Powered by GoogleTranslate
Federal Registers - Table of Contents
• Publication Date: 06/27/2017
• Publication Type: Proposed Rule
• Fed Register #: 82:29182-29224
• Standard Number: 1911 ; 1915; 1926; 1915.34; 1926.57; 1915.1000; 1926.55; 1926.57(f)(5)(v); 1915.34(c)(3); 1910.94(a)(7) ; 1926.57(f); 1915.58(e) ; 1926.51(f)(1); 1926.57(f)(7); 1926.57(f)(3); 1910.5(c); 1910.1200 ; 1915.34; 1910.1024; 1915.1024; 1953.5(a); 1926.1124; 1910.5; 1915.34; 1911.10(a)
• Title: Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors


  [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
  [Proposed Rules]
  [Pages 29182-29224]
  From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
  [FR Doc No: 2017-12871]



  Vol. 82

  Tuesday,

  No. 122

  June 27, 2017

  Part II





   Department of Labor





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





  Occupational Safety and Health Administration





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





  29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926





   Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in
  Construction and Shipyard Sectors; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 /
  Proposed Rules

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

  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

  Occupational Safety and Health Administration

  29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926

  [Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870]
  RIN 1218-AB76


  Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in
  Construction and Shipyard Sectors

  AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
  Department of Labor.

  ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

  SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
  proposes to revoke the ancillary provisions for the construction and
  the shipyard sectors that OSHA adopted on January 9, 2017 but retain
  the new lower permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and
  the short term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for each sector.
  OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and construction
  standards without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
  This proposal does not affect the general industry beryllium standard
  published on January 9, 2017.

  DATES: Written comments. Written comments, including comments on the
  information collection determination described in Section VII of the
  preamble (OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), must
  be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 28, 2017.
      Informal public hearings. The Agency will schedule an informal
  public hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment
  period. The location and date of the hearing, procedures for interested
  parties to notify the Agency of their intention to participate, and
  procedures for participants to submit their testimony and documentary
  evidence will be announced in the Federal Register if a hearing is
  requested.

  ADDRESSES: Written comments. You may submit comments, identified by
  Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870, by any of the following methods:
      Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
  electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-
  Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
  electronic submissions. When uploading multiple attachments into
  Regulations.gov, please number all of your attachments because
  http://www.regulations.gov will not automatically number the attachments. This
  will be very useful in identifying all attachments in the beryllium
  rule. For example, Attachment 1_title of your document, Attachment 2_
  title of your document, Attachment 3_title of your document, etc.
  Specific instructions for uploading documents are found in the
  Frequently Asked Questions portion and the commenter check list on
  Regulations.gov.
      Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer
  than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
  1648.
      Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
  You may submit your comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
  OSHA-H005C-2006-0870, Room N-3653, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
  Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-2350
  (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). OSHA's Docket Office accepts
  deliveries (hand deliveries, express mail, and messenger/courier
  service) from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. e.t., weekdays.
      Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
  docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-H005C-2006-0870).
  All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
  placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
  online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you
  about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
  and birthdates.
      Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
  response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-H005C-
  2006-0870 at http://www.regulations.gov, or to the OSHA Docket Office
  at the address above. All comments and submissions are listed in the
  http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
  copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
  through that Web site. All comments and submissions are available for
  inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
      Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
  at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA
  Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
  Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
  1888. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant
  information, is also available at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
  inquiries, contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications,
  Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
  NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
  meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. For technical inquiries, contact: William
  Perry or Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-
  3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
  Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1955 or fax (202) 693-1678;
  email: ruskin.maureen@dol.gov.

  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble to this proposed rule on
  occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds follows this
  outline:

  I. Executive Summary and Regulatory Issues
  II. Pertinent Legal Authority
  III. Events Leading to the Proposal
  IV. Technological Feasibility Summary
  V. Preliminary Economic Analysis
  VI. Economic Feasibility and Regulatory Flexibility Certification
  VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
  VIII. Federalism
  IX. State-Plan States
  X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  XI. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
  XII. Environmental Impacts
  XIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
  XIV. Public Participation
  XV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposal
  Authority and Signature
  Amendments to Standards

  I. Executive Summary and Regulatory Issues

      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--for general industry, for
  shipyards, and for 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.
      On March 21, 2017 OSHA published a delay of the effective date for
  the final beryllium rule to May 20, 2017 in the Federal Register (82 FR
  14439). This action was based on comments received on OSHA's proposed
  delay of effective date for the final rule in the Federal Register (82
  FR 12318). OSHA proposed this delay in accordance with the January 20,
  2017 Presidential directive from the Assistant to the President and
  Chief of Staff, entitled "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" (82 FR
  8346 (1/24/17)) that directed agencies to consider further delaying the
  effective date for regulations beyond the initial 60-day period.
      After a further review of the comments received on the proposed
  extension, as well as a review of the applicability of existing OSHA
  standards, OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions
  applicable to the construction and shipyard sectors, but to retain the
  new lower PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and the STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for
  those sectors. In the final rule, OSHA reviewed the exposure data for
  abrasive blasting in construction and shipyards and welding in
  shipyards and determined that there is a significant risk of chronic
  beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer to workers in construction and
  shipyards based on the exposure levels observed. Because OSHA
  determined that there is significant risk of material impairment of
  health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, the Agency continues to
  believe that it is necessary to protect workers exposed at this level.
  However, OSHA is now reconsidering the need for ancillary provisions in
  the construction and shipyards sectors. OSHA has evidence that
  beryllium exposure in these sectors is limited to the following
  operations: Abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in
  shipyards, and welding in shipyards. OSHA has a number of standards
  already applicable to these operations, including ventilation (29 CFR
  1926.57) and mechanical paint removers (29 CFR 1915.34). In addition,
  this proposal provides stakeholders with an additional opportunity to
  offer comments on the protections needed for workers exposed to
  beryllium in the construction and shipyard sectors, including the need
  for the ancillary provisions in the January 9, 2017 construction and
  shipyard beryllium standards. This will give OSHA additional
  information as it further considers the January 9, 2017 final rule's
  provisions for these sectors.
      While the new beryllium rule went into effect on May 20, 2017,
  compliance obligations do not begin until March 12, 2018. Moreover,
  OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and construction
  standards without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
      OSHA requests feedback on issues associated with the proposed
  regulatory action and requests information that would help the Agency
  craft the final rule. The Agency welcomes comments concerning all
  aspects of this proposal. However, OSHA is especially interested in
  responses, supported by evidence and reasons, to the following
  questions:
      1. OSHA has proposed revoking the ancillary provisions for the
  construction and shipyard sectors while retaining the new (lower) PEL
  of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for those sectors. Does
  this provide adequate protection to the workers in construction and
  shipyard sectors considering the other standards that apply? Should
  OSHA keep any or all of the ancillary provisions of the January 9, 2017
  final rule for construction and shipyards? If so, which ones?
      2. In particular, what is the incremental benefit if OSHA keeps the
  medical surveillance requirements for construction and shipyards
  described in the January 9, 2017 final rule, but revokes the other
  ancillary provisions? Alternatively, should OSHA keep some of the
  medical surveillance requirements for construction and shipyards but
  not others? Which medical surveillance requirements are most
  appropriate for beryllium-exposed workers in these sectors, if any? For
  more information, see Regulatory Alternative #21a, PELs plus medical
  surveillance (lowering the PEL and requiring medical surveillance when
  exposed above the PEL for operations outside the scope of the proposed
  rule), in the 2015 NPRM (80 FR 47565 (8/7/15)). OSHA's estimates of the
  medical surveillance costs changed between the NPRM and final rule
  because of a change of the medical surveillance trigger from the action
  level to the PEL; updated exposure data and hire rates; and revised
  unit costs in response to comments and conversion from 2010 to 2015
  dollars.
      3. In addition to the proposal in this notice, OSHA is considering
  extending the compliance dates in the January 9, 2017 final rule by a
  year for the construction and shipyard standards. This would give
  affected employers additional time to come into compliance with its
  requirements, which could be warranted by the uncertainty created by
  this proposal.
      In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA analyzed the technological
  and economic feasibility of complying with the rule for the
  construction and shipyard sectors and found that the rule was
  technologically and economically feasible for these sectors. Since the
  changes we propose today will retain the new PELs and eliminate the
  ancillary provisions, these changes will not affect the feasibility
  findings. The technological and economic feasibility of the January 9,
  2017 final rule is established in the FEA, which is summarized in
  Sections IV and VI of this preamble.
      Table I-1, which is based on the material presented in the 2016 FEA
  with updated assumptions, provides OSHA's best estimate of the cost
  savings to shipyard and construction establishments in all affected
  application groups as a result of this proposal to remove all of the
  ancillary provision requirements in those sectors. OSHA is proposing to
  remove the following ancillary provisions: Exposure monitoring,
  regulated areas (and competent person in construction), a written
  exposure control plan, protective equipment and work clothing, hygiene
  areas and practices, housekeeping, medical surveillance, medical
  removal, and worker training. Note that, because OSHA is not proposing
  to change the January 9, 2017 PELs and STELs in this proposal, OSHA has
  not estimated any cost savings related to engineering controls or
  respirators. Note also that, although not a requirement in the January
  9, 2017 beryllium standards, OSHA estimated costs there for rule
  familiarization. Since some employers may have already incurred
  familiarization costs in reviewing those published standards, OSHA
  views them as sunk costs and has not included them in the estimated
  cost savings. Furthermore, OSHA has added some modest costs in this
  proposal to reflect the fact that construction and shipyard employers
  would be expected to devote some time becoming familiar with the
  revocation of the January 9, 2017 ancillary provisions.


   Table I-1--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
                                 Beryllium Proposal; Results Shown by Size Category
                                       [3 percent discount rate, 2016 dollars]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Very small
     Application group/NAICS            Industry        All establishments    Small entities      entities  (<20
                                                                               (SBA-defined)        Employees)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320.......................  Painting and Wall              $4,087,412          $3,445,984          $2,420,659
                                  Covering Contractors.
  238990.......................  All Other Specialty             3,787,418           2,916,925           1,998,054
                                  Trade Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a......................  Ship Building and               3,081,907             990,140             524,187
                                  Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Welding in Shipyards
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b......................  Ship Building and                  34,217              11,283               6,421
                                  Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal........  .....................           7,874,830           6,362,909           4,418,712
  Maritime Subtotal............  .....................           3,116,125           1,001,423             530,608
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries........  .....................          10,990,954           7,364,331           4,949,321
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
    mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
    do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

      The remainder of this preamble presents the legal requirements of
  the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) (Section II, Pertinent
  Legal Authority); a summary of the events leading to the proposal
  (Section III); the technological feasibility summary (Section IV); the
  preliminary economic analysis for the proposal (Section V); the
  preliminary economic feasibility findings and the regulatory
  flexibility certification for the proposal (Section VI); a summary of
  the analysis of this proposal under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
  (Section VII); analyses under various executive orders and a
  description of the implications for State-Plan States (Sections VIII-
  XIII); instructions for public participation (Section XIV); and the
  summary and explanation of OSHA's proposal to maintain the TWA PEL of
  0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ for operations in construction
  and shipyards while revoking the January 9, 2017 ancillary provisions
  for these sectors (Section XV).

  II. Pertinent Legal Authority

      The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
  ("the OSH Act" or "the Act"), 29 U.S.C. 651 et al., is "to assure
  so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and
  healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources." 29
  U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary
  of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards
  pursuant to notice and comment. See 29 U.S.C. 655(b).
      An occupational safety or health standard is a standard "which
  requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
  means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
  appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
  employment." 29 U.S.C. 652(8).
      The Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with
  toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as the January 9, 2017
  final rule regulating occupational exposure to beryllium,

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

  29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). The Supreme Court has held that before the
  Secretary can promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, he
  must make a threshold finding that significant risk is present and that
  such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. See
  Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607,
  641-42 (1980) (plurality opinion) ("Benzene"). Thus, section 6(b)(5)
  of the Act requires health standards to reduce significant risk to the
  extent feasible. See id.
      The Court further observed that what constitutes "significant
  risk" is "not a mathematical straitjacket" and must be "based
  largely on policy considerations." Id. at 655, 655 n.62. OSHA retains

  great discretion . . . under Section 3(8) [of the Act], especially
  in an area where scientific certainty is impossible. In the first
  instance, it is the agency itself that determines the existence of a
  "significant" risk . . . In making the difficult judgment as to
  what level of harm is unacceptable, the agency may rely on its own
  sound "considerations of policy" as well as hard factual data . .
  .

      United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1248 (D.C. Cir.
  1980) ("Lead I") (internal citations omitted). When evaluating such
  considerations, OSHA exercises its discretion and its "delegated power
  to make within certain limits decisions that Congress normally makes
  itself." Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 475
  (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, OSHA's discretionary authority under the
  Act is broad. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1230. Indeed, "[a] number of
  terms of the statute give OSHA almost unlimited discretion to devise
  means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal" of ensuring worker
  safety and health. Id. (citation omitted). Once OSHA makes its
  significant risk finding, the standard


  must be "reasonably necessary or appropriate" to reduce or eliminate
  that risk within the meaning of section 3(8) of the Act (29 U.S.C.
  652(8)) and Benzene (448 U.S. at 642). See Bldg. and Constr. Trades
  Dep't v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("Asbestos II").
  In choosing among regulatory alternatives, however, "[t]he
  determination that [one standard] is appropriate, as opposed to a
  marginally [more or less protective] standard, is a technical decision
  entrusted to the expertise of the agency." Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Mine
  Safety and Health Admin., 116 F.3d 520, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (analyzing
  a Mine Safety and Health Administration standard under the Benzene
  significant risk standard). Where there is significant risk below the
  PEL, OSHA should use its regulatory authority to impose additional
  requirements on employers when those requirements will result in a
  greater than de minimis incremental benefit to workers' health. See
  Asbestos II, 838 F.2d at 1274.
      The Act also authorizes the Secretary to "modify" or "revoke"
  any occupational safety or health standard. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). The
  Supreme Court has acknowledged that regulatory agencies do not
  establish rules of conduct to last forever, and agencies may revise
  their rules if supported by a reasoned analysis for the change. See
  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
  29, 42 (1983). "While the removal of a regulation may not entail the
  monetary expenditures and other costs of enacting a new standard, and
  accordingly, it may be easier for an agency to justify a deregulatory
  action, the direction in which an agency chooses to move does not alter
  the standard of judicial review established by law." Id. at 43.
      OSHA is required to set standards "on the basis of the best
  available evidence," 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), and its determinations are
  "conclusive" if supported by "substantial evidence in the record
  considered as a whole," 29 U.S.C. 655(f). As noted above, the Supreme
  Court, in Benzene, explained that OSHA must look to "a body of
  reputable scientific thought" in making its determinations, while
  noting that a reviewing court must "give OSHA some leeway where its
  findings must be made on the frontiers of scientific knowledge." 448
  U.S. at 656. When there is disputed scientific evidence in the record,
  OSHA must review the evidence on both sides and "reasonably resolve"
  the dispute. Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479,
  1500 (D.C. Cir. 1986). As the D.C. Circuit has noted, where "OSHA has
  the expertise we lack and it has exercised that expertise by carefully
  reviewing the scientific data," a dispute within the scientific
  community is not occasion for the reviewing court to take sides about
  which view is correct. Id.
      OSHA standards must be both technologically and economically
  feasible. See Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264. The Supreme Court has defined
  feasibility as "capable of being done." Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v.
  Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-10 (1981) ("Cotton Dust"). The courts have
  further clarified that a standard is technologically feasible if OSHA
  proves a reasonable possibility, "within the limits of the best
  available evidence, . . . that the typical firm will be able to develop
  and install engineering and work practice controls that can meet the
  PEL in most of its operations." Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272.
      With respect to economic feasibility, the courts have held that "a
  standard is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to or
  imperil the existence of the industry." Id. at 1265 (internal
  quotation marks and citations omitted). A court must examine the cost
  of compliance with an OSHA standard

  in relation to the financial health and profitability of the
  industry and the likely effect of such costs on unit consumer
  prices. . . . [T]he practical question is whether the standard
  threatens the competitive stability of an industry, . . . or whether
  any intra-industry or inter-industry discrimination in the standard
  might wreck such stability or lead to undue concentration.

  Id. (internal citations omitted). The courts have further observed that
  granting companies reasonable time to comply with new PELs may enhance
  economic feasibility. See id.
      Because section 6(b)(5) of the Act explicitly imposes the "to the
  extent feasible" limitation on the setting of health standards, OSHA
  is not permitted to use cost-benefit analysis to make its standards-
  setting decisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). An OSHA standard must be cost
  effective, which means that the protective measures it requires are the
  least costly of the available alternatives that achieve the same level
  of protection, but OSHA cannot choose an alternative that provides a
  lower level of protection because it is less costly. See Int'l Union,
  UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 655, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also Cotton Dust,
  452 U.S. at 514 n.32.

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

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

  III. Events Leading to the Proposal

      The first occupational exposure limit for beryllium was set in 1949
  by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which required that beryllium
  exposure in the workplaces under its jurisdiction be limited to 2
  [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), and 25 [mu]g/m\3\
  as a peak exposure never to be exceeded (Document ID 1323). These
  exposure limits were adopted by all AEC installations handling
  beryllium, and were binding on all AEC contractors involved in the
  handling of beryllium.
      In 1956, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
  published a Hygienic Guide which supported the AEC exposure limits. In
  1959, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
  (ACGIH[supreg]) also adopted a Threshold Limit Value (TLV[supreg]) of 2
  [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA (Document ID 0498). In 1970, the American
  National Standards Institute (ANSI) issued a national consensus
  standard for beryllium and beryllium compounds (ANSI Z37.29-1970). The
  standard set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for beryllium and
  beryllium compounds at 2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA; 5 [mu]g/m\3\ as
  an acceptable ceiling concentration; and 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as an acceptable
  maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling concentration for a maximum
  duration of 30 minutes in an 8-hour shift (Document ID 1303).
      In 1971, OSHA adopted, under Section 6(a) of the Occupational
  Safety and Health Act of 1970, and made applicable to general industry,
  the ANSI standard (Document ID 1303). Section 6(a) provided that in the
  first two years after the effective date of the Act, OSHA was to
  promulgate "start-up" standards, on an expedited basis and without
  public hearing or comment, based on national consensus or established
  Federal standards that improved employee safety or health. Pursuant to
  that authority, in 1971, OSHA promulgated approximately 425 PELs for
  air contaminants, including beryllium, derived principally from Federal
  standards applicable to government contractors under the Walsh-Healey
  Public Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. 35, and the Contract Work Hours and
  Safety Standards Act (commonly


  known as the Construction Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333. The Walsh-Healey
  Act and Construction Safety Act standards, in turn, had been adopted
  primarily from ACGIH[supreg]'s TLV[supreg]s as well as several from
  United States of America Standards Institute (USASI) (later the
  American National Standards Institute (ANSI)).
      The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
  issued a document entitled Criteria for a Recommended Standard:
  Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (Criteria Document) in June 1972
  with Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour
  TWA and 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as an acceptable maximum peak above the
  acceptable ceiling concentration for a maximum duration of 30 minutes
  in an 8-hour shift (Document ID 1324). OSHA reviewed the findings and
  recommendations contained in the Criteria Document along with the AEC
  control requirements for beryllium exposure. OSHA also considered
  existing data from animal and epidemiological studies, and studies of
  industrial processes of beryllium extraction, refinement, fabrication,
  and machining. In 1975, OSHA asked NIOSH to update the evaluation of
  the existing data pertaining to the carcinogenic potential of
  beryllium. In response to OSHA's request, the Director of NIOSH stated
  that, based on animal data and through all possible routes of exposure
  including inhalation, "beryllium in all likelihood represents a
  carcinogenic risk to man."
      In October 1975, OSHA proposed a new beryllium standard for all
  industries based on information from studies finding that beryllium
  caused cancer in animals (40 FR 48814 (10/17/75)). Adoption of this
  proposal would have lowered the 8-hour TWA exposure limit from 2 [mu]g/
  m\3\ to 1 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition, the proposal included ancillary
  provisions for such topics as exposure monitoring, hygiene facilities,
  medical surveillance, and training related to the health hazards from
  beryllium exposure. The rulemaking was never completed.
      In 1977, NIOSH recommended an exposure limit of 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and
  identified beryllium as a potential occupational carcinogen. In
  December 1998, ACGIH published a Notice of Intended Change for its
  beryllium exposure limit. The notice proposed a lower TLV of 0.2 [mu]g/
  m\3\ over an 8-hour TWA based on evidence of CBD and sensitization in
  exposed workers. Then in 2009, ACGIH adopted a revised TLV for
  beryllium that lowered the 8-hour TWA to 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ (inhalable)
  (see Document ID 1755, Tr. 136).
      In 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Chronic Beryllium
  Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) Final Rule for employees exposed to
  beryllium in its facilities (Document ID 1323). The DOE rule set an
  action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, and adopted OSHA's PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\
  or any more stringent PEL OSHA might adopt in the future (10 CFR
  850.22; 64 FR 68873 and 68906, Dec. 8, 1999).
      Also in 1999, OSHA was petitioned by the Paper, Allied-Industrial,
  Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) (Document ID
  0069) and by Dr. Lee Newman and Ms. Margaret Mroz, from the National
  Jewish Health (NJH) (Document ID 0069), to promulgate an Emergency
  Temporary Standard (ETS) for beryllium in the workplace. In 2001, OSHA
  was petitioned for an ETS by Public Citizen Health Research Group and
  again by PACE (Document ID 0069). In order to promulgate an ETS, the
  Secretary of Labor must prove (1) that employees are exposed to grave
  danger from exposure to a hazard, and (2) that such an emergency
  standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger (29 U.S.C.
  655(c) [section 6(c)]). The burden of proof is on the Department and
  because of the difficulty of meeting this burden, the Department
  usually proceeds when appropriate with ordinary notice and comment
  [section 6(b)] rulemaking rather than a section 6(c) ETS. Thus, instead
  of granting the ETS requests, OSHA instructed staff to further collect
  and analyze research regarding the harmful effects of beryllium in
  preparation for possible section 6(b) rulemaking.
      On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information
  (RFI) for "Occupational Exposure to Beryllium" (Document ID 1242).
  The RFI contained questions on employee exposure, health effects, risk
  assessment, exposure assessment and monitoring methods, control
  measures and technological feasibility, training, medical surveillance,
  and impact on small business entities. In the RFI, OSHA expressed
  concerns about health effects such as chronic beryllium disease (CBD),
  lung cancer, and beryllium sensitization. OSHA pointed to studies
  indicating that even short-term exposures below OSHA's PEL of 2 [mu]g/
  m\3\ could lead to CBD. The RFI also cited studies describing the
  relationship between beryllium sensitization and CBD (67 FR at 70708).
  In addition, OSHA stated that beryllium had been identified as a
  carcinogen by organizations such as NIOSH, the International Agency for
  Research on Cancer (IARC), and the Environmental Protection Agency
  (EPA); and cancer had been evidenced in animal studies (67 FR at
  70709).
      On November 15, 2007, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy
  Review Panel to review a draft proposed standard for occupational
  exposure to beryllium. OSHA convened this panel under Section 609(b) of
  the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
  Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
  seq.). The Panel included representatives from OSHA, the Solicitor's
  Office of the Department of Labor, the Office of Advocacy within the
  Small Business Administration, and the Office of Information and
  Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Small Entity
  Representatives (SERs) made oral and written comments on the draft rule
  and submitted them to the panel.
      The SBREFA Panel issued a report on January 15, 2008 which included
  the SERs' comments. SERs expressed concerns about the impact of the
  ancillary requirements such as exposure monitoring and medical
  surveillance. Their comments addressed potential costs associated with
  compliance with the draft standard, and possible impacts of the
  standard on market conditions, among other issues. In addition, many
  SERs sought clarification of some of the ancillary requirements such as
  the meaning of "routine" contact or "contaminated surfaces."
      OSHA then developed a draft preliminary beryllium health effects
  evaluation (Document ID 1271) and a draft preliminary beryllium risk
  assessment (Document ID 1272), and in 2010, OSHA hired a contractor to
  oversee an independent scientific peer review of these documents. The
  contractor identified experts familiar with beryllium health effects
  research and ensured that these experts had no conflict of interest or
  apparent bias in performing the review. The contractor selected five
  experts with expertise in such areas as pulmonary and occupational
  medicine, CBD, beryllium sensitization, the Beryllium Lymphocyte
  Proliferation Test (BeLPT), beryllium toxicity and carcinogenicity, and
  medical surveillance. Other areas of expertise included animal
  modeling, occupational epidemiology, biostatistics, risk and exposure
  assessment, exposure-response modeling, beryllium exposure assessment,
  industrial hygiene, and occupational/environmental health engineering.
      Regarding the preliminary health effects evaluation, the peer
  reviewers


  concluded that the health effect studies were described accurately and
  in sufficient detail, and OSHA's conclusions based on the studies were
  reasonable (Document ID 1210). The reviewers agreed that the OSHA
  document covered the significant health endpoints related to
  occupational beryllium exposure. Peer reviewers considered the
  preliminary conclusions regarding beryllium sensitization and CBD to be
  reasonable and well presented in the draft health evaluation section.
  All reviewers agreed that the scientific evidence supports
  sensitization as a necessary condition in the development of CBD. In
  response to reviewers' comments, OSHA made revisions to more clearly
  describe certain sections of the health effects evaluation. In
  addition, OSHA expanded its discussion regarding the BeLPT.
      Regarding the preliminary risk assessment, the peer reviewers were
  highly supportive of OSHA's approach and major conclusions (Document ID
  1210). The peer reviewers stated that the key studies were appropriate
  and their selection clearly explained in the document. They regarded
  the preliminary analysis of these studies to be reasonable and
  scientifically sound. The reviewers supported OSHA's conclusion that
  substantial risk of sensitization and CBD were observed in facilities
  where the highest exposure-generating processes had median full-shift
  exposures around 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher, and that the greatest
  reduction in risk was achieved when exposures for all processes were
  lowered to 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or below.
      In February 2012, OSHA received for consideration a draft
  recommended standard for beryllium (Materion and USW, 2012, Document ID
  0754). This draft standard was the product of a joint effort between
  two stakeholders: Materion Corporation, a leading producer of beryllium
  and beryllium products in the United States, and the United
  Steelworkers, an international labor union representing workers who
  manufacture beryllium alloys and beryllium-containing products in a
  number of industries. They sought to craft an OSHA-like model beryllium
  standard that would have support from both labor and industry. OSHA
  considered this draft standard along with other information submitted
  during the development of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
  beryllium published in 2015. As described in greater detail in the
  Introduction to the Summary and Explanation of the final rule, there
  was substantial agreement between the submitted joint draft standard
  and the OSHA proposed standard.
      On August 7, 2015, OSHA published its NPRM in the Federal Register
  (80 FR 47565 (8/7/15)). In the NPRM, OSHA made a preliminary
  determination that employees exposed to beryllium and beryllium
  compounds at the preceding PEL face a significant risk to their health
  and that promulgating the proposed standard would substantially reduce
  that risk. The NPRM (Section XVIII) also responded to the SBREFA Panel
  recommendations, which OSHA carefully considered, and clarified the
  requirements about which SERs expressed confusion. OSHA also discussed
  the regulatory alternatives recommended by the SBREFA Panel in NPRM,
  Section XVIII, and in the PEA (Document ID 0426).
      The NPRM invited interested stakeholders to submit comments on a
  variety of issues and indicated that OSHA would schedule a public
  hearing upon request. Commenters submitted information and suggestions
  on a variety of topics. In addition, in response to a request from the
  Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, OSHA scheduled an informal public
  hearing on the proposed rule. OSHA invited interested persons to
  participate by providing oral testimony and documentary evidence at the
  hearing. OSHA also welcomed presentation of data and documentary
  evidence that would provide the Agency with evidence to use in
  determining whether to develop a final rule.
      The public hearing was held in Washington, DC on March 21 and 22,
  2016. Administrative Law Judge William Colwell presided over the
  hearing. OSHA heard testimony from several organizations, such as
  public health groups, the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, other industry
  representatives, and labor unions. Following the hearing, participants
  who had filed notices of intent to appear were allowed 30 days--until
  April 21, 2016--to submit additional evidence and data, and an
  additional 15 days--until May 6, 2016--to submit final briefs,
  arguments, and summations (Document ID 1756, Tr. 326). In all, the OSHA
  rulemaking record contained over 1,900 documents, including all the
  studies OSHA relied on in its preliminary health effects and risk
  assessment analyses, the hearing transcript and submitted testimonies,
  the joint Materion-USW draft proposed standard, and the pre- and post-
  hearing comments and briefs.
      In 2016, in an action parallel to OSHA's rulemaking, DOE proposed
  to update its action level to 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ (81 FR 36704-36759, June
  7, 2016). The DOE action level triggers workplace precautions and
  control measures such as periodic monitoring, exposure reduction or
  minimization, regulated areas, hygiene facilities and practices,
  respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, and warning
  signs (Document ID 1323; 10 CFR 850.23(b)). Unlike OSHA's PEL, however,
  DOE's selection of an action level is not required to meet statutory
  requirements of technological and economic feasibility.
      On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule Occupational
  Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the Federal Register
  (82:2470-2757 (1/9/17)). Based on the entire rulemaking record, OSHA
  concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and beryllium compounds
  at the preceding PELs were at significant risk of material impairment
  of health, specifically chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. OSHA
  concluded that the new PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ reduced this significant
  risk to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically
  feasible. The final rule also included ancillary provisions to protect
  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.
      In a change from the NPRM, OSHA included the construction and
  shipyard industries in the beryllium final rule. OSHA's decision was
  based on supportive testimony and comments from stakeholders along with
  exposure data in the record indicating the potential for exposures
  above the action level for abrasive blasting using coal and copper
  slags (Document ID 1756; 1782; 1790). OSHA issued three separate
  standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards in an
  attempt to tailor requirements to each sector. The final rule also
  included other changes from the NPRM that were based on OSHA's analysis
  of the record. These included changes in the scope of the standards,
  exposure assessment requirements, beryllium work areas, personal
  protective clothing and equipment, medical surveillance requirements,
  and compliance dates.
      On February 1, 2017, OSHA published a delay of the effective date
  for the final rule in the Federal Register (82:8901 (2/1/17)). OSHA
  implemented this action based on the Presidential directive as
  expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to
  the President and Chief of Staff, entitled "Regulatory Freeze

  Pending Review" (82 FR 8346 (January 24, 2017)). That memorandum
  directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily
  postpone for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective
  dates of all regulations that had been published in the Federal
  Register but had not yet taken effect. OSHA therefore delayed the
  effective date for the final rule Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
  and Beryllium Compounds to March 21, 2017.
      On March 2, 2017, OSHA published a proposed delay of effective date
  for the final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 12318 (3/2/17)). OSHA
  proposed this further delay in accordance with the January 20, 2017
  Presidential directive from the Assistant to the President and Chief of
  Staff, entitled "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" (82 FR 8346
  (January 24, 2017)) that directed agencies to consider further delaying
  the effective date for regulations beyond the initial 60-day period.
  OSHA preliminarily determined that it would be appropriate to further
  delay the effective date of the final rule to give the new
  administration time to review questions of fact, law, and policy raised
  therein. OSHA therefore proposed extending the effective date to May
  20, 2017 and sought comment on its proposal to extend the effective
  date by an additional 60 days. OSHA received twenty-five unique
  comments on this proposal with many of the commenters supporting the
  delay considering the ongoing transition to a new administration. Some
  of these commenters also requested that OSHA further review the impact
  of the rule on entities that would be affected by changes from the
  proposed beryllium rule. Several commenters opposed the proposed delay
  of the effective date.
      On March 21, 2017, after considering all the comments received,
  OSHA finalized the delay of the effective date for the final beryllium
  rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 14439 (2/21/17)). This action
  extended the effective date to May 20, 2017 and provided OSHA with
  additional time to conduct a further review of the final rule,
  including consideration of concerns raised by interested parties. After
  careful consideration, and for reasons explained fully in the Summary
  and Explanation of this preamble, OSHA is proposing to revoke the
  ancillary provisions for both construction and shipyards adopted in the
  January 9, 2017 final rule and retain the new lower PEL of 0.2
  [micro]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for those sectors (see Section
  XV, Summary and Explanation of the Proposal).

  IV. Technological Feasibility Summary

  Exposure Profile

      This section summarizes the basis for OSHA's technological
  feasibility findings made in the 2016 Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for
  the January 9, 2017 beryllium final rule (see Docket ID 2042, FEA
  Chapter IV--Technological Feasibility). It is presented here for
  informational purposes only. The information in this section is drawn
  entirely from the 2016 FEA and contains no new information or
  assessment.
  Abrasive Blasting in Construction and Shipyards
      The primary abrasive blasting job categories include the abrasive
  blasting operator (blaster) and pot tender (blaster's helper or
  assistant) during open blasting projects. Support personnel such as pot
  tenders or abrasive media cleanup workers might also be employed to
  clean up (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) and recycle spent abrasive
  and to set up, dismantle, and move containment systems and supplies
  (NIOSH, 1976, Document ID 0779; NIOSH, 1993, 0777; NIOSH, 1995, 0773;
  NIOSH, 2007, 0770; Flynn and Susi, 2004, 1608; Meeker et al., 2005,
  0699).
      Section 15 of Chapter IV of the 2016 Final Economic Analysis (FEA)
  for the January 9, 2017 final beryllium rule included a detailed
  discussion of exposure data and analysis for the development of the
  exposure profile for workers in abrasive blasting operations. Because
  OSHA addressed general industry abrasive blasting operations in other
  general industry sections where appropriate, such as in the nonferrous
  foundries industry, the exposure profile in Section 15 addressed only
  exposure data from construction and shipyard tasks. The exposure
  profile for abrasive blasters, pot tenders/helpers, and abrasive media
  cleanup workers was based on two National Institute for Occupational
  Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluations of beryllium exposure from
  abrasive blasting with coal slag, unpublished sampling results for
  abrasive blasting operations from four U.S. shipyards, and data
  submitted by the U.S. Navy (NIOSH, 1983, Document ID 0696; NIOSH, 2007,
  0770; OSHA, 2005, 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, 0145).

                                                 Table IV.1--Exposure Profile for Abrasive Blasting Workers
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of full-shift PBZ sample results in range  ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Total number
                                                 <0.1       >=0.1 to <=0.2   >0.2 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0       >2.0         of samples
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasters.......................              45              38              22               7               8              28             148
                                                     30.4%           25.7%           14.8%            4.7%            5.4%           18.9%            100%
  Pot Tender..............................               9               7               0               0               0               0              16
                                                     56.2%           43.8%              0%              0%              0%              0%            100%
  Cleanup.................................              20               8               0               0               1               1              30
                                                     66.6%           26.7%              0%              0%            3.3%            3.3%            100%
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..............................              74              53              22               7               9              29             194
                                                     38.1%           27.3%           11.2%            3.6%            4.6%             15%            100%
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sources: Document ID 0145; OSHA 2005, Document ID 1166; NIOSH 1983, 0696; NIOSH 2007. 0770.
  Notes: Sample results are expressed as eight-hour time-weighted averages and include sampling durations of 240 minutes or longer.
  Non-detected shipyard results are incorporated into the exposure profile by assigning the detection limit value to each result reported as less than the
    sample limit of detection.
  Excludes four results where garnet was used as the abrasive due to high nondetectable reporting limits.


  Welding in Shipyards
      Similar to the profile for abrasive blasting activities, OSHA used
  exposure data from the 2016 FEA to develop the exposure profile for
  welding in shipyards. OSHA used the exposure data from Chapter IV-10
  Appendices 2 and 3 and combined the aluminum base metal and non-
  aluminum or unknown base material data. OSHA removed shorter duration
  samples that appeared in Appendix 3 of FEA Chapter IV-10. Seven
  maritime welding samples from Appendix 3, Table IV-10.6 with sampling
  durations of 240 minutes or greater were used in this profile to
  represent the 8-hour TWA samples.

                                              IV.2--Welding in Shipyards--Beryllium 8-Hour TWA Exposure Profile
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of beryllium samples in range ([mu]g/m\3\) and percent of total in range
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Range                            <0.1      >0.1 to <=0.2   >0.2 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0     >2.0        Total
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aluminum Base Material Percent......................           4               0               0               2               1           0           7
                                                               57%              0%              0%           28.6%           14.3%          0%        100%
  Base Material Not Aluminum or Unknown Percent.......         123               2               0               2               0           0         127
                                                             96.9%           21.6%              0%            1.6%              0%          0%        100%
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..........................................         127               2               0               4               1           0         134
                                                             94.8%            1.5%              0%            3.0%            0.7%          0%        100%
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sources: OSHA Shipyards, 2005, Document ID 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, Document ID 0145.
  Beryllium samples below the limit of detection are recast as 0 [mu]g/m\3\ to reflect likely absence of beryllium in the work materials.
  Data includes samples collected over periods of 240 minutes or longer, to avoid samples with elevated limits of detection that cannot be meaningfully
    interpreted.

  Technological Feasibility Determination

      Overall, based on the information discussed in Chapter IV of Final
  Economic Analysis of the January 9, 2017 final beryllium rule, OSHA
  determined that the majority of the exposures in construction and
  shipyards are either already at or below the new final PEL, or can be
  adequately controlled to levels below the final PEL through the
  implementation of additional engineering and work practice controls for
  most operations most of the time. The one exception is that OSHA
  determined that workers who perform open-air abrasive blasting using
  mineral grit (i.e., coal slag) will routinely be exposed to levels
  above the final PEL even after the installation of feasible engineering
  and work practice controls, and therefore, these workers will also be
  required to wear respiratory protection. Therefore, OSHA concluded in
  the January 9, 2017 final rule that the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ is
  technologically feasible in abrasive blasting in construction and
  shipyards and in welding in shipyards.

  V. Preliminary Economic Analysis

  A. Introduction

      This Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related
  to the profile of affected application groups, establishments, and
  employees, the cost savings, and the health effects of OSHA's proposal
  to revoke both the construction and shipyard ancillary provisions and
  make no changes to the January 9, 2017 final rule's PEL and STEL for
  the shipyard and construction industries.
      The proposed actions are not "economically significant regulatory
  actions" under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, nor are they "major
  rules" under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
  Neither the benefits nor the costs of these proposed actions exceed
  $100 million. In addition, they do not meet any of the other criteria
  specified by UMRA for a significant regulatory action or the
  Congressional Review Act for a major rule. However, these actions have
  been determined to be "significant" under Executive Order 12866.
      Under this proposal, employers in shipyards and construction would
  no longer be required to implement the ancillary provisions adopted by
  the January 9, 2017 final rule. The nine ancillary provisions being
  removed by this proposal are: (1) Assess employees' exposure to
  airborne beryllium, (2) establish regulated areas or a competent
  person, (3) develop a written exposure control plan, (4) provide
  personal protective work clothing and equipment, (5) establish hygiene
  areas and practices, (6) implement housekeeping measures, (7) provide
  medical surveillance, (8) provide medical removal for employees who
  have developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium
  sensitization, and (9) provide appropriate training. OSHA assumes that
  these employers have already incurred the costs of familiarizing
  themselves with the ancillary provisions in the final rule. In
  addition, the proposal would retain the new PEL and STEL through
  revisions of the Z Table in 29 CFR 1915.1000 in shipyards and Appendix
  A to 29 CFR 1926.55 in construction. The changes to these tables are a
  technical correction, given the proposed changes, and will not affect
  the PEL and STEL requirements of the final rule. While OSHA still
  welcomes comment on the applicability of existing standards to the
  operations covered by this proposal, this PEA provides OSHA's
  preliminary assessment of how those standards impact the costs,
  benefits, and baseline compliance associated with the beryllium rule.
      This Introduction to the PEA is followed by:

   Section B: Profile of Affected Application Groups,
  Establishments, and Employees
   Section C: Cost Savings
   Section D: Health Benefits

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

  Introduction
      In this section, OSHA presents the preliminary profile of
  industries affected by this proposal to revoke the ancillary provisions
  for the shipyard and construction sectors (82 FR 2470-2757, 1/9/2017)
  while retaining the revised PEL and STEL for those sectors. The profile
  data in this section are drawn from the industry profiles in Chapter
  III and exposure profiles and data in Chapter IV of the Final Economic
  Analysis supporting the new beryllium standards ("2016 FEA"; Document
  ID 2042).
      As a first step, OSHA identifies the North American Industrial
  Classification System (NAICS) industries, both in the shipyard and
  construction sectors, with potential

  worker exposure to beryllium. Next, OSHA provides statistical
  information on the affected industries, including the number of
  affected entities and establishments, the number of workers whose
  exposure to beryllium could result in disease or death ("at-risk
  workers"), and the average revenue and profits for affected entities
  and establishments by six-digit NAICS industry.\1\ This information is
  provided for each affected industry as a whole, as well as for small
  entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and
  for "very small" entities, defined by OSHA as those with fewer than
  20 employees, in each affected industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \1\ The Census Bureau defines an establishment as a single
  physical location at which business is conducted or services or
  industrial operations are performed. The Census Bureau defines a
  business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one
  or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that
  are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the
  establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. For each
  multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within
  a state will be counted as one firm; the firm employment and annual
  payroll are summed from the associated establishments. (U.S. Census
  Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, Glossary, 2017, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/about/glossary.html (Accessed
  March 3, 2017).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      For each industry sector identified, the Agency describes the uses
  of beryllium and estimates the number of establishments and employees
  that may be affected by this rulemaking. Employee exposure to beryllium
  can also occur as a result of certain processes (such as welding) that
  are found in many industries. This analysis will use the term
  "application group" to refer to a cross-industry group with a common
  process.
      Beryllium is rarely used by all establishments in any particular
  industry because of its unique properties and relatively high cost. In
  Chapter III of the 2016 FEA, OSHA described each application group;
  identified the processes and occupations with beryllium exposure,
  including available sampling exposure measurements; and explained how
  OSHA estimated the number of establishments working with beryllium and
  the number of employees exposed to beryllium. Those estimates and the
  new exposure profile for abrasive blasting in construction and
  shipyards and welding in shipyards are presented in this preamble,
  along with a brief description of the application groups and an
  explanation of the derivation of the new exposure profiles. For
  additional information about these data and the application groups,
  please see Chapter III of the 2016 FEA.\2\ Finally, the Agency
  discusses wage data, the hire rate, and current industry practices.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \2\ OSHA contractor Eastern Research Group (ERG) provided
  support for the 2016 FEA. References to ERG's analytical work appear
  throughout this PEA.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      All costs are estimated in 2016 dollars. Costs reported in 2016
  dollars were applied directly in this PEA; wage data were updated to
  2016 dollars using BLS data; all other costs reported for years earlier
  than 2016 were updated to 2016 dollars using the GDP implicit price
  deflator (OSHA, 2017).
  Affected Application Groups
      OSHA's 2016 FEA identified one affected application group in the
  construction sector and two application groups in the shipyard sector.
  Both the shipyard and construction sectors have employees in the
  abrasive blasting application group, and the shipyard sector has
  employees in the welding application group.
      In the following sections, OSHA describes the application groups in
  construction and shipyards that will be affected by this proposal.
  Abrasive Blasting
      Abrasive blasting involves the use of hand-held or automatic
  equipment to direct a stream of abrasive material at high speed against
  a surface to clean, abrade, etch, or otherwise change the original
  appearance or condition of the surface (WorkSafe, 2000, Document ID
  0692). Surfaces commonly treated by abrasive blasting techniques
  include iron, steel, aluminum, brass, copper, glass, masonry (brick,
  concrete, stone, etc.), sand castings, plastic, and wood (NIOSH, 1976,
  Document ID 0779). In construction and shipyards, abrasive blasting is
  primarily used for two purposes:
       Cleaning surfaces by removing unwanted paint, rust, scale,
  dirt, salts, grease, and flux in preparation for painting, anodizing,
  welding, or other processes requiring a clean surface.
       Producing a desired matte or decorative finish.
      Abrasive blasting systems generally include an abrasive container
  or blasting pot, a propelling device, and an abrasive blasting nozzle.
  The three main propelling methods are air pressure, water pressure, and
  centrifugal force provided by the use of wheels. Air blasting systems
  use compressed air to propel the abrasive (dry blasting), water
  blasting systems use either compressed air (wet blasting) or high
  pressure water (hydroblasting), and centrifugal wheel systems use
  centrifugal and inertial forces (EPA, 1997, Document ID 0784).
      Abrasive blasting can generate large quantities of dust that
  contains a variety of metals and toxic air contaminants. Workers can
  have exposures to multiple air contaminants from both the abrasive and
  the surface being blasted. The source of the air contaminants includes
  the base material being blasted, the surface coating(s) being removed,
  the abrasive being used, and any abrasive contamination from previous
  blasting operations (Burgess 1991, Document ID 0907). Potential air
  contaminants that might be associated with abrasive blasting and their
  sources are listed in Table IV.65 in Chapter IV of the FEA in support
  of the new beryllium standards.
  Abrasives
      A number of different types of abrasives containing beryllium in
  trace amounts can be used for blasting media depending on the
  application. The most commonly used abrasives in the construction
  industry (e.g., to etch the surfaces of outdoor structures, such as
  bridges, prior to painting) include coal slag and steel grit (Meeker et
  al., 2006, Document ID 0698). Copper slag produced as by-product at
  copper smelters can also be used as an abrasive. Shipyards are large
  users of mineral slag abrasives. In a survey of 26 U.S. shipyards and
  boatyards about abrasive media usage conducted for the Navy, the use of
  coal slag abrasives accounted for 68 percent and copper slag accounted
  for 20 percent (NSRP, 1999, Document ID 0767). Workers who perform
  abrasive blasting using either coal or copper slag abrasives are
  potentially exposed to beryllium (Greskevitch, 2000, Document ID 0701).
  OSHA requests updates on this assessment of commonly used abrasive
  blasting media in construction and shipyards.
  Affected Job Categories
      Abrasive blasting is mainly used in construction and shipyard
  operations by painting contractors and welders. (NIOSH, 1976, Document
  ID 0779).
      The primary abrasive blasting job categories in construction and
  shipyards include the abrasive blasting operator (blaster) and the pot
  tender. Support personnel (cleanup helper) might also be employed to
  clean up (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) and recycle spent abrasive,
  and to set up, dismantle, and move containment systems and supplies
  (NIOSH, 1995, Document ID 0773).
      As explained in its 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that 80 percent of all
  shipyard blasting operations and 75 percent of construction blasting
  operations generate potential beryllium exposures.


  OSHA has maintained the same assumption here and invites comment on
  these estimates.
      As was estimated in OSHA's industry profile for the 2016 FEA, for
  this PEA OSHA estimated there was one pot tender for each at-risk
  abrasive blaster and one abrasive media cleanup worker for every two
  abrasive blasters. The Agency invites comment on these estimates.
  Final Estimate of Populations at Risk in Abrasive Blasting
      In the 2016 FEA, OSHA developed final estimates of the numbers of
  workers who perform abrasive blasting. These at-risk populations
  include workers in the construction sector engaged in blasting building
  exteriors or blasting ancillary to painting of bridges, tunnels, and
  related highways; ships; and other non-building construction. Shipyard
  workers might perform blasting as part of ship surface cleaning and
  preparation prior to painting or other surface coating. In the 2016
  FEA, based on the BLS description of broad occupational
  classifications, OSHA's estimates grouped these workers in the
  categories "painters, construction, and maintenance" or "painters,
  transportation equipment." \3\ The same grouping is applied in this
  PEA.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \3\ In the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook
  Handbook (BLS, 2017b), the description of the duties of construction
  and maintenance painters includes the following: A few painters--
  mainly industrial--use special safety equipment. For example,
  painting in confined spaces, such as the inside of a large storage
  tank, requires workers to wear self-contained suits to avoid
  inhaling toxic fumes. On some projects they may operate abrasive
  blasters to remove old coatings, which may require the use of
  additional clothing and protective eyewear. (See https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/painters-construction-and-maintenance.htm#tab-2, accessed April 5, 2017.)
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Below in Tables V-1 and V-2, OSHA presents its estimate of affected
  blasters and blasting support personnel in construction and shipyards;
  this estimate, reported in the 2016 FEA, is now the Agency's
  preliminary estimate for this NPRM. OSHA requests public comment on the
  estimate as well as the methodology, described in Chapter III of the
  2016 FEA, for estimating affected abrasive blasters and abrasive
  blasting support personnel in construction and shipyards.

    Table V-1--Preliminary Profile of Establishments and Employees in Abrasive Blasting-Construction Affected by
                                  OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action on Beryllium
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Industry/job                                          Affected        Affected
            NAICS                  category        Establishments     Employees     establishments     employees
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320...................  Painting and Wall             31,376         163,073            1,090           4,360
                              Covering
                              Contractors.
                             Abrasive Blaster...  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,744
                             Pot Tender.........  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,744
                             Cleanup............  ...............  ..............  ...............             872
  238990...................  All Other Specialty           29,072         193,631            1,010           4,040
                              Trade Contractors.
                             Abrasive Blaster...  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,616
                             Pot Tender.........  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,616
                             Cleanup............  ...............  ..............  ...............             808
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................  ...................           60,448         356,704            2,100           8,400
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Data in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; US DOL, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis
    (2017).


  Table V-2--Preliminary Profile of Establishments and Employees in Abrasive Blasting-Shipyards Affected by OSHA's
                                      Proposed Deregulatory Action on Beryllium
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Affected        Affected
            NAICS                  Industry        Establishments     Employees     establishments     employees
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a..................  Ship Building and                689         108,311              689           3,060
                              Repairing.
                             Abrasive Blaster...  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,224
                             Pot Tender.........  ...............  ..............  ...............           1,224
                             Cleanup............  ...............  ..............  ...............             612
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................  ...................              689         108,311              689           3,060
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Data in columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory
    Analysis (2017).

  Welding
      Beryllium exposures can occur in arc and gas welding operations
  when welding on base materials containing beryllium and when using
  equipment with electrodes that include beryllium (hereafter generally
  referred to simply as "welding"). Note that "gas welding" in this
  context also involves use of electrodes; the gas used is to protect the
  weld from the atmosphere.
      Beryllium exposures during welding are not common and, when
  observed, are low (see Chapter IV: Section 10 of the 2016 FEA in
  support of the new beryllium standards for an extended discussion of
  welding). For this preliminary profile, only arc and gas welding would
  be affected by the proposed deregulatory action.\4\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \4\ The other common type of welding, resistance welding, does
  not typically generate beryllium exposure.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The principal area of welding exposures is among workers welding
  beryllium or beryllium-alloy products (see Chapter IV: Section 10 of
  the FEA in support of the new beryllium standards).
  Welding in Shipyards
      In its 2016 FEA, OSHA included NAICS 336611: Ship Building and
  Repairing, in the set of industries in the Welding application group
  affected by the final rule. The number of establishments and employees
  in this shipyard industry affected by the final


  rule, and therefore affected by this proposal, is displayed in Table V-
  3. As shown in the table, based on 2015 BLS Occupational Employment
  Statistics data, OSHA estimates that 28 percent of establishments in
  NAICS 336611: Ship Building and Repairing conduct arc and gas welding.
  Based on analysis by ERG of customer summary data submitted in a
  comment by Materion, OSHA further estimates that 3.4 percent of these
  establishments weld beryllium or beryllium alloy products (ERG, 2015,
  Document ID 0385, Workbook #8; Kolanz, 2001, Document ID 0091).
      OSHA requests public comment on the estimates shown in Table V-3.

               Table V-3--Preliminary Profile of Establishments and Employees in Shipyards (Ship Building and Repairing) Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action on Beryllium
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Percent of                                             Number of
                                                                            Total                          establishments                     All employees in       welding      Welders  working
              NAICS code                       Industry \a\            establishments   Total  employees   conducting arc        Welding           welding       establishments     on  beryllium
                                                                             \b\               \b\        and gas  welding   establishments    establishments   using  beryllium     alloys \f\
                                                                                                                 \c\                                 \d\               \e\
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b..........................  Ship Building and Repairing....            689.0         108,311.0               28%             192.9          30,327.1               6.6              26.4
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; BLS, 2016; US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (2017).
  \a\ Based on industries with the largest number of positive beryllium samples for welders in the IMIS database (OSHA, 2004). These industries account for over 60 percent of the positive
    general industry samples for welders.
  \b\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.
  \c\ BLS, 2016.
  \d\ Based on average industry size.
  \e\ Estimated as the total number of establishments in the industry (689), multiplied by the percentage of establishments employing welders (28%), and further multiplied by the percentage of
    establishments welding on beryllium alloys (3.4 percent). (Kolanz, 2001, Document ID 0091).
  \f\ Based on an ERG estimate of 500 establishments with an average of 4 workers that perform welding on beryllium alloys, or 2.4 percent of establishments with welding. The ERG estimate was
    derived from Brush Wellman Inc. data reporting approximately 2,000 welders performing welding on beryllium alloys (Kolanz, 2001, Document ID 0091).

  Summary of Affected Establishments and Employers
      As shown in Table V-4, OSHA estimates that a total of 11,486
  workers in 2,796 establishments will be affected by this proposal. Also
  shown are the estimated annual revenues for these entities. Table V-5
  presents the Agency's preliminary estimate of affected entities defined
  as small by the Small Business Administration (SBA); Table V-6 presents
  OSHA's preliminary estimate of affected establishments and employees by
  NAICS industries for the subset of small entities with fewer than 20
  employees.\5\ For the tables showing the characteristics of small and
  very small entities, OSHA generally assumed that beryllium-using small
  entities and very small entities would be the same proportion of
  overall small and very small entities as the proportion of beryllium-
  using entities to all entities as a whole in a NAICS industry.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \5\ Tables V-5 and V-6 indicate that small entities affected by
  the proposed rule contain 2,714 affected establishments affiliated
  with entities that are small by SBA standards and 2,365 affected
  establishments affiliated with entities that employ fewer than 20
  employees.
      However, the small and very small entity figures in Tables V-5
  and V-6 were not used to prepare the cost savings estimates in
  Section D of this PEA. For costing purposes in Section D, OSHA
  included small establishments owned by larger entities in the
  figures in Tables V-5 and V-6 because such establishments do not
  qualify as "small entities" for the purposes of a Regulatory
  Flexibility Analysis. To see the difference in the number of
  affected establishments by size for costing purpose, consider the
  example of a "large entity" with 500 employees, consisting of 50
  ten-employee establishments. In Section B., each of these 50
  establishments would be excluded from Tables V-5 and V-6 because
  they are part of a "large entity"; in Section D., where all
  establishments are included because there is no filter for entity
  size, each would be considered a small establishment.
      Thus, for purposes of Section D., there are 2,399 affected
  establishments with fewer than 20 employees, 369 affected
  establishments with between 20 and 499 employees, and 28
  establishments with more than 500 employees; these estimates were
  derived in the cost spreadsheet by NAICS industry and in total (see,
  for example, Columns TK through TM in the "Rule" tab as developed
  for familiarization cost savings; the totals are in cells TK5
  through TM5) (OSHA, 2017). While not shown in the tables or used in
  the analysis, Census (2015) Statistics of US Businesses data suggest
  there are also a total of 3,464 establishments affiliated with
  entities in construction and shipyards employing between 20 and 499
  employees, of which approximately 157 would be affected by the rule.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      OSHA requests public comment on the profile data presented in
  Tables V-4, V-5, and V-6.

                                        Table V-4--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action for Beryllium--All Entities
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                             Total
                                                                          Total         Total          Total      Affected      Affected       Affected     revenues    Revenues/      Revenues/
          Application group             NAICS            Industry        entities   establishments   employees    entities   establishments   employees     ($1,000)      entity     establishment
                                                                           \a\           \a\            \a\         \b\           \b\            \b\          \a\
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction.  238320.......  Painting and Wall     31,317.0         31,376.0    163,073.0    1,088.0          1,090.0      4,360.0  $19,595,278     $625,707        $624,531
                                                    Covering
                                                    Contractors.
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction.  238990.......  All Other Specialty   28,734.0         29,072.0    193,631.0      998.3          1,010.0      4,040.0   39,396,242    1,371,067       1,355,127
                                                    Trade Contractors.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards....  336611a......  Ship Building and        604.0            689.0    108,311.0      604.0            689.0      3,060.0   26,136,187   43,271,832      37,933,508
                                                    Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding in Shipyards **
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Welding in Shipyards............  336611b......  Ship Building and        604.0            689.0    108,311.0        5.8              6.6         26.4   26,136,187   43,271,832      37,933,508
                                                    Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal...........  .............  ...................   60,051.0         60,448.0    356,704.0    2,086.2          2,100.0      8,400.0   58,991,519      982,357         975,905
  Shipyard Subtotal...............  .............  ...................    1,208.0          1,378.0    216,622.0      609.8            695.6      3,086.4   52,272,373   43,271,832      37,933,508
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries...........  .............  ...................   61,259.0         61,826.0    573,326.0    2,696.0          2,795.6     11,486.4  111,263,893    1,816,286       1,799,629
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \a\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2012, Document ID 2034.
  \b\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
    number of affected employees. Within each NAICS industry, the number of affected entities was calculated as the product of total number of entities for that industry and the ratio of the
    number of affected establishments to the number of total establishments.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.




                                                                  Table V-5--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Final Standard for Beryllium--Small Entities
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           SBA small                                                  Affected                      Affected
                                                                                           business         Small      Establishments     Small        small      Affected small   employees   Total revenues    Revenues    Revenues per
            Application group                   NAICS                 Industry          classification    business       for small        entity      business    establishments   for small      for small     per small   small business
                                                                                          (employees)   entities \b\    entities \b\    employees     entities         \c\          entities      entities        entity     establishment
                                                                                              \a\                                          \b\          \c\                           \c\       ($1,000) \b\
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction......  238320.............  Painting and Wall                   100       31,221.0         31,243.0    133,864.0      1,084.6          1,085.4      3,579.1     $16,552,251     $530,164        $529,791
                                                               Covering Contractors.
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction......  238990.............  All Other Specialty                 100       28,537.0         28,605.0    143,112.0        991.4            993.8      2,985.9      29,789,492    1,043,890       1,041,409
                                                               Trade Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards.........  336611a............  Ship Building and                 1,250          585.0            629.0     27,170.0        585.0            629.0          960       6,043,893   10,331,440       9,608,732
                                                               Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Welding in Shipyards **
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Welding in Shipyards.................  336611b............  Ship Building and                 1,250          585.0            629.0     27,170.0          5.6              6.0          6.6       6,043,893   10,331,440       9,608,732
                                                               Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal................  ...................  ........................  ..............      59,758.0         59,848.0    276,976.0      2,076.0          2,079.2      6,565.0      46,341,743      775,490         774,324
  Shipyard Subtotal....................  ...................  ........................  ..............       1,170.0          1,258.0     54,340.0        590.6            635.0        774.2      12,087,785   10,331,440       9,608,732
                                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries................  ...................  ........................  ..............      60,928.0         61,106.0    331,316.0      2,666.6          2,714.2      7,339.2      58,429,529      958,993         956,200
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  \a\ SBA Size Standards, 2016 (Document ID 2026). Data were not available specifically for small entities with more than 500 employees. For SBA small business classifications specifying 750 or more employees, OSHA used data for all
    entities in the industry.
  \b\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
  \c\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the number of affected employees.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.


                                   Table V-6--Characteristics of Industries Affected by OSHA's Final Standard for Beryllium--Entities With Fewer Than 20 Employees
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Affected
                                                                                                    Employees     Affected      Affected      employees   Total revenues               Revenue per
                                                                        Entities   Establishments      for        entities   establishments      for       for entities     Revenues    estab. for
         Application group             NAICS           Industry         with <20    for entities     entities     with <20    for entities     entities      with <20      per entity    entities
                                                                       employees      with <20       with <20    employees      with <20       with <20      employees      with <20     with <20
                                                                          \a\       employees \a\   employees       \b\       employees \b\   employees    ($1,000) \a\    employees    employees
                                                                                                       \a\                                       \b\
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction  238320.......  Painting and Wall      29,953.0       29,957.0      87,984.0      1,040.6        1,040.7       2,352.4     $10,632,006     $354,956     $354,909
                                                   Covering
                                                   Contractors.
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction  238990.......  All Other              27,026.0       27,041.0      90,822.0        938.9          939.4       1,894.9      19,232,052      711,613      711,218
                                                   Specialty Trade
                                                   Contractors.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards...  336611a......  Ship Building and         380.0          381.0       2,215.0        380.0          381.0         381.0         547,749    1,441,445    1,437,661
                                                   Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding in Shipyards **
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Welding in Shipyards...........  336611b......  Ship Building and         380.0          381.0       2,215.0          3.6            3.6           3.6         547,749    1,441,445    1,437,661
                                                   Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal..........  .............  ..................     56,979.0       56,998.0     178,806.0      1,979.5        1,980.1       4,247.3      29,864,058      524,124      523,949
  Shipyard Subtotal..............  .............  ..................        760.0          762.0       4,430.0        383.6          384.6         384.6       1,095,498    1,441,445    1,437,661
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries..........  .............  ..................     57,739.0       57,760.0     183,236.0      2,363.1        2,364.8       4,632.0      30,959,556      536,198      536,003
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  \a\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses: 2012 (Document ID 2034).
  \b\ OSHA estimates of employees potentially exposed to beryllium and associated entities and establishments. Affected entities and establishments constrained to be less than or equal to the
    number of affected employees.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

  Beryllium Exposure Profile of At-Risk Workers
      The exposure profiles for abrasive blasting presented here were
  taken directly from Chapter IV of the 2016 FEA, and are more fully
  summarized in Section IV of this preamble. The exposure profile for
  welding in shipyards, however, is based on data presented in appendices
  2 and 3 of Section 10.6 of Chapter IV, and again is more fully
  summarized in Section IV. Those data measure exposures of shipyard
  based welders, and OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is a more
  suitable data set on which to base the exposure profile of welders in
  shipyards than the data used in the 2016 FEA, which were based on
  general industry welding exposures.\6\ Exposure profiles, by job
  category, were developed from individual exposure measurements that
  were judged to be substantial and to contain sufficient accompanying
  description to allow interpretation of the circumstances of each
  measurement. The resulting exposure profiles show the job categories
  with current exposures to beryllium above the new PEL and, thus, the
  workers for whom beryllium controls would be implemented under the
  final beryllium standard.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \6\ The use of the general industry exposure profile for
  shipyard welders was inadvertent, and the differences between the
  exposure monitoring data from the general industry and these welding
  data are not significantly different (e.g., the exposure data for
  the shipyard welders show 94.8 percent of the exposures occurring
  below 0.1 ug/m\3\, while the general industry estimates show 56.8
  percent of the exposures occurring below 0.1 ug/m\3\) and do not
  materially change the exposure assessment assumptions.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Tables V-7 and V-8 summarize, from the exposure profiles, the
  number of workers at risk of beryllium exposure and the distribution of
  8-hour TWA beryllium exposures by affected application group and job
  category. Exposures are grouped into ranges (e.g., >0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ and
  <0.1 [mu]g/m\3\) that represent the percentages of employees in each
  job category and sector currently exposed at levels within the
  indicated range.
      Table V-9 presents data by NAICS code on the estimated number of
  workers currently at risk of beryllium exposure for each of the same
  exposure ranges. As shown, an estimated 2,167 (after rounding) workers
  currently have beryllium exposures above the final PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/
  m\3\. OSHA requests public comment on the exposure profile shown in
  Tables V-7, V-8, and V-9.

                                                  Table V-7--Distribution of Beryllium Exposures by Application Group and Job Category or Activity
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Exposure range  ([micro]g/m\3\)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Job category/activity                   0 to <=0.0.5   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0
                                                              \a\ (%)         \a\ (%)           (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)         >2.0 (%)    Total (%)
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Abrasive Blasting--Construction & Shipyards *
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blaster......................................            15.2            15.2            25.7             2.5            12.4             4.7             5.4         18.9        100.0
  Pot Tender............................................            28.1            28.1            43.8             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0        100.0
  Cleanup...............................................            33.3            33.3            26.7             0.0             0.0             0.0             3.3          3.3        100.0
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Welding--Shipyards **
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Welder................................................            47.4            47.4             1.5             0.0             0.0             3.0             0.7          0.0        100.0
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.


  \a\ The lowest exposure range in OSHA's technological feasibility analysis is <=0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ (see Chapter IV-02, Limits of Detection for Beryllium Data, in the FEA (Document ID 2042) in
    support of the new beryllium standards). Because OSHA lacked information on the distribution of worker exposures in this range, the Agency evenly divided the workforce exposed at or below
    0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ into the two categories shown in this table and in the columns with identical headers in Tables V-8 and V-9. OSHA recognizes that this simplifying assumption may
    overestimate exposure in these lower exposure ranges; the Agency requests comment as to whether members of the public share this observation.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Technological Feasibility.


                                          Table V-8--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Application Group, Job Category, and Exposure Range
                                                                                           [[micro]g/m\3\]
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Exposure level  ([micro]g/m\3\)
             Application group/job category           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         0 to <=0.05    >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2   >0.2 to <=0.25   >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0      >2.0        Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blaster...................................           510.8            510.8           862.7             83.2            416.2           158.9           181.6        635.7      3,360.0
  Pot Tender.........................................           945.0            945.0         1,470.0              0.0              0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0      3,360.0
  Cleanup............................................           560.0            560.0           448.0              0.0              0.0             0.0            56.0         56.0      1,680.0
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blaster...................................           186.1            186.1           314.3             30.3            151.6            57.9            66.2        231.6      1,224.0
  Pot Tender.........................................           344.3            344.3           535.5              0.0              0.0             0.0             0.0          0.0      1,224.0
  Cleanup............................................           204.0            204.0           163.2              0.0              0.0             0.0            20.4         20.4        612.0
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Welding--Shipyards **
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Welder.............................................            12.5             12.5             0.4              0.0              0.0             0.8             0.2          0.0         26.4
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal..............................         2,015.8          2,015.8         2,780.7             83.2            416.2           158.9           237.6        691.7      8,400.0
  Shipyard Subtotal..................................           746.8            746.8         1,013.4             30.3            151.6            58.7            86.8        252.0      3,086.4
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries..............................         2,762.7          2,762.7         3,794.1            113.6            567.8           217.6           324.4        943.6     11,486.4
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Sources: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Technological Feasibility and Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.


                                                      Table V-9--Number of Workers Exposed to Beryllium by Affected Industry and Exposure Range
                                                                                           [[micro]g/m\3\]
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Exposure level  ([micro]g/m\3\)
        Application group/NAICS               Industry       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                0 to <=0.05   >0.05 to <=0.1   >0.1 to <=0.2  >0.2 to <=0.25  >0.25 to <=0.5   >0.5 to <=1.0   >1.0 to <=2.0     >2.0      Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320.............................  Painting and Wall             1,046.3         1,046.3         1,443.3            43.2           216.0            82.5           123.3      359.0    4,360.0
                                        Covering Contractors.
  238990.............................  All Other Specialty             969.5           969.5         1,337.4            40.0           200.2            76.4           114.3      332.7    4,040.0
                                        Trade Contractors.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a............................  Ship Building and               734.3           734.3         1,013.0            30.3           151.6            57.9            86.6      252.0    3,060.0
                                        Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Welding in Shipyards **
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b............................  Ship Building and                12.5            12.5             0.4             0.0             0.0             0.8             0.2        0.0       26.4
                                        Repairing.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal..............  .....................         2,015.8         2,015.8         2,780.7            83.2           416.2           158.9           237.6      691.7    8,400.0
  Shipyard Subtotal..................  .....................           746.8           746.8         1,013.4            30.3           151.6            58.7            86.8      252.0    3,086.4
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries..............  .....................         2,762.7         2,762.7         3,794.1           113.6           567.8           217.6           324.4      943.6   11,486.4
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  Sources: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Technological Feasibility and Office of Regulatory Analysis-Health.

  Loaded Wages and New Hire Rate
      For this PEA, OSHA updated the 2016 FEA wage estimates from 2015 to
  2016 levels using data for base wages by Standard Occupational
  Classification (SOC) from the March 2017 Occupational Employment
  Statistics survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. OSHA applied a
  fringe markup (loading factor) of 46.0 percent of base wages (BLS,
  2016c, Document ID 1980); \7\ loaded hourly wages by application group
  and SOC are shown in Table V-10.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \7\ A fringe markup (loading factor) of 46.0 percent was
  calculated in the following way. Employer costs for employee
  compensation for civilian workers averaged $33.94 per hour worked in
  March 2016. Wages and salaries averaged $23.25 per hour worked and
  accounted for 68.5 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged
  $10.70 and accounted for the remaining 31.5 percent. Therefore, the
  fringe markup (loading factor) is $10.70/$23.25, or 45.6 percent.
  Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers
  averaged $32.06 per hour worked in March 2016 (BLS, 2016c, Document
  ID 1980).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      OSHA also updated the new hire rate for manufacturing from its 2016
  FEA


  estimate of 27.2 percent to a final estimate of 23.9 percent (BLS,
  2016b, Document ID 1977). The Agency applied the updated rate (23.9
  percent) in this preliminary profile and requests public comment on the
  preliminary wage and hire rates shown in Table V-10.
  Baseline Industry Practices and Existing Regulatory Requirements
  ("Current Compliance") On Hazard Controls and Ancillary Provisions
      Table V-11 reflects OSHA's estimate of current industry compliance
  rates, by application group and job category, for each of the ancillary
  provisions that, under the January 9, 2017 final rule, would affect the
  establishments that are subject to this preliminary deregulatory
  action. See Chapter III of the 2016 FEA for additional discussion of
  the current baseline compliance rates for each provision, which were
  estimated based on site visits, industry contacts, published
  literature, and the Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review
  (SBAR) Panel (SBAR, 2008, Document ID 0345). Note that the compliance
  rate is typically the same for all jobs in a given sector, except for
  administrative workers, who generally have zero percent compliance with
  hygiene requirements and 100 percent compliance with PPE (because they
  are not expected to need PPE during work assignments).
      In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive blasters in
  construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate with the
  PPE requirements in the beryllium standards. However, upon further
  review of existing OSHA standards, OSHA is revising that estimate to
  100 percent compliance for the purpose of this preliminary economic
  analysis. In construction, OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(v)
  requires abrasive blasting operators to wear full PPE, including
  respirators, gloves, safety shoes, and eye protection. Similarly, 29
  CFR 1915.34(c)(3) requires full PPE for abrasive blaster operators
  performing mechanical paint removal in shipyards. Because it would not
  be appropriate to claim cost savings for withdrawing a rule when
  existing rules already have the same requirements, for the purpose of
  calculating cost savings and foregone benefits in this proposal, OSHA
  preliminarily estimates that withdrawing the beryllium rule's PPE
  requirements for abrasive blaster operators in construction and
  shipyards would have no effect on PPE compliance because those workers
  are already required to wear full PPE. In addition, OSHA also found,
  after a review of shipyard personal protective equipment requirements,
  that gloves are required under 1915.157(a) to protect workers from
  hazards faced by welders, such as thermal burns.\8\ Therefore, for the
  purpose of calculating cost savings and foregone benefits in this
  proposal, the Agency now preliminarily estimates that abrasive blasting
  operators in shipyards and construction and welders in shipyards are
  already equipped with full personal protective equipment 100 percent of
  the time when exposed to beryllium.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \8\ In fact, the 0 percent baseline compliance rate for PPE in
  shipyard welding in the 2016 FEA was simply a mistake insofar as
  baseline compliance rate for PPE in general industry was 100 percent
  in the same document. For a discussion of existing welding
  requirements, see the discussion in Section V.C, Costs, in this
  preamble.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Additionally, upon review, OSHA has preliminarily determined that
  relevant PPE is required by the existing Personal Protective Equipment
  standard (1926.95) and the existing Hand and Body Protection standard
  (1915.157) to protect blasting helpers in construction and shipyards,
  respectively, from dermal exposure to beryllium dust. Therefore, the
  Agency now preliminarily estimates that all affected employees are
  already required to be equipped with PPE 100 percent of the time when
  exposed to beryllium, and uses this preliminary determination in
  calculating proposed cost savings and foregone benefits.
      OSHA requests public comment on this revised approach and on the
  other preliminary baseline compliance estimates shown in Table V-11, as
  well as the methodology behind them as set forth in Chapter III of the
  2016 FEA.
      OSHA also reviewed existing housekeeping requirements and found
  that some housekeeping is also already required for abrasive blasting
  operations in construction and shipyards. CFR 1926.57(f)(7) requires
  that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up
  promptly. The general industry Ventilation standard requires the same
  in abrasive blasting in shipyards (see 29 CFR 1910.94(a)(7),
  1910.5(c)). 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(3) and (f)(4) also require exhaust
  ventilation and dust collection and removal systems in abrasive
  blasting operations in construction. Therefore, compliance with
  1926.57(f) and 1910.94(a)(7) already ensures that employers take some
  steps during the blasting operations to prevent accumulations of dust
  sufficient to create exposures exceeding the PEL in clean-up after
  blasting operations are completed.\9\ For these reasons, in this
  proposal, OSHA is only taking a cost savings for housekeeping in
  abrasive blasting operations in construction and shipyards for the cost
  of HEPA-filtered vacuums and similar equipment.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \9\ As explained in the Abrasive Blasting section of the
  Technological Feasibility chapter of the FEA, abrasive blasting
  cleanup workers are those who are "responsible for cleaning up
  spent abrasive (e.g., by vacuuming or sweeping) at the end of the
  day's blasting." Of the 30 cleanup workers in the exposure profile
  of the FEA, two had exposures over the new PEL of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\.
  One cleanup worker had an 8-hour TWA sample result of 1.1 [micro]g/
  m\3\, but blasting took place in the area during this worker's
  cleanup task and it is likely that the nearby abrasive blasting
  contributed to the sample result. The other cleanup worker had a
  sample result of 7.4 [micro]g/m\3\, but that worker's exposure
  appears to be associated with the use of compressed air for cleaning
  in conjunction with nearby abrasive blasting.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      In Table V-11, where current labor compliance rates are 100
  percent, OSHA indicates that removal of the ancillary provision in
  question would have no effect on labor compliance rates.
      OSHA welcomes comments on the baseline compliance estimates shown
  in Table V-11, particularly with respect to PPE and housekeeping.
      As a final point on baseline industry practices, OSHA acknowledges
  the possibility of a future decline in the use of coal slag abrasive
  materials and welcomes comment and information on this issue. To the
  extent that coal slag abrasives are replaced by other blasting
  materials which do not have the potential for beryllium exposures of
  concern, the costs and benefits of the PELs for abrasive blasting
  operations would also decrease.



              Table V-10--Loaded Hourly Wages and Hire Rate for Occupations (Jobs) Exposed to Beryllium and Affected by OSHA's Proposed Action
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                    Fringe        Loaded
                                                                                                                       Median       markup      hourly (or
        Provision in the standard                 Job               NAICS       SOC \a\           Occupation        hourly wage   percentage,   daily \d\)
                                                                                                                                   total \b\       wage
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Monitoring \c\......................  Industrial Hygienist             N/A          N/A  N/A....................          N/A           N/A      $164.81
                                         Consultant.
  Monitoring \d\......................  IH Technician--Initial.  ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............          \d\
                                                                                                                                                  2,642.59
                                        IH Technician--          ...........  ...........  .......................  ...........  ............          \d\
                                         Additional and                                                                                           1,321.30
                                         Periodic.
  Regulated Area/Job Briefing \e\.....  Production Worker......        31-33      51-0000  Production Occupations.       $16.55            46        24.16
  Medical Surveillance \e\............  Human Resources Manager        31-33      11-3121  Human Resources                49.61            46        72.42
                                                                                            Managers.
  Exposure Control Plan, Medical        Clerical...............        31-33      43-4071  File Clerks............        15.43            46        22.53
   Surveillance, and Medical Removal
   \e\.
  Training \e\........................  Training Instructor....        31-33      13-1151  Training and                   28.32            46        41.34
                                                                                            Development
                                                                                            Specialists.
  Medical Surveillance \e\............  Physician (Employers'          31-33      29-1062  Family and General             90.96            46       132.79
                                         Physician).                                        Practitioners.
  Multiple Provisions \f\.............  First Line Supervisor..      Various      51-1011  First-Line Supervisors         28.14            46        41.08
                                                                                            of Production and
                                                                                            Operating Workers.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance.
  \a\ 2010 Standard Occupational Classification System. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/soc/classification.htm.
  \b\ BLS, 2016c, Document ID 1980.
  \c\ ERG estimates based on discussions with affected industries, and inflated to 2016 dollars (BEA, 2017).
  \d\ Wages used in the economic analysis for the Silica final rule, inflated to 2016 dollars. Wage rates shown are estimated daily remuneration for
    industrial hygiene services.
  \e\ BLS, 2017a.
  \f\ BLS, 2017a; Weighted average for SOC 51-1011 in NAICS 313000, 314000, 315000, 316000, 321000, 322000, 323000, 324000, 325000, 326000, 327000,
    335000, 336000, 337000, and 339000.




                                                      Table V-11--Estimated Current Compliance Rates for Industry Sectors Affected by OSHA's Proposed Deregulatory Action on Beryllium
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                          Hygiene
                                                             Exposure    Beryllium    Regulated      Medical      Medical      Exposure                        ----------------------------   Training                           Vacuum,
          Application group                   Job           monitoring   work areas   areas (%)   surveillance  removal (%)    control             PPE            Employee   Establishment      (%)       Housekeeping labor      bags,
                                                               (%)          (%)                      \a\ (%)                   plan (%)                             (%)           (%)                                           labels (%)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting Construction...  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
  Blasting Construction............  Abrasive Blaster....            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Blasting Construction............  Pot Tender..........            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Blasting Construction............  Cleanup.............            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Blasting Shipyards *.............  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
  Blasting Shipyards...............  Abrasive Blaster....            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Blasting Shipyards...............  Pot Tender..........            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Blasting Shipyards...............  Cleanup.............            0           75           75            75            0           75  100% No Effect......           75            75            75  100% No Effect......            0
  Welding Shipyard **..............  All.................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........  ...........  ....................  ...........  .............  ...........  ....................  ...........
  Welding Shipyard.................  Welder..............            0            0            0             0            0            0  100% No Effect......            0             0             0  0%..................            0
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA, 2016).
  \a\ Estimated compliance rates for medical surveillance do not include medical referrals. OSHA estimates that baseline compliance rates for medical referrals are zero percent for all application groups shown in the table.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.


  References
  Brush Wellman, 2004. Individual full-shift personal breathing zone
  (lapel-type) exposure levels collected by Brush Wellman in 1999 at
  their Elmore, Ohio facility were provided to ERG in August 2004.
  Brush Wellman, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Document ID 0578.
  Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2017 (BEA, 2017). Table 1.1.9. Implicit
  price deflators for Gross Domestic Product. February 28, 2017.
  Available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=1929&903=13&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=0 (Accessed March 2, 2017).
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010 (BLS, 2011). Occupational
  Employment Statistics Survey--May 2010.
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011 (BLS, 2012). Occupational
  Employment Statistics Survey--May 2011.
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016a). Occupational
  Employment Statistics Survey--May 2015. (Released March 30, 2016).
  Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed February
  25, 2017).
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016b). Job Openings and
  Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS): 2015. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm (Accessed April 25, 2016).
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2016c). Employer Costs for
  Employee Compensation--March 2016. News Release, June 9, 2016.
  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06092016.htm
  (Accessed March 6, 2017).
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016 (BLS, 2017a). Occupational
  Employment Statistics Survey--May 2016. (Released March 31, 2017).
  Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed March 31,
  2017).
  Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 (BLS, 2017b). Occupational Outlook
  Handbook. Painters, Construction and Maintenance. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/painters-construction-and-maintenance.htm#tab-2. December 17, 2015. Accessed April 5,
  2017.
  ERG, 2014. "Summary of ERG Interviews on Abrasive Blasters' Use of
  Beryllium Blast Media," Memo from Eastern Research Group, October
  6. Document ID 0516.
  Greskevitch, M., 2000. Personal email communication between Mark
  Greskevitch of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety
  and Health (NIOSH) and Eastern Research Group, Inc., February 17,
  2000. Document ID 0701.
  Kolanz, M., 2001. Brush Wellman Customer Data Summary. OSHA
  Presentation, July 2, 2001. Washington, DC. Document ID 0091.
  Meeker, J.D., P. Susi, and A. Pellegrino, 2006. Case Study:
  Comparison of Occupational Exposures Among Painters Using Three
  Alternative Blasting Abrasives. Journal of Occupational and
  Environmental Hygiene 3(9): D80-D84. Document IDs 0698; 1606; and
  1815, Attachment 93.
  NIOSH, 1976. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
  1976. Abrasive Blasting Operations: Engineering Control and Work
  Practices Manual. NIOSH Publication No. 76-179. March 1976. Document
  ID 0779.
  NIOSH/KTA-Tator, 1998a. Evaluation of Substitute Materials for
  Silica Sand in Abrasive Blasting. KTA-Tator, Inc. Prepared for
  Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
  Occupational Safety and Health. Contract No. 200-95-2946. September
  1998. Document ID 1090; 1815, Attachment 85.
  NIOSH/KTA-Tator, 1998b. Evaluation of Substitute Materials for
  Silica Sand in Abrasive Blasting. Prepared for Department of Health
  and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
  Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety
  and Health. Prepared by KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  Phase 2 (Field Investigations), December 1998. Document ID 0769;
  1815, Attachment 86.
  The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 1999. (NSRP, 1999)
  Feasibility and Economics Study of the Treatment, Recycling and
  Disposal of Spent Abrasives. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy,
  Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with
  National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California. NSRP
  0529, N1-93-1. April 9. Document ID 0767.
  The National Shipbuilding Research Program, 2000. Cost-Effective
  Clean Up of Spent Grit. NSRP, U.S. Department of the Navy, Carderock
  Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center in cooperation with National
  Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, California. NSRP 0570,
  N1-95-4. December 15. Document ID 0766.
  OSHA. (OSHA, 2004). OSHA Integrated Management Information System.
  Beryllium data provided by OSHA covering the period 1978 to 2003.
  Document ID 0340, Attachment 6.
  OSHA. (OSHA, 2005). Beryllium Exposure Data for Hot Work and
  Abrasive Blasting Operations from Four U.S. Shipyards (Sample Years
  1995 to 2004). Data provided to Eastern Research Group (ERG), Inc.
  by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
  Administration. March 2005. [Unpublished]. Document ID 1166.
  Accessed March 10, 2017.
  OSHA. (OSHA, 2009). Integrated Management Information System (IMIS).
  Beryllium exposure data, updated April 21, 2009. Data provided to
  Eastern Research Group, Inc. by the U.S. Department of Labor,
  Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC
  [Unpublished, electronic files]. Document ID 1165.
  OSHA. (OSHA, 2016). Technical and Analytical Support for OSHA's
  Final Economic Analysis for the Final Standard on Beryllium and
  Beryllium Compounds: Excel Spreadsheets Supporting the FEA. OSHA,
  Directorate of Standards, Office of Regulatory Analysis. December
  2016. Document ID OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-2044.
  OSHA. (OSHA, 2017). Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs, Impacts,
  and Benefits in Support of OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis
  (PEA) for the Proposed Deregulatory Action of Removing the Ancillary
  Revisions for the Maritime Sector and the Construction Sector from
  the Scope of the New Beryllium Standards: May 2017.
  Queensland Government, 1999. Abrasive Blasting Industry Code of
  Practice. Department of Employment, Training and Industrial
  Relations, Division of Workplace Health and Safety, Queensland
  Government, Australia. June 22, 1999. Document ID 0694.
  Small Business Advocacy Review, 2008 (SBAR, 2008). SBAR Panel Final
  Report, OSHA. Document ID 0345.
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. County Business Patterns: 2007. Available
  at http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html.
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2012. County Business Patterns: 2010. Available
  at http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html. Document ID 0685.
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. County Business Patterns: 2012. Available
  at http://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2012/econ/cbp/2012-cbp.html.
  U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. Statistics of US Businesses: 2012.
  Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html.
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997a. (EPA, 1997a) Emission
  Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 13.2.6, Abrasive Blasting.
  Final Report. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
  Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle
  Park, North Carolina. September. Document ID 0784.
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b. (EPA, 1997b) EPA Office
  of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Shipbuilding
  and Repair Industry. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance, Office of
  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC Document No.
  EPA/310-R-97-008. November 1997. Document ID 0783.
  U.S. Navy, 2003. 6-19-2: Attachment (1). Navy Occupational Exposure
  Database (NOED) Query Report Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling
  Results for Beryllium. Document ID 0145. Accessed March 10, 2017.
  WorkSafe, 2000. Code of Practice: Abrasive Blasting. WorkSafe
  Western Australia Commission. June. Document ID 0692.

  C. Costs of Compliance

  Introduction
      In this section, OSHA estimates the cost savings to shipyard and
  construction establishments in all affected application groups as a
  result of this proposal to revoke the ancillary


  provisions in the new shipyard and construction beryllium standards.
  These ancillary provisions to be revoked encompass the following:
  exposure assessment, beryllium regulated areas (and competent persons
  in construction), a written exposure control plan, protective work
  clothing, hygiene areas and practices, housekeeping, medical
  surveillance, medical removal, and worker training. However, affected
  employers are estimated to incur a small additional cost to familiarize
  themselves with the changes to the ancillary provisions in the final
  rule as a result of this proposal. These cost savings incorporate
  OSHA's preliminary updated baseline compliance estimates described in
  section V.B, on which OSHA seeks comment.
      These estimates of cost savings are largely based on the cost
  estimates presented for Regulatory Alternative 2a in the preamble for
  the new beryllium standards (82 FR 2470, 2612-2615 (January 9, 2017)),
  which were in turn derived from the Costs of Compliance chapter
  (Chapter V) of the supporting Final Economic Analysis ("2016 FEA";
  Document ID 2042). Note that, as OSHA has not proposed changing the
  permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short-term exposure limit (STEL)
  set forth in the new beryllium standards, OSHA has not estimated any
  cost savings related to engineering controls or respirators. OSHA
  retained the same calculation methodology from the 2016 FEA and has
  updated the wages and unit costs from 2015 to 2016 dollars.
      OSHA estimates that this proposal would yield a total annualized
  cost savings of $11.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate across
  the shipyard and construction sectors. All cost savings in this section
  are expressed in 2016 dollars and were annualized using discount rates
  of 3 percent and 7 percent, as required by OMB.\10\ Costs in the 2016
  FEA were expressed in 2015 dollars. Cost savings for this proposal have
  been updated to 2016 dollars. Unit costs developed in this section were
  multiplied by the number of workers who would have to comply with the
  provisions, as identified in Section B of this PEA (Profile of Affected
  Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees). The estimated
  number of affected workers depends on what level of exposure triggers a
  particular provision and the percentage of those workers estimated to
  already be in compliance. In a few cases, costs were calculated based
  on the number of firms.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \10\ See OMB Memo M-17-21 (April 5, 2017). OSHA included the 3
  percent rate in its primary analysis, but Appendix V-A of this PEA
  also presents costs by NAICS industry and establishment size
  categories using, as alternatives, a 7 percent discount rate--shown
  in Table V-22--and a 0 percent discount rate--shown in Table V-23.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The cost methodology is detailed in Chapter V of the 2016 FEA. A
  discussion of affected workers is presented in Section B of this PEA.
  Complete calculations are available in the OSHA spreadsheet in support
  of this PEA (OSHA, 2017). Annualization periods for expenditures on
  equipment are based on equipment life, and one-time costs are
  annualized over a 10-year period.\11\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \11\ Executive Order 13563 directs agencies "to use the best
  available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
  benefits and costs as accurately as possible." In addition, OMB
  Circular A-4 suggests that analysis should include all future costs
  and benefits using a "rule of reason" to consider for how long it
  can reasonably predict the future and limit its analysis to this
  time period. Annualization should not be confused with depreciation
  or amortization for tax purposes. Annualization spreads costs out
  evenly over the time period (similar to the payments on a mortgage)
  to facilitate comparison of costs and benefits across different
  years. In cases where costs occur on an annual basis, but do not
  change between years, annualization is not necessary, and OSHA may
  refer simply to "annual" costs.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table V-12 shows, by affected application group and six-digit NAICS
  code, annualized compliance cost savings for all establishments, for
  all small entities (as defined by the Small Business Act and the Small
  Business Administration's (SBA's) implementing regulations; see 15
  U.S.C. 632 and 13 CFR 121.201), and for all very small entities
  (defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees).
      The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost
  either in the FEA in support of the January 9, 2017 final standards or
  in the primary analysis of this PEA. It is important to note that there
  is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead
  to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that
  should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs
  of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the
  cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range
  of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government--for
  example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\12\
  and government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77
  percent.\13\,\14\ Some overhead costs, such as advertising
  and marketing, vary with output rather than with labor costs. Other
  overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For example, rent
  or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1
  employee in a 500-employee firm, but those costs may change
  substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is
  able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then
  the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major
  office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very
  difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated
  with 2 hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \12\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Wage
  Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
  Program," June 10, 2002.
      \13\ Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey.
  (https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx).
      \14\ For a further example 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, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA
  in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to
  Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase cost
  savings by approximately $238,000 per year, or approximately 2.2
  percent above the primary estimate of cost savings.\15\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \15\ OSHA is reluctant to make changes to the primary estimates
  in this proposal that create cost savings greater than the original
  costs estimated for the beryllium final rule.



      V-12--Total Annualized Cost Savings, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry, for Entities Affected by the
  Proposed Shipyard and Construction Beryllium Standards; Results Shown by Size Category (3 Percent Discount Rate,
                                                    2016 Dollars)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Very small
          Application group/NAICS               Industry               All        Small entities   entities  (<20
                                                                 establishments    (SBA-defined)     employees)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320................................  Painting and Wall           $4,087,412      $3,445,984        $2,420,659
                                           Covering
                                           Contractors.
  238990................................  All Other Specialty          3,787,418       2,916,925         1,998,054
                                           Trade Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a...............................  Ship Building and            3,081,907         990,140           524,187
                                           Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Welding in Shipyards **
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b...............................  Ship Building and               34,217          11,283             6,421
                                           Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal.................  ....................         7,874,830       6,362,909         4,418,712
  Shipyard Subtotal.....................  ....................         3,116,125       1,001,423           530,608
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries.................  ....................        10,990,954       7,364,331         4,949,321
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
    mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
    do both welding and abrasive blasting.
   Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

      Estimated baseline compliance rates were presented in Table V-11 in
  Section B of this preamble. The estimated costs for the new beryllium
  standards represented the additional costs necessary for employers to
  achieve full compliance. The cost of complying with the new beryllium
  standards' program requirements therefore depended on the extent to
  which OSHA believed employers in affected application groups had
  already undertaken some of the required actions. For example, paragraph
  (e)(1) of the new beryllium standard for shipyards required employers
  to provide regulated areas if employee exposures cannot be reduced
  below the final PEL by using engineering and work practice controls. If
  all employers in an industry have already provided regulated areas,
  perhaps by physically isolating high exposure processes and restricting
  access, then the industry's compliance rate for that requirement would
  be 100 percent, and that industry would incur no new costs for this
  provision under the new beryllium standard for shipyards. Similarly, if
  all employers in shipyards have already provided regulated areas, cost
  savings from removing this requirement would not include the avoidance
  of costs already incurred by employers in shipyards prior to enactment
  of the new beryllium standards.
      Throughout this section, OSHA presents cost-saving formulas in the
  text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of cost-
  saving estimates for the individual provisions. Because the values used
  in the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal
  place, while the spreadsheets supporting the text are not limited to
  two decimal places, the calculation using the presented formula will
  sometimes differ slightly from the totals presented in the tables.
  Program Cost Savings and Definitions of Affected Worker Populations
      This subsection presents OSHA's estimated cost savings from this
  proposal due to revoking the ancillary provisions in the new beryllium
  standards for shipyards and construction. The ancillary provisions
  contained in the new beryllium standards encompass the following nine
  employer duties, whose removal would each provide potential cost
  savings: (1) Assess employees' exposure to airborne beryllium, (2)
  establish beryllium regulated areas (and competent person in
  construction), (3) develop a written exposure control plan, (4) provide
  personal protective work clothing and equipment, (5) establish hygiene
  areas and practices, (6) implement housekeeping measures, (7) provide
  medical surveillance, (8) provide medical removal for employees who
  have developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium
  sensitization, and (9) provide appropriate training. In addition, OSHA
  has estimated that employers would incur a modest cost to familiarize
  themselves with the changes to the ancillary provisions in the final
  rule as a result of this proposal.
      The affected worker population varies by each program element, as
  discussed in each subsection below. For example, in the 2016 FEA the
  regulated area program requirements triggered by the final PEL of 0.2
  [mu]g/m\3\ would apply to a subset of shipyard workers: those for whom
  feasible engineering controls and work practices are not adequate. In
  this PEA, OSHA tracks the cost reductions in the same way and would
  remove those costs.
      Cost savings for each removed program requirement are aggregated by
  employment and by industry. For the most part, unit cost savings do not
  vary by industry, and any variations are specifically noted.
  Exposure Assessment
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      Under the new beryllium standards, the employer must assess the
  exposure of each employee who is, or who may reasonably be expected to
  be, exposed to airborne beryllium under either a

  performance option or a scheduled monitoring option.
      The employer must reassess exposures whenever a change in the
  production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices
  may reasonably be expected to result in new or additional exposures at
  or above the action level, or when the employer has any reason to
  believe that new or additional exposures at or above the action level
  have occurred.
  Proposal Cost-Savings Estimates
      V-13 shows the unit cost savings for avoided initial monitoring and
  subsequent monitoring. These savings are identical to the unit costs
  identified in the 2016 FEA when adjusted to 2016 dollars.

              Table V-13--Exposure Monitoring Unit Cost Savings
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Initial       Subsequent
                    Item                      monitoring      monitoring
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Industrial hygienist daily rate.........       $2,642.59       $1,321.30
  Total samples collected per day \1\.....               6               6
  Industrial hygienist cost per sample....         $440.43         $220.22
  Laboratory cost to process sample.......         $150.79         $150.79
  Total direct cost per time weighted              $591.22         $371.01
   average sample \2\.....................
  Total direct cost for two STEL samples         $1,182.44         $742.01
   \3\....................................
  Worker productivity loss per sample \4\.           $4.03           $4.03
  HR recordkeeping per sample (includes              $6.04           $6.04
   employee notification) \4\.............
  Total cost savings per time weighted             $601.28         $381.07
   average sample.........................
  Total cost savings for two STEL samples.       $1,202.57         $762.14
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes:
  \1\ Assumes two workers sampled per day and three samples (one TWA
    sample and two STEL samples) taken per worker.
  \2\ Includes the cost for one TWA sample plus laboratory cost to process
    sample.
  \3\ Includes the cost for two short-term samples plus laboratory costs
    to process samples.
  \4\ Includes the prorated cost for a single sample from a combination of
    one TWA and two short-term samples.
  Sources: OSHA, 2016 (Document ID 2044); BEA, 2016 (Document ID 1970);
    OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory
    Analysis.

      OSHA estimates that the total annualized exposure assessment cost
  savings would be $5,359,520 for all affected industries.\16\ These cost
  savings, along with the cost savings for each affected NAICS industry,
  are shown in Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-savings
  section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \16\ The exposure monitoring cost savings are calculated in the
  cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column BL through CY. Initial
  monitoring cost savings begin in column BT, additional monitoring
  cost savings begin in column CC, and periodic monitoring cost
  savings begin in column CI. The annualized cost savings are
  calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in columns CQ through CY.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Beryllium Regulated Areas (and Competent Persons in Construction)
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      The new beryllium standard for shipyards requires the employer to
  establish and maintain a regulated area wherever an employee's airborne
  exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, either the
  time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short
  term exposure limit (STEL). A regulated area can include temporary work
  areas where maintenance or non-routine tasks are performed. There is no
  regulated area requirement for construction.
      Employers with employees in regulated areas must comply with
  specific provisions that both limit employee exposure within the
  boundaries of the regulated area and curb the migration of beryllium
  outside the area.
      The new beryllium standard for the construction industry requires
  that, wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be,
  exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, the
  employer designate a competent person to make frequent and regular
  inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the
  written exposure control plan.
      OSHA assumed that, in restricting access in construction, employers
  would use the briefing option half of the time and direct access
  control the other half.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      Based on OSHA's cost estimates in the 2016 FEA (adjusted to 2016
  dollars), the cost savings involved in removing the requirements of
  setting up the regulated area in shipyards include initial set-up time
  by a supervisor ($329), tape to demarcate the regulated area ($29
  annually), and the one-time cost of warning signs to mark the regulated
  area ($144). There is also the annual cost for daily use of disposable
  clothing and two disposable respirators by authorized persons who might
  need to enter the area in the course of their job duties ($6,900). The
  annual total regulated area cost savings in shipyards for the tape,
  clothing, and respirators is therefore $6,929, and annualized cost
  savings is $55 (including the annualized value of the one-time labor
  and sign costs of $329 and $144).
      In the new beryllium construction standard, a competent person must
  implement the written exposure control plan to limit access to work
  areas and ensure that employees use respiratory protection and personal
  protective clothing and equipment. A competent person may implement the
  written exposure control plan either by using the briefing option or
  the direct access control option.
      As shown in Table V-14,\17\ the annual cost savings of the briefing
  option are $90.16 per at-risk worker. These costs savings are drawn
  directly from the costs in the 2016 FEA, beginning on page V-169, with
  the adjustments previously described in this document. The labor cost
  savings for the supervisor to plan and communicate the plan per job
  ($10.27 and $4.11, respectively), plus the labor cost savings per job
  for the production worker to be briefed ($9.66) provides a total job
  briefing cost savings per job of $24.04. Assuming an average of 15 jobs
  per year (= 150 working days / 10 day average job length), this equates
  to a job briefing cost savings per year of ($360.63 = $24.04 cost
  savings per job briefing x 15 jobs per year). If the average number of
  workers per crew is 4 workers, then the annual cost savings per worker
  is


  ($90.16 = $360.63 cost savings per year / 4 workers).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \17\ Note that numbers may not add due to rounding.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      As shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost savings of the direct
  access control option is $80.45 per at-risk crew member. This cost
  savings per at-risk crew member includes the avoided supervisor time to
  set up the area per job ($10.27) which, assuming 15 jobs per year,
  equals $154.05 per year. Dividing the annual cost savings ($154.05) by
  the average number of workers per crew (4) equals the per worker cost
  savings for the avoided supervisor time to set up the area ($38.51).
  The other unit cost savings are the annualized hazard tape cost savings
  per worker ($35.55 = $9.48 hazard tape cost savings per job x 15 jobs
  per year / 4 workers per crew). The annualized warning sign cost
  savings per worker ($6.38 = $25.54 warning signs cost savings per year
  / 4 workers per crew), which total an annualized materials cost savings
  per worker of $41.94. Adding the annualized cost savings per worker to
  identify and set up the controlled access area ($38.51) to the
  annualized materials cost savings per worker ($41.94) equals the total
  cost savings of the direct access control option per worker per year
  ($80.45). Consequently, as shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost
  savings of competent persons restricting access to work areas is $85.30
  per at-risk crew member (average of $90.16 and $80.45).

             V-14--Unit Cost Savings for Not Implementing Written Exposure Control Plan in Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item                                                       Value
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Job Frequency and Crew Size Assumptions
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average crew size (workers).....................               4
  Average job length (days).......................              10
  Working days per year...........................             150
  Percentage choosing Option 1....................             50%
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Option 1: Job Briefing
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item                                                 Hour burden      Labor cost  Materials cost      Total unit
                                                                                                              cost
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Supervisor time to revise plan per job..........            0.25          $10.27             N/A          $10.27
  Supervisor and worker time for briefing per job.            0.10           13.77             N/A           13.77
  Total per job...................................            0.35           24.04             N/A           24.04
  Total cost savings per worker per year..........            1.31           90.16             N/A           90.16
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Option 2: Direct Access Control
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Supervisor time to identify and set up work area            0.25           10.27             N/A           10.27
   per job........................................
  Supervisor time to identify and set up work area            0.94           38.51             N/A           38.51
   per worker per year............................
  Hazard tape cost savings per job (100 ft.)......             N/A             N/A           $9.48            9.48
  Hazard tape cost savings per worker per year....             N/A             N/A           35.55           35.55
  One-time warning signs cost savings (3 signs)...             N/A             N/A           72.23           72.23
  Annualized warning sign cost savings (3%, 3                  N/A             N/A           25.54           25.54
   years).........................................
  Annualized warning sign cost savings per worker.             N/A             N/A            6.38            6.38
  Total annualized materials cost savings per                  N/A             N/A           41.94           41.94
   worker.........................................
  Total cost savings per worker per year..........             N/A           38.51           41.94           80.45
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Weighted Average Annual Unit Cost Savings per Worker
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average annual unit cost savings per worker.....             N/A             N/A             N/A           85.30
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Source: US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.

      OSHA estimates the total annualized cost savings of regulated areas
  and competent person requirements is $261,099 for all affected shipyard
  and construction industries, with competent person requirements
  accounting for $8,464 of the total.\18\ The cost savings for each
  affected NAICS industry is shown in Table V-18 at the end of this
  program cost-savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \18\ The regulated area cost savings are calculated in the cost
  spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column CZ through FS. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3, and 0 percent in
  columns FK through FS.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Written Exposure Control Plan
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      Under the new beryllium standards, employers are required, for
  tasks generating airborne beryllium exposure above the action level, to
  establish and maintain a written exposure control plan.
      Further, employers must update the exposure control plan when:
      (A) Any change in production processes, materials, equipment,
  personnel, work practices, or control methods results or can reasonably
  be expected to result in new or additional airborne exposures to
  beryllium;
      (B) The employer becomes aware that an employee has a beryllium-
  related health effect or symptom; or
      (C) The employer has any reason to believe that new or additional
  airborne exposures are occurring or will occur.
      Finally, the employer must make a copy of the written exposure
  control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can reasonably be
  expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      The estimated cost savings per establishment for an average-sized
  firm to develop the initial written exposure control plan is $579.39--
  based on a manager spending 8 hours, at an hourly wage of $72.42 (Human
  Resources


  Managers, SOC: 11-3121), to develop the plan--for an annualized cost of
  $67.92.
      In addition, because larger firms with more affected workers will
  need to develop more complicated written control plans, OSHA estimated
  that the development of a plan would require an extra thirty minutes of
  a manager's time per affected employee. The cost for an extra thirty
  minutes of a manager's time per affected employee to develop a more
  complicated plan is $36.21 (0.5 x $72.42) per affected employee in this
  PEA, for an annualized cost of $4.50 per employee.
      Because of various triggers under which the employer would have to
  update the plan annually after the first year, the Agency further
  estimated that, on average, managers would need 12 minutes (0.2 hours)
  per affected employee per quarter--or 48 minutes (4 x 12), which equals
  0.8 hours, per affected employee per year--to review and update the
  plan. Thus, the cost for managers to review and update the plan would
  be $57.94 (0.8 x $72.42 per affected employee for years 2-10.
      Finally, each year, 5 minutes of clerical time for providing each
  employee with a copy of the written exposure control plan, at a
  clerical wage of $22.53 per hour (File Clerks SOC 43-4071), comes to an
  annual cost of $1.88 per employee.
      OSHA estimates that the total annualized cost savings for removing
  the requirements for development, implementation, distribution, and
  update of a written exposure control plan is $233,032 for all affected
  industries in shipyards and construction.\19\ These cost savings, along
  with the cost savings for each affected NAICS industry, are shown in
  Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \19\ The written exposure control plan cost savings are
  calculated in the cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column LG
  through ML. The annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0
  percent in columns MA through ML.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      Under the new beryllium standards, personal protective clothing and
  equipment are required for workers in shipyards and construction:
      1. Whose airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected
  to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; or
      2. Where employees' skin can reasonably be expected to be exposed
  to beryllium.
      For the most part, the cost savings for PPE follow the cost
  estimates in the 2016 FEA. However, there are two exceptions. First,
  the new beryllium standards require shipyard welders to wear gloves
  because it is reasonable to expect that their skin will be exposed to
  beryllium. In the 2016 FEA OSHA listed the shipyard welders' compliance
  rate with this PPE requirement at 0 percent, inadvertently suggesting
  that shipyard welders were not already wearing gloves when, in fact,
  all shipyard welders are already required to wear gloves. In preparing
  this proposal, OSHA reviewed its compliance rates and discovered the
  oversight.\20\ As a result of this review, OSHA has preliminarily
  adjusted estimated shipyard welding compliance rates with the PPE
  requirement from 0 percent in the FEA to 100 percent for this proposal
  and calculated proposed cost savings using this preliminary estimate.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \20\ Upon review, the Agency now realizes that, under
  1915.157(a) for PPE (as well as under OSHA guidance for shipyards
  during welding), employers must provide gloves to protect against
  burns. In addition, OSHA now understands that gloves for shipyard
  welders are standard industry practice.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Second, for the same reason as with welders, the beryllium
  standards also require abrasive blasters in shipyards and construction
  to wear gloves as PPE. In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive
  blasters in construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate
  with the PPE requirements in the beryllium standard. However, upon
  review, OSHA has preliminarily revised this estimate because the 2016
  FEA inadvertantly did not take account of the fact that relevant PPE
  was actually already required by other OSHA standards for abrasive
  blasters in construction and shipyards. See 1915.34(c)(3)(iv);
  1926.57(f)(5)(v). Additionally, OSHA has determined that relevant PPE
  is required by the existing Personal Protective Equipment standard
  (1926.95) and the existing Hand and Body Protection standard (1915.157)
  to protect blasting helpers in construction and shipyards,
  respectively, from dermal exposure to beryllium dust. Therefore, for
  the purpose of calculating cost savings, the Agency now preliminarily
  estimates that all affected employees are already required to be
  equipped with PPE 100 percent of the time when exposed to beryllium.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      As discussed above, given the existing PPE requirements, OSHA
  estimates that there are no estimated cost savings as a result of
  revoking the PPE requirements for construction and shipyard employers
  in the beryllium final rule.
  Hygiene Areas and Practices
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      The new beryllium standards require affected shipyard and
  construction employers to provide readily accessible washing facilities
  to remove beryllium from the hands, face, and neck of each employee
  exposed to beryllium. The employer must also provide a designated
  change room in workplaces where employees would have to remove their
  personal clothing and don the employer-provided protective clothing.
  The employer must ensure that each employee exposed to beryllium uses
  these facilities when necessary.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      The Agency included in the 2016 FEA no additional cost for readily
  accessible washing facilities, under the expectation that employers
  already have such facilities in place. OSHA notes that employers of
  abrasive blasters exposed to beryllium in shipyards and construction
  work are typically already required to provide readily accessible
  washing facilities to comply with other OSHA standards.\21\ Therefore,
  OSHA is estimating no cost savings from washing facilities due to this
  proposal.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \21\ OSHA's shipyard standard at 29 CFR 1915.58(e) requires
  handwashing facilities "at or adjacent to each toilet facility"
  and "equipped with . . . running water and soap, or with waterless
  skin-cleansing agents that are capable of . . . neutralizing the
  contaminants to which the employee may be exposed." OSHA's
  construction standard at 29 CFR 1926.51(f)(1) requires "adequate
  washing facilities for employees engaged in . . . operations where
  contaminants may be harmful to the employees. Such facilities shall
  be in near proximity to the worksite and shall be so equipped as to
  enable employees to remove such substances."
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The Agency is, however, including cost savings for the removal of
  requirements to add a change room and segregated lockers. OSHA included
  these costs in the 2016 FEA for acquisition of portable structures, for
  employers who would need to add these. OSHA estimates that portable
  structures, adequate for 10 workers per establishment, could be rented
  annually for $3,579 (adjusted from Lerch, 2003) and that lockers could
  be procured for a capital cost of $448--or $53 annualized--per
  establishment (adjusted from Lab Safety, 2004). This results in an
  annualized cost of $4,027 ($3,579 + $448) per facility for a portable
  change room with lockers.
      OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that 10 percent of affected
  establishments will be unable to meet the final TWA PEL and will,
  therefore, require change


  rooms. The Agency expected that, in many cases, a worker will simply be
  adding, and later removing, a layer of clothing (such as a lab coat,
  coverall, or shoe covers) at work, which might involve no more than a
  couple of minutes a day. However, in other cases, a worker may need a
  full clothing change. Taking all these factors into account, OSHA
  estimated that a worker using a change room would need 5 minutes per
  day to change clothes. The annual cost per employee to change clothes
  (in a change room) is $480.54. This cost was based on a production
  worker earning $24.16 an hour (Production Occupation, SOC: 51-0000) and
  taking 5 minutes per day to change clothes for 250 days per year ((5/
  60) x $24.16 x 250).
      The Agency estimates the total annualized cost savings of removing
  the provision on hygiene areas and practices to be $1,573,230 for all
  affected establishments.\22\ The breakdown of these cost savings by
  NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this program cost-
  savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \22\ The hygiene areas and practices cost savings are calculated
  in the cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column NO through OU.
  The annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns OJ through OU.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Housekeeping
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      Housekeeping includes following the written exposure control plan,
  promptly cleaning up all spills and emergency releases of beryllium,
  and, when cleaning, using methods such as HEPA-filtered vacuuming. The
  new beryllium standards prohibits cleaning methods that could cause
  dust to be airborne, such as dry sweeping or compressed air without
  adequate LEV, unless proper respiratory equipment is worn. All methods
  must be in accordance with the written exposure control plan. When a
  shipyard or construction employer transfers materials containing
  beryllium to another party for use or disposal, the employer must
  provide the recipient with a copy of the warning label language.
  Cost-Savings Estimates
      OSHA estimated the following costs in the 2016 FEA in shipyards
  (amounts adjusted for 2016 dollars): A one-time annualized cost per
  worker of a HEPA-filtered vacuum ($614); the annual cost per worker of
  the additional time needed to perform housekeeping ($503); and the
  annual cost of the warning labels per worker ($5). The total annual
  per-employee cost was $509, updated to 2016 dollars. Upon further
  review, OSHA preliminarily determined that affected employers in
  construction are already required to minimize dust accumulations
  through compliance with 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(7), which requires that dust
  not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up promptly,
  and 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(3) and (f)(4), which require exhaust ventilation
  and dust collection and removal systems in abrasive blasting operations
  in construction. Similarly, the general industry Ventilation standard
  requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be
  cleaned up promptly in abrasive blasting in shipyards (see 29 CFR
  1910.94(a)(7), 1910.5(c)). For these reasons, OSHA preliminarily
  determined that affected employers would already have to perform some
  housekeeping, and for the purpose of the cost savings estimates in this
  proposal, OSHA is only including a cost savings for housekeeping in
  abrasive blasting operations in construction and shipyards for the cost
  of HEPA-filtered vacuums and similar equipment.
      The Agency estimates that there are 11,460 total affected employees
  in blasting in construction and shipyards, as well as 26 affected
  employees in shipyard welding, and that the total annualized cost
  savings in this proposal of removing this ancillary provision is
  $901,335.\23\ Of this, $886,008 is attributed to blasting in
  construction and shipyards and encompasses only the cost savings for
  HEPA vacuums and associated equipment. As shown in Table V-11 above,
  OSHA preliminarily determined that employers in these operations are
  already fully compliant with any labor requirements due to existing
  requirements. The Agency has preliminarily determined that the shipyard
  welding operation would not already be compliant with any labor
  requirements; thus, the $15,327 estimated cost savings in this sector
  is attributed to both labor and equipment. The breakdown of these cost
  savings by NAICS code is shown in Table V-18 at the end of this program
  cost-savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \23\ The housekeeping cost savings are calculated in the cost
  spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column OV through PW. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns PO through PW.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Medical Surveillance
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      The new beryllium standards require affected employers in shipyards
  and construction to make medical surveillance available at a reasonable
  time and place, and at no cost, to the following employees:
      1. Employees who have been, or are reasonably expected to be,
  exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days in the last
  12 months;
      2. Employees who show signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium
  disease (CBD) or signs or symptoms of other beryllium-related health
  effects, such as rashes;
      3. Employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
      4. Employees whose most recent written medical opinion required by
  this standard recommends periodic medical surveillance.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      OSHA previously identified the fees and other medical expenses that
  employers would incur to comply fully with the medical surveillance
  requirements in the new standards. Those costs would be saved under
  this proposal and are expressed as cost savings in the tables that
  follow.
  Unit Cost Savings for Medical Surveillance
      Table V-15 below lists the direct unit cost savings for removing
  initial medical surveillance activities including: Work and medical
  history, physical examination, pulmonary function test, BeLPT, LDCT
  scan, and additional tests.

      Table V-15--Direct Unit Cost Savings for the Medical Surveillance
                                   Program
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Item                                 Value
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Initial Medical Costs
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Work and medical history................................          $42.83
  Physical examination (skin and respiratory tract).......         $128.48


  Pulmonary function test.................................          $60.21
  Cost Savings of additional tests deemed appropriate by           $220.19
   PLHCP..................................................
  Percent of workers requiring additional tests...........             10%
  Total initial medical cost savings per worker...........         $253.54
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Lost Work Time
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Employee hours..........................................            2.08
  Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
  HR manager hours........................................            0.25
  HR manager wage.........................................          $72.42
  Supervisor hours........................................            0.33
  Supervisor wage.........................................          $41.08
  Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................          $82.13
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Total Medical and Lost Work Time Cost Savings per Employee
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total cost savings per employee.........................         $335.68
  Annualized total cost savings per employee..............         $211.50
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BeLPT
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BeLPT...................................................         $313.77
  Employee hours..........................................            0.08
  Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
  Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................           $2.01
  Unit BeLPT cost savings per employee....................         $315.78
  Annualized per employee cost savings of biennial BeLPTs          $198.97
   for 10 years \1\.......................................
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  LDCT Scan
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  LDCT scan...............................................         $847.74
  Review LDCT Scan with specialist........................         $275.24
  Employee hours..........................................            3.50
  Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
  Cost Savings of Lost work time..........................          $84.56
  Unit LDCT scan cost savings per employee................       $1,207.54
  Annualized per employee cost savings of biennial LDCT            $612.69
   scan for 10 years \2\..................................
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Total Annualized cost savings per employee
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...................................................       $1,023.17
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes:
  \1\ Calculated as the annualized discounted present value of $1,640 for
    biennial BeLPTs. See following discussion for more detail.
  \2\ Calculated as the annualized discounted present value of $3,363 for
    bi-annual CT scans. See following discussion for more detail.
  Sources: National Jewish Medical Center, 2005 (Document ID 2001);
    Intellimed International, 2003, (Document ID 2012); Cost Helper, 2010;
    (Document ID 1990); BLS, 2017a; BLS, 2017c; BLS, 2016c (Document ID
    1980) ; BEA, 2017 (Document ID 1970); US DOL, OSHA, Directorate of
    Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

  Biennial Examination and Testing and BeLPT Testing
      The fees, in 2016 dollars, for the total unit annual cost savings
  for the avoided medical examinations and tests (excluding the BeLPT
  test) and the time required for both the employee and the supervisor is
  $335.68. The total unit annual cost savings for the avoided BeLPT costs
  is $315.78. Because the required medical examination and the BeLPT
  would each typically occur only every two years, OSHA calculates the
  annualized cost savings of removing that examination and the BeLPT test
  as follows: taking the present value (PV) of the costs over 10 years
  and then annualizing them over 10 years at 3 percent. Using this
  methodology, the unit annualized biennial exam cost savings are $211.50
  and the unit annualized BeLPT cost savings are $198.97.
  LDCT Scans
      The new beryllium standards require that a low-dose computed
  tomography (LDCT scan) be offered to employees eligible for medical
  surveillance whenever recommended by the licensed physician.
      As it did with the 2016 FEA costs for LDCT scans, OSHA has based
  its cost saving estimates on the eligible employees receiving LDCTs
  every two years.
      The total yearly cost savings for biennial LDCT scans consists of
  avoided medical costs totaling $1,122.98, comprised of an $847.74 fee
  for the scan (CT-scan, 2012, Document ID 0568) and the cost of a
  specialist to review the results, which OSHA estimates would cost
  $275.24. The Agency estimates an additional cost savings of $84.56 of
  lost work time,\24\ for a total of $1,207.54 ($1,122.98 + $84.56). The
  annualized cost savings for avoided biennial CT scans is $364.00. The
  annualized total


  cost savings per employee is $612.69 ($430.13 + $139.65 + $42.91).\25\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \24\ Time cost is calculated using a wage rate of $23.87
  (Production Worker, SOC 51-0000) and a total of 3.5 hours lost: 60
  minutes to travel to and from the appointment, 60 minutes to
  administer the scan, 60 minutes to travel to and from a meeting with
  a specialist to review the results and 30 minutes to review the
  results with the specialist (updated from ERG, 2013) (Document ID
  1781).
      \25\ The components represent the annualized unit cost-saving
  elements of the LDCT scan, reviewing the LDCT scan with a
  specialist, and lost work time.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Number of Workers Requiring LDCT Scans
      In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that the number of workers that the
  physician recommends to receive LDCT scans would be 25 percent of
  workers who are exposed above 0.2 in the exposure profile. The estimate
  of 25 percent was based on the fact that roughly this percentage of
  workers has 15+ years of job tenure in the durable manufacturing sector
  (BLS, 2013, Document ID 0672) and that all those with 15+ years of job
  tenure and current exposure over 0.2 would have had at least 5 years of
  such exposure in the past. OSHA uses the same estimate in calculating
  the cost savings in this PEA.
  CBD Diagnostic Center Referrals and Evaluations
      For purposes of costing this consultation, OSHA used the marginal
  costs of a physician's time (wages plus fringe benefits) of $132.79 per
  hour (Physicians and Surgeons, All Other, SOC: 29-1069); the
  physician's cost for the 15 minute consultation is therefore $33.20
  ((15/60) x $132.79). Similarly the worker's time for this consultation,
  with a production worker's hourly wage of $24.16 (updated from
  Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000), results in a cost for the
  employee's time of $6.04 ((15/60) x $24.16). Hence the total employer
  cost savings of avoiding this consultation is $39.24 ($33.20 + $6.04).
  These cost savings are included in Table V-16 below.
      Table V-16 also lists the direct unit cost savings for a clinical
  evaluation with a specialist at a CBD diagnostic center.

    Table V-16--Unit Cost Savings for Medical Evaluation and Testing per
                 Worker Referred to a CBD Diagnostic Center
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Item                                 Value
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 All Workers
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Referral examination for new patients \1\...............       $6,456.80
  Employer physician hours................................            0.25
  Employer physician wage.................................         $132.79
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Travelling Workers
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Employee hours..........................................           24.25
  Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
  Lost work time \2\......................................         $619.09
  Cost-savings of travel & living expenses per employee            $620.71
   \3\....................................................
                                                           ---------------
      Total cost savings per travelling employee..........       $7,696.60
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Workers Tested Locally
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Employee hours..........................................            4.25
  Employee wage...........................................          $24.16
  Lost work time \4\......................................         $135.88
                                                           ---------------
      Total cost savings per non-travelling employee......       $6,592.68
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Weighted Average--All Workers
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average cost-savings per employee.......................       $7,420.62
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Includes an exam with a specialist, blood tests, plethysmography, a
    pulmonary stress test, bronchoscopy with lung biopsy, and a chest CT
    scan. The unit costs of the components of the evaluation are
    considered confidential by Healthcare Facility A.
  \2\ For \3/4\ of eligible workers, assumes three 8-hour work days for
    the employee at $24.16/hour as well as a 15 minute discussion between
    the employee and the physician at $132.79/hour. See following
    discussion for more detail.
  \3\ Includes out-of-town travel costs and $53/day living expenses for \3/
    4\ of workers. See following discussion for more detail.
  \4\ For \1/4\ of eligible workers, assumes four hours for the employee
    at $24.16/hour as well as a 15 minute discussion between the employee
    and the physician at $132.79/hour. See following discussion for more
    detail.
  Sources: Healthcare Facility A, 2014 (Document ID 2044): U.S. DOT, 2012
    (PEA) (Document ID 2031); OSHA Estimate (PEA) (Document ID 0385); BLS,
    2016a (Document ID 1978); BLS, 2016 (Document ID 1980); BEA, 2016
    (Document ID 1970): U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
    Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

      In addition, as shown in Table V-16, there are cost savings for
  avoided lost productivity and travel.
      The total cost of a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD
  diagnostic center is equal to the cost of the examination plus the cost
  of lost work-time and the cost for the employee to travel to the CBD
  diagnostic center. For the two latter types of costs, 75 percent were
  based on out-of-town travel to a CBD diagnostic center and 25 percent
  were based on a local CBD diagnostic center. The resulting weighted-
  average cost-saving estimates of $7,420.62 for testing at a CBD
  diagnostic center are presented in Table V-16.
      Employees who are not already diagnosed with CBD can be referred to
  a CBD diagnostic center if the employee is confirmed positive
  (sensitized to beryllium). OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that during
  the first year that the medical surveillance provisions are in effect
  14.0 percent of the 640 workers who are tested for beryllium
  sensitization will be confirmed positive for sensitization (through
  BeLPT tests) and referred to a CBD diagnostic center.


      Based on these unit costs and the number of employees requiring
  medical surveillance estimated above, OSHA estimated that the removal
  by this proposal of the medical surveillance and referral provisions
  would result in an annualized total cost savings of $1,414,112.\26\
  These cost savings by NAICS code are shown in Table V-18 at the end of
  the program cost-savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \26\ The medical surveillance cost savings are calculated in the
  cost spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column FT through KK. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns JT through KK.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Medical Removal Provision
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      For affected construction and shipyard establishments, if an
  employee works in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action
  level, is diagnosed with CBD or confirmed positive, and provides
  documentation of the employee's diagnosis of CBD or confirmed positive
  status to the employer, that employee is eligible for medical removal
  and has two choices:
      i. Removal from the current job, or
      ii. Remain in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action
  level while wearing a respirator in accordance with paragraph (g) of
  the standards.
      If the employee chooses removal, the employee must accept
  comparable work if such work is available. If comparable work is not
  available the employer must offer the employee paid leave for six
  months or until such time as comparable work becomes available,
  whichever comes first. During that six-month period, whether the
  employee is re-assigned or placed on paid leave, the employer must
  continue to maintain the employee's base earnings, seniority and other
  rights and benefits that existed at the time of removal.
  Cost Savings Estimates
      Revoking the medical removal provision would provide cost savings
  due to workers no longer being eligible for medical removal. OSHA
  estimated that, under the January 2017 final standards for construction
  and shipyards, 332 workers would be eligible for medical removal in the
  first year and 26 workers each year would be eligible in subsequent
  years. OSHA estimated an average medical removal cost per worker
  assuming that 75 percent of firms would be able to find the employee an
  alternate job, and the remaining 25 percent of firms would not. With
  updated hourly wages for a production worker of $24.16 (Production
  Occupations, SOC: 51-0000) and for a clerical worker of $22.53 (File
  Clerks, SOC: 43-4071), the weighted average of these costs is $7,266
  per worker (0.75 x $1,363 + $273 \27\) + 0.25 x ($24,161).
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \27\ The cost of the salary differential for 6 months of work in
  a job with exposures less than the AL plus one month of re-training.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Based on the above unit costs, OSHA estimates that revoking the
  medical removal provision in this proposal would result in an
  annualized total cost savings of $471,601.\28\ The breakdown of these
  cost savings by NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this
  program cost section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \28\ The medical removal cost savings are calculated in the cost
  spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column KL through LF. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns KX through LF.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Familiarization Costs
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      In the new beryllium standards, OSHA included familiarization costs
  to account for employers' time to understand the ancillary provisions
  and the other new and revised components of the applicable new
  standard.
  Cost Estimates
      As some employers may already have been reviewing the 2016 FEA, in
  an effort to be conservative, OSHA has not assumed any familiarization
  cost savings. In the 2016 FEA, the amount of familiarization time
  required depended, in part, on the range of beryllium-related
  operations. As the focus of this proposal is on removing the ancillary
  requirements, this variability of required familiarization time has
  been largely eliminated. Employers would thus only need to spend a
  brief amount of time reviewing this proposal (if it became final) to
  look at the changes from the 2016 FEA. Therefore, OSHA expects that if
  this proposal is adopted, employers would spend one-tenth of one hour
  per firm (or 6 minutes) reviewing its changed requirements.
      Table V-17 shows the unit costs, by establishment size, of
  reviewing the changes in this proposal as a result of removing the
  ancillary provisions. These costs will likely be one-time costs
  incurred during the first year in which this PEA becomes final, but the
  aggregate costs are annualized for consistency with the other estimates
  for this proposal. Based on the unit familiarization (negative) cost
  savings in Table V-17, the total annualized familiarization costs of
  this proposal are estimated to be $1,346.\29\ The breakdown of these
  costs by NAICS code can be seen in Table V-18 at the end of this
  program cost-savings section.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \29\ The familiarization cost savings are calculated in the cost
  spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column TP through UZ. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns UF through UZ.

              Table V-17--Familiarization--Construction and Shipyards Assumptions and Unit Cost Savings
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Medium (20-
                                                                      Small (<20)        499)        Large (500+)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hours per establishment.........................................             0.1             0.1             0.1
  Total cost savings per establishment............................         ($4.11)         ($4.11)         ($4.11)
  Annualized cost savings.........................................         ($0.48)         ($0.48)         ($0.48)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Based on supervisor wage of $41.08, inclusive of benefits (BLS, 2016) (Document ID 1980).
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA
    (2017) (Document ID 2044).

  Training
  Overview of Regulatory Requirements in the New Beryllium Standards
      As specified in both the new shipyard and construction beryllium
  standards and the existing OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 on hazard
  communication, the employer must provide initial training and repeat
  annual training for each employee who is, or who can reasonably be
  expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium. The initial training is
  required by the time of initial assignment, and will be applicable to
  affected shipyard and construction employers.



  Cost Savings Estimates
      The cost savings track the training costs in the 2016 FEA to
  educate employees about the new requirements of beryllium standards.
  This additional training would not be necessary if the only impact on
  construction and shipyards is a change to the PEL. In the 2016 FEA,
  OSHA determined that training, which includes hazard communication
  training, will likely be conducted by in-house safety or supervisory
  staff with the use of training modules and videos. It is estimated that
  this training will last, on average, eight hours. (Note that this
  estimate does not include the time taken for hazard communication
  training that is already required by 29 CFR 1910.1200.) The Agency
  anticipated that establishments will be able to purchase sufficient
  training materials at an average cost of $2.12 per worker, encompassing
  the cost of handouts, video presentations, and training manuals and
  exercises. For initial and periodic training, OSHA estimated an average
  class size of five workers (each at a wage of $24.16 (updated from
  Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000)) with one instructor (at a wage
  of $41.34 (Median Wage for Training and Development Specialists, SOC:
  13-1151)) over an eight hour period. The estimated per-worker cost of
  initial training is $259.43 (= (8 x $24.16) + (8 x $41.34/5) +
  $2.12).\30\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \30\ Note that wages are rounded and may not total exactly.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Annual retraining of workers is also required by the new beryllium
  standards. OSHA estimated the same unit costs as for initial training,
  so retraining would require the same per-worker cost of $259.43.
      Finally, using these calculations, as well as accounting for
  industry-specific baseline compliance rates (from Section V.B. of this
  PEA), and based on a 25.7 percent new hire rate (BLS 2016a, annual
  manufacturing new hire rate),\31\ OSHA preliminarily estimates that the
  removal of the training requirements in this proposal would result in
  an annualized total cost savings of $778,371.\32\ The breakdown of
  these cost savings by NAICS code is presented in Table V-18 below.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \31\ OSHA used the same hire rate for abrasive blasters in
  construction, judging that abrasive blasters in construction are
  more like skilled production workers (including abrasive blasters)
  in manufacturing and shipyard than day laborers in construction.
      \32\ The training cost savings are calculated in the cost
  spreadsheet in the `Rule' tab in column PX through QO. The
  annualized cost savings are calculated at 7, 3 and 0 percent in
  columns QJ through QO.




                                        Table V-18--Annualized Cost Savings of Program Requirements for Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                                                              [In 2016 dollars using a 3 percent discount rate]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                              Written      Protective                                             Total
                                                                               Rule         Exposure    Regulated    Beryllium      Medical      Medical      exposure   work  clothing    Hygiene                               program
           Application group/NAICS                    Industry           familiarization   assessment     areas      work areas  surveillance    removal      control     &  equipment    areas and   Housekeeping   Training      cost
                                                                                                                        ***                     provision       plan          ****        practices                              savings
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320..................................  Painting and Wall Covering             -$525   $2,037,910       $4,393           $0      $536,953     $179,409      $88,335              $0     $610,420      $337,085   $293,431   $4,087,412
                                             Contractors.
  238990..................................  All Other Specialty Trade               -486    1,888,339        4,071            0       497,544      166,241       81,852               0      565,618       312,345    271,895    3,787,418
                                             Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a.................................  Ship Building and Repairing             -332    1,430,277      252,463            0       376,852      125,915       60,706               0      393,508       236,578    205,940    3,081,907
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Welding--Shipyards **
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b.................................  Ship Building and Repairing               -3        2,994          172            0         2,762           36        2,139               0        3,684        15,327      7,106       34,217
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal...................  ...........................           -1,011    3,926,250        8,464            0     1,034,497      345,650      170,187               0    1,176,038       649,430    565,325    7,874,830
  Shipyard Subtotal.......................  ...........................             -335    1,433,271      252,635            0       379,615      125,951       62,845               0      397,192       251,905    213,046    3,116,125
                                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries...................  ...........................           -1,346    5,359,520      261,099            0     1,414,112      471,601      233,032               0    1,573,230       901,335    778,371   10,990,954
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.
  *** The 2016 FEA also included a requirement for beryllium work areas. As that provision only applied to general industry, it is not relevant, nor discussed, in this proposal, and all references show a zero-dollar cost savings.


  Total Annualized Cost Savings
      As shown in Table V-19, the total annualized cost savings of this
  proposal, using a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated to be about
  $11.0 million.

            Table V-19--Annualized Cost Savings to Industries Affected by the Proposed Beryllium Standard, by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                      [In 2016 dollars using a 3 percent discount rate]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Engineering
                 Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total cost
                                                                                            work practices       costs          savings         savings
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,087,412      $4,087,412
                                                         Contractors.
  238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,787,418       3,787,418
                                                         Contractors.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing.......               0               0       3,081,907       3,081,907
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Welding--Shipyards
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing.......               0               0          34,217          34,217
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal...............................  ..................................               0               0       7,874,830       7,874,830
  Shipyard Subtotal...................................  ..................................               0               0       3,116,125       3,116,125
                                                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries...............................  ..................................               0               0      10,990,954      10,990,954
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

  Time Distribution of Costs
      OSHA analyzed the stream of (un-annualized) compliance costs for
  the first ten years after the rule would take effect. As shown in Table
  V-20, compliance cost savings are expected to decline from year 1 to
  year 2 by more than half after the initial set of capital and program
  start-up expenditures has been incurred. Costs are then essentially
  flat with relatively small variations for the following years.

                                          Table V-20--Distribution of Undiscounted Compliance Cost Savings by Year
                                                                       [2016 Dollars]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Program cost                                                 Rule
                             Year                                 savings          Respirators        Engineering      familiarization         Total
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1........................................................        $24,009,232                 $0                 $0           -$11,484        $23,997,748
  2........................................................          8,173,911                  0                  0                  0          8,173,911
  3........................................................          8,951,304                  0                  0                  0          8,951,304
  4........................................................          8,332,508                  0                  0                  0          8,332,508
  5........................................................          8,834,132                  0                  0                  0          8,834,132
  6........................................................          8,418,670                  0                  0                  0          8,418,670
  7........................................................          8,770,344                  0                  0                  0          8,770,344
  8........................................................          8,466,731                  0                  0                  0          8,466,731
  9........................................................          8,733,739                  0                  0                  0          8,733,739
  10.......................................................          8,494,159                  0                  0                  0          8,494,159
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

      Table V-21 breaks out total costs by each application group for the
  first ten years. Each application group follows the same pattern of a
  sharp decrease in compliance costs between years 1 and 2, and then
  remains relatively flat for the remaining years.



                                                         Table V-21--Total Undiscounted Cost Savings of the New Beryllium Standards by Year
                                                                                           [2016 Dollars]
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Year
                        Application group                       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1            2            3            4            5            6            7            8            9            10
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Abrasive Blasting--Construction..............................   $17,383,709   $5,814,352   $6,382,594   $5,930,492   $6,296,968   $5,993,216   $6,250,595   $6,028,337   $6,223,603   $6,048,622
  Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards.................................     6,547,501    2,331,174    2,538,176    2,373,155    2,506,984    2,396,331    2,489,764    2,409,125    2,480,258    2,416,188
  Welding--Shipyards...........................................        66,538       28,385       30,533       28,861       30,180       29,123       29,985       29,268       29,877       29,348
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................    23,997,748    8,173,911    8,951,304    8,332,508    8,834,132    8,418,670    8,770,344    8,466,731    8,733,739    8,494,159
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

  References
  Domestic Product. February 26, 2016. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=13#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2013&903=13&906=a&905=2015&910=x&911=1 (Accessed February 26, 2016).
  (Document ID 1970).
  BLS, 2017a. Occupational Employment Statistics Survey--May 2016
  (Released March 31, 2017). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm (Accessed April 1, 2017).
  BLS, 2017c. 2017 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, U.S.
  Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/.
  Telephone Interview between Angie Lerch, Rental Coordinator,
  Satellite Shelters, Inc. and Robert Carney of ERG (Document ID
  0562).
  OSHA, 2016. Cost of Compliance (Chapter V) of the Final Economic
  Analysis ("2016 FEA"; Document ID 2042).
  OSHA, 2017. Excel Spreadsheets of Economic Costs, Impacts, and
  Benefits in Support of OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA)
  for the Proposed Deregulatory Action of Removing the Ancillary
  Revisions for the Maritime Sector and the Construction Sector from
  the Scope of the New Beryllium Standards: May 2017.

  Appendix V-A

  Summary of Annualized Costs by Entity Size Under Alternative Discount
  Rates

      In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost
  analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative
  discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-22 and V-23
  present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
  total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS
  industry code and employment size class (all establishments, small
  entities, and very small entities).
      As shown in these tables, the choice of discount rate has only a
  minor effect on total annualized compliance costs--for example,
  annualized costs for all establishments increase from $11.0 million
  using a 3 percent discount rate to $11.5 million using a 7 percent
  discount rate, and decline to $10.8 million using a 0 percent
  discount rate.

  V-22--Total Annualized Cost Savings, for Entities Affected by the New Beryllium Standards; Results Shown by Size
                                Category, by Sector, and by Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                     [7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Very small
         Application group/NAICS               Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                               establishments     (SBA-defined)      employees)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320...............................  Painting and Wall          $4,280,908        $3,605,768        $2,527,303
                                          Covering
                                          Contractors.
  238990...............................  All Other Specialty         3,966,713         3,050,668         2,084,462
                                          Trade Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a..............................  Ship Building and           3,217,754         1,026,481           542,567
                                          Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Welding--Shipyards **
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b..............................  Ship Building and              35,196            11,599             6,601
                                          Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal................  ...................         8,247,620         6,656,436         4,611,766
  Shipyard Subtotal....................  ...................         3,252,950         1,038,080           549,167
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries................  ...................        11,500,570         7,694,516         5,160,933
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  "NA" indicates not applicable because OSHA determined there were no affected entities in a particular industry
    of a particular size.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
    mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
    do both welding and abrasive blasting.


   Table V-23--Total Annualized Cost Savings, for Entities Affected by the New Beryllium Standards; Results Shown
                            by Size Category, by Sector, and by Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                     [0 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Very small
         Application group/NAICS               Industry              All         Small entities     entities (<20
                                                               establishments     (SBA-defined)      employees)
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320...............................  Painting and Wall          $4,002,659        $3,375,763        $2,373,392
                                          Covering
                                          Contractors.
  238990...............................  All Other Specialty         3,708,886         2,858,041         1,959,635
                                          Trade Contractors.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a..............................  Ship Building and           3,021,057           973,324           515,607
                                          Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Welding--Shipyards **
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b..............................  Ship Building and              33,823            11,135             6,336
                                          Repairing.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal................  ...................         7,711,545         6,233,805         4,333,027
  Shipyard Subtotal....................  ...................         3,054,880           984,460           521,943
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries................  ...................        10,766,425         7,218,264         4,854,970
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Notes: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  "NA" indicates not applicable because OSHA determined there were no affected entities in a particular industry
    of a particular size.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use
    mineral slag abrasives to etch the surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may
    do both welding and abrasive blasting.

  Appendix V-B

  Summary of Annualized Cost Savings by Cost Type Under Alternative
  Discount Rates

      In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost
  analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative
  discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-24 and V-25
  present--for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively--
  total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS
  industry code and type of cost savings.

         Table V-24--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the New Beryllium Standards by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                         [7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Engineering
                 Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total costs
                                                                                            work practices       costs
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,280,908      $4,280,908
                                                         Contractors.
  238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,966,713       3,966,713
                                                         Contractors.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0       3,217,754       3,217,754
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Welding--Shipyards **
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0          35,196          35,196
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal...............................  .................................                0               0       8,247,620       8,247,620
  Shipyard Subtotal...................................  .................................                0               0       3,252,950       3,252,950
                                                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries...............................  .................................                0               0      11,500,570      11,500,570
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the
    surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.


         Table V-25--Annualized Compliance Cost Savings for Employers Affected by the New Beryllium Standards by Sector and Six-Digit NAICS Industry
                                                         [0 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars]
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Engineering
                 Application group/NAICS                             Industry                controls and     Respirator     Program costs    Total costs
                                                                                            work practices       costs
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Abrasive Blasting--Construction
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  238320..............................................  Painting and Wall Covering                      $0              $0      $4,002,659      $4,002,659
                                                         Contractors.
  238990..............................................  All Other Specialty Trade                        0               0       3,708,886       3,708,886
                                                         Contractors.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards *
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611a.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0       3,021,057       3,021,057
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Welding--Shipyards **
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  336611b.............................................  Ship Building and Repairing......                0               0          33,823          33,823
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Construction Subtotal...............................  .................................                0               0       7,711,545       7,711,545
  Shipyard Subtotal...................................  .................................                0               0       3,054,880       3,054,880
                                                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
  Total, All Industries...............................  .................................                0               0      10,766,425      10,766,425
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note: Figures in rows may not add to totals due to rounding.
  Source: U.S. DOL, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
  * Employers in application group Abrasive Blasting--Shipyards are shipyards employing abrasive blasters that use mineral slag abrasives to etch the
    surfaces of boats and ships.
  ** Employers in application group Welding in Shipyards employ welders in shipyards. Some of these employers may do both welding and abrasive blasting.

  D. Foregone Benefits

  Estimated Foregone Benefits and Net Benefits by Construction and
  Shipyards for the Final Standards for Occupational Exposure to
  Beryllium
      In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that, in addition to other health
  benefits, the rule would, at the final steady state after a gradual 45-
  year phase in period, prevent 86 cases of fatal Chronic Beryllium
  Disease, 46 cases of non-fatal CBD morbidity, and 4 fatal cases of lung
  cancer annually, the large majority of these cases falling within
  General Industry (see FEA Chapter VII, Benefits and Net Benefits in
  Document ID 2042). OSHA estimated the net benefits for the rule as a
  whole would be worth $487 million ($561 million in benefits minus $74
  million in costs). These estimates were midpoints of a very wide range
  of estimates. Factors contributing to the range included varying risk
  models, varying approaches to occupational tenure, and widely varying
  estimates of the effects of ancillary provisions. The construction and
  shipyard sectors were only a small fraction of this total.
  Specifically, as indicated in Table VIII-12 in the preamble to the
  January 9, 2017 final rule (82 FR 2613), the Agency estimated, using
  the mid-point of a range of benefits, that the rule would prevent 4
  cases of fatal and 2 cases of non-fatal CBD annually in these two
  sectors. Almost all of these estimated benefits were the result of the
  ancillary provisions. Given uncertainties about possible benefits from
  lowering the PEL, the FEA attributed no benefits to implementing the
  PEL alone for abrasive blasting operations.\33\ These sectors accounted
  for an estimated $11.9 million in costs, or 16.1 percent of the costs
  of the final rule, and an estimated $27.6 million in benefits, or 4.9
  percent of the total benefits of the final rule. Without the benefits
  derived from the construction and shipyards sectors, the net benefit of
  the rulemaking was reduced by $15.7 million, or 3.2 percent of the
  total net benefits of the rule.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \33\ See footnote 3 on p. VII-10 of Chapter VII, Benefits, for
  the FEA for the final beryllium standards. This footnote states:
  "Given uncertainties about the level of existing respirator use
  among other workers involved in abrasive blasting operations, OSHA
  conservatively assigned no benefits related to a reduction in their
  airborne exposure to beryllium."
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This distribution was due both to the much larger number of workers
  exposed in general industry, compared to construction and shipyards,
  and uncertainties about how many residual benefits would remain in
  abrasive blasting operations after existing regulatory requirements
  were taken into account. In short, the net benefits attributable to
  these sectors were both small and uncertain.
  Review of FEA Benefits Analysis
      In the FEA, OSHA expressed uncertainty about whether there would be
  benefits from reduced airborne exposure related to abrasive blasting
  operations in both shipyards and construction, as well as a limited
  number of welders in the shipyards sector.\34\ OSHA noted that abrasive
  blasting operators in construction are already required to wear
  respirators and assumed that additional engineering and work-practice
  controls for the operators were infeasible. As explained in this
  proposal, abrasive blasters in shipyards are often required to wear
  respirators under the requirements of the Mechanical paint removers
  standard, 29 CFR 1915.34. However, these standards do not necessarily
  cover pot tenders or clean-up workers, and may not have required some
  pot tenders or clean-up workers exposed above the revised PEL of 0.2
  [mu]g/m\3\ to wear respirators. The exposure data show some pot tenders
  or clean-up workers are exposed above the revised PEL, but the data do
  not show whether any of these pot tenders or clean-up workers exposed
  above the revised PEL were wearing respirators. This uncertainty about
  baseline respirator use led OSHA to take a conservative approach in the
  2016 FEA: In the benefits analysis, OSHA assumed no new benefits from
  the PEL requirements (thereby potentially underestimating benefits
  related to the lower PEL), but in the cost analysis, to err on the side
  of overestimating costs, OSHA assumed


  that only 75 percent of abrasive blaster helpers, including cleanup
  workers, were already provided with the respiratory protection required
  by the new standard.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \34\ In the 2016 FEA Industry Profile, OSHA estimated that there
  were 26 welders in shipyards who would be affected by the final
  rule.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Welders in shipyards also have some exposures above the PEL.
  However, employers are already required to provide welders with
  ventilation and air-line respirators under 29 CFR 1915.51.
  Nevertheless, in the cost section of the 2016 FEA, OSHA again provided
  a conservative estimate for the cost of one new respirator and added a
  small increment to benefits as result of the new PEL.
  Estimate of Foregone Benefits
      As explained in the Summary and Explanation of this preamble, OSHA
  has decided to retain the 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ PEL portion of the current
  standards for construction and maritime. Therefore, the key question
  with respect to the magnitude of the benefits foregone for this rule is
  the effect of the ancillary provisions (over and above their effect in
  ensuring compliance with the PEL) in reducing illnesses and fatalities.
      In the FEA, the Agency attributed some reduction in disease to the
  standards' new lower PEL and the standards' ancillary provisions.
  However, as explained in the FEA, there was uncertainty of the efficacy
  of the ancillary requirements across different work environments. For
  General Industry, the efficacy was estimated to range from no effect to
  reducing as much as 90 percent of the CBD cases not averted by the new
  PEL. The FEA referenced several case studies from general industry
  where benefits at the high end of this scale had come to pass
  empirically, on top of whatever engineering controls had been
  implemented. These benefits were attributed most specifically to the
  introduction of a combination of dermal and respiratory PPE, as well as
  more aggressive housekeeping.
      Throughout the rulemaking process, OSHA has been aware that the
  situations in shipyards and construction may be substantially different
  from those in general industry. Baseline usage of respirators and PPE
  is far higher in construction and shipyards. While the general industry
  "model" for the efficacy of the ancillary provisions may apply
  relatively well at other places in general industry (since it was based
  largely on the experience at Materion facilities), it might be less
  effective for construction and shipyards. As indicated in the FEA, most
  workers in construction and shipyard abrasive blasting and shipyard
  welding operations are already required by other standards to wear
  respirators, and it is unclear how many of the abrasive blasting
  workers would benefit from additional dermal protection requirements.
  As a result, compared to the earlier (2015) PEA, the Agency estimated a
  much lower range of benefits to the ancillary provisions for
  construction and shipyards. Between the 2015 PEA and the FEA, the
  Agency judged that the benefits estimated for abrasive blasting should
  be even lower than in the 2015 PEA (which had estimated them at half
  that of general industry, or a range of 0 to 45 percent), and halved
  them again to 0 to 22.5 percent in the FEA. The high end of this range
  was simply an estimate of 25 percent of the range used in general
  industry, as a way of accounting for the extensive use of respirators
  and PPE in these two sectors.
      Upon further review, OSHA believes that this estimate of 0 to 22.5
  percent is too high. While the FEA estimates recognized a high baseline
  level of compliance, the benefit estimates did not account for
  compliance with PPE and housekeeping provisions by shipyard welders and
  construction and shipyard abrasive blasting workers. As a result, based
  on OSHA's preliminary revised baseline compliance estimates, there
  should have been limited to no benefits in terms of reduced cases of
  CBD attributed to the ancillary provisions for the construction and
  shipyards standards in the January 2017 rule. OSHA also, upon review,
  found that shipyard welders already use extensive PPE, and thus, based
  on OSHA's preliminary revised baseline compliance estimates, should
  have had more limited benefits attributable to the ancillary provisions
  than originally estimated in the January 2017 rule. This issue of
  baseline compliance, along with the estimates underlying OSHA's
  proposed revised baseline compliance rates, was discussed in section
  V.B, Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and
  Employees, of this preamble. Based on the proposed revised compliance
  rates discussed there, OSHA has therefore preliminarily concluded that
  abrasive blasting workers in construction and shipyards and welders in
  shipyards will have limited to no foregone benefits as a result of
  withdrawing the ancillary provisions.
      Using the proposed revised baseline compliance rates in section V.B
  of this PEA would also lower the estimate of benefits for the
  construction and shipyard sectors by lowering the baseline estimate of
  illnesses and fatalities. (Such an issue was not relevant for general
  industry because there were not such high levels of baseline
  compliance.)
  Conclusions
      For the reasons discussed above, OSHA has preliminarily concluded
  that there are limited to no foregone benefits (due to reducing the
  number of cases of CBD) as a result of revoking the ancillary
  provisions of the beryllium final standards for Construction and
  Shipyards because based on the proposed revised baseline compliance
  estimates presented in section V.B. of this PEA, the benefits
  attributed to the ancillary provisions in those sectors were
  overestimated. The Agency continues to believe that the new PEL will
  ensure that workers receive additional protection from exposure to
  beryllium.\35\
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \35\ The FEA attributed benefits to lowering the PEL for welders
  in shipyards. While there are also benefits among abrasive blasting
  pot tenders and cleanup workers for lowering the PEL, in order to
  avoid overestimating benefits in the FEA, OSHA took the conservative
  approach of estimating no benefits for these workers due to
  uncertainty about the extent of baseline respirator use. The new
  lower PEL may also result in more protective respirators being used
  in abrasive blasting operations, and will protect workers in the
  event that respirators fail, although this is difficult to quantify.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  VI. Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
  Certification Economic Feasibility Analysis

  Shipyards

      OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions in shipyards
  and amend the Z Table with the new lower PEL and STEL. OSHA
  preliminarily concludes that the proposed removal of these provisions
  for shipyards from the new beryllium standards would reduce costs for
  shipyard employers. Because these revisions do not create new
  requirements, OSHA has preliminarily determined that neither new costs
  nor compliance burdens would be incurred by shipyard employers. Instead
  there would be cost savings as compared to the January 9, 2017 final
  standard for occupational exposure to beryllium in shipyards.

  Construction

      OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions in
  construction and amend Appendix A of 1926.55 with the new lower PEL and
  STEL. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed removal of these
  provisions for the construction sector would reduce costs for
  construction employers. Because these revisions do not create new
  requirements, OSHA has preliminarily determined that neither new costs
  nor compliance burdens would be incurred by construction


  employers. Instead there would be cost savings as compared to the
  January 9, 2017 final standard for occupational exposure to beryllium
  in construction.

  Economic Feasibility Determination

      Based on the preceding discussion, it is clear that no shipyard or
  construction employer would incur new costs as a result of this
  proposal beyond the minimal cost of familiarization. Because there are
  no new requirements, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed
  rule is economically feasible. The Agency welcomes comment on this
  preliminary finding.

  Regulatory Flexibility Certification

      In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
  seq. (as amended), OSHA has examined the regulatory requirements of the
  proposal for shipyards and construction to determine whether they would
  have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
  entities. The proposal would remove ancillary provisions for shipyards
  and construction from the new beryllium rule, resulting in a reduction
  of overall costs. Furthermore, because OSHA is proposing no new
  requirements, the Agency believes that this proposal would not impose
  any costs on small entities covered by this proposal. The 2016 FEA
  analysis showed that the costs, and thus the cost savings, would not
  represent a significant impact on a substantial numbers of small
  entities and, therefore, the cost savings in this proposal would not
  have a significant impact on the construction and shipyard subset of
  those small entities. The Agency certifies that the proposal would not
  have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
  entities.

  Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
  Costs

      Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
  2017) we have estimated the total annualized cost savings of this
  proposed rule, using a 3 percent discount rate, to be about $11.0
  million, or using a 7 percent discount rate, to be about $11.5 million.
  Therefore, this proposed rule, if finalized, is expected to be an
  Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

  VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

  A. Overview

      The current beryllium standards for occupational exposure to
  beryllium--general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024), construction (29 CFR
  1926.1124), and shipyard (29 CFR 1915.1024)--contain collection of
  information (paperwork) requirements that have been approved by the
  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
  of 1995 (PRA), and approved under OMB Control number 1218-0267. The
  proposal would revoke the beryllium standards, and their collections of
  information, in the shipyard and construction sectors, while retaining
  the new lower permissible exposure limits. The PRA defines "collection
  of information" to mean "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" (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
      Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
  collection of information unless OMB approves it, and the agency
  displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also,
  notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall be
  subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
  information if the collection of information does not display a
  currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512). The major
  collections of information found in the standards are listed below.

  B. Solicitation of Comments

      OSHA prepared and submitted a revised Information Collection
  Request (ICR) to OMB removing the Beryllium Shipyard and Construction
  collections of information from the existing OMB approved paperwork
  package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Agency solicits
  comments on the removal of the collection of information requirements
  and reduction in estimated burden hours associated with these
  requirements, including comments on the following items:
       Whether collections of information are necessary for the
  proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the
  information is useful;
       The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
  cost) of the collections of information, including the validity of the
  methodology and assumptions used;
       The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
  collected; and
       Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for
  example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
  collecting and transmitting information (78 FR 56438).

  C. Proposed Information Collection Requirements

      As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the
  following paragraphs provide information about this ICR.
      1. Title: The Occupational Exposure to Beryllium.
      2. Description of the ICR: The proposal would remove both the
  Shipyard and Construction Standards from the currently approved
  Beryllium ICR.
      3. Brief Summary of the Information Collection Requirements
      The proposed ICR does not contain the collection of information
  requirements in the construction and shipyard industries. The proposal
  to remove standards for construction and shipyards is based on the
  Agency's reconsideration of the need for ancillary provisions in those
  sectors.
      Below is a summary of the collection of information requirements
  identified in the currently approved Beryllium Information Collection.
  In this proposed rulemaking, the Agency is proposing to remove the
  construction and shipyard standards and retain the general industry
  standard in the Beryllium rule. A copy of this ICR is available to the
  public at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=1218-0267.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retaining collections of        Removing collections of information
           information         -------------------------------------------
  -----------------------------                           Construction
        General industry          Maritime industry         industry
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sec.   1910.1024(d)(2)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Performance Option.           1915.1024(d)(2)       1926.1124(d)(2)
                                 Performance Option.   Performance Option.
  Sec.   1910.1024(d)(3)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii) Scheduled       1915.1024(d)(3)(i),   1926.1124(d)(3)(i),
   Monitoring Options.           (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
                                 Scheduled             Scheduled
                                 Monitoring Options.   Monitoring Options.
  Sec.   1910.1024(d)(3)(iv),   Sec.                  Sec.
   (v), & (vi) Scheduled         1915.1024(d)(3)(iv)   1926.1124(d)(3)(iv)
   Monitoring Options.           , (v), & (vi)         , (v), & (vi)
                                 Scheduled             Scheduled
                                 Monitoring Options.   Monitoring Options.
  Sec.   1910.1024(d)(4)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Reassessment of Exposure.     1915.1024(d)(4)       1926.1124(d)(4)
                                 Reassessment of       Reassessment of
                                 Exposure.             Exposure.


  Sec.   1910.1024(d)(6)(i) &   Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii) Employee Notification    1915.1024(d)(6)(i)    1926.1124(d)(6)(i)
   of Assessment Results.        & (ii) Employee       & (ii) Employee
                                 Notification of       Notification of
                                 Assessment Results.   Assessment Results.
  Sec.   1910.1024(e)(2)(i) &   Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii) Demarcation of           1915.1024(e)(2)       1926.1124(e)(2)
   Beryllium Work Area and       Regulated Areas--     Competent Person.
   Regulated Areas--.            Demarcation.
  Sec.   1910.1024(f)(1)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii) Methods of      1915.1024(f)(1)(i),   1926.1124(f)(1)(i),
   Compliance--Written           (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
   Exposure Control Plan.        Methods of            Methods of
                                 Compliance--Written   Compliance--Written
                                 Exposure Control      Exposure Control
                                 Plan.                 Plan.
  Sec.   1910.1024(g)(2)        Sec.   1915.1024(g)   Sec.   1926.1124(g)
   Respiratory Protection        Respiratory           Respiratory
   Program.                      Protection Program.   Protection Program.
  Sec.   1910.1024(h)(2)(v)     Sec.                  Sec.
   Personal Protective           1915.1024(h)(2)(v)    1926.1124(h)(2)(v)
   Clothing and Equipment--      Personal Protective   Personal Protective
   Removal and Storage.          Clothing and          Clothing and
                                 Equipment--Removal    Equipment--Removal
                                 and Storage.          and Storage.
  Sec.   1910.1024(h)(3)(iii)   Sec.                  Sec.
   Personal Protective           1915.1024(h)(3)(iii   1926.1124(h)(3)(iii
   Clothing and Equipment--      ) Personal            ) Personal
   Cleaning and Replacement.     Protective Clothing   Protective Clothing
                                 and Equipment--       and Equipment--
                                 Cleaning and          Cleaning and
                                 Replacement.          Replacement.
  Sec.   1910.1024(j)(3)(i) &   Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii) Housekeeping--Disposal.  1915.1024(j)(3)       1926.1124(j)(3)
                                 Housekeeping--Dispo   Housekeeping--Dispo
                                 sal.                  sal.
  Sec.   1910.1024(k)(1), (2),  Sec.                  Sec.
   & (3) Medical Surveillance.   1915.1024(k)(1),      1926.1124(k)(1),
                                 (2), & (3) Medical    (2), & (3) Medical
                                 Surveillance.         Surveillance.
  Sec.   1910.1024(k)(4)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Medical Surveillance--        1915.1024(k)(4)       1926.1124(k)(4)
   Information Provided to the   Medical               Medical
   PLHCP.                        Surveillance--Infor   Surveillance--Infor
                                 mation Provided to    mation Provided to
                                 the PLHCP.            the PLHCP.
  Sec.   1910.1024(k)(5)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii) Medical         1915.1024(k)(5)(i),   1926.1124(k)(5)(i),
   Surveillance--Licensed        (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
   Physician's Written Medical   Medical               Medical
   Report for the Employee.      Surveillance--Licen   Surveillance--Licen
                                 sed Physician's       sed Physician's
                                 Written Medical       Written Medical
                                 Report for the        Report for the
                                 Employee.             Employee.
  Sec.   1910.1024(k)(6)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Medical Surveillance--        1915.1024(k)(6)       1926.1124(k)(6)
   Licensed Physician's          Medical               Medical
   Written Medical Opinion for   Surveillance--Licen   Surveillance--Licen
   the Employer.                 sed Physician's       sed Physician's
                                 Written Medical       Written Medical
                                 Opinion for the       Opinion for the
                                 Employer.             Employer.
  Sec.   1910.1024(k)(7)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Medical Surveillance--        1915.1024(k)(7)       1926.1124(k)(7)
   Referral to the CBD           Medical               Medical
   Diagnostic Center.            Surveillance--Refer   Surveillance--Refer
                                 ral to the CBD        ral to the CBD
                                 Diagnostic Center.    Diagnostic Center.
  Sec.   1910.1024(l)(1)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Medical Removal.              1915.1024(l)(1)       1926.1124(l)(1)
                                 Medical Removal.      Medical Removal.
  Sec.   1910.1024(m)(1)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Communication of hazards.     1915.1024(m)(1)       1926.1124(m)(1)
                                 Communication of      Communication of
                                 hazards.              hazards.
  Sec.   1910.1024(m)(2)        Sec.                  N/A.
   Warning Signs.                1915.1024(m)(2)
                                 Warning Signs.
  Sec.   1910.1024(m)(3)        Sec.                  Sec.
   Warning labels.               1915.1024(m)(3)       1926.1124(m)(3)
                                 Warning labels.       Warning labels.
  Sec.   1910.1024(m)(4)(iv)    Sec.                  Sec.
   Employee Information.         1915.1024(m)(4)(iv)   1926.1124(m)(4)(iv)
                                 Employee              Employee
                                 Information.          Information.
  Sec.   1910.1024(n)(1)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii)                 1915.1024(n)(1)(i),   1926.1124(n)(1)(i),
   Recordkeeping--Air            (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
   Monitoring Data.              Recordkeeping--Air    Recordkeeping--Air
                                 Monitoring Data.      Monitoring Data.
  Sec.   1910.1024(n)(2)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii)                 1915.1024(n)(2)(i),   1926.1124(n)(2)(i),
   Recordkeeping--Objective      (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
   Data.                         Recordkeeping--Obje   Recordkeeping--Obje
                                 ctive Data.           ctive Data.
  Sec.   1910.1024(n)(3)(i),    Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii), & (iii)                 1915.1024(n)(3)(i),   1926.1124(n)(3)(i),
   Recordkeeping--Medical        (ii), & (iii)         (ii), & (iii)
   Surveillance.                 Recordkeeping--Medi   Recordkeeping--Medi
                                 cal Surveillance.     cal Surveillance.
  Sec.   1910.1024(n)(4)(i) &   Sec.                  Sec.
   (ii) Recordkeeping--          1915.1024(n)(4)(i)    1926.1124(n)(4)(i)
   Training.                     & (ii)                & (ii)
                                 Recordkeeping--Trai   Recordkeeping--Trai
                                 ning.                 ning.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      1. Title: Beryllium (29 CFR 1910.1024).
      2. Type of Review: Revision.
      3. OMB Control Number: 1218-0267.
      4. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. This standard
  would only apply to employers in general industry.
      5. Number of Respondents: 4,008 employers.
      6. Frequency of Responses: On occasion; quarterly, semi-annually,
  annual; biannual.
      7. Number of Responses: 142,679.
      8. Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hours) for
  a clerical worker to generate and maintain an employee medical record,
  to more than 8 hours for a human resource manager to develop and
  implement a written exposure control plan.
      9. Estimated Annual Total Burden Hours: 83,787. This is a reduction
  of 47,791 hours from the existing annualized 131,578 burden hours.
      10. Estimated Annual Cost (capital-operation and maintenance):
  $20,584,209. This is an annualized cost savings of $9,980,781 from the
  existing annualized cost of $30,564,990.

  D. Submitting Comments

      Members of the public who wish to comment on the revisions to the
  paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written
  comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB
  Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN-1218 -AB76), Office
  of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
  202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers),
  email: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. The Agency encourages commenters
  also to submit their comments on these paperwork requirements to the
  rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-H005C-2006-0870), along with
  their comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on
  submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of
  this Federal Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES. Comments
  submitted in response to this notice are public records; therefore,
  OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as
  Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

  E. Docket and Inquiries

      To access the docket to read or download comments and other
  materials related to this paperwork determination, including the
  complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the
  Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork
  determinations in detail) use the procedures described under the
  section of this notice titled ADDRESSES.


  You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting
  the Web page at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll under
  "Currently Under Review" to "Department of Labor (DOL)" to view all
  of the DOL's ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed
  rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other information,
  contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA,
  Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
  Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

  VIII. Federalism

      OSHA reviewed this proposed beryllium rule according to the most
  recent Executive Order ("E.O.") on Federalism, E.O. 13132, 64 FR
  43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The E.O. requires that Federal agencies, to the
  extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult
  with States before taking actions that would restrict States' policy
  options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority
  exists and the problem is of national scope. The E.O. allows Federal
  agencies to preempt State law only with the expressed consent of
  Congress. In such cases, Federal agencies must limit preemption of
  State law to the extent possible.
      Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the
  "Act" or "OSH Act"), 29 U.S.C. 667, Congress expressly provides
  that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the
  development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
  standards. OSHA refers to States that obtain Federal approval for such
  plans 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 their own
  occupational safety and health standards.
      This proposed rule would revoke the ancillary provisions for the
  construction and shipyard industries, but retain the recently revised
  PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for those industries.
  This would provide more flexibility to State-Plan States to develop and
  enforce their own standards, provided those standards require
  workplaces to be at least as safe and healthful as federal OSHA
  standards. Additionally, standards promulgated under the OSH Act do not
  apply to any worker whose employer is a state or local government. 29
  U.S.C. 652(5).
      This proposed rule 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 rule
  would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard
  promulgated by the Agency. In States with OSHA-approved State plans,
  this rulemaking would not limit State policy options to adopt stricter
  standards.

  IX. State-Plan States

      When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
  amendment to an existing standard, the States and U.S. territories with
  their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans ("State-
  Plan States") must revise their standards to reflect the new standard
  or amendment. The State standard must be at least as effective as the
  Federal standard or amendment, and must be promulgated within 6 months
  of the publication date of the final Federal rule. 29 CFR 1953.5(a).
  Currently, there are 28 State-Plan States.
      Of the 28 States and territories with OSHA-approved State plans, 22
  cover public and private-sector employees: 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. The
  remaining six states and territories cover only public-sector
  employees: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Maine, New York, and the
  Virgin Islands.
      This rule, if adopted as proposed, would eliminate the ancillary
  provisions for the construction and shipyard industries, but retain the
  recently revised PELs of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted
  average and 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as a 15 minute short-term exposure limit for
  those industries. It would leave the beryllium standard for general
  industry intact. Therefore, no new State standards would be required
  beyond the revision of the PELs and those already required by the
  promulgation of the beryllium standard for general industry.
      If the proposal is adopted, State-Plan states may nonetheless
  choose to conform to the January 9, 2017 construction and shipyards
  ancillary provisions, although they would no longer be required to do
  so.

  X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

      Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
  ("UMRA"), 2 U.S.C. 1532, an agency must prepare a written
  "qualitative and quantitative assessment" of any regulation creating
  a mandate that "may result in the expenditure by the State, local, and
  tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
  $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation)" in any one
  year before promulgating a final rule. OSHA's rule does not place a
  mandate on State or local governments, for purposes of the UMRA,
  because OSHA cannot enforce its regulations or standards on State or
  local governments. 29 U.S.C. 652(5). Under voluntary agreement with
  OSHA, some States require public sector entities to comply with State
  standards, and these agreements specify that these State standards must
  be at least as protective as OSHA standards. The OSH Act does not cover
  tribal governments in the performance of traditional governmental
  functions, though it does cover tribal governments when they engage in
  commercial activity. However, this proposed rule will not require
  tribal governments to expend, in the aggregate, $100,000,000 or more in
  any one year for their commercial activities. Thus, this proposed rule
  does not trigger the requirements of UMRA based on its impact on State,
  local, or tribal governments.
      Based on the analysis presented in the Preliminary Economic
  Analysis (see Section V above), OSHA concludes that this proposed 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. As noted below, OSHA also reviewed this proposed rule in
  accordance with E.O. 13175 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian
  Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), and determined that, if
  adopted, it would not have "tribal implications" as defined in that
  Order.

  XI. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

      E.O. 13045, 66 FR 19931 (Apr. 23, 2003), requires that Federal
  agencies submitting covered regulatory actions to OMB's Office of
  Information and Regulatory Affairs ("OIRA") for review pursuant to
  E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), must provide OIRA with (1) an
  evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects that the
  planned regulation may have on children, and (2) an explanation of why
  the planned


  regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
  feasible alternatives considered by the agency. E.O. 13045 defines
  "covered regulatory actions" as rules that may (1) be economically
  significant under E.O. 12866 (i.e., a rulemaking that has an annual
  effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or would adversely
  affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
  productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
  safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities), and (2)
  concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency has
  reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. In this
  context, the term "environmental health risks and safety risks" means
  risks to health or safety that are attributable to products or
  substances that children are likely to come in contact with or ingest
  (e.g., through air, food, water, soil, or product use).
      This proposed beryllium rule would not be economically significant
  under E.O. 12866 (see Section V of this preamble). In addition, OSHA is
  not aware of any studies showing that exposure to beryllium in
  workplaces disproportionately affects children, who typically are not
  allowed in workplaces where such exposure exists. OSHA is also not
  aware that there are a significant number of employees under 18 years
  of age who may be exposed to beryllium, or that employees of that age
  are disproportionately affected by such exposure. OSHA also does not
  believe that beryllium particles present in abrasive blasting media or
  welding fume residue that might be brought home on work clothing,
  shoes, and hair would result in exposures at or near the action level
  as defined in the January 9, 2017 standards. Therefore, OSHA believes
  that this proposed beryllium rule would not constitute a covered
  regulatory action as defined by E.O. 13045.

  XII. Environmental Impacts

      OSHA has reviewed this proposed beryllium rule according to the
  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
  seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
  part 1500), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part
  11). OSHA has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule
  would have no significant impact on air, water, or soil quality; plant
  or animal life; the use of land or aspects of the external environment.

  XIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

      OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13175 on
  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR
  67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), and determined that it does not have "tribal
  implications" as defined in that order. The OSH Act does not cover
  tribal governments in the performance of traditional governmental
  functions, so the proposal will not have substantial direct effects on
  one or more Indian tribes in their sovereign capacity, on the
  relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
  the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
  government and Indian tribes. On the other hand, employees in
  commercial businesses owned by tribes or tribal members will receive
  the same protections and benefits of the standard as all other covered
  employees.

  XIV. Public Participation

      OSHA encourages members of the public to participate in this
  rulemaking by submitting comments on the proposal.
      Written Comments. OSHA invites interested persons to submit written
  data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. When submitting
  comments, persons must follow the procedures specified above in the
  sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
      Informal public hearings. The Agency will schedule an informal
  public hearing on the proposed rule if requested during the comment
  period.

  XV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposal

      This section of the preamble explains the changes that OSHA
  proposes to make to the beryllium standards, including Agency's
  explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed changes.
      As noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA has evidence that
  beryllium exposure above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted
  average can occur in abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive
  blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards. OSHA determined that
  exposures at that level create a significant risk of material
  impairment of health, including developing CBD and lung cancer. These
  operations, however, are already regulated by other OSHA construction
  and shipyards standards. OSHA requested, but did not receive,
  additional data during the previous rulemaking about exposures in these
  operations and about protections provided by other OSHA standards. In
  light of the limited information regarding exposures and the potential
  that other OSHA standards may offer protection from beryllium
  exposures, OSHA is proposing, as an alternative to the comprehensive
  January 9, 2017 final rule, to revoke the ancillary provisions for
  construction and the ancillary provisions for shipyards while retaining
  the new lower PELs for these sectors. This proposal allows OSHA to open
  the rulemaking record to receive more information about exposures,
  controls, and procedures in operations within the construction and
  shipyard sectors.
      In addition, this NPRM provides stakeholders with an additional
  opportunity to offer comments on the January 9, 2017 construction and
  shipyard standards, including comments on the regulatory text and
  whether the ancillary provisions are necessary in these sectors.

  Significant Risk in Construction and Shipyards

  A. Summary of Relevant Exposure Data

  1. Abrasive Blasting
      Despite the low concentrations of beryllium in the blast material,
  airborne concentrations of beryllium have been measured above the
  previous TWA PEL of 2 [mu]g/m\3\ when blast material containing
  beryllium is used as intended. In OSHA's exposure profile in the
  January 9, 2017 rule, summarized above in Section IV, 56 percent of
  abrasive blasting operators had beryllium exposures at or below 0.2
  [mu]g/m\3\, and 19 percent exceeded 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. For pot tenders,
  all samples in the exposure profile were less than or equal to 0.2
  [mu]g/m\3\. Of those samples, 75 percent were non-detectable for
  beryllium. For cleanup workers, 94 percent of samples were less than or
  equal to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
      Eighty-three percent of the abrasive media cleanup worker samples
  were non-detectable for beryllium. One cleanup worker had an 8-hour TWA
  sample result of 1.1 [micro]g/m\3\; however, it is likely that this
  sample result was elevated due to nearby abrasive blasting. Another
  cleanup worker had a sample result of 7.4 [micro]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour
  TWA, but this appeared to be associated with the use of compressed air
  for cleaning in conjunction with nearby abrasive blasting. The
  available data in the previous rulemaking record suggested that most
  pot tenders and cleanup workers have low beryllium exposures. The
  median exposure levels for both of these job categories were less than
  0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and nearly all results were less than or equal to 0.2
  [micro]g/m\3\. It should be

  noted that the exposure profile for pot tenders and cleanup workers is
  based on limited data (16 and 30 air samples, respectively), and given
  this information, OSHA believes some of these workers are exposed above
  0.2 [micro]g/m\3\.
  Welding in Shipyards
      As described in Section 10, Appendix 2 of the Technological
  Feasibility chapter of the January 9, 2017 final rule (Document ID
  2042), 127 personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples collected on welders
  welding non-specified or non-beryllium-containing materials in U.S.
  shipyards and Navy facilities range from 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\ to 0.74 [mu]g/
  m\3\, with a mean of 0.13 [mu]g/m\3\ and a median of 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\
  (OSHA Shipyards, 2005, Document ID 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, 0145). Of the
  127 samples, 123 samples (approximately 97 percent) were non-detectable
  for beryllium. This pattern was also confirmed in an observation by the
  Navy Environmental Health Center, which indicated that beryllium has
  not generally been found in welding fumes (NEHC_Jan24, 2005, Document
  ID 1236).

  B. Summary of Significant Risk Finding

      As noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA has evidence that
  workers are exposed to beryllium above 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ in abrasive
  blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding
  in shipyards. Abrasive blasters and ancillary abrasive blasting
  workers, such as pot tenders and cleanup workers, are exposed to
  beryllium from coal slag and other mineral slags such as copper slag.
  Beryllium is a trace contaminant in these materials, but despite the
  low concentration of beryllium, airborne beryllium concentrations above
  0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ have resulted from the blasting process and may lead to
  harmful exposures to abrasive blasting operators and others in the
  vicinity of the blasting operation. In the January 9, 2017 final rule,
  OSHA determined that exposures at that level create a significant risk
  of developing CBD and lung cancer.
      In comments on the 2015 proposal, the American Blasting
  Manufacturers Alliance argued that OSHA had not established significant
  risk associated with blasting operations. In particular, it argued that
  "the Alliance members have no history of employees with beryllium
  sensitization or beryllium-related illnesses. Indeed, the Alliance
  members are not aware of a single documented case of beryllium
  sensitization or beryllium-related illness associated with coal or
  copper slag abrasive production among their employees, or their
  customers' employees working with the products of Alliance members"
  (Document ID 1673, p. 9). However, ABMA presented no studies or
  rigorous scientific evidence to support this statement, and as OSHA
  noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, such anecdotal reports are not
  compelling evidence, especially where there is no surveillance program,
  required or otherwise (see 82 FR 2642). Rather, the best available
  evidence indicates that there is a significant risk of CBD and lung
  cancer to workers in construction and shipyards based on the exposure
  levels observed. However, OSHA welcomes further data and comment on the
  risks of sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer among workers involved in
  abrasive blasting and welding operations in shipyards and construction.
  Current Applicable Standards
      In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA identified that the
  requirements for new PELs and for ancillary provisions such as medical
  surveillance, personal protective clothing and equipment, and
  beryllium-specific training provided needed protections (82 FR 2637).
  OSHA stated that it adopted ancillary provisions for construction and
  shipyards "to ensure that workers exposed to beryllium in the
  construction and shipyard industries are provided protection that is
  comparable to the protection afforded workers in general industry."
  (82 FR 2639-40). However, given that other OSHA construction standards
  cover abrasive blasting operations, where the available data shows that
  beryllium exposures primarily occur, OSHA is further considering the
  need for ancillary provisions for the construction sector.
      Similarly, abrasive blasting in shipyards and welding in shipyards
  are already regulated by OSHA in various ways that limit exposure to
  beryllium among workers in these operations, and OSHA is also giving
  further consideration to the need for the ancillary standards for those
  operations.

  A. Construction

      Workers in the construction sector are protected by the permissible
  exposure limits (PELs) set forth in 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A. The
  January 9, 2017 final rule lowered the PELs to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-
  hour time-weighted average and 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as a 15-minute short term
  exposure limit. In addition to these PELs, workers in construction are
  already protected from beryllium exposure through other standards.
      The ventilation standard in construction at 1926.57(f)(2)(ii)
  requires "[t]he concentration of respirable dust or fume in the
  breathing zone of the abrasive-blasting operator or any other worker"
  to remain "below the levels specified in 1926.55," which OSHA
  proposes to lower to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted average
  and 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ as a short term exposure limit.\36\ Through the
  construction ventilation standard, workers performing abrasive blasting
  are required to wear extensive PPE, including respirators, under
  certain conditions, including where beryllium concentrations dispersed
  by blasting may exceed the PEL and the operator is not already
  physically separated from the nozzle and blast material. 29 CFR
  1926.57(f)(5)(ii). In addition, the construction ventilation standard
  requires some housekeeping measures. 29 CFR 1926.57(f). 29 CFR
  1926.57(f)(7) requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate outside
  abrasive blasting enclosures and that spills be cleaned up promptly. 29
  CFR 1926.57(f)(3) and (f)(4) also require exhaust ventilation and dust
  collection and removal systems in abrasive blasting operations in
  construction. Compliance with those housekeeping measures during
  abrasive blasting should also reduce the amount of beryllium-containing
  dust to be cleaned, thereby protecting clean-up workers who clean spent
  abrasive blasting media after blasting operations are completed.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \36\ The January 2017 final rule lowered the PELs in
  construction in 29 CFR 1926.1124. Because OSHA is now proposing to
  revoke the comprehensive construction standard while retaining the
  lower PELs, this proposal would amend the PELs in Appendix A of 29
  CFR 1926.55 to reflect the new lower PELs.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Furthermore, the general industry Respiratory Protection standard
  at 1910.134 applies to construction and requires employers to provide a
  respirator to each employee when necessary to protect the employee's
  health. Additionally, OSHA requires construction employers to train
  their employees in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions.
  29 CFR 1926.21. In particular, section 1926.21(b)(3) requires employers
  to instruct employees who handle harmful substances "regarding the
  safe handling and use, and be made aware of the potential hazards,
  personal hygiene, and personal protective measures." The hazard
  communication standard, which applies to the construction industry,
  also requires training, including the hazards of the chemicals in the
  work area and the "appropriate work practices, emergency procedures,
  and personal protective equipment to be used." 1910.1200(h)(3).


  Shipyards
      Workers in shipyards are protected by the PELs set forth in 29 CFR
  1915.1000 Table Z. In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA lowered the
  PELs to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour time-weighted average and 2.0
  [mu]g/m\3\ as a 15-minute short term exposure limit. The January 2017
  final rule lowered the PELs in shipyards in 29 CFR 1915.1024. Because
  OSHA is now proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions for shipyards
  while retaining the lower PELs, this proposal would amend the PELs in
  Table Z of 29 CFR 1915.1000 to reflect the new lower PELs. In general,
  hazards not covered by shipyard industry standards may be covered by
  general industry standards in 29 CFR part 1910. If a hazard is covered
  by both the shipyard industry standards and the general industry
  standards, only the shipyard industry standards are cited in OSHA
  inspections (29 CFR 1910.5). In addition to these exposure limits,
  workers in shipyards are already protected from beryllium exposure
  through other standards.
  1. Abrasive Blasting
      Abrasive blasting in shipyards is covered by the Mechanical paint
  removers standard. 29 CFR 1915.34. OSHA expects that most abrasive
  blasting in shipyards involves paint removal. In a comment on the
  previous proposal, the Shipbuilders Council of America commented that
  "[i]n shipyards beryllium is primarily encountered in in abrasive
  blasting operations. Coal slag particulates are used as a blast grit
  for removing paints, coatings, and rust from steel components prior to
  painting and coating." (Document ID 1618, p. 3). OSHA seeks comment on
  whether there are abrasive blasting operations in shipyards that are
  not covered by 1915.34. The shipyards standard at 29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3)
  requires respiratory protection and other appropriate personal
  protective equipment in abrasive blasting operations for both abrasive
  blasting operators and helpers working in the area. The general
  industry respirator standard at 1910.134 applies to shipyards and
  requires employers to provide a respirator to each employee when
  necessary to protect the employee's health. Additionally, the hazard
  communication standard requires training, including the hazards of the
  chemicals in the work area and the "appropriate work practices,
  emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used."
  1910.1200(h)(3).
      Certain provisions of OSHA's Ventilation standard for abrasive
  blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)) also apply to abrasive blasting in
  shipyards. OSHA guidance on the application of the exhaust ventilation
  paragraph of the general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.94(a)(4))
  states that all blast-cleaning enclosures must have sufficient exhaust
  ventilation to prevent a buildup of dust-laden air and reduce the
  concentrations of hazardous air contaminants, as well as to increase
  operator visibility and prevent leakage of dust to the outside of the
  enclosure. The Ventilation standard also contains housekeeping
  requirements in the subparagraph on abrasive blasting (29 CFR
  1910.94(a)(7)). Compliance with those housekeeping measures during
  abrasive blasting should also reduce the amount of beryllium-containing
  dust to be cleaned, thereby protecting clean-up workers who clean spent
  abrasive blasting media after blasting operations are completed. In
  addition, exhaust ventilation systems must be constructed, installed,
  inspected, and maintained according to the OSHA Ventilation standard
  for abrasive blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)). OSHA seeks comment on
  current industry practices and legal requirements regarding PPE use for
  abrasive blasting workers, including pot tenders and clean-up workers.
      Abrasive blasting sometimes occurs in confined spaces in shipyard
  work. OSHA's standard covering confined and enclosed spaces in shipyard
  employment requires an employer to ensure that confined or enclosed
  spaces that contain or have contained toxic liquids, gases, or solids
  are inspected visually by a competent person to determine the presence
  of toxic residue contaminants and tested by a competent person before
  entry by an employee to determine the air concentration of toxic
  substances. 29 CFR 1915.12. Employees may not enter a space whose
  atmosphere exceeds a PEL except for emergency rescue, or for a short
  duration for installation of ventilation equipment, provided that the
  atmosphere in the space is monitored continuously and respiratory
  protection and other necessary and appropriate PPE and clothing are
  provided. If the beryllium PEL is exceeded in a space, the space must
  be labeled "Not Safe for Workers" and ventilation must be provided to
  reduce air concentrations to below the PEL. OSHA requests information
  on the prevalence of blasting in confined or enclosed spaces in
  shipyards.
  2. Welding
      Welding in shipyards is likewise covered by OSHA standards. OSHA
  found, after a review of shipyard personal protective equipment
  requirements, that gloves are required under 29 CFR 1915.157(a) to
  protect workers from hazards faced by welders, such as thermal burns.
  29 CFR 1915.51 requires that ventilation be used to keep welding fumes
  and smoke within safe limits, and 29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv) specifically
  covers welding involving beryllium: "Because of its high toxicity,
  work involving beryllium shall be done with both local exhaust
  ventilation and air line respirators." These safe limits in 1915.51
  are defined by the PELs in 29 CFR 1915.1000 Table Z, which currently
  has a beryllium TWA PEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and which OSHA proposes to
  lower to 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\, along with a STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\37\ And,
  as previously discussed, OSHA standard 1915.12 includes protections for
  shipyard employees who perform welding in confined or enclosed spaces,
  limiting access to enclosed spaces where beryllium exposures exceed the
  PEL and requiring exposure monitoring, ventilation, warning signs, and
  PPE including respiratory protection in such spaces. The training
  provisions of the hazard communication standard apply to shipyard
  welding operations as well. OSHA seeks comment on beryllium exposures
  and existing protections among shipyard welders, and on whether the
  reduced beryllium PEL and STEL provides sufficient protection to these
  workers.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \37\ The January 2017 final rule lowered the PELs in shipyards
  in 29 CFR 1915.1024. Because OSHA is now proposing to revoke the
  ancillary provisions for shipyards while retaining the lower PELs,
  this proposal would amend the PELs in Table Z of 29 CFR 1915.1000 to
  reflect the new lower PELs.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I. Consultation With the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
  Health

      Under 29 CFR 1911.10(a), OSHA must consult with the Advisory
  Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) "in the
  formulation of a rule to promulgate, modify, or revoke a standard." In
  May 2014, OSHA presented options to ACCSH for the promulgation of the
  beryllium rule. These options were (1) reducing the exposure limits in
  construction to the same level as the proposed exposure limits in
  general industry, (2) reducing the exposure limits and including a
  medical surveillance requirement, and (3) including construction in the
  scope of the rule and including the same ancillary provisions as in
  general industry. OSHA discussed the types of ancillary provisions that
  would be included but did not provide regulatory text. Some ACCSH
  members asked


  OSHA for more information, including draft regulatory text, before
  providing OSHA with a recommendation. Without that information, ten
  members voted for the third option, and four members abstained from
  voting.
      The January 9, 2017 final rule followed ACCSH's recommendation.
  However, ACCSH's recommendation was not unanimous, and as discussed
  above, OSHA is reconsidering the ancillary provisions for construction.
  This is based on the fact that the available data show exposures of
  concern only in abrasive blasting operations, and workers engaged in
  those operations are already provided protection by a number of other
  standards. OSHA notes that this proposal is the first option that was
  presented to ACCSH at the May 2014 meeting.

  II. Proposed Regulatory Text

      OSHA proposes, based on feedback from interested parties and a
  reevaluation of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, to remove
  the ancillary provisions of the comprehensive health standards in both
  construction and shipyards, but maintain the new lower PEL of 0.2
  [mu]g/m\3\ and the STEL of 2.0 [mu]g/m\3\. This would entail revoking
  both 29 CFR 1915.1024 and 29 CFR 1926.1124. It would also require
  amending 29 CFR 1915.1000 Table Z, and 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A. The
  entry for beryllium and beryllium compounds in section 1915.1000 Table
  Z would be amended to include a "STEL" designation after the ".002"
  entry to indicate that 2 [mu]g/m\3\ (.002 mg/m\3\) is a short term
  exposure limit, not an 8-hour TWA PEL. The entry would also be amended
  to add a ".0002" to reflect the change from an 8-hour TWA PEL to .2
  [mu]g/m\3\ (.0002 mg/m\3\). The references to 1915.1024 would be
  removed. OSHA would also add a new subparagraph, 29 CFR
  1915.1000(a)(3), explaining that a STEL is a short term exposure limit
  as measured over a fifteen-minute period, and amend the text to
  footnote * to include similar text. Similarly, the entry for beryllium
  and beryllium compounds in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1926.55 would be
  amended to include a "STEL" designation after the ".002" entry to
  indicate that 2 [mu]g/m\3\ (.002 mg/m\3\) is a short term exposure
  limit, not an 8-hour TWA PEL. The entry would also be amended to add a
  ".0002" to reflect the change from an 8-hour TWA PEL to .2 [mu]g/m\3\
  (.0002 mg/m\3\). The references to 1926.1124 would be removed. OSHA
  would also amend footnote * to explain that a STEL is a short term
  exposure limit as measured over a fifteen-minute period.
      Because OSHA has determined that significant risk remains at the
  PEL of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and several OSHA construction and shipyard
  standards rely on the PEL for a portion of their provisions, the Agency
  believes it is necessary to protect workers in construction and
  shipyards using the permissible exposure limits promulgated in the
  January 9, 2017 final rule. When considering the need for ancillary
  measures in the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA stated that it adopted
  ancillary provisions for construction and shipyards "to ensure that
  workers exposed to beryllium in the construction and shipyard
  industries are provided protection that is comparable to the protection
  afforded workers in general industry." (82 FR 2639-40). As discussed
  above, OSHA is reconsidering the need for the ancillary provisions,
  given the limited operations that are covered and the other OSHA
  standards that apply to those operations. This proposal to revoke the
  ancillary provisions for construction and shipyards while retaining the
  new PELs is intended to provide opportunity for further comment on
  these issues, and will allow OSHA to craft a new final rule with more
  extensive and detailed stakeholder input than the January 9, 2017 final
  rule.

  III. Request for Comment on This Proposal and the Application of the
  January 9, 2017 Final Rule to the Construction and Shipyard Industries

      OSHA provided adequate legal notice to interested parties in its
  2015 NPRM by including regulatory alternatives that expanded the scope
  of the standard to the construction and shipyard sectors and including
  preliminary technological feasibility and economic feasibility analyses
  for those sectors. Many parties took note and commented on the
  application of the standard to construction and shipyards (e.g., ABMA,
  Document ID 1673; NABTU, Document ID 1679). However, despite the
  notice, other interested parties in the construction industry did not
  comment until the proposed delay of the effective date. (See Document
  ID 2058). Without robust participation from the construction and
  shipyard sectors, the Agency had limited data on which to proceed.
      While OSHA continues to believe that the best available evidence in
  the rulemaking record in January 9, 2017 supported the expansion of the
  scope of the rule to construction and shipyards, it is also within
  OSHA's discretion to reevaluate that decision in light of the limited
  data and concern from the regulated community. OSHA therefore seeks
  comment on this proposal to revoke the ancillary provisions for
  construction and shipyards while retaining the lower PEL and STEL. In
  particular, OSHA seeks input from interested stakeholders on the degree
  to which each provision, or combination thereof, provides (or does not
  provide) additional protections to exposed workers. OSHA requests that
  commenters provide data to support their position. In addition, OSHA
  seeks information on the steps that employers are currently taking to
  protect exposed employees. OSHA also seeks additional information and
  data commenters may have on the costs of compliance with the measures
  required by the January 9, 2017 final rule, including in particular the
  costs that small entities would incur.
      In addition to the proposal in this notice, OSHA is considering
  extending the compliance dates in the January 9, 2017 final rule by a
  year for the construction and shipyard standards. This would give
  affected employers additional time to come into compliance with its
  requirements, which could be warranted by the uncertainty created by
  this proposal. OSHA also seeks comment on that possibility, and also
  the amount of additional time employers would need to come into
  compliance with the current proposal, if adopted. As noted in the
  introduction above, while the entire beryllium rule will go into effect
  on May 20, 2017, OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and
  construction standards without further notice while this new rulemaking
  is underway.

   List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1915 and 1926

      Beryllium, Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health,
  Occupational safety and health.

  Authority and Signature

      This document was prepared under the direction of Dorothy
  Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
  and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
  Washington, DC 20210.
      The Agency issues the sections under the following authorities: 29
  U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 33 U.S.C. 941; Secretary of
  Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)); and 29 CFR part 1911.



      Signed at Washington, DC, on June 15, 2017.
  Dorothy Dougherty,
  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

  Amendments to Standards

      For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter XVII of Title
  29, parts 1915 and 1926, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
  to be amended as follows:

  PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
  EMPLOYMENT

  0
  1. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows:

      Authority:  33 U.S.C. 941; 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.


  Sec.  1915.1024   [Removed].

  0
  2. Remove Sec.  1915.1024.


  Sec.  1915.1000   [Amended]

  0
  3. Amend Sec.  1915.1000 by redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph
  (a)(3), and adding new paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
  * * * * *
      (a)(2) Substances with Short-Term Exposure Limits ("STEL"). An
  employee's exposure to any substance in Table Z--Shipyards, the
  exposure limit of which is designated as a "STEL," shall not exceed
  the exposure limit given for that substance over a sampling period of
  15 minutes.
  * * * * *
  0
  4. In Sec.  1915.1000 amend Table Z--Shipyards, by revising the entry
  for "Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be)," removing reference
  to Sec.  1915.1024, revising footnote *, and removing footnote q.
      The revisions read as follows:


  Sec.  1915.1000  Air contaminants.

  * * * * *

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

                                                    * * * * * * *
  Beryllium and beryllium compounds         7440-41-7  ..............  0.0002; 0.002 STEL.........  ..............
   (as Be).

                                                    * * * * * * *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * * * * * * *
  * The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit; a STEL designation
    denotes a 15-minute short-term exposure limit. They are to be determined from breathing-zone air samples.
  \a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
  \b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
    listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.

    * * * * * * *

  * * * * *

  PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

  Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls

  0
  5. The authority citation for subpart D of part 1926 continues to read
  as follows:

       Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 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 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
      Section 1926.62 also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4853.
      Section 1926.65 also issued under 126 of Pub. L. 99-499, 100
  Stat. 1613.


  Sec.  1926.1124   [Removed].

  0
  6. Remove Sec.  1926.1124.
  0
  7. In Sec.  1926.55, amend appendix A by revising the entry for
  "Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be)," removing reference to
  Sec.  1926.1124, revising footnote *, and removing footnote q.
      The revisions read as follows:


  Sec.  1926.55  Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists.

  * * * * *

  Appendix A to Sec.  1926.55--1970 American Conference of Governmental
  Industrial Hygienists' Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants
  Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for Construction

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

                                                    * * * * * * *
  Beryllium and beryllium compounds         7440-41-7  ..............  0.0002; 0.002 STEL.........  ..............
   (as Be).

                                                    * * * * * * *
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * * * * * * *
  * The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit; a STEL designation
    denotes a 15-minute short-term exposure limit.

    * * * * * * *
  \a\ Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25 [deg]C and 760 torr.
  \b\ Milligrams of substance per cubic meter of air. When entry is in this column only, the value is exact; when
    listed with a ppm entry, it is approximate.

  * * * * *
  [FR Doc. 2017-12871 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
   BILLING CODE 4510-26-P




Federal Registers - Table of Contents

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.

Close