Document 6bO3Lo79xmeKbxzbOKVZmwVVm

(conoco) Interoffice Communication To Safety Directors From Tom Grumbles Date July 20, 1982 Subject OSHA ANPR RESPONSE ON RESPIRATOR PROTECTION Enclosed is a copy of the OSHA ANPR concerning revision of the Respiratory Protection Standards. As you can see this is a data gathering exercise on OSHA's part to aid in their revision. We have been asked by DuPont to supply data where possible on particular questions listed in the enclosed letter to use in their response to OSHA. Please review these questions and return your comments to me by July 30. Thomas G. Grumbles ajo Enclosure cc Michele Malloy CCR 000001087 G-87 Editor: Mary P. Kiicoyne May 25, 1982 FEDERAL LEVEL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Respiratory Protection The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced that it is seeking public comments on plans to revise its standards covering res pirators used to limit worker exposure to toxic substances in the work place (Federal Register, May 14, 1982, pp.20803-9, attached). OSHA's current regulations were issued in 1971 based on then-current national consensus standards developed by the American National Standards In stitute. Since that time, "the field of industrial respiratory protec tion has advanced significantly", but the OSHA standard has not been amended to relect these advances. Current regulations require engineering controls to be used to reduce excessive employee exposure to airborne contaminants, and permit res- irator use only while feasible engineering controls are being installed or when such controls are not considered feasible. This requirement "is the subject of continuing controversy" where respi rator programs are considered "more cost effective than engineering con trols," the agency stated. Evaluation of the technical aspects of respirator effectiveness is con sidered by the agency "to be an important and crucial first step in re examining the broad policy of the priority of engineering controls over respirators," OSHA declared. The subject of "hierarchy of controls" will be addressed in a separate request for comment "in the near future," the notice said. OSHA's request for data addressed such matters as respirator testing criteria;' surveillance of working conditions where respirators are used; effectiveness of powered air purifying respirators, protection factors, appropriate respiratory protection standards for construction and mari time industries; special problems for small business; effect of respirator wear on productivity; cost of respirator programs; requirements for effec- CCR 000001088 (continued) * rv <* ,, / r\ * \ May 25, 1982 the approyee train- than 500 e feasible ow OSHA sed. dust, and action, hrough ual measureespirator itative tative ermining would be submitted nt of G-87 2- - May 25, 1982 tive qualitative and quantitative fit testing programs, including the appro priateness of using potential carcinogens as testing agents; employee train ing provisions; and medical screening. Provisions of OSHA's respiratory protection standards apply to more than 500 airborne contaminants regulated by the agency in circumstances where feasible engineering controls are insufficient to bring worker exposures below OSHA standards as well as to any other workplace where respirators are used. Since 1971, a number of OSHA health standards, such as lead, cotton dust, and arsenic, have included additional requirements for respiratory protection. Some of these standards require that respirator fit be determined through quantitative fit testing, which measures respirator fit through actual measure ment and comparison of the contaminant level inside and outside a respirator facepiece. In a separate rulemaking proceeding, OSHA is looking into the quantitative fit testing requirements of the lead standard to determine if qualitative fit testing, an alternative method, also may be appropriate for determining respirator fit. The agency noted that the record in the proceeding would be included in the current proceeding. Written comments postmarked no later than Sept. 13, 1982, should be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket H-049, Room S-6212, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday. May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 2CS03 appeared in the Federal Register for Tuesday, February 9,1982 {47 FR 5902). The rules of 601.C01(a){3) of the `Statement of Procedural Rules'* (20 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking arid also desire to present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should submit an outline of the comments to be presented at the hearing and the time they wish to devote to each subject by )une 8.1902. Each speaker will be limited to 10 minutes for oral presentation exclusive of time consumed by questions from the panel for the government and answers to these questions. Because of controlled access restrictions, attendees^cannot be admitted beyond the lobby of the internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after outlines are received from the speakers. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. This document does not meet the -itcria for significant regulations set ;rth in paragraph 0 of the Treasury Directive for improving government regulations appearing in the Federal Register for Wednesday. November 8. 1973, By direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. David E. Dickmcca, Director, Legislation and Regulations Division. |TO Doc. 62-13at Filed 6-13-Ri K4S aio| BILLING COOS SOl-U department of laccr Occupations! Safety and Hsalth Acfminictratign rulemaking (NPRM) on hazard communication in the Federal Register (47 FR 12092). A notice announcing dates and locations for public hearings on the NPRM was published on April 16. 1982 (47 FR 16348), The locations announced for the hearings were Washington, D.C., Houston, San Diego and Detroit. The selection of these sites was based primarily on geographical considerations. Interested parties have since suggested that participation on the West Coast could be significantly increased by moving the hearing site there from San Diego to Lcs Angeles. OSHA has agreed to this suggestion and is hereby announcing that the hearing originally scheduled for San Diego on July 20,1982, will take place instead in Los Angeles at the address indicated below. The other hearings will take place on the duos and at the locations announced in the April lCth notice at 47 FR 10343. The hearings will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in the March 19th NPRM at FT. 72.110. in order to allow interested parties more opportunity to decide to participate in the regional hearings, OSHA is also hereby extending the time for submission of notices of intention to appear and statements for titese regional hearings. Notices end statements for participants in the Washington, D.C. hearing are still due May 13,1382, and June 1, 1932, respectively. DATES: Notices of intention to appear at the regional hearings must be received on or before June 15,1932. Statements and any documentary evidence lo be presented at these hearings must be submitted by July 1.1932. The date each hearing wit! begin and the cities in which they will bn held are us follows: 29 ern rert loio (Docket ti-x H-C72] Hcrard Communication; Public Hearings Dale tarring begins 1. June 15. 1962 2. July 13. 1982.. 3 July 20. 1992.. July 27. 1BC2.. City 'rVashmgwn. OC. Houston Texas Los Angelos Caii'ornn. Dci-ott, v.iflijan. Note.--This document originally appeared in the Federal Register for Wednesday. May 12.1C22. It )j reprinted in this issue to meet requirements for publication on the Tuesday/ Friday schedule assigned to the Department of Labor. AC2T.'Cv: Occupational Safety and health Administration (OSHAj. Labor, .error:: Notice of proposed rulemaking: lodification of hearing notice. r*_,rr`.V`.rtY: On March 19.1002. OSHA Published a notice of proposed ADDnECSES: Notices of intention to appear at the hearings, statements and documentary evidence should be submitted to Mr. Tom Hull. Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 200 Constitutedcn Avenue, N.W.. Room N3635, Washington, D.C. 20210. (202) 523-8024. The address for the hearing on July 20. 1982 is: Santa Barbara (A) Room. Western Bonaventure Lc. j Angelos Hotel. Fifth and Figueroa Streets. Los Angeles, California. Notices of intention to appear at the public hearings, as well as any other information gathered by the Agency during this rulemaking, will be available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office. Docket H-022, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution A\ enue NW., Room $3212. Washington, D.C. 20210; (2J2) 523-"C94. FOrt Fu.'.T.tan ir;?ch;.i.'vnc:j cc.vtagt: Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3035. Washington, D.C. 20210: (202) 523-C024. Proposal: Ms. Jennifer Silk, Office of Special Standards. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2C0 Constitution Avenue. NW., Room N2C33,' Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 523-71C5. This document was prepared under the direction of Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant S--cretL,ry of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. DcpurLuie/xi of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,, Washington, D.C. 20210. (Sacs. 1(b). 0(c) and C(tj). Rub. L. Cl-503, 01 Slut. 2503.15CJ. 1CC0; 29 U.S.C. 055. 057; 29 CFR Purl 3911; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-7G (41 ITU5l;33)) Signed al Washington. D.C.. this 10th Hay ofl.iay 1C32. Teems G. Audits:, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. (TO Dac. 82-12W5 Tiled 5-10-62; 12:02 jnn| bilumq cars ?9 cm Pcrts 1010, lOIO-IOlO, end 1023 (Docket Ho. lt-049] Rocphctcry Prrticcticn AC2r:tiv: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTtcti: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. su;.:r.tr.nv: This notice requests data, views, and arguments concerting possible revisions to OSHA standards on respiratory protection in 29 CFR 1910.124, 29 CFR 2015.02, 29 CFR 2916.82, 29 CFR 1917.82, 2S CFR 1918.102, and 29 CFR 1926.103 including the need to regulate, relevant alternatives, and economic impact. DA7CS: Data, views ar.d arguments should be submitted by September 13. 1992. AOortiSESS: Written submissions in response to this notice should be submitted to t.ie Docket Officer. Docket CCR 000001090 20604 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules No. H-049, Room S6212, Occupational Safety end Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue. NW., Washington. D.C, 20210: telephone 202-523-7894. All written submissions and documents mentioned in this notice will be available for inspection and copying at the above address. FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Mr. James Foster, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Rm. N-3637, 200 Constitution Avenue. NW., Washington. D.C. 20210: telephone 202- 523-6151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Many thousands of employees are exposed to potentially hazardous concentrations of toxic materials in the workplace and must wear respirators to protect their health. The current regulations governing the use of respirators have been in effect since 1971. The general industry standard. 29 CFR 1910.134, was adopted in May 1971 from a national consensus standard (American National Standard Z88.2-1989. Practices for Respiratory Protection). The construction industry standard. 29 CFR 1926.103, was promulgated in April 1971. On February 9,1979, 29 CFR 1910.134 was formally recognized as applicable to the construction industry (44 FR 8577). The maritime standards were originally promulgated in the nineteen sixties under a different codification in the CFR by agencies which preceded OSHA. The present code designations and their promulgation dates are, as follows: 29 CFR 1915.82, Feb. 20. I960 (25 FR 1543): 29 CFR 1916.82. January 22.1963 (28 FR 547): 29 CFR 191762. March 27.1964 (29 FR 4052): and 29 CFR 1918.102. Feb. 20, 1980 (25 FR 1565). Section 1910.134. which most dearly - sets forth the requirements of a respiratory protection program, states that the employer shall provide the proper, approved respirator for the circumstance and is responsible for carrying out a respiratory protection program. The program is to contain written procedures and provide for proper cleaning, disinfection, storage, inspection and maintenance of the respirators. General provisions are set forth on fitting and training. Requirements are included for quaiiity of breathing air. and practices to ensure that it is not contaminated. Provisons for emergencies and for communication and rescue in atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health are specified. A color code for gas mask canisters is detailed and other provisions ore included. The respiratory protection provisions in the other affected standards are more general. Since the promulgation of these regulations, the field of industrial respiratory protection has advanced significantly. Newer, improved methods' of qualitative fit testing are now available. Qualitative fit testing has been used for many years and checks the adequacy of fit of a respirator by relying on the subjective response of the wearer in detecting an odor or irritation from an airborne chemical introduced into the air near the respirator. Another method of respirator fit testing, called quantitative fit testing (QNFT), has been developed and mode cosily available. Quantitative testing measures the efficacy of fit of a respirator by actually measuring and comparing the contaminant level inside and outside a respirator facepiece. In addition, the concept of assigned protection factors, a numerical indication of the effectiveness of a respirator, has become firmly established. Finally, the consensus of industry concerning what constitutes a reasonable, effective respirator program has changed as demonstrated by the recent issuance of a revised edition of ANSI 288.2. The ANSI 208.2-1980 standard, entitled "Practices For Respiratory Protection," is a revision of the 1989 ANSI standard. It i3 available from the American National Standards Institute. 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018, and is also available for inspection at the Docket Office. The new edition is an extensive revision of the previous edition, incorporating the following changes: Oxygen deficiency is more thoroughly discussed. Quantitative fit testing is now included and described. Qualitative testing is more fully described. The concept of protection factors is introduced. Higher protection factors are assigned when quantitative fit testing is used. The section on respirator selection is expanded and now includes fit testing. The special problems section now includes a discussion of use in confined spaces. Besides these developments, the demands on respiratory protection have also increased substantially since 1971. Levels of airborne contaminants allowed by recent OSHA health standards, such as arsenic, load and cotton dust, are substanitaliy lower than previous standards. Levels of contaminants considered acceptable by non-rogulatory authorities, such ns the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), have been lowered significantly for a great many substances. Providing respiratory protection against known or suspected carcinogens has become much more difficult and complex as more substances have been identified as carcinogens and as the dc> j of protection expected haa ii.r.rased. Recent OSHA health cl udi i ds have imposed respiratory ickrit J requirements not found ia ' 9 Cvft 1910,134. (Sea g ru^nic; 1910.1025(f). lead: & LiAJg). coke oven emissions; and 6 29ic. lo.j'f), cotton duct). These reqcirart.jruj include: Quantitative fit tests have boon required both annually and semiannually. Employees have been given the privilege of using powcicd air purifying respirators (PAFIt) upon request. Employees have been allowed to change the filter elements of a respirator whenever an increase in breathing resistance is dutcotud. Employees have been allowed to wash their faces and respirator facepieces to prevent oLLi i.ri cation associated with usinj re: Employers have beemrr_v:.wd to provide respirators that c.J.ibit minimum facepiece lecn-ige. . Referral of an employes iz a physician trained in pulmonary ncriici vi 1 as been required for an employee who exhibits difficuly breathing either at fit testing or during routine respirator use. in addition, developments ?n microprocessor and other new technologies have mads it possible lo develop respirators with warning devices to indicate ivhetfcer the respirator is providing appropriate protection while in use, tr.d communication equipment co that employees can warn each ether of safety hazards and coord'-nto >-K;ir work activities in a safe r ur.-iC?. Improvements in carinate .^ology may permit development of i. . ^hutors for protection fiorn chcmlvk. fi.r which there are not notv any appro*, c J respirators. Further dcvulrp.v.rnts in powered air purifying rc.uiuiters nay permit their breeder use to reduce fatigue factors, skin irritatsen problems, nr.d breathing resistance difid jirius sometimes created by .'.ejud.c '.Assure respirators. Those p.vo.dd'o impif..rea.c:its v/Lcn t :den togatber would make it possible to h<r.\. n more effective respirator program. Since cuncnt reepiriato? standards ore based cn older technologies. CCR 000001091 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday. May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20805 e__ .ator suppliers have claimed to be 'k'btied from developing improved rators which do not fit into existing c**,egorie3 or which provide protection ;om chemicals not included in present pproval criteria because of the time involved from respirator development to ultimate approval. Suggestions on igulatory or other changes to further ncourage the development of improved respirators and to permit their approval are requested. It has become evident to OSHA that iere is a good deal of confusion among . aspirator users over the distinction between the "fit factor" as determined Ky QNFT and the true, effective protection factor" which is the actual 'otection afforded by a respirator when in use. The manufacturers of quantitative fit test equipment have prrectly emphasized that their ^uipment does not take account of the normal filter leakage and measures only the leakage around the face/sealing area " the mask plus any contribution from (halation valve leakage. In addition, it has become apparent that the laboratory type testing of QNFT ay tend to overestimate how well a spirator fits when an employee ng it is working at his job. T .ore there is uncertainty now ''bout how high an apparent protection ctor factually fit factor) must be imonstrated by QNFT to insure that employees are properly protected on the job. OSHA has also been evaluating the ipropriateness of improved methods of qualitative fit testing as an alternative to the quantitative fit testing required by e lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). .though that issue is being dealt with in a separate rulemaking proceeding (see 46 FR 27358. May 19.1981). the guments and information involved are so relevant to this advance notice. * .ierefore the record of that rulemaking (docket no. H-049A) will also be placed the record of this proceeding. One of b major questions involved in that iemaking is whether qualitative fit testing (QLJFT) can be so arranged and conducted as to properly determine nether a respirator is in fact adequate * a specific application. Another important question is whether di-2-ethylhexyi phthalate EHP), the most widely used challenge erst for QNFT. should continue to be used for QNFT in view of the recent finding by the National Toxicology f' )oram that DEHP caused cancer in i >d mice in a two year feeding i . This study is reported in "NTP *1 tical Report on the Carcinogenesis P'-idSsay of Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate-- < tS 117-81-7," DHHS Publn. No. NIH- Bl-1773. which is available in draft form (dated Oct. 25, 2980) in the OSHA docket office (Docket file H-049A, exhibit 12). There are several substitute challenge agent6 that can be used to conduct QNFT, thereby considerably reducing the importance of DEHP. Examples include corn oil and di-2ethylhexyl sebacate. All of these factors indicate to OSHA that existing standards related to respiratory protection should be reexamined in light of current knowledge and accepted industrial hygiene practice. If OSHA does not respond to this situation, many employees may be needlessly -overexposed to a variety of airborne toxic materials because of inappropriate respirator programs. Such exposure could result in severe illness and disability. Alternatively, obsolete regulation may unnecessarily limit an employer's options in providing respiratory protection, or restrict innovation in respiratory protection devices. Inadequate regulations may also impose unnecessary costs. Consequently. OSHA is interested in receiving data and views from all interested parties on a wide variety of issues related to the revision of OSHA's respiratory protection standards. These issues are presented in the form of questions to assist interested persons in developing their responses. These questions represent issues that have already been brought to the Agency's attention. Some are of general nature and others address specialized technical issues which may be principally of interest only to the technical community. Interested persons, of course, may wish to submit information and views on issues that are not addressed by the questions or to respond only to some of the questions of special interest to themselves. Paragraph (a)(1) of 1910.134 reo.uires that engineering controls be used to reduce excessive employees exposures to airborne contaminants and permits the use oftespirators oniv while feasible engineering controls are being installed or when such controls are not feasible. This requirement is the subject of continuing controversy in those situations where respiratory protection programs are thought to be more cost effective than engineering controls. This rulemaking on respiratory protection standards is a necessary prerequisite in addressing this policy. Although the agency is inviting comment on this subject (see question 30), OSHA regards the evaluation of the technical aspects of respirator adequacy and effectiveness, as well as respirator program requirements, to be an imporant and crucial first step in reexamining the broad policy of the priority of engineering controls over respirators. Rational decisions concerning when it is appropriate to use respirators must be based on prior knowledge of the effectiveness of resptraiors and respiratory protection programs. The factors that determine the performance levels of respirator programs aTe independent of decisions to employ respiratory protection in some particular situation. In a like manner, judgements as to cost effectiveness must also be based on prior knowledge of (he costs associated with respiratory protection programs. Thus, OSHA will address the technical aspects of respiratory protection in this rulemaking before addressing the larger subject of the relationship between engineering controls and personal protective equipment. General policy with respect to engineering controls is a controversial standards policy important enough to be treated separately from the technical aspects of respirators and respiratory protection programs. Therefore OSHA will in the near future publish a separate notice discussing in detail this subject ofthe hierarchy of controls and requesting comment separately on issues relevant to it. In order to assist the public and the Agency in evaluating these issues. OSHA has compiled the following background information and reports. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) of the University of California at Los Alamos. New Mexico, has done considerable work on respiratory protection. Their report LA-6084-MS, issued January 1976, entitled "Respirator Protection Factors." is the basic source for the protection factors now commonly applied to various respirators. This report also discusses quantitative fit testing. Other LANL reports that may be of interest include LA-5488, issued March 1974. "Selection of Respirator Test Panels Representative of U.S. Adult Facial Sizes"; LA-6722-PR. issued February 1977. "Respirator Studies for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: July, 1975--Dec. 31. 1976." which discusses various aspects of quantitative fit testing and respirator evaluation; and LA-7317-PR, issued June 1978. "Respirator Studies for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Jan. 1-Dec. 31,1977," which discusses the testing of powered air purifying respirators, intcrlaboratorv comparison of data for dust-fume-mist filters, and fit testing for gas and vapor respirators. The LANL work has also resulted in reports in the literature, including "Effect of Facial Hair on CCR 000001092 20806 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 94 ( Friday, May 14. 1982 ( Proposed Rules Respirator Performance" by E. C. Hyatt, el. el., that appeared on pp. 135-142 of the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal of April 1973. and "The Physiological Consequences of wearing Industrial Respirators; a Review" by Peter B. Raven, et. al.. that appeared on pp. 517-534 in the June 1979 issue of the same journal. As part of a joint OSHA-NIOSH project-called the standards completion project, the two agencies developed a document celled the Respirator Decision Logic. This document is an attempt to set forth in a clear, logical concise form the factors that must be considered and the choices that must be made in selecting a suitable respirator for any application. Although the document was not published, the last revision, dated February 1,1978. is available from the OSHA docket office at the address shown below (cite docket number H-049 and exhibit 9). Several documents submitted to OSHA for the standards completion project, docket no. SCP-1. are also relevant here. The "Industrial Safety Equipment Association Analysis of Supporting Test Data" submitted by Mr. Frank Wilcher of ISEA takes issue with the LANL determinations of protection factors, (see exhibit 45-9). Two papers from that file address aspects of respirator comfort: "Respirator Comfort: Subjective Response to Force Applied to the Face" by S. H. Snook, et. al., A.I.H.A. Journal March--April 1956, p. 93-97, (exhibit 18F); and "Performance and Acceptance of Respirator Facial Seals" by W. A. Burgess and W. C. Hinds. Ergonomics. 1970, vol. 13. no. 4. p, 455- 464, (exhibit 18G). "Effectiveness of Dust Respirators in Underground Coal Mines'* by H. E. Harris, et. al., Transactions of the Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, voL 256. June 1974, p. 153-161 (exhibit 18D) discusses the actual protection afforded by respirators on the job and factors that account for variations. In addition, quantitative fit testing has been studied by Mr, William H. Revoir then with the Norton Co. for the ANSI committee on respirator practices, and reported in two Norton technical reports, no's R-115 and R-116, (docket H049A, exhibits 13 and 14. respectively). Report R-115 deals with a comparison of test results between a qualitative test using isoamyi acetate and a quantitative test using DEHP. Report R-116 discusses the impact on test results of performing head and neck movements during testing. All of these studies and reports provide further background information relevant to the questions asked in this advance notice. These studies and other documents reterred to in this notice have been p:,.cvd m the docket and are available for inspection and copying at the docket on'ice. In addition :o specific responses to the questions pcsed .n this notice and in accordance v...r. the provisions of the Regulatory ...oilitv Act (Pub. I.. 96354- 94 Slut :-.L ; i j L? S.C. CGI et seq.)) and Execjt.-.--- Cider No. 12291. OSHA also request v ;:i.ition regarding- the economic i;rr.:.r.t v. mch the contemphiti-n -'rediscussed below might have -t ..fii-cted industries in general and ; crticular, on small businesses cr.i c.ner small entities. (See question c'Z',. 'r.icnr.ation regarding environment! impacts is also requested. :nce this notice is an advance notice cf proposed rulemaking, and no specific proposal or alternatives ere presented, firm, detailed cost and impact data rr.rv not be available. However, u:er data that are available c* ccr bn estimated should be submitted tc : ?::s\ the Agency in the development cf c proposal and alternative: Commer.'-'rs responding to this notice should note that $ 1910.134 is applicable to workplace:: in general. It also applies to the const-.:chcn and maritime industries tc, the? extent that 1910.134's provisicr.s are not covered by the provisions or. rerpirators in the construction end maritime standards. Also, where a mere specific standard, such as a sirple-substance health standard, ccntc.r.s respirator provisions, those provi: -ens take precedence over the mere genera: provisions of 1610.124. Tnc previsions on respirators in the construction standards and in the maritime- s-cr.cr.rds apply only to their respective industries. jstv:-_,i>... '.c--mnr.t: Data, views, and argumcrut r.rc reunited on all of the issues ccsc:.re_ Lciow and on other rclevar.i is: v: s. Sir.cs this notice addresses a wide variety of irc\;::mios, each commcntor should ;r.k:dv the following information so that his i i.-'rl ether remarks may be useful:;, gro: - d ar.ci compared: What ccnd.uuTii. f: -vumstances are you using as a basi, fa: year comments, in terms ci. a. job,s}. eperationfs), process(es); b. Toxic material's); c. Levc-i ci exposure without regard to respirators. d. Fiacucr.c-' and duration of exposure: e. Type a: b amount of work or physical s:including frequency and duration; f. Medical screening or surveillance already practiced: g. Applicable environmental conditions; high or low temperature, high humidity, skin irritants present, etc.; h. Work schedule, including breaks and rest periods; i. Size of facility physically and in terms of employment; and j. Age and health of affected employees? 1. Should current standards be revised? What alternatives to regulation are available? 2. a. Should all or part of the new ANSI Z8B.2-1980 standard be adopted as an OSHA standard? b. If so, which parts and why? c. Which, if any, advisory provisions of the ANSI standard should be made mandatory for OSHA purposes? 3. a. Should a protection factor of 100 for full facepiece respirators be made generally applicable in the regulations or should 50, as recommended by Los Alamos National Laboratories, be retained? b. Should the protection factors (other than for full facepiece respirators) recommended by Los Alamos National Laboratories be made generally applicable in the regulations? c. What other values, if any, should be specified for protection factors? d. In what manner, if any, should OSHA allow QNFT to be used by an employer to assign a higher protection factor to a respirator for an individual or a group? e. In what way should a distinction be made between fit factors determined by QNFT and true protection factors, that include filter leakage? f. What methods or protocols are available to determine the true protection factor an employee achieves while in the actual workplace? An Should thprP-ha a Hktinrtinn irL the regulations between disposable rgsniratnrs and other half-mask respirators? h- in particular- should the protection .JggjgjgJg^^disgosableresgirator^^ the same as for other half-mask ^ggjyrators? 5.a. What protocol(s), if any. for qualitative fit testing (QLFT) should be specified in any new OSHA standards as acceptable testing method(s)? b. Are there different protocols appropriate for different uses of QLFT such as selection and Fitting, periodic fit checking, or checking the fit at each donning? c. How often should QLFT be repeated? d. What exercises should be performed by the test subject during QLFT? CCR OOOOOI093 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14. 1962 / Proposed Rules 20307 w. Should it be allowable to use ^stances identified as potential inogens as fit test challenge agents? 'i so. what basis should be used to ietermine that the probable dose is acceptable or unacceptable? f. What basis should OSHA use to determine the acceptability of suggested JUT protocols? g. With the use of nonirritating-test agents, does test subject bias significantly affect the usefulness of lualitative testing, or affect the test esults a significant amount of the time? h. Should increased testing or more frequent testing be required for espirators with facepieces that need djustment other than strap tension to lit properly? i. Under what circumstances and sing what testing protocol-would QLFT e sufficient to ensure that an employee's respirator fits sufficiently well? 6.a. What protocol(s), If any, for uantitative fit testing (QNFT) should be .pecified as acceptable testing method(s) in any new OSHA standards? b. To be an adequate test, should |NFT be able to distinguish the ``'Orator efficiency for each test e so performed by the test subject? 0. j o be an adequate test, should NFT be able to demonstrate the ariation of contaminant concentration behind the respirator during the breathing cycle? d. What exercises should be srformed by the test subject during QNFT, and for how long? e. What test agents are suitable for NFT, and what are the essential laracteristics of an appropriate aerosol iur solid and liquid agents? f. What algorithm should be used to ilculate the protection factor from NTT? g. What situations require QNFT? h. What is an acceptable accuracy for - QNFT test? 1. Should it be allowable to use ibstances identified as suspect carcinogens as test agents? If so. what basis should be used to determine that e probable dose is acceptable or ^acceptable? j. Should increased testing fi.e. repetitions) be required for respirators ith facepieces that need adjustment her than strap tension to fit properly? k. For each required protection factor, how high a fit factor, determined by ' MFT. should be required to ensure employee protection? ow will the fit factor determined \ vith different testing equipment, ' auenge agents, procedures, and test - nditions? 7. Which respirator related provisions, c. Under what circumstances, if any, if any, of the more recent OSHA health should OSHA allow the use of standards (e.g. $ 1910.1018(h)--arsenic, respirators not approved by MSHA/ { 1910.1029(g)--coke oven emissions, NIOSH under 30 CFR Part 11? S 1910.1043(f)--cotton dust, etc.) should d. Should OSHA automatically reject be made generally applicable by any modification to approved incorporation into & 1910.134, Parts respirators? 1915-1918. or 1926.103? fe, Should OSHA allow the 8.S. What tvne and level nf training ^ferchange of parts betweetidifferent l^ptraininfl should be provided to all intakes or types of respirators? fraMrDnt^raattoorr users Ic.f. g 1910.134fbH)f22)l. : ie)(5lfil 6 1915.82(a)(41. a1s936.103lc)fl)f? p. in such training, what topica_ghould f. Should USHyvrccognizifflTher organizations' (other than NIOSH) testing and certification of respirators? g. Are there changes in regulations or be covered and how thoroughly? procedures that would encourage more rapid development and utilization of specialized or comprehensive training respirators to provide protection from snnnrnnsri chemicals for which there are no d-How should required training and currently approved respirators? retraining be wneriBed? h. Are there changes in regulations or 9. What specifications should be made procedures which would encourage concerning the content of standard more rapid development and utilization operating procedures presently required of respirators which would provide in $ 1910.134(b)(1) and (e)(3)? " immediate warning of over exposure; 10. a. What medical screening, if any. improved communication capabilities; of potential users of respirators should reduced skin irritation, breathing be required? resistance or beat stress; or other b. For those employees who use improvements? respirators, is it safe to require medical i. In order for negative pressure air examinations only in those cases where purifying respirators to be permitted for there is some complaint by the employee protection from a gaseous chemical, or a problem is noticed by the fit testing should that chemical always present technician? adequate warning properties? c. Should the regulations limit an j. How, if at all, should OSHA address employer's choice of type, class or physical aspects of respirator specialty of health care provider in performance dnd suitability such os obtaining these medical examinations? abrasion resistance, tear strength, d. Could a questionnaire be used to withstanding temperature extremes, select those few individuals who should corrosion resistance, and field of vision? be medically examined? 12. Should OSHA continue to accept e. What medical conditions, if any, of as adequate all manufacturers' an employee should preclude the instructions for fit checking ( 1910.134 wearing of a respirator? Explain. (o)(5)(i))? f. What medical conditions, if any, 13. When, if at all. should OSHA limit could be aggravated by wearing a the amount of time in a single shift that respirator? employers may require their employees g.Could the wearing of a respirator to wear respirators? (The lead standard medically endanger an employee? If so, (29 CFR 1910.1025 (f)(l)(i) imposes a with what respirator, and as a result of limit of 4.4 hours in some cases.) what medical condition? 14. In determining compliance with jl-Thejesnirator testing criteria used exposure standards for those employees _hv the National Institute wearing respirators, should OSHA cupational Safety end Health assume that an employee's exposure has -7fNFt IOSH] and the Mine Safety and been reduced by a factor equal to the eaitb Administration fMsMrA'\'il3nT:FR assigned protection fuctor of the Part11^ have been acknowledged hv nf pxtpnsivp respirator? Such an assumption is already part of the enforcement policy Revision. for the cotton dust standard. (See 46 FR a. Should OSHA independently 85736, Dec. 30.1DB0.) It allows an address the adequacy and application of employee to wear a respirator for only some or all types or models of part of the work shift when respirators respirators? If yes, specify in detail. are relied upon to achieve compliance b. Should OSHA always accept the with permissible exposure levels. adequacy of MSHA/NIOSH approved 15. a. What decree of suryiellance of respirators without additional work area conditions and degree of ~~ requirements (e.g. higher performance employee Pvnnsiira nnri atrass nre requirements for use against certain adequate to ensure cafe use of substances)? ^pqpirnrnr* IrJ b lQin.134-fh1ffl)l?~ CCR 000001094 20606 federal .Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday. May 14. 1662 / Proposed Rules 1). What coals are associated with this 25. flow and to what extent should substantial number of small busineases surveillance/ respirator regulations for the maritime or other small entities? ^iJ>jjisrtlmdanBith^^Bguirfi^euseof ' and/or construction industries .differ <L Would these changes, taken .respirators for .extended-periods. what from those for general industry? individually or as a whole, resultin limitations ha placed on and 26. Should regulations be established significant advene or beneficial effects .employee's schedule pi use gTrfhat for pennissibie shelf life for filters, on domestic orforeign con\peiition, respirator in order to mekfi adequate cartridges and canisters? investment, productivity, or innovation? .allowance for 1.Degree oT exertion requiredfry flu 2. Physiological bmtten imposed bv different respirator types? 3; Physiological burden imposed ov the ambient temperature and^hnrmriltv _rrr`hv rariiant~hgaf? How ireqaenfly should-the carbon-monoxide concentration -foe ^measured from btt arr mmnrgBsnr without a carbon monoxide alarm? h. Is there grrvyeffsnn-nnt to remdre a carbon -mpnpxirie alarm-on all-nil lubricated compressors-used to provide breethdcs l/.^DouicTacceptable respirator breathing air continue to be epecified as Grade D from-Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G7.1-1968 { ?910.134(dKlj) vr should some alternate specification, such as grade E. be used? 18. It has been claimed that some powered air purifyingrespirators fPAPR's) have been shown to induce inward leakage. a. In-view of flus, what protection factor is appropriate and how should proper fit be ascertained? b. Should PAPR'a have aiarms to indicate iow air flow? c. Under svhsttcircumstancesivmdd PARRs he made .available to employees? m e. lyhatannordkeepingshould be required to ensure an effective BMPiraiOr-orogramf PrwmtHtP tomn for dMHBlfiBi&USWBBiwi&iiCSSiidOftJiifcchemicaJ analysis, fit iP-BtTngTmBriinal evaluations, eesiriratoricspectipn. etc. b.yV'hat costs are assnciBtROrwUT. these items? 20. What type and Jevel of training and education should be considered the minimum required to permit a person to train others in respiratory protection? 21. Under what circumstances, if any. should men with beards be permitted to wear each typeor style of respirator? 22. To whai-exteni, ifany, should ihe 0SHA/N109H Respirator Decision Logic be incorporeteriinto revised OSHA standards? 27. Using either sanitary, durability, or 83. There have been claims that Ihe service life considerations, how long uae of respirators results in productivity should "disposable" respirators be losses permitted to be used? a. What factors may cofltriinae to 28. For work in atmospheres productivity josses? immediately dangerous to life orhealth, b.Jfyhatare the cosis ofeach of these are there respiratory devices ether than factors? self-contained breathing apparatus that are suitable for use by standby persons? (See $ 101Q.lMleJ(3)lih)l. 29. Respirator filters and sorbents have a limited service life. a. What limits, if any. should be placed on particulate inters? b. In what manner should allowance be made for the degradation ofaome filters due to humidity? c. What scheme should be used to specify service livesior organic vapor cartridges and canisters for various organic vapors. What use can he made in this regard cf published breakthrough times for various organic vapors? (See, ior example. Nelson and-Correia, c.3Vhat is the aggregate coat if ny, of productivity tosses induced by the use-of respirators? d. Whatprovisions ofcurrent respirator standards affect productivity? e. Whet effective alternatives are available that could reduce-these productivity losses? 34. 'Respirator programcosts can vary widely depending nn tba ronriitinna wkteh -necessitate respirator use. a. How much time during a tvnical shift are respirators artnaltv wnrVT Please be as specific as possible about tyupe cf industry and classificationx employee concerned. American IndustrialHygiene h. How many employees and what Association Journal, September. 1976, portion Of fhe employ**-'* wnrHnrr* iiqp p. 514: and others.] respirator^? d. Should sorbent cartridges be restricted to e single-day's use on account of ihe desorption that may occur;ditring overnight storage and exposure to humidity? cl WhaTarelVDical-maintgnanrB and replacement coatu fnr-eahh tvne/rf respirator used? d- What are ithe -total cnt and iwr___ employee nnata ?fnra quantitative fit 30. a. Should the-resplrator standards continue to address the relative priority of engineering controls and respirators? (See 1910.134(a)(1),$ .testing program? Where known. separately state the costs of program matt tremme. Jtouinmgnl nnmhaap.. equipment rental, consultant fees. /employee time, program-staff lime, and b. Do feasible engineering controls me numbernt tests penoimad Uei always provide better protection or employee. greater assurance of protection of employee health than the use of respirators? e. What are the total costs and per employee costs for a quantitative fit - testing program? Where known 31. Are there any other issues or separately state the costs of program problems relevant to respiratory staff training, equipment purchase, protection programs in general industry, equipment rental, -consultant fees, maritime, or construction which OSHA employee time, program staff time, and should-address in revising current the number of tests performed per standards? employee. 32. a.'What would be ihe economic All comments submtted in response to impact on affected industries and on these questions and this pohoegengrally small business and other small entities will become part of die record of any of the possible changes to OSHA resulting rulemaking and will be regulations described above or carefully -considered in the development 22. WfaatAevel(s) ofoxygen deficiency suggested by you or other commentora? of anyproposed regulation on Ihese should impose a .restriction on the types b- Which, if any, of these changes matters. All comments inresponse (to of respirators that.may be worn? would result in major increases or this notice should 4>e submitted by 24. Haw-should `.'immediately decreases inscoats or prices for September IS, 2SS2ito theDocket dangerous to life jorhealth" (IDLHJ'be individual industries, small business, Officer. DocketJio.tt-048. Room 66212, defined with respect to limiting ' other epiall entities, or consumers? Occupational Safety-and Health respirator use lor oxygen deficiency or c. Would these changes have a Administration, <LS. Department of for the presence of toxic materials? signifi^nt economic impact .on a Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., CCR 000001095 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules .r^:` * ' i Washington. D.C. 20210; telephone 202-7894. . his document was prepared under the direction of Thome Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW,, Washington, D.C. 20210. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910. 1915-1918,1828 Occupational safety and health, Respiratory protection. ,'Sec. 6. Pub. L. 01-596, 64 Stat 1593 (29 U.S.C. 655). 29 CFR Part 1911; 40 U.S.C. 333; 33 U.S.C. 941: 41 U.S.C. 35. 38; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-70 (41FR 25059)) Signed at Washington. D.C.. this 10th day of May 1982. Thome Auditor, AssistantSecretary ofLabor. TX Doc. 62-13103 Filed L1M2 fc45 an) WUJNO CODE csio-ae-u DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Offlco of tho Socrotary 34 CFD Subtitio A end Cha. MV, VI end VI! Department of Education Semiannual Jte'K'isdono Agenda end Review List A* v: Office of the Secretary, Ed. fteners Publication of the semiannual agenda of regulations. bvkesahy; The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of regulations as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12291 ("Federal Regulations"). This agenda provides n brief description of regulations being developed or reviewed by the Department of Education. The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by giving the public early information about pending regulatory activities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the contact person listed for that set of regulations. Questions or comments on the overall agenda should be directed to A. Neal Shedd, Director. Division of Regulations Management, Office of the General Counsel. Department of Education, Room 2129 FOB-9. 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20202. Telephone (202) 245-7091. suppirKsrrTARY tr:pcnrjATtom Executive Order 12291. dated February 17,1901. end the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. 88-354, enacted September 19,1880, require the Department of Education to publish, in October and April of each year, on agenda of regulations that the Department expects to issue and currently effective regulations that are under review. The agenda includes both notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMa) currently being drafted and pending final regulations (FR) for which NPRMS have been published. For each cot of proposed or final regulations listed, the agenda provides e: (1) Title, (2) summary, (3) contact person, and (4) decision date (expected month of publication of the final regulations (FR) or (MFRH.2). The cuminary of each eci of regulations includes: (1) A brief description of the proposed or final regulations; (2) notice whether a regulatory impact analysis is required by Executive order 12291; (3) notice whether a regulatory flexibility analysis is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act; (4) a brief statement of the Department's objectives in issuing or; reviewing the regulations; (5) the legal basis for the regulations; and (6) the Code of Federal Regulations part number assigned to the regulations. The Department is requited by Executive Order 12291 to pi'Ciuto a regulatory impact analytic io; any set of regulations that is a "major iv.Ij" as defined by the order, and th.it is not exempted from thu requhvn.,nts in the order. This semiannual tgon specifies whether or not a i-gulatory i> '.r,.xt analyflio will bo prepc-cJ for c-vtt S31 of regulations listed. The Regulotory Flexibility Act requires that Federal ogcades take into account the Impact of their regulations on "email entities," including email businesses, email governmental jurisdictions, and other email organisations. The Department must prepare on initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed regulations for which a notice of propccod rulemaking is issued on or after January 1,1831 if file proposed regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small crititfcni. Tha Department's plan for review of regulations under the Regulatory Fbdbility Act was published on August l, 1C31 at 48 FR 39332. A reference l.*ao been included in this agenda to indicate whether a regulatory flexibility analysis is required. > This publication in the Federal Register does not impose any binding obligation on the Department with regard to any specific item on the agenda. Regulatory action in addition to the items listed is not precluded. Dated- May 7, 3C82. T. IL Dell, Secretary ofEducation. Department of Education Semiannual Regulations agenda and Review List Tfet Summary Contact Eaerxnceisstioenraea_cttad Privacy Act ftapuiatton* .Amendment_ V K Descnpttor The amendment would owned from certain ecce and rotes provision* of tho Privacy Act mvesogatory materials mr.pilsd for to'.v cntcrcoTTiant purpose* and contained in the complaint file and log cyctcm cl record* c tha Office tor Civil Rights. B Regulatory rnpact analysts: Not reouired _ . C. Regulatory AesaiMy analysts: Not roouirod___ _. D. Ctyeetn**' Th* emondmem would enhance the ability of the Dceortmont to acqura Information pertmoni .lc the compliance statu* of rccpwm* and to achieve compliance By voluntary moon*. t. legal basis' Swoon 3 d tna Pnvaey Act of 1074 (S u&C. 852aO<I) Antorto J. CeBta. (202) 246-2104 NPRM May 1S?2. tduosfton Department General AdnSWtNe Ragmater* (EDGAR)--Grant Program* without Specite nagutaw Part* 76 and 76. A DeacnpUam Th* reguinttons under review establieh procedures tor gnnt awards wider a program that ooo* rot nave progron^opociflc reguuoona. B. Regulatory impact analysts: Not reaured_______ ____ ____ C. Regulatory Csxttx&ty analysis' Not appbcaMe-- ..... ........ D. OOjectier Amendments, ft eny. to the regutstiona would be eisjnod D effect regulatory rebel. inetutSnQ reovcaon of paperwork and compbanca tudoro and Chester Giod. (202) 246-7610. NPRM May 1982. E. legal basis: Section 414, of ve Department of Education Orgaruasten Act (20 US.C. 3474). A Oaecrawcvi The regulation* unoar review Imptemom those provtsora of the Alice Ford, (202) 2*6- NPRM May 1882. moan Educa&on An of 1972 mat appfy to mdion studonts eppfy.i; tor end 7525. reoervtng teuowsnes tor study In so specified fields. CCR 000001096