Document YrG2NVdbNx9LLoeYxQ5m0xV9k

i 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 0SHAfs 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 4 VAB.0001034024 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20S93 appeared in the Federal Register for rulemaking (NPRM) on hazard Tuesday, February 9,1982 (47 FR 5902). communication in the Federal Register The rules of 601.601(a)(3) of the (47 FR 12092). A notice announcing "Statement of Procedural Rules** (26 dates and locations for public hearings CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to on the NPRM wa3 published on April 16, the public hearing. Persons who have . 1982 (47 FR 16348). submitted written comments within the The locations announced for the time prescribed in the notice of hearings were Washington, D.C., proposed rulemaking and also desire to Houston, San Diego and Detroit. The present oral comments at the hearing on selection of these sites was based the proposed regulations should submit primarily on geographical an outline of the comments to be < h presented at the hearing and the time considerations. Interested parties have > since suggested that participation on the they wish to devote to each subject by West Coast could be significantly June 6,1982. Each speaker will be increased by moving the hearing site limited to 10 minutes for oral there from San Diego to Los Angeles. presentation exclusive of time consumed OSHA has agreed to this suggestion and by questions from the panel for the is hereby announcing that the hearing government and answers to these originally scheduled for San Diego on questions. July 20,1982, will take place instead in Because of controlled access * restrictions, attendees^annot be Los Angeles at the address indicated below. The other hearings will take admitted beyond the lobby of the place on the dates and at the locations Internal Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m. announced in the April ICih notice at 47 An agenda showing the scheduling of FR 16343. The hearings will be the speakers will be made after outlines conducted in accordance with the are received from the speakers. Copies procedures specified in the March 18th of the agenda will be available free of NPRM at 47 FR 12119. charge at the hearing. In order to allow interested parties This document does not meet the more opportunity to decide to criteria for significant regulations set participate in the regional hearings, forth in paragraph 8 of the Treasury OSHA is a!co hereby extending the time Directive for improving government for submission of notices of intention to regulations appearing in the Federal appear and statements for these regional Register for Wednesday, November 8, hearings. Notices end statements for 1973. participants in the Washington, D.C. By direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. hearing are still due May 18,1962, and June 1,1932, respectively. David E. Dickinson, DATES: Notices of intention to appear at Director, Legislation andRegulations the regional hearings must be received Division. on or before June 15,1932. Statements (FR Doc. 82-13217 Filed 5-13-62: 8:45 am| and any documentary evidence to be BILLING COOS 4CS3-0t-U presented at these hearings must be , submitted by July 1,1932. DEPARTMENT OF LAEOR The date each hearing will begin and the cities in which they will bo hold are Occupational Safety and Health as follows: Adminictratien 29 Cm Pert 1910 4-- [Docket No. K-C22] 4 Hazard Communication; Public Hearings Data hearing begins City 1. dune 15, 1982......... ... Washington, D C. 2. July 13, 1982..--........... Houston. Texas. 3. July 20, 1982.... ........... Los Angeles, California. 4. July 27, 1982.............. Detroit, V*ithigan. Note.--This document originally appeared in the Federal Register for Wednesday, May 12.1532. It is reprinted in this issue to meet requirements for publication on the Tuesday/ Friday schedule assigned to the Department of Labor. aget.'Cy: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. action: Notice of proposed rulemaking; modification of hearing notice. * CUMM/mv: On March 19,1982, OSHA Published a notice of proposed ADDRESSES: Notices of intention to appear at the hearings, statements and documentary evidence should be submitted to Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitutuion Avenue, N.W., Room N3635, Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 523-8024. The address for the hearing on July 20, 1982 is: h Santa Barbara (A) Room, Western Bonaventure Le i Angeles 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 Avenue NW., Room S3212, Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 523--7C94. FOR Fiir.T^n INFCStr.lAT.SSl CONTACT: Hearings: Mr. Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3835, Washington, D.C 2021C; (202) 523-C024. Proposal: Ms. Jennifer Silk, Office of Special Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2G0 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3383,' Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 523-71C3. This document was prepared under the direction of Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210. * (Secs. C{b), 0(c) and 0(g), Pub. L. 51-053, Cl Stat. 1593,15CJ, 16CU; 29 U.S.C. 055, 057; 29 CFR Part 1911; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-70 (41 FR 25059)) Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of May 1C32, Theme G. Auch&r, Assistant Secretaryfor Occupational Safely andHealth. (FR Doc. 62-12075 Filed 5-ttMG: 12.-03 pa] eiujuo coca 29 CFil Parts 1910,1015-19*10, end 1923 [Occ'iet No. IMX0] Respiratory Protection agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. action: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. summary: This notice requests data, views, and arguments concerning possible revisions to OSHA standards on respiratory protection in 29 CFR 1910.134, 29 CFR 1915.82, 29 CFR 1916.82, 29 CFR 1917.02, 29 CFR 1918.102, and 29 CFR 1920.103 including the need to regulate, relevant alternatives, and economic impact. OAVC3: Data, views and arguments should be submitted by September 13, 1932. addresses: Written submissions in response to this notice should bs submitted to the Docket Officer, Docket # VAB.0001034025 20604 Federal Register / Vol, 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules No. H-049, Room S6212, Occupational Safety and 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- 523-8151. 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 2288.2-1989, 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. 20,1960 (25 FR 1543); 29 CFR 1916.82, January 22,1963 (28 FR 547); 29 CFR 1917.82, March 27.1964 (29 FR 4052); and 29 CFR 1918.102, Feb. 20, 1960 (25 FR 1585). Section 1910.134, which most clearly . 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 qualiity 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 are 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 hafc advanced significantly. Newer, improved methods* of qualitative fit testing are now available. Qualitative fit testing has been used for many years arid 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 made easily 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 Z89*2. The ANSI ZB8.2-1960 standard, entitled "Practices For Respiratory Protection," is a revision of the 1969 ANSI standard. It is 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, lead and cotton dust, are substanitaily lower than previous standards. Levels of contaminants considered acceptable by non-regulatory authorities, such n3 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 * ii carcinogens and as the do* .va of protection expected haa increased. Recent OSHA health st u* dards have imposed respiratory relate i requirements not found in f0 CFR 1910.134. (See 1910.10iC (h), arjenic; 1910.1025(f), lend; 5 2`JAOJOdufg), coke oven emissions; and 191C'.10i3{f), cotton dust). Those requirement*j include: Quantitative fit tests have been required both annually and semiannually. Employees have been given the privilege of using powered air purifying respirators (PAPIi) upon request Employees have been allowed to change the filter elements of a respirator whenever an increase in breathing resistance is detected. Employees have been allowed to wash their faces and respirator . facepieces to prevent slda irritation associated with using reepirutars. Employers have been requ fro d to provide respirators that ti.diibit minimum facepiece leaixge. ^Referral of an employes to a physician trained in pulmonary medicine has been required for an employee who exhibits difficuly breathing either at fit testing or during routine respirator use. In addition, developments in microprocessor and other new technologies have made it possible to develop respirators with warning devices to indicate whether the respirator is providing appropriate protection while in use, and communication equipment so that employees can warn each other of safety hazards and coordinate th air work activities in a safe manner. - ~ Improvements in cartridge technology may permit development of rewiiutors for protection fr om chemicals fur which there are not now any approx ed respirators. Further development powered air purifying rcuvhiitc permit their broader use to reduce fatigue factors, skin irritation problems, and breathing resistance JlfiL-allies sometimes created by negative pressure respirators. Those possible impro j/err.cniu when taken together would make it possible to have a more effective respirator program. feince current respiriuter standards arc based cn older technologies, 4 * VAB.0001034026 F Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules 20805 * -. respirator suppliers have claimed to be 81-1773, which is available in draft form /inhibited from developing unproved (dated Oct. 15,1980) in the OSHA ipirators which do not fit into existing docket office (Docket file H-049A, categories or which provide protection exhibit 12). There are several substitute from chemicals not included in present challenge agents that can be used to approval criteria because of the time conduct QNFT, thereby considerably involved from respirator development to reducing the importance of DEHP. ultimate approval. Suggestions on . Examples include corn oil and di-2- regulatory or other changes to further ethyihexyl sebacate. encourage the development of improved All of these factors indicate to OSHA respirators and to permit their approval that existing standards related to arq requested. respiratory protection should be It has become evident to OSHA that reexamined in light of current there is a good deal, of confusion among knowledge and accepted industrial respirator users over the distinction hygiene practice. If OSHA does not between the "fit factor" as determined respond to this situation, many by QNFT and the true, effective , employees may be needlessly "protection factor" which is the actual ^overexposed to a variety of airborne protection afforded by a respirator when toxic materials because of inappropriate in use. The manufacturers of respirator, programs. Such exposure quantitative fit test equipment have could result in severe illness and correctly, emphasized that their disability. Alternatively, obsolete equipment does not take account of the regulation may unnecessarily limit an normal filter leakage and measures only employer's options in providing the leakage around the face/sealing area ' respiratory protection, or restrict of the mask plus any contribution from innovation in respiratory protection exhalation valve leakage. devices. Inadequate regulations may In addition, it has become apparent also impose unnecessary costs. that the laboratory type testing of QNFT Consequently, OSHA is interested in may tend to overestimate how well a receiving data and views from all respirator fits when an employee interested parties on a wide variety of wearing it is working at his job. issues related to the revision of OSHA's Therefore there is uncertainty now respiratory protection standards. These about how high an apparent protection issues are presented in the form of tor (actually fit factor) must be questions to assist interested persons in uemonstrated by QNFT to insure that developing their responses. These employees, are properly protected on die questions represent issues that have job. already been brought to the Agency's OSHA has also been evaluating the attention. Some are of general nature appropriateness of improved methods of and others address specialized technical qualitative fit testing as an alternative to issues which may be principally of the* quantitative fit testing required by interest only to the technical community. the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). Interested persons, of course, may wish Although that issue is being dealt with . to submit information, and views on in a separate rulemaking proceeding issues that are not addressed by the (see 46 FR 27358, May 19,1981), the questions or to respond only to some of arguments and information involved are. the questions of special interest to also relevant to this advance notice......." "'themselves. Therefore the record of that rulemaking ' .....Paragraph (a)(1) of 1910.134 requires (docket no. H-049A) will also be placed ' that engineering controls be used to in the record of this proceeding. One of ' reduce excessive employees exposures the major questions involved in that ~"to airborne contaminants and permits rulemaking is whether qualitative fit ..... "the use ofrespirators only while feasible testing (QLFT) can -be so arranged and * engineering controls are being installed conducted as to properly determine - or when such controls are not feasible. whether a respirator is in fact adequate This requirement is the subject of for a specific application. continuing controversy in those Another important question is situations where respiratory protection whether di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate programs are thought to be more cost (DEHP), the most widely used challenge effective than engineering controls. This agent for QNFT, should continue to be rulemaking on respiratory protection used for QNFT in view of the recent standards is a necessary prerequisite in . finding by the National Toxicology addressing this policy. Although the Program that DEHP caused cancer in agency is inviting comment on this rats and mice in a two year feeding subject (see question 30), OSHA regards Singly. This study is reported in "NTP the evaluation of the technical aspects r hnical Report on the Carcinogenesis of respirator adequacy and bioassay of Di-2-ethylhexy! phthalat effectiveness* as well as respirator CAS 117-81-7," DHHS Publn. No. NIH- 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 respirators and respiratory protection programs. The factors that determine the performance levels of respirator programs are 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 the 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 of* the 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-6034-MS, issued January 1976, entitled "Respirator Protection Factors,1* 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 1976, "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, interlaboratory 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 4 - mm Tr T VAB.0001034027 T # 20806 Register Respirator Performance" by E. C. Hyatt, et. al.( that appeared on pp. 135*142 of /''"'he American Industrial Hygiene . issociation 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 called 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. JoUmal, March-April 1966, p. 93*97, (exhibit 18F); and "Performance and Acceptance of Respirator Facial Seals" by W. A* Burgess andf 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 16D) 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 isoamyl 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 elevant to the questions asked in this advance notice. These studies and other documents referred to in this notice t g. Applicable environmental have been placed in the docket and are conditions: high or low temperature, available for inspection and copying at high humidity, skin irritants present, the docket office. etc.; In addition to specific responses to the h. Work schedule, including breaks questions pcsed in this notice and in and rest periods; accordance with the provisions of the i. Size of facility physically and in Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96- terms of employment; and 354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U S.C. 601 etseq.)) j. Age and health of affected 'and Executive Order No. 12291, OSHA * also requests information regarding the employees? 1. Should current standards be economic impact which the revised? What alternatives to regulation contemplated changes discussed below are available? might have on affected industries in 2.a. Should all or part of the new general and, in particular, on small ANSI Z88.2-1980 standard be adopted businesses and other small entities. (See as an OSHA standard? question 32). Information regarding b. If so, which parts and why? environmental impacts is also c. Which, if any, advisory provisions requested. Since this notice is an of the ANSI standard should be made advance notice of proposed rulemaking, mandatory for OSHA purposes? and no specific proposal or alternatives 3.a. Should a protection factor of 100 are presented, firm, detailed cost and for full facepiece respirators be made impact data may not be available. generally applicable in the regulations However, whatever data that are or should 50, as recommended by Los available or can be estimated should be Alamos National Laboratories, be submitted to assist the Agency in the retained? development of a proposal and b. Should the protection factors (other alternatives. than for full facepiece respirators) Commentors responding to this notice recommended by Los Alamos National should note that 1910.134 is applicable Laboratories be made generally to workplaces in general. It also applies applicable in the regulations? to the construction and maritime c. What other values, if any, should be industries to the extent that 1910.134's specified for protection factors? provisions are not covered by the d. In what manner, if any, should provisions on respirators in the OSHA allow QNFT to be used by an construction and maritime standards. employer U> assign a higher protection Also, where a more specific standard, factor to a respirator for an individual or such as a single-substance health a group? standard, contains respirator provisions, e. In what way should a distinction be those provisions take precedence over made between fit factors determined by the more general provisions of ' QNFT and true protection factors, that 1910.134. The provisions on respirators include filter leakage? in the construction standards and in the f. What methods or protocols are maritime standards apply only to their available to determine the true respective industries. protection factor an employee achieves Issues for comment: Data, views, and while in the actual,workplace? arguments are solicited on all of the issues described below and on other relevant issues. Since this notice addresses a wide variety of industries, each commentor should include the following information so that his (her) other remarks may be usefully grouped and compared: What 5B22jnatojra conditions or circumstances are you 5.a. What protocol(s), if any, for using as a basis for your comments, in qualitative fit testing (QLFT) should be temi3 of, specified in any new OSHA standards a. Job(s), operation(s), process(es); as acceptable testing method(s)? b. Toxic material(s); b. Are there different protocols c. Level of exposure without regard to appropriate for different uses of QLFT respirators; such as selection and fitting, periodic fit . d. Frequency and duration of checking, or checking the fit at each exposure; donning? e. Type and amount of work or c. How often should QLFT be physical labor, including frequency and repeated? duration; d. What exercises should be f. Medical screening or surveillance performed by the test subject during already practiced; QLFT? i * VAB.0001034028 p I b Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules t 203tt0f7jl e. Should it be allowable to use 7. Which respirator related provisions, b c. Under what circumstances, if ar /'"Nbstances identified as potential if any, of the more recent OSHA health should OSHA allow the use of ^rcinogens as fit test challenge agents? standards (e.g. 1910.1018(h)--arsenic, respirators not approved by MSHA/ If so, what basis should be used to detennine that the probable dose, is S 1910.1029(g)--coke oven emissions, $ 1910.1043(f)--cotton dust, etc.) should NIOSH under 30 CFR Part 11? *' 1 d. Should OSHA automatically rej< acceptable or unacceptable? be made generally applicable by any modification to approved f. What basis should OSHA use to incorporation into 11910.134, Parts respirators? ....... determine the acceptability of suggested 1915-1918, or 8 1928.103? QLFT protocols? OSHA allow the : . ------ ----t: ween different g. With the use of nonirritating-test . irators agents, does test subject bias . significantly affect the usefulness, of organizations (other than NIOSH) qualitative testing, or affect the test testing and certification of respirators.? results a significant amount of the time? g. Axe there changes in regulations or h. Should increased testing or more procedures that would encourage more frequent testing be required for respirators with facepieces that need rapid development and utilization of .. * * respirators to provide protection from adjustment other than strap tension to chemicals for which there are no fit'properly? - . v-. currently approved respirators? : . i. Under what circumstances and h. Are there changes in regulations or 4 ' -i) using what testing protocol would QLFT 9. What specifications should be made procedures which would encourage -- JL. be sufficient to ensure that an concerning the content of standard more rapid development and utilization employee's respirator fits sufficiently operating procedures presently required of respiratoro which would provide - well? * -------r-- A- V I t -- in 1910.134(b)(1) and (e)(3)? ~ immediate warning of over exposure; ' '* .h h fl.a. What protocols], if any, for * J. ...... lO.a. What medical screening, if any, improved communication capabilities; quantitative fit testing (QNFT) should be of potential users of respirators should reduced skin Irritation, breathing specified as acceptable testing -- berequired? . resistance or heat stress; or other method(s) in any new: OSHA standards? k S ft b. For those employees who use improvements? b. To be an adequate .test should respirators, is it safe to require medical i. In order for negative pressure air QNFT be able to distinguish the examinations only in those cases where . purifying respirators to be permitted far respirator efficiency for each test there is some complaint by the employee protection from a gaseous chemical, exercise performed by the test subject? - or a problem is noticed by the fit testing should that chemical always present c. To be an adequate test, should -- technician? adequate warning properties? be able to demonstrate the : c. Should the regulations limit an j. How, if at all, should OSHA address . filiation of contaminant concentration employer's choice of type, class or physical aspects of respirator behind the respirator during the specialty of health care provider in , performance dnd suitability such as . breathing cycle? v , - * obtaining these medical examinations? abrasion resistance, tear strength, d. What exercises should be ... d. Could a questionnaire be used to withstanding temperature extremes, performed by the test subject during - - select those few individuals who should corrosion resistance, and field of vision? QNFT, and for how long? be medically examined? 12. Should OSHA continue to accept e. What test agents are suitable for ... e. What medical conditions, if any, of as adequate all manufacturers' QNFT, and what are die essential ........ an employee should preclude the instructions for fit checking (8 1910.134 characteristics of an appropriate aerosol wearing of a respirator? Explain. (c)(5)(i))? * ` ---------------- : ' for solid and liquid agents? f. What medical conditions, if any, 13. When, if at all, should OSHA limit f. What algorithm should be used to : could be aggravated by wearing a the amount of time In a single shift that calculate the protection factor from respirator? employers may require their employees QNFT? g. Could the wearing of a respirator to wear respirators? (The lead standard g. What situations require QNFT? 1 medically endanger an employee? If so, (29 CFR 1910.1025 (f)(l)(i) imposes a h. What is an acceptable accuracy for with what respirator, and as a result of limit of 4.4 hours in some cases.) a QNFT test? what medical condition? 14. In determining compliance with i. Should it be allowable to use - criteria used exposure standards for those employees substances identified as suspect ` Wearing respirators, should OSHA carcinogens as test agents? If so, what assume that an employee's exposure has basis should be used to determine that been reduced by a factor equal to the the probable dose is acceptable or assigned protection factor of the unacceptable? respirator? Such an assumption is j. Should increased testing (i.e. * ' already part of the enforcement policy repetitions) be required for respirators for the cotton dust standard. (See 48 FR with facepieces that need adjustment a. snouia OSHA independently 85738, Dec. 30,1980.) It allows an other than strap tension to fit properly? address the adequacy and application of employee to wear a respirator for only k. For each required protection factor, some or all types or models of part of the work shift when respirators how high a fit factor, determined by respirators? If yes, specify in detail. are relied upon to achieve compliance QNFT, should be required to ensure, b. Should OSHA always accept the with permissible exposure levels. proper employee protection? adequacy of MSHA/NIOSH approved 15.a. What degree of Buryiellance of >*4, How will the fit factor determined respirators without additional work area conditions and degree o / with different testing equipment, cnallenge agents, procedures, and test requirements (e.g. higher performance requirements for use against certain safe i Q&- conditions? substances}? 1910.134 (b)(8))? 4 4 VAB.0001034029 r mmmf w T $ 20808 federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1082 / Proposed What coats are associated with this acceptable respirator breathingeir continue to be aperified as Grade!} from CompressedOaa Association Commodity Specification G7.1-1988<4 C9H).'t34(dJtlj) <orshould some alternate specificathra,-sudh as grade B/be used? - 18. lt has been claimedfhat some p owered air -purifying respirators (PARR'S} have been shownto Induce' inward leakage. a. Inview of Oils, What protection factor is appropriate and bow should proper fit be ascertained? . b. Should<PARR`a have alarmsto ___ a indicate low air (flow? . *c. Underwhritmircamatanceswould PAPit's be made available to employees? ! What typeandlevel of .training andeducation should be considered the minimumrequired to permit'e person to train others in respiratory protection? 20Jnder what careiunstancea, if any, to wear each type or style ofrespirator? 22. To whalaxteni, ifany, should the Q5HA/NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic OSHA standards? . . 23. What level(s) ofoxygen deficiency should impose a restriction on die types of respirators that may be worn? 24. How should "immediately dangerous to life jot health" (JDLH) he. defined with respect to limiting ; respiratoruse lor oxygen deficiency or for the presenceof toxic materials? 25.How and to what extent should respirator regulations for die maritime substantial number ofsmall businesses i or other small entities? and/or construction industries .differ d. Would these changes, taken from those for general industry? individually or as a whole.resultin 20. .Should regulations' be established significant adverse or beneficial effects for permissible shelf life for filters, on domestic orforeign con\petition, cartridges and canisters? investment, productivity, or innovation? 27. Using either sanitary, durability, or 83. There have been claims that the sen^c^ lifeixmaiderations, howlong . use of respirators results in productivity should "disposable" respirators be losses *4.* permitted io beneed? _.****-*-* a-* -a ./ * * * j * ** ^ Tym * 4 a a ___a. What fectorsmay contribute in * 28. For work in atmospheres . productivity Josses? immediately dangerous rto life or health, ...... b..What are the costs ofeach of these are there respiratory devices other ithan ...factors? self-contained breathing apparatus that ..... c.IWhat is theaggregate cost, ifany, are - of productivity losses induced by the (See 101O.134{eJ(3)(iii)). .. use of respirators? . . 29. Respiratbr'filters and sorbents''"' " I* m e have a limited service life......... :___ a. What limits, df any, should be .1 placed onparticulate filters? b. In what manner should allowance be made for the degradation .oleoma filters due to humidity? --6. What provisions ofcurrent .respirator standards affect productivity? --e. What effective alternatives are available that could reduce these productivity losses? , 34. Resoiretornrosramcosts o. Wbat schema should he used to specify service livesfor organic vapor cartridges and canisters for various organic vapors. What use can be made in this regard of published breakthrough times for various organic vapors? {See, for example, NeisonandCorreia, as specific as possibly about tyupe df industry and clasBlficationbf employee concerned. American IndustrialHygiene Association Journal, September, 4970, p. 514; and others.) d. Should sorbent cartridges be restricted to a single day's use on account ofifae desorption that may occurduring -overnight storage and exposure to humidity? 30.a. Should the -respirator standards continue to address the relative priority of engineering oontzdls and respirators? (See S 1810.134(a)(1)# b. Dofeasible engineering controls alwaysprovide better protection or greater assurance ofprotection of employee health than the use of respirators? '31. Are there any other issues or problems relevant to respiratory protection programs in general' industry, maritime, or construction which OSHA shouldaddress in revising current . standards? 32.a.'What would be the economic impact on affected industries and on' small business and other small entities ~ of the possible changes io QSHA regulations described above or suggested by you or other coinmentors? - b. Which, if any, of these changes would result in major increases or decreases inxsosts or prices for individual industries, small business, other Spiail entities, or consumers? c. Would these changes have a significant economic impact .on a e. What are the total costs and per employee costs for a quantitative fit testingprogram? Where known separately state the costs ofprogram staff training, equipmentpurchase, equipment rental, consultant fees, . employee time, program staff time, and the number of tests performed per employee. All comments submtted in response to these questions and this notice-generally will become pari ofifae record of any resulfifig rulemaking and willbe carefully considered in the development of.anyproposed regulation on these matters. All comments inresponse to this noticeshould be submittedby September 13,1982sto ihelDocket Officer, J3ocke4.No. H-404. RonmS6212, Occupational Safety.and Health Administration. UR. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,N.W., A s VAB.0001034030 mm mmm V 4I i 4 * *ft X Register / Vol. 47, No. 94 / Friday, May 14, 1982 / Proposed ^Washington, D.G 20210; telephone 202- /^3-7894. This 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 20 CFR Parts 1010, 1018-1010,1828 Occupational safety and health, Respiratory protection. (Sea A Rib. L 91-596.84 Stat 1593 (29 U.S.C, 855). 29 CFR Part 1011:40 U.S.C. 333; 33 U.S.C. 941; 41 U.S.C. 85,38; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-78 (41FR 25069)} - . Signed at Washington. D.C, this 10th day of May 1982. Thome Auditor, Assistant SecretaryofLabor. . (FR Doa. S3-131C3 Filed 5-13-82; 8*5 m] ajyuo coos csio-se-u DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Offlco of tho Socrotary 34 CFR Subtitlo A end Ch8. MV, VI and VII Department of Education Semiannual Reguiattoro Agenda and Rovtew List AOencv; Office of the Secretary, Ed. /^CTtOStt Publication of the semiannual. genda of regulations. CUMPSAnv: The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of regulations as required by the Regulatpry 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-0,400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C 20202. Telephone (202) 245-7091. SUPFIfUSKTARV IKTCnSJATZON: Executive Order 12291, dated February 17,1931, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L, 88-354, enacted September 19,1980, 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 (NPRMs) currently being drafted and pending final regulations (FR) for which NPRMS have been published. For each set of proposed or final regulations listed, the agenda provides e: (1) Tide, (2) summary, (3) contact person, and (4) decision date (expected month of publication of the final regulations (Fit) or (MFRM). The summary of each set 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 Deportment's objectives in issuing or.* reviewing the regulations; (5) the legal basis for the regulations; and (0) the Code of Federal Regulations part number assigned to the regulations. The Department is require 3 by Executive Order 12291 to prepare a regulatory impact analysis fo.r oay set of regulations that is a "major rule" as defined by the order, and that la not exempted train thu requirements in the order. This semiannual agenda specifies whether or not a regulatory ii m act analysis will bo prepared for each set of regulations listed. The Regulatory Flexibility Ant requires that Federal ageedea take Into account the impact of their regulations on "small entities," including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, end other email organizations. Hie Department muot prepare on initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed regulations . for which a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued on or after January 1.1931 if me proposed regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department's plan for review of regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act was published on August 5.1931 at 40 FR 39332. A reference hem 'been included in this agenda to indicate whether o regulatory flexibility analysis is required. * This publication in the Fodorol Rogsctor does not impose any binding obligation on the Department with regard to any specific item on the agenda. Regulatory action In addition to the itoms listed is not precluded. Dated: May 7.1082. T. EL Dofl, Secretary ofEducation* ' Department of Education Semiannual Regulations Agenda and Review List m Tito m r Summary ^ 1 Contact Eatoriidesetioenxdpe^ctated * Privacy Act fltjulattefN--Aroondf|fM>i*f ,-,... --, __ A. OsaafpSon: Tho amendment would exempt torn certain eccess and notea Antohto JL CalKa. (202) NPRM May 1232. k * 4 provisions of tho Privacy Act investigatory rrutoriais compted (or ter enforcement 245-2104. purposes and contained in tha complaint Ks end tog system cf records of lha Olfice tor Ovii Rights. 1 \ H* B. flMtAtofy fnwscf -No* llli n tli<i-------- (ft ffWlAdPfK fnjhtrim* Mat fftrtiikwH.. ........ _________ _ O. OtyMMoar Tha amendment would enhance the abfltty of tha Deportment to acquire information pertinentto the compftaneo status of recipient* and to achieve compttanca by voluntary means. i -v % * h m r E. basis: Section 3 of the Privacy Act cf 1074 (3 U.S.C. 952a(h|) c nwsihfl* rm P**t bn_______ _____ _______ ___ ___ qouowon Mepworam umm impwiwhw nsQ* ttotene (EDGAR) Oram Programs without Spa* A DosoptiM* Tha rsguiatiom under review estabiich procedures tor grant awards under a program that does not haws progranMpodte ragutedons. Chester Gtod. (202) 245-72101 NPRM May 1862. dto flogulrtteno Pud 78 and 7ft. < - /"S C. AmuOIdw MfinMFk Nol iwa*6hiA_ __ _ . ......... ..... O. Objective*: Amendments* If any* to the regulations would be dsdoned to effect regulatory relief, including reduction of paperwork and comptiance burdens and inqxovoment of cost effectiveness. E. Legal basis: Section 4t4, of the Department of Education Organizaticn Act (30 U&C. 3474), i % ri 1 6 * F. CfhtfkSK 34 CFR Parts 7?> and 79.............____ - _____ ___ A Deaaptton: Tha regulations under raviow implement those prevfcians of lha Indian Education Act of 1872 that apply to Indian studorfc applying for end AteO Ford, (202) 24ft* 7525. NPRM May 1862: receiving teilowsrtipa for study in six specified lletda. VAB.0001034031 4 Thomas G. Grumbles \ To SAFETY DIRECTORS Date 7/21/82 ATTACHED IS THE LETTER FROM DUPONT, REFERRED TO IN MY MEMO OF 7/20, AND INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS MISTAKE. i I 1l i i i VAB.0001034032 ER-6272 REV. 9-64 istaiushed rso2 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company INCORPORATED Wilmington. Delaware 19898 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DEPARTMENT SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION DIVISION I Mr. Everett L. De Whitt, Conoco Inc. 1000 South Pine P. 0. Box 1267 Ponca City, OK 74603 Jr. 19 82 July 8 / t \ \ OSHA - ANPR RE: RESPIRATORS Enclosed is a copy of the ORC draft mentioned in the scope. ORC is an industrial consultant supported by an industrial group. The draft is subject to some change. We may not endorse it but it does contain much Du Pont input. Questions for which we could use additional data from you are: i 4 a&b 8a 11 e 15 a, b, c 16 19 a & b - What records does Conoco keep and why? 21 - You didn't indicate this question as one you could comment on, but if you have experience or policies in regard to beards, it would be helpful. 34 Sincerely yours, HLA:cmj Enclosure Henry L. Adam Staff Consultant 4m $ 1: i v 4 I * t rMH I .'1 i i fi i u* BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . .THROUGH CHEMISTRY f