduced this 
  significant risk to the maximum extent feasible. Based on information 
  submitted to the record, in the final rule OSHA issued three separate 
  standards--general industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition 
  to the revised PEL, the final rule established a new short-term 
  exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ over a 15-minute sampling 
  period and an action level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA, along 
  with a number of ancillary provisions intended to provide additional 
  protections to employees, such as requirements for exposure assessment, 
  methods for controlling exposure, respiratory protection, personal 
  protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, medical surveillance, 
  hazard communication, and recordkeeping similar to those found in other 
  OSHA health standards.
      This proposal would amend the text of the beryllium standard for 
  general industry to clarify OSHA's intent with respect to certain terms 
  in the standard, including the definition of Beryllium Work Area (BWA), 
  the definition of emergency, and the meaning of the terms dermal 
  contact and beryllium contamination. It also would clarify OSHA's 
  intent with respect to provisions for disposal and recycling and with 
  respect to provisions that the Agency intends to apply only where skin 
  can be exposed to materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by 
  weight.
      This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order (E.O.) 
  13771 deregulatory action. Details on OSHA's cost/cost savings 
  estimates for this proposed rule can be found in the rule's preliminary 
  economic analysis. OSHA has estimated that, at a 3 percent discount 
  rate over 10 years, there are net annual cost savings of $0.36 million 
  per year for this proposed rule; at a discount rate of 7 percent there 
  are net annual cost savings of $0.37 million per year. When the 
  Department uses a perpetual time horizon, the annualized cost savings 
  of the proposed rule is $0.37 million with 7 percent discounting. While 
  the 2017 Beryllium Final Rule went into effect on May 20, 2017, 
  compliance obligations do not begin until May 11, 2018.
      OSHA has preliminarily determined that the standard as modified by 
  this rulemaking would provide equivalent protection to the standard as 
  promulgated. Accordingly, while this rulemaking is pending, OSHA will 
  consider compliance with the standard as modified by this proposal to 
  be a de minimis condition and will not issue a citation or penalty to 
  employers in compliance with the proposed standard, in accordance with 
  the Agency's de minimis citation policy.
  
  II. Consideration of Comments
  
      OSHA requests comment on all issues related to this proposed rule. 
  As discussed more fully below, this proposed rule is the companion 
  document to a direct final rule published in the ``Rules'' section of 
  this issue of the Federal Register. If OSHA receives no significant 
  adverse comment on the proposal or direct final rule, OSHA will publish 
  a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of the direct 
  final rule and withdrawing this companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
  (NPRM). Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical 
  changes to the direct final rule. For the purpose of judicial review, 
  OSHA views the date of confirmation of the effective date of the direct 
  final rule as the date of promulgation. If, however, OSHA receives a 
  significant adverse comment on the direct final rule or proposal, the 
  Agency will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and 
  proceed with the proposed rule, which addresses the same revisions to 
  the beryllium standard for general industry.
  
  III. Direct Final Rulemaking
  
      As noted above, in addition to publishing this NPRM, OSHA is 
  concurrently publishing a companion direct final rule (DFR) in the 
  Federal Register. In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a DFR 
  in the Federal Register, with a statement that the rule will go into 
  effect unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a 
  specified period. The agency may publish an identical concurrent NPRM. 
  If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to 
  the DFR, the rule goes into effect. OSHA typically confirms the 
  effective date of a DFR through a separate Federal Register document. 
  If the agency receives a significant adverse comment, the agency 
  withdraws the DFR and treats such comment as a response to the NPRM. An 
  agency typically uses direct final rulemaking when an agency 
  anticipates that a rule will not be controversial.
      For purposes of the DFR, a significant adverse comment is one that 
  explains why the amendments to OSHA's beryllium standard would be 
  inappropriate. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal 
  of the DFR, OSHA will consider whether the comment raises an issue 
  serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-
  comment process. OSHA will not consider a comment recommending an 
  additional amendment to this rule to be a significant adverse comment 
  unless the comment states why the DFR would be ineffective without the 
  addition.
      The comment period for this NPRM runs concurrently with that of the 
  DFR. OSHA will treat comments received on the NPRM as comments also 
  regarding the companion DFR. Similarly, OSHA will consider significant 
  adverse comment submitted to the companion DFR as comment to the NPRM. 
  Therefore, if OSHA receives a

  
  significant adverse comment on either the DFR or this NPRM, it will 
  withdraw the companion DFR and proceed with the NPRM. In the event OSHA 
  withdraws the DFR because of significant adverse comment, OSHA will 
  consider all timely comments received in response to the DFR when it 
  continues with the NPRM. After carefully considering all comments to 
  the DFR and the NPRM, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final 
  rule.
      OSHA determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for 
  direct final rulemaking. This proposed amendment to the standard is 
  clarifying in nature and does not adversely impact the safety or health 
  of employees. The amended standard would clarify OSHA's intent 
  regarding certain terms in the standard, including the definition of 
  Beryllium Work Area (BWA), the definition of emergency, and the meaning 
  of the terms dermal contact and beryllium contamination. It also would 
  clarify OSHA's intent with respect to provisions for disposal and 
  recycling and with respect to provisions that the Agency intends to 
  apply only where skin can be exposed to materials containing at least 
  0.1% beryllium by weight. The revisions would not impose any new costs 
  or duties. For these reasons, OSHA does not anticipate objections from 
  the public to this rulemaking action.
  
  IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes
  
      On January 9, 2017, OSHA adopted comprehensive standards addressing 
  exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds in general industry, 
  construction, and shipyards. 82 FR 2470. Beryllium ``occurs naturally 
  in rocks, soil, coal, and volcanic dust,'' but can cause harm to 
  workers through exposure in the workplace. 80 FR 47579. OSHA has thus 
  set a general industry exposure limit for beryllium and beryllium 
  compounds since 1971, modified most recently in 2017. See 80 FR 47578-
  47579; 82 FR 2471. This proposal would amend that 2017 general industry 
  beryllium standard (codified at 29 CFR 1910.1024) to clarify its 
  applicability to materials containing trace amounts of beryllium and to 
  make related changes. This proposal would not affect the construction 
  and shipyard standards, which are being addressed in a separate 
  rulemaking. See 82 FR 29182.
      During the last rulemaking, OSHA addressed the issue of trace 
  amounts of beryllium. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA 
  proposed to exempt from its beryllium standard materials containing 
  less than 0.1% beryllium by weight on the premise that workers in 
  exempted industries are not exposed at levels of concern, 80 FR 47775, 
  but noted evidence of high airborne exposures in some of those 
  industries, in particular the primary aluminum production and coal-
  fired power generation industries. 80 FR 47776. Therefore, OSHA 
  proposed for comment several regulatory alternatives, including an 
  alternative that would ``expand the scope of the proposed standard to 
  also include all operations in general industry where beryllium exists 
  only as a trace contaminant.'' 80 FR 47730. After receiving comment, 
  OSHA adopted in the final rule an alternative limiting the exemption 
  for materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium by weight to where 
  the employer has objective data demonstrating that employee exposure to 
  airborne beryllium will remain below the action level (AL) of 0.1 
  [micro]g/m\3\, measured as an 8-hour TWA, under any foreseeable 
  conditions. 29 CFR 1910.1024(a)(2). In doing so, OSHA noted that the AL 
  exception ensured that workers with airborne exposures of concern were 
  covered by the standard:
  
      OSHA agrees with the many commenters and testimony expressing 
  concern that materials containing trace amounts of beryllium (less 
  than 0.1 percent by weight) can result in hazardous [airborne] 
  exposures to beryllium. We disagree, however, with those who 
  supported completely eliminating the exemption because this could 
  have unintended consequences of expanding the scope to cover minute 
  amounts of naturally occurring beryllium (Ex 1756 Tr. 55). Instead, 
  we believe that alternative #1b--essentially as proposed by Materion 
  and USW [United Steelworkers] and acknowledging that workers can 
  have significant [airborne] beryllium exposures even with materials 
  containing less than 0.1%--is the most appropriate approach. 
  Therefore, in the final standard, it is exempting from the 
  standard's application materials containing less than 0.1% beryllium 
  by weight only where the employer has objective data demonstrating 
  that employee [airborne] exposure to beryllium will remain below the 
  action level as an 8-hour TWA under any foreseeable conditions. 82 
  FR 2643.
  
      As the regulatory history makes clear, OSHA intended to protect 
  employees working with trace beryllium only when it caused airborne 
  exposures of concern. OSHA 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. Since the 
  publication of the final rule, however, stakeholders have suggested 
  that an unintended consequence of the final rule's revision of the 
  trace exemption is that provisions designed to protect workers from 
  dermal contact with beryllium-contaminated material could be read as 
  applying to materials with only trace amounts of beryllium.
      This proposal would adjust the regulatory text of the general 
  industry beryllium standard to clarify that OSHA does not intend for 
  requirements that primarily address dermal contact to apply in 
  processes, operations, or areas involving only materials containing 
  less than 0.1% beryllium by weight. These proposed clarifications would 
  be made through changes to the definition of beryllium work area; the 
  addition of definitions of dermal contact, beryllium-contaminated, and 
  contaminated with beryllium; clarifications of certain hygiene 
  provisions with respect to beryllium contamination; and the 
  clarifications to provisions for disposal and recycling. In addition, 
  because under these changes it is possible to have a regulated area 
  that is not a beryllium work area, this proposal would make changes to 
  certain housekeeping provisions to ensure they apply in all regulated 
  areas. Finally, this proposal also includes a change to the definition 
  of ``emergency'', adding detail to the definition so as to clarify the 
  nature of the circumstances OSHA intends to be considered an emergency 
  for the purposes of the standard.
      Definition of beryllium work area. Paragraph (b) of the beryllium 
  standard published in January 2017 defined a beryllium work area as any 
  work area containing a process or operation that can release beryllium 
  where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to 
  airborne beryllium at any level or where there is the potential for 
  dermal contact with beryllium. This proposal would amend the definition 
  as follows: ``Beryllium work area means any work area: (1) Containing a 
  process or operation that can release beryllium and that involves 
  materials that contain at least 0.1% beryllium by weight; and (2) where 
  employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne 
  beryllium at any level or where there is the potential for dermal 
  contact with beryllium.'' This change would clarify OSHA's intent that 
  many of the provisions associated with beryllium work areas should only 
  apply to areas where there are processes or operations involving 
  materials at least 0.1% beryllium by weight.
      Specifically, this proposed change to the beryllium work area 
  definition would clarify OSHA's intent that the following provisions 
  associated with beryllium work areas do not apply where processes and 
  operations involve only materials containing trace amounts of beryllium 
  (less than 0.1% beryllium by weight): Establishing and

  
  demarcating beryllium work areas (paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i)); 
  including procedures for minimizing cross-contamination within 
  (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(D)) or minimizing migration of beryllium out of 
  (paragraph (f)(1)(i)(F)) such areas in the written exposure control 
  plan; ensuring that at least one engineering or process control is in 
  place to reduce beryllium exposure where airborne beryllium levels meet 
  or exceed the AL (revised paragraph (f)(2)(ii)).\1\ Additionally, for 
  areas where beryllium is only present in materials at concentrations of 
  less than 0.1% beryllium by weight, unless that area is also a 
  regulated area, employers are not required to ensure that all surfaces 
  in such areas are as free as practicable of beryllium (paragraph 
  (j)(1)(i)); ensure that all surfaces in such areas are cleaned by HEPA-
  filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood and 
  level of airborne exposure (paragraph (j)(2)(i)); or prohibit dry 
  sweeping or brushing for cleaning surfaces in such areas (paragraph 
  (j)(2)(ii)).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \1\ As explained in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, in 
  industries that process or handle materials with only trace amounts 
  of beryllium and that encounter exposures to beryllium above the 
  action level, the PEL would ``be exceeded only during operations 
  that generate [an] excessive amount of visible airborne dust.'' 82 
  FR 2583. OSHA therefore expects that if exposures in such a facility 
  are below the PEL but above the AL, there is already at least one 
  engineering or process control in place, so this requirement had no 
  effect on primary aluminum production or coal-fired utilities. The 
  2017 FEA explained that this provision would only require additional 
  controls in two job categories in two application groups, neither of 
  which are in primary aluminum production or coal-fired utilities. 
  (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2042, p. V-12).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      This proposal also includes conforming changes to maintain the 
  January 2017 rule's requirements for housekeeping in regulated areas. 
  Because all regulated areas were also beryllium work areas under the 
  January 2017 beryllium standard, OSHA did not specify whether 
  requirements for beryllium work areas should also apply in regulated 
  areas (areas in which airborne beryllium exposure meets or exceeds the 
  TWA PEL or STEL). This proposal's clarification to the definition of 
  beryllium work area, however, means that it is possible for a work area 
  to be a regulated area, but not a beryllium work area. This would occur 
  when processes that involve only materials containing less than 0.1% 
  beryllium by weight nevertheless create airborne beryllium exposures at 
  or above the TWA PEL or STEL. 82 FR 2583.
      It is thus important to clarify that housekeeping (paragraph (j)) 
  requirements continue to apply in regulated areas, even if the 
  processes or operations in these areas involve materials with only 
  trace beryllium. Operations or processes involving trace beryllium 
  materials must generate extremely high dust levels in order to exceed 
  the TWA PEL or STEL. Following the housekeeping methods required by 
  paragraph (j) will help to protect workers against resuspension of 
  surface beryllium accumulations from extremely dusty operations and 
  limit workers' airborne exposure to beryllium.
      The proposal accordingly would amend paragraphs (j)(1)(i), 
  (j)(2)(i), and (j)(2)(ii) to state explicitly that they apply to 
  regulated areas, as follows. Paragraph (j)(1)(i), as amended, would 
  state that ``[t]he employer must maintain all surfaces in beryllium 
  work areas and regulated areas as free as practicable of beryllium and 
  in accordance with the written exposure control plan required under 
  paragraph (f)(1) and the cleaning methods required under paragraph 
  (j)(2) of this standard.'' Paragraph (j)(2)(i), as amended, would state 
  that ``[t]he employer must ensure that surfaces in beryllium work areas 
  and regulated areas are cleaned by HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other 
  methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure.'' 
  Paragraph (j)(2)(ii), as amended, would state that ``[t]he employer 
  must not allow dry sweeping or brushing for cleaning surfaces in 
  beryllium work areas or regulated areas unless HEPA-filtered vacuuming 
  or other methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne 
  exposure are not safe or effective.''
      This proposal would also make conforming changes to the engineering 
  controls requirements to ensure that the hierarchy of controls 
  continues to apply in all regulated areas. Paragraph (f)(2) of the 
  January 2017 beryllium standard provided that, if airborne exposures 
  still exceed the PEL or STEL after implementing at least one control 
  for each operation in a beryllium work area that releases airborne 
  beryllium, the employer must implement additional or enhanced 
  engineering and work practice controls to reduce airborne exposure to 
  or below the limit exceeded. OSHA intended this provision to apply to 
  all operations within the scope of the standard that can release 
  airborne beryllium. 82 FR 2671-72. Because, under these proposed 
  revisions, not all regulated areas would be beryllium work areas, this 
  proposal would rearrange the regulatory text of paragraph (f)(2) to 
  make clear that the hierarchy of controls will continue to apply in 
  regulated areas that are not beryllium work areas.
      Definitions related to beryllium contamination. To further clarify 
  OSHA's intent that the standard's requirements aimed at reducing the 
  effect of dermal contact with beryllium should not apply to areas where 
  there are no processes or operations involving materials containing at 
  least 0.1% beryllium by weight, this proposal would define ``beryllium-
  contaminated or contaminated with beryllium'' and add those terms to 
  certain provisions in the standard. This proposal would define those 
  terms as follows: ``Contaminated with beryllium and beryllium-
  contaminated mean contaminated with dust, fumes, mists, or solutions 
  containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
  percent by weight.'' This proposal would add the terms to certain 
  provisions in the standard's requirements for hygiene areas and 
  disposal and recycling.
      The use of this proposed definition accordingly would clarify 
  OSHA's intent that the following provisions, which apply where 
  clothing, hair, skin, or work surfaces are beryllium-contaminated, do 
  not apply where the contaminating material contains less than 0.1% 
  beryllium by weight: Paragraph (h)(2)(i) and paragraph (h)(2)(ii), 
  which require the employer to ensure that each employee removes all 
  beryllium-contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment at 
  the appropriate time and as specified in the written exposure control 
  plan required by paragraph (f)(1); and paragraph (h)(2)(iii) and 
  paragraph (h)(2)(iv), which require the employer to ensure that 
  measures to prevent cross contamination between beryllium-contaminated 
  personal protective clothing and equipment and street clothing are 
  observed and that beryllium-contaminated personal protective clothing 
  and equipment are not removed from the workplace. This proposal would 
  also amends paragraph (h)(3)(ii), which requires the employer to ensure 
  that beryllium is properly removed from PPE, by adding the term 
  ``beryllium-contaminated'' so that this requirement would apply only 
  where the contaminating material contains at least 0.1% beryllium by 
  weight. The amended paragraph (h)(3)(ii) would read as follows: ``The 
  employer must ensure that beryllium is not removed from beryllium-
  contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment by blowing, 
  shaking, or any other means that disperses beryllium into the air.''
      Similarly, this proposal's inclusion of the term ``contaminated 
  with beryllium'' in (i)(3)(i)(B) and (i)(3)(ii)(B) clarifies OSHA's 
  intent that those provisions,

  
  which require employers to provide and ensure use of showers where 
  employees' hair or body parts other than hands, face, and neck can 
  reasonably be expected to become contaminated with beryllium, would not 
  apply where the contaminating material contains less than 0.1% 
  beryllium by weight.
      The proposed adoption of the definition of ``beryllium-
  contaminated'' would further clarify the application of certain 
  requirements that are meant to minimize re-entrainment of airborne 
  beryllium and reduce the effect of dermal contact with beryllium. 
  Specifically, it would clarify that paragraph (j)(2)(iii), which 
  prohibits the use of compressed air for cleaning beryllium-contaminated 
  surfaces except where used in conjunction with an appropriate 
  ventilation system, and paragraph (j)(2)(iv), which requires the use of 
  respiratory protection and PPE in accordance with paragraphs (g) and 
  (h) of the standard when dry sweeping, brushing, or compressed air are 
  used to clean beryllium-contaminated surfaces, do not apply where the 
  contaminating material contains less than 0.1% beryllium by weight. 
  OSHA does not expect the additional airborne exposure from dry 
  brushing, sweeping, or using compressed air to significantly increase 
  the levels of airborne exposure outside regulated areas when working 
  with trace beryllium. This is because for trace beryllium to generate 
  airborne exposures of concern, excessive amounts of dust would need to 
  be generated, and this would not happen outside of regulated areas.
      This proposal would also add the term ``beryllium-contaminated'' to 
  certain requirements pertaining to eating and drinking areas to clarify 
  that hygiene requirements in these areas apply only where materials 
  containing more than 0.1% beryllium by weight may contaminate such 
  areas. Paragraph (i)(4)(i), as amended by this proposal, would state 
  that wherever the employer allows employees to consume food or 
  beverages at a worksite where beryllium is present, the employer must 
  ensure that ``[b]eryllium-contaminated surfaces in eating and drinking 
  areas are as free as practicable of beryllium.'' Paragraph (i)(4)(ii), 
  as amended by this proposal, would require employers to ensure that 
  ``[n]o employees enter any eating or drinking area with beryllium-
  contaminated personal protective clothing or equipment unless, prior to 
  entry, surface beryllium has been removed from the clothing or 
  equipment by methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or 
  onto an employee's body.''
      Definition of dermal contact with beryllium. To clarify OSHA's 
  intent that requirements of the standard associated with dermal contact 
  with beryllium should not apply to areas where there are no processes 
  or operations involving materials at least 0.1% beryllium by weight, 
  this proposal would also add a definition for dermal contact with 
  beryllium. This new definition would provide: ``Dermal contact with 
  beryllium means skin exposure to: (1) Soluble beryllium compounds 
  containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 
  percent by weight; (2) solutions containing beryllium in concentrations 
  greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; or (3) dust, fumes, or 
  mists containing beryllium in concentrations greater than or equal to 
  0.1 percent by weight.'' Accordingly, the proposed definition would 
  clarify that paragraph (h)(1)(ii), which requires an employer to 
  provide and ensure the use of personal protective clothing and 
  equipment where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact 
  with beryllium, applies only where contact may occur with materials 
  containing at least 0.1% beryllium by weight. This definition would 
  also clarify that the requirements related to dermal contact in the 
  written exposure control plan, washing facilities, medical 
  examinations, and training provisions only apply where contact may 
  occur with materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by weight.
      Definition of emergency. This proposal also would clarify the 
  definition of ``emergency'' in paragraph (b) of the beryllium standard 
  published in January 2017. That paragraph defined an emergency as ``any 
  uncontrolled release of airborne beryllium.'' This proposal would amend 
  the definition as follows: ``Emergency means any occurrence such as, 
  but not limited to, equipment failure, rupture of containers, or 
  failure of control equipment, which may or does result in an 
  uncontrolled and unintended release of airborne beryllium that presents 
  a significant hazard.'' This change would clarify the circumstances 
  under which the provisions associated with emergencies should apply, 
  including the requirements that employers provide and ensure employee 
  use of respirators and that employers provide medical surveillance to 
  employees exposed in an emergency. This proposed change is consistent 
  with OSHA's intent as explained in the preamble to the 2017 final rule. 
  82 FR 2690 (``An emergency could result from equipment failure, rupture 
  of containers, or failure of control equipment, among other causes.''). 
  These examples show OSHA's intent to define an ``emergency'' as 
  something unintended as well as uncontrolled, and including the 
  examples in the new definition make that clear. It is also consistent 
  with other OSHA standards, such as methylenedianiline (1910.1050), 
  vinyl chloride (1910.1017), acrylonitrile (1910.1045), benzene 
  (1910.1028), and ethylene oxide (1910.1047).
      Disposal and recycling. Finally, this proposal would clarify the 
  application of the disposal and recycling provisions. Paragraph (j)(3) 
  of the beryllium standard published in January 2017 required employers 
  to ensure that materials designated for disposal that contain or are 
  contaminated with beryllium are disposed of in sealed, impermeable 
  enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled in accordance 
  with paragraph (m)(3) of the standard. It also required that materials 
  designated for recycling which contain or are contaminated with 
  beryllium are cleaned to be as free as practicable of surface beryllium 
  contamination and labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of the 
  standard, or placed in sealed, impermeable enclosures, such as bags or 
  containers, that are labeled in accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of the 
  standard. These provisions were designed to protect workers from dermal 
  contact with beryllium dust generated during processing, where there is 
  a risk of beryllium sensitization. See 82 FR 2694, 2695. This proposal 
  accordingly would limit those requirements to ``materials that contain 
  beryllium in concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or are 
  contaminated with beryllium,'' consistent with OSHA's intention that 
  provisions aimed at protecting workers from the effects of dermal 
  contact do not apply in the case of materials containing only trace 
  amounts of beryllium The hazard communication standard would continue 
  to apply according to its terms. See 29 CFR 1910.1200.
  
  V. Legal Considerations
  
      The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) 
  (``OSH Act''; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ``to assure so far as possible 
  every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working 
  conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To 
  achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to 
  promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. 29 
  U.S.C. 655(b), 658. A safety or health standard is a standard that 
  ``requires conditions, or the

  
  adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, 
  or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or 
  healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A 
  standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate when a significant risk 
  of material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would 
  substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. See Industrial 
  Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 641-42 
  (1980) (plurality opinion).
      OSHA need not make additional findings on risk for this proposal. 
  As discussed above, this proposal would not diminish the employee 
  protections put into place by the standard being amended. And because 
  OSHA previously determined that the beryllium standard substantially 
  reduces a significant risk (82 FR 2545-52), it is unnecessary for the 
  Agency to make additional findings on risk for the minor changes and 
  clarifications proposed by this rulemaking. See, e.g., Public Citizen 
  Health Research Group v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (DC Cir. 1986) 
  (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ``find that each and every 
  aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk.'').
      OSHA has determined that these minor changes and clarifications are 
  technologically and economically feasible. All OSHA standards must be 
  both technologically and economically feasible. See United Steelworkers 
  v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1264 (DC Cir. 1980) (``Lead I''). The 
  Supreme Court has defined feasibility as ``capable of being done.'' Am. 
  Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-10 (1981) (``Cotton 
  Dust''). Courts have further clarified that a standard is 
  technologically feasible if OSHA proves a reasonable possibility, 
  ``within the limits of the best available evidence . . . that the 
  typical firm will be able to develop and install engineering and work 
  practice controls that can meet the PEL in most of its operations.'' 
  Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. With respect to economic feasibility, courts 
  have held that ``a standard is feasible if it does not threaten massive 
  dislocation to or imperil the existence of the industry.'' Id. at 1265 
  (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the final economic 
  analysis (FEA) for the 2017 beryllium rule, OSHA concluded that the 
  rule was economically and technologically feasible. OSHA has 
  preliminarily determined that this proposal is also economically and 
  technologically feasible, because it does not impose any new 
  requirements or costs.
  
  VI. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
  Certification
  
      Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
  U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 
  1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net 
  benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that 
  OSHA promulgates. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying 
  both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 
  promoting flexibility.
      This proposal is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
  action'' under Executive Order 12866, or a ``major rule'' under the 
  Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and its impacts do not 
  trigger the analytical requirements of UMRA. Neither the benefits nor 
  the costs of this proposal would exceed $100 million in any given year. 
  This proposal would, however, result in a net cost savings for 
  employers in primary aluminum production and coal-fired utilities, 
  which are the only industries in General Industry covered by the 2017 
  Beryllium Final Rule that OSHA identified with operations involving 
  materials containing only trace beryllium (less than 0.1% beryllium by 
  weight).
      Several calculations illustrate the expected cost savings. At a 
  discount rate of 3 percent, this proposal would yield annualized cost 
  savings of $0.36 million per year for 10 years. At a discount rate of 7 
  percent, this proposal would yield an annualized cost savings of $0.37 
  million per year for 10 years. These net cost savings amount to 
  approximately 0.6 percent of the original estimated cost of the 2017 
  Beryllium Final Rule for General Industry at discount rates of either 3 
  or 7 percent; to approximately 5.3 percent of the original estimated 
  cost of the 2017 Beryllium Final Rule for primary aluminum production 
  and coal-fired utilities only at a discount rate of 3 percent and 5.2 
  percent of the original estimated cost of the 2017 Beryllium Final Rule 
  for primary aluminum production and coal-fired utilities only at a 
  discount rate of 7 percent.\2\ Under a perpetual time horizon, the 
  annualized cost savings of this proposal is $0.37 million at a discount 
  rate of 7 percent.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \2\ The original estimated cost of the 2017 beryllium final rule 
  for General Industry, and separately for primary aluminum production 
  and coal-fired utilities, was updated to 2017 dollars and 
  additionally adjusted and corrected, as subsequently explained in 
  the text.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  1. Changes to the Baseline: Updating to 2017 Dollars and Removing 
  Familiarization Costs
  
      Because baseline costs typically reflect the costs of compliance 
  without the changes set forth in an agency's action--in this case, the 
  proposal-- OSHA has revised the baseline costs, as displayed in the FEA 
  in support of the beryllium standard of January 9, 2017, in two ways. 
  First, OSHA updated the projected costs for general industry contained 
  in the FEA that accompanied the rule from 2015 to 2017 dollars, using 
  the latest Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) wage data (for 
  2016) and inflating them to 2017 dollars. Second, OSHA excluded certain 
  familiarization costs, included in the cost estimates developed in the 
  beryllium FEA for the 2017 Beryllium Final Rule, because OSHA expects 
  that those costs have already been incurred by affected employers. 
  Thus, the baseline costs for this Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) 
  are the projected costs from the 2017 FEA, updated to 2017 dollars, 
  less familiarization costs in the 2017 beryllium final rule (but 
  including some new familiarization costs for employers to become 
  familiar with the revised provisions). Throughout this analysis of 
  costs and cost savings, the context is limited to employers in primary 
  aluminum production and coal-fired utilities.
  
  2. Discussion of Overhead Costs
  
      As in the 2017 FEA, OSHA has not accounted for overhead labor costs 
  in its analysis of the cost savings for this proposal due to concerns 
  about consistency. There are several ways to look at the cost elements 
  that fit the definition of overhead, and there is a range of overhead 
  estimates currently used within the federal government--for example, 
  the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\3\ and 
  government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77 
  percent.\4\ Some overhead costs, such as

  
  advertising and marketing, may be more closely correlated with output 
  than with labor. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new 
  employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may change 
  little with the addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but 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.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \3\ See Grant Thornton LLP. 2015 Government Contractor Survey 
  (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2153). The application of this 
  overhead rate was based on an approach used by the Environmental 
  Protection Agency, as described in EPA's ``Wage Rates for Economic 
  Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June 10, 2002. 
  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.
      \4\ For further examples of overhead cost estimates, please see 
  the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal 
  cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative 
  adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 
  percent on base wages, the cost savings of this proposal would increase 
  to approximately $0.39 million per year, at discount rates of either 3 
  percent or 7 percent.\5\ The addition of 17 percent overhead on base 
  wages would therefore increase cost savings by approximately 7 percent 
  above the primary estimate at either discount rate.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \5\ OSHA used an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages in a 
  sensitivity analysis in the FEA (OSHA-2010-0034-4247, p. VII-65) in 
  support of the March 25, 2016 final respirable crystalline silica 
  standards (81 FR 16286) and in the PEA in support of the June 27, 
  2017 proposed beryllium standards in construction and shipyard 
  sectors (82 FR 29201).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  3. Cost Impact of the Changes to the Standard
  
      OSHA preliminarily estimates a net cost savings from this proposal 
  for employers at primary aluminum production and coal-fired utilities, 
  which again are the only two industries identified in the 2017 FEA as 
  having costs associated with exposure to trace beryllium materials.\6\ 
  Annualizing the present value of net cost savings over ten years, the 
  result is an annualized net cost savings of $0.36 million per year at a 
  discount rate of 3 percent, or $0.37 million per year at a discount 
  rate of 7 percent. When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon, 
  the annualized net cost savings of this proposal is $0.37 million at a 
  discount rate of 7 percent.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \6\ As noted in Section IV of this preamble, coverage of dermal 
  contact with trace beryllium materials was an unintended consequence 
  of OSHA's decision to cover airborne exposures to beryllium above 
  the action level caused by operations that generate excessive 
  amounts of dust from trace beryllium materials. Likewise, in the 
  2017 FEA supporting OSHA's Beryllium Final Rule, through an 
  oversight, OSHA made no distinction between trace and non-trace 
  beryllium materials when determining the cost of requirements 
  triggered by dermal contact with beryllium. The cost savings 
  generated by this PEA are a result of correcting these oversights.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      The undiscounted cost savings by provision and year are presented 
  below in Table 1, and the cost savings by provision and discount rate 
  are shown below in Tables 2 and 3. As described elsewhere in this 
  document, the cost savings described in this PEA reflect savings only 
  for provisions covered by the changes in this proposal as well as added 
  familiarization costs. OSHA estimated no cost savings for the PEL, 
  respiratory protection, exposure assessment, regulated areas, medical 
  surveillance, medical removal protection, written exposure control 
  plan, or training provisions because the proposal would make no changes 
  of substance to those provisions.
      a. Beryllium work areas. OSHA is proposing to limit the definition 
  of ``beryllium work area'' to any work area containing a process or 
  operation ``that involves materials that contain at least 0.1% 
  beryllium by weight. . . .'' OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
  affected establishments in primary aluminum production and coal-fired 
  utilities would thus no longer need to designate and demarcate 
  beryllium work areas because their materials would not meet that 
  threshold outside of the ``regulated areas'' in primary aluminum 
  production where employee exposures to airborne beryllium would exceed 
  the PEL. In its previous economic analysis, OSHA had estimated that 
  each of the establishments in these categories required beryllium work 
  areas in addition to ``regulated areas,'' which were costed separately. 
  The removal of these beryllium work area designations results in an 
  annualized cost savings of $12,913 using a 3 percent discount rate and 
  $15,682 using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs by provision 
  and discount rate can be seen below in Tables 2 and 3.
      b. Protective work clothing and equipment. OSHA is recognizing no 
  cost savings in this proposal for the elimination of PPE requirements 
  associated with dermal contact in coal-fired utilities. In its 2017 
  FEA, OSHA listed the PPE compliance rate for utility workers at coal-
  fired utilities at 75 percent and therefore estimated PPE costs for the 
  residual 25 percent of utility workers in the industry (where airborne 
  exposures exceed the PEL or STEL or where there is dermal contact with 
  beryllium). But upon further review, OSHA has preliminarily determined 
  that it should not have included those costs because affected employers 
  in coal-fired utilities were already required to wear PPE under 29 CFR 
  1910.1018(j) to prevent skin and eye irritation from exposure to trace 
  inorganic arsenic found in coal ash. As OSHA noted in its technological 
  feasibility analysis, inorganic arsenic is often found in coal fly ash 
  in ``concentrations 10 to 1,000 times greater than beryllium,'' fly ash 
  is the primary source of beryllium exposure for employees in coal-fired 
  utilities, and employers in this application group indicated that they 
  were already following a majority of the provisions of the rule to 
  comply with OSHA requirements for other hazardous substances, such as 
  arsenic (p. IV-652). Thus, in all of the areas within a facility in 
  which employees are likely to be exposed to beryllium, they are also 
  likely to be exposed to concentrations of arsenic significantly high so 
  as to trigger the arsenic PPE requirements. Accordingly, coal-fired 
  utility compliance rates with the PPE requirement for affected workers 
  should have been 100 percent in the prior FEA, and no costs for PPE for 
  these workers should have been included in OSHA's cost estimates. 
  Because OSHA should not have included new beryllium PPE costs for this 
  group, OSHA is recognizing no cost savings in this proposal for the 
  elimination of PPE requirements associated with dermal contact in coal-
  fired utilities.
      There are, however, some small PPE cost savings for primary 
  aluminum production. The January 2017 rule requires employers to 
  provide PPE in two situations: (1) Where airborne exposure exceeds, or 
  can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; and (2) 
  where there is a reasonable expectation of dermal contact with 
  beryllium. 29 CFR 1910.1024(h)(1). It is the second of these two 
  situations which OSHA believes will trigger cost savings. Because this 
  proposal would clarify that ``dermal contact with beryllium'' does not 
  include contact with beryllium in concentrations less than 0.1% 
  beryllium by weight, gloves and other PPE requirements would be 
  triggered by a reasonable expectation of dermal contact only with 
  materials containing more than 0.1% beryllium by weight. In primary 
  aluminum production, there is no dermal contact with materials 
  containing beryllium above this threshold. As a result, the Agency has 
  preliminarily determined that in primary aluminum production, 
  additional PPE is only necessary for workers exposed over the PEL. This 
  change results in an annualized cost savings for employers in primary 
  aluminum production of $35,023 using

  
  a 3 or 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs by provision and 
  discount rate can be seen below in Tables 2 and 3.
      c. Hygiene areas and practices. The proposed adoption of a 
  definition for ``contaminated with beryllium'' would also reduce the 
  costs of complying with the Hygiene Areas and Practices provision in 
  primary aluminum production (the costs for coal-fired utilities would 
  not be affected). The 2017 Final Beryllium Rule requires employers to 
  provide showers where both of two conditions are met:
  
      (A) Airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to 
  exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; and
      (B) Beryllium can reasonably be expected to contaminate 
  employees' hair or body parts other than hands, face, and neck.
  
      29 CFR 1910.1024(i)(3)(i). By proposing to revise (B) to 
  incorporate the newly defined term ``contaminated with beryllium,'' the 
  condition in paragraph (B) would not be met in primary aluminum 
  production because no employees in this application group can 
  reasonably be expected to become ``contaminated with beryllium.'' Thus, 
  the beryllium standard would not require employers in this application 
  group to provide showers. Similarly, employers need not provide the 
  estimated lower-cost alternative of head coverings, discussed in the 
  2017 FEA.\7\ Removing the cost of head coverings for workers in this 
  application group results in an annualized cost savings for employers 
  in primary aluminum production of $415 using a 3 or 7 percent discount 
  rate. Annualized costs by provision and discount rate can be seen below 
  in Tables 2 and 3.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \7\ In the previous FEA, OSHA had included costs for head 
  coverings in lieu of showers, reasoning that employees could avoid 
  the need for showers because the head coverings and other PPE would 
  prevent their hair or body parts from becoming contaminated with 
  beryllium.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      d. Housekeeping. Similar to the above discussion about PPE in coal-
  fired utilities, OSHA is recognizing no cost savings in this proposal 
  for coal-fired utilities as a result of the modification of the 
  housekeeping requirements. In the FEA in support of 2017 Beryllium 
  Final Rule, the Agency listed the housekeeping compliance rate for 
  affected workers at coal-fired utilities at 75 percent and therefore 
  estimated housekeeping costs for the residual 25 percent of utility 
  workers in a beryllium work area. But upon further review, OSHA has 
  preliminarily determined that affected employers in coal-fired 
  utilities were already required to perform comparable housekeeping 
  duties under 29 CFR 1910.1018(k) to prevent accumulations of inorganic 
  arsenic found in coal ash. Accordingly, coal-fired utility compliance 
  rates with the housekeeping requirements for affected workers should 
  have been 100 percent in the prior FEA, and no costs for housekeeping 
  for these workers should have been included in OSHA's cost estimates. 
  Consequently, OSHA is recognizing no cost savings in this proposal for 
  coal-fired utilities as a result of the modification of the 
  housekeeping requirements.
      The proposed rule clarification also means that employers in 
  primary aluminum production facilities would typically only be required 
  to comply with the beryllium housekeeping provisions in ``regulated 
  areas,'' which for cost purposes OSHA identified as employees exposed 
  over the PEL in its exposure profile. There are several exceptions, 
  none of which have a quantifiable impact on costs: employers in this 
  industry would still need to follow the housekeeping requirements when 
  cleaning up spills and emergency releases of beryllium (paragraph 
  (j)(1)(ii)), handling and maintaining cleaning equipment (paragraph 
  (j)(2)(v)), and when necessary to reduce some workers exposures below 
  the PEL (serving as an engineering control to prevent over-exposure to 
  beryllium within regulated areas or the need for regulated areas). OSHA 
  did not identify separate costs in its prior FEA for this use of 
  housekeeping as a form of engineering control and does not do so here. 
  Thus, for cost calculation purposes in this new PEA, OSHA removed 
  housekeeping costs for all employees exposed below the PEL in its 
  exposure profile. This proposed change results in an annualized cost 
  savings for employers in primary aluminum production of $323,664 using 
  a 3 percent discount rate and $330,324 using a 7 percent discount rate. 
  Annualized costs by provision and discount rate can be seen below in 
  Tables 2 and 3. OSHA believes that these estimated cost savings might 
  be slightly overstated to the extent that some housekeeping outside of 
  the regulated areas would still be needed to perform an engineering-
  control function in some facilities, but the Agency is unable to 
  quantify them now because of the variability among facilities and 
  controls that employers may implement to comply with the standard.
      e. Additional familiarization. In the FEA in support of OSHA's 2017 
  Beryllium Final Rule, the Agency determined that employers would need 
  to spend time familiarizing themselves with the rule and allocated 4, 
  8, and 40 hours, depending on establishment size (fewer than 20 
  employees, between 20 and 499 employees, and 500 or more employees, 
  respectively). OSHA has similarly preliminarily determined that 
  establishments would need to spend time familiarizing themselves with 
  this proposal. As the affected provisions in this proposal are only a 
  fraction of all the provisions in the 2017 final rule and would not 
  require any new actions on the part of employers, the Agency has 
  estimated familiarization time of 2, 4, and 20 hours per employer, 
  depending on establishment size, for a supervisor to review the changes 
  to the beryllium rule reflected in this proposal. This results in an 
  annualized cost of $9,404 using a 3 percent discount rate and $11,421 
  using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs by provision and 
  discount rate--3 and 7 percent--can be seen below in Tables 2 and 3, 
  respectively.
      f. Unchanged provisions. As discussed earlier, this proposal would 
  primarily serve to clarify OSHA's intent with respect to certain terms 
  and requirements in OSHA's 2017 beryllium general industry standard. 
  These proposed changes largely deal with clarifying the application of 
  various requirements to trace beryllium. The triggers for most 
  provisions in the standard--the PEL, respiratory protection, exposure 
  assessment, regulated areas, medical surveillance, medical removal 
  protection, written exposure control plan, and training provisions 
  \8\--are determined by factors other than beryllium concentration and 
  would be unchanged by this proposal. Similarly, the revised definition 
  of ``emergency'' in this proposal would not affect the costs estimated 
  for the other provisions in the standard.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \8\ While the proposed changes in the standard do not mandate 
  any additional employee training, OSHA notes that it had previously 
  accounted for costs of annual re-training required by the standard 
  (Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2042, p. V-221).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  4. Economic and Technological Feasibility
  
      In the FEA for the 2017 beryllium standard, OSHA concluded that the 
  rule was economically and technologically feasible. This proposal would 
  not impose any new requirements and has the net impact of removing a 
  small amount of cost, so OSHA has preliminarily determined that this 
  proposed rule is also economically and technologically feasible.
  
  5. Effects on Benefits
  
      This proposal would clarify aspects of the 2017 general industry 
  beryllium standard to address unintended

  
  consequences regarding the applicability of provisions designed to 
  protect workers from dermal contact with beryllium-containing materials 
  and trace amounts of beryllium. This proposal would make clear that 
  OSHA did not, and does not, intend to apply the provisions aimed at 
  protecting workers from the effects of dermal contact to industries 
  that only work with beryllium in trace amounts where there is limited 
  or no airborne exposure. In the prior FEA, OSHA did not identify any 
  quantifiable benefits from avoiding beryllium sensitization from dermal 
  contact (see discussion at p. VII-16 through VII-18). Thus, the 
  revisions in this proposal, which are focused on dermal contact, would 
  not have any impact on OSHA's previous benefit estimates.
  
  6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
  
      This proposal would result in cost savings for affected small 
  entities, and those savings fall below levels that could be said to 
  have a significant positive economic impact on a substantial number of 
  small entities.\9\ Therefore, OSHA preliminarily certifies that this 
  proposal would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
  small entities.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
      \9\ OSHA investigated whether the projected cost savings would 
  exceed 1 percent of revenues or 5 percent of profits for small 
  entities and very small entities for every industry. To 
  preliminarily determine if this was the case, OSHA returned to its 
  original regulatory flexibility analysis (in the 2017 FEA) for small 
  entities and very small entities. OSHA found that the cost savings 
  of this proposal are such a small percentage of revenues and profits 
  for every affected industry that OSHA's criteria would not be 
  exceeded for any industry.
  
                                   Table 1--Total Undiscounted Net Cost Savings of the Proposed Beryllium Standard by Year
                                                                       [2017 Dollars]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Year
               Application Group             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1          2          3          4          5          6          7          8          9          10
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aluminum Production.......................   $613,367   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053   $328,053
  Coal Fired Utilities......................      9,461          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................    622,828    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053    328,053
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  

  
  
                   Table 2--Annualized Net Cost Savings of Program Requirements for Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                                          [In 2017 dollars using a 3 percent discount rate]
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Written    Protective
  Application group/                        Rule        Exposure    Regulated   Beryllium      Medical      Medical    exposure       work       Hygiene                                  Total
        NAICS            Industry     familiarization  assessment     areas     work areas  surveillance    removal     control    clothing &   areas and   Housekeeping    Training     program
                                                                                                           provision     plan      equipment    practices                                 costs
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Aluminum Production
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  331313...........  Alumina                  -$240            $0          $0       $2,639           $0           $0          $0      $35,023         $415      $323,664           $0     $361,500
                      Refining and
                      Primary
                      Aluminum
                      Production.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Coal Fired Utilities
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  221112...........  Fossil Fuel             -6,209             0           0        8,087            0            0           0            0            0             0            0        1,878
                      Electric Power
                      Generation.
  311221...........  Wet Corn                  -282             0           0          260            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -22
                      Milling.
  311313...........  Beet Sugar                -353             0           0          303            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -49
                      Manufacturing.
  311942...........  Spice and                  -41             0           0           43            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            2
                      Extract
                      Manufacturing.
  312120...........  Breweries......            -54             0           0           43            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -11
  321219...........  Reconstituted              -20             0           0           22            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            2
                      Wood Product
                      Manufacturing.
  322110...........  Pulp Mills.....            -32             0           0           22            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -10
  322121...........  Paper (except             -437             0           0          238            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -199
                      Newsprint)
                      Mills.
  322122...........  Newsprint Mills           -705             0           0          519            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -186
  322130...........  Paperboard                -447             0           0          346            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -101
                      Mills.
  325211...........  Plastics                   -85             0           0           87            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            2
                      Material and
                      Resin
                      Manufacturing.
  325611...........  Soap and Other             -23             0           0           22            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -1
                      Detergent
                      Manufacturing.
  327310...........  Cement                     -39             0           0           43            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            4
                      Manufacturing.
  333111b..........  Farm Machinery             -24             0           0           22            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -2
                      and Equipment
                      Manufacturing.
  336510b..........  Railroad                   -26             0           0           22            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -4
                      Rolling Stock
                      Manufacturing.
  611310...........  Colleges,                 -387             0           0          195            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -193
                      Universities,
                      and
                      Professional
                      Schools.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total:
          General Industry Subtotal.         -9,404             0           0       12,913            0            0           0       35,023          415       323,664            0      362,610
          Construction Subtotal.....              0             0           0            0            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            0
          Maritime Subtotal.........              0             0           0            0            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            0
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, All Industries.         -9,404             0           0       12,913            0            0           0       35,023          415       323,664            0      362,610
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  

  
  
                                       Table 3--Annualized Net Cost Savings of Program Requirements for Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                                                              [In 2017 dollars using a 7 percent discount rate]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                Written    Protective
                                                                                    Rule        Exposure    Regulated   Beryllium      Medical      Medical    exposure       work       Hygiene                                  Total
          Application group/NAICS                      Industry               familiarization  assessment     areas     work areas  surveillance    removal     control    clothing &   areas and   Housekeeping    Training     program
                                                                                                                                                   provision     plan      equipment    practices                                 costs
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Aluminum Production
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  331313................................  Alumina Refining and Primary                -$291            $0          $0       $3,205           $0           $0          $0      $35,023         $415      $330,324           $0     $368,675
                                           Aluminum Production.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Coal Fired Utilities
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  221112................................  Fossil Fuel Electric Power                 -7,541             0           0        9,822            0            0           0            0            0             0            0        2,281
                                           Generation.
  311221................................  Wet Corn Milling..................           -342             0           0          315            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -27
  311313................................  Beet Sugar Manufacturing..........           -428             0           0          368            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -60
  311942................................  Spice and Extract Manufacturing...            -50             0           0           53            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            3
  312120................................  Breweries.........................            -66             0           0           53            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -13
  321219................................  Reconstituted Wood Product                    -24             0           0           26            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            3
                                           Manufacturing.
  322110................................  Pulp Mills........................            -39             0           0           26            0            0           0            0            0             0            0          -12
  322121................................  Paper (except Newsprint) Mills....           -531             0           0          289            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -242
  322122................................  Newsprint Mills...................           -856             0           0          631            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -225
  322130................................  Paperboard Mills..................           -543             0           0          421            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -123
  325211................................  Plastics Material and Resin                  -103             0           0          105            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            2
                                           Manufacturing.
  325611................................  Soap and Other Detergent                      -28             0           0           26            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -2
                                           Manufacturing.
  327310................................  Cement Manufacturing..............            -48             0           0           53            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            5
  333111b...............................  Farm Machinery and Equipment                  -29             0           0           26            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -3
                                           Manufacturing.
  336510b...............................  Railroad Rolling Stock                        -31             0           0           26            0            0           0            0            0             0            0           -5
                                           Manufacturing.
  611310................................  Colleges, Universities, and                  -471             0           0          237            0            0           0            0            0             0            0         -234
                                           Professional Schools.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total:
          General Industry Subtotal.........................................        -11,421             0           0       15,682            0            0           0       35,023          415       330,324            0      370,022
          Construction Subtotal.............................................              0             0           0            0            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            0
          Maritime Subtotal.................................................              0             0           0            0            0            0           0            0            0             0            0            0
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, All Industries.............................................        -11,421             0           0       15,682            0            0           0       35,023          415       330,324            0      370,022
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  

  
  VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
  
      This proposal contains no information collection requirements 
  subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
  (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 5 
  CFR part 1320. The PRA defines a collection of information as the 
  obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 
  disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or 
  for an agency regardless of form or format. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 
  While not affected by this rulemaking, the Department has cleared 
  information collections related to occupational exposure to beryllium 
  standards--general industry, 29 CFR 1910.1024; construction, 29 CFR 
  1926.1124; and shipyards, 29 CFR 1915.1024--under control number 1218-
  0267. The existing approved information collections are unchanged by 
  this rulemaking. The Department welcomes comments on this 
  determination.
  
  VIII. Federalism
  
      OSHA reviewed this proposal in accordance with the Executive Order 
  on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which 
  requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
  limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any 
  actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions 
  only when clear constitutional and statutory authority exists and the 
  problem is national in scope. E.O. 13132 provides for preemption of 
  State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such 
  preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
      Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., Congress 
  expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan 
  for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health 
  standards; States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan are 
  referred to as ``State Plan States'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational 
  safety and health standards developed by State Plan States must be at 
  least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and 
  places of employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these 
  requirements, State Plan States are free to develop and enforce under 
  State law their own requirements for safety and health standards.
      This proposal complies with E.O. 13132. In States without OSHA 
  approved State Plans, Congress expressly provides for OSHA standards to 
  preempt State occupational safety and health standards in areas 
  addressed by the Federal standards. In these States, this proposal 
  would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard 
  promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA approved State Plans, this 
  rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy options.
  
  IX. State Plan States
  
      When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
  amendment to an existing standard, the 28 States and U.S. Territories 
  with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and health plans 
  (``State Plan States'') must amend their standards to reflect the new 
  standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary, 
  e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is ``at 
  least as effective'' as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 
  1953.5(a). The State standard must be at least as effective as the 
  final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public 
  (State and local government employees) sectors, and must be completed 
  within six months of the promulgation date of the final Federal rule. 
  When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose 
  additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, 
  State Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although 
  the Agency may encourage them to do so. The 28 States and U.S. 
  Territories with OSHA approved occupational safety and health plans 
  are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 
  Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
  Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 
  Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming; Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New 
  Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA approved State Plans 
  that apply to State and local government employees only.
      This proposal would clarify requirements and address the unintended 
  consequences associated with provisions intended to address the effects 
  of dermal contact with beryllium as applied to trace beryllium. It 
  would impose no new requirements. Therefore, no new State standards 
  would be required beyond those already required by the promulgation of 
  the January 2017 beryllium standard for general industry. State-Plan 
  States may nonetheless choose to conform to these proposed revisions.
  
  X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  
      OSHA reviewed this proposal according to the Unfunded Mandates 
  Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive 
  Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in Section VI (``Economic 
  Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification'') of this preamble, 
  the Agency preliminarily determined that this proposal would not impose 
  significant additional costs on any private- or public-sector entity. 
  Accordingly, this proposal would not require significant additional 
  expenditures by either public or private employers.
      As noted above under Section IX (``State-Plan States''), the 
  Agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except 
  in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved 
  by the Agency. Consequently, this proposal does not meet the definition 
  of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see Section 421(5) of the 
  UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the 
  Agency certifies that this proposal would not mandate that State, 
  local, or Tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory 
  obligations. Further, OSHA concludes that the rule would not impose a 
  Federal mandate on the private sector in excess of $100 million 
  (adjusted annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one year.
  
  List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
  
      Beryllium, General industry, Health, Occupational safety and 
  health.
  
      Signed at Washington, DC, on April 27, 2018.
  Loren Sweatt,
  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
  
  Proposed Amendments to Standards
  
      For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 29 
  CFR part 1910 as follows:
  
  PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
  
  Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
  
  0
  1. The authority section for subpart Z of part 1910 continues to read 
  as follows:
  
      Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657) Secretary of Labor's Order 
  No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
  (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
  65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 
  3912), 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.

  
  
      Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat. 
  1901.
      Section 1910.1201 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
  
  0
  2. Amend Sec.  1910.1024 as follows:
  0
  a. Revise the definition of ``Beryllium work area'' in paragraph (b);
  0
  b. Add definitions for ``Contaminated with beryllium and beryllium-
  contaminated'' and ``Dermal contact with beryllium'' in alphabetical 
  order in paragraph (b);
  0
  c. Revise the definition of ``Emergency'' in paragraph (b);
  0
  d. Revise paragraph (f)(2);
  0
  e. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(ii);
  0
  f. Revise paragraphs (i)(3)(i)(B), (i)(3)(ii)(B), (i)(4)(i) and (ii); 
  and
  0
  g. Revise paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i) and (ii), and (j)(3).
      The revisions and additions read as follows:
  
  
  Sec.  1910.1024  Beryllium.
  
  * * * * *
      (b) * * *
      Beryllium work area means any work area:
      (i) Containing a process or operation that can release beryllium 
  and that involves material that contains at least 0.1 percent beryllium 
  by weight; and
      (ii) Where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, 
  exposed to airborne beryllium at any level or where there is the 
  potential for dermal contact with beryllium.
  * * * * *
      Contaminated with beryllium and beryllium-contaminated mean 
  contaminated with dust, fumes, mists, or solutions containing beryllium 
  in concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight.
      Dermal contact with beryllium means skin exposure to:
      (i) Soluble beryllium compounds containing beryllium in 
  concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight;
      (ii) Solutions containing beryllium in concentrations greater than 
  or equal to 0.1 percent by weight; or
      (iii) Dust, fumes, or mists containing beryllium in concentrations 
  greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight.
  * * * * *
      Emergency means any occurrence such as, but not limited to, 
  equipment failure, rupture of containers, or failure of control 
  equipment, which may or does result in an uncontrolled and unintended 
  release of airborne beryllium that presents a significant hazard.
  * * * * *
      (f) * * *
      (2) Engineering and work practice controls. (i) The employer must 
  use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain 
  employee airborne exposure to beryllium to or below the PEL and STEL, 
  unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not 
  feasible. Wherever the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to 
  reduce airborne exposure to or below the PELs with engineering and work 
  practice controls, the employer must implement and maintain engineering 
  and work practice controls to reduce airborne exposure to the lowest 
  levels feasible and supplement these controls using respiratory 
  protection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this standard.
      (ii) For each operation in a beryllium work area that releases 
  airborne beryllium, the employer must ensure that at least one of the 
  following is in place to reduce airborne exposure:
      (A) Material and/or process substitution;
      (B) Isolation, such as ventilated partial or full enclosures;
      (C) Local exhaust ventilation, such as at the points of operation, 
  material handling, and transfer; or
      (D) Process control, such as wet methods and automation.
      (iii) An employer is exempt from using the controls listed in 
  paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this standard to the extent that:
      (A) The employer can establish that such controls are not feasible; 
  or
      (B) The employer can demonstrate that airborne exposure is below 
  the action level, using no fewer than two representative personal 
  breathing zone samples taken at least 7 days apart, for each affected 
  operation.
  * * * * *
      (h) * * *
      (3) * * *
      (ii) The employer must ensure that beryllium is not removed from 
  beryllium-contaminated personal protective clothing and equipment by 
  blowing, shaking, or any other means that disperses beryllium into the 
  air.
  * * * * *
      (i) * * *
      (3) * * *
      (i) * * *
      (B) Employee's hair or body parts other than hands, face, and neck 
  can reasonably be expected to become contaminated with beryllium.
      (ii) * * *
      (B) The employee's hair or body parts other than hands, face, and 
  neck could reasonably have become contaminated with beryllium.
      (4) * * *
      (i) Beryllium-contaminated surfaces in eating and drinking areas 
  are as free as practicable of beryllium;
      (ii) No employees enter any eating or drinking area with beryllium-
  contaminated personal protective clothing or equipment unless, prior to 
  entry, surface beryllium has been removed from the clothing or 
  equipment by methods that do not disperse beryllium into the air or 
  onto an employee's body; and
  * * * * *
      (j) * * *
      (1) * * *
      (i) The employer must maintain all surfaces in beryllium work areas 
  and regulated areas as free as practicable of beryllium and in 
  accordance with the written exposure control plan required under 
  paragraph (f)(1) and the cleaning methods required under paragraph 
  (j)(2) of this standard; and
  * * * * *
      (2) * * *
      (i) The employer must ensure that surfaces in beryllium work areas 
  and regulated areas are cleaned by HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other 
  methods that minimize the likelihood and level of airborne exposure.
      (ii) The employer must not allow dry sweeping or brushing for 
  cleaning surfaces in beryllium work areas or regulated areas unless 
  HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood 
  and level of airborne exposure are not safe or effective.
  * * * * *
      (3) Disposal and recycling. For materials that contain beryllium in 
  concentrations of 0.1 percent by weight or more or are contaminated 
  with beryllium, the employer must ensure that:
      (i) Materials designated for disposal are disposed of in sealed, 
  impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled in 
  accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard; and
      (ii) Materials designated for recycling are cleaned to be as free 
  as practicable of surface beryllium contamination and labeled in 
  accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard, or place in sealed, 
  impermeable enclosures, such as bags or containers, that are labeled in 
  accordance with paragraph (m)(3) of this standard.
  * * * * *
  [FR Doc. 2018-09307 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
   BILLING CODE 4510-26-P