[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70707-70712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H005C]
RIN 1218-AB76


Occupational Exposure to Beryllium; Request for Information

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to 
occupational exposure to beryllium, including current employee 
exposures to beryllium; the relationship between exposure to beryllium 
and the development of adverse health effects; exposure assessment and 
monitoring methods; exposure control methods; employee training; 
medical surveillance for adverse health effects related to beryllium 
exposure; and other pertinent subjects. The information received in 
response to this document will assist the Agency in determining an 
appropriate course of action regarding occupational beryllium exposure.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by 
February 24, 2003.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be sent 
by February 24, 2003.
    (Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional 
information on submitting comments.)

ADDRESSES: Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger 
service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments 
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H005C, Room N-2625, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210. OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation 
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including any attachments, are 10 
pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 
693-1648. You must include the docket number of this document, Docket 
No. H005C, in your comments.
    Electronic: You may submit comments, but not attachments, through 
the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov/.
    (Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional 
information on submitting comments.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information and press 
inquiries--Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of Public Affairs, 
Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-1999. Technical 
Information--Amanda Edens, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, 
Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-2093. Electronic copies of 
this Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other 
relevant documents, are available at OSHA's webpage at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 70708]]

I. Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to 
Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard 
copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through 
the OSHA webpage. Please note that you cannot attach materials such as 
studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have 
additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA 
Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must 
clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and 
docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of 
security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the 
receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket 
Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures 
concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery 
and messenger service.
    All comments and submissions will be available for inspection and 
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and 
submissions posted on OSHA's Web site will be available at http://www.osha.gov. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information 
such as social security numbers and birth dates. Contact the OSHA 
Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about materials not 
available through the OSHA web page and for assistance in using the web 
page to locate docket submissions.

II. Background

    Properties and uses. Beryllium has unique characteristics that make 
it a superior material for certain specialized applications. Compared 
to other metals, beryllium is very light, has a high melting point, low 
electrical conductivity, superior strength and stiffness, high thermal 
conductivity, and high resistance to corrosion. In addition, it is also 
transparent to X-rays, absorbs neutrons, and is non-magnetic. Beryllium 
is used in several forms: as a pure metal, as beryllium oxide, and as 
an alloy with copper, aluminum, magnesium, or nickel.
    Until recently, the primary demand for beryllium came from the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, where the metal was 
important in the development of nuclear weapons and in applications for 
the nuclear power industry. However, the use of beryllium has become 
more widespread in general industry, both in the manufacture of 
products containing beryllium and the salvage of materials containing 
beryllium.
    For example, because of its lightness and strength, beryllium and 
beryllium alloy are used by the aerospace industry in the manufacture 
of high performance military aircraft, satellites, rocketry and the 
space shuttle. Beryllium and beryllium alloy are also used in X-ray 
machines and high-speed computers. Beryllium alloy is used by 
manufacturers of electrical components to make springs, switches, and 
other parts that are used in automotive, computer, telecommunication, 
and other industries. Additional alloy applications include tubing for 
oil and gas drilling; tool and die making and other mold-making; 
jewelry; golf clubs; and non-sparking tools. Beryllium oxide is used as 
a substrate for circuits in computer manufacture and in industries that 
produce lasers or traveling-wave tubes, automotive ignition systems, 
radar, microwave systems, and in other electronic and opto-electronic 
markets. Processes that create employee exposure in these industries 
typically involve machine shop, metalworking, and finishing processes, 
such as machining, sanding, stamping, grinding, crushing, lapping, and 
sintering.
    Beryllium is also present in other industries that do not 
intentionally produce or process the metal. Examples of such activities 
include abrasive blasting operations, where coal or copper slag is used 
as a substitute for sand; spot or seam welding of specialized 
beryllium-copper electrodes; welding processes, where beryllium is in 
the electrode, in the flux or rod, or in the substrate alloy being 
fabricated; and recycling metals and other materials from computers and 
electrical products.

Health Risks Associated With Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Its 
Compounds

    Some workers exposed to beryllium or beryllium compounds may 
develop beryllium sensitization, chronic beryllium disease (CBD, also 
sometimes known as berylliosis), lung cancer, or skin disease (Ex. 4-
1). Acute beryllium disease, a pneumonitis resulting from high 
beryllium exposure, is now considered rare (Ex. 4-9).
    Inhalation appears to be the primary route of exposure to 
beryllium. However, dermal contact can result in a beryllium-related 
skin disease characterized by a rash, or wart-like bumps (Ex. 4-15). 
Questions have been raised regarding the contribution of dermal 
exposure, ingestion, and genetic factors to the risk of sensitization 
and CBD. (e.g., Exs. 4-2 and 4-14).

Chronic Beryllium Disease

    CBD primarily affects the lungs. Inhalation of beryllium dust 
appears to be the primary route of exposure in CBD. Research indicates 
that beryllium exposure causes some workers to become sensitized, which 
may result in the formation of granulomas (inflammatory cells 
surrounding beryllium particles) in the lung that reduce oxygen 
exchange (Ex. 4-15). Proliferation of granulomas leads to additional 
symptoms of CBD, such as dry cough, chest pain, weakness, fatigue and 
progressive shortness of breath (Ex. 4-9). Progression of the disease 
may lead to weight loss, acrocyanosis (blueness or pallor of the 
extremities usually associated with pain and numbness), and eventually, 
heart failure. The clinical course of CBD is considered highly 
variable; because the disease may develop slowly over time, workers may 
have the disease for years without knowing it. With progression, CBD is 
sometimes fatal. (Ex. 4-10).
    The amount or length of exposure to beryllium necessary to cause a 
specific individual to develop CBD is not known, but recent information 
suggests that even short exposures to levels of beryllium below OSHA's 
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 2 [mu]g/m3 averaged over 
an 8-hour day may lead to CBD in some workers (Exs. 4-5, 4-7, and 4-8). 
CBD may develop within months after initial exposure to beryllium or 
may have a very slow onset and not develop for 25 years or more and may 
even develop after exposure has ceased (Ex. 4-9). The prevalence of CBD 
among beryllium exposed workers has been reported to range from an 
average of about 2% to a high of approximately 15% for workers involved 
in machining operations in the manufacture of beryllium products (Exs. 
4-5, 4-6, and 4-8).
    Measurement of exposure to total airborne beryllium dust may not be 
the best predictor of CBD. Particle size, surface area, number of 
particles, solubility, and the chemical form of beryllium involved may 
all be relevant to the development of disease. It has been suggested 
that development of disease may be more closely correlated with the 
mass or number of particles deposited in the alveolar regions of the 
lung than with total dust exposure (Exs. 4-4 and 4-11).
    Only workers who have developed sensitization to beryllium are 
believed to develop CBD. Following sensitization, CBD can develop with 
or without additional exposure (Ex. 4-13). Lang (Ex. 4-10) estimates 
that the probability of developing CBD following

[[Page 70709]]

sensitization is approximately 10% per year and that about half of 
those sensitized will go on to develop pulmonary granulomas within 
three to four years. Similarly, Newman (Ex. 4-13) reported that almost 
50% of a beryllium-sensitized follow-up group of 44 subjects developed 
CBD within 4 years of becoming sensitized.
    The Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (BeLPT) can identify 
employees who are sensitized to beryllium. Sensitized individuals are 
typically further evaluated by biopsy, high resolution computerized 
tomography, or other means, such as the exercise tolerance test or 
bronchoalveolar lavage, to determine if they have CBD. Diagnosis of CBD 
depends on demonstration of pathologic changes such as granulomas in 
the lungs, along with evidence that these changes are the result of 
hypersensitivity to beryllium (e.g., positive BeLPT results) (Exs. 4-15 
and 4-19).

Lung Cancer

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies 
beryllium and beryllium compounds as carcinogenic to humans (Ex. 4-3). 
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health classifies 
beryllium and beryllium compounds as a ``potential occupational 
carcinogen'' (Ex. 4-12). The Environmental Protection Agency classifies 
beryllium and beryllium compounds as a ``probable human carcinogen'' 
(Ex. 4-18). Recent epidemiological studies have reported excess lung 
cancer deaths among beryllium-exposed employees (Exs. 4-16 and 4-17). A 
variety of beryllium metal alloys, compounds, and ores have also been 
shown to cause lung cancer in rats and monkeys in inhalation and 
intratracheal instillation studies (Exs. 4-3 and 4-18).
    Occupational health regulation of beryllium exposure. The first 
occupational exposure limit for beryllium was set in 1949 by the Atomic 
Energy Commission (AEC). The AEC required that beryllium exposure in 
the workplaces under its jurisdiction be limited to 2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 
8-hour time-weighted-average (TWA) and 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as a peak 
exposure, never to be exceeded.
    In 1971, OSHA adopted, under Section 6(a) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, and made applicable to general industry, 
a national consensus standard (ANSI Z37.29-1970) for beryllium and 
beryllium compounds. The standard sets a PEL for beryllium and 
beryllium compounds at 2 [mu]g/m\3\ as an 8-hour TWA; 5 [mu]g/m\3\ as 
an acceptable ceiling concentration; and 25 [mu]g/m\3\ as an acceptable 
maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling concentration for an 8-hour 
shift. (29 CFR Part 1910.1000; Table Z-2).
    In 1975, OSHA proposed a new beryllium standard for all industries 
based on information that beryllium caused cancer in animal experiments 
(40 FR 48814 (10/17/75)). Adoption of this proposal would have lowered 
the 8-hour TWA exposure limit from 2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 1 [mu]g/m\3\. In 
addition, the proposal included provisions for exposure monitoring, 
hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, and training related to the 
health hazards from beryllium exposure. This rulemaking was never 
completed.
    Based upon information showing that OSHA's current PEL of 2 [mu]g/
m\3\ may not be adequate to protect workers from developing CBD, OSHA 
placed beryllium on its Regulatory Agenda in 1998. In 1999, the 
Department of Energy issued a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention 
Program Final Rule for employees exposed to beryllium in its 
facilities, setting an action level of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\. This action 
level triggers workplace precautions and control measures. (DOE, 10 CFR 
part 850)
    In 1999, OSHA was petitioned by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, 
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) (Ex. 1-1) and by 
Dr. Lee Newman and Ms. Margaret Mroz, from the National Jewish Medical 
Research Center (Ex. 1-2), to promulgate an Emergency Temporary 
Standard (ETS) for beryllium in the workplace. In 2001, OSHA was 
petitioned for an ETS by Public Citizen Health Research Group and again 
by PACE (Ex. 1-10). OSHA denied the petitions.

III. Key Issues On Which Comment Is Requested

    The control of occupational exposures to beryllium and its 
compounds presents a number of complex issues. OSHA is seeking 
information, data, and comment that the Agency can use to address these 
issues. OSHA has included these questions to provide a basis for 
response to this general request for information. When answering 
specific numbered questions below, key your responses to the number of 
the question, explain the reasons supporting your views, and identify 
and provide relevant information on which you rely, including, but not 
limited to, data, studies and articles. However, respondents are 
encouraged to address any aspect of occupational exposure to beryllium 
that they feel is pertinent. OSHA intends to use the information it 
obtains to decide on a course of action regarding occupational 
exposures to beryllium.

A. Employee Exposure

    (1) Where and how is beryllium currently used? Please provide any 
workplace or industry-specific data you have indicating the amount of 
beryllium used, its form, and the processes and products in which it is 
used. OSHA is particularly interested in identifying industries and 
operations whose use of beryllium is not noted here, and in identifying 
uses of beryllium that involve small businesses.
    (2) What are the job categories in which employees are potentially 
exposed to beryllium in your company or industry? For each job 
category, please provide a description of how the exposure takes place 
within that job category.
    (3) How many employees are exposed to beryllium, or have the 
potential for exposure, in each job category in your company or 
industry?
    (4) What are the frequency, duration and levels of employee 
exposures to beryllium in each job category in your company or 
industry? Please include the analytical method and type of samples used 
for determining exposure levels. OSHA requests that, if possible, 
exposure data be personal samples with clear descriptions of the length 
of the sample. If this is not possible, the exposure data should 
indicate the form and length of the exposure.

B. Health Effects

    OSHA is aware of a number of studies showing an association between 
adverse health effects and exposure to beryllium. The Agency is seeking 
the most recent and important studies that can be used to identify 
significant adverse health effects related to occupational beryllium 
exposure.
    (5) Which studies should OSHA consider in assessing the potential 
health risks of CBD and lung cancer associated with exposure to 
beryllium? Please explain your rationale for recommending these 
studies, including potential strengths and weaknesses, such as size of 
the population studied, characterization of exposure, and confounding 
factors.
    (6) Which recent studies examine the effects from dermal exposure 
and absorption of beryllium?
    (7) Describe any studies showing adverse health effects resulting 
from routes of occupational beryllium exposure other than dermal 
contact and inhalation.
    (8) Describe any studies that address the mechanisms of action of 
beryllium

[[Page 70710]]

in the development of CBD, sensitization, or lung cancer.
    (9) Which studies or other information should OSHA take into 
account in examining the role of genetic factors in the development of 
beryllium-related disease?
    (10) Describe characteristics of beryllium aerosols (e.g., particle 
size, surface area, particle number) that are related to the 
development of disease.
    (11) To what extent do different forms of beryllium have specific 
properties (e.g., solubility) that should be taken into consideration 
when assessing health risks?

C. Risk Assessment

    OSHA is interested in data that will assist it in developing 
quantitative estimates of the occupational risk of sensitization, CBD, 
or lung cancer based on the level, timing, and duration of exposure to 
beryllium. Case reports and epidemiological and animal studies on these 
measures, along with associated exposure data characterizing total or 
respirable mass, particle number, particle surface area, and dermal 
exposure are desired.
    (12) Which studies should be used for a quantitative risk 
assessment for CBD and lung cancer?
    (13) Which approaches (i.e., methods, models, data) should OSHA use 
for estimating risk from exposure to beryllium?
    (14) Which mathematical models are most appropriate to quantify the 
risk of cancer or other adverse health effects from exposure to 
beryllium or beryllium compounds? Describe the strengths and weaknesses 
of these models.
    (15) Which mathematical lung deposition models are appropriate to 
characterize beryllium lung uptake?
    (16) Describe studies the Agency should consider that relate to the 
dose-response behavior of beryllium, including cellular, mechanistic, 
and dosimetric considerations. For instance, are any adverse health 
effects of beryllium dependent on the time period over which exposure 
occurs rather than dependent on the total cumulative dose received, or 
are there data that suggest beryllium exhibits a threshold effect?
    (17) Do short-term peak exposures play a role in causing adverse 
health effects, especially sensitization? If so, provide any 
information that addresses this role.
    (18) Are there studies or other evidence on the combined effects of 
inhalation and dermal exposure?
    (19) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has prepared 
a quantitative risk assessment addressing the risks for sensitization 
and lung cancer related to beryllium exposure in the ambient 
environment (Ex. 4-18). In addition, the California EPA (CalEPA) 
published a quantitative risk assessment addressing risks for 
sensitization and CBD in the ambient environment (Ex. 4-20). Should 
OSHA rely on these assessments to characterize the risk of 
sensitization, CBD, or lung cancer from occupational exposure to 
beryllium? Are there other assessments that the Agency should consult? 
For Beryllium sensitization, the two assessments relied on the same key 
study of beryllium ceramics plant workers by Kreiss et al. (Ex. 4-6), 
but used some different uncertainty/modifying factors. Should OSHA, in 
characterizing the risk of beryllium sensitization, rely on (a) the 
same key study, (b) the same methodology, and (c) the uncertainty/
modifying factors used by USEPA and the CalEPA?

D. Exposure Assessment and Monitoring Methods

    (20) Is initial sampling, objective data, or some other measure 
used to estimate beryllium exposures in your facility? Describe any 
programs that have been implemented for initial assessment of exposure 
to beryllium.
    (21) Describe any follow-up or periodic exposure assessments that 
you conduct. How often do you conduct such follow-up or periodic 
exposure assessments?
    (22) What type of exposure monitoring methods are available for 
measuring beryllium in the workplace? Provide information on any 
sampling and analytical methods available for determining exposure 
based on total or respirable mass, particle size, particle number, 
particle surface area, or dermal contact. Information on the precision 
and accuracy of the sampling method, the range and limits of detection, 
the method of validation of sampling and analysis, and any potential 
sources of chemical interference is desired.

E. Control Measures and Technological Feasibility

    (23) What types of engineering controls or work practices are used 
by your facility to reduce exposure to beryllium? Describe the 
effectiveness of these controls in reducing worker exposure and 
indicate any operations or processes in your facility for which 
engineering controls are not available, are ineffective, or are too 
costly to use. Give specific examples where engineering controls or 
work practices have been applied or evaluated or where engineering 
control programs have been implemented to ensure reliable operation of 
control systems.
    (24) Are there other materials available that can be substituted 
for beryllium in your processes? Describe any technical, economic or 
other barriers or hindrances to substitution.
    (25) Describe housekeeping practices used in your facility to 
control employee exposure to beryllium, including cleaning methods used 
(e.g., wet vacuuming, vacuums with HEPA filters, tack cloths), the 
frequency of these activities, and any prohibited housekeeping 
practices (e.g., dry sweeping or use of compressed air).
    (26) Are clean rooms, change rooms, shower areas, or separate 
lunchrooms used in your facility for hygiene and housekeeping in the 
control of beryllium exposure? Indicate the effectiveness of these 
measures in reducing employee exposure to beryllium, and describe the 
procedures followed or methods used to ensure that these areas are free 
from beryllium contamination.
    (27) Are respirators or other types of personal protective 
equipment (e.g., gloves, overalls or other clothing, goggles, face 
shields) provided to employees in your facility to protect them against 
exposure to beryllium? If so, describe your program and identify the 
type of equipment used, the basis for selection, and any difficulties 
encountered in implementing your program (e.g., problems with cleaning 
inner surfaces of respirators contaminated with beryllium).
    (28) Describe the conditions under which respirators and other 
personal protective equipment are used, including any criteria (e.g., 
regulated area, exposure level, type of operation, duration of 
exposure) used to trigger requirements for use of such equipment.
    (29) Are there processes or areas where it is impracticable to use 
respirators or other protective equipment to protect against exposure 
to beryllium? Describe those situations and explain what measures are 
taken to protect employees.
    (30) Other than reducing employee exposure to beryllium, has 
adoption of control measures resulted in any additional benefits? 
Provide specific details of the benefits.
    (31) Have any technological changes within your industry influenced 
the frequency, duration, or magnitude of exposure to beryllium or the 
means by which employers attempt to control exposures? The Agency 
requests that commenters describe in detail any technological changes 
within industries that have altered methods of control. Information 
linking control technologies and data on exposure levels associated

[[Page 70711]]

with the application of controls is desired.
    (32) Is the Department of Energy Beryllium Disease Prevention 
Program (10 CFR part 850) a viable program for non-DOE beryllium users?

F. Economic Impacts

    (33) What are the potential economic impacts of reducing 
occupational exposures to beryllium in terms of costs of controls, 
costs for training, benefits from reduction in the number or severity 
of illnesses, effects on revenue and profit, changes in worker 
productivity, or any other impact measure that you can to identify? 
Provide, if possible, explicit examples of costs that could be incurred 
(e.g., dollar estimates for controls) or benefits that could be 
achieved (e.g., dollar estimates for medical savings from a reduction 
in the number or severity of beryllium-related illnesses).
    (34) What changes in market conditions would result from reducing 
employees' exposures to beryllium? Please include in your response any 
changes in market structure or concentration, or effects on domestic or 
international shipments of beryllium-related products or services that 
would be expected to result from reducing occupational exposures to 
beryllium.

G. Employee Training

    (35) What information and training is provided to your employees to 
reduce risks associated with occupational exposure to beryllium? OSHA 
seeks comment on the information and training provided or recommended 
for workers exposed to beryllium, including job categories included in 
your training program, criteria for determining which employees receive 
information and training, program structure, content, methods, 
frequency, and any procedures used to address language barriers.
    (36) How do you determine the effectiveness of training? Describe 
methods used and any factors taken into account in examining the 
effectiveness of training programs.
    (37) Describe any ways in which beryllium-related training could be 
improved.

H. Medical Surveillance

    (38) Which criteria are used, or should be used, to determine when 
occupational medical screening or surveillance should be provided? 
Describe the job categories, duties, exposure levels, or any other 
basis used for determining when health screening should be provided to 
employees.
    (39) Which screening tests or procedures are used, or should be 
used, for early identification of adverse health effects related to 
beryllium exposure? Explain the basis for your position.
    (40) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance 
program, describe its role in the program (e.g., factors used to 
determine eligibility for receiving the test, how the results are used 
to make decisions about further actions for the employee and the 
facility).
    (41) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance 
program, what confirmation protocols are used for determining a 
worker's sensitivity (e.g., single specimen followed by split-specimen, 
split specimen followed by split specimen)?
    (42) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance 
program, describe your experience with the test, including information 
regarding the sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, false 
negative rate, and positive predictive value of the test, and any 
difficulties found with the interpretation of test results.
    (43) How often should beryllium-related health screening be 
performed?
    (44) What happens after an employee in your facility is identified 
as sensitized or diagnosed with beryllium-related disease? Describe the 
policies and procedures that are followed, including any provisions for 
removal from exposure and return to work.
    (45) Has health screening and surveillance had any effect on the 
number or severity of adverse health effects associated with beryllium 
exposure?

I. Environmental Effects

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500), and the Department of Labor (DOL) NEPA Compliance 
Regulations (29 CFR part 11), require that OSHA give appropriate 
consideration to environmental issues and the impacts of proposed 
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 
OSHA is currently collecting written information and data on possible 
environmental impacts that could occur outside of the workplace (e.g., 
exposure to the community through contaminated air/water, contaminated 
waste sites, etc.) if the Agency were to issue guidance or revise the 
existing standard for occupational exposure to beryllium. Such 
information should include both negative and positive environmental 
effects that could be expected to result from guidance or a revised 
standard. Specifically, OSHA requests comments and information on the 
following:
    (46) What is the potential direct or indirect environmental impact 
(for example, the effect on air and water quality, energy usage, solid 
waste disposal, and land use) from a reduction in employee exposure to 
beryllium or the use of substitutes for beryllium?
    (47) Are there any situations in which reducing beryllium exposures 
to employees would be inconsistent with meeting environmental 
regulations?

J. Impact on Small Business Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), OSHA 
is required to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small 
entities. OSHA requests that members of the small business community, 
or other parties familiar with regulation of small business, address 
any special circumstances facing small firms in controlling 
occupational exposure to beryllium.
    (48) How many and what kinds of small businesses or other small 
entities in your industry could be affected by amending OSHA's 
beryllium standard? Describe any such effects.
    (49) Are there special issues that make control of beryllium 
exposures more difficult or more costly in small firms?
    (50) Are there any reasons that the benefits of reducing 
occupational exposure to beryllium might be less in small firms than in 
larger firms? With regard to potential impacts on small firms, describe 
specific concerns that should be addressed, and any alternatives that 
might serve to minimize these impacts while meeting the requirements of 
the OSH Act.

K. Duplication/Overlapping/Conflicting Rules

    (51) Are there any federal regulations that might duplicate, 
overlap or conflict with guidance or a revised standard concerning 
beryllium? If so, identify which ones and explain how they would 
duplicate, overlap or conflict.
    (52) Are there any federal programs in areas such as defense or 
energy that might be impacted by guidance or a revised standard 
concerning beryllium? If so, identify which ones and explain how they 
would be impacted.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 
20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,

[[Page 70712]]

657), Secretary's Order 3-2000, and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of November, 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 02-29984 Filed 11-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P