97-33843. Respiratory Protection  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 1152-1300]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-33843]
    
    
    
    [[Page 1151]]
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part II
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of Labor
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
    
    
    
    Respiratory Protection; Final Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 1998 / Rules 
    and Regulations
    
    [[Page 1152]]
    
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
    
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    
    29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
    
    [Docket No. H-049]
    RIN 1218-AA05
    
    
    Respiratory Protection
    
    AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 
    Department of Labor.
    
    ACTION: Final rule; Request for comment on paperwork requirements.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This final standard, which replaces the respiratory protection 
    standards adopted by OSHA in 1971 (29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 CFR 
    1926.103), applies to general industry, construction, shipyard, 
    longshoring, and marine terminal workplaces. The standard requires 
    employers to establish or maintain a respiratory protection program to 
    protect their respirator-wearing employees. The standard contains 
    requirements for program administration; worksite-specific procedures; 
    respirator selection; employee training; fit testing; medical 
    evaluation; respirator use; respirator cleaning, maintenance, and 
    repair; and other provisions. The final standard also simplifies 
    respirator requirements for employers by deleting respiratory 
    provisions in other OSHA health standards that duplicate those in the 
    final standard and revising other respirator-related provisions to make 
    them consistent. In addition, the standard addresses the use of 
    respirators in Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) 
    atmospheres, including interior structural firefighting. During 
    interior structural firefighting (an IDLH atmosphere by definition), 
    self-contained breathing apparatus is required, and two firefighters 
    must be on standby to provide assistance or perform rescue when two 
    firefighters are inside the burning building.
        Based on the record in this rulemaking and the Agency's own 
    experience in enforcing its prior respiratory protection standards, 
    OSHA has concluded that compliance with the final rule will assist 
    employers in protecting the health of employees exposed in the course 
    of their work to airborne contaminants, physical hazards, and 
    biological agents, and that the standard is therefore necessary and 
    appropriate. The final respiratory protection standard covers an 
    estimated 5 million respirator wearers working in an estimated 1.3 
    million workplaces in the covered sectors. OSHA's benefits analysis 
    predicts that the standard will prevent many deaths and illnesses among 
    respirator-wearing employees every year by protecting them from 
    exposure to acute and chronic health hazards. OSHA estimates that 
    compliance with this standard will avert hundreds of deaths and 
    thousands of illnesses annually. The annual costs of the standard are 
    estimated to be $111 million, or an average of $22 per covered employee 
    per year.
    
    DATES: The final rule becomes effective April 8, 1998.
        Compliance: Start-up dates for specific provisions are set forth in 
    Sec. 1910.134(n) of the regulatory text. However, until the Department 
    of Labor publishes in the Federal Register the control numbers assigned 
    by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), affected parties are not 
    required to comply with the new or revised information collection 
    requirements contained in the following paragraphs: Sec. 1910.134(c) 
    written procedures for selecting respirators, medical evaluations, fit 
    testing, use of respirators, maintaining respirators, training, and 
    periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the program; (e)(3)-(6) 
    medical questionnaire, examination, and information for the physician 
    or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP); (f)(1) fit testing; 
    (i)(4) tagging sorbent beds and filters; and (m)(1)-(2) and (4) 
    recordkeeping. Publication of the control numbers notifies the public 
    that the OMB has approved these information collection requirements 
    under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Although affected parties 
    will not have to comply with the revised standard's information 
    collection requirements until these have been approved by OMB, they 
    must comply with those requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134 (OSHA's existing 
    respirator protection standard) that have already been approved by the 
    OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Approved requirements include 
    the written program, emergency-use respirator certification records, 
    and emergency-use respirator compartment marking.
        Comments: Interested parties may submit comments on the information 
    collection requirements for this standard until March 9, 1998.
    
    ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
    the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of 
    the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
    Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, as the recipient of petitions for 
    review of the standard.
        Comments on the information collection requirements of this final 
    rule (see Supplementary Information) are to be submitted to the Docket 
    Office, Docket No. ICR 97-5, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 
    Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-
    7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also 
    be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046.
        Copies of the referenced information collection request are 
    available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office and will be 
    mailed immediately to persons who request copies by telephoning Adrian 
    Corsey at (202) 219-7075. For electronic copies of the Respiratory 
    Protection Final Standard and the Information Collection Request, 
    contact OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office 
    of Public Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
    Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; Telephone (202) 219-
    8148. For additional copies of this regulation contact: OSHA, Office of 
    Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution 
    Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; Telephone (202) 219-4667.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    1. Collection of Information: Request for Comment
    
        This final Respiratory Protection standard contains information 
    collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the 
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (see 
    also 5 CFR 1320). PRA95 defines collection of information to mean, 
    ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 
    disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or 
    for an agency regardless of form or format.'' [44 U.S.C. 
    Sec. 3502(3)(A)]
        The title, the need for and proposed use of the information, a 
    summary of the collections of information, description of the 
    respondents, and frequency of response required to implement the 
    required information collection are described below with an estimate of 
    the annual cost and reporting burden (as required by 5 CFR 1320.5 
    (a)(1)(iv) and Sec. 1320.8 (d)(2)). Included in the estimate is the 
    time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data 
    needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    
    [[Page 1153]]
    
        OSHA invites comments on whether the proposed collection of 
    information:
         Ensures that the collection of information is necessary 
    for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
    whether the information will have practical utility;
         Estimates the projected burden accurately, including 
    whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid;
         Enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
    information to be collected; and
         Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on 
    those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
    electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
    other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
    submissions of responses.
        Title: Respiratory Protection, 29 CFR 1910.134.
        Description: The final Respiratory Protection standard is an 
    occupational health standard that will minimize occupational exposure 
    to toxic substances. The standard's information collection requirements 
    are essential components that will protect employees from occupational 
    exposure to these toxins. The information will be used by employers and 
    employees to implement the protection required by the standard. OSHA 
    will use some of the information to determine compliance with the 
    standard.
        Respondents: The total number of respondents for the first year is 
    1,300,000, and for the second year 1,430,000 (1,300,000 (1st year) plus 
    10% (130,000)).
        Average Time Per Response: 2.21 hours (this is the result of 
    dividing the total number of responses (19,767,461) by the total number 
    of burden hours (8,926,558)).
        Average Time Per Firm: 6.87 hours (this represents the average time 
    a firm would need to comply with all of the information collection 
    provisions, including the written respiratory protection program. This 
    is a result of dividing the total number of burden hours (8,926,558) by 
    the total number of firms (1,300,000)).
    
                                                            Summary of the Collections of Information                                                       
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                No. of       No. of                                                                                         
      Information collection  requirement     responses    responses      Frequency of response        Time per  response     Total 1st year  Estimated cost
                                                (Yr 1)       (Yr 2)                                                               burden        (1st year)  
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Respiratory Protection Program             1,274,000       26,000  All Existing Firms to       2 Hours for Small Firms;        2,652,000     $60,916,440
     1910.134(c).                                                       Update Existing Program.    4 Hours for Large Firms.                                
                                                 127,400        2,600  Initially for New           8 Hours to Develop.......                                
                                                                        Employers.                                                                          
                                                                       Updates (Every 5 Years)...  30 Minutes for Small                                     
                                                                                                    Firms; 1 Hour for Large                                 
                                                                                                    Firms.                                                  
    Questionnaire Administration               5,000,000      575,000  All Employees Will Receive  15 Minutes for Employees          740,000     $13,593,800
     1910.134(e)(3).                                                    in the First Year.          to Complete.                                            
                                                                       50% of those Receiving                                                               
                                                                        Exams Will Receive Follow-                                                          
                                                                        up Questionnaires.                                                                  
    Medical Examinations 1910.134(e)(4)....    1,150,000      287,500  23% of the Existing         All Medical Exams will          1,021,200     $18,759,444
                                                                        Employees.                  Take 1.5 Hours to                                       
                                                                       2nd & Recurring Yrs--25%     Complete which includes                                 
                                                                        of the 23% would receive    travel time.                                            
                                                                        Follow-up Exams.                                                                    
    Information Provided to PLHCP              1,150,000      287,500  Dependent on the Number of  15 Minutes for Each               170,200      $2,358,972
     1910.134(e)(5).                                                    Exams.                      Employee.                                               
    Fit Testing 1910.134(f)(1).............    4,335,000    4,335,000  346,800 Employees to        30 Minutes for Employees        3,780,140     $76,813,315
                                                                        Receive Quantitative Fit    to be Fitted                                            
                                                                        Tests.                      (Quantitative and                                       
                                                                       799,640 Employees to         Qualitative Fit Testing).                               
                                                                        Receive Qualitative Fit    30 Additional Minutes for                                
                                                                        Tests.                      Employers to Conduct                                    
                                                                       3,188,560 Employees to       (Only for In-House Fit                                  
                                                                        Receive In-House Fit        Testing).                                               
                                                                        Tests.                                                                              
                                                                       4,335,000 Total Employees.                                                           
    Emergency-Use Respirator Marking                   0      260,000  Only New Employers E......  5 Minutes per Emergency-                0              $0
     1910.134(h)(2)(ii)(B).                                            xisting Employers Have       Use Respirator.                                         
                                                                        Already Complied (Old                                                               
                                                                        Requirement).                                                                       
    
    [[Page 1154]]
    
                                                                                                                                                            
    Emergency-Use Respirator Certification       671,880       67,200  Currently, 27,995           Assuming 2 Per Employer:          114,220      $2,098,221
     1910.134(h)(3)(iv)(A)&(B).                                         Employers Using Emergency-  10 Minutes (Total Time                                  
                                                                        Use Respirators (1st        Per Month).                                             
                                                                        Year).                                                                              
                                                                       2nd Year = 1st Year                                                                  
                                                                        Employers plus 10%.                                                                 
    Certificate of Analysis of Cylinders               0            0  All Existing and New        Provided by Supplier,                   0              $0
     1910.134(i)(4)(i)(B).                                              Employers.                  therefore no burden                                     
                                                                                                    incurred.                                               
    Sorbent Beds and Filters                      74,181       74,181  Currently, 24,727           3 Changes Per Year,                 5,934        $109,008
     1910.134(i)(4)(iii)(B).                                            Compressors in Use.         assuming 5 minutes per                                  
                                                                                                    change.                                                 
    Medical Records 1910.134(m)(1).........    1,150,000      287,500  Dependent on the Number of  5 Minutes Per Employee             54,464        $754,871
                                                                        Exams.                      Examined.                                               
    Fit Testing Records 1910.134(m)(2).....    4,335,000    4,335,000  Dependent on the Number of  5 Minutes Per Fit Test...         348,400      $4,828,824
                                                                        Fit Tests.                                                                          
    Employee Access 1910.134(m)(4).........      500,000      500,000  10% of the Total Number of  5 Minutes per Request....          40,000        $554,400
                                                                        Employees.                                                                          
                                            --------------------------                                                       -------------------------------
          Totals...........................   19,767,461   11,037,481    ........................    .......................       8,926,558    $180,787,295
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
                                Marginal Differences in Burden Hours and Costs (I.E., Between the Existing and Revised Standards)                           
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Current OMB                                                        2nd &                    
                                                                 inventory    Adjustment (to  1st yr. burden                   recurring yr.                
               Information collection requirement                existing     1st year only)      revised     Estimated cost  burden revised  Estimated cost
                                                                 1910.134                        1910.134                        1910.134                   
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Respiratory Protection Program..........................         395,489       2,256,511       2,652,000     $60,916,440       1,570,400     $36,072,088
    Questionnaire Administration............................               -         740,000         740,000     $13,593,800          85,100      $1,563,287
    Medical Examinations....................................               -       1,021,200       1,021,200     $18,759,444         255,300      $4,689,861
    Information Provided to PLHCP...........................               -         170,200         170,200      $2,358,972          42,550        $589,743
    Fit Testing.............................................               -       3,780,140       3,780,140     $76,813,315       3,780,140     $76,813,315
    Emergency-Use Respirator Marking........................             433            -433               0              $0             448          $8,230
    Emergency-Use Respirator Certification..................         785,842        -671,622         114,220      $2,098,221          11,424        $209,859
    Certificate of Analysis of Cylinders....................               -               0               0              $0               0              $0
    Sorbent Beds and Filters................................               -           5,934           5,934        $109,008           5,934        $109,008
    Medical Records.........................................               -          54,464          54,464        $754,871          13,616        $188,718
    Fit Testing Records.....................................               -         348,400         348,400      $4,828,824         348,400      $4,828,824
    Employee Access.........................................               -          40,000          40,000        $554,400          40,000        $554,400
    Hour Kept in Inventory for Revised 1910.134.............               1              -1               0              $0               0              $0
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals............................................       1,181,765       7,744,793       8,926,558    $180,787,295       6,153,312   $125,627,333 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the column for ``Current OMB Inventory,'' dashes denote burdens that were not taken for the Existing Respiratory Protection Standard, but are     
      counted in the Revised Respiratory Protection Standard. Both Medical Examinations and Fit Testing are required by the existing standard; however,     
      because these requirements are not accompanied by a recordkeeping requirement, no burden was taken. In the revised standard, recordkeeping is required
      for these provisions, and thus burden is counted for these provisions.                                                                                
    
        Interested parties are requested to send comments regarding this 
    information collection to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. ICR 97-5 , 
    U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
    Washington, D.C. 20210. Written comments limited to 10 pages or fewer 
    may also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046.
        Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
    and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget 
    approval of the final information collection request; they will also 
    become a matter of public record.
        Copies of the referenced information collection request are 
    available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office and will 
    be mailed to persons who request copies by telephoning Adrian Corsey at 
    (202) 219-7075. Electronic copies of the Respiratory Protection Final 
    information collection request are available on the OSHA WebPage on the 
    internet at http://www.osha.gov/ under Standards.
    
    [[Page 1155]]
    
    2. Federalism
    
        This final standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive 
    Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), regarding Federalism. This 
    Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
    limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any 
    actions which would restrict state policy options, and take such 
    actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the 
    presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for 
    preemption of state law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
    for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
    extent possible.
        Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) 
    expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt state laws relating to 
    issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and 
    health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption only 
    if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the 
    development of such standards and their enforcement. Occupational 
    safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States must, among 
    other things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful 
    employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Where 
    such standards are applicable to products distributed or used in 
    interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce and must be 
    justified by compelling local conditions (see OSH Act, Section 18(c)).
        The final Federal standard on respiratory protection addresses 
    hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country. 
    Nonetheless, states with occupational safety and health plans approved 
    under Section 18 of the OSH Act will be able to develop their own state 
    standards to deal with any special problems which might be encountered 
    in a particular state. Moreover, because this standard is written in 
    general, performance-oriented terms, there is considerable flexibility 
    for state plans to require, and for affected employers to use, methods 
    of compliance which are appropriate to the working conditions covered 
    by the standard.
        In brief, this final standard addresses a clear national problem 
    related to occupational safety and health in general industry, 
    construction, and maritime employment. Those states which have elected 
    to participate under Section 18 of the OSH Act are not preempted by 
    this standard, and will be able to address any special conditions 
    within the framework of the Federal Act while ensuring that the state 
    standards are at least as effective as that standard.
    
    3. State Plans
    
        The 25 states and territories with their own OSHA-approved 
    occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard 
    within six months of the publication date of a final standard. These 25 
    states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, New York (for 
    state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 
    Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North 
    Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 
    Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Until such 
    time as a state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide 
    interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states.
    
    4. Unfunded Mandates
    
        The final respiratory protection rule has been reviewed in 
    accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 
    U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875. As discussed below in 
    the Summary of the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) (Section VI of this 
    document), OSHA estimates that compliance with the revised respiratory 
    protection standard will require the expenditure of more than $100 
    million each year by employers in the private sector. Therefore, the 
    final rule establishes a Federal private sector mandate and is a 
    significant regulatory action, within the meaning of section 202 of 
    UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532). OSHA has included this statement to address the 
    anticipated effects of the final respiratory protection rule pursuant 
    to section 202.
        OSHA standards do not apply to state and local governments, except 
    in states that have voluntarily elected to adopt an OSHA State Plan. 
    Consequently, the respiratory protection standard does not meet the 
    definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (Section 421(5) 
    of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Thus, the final respiratory protection 
    standard does not impose unfunded mandates on state or local 
    governments.
        The anticipated benefits and costs of this final standard, and 
    other issues raised in section 202 of the UMRA, are addressed in the 
    Summary of the FEA (Section VI of this preamble), below, and in the FEA 
    (Ex. 196). In addition, pursuant to section 205 of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 
    1535), having considered a reasonable number of alternatives as 
    outlined in the preambles to the proposal and the final rule and in the 
    FEA (Ex. 196), the Agency has concluded that the final rule is the most 
    cost-effective alternative for implementation of OSHA's statutory 
    objective of reducing significant risk to the extent feasible. This is 
    discussed in the FEA (Ex. 196) and in the Summary and Explanation 
    (Section VII of this preamble) for the various provisions of the final 
    standard.
    
    5. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
    Health and Safety Risks
    
        Executive Order 13045, signed by the President on April 21, 1997, 
    requires that for certain Federal agency ``regulatory actions submitted 
    to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review 
    pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the issuing agency shall provide to 
    OIRA the following information developed as part of the Agency's 
    decisionmaking process, unless prohibited by law:
        (a) An evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects of 
    the planned regulation on children; and
        (b) An explanation of why the planned regulation is preferable to 
    other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
    considered by the agency.''
        ``Covered Regulatory Actions'' under this Order are rules that may:
        (a) Be ``economically significant'' under Executive Order 12866 (a 
    rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
    more or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
    of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
    public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
    communities); and
        (b) Concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an 
    agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children.
        ``Environmental health risks and safety risks' mean risks to health 
    or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the 
    child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we 
    breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the 
    soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to).
        The final standard on respiratory protection does not concern 
    ``Environmental health risks and safety risks'' to children as defined 
    under the Executive order. The respirator standard is only concerned 
    with means of limiting employee exposures to toxic substances. The 
    Agency believes, therefore, that the requirement noted above to provide 
    OIRA with certain information does not apply since the respiratory 
    protection standard is not a
    
    [[Page 1156]]
    
    ``covered regulatory action'' under Executive Order 13045.
        Section 6(b) (8) of the OSH Act requires OSHA to explain ``why a 
    rule promulgated by the Secretary differs substantially from an 
    existing national consensus standard,'' by publishing ``a statement of 
    the reasons why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes 
    of the Act than the national consensus standard.'' In compliance with 
    the requirement, the Agency has reviewed the standards proposed through 
    this rulemaking with reference to the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard for 
    Respiratory Protection. OSHA has discussed the relationship between 
    individual regulatory provisions and the corresponding consensus 
    standards in the Summary and Explanation of the final rule.
    
    6. Reasons Why the Revised Rule Will Better Effectuate the Purposes 
    of the Act Than the Existing Consensus Standard
    
        This process was facilitated by the fact that the previous OSHA 
    standards on respiratory protection were start-up standards adopted 
    directly from the ANSI Z88.2-1969 standard, ``Practices for Respiratory 
    Protection'' under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(a). 
    Therefore, even with subsequent revisions to the ANSI standards and the 
    Agency's consideration of a widely varied and substantial body of 
    information in the rulemaking record, the requirements of the OSHA 
    final rule would tend to resemble the corresponding provisions of the 
    current ANSI standards. In a number of instances, OSHA has utilized 
    language identical to that in the current ANSI standard. These 
    instances are noted in the Summary and Explanation. Where the Agency 
    has determined that the pertinent ANSI language is not appropriate for 
    this OSHA standard, the Summary and Explanation provides the basis for 
    that decision.
    
    I. General
    
        The preamble accompanying this final standard discusses events 
    leading to the final rule, the types of respiratory hazards experienced 
    by employees, the degree and significance of the risk presented by 
    failure to comply with this revised standard, the Final Economic 
    Analysis, and the rationale behind the specific provisions set forth in 
    the final standard. The discussion follows this outline:
    
    I. General
    II. Pertinent Legal Authority
    III. Events Leading to the Final Standard
        A. Regulatory History
        B. Justification for Revising the Previous Standard
        1. Purpose of Revision
        2. Respirator Use and Hazards
        C. Responses to Advisory Committee
        D. Assigned Protection Factors
        E. Small Business Considerations
    IV. Certification/Approval Procedures
    V. Significance of Risk
    VI. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis And Environmental Impact 
    Assessment
    VII. Summary And Explanation of the Final Standard
        A. Permissible Practice
        B. Definitions
        C. Respiratory Protection Program
        D. Selection of Respirators
        E. Medical Evaluation
        F. Fit Testing Procedures
        G. Use of Respirators
        H. Maintenance and Care of Respirators
        I. Breathing Air Quality and Use
        J. Identification of Filters, Cartridges, and Canisters
        K. Training
        L. Respiratory Protection Program Evaluation
        M. Recordkeeping and Access to Records
        N. Dates
        O. Appendices
        P. Revisions to Specific Standards
    VIII. Authority And Signature
    IX. Amended Standards
    
    II. Pertinent Legal Authority
    
        The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 
    651 et seq. (``the Act'') is to ``assure so far as possible every 
    working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working 
    conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To 
    achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to 
    promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. U.S.C. 
    655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and Federal 
    standards within two years of Act's enactment), 655(b) (authorizing 
    promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment), 654(b) 
    (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards).
        A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires 
    conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, 
    methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate 
    to provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment.'' 29 
    U.S.C. 652(8).
        A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the 
    meaning of section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates 
    significant risk or prevents it from developing, and is economically 
    feasible, technologically feasible, cost effective, consistent with 
    prior Agency action or supported by a reasoned justification for 
    departing from prior Agency actions, supported by substantial evidence, 
    and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any national 
    consensus standard it supersedes. See 58 FR 16612-16616 (March 30, 
    1993).
        A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures 
    it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available 
    technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be 
    expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA, 452 
    U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (``ATMI''), American Iron and Steel Institute v. 
    OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)(``AISI'').
        A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass 
    on the cost of compliance without threatening its long term 
    profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 
    55; AISI, 939 F. 2d at 980.
        A standard is cost effective if the protective measures it requires 
    are the least costly of the available alternatives that achieve the 
    same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S. at 514 n. 32; International 
    Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(``LOTO III'').
        All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR 16614-16615; 
    LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 668. However, standards regulating exposure to 
    toxic substances or hazardous physical agents must also meet the 
    ``feasibility mandate'' of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 
    655(b)(5). Section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to select ``the most 
    protective standard consistent with feasibility'' that is needed to 
    reduce significant risk when regulating these hazards. ATMI, 452 U.S. 
    at 509.
        Section 6(b)(5) also directs OSHA to base health standards on ``the 
    best available evidence,'' including research, demonstrations, and 
    experiments, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). OSHA shall consider ``in addition to 
    the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection * 
    * * the latest scientific data * * * feasibility and experience gained 
    under this and other health and safety laws.'' Id.
        Section 6(b)(7) of the Act authorizes OSHA to include among a 
    standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other 
    information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
        Finally, whenever practical, standards shall ``be expressed in 
    terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' Id.
        Respiratory protection is a backup method which is used to protect 
    employees from toxic materials in the workplace in those situations 
    where feasible engineering controls and work practices are not 
    available, have not yet been implemented, are not in themselves 
    sufficient to protect
    
    [[Page 1157]]
    
    employee health, or in emergencies. The revisions to the respirator 
    standard made in this rulemaking are intended to ensure that, when 
    employers require employees to wear respirators to be protected from 
    significant risk, protective respirators will be selected and those 
    respirators will be used effectively to meet their design capabilities. 
    Otherwise respirators will not reduce significant risk. The standard's 
    provisions are designed to be feasible and cost effective, and are 
    expressed in terms of objective criteria and the performance desired.
        Further authority is provided by section 8(c)of the Act, which 
    authorizes OSHA to require employers to maintain certain records. 
    Section 8(g)(2) authorizes OSHA ``to prescribe such rules and 
    regulations as (it) may deem necessary to carry out its 
    responsibilities under the Act.''
    
    III. Events Leading to the Final Standard
    
    A. Regulatory History
    
        Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
    (OSHA) in 1970, and gave it the responsibility for promulgating 
    standards to protect the health and safety of American workers. As 
    directed by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
    (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), OSHA adopted existing Federal 
    standards and national consensus standards developed by various 
    organizations such as the American Conference of Governmental 
    Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the National Fire Protection Association 
    (NFPA), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI 
    standard Z88.2-1969, ``Practices for Respiratory Protection,'' is the 
    basis of the first six sections of OSHA's previous standard, 29 CFR 
    1910.134, ``Respiratory Protection.'' The seventh section was a direct, 
    complete incorporation of ANSI Standard K13.1-1969, ``Identification of 
    Gas Mask Canisters.'' OSHA's previous construction industry standard 
    for respiratory protection, 29 CFR 1926.103, was promulgated in April 
    1971. On February 9, 1979, 29 CFR 1910.134 was formally recognized as 
    also being applicable to the construction industry (44 FR 8577). Until 
    the adoption of these standards by OSHA, most guidance on respiratory 
    protective device use in hazardous environments was advisory rather 
    than mandatory.
        OSHA's maritime standards were originally promulgated in the 1960s 
    by agencies that preceded OSHA. The original OSHA code designations of 
    these standards and their promulgation dates are: Shipyards--29 CFR 
    1915.82, February 20, 1960 (25 FR 1543); Marine Terminals--29 CFR 
    1917.82, March 27, 1964 (29 FR 4052); and Longshoring--29 CFR 1918.102, 
    February 20, 1960 (25 FR 1565). Section 1910.134 was incorporated by 
    reference into OSHA's Marine Terminals standard (part 1917) on July 5, 
    1983 (48 FR 30909). OSHA has recently updated and strengthened its 
    Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards, and both standards 
    incorporate 29 CFR 1910.134 by reference.
        OSHA did not propose to expand coverage of 29 CFR 1910.134 to 
    agricultural workplaces covered by 29 CFR part 1928, and this final 
    Respiratory Protection standard, like the proposal, does not apply to 
    agricultural operations. The prior standard likewise did not apply to 
    agricultural operations. (See 29 CFR 1928.21.) OSHA received no public 
    comment requesting a change in coverage. Accordingly, the issue of 
    respirator use during agricultural operations was not a part of this 
    rulemaking. OSHA notes, however, that respirator use during pesticide 
    operations and handling is covered by EPA's Worker Protection Standard, 
    40 U.S.C. part 170, adopted under the authority of the Federal 
    Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136-
    136y).
        Under OSHA's previous standard, employers needed to follow the 
    guidance of the Z88.2-1969 ANSI standard to ensure proper selection of 
    respirators (see discussion 59 FR 58887). OSHA published an Advance 
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to revise the respirator standard 
    on May 14, 1982 (47 FR 20803). Part of the impetus for this notice was 
    OSHA's inclusion of new respirator requirements in comprehensive 
    substance-specific standards promulgated under section 6(b) of the Act, 
    e.g., fit tests; use of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) upon 
    request; change of the filter elements of a respirator whenever an 
    increase in breathing resistance is detected; employee permission to 
    wash faces and respirator facepieces; and referral to a physician 
    trained in pulmonary medicine for an employee who exhibits difficulty 
    breathing, either at fit testing or during routine respirator use (see, 
    e.g, 29 CFR 1910.1025 (lead standard)). The respirator provisions in 
    these substance-specific standards took account of advances in 
    respirator technology and changes in related guidance documents, 
    particularly the recognition that standardized fit testing protocols 
    greatly increase the effectiveness of respirators.
        OSHA's 1982 ANPR sought information on the effectiveness of the 
    current respiratory protection provisions, the need for revision of 
    those provisions, and the substance of the revisions. Responses were 
    received from 81 interested parties. The commenters generally supported 
    revising OSHA's respiratory protection provisions and provided 
    suggestions for approaches the Agency might take (Ex. 15).
        On September 17, 1985, OSHA announced the availability of a 
    preliminary draft of the proposed Respiratory Protection standard. The 
    preproposal draft standard reflected the public comments received on 
    the May 1982 ANPR, and OSHA's own analysis of changes needed in the 
    standard to take into account the current state-of-the-art for 
    respiratory protection. Responses were received from 56 interested 
    parties (Ex. 36), and their comments were reviewed in preparing the 
    proposal.
        On November 15, 1994, OSHA published the proposed rule to revise 29 
    CFR 1910.134, and announced its intention to convene an informal public 
    hearing on the proposal (59 FR 58884). The informal public hearing was 
    convened on June 6, 1995, pursuant to notice and in accordance with 
    Section 6(b) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3). Post-hearing 
    submissions of data from parties at the hearing were received through 
    September 20, 1995.
        On November 7, 1995, OSHA reopened the record (60 FR 56127) and 
    requested additional comment on a study performed for OSHA by Dr. Mark 
    Nicas titled ``The Analysis of Workplace Protection Factor Data and 
    Derivation of Assigned Protection Factors.'' That study, which was 
    placed in the rulemaking docket on September 20, 1995, addressed the 
    use of statistical modeling for determining respirator APFs. Comments 
    on the Nicas study were received through the end of January 1996. The 
    Nicas report, and comments received in response to the November 1995 
    notice, have convinced OSHA to deliberate further on the complex issues 
    surrounding the establishment of APFs.
        The entire record including 200 exhibits, more than 3,000 
    individual items, and approximately 2,300 transcript pages, was 
    certified by the presiding administrative law judge on June 30, 1997, 
    in accordance with 29 CFR 1911.17. Copies of materials contained in the 
    record may be obtained from the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2439, U.S. 
    Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
    
    [[Page 1158]]
    
    Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 219-7894.
        The final revisions to 29 CFR 1910.134 are based on consideration 
    of the entire record of this proceeding, including materials discussed 
    or relied upon in the proposal, the record of the informal hearing, and 
    all written comments and exhibits received.
    
    B. Justification for Revising the Previous Standard
    
    1. Purpose of the Revision
        The intent of this revision is to enhance the protection of worker 
    health, promote more effective use of respirators, provide greater 
    compliance flexibility, and clarify the policies and procedures 
    employers must follow when implementing a respiratory protection 
    program. Evidence in the record, including case reports and studies of 
    respirator use among workers, indicates that selecting or using 
    respirators improperly can result in employee illness and even death. 
    (See discussion below.) The revised standard is therefore expected to 
    reduce the number of occupational illnesses and deaths among workers 
    who wear respirators. OSHA is also consolidating many of its 
    respirator-related provisions in other substance-specific health 
    standards into one standard to make these provisions easier for 
    employers to administer. Through consolidation, repetitive and 
    duplicative respirator requirements have been deleted from many 
    existing OSHA health standards, and future health standards will 
    reference the revised final rule for many respirator requirements.
        Advances in technology also made the previous standard out-of-date 
    in many areas. Nearly all rulemaking participants, including 
    representatives of private industry, other Federal agencies, respirator 
    manufacturers, and unions, agreed that revision is necessary to address 
    these advances (e.g., NIOSH, Ex. 28; Eastman Chemical Co., Ex. 54-245; 
    3M, Ex. 54-218A; AFL-CIO, Ex. 54-315; Building and Construction Trades 
    Department/AFL-CIO, Ex. 29; American Petroleum Institute, Ex. 37; ISEA, 
    Ex. 54-363). (See also 59 FR 58889.) Other agencies and committees have 
    already updated their guidance on respirator use. For example, the ANSI 
    standard has been revised twice (Exs. 10, 50), and NIOSH has revised 
    its certification standard (42 CFR part 84; 60 FR 30336; 6/8/95), as 
    well as developed a Respiratory Decision Logic (1987) to provide 
    guidance to employers on the selection of respirators.
        OSHA's experience in enforcing the previous standard also indicated 
    that some of that standard's requirements were not understood clearly 
    by the regulated community, and so were not adequately effective in 
    protecting workers. The clarifications in this new standard will 
    contribute to enhanced compliance by reducing misinterpretations and 
    inconsistencies. A review of OSHA enforcement data for 1994 and 1995 
    revealed that failure to comply with the previous standard was a 
    critical factor in at least 47 fatalities and 126 catastrophic 
    injuries. The most frequently cited deficiencies included failure to 
    provide respirators at all or to have standard operating procedures 
    governing respirator use, and failure to train or fit test respirator 
    users adequately [Source: OSHA's Federal Inspection Compliance Data 
    (IMIS; 10/92 to 12/95)].
        In addition, considerable research has been performed to determine 
    the extent to which respirators used in workplaces actually reduce the 
    quantity of contaminant breathed by the respirator user. Researchers 
    have compared the in-mask concentrations of contaminants to the 
    concentration levels outside the masks. This work was begun by NIOSH 
    during the mid-seventies to assess respirator effectiveness in coal 
    mines and abrasive blasting operations (Ex. 64-5) and spray paint 
    operations (Ex. 64-68). The studies assessed the effectiveness of 
    respirators under various conditions, and measured employee exposure in 
    situations when respirators were not worn. The effectiveness ratings 
    obtained in these studies are usually termed ``Effective Protection 
    Factors'' (EPF).
        More recent studies by NIOSH and private researchers have monitored 
    respirator use even more closely to isolate variables that may affect 
    the levels of respirator performance. Many of these studies concerned 
    the performance of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), which 
    were not achieving in workplaces the levels of performance that had 
    been predicted based on laboratory tests (see, e.g., Exs. 64-46, 64-42, 
    and 64-47).
        A third group of studies, ``workplace protection factor studies,'' 
    conducted mostly by manufacturers and other private interests, was 
    designed to determine the optimum performance of respirators by 
    eliminating the impact of program defects under very tightly supervised 
    workplace conditions. The results of these studies may overstate the 
    degree of respirator effectiveness most employers can expect under 
    conditions of workplace use because study conditions are rarely 
    replicated in the field; nevertheless, these studies show the potential 
    for respirators to reduce employee exposure to workplace contaminants 
    (see, e.g., Exs. 64-25, 64-42, 64-47, 64-513).
        This revised standard is intended to take account of up-to-date 
    knowledge and technology and to make the requirements in the standard 
    easier to understand. The standard now reflects current technology and 
    research, as well as the findings and guidance of other expert bodies. 
    OSHA has also included a new definitions section to enhance clarity. 
    The revised standard includes detailed protocols for performing fit 
    tests and lists the topics in which respirator users must be trained. 
    It also contains provisions addressing skin and eye irritation, both of 
    which must be considered in respirator selection. Wherever possible, 
    OSHA has used performance-oriented language to allow for flexibility in 
    accommodating future changes in respirator technology and to address 
    the needs of small businesses and unusual operations. Through these 
    improvements, OSHA expects to reduce the number of respirator-related 
    illnesses, fatalities, and catastrophic injuries occurring among 
    respirator wearers in U.S. workplaces.
    2. Respirator Use and Hazards
        The purpose of a respirator is to prevent the inhalation of harmful 
    airborne substances or oxygen-deficient air. Basically, a respirator is 
    an enclosure that covers the nose and mouth or the entire face or head. 
    Respirators are of two general ``fit'' types: (1) Tight-fitting 
    (quarter masks, which cover the mouth and nose; half masks, which fit 
    over the nose and under the chin; and full facepiece, which cover the 
    face from the hairline to below the chin); and (2) loose-fitting 
    (hoods, helmets, blouses, or full suits which cover the head 
    completely). There are also two major classes of respirators: air-
    purifying respirators (which remove contaminants from the air), and 
    atmosphere-supplying respirators (which provide clean breathing air 
    from an uncontaminated source). In general, atmosphere-supplying 
    respirators are used for more hazardous exposures.
        Effective respirator use can protect employees from exposure to a 
    wide variety of toxic chemicals. In 1994, approximately 215 deaths, or 
    five percent of all workplace fatalities, occurred as a result of 
    exposure to harmful substances and environments [CFOI, BLS, 6/11/96; 
    CFOI/FAX]. There are a number of workplace situations that involve 
    toxic substances and for which engineering controls may be inadequate 
    to control exposures, and respirators are used in these situations
    
    [[Page 1159]]
    
    as a back-up method of protection. Substances that have been associated 
    with death or serious incidents include carbon monoxide, 
    trichloroethylene, carbon dioxide, chromic acid, coal tar, several 
    toxic metal fumes and dusts, sulphur dioxide, wood dust, and welding 
    fumes; these substances cause adverse health effects ranging from 
    transient, reversible effects such as irritation or narcosis, through 
    disabling diseases such as silicosis and asbestosis, to death caused 
    either by acute exposure or by a cancer resulting from chronic 
    exposures (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed., 
    Little, Brown & Co., Boston; 1992, p. 598.) Respirators are available 
    that can provide protection against inhalation of these toxic 
    substances.
        Airborne contaminants may also be radioactive (``Radiologic Health 
    in Occupational Medicine Practice,'' George L. Voelz, pg. 500 in 
    Occupational Medicine, Carl Zenz, ed., Year Book Medical Publishers, 
    Inc., Chicago, 1975; Jacob Shapiro, Radiation Protection, 3rd ed., 
    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990, pg. 273). (See also 29 
    CFR 1910.1096.) Exposure to ionizing radiation can cause acute effects 
    such as nausea and vomiting, malaise and fatigue, increased 
    temperature, and blood changes. More severe delayed effects include 
    leukemia, bone and lung cancer, sterility, chromosomal and teratogenic 
    damage, shortened life span, cataracts, and radiodermatitis, a dry, 
    hairless, red, atrophic skin condition which can include skin cracking 
    and depigmentation (George L. Voelz, M.D., ``Radiologic Health in 
    Occupational Medicine Practice'', in Zenz, Occupational Medicine, pp. 
    513-519; Herman Cember, Introduction to Health Physics, 2nd edition, 
    Pergamon Press, New York, 1983, pg. 181-194). Respirators to provide 
    protection against the inhalation of radioactive particles are commonly 
    used by workers exposed to these hazards.
        ``Bioaerosols'' are airborne contaminants that are alive or were 
    released from a living organism (OSHA Docket No. H-122; ACGIH 
    Guidelines; Ex. 3-61C, page 1; 1994). Pulmonary effects associated with 
    exposure to certain bioaerosols include rhinitis, asthma, allergies, 
    hypersensitivity diseases, humidifier fever, and epidemics of 
    infections including colds, viruses, tuberculosis, and Legionnaires 
    Disease. Cardiovascular effects manifested as chest pain, and nervous 
    system effects manifested as headache, blurred vision, and impaired 
    judgment, have occurred in susceptible people following exposure to 
    bioaerosols. Viral infections caused by the inhalation of bioaerosols 
    can result in health effects that range in intensity from undetected or 
    mild to more severe and even death. Bacterial infections resulting from 
    inhalation of bacteria and their products cause a range of diseases, 
    including tuberculosis, Legionnaires Disease, and hypersensitivity 
    pneumonitis. Among workers in sewage treatment plants, health-related 
    problems can be associated with occupational exposures to protozoa 
    [Burge, H., 1990, ``Bioaerosols: Prevalence and health effects in the 
    indoor environment,'' J. Allergy and Clinical Immunology; 86 (5); see 
    also Exs. 3-61B and 3-61C in Docket No. H-122.] Allergic asthma and 
    allergic rhinitis can be induced by chronic exposure to low levels of 
    antigens. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis can occur when a worker inhales 
    concentrated aerosols of particles released by bacteria, fungi, and 
    protozoa (Exs. 3-61B and 3-61C in Docket No. H-122). In 1994, the 
    Centers for Disease Control reported 41 deaths of workers for which 
    there was evidence of work-related hypersensitivity pneumonitis (Work-
    Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report, 1994; USDHHS, CDC, DHHS 
    (NIOSH) Number 94-120). Respirators to protect against the inhalation 
    of biological agents are widely used in healthcare and other workplace 
    settings where exposure to such agents presents a hazard to workers.
        Respirators can also provide protection from oxygen-deficient 
    atmospheres. Human beings must breathe oxygen in order to survive, and 
    begin to suffer adverse health effects when the oxygen level of their 
    breathing air drops below the normal atmospheric level. Below 19.5 
    percent oxygen by volume, air is considered oxygen-deficient. At 
    concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of 
    exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain 
    the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Env. Occup. Med., 
    2nd ed; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, 
    accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more 
    quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of 
    coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the 
    worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing 
    a ladder. Concentrations of 12 to 16 percent oxygen cause tachypnea 
    (increased breathing rates), tachycardia (accelerated heartbeat), and 
    impaired attention, thinking, and coordination (e.g., Ex. 25-4), even 
    in people who are resting.
        At oxygen levels of 10 to 14 percent, faulty judgment, intermittent 
    respiration, and exhaustion can be expected even with minimal exertion 
    (Exs. 25-4 and 150). Breathing air containing 6 to 10 percent oxygen 
    results in nausea, vomiting, lethargic movements, and perhaps 
    unconsciousness. Breathing air containing less than 6 percent oxygen 
    produces convulsions, then apnea (cessation of breathing), followed by 
    cardiac standstill. These symptoms occur immediately. Even if a worker 
    survives the hypoxic insult, organs may show evidence of hypoxic 
    damage, which may be irreversible (Exs. 25-4 and 150; also reported in: 
    Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed; Little, 
    Brown; Boston, 1992).
        A number of workplace conditions can lead to oxygen deficiency. 
    Simple asphyxiants, or gases that are physiologically inert, can cause 
    asphyxiation when present in high enough concentrations to lower the 
    oxygen content in the air. Other toxic or chemical asphyxiants poison 
    hemoglobin, cytochromes, or other enzyme systems (Rom, W., 
    Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed., Little, Brown, and 
    Co., Boston, 1992). A number of asphyxiants are gases that can evolve 
    from explosions, combustion, chemical reactions, or heating. A high-
    temperature electrical fire or arc welding accident causing a complete 
    flashover in an enclosed area can temporarily eliminate oxygen from 
    that area. Asphyxiation and the severe lung damage it can cause are 
    major concerns for firefighters; of 30 firefighter deaths investigated 
    by OSHA recently, five resulted from either asphyxiation, smoke 
    inhalation, or flashovers (IMIS; 8 State plan states; 10/91-3/97). (See 
    also mortality study of causes of death among firefighters, Guidotti, 
    37 JOEM 1348, 1995.)
        In 1994, 110 employees died from oxygen deficiency [National Census 
    of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI); BLS; CFOI/FAX; 6/11/96)], i.e., 
    about two percent of the total number of employees who died of 
    occupational injuries. OSHA believes that many of these deaths could 
    have been prevented if the victims' employers had realized that 
    respirators were needed (BLS; CFOI/FAX, 6/96).
        In some cases, respirator use itself can cause illness and injury 
    to employees. There are a number of physiological burdens that are 
    associated with the use of certain types of respirators. The
    
    [[Page 1160]]
    
    weight of the respirator, breathing resistances during both normal 
    operation and if the air-purifying element is overloaded, and 
    rebreathing exhaled air from respirator ``dead space'' can all increase 
    the physiologic burden of respirator use (Exs. 113, 22-1, 64-427). Job 
    and workplace conditions, such as the length of time a respirator must 
    be worn, the level of physical exertion required of a respirator user, 
    and environmental conditions, can also affect the physiological burden 
    (Exs. 113, 64-363). In addition, workers who wear glasses or hearing 
    aids may have problems achieving appropriate fit with some respirator 
    facepieces.
        Evidence of Adverse Health Effects From Respiratory Hazards. There 
    is ample evidence that the previous standard was not doing an adequate 
    job of protecting workers from these respiratory hazards, and that 
    exposure to these hazards has continued to cause adverse health effects 
    among exposed workers. An analysis of OSHA inspection data from 1976 
    through 1982, when the previous standard had been in effect for between 
    five and eleven years (Ex. 33-5), found that in most cases (55.6%) 
    where respirators were used to protect employees from excessive levels 
    of air contaminants, respiratory protection programs were deficient in 
    one or more elements, thus increasing the potential for employee 
    exposure. Even more significant was the fact that in 72.1% of 
    inspections in which an overexposure to a substance listed under 29 CFR 
    1910.1000 was cited, respirator use did not comply with the respiratory 
    protection standard. OSHA performed a similar analysis of enforcement 
    data for 1990-1996, and found similar levels of noncompliance. [See 
    also Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report, 1994; USDHHS, CDC, 
    DHHS (NIOSH) Number 94-120.] The provisions of the new respirator 
    standard are designed to regulate how an employer selects, maintains, 
    fit tests, and trains employees in the proper use of respiratory 
    equipment, and to provide employers with the tools needed to implement 
    an effective respiratory protection program. OSHA has concluded that 
    the new standard will eliminate many of the unnecessary illnesses and 
    deaths described in this section.
    
    C. Responses to Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
    
        The revised respirator standard replaces the previous respiratory 
    protection standard in the construction industry (29 CFR 1926.103). 
    Since this revision affects the construction industry, the September 
    1985 preproposal draft standard was presented to the Advisory Committee 
    for Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) for its comments. The ACCSH 
    comments, combined with the other comments received, were considered in 
    preparing a revision of the September 1985 draft proposal.
        As part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) approval 
    process, the revised NPRM was presented at the March 1987 ACCSH meeting 
    and the Committee's comments were presented to OSHA at the August 1987 
    meeting (Ex. 39). OSHA responded to the Committee's comments in the 
    NPRM, published in November, 1994. As noted in that response, OSHA 
    modified the draft proposal to respond to the concerns of the Committee 
    (59 FR 58931-58935).
        The final standard replaces the previous construction industry 
    standard for respiratory protection, 29 CFR 1926.103, with an amended 
    29 CFR 1926.103. The provisions of the previous respiratory protection 
    standard (29 CFR 1926.103) are deleted by this action. The title, 
    Respiratory Protection, will remain in the Code of Federal Regulations 
    but will now be followed by the statement ``Respiratory protection for 
    construction employment is covered by 29 CFR 1910.134.'' The full text 
    of this new standard will be printed in the general industry standards, 
    and the construction standard will reference the revised 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
        The Agency's responses to the Committee's specific concerns follow:
    Paragraph (a)--Permissible Practice
        The Construction Advisory Committee recommended that paragraph 
    (a)(1) of the standard be changed to require that all feasible 
    engineering controls be used by employers and that the employer 
    demonstrate that engineering controls are not feasible before 
    respirators may be used. The recommended change also would have 
    eliminated the requirement that appropriate respirators be used while 
    engineering controls are being installed. OSHA has stated elsewhere in 
    the summary and explanation section of this preamble that paragraph 
    (a)(1) of the previous standard remains unchanged in the new final 
    standard because this paragraph was not proposed for revision and was 
    therefore not a subject of rulemaking in this proceeding. The purpose 
    of the Respiratory Protection standard is to improve the level of 
    protection provided to employees who use respirators to protect them 
    from respiratory hazards, regardless of whether that use occurs in an 
    environment where engineering controls are in place.
        The Committee proposed that paragraph (a)(2) be modified to require 
    that employers provide respirators to employees exposed to contaminant 
    concentrations when the concentration reaches one-half the PEL or TLV, 
    and that employees be required to wear them before the PEL is exceeded. 
    To accompany this revision the Committee proposed a new definition 
    establishing an ``action level'' of one-half the PEL for all regulated 
    substances. OSHA has not adopted this ACCSH recommendation because the 
    recommended changes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Paragraph (b)--Definitions
        ACCSH suggested that OSHA add a definition for ``Grade D breathing 
    air'' to the standard. The properties of Grade D breathing air are 
    listed in paragraph (i) of the final standard, Supplied Air Quality and 
    Use. OSHA believes that repeating these elements in the definition 
    section is redundant and unnecessary.
        The Committee also recommended that the rule include a definition 
    for ``competent person,'' as defined in 29 CFR 1926.32(f). The 
    competent person would review the respiratory protection program and 
    perform the function of the respiratory program administrator required 
    in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposal. OSHA has not included a definition 
    of competent person in the standard because 29 CFR 1926.32(f) already 
    has such a definition. OSHA recognizes, however, that, in construction 
    settings, the competent person is often also the administrator of the 
    respirator program.
        The Committee also recommended that the NIOSH Recommended Exposure 
    Limits (RELs) be used along with the TLVs, to define a hazardous 
    exposure level in the absence of a PEL. This point is no longer 
    relevant because the concept of ``hazardous exposure level'' is not 
    included in the final respiratory protection standard.
        The proposal would have limited the use of air-purifying 
    respirators for hazardous chemicals with poor or inadequate warning 
    properties. ACCSH recommended a change to the definitions of 
    ``inadequate warning properties'' and that OSHA add a new definition 
    for ``odor threshold.'' Because the final standard takes a different 
    approach to determining when air-purifying respirators are appropriate, 
    OSHA has not adopted the changes recommended by ACCSH.
        ACCSH also suggested that OSHA revise the proposed definition of 
    maximum use concentration (MUC). In
    
    [[Page 1161]]
    
    the final standard the definition of MUC has been reserved, pending 
    completion of a subsequent stage of this rulemaking that will 
    concentrate on establishing OSHA Assigned Protection Factors (APFs).
        The Construction Advisory Committee also recommended replacing the 
    proposal's definition of ``respirator;'' because the final standard 
    contains no definition of ``respirator,'' this suggestion has not been 
    adopted. The Committee also recommened revising the proposed definition 
    of ``service life.'' However, since OSHA's definition of this term has 
    been broadened in the final rule and the rule contains detailed 
    requirements for change schedules for cartridges and canisters, ACCSH's 
    concerns have largely been addressed.
    Paragraph (c)--Respirator Program
        Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposal contained a requirement that the 
    employer establish a respirator program that ``covers'' certain 
    elements, as applicable. OSHA has followed the Commitee's 
    recommendation that OSHA change the word ``cover'' to ``include'' but 
    not removed the phrase ``as applicable,'' as recommended by the 
    Committee, because not all elements of the program apply in all 
    situations, and thus the ``as applicable'' language is appropriate.
        The Committee also recommended that OSHA add an element to the 
    written respirator program on procedures for monitoring the work 
    environment, using monitoring results when selecting respirators, and 
    selecting the most protective respirators in situations where 
    monitoring cannot be performed (as is often the case in construction). 
    OSHA considered this comment in drafting the final standard, which 
    permits the employer to make reasonable estimates of exposure as part 
    of the respirator selection process. In most cases, as discussed in the 
    summary and explanation of paragraph (d), monitoring results will form 
    the basis of a reasonable estimate. Where the employer cannot estimate 
    exposure, the atmosphere must be considered immediately dangerous to 
    life or health (IDLH). For IDLH atmospheres, the most protective 
    respirators are required.
        One of the elements in the written respirator program, paragraph 
    (c)(1)(vi), states that the program shall include procedures to ensure 
    proper air quality for atmosphere-supplying respirators. ACCSH asked 
    OSHA to add the words ``quantity and flow'' to provide more direction 
    for employers on what the procedures should cover. OSHA agrees and has 
    revised the wording of this element accordingly.
        ACCSH recommended that OSHA substitute the term ``competent 
    person'' in paragraph (c)(2) for the language ``person qualified by 
    appropriate training and/or experience.'' This recommendation has 
    already been discussed above, in connection with ACCSH's comments on 
    paragraph (b).
        The written respiratory protection program, in paragraph (c)(3), is 
    required to reflect current workplace conditions and respirator use. 
    The Committee urged OSHA to add the term ``training'' to this element. 
    OSHA has not done so because training is addressed in another program 
    element. The Committee also recommended that OSHA add to paragraph (c) 
    a provision allowing employees and designated representatives access to 
    exposure and medical records maintained by the employer. Because this 
    requirement is already included in 29 CFR 1910.1020, the medical and 
    exposure records access standard, and referenced in this final 
    respiratory protection standard, the Agency has not done so.
        Proposed paragraph (c)(5) required employers to make the written 
    program available to affected employees, designated representatives, 
    and OSHA. The Committee requested that employers be required to send a 
    copy of the program to the OSHA Special Assistant for Construction. 
    However, the proposed requirement has been moved to paragraph (m) of 
    the final standard, which requires that all written materials 
    maintained under the standard be made available upon request to 
    affected employees and the Assistant Secretary. This requirement should 
    meet any need that may arise for copies of the written program.
        The Committee further recommended that the written respirator 
    program be maintained and made available to employees at the job site, 
    and that the medical and monitoring results pertaining to respirator 
    use be available at the work site as well. The final standard in 
    paragraph (m) now requires employers to allow employees to examine and 
    copy written programs upon request. Access to medical and monitoring 
    records for employees exposed to toxic substances or harmful physical 
    agents is regulated by OSHA in a separate standard, 29 CFR 1910.1020. 
    That standard applies to construction workplaces as well as general 
    industry workplaces and requires the employer to ensure that access to 
    medical and monitoring records is provided in a reasonable time, place, 
    and manner (1910.1020(e)(1)(i)). Nothing in the final respiratory 
    protection standard is intended to alter this requirement.
    Paragraph (d)--Selection of Respirators
        In its review of paragraph (d) of the proposal on selection of 
    respirators, the Committee requested OSHA to add a new provision that 
    would require monitoring for contaminants when air-purifying 
    respirators are used. This request is related to the recommendation for 
    mandatory monitoring, discussed above. The final standard requires that 
    employers make reasonable estimates of employee exposure levels when 
    selecting all respirators, not just air-purifying ones. Even if current 
    monitoring results are unavailable, employers must base their exposure 
    estimates on reliable data, which might include, for example, the 
    results of past monitoring for similar construction jobs. Extensive 
    discussion of this issue is contained in the summary and explanation 
    section of this preamble for paragraph (d). OSHA believes that allowing 
    exposure estimates that may be based on past monitoring and other 
    representative data makes sense for the construction industry, where 
    jobs are often short-lived and current monitoring data relating to 
    specific employees/operations may not be available when respirators 
    must be selected. Because the final standard allows employers to rely 
    on reasonable estimates of exposure as well as monitoring results, OSHA 
    has not added a requirement to the standard mandating that employers 
    ``obtain'' needed information, as recommended by the Committee.
        The Committee also recommended removal of the proposed phrase 
    ``when they exist'' to modify the requirement that employers select 
    only NIOSH-approved respirators. Instead, the Committee recommended use 
    of the most protective respirator available, an SCBA or supplied air 
    respirator, in cases where no approved air-purifying respirator exists. 
    OSHA has removed the phrase ``when they exist'' from the final 
    standard, for reasons explained in the summary and explanation 
    discussion relating to paragraph (d).
        The Committee urged OSHA to include poor odor warning properties as 
    a reason for prohibiting the use of air-purifying respirators, and to 
    remove proposed paragraph (d)(6)(ii), which, under limited 
    circumstances, would have allowed their use with substances with poor 
    odor warning properties. Final paragraph (d)(3) modifies the proposal, 
    and places many limitations on air-purifying respirator use with gases 
    and vapors, regardless of the existence of warning properties.
        The Committee objected to the use of air-purifying respirators in 
    an
    
    [[Page 1162]]
    
    atmosphere with an oxygen content of 19.5 percent at altitudes of 
    14,000 feet or below; in the Committee's view, supplied air respirators 
    should be required in this situation. OSHA continues to treat 
    atmospheres at altitudes of 14,000 feet or below that have oxygen 
    concentrations of at least 19.5% as non-oxygen-deficient, and to 
    require atmosphere-supplying respirators in these atmospheres. OSHA's 
    reasons for this determination are detailed in the summary and 
    explanation section for paragraph (d).
    Paragraph (e)--Medical Evaluations
        The Committee recommended that a mandatory medical examination be 
    required in accordance with ANSI Z88.2, and that the standard include a 
    list of diseases and conditions that should be considered in 
    determining an individual's ability to wear a respirator. The final 
    standard allows employers to rely on a screening questionnaire to 
    identify employees with specified conditions that will require follow-
    up medical examinations. The questionnaire specifies medical conditions 
    that OSHA has determined often relate to an employee's ability to use a 
    respirator. OSHA believes that this provision responds to the 
    Committee's concern.
        Based on the comments of ACCSH and others, OSHA has decided to 
    eliminate the proposed exemption for employees wearing respirators for 
    no more than 5 hours per week, for the reasons explained below in the 
    Summary and Explanation. The final rule also reflects the Committee's 
    recommendation that the medical opinion provided to the employer 
    include only limitations on the employee's ability to use a respirator.
        The Committee recommended that OSHA add a provision to this 
    paragraph requiring the employer to inform the person performing the 
    medical examination of the atmospheric contaminants to which the 
    employee would be exposed. The final standard meets this concern by 
    requiring that the physician or other licensed health care professional 
    (PLHCP) receive a copy of the employer's written respirator program, 
    and information about other environmental conditions an employee may 
    encounter; this information will allow the medical professional to 
    judge whether the employee is medically capable of wearing the 
    respirator.
        The final rule allows an employer who has, within the preceding 12 
    months, provided his or her employees with a medical evaluation that 
    fulfills the requirements of the revised standard to rely on the 
    results of that evaluation. OSHA believes that this provision is 
    responsive to the Committee's concern that limitations be placed on the 
    ``portability'' of medical evaluations.
        The Committee recommended that OSHA add a new provision to 
    paragraph (e) to require that the employer provide a powered air-
    purifying respirator or atmosphere-supplying respirator to any employee 
    found medically unable to wear a negative pressure respirator but 
    otherwise able to perform the task to be done. The final standard 
    requires the employer to provide a PAPR to an employee when the PLHCP 
    informs the employer that the employee has a medical condition that may 
    place the employee's health at increased risk of material impairment if 
    the employee uses a negative pressure respirator (paragraph (e)(6)(ii)) 
    and is thus responsive to the Committee's concern.
    Paragraph (f)--Fit Testing
        With respect to fit testing procedures, the Committee recommended 
    that proposed paragraph (f)(1) be rewritten to state that respirators 
    must fit the employee so as to ensure that no exposure above the TLV or 
    ceiling level occurs. OSHA agrees with the Committee's emphasis on fit 
    testing and believes that the final rule's fit testing requirements and 
    the fit test protocols in an appendix to the standard will ensure that 
    employees are protected from the overexposures of concern to the 
    Committee.
        The Committee also suggested clarifying that a fit test is required 
    whenever a different make or size respirator is used or when the facial 
    characteristics of the employee change. The final rule addresses both 
    of these points.
        The Committee recommended limiting the fit testing requirements to 
    tight-fitting negative pressure respirators. This issue, and OSHA's 
    reasons for requiring fit testing of all tight-fitting respirators, is 
    discussed in the fit testing section of the Summary and Explanation. 
    OSHA has also deleted the proposed provision, objected to by the 
    Committee, that would have allowed the employer to use a qualitative 
    fit test for selecting respirators for employees who require fit 
    factors greater than 10 in situations where outside contractors who do 
    the quantitative fit testing are not available.
    Paragraph (g)--Respirator Use
        Paragraph (g)(1) of the final standard adopts the proposed 
    provision prohibiting the use of respirators that rely on a tight 
    facepiece fit when facial conditions such as a beard or scarring would 
    prevent such fits. The Committee urged OSHA to extend this provision to 
    cover loose-fitting respirators as well as tight-fitting ones. OSHA 
    explains in the Summary and Explanation for this paragraph that 
    conditions such as a beard or facial scarring would have no effect on 
    the performance of loose-fitting hoods or helmets, and OSHA therefore 
    does not regard it as appropriate to make this change.
        Employees who wear glasses were required in proposed paragraph 
    (g)(4) to wear them in a manner that does not interfere with the 
    facepiece seal of the respirator. The final standard continues this 
    requirement (paragraph (g)(l)(ii)). The Committee suggested an 
    additional requirement stating that, where the employee must wear 
    corrective lenses and the respirator requires that these be of special 
    design, the employer provide the lenses at no cost to the employee. 
    OSHA believes, however, that such a requirement is not necessary 
    because, in most cases where negative pressure respirators may be worn, 
    half-masks are acceptable, and half-masks eliminate the concern about 
    corrective glasses interfering with facepiece seal. Because the final 
    standard allows contact lenses to be worn, full facepiece respirators 
    can be worn by persons needing corrective lenses; contact lenses 
    obviously do not interfere with facepiece seal. Thus, the final rule 
    gives employers several options for addressing this concern of the 
    Committee's.
    Paragraph (h)--Maintenance and Care of Respirators
        The Committee urged OSHA to add the phrase ``on paid time'' to this 
    paragraph to ensure that employers not require employees to clean their 
    respirators on their own time. OSHA has decided in the final rule 
    simply to require employers to ensure that respirators are cleaned 
    according to mandatory procedures or their equivalents. OSHA believes 
    that this approach is appropriate because the record demonstrates that 
    on-site, employer-supervised cleaning is the prevalent cleaning 
    procedure and the standard's rigorous requirements for cleaning 
    respirators will limit off-site cleaning of respirators by employees.
    Paragraph (k)--Training
        The training section of the proposal would have required that 
    employers provide a training program for employees who are required to 
    wear respirators. The Committee urged OSHA to add language to paragraph 
    (k)(1) to require employers to provide, conduct and document the 
    effectiveness of the training program. The final standard takes a more 
    integrated approach in that
    
    [[Page 1163]]
    
    it requires employers to evaluate the entire respiratory protection 
    program rather than the training program specifically.
    Paragraph (m)--Recordkeeping
        OSHA has adopted the Committee's recommendation to add the phrase 
    ``and make available'' to proposed paragraph (m)(1)(iii), which 
    required employers to maintain records of medical evaluations in 
    accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020, the Access to Employee Exposure and 
    Medical Records standard (see paragraph (n)(1) of the final rule).
    Appendix B--Recommended Practices
        Appendix B-1 of the standard contains practices for performing 
    positive and negative pressure faceseal checks. Respirator wearers are 
    required by paragraph (g)(iii) to perform a faceseal check before 
    entering the work area either by following the mandatory faceseal check 
    methods in Appendix B-1 or by following the respirator manufacturer's 
    recommended method, if the employer shows that the manufacturer's 
    method is as effective as the required methods. The Committee urged 
    OSHA to add new fit check methods to Appendix B-1, and OSHA has 
    responded to this recommendation by allowing the methods suggested by 
    the Committee if they are as effective as the methods in the Appendix.
        ACCSH also recommended that OSHA issue a separate respirator 
    standard for the construction industry. OSHA has reviewed the 
    Committee's comments to identify which construction-specific concerns 
    call for provisions that differ from those applicable to general 
    industry. First, many of the final standard's provisions are stated in 
    performance language, which is flexible enough to accommodate 
    differences in particular workplaces or industries. For example, 
    approved fit test systems, both quantitative and qualitative, are 
    portable and can be used on construction work sites as well as in fixed 
    industrial facilities. Another example is the final rule's requirement 
    for medical surveillance; the frequency of medical reevaluation is now 
    event driven, which will greatly simplify evaluations for employees who 
    frequently change employment, as is the case with many construction 
    workers. Thus, OSHA believes that the final rule is responsive to the 
    Committee's concerns about the uniqueness of the construction industry 
    and is sufficiently flexible to be used on worksites in this sector.
    
    D. Assigned Protection Factors
    
        OSHA is reserving the sections of this standard addressing assigned 
    protection factors (APFs) pending further rulemaking. OSHA is working 
    diligently to complete the reserved portions of the standard. In the 
    interim, OSHA expects employers to take the best available information 
    into account in selecting respirators. As it did under the previous 
    standard, OSHA itself will continue to refer to the NIOSH APFs in cases 
    where it has not made a different determination in a substance-specific 
    standard.
    
    E. Small Business Considerations
    
        Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA 
    certified to the Small Business Administration that the proposed 
    respiratory protection standard would not have a significant impact on 
    a substantial number of small entities.
        For the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the Regulatory 
    Flexibility Act, the Agency in its Preliminary Regulatory Impact 
    Analysis (PRIA) [Ex. 57] examined the impact of the standard on a 
    number of different small establishment-size classes (1-7 employees, 8-
    19 employees, etc). Although some economies of scale associated with 
    the proposed standard were noted, the Agency found that, given the 
    modest costs per establishment and the limited impact of the proposed 
    regulatory revisions as a whole, the standard would not impose a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    These findings were summarized in the NPRM (59 FR 58894). At the time 
    that OSHA published the NPRM for this rulemaking (Nov. 15, 1994), the 
    Agency transmitted the certification setting forth this conclusion, 
    along with the full PRIA, to the Small Business Administration.
        In developing the final standard, the Agency has conducted a 
    screening analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial 
    number of small entities. The details of the screening analysis are 
    presented in the Final Economic Analysis, which is available in the 
    docket; a summary of the analysis appears in section VI. Based on this 
    screening OSHA has again determined that the final rule will not impose 
    a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
    costs of the standard will equal no more than 0.02 percent of revenues 
    for small firms in any affected industry, and will therefore pose no 
    threat of business disruption, whether these costs are absorbed by 
    affected firms or passed on to consumers. OSHA therefore certifies that 
    the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
    number of small entities.
        Nevertheless, the Agency has designed the standard to minimize 
    impacts on all affected establishments, and particularly on small 
    entities. OSHA's special consideration of small businesses is in accord 
    with the Agency's continuing policy to remain sensitive to the needs of 
    small entities affected by Agency regulations.
        Provisions that recognize the special needs of small businesses are 
    discussed in more detail under specific sections of the Summary and 
    Explanation of the standard, Section VIII. Examples of provisions where 
    consideration was given to small businesses in making regulatory 
    decisions include:
    
    --Reduction in the number of repeat fit tests required for quantitative 
    fit testing;
    --Allowing employers to use a questionnaire (Appendix C is an example) 
    as a minimal medical evaluation tool to ascertain an employee's ability 
    to use respirators, rather than requiring a hands-on physical 
    examination;
    --Allowing medical evaluations to be conducted either by a physician or 
    by another licensed health care professional (PLHCP), which will reduce 
    medical surveillance costs without compromising employee protection;
    --Making the frequency of medical evaluations, after the initial 
    assessment, event-related instead of time-related, e.g., only requiring 
    such evaluations when specific conditions indicate a need for a 
    reevaluation;
    --Reducing the amount of paperwork required in connection with medical 
    evaluations. OSHA's previous standard required a physician to determine 
    pertinent health and physical conditions, and further required that the 
    respirator user's medical status be reviewed periodically (for 
    instance, annually). Historically, employers have had physicians 
    evaluate their employees' physical conditions, and have maintained 
    records documenting those evaluations;
    --Revising the requirements for disinfecting respirators from ``after 
    each use'' to ``as necessary to be maintained in a sanitary condition'' 
    to allow flexibility for small businesses;
    --Requiring only that tags be used to document respirator inspections, 
    rather than requiring written records; and
    --Allowing the employer to obtain a certificate of analysis of 
    breathing gas
    
    [[Page 1164]]
    
    from the supplier rather than requiring employers to conduct gas 
    analyses themselves.
    
        In the Small Business Administration's Annual Report to Congress, a 
    summary of SBA's comments to the respirator docket (Ex. 54-318) was 
    provided. (Note that these comments pertain to the proposed rather than 
    final rule.) SBA's comments have been examined alongside others with 
    regard both to the proposal and its supporting economic analysis. As 
    indicated, many of SBA's suggestions have been adopted; the SBA's 
    comments on the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis are discussed in 
    detail in the economic impact chapter of the Final Economic Analysis.
        Revised 29 CFR 1910.134 is intended to serve as a ``building 
    block'' standard with respect to future standards that may contain 
    respiratory protection requirements; that is, future standards that 
    regulate respirator use in controlling employee exposure to hazardous 
    conditions will refer to provisions in the final respiratory protection 
    standard. Further, OSHA has found that the respirator provisions of 
    existing substance-specific standards (Asbestos, Cadmium, Lead, etc.) 
    were especially in need of revision in view of newly revised 
    Sec. 1910.134. Except for a limited number of respirator provisions 
    unique to each substance-specific standard, the remaining regulatory 
    text on respirators now reads virtually the same for each of these 
    standards. For example, all provisions addressing respirator use, 
    selection, and fit testing were deleted from the substance-specific 
    standards, making these standards consistent with the final respiratory 
    protection standard with respect to these requirements. The Agency 
    believes that the revisions being made to 29 CFR 1910.134 are 
    sufficiently comprehensive to allow deletion of those provisions in the 
    substance-specific standards that duplicated provisions in the revised 
    final rule. A provision was retained only when it addressed conditions 
    (for example, medical evaluation) that were unique and/or integral to 
    the substance-specific standard.
        The Agency concludes that deletion of duplicative provisions from 
    the substance-specific standards will enhance compliance, especially 
    for small businesses, and will thus will improve the protection 
    afforded to employees who use respirators.
    
    IV. Certification/Approval Procedures
    
        Section 1910.134(b)(8) of the previous standard required that only 
    those respirators approved jointly by NIOSH and MSHA be used by the 
    employer. The current respirator testing and approval regulation, 30 
    CFR 11, which authorized the Bureau of Mines and NIOSH to jointly 
    approve respiratory protection devices, was promulgated on March 25, 
    1972 at 37 FR 6244. On November 5, 1974 the Mine Enforcement Safety 
    Administration (MESA) succeeded the Bureau of Mines and joined NIOSH in 
    jointly approving respirators. Following the transfer of MESA to the 
    Department of Labor, where it became the Mine Safety and Health 
    Administration (MSHA), authority was transferred on March 24, 1978 to 
    MSHA for joint approval with NIOSH of respirators. Most of the Bureau's 
    respiratory testing methods, developed in the 1950s or earlier, were 
    changed in the 1970s to reflect changes in testing technology.
        NIOSH initiated revision of 30 CFR 11 in 1980. A public meeting was 
    held in July 1980 to address the certification program. On August 27, 
    1987, NIOSH published a notice of proposed rulemaking (52 FR 32402) 
    that would have allowed NIOSH to certify respirators under the new 42 
    CFR part 84 regulations, replacing the current joint NIOSH/MSHA 30 CFR 
    11 certification regulations. The proposed NIOSH certification 
    regulations contained new and revised requirements for testing and 
    certification of respirators, and included a set of assigned protection 
    factors for various classes of respirators. Public hearings on the 
    first draft of the NIOSH proposal were held in January 1988. On the 
    basis of the comments received, NIOSH prepared a revised proposal for 
    further public comment. On June 8, 1995 NIOSH published revised 
    respirator certification procedures for particulate respirators (60 FR 
    30336) and recodified the previous certification standards for the 
    other respirator classes as 42 CFR Part 84. These certification 
    procedures address N, P and R class particulate respirators at 95%, 
    99%, and 99.7% levels of effectiveness. Additional public comment was 
    sought at public meetings convened in June 1996 to assist NIOSH in 
    preparation of future rulemakings that will continue the revision of 
    the certification procedures for other classes of respirators. In 
    October 1997, NIOSH announced the intended priority order for these 
    future rulemakings. Relevant aspects of these proceedings are discussed 
    in the Summary and Explanation.
    
    V. Significance of Risk
    
        Respirators are used by American workers as a means of protection 
    against a multitude of respiratory hazards that include chemical, 
    biological, and radiological agents. Situations in which respirators 
    are relied upon to provide protection from these hazards include those 
    that involve immediately life-threatening situations as well as routine 
    operations where engineering controls and work practices are not able 
    to provide sufficient protection from these hazards. In these 
    situations, respirators must ``seal off'' and isolate the worker's 
    respiratory system from the contaminated environment. The risk that a 
    worker will experience an adverse health outcome when relying on 
    respiratory protection is a function of the toxicity or hazardous 
    nature of the air contaminants present, the concentrations of the 
    contaminants in the air, the duration of exposure, and the degree of 
    isolation provided by the respirator. When respirators fail or do not 
    provide the degree of protection expected by the user, the user is 
    placed at an increased risk of any adverse health effects that are 
    associated with exposure to the respiratory hazards present. Therefore, 
    it is critical that respirators perform as they are designed to do to 
    ensure that users are not at an increased risk of experiencing adverse 
    effects caused by exposure to respiratory hazards.
        OSHA has discussed the nature of adverse health effects caused by 
    exposure to airborne chemical hazards many times in previous rulemaking 
    efforts (see, for example, Appendix A of the Hazard Communication 
    standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200 and the preambles to any of OSHA's single 
    substance standards codified in 29 CFR 1910.1001 to 1910.1052). In all 
    instances where OSHA has promulgated new or revised PELs for chemical 
    air contaminants, OSHA has determined that the health effects 
    associated with exposure to the contaminants represent material 
    impairment of health because the effects are life-threatening, cause 
    permanent damage, or significantly impair the worker's ability to 
    perform his or her job in a safe manner. As discussed in Section VI of 
    this preamble, OSHA expects that thousands of illnesses and hundreds of 
    fatalities that are presently being caused by exposure to hazardous 
    substances will be avoided annually among respirator wearers as a 
    result of improvements and clarifications made to the earlier standard 
    by this final rule.
        Evidence on current workplace exposure levels confirms that 
    respirators are needed in many work situations to protect workers 
    against serious work-related illness. To illustrate, OSHA identified 
    several substances that represent a range of adverse effects and
    
    [[Page 1165]]
    
    for which OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) 
    database has documented workplace exposures that exceed the current 
    PELs for these substances. The effects represented by this subset of 
    the IMIS and the associated substances for which there are documented 
    overexposures include:
    
    --Sudden death/asphyxiation--carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide;
    --Loss of lung function--wood dust, welding fume, manganese fume, 
    copper fume, cobalt metal fume, silica;
    --Central nervous system disturbances--carbon monoxide, 
    trichloroethylene;
    --Cancer--chromic acid, wood dust, silica; and
    --Cardiovascular effects--carbon monoxide.
    
        When respirators are used during operations where exposures exceed 
    OSHA's PEL, OSHA believes that there is little or no margin that would 
    protect the worker in the event that the respirator does not perform as 
    well as designed or expected. For all of the substances for which OSHA 
    has promulgated a comprehensive health standard (i.e., Arsenic, 29 CFR 
    1910.1018; Asbestos, 29 CFR 1910.1001; Benzene, 29 CFR 1910.1028; Lead, 
    29 CFR 1910.1025; Ethylene Oxide, 29 CFR 1910.1047), OSHA has 
    determined that exposure above the PEL is associated with a significant 
    risk of material impairment of health, and believes as a matter of 
    policy that exposures below the PEL may be associated with risk levels 
    that are significant. That is, there is no exposure level near or 
    somewhat above the PEL that can be considered to be at a low or 
    insignificant risk level. Therefore, where workers perform jobs that 
    result in exposures above the PEL for any of these substances, use of 
    properly functioning respirators is essential to ensure that workers 
    are not placed at significant risk of material impairment of health.
        Throughout this preamble, OSHA has demonstrated that adequate fit 
    testing, proper respirator selection, worker training, and thorough 
    inspection and maintenance are essential elements of a respirator 
    program. Without these requirements, OSHA believes that there is a 
    greater chance that a respirator user will inhale potentially dangerous 
    air contaminants, either by improper selection of equipment, excessive 
    respirator leakage, improper use of the respirator, or any combination 
    of these. This section presents an analysis conducted by OSHA to 
    evaluate the improved protection to workers who use respiratory 
    protection equipment by the type of effective respirator program 
    required by the final rule.
        In the context of a respiratory protection program, the health risk 
    presented to workers can be represented as the risk that a respirator 
    will fail to provide some minimum expected level of protection, which 
    increases the possibility that the user of the respirator will be 
    overexposed to a harmful air contaminant. This presumes that 
    respirators will be selected and used in work settings where exposure 
    to ambient concentrations of air contaminants poses an unacceptable 
    health risk, and, if the respirator performs as expected, the wearer 
    will be protected from that risk. For example, an employer who provides 
    a half-mask, chemical cartridge respirator for employee use might 
    typically assume that the respirator will filter out 90 percent of the 
    contaminant and base his or her choice of respirator on that 
    assumption. If the respirator performs less effectively than expected, 
    the employer's expectation that the respirator will provide effective 
    protection will not be fulfilled.
        This concept of risk differs from that used by OSHA in its 
    substance-specific health standards, in which the Agency typically 
    defines risk as the probability that a worker will acquire a specific 
    work-related illness. Quantifying that kind of risk requires the 
    analysis of data that relates the magnitude or intensity of exposure to 
    the incidence or prevalence of adverse effects seen among exposed 
    populations or experimental animals. In contrast, the kinds of 
    hazardous situations covered by the final respiratory protection 
    standard are varied in terms of the nature of the hazard present (i.e., 
    acute, chronic, or both), the frequency and magnitude of exposure, and 
    the types of illnesses associated with exposure to those hazards. As a 
    consequence, the health risks addressed by the final rule cannot be 
    described in terms of an illness-specific risk, but instead relate to 
    the more general probability that a respirator will provide 
    insufficient protection causing the wearer to be exposed to a dangerous 
    level of one or more air contaminants.
        Certain studies, referred to as ``workplace protection factor'' 
    (WPF) studies, have attempted to measure the effectiveness of 
    respirators under actual conditions of use in the workplace. The WPF is 
    a measure of the reduction in exposure achieved by using respiratory 
    protection and is represented by an estimate of the ratio of the 
    concentration of a contaminant found in the workplace air to the 
    concentration found inside the respirator facepiece while the 
    respirator is being worn. As the degree of protection afforded by the 
    respirator increases, the WPF increases. Alternatively, the degree of 
    protection provided by a respirator can be expressed as a penetration 
    value, which is the reciprocal of the WPF and reflects the ratio of the 
    concentration of contaminant inside the facepiece to the concentration 
    outside. For example, a WPF of 50 equates to a penetration value of 
    0.02 and means that the concentration inside the respirator facepiece 
    is one-fiftieth of the ambient level.
        Because WPF studies are designed to evaluate the field 
    effectiveness of respiratory protection equipment, study protocols 
    usually have been designed to minimize factors that can reduce 
    respirator performance. Such factors include selecting the wrong type 
    of respirator for the working conditions under which the study is being 
    conducted, use of poorly fitting respirator facepieces (i.e., testing 
    of respirator fit is routinely done in well-conducted WPF studies), 
    inadequate training of wearers in proper respirator adjustment and use, 
    or excessive leakage caused by malfunctioning or dirty respirator 
    parts. Typically, WPF study protocols include procedures for properly 
    selecting respirators and ensuring that they are in good working order, 
    assigning respirators to workers on the basis of valid qualitative or 
    quantitative fit tests, training wearers on how to adjust strap tension 
    properly and use the respirator, and ensuring that neither facial hair 
    nor other personal protective equipment is likely to interfere with 
    respirator fit. In addition, workers included in WPF studies are 
    usually monitored throughout the period that respirators are worn to 
    verify that the equipment is being properly used. All of these 
    conditions reflect the principal elements of a strong respirator 
    program in which respirator performance is optimized; therefore, the 
    results from a good WPF study can mirror the results obtained by an 
    employer who implements a well-run respiratory protection program.
        To quantitatively evaluate the impact of implementing a good 
    respirator program on respirator performance, OSHA identified several 
    WPF studies that were conducted using methods that reflect a 
    comprehensive program, and compared these results to other workplace 
    studies that did not employ all of the elements of a good program. 
    Quantitative approaches are used to develop (1) aggregate estimates of 
    respirator effectiveness in both the presence and absence of a good
    
    [[Page 1166]]
    
    respiratory protection program, and (2) estimates of the frequency with 
    which workers are likely to achieve inadequate protection while using a 
    respirator, given the presence or absence of a good underlying program. 
    All of the studies used in this analysis pertain to the effectiveness 
    of half-mask, negative-pressure respirators, and all are contained in 
    OSHA's rulemaking docket (H-049).
        Many of the well monitored WPF studies conducted were reviewed by 
    Nelson et al. in 1995 (Ex. 64-514); these authors selected data from 
    seven such studies to evaluate the overall field effectiveness of half-
    mask, negative-pressure respirators. Each of the studies described by 
    Nelson et al. ensured selection of properly fitted respirators either 
    by an accepted qualitative fit test (QLFT) (i.e., isoamyl acetate or 
    saccharin) or by a quantitative fit test (QNFT) where only respirators 
    that provided a minimum protection factor to the wearer of at least 100 
    were selected. Each of these studies provided for worker instruction in 
    proper respirator use, and workers were monitored during each study to 
    ensure proper use. An additional six studies were reviewed by Nelson et 
    al. but were rejected either because they allegedly used biased 
    sampling methods to determine ambient and in-facepiece contaminant 
    concentrations or because the authors believed that improper or 
    invalidated fit test procedures were employed.
        In the studies selected by Nelson et al. for analysis, workers used 
    elastomeric or disposable respirators equipped with dust-mist, dust-
    mist-fume, or high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters, and the 
    collection of studies represented a range of workplace exposure 
    situations, including pigment production, metals refining, asbestos 
    exposure during brake-repair work, welding, and spray painting. 
    Geometric Mean (GM) WPF values from these studies ranged from 47 to 
    3,360, with an overall GM WPF of 290. The 5th percentile WPF from the 
    data set was estimated to be 13, with a 95% confidence interval of 10-
    18. Nelson et al. concluded from the analysis of the overall data set 
    that the assigned protection factor of 10 for half-mask, negative-
    pressure respirators was reasonable given that a WPF of less than 10 
    would not likely occur more than 5 percent of the time. In addition, 
    Nelson et al. found no significant difference in the field performance 
    of disposable respirators compared to elastomeric models. OSHA has not 
    conducted a detailed comparative evaluation of WPF values obtained from 
    disposable vs. elastomeric respirators; if, in fact, disposable 
    respirators provide less protection than elastomeric respirators, the 
    WPFs that can be achieved under a good respirator program will be 
    overstated in this analysis since Nelson et al.'s compiled data reflect 
    the use of both types of respirators.
        Each of the studies reviewed by Nelson involved worker exposures to 
    dusts. OSHA could identify only one WPF study, by Galvin et al. in 1990 
    (Ex. 64-22), that examined respirator effectiveness against exposure to 
    a vapor-phase contaminant rather than a particulate. In this study, WPF 
    measurements were taken on a group of 13 styrene workers who used half-
    mask, air-purifying respirators equipped with chemical cartridge 
    filters. All employees were assigned respirators based on passing an 
    irritant smoke fit test, and all were trained on how to properly don 
    the respirator and conduct fit checks. In-mask and ambient styrene 
    concentrations were measured over one-hour periods, during which 
    employees were instructed not to readjust the facepiece. Chemical 
    cartridges were changed with each new sampling period to ensure that 
    there was no breakthrough. In-mask styrene concentrations were adjusted 
    upwards by 40 percent to account for pulmonary retention, which avoided 
    potentially overestimating the WPF. The GM WPF for the overall cohort 
    was reported to be 79, with a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 
    3.51. There was no significant difference in WPF values between those 
    workers engaged in relatively physical operations, such as spraying, 
    compared to those performing less physical work tasks. The GM WPF found 
    by Galvin et al. for styrene-exposed workers lies within the range of 
    GM WPF values reported in the studies reviewed by Nelson for worker 
    cohorts exposed to particulate-contaminated environments.
        Nelson in his 1995 report (Ex. 64-514) excluded the Galvin et al. 
    study from his analysis because fit tests were performed using the 
    irritant smoke protocol. As discussed in the Summary and Explanation 
    section of this preamble, OSHA has determined that the irritant smoke 
    qualitative fit test provides a valid, effective test of respirator 
    facepiece fit. The procedures used by Galvin et al. to ensure adequate 
    worker training and respirator use are consistent with the elements of 
    a permissible respirator program, and OSHA, therefore, finds it 
    appropriate to include this study in the set of WPF studies that are 
    representative of effective respiratory program practices.
        In contrast, OSHA has identified three studies where investigators 
    also determined WPF values for half-mask, negative-pressure 
    respirators, but where few steps were taken to ensure maximum 
    respirator performance. OSHA believes that these studies illustrate the 
    relative lack of protection afforded by respirators when certain 
    critical elements of the respiratory protection program are missing or 
    inadequate. The studies identified by OSHA are those by Toney and 
    Barnhart in 1972 (Ex. 64-68), Moore and Smith in 1976 (Ex. 64-49), and 
    Harris et al. in 1974 (Ex. 27-11).
        Toney and Barnhart (Ex. 64-68) conducted a WPF study to evaluate 
    the effectiveness of half-mask, chemical-cartridge respirators on 
    reducing exposures of spray painters to solvent vapors and aerosols. 
    Data were obtained from painters working at 39 different sites and 
    included both in-mask and ambient concentrations. WPFs were found to be 
    low; from the raw data presented in the study, OSHA calculated a GM WPF 
    of 3.8 for solvent exposure (GSD=2.28, N=39) and a GM WPF of 11.4 for 
    aerosol exposure (GSD=4.12, N=40). Penetration tests performed on 
    unused respirator cartridges of the same types used in the field 
    indicated that the poor WPFs achieved in the field tests were caused by 
    poor respirator fit and a lack of respirator maintenance, and were not 
    due to any inherent defect in the cartridges. The authors concluded 
    that respirators being used by painters were not effective and cited 
    several reasons, all pointing to the lack of a respiratory protection 
    program at the facilities tested. For example, 28 percent of 
    respirators used by the painters were poorly maintained. Some of the 
    conditions found by the investigators included deteriorating rubber on 
    the facepieces, the presence of stuck or warped valves, missing head 
    straps, and evidence of leakage around the cartridge seal. In addition, 
    it was apparent that some of the cartridges had not been changed for 
    extended periods of time. Many of the facilities studied supplied non-
    approved respiratory protective devices (respirators were approved by 
    the Bureau of Mines at the time of the study), and most had no formal 
    training or maintenance program in place. The authors found that ``* * 
    * management and workers are extremely uninformed on the subject of 
    selection, use, and care of respiratory protective devices.'' (Ex. 64-
    68, p. 93).
        The second study, conducted by Moore and Smith in 1976 (Ex. 64-49), 
    measured WPF values obtained by workers exposed to sulfur dioxide 
    (SO2) during a furnace charging operation at a copper 
    smelter. Three models of half-mask, chemical cartridge respirators
    
    [[Page 1167]]
    
    were tested on each of nine workers; in-mask and ambient SO2 
    concentrations were measured during the furnace charging operation 
    while the respirators were worn. There is no indication in the study 
    that qualitative or quantitative fit testing was performed to verify 
    adequate facepiece fit. A total of 81 samples were collected, 5 of 
    which were excluded from the analysis because the subjects removed or 
    lifted the respirator facepiece during the sampling period. Average 
    ambient SO2 concentrations varied in the range of 53 to 61 
    mg/m3 (20.4 to 23.5 ppm) during the sampling period. 
    Geometric mean WPF values reported for each of the three models of 
    respirator were 22.1 (SD=22.6), 18.4 (SD=14.2), and 12.9 (SD = 11.0). 
    Moore and Smith concluded that the overall protection afforded by the 
    respirators was poor, and that between one-third and one-half of the 
    protection factors achieved would be below 10, the accepted minimum 
    protection factor for that type of respirator. Reasons given by the 
    authors for the poor fits observed among the subject workers included 
    the possibility that strap tension was not properly adjusted (the 
    authors did not control or monitor strap tension), variation in facial 
    hair (despite the lack of beards or wide sideburns), and normal work 
    activities that caused head motion and deep breathing associated with 
    heavy work.
        The third study is that of Harris et al. in 1974 (Ex. 27-11), who 
    evaluated the performance of five half-mask dust respirators among 37 
    miners working in 4 coal mines. In-mask and ambient dust measurements 
    were made throughout the workshifts, during which miners intermittently 
    used respiratory protection. Thus, this study differs from the others 
    described above in that the ratio of in-mask to outside concentrations 
    included periods of time where the respirator was not worn, in contrast 
    to the typical WPF study. The ratio of in-mask to outside concentration 
    determined during periods of intermittent respirator use, termed the 
    ``effective protection factor'' (EPF), is not directly comparable to 
    WPF values because, to the extent that workers spend time in 
    contaminated atmospheres without respiratory protection, the WPF will 
    tend to understate the actual protection obtained while the respirator 
    is being worn. However, according to Poppendorf in 1995 (Ex. 54-512), 
    it is possible to use EPF data to estimate the WPF that was likely to 
    have been achieved during periods of respirator use if both of the 
    following are known or can be estimated: (1) The fraction of time 
    during which the respirator was not worn by the subject, and (2) the 
    ratio of contaminant concentration in areas where the respirator was 
    worn to that in areas where the respirator was not worn. Poppendorf 
    (Ex. 54-512) described the mathematical relationship between the EPF 
    and WPF and suggested that the likely range of average WPF values 
    achieved by the miners during periods of respirator use was 3.6 to 5.7. 
    This estimate of WPF is based on an observation by Harris et al. that 
    miners wore their respirators about half of the time during the 
    sampling periods, and an assumption by Poppendorf (Ex. 54-512) that the 
    dust levels in the air while respirators were worn were at least 5 
    times higher than airborne dust levels during periods of respirator 
    non-use. OSHA believes that the latter assumption is reasonable given 
    that Harris et al. reported that, for the most part, miners wore their 
    respirators only when visible airborne dust was present. Harris et al. 
    noted that the hard hats worn by the miners interfered with proper 
    respirator strap positioning and adjustment; OSHA believes that this 
    factor, as well as the apparent lack of fit testing, is likely to have 
    contributed to the low protection factors experienced by the miners.
        OSHA believes that the studies described above demonstrate that 
    improved respirator performance can be achieved under actual workplace 
    conditions if fit testing is used to select respirators, if respirators 
    are clean and in good working order, and if employees are properly 
    trained and supervised in their use. This is evident when the summary 
    statistics from aggregate protection factor data obtained from field 
    studies on groups of employees using respirators in the absence of a 
    strong respirator program (i.e., Moore and Smith, Toney and Barnhart, 
    Harris et al.) are compared with those obtained from cohorts using 
    respirators under the condition of a strong program (i.e., the studies 
    reviewed by Nelson and the study by Galvin et al.). Summary protection 
    factor data from these studies are presented in Table V-1 as geometric 
    mean and mean WPF values, and the geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 
    the distribution of WPF values. From these summary statistics, OSHA 
    computed a weighted geometric mean WPF across cohorts exposed to 
    particulate contaminants to compare the central tendency in protection 
    factors achieved both with and without an adequate underlying 
    respirator program (see footnote on Table V-1).
        In general, groups of employees using respirators against 
    particulate exposures under a strong program achieved an overall GM 
    protection factor about 25-fold higher than groups using respirators 
    without the elements of a strong respiratory protection program. In 
    studies that did not implement all of these elements, mean WPF values 
    among the particulate-exposed worker cohorts tested ranged from about 6 
    to 22. Mean WPF values for particulate-exposed worker cohorts included 
    in the WPF studies where elements of a good program were implemented 
    ranged from 72 to 2,400, with the mean WPF from one study estimated to 
    be 11,500. The results from studies that examined respirator 
    effectiveness against gas or vapor, also included in Table V-1, show an 
    8-fold difference in overall GM WPF values. With only one exception, 
    the 95 percent confidence intervals around the GM WPF values computed 
    from the studies reflecting inadequate program practices do not overlap 
    with those computed from the studies reflecting strong program elements 
    (see Table V-1); thus, the hypothesis that there are no differences in 
    the GM WPF values between the two groups of studies is rejected. This 
    analysis suggests that implementation of a good respiratory protection 
    program containing the elements described by the final rule can 
    contribute to a substantial increase in the overall performance of 
    respirators used in actual workplace settings, as measured by the mean 
    WPF across groups of workers.
    
    [[Page 1168]]
    
    
    
     Table V-1.--Summary Results From Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) Studies and Estimated Frequencies of Respirator Failure, Based on a One-Factor ANOVA
                                                 Analysis of Data From Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) Studies                                            
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Estimated percent of workers with:              
                                                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Geometric                                                  WPF 10 at       eq>2 at  
                                                   WPF (95% C.I.\1\)   deviation              Mean WPF 10 \2\       thn-eq>2 \2\    the time \3\  the time \3\
                                                                                                                                                            
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Studies Reflecting Inadequate Program Elements                                                     
                                                                                                                                                            
                 Particulate Exposure                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                            
    Toney and Barnhart [1972] (Ex. 64-68)........     \4\ 11.4 (3.2-                                                                                        
                                                               39.6)    \4\ 4.12        31.1          76.8               9.0           100            60.4  
    Harris et al. [1974] (Ex. 27-11)                                                                                                                        
        Low Estimate.............................   \5\ 3.6 (1-17.9)  \5\ 2-93           6.4          99.7              38.8           100            96.4  
        High Estimate............................      \5\ 5.7 (1.6-                                                                                        
                                                               20.4)    \5\ 2.93        10.2          97.0              12.5           100            82.3  
          Weighted Geometric Mean................            \6\ 5.6                                                                                        
                  Gas/Vapor Exposure                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                            
    Moore and Smith [1976] (Ex. 64-69)                                                                                                                      
        Respirator A.............................   15.29 (8.3-28.1)    \7\ 2.36        22.1          36.2              <0.01 98.9="" 1.9="" respirator="" b.............................="" 13.72="" (7.7-24.4)="" \7\="" 2.15="" 18.4="" 41.3=""><0.01 99.7="" 0.5="" respirator="" c.............................="" 9.59="" (4.8-19.2)="" \7\="" 2.16="" 12.9="" 83.1=""><0.01 100="" 9.0="" toney="" and="" barnhart="" [1972]="" (ex.="" 64-68)........="" \4\="" 3.8="" (1.2-="" 11.9)="" \4\="" 2.28="" 5.3="" 100="" 14.7="" 100="" 95.7="" weighted="" geometric="" mean................="" \6\="" 9.4="" studies="" reflecting="" good="" program="" elements="" particulate="" exposure="" dixon="" and="" nelson="" [1984]="" \8\..................="" 3360="" (3101-3640)="" 4.8="" 11,498=""><0.01><0.01><0.01><0.01 gaboury="" and="" burd="" [1989]="" \8\..................="" 47="" (31-72)="" 2.5="" 72="" 0.2=""><0.01 30.1=""><0.01 lenhart="" and="" campbell="" [1984]="" \8\..............="" 166="" (120-228)="" 3.8="" 405="" 0.1=""><0.01 9.0="" 0.02="" nelson="" and="" dixon="" [1985]="" \8\..................="" 258="" (192-347)="" 5.2="" 1004="" 0.7=""><0.01 14.5="" 0.3="" gosselink="" et="" al.="" [1986]="" \8\..................="" 96="" (75-123)="" 2.3="" 136=""><0.01><0.01 0.1=""><0.01 colton="" and="" mullins="" [1992]="" \8\................="" 147="" (117-185)="" 2.5="" 224=""><0.01><0.01 0.1=""><0.01 myers="" [1990]="" \8\.............................="" 346="" (256-468)="" 7.2="" 2,428="" 2.8="" 0.1="" 22.2="" 1.7="" weighted="" geometric="" mean................="" \6\="" 142="" gas/vapor="" exposure="" galvin="" et="" al.="" [1990]="" (ex.="" 64-22).............="" 79="" (54-115)="" 3.5="" 173="" 1.1=""><0.01 31.7="" 0.2="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" 95%="" confidence="" interval="" of="" the="" geometric="" mean="" wpf="" calculated="" as="" follows="" for="" simultaneous="" confidence="" intervals:="">SDnc tn-
      1,1-/2, =1-(1-0.05)1/N                                                                                                              
    where n is the number of WPF measurements in each study and N is the number of studies being compared (i.e., 10 for particulate studies and 5 for gas/  
      vapor studies).                                                                                                                                       
    \2\ Calculated from equation 9 as described in the text;  = 0.1 for WPF = 10,  = 0.5 for WPF = 2.                                     
    \3\ Calculated from equation 10 as described in the text;  = 0.1 for WPF = 10,  = 0.5 for WPF = 2.                                    
    \4\ Calculated by OSHA from raw data presented by the authors.                                                                                          
    \5\ Range of WPF values estimated by Popendorf [1995] (Ex. 54-512), from effective protection factor values (EPF) reported by Harris et al. GSDs        
      calculated by OSHA from median and mean EPF values reported by Harris et al.                                                                          
    \6\ Calculated as a weighted geometric mean as follows: exp[(lnGM/(lnGSD)\2\)/(1/(lnGSD)\2\)].                                        
    \7\ Calculated by OSHA from median and mean WPF values reported by Moore and Smith.                                                                     
    \8\ Studies reviewed by Nelson [1995] (Ex. 64-514).                                                                                                     
    
        The three WPF studies representing deficient program practices were 
    all conducted 10 to 20 years earlier than the WPF studies reflecting 
    good program elements. Thus, differences between the two groups of 
    studies in working conditions, processes and exposures, or respirator 
    equipment and technology could confound the comparison of respirator 
    effectiveness measures. OSHA is not aware of any recent studies that 
    have been conducted that were designed to evaluate the impact of 
    respirator program elements on respirator effectiveness, nor are recent 
    studies available that have attempted to measure respirator 
    effectiveness under conditions of a poor respiratory protection 
    program. OSHA believes that this analysis of program impacts on 
    respirator performance is based on the best available data. However, 
    OSHA has considered whether confounding factors related to the elements 
    of a good respirator program may also have contributed to the 
    differences in respirator performance reported by the two groups of WPF 
    studies. For example, respirator fit can be adversely affected by 
    vigorous work activity requiring head motion and deep breathing. Heavy 
    work loads also contribute to respirator discomfort, which may cause a 
    worker to wear a respirator too loosely. The nature of the air 
    contaminant affects respirator performance in that different types of 
    respirator filters have different capabilities in purifying 
    contaminated air and gas-phase contaminants and small-particulate 
    aerosols pass more readily through leak points than do aerosols 
    comprised mostly of larger particles.
        OSHA does not believe that any systematic differences in working 
    conditions or respirator technology contribute substantially to the 
    differences in respirator effectiveness found between the two groups of 
    studies included in the analysis. For example, both groups of studies 
    represent a range of workplace situations that involve strenuous and 
    non-strenuous work. In the studies that do not reflect good program 
    practices, workers were engaged in active, strenuous work (smelter 
    operations and coal mining) as well as less active work (spray 
    painting). Similarly, studies that reflect good program practices have 
    also been conducted on worker cohorts engaged in both active work 
    (metals refining) and less active work (spray painting, brake repair). 
    Both groups of studies also involve a range of contaminants, including 
    both gas-phase and various kinds of particulate. Some of the studies 
    reviewed by Nelson included information on the size distribution of
    
    [[Page 1169]]
    
    particulates to which workers were exposed, with the range across these 
    studies including both respirable and non-respirable particles. Other 
    studies included in the Nelson analysis reported that workers were 
    exposed to both dust and fume. Therefore, the differences in WPFs found 
    between the two groups of studies cannot be explained by differences in 
    particulate sizes or characteristics. Both groups of studies also 
    represent a variety of half-mask respirator designs and filters, 
    including single-use respirators and respirators equipped with dust/
    mist (i.e., non-HEPA) filters. OSHA believes it unlikely that the 14-
    fold difference in overall WPFs between the two groups of studies can 
    be primarily attributed to any fundamental differences in respirator 
    equipment or technology. Therefore, OSHA finds that the differences in 
    WPF values obtained from the two groups of studies are more likely to 
    reflect differences in how well the respirators fit the subject 
    workers, the condition of the respiratory equipment used, and the 
    extent to which the equipment was used properly, rather than any 
    confounding caused by systematic differences in work settings, the 
    nature of the exposures, or the age of the WPF studies.
        The kinds of summary statistics presented in Table V-1 have been 
    used by several investigators to demonstrate how poorly or how well 
    respirators can protect workers under actual conditions of use (see, 
    for example, Moore and Smith (Ex. 64-69), Nelson et al. (Ex. 64-514)). 
    However, such descriptive measures can only provide information on the 
    aggregate frequency distribution of protection factor values in a group 
    of workers. Although it is useful to rely on summary statistics from 
    aggregate protection factor data to make general statements about the 
    effectiveness of respirators, such measures do not adequately convey 
    information on the number or proportion of workers who remain at risk 
    of overexposure to air contaminants despite the use of respiratory 
    protection, or how frequently an individual worker might experience 
    poor fits.
        Nicas (Ex. 156) and Nicas and Spear in 1992 (Ex. 64-425) have 
    suggested that using statistics from aggregate protection factor data 
    does not adequately describe the true risk of overexposure to workers 
    using respirators because the approach fails to recognize that there 
    are two different sources of variability that account for the overall 
    variation in protection factor values measured from a given cohort of 
    workers. One source of variability in protection factors is the 
    variation typically experienced by a single worker from one day to the 
    next; this is termed within-worker variability. The second source of 
    variability reflects the observation that different workers within a 
    group will achieve different average protection factors over a given 
    period of time; this is termed between-worker variability. In a peer-
    reviewed article, Nicas and Spear (Ex. 64-425) have described a 
    statistical model that accounts for both sources of variability. This 
    model has been used by OSHA to estimate the following from the 
    protection factor studies described above to better characterize risks 
    to workers who use respirators both in the absence of and under a 
    strong respiratory protection program:
    
        (1) The proportion of workers who fail to achieve a long-term 
    average protection factor at or above some specified target level, 
    exposing the worker to an increased risk of a chronic health hazard 
    (i.e., a health hazard that is typically associated with long-term 
    cumulative exposure); and
        (2) The proportion of workers who achieve a protection factor 
    below some specified target level at least 5 percent of the time 
    that the respirator is worn, thus increasing the frequency with 
    which a worker may be exposed above an effect concentration 
    associated with an acute health hazard.
        The Nicas and Spear model (Exs. 64-425, 156) used by OSHA in this 
    analysis is a one-factor analysis of variance and is described briefly 
    as follows. Let P denote a penetration value experienced by the wearer 
    of a respirator during a randomly selected wearing time (P is defined 
    as the reciprocal of the protection factor PF measured in the 
    workplace, or 1/PF). For example, a P value of 0.1 for a respirator 
    wearer reflects that a protection factor of 10 was achieved in the 
    workplace for that individual. If one were to measure the penetration 
    values among members of a group of workers over time and aggregate the 
    results, the total distribution of P values can be described by the 
    following parameters:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.000
    
    Where:
    
    P = the penetration value for a worker for a particular wearing period,
    p = the arithmetic mean penetration value for the 
    population,
    B = a lognormally distributed factor that transforms 
    p to the arithmetic mean penetration value for the 
    individual worker, and
    W = a lognormally distributed factor that transforms 
    p  x  B to the P value experienced by the 
    individual worker for a particular wearing time.
    
    The factors W and B describe within-worker variability and between-
    worker variability, respectively.
        Since workplace protection factor studies typically report the 
    geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of protection factor 
    values obtained from a cohort of respirator wearers (i.e., GM[P] and 
    GSD[P]), the parameters described above for within-worker and between 
    worker variability can be estimated as follows if the relationship 
    between GSD[B] and GSD[W] are known or assumed. Let R represent the 
    ratio of GSD[W]/GSD[B]; then GSD[B] can be estimated from GSD[P] and R 
    by the relationship
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.001
    
    
    [[Page 1170]]
    
    
    GSD[W], GM[B], and GM[W] are estimated by:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.002
    
    The arithmetic mean of the total distribution of penetration values 
    across the whole cohort, p, is estimated by:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.003
    
        Nicas (Ex. 156) defines two additional values,  and 
    , that are based on the parameters described above. The value 
     represents the 95th percentile of the between-wearer 
    distribution of average penetration values among a cohort of respirator 
    wearers; thus, there is a 5 percent chance that a respirator wearer in 
    the cohort could have an average penetration value of  or 
    higher. If  is set to some penetration value reflecting some 
    minimum acceptable value of protection, the probability that a 
    respirator wearer would fail, on average, to achieve the minimum 
    acceptable penetration value is Pr(Z>z), where
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.004
    
    and Z is the standard normal deviate. By estimating the parameters 
    p, GM[B], and GSD[B] from WPF data, one can 
    estimate the probability that a respirator wearer could have an average 
    penetration value greater than some specified value .
        The value  is defined by Nicas (Ex. 154) based on the 
    distribution of each worker's 95th percentile P value and represented 
    the P value experienced at least 5 percent of the time by 95 percent of 
    workers in the cohort. If  is set to some minimum acceptable P 
    value, the estimated probability that a respirator wearer could fail to 
    achieve the minimum P value at least 5% of the time is Pr(Z>z), where
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.005
    
    and Z is the standard normal deviate. Thus, the proportion of workers 
    who fail to achieve a P value of  at least 5 percent of the 
    time can be determined by estimating the parameters 
    p, GM[B], and GSD[W] from WPF data.
        The following hypothetical example illustrates OSHA's use of the 
    model to estimate the risk to workers of experiencing an overexposure 
    while using respiratory protection. Suppose that the WPF values 
    obtained from a group of workers using half-mask, negative-pressure 
    respirators are found to have a geometric mean of 50 (i.e., GM[P] = 1/
    50 = 0.02) and a geometric standard deviation of 3.0 (GSD[P] = 3.0). 
    Furthermore, from one of the WPF studies reviewed by OSHA (Galvin et 
    al.) (Ex. 64-22), it was reported that within-worker variability 
    exceeded between-worker variability in workplace protection factors, 
    with the ratio GSD[W]/GSD[B] = 1.5. From equations 4 through 7 above, 
    and assuming that R = 1.5, then GSD[B] = 1.73, GSD[W] = 2.60, GM[W] = 
    0.63, and GM[B] = 0.86. The arithmetic average of the cohort's P 
    values, p, is estimated from equation 8 to be 
    0.037. If a protection factor of less than 10 (the NIOSH minimum 
    assigned PF for half-mask respirators) is considered to place the 
    worker at risk of an overexposure, then equation 9 predicts a 
    probability of 1.8 percent that a worker in the group would be expected 
    to have an average WPF value of 10 or less (i.e.,  is set to 
    0.1 in equation 9); that is, 1.8 percent of the group of respirator 
    wearers would frequently encounter situations where they are working in 
    a hazardous environment without the minimum protection expected from 
    the respirators being used. By equation 10, there is a substantial 
    probability (47 percent) that a worker in the cohort would not achieve 
    a minimum protection factor of 10 at least 5 percent of the time that 
    respirators are used (i.e.,  is set to 0.1 in equation 10).
        OSHA used the Nicas and Spear model, the summary data from the WPF 
    studies reviewed above, and the method outlined in the example 
    described above to estimate the probability that a respirator wearer 
    would fail to receive adequate protection from their respirator; the 
    detailed results of this analysis appear in Table V-1, and summary 
    findings are listed in Table V-2. From the studies that reflect the 
    lack of an adequate respiratory protection program, the Nicas and Spear 
    model predicts a high probability (between 36 and 100 percent) that a 
    wearer would
    
    [[Page 1171]]
    
    not achieve an average protection factor of 10. Data from two of these 
    studies by Toney and Barnhart (Ex. 64-68), and Harris et al. (Ex. 27-
    11), when used in the model, suggest a probability of between 13 and 39 
    percent that the average WPF for a respirator wearer could be 2 or 
    less, which may be considered equivalent to receiving no long-term 
    protection at all. In contrast, workers included in the studies 
    reflecting good respirator program elements would be expected to 
    experience low WPFs much less frequently. The probability that a wearer 
    would attain an average WPF of 10 or less is estimated to be between 
    <0.01 and="" 3="" percent.="" results="" from="" the="" studies="" that="" reflect="" good="" respiratory="" program="" practices="" also="" indicate="" that="" long-term="" average="" wpf="" values="" at="" or="" below="" 2="" would="" rarely="" occur.="" the="" results="" from="" this="" analysis="" demonstrate="" that="" deficiencies="" in="" implementing="" a="" good="" respirator="" program="" can="" greatly="" increase="" the="" chance="" that="" the="" wearer="" of="" a="" negative-pressure="" respirator="" will="" receive="" less="" than="" the="" minimum="" expected="" average="" protection="" from="" the="" respirator="" over="" the="" long-term,="" thus="" increasing="" the="" chance="" that="" the="" worker="" will="" be="" exposed="" to="" a="" higher="" chronic="" health="" risk.="" table="" v-2.--summary="" estimates="" of="" the="" probability="" of="" achieving="" inadequate="" fits="" for="" half-mask,="" negative-pressure="" respirators="" under="" deficient="" and="" good="" respiratory="" protection="" programs="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" percent="" probability="" that="" wearer="" will="" achieve="" -------------------------------------="" workplace="" fit="" quality="" of="" respirator="" program="" factor="" of="" less="" average="" workplace="" than="" 10="" at="" least="" fit="" factor="" of="" 5="" percent="" of="" time="" less="" than="" 10="" that="" respirator="" is="" worn="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" deficient.........................="" 36-100="" 99-100="" good..............................=""><0.01-3><0.01-32 ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" osha's="" analysis="" (tables="" v-1="" and="" v-2)="" also="" demonstrates="" that="" workers="" using="" respiratory="" protection="" under="" a="" deficient="" program="" will="" be="" exposed="" more="" frequently="" to="" higher="" concentrations="" of="" airborne="" contaminants,="" which="" may="" increase="" the="" risk="" that="" the="" worker="" will="" experience="" acute="" health="" effects.="" the="" nicas="" and="" spear="" model="" applied="" to="" the="" studies="" that="" reflect="" inadequate="" respirator="" programs="" predicts="" nearly="" a="" 100="" percent="" chance="" that="" a="" protection="" factor="" of="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 10="" would="" be="" experienced="" at="" least="" 5="" percent="" of="" the="" time.="" under="" conditions="" of="" a="" good="" respirator="" program,="" use="" of="" the="" model="" suggests="" no="" more="" than="" a="" 32="" percent="" chance="" that="" wpfs="" of="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 10="" will="" occur="" more="" than="" 5="" percent="" of="" the="" time.="" osha="" finds="" that,="" without="" an="" adequate="" respiratory="" protection="" program="" in="" place,="" a="" substantial="" fraction="" of="" respirator="" users="" are="" at="" risk="" of="" being="" overexposed="" to="" hazardous="" air="" contaminants="" due="" to="" poor="" respirator="" performance.="" the="" studies="" conducted="" under="" conditions="" of="" a="" poor="" respirator="" program,="" when="" analyzed="" using="" the="" nicas="" and="" spear="" model,="" suggest="" a="" greater="" than="" 50="" percent="" probability="" that="" the="" wearer="" of="" a="" half-mask,="" negative-pressure="" respirator="" will="" regularly="" fail="" to="" attain="" the="" expected="" minimum="" level="" of="" protection,="" and="" that="" the="" chance="" of="" receiving="" essentially="" no="" protection="" is="" substantial.="" osha="" considers="" these="" risks="" of="" overexposure="" to="" be="" significant.="" the="" studies="" reviewed="" by="" nelson="" and="" the="" galvin="" study="" indicate="" that="" these="" risks="" are="" considerably="" lower="" in="" situations="" where="" respirators="" are="" used="" in="" conjunction="" with="" the="" implementation="" of="" strong="" respiratory="" protection="" program="" elements="" such="" as="" appropriate="" fit="" testing,="" adequate="" employee="" training,="" use="" of="" clean="" respirators="" in="" good="" working="" order,="" and="" regular="" monitoring="" of="" employees="" to="" ensure="" proper="" respirator="" use.="" thus,="" osha="" finds="" that="" implementation="" of="" a="" comprehensive="" respiratory="" protection="" program,="" such="" as="" the="" one="" prescribed="" by="" the="" final="" rule,="" will="" substantially="" reduce="" the="" risk="" of="" overexposure="" that="" is="" due="" to="" respirator="" failure.="" because="" such="" overexposures="" can="" place="" workers="" at="" a="" significant="" risk="" of="" health="" impairment,="" as="" described="" earlier="" in="" this="" section,="" osha="" also="" finds="" that="" promulgation="" of="" the="" final="" rule="" will="" substantially="" reduce="" the="" significant="" health="" risks="" associated="" with="" those="" overexposures.="" vi.="" summary="" of="" the="" final="" economic="" analysis="" in="" the="" final="" economic="" analysis,="" osha="" addresses="" the="" significant="" issues="" related="" to="" technological="" and="" economic="" feasibility="" and="" small="" business="" impacts="" raised="" in="" the="" rulemaking="" process.="" this="" analysis="" also="" explains="" in="" detail="" the="" agency's="" findings="" and="" conclusions="" concerning="" pre-standard="" (baseline)="" conditions,="" such="" as="" respirator="" program="" practices,="" in="" establishments="" in="" the="" regulated="" community,="" and="" discusses="" how="" and="" why="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" standard="" are="" expected="" to="" reduce="" employee="" exposures.="" the="" preamble="" to="" the="" revised="" rule="" and="" the="" final="" economic="" analysis="" are="" integrally="" related="" and="" together="" present="" the="" fullest="" statement="" of="" osha's="" reasoning="" concerning="" this="" standard.="" the="" final="" economic="" analysis="" has="" been="" placed="" in="" the="" rulemaking="" docket.="" this="" analysis="" of="" osha's="" revised="" respiratory="" protection="" standard="" (29="" cfr="" 1910.134)="" has="" been="" conducted="" in="" accordance="" with="" executive="" orders="" (eos)="" 12866="" and="" 12875,="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" (as="" amended="" in="" 1996),="" the="" small="" business="" regulatory="" enforcement="" fairness="" act="" (sbrefa),="" the="" unfunded="" mandates="" reform="" act="" (umra)="" and="" the="" occupational="" safety="" and="" health="" act.="" the="" standard="" is="" a="" ``significant''="" rule="" as="" defined="" by="" eo="" 12866,="" a="" ``major''="" rule="" as="" defined="" by="" sec.="" 804="" of="" sbrefa,="" and="" a="" ``significant''="" rule="" as="" defined="" by="" umra.="" the="" purposes="" of="" this="" final="" economic="" analysis="" are="" to:=""> Describe the need for a revised standard governing the use 
    of respirators;
         Identify the establishments, industries and employees 
    potentially affected by the standard;
         Evaluate the costs, benefits, economic impacts and small 
    business impacts of the standard on affected firms;
         Assess the technological and economic feasibility of the 
    standard for affected establishments, industries, and small businesses; 
    and
         Identify the availability of effective non-regulatory and 
    alternative regulatory approaches.
        OSHA's final Respiratory Protection standard covers the use of 
    respiratory protection in general industry, construction and shipyard 
    employment, as well as marine terminals and longshoring. In all, about 
    5 million
    
    [[Page 1172]]
    
    employees are estimated to use respirators. 1 Workers use 
    respirators to protect themselves from a wide variety of occupational 
    exposures. Respirators are used, at least to some extent, in virtually 
    every industry, although the extent of respirator use varies by 
    industry. Manufacturing and construction have relatively heavy 
    respirator use; in contrast, use in many service industries is very 
    limited.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Approximately 5% of these respirator-using employees would 
    be subject to OSHA's substance-specific health standards rather than 
    to this standard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Chapter II of the economic analysis describes the pattern of 
    respirator use within each affected industry. To develop this profile, 
    the Agency analyzed the results of several OSHA-sponsored nationwide 
    surveys. The results of OSHA's analysis appear in Table VI-1. The 
    Agency estimates that approximately five percent of workers wear 
    respirators at some time, and that approximately 1.3 million 
    establishments, or about 20 percent of all establishments, have 
    employees who use respirators. Approximately 900,000 of these 
    establishments are very small, i.e., have fewer than 20 employees. For 
    a discussion of the number of firms identified by the Small Business 
    Administration (SBA) as small, see Chapter V.
    
                         Table VI-1.--Number of Respirator Users and Their Employers by Industry                    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Number of  
                                                                         Number of     Total number   establishments
                    SIC and industry                       Total        respirator          of             with     
                                                        employment        wearers     establishments    respirator  
                                                                                                          wearers   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07  Agricultural services.......................         555,686          48,262          95,956          25,464
    08  Forestry....................................          17,716           2,764           2,251             950
    13  Oil and gas extraction......................         257,694          46,180          18,502           3,313
    15  General contractors and operative builders..       1,096,289         202,284         180,998          70,835
    16  Heavy construction, except building.........         679,578          99,668          34,332          13,403
    17  Special trade contractors...................       2,731,774         491,928         382,528         115,380
    20  Food and kindred products...................       1,498,078          87,589          21,049           8,899
    21  Tobacco products............................          37,189           2,022             119              47
    22  Textile mill products.......................         615,683          66,989           6,245           1,937
    23  Apparel and other textile products..........         972,060          26,431          24,293           5,238
    24  Lumber and wood products....................         675,081          89,970          37,087          15,922
    25  Furniture and fixtures......................         476,488          56,141          11,515           7,675
    26  Paper and allied products...................         627,746          41,313           6,478           2,616
    27  Printing and publishing.....................       1,500,580          19,185          65,416           6,393
    28  Chemicals and allied products...............         851,720         230,405          12,371          10,744
    29  Petroleum and coal products.................         112,984          29,647           2,117           1,398
    30  Rubbber and miscellaneous plastics products.         915,166          53,800          16,048           6,805
    31  Leather and leather products................         104,747           4,406           2,025             324
    32  Stone, clay, and glass products.............         471,639          69,904          16,208           8,798
    33  Primary metal industries....................         655,556         133,012           6,726           4,105
    34  Fabricated metal products...................       1,371,072         124,289          36,416          17,134
    35  Industrial machinery and equipment..........       1,749,735          96,161          54,436          25,545
    36  Electronic and other electronic equipment...       1,424,351          65,930          17,073           6,895
    37  Transportation equipment....................       1,601,554         185,783          11,420           7,649
    38  Instruments and related products............         878,379          35,188          11,419           4,207
    39  Miscellaneous manufacturing industries......         375,501          22,751          17,183           6,793
    40  Railroad transportation.....................          49,200           1,790           1,000             225
    41  Local and interurban passenger transit......         366,657          13,337          18,603           4,194
    42  Trucking and warehousing....................       1,633,543          59,497         115,531          26,049
    44  Water transportation........................         162,478           7,458           8,412             605
    45  Transportation by air.......................         344,822          12,543          11,436             822
    46  Pipelines, except natural gas...............          17,143           2,808             811             521
    47  Transportation services.....................         363,103          22,428          47,858           3,441
    48  Communication...............................       1,299,658          15,176          40,399           3,457
    49  Electric, gas, and sanitary services........         924,373         187,298          21,040          10,148
    50  Wholesale trade--durable goods..............       3,414,441         373,644         317,418         118,387
    51  Wholesale trade--nondurable goods...........       2,504,260         289,619         185,908          70,196
    52  Building materials and garden supplies......         696,228          95,688          69,965          19,822
    53  General merchandise stores..................       2,141,964          21,420          35,646           3,565
    54  Food stores.................................       3,027,828          30,278         181,850          18,185
    55  Automotive dealers and service stations.....       1,992,774         245,662         198,905          80,121
    56  Apparel and accessory stores................       1,194,121          15,788         143,526          14,353
    57  Furniture and homefurnishings stores........         754,024          12,348         112,254          11,225
    58  Eating and drinking places..................       6,727,618          67,276         441,512          44,151
    59  Miscellaneous retail........................       2,422,923          38,734         352,129          35,213
    60  Depository institutions.....................       2,095,049          20,950         102,622          10,262
    61  Nondepository institutions..................         483,133           4,831          41,869           4,187
    62  Security and commodity brokers..............         449,826           4,498          34,325           3,433
    63  Insurance carriers..........................       1,570,356          15,704          43,784           4,378
    64  Insurance agents, brokers, and service......         656,007          13,452         122,292          12,229
    65  Real estate.................................       1,335,048          25,846         234,961          23,496
    67  Holding and other investment offices........         254,172           3,016          27,420           2,742
    70  Hotels and other lodging places.............       1,527,126          15,271          52,874           5,287
    
    [[Page 1173]]
    
                                                                                                                    
    72  Personal services...........................       1,252,777          45,854         200,520          23,848
    73  Business services...........................       5,832,261         255,034         322,668          38,375
    75  Auto repair, services, and parking..........         903,806         110,528         174,635          70,345
    76  Miscellaneous repair services...............         439,495           5,103          72,763           3,810
    78  Motion pictures.............................         500,889           5,009          42,457           4,246
    79  Amusements and recreation services..........       1,201,248          12,012          88,077           8,808
    80  Health services.............................      10,403,118         217,118         471,873         108,337
    81  Legal services..............................         962,374          17,417         158,335          15,834
    82  Educational services........................       1,967,024          19,670          42,867           4,287
    83  Social services.............................       2,028,694          20,287         145,998          14,600
    84  Museums, botanical, zoological gardens......          73,874             739           3,607             361
    86  Membership organizations....................       2,062,501          26,275         238,868          23,887
    87  Engineering and management services.........       2,589,839          27,483         249,846          24,985
    89  Services, n.e.c.............................          84,960           1,607          14,606           1,461
    92  Fire Departments (State Plan States)........         126,500         126,500           9,283           9,283
        Other public sector (State Plan States).....       7,677,000         114,570         203,158          20,316
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................      98,768,281       4,953,568       6,494,122       1,281,945
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sources: DOL, OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis; County Business Patterns, 1993; OSHA's respirator, PEL, PPE,  
      and Construction PEL surveys.                                                                                 
    
        The new standard is programmatic in nature, reflects current 
    practice at many facilities, and does not require the use of new 
    technology. Thus, OSHA finds that the standard is clearly 
    technologically feasible for affected firms of all sizes.
        The benefits that will accrue to respirator users and their 
    employers are substantial and take a number of forms. Chapter IV of the 
    analysis describes these benefits, both in quantitative and qualitative 
    forms. The standard will benefit workers by reducing their exposures to 
    respiratory hazards. Improved respirator selection procedures, better 
    fit test procedures, and improved training, all areas strengthened by 
    the revised standard, will contribute substantially to greater worker 
    protection. Estimates of the benefits of the standard are complicated 
    by uncertainties about the effectiveness of the standard and the number 
    of covered work-related illnesses. The Agency estimates that the 
    standard will avert between 843 and 9,282 work-related injuries and 
    illnesses annually, with a best estimate (expected value) 2 
    of 4,046 averted illnesses and injuries annually. In addition, the 
    standard is estimated to prevent between 351 and 1,626 deaths annually 
    from cancer and many other chronic diseases, including cardiovascular 
    disease, with a best estimate (expected value) of 932 averted deaths 
    from these causes.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ OSHA believes that, for the purposes of this rulemaking, the 
    most reasonable way to summarize the uncertainties in benefits 
    estimates via a single numerical estimate is to use the expected 
    value; that is, the average of all plausible values weighted by 
    their relative probabilities. For simplicity's sake, OSHA will refer 
    to this point estimate as the ``best estimate.''
        \3\ Because this regulation will not directly affect the 
    benefits for the estimated 5% of employees who wear respirators as a 
    result of OSHA's substance-specific health standards (except to the 
    extent that uniformity of provisions improve compliance), and these 
    respirator-wearing employees are included in the benefits estimates 
    presented here, the benefits of the revised respiratory protection 
    standard are somewhat overestimated. In particular, deaths and 
    illnesses caused by exposures to such OSHA-regulated substances as 
    asbestos and lead may in fact account for a disproportionate share 
    (more than 5%) of the occupational illnesses and deaths attributed 
    by this analysis to the respirator standard. This means that OSHA's 
    benefits estimates are likely to be overstated by more than 5%. 
    Nevertheless, OSHA believes that the substantial majority of the 
    benefits resulting from appropriate respirator use can be properly 
    attributed to the respirator standard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The annual costs employers in the affected establishments are 
    estimated to incur to comply with the revised respirator standard total 
    $111 million.4 These costs, which are presented in detail in 
    Chapter III of the full economic analysis, are annualized over a 10-
    year horizon at a discount rate of 7 percent; Table VI-2 shows 
    annualized costs by provision of the standard. The most costly 
    provisions are those requiring annual fit testing of respirators and 
    annual refresher training. These two provisions together account for 
    approximately 90 percent of the standard's compliance costs. As a rule, 
    costs are largely determined by the extensiveness of respirator use in 
    affected establishments. This analysis did not attempt to factor in the 
    offsetting value of cost savings from regulatory changes, such as 
    dropping the existing standard's prohibition against contact lens use, 
    providing for greater uniformity for substance-specific health standard 
    respirator provisions, or allowing employers to use licensed health 
    care providers in addition to physicians to perform medical 
    evaluations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ Because this regulation does not directly affect the costs 
    for the estimated 5% of employees who wear respirators as a result 
    of OSHA's substance-specific health standards, and these respirator 
    users are included in the cost estimates, the costs are somewhat 
    overestimated. Because costs are approximately proportional to the 
    number of employees affected, the magnitude of this overestimate is 
    likely to be about 5%.
    
    [[Page 1174]]
    
    
    
                           Table VI-2.--Annual Cost of Respirator Standard Revisions for Respirator-Using Establishments, by Provision                      
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Labeling                                
                                                               Revision                             Certification      for                                  
                        SIC and industry                        written    Annual fit     Annual    for emergency    sorbent   Recordkeeping       Total    
                                                                 plans      testing      training     respirator       bed                                  
                                                                                                     inspections     changes                                
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07  Agricultural services...............................     $31,755     $441,836     $298,047            $0           $0       $35,858         $807,497
    08  Forestry............................................       1,228       25,475       13,849             0            0         2,054           42,606
    13  Oil and gas extraction..............................       8,769      734,048      315,180        41,551            0        34,312        1,133,860
    15  General contractors and operative builders..........     141,534    2,992,402    1,909,631             0          479       150,297        5,194,342
    16  Heavy construction, except building.................      32,027    1,534,132      736,976             0        2,109        74,053        2,379,297
    17  Special trade contractors...........................     256,681    7,820,459    4,340,977             0        1,344       365,502       12,784,963
    20  Food and kindred products...........................      21,109    1,006,778      428,004        86,371            0        65,078        1,607,339
    21  Tobacco products....................................         210       37,254       16,252             0            0         1,502           55,218
    22  Textile mill products...............................       4,349      728,823      286,222         9,703            0        49,773        1,078,870
    23  Apparel and other textile products..................       7,864      226,658      101,380             0            0        19,638          355,540
    24  Lumber and wood products............................      27,997      972,293      489,510        16,750            0        66,848        1,573,397
    25  Furniture and fixtures..............................      13,119      623,774      289,781        53,627            0        41,712        1,022,013
    26  Paper and allied products...........................       8,373      877,037      280,715        66,279          105        30,696        1,263,205
    27  Printing and publishing.............................      15,217      221,275      139,295             0            0        14,255          390,041
    28  Chemicals and allied products.......................      33,159    4,194,240    1,656,678       741,170          763       171,191        6,797,201
    29  Petroleum and coal products.........................       4,699      646,431      277,684       108,927           16        22,028        1,059,785
    30  Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..........      14,100      676,734      284,187         2,068            0        39,974        1,017,063
    31  Leather and leather products........................         456       37,208       15,800         1,502            0         3,274           58,239
    32  Stone, clay, and glass products.....................      20,743    1,018,192      464,833        28,365           11        51,939        1,584,083
    33  Primary metal industries............................      14,028    2,263,416      951,396        44,664           28        98,828        3,372,360
    34  Fabricated metal products...........................      41,510    1,663,770      765,562       178,892            0        92,346        2,742,081
    35  Industrial machinery and equipment..................      64,626    1,498,968      786,251             0          868        71,447        2,422,161
    36  Electronic and other electronic equipment...........      17,103      917,414      388,929        24,483          657        48,986        1,397,572
    37  Transportation equipment............................      23,876    3,413,486    1,568,463       100,401        8,775       138,037        5,253,038
    38  Instruments and related products....................      10,299      516,278      230,813         1,626          333        26,145          785,493
    39  Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..............      12,007      250,490      136,104             0          176        16,904          415,682
    40  Railroad transportation.............................         937       37,818       16,134             0            0         1,330           56,219
    41  Local and interurban passenger transit..............       9,002      167,510       86,710             0            0         9,910          273,131
    42  Trucking and warehousing............................      64,666      791,301      511,259           570            0        44,206        1,412,003
    44  Water transportation................................       1,588      136,318       65,312             0            0         5,541          208,760
    45  Transportation by air...............................       2,015      199,061       85,196             0            0         9,320          295,592
    46  Pipelines, except natural gas.......................       1,637       87,121       31,182             0           15         2,086          122,041
    47  Transportation services.............................       6,150      256,532      135,948             0            0        16,664          415,294
    48  Communication.......................................       9,141      282,097      141,518             0            0        11,276          444,032
    49  Electric, gas, and sanitary services................      32,542    3,736,483    1,662,243       359,209        4,581       139,162        5,934,220
    50  Wholesale trade--durable goods......................     241,074    5,545,911    2,737,719         6,687            0       277,618        8,809,008
    51  Wholesale trade--nondurable goods...................     134,760    3,979,336    1,728,752       126,854            0       215,187        6,184,888
    52  Building materials and garden supplies..............      24,193      922,814      418,187             0            0        71,096        1,436,291
    53  General merchandise stores..........................       5,369      135,056       56,819             0            0        15,915          213,160
    54  Food stores.........................................      27,336      208,820      154,036             0            0        22,497          412,689
    55  Automotive dealers and service stations.............     112,276    1,920,333    1,281,723             0            0       182,527        3,496,858
    56  Apparel and accessory stores........................      19,022       91,801       92,713             0            0        11,730          215,266
    57  Furniture and homefurnishings stores................      20,225      111,532      106,953             0            0         9,175          247,884
    58  Eating and drinking places..........................      47,123      257,557      214,860             0            0        49,986          569,526
    59  Miscellaneous retail................................      53,098      275,565      269,808             0            0        28,780          627,250
    60  Depository institutions.............................      20,271      207,313      135,320             0            0        15,566          378,470
    61  Nondepository institutions..........................      10,608       51,626       53,951             0            0         3,590          119,776
    62  Security and commodity brokers......................      10,508       64,998       58,550             0            0         3,342          137,397
    63  Insurance carriers..................................      13,360      226,063      123,889             0            0        11,668          374,979
    64  Insurance agents, brokers, and service..............      36,394      200,209      199,277             0            0         9,995          445,875
    65  Real estate.........................................      70,079      348,877      368,891             0            0        19,203          807,051
    67  Holding and other investment offices................       8,272       43,583       43,970             0            0         2,241           98,066
    70  Hotels and other lodging places.....................       8,119      101,853       57,381             0            0        11,347          178,699
    72  Personal services...................................      26,015      552,641      270,488             0            0        34,069          883,214
    73  Business services...................................      58,974    3,325,952    1,172,726             0            0       189,490        4,747,142
    75  Auto repair, services, and parking..................      93,387      970,308      881,030             0            0        82,122        2,026,846
    76  Miscellaneous repair services.......................       5,735       61,214       54,759             0            0         3,791          125,499
    78  Motion pictures.....................................      11,425       62,923       61,091             0            0         3,722          139,160
    79  Amusement and recreation services...................      14,128       93,683       76,484             0            0         8,925          193,220
    80  Health services.....................................     183,206    2,510,780    1,948,071             0            0       161,319        4,803,376
    81  Legal services......................................      47,661      253,320      256,703             0            0        12,941          570,625
    82  Educational services................................      10,933      259,816      125,365             0            0        14,615          410,729
    83  Social services.....................................      23,601      166,510      130,949             0            0        15,073          336,133
    84  Museums, botanical, zoological gardens..............         891        8,995        6,036             0            0           549           16,471
    86  Membership organizations............................      57,115      316,483      304,939             0            0        19,523          698,060
    87  Engineering and management services.................      74,480      380,740      390,356             0            0        20,420          865,997
    89  Services, n.e.c.....................................       4,082       28,754       22,201             0            0         1,194           56,231
    
    [[Page 1175]]
    
                                                                                                                                                            
    92  Fire Departments....................................      24,723    2,265,377    1,005,792             0            0        93,990        3,389,882
        Other public sector.................................      48,361       49,739    1,147,899             0            0        85,126        1,331,125
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................   2,501,319   67,033,593   35,865,707     1,999,699       20,259     3,680,501      111,101,079
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Department of Labor, Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                           
    
        Chapter V of the economic analysis analyzes the impact of these 
    compliance costs on establishments in affected industries. The standard 
    is clearly economically feasible: the cost in the average affected 
    establishment is 0.002 percent of sales and 0.03 percent of profits; in 
    the most heavily impacted industry--business services, SIC 73--
    annualized compliance costs amount to only 0.1 percent of estimated 
    sales and 1.22 percent of profits. In the next most heavily impacted 
    industry--Special Trade Contractors, SIC 17--costs amount only to 0.02 
    percent of sales and 0.46 percent of profits. These results are shown 
    in Table VI-3.
    
         TABLE VI-3.--Annual Cost of Final Respiratory Protection Standard as a Percent of Sales and Profits of     
                                             Respirator-using Establishments                                        
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average                                    Compliance   Compliance
                                                 compliance   Average sales/    Average      cost as a    cost as a 
                 SIC and industry                  cost/      establishment     profit/      percent of   percent of
                                               establishment                 establishment     sales       profits  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07  Agricultural services................           $32        $269,290         17,425         0.01         0.18
    08  Forestry.............................            45         897,908         69,720         0.00         0.06
    13  Oil and gas extraction...............           364      11,234,630      1,021,330         0.00         0.04
    15  General contractors and operative                                                                           
     builders................................            73       1,131,765         52,585         0.01         0.14
    16  Heavy construction, except building..           178       2,709,660        146,028         0.01         0.12
    17  Special trade contractors............           111         476,348         24,098         0.02         0.46
    20  Food and kindred products............           192      20,620,629        999,788         0.00         0.02
    21  Tobacco products.....................         1,169     869,935,367    204,319,114         0.00         0.00
    22  Textile mill products................           578       7,611,245        438,223         0.01         0.13
    23  Apparel and other textile products...            68       3,228,588        194,177         0.00         0.03
    24  Lumber and wood products.............            99       2,539,729        146,588         0.00         0.07
    25  Furniture and fixtures...............           140       3,571,798        216,729         0.00         0.06
    26  Paper and allied products............           551      22,478,383      1,260,152         0.00         0.04
    27  Printing and publishing..............            61       2,096,632        152,975         0.00         0.04
    28  Chemicals and allied products........           909      29,454,052      2,231,368         0.00         0.04
    29  Petroleum and coal products..........         1,053     143,210,471      6,292,581         0.00         0.02
    30  Rubber and miscellaneous plastics                                                                           
     products................................           150       8,202,235        584,099         0.00         0.03
    31  Leather and leather products.........           187       7,267,252        429,429         0.00         0.04
    32  Stone, clay, and glass products......           183       4,184,931        228,219         0.00         0.08
    33  Primary metal industries.............           864      18,123,180      1,015,996         0.00         0.08
    34  Fabricated metal products............           170       4,348,383        266,070         0.00         0.06
    35  Industrial machinery and equipment...            95       6,924,099        482,589         0.00         0.02
    36  Electronic and other electronic                                                                             
     equipment...............................           207      11,591,397        684,946         0.00         0.03
    37  Transportation equipment.............           724      44,334,058      1,948,012         0.00         0.04
    38  Instruments and related products.....           187      10,720,444        763,426         0.00         0.02
    39  Miscellaneous manufacturing                                                                                 
     industries..............................            61       1,568,937        111,245         0.00         0.06
    40  Railroad transportation..............           249              NA             NA           NA           NA
    41  Local and interurban passenger                                                                              
     transit.................................            65       1,014,732         43,699         0.01         0.15
    42  Trucking and warehousing.............            54       1,286,872         58,437         0.00         0.09
    44  Water transportation.................           345              NA             NA           NA           NA
    45  Transportation by air................           359       3,106,975        197,717         0.01         0.18
    46  Pipelines, except natural gas........           234      13,802,633        585,566         0.00         0.04
    47  Transportation services..............           121      23,585,180      8,076,137         0.00         0.00
    48  Communication........................           128       1,894,095         82,755         0.01         0.16
    49  Electric, gas, and sanitary services.           677      15,622,527      2,485,402         0.00         0.03
    50  Wholesale trade--durable goods.......            74      14,371,043      1,350,007         0.00         0.01
    51  Wholesale trade--nondurable goods....            89       2,282,652        102,134         0.00         0.09
    52  Building materials and garden                                                                               
     supplies................................            72       4,447,849        172,734         0.00         0.04
    53  General merchandise stores...........            60       1,075,912         36,708         0.01         0.16
    54  Food stores..........................            23       8,648,964        471,762         0.00         0.00
    55  Automotive dealers and service                                                                              
     stations................................            44       2,179,673         61,031         0.00         0.07
    56  Apparel and accessory stores.........            15       2,010,075         47,296         0.00         0.03
    57  Furniture and homefurnishings stores.            22         737,603         47,246         0.00         0.05
    58  Eating and drinking places...........            13         672,234         34,798         0.00         0.04
    
    [[Page 1176]]
    
                                                                                                                    
    59  Miscellaneous retail.................            18         734,358         34,558         0.00         0.05
    60  Depository institutions..............            37         547,141         30,254         0.01         0.12
    61  Nondepository institutions...........            29       8,651,403             NA         0.00           NA
    62  Security and commodity brokers.......            40       9,094,686      1,419,322         0.00         0.00
    63  Insurance carriers...................            86       6,131,429        631,723         0.00         0.01
    64  Insurance agents, brokers, and                                                                              
     service.................................            36      65,412,387             NA         0.00           NA
    65  Real estate..........................            34         674,913             NA         0.01           NA
    67  Holding and other investment offices.            36         500,929         46,869         0.01         0.08
    70  Hotels and other lodging places......            34       5,183,873        573,368         0.00         0.01
    72  Personal services....................            37       1,243,240         97,027         0.00         0.04
    73  Business services....................           124         128,952         10,164         0.10         1.22
    75  Auto repair, services, and parking...            29         975,693         74,455         0.00         0.04
    76  Miscellaneous repair services........            33         358,494         22,775         0.01         0.14
    78  Motion pictures......................            33         181,478         11,743         0.02         0.28
    79  Amusement and recreation services....            22       1,597,336        142,792         0.00         0.02
    80  Health services......................            44         631,398         31,198         0.01         0.14
    81  Legal services.......................            36       1,167,682         71,435         0.00         0.05
    82  Educational services.................            96         421,539         67,758         0.02         0.14
    83  Social services......................            23       2,613,764        174,383         0.00         0.01
    84  Museums, botanical, zoological                                                                              
     gardens.................................            46         351,713         16,137         0.01         0.28
    86  Membership organizations.............            29         560,217         40,331         0.01         0.07
    87  Engineering and management services..            35         320,236         15,070         0.01         0.23
    89  Services, n.e.c......................            38       1,030,962         81,876         0.00         0.05
    92  Fire Departments.....................           365              NA             NA           NA           NA
        other public sector  ................            66              NA             NA           NA           NA
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.      
    
        In the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis developed in support 
    of OSHA's 1994 Respiratory Protection proposal [Ex. 57], the Agency 
    examined the impact of the proposal on different sizes of 
    establishments. Based on that analysis, the Agency certified that the 
    proposed standard would not have a significant economic impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities. Upon review of comments and other 
    data submitted to the record of this rulemaking, the Agency has 
    analyzed the final rule's impact on small entities, as defined by the 
    Small Business Administration (SBA) and in accordance with the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, in order to ensure that even 
    the smallest entities are not significantly impacted, the Agency 
    performed an analysis of impacts on the smallest establishments, i.e., 
    those with fewer than 20 employees.
        The impacts of the standard on sales and profits did not exceed 1 
    percent for small firms in any covered industry, whether the analysis 
    used the SBA's definitions or the fewer-than-20-employee size class 
    definition. Because the incremental costs of the final rule are 
    primarily related to the number of respirator users per establishment 
    and because small entities do not have a higher percentage of 
    respirator users than large establishments, the standard does not have 
    a differential impact on small entities. If the costs of compliance 
    were influenced by economies of scale, such effects would have been 
    demonstrated by OSHA's analysis of the smallest firms, i.e., those with 
    fewer than 20 employees. However, no such effects were seen, even among 
    firms in this smallest size-class. Therefore, the Agency has no reason 
    to believe that establishments or firms in intermediate size groupings, 
    i.e., those in the range between 20 employees and the employment size 
    cutoff for the applicable SBA definition, would experience larger 
    impacts. Finding this, the Agency certifies that the final Respiratory 
    Protection standard will not have a significant adverse economic impact 
    on a substantial number of small entities. The results of OSHA's 
    analysis of small business impacts on firms 5 within the 
    SBA's size classifications are shown in Table VI-4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ The Agency also examined the impact of the costs of 
    compliance on governmental entities serving communities with fewer 
    than 50,000 people, and also found small impacts.
    
                   Table VI-4.--Annual Cost of the Respiratory Protection Standard as a Percent of Sales for Respirator-Using Small Firms \1\               
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Number     Average                 Compliance                Compliance
                                                                                       of     compliance     Average     cost as a     Average     cost as a
                SIC and industry                  Small business definition \1\     affected   cost per     sales per   percent of   profit per   percent of
                                                                                      firms      firm         firm         sales        firm        profits 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07  Agricultural services...............  $5 million \2\......................    23,313        $36       $223,567       0.02        $14,466       0.25 
    08  Forestry............................  $5 million..........................       860         41        470,247       0.01         36,513       0.11 
    13  Oil and gas extraction..............  500 employees.......................     2,565        222      2,017,392       0.00        226,361       0.10 
    
    [[Page 1177]]
    
                                                                                                                                                            
    15  General contractors and operative     $17 million.........................    70,232         75        954,486       0.01         43,794       0.17 
     builders.                                                                                                                                              
    16  Heavy construction, except building.  $17 million.........................    12,628        135      1,611,092       0.00         72,025       0.19 
    17  Special trade contractors...........  $7 million..........................   114,097        117        490,343       0.02         24,806       0.47 
    20  Food and kindred products...........  500 employees.......................     5,583        143      7,070,622       0.00        288,666       0.05 
    21  Tobacco products....................  500 employees.......................        27        434    419,423,746       0.00     98,271,892       0.00 
    22  Textile mill products...............  500 employees.......................     1,306        243      4,485,467       0.00        236,814       0.10 
    23  Apparel and other textile products..  500 employees.......................     4,227         49      1,717,339       0.00         84,857       0.06 
    24  Lumber and wood products............  500 employees.......................    13,854         96      1,520,435       0.00         80,494       0.12 
    25  Furniture and fixtures..............  500 employees.......................     5,860        135      2,063,881       0.00        101,980       0.13 
    26  Paper and allied products...........  500 employees.......................     1,082        364      7,356,895       0.00        389,269       0.09 
    27  Printing and publishing.............  500 employees.......................     4,612         63      1,349,101       0.00         82,533       0.08 
    28  Chemicals and allied products.......  500 employees.......................     3,794        388      7,758,606       0.00        573,110       0.07 
    29  Petroleum and coal products.........  500 employees.......................       373        505     11,906,004       0.00        523,143       0.10 
    30  Rubber and miscellaneous plastics     500 employees.......................     3,926        192      4,132,970       0.00        252,124       0.08 
     products.                                                                                                                                              
    31  Leather and leather products........  500 employees.......................       224        246      2,312,572       0.00        106,106       0.23 
    32  Stone, clay, and glass products.....  500 employees.......................     5,529        209      2,337,003       0.00        101,728       0.21 
    33  Primary metal industries............  500 employees.......................     2,260        530      6,447,895       0.00        359,703       0.15 
    34  Fabricated metal products...........  500 employees.......................    12,435        167      2,782,599       0.00        138,568       0.12 
    35  Industrial machinery and equipment..  500 employees.......................    18,625        152      2,001,196       0.00        118,786       0.13 
    36  Electronic and other electronic       500 employees.......................     4,356        237      3,836,835       0.00        184,646       0.13 
     equipment.                                                                                                                                             
    37  Transportation equipment............  500 employees.......................     5,999        281      3,362,262       0.00        120,155       0.23 
    38  Instruments and related products....  500 employees.......................     3,266        163      3,239,263       0.00        211,242       0.08 
    39  Miscellaneous manufacturing           500 employees.......................     5,149        102      1,539,311       0.00         95,981       0.11 
     industries.                                                                                                                                            
    40  Railroad transportation.............  1500 employees......................        NA         NA             NA         NA             NA         NA 
    41  Local and interurban passenger        $5 million..........................     2,582        106        417,934       0.01         17,701       0.60 
     transit.                                                                                                                                               
    42  Trucking and warehousing............  $18.5 million.......................    15,626         79        670,885       0.01         29,993       0.26 
    44  Water transportation................  500 employees.......................       187        243      1,781,166       0.01         90,917       0.27 
    45  Transportation by air...............  1500 employees......................       157        449      2,031,762       0.00         70,300       0.64 
    46  Pipelines, except natural gas.......  1500 employees......................        11        888     15,403,556       0.00      5,274,551       0.02 
    47  Transportation services.............  $5 million..........................       879         55        377,507       0.02         15,544       0.35 
    48  Communication.......................  1500 employees......................     1,279        172      2,132,980       0.01        335,309       0.05 
    49  Electric, gas, and sanitary services  $5 million..........................     3,809         65        883,319       0.01         72,099       0.09 
    50  Wholesale trade--durable goods......  100 employees.......................    52,553         43      1,828,263       0.00         73,131       0.06 
    51  Wholesale trade--nondurable goods...  100 employees.......................    30,785         44      2,682,104       0.00         85,196       0.05 
    52  Building materials and garden         $5 million..........................    13,619         19        712,058       0.01         24,294       0.08 
     supplies.                                                                                                                                              
    53  General merchandise stores..........  $5 million..........................       482         14        398,828       0.01         16,892       0.08 
    54  Food stores.........................  $5 million..........................     6,419        140        763,042       0.00         20,647       0.68 
    55  Automotive dealers and service        $5 million..........................    38,985         26        774,574       0.01         18,225       0.14 
     stations.                                                                                                                                              
    56  Apparel and accessory stores........  $5 million..........................       289         41      1,346,240       0.00         85,526       0.05 
    57  Furniture and homefurnishings stores  $5 milion...........................       438         71      1,685,231       0.00         87,235       0.08 
    58  Eating and drinking places..........  $5 million..........................    16,852         24        374,691       0.00         17,633       0.14 
    59  Miscellaneous retail................  $5 million..........................    12,619         18        406,958       0.01         22,502       0.08 
    60  Depository institutions.............  $5 million..........................       788        123      1,060,910       0.00             NA         NA 
    61  Nondepository institutions..........  $5 million..........................       840         25        728,626       0.00        106,401       0.02 
    62  Security and commodity brokers......  $5 million..........................       921         33        631,139       0.01         55,488       0.06 
    63  Insurance carriers..................  $5 million..........................       365         92        740,731       0.01             NA         NA 
    64  Insurance agents, brokers, and        $5 million..........................     5,583         54        335,823       0.01             NA         NA 
     service.                                                                                                                                               
    65  Real estate.........................  $5 million..........................    10,714         56        533,940       0.01         48,369       0.12 
    67  Holding and other investment offices  $5 million..........................     1,036         36        889,373       0.00         95,534       0.04 
    70  Hotels and other lodging places.....  $5 million..........................     2,163         41        472,311       0.00         32,784       0.13 
    72  Personal services...................  $5 million..........................     9,786         80        190,546       0.02         15,019       0.53 
    73  Business services...................  $5 million..........................    14,343        160        517,986       0.01         37,783       0.42 
    75  Auto repair, services, and parking..  $5 million..........................    43,985         47        342,341       0.01         21,749       0.22 
    76  Miscellaneous repair services.......  $5 million..........................     2,631         34        340,605       0.01         22,039       0.15 
    78  Motion pictures.....................  $5 million..........................     1,494         29        350,142       0.01         24,304       0.12 
    79  Amusement and recreation services...  $5 million..........................     4,052         46        469,977       0.00         23,222       0.20 
    80  Health services.....................  $5 million..........................    39,536         82        521,074       0.01         31,877       0.26 
    81  Legal services......................  $5 million..........................     7,288         41        314,988       0.01         48,175       0.09 
    82  Educational services................  $5 million..........................     1,739         99        649,462       0.01         35,911       0.28 
    83  Social services.....................  $5 million..........................     5,194         43        354,060       0.01         16,245       0.26 
    84  Museums, botanical, zoological        $5 million..........................       158         80        492,341       0.01         35,333       0.23 
     gardens.                                                                                                                                               
    86  Membership organizations............  $5 million..........................    11,589         55        296,761       0.01         13,965       0.39 
    87  Engineering and management services.  $5 million..........................    11,383         62        457,931       0.01         34,480       0.18 
    89  Services, n.e.c.....................  $5 million..........................       679         58        423,854       0.01         36,402       0.16 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ As defined by the Small Business Administration, 61 FR 3289.                                                                                        
    \2\ Annual receipts.                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                            
    
    [[Page 1178]]
    
                                                                                                                                                            
    Source: Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                              
    
    Unfunded Mandates Analysis
    
        The final Respiratory Protection standard has been reviewed by OSHA 
    in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 
    USC 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875. As discussed in Chapter V, 
    OSHA estimates that compliance with the revised Respiratory Protection 
    standard will require expenditures of more than $100 million each year 
    by employers in the private sector. Therefore, the Respiratory 
    Protection final rule establishes a Federal private sector mandate and 
    is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Section 202 of 
    UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532). OSHA has included this statement to address the 
    anticipated effects of the final rule pursuant to Section 202.
        OSHA standards do not apply to state and local governments except 
    in states that have voluntarily elected to adopt an OSHA State plan and 
    have then adopted the specific standard in question or one that has 
    been deemed by OSHA to be equally effective. Consequently, the 
    Respiratory Protection standard does not impose a ``federal 
    intergovernmental mandate'' as defined by Section 421(5) of UMRA (2 USC 
    658 (5)). The revised Respiratory Protection standard therefore does 
    not impose an unfunded mandate on state and local governments.
        Further, OSHA has found that the costs incurred by state and local 
    governments in those states that choose to adopt the standard will be 
    small compared to corresponding state and local government 
    expenditures. If State-plan states adopt the standard, the greatest 
    impact in some states would be on public fire departments. Bureau of 
    the Census data on the amount of revenue dedicated to fire protection 
    by local governments indicate that $14.4 billion was spent on this 
    service in 1992, the latest year for which such data are available 
    [Government Finances]. NFPA data indicate that 75.3 percent of the U.S. 
    population is served by fire departments that employ at least some 
    career firemen [NFPA, p. 15]. This means that approximately 37.7 
    percent of the population (approximately half of all state and local 
    government employees work in State-plan states) is served by at least 
    partly career fire departments in State-plan states. Assuming the 
    expenditures for fire protection are spread fairly evenly across the 
    population, approximately $5.3 billion is spent on fire protection 
    annually by affected fire departments. As indicated in the cost 
    analysis (see Table VI-2), the total annual cost of the standard for 
    public fire departments in State-plan states is approximately $3.5 
    million, which means that the costs of compliance constitute less than 
    0.1 percent of the revenue devoted by these states to fire protection. 
    Costs of this magnitude are clearly an insignificant portion of the 
    total fire protection budget.
        The remainder of this section summarizes OSHA's findings, as 
    required by Section 202 of UMRA (2 USC 1532):
        This standard is issued under Section 6(b) of the OSH Act.
        This standard has annualized costs estimated at $111 million, 
    primarily in the private sector, and is estimated to save hundreds of 
    lives per year from cancer and cardiovascular disease. Compliance will 
    also prevent thousands of illnesses annually that would have been 
    caused by acute and chronic overexposures. The standard will impose no 
    more than minimal costs on state, local or tribal governments, 
    substantially less than $100 million. OSHA pays 50 percent of State 
    plan costs, although the Agency does not provide funding for state, 
    local or tribal governments to comply with its rules as employers.
        OSHA does not anticipate any disproportionate budgetary effects 
    upon any particular region of the nation or particular state, local, or 
    tribal governments, or urban or rural or other types of communities. 
    The principal costs of this standard are to control worker exposures 
    associated with programmatic provisions such as annual fit testing and 
    training, activities that are engaged in by thousands of establishments 
    in hundreds of SIC codes that are widely distributed throughout the 
    country. Chapters III and V have provided detailed analyses of the 
    costs and impacts of the standard on particular segments of the private 
    sector. OSHA has analyzed the economic impacts of the standard on the 
    industries affected and found that compliance costs are no more than 
    0.1 percent of sales for establishments in any industry, and 
    consequently that no plant closures or job losses are anticipated in 
    the affected industries. As a result, impacts on the national economy 
    would be too small to be measurable by economic models.
        Pursuant to Section 205 of the UMRA (2 USC 1535), after having 
    considered a variety of alternatives outlined in the Preamble and in 
    the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Agency has concluded that the 
    final rule is the most cost-effective alternative for implementation of 
    OSHA's statutory objective of reducing significant risk to the extent 
    feasible.
    
    Environmental Impact Analysis
    
        The final Respiratory Protection standard has been reviewed in 
    accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
    Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the 
    Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA 
    procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has 
    concluded that the rule will have no significant environmental impact.
    
    References
    
        Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, Series GF, No. 5, 
    annual, as reported in the Statistical Abstract of the United 
    States, 1995. GPO, 1995.
    
    VII. Summary and Explanation
    
        This section of the preamble summarizes and explains the provisions 
    of the final respiratory protection standard. It describes changes made 
    to the rule since the proposal was issued, discusses the comments 
    received by the Agency on the proposal, and presents OSHA's rationale 
    for making these changes. The record evidence supporting each of the 
    requirements of the final rule is also described in detail in this 
    section.
        This final rule clarifies, updates, and strengthens OSHA's previous 
    respiratory protection standard, which was adopted by the Agency in 
    1971 and has remained essentially unchanged since that time. This 
    rulemaking is thus the first major revision to OSHA's respiratory 
    protection standard in more than 25 years. As discussed in connection 
    with several of the individual paragraphs of the revised standard, not 
    all of the provisions of the standard have been revised; in some cases, 
    OSHA found, and the record supported, leaving individual provisions 
    unchanged.
        The final respiratory protection standard applies to respirator use 
    in general industry, construction, shipyards, marine terminals, and 
    longshoring operations. When used properly, respirators can help to 
    protect employees from the acute and chronic effects of exposure to 
    hazardous airborne contaminants, whether in the form of particulates, 
    vapors, or gases. Generally, OSHA requires respirators to be used to 
    protect employee health in
    
    [[Page 1179]]
    
    situations where engineering controls and work practices are not 
    feasible, where such controls have not yet been instituted, in 
    emergencies, or where such controls are not sufficient, by themselves, 
    to protect the health of employees.
        As noted above, this final standard applies to respirator use in 
    general industry, construction, shipyards, marine terminals, and 
    longshoring operations. In the 1994 proposal, OSHA proposed to cover 
    general industry, shipyards and construction. The longshoring and 
    marine terminals final rule (48 FR 30908) already made this standard 
    applicable to those industries as well. To provide clarity, the final 
    respiratory standard explicitly contains a note setting forth the scope 
    of the respirator standard.
        The preamble to the proposed rule asked for comments about the 
    appropriateness of applying the final rule to construction and maritime 
    workplaces. In the case of the construction industry, OSHA specifically 
    provided the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health 
    (ACCSH) with a copy of the proposal for review and comment, and ACCSH 
    recommended that the revised standard apply to construction industry 
    workplaces. OSHA's responses to these comments are discussed above in 
    the introduction to this preamble.
        In response to the question raised about the applicability of the 
    standard to the construction and shipyard industries, OSHA received 
    several comments from participants concerned about the rule's impact on 
    the construction industry (Exs. 54-102, 54-231, 54-288). These 
    commenters noted that the costs of the standard for construction 
    employers may be higher than for their counterparts in general industry 
    because of the higher turnover, decentralization of workplaces, and 
    multi-employer work arrangements typical of construction sites. 
    However, as reported in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 196), OSHA has 
    determined that the final rule is both technologically and economically 
    feasible for employers in the construction industry. There is no 
    question that many workers in this industry need respiratory protection 
    to prevent material impairment of their health; in fact, some of the 
    most hazardous exposures occur in this industry. For example, workers 
    engaged in the abrasive blasting of bridges are often exposed to high 
    concentrations of silica and other hazardous substances (contained in 
    the abrasive blasting media), as well as to lead, chromates, and other 
    toxic materials (contained in the paints, coatings, or preservatives 
    covering the substrate). Welders, demolition workers, tunnel workers, 
    and painters are other examples of construction trades that often 
    involve overexposure to toxic substances and require respirators for 
    control. In fact, respirators may be even more necessary in 
    construction than in general industry because the transient and 
    constantly changing nature of many construction worksites makes the use 
    of engineering controls more difficult in these environments. Finally, 
    OSHA's previous respiratory protection standard has applied to the 
    construction industry since 1971 (it is codified at 29 CFR 1926.103); 
    removing this protection for construction workers would thus decrease 
    existing safety and health protections despite the significant risk 
    confronting construction workers in many situations. Decreasing 
    feasible worker protections in the face of significant risk of material 
    impairment of health would clearly be contrary to the Agency's mandate.
        OSHA received no comments on the applicability of the final rule to 
    shipyard employment. Like construction workers, shipyard workers have 
    been covered by the Agency's previous standard since 1971. In addition, 
    employees in shipyards engage in many of the same highly hazardous 
    operations as construction workers, including abrasive blasting, 
    welding, painting, and drilling. The Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 196) 
    has determined that it is both technologically and economically 
    feasible for employers in shipyard operations to achieve compliance 
    with the final rule.
        OSHA has recently issued a revised final rule for the Longshoring 
    (shipboard) portion of marine cargo-handling operations, along with 
    revisions to the Agency's Marine Terminals (dockside) marine cargo-
    handling standard. The scope and application sections of both final 
    maritime rules specifically incorporate OSHA's respiratory protection 
    standard (29 CFR 1910.134) by reference. Thus, consistent with the 
    proposal, this final respiratory protection standard will apply to 
    workplaces in general industry and in the construction, shipyards, 
    longshoring, and marine terminals industries.
        At the public hearing, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
    Employees (BMWE) submitted testimony on the issue of OSHA's respiratory 
    protection standard's coverage of railroad construction and maintenance 
    employees (Ex. 122). The BMWE stated:
    
        * * * the BMWE respectfully requests that * * * formal 
    recognition of the applicability of OSHA 1910.134 for railroad 
    employees be published in the Federal Register to remove any 
    lingering questions regarding the applicability of OSHA's 
    respiratory protection standards to working conditions which, 
    although located within the railroad industry, are in fact similar 
    to those of any industrial workplace.
    
        In response to this comment, OSHA notes that both the prior 
    respiratory protection standard and the final revised standard being 
    published will apply to railway workers unless the Federal Railroad 
    Administration (FRA) exercises statutory authority to issue a separate 
    respirator standard for those workers. To date, the FRA has not issued 
    a respiratory protection standard applicable to railway workers. Unless 
    and until it does, this standard will apply to those workers.
        This Summary and Explanation section follows the order of the final 
    rule. The abbreviation ``Ex.'' denotes exhibits in the docket for this 
    rulemaking, Docket H-049. The abbreviation ``Tr.'' denotes the 
    transcripts of the hearings conducted in connection with this 
    rulemaking.
    
    Paragraph (a)--Permissible practice
    
        Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the final rule are essentially 
    unchanged from the corresponding paragraphs of the prior rule and the 
    proposed rule. Indeed, in the proposal OSHA explained that this 
    rulemaking was not intended to address the substantive portion of 
    paragraph (a)(12). The only changes proposed by OSHA to the regulatory 
    language of paragraph (a) were non-substantive: (1) In the proposal, 
    the Agency titled this paragraph ``Scope and Application'' rather than 
    ``Permissible Practice,'' which had been the title of this paragraph 
    since 1971; and (2) a cross-reference to paragraph (b) in the prior 
    standard was proposed to be changed to paragraph (c), because a new 
    paragraph (b), ``Definitions,'' was proposed to be added to the final 
    rule. In the final rule, OSHA has determined that the original title of 
    paragraph (a), ``Permissible Practice,'' better describes paragraph 
    (a), and thus this continues to be the title of this paragraph. The 
    proposed cross-reference to paragraph (c) is retained in the final 
    rule.
        Paragraph (a)(1) requires the use of appropriate respiratory 
    protection when ``effective engineering controls are not feasible, or 
    while they are being instituted.'' This paragraph also stipulates that 
    the prevention of atmospheric contamination caused by ``harmful dusts, 
    fogs, fumes, mists, gases, smokes, sprays, or vapors'' shall
    
    [[Page 1180]]
    
    be accomplished, to the extent feasible, by the use of engineering 
    control measures.
        As stated in the preamble of the proposed rule (59 FR 58895), OSHA 
    did not in this rulemaking open the record on the issue of the 
    hierarchy of industrial hygiene controls; the hierarchy language is 
    merely brought forward, verbatim, from this paragraph of the prior 
    rule. Paragraph (a)(1), which was adopted by OSHA in 1971 from the 1969 
    American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, Z88.2-1969, 
    established that a hierarchy of controls is to be used to protect 
    employees from hazardous airborne contaminants. According to this 
    hierarchy, engineering controls are the preferred method of compliance 
    for protecting employees from airborne contaminants and are to be 
    implemented first, before respiratory protection is used. According to 
    paragraph (a)(1), respirators are permitted to be used only where 
    engineering controls are not feasible or during an interim period while 
    such controls are being implemented.
        Paragraph (a)(2) requires employers to provide employees with 
    respirators ``when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of 
    the employee.'' In addition, this paragraph specifies that the employer 
    must provide employees with respirators that are ``applicable and 
    suitable'' for the purpose intended, i.e., for the protection of 
    employee health. This paragraph thus clearly recognizes that, when 
    properly selected, used, and maintained, respiratory protection can 
    play an essential role in preventing adverse effects on the health of 
    employees exposed to hazardous airborne contaminants.
        By leaving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the final rule unchanged 
    from the corresponding paragraphs of the respiratory protection 
    standard that has been in effect since 1971, OSHA accomplishes several 
    objectives. First, it continues the protection that employees have 
    relied on throughout OSHA's history. Second, it retains the language 
    that employers are familiar with and thus will not require them to 
    become familiar with new regulatory language. Third, leaving the 
    regulatory text of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) unchanged allows OSHA 
    and the affected public to continue to rely on OSHA interpretations, 
    decisions, and case law that have developed over the years.
        As noted above, this standard is a respiratory protection standard. 
    OSHA has enforced this standard when employers fail to provide 
    respirators, when the respirators that are provided are inappropriate 
    for the form of the contaminant or for the atmospheric concentration of 
    the contaminant, when they are inappropriately used, and when they are 
    improperly maintained.
        Although OSHA clearly stated in the preamble to the proposal that 
    the hierarchy of controls was not an issue in this rulemaking, the 
    Agency did receive comment on this provision. For example, one 
    commenter stated that, in its opinion, OSHA has ``a legal obligation to 
    provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the 
    methods of compliance provisions'' (Ex. 54-307). In the opinion of this 
    commenter, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), ``Section 
    6(b)(2) of the OSH Act requires that OSHA provide interested persons an 
    opportunity to submit written data and comments on a proposed rule in 
    total'' [emphasis added].
        The unchanged language of paragraph (a)(1) was included in the 
    proposed rule only to enable interested parties to view the rule as it 
    would ultimately appear in the Code of Federal Regulations in its 
    entirety. Since OSHA neither proposed nor adopted modifications to 
    paragraph (a)(1), the Agency believes that it is not legally required 
    to reconsider this issue at this time. OSHA has the authority to 
    identify which regulatory requirements it is proposing to revise and 
    which issues are to receive regulatory priority. Limiting this 
    rulemaking to issues concerning respirator programs is appropriate 
    because such programs are the exclusive focus of this rulemaking and to 
    collect comments and data on additional issues would divert resources 
    from the task at hand.
        The preference for engineering controls has been reaffirmed in each 
    substance-specific health standard OSHA has published, most recently in 
    the Methylene Chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1052). OSHA does not 
    believe that it is necessary or appropriate, in a rulemaking dealing 
    with respiratory protection, to reconsider its long-established policy 
    with regard to the hierarchy of controls.
        A number of commenters raised another issue in connection with 
    paragraph (a)(1), and that is whether biological hazards, such as the 
    hazard posed by exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the infectious 
    agent that causes tuberculosis (TB), are covered by this paragraph 
    (Exs. 54-213, 54-239, 54-249). In response, OSHA emphasizes that this 
    respiratory protection standard does apply to biological hazards (see 
    Mahone Grain Corp., 10 OSHRC 1275, 1981). However, specifically with 
    regard to the use of respirators to protect employees from the risk of 
    occupational exposure to M. tuberculosis, OSHA stated at the public 
    hearing on this respiratory protection standard (Tr. 16-17), that the 
    Agency's tuberculosis standard, which has just been proposed (62 FR 
    54160) would contain specific requirements covering all aspects of 
    respirator use in environments where occupational transmission of 
    tuberculosis is possible. As explained in the preamble to that 
    standard, OSHA is committed to ensuring consistency between the 
    respirator requirements in the two standards.
        As stated at the hearing, ``until the final tuberculosis standard 
    is promulgated, we will continue to enforce respirator usage for TB 
    under the current, unrevised respirator standard, 1910.134.'' (Tr. 18). 
    There was little comment on this issue during the rulemaking. The 
    entire previous respiratory protection standard is being redesignated 
    as 29 CFR 1910.139. It will be published in the next edition of the 
    Code of Federal Regulations under that designation. OSHA's enforcement 
    policy concerning required respirator use for TB is set out in OSHA's 
    Compliance Directive, ``Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for 
    Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis'' (OSHA Instruction CPL 2.106). 
    These enforcement procedures are based, in part, on the Centers for 
    Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) ``Guidelines for Preventing the 
    Transmission of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in Health-Care Settings, 
    1994.'' Like the CDC recommendations, OSHA's directive clarifies that 
    respiratory protection for employees exposed to TB is required when: 
    (1) Workers enter rooms housing individuals with suspected or confirmed 
    infectious TB; (2) workers are present during the performance of high-
    hazard procedures on individuals who have suspected or confirmed 
    infectious TB; and (3) emergency medical response personnel or others 
    transport, in enclosed vehicles, an individual with suspected or 
    confirmed infectious TB. Under the directive, OSHA also enforces the 
    performance criteria recommended by CDC for selecting a respirator 
    suitable for use against TB. OSHA's directive further specifies that 
    where respirator use is required against TB, the program elements of 
    OSHA's respiratory protection standard apply. A copy of OSHA's 
    Compliance Directive can be obtained from OSHA's Office of Publications 
    (Telephone Number, 202-219-4667). Copies of the CDC Guidelines can be 
    obtained by calling CDC (Telephone Number, 1-800-342-2437).
        As noted above, paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule is identical 
    both to the corresponding paragraph of the respiratory protection 
    standard in place
    
    [[Page 1181]]
    
    since 1971 and to proposed paragraph (a)(2). It specifies that 
    respirators must be provided by the employer ``when such equipment is 
    necessary to protect the health of the employee.'' OSHA considers 
    respirators to be necessary to protect the health of the employee 
    whenever feasible engineering and work practice controls are not 
    available, are not sufficient to protect employee health, have not yet 
    been instituted, in emergencies, and where the health of an employee is 
    at risk (e.g., whenever employee exposure exceeds an OSHA permissible 
    exposure limit (PEL)).
        A violation of paragraph (a)(2) could exist, for example, if it can 
    be shown that exposure to an airborne contaminant could result in 
    illness or injury to the employee's health and that this could be 
    prevented by the appropriate selection and use of a respirator. An OSHA 
    Review Commission case illustrates such a situation: an employer was 
    held to have violated paragraph (a)(2) because his employees either did 
    not use respirators when working in an atmosphere contaminated with 
    grain dust or used respirators that were ``so caked with dust that 
    employees could not breathe through them'' and contracted a potentially 
    fatal disease caused by the inhalation of grain dust contaminated with 
    Histoplasma capsulatum spores (Mahone Grain Corporation, 10 OSHRC 1275, 
    1981). Paragraph (a)(2) was cited in this case even though OSHA has no 
    specific PEL for grain dust or for H. capsulatum spores.
        In the past 5 years, OSHA has issued 99 citations for violations of 
    paragraph (a)(2) in conjunction with a citation of the General Duty 
    Clause (i.e., Sec. 5(a)(1) of the Act). These citations concerned 
    various situations involving the failure of the employer: (1) To 
    control exposures in emergencies; (2) to control exposure to unknown 
    concentrations of a toxic substance; (3) to control exposure to a 
    contaminant that was clearly a recognized hazard even though no OSHA 
    PEL existed; (4) to provide and require the use of a respirator for a 
    confined space entry; or (5) to ensure the proper use of a respirator 
    in a situation involving the improper storage of a chemical(s). OSHA 
    will continue to view these situations as citable under this standard 
    because they involve failure to implement the appropriate exposure 
    control necessary to protect the health of the employee from adverse 
    effects.
        As proposed, paragraph (a)(3) of OSHA's prior standard does not 
    appear in the final rule. This paragraph, which was adopted by OSHA in 
    1971 from the ANSI Z88.2-1969 standard, stated that employees must use 
    the respiratory protection provided in accordance with instructions and 
    training they have received.
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-79, 54-181, 54-226, 54-234, 54-295, 54-
    307, 54-334) urged OSHA to retain this paragraph in the final rule. 
    According to these commenters, this paragraph is necessary to ensure 
    that employees take responsibility for their actions and that employees 
    are actively involved in the respirator program and conform to program 
    procedures. OSHA agrees that active employee involvement in the 
    respirator program is essential to program effectiveness but does not 
    believe that this principle should be stated in the standard, for a 
    number of reasons. First, the OSH Act itself, at Sec. 5(b), states that 
    ``Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health 
    standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to the 
    OSH Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.'' In 
    addition, the courts have repeatedly held that employers are 
    responsible under Section 5(a)(2) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)) for 
    ensuring worker protection (see, e.g., Brock v. City Oil Well Service 
    Co., 795 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1986)). In this case, the court held, 
    ``it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that the employees are 
    protected. It may accomplish this objective through others if it 
    chooses, but the duty to provide the protection remains the 
    employer's.'' Accordingly, the final rule does not contain this 
    paragraph.
        An issue raised by OSHA in connection with paragraph (a) of the 
    proposal, the use of respirators by employees when such use is required 
    by an individual employer or is chosen voluntarily by employees but not 
    mandated by OSHA in this final rule, is addressed below in connection 
    with paragraph (c) of this Summary and Explanation.
    
    Paragraph (b)--Definitions
    
        The final standard includes definitions of important terms used in 
    the regulatory text of the final rule. The previous and proposed 
    respiratory protection standards contained no definitions; however, 
    OSHA is adding a number of definitions to the final rule because the 
    Agency believes that employers and employees will benefit from this 
    additional information. This is consistent with the Agency's desire to 
    clarify its respiratory protection requirements, including those that 
    are not being substantively changed in this rulemaking.
        A number of the definitions relate to specific types of respiratory 
    protection devices or to components or design characteristics of those 
    devices. For example, the terms ``air-purifying respirator,'' ``filter 
    or air-purifying element,'' and ``positive pressure respirator'' are 
    defined in the final rule. These definitions, which are derived from 
    generally recognized sources such as the current ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    respiratory protection standard, the NIOSH requirements for particulate 
    respirators in 42 CFR part 84, and the 1987 NIOSH Respirator Decision 
    Logic (Ex. 38-20), have been revised for clarity, consistency with 
    compliance interpretations of the Agency's respiratory protection 
    standard, and to respond to comments received during the rulemaking.
        A number of commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-
    424) suggested that OSHA adopt several of the definitions in the ANSI 
    Z88.2-1992 respiratory protection standard. The regulated community is 
    already familiar with the ANSI definitions of these terms, and OSHA 
    agrees that the potential for confusion will be reduced if terms mean 
    the same thing in both the OSHA and ANSI standards. Therefore, the ANSI 
    definitions of ``airline respirator (supplied-air respirator or airline 
    respirator),'' ``canister or cartridge,'' ``demand respirator,'' ``end-
    of-service-life indicator,'' ``escape-only respirator,'' ``filter,'' 
    ``fit check (user seal check),'' ``fit test,'' ``helmet,'' ``hood,'' 
    ``loose-fitting facepiece,'' ``negative pressure respirator,'' 
    ``pressure demand respirator,'' ``powered air-purifying respirator 
    (PAPR),'' ``respiratory inlet covering,'' ``self contained breathing 
    apparatus (SCBA),'' ``service life,'' and ``tight-fitting facepiece'' 
    have all been added to the final standard, with some minor word changes 
    to improve clarity and to recognize the mandatory nature of OSHA 
    standards. In other cases, OSHA has substituted an ANSI definition for 
    one the Agency originally proposed.
        Several commenters urged OSHA to add other definitions to those in 
    the proposal (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-222, 54-251 54-267, 54-
    283, 54-289, 54-363, 54-410, 54-437, 54-455). OSHA did not add some of 
    the suggested definitions, such as one for ``health screening,'' 
    because the term is no longer used in the standard. Other terms, such 
    as ``medical evaluation,'' are defined where they appear in the 
    regulatory text.
        The following discussion addresses changes made since the proposed 
    standard.
        Adequate warning properties. The proposed definition of ``adequate 
    warning properties'' has not been
    
    [[Page 1182]]
    
    retained in the final standard because the term is no longer used in 
    the regulatory text. OSHA deleted the term after concluding that the 
    two major warning properties, odor and irritation, are unreliable or 
    inappropriate to use as indicators of sorbent exhaustion. This issue is 
    discussed further in this Summary and Explanation in connection with 
    paragraph (d).
        Air-purifying respirator. The final standard defines the term 
    ``air-purifying respirator'' as ``a respirator with an air-purifying 
    filter, cartridge, or canister that removes specific air contaminants 
    by passing ambient air through the air-purifying element.'' Marc Evans 
    of Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. (Ex. 54-38) stated that the proposed 
    definition, ``a respirator which is designed to remove air contaminants 
    [i.e., dust, fumes, mists, gases, vapors, or aerosols] from the ambient 
    air or air surrounding the respirator,'' was inaccurate since filter 
    elements can only remove air contaminants when air passes through the 
    filters; he stated that the ANSI definition was more accurate in this 
    regard.
        Another commenter wanted to add the term ``biologicals'' to the 
    list of air contaminants removed by air-purifying respirators (Ex. 54-
    249). In response, the definition has been revised to state more 
    clearly that an air-purifying respirator removes specific contaminants 
    from the ambient air by drawing air through appropriate filters, 
    cartridges, or canisters. Deleting the proposed definition's examples 
    of air contaminants makes clear that no type of air contaminant, 
    including biological agents, is excluded from the definition. Also, the 
    term ``filter'' has been changed to ``filter or air-purifying 
    element,'' which is also defined in the standard, and includes the 
    broad range of filters, cartridges, canisters and other air-purifying 
    elements used with respirators.
        Assigned protection factor. The definition of ``assigned protection 
    factor'' has been reserved as part of OSHA's decision to address the 
    entire Assigned Protection Factor (APF) issue in a subsequent phase of 
    this rulemaking. OSHA proposed to reference the NIOSH assigned 
    protection factors from the 1987 NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic in the 
    respiratory protection standard and then to adopt new APF values issued 
    by NIOSH after that Agency had conducted rulemaking on APFs. In the 
    course of this rulemaking, OSHA has concluded that it should instead 
    develop its own set of assigned protection factors based on a thorough 
    review and analysis of all relevant evidence. Both the NIOSH and the 
    ANSI APFs, as well as all relevant data and information, will be 
    considered by OSHA at that time.
        Atmosphere-supplying respirator. This term means ``a respirator 
    that supplies the respirator user with breathing air from a source 
    independent of the ambient atmosphere, and includes supplied-air 
    respirators (SARs) and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) 
    units.'' As it has done in many of the definitions in this section, 
    OSHA has substituted the term ``breathing air'' for a number of 
    synonymous, but confusingly diverse, terms used in the proposal and in 
    the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard. The minor changes from the proposed 
    definition have been made solely to enhance clarity.
        Canister or cartridge. The final standard adopts the ANSI Z88.2-
    1992 standard's definition: ``a container with a filter, sorbent, or 
    catalyst, or combination of these items, which removes specific 
    contaminants from the air passed through the container.'' Several 
    commenters suggested that this definition be added to the final rule 
    (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-424).
        Demand respirator is defined as ``an atmosphere-supplying 
    respirator that admits breathing air to the facepiece only when a 
    negative pressure is created inside the facepiece by inhalation.'' This 
    term was not defined in the proposal but is defined by ANSI, and 
    several commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-424) urged 
    that it be included in the final rule. As in other definitions, the 
    phrase ``breathing air'' has been substituted for ``respirable gas'' 
    for clarity.
        The proposal's definition of ``demand'' has been deleted from the 
    final standard because the addition of a definition for ``demand 
    respirator'' makes its inclusion unnecessary. (See the definition of 
    pressure demand respirator below for the distinction between the two 
    types of respirator.)
        Dust mask. See the definition for ``filtering facepiece'' below.
        Emergency situation. In the final rule, OSHA is adding this term to 
    paragraph (b) to clarify its use in the regulatory text. ``Emergency 
    situation'' is defined as ``any occurrence such as, but not limited to, 
    equipment failure, rupture of containers, or failure of control 
    equipment that may or does result in an uncontrolled substantial 
    release of an airborne contaminant.'' Under this definition, OSHA 
    intends that a potential release, and not just an actual release, be 
    considered an emergency situation requiring appropriate respiratory 
    protection. This definition is the same or similar to those used to 
    define emergency situations in other OSHA health standards (e.g., 
    1910.1051, Butadiene; 1910.1028, Benzene; 1910.1048, Formaldehyde).
        Employee Exposure. OSHA has added this term to paragraph (b) of the 
    final rule and has defined it to mean ``exposure to a concentration of 
    an airborne contaminant that would occur if the employee were not using 
    respiratory protection.'' This is the same definition that has been 
    used in many of OSHA's substance-specific health standards. It is 
    included to clarify that employee exposure is measured outside any 
    respiratory protection worn.
        End-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) means ``a system that warns 
    the respirator user of the approach of the end of adequate respiratory 
    protection, for example, that the sorbent is approaching saturation or 
    is no longer effective.'' This definition was not in the proposal, but 
    has been derived from the definition in the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard, 
    as requested by several commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-
    410, 54-424). OSHA has included the example at the end of the 
    definition to clarify the function of an ESLI.
        Escape-only respirator. This term was not defined in the proposal, 
    but the final standard defines an escape-only respirator as ``a 
    respirator intended to be used only for emergency exit.'' The Dow 
    Chemical Company (Ex. 54-278) and the Chlorine Institute (Ex. 54-439) 
    recommended adding definitions for an ``escape'' respirator and an 
    ``emergency'' respirator. Partially in response to these comments, and 
    to clarify OSHA's intent, OSHA has described in paragraph (d) the 
    narrow function of an ``escape-only respirator,'' and has added a 
    definition for ``escape-only respirator'' to this paragraph (b). The 
    definition of ``escape-only respirator'' derives from the ANSI Z88.2-
    1992 standard, with the phrase ``egress from a hazardous atmosphere'' 
    replaced by the word ``exit.''
        Filter or air-purifying element. The final standard's definition of 
    this term is ``a component used in respirators to remove solid or 
    liquid aerosols from the inspired air.'' The parallel definition in the 
    proposal used ``filter'' instead of ``filter or air-purifying element'' 
    and has been changed in response to comments (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-
    219, 54-410, 54-424). The phrase ``or air-purifying element'' has been 
    added to clarify that this definition applies to all filtration 
    mechanisms, not only to mechanical or electrostatic filtration of 
    particulates. The new definition derives from the definition of 
    ``filter'' in the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard.
    
    [[Page 1183]]
    
        Filtering facepiece (dust mask). The definition of ``filtering 
    facepiece'' in the final rule is ``a negative pressure particulate 
    respirator with a filter as an integral part of the facepiece or with 
    the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium.'' This new 
    definition is derived from the definition of ``filtering facepiece'' in 
    the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 38-20). As described in the 
    discussion of paragraph (c) below, employers who allow the use of these 
    respirators when such use is not required need to comply with only 
    paragraph (c)(2) of this standard, which requires that the employer 
    provide the employee with the information contained in Appendix D.
        Fit factor. The definition of ``fit factor'' in the final rule is a 
    quantitative estimate of the fit of a particular respirator to a 
    specific individual, and typically estimates the ratio of the 
    concentration of a substance in ambient air to its concentration inside 
    the respirator when worn. In the proposal, OSHA's definition included 
    the terms ``challenge agent'' and ``test chamber.'' Several commenters 
    (Baxter Diagnostics, Ex. 54-38; American Subcontractors Association, 
    Ex. 54-293) stated that using these terms would have the unintended 
    effect of prohibiting the use of several existing QNFT test methods, 
    such as the TSI Portacount,TM and recommended that OSHA rely 
    on the ANSI definition of ``fit factor'' instead. OSHA agrees with this 
    point, and the final standard's definition derives primarily from the 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's definition, as commenters suggested (Exs. 
    54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-424). The final definition uses the 
    word ``estimate'' instead of the ANSI definition's word ``measure'' 
    because fit factors estimate, rather than measure, the fit obtained 
    during use. The phrase ``specific individual'' has been substituted for 
    ``particular individual'' for clarity.
        Fit test. A definition of ``fit test'' has been added to the final 
    rule and is defined as ``the use of a protocol to qualitatively or 
    quantitatively evaluate the fit of a respirator on an individual.'' 
    (See also QLFT and QNFT.) This definition has been added because OSHA 
    is of the opinion, based on comments to the record, that such a 
    definition is needed (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-424). 
    ANSI also has a definition of fit test, but OSHA's definition differs 
    from that in the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard in that the term ``challenge 
    agent'' has been eliminated and replaced by the phrase ``protocol to 
    quantitatively or qualitatively evaluate.'' The use of the term 
    ``challenge agent'' would limit the development of future fit test 
    technologies that do not involve a test agent (Exs. 54-208, 54-250, 54-
    330, 54-424).
        Hazardous exposure level. Because the final standard does not use 
    the term ``hazardous exposure level,'' it is not defined. The proposal 
    defined such levels as including the Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) 
    contained in OSHA's Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000; the 
    American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 
    Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), as published in the latest edition of 
    that organization's ``Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances 
    and Physical Agents,'' for those substances without an OSHA PEL; the 
    NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) for those hazardous chemicals 
    without either an OSHA PEL or ACGIH TLV; and any exposure level based 
    on available scientific information, including Material Safety Data 
    Sheets, for those hazardous chemicals for which no OSHA PEL, ACGIH TLV, 
    or NIOSH REL has yet been published.
        The proposed rule would have required employers to identify the 
    ``hazardous exposure level'' applicable to each hazardous chemical in 
    the workplace and then to use this information in selecting the 
    appropriate respirator to provide protection against exposure to that 
    chemical. The final rule takes a different and much simpler approach to 
    assisting employers in the selection of appropriately protective 
    respirators in those cases where OSHA has not yet promulgated a PEL for 
    a hazardous chemical. OSHA has taken the approach reflected in the 
    final standard because there was widespread objection to the proposed 
    approach (Exs. 54-94, 54-175, 54-212, 54-226, 54-232, 54-275x, 54-283, 
    54-293, 54-306, 54-312, 54-324, 54-334, 54-347, 54-352, 54-361, 54-397, 
    54-443, 54-445). Some commenters (Exs. 54-91, 54-165, 54-181, 54-291, 
    54-316, 54-347, 54-397, 54-445) interpreted the proposed approach as an 
    attempt by OSHA to expand the number of hazardous chemicals with OSHA-
    enforceable exposure limits, while others believed that implementing 
    the proposed approach would require employers to have risk assessment 
    expertise or to perform complex analyses, and pointed out that many 
    employers lacked such expertise (Exs. 54-106, 54-175, 54-210). In 
    general, rulemaking participants stated that OSHA's approach to this 
    problem should rely on the professional judgment of employers, based on 
    readily available information (Exs. 54-206, 54-210).
        OSHA has decided, after a thorough review of the record, to follow 
    these recommendations, and in the final rule has adopted an approach 
    that requires employers to select appropriately protective respirators 
    on the basis of informed professional judgment. Accordingly, the final 
    rule does not identify the ACGIH TLVs or the NIOSH RELs as references 
    that would trigger required respirator use. The approach taken in the 
    final rule provides employers with the flexibility to rely on 
    professional judgment and available data sources when selecting 
    respirators for protection against hazardous chemicals that have no 
    OSHA PEL.
        OSHA believes that it is prudent in such cases for employers to 
    select more rather than less protective respirators, i.e., to select a 
    respirator that will reduce employee exposure to a level below the 
    concentration indicated as hazardous by the scientific literature. OSHA 
    also believes that many employers will choose to rely on the ACGIH TLV 
    or NIOSH REL in those cases where OSHA has no PEL at the present time. 
    However, whatever approach employers choose to take, the respirator 
    selected must ``be applicable and suitable for the purpose intended,'' 
    as required by paragraph (a).
        Helmet. The final standard defines a helmet as ``a rigid 
    respiratory inlet covering that also provides head protection against 
    impact and penetration.'' This definition, which was not in the 
    proposal, has been added to the final standard at the request of 
    several commenters ( Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, and 54-424). 
    The OSHA definition uses the term ``respiratory inlet covering'' 
    instead of the word ``hood'' used in the ANSI definition in order to 
    include helmet-style powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).
        High efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter is defined as ``a 
    filter that is at least 99.97% efficient in removing monodisperse 
    particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter. The equivalent NIOSH 42 CFR 
    84 particulate filters are the N100, R100, and P100 filters.'' Although 
    NIOSH has revised the particulate filter descriptions under the new 42 
    CFR Part 84 respirator certification regulation, and no longer uses the 
    term HEPA, this definition is included because ``HEPA filter'' is used 
    in many of OSHA's substance-specific standards. The definition, which 
    is similar to that used by ANSI, lists the NIOSH 42 CFR part 84 
    particulate filters that are equivalent, in terms of
    
    [[Page 1184]]
    
    efficiency, to the HEPA filter, i.e., the N100, R100, and P100 filters.
        Hood. The final standard includes the following definition of 
    ``hood'': ``a respiratory inlet covering that completely covers the 
    head and neck and may also cover portions of the shoulders and torso.'' 
    This definition has been added to the final standard in response to 
    commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, and 54-424). The 
    definition derives from the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard; the word ``also'' 
    has been added for clarity.
        Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). The final standard 
    defines IDLH as ``an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, 
    would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an 
    individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.'' In the 
    proposal, the definition of IDLH was ``an atmospheric concentration of 
    any toxic, corrosive, or asphyxiant substance that poses an immediate 
    threat to life or would cause irreversible or delayed adverse health 
    effects or would interfere with an individual's ability to escape from 
    a dangerous atmosphere.'' In the final rule, OSHA has decided that 
    including all atmospheres capable of causing the listed health effects 
    is more consistent with OSHA's intent than limiting the definition to 
    toxic, corrosive, and asphyxiant atmospheres and has also deleted the 
    word ``delayed'' from the definition because including it caused 
    considerable confusion among commenters.
        Under the final standard's definition, atmospheres where a short, 
    one-time exposure (i.e., an acute exposure) may cause death or 
    irreversible adverse health effects immediately, within a few hours, or 
    within a few days or weeks are considered IDLH atmospheres. The 
    severity of the adverse effects and the certainty that health 
    impairment will occur following an acute exposure are more important 
    considerations in defining a potential IDLH situation than is the time 
    course of the health effect. For example, an atmosphere containing 
    life-threatening or health-impairing concentrations of fluorides, 
    cadmium fumes, or radioactive substances would be considered IDLH even 
    though a single exposure might not cause death or permanent impairment 
    for as long as days or even weeks after the exposure. On the other 
    hand, many situations involving atmospheres exceeding short-term or 
    ceiling exposure limits are not IDLH atmospheres; most short-term or 
    ceiling limits are designed to reduce the risk of less serious effects, 
    such as sensory irritation. Thus, only those situations where the acute 
    exposure would threaten life, initiate an irreversible process that 
    threatens life or health, or impede the ability of the worker to escape 
    from the atmosphere would constitute IDLH conditions. In contrast, if 
    chronic exposure to a toxic atmosphere is required to produce health 
    impairment or cause death, the atmosphere is not IDLH. Thus, the 
    relatively low atmospheric concentrations of carcinogenic substances 
    that cause work-related cancers are not considered IDLH atmospheres, 
    even though the effect of long-term exposure at such concentrations is 
    death or serious illness.
        Paragraphs (d) and (g) of the final standard require employers 
    whose employees are exposed to an IDLH atmosphere to provide them with 
    the most protective and reliable respiratory protection, i.e., a full 
    facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum of a 
    30-minute service life, or a combination full facepiece pressure demand 
    supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply, and 
    to implement specific rescue precautions and communication procedures. 
    Although OSHA's prior Respiratory Protection standard does not 
    explicitly use the term ``IDLH,'' it does require that respirators used 
    in ``immediately dangerous'' atmospheres keep inward leakage to a 
    minimum and be highly reliable (See paragraph (c) of prior 29 CFR 
    1910.134, which incorporates this language from the ANSI Z88.2-1969 
    standard by reference).
        Commenters raised a number of issues specifically related to the 
    proposed definition of IDLH and to the IDLH concept in general. These 
    comments addressed the following points:
    
     Whether the term IDLH should apply to all delayed effects, 
    some delayed effects, or be restricted to immediate effects;
     How OSHA's definition of IDLH differs from those of other 
    organizations and how it relates to the definition of IDLH used in 
    other OSHA standards;
     How the presence of an IDLH or potential IDLH atmosphere 
    affects respirator selection.
    
    The following discussion addresses each of these points in turn.
        The proposed definition of IDLH included the phrase ``delayed 
    adverse health effects.'' OSHA has omitted this phrase from the final 
    standard to respond to comments received and to remove a source of 
    confusion. Many commenters argued that the term IDLH should cover only 
    immediate, severe adverse health effects, such as those resulting from 
    exposures to hydrogen fluoride or oxides of nitrogen (e.g., Exs. 54-
    208, 54-219; 54-316), while others favored taking chronic, delayed 
    effects into consideration when making an IDLH decision (See, e.g., 
    Exs. 54-202 and 54-437). For example, OCAW stated that ``OSHA's IDLH 
    and acute hazard-based framework * * * does not properly emphasize the 
    need to consider long-term and cumulative health effects.''
        Most participants, however, argued against including chronic health 
    effects in the IDLH definition because it would make the definition too 
    broad. These participants feared that including this term would mean 
    that exposures typically associated with chronic effects, such as 
    cancer, would be designated IDLH (Exs. 54-67; 54-153; 54-175; 54-208; 
    54-218; 54-219; 54-232; 54-266; 54-278; 54-307; 54-314; 54-316; 54-
    326). Typical of these comments is one from the American Iron and Steel 
    Institute: ``The proposed definition, which includes ``delayed health 
    effects,'' is so broad that it goes far beyond the accepted IDLH 
    concept, and would expand it beyond its intended purpose'' (Ex. 54-
    307). Arguing along the same lines, the Exxon Corporation stated that 
    ``the phrase `delayed health effects' could include chronic toxins like 
    asbestos * * *'' (Ex. 54-266).
        Other commenters urged OSHA to narrow the definition of IDLH by 
    adding the word ``acute'' before ``adverse'' in the phrase ``delayed 
    adverse health effects'' or by making other language changes that would 
    achieve the same effect (Exs. 54-67, 54-278, 54-326, 54-208A). For 
    example, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (Ex. 54-208A) 
    stated that the only atmospheric contaminants with delayed effects that 
    should be included in the definition are those, such as the oxides of 
    nitrogen, that cause delayed-onset severe adverse health effects (such 
    as pulmonary edema). Representatives of Pennzoil suggested that ``* * * 
    the phrase `immediate or delayed irreversible debilitating health 
    effects', be used'' to achieve the same end (Ex. 54-287).
        These commenters objected to the inclusion of ``delayed health 
    effects'' in the proposed definition because the language suggested 
    that effects typically associated with long-term exposures, such as 
    cancer, would be included. The definition in the final standard 
    recognizes that the effects of concern must be the result of an acute 
    overexposure but does not specifically limit the length of time between 
    that overexposure and the resulting effect.
    
    [[Page 1185]]
    
    Where very serious health effects may arise from a single acute 
    exposure, even if such effects become apparent only after a relatively 
    long latency period, e.g., hours, days, or even weeks, the atmosphere 
    associated with the effect must be designated IDLH. OSHA is confident 
    that deleting the word ``delayed'' from the IDLH definition in the 
    final rule will reduce confusion but will not affect the level of 
    employee protection provided by the standard.
        Many commenters urged OSHA to adopt an IDLH definition developed by 
    another organization, agency, or by OSHA itself in other standards. 
    Some commenters (Exs. 54-153, 54-214, 54-234, 54-251, 54-266, 54-278, 
    54-290, 54-330, 54-361, 54-363, 54-424, 54-439) urged OSHA to adopt the 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's definition of IDLH: ``any atmosphere that 
    poses an immediate hazard to life or poses immediate irreversible 
    debilitating effects on health'' (clause 3.33). For example, Bell 
    Atlantic (Ex. 54-361) suggested that the ANSI definition be used to 
    ensure that ``chronic toxins like asbestos would not be considered 
    IDLH.'' However, OSHA believes that adopting the definition contained 
    in the current ANSI standard could reduce employee protection because 
    it states that atmospheres are IDLH only in cases where the adverse 
    effects of exposure occur immediately. An example of an atmosphere that 
    OSHA believes must be considered IDLH but arguably would not be so 
    designated under the ANSI definition is one containing high 
    concentrations of cadmium fume, which may result in fatal collapse as 
    long as 48-72 hours after an acute overexposure.
        The Exxon Corporation (Ex. 54-266) objected to the phrase ``ability 
    to escape'' in OSHA's proposed definition, and suggested that OSHA 
    instead adopt the ANSI definition, which does not refer to impairment 
    of the ability to escape. OSHA wishes to clarify that the proposed 
    terminology, ``interfere with an individual's ability to escape'' was 
    not meant to cover a minor or even moderate degree of interference but 
    to address interference of a kind sufficiently serious to impair the 
    individual's ability to escape from exposure to a dangerous 
    concentration of an air contaminant. To address Exxon's concern, the 
    final rule's definition has been revised to read ``impair the 
    individual's ability to escape.'' OSHA notes that it is imperative for 
    employees to be able to escape. There are atmospheres, for example one 
    contaminated with a severe eye irritant, that can effectively 
    incapacitate an individual in the short term and prevent the individual 
    from escaping in time to avoid more serious health consequences. OSHA 
    has therefore retained in the IDLH definition language that addresses 
    the need to protect workers escaping from dangerous atmospheres.
        One commenter, Monsanto (Ex. 54-219), expressed concern about the 
    consistency of IDLH definitions in different OSHA standards. In 
    response, OSHA has reviewed the definitions of IDLH used in its 
    standards and believes that the final standard's definition is largely 
    consistent with those in the two OSHA safety standards that use the 
    term: 29 CFR 1910.146, the Permit-Required Confined Space standard 
    (``Confined Spaces standard'') and 29 CFR 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste 
    Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
        Some commenters (Exs. 54-439, 54-330, 54-278) asked which IDLH 
    values OSHA endorses or pointed to the limitations of the available 
    information on IDLH concentrations. For example, OCAW noted that ``only 
    a handful of IDLH limits have been determined. In most worker exposure, 
    the IDLH limit is unknown. Even when [an] IDLH limit exists, workers do 
    not have access to this information. MSDSs rarely include IDLH 
    information'' (Ex. 54-202).
        The final rule does not contain a prescribed list of IDLH values or 
    require employers to rely on any particular list. Some commenters (Exs. 
    54-278, 54-330, 54-361, 54-424, 54-439) criticized the IDLH values 
    listed in the 1994 NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (Ex. 54-278) 
    or recommended that the Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs) 
    developed under the auspices of the American Industrial Hygiene 
    Association be used instead. OSHA is aware that published IDLH values 
    are not available for many industrial contaminants and that employers 
    must therefore rely on their own knowledge and judgment, and that of 
    safety and health professionals, when deciding that a given atmosphere 
    has the potential to cause health effects of the kind envisioned by 
    OSHA's IDLH definition. During enforcement inspections, OSHA will 
    continue to accept any published IDLH value that is based on sound 
    scientific evidence; those published by NIOSH and the AIHA would 
    clearly meet this test.
        OSHA's final IDLH definition does not separately mention 
    ``potential'' IDLH atmospheres. Many OSHA enforcement cases have 
    involved the failure of employers to provide respirators in situations 
    that were not IDLH at the time workers entered the area but became so 
    thereafter. OSHA intends employers to interpret the respirator 
    selection requirements in paragraph (d)(1) proactively, i.e., where 
    employers are uncertain about the adequacy of a given respirator for a 
    highly hazardous atmosphere, cannot identify the atmospheric 
    concentration of a substance that poses a potentially life-threatening 
    or health-impairing risk, or cannot maintain the concentration of such 
    a substance below life-threatening or health-impairing levels, the 
    employer must consider the atmosphere IDLH and select a respirator 
    accordingly. For example, an employer in a chemical plant knows that 
    inadvertent releases or spills of highly hazardous chemicals may occur 
    at the facility and selects the most protective respirators available 
    for employees who must enter a spill area because, in an emergency, 
    there is no time to take airborne measurements to determine whether or 
    not the concentration is IDLH. OSHA encourages this kind of proactive 
    planning because it is protective of employee health.
        Interior structural firefighting. The final respiratory protection 
    standard uses the OSHA definition for ``interior structural 
    firefighting'' contained in 29 CFR 1910.155, which applies to all 
    situations covered by Subpart L--Fire Protection. The definition is as 
    follows:
    
        Interior structural firefighting means the physical activity of 
    fire suppression, rescue or both, inside of buildings or enclosed 
    structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the 
    incipient stage.
    
        Loose-fitting facepiece. The final standard now defines this term 
    to mean ``a respiratory inlet covering that is designed to form a 
    partial seal with the face.'' This definition was not in the proposal, 
    and has been added in response to commenters such as the AIHA (Ex. 54-
    208), 3M (Ex. 54-218), Monsanto (Ex. 54-219), Martin Marietta Energy 
    Systems, Inc. (Ex. 54-410), and ORC (Ex. 54-424), who recommended that 
    OSHA adopt several of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 definitions for respirator 
    terms. OSHA has adopted only part of the ANSI definition for loose-
    fitting facepiece. The phrase in the ANSI definition that states a 
    loose-fitting facepiece ``does not cover the neck and shoulders, and 
    may or may not offer head protection against impact and penetration'' 
    has not been included. This phrase from the ANSI definition was not 
    adopted as part of the OSHA definition because adding this phrase would 
    not allow users to clearly distinguish between hoods, helmets, and 
    loose-fitting respirators. It is important for employers to be able to 
    distinguish loose-fitting from tight-
    
    [[Page 1186]]
    
     fitting respirators in order to correctly apply the fit testing 
    requirements.
        Maximum use concentration. OSHA is not defining this term at this 
    time because the Agency has reserved the issue of Assigned Protection 
    Factors, which is associated with Maximum Use Concentrations, until a 
    subsequent phase of this rulemaking.
        Negative pressure respirator (tight fitting). The final standard 
    defines this term as ``a respirator in which the air pressure inside 
    the facepiece is negative during inhalation with respect to the ambient 
    air pressure outside the respirator.'' The proposed definition was 
    revised in response to comments (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 
    and 54-424) that recommended that OSHA adopt the ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    standard's definition. In the final rule, OSHA has accepted the ANSI 
    definition, with two changes: (1) The word ``facepiece'' has replaced 
    the term ``respiratory inlet covering'' to make clear that the 
    facepiece is the area of interest with negative pressure respirators; 
    and (2) the phrase ``outside the respirator'' has been added after the 
    phrase ``ambient air pressure'' to clarify that negative pressure 
    exists only when the outside air pressure is higher than the air 
    pressure inside the negative pressure facepiece.
        Oxygen-deficient atmosphere. The proposed definition of an ``oxygen 
    deficient atmosphere'' was ``an atmosphere with an oxygen content of 
    less than 19.5% by volume at altitudes of 8000 feet or below.'' OSHA is 
    retaining the 19.5% definition of an oxygen-deficient atmosphere in the 
    final rule, but is removing the reference to altitudes. The use of a 
    19.5% oxygen level is well established and has even been incorporated 
    by Congress into other safety and health legislation (See Federal Mine 
    Safety and Health Act, 20 USC 863 (b), discussed in National Mining 
    Association v. MSHA, 116 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1997.) Paragraph d(2)(iii) 
    of the final rule requires employers to consider all oxygen-deficient 
    atmospheres to be IDLH and to require the use of pressure-demand SCBA 
    or a combination full-facepiece pressure-demand SAR with an auxiliary 
    self-contained air supply. However, this paragraph also contains an 
    exception that would permit employers to use any atmosphere-supplying 
    respirator in oxygen-deficient atmospheres where the employer can 
    demonstrate that oxygen levels cannot fall below the altitude-adjusted 
    concentrations prescribed in Table II of paragraph (d).
        The ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard, NIOSH (Ex.164), and AIHA (Ex. 2098) 
    use an altitude-adjusted definition for oxygen deficiency. Although 
    there are some small differences, these organizations generally define 
    oxygen deficiency as an oxygen level of less than 19.5% at altitudes up 
    to 5,000 or 6,000 feet, and less than 20.9% at higher elevations. OSHA 
    chose not to adopt this approach to defining oxygen deficiency for 
    several reason. First, as was stated in the proposal (59 FR 58905), 
    OSHA's concern is that employees not be exposed to environments in 
    which the oxygen partial pressure is less than 100 mm Hg; this partial 
    pressure of oxygen is generally regarded as an appropriate IDLH level 
    (Exs. 164, 208). OSHA believes that using an oxygen concentration of 
    19.5 percent as a baseline oxygen level is appropriate because exposure 
    to such an atmosphere does not pose a serious health risk at elevations 
    below 8,000 feet, i.e., the oxygen partial pressure in such atmospheres 
    will remain above 100 mm Hg (Ex.164). Although OSHA realizes that the 
    partial pressure of oxygen may be at or above 100 mm Hg even at some 
    lower altitudes and lower oxygen concentrations, these lower-altitude, 
    lower-concentration situations are generally unstable and can quickly 
    deteriorate to life-threatening atmospheres. OSHA has accounted for 
    those rare situations where the employer controls the environment to 
    maintain a constant altitude-adjusted oxygen level through the 
    exception in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the final rule. OSHA's definition 
    of oxygen deficiency is also consistent with the Compressed Gas 
    Association's definition of Grade D breathing air as air containing a 
    minimum of 19.5% oxygen. OSHA finds that defining oxygen deficiency as 
    an atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5% is both protective and 
    straightforward, and is consistent with the definition that has been 
    used by the Agency in the past.
        Oxygen-deficient IDLH atmosphere. The proposal originally included 
    a definition of oxygen-deficient IDLH atmosphere. Because the term has 
    not been used in the regulatory text of the final rule, OSHA is 
    deleting this term from paragraph (b).
        Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) is 
    defined as ``an individual whose legally permitted scope of practice 
    (i.e., license, registration, or certification) allows him or her to 
    independently provide, or be delegated the responsibility to provide, 
    some or all of the health care services required by paragraph (e) of 
    this section.'' This definition has been added because paragraph (e)(2) 
    of the final standard requires that all medical evaluation procedures 
    be performed by a PLHCP.
        OSHA has long considered the issue of whether, and if so how, to 
    specify the qualifications of the particular professionals who are 
    permitted to perform the medical evaluations required by its standards. 
    The Agency has determined that any professional who is licensed by 
    state law to perform the medical evaluation procedures required by the 
    standard may perform these procedures under the respiratory protection 
    standard. The Agency recognizes that this means that the personnel 
    qualified to provide the required medical evaluation may vary from 
    state to state, depending on state licensing laws. Under the final 
    rule, an employer has the flexibility to retain the services of a 
    variety of qualified licensed health care professionals, provided that 
    these individuals are licensed to perform a given service. OSHA 
    believes that this flexibility will reduce cost and compliance burdens 
    for employers and increase convenience for employees. The approach 
    taken in this final standard is consistent with the approach OSHA has 
    taken in other recent standards (e.g., cadmium, methylene chloride).
        Positive pressure respirator. This term has been redefined in the 
    final standard to mean ``a respirator in which the pressure inside the 
    respiratory inlet covering is positive with respect to ambient air 
    pressure outside the respirator.'' Consistent with the recommendations 
    of several commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, and 54-
    424), the final standard's definition adopts the ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    definition but adds the phrase ``outside the respirator'' for clarity.
        Powered air-purifying respirator. The final standard defines this 
    term as ``an air-purifying respirator that uses a blower to force the 
    ambient air through air-purifying elements to the inlet covering.'' 
    This revision also reflects commenters' recommendations that OSHA adopt 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard definitions (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-
    410, and 54-424). The term ``ambient atmosphere'' in the ANSI 
    definition has been replaced with the term ``ambient air'' for 
    simplicity.
        Pressure demand respirator. This type of respirator is defined as 
    ``a positive pressure atmosphere-supplying respirator that admits 
    breathing air to the facepiece when the positive pressure is reduced 
    inside the facepiece by inhalation.'' This language has been taken 
    verbatim from the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's definition, except that
    
    [[Page 1187]]
    
    the term ``breathing air'' has replaced the term ``respirable gas'' for 
    clarity.
        Qualitative fit test (QLFT). This definition has been revised to 
    read ``a pass/fail fit test to assess the adequacy of respirator fit 
    that relies on the individual's response to the test agent.'' OSHA has 
    replaced the proposal's QLFT definition with one derived from the ANSI 
    Z88.2-1992 standard but has added the phrase ``to assess the adequacy 
    of respirator fit'' to emphasize the purpose of QLFT. In addition, the 
    OSHA definition uses the phrase ``the individual's response'' instead 
    of the ANSI definition's phrase ``subject's sensory response'' for 
    clarity.
        Quantitative fit test (QNFT). This definition has been revised and 
    simplified to accommodate both current and yet-to-be-developed fit test 
    technology. The final standard defines a quantitative fit test (QNFT) 
    as ``an assessment of the adequacy of respirator fit by numerically 
    measuring the amount of leakage into the respirator.'' Commenters 
    generally opposed the proposed definition of QNFT, which made reference 
    to challenge agents, because they feared that it might interfere with 
    the development of new fit test methods (Exs. 54-5, 54-222, 54-251, 54-
    266, 54-275x, 54-350, 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-278, 54-316, 54-424). 
    OSHA agrees and has revised the definition accordingly. OSHA believes 
    that the definition of QNFT must be usable, enforceable, and 
    understandable, and accommodate evolving technology.
        Respiratory inlet covering. The final standard defines this term, 
    which is often used in descriptions of respiratory equipment, as ``that 
    portion of a respirator that forms the protective barrier between the 
    user's respiratory tract and an air-purifying device or breathing air 
    source, or both. It may be a facepiece, helmet, hood, suit, or a 
    mouthpiece respirator with nose clamp.'' This definition is adapted 
    from that in the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard; the phrase ``that connects 
    the wearer's respiratory tract'' in the ANSI definition has been 
    modified to read ``that forms the protective barrier between the user's 
    respiratory tract'' in the OSHA definition for clarity.
        Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). The proposed definition 
    of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) has been revised slightly 
    in the final standard to read ``an atmosphere-supplying respirator for 
    which the breathing air source is designed to be carried by the user.'' 
    This revised definition was adopted from the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's 
    definition of SCBA.
        Service life. The final standard defines service life as ``the 
    period of time that a respirator, filter, or sorbent, or other 
    respiratory equipment provides adequate protection to the wearer.'' 
    This definition eliminates a reference in the proposal to substances 
    ``breaking through'' the cartridge or canister, and deletes a statement 
    that respirator manufacturers are to determine service life 
    concentrations, since this is the employer's responsibility. The new 
    definition parallels ANSI's except that it contains additional language 
    covering filters, sorbents, and other respiratory equipment. This 
    definition is further explained in the discussion of paragraph (d) of 
    the Summary and Explanation.
        Supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline respirator. OSHA has 
    elected to retain a definition for supplied-air respirators, since the 
    term is used by NIOSH in the 42 CFR part 84 regulations. The final 
    standard's definition reads: ``Supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline 
    respirator means an atmosphere-supplying respirator for which the 
    source of breathing air is not designed to be carried by the user.'' 
    Participants (Exs. 54-208, 54-249) were more familiar with this term 
    than with the term ``air-supplied respirator'' recommended as an 
    alternative by some commenters (Exs. 54-218, 54-219, 54-363, 54-434). 
    The language of this definition is derived from the ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    definition for ``airline respirator,'' but also applies to supplied-air 
    respirators, a term that NIOSH uses to certify this class of 
    respirators. OSHA believes that using both names in the definition will 
    reduce confusion for respirator users.
        Tight-fitting facepiece is defined as ``a respiratory inlet 
    covering that forms a complete seal with the face.'' This term was not 
    defined in the proposal, but numerous commenters requested that OSHA 
    add this definition (Exs. 54-222, 54-283, 54-363, 54-410, 54-424, 54-
    428, 54-433, 54-455) to the final standard.
        User seal check is defined as ``an action conducted by the 
    respirator user to determine if the respirator is properly seated to 
    the face.'' Such a check is performed by the user each time the 
    respirator is donned or adjusted to ensure that the tight-fitting 
    respirator is properly seated on the user's face, i.e., that the proper 
    seal has been achieved. Several commenters recommended that OSHA add 
    the definition for ``fit check'' from the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard to 
    replace the term ``facepiece seal check'' that was used in Appendix B 
    of the proposal (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-410, 54-424). The term 
    ``fit check'' has proven confusing to those respirator users who do not 
    realize that a daily fit check is not a substitute for an annual fit 
    test. The AIHA (Ex. 54-208) recommended that OSHA add a statement to 
    Appendix B to the effect that: ``Fit checks are not substitutes for 
    qualitative or quantitative fit tests,'' and OSHA has done so in this 
    final standard. Because OSHA believes that the similarity between the 
    terms ``fit check'' and ``fit test'' is responsible for this confusion, 
    OSHA has used the term ``user seal check'' rather than ``fit check'' in 
    the final standard. The definition of ``user seal check'' derives from 
    the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's definition for ``fit check,'' except 
    that the word ``action'' has been substituted for ``test'' to avoid any 
    possible confusion among respirator users.
    
    Paragraph (c)--Respiratory Protection Program
    
        This paragraph of the final standard requires employers to develop 
    and implement a written respiratory protection program, with workplace-
    specific procedures addressing the major elements of the program, 
    whenever respirators are necessary to protect the health of the 
    employee. In addition, where an employer requires an employee to wear a 
    respirator, i.e., in a situation where the standard does not otherwise 
    require such use, a written program must be developed and implemented. 
    Employers who provide respirators at the request of their employees or 
    who allow their employees to bring their own respirators into the 
    workplace must ensure that the respirator used does not present a 
    hazard to the health of the employee. However, if the respirator 
    voluntarily worn is a filtering facepiece (dust mask), the employer is 
    not required to implement a written program. Paragraph (c)(1) also 
    requires employers to update the program when changes in the workplace 
    or in respirator use make such updating necessary.
        As in the proposed rule, the final standard requires that the 
    respiratory protection program be written. OSHA's experience and that 
    of the industrial hygiene community have demonstrated that health and 
    safety programs can best be effectively implemented and evaluated when 
    written. In addition, because workplaces differ substantially, each 
    program must be tailored to the specific conditions of the workplace if 
    it is to protect employee health, and developing a written program is 
    the most efficient way of ensuring that the program reflects the unique 
    characteristics of each workplace. Developing and writing down 
    worksite-
    
    [[Page 1188]]
    
     specific procedures requires employers to design their respiratory 
    protection programs to address the respiratory hazards in their 
    particular workplace, and this process requires employers to think 
    about and document all relevant information pertaining to the hazardous 
    atmospheres that their employees may encounter under normal operating 
    conditions or during reasonably foreseeable emergencies that may occur 
    in the workplace. Finally, OSHA's enforcement data indicate that 
    compliance with the previous standard has not been optimal, 
    particularly in smaller workplaces, and a written program will help 
    employers, employees, and compliance officers gauge the adequacy of a 
    given program.
        Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ix) identify the elements that 
    must be included in the employer's program unless the particular 
    element does not apply to the employer's workplace. The previous OSHA 
    respiratory protection standard also required employers to develop 
    written standard operating procedures that covered the selection, use, 
    cleaning, maintenance, inspection, and storage of respirators and the 
    training and medical evaluation of respirator users (paragraphs (b)(1), 
    (e)(1), and (e)(3), among other provisions of the previous standard). 
    In the final standard, the general elements of the written program have 
    been expanded, reordered and updated, and the term ``written standard 
    operating procedures (SOP)'' used in the previous standard has been 
    replaced with the words ``worksite-specific procedures.'' Thus, the 
    standard identifies the basic elements of written programs for all 
    workplaces, but the employer has the flexibility to tailor these 
    general program elements to match the specific workplace conditions and 
    processes that occur in that workplace. In the Agency's previous 
    respiratory protection standard, the requirement for written standard 
    operating procedures tended to lead to the adoption of generic 
    procedures. Changing the terminology from ``SOPs'' to ``worksite-
    specific procedures'' gives employers the incentive to develop 
    procedures that are unique and specific to the employer's workplace, to 
    describe the particular respirator selection process used in that 
    workplace, and to explain how employees are to use respirators in that 
    setting.
        OSHA has also revised the required program elements themselves, for 
    several reasons. First, they have been modified to reflect those 
    provisions of the final standard that have been added or enhanced to 
    reflect advances in respiratory protection technology, such as the 
    development of atmosphere-supplying respirators and the widespread use 
    of modern methods of fit testing. Second, several of the provisions of 
    the previous standard were vague and had caused compliance difficulties 
    for employers over the years. OSHA wishes to provide employers with 
    clear notice of what elements OSHA considers essential to an effective 
    respirator program. Third, OSHA has adopted several changes suggested 
    by commenters.
        OSHA also believes that clearer program elements will improve 
    employer compliance. According to the Minnesota Department of Labor and 
    Industry (Ex. 54-204), for example, many employers have had difficulty 
    complying with OSHA's previous standard because they were unsure what 
    elements a program was required to include. Several other data sources 
    also point to the lack of clarity in OSHA's previous standard; these 
    include OSHA's inspection data and compliance experience, comments to 
    the record (Ex. 54-219), and studies of workers (Ex. 64-65). As noted 
    in the NPRM, data collected on current respirator practices and 
    procedures in over 2300 manufacturing plants classified in 15 SIC codes 
    were reviewed by the Agency (See Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory 
    Impact Analysis, 59 FR 58892). This survey sample was used to produce 
    estimates of respirator-related practices for about 123,200 
    manufacturing plants with regular and occasional respirator use. Only 
    25.5% of these plants were estimated to have written standard operating 
    procedures, and only 7.9% had procedures that addressed all eight of 
    the program elements required by the previous standard (selection, use, 
    cleaning, maintenance, inspection and storage of respirators, and the 
    training and medical evaluation of respirator users). More than 80% of 
    the very large plants (those with 1000 or more employees) had written 
    procedures, while in small plants (those with fewer than 50 employees), 
    only about 22% had written procedures. This survey clearly showed that 
    improving the clarity of the elements to be addressed in standard 
    operating procedures would help employers to develop and implement 
    better respiratory protection programs and thus would provide greater 
    protection to workers as well.
        Similarly, a study of OSHA citations for violations of the previous 
    OSHA respirator standard from 1977 to 1982 showed that 13% of these 
    citations were issued because standard operating procedures were either 
    inadequate or missing (Rosenthal and Paull; Ex. 33-5). OSHA's latest 
    citation data for the respiratory protection standard, for the period 
    October 1990 to December 1995, show that the number of citations issued 
    for inadequate or missing written respirator programs in general 
    industry has increased to 18.4% of all respirator standard-related 
    citations. These data indicate that the conclusions reached by 
    Rosenthal and Paull are still valid. The citation history for the 
    construction industry respiratory protection standard, 29 CFR 1926.103, 
    is similar, with citations for inadequate respirator programs 
    representing 10.5% of all respirator standard-related citations in that 
    industry. OSHA believes that the percentages of respirator standard-
    related citations reported in these reviews substantially underestimate 
    the real incidence of deficient programs because it is OSHA policy not 
    to issue citations for an inadequate program unless an overexposure is 
    also documented.
        Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ix) of the final standard 
    provide additional detail about each of the required program elements 
    but remain performance based to enable employers to adapt them to their 
    workplaces. The program elements have been reorganized from those in 
    the previous standard so that they track the order of the major 
    paragraphs of the standard. OSHA believes that reordering the elements, 
    as suggested by one commenter (Ex. 54-204), is logical and should make 
    program development easier. OSHA also believes that the additional 
    detail and greater clarity provided by the final rule's program 
    elements will reduce confusion over the intent of these provisions, 
    lead to higher compliance rates, and result in better respiratory 
    protection for employees.
        The ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard for respiratory protection also states 
    that written procedures covering the complete respirator program must 
    be established and implemented (Ex. 81). Thus, like OSHA, ANSI 
    recognizes the need for a written respiratory protection program and 
    implementing procedures to provide complete and consistent protection 
    to employees wearing respirators. Although the ANSI standard does not 
    contain detailed instructions on the content of these procedures, it 
    does describe, in clause 6, the elements to be included in the program 
    to cover routine and emergency use of respirators.
        The program elements in the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard (i.e., program 
    administration, respirator selection, training, respirator fit, 
    maintenance, inspection and storage) are similar to those in paragraphs 
    (c)(1)(i) through
    
    [[Page 1189]]
    
    (c)(1)(ix) of OSHA's final standard. The specific content of each 
    element of the written procedures is left to the employer, who can 
    tailor them to match the conditions that occur in his/her worksite. 
    Although many of the program elements are common to all respiratory 
    protection programs, such as respirator selection, care, use, and 
    program evaluation, some elements, such as the one addressing 
    specifications for air quality for atmosphere-supplying respirators, 
    apply only in workplaces in which those types of respirator are used.
        OSHA received many comments, both on written programs in general 
    and on specific program elements. Some commenters (Exs. 54-160, 54-187, 
    54-238), questioned the need for a written respirator program with 
    worksite-specific procedures. For example, Transtar Railroads (Ex. 54-
    160) stated that written procedures do not guarantee an effective 
    respiratory protection program and argued that requiring additional 
    written program elements would not cause those companies who presently 
    disregard OSHA's existing standard to become more conscientious. 
    Motorola (Ex. 54-187) urged OSHA to delete the requirement for a 
    written program and instead simply to require that employers ensure 
    that respirators are properly selected, fitted, used, and maintained as 
    necessary to protect employees when respirators are required. However, 
    the requirement for a written respirator program was widely supported 
    by many other participants in the rulemaking (Exs. 54-204, 54-219, 54-
    304, 54-387, 54-389, 54-428, 54-435). For example, the United 
    Automobile Workers (Ex. 54-387) agreed that a written respiratory 
    protection program that is site-specific and detailed (for example, 
    that includes specific procedures for determining when a cartridge or 
    filter needs to be changed) should be required. The American Federation 
    of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Ex. 54-
    428) strongly supported the requirement for a written respiratory 
    program and identified such a program as the fundamental core of the 
    standard:
    
        The AFL-CIO strongly supports the Agency's proposal that 
    employers who are required to use respirators or voluntarily use 
    respirators in the workplace establish a written respiratory 
    protection program. The written program constitutes an employer's 
    plan for dealing with worker protection from hazardous airborne 
    contaminants that may be present in the workplace, and as such, we 
    view these provisions as the fundamental core of the standard. 
    Requiring a written program is essential in providing uniformity and 
    consistency while supplying the maximum protection for workers who 
    use respirators in the workplace. (Ex. 54-428)
    
        OSHA's expert witness, James Johnson of the Lawrence Livermore 
    National Laboratory, testified that respiratory protection programs 
    must be written because of their complexity:
    
        * * * A respirator program involves many decisions. What kind of 
    respirator do I use, what kind of concentrations were measured, what 
    kind of contaminants were in the workplace
        * * * So all this information is important to provide 
    documentation and understanding so that you can make sure the 
    program is adequate and you can make changes to it, to improve it 
    and to have it be a dynamic operation as the workplace changes * * * 
    (Tr. 212)
    
        Commenting in the same vein, the National Pest Control Association 
    (Ex. 54-435), which represents many small businesses, agreed that 
    requiring employers to provide a written respiratory program was 
    sensible, and the Cambrex Corporation (Ex. 54-389) noted that ``A 
    performance approach in defining written program requirements will 
    provide needed flexibility to employee protection programs.'' David 
    Lee, CIH, CSP (Ex. 54-304), strongly supported the approach OSHA has 
    taken in the final rule; he stated that a written respiratory 
    protection program should be required in all places where respirators 
    are used, regardless of the circumstances, and that the program's 
    contents should be specifically tailored to conditions of use at the 
    place of employment.
        OSHA agrees with these commenters that it is appropriate to retain 
    the previous standard's requirement for a written program, and that the 
    program must be flexibly tailored to worksite conditions. OSHA finds 
    that comments to the record, and the Agency's own compliance 
    experience, strongly suggest that many employers wish to comply but are 
    unsure about what is required; for these employers, greater clarity and 
    guidance will enhance compliance and enable them to provide their 
    employees with needed protection.
        Paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule requires employers to update the 
    program as necessary to reflect changes in the workplace. This 
    requirement has been revised somewhat from the proposal. The proposed 
    standard stated that ``[t]he written program shall reflect current 
    workplace conditions and respirator use'' (59 FR 58939). OSHA received 
    several comments on this provision (Exs. 54-278, 54-213, 54-249). For 
    example, the Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 54-278) urged OSHA to revise 
    this language to require that the program reflect only those current 
    workplace conditions ``significantly impacting respirator use.'' In the 
    final rule, OSHA has moved this provision to paragraph (c)(1) and 
    revised it to require that the program be ``updated as necessary to 
    reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator 
    use.'' OSHA believes that this change is responsive to Dow's point. As 
    now written, when the workplace changes in a way that may affect 
    respirator use, such as when new processes are introduced, changes are 
    made in the types of chemicals used, or the types of respirators being 
    used changes, employers must revise the program as necessary to reflect 
    these new conditions.
        One of the major issues raised in the rulemaking dealt with 
    situations in which respirator use is not specifically required by 29 
    CFR 1910.134 or other OSHA statutory or regulatory requirements, but 
    instead is required by employers as a condition of employment or is 
    permitted by employers upon the request of employees (i.e., voluntary 
    use). The preamble discussion for proposed paragraph (a) stated that 
    employers who required employees to use respirators would be covered by 
    the standard (59 FR 58895). OSHA also recommended in the NPRM that 
    employers who permit voluntary respirator use in their workplaces 
    implement the full respiratory protection program. In the final rule, 
    paragraph (c)(1) requires that a respiratory protection program be 
    developed and implemented ``wherever respirators are required by the 
    employer,'' but has greatly reduced the obligations of employers who 
    allow their employees to use respirators when such use is not required.
        In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA discussed the reasoning 
    behind including employer-required respirator use within the scope of 
    the standard (59 FR 58895). OSHA stated that the requirement was 
    appropriate both because the use of a respirator could in itself 
    present a health hazard to the wearer, and because improper use of a 
    respirator in environments where respiratory hazards are present would 
    not sufficiently protect employees from those hazards. OSHA finds that 
    these are still valid reasons for requiring that a respiratory 
    protection program be implemented where employers require respirator 
    use. All of the elements of a respiratory protection program apply to 
    this situation. Employers must still select respirators that are 
    appropriate to the workplace conditions and types of respiratory 
    hazards present to ensure that respirators offer adequate protection. 
    Improperly selected
    
    [[Page 1190]]
    
    respirators may afford no protection at all (for example, use of a dust 
    mask against airborne vapors), may be so uncomfortable as to be 
    intolerable to the wearer, or may hinder vision, communication, 
    hearing, or movement and thus pose a risk to the wearer's safety or 
    health.
        Employees who are required by their employers to wear respirators 
    must also be medically evaluated to determine that they are capable of 
    tolerating the increased physiological load associated with some 
    respirator use. Proper fit testing is necessary to ensure that 
    discomfort is minimized and that the respirator selected is offering 
    sufficient protection. It is also necessary that respirators required 
    by employers be cleaned, disinfected, stored, inspected, and repaired 
    according to the procedures contained in the final rule to ensure 
    proper respirator functioning and protection of employees from 
    dermatitis or exposure to hazardous contaminants that may result from 
    using a dirty respirator. Compliance with the provisions of the 
    standard dealing with supplied air quality and use is also essential 
    where employers require the use of supplied-air respirators. When 
    employers require employees to use respirators, OSHA believes it 
    necessary that employees be properly trained in their use and care, and 
    be informed of the limitations of using respirators. Paragraph (k) of 
    the final rule makes clear that employers must implement the employee 
    training requirements contained in paragraph (k) if they require their 
    employees to use respirators.
        In contrast, not all of these protections are necessary in the 
    situation where an employer allows, but does not require, respirator 
    use. OSHA has therefore added a new paragraph (c)(2) to the final rule, 
    which applies when employers allow employees to use respirators when 
    such use is not required by the employer or by the standard. This 
    paragraph applies when employers either provide respirators to 
    employees who request them or allow employees to use their own 
    respirators. In both situations, paragraph (c)(2)(i) states that 
    employers must determine that the employees that they allow to use 
    respirators are medically able to do so, and that there are no other 
    conditions that could cause the respirator use to create a hazard.
        If the employer allows voluntary respirator use, paragraph 
    (c)(2)(i) requires that the employer provide the employee with the 
    information contained in Appendix D to this standard, entitled 
    ``Information for Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under 
    the Standard.'' In the rare case where an employee is voluntarily using 
    other than a filtering facepiece (dust mask) respirator (paragraph 
    (c)(2)(ii)), the employer must implement some of the elements of a 
    respiratory protection program, e.g., the medical evaluation component 
    of the program and, if the respirator is to be reworn, the cleaning, 
    maintenance, and storage components. An exception to this paragraph 
    makes clear that, where voluntary respirator use involves only 
    filtering facepieces (dust masks), the employer is not required to 
    implement a written program.
        Paragraph (c)(2) is necessary because the use of respirators may 
    itself present a health hazard to employees who are not medically able 
    to wear them, who do not have adequate information to use and care for 
    respirators properly, and who do not understand the limitations of 
    respirators. Paragraph (c)(2) is intended to allow employers 
    flexibility to permit employees to use respirators in situations where 
    the employees wish to do so, without imposing the burden of 
    implementing an entire respirator program. At the same time, it will 
    help ensure that such use does not create an additional hazard and that 
    employees are provided with enough information to use and care for 
    their respirators properly. This provision does not, of course, 
    preclude employers from adopting additional program elements if they 
    believe such elements are appropriate.
        The great majority of voluntary use situations involve the use of 
    dust masks, i.e., filtering facepieces, which are provided for the 
    employee's comfort. For example, some employees who have seasonal 
    allergies may request a mask for comfort when working outdoors, or an 
    employee may request a dust mask for use while sweeping a dusty floor. 
    There are no medical limitations on the use of these respirators, so 
    employers who allow their use need only ensure that the masks are not 
    dirty or contaminated, that their use does not interfere with 
    employees' ability to work safely, and that they provide the employees 
    with the information contained in Appendix D, as required by paragraph 
    (k) of the final rule.
        In rare cases where the employee requests and the employer allows 
    the use of a negative-pressure respirator (tight-fitting), or where the 
    employee brings such a respirator into the workplace, the employer must 
    implement some provisions of the respirator program described in 
    paragraph (c)(1) to ensure that such respirator use will not affect the 
    employee's health adversely. The employer can include these elements in 
    its existing respiratory protection program, if it is required to 
    maintain one. Some medical evaluation is necessary to determine that 
    the employee is physically able to use a tight-fitting negative 
    pressure respirator. In addition, if the respirators being used 
    voluntarily are reused, it is necessary to ensure that they are 
    maintained in proper condition to ensure that the employee is not 
    exposed to any contaminants that may be present in the facepiece, and 
    to prevent skin irritation and dermatitis associated with the use of a 
    respirator that has not been cleaned or disinfected. OSHA believes it 
    unlikely that voluntary use situations will involve the use of 
    supplied-air devices, but such use would also trigger these 
    requirements of the standard.
        These requirements are necessary because use of a negative pressure 
    (tight-fitting) respirator imposes a significant physiologic burden on 
    a respirator user, and it is crucial to determine that the user can 
    withstand that burden without suffering adverse health consequences. 
    Similarly, reusable tight-fitting negative pressure respirators can 
    become contaminated if they are not cleaned, maintained, and stored 
    properly. Thus if an employer allows use of this type of respirator, 
    the employer must implement the program elements necessary to ensure 
    that contamination does not harm the employee.
        The hazards addressed by this requirement are the same ones that 
    are already considered under OSHA's longstanding enforcement policy. 
    The Agency generally does not issue citations for violations of its 
    respirator standards unless there is also evidence of overexposure to a 
    hazardous substance, or some other hazard caused by improper or 
    inadequate respirator use. (OSHA Field Inspection Reference Manual 
    (FIRM), Ch. III. Sec. C.3.c). Other hazards referenced in the FIRM 
    include ingestion of harmful substances that may remain on improperly 
    cleaned and maintained respirators, or dermatitis caused by the same 
    condition. These are precisely the hazards that the requirements of 
    paragraph (c)(2) are designed to prevent. They can occur whether 
    respirator use is voluntary or required, and OSHA does not believe it 
    would be consistent with the OSH Act to allow employees to expose 
    themselves to preventable hazards, particularly where there are fairly 
    undemanding measures available to prevent that exposure.
        Requiring employers to undertake these minimal obligations when 
    they allow voluntary respirator use is
    
    [[Page 1191]]
    
    consistent with the fact that employers control the working conditions 
    of employees and are therefore responsible for developing procedures 
    designed to protect the health and safety of the employees. Employers 
    routinely develop and enforce rules and requirements for employees to 
    follow based on considerations of safety. For example, although an 
    employer allows employees discretion in the types of clothing that may 
    be worn on site, the employer would prohibit the wearing of loose 
    clothing in areas where clothing could get caught in machinery, or 
    prohibit the use of sleeveless shirts where there is a potential for 
    skin contact with hazardous materials. Similarly, if an employer 
    determines that improper or inappropriate respirator use presents a 
    hazard to the wearer, OSHA finds that the employer must exert control 
    over such respirator use and take steps to see that respirators are 
    safely used under an appropriate program. It has been OSHA's experience 
    that employers will be able to determine whether employees are using 
    their own respirators in the workplace, just as they are able to 
    determine that employees are adhering to all other procedures and 
    requirements established by the employer.
        Concomitantly, OSHA's decision to impose fewer requirements on 
    voluntary respirator use than on required use is supported by the 
    record. Many comments addressed the issue of how the final standard 
    should treat these two types of respirator use. Many commenters (Exs. 
    54-96, 54-109, 54-196, 54-222, 54-272, 54-341, 54-424, 145, 176, Tr. 
    2127, Tr. 2174 ) supported the inclusion of employer-required 
    respirator use, but not of voluntary use, within the full scope of the 
    standard. Many of these rulemaking participants believed that voluntary 
    respirator use should require a minimal program designed to provide 
    information and training to the employee, and that other elements of 
    the program should not be made mandatory. Typical of these was the 
    post-hearing comment of Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC):
    
        OSHA should not require a complete respirator program for the 
    voluntary use of respirators by employees, when not required by an 
    OSHA standard, or by the employer. Some employees will wish to use 
    respirators even though they are not required to protect against 
    overexposure to a toxic hazard. In these instances the employer 
    should be required only to inform the employee of the safe and 
    proper use of such respirators and any associated limitations on the 
    particular device chosen (Ex. 145).
    
    In addition, some of these commenters (Exs. 54-341, 176, Tr. 594, Tr. 
    2100) suggested that requiring employers to comply with all or most of 
    the requirements would discourage employers from permitting voluntary 
    respirator use in their workplaces. For example, in its post-hearing 
    submission, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association 
    (NAIMA) commented as follows:
    
        NAIMA agrees with many other hearing participants that employers 
    should be required to train voluntary respirator users in the proper 
    function and use of respirators * * * OSHA should, however, tailor 
    other aspects of the Proposed Rule to ensure that the more onerous 
    and unnecessary additional requirements, such as comprehensive 
    medical examinations, are not imposed in truly voluntary use 
    situations. Applying unnecessary ancillary requirements to voluntary 
    use situations would discourage employers from allowing workers such 
    use (Ex. 176).
    
        OSHA believes that the final rule provides for the kind of 
    tailoring suggested by NAIMA's comment. Employers who permit the 
    voluntary use of tight-fitting negative-pressure respirators must 
    utilize the procedures necessary to address the health hazards 
    associated with the use of such respirators, but in the vast majority 
    of voluntary-use situations where employees are using dust masks 
    (filtering facepieces), the standard does not require the employer to 
    implement a written respirator program to ensure employee health. Thus, 
    the final rule does not require employers providing dust masks 
    (filtering facepieces) to their employees to comply with the 
    requirements that NAIMA considers ``onerous and unnecessary'' in this 
    situation. However, where respirators are used voluntarily by 
    employees, and the use of a given type of respirator, e.g., a tight-
    fitting negative pressure respirator, is associated with an increased 
    health risk, OSHA finds that applying relevant portions of the 
    respiratory protection program is essential to ensure worker 
    protection.
        Other commenters (Exs. 54-214, 54-218, 54-278, 54-389) believed 
    that application of the standard should be limited in situations where 
    there was no exposure to a respiratory hazard, regardless of whether 
    respirator use is required by employers in this situation or is 
    voluntary. In discussing this issue, the 3M Company commented as 
    follows:
    
        1. Any use of respirators or masks in the workplace should 
    trigger a requirement for at least a minimal respiratory protection 
    program. Regardless of whether use is required or recommended by an 
    employer or is self-imposed by an employee, the employer should be 
    responsible for the safe use of respirators and masks in the 
    workplace.
        2. Where it is documented by an employer that no hazard exists--
    such as when used against non-toxic materials, exposures well below 
    the permissible exposure limit (PEL) or hazard level, or voluntary 
    use against such conditions as discomfort or allergies--the rule 
    should only require an abbreviated respiratory protection program * 
    * *. (Ex. 54-218)
    
    In a similar argument, the Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 54-278) suggested 
    that employers be exempt from the standard's requirements if they 
    require employees to use respirators as a precautionary measure where 
    exposures are below the PELs.
        OSHA did not adopt this approach in the final rule because the 
    Agency believes that, in most cases of employer-required respirator 
    use, respirators are being used as protection against actual or 
    potential exposure to a respiratory hazard. In these cases, OSHA finds 
    that it is necessary and appropriate that the employer implement all 
    elements of the respiratory protection program that apply to the 
    worksite-specific conditions under which respirators are used. If 
    respirators are used as protection against a real or potential risk 
    caused by exposure to a respiratory hazard, OSHA believes it essential 
    for the employer to provide for proper respirator selection, fit 
    testing, medical evaluation, and care and maintenance to ensure that 
    the respirator is providing sufficient protection against the hazard 
    and that use of the respirator is not imposing an additional health 
    risk. OSHA also believes that, by distinguishing between employer-
    required and voluntary respirator use in the final rule, it will be 
    easier for employers to determine the extent to which the standard will 
    apply to their specific workplaces.
        Other rulemaking participants (Exs. 54-208, 177, Tr. 782, Tr. 1722) 
    were of the opinion that voluntary respirator use should not be 
    distinguished from employer-required use in determining how the 
    standard should apply, or reported that some employers already 
    implement a program for voluntary use. The AIHA, in support of full 
    coverage of the standard for voluntary respirator use, stated in 
    written comment:
    
        The position of AIHA is that all use of respiratory protection 
    should be covered by an employer's respiratory protection program. 
    That includes both voluntary use as well as required use. Both 
    groups should participate in all elements of the respiratory 
    protection program. An individual desiring to wear a respirator to 
    obtain some level of comfort or to further reduce their exposure to
    
    [[Page 1192]]
    
    a chemical in the workplace should receive the full benefits of an 
    established program: training to convey proper knowledge in 
    equipment selection, maintenance, and use; medical evaluation to 
    confirm that its use will not present a risk to the individual; and 
    fit testing to confirm that the equipment fits properly and 
    workplace surveillance to confirm that the equipment being utilized 
    is suitable for the exposure level. (Ex. 54-208)
    
    At the public hearing, Larry Janssen of the AIHA elaborated that ``* * 
    * there should be some kind of a minimum framework to prevent the 
    misuse of respirators in those voluntary use situations, that you don't 
    do harm by allowing a respirator to be used where it's not really 
    needed'' (Tr. 782). Similarly, in a post-hearing comment, the 
    Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) stated that it was 
    important to cover voluntary use in the standard since ``* * * 
    [r]espirators that are not used properly could present a hazard'' (Ex. 
    177). This practice is already being implemented in some workplaces; 
    Richard Holmes of Union Carbide, representing the Chemical 
    Manufacturers Association (CMA) at the hearings (Tr. 1722), testified 
    that ``* * * [w]e treat the voluntary user just like a mandatory user 
    so they're in the program just as though they were required to wear the 
    respirator and the * * * medical surveillance is all handled the same * 
    * * [as is the training].''
        As discussed above, OSHA agrees that some voluntary respirator use 
    (e.g., that involving tight-fitting negative-pressure respirators) may 
    present a health hazard to employees if the respirator is not properly 
    selected, maintained, and used. Therefore, OSHA has revised the final 
    rule to ensure that employers who permit voluntary use of such 
    respirators in their workplaces implement those portions of the 
    standard necessary to protect employees from any health risks 
    associated with respirator use. The position taken in the final rule 
    also reflects OSHA's long-standing enforcement policy with the previous 
    respiratory protection standard, as stated in the FIRM and in several 
    letters of interpretation issued by the Agency (See letters dated 10/2/
    87 from Thomas J. Shepich, 4/11/91 from Patricia K. Clark, 3/19/91 from 
    Patricia K. Clark, 3/4/93 from Roger A. Clark (2 letters), and 3/15/95 
    from Ruth McCully). For example, in the letter of March 4, 1993 from 
    Roger A. Clark, OSHA stated its policy regarding the application of 29 
    CFR 1910.134 to the voluntary use of respirators:
    
        OSHA's policy is that if the respirator itself could present an 
    adverse health condition if a specific requirement of the 
    respiratory protection standard is not observed, then the 
    requirement applies. Examples may include a dirty respirator that is 
    causing dermatitis, a worker's health being jeopardized by wearing a 
    respirator due to an inadequately evaluated medical condition, or a 
    significant ingestion hazard created by an improperly cleaned 
    respirator. This is so regardless of whether the employee purchased 
    the respirator or the employer provides it.
    
        OSHA also has determined that complete training is not required for 
    employees using respirators voluntarily. Instead, paragraph (k) of the 
    final rule requires employers to provide the information contained in 
    Appendix D to ensure that employees are informed of proper respirator 
    use and the limitations of respirators.
        Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ix) list the elements of the 
    respirator program required by this standard. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) 
    requires the program to contain procedures for the selection of 
    respirators appropriate to protect employees from the respiratory 
    hazards present in the particular workplace. This provision is 
    unchanged from the corresponding provision in the proposal and is also 
    similar to paragraph (b)(2) of OSHA's previous standard. Paragraph 
    (c)(1)(ii) addresses the medical evaluation of employees required to 
    wear respirators and is unchanged from the parallel requirement in the 
    proposal. The AIHA (Ex. 54-208) recommended that paragraph (c)(1)(ii), 
    which requires employers to develop procedures addressing ``medical 
    evaluations of employees required to wear respirators,'' be changed to 
    specify that these procedures need only cover employees who are 
    ``authorized by the employer to wear respirators''; the AIHA wanted 
    this word change to ensure that employers understood that these 
    procedures must cover both voluntary and required use. However, as 
    explained above, OSHA has decided to require medical evaluation of 
    employees who use respirators voluntarily only when such use may 
    present a health hazard to employees, e.g., in the case of tight-
    fitting negative pressure respirators. Therefore, OSHA has not included 
    the language suggested by the AIHA in the final rule.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) covers the fit test element of the program 
    and has been modified since the proposal to respond to comments. The 
    proposal would have required the program to contain fit testing 
    procedures ``for air-purifying respirators and tight-fitting positive 
    pressure respirators.'' The Service Employees International Union (Ex. 
    54-455) commented that this provision only needed to address ``tight-
    fitting respirators'' because this language adequately describes the 
    respiratory equipment to be covered. Since OSHA has revised the fit 
    testing requirements in paragraph (f) to cover all tight-fitting 
    respirators, the language in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) has been revised 
    accordingly.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) states that employers shall include 
    ``Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably 
    foreseeable emergency situations.'' In the NPRM, this requirement was 
    addressed under paragraph (g)(1), but it has been moved into paragraph 
    (c)(1) of the final rule to ensure that employers are aware that 
    written workplace-specific procedures must address both routine and 
    non-routine respirator usage, including that in reasonably foreseeable 
    emergency situations. OSHA received no comments on this provision.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(v) requires the workplace-specific procedures to 
    cover ``procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, 
    inspecting, repairing, discarding, and otherwise maintaining 
    respirators.'' This provision is unchanged from that proposed. The 
    American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) urged OSHA to remove the word 
    ``schedules'' from paragraph (c)(1)(iv) and to substitute the word 
    ``frequencies'' instead. AISI stated that the term ``schedules'' 
    connotes a requirement for extensive recordkeeping and paperwork. OSHA 
    does not agree. Since OSHA requires the respirator program to be 
    written, as required under the prior standard and as proposed and 
    supported by comments in this rulemaking, it is OSHA's conclusion that 
    including the employer's schedule for cleaning, disinfecting, or 
    otherwise maintaining respirators is not unduly burdensome. A schedule 
    is needed to inform employees when they are to have their respirators 
    fit tested, cleaned, and maintained. Therefore, OSHA is retaining the 
    word ``schedule.'' Representatives of the Service Employees 
    International Union [(SEIU) Ex. 54-455)] strongly supported the 
    requirement for maintenance schedules as proposed under paragraph 
    (c)(1)(v) of the NPRM for the same reason.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) is essentially unchanged from the proposal and 
    requires ``Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and 
    flow of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators.'' 
    Representatives from SEIU (Ex. 54-455) supported OSHA's addition of 
    ``quantity and flow'' to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) in the NPRM. Proper air 
    quality and quantity are crucial to the use of supplied air respirators 
    to protect worker health. The revised provision has been slightly 
    modified from the provision in the NPRM that
    
    [[Page 1193]]
    
    read ``* * * ensure proper air quality, quantity, and flow * * *'' for 
    atmosphere-supplying respirators. The addition of the words ``* * * for 
    breathing air * * *'' is to clarify that under no circumstances should 
    air for atmosphere-supplying respirators be of less than Grade D 
    breathing air quality.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(vii), as proposed, would have required employers 
    to include ``[t]raining of employees in the respiratory and health 
    hazards of the hazardous chemicals to which they are potentially 
    exposed as required under the Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 
    1910.1200).'' Several commenters questioned the need to cross-reference 
    an existing OSHA standard in the respirator standard, and recommended 
    that this provision be deleted (Exs. 54-154, 54-271, 54-278, 54-295, 
    54-307). OSHA agrees that the cross-reference is unnecessary, and the 
    reference to the Hazard Communication standard has been removed from 
    the final standard. However, the requirement that employers develop 
    procedures that address the ``Training of employees in the respiratory 
    hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and 
    emergency situations'' remains, because there are respiratory hazards, 
    such as biological hazards and radioactive particles, that are not 
    covered by the Hazard Communication standard.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) requires employers to develop procedures for 
    the training of employees in the proper use of respirators, including 
    putting on and removing them, the limitations of these devices, and 
    maintenance procedures for respirators. OSHA received no comments on 
    this provision, which has been revised slightly since the proposal for 
    clarity.
        Paragraph (c)(1)(ix) states that the program should include 
    ``Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the 
    program.'' This provision is basically the same as in the NPRM except 
    that the word ``periodically'' has been deleted to avoid the suggestion 
    that OSHA has a fixed interval in mind. This provision notifies 
    employers that their written workplace procedures must include routine 
    evaluation of the program to ensure that it is effective, up-to-date, 
    and includes all necessary provisions. In workplaces where worksite-
    specific conditions are relatively stable, such as a manufacturing 
    site, program evaluation may be conducted on a fixed schedule. In other 
    workplaces where worksite conditions are less stable, employers must 
    develop schedules for evaluating the program that make sense in that 
    context.
        In a general comment, the United States Enrichment Corporation (Ex. 
    54-283) stated that the final rule's requirements for work procedures 
    in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(ix) implied that OSHA intended 
    separate documents to be developed to meet each of the requirements, 
    and asked OSHA to clarify this. It has always been OSHA's intention 
    that the employer can address the required program elements and the 
    development of worksite-specific procedures in a single document, the 
    written respiratory protection program. OSHA believes that reorganizing 
    the elements of this program to track the order of the standard will 
    facilitate the inclusion of all worksite-specific procedures into one 
    document.
        In another general comment, Peter Hernandez of the American Iron 
    and Steel Institute (AISI) (Ex. 54-307) urged OSHA to revise paragraph 
    (c) and other paragraphs of the final rule to remove the term 
    ``ensure,'' which he interpreted as imposing an impossible burden on 
    employers. OSHA disagrees with this interpretation, however. OSHA 
    standards use the word ``ensure'' because they impose a mandatory 
    requirement to comply on employers and because the OSH Act and 
    subsequent case law have made it clear that it is the employer's 
    responsibility to compel compliance. The reasoning behind this body of 
    case law is that it is the employer, and not the employee, who controls 
    the conditions of work at a given workplace. OSHA believes that the 
    word ``ensure'' is appropriate because it indicates that the employer 
    must manage, lead by example, train, direct, and, if necessary, set up 
    a disciplinary system so that employees understand that they must 
    follow safe and healthful practices on the job. However, case law also 
    makes it clear that employers are not the ``insurers'' of their 
    employees' behavior. In other words, if an employer establishes, 
    implements, trains employees in, and enforces safe operating 
    procedures, and does so in a consistent manner, the employer will not 
    be liable for an employee's unforeseeable violation of its safety rule.
        Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule requires employers to designate 
    a person as program administrator and to ensure that this person is 
    qualified to perform the responsibilities of this position. The person 
    can be qualified either by appropriate training or experience or both. 
    The administrator is also the person responsible for evaluating the 
    program, as stated in paragraph (c)(3). This requirement is essentially 
    unchanged from the proposal, although its language has been clarified. 
    The ANSI Z88.2-1992 respiratory protection standard (Ex. 81) also 
    contains a description of the responsibilities of the program 
    administrator and a requirement that the respirator program be 
    ``periodically audited to ensure that (a) the program procedures 
    reflect the requirements of current applicable regulations and industry 
    accepted standards and (b) the program as implemented reflects the 
    written procedures'' (See clause 5.3). The ANSI standard recommends 
    that the audit be conducted by a knowledgeable person not directly 
    associated with the program, rather than by the program administrator. 
    OSHA has not adopted the ANSI recommendation that periodic audits be 
    performed by knowledgeable outside persons because the OSHA standard 
    requires the administrator to be qualified to perform this task; thus, 
    an additional requirement for audits to be performed by an outside 
    party is unnecessary and may prove unduly burdensome for some 
    employers.
        The training requirements and experience level necessary for the 
    program administrator were the subject of substantial comment. OSHA 
    proposed that the program supervisor be a person ``qualified by 
    appropriate training and/or experience'' to be responsible for the 
    respirator program. Many commenters supported this performance-based 
    requirement (Exs. 54-68, 54-80, 54-91, 54-175, 54-187, 54-208, 54-219, 
    54-220, 54-222, 54-252, 54-319, 54-352, 54-361, 54-435, 54-455). For 
    example, the Service Employees International Union (Ex. 54-455) 
    supported the proposed ``performance-oriented qualifications for the 
    designated person (program administrator).'' Allied Signal (Ex. 54-175) 
    stated that ``there should be no specific minimum training for program 
    administrators. We believe the level of training for the respirator 
    program administrator must be adequate to deal with the complexity of 
    the program.'' Motorola (Ex. 54-187) commented that ``Training 
    requirements for those individuals designated by the employer to 
    administer the program should be commensurate with the type of 
    respirator program needed at the workplace.''
        Several commenters urged OSHA to add a phrase to this requirement 
    in the final rule to require that the level of program supervisor 
    training must be adequate to deal with the complexity of the program 
    because the level of training appropriate for a workplace with 
    extensive respirator use is substantially different from one with 
    limited respirator use (Exs. 54-175, 54-
    
    [[Page 1194]]
    
     187, 54-200, 54-206, 54-214, 54-219, 54-222, 54-245, 54-265, 54-266, 
    54-275, 54-361). As Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) stated:
    
        An employer's respirator usage may be limited to dust 
    respirators or may have a wide variety of types covering both air-
    purifying and atmosphere-supplying respirators. Program 
    administrator training/qualifications would need to cover a wider 
    range of topics in the latter case than in the former case.
    
        However, some commenters, e.g., the Sparks Nevada Fire Department 
    (Ex. 54-129), wanted to avoid imposing overly stringent requirements on 
    choosing a program administrator, while others, e.g., the Grain 
    Elevator and Processing Society (Ex. 54-226), urged OSHA to delete the 
    phrase ``qualified by training and/or experience'' on the grounds that 
    there are no widely accepted criteria for determining such a program 
    administrator's qualifications. A few commenters acknowledged that 
    since the program administrator's tasks often vary by type of 
    workplace, it would be difficult for OSHA to establish a required 
    minimum level of training that would be appropriate for all program 
    supervisors in all workplaces. Michael Rehfield, Safety Officer for the 
    Westminster, Maryland Fire Department (Ex. 54-68) stated:
    
        I am in total agreement that the person fulfilling this role and 
    the ``qualifications'' should be ``performance oriented''. That 
    language should appear in this section. It is imperative that the 
    emergency response community be represented by performance oriented 
    standards or regulations since the associated tasks are so diverse.
    
        A working group from the State Universities of New York (Ex. 54-
    357) felt that the performance language regarding program supervisors 
    was too vague, and suggested that a nonmandatory appendix be added to 
    identify the types of qualifications a program supervisor would need. 
    The United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of 
    America (UAW) (Ex. 54-387) wanted OSHA to define a body of knowledge 
    necessary to carry out the duties of a qualified program administrator.
        OSHA discussed these qualifications in the preamble to the NPRM at 
    59 FR 58898-58899. That proposal discussion reiterated many of the 
    points that are described above: that the level of training appropriate 
    for a workplace with limited respirator use would be quite different 
    from another with extensive use of different respirator types, and that 
    the program administrator can work with a workplace respirator 
    committee, or assign responsibility for portions of the program to 
    industrial hygienists, safety professionals, or other respirator 
    experts while retaining overall responsibility for the program. In 
    other words, the level of training of the program administrator must be 
    adequate to deal with the complexity of the respirator program.
        The AFL-CIO (Exs. 54-428, 255) urged OSHA to add a new definition 
    to paragraph (b) for qualified person as follows:
    
        Qualified Person: This should be defined as, someone who is 
    capable of identifying existing and predictable respiratory hazards 
    in the workplace and who maintains a common knowledge of the 
    respirator standard. This individual should possess the authority to 
    take prompt corrective action to eliminate hazards including the 
    measures required in subsection (c). The qualified person shall be 
    certified by the manufacturer(s) for their ability to select and 
    maintain the type(s) of respirator(s) that is/are used on the job 
    site or possess the experience and knowledge needed to properly 
    select respirators for the employees and job situation.
    
        Instead of adopting the AFL-CIO definition for ``qualified 
    person,'' OSHA has relied on the type of wording used in the ANSI 
    standard, which is more performance oriented. Specifying in detail the 
    type and extent of training required for program administrators depends 
    upon the type of workplace and is best left to the employer, in OSHA's 
    opinion. For example, the level of training that would be appropriate 
    for a workplace with limited respirator use would be quite different 
    from that required at another workplace with extensive respirator use 
    for IDLH atmospheres, highly toxic chemicals, or other complex 
    respirator use operations. Therefore, OSHA has adopted a definition of 
    training and experience that uses performance language and is similar 
    to the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's requirement. However, OSHA does 
    require employers to ensure that the level of training for the 
    respirator program administrator is adequate to deal with the 
    complexity of the workplace.
        In keeping with this approach, OSHA has not established any one 
    training program, such as the NIOSH respirator course, as the level of 
    training program administrators must achieve. OSHA believes that 
    NIOSH's course is excellent, and therefore more than sufficient in most 
    cases. However, OSHA acknowledges commenters' concerns that a general 
    respirator training course covers a broad range of many different 
    respirator types and uses, and provides information that is not 
    tailored to any one particular workplace (Exs. 54-220, 54-265, 54-342, 
    54-435). Typical of these comments is one by the United Parcel Service 
    (Ex. 54-220), which stated: ``An attempt to fashion uniform standards 
    for all administrators of all respiratory programs could result in 
    inadequate training for administrators of particularly sophisticated or 
    specialized programs and irrelevant training for administrators of 
    relatively simple programs.'' The North American Insulation 
    Manufacturers Association agreed, stating (Ex. 54-342) ``A requirement 
    that supervisors undergo a rigid minimum training regimen, which would 
    require instruction on many issues irrelevant to the supervisor's own 
    situation, would be excessive and beyond the rule's intended 
    objective.'' For example, extensive training on certain types of 
    respirators such as SCBAs would be inappropriate for program 
    administrators with simple programs that don't use SCBAs. In other 
    cases, respirator program administrators with highly complex respirator 
    programs may need an even more comprehensive course than that provided 
    by a general respirator training course. Based on the above discussion, 
    OSHA has retained a performance-based program approach. OSHA 
    anticipates that larger establishments will develop training 
    requirements for respirator program administrators that fit the needs 
    of a workplace-specific respirator program.
        OSHA has prepared a Small Entity Compliance Guide setting forth how 
    a small business owner, manager or an employee of the small business 
    can be qualified to be a program administrator. It also sets forth a 
    sample respirator program to guide small businesses. If the employees 
    of a small business are only exposed to nuisance dusts and relatively 
    non-toxic chemicals and use only a few types of relatively simple 
    respirators, knowledge of the guide and materials supplied by the 
    respirator manufacturer may be sufficient for the small business owner 
    or an employee to become qualified as a program administrator. If more 
    dangerous chemicals or high exposures are present, or sophisticated 
    respirators are used, the program administrator must have more 
    knowledge or experience. In these circumstances, it may be necessary 
    for the administrator to seek out the expertise needed or to obtain 
    appropriate training.
        The need for a specific individual to be in charge of the 
    respirator program was discussed by several commenters. One commenter 
    argued that requiring that a specific person be selected as program 
    administrator requires the equivalent of a full-time person to
    
    [[Page 1195]]
    
    manage the program and conduct periodic reviews of its performance (Ex. 
    54-160). Motorola (Ex. 54-187) stated that one overall program 
    administrator would be a problem for decentralized workplaces. Motorola 
    recommended that OSHA permit a committee or multiple employees to be 
    responsible for the respirator program, thus allowing the employer to 
    tailor the program to meet the needs of each particular workplace. Dow 
    (Ex. 54-278) also supported the use of a committee or team with joint 
    responsibility for the respirator program at large sites. Duke Power 
    (Ex. 54-326) stated that at large facilities, such as nuclear stations, 
    it is often necessary to designate more than one program administrator 
    to address radiological and non-radiological use of respirators. The 
    Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Ex. 54-196) said it may be 
    more effective to have a program administrator for each ``business 
    unit'' in a decentralized, diversified company, particularly where each 
    unit's respiratory protection needs are different (Ex. 54-196). The 
    AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428) wanted to have one qualified person responsible 
    for the program, with a ``site person'' at each work site, who would be 
    responsible for the program at that site, but who would report to the 
    qualified person. The Department of Defense (Ex. 54-443), specifically 
    the Navy, urged OSHA to add language to require that each ``activity'' 
    designate a person responsible for the respiratory protection program 
    because a single program administrator would be a potential problem for 
    a large, multi-tiered employer with activities throughout the world, 
    such as the Navy.
        The final standard continues to require that a person qualified by 
    training or experience be designated to be responsible for the overall 
    management and administration of the program to ensure that the 
    integrity of the respiratory protection program is maintained through 
    the continuous oversight of one responsible individual. The program 
    administrator may serve largely in an oversight and coordination role 
    between the various subunits or departments that perform duties in 
    support of the respiratory program. Regardless of the number of 
    subunits, each employer must ensure that all subunits report to one 
    overall program administrator for coordination of the program. The 
    program administrator can use the assistance of industrial hygienists, 
    safety professionals, or other respirator experts to help run the 
    respirator program. The program administrator can work with a committee 
    or assign responsibility for portions of the program to other 
    personnel, but the overall responsibility for the operation of the 
    program must remain with the designated program administrator. This 
    approach promotes coordination of all facets of the program. For large 
    companies or multiple worksites, the program administrator can delegate 
    to a qualified person the responsibility for the day-to-day operation 
    of the program at a specific site or for a specific activity. However, 
    coordination between different worksites is an important aspect of the 
    operation of a good program; therefore, ensuring implementation of the 
    overall respirator program remains the duty and responsibility of the 
    program administrator. For small and moderate sized employers, OSHA 
    believes that the duties of a program administrator will require only a 
    small part of one employee's time.
        Paragraph (c)(4) of the final rule requires employers to provide 
    respirators at no cost to the employee. This was included in the 
    proposal in paragraph (d)(1) and has been moved to paragraph (c) of 
    this final standard. This provision reflects OSHA's strong orientation 
    that the costs of complying with safety and health requirements must be 
    borne by the employer. OSHA has a long-standing policy that employers 
    are obligated to provide and pay for necessary personal protective 
    equipment (PPE) such as respirators used by employees on the job. A 
    compliance memorandum of October 18, 1994, titled ``Employer Obligation 
    to Pay for Personal Protective Equipment'' provides detailed guidance 
    on this issue. It is available online on the Internet on OSHA's home 
    page at http://www.OSHA.gov. The inclusion of this provision is 
    consistent with recent OSHA standards, e.g., Cadmium, 29 CFR 
    Sec. 1910.1027; 1,3-Butadiene, 29 CFR 1910.1051; and Methylene 
    Chloride, 29 CFR 1910.1052.
        OSHA is aware that the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
    Commission has not always agreed with the Agency that standards 
    requiring an employer to ``provide'' safety or health equipment also 
    require the employer to pay for that equipment. See, e.g., Union Tank 
    Car Co., OSHRC No. 96-0563 (October 16, 1997). OSHA believes the 
    Commission is wrong about this issue. OSHA intends the language ``at no 
    cost to the employee'' in paragraph (c)(4) to make the employer's 
    obligation to pay for the respiratory protection required by this 
    standard crystal clear.
        The requirement that the employer bear the costs of employee 
    training and medical evaluations has also been moved to paragraph 
    (c)(4) of the final rule, in order to consolidate all similar 
    provisions of the standard that clarify that, for these provisions, 
    there is no cost to the employee. Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act 
    requires that employers provide medical exams and evaluations at no 
    cost to employees.
    
    Paragraph (d)--Selection of Respirators
    
    Overview
        Paragraph (d) of the final rule contains respirator selection 
    criteria and requirements. OSHA has included these provisions in the 
    final rule because the record contains many examples of workers using 
    respirators that are inappropriate for the type of respiratory hazards 
    present (e.g., wearing paper dust masks where the exposure is to a gas 
    or vapor contaminant (UAW, Ex. 54-387); using half facepiece 
    respirators in acrylonitrile IDLH atmospheres of 20 ppm (International 
    Chemical Workers Union (ICWU), Ex. 54-427)). In addition, OSHA's long 
    enforcement experience has shown that employers often lack the 
    information necessary to make informed choices about respirator 
    selection. OSHA stated in the proposal (59 FR 58899) that a major 
    deficiency of the previous standard is that it did not contain 
    selection criteria; instead, it merely referred employers to the ANSI 
    Z88.2-1969 standard.
        No participant in this rulemaking disagreed with OSHA's decision 
    that the final standard should include mandatory selection criteria. 
    The record does show, however, that there are differences of opinion 
    about how restrictive and comprehensive the required criteria should 
    be, and how much flexibility should be left to employers in the 
    selection process. For example, the Association of American Railroads 
    (Ex. 54-286) stated that the details of respirator selection should be 
    left to the regulated community and that OSHA should only specify the 
    outcome desired, while the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 
    (Ex. 54-455) commented that OSHA should ``strengthen the wording to 
    make it clear employers must obtain and account for all of the factors 
    listed.'' OSHA believes that those employers who employ on-site 
    occupational health professionals generally have the expertise to 
    select respirators that are appropriate for their workers. The record 
    contains a number of examples of well-thought-out selection programs 
    (e.g., Exs. 142, 155, 163). These examples show that the current 
    practice of many employers already conforms to the selection 
    requirements of paragraph (d). For other employers, however, clearly 
    stated
    
    [[Page 1196]]
    
    respirator selection rules and guidance are required.
        OSHA notes that advice on the selection of respirators is available 
    from many sources. NIOSH has developed a respirator decision logic, 
    widely available and used since 1987, which provides a schematic 
    selection guide covering all critical areas of respirator selection 
    (Ex. 9). The selection guide for the ANSI Z88.2-1969 respirator 
    standard was incorporated by reference into the previous OSHA standard, 
    and the 1992 Z88.2 ANSI standard contains updated and comprehensive 
    recommendations on respirator selection. OSHA believes that employers 
    will find useful information in each of these guides on various 
    technical problems that this standard may not cover explicitly. In 
    addition, information is provided by respirator manufacturers who 
    publish selection guides relating to their models (See, e.g., Mine 
    Safety Appliances Company (MSA) Respirator Selection Guide, Ex. 150; 
    and ISEA's Respirator Buyers Guide and Safety Video Resource List, 
    referenced in Ex. 147). Manufacturers also provide selection advice 
    through telephone help lines, sales staff, verbal communications or 
    distribution of company product information, and on-site evaluations of 
    product use (See, e.g., Tr. at 1438-1439). Chemical manufacturers also 
    provide information about respirator selection to help the purchasers 
    of their products (See CMA, Tr. 1726-7; Union Carbide Corporation, Ex. 
    54-255).
        Because of the variety and detail of selection information 
    available, OSHA believes it is necessary in the final rule to specify 
    broad performance criteria, in addition to a few specific rules 
    relating to highly hazardous operations (i.e., IDLH situations). The 
    final rule sets forth general rules for selecting respirators for 
    routine operations, prescribes specific kinds of respirators for 
    identified highly hazardous atmospheres and emergency situations, and 
    specifies when air-purifying respirators can reliably be used. OSHA 
    chose not to specify in the regulatory text all the situations and 
    respirator-related factors that an employer should consider but instead 
    to state performance objectives. Only for workplace situations widely 
    accepted as highly hazardous, such as those associated with IDLH 
    atmospheres, does the standard require maximally protective 
    respirators.
        Because paragraph (d) does not address in detail all the relevant 
    factors that may affect employers' selection of particular respirators, 
    employers should rely on other information sources to ensure that the 
    respirators they select are appropriate for conditions in their 
    specific workplaces. Respirator manufacturers are the source of much 
    useful information, and the record of this rulemaking indicates that 
    much of this information is both helpful and reliable. Indeed, market 
    mechanisms work to encourage the dissemination of accurate information. 
    OSHA expects that smaller employers will thus generally be able to rely 
    on the technical assistance provided by manufacturers on respirator 
    selection and that doing so will mean that they will usually be in 
    compliance with this standard. For these reasons, paragraph (d) 
    concentrates on the minimum selection criteria that the record shows 
    must be adhered to by all employers when selecting respirators for 
    their employees' use.
        In the following provision-by-provision summary and explanation, 
    OSHA explains the changes reflected in the final rule, both from the 
    provisions proposed and those in the Agency's previous respiratory 
    protection standard (Sec. 1910.134).
    Paragraph (d)(1)--General Requirements
        Paragraph (d)(1) prescribes general rules that apply to the 
    selection of all respirators. Paragraph (d)(1)(i) requires the employer 
    to select and provide an appropriate respirator based on the 
    respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker is or will be exposed and on 
    the workplace and user factors that have the potential to affect 
    respirator performance and reliability. This provision continues a 
    requirement from the previous standard: (``respirators shall be 
    selected on the basis of hazards to which the worker is exposed'' 
    (Sec. 1910.134(b)(2)) and clarifies that the hazard must be viewed in 
    the context of the workplace and worker conditions that may reduce or 
    impair the effectiveness of a respirator otherwise appropriate for the 
    hazard. There is general agreement that taking working conditions into 
    account is crucial to proper respirator selection: a respirator that is 
    protective under some conditions of wear will fail under others, while 
    a respirator that is appropriate for a given hazard may not be workable 
    in a particular workplace (e.g., an air supplied respirator in a 
    tightly configured space). For example, a worker wearing SCBA who is 
    required to perform extremely heavy work may deplete the air supply of 
    the respirator well before its calculated service life is reached. This 
    means that the employer must evaluate the employee's level of exertion 
    in order to determine whether to choose a supplied-air respirator 
    rather than a SCBA. The recent ANSI standard also states that the 
    purpose of respirator selection is to determine which respirator type 
    or class will offer ``adequate protection'' (ANSI Z88.2-1992).
        Final paragraph (d)(1)(i) also requires employers to consider 
    workplace and user factors that may affect the respirator's performance 
    and reliability when making a respirator selection. Although other 
    paragraphs of the standard address the major factors affecting 
    respirator performance, i.e., fit, faceseal leakage, and maintenance 
    and cleaning, factors specific to the job, user, or worksite often play 
    an important role in respirator performance. OSHA noted in the proposal 
    (59 FR 58900) that work activities and factors such as temperature and 
    humidity ``also affect the stress level associated with wearing a 
    respirator as well as the effectiveness of respirator filters and 
    cartridges; employees using respirators for longer periods of time 
    [under such stressful conditions] may need different types of 
    respirators for more comfortable wear.''
        Similarly, where the respirator-wearing employee must communicate 
    with other workers, perhaps to warn them about the presence of 
    workplace hazards, the respirator must allow the employee to perform 
    this vital function. OSHA thus agrees with ANSI that ``it is important 
    to ensure that respirator wearers can comfortably communicate when 
    necessary, because a worker who is speaking very loudly or yelling may 
    cause a facepiece seal leak, and the worker may be tempted to 
    temporarily dislodge the device to communicate'' (ANSI Z88.2-1992, 
    clause A.13). Therefore, for example, the employer must ensure that 
    speaking will not interfere with the fit of the negative-pressure 
    elastomeric respirator selected. If the employees are using PAPRs or 
    SCBA, amplification devices, including speaking diaphragms and 
    microphones, that can be worn with the respirators are available.
        The proposal (59 FR 58900) noted another example in the proposal of 
    worksite conditions that could affect respirator selection: ``* * * 
    airline respirators should not be used by mobile employees around 
    moving machinery unless entanglement of airlines in equipment is easily 
    avoided.'' Employers have always been required by OSHA to consider such 
    factors as these, because paragraph (a)(2) of the previous respirator 
    standard required employers to select respirators that are ``applicable 
    and suitable for the purpose intended.''
        Paragraph (d)(1)(i) applies whenever employers provide respirators 
    to their
    
    [[Page 1197]]
    
    employees and require their use, whether or not an OSHA standard 
    mandates respirator use in the particular environment. The preamble 
    discussion relating to paragraph (c)(1) discusses employer-required 
    respirator use in more detail and explains OSHA's reasons for reaching 
    this conclusion.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) requires the employer to select a NIOSH-
    certified respirator and to use the respirator only in ways that comply 
    with the conditions of its certification. There was little controversy 
    about this requirement, and there is no disagreement that respirators 
    must be tested and found to be effective before they can be marketed. 
    NIOSH has performed this function in the past and has begun to revise 
    its certification requirements to ensure that its procedures continue 
    to define the performance capabilities of acceptable respirator models, 
    and to identify unacceptable models. The ISEA (Ex. 65-363), the trade 
    association that represents most major respirator manufacturers, urged 
    OSHA to require that only NIOSH-certified respirators be used to comply 
    with this standard, and other commenters agreed (Exs. 54-187, 54-213, 
    54-387, 54-428).
        The wording of this provision of the final rule differs slightly 
    from that of the proposed provision. The proposal would have required 
    that only NIOSH ``approved and certified'' respirators be selected. For 
    clarity, the reference to NIOSH-approved respirators has been replaced 
    in the final rule by a requirement that respirators be used only in 
    accordance with the conditions of their certification. NIOSH approves 
    respirators by certifying them; however, some certifications contain 
    conditions limiting the situations in which the respirator may be used. 
    This is sometimes described as NIOSH ``approval'' of the respirator for 
    a particular use.
        Increasingly, however, NIOSH does not certify respirators for 
    specific uses. For example, NIOSH does not currently certify 
    respirators for use against biological hazards. Where NIOSH has not 
    specifically certified any respirator for use against the particular 
    contaminant present in the workplace, the employer must select a NIOSH-
    certified respirator that has no limitation prohibiting its use against 
    that contaminant. The respirator must be appropriate for the 
    contaminant's physical form and chemical state and the conditions under 
    which it will be used. All respirators must be chosen and used 
    according to the limitations of the NIOSH certification, which appears 
    on the NIOSH certification label.
        The requirement for NIOSH certification is unconditional in the 
    final standard, as it was in the proposal. However, because OSHA stated 
    in the proposed preamble that this requirement would apply only when 
    such respirators ``exist'' (59 FR 58901), some commenters urged OSHA to 
    state in the regulatory text that the requirement for NIOSH 
    certification applied only to existing certifications (See, e.g., Ex. 
    54-434). For example, the Department of the Army (Ex. 54-443) urged 
    OSHA to permit the use of respirators not approved by NIOSH in 
    situations where another authority has jurisdiction and the 
    documentation to attest to the adequacy of the respirator's 
    effectiveness against the contaminant of concern. The Army (Ex. 54-
    443D) stated that its employees and contractors may be exposed to 
    certain ``military unique contaminants'' for which no NIOSH-approved 
    respirator exists but for which military respirators, e.g., gas masks, 
    have specifically been developed and tested and are being used by 
    civilian and contractor personnel in operations subject to OSHA's 
    jurisdiction. The Army urged OSHA to include in the standard ``approval 
    authority of the Secretary of the Army for military respirators * * * 
    for which no NIOSH approved respirator exists'' (Ex. 54-443D).
        OSHA recognizes that there are unique contaminant situations, such 
    as those involving chemical warfare agents, that involve primarily 
    military exposure and that may require specialized respiratory 
    protection equipment. NIOSH certification for respiratory protection 
    specific to such hazards does not exist and is not likely to be 
    forthcoming. OSHA also notes, however, that, although the Department of 
    the Army argued strongly for OSHA recognition of Army authority to test 
    and approve respirators, the Department of the Air Force commented that 
    it uses only NIOSH-certified respirators, and requested no exception 
    (Ex. 54-443A). OSHA will examine on a case-by-case basis those 
    situations involving civilian contractors whose employees wear non-
    NIOSH tested respirators that they believe protect employees adequately 
    and that have been tested and approved by other Federal agencies for 
    use against unique contaminants.
        A similar comment was raised by DOE regarding radioactive hazards 
    (Ex. 54-215). DOE stated that, in the nuclear industry, no NIOSH-
    certified respirator exists for tritium applications and workers 
    therefore must wear non-approved supplied-air suits; this equipment has 
    been tested by Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the suits have been 
    successfully used for many years. The DOE administers its own job-by-
    job approval system for these suits. OSHA's authority to enforce the 
    Agency's safety and health standards at gaseous diffusion plants owned 
    by DOE and leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation was 
    established legislatively in 1992, and OSHA has recently completed a 
    memorandum of understanding with DOE on this issue (60 FR 9949, Jan. 
    31, 1995). OSHA is currently evaluating an application from one of 
    these facilities for a variance relating to these suits. The criteria 
    set out in Section 6(d) of the OSH Act will govern this determination. 
    OSHA is not determining the acceptability of supplied-air suits as part 
    of this rulemaking proceeding, because the Agency believes the variance 
    proceeding, which can focus closer attention on the strengths and 
    limitations of these suits for the particular use situations, is the 
    appropriate forum to decide this issue.
        OSHA notes that NIOSH certification is a minimum qualification. The 
    employer must still assess whether the respirator meets all other 
    selection criteria in this standard before it can be chosen for a 
    particular application. For example, as pointed out by an exchange with 
    Richard Duffy of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), 
    NIOSH representatives acknowledged that the employer must evaluate 
    whether NIOSH-certified equipment will withstand the specific 
    environmental conditions for firefighting because NIOSH flow rate 
    requirements do not consider the stresses involved in firefighting, nor 
    does NIOSH currently evaluate respirators for their ability to 
    withstand those stresses (Tr. 364-365).
        In his testimony at the OSHA hearings, Richard Duffy of the IAFF 
    recommended that OSHA require that SCBAs used in firefighting meet the 
    requirements of the National Fire Protection Association's NFPA-1981 
    Standard on Open Circuit Breathing Apparatus (Tr. 455). This NFPA 
    standard establishes more stringent performance criteria for SCBAs used 
    in firefighting than those currently used by NIOSH. NIOSH recognizes 
    that its current 42 CFR 84 respirator certification standards may not 
    be protective enough for respirators used in firefighting. In an 
    October 7, 1997 letter to all manufacturers and interested parties, 
    NIOSH announced its intent to develop new technical modules to update 
    42 CFR 84. One of the proposed technical modules to which NIOSH intends 
    to give priority treatment will address SCBAs, including the
    
    [[Page 1198]]
    
    incorporation of NFPA performance requirements for SCBAs. NIOSH also 
    intends to propose an Administrative/Quality Assurance module on the 
    use of independent testing laboratories in the certification program, 
    another issue raised by commenters in this proceeding. OSHA believes 
    that NIOSH will resolve any deficiencies in its current respirator 
    certification standards through these new 42 CFR 84 rulemaking modules. 
    OSHA simply is not equipped to take on the respirator approval and 
    certification process currently performed by NIOSH. Therefore, the 
    final OSHA respirator standard continues to require the use of NIOSH-
    certified respirators and does not incorporate the NFPA performance 
    requirements for SCBAs.
        OSHA believes that carving out even limited exceptions to NIOSH 
    control of respirator certification authority would confuse the 
    regulated community and would not resolve the needs of the vast 
    majority of respirator users. Comments by respirator users and worker 
    representatives support OSHA's final decision (See, e.g., Exs. 54-265, 
    54-118, 54-213, 54-387, 54-455). The final rule, in paragraph (h), also 
    requires that when respirator parts are replaced or changed, the 
    replacement parts must be NIOSH certified.
        In the proposal (59 FR 58901), OSHA stated that developing an OSHA 
    respirator approval mechanism to fill in the gaps in NIOSH 
    certification would not be an efficient use of government resources. 
    Nonetheless, the Agency asked for comment on this issue. There was no 
    consensus among the participants who commented on this point. Some 
    commenters supported an OSHA role in approval on a temporary basis, 
    while an employer waits for NIOSH approval, or an alternative 
    governmental approval process (Exs. 54-213, 54-346, 54-443). Still 
    others opposed OSHA's involvement in an approval process (Exs. 54-278, 
    54-265, 54-118, 54-213, 54-387, 54-455). The final rule is therefore 
    similar to the proposal, which also discussed limited alternatives to 
    NIOSH certification and concluded that ``it is inappropriate for OSHA 
    to try to correct problems with present NIOSH/MSHA regulations in the 
    revised respirator standard'' (59 FR 58891).
        OSHA believes that NIOSH has focused on closing any gaps in its 
    certification program. NIOSH's ability and experience in this area are 
    unparalleled, and OSHA believes that NIOSH can best resolve any 
    concerns through its own proceedings. Further, as stated in the 
    proposal, OSHA lacks the resources to perform respirator testing. OSHA 
    will, however, continue to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, whether 
    variance or compliance interpretations are appropriate in cases where 
    employers claim that there are no NIOSH-certified respirators for use 
    in a particular situation.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the final rule requires the employer to 
    identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace. To 
    perform this evaluation, the employer must make a ``reasonable 
    estimate'' of the employee exposures anticipated to occur as a result 
    of those hazards, including those likely to be encountered in 
    reasonably foreseeable emergency situations, and must also identify the 
    physical state and chemical form of such contaminant(s). Where 
    conditions are such that the employer cannot carry out such an 
    evaluation, e.g., where exposure monitoring or other means of 
    estimation cannot be used, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) requires the employer 
    to treat the atmosphere as IDLH. Many of the components of paragraph 
    (d)(1)(iii) of the final standard have been required practice since 
    1971 because they were included in the selection provisions of the 1969 
    ANSI standard incorporated by reference into OSHA's previous 
    respiratory protection standard. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the new 
    standard makes these provisions clearer by stating them explicitly in 
    the regulatory text.
        Identifying and evaluating the hazards a respirator is to provide 
    protection against clearly play a pivotal role in respirator selection. 
    For example, according to ANSI, ``Respirator selection involves 
    reviewing each operation to * * * determine what hazards may be present 
    (hazard determination)'' (ANSI Z88.2-1992, clause 7.2.2; See also AISI, 
    Tr. 639). Many other commenters emphasized the important role of hazard 
    identification in respirator selection (Exs. 54-168, 54-181, 54-186, 
    54-208, 54-234, 54-273, 54-307, 54-327, 54-346, 54-426, 54-428). Once 
    an employer identifies the nature of the respiratory hazard or hazards 
    present, the employer must evaluate the magnitude of the hazard to 
    determine the potential exposure of each employee and the extent to 
    which respirators of various types can reduce the harm caused by that 
    exposure.
        There was extensive comment on the selection process outlined in 
    the proposed paragraph dealing with hazard evaluation (Exs. 54-154, 54-
    168, 54-181, 54-202, 54-219, 54-245, 54-278, 54-428). Commenters 
    representing workers generally supported the detailed approach taken in 
    the proposal toward hazard evaluation. For example, the Service 
    Employees International Union ``support[ed] the detailed list of 
    factors to be considered in respirator selection * * * [which] 
    successfully incorporates the important framework from the NIOSH 
    decision logic criteria in an easy-to-understand form'' (Ex. 54-428).
        Some commenters, however (Exs. 54-154, 54-168, 54-181, 54-219, 54-
    245, 54-278), stated that the scope and depth of the hazard evaluation 
    and the items to be covered should be left to the discretion of the 
    employer. For example, the Eastman Chemical Company (Ex. 54-245) and 
    the Dow Chemical Company (Ex. 54-278) requested that OSHA make the 
    requirement ``performance oriented'' and ``flexible''; the Department 
    of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Ex. 54-154), noted that 
    detailed analysis for each work situation is not necessary for 
    shipbuilding, and that the timing and content of an appropriate 
    evaluation vary.
        In response to these comments, OSHA has revised paragraph 
    (d)(1)(iii) to be more performance oriented; this provision of the 
    final standard no longer specifies precisely how employers are to 
    conduct the required evaluation. The proposal (at paragraph (d)(3)) 
    would have required employers to ``obtain and evaluate'' information on 
    eleven specific factors for each work situation. These proposed factors 
    were the nature of the hazard; its physical and chemical properties; 
    its adverse health effects; the occupational exposure level; the 
    results of workplace sampling; the work operation; the time period of 
    respirator wear; the work activities and stresses on the wearer; fit 
    test results; warning properties; and the capabilities and limitations 
    of respirator types. Although OSHA continues to believe that each of 
    these factors is relevant to respirator selection under some 
    circumstances, a review of the record has convinced OSHA that each 
    factor is not crucial in every respirator selection process and that 
    the proposed requirement would have led to needless duplication of 
    effort and unnecessarily detailed evaluations.
        The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) 
    (Ex. 54-202) urged OSHA to require a written hazard assessment each 
    time that a respirator was selected. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the final 
    rule does not require a written assessment; this was not proposed, and 
    OSHA believes that employers should be free to adopt the best approach 
    for justifying their respirator selections, based on the hazard 
    assessment. The final rule requires the employer to identify and 
    evaluate the respiratory hazards present, determine their physical 
    state and
    
    [[Page 1199]]
    
    chemical form (e.g., whether they are present in the form of a gas or 
    vapor; what their valence state or condition is, where relevant), and 
    assess the magnitude of the hazard they present to workers under normal 
    conditions of use and in reasonably foreseeable emergency conditions.
        OSHA finds that it is essential for employers to characterize the 
    nature and magnitude of employee exposures to respiratory hazards 
    before selecting respiratory protection equipment. The language 
    contained in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the final rule does not specify 
    how the employer is to make reasonable estimates of employee exposures 
    for the purposes of selecting respirators, nor does the standard 
    require the employer to measure worker exposures to airborne hazards. 
    OSHA has always considered personal exposure monitoring the ``gold 
    standard'' for determining employee exposures because this is the most 
    reliable approach for assessing how much and what type of respiratory 
    protection is required in a given circumstance. This general view is 
    also shared by the industrial hygiene community. All of OSHA's 
    comprehensive substance-specific health standards have required 
    employee exposure monitoring to determine both the effectiveness of 
    existing control measures and the type of respiratory protection 
    needed.
        OSHA continues to hold this view with regard to assessing employee 
    exposure in connection with this respiratory protection standard. 
    However, OSHA recognizes that there are many instances in which it may 
    not be possible or necessary to take personal exposure measurements to 
    determine whether respiratory protection is needed. Although sampling 
    and analytical methods exist for the vast majority of substances for 
    which OSHA has a PEL (29 CFR 1910.1000), there are numerous other 
    substances for which there are no readily available methods for 
    personal sampling. In other cases, the nature of the materials and 
    products being used in the workplace, and the way in which they are 
    used, make it highly unlikely that an employee working with them would 
    be exposed in a manner that would make respiratory protection 
    necessary. In these kinds of situations, the final rule permits 
    employers to use other approaches for estimating worker exposures to 
    respiratory hazards.
        For example, employers may rely on information and data that 
    indicate that use or handling of a product or material cannot, under 
    worst-case conditions, release concentrations of a respiratory hazard 
    above a level that would trigger the need for respirator use or require 
    use of a more protective respirator. This approach is similar to that 
    used in several OSHA substance-specific health standards, which permit 
    employers to use objective data in lieu of exposure monitoring to 
    demonstrate that their employees cannot be exposed above an action 
    level (See, for example, 29 CFR 1910.1027, Cadmium; 1910.1048, 
    Formaldehyde; 1910.1047, Ethylene Oxide; 1910.1028, Benzene). Objective 
    data can be obtained from an industry study or from laboratory test 
    results conducted by manufacturers of products or materials being used 
    in the workplace. To generalize from data in an industry-wide survey to 
    conditions in a specific workplace, the survey must have obtained data 
    under conditions closely resembling the processes, types of materials, 
    control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions in the 
    workplace to which it will be generalized, i.e., the employer's 
    operation.
        Data from industry-wide surveys by trade associations for use by 
    their members, as well as from stewardship programs operated by 
    manufacturers for their customers, are often useful in assisting 
    employers, particularly small-business owners, to obtain information on 
    employee exposures in their workplaces. For example, representatives of 
    the North American Insulation Manufacturer's Association (NAIMA) 
    testified (Tr. 597) that * * * ``[w]e have conducted numerous surveys 
    on end use customers, conducted research with Johns Hopkins University, 
    for example to provide estimates of routine exposures and * * * those 
    data, when collected appropriately and with organized labor and with 
    other industry groups, * * * can assure that the right respirator is 
    selected.'' NAIMA stated (Tr. 616, 618), ``it is ultimately the 
    employer's responsibility'' to evaluate whether data provided by 
    suppliers or others relate to their workplace conditions and 
    operations. However, it is clear that such programs can often assist 
    employers to estimate workplace exposures reliably enough to make 
    correct respirator choices without the need for employee monitoring.
        Another approach that can be used by employers to estimate employee 
    exposures involves using mathematical approaches and obtainable 
    information. Employers can use data on the physical and chemical 
    properties of air contaminants, combined with information on room 
    dimensions, air exchange rates, contaminant release rates, and other 
    pertinent data, including exposure patterns and work practices, to 
    estimate the maximum exposure that could be anticipated in the 
    workplace. Methods that utilize this approach are readily available in 
    several textbook sources; for example, the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation 
    Manual contains calculations that can be applied to certain situations 
    to estimate worker exposures. Relying on such an approach to estimate 
    exposures requires the use of safety factors to account for uneven 
    dispersion of the contaminant in the air and the proximity of the 
    worker to the emission source. Usually, this approach works best in 
    situations where employees use small amounts of a chemical product 
    intermittently, or where contaminant releases are fairly constant and 
    predictable. This approach must be used continuously, and the data 
    obtained should therefore be interpreted conservatively (i.e., should 
    err on the side of worker protection).
        In workplaces involving many complex factors, the use of estimation 
    techniques to characterize worker exposure is associated with a high 
    degree of uncertainty. In these instances, OSHA recommends that 
    employers conduct exposure monitoring instead of relying on estimation 
    techniques because they will then be able to have confidence that the 
    appropriate respiratory protection device has been selected and that 
    they are in compliance with the standard. Furthermore, OSHA believes 
    that in workplaces where many complex factors add uncertainty to 
    exposure estimates obtained through modeling, employers will find it 
    easier and less costly to conduct personal exposure monitoring to 
    evaluate the need for respiratory protection.
        Many commenters urged OSHA not to specifically require monitoring 
    in the standard because other means of assessing potential exposures 
    are available (Exs. 54-153, 54-208, 54-219, 54-237, 54-273, 54-307, 54-
    327, 54-443). These participants asked the Agency instead to adopt the 
    approach taken in the ANSI standard Z88.2-1992, clause 7.2.2.1(e), 
    which allows employers to estimate, as well as measure, exposures in 
    the workplace. One commenter questioned the utility of exposure 
    monitoring data for respirator selection because exposure sampling 
    provides only a ``snapshot'' of hazards on any given day (Ex. 54-178). 
    Other commenters disagreed, however. For example, Scott Schneider (Tr. 
    1520) of the AFL-CIO stated, ``In most workplaces that I've been in 
    there really is very, very little exposure data to know how much a 
    person is exposed to * * * exposures are quite variable from
    
    [[Page 1200]]
    
    day to day. And from worker to worker.'' (See comments to same effect 
    by OCAW, Ex. 54-202.) Some participants specifically asked OSHA to make 
    workplace sampling of airborne concentrations of contaminants explicit 
    (Tr. 1009 and Ex. 54-428; Ex. 54-427).
        That some exposure monitoring results may be inadequate begs the 
    question of whether adequate monitoring should be conducted. OSHA's 
    experience in enforcing permissible exposure limits in the Air 
    Contaminant standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, and for substance-specific 
    standards, confirms that, unless operations are highly repetitive, 
    conditions are constant, and estimates based on ``historical'' and 
    ``objective data'' are made by experienced industrial hygiene 
    professionals, most employers need exposure monitoring results to 
    estimate employee exposure levels reliably. OSHA enforcement experience 
    also demonstrates that, where exposures are highly variable, 
    fragmentary monitoring results may mislead employees and employers, 
    unless they are based on competent sampling strategies. The frequency 
    and duration of monitoring, the representativeness of the employees and 
    operations sampled, and the skill with which sampling and analysis are 
    performed all influence the reliability of monitoring results. In 
    making reasonable estimates of employee exposures to satisfy the 
    requirements contained in paragraph (d)(1)(iii), OSHA expects employers 
    to account for potential variation in exposure and to rely on data or 
    information that reflect such variation. This is accomplished by using 
    exposure data collected with a strategy that recognizes exposure 
    variability, or by using worst-case assumptions and estimation 
    techniques to evaluate the highest foreseeable levels to which 
    employees may be exposed. The hazard assessment requirements in final 
    paragraph (d)(1)(iii) carry over from the requirement of the previous 
    standard, which incorporates by reference the ANSI Z88.2-1969 (clause 
    6.2) statement that ``[a]ny erring in the selection of respirators 
    shall be on the safe side.''
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) also requires an employer to consider the 
    environment IDLH if employee exposures cannot be estimated reasonably. 
    This provision is intended to address those limited situations where 
    neither exposure monitoring, professional judgment, nor estimation 
    techniques can be relied on to reliably select adequate respiratory 
    protection equipment. This provision reflects a similar one in the 1992 
    ANSI standard, which requires atmospheres to be considered IDLH if it 
    is not possible ``to determine what potentially hazardous contaminants 
    may be present * * * or if no exposure limit or guideline is available, 
    and estimates of toxicity cannot be made'' (ANSI Z88.2-1992, clause 
    7.2.2.2 (b)(c)).
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-381, 54-352, 54-267) objected to OSHA's 
    proposed requirement that atmospheres be considered IDLH ``where the 
    concentration of the hazardous chemical is unknown'' (59 FR 58939), and 
    stated that it would be neither practical nor necessary to wear 
    positive pressure respirators in all such situations (Ex. 54-352). One 
    commenter believed that requiring the most protective respirators for 
    ``every unknown hazardous chemical atmosphere'' would result in 95 
    percent of the workforce being required to use them (Ex. 54-267). OSHA 
    did not intend the absence of workplace-specific exposure measurements 
    automatically to trigger selection of the most protective respirator; 
    instead, the Agency intends employers to use such equipment when they 
    do not have confidence that a less protective respirator is sufficient. 
    An example of the kind of situation that should trigger the use of the 
    most protective respirator was provided by a representative of CMA, who 
    testified (Tr. at 1707) that, when a maintenance person opens a closed 
    cycle manufacturing process to work on it for the first time, ``we 
    don't know what the air concentration is so we put people in supplied-
    air respiratory protection under those circumstances.'' That is, the 
    company in this case assumes that exposures will be extremely high and 
    selects a respirator accordingly. OSHA believes that the language used 
    in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the final rule makes OSHA's intent clear, 
    i.e., that when reliable data or reasonable estimates of exposure are 
    not available, the atmosphere must be considered IDLH.
        Finally, a few participants suggested that exposure estimates 
    should only be made by credentialed individuals (See, e.g., Ex. 54-
    327). OSHA agrees that persons trained and experienced in evaluating 
    the respiratory hazards posed by workplace atmospheres are the most 
    competent to evaluate exposure levels, especially in the absence of 
    current exposure measurements. ANSI defines an ``occupational health 
    professional'' as ``(a)n individual whom, by experience and education, 
    is competent at recognizing, evaluating, and controlling health hazards 
    in the workplace'' (ANSI Z88.2-1992, clause 3.39). This is the person 
    who is responsible for performing expert evaluations under ANSI's 
    recommended standard. OSHA believes that this definition has merit, and 
    that employers whose workplaces have highly toxic respiratory hazards, 
    or many different hazardous chemicals or mixtures, as well as other 
    employers with the resources to do so, should utilize such 
    professionals wherever possible. However, OSHA is not specifically 
    including this requirement in the final rule because reasonable 
    estimations can be conducted in many workplaces by persons with the 
    qualifications required in the final rule for the respiratory 
    protection program administrator.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) requires that the employer choose respirators 
    from a sufficient number of respirator models and sizes so that the 
    respirator is acceptable to and correctly fits the wearer. The 1992 
    ANSI standard includes a similar requirement aimed at achieving 
    satisfactory fit and wearer acceptance (Z88.2-1992, clause 9.3.1. and 
    9.3.2.). This provision of the final standard revises the corresponding 
    proposed provision, which would have required employers to provide for 
    fit testing an array of three sizes and two brands of respirators with 
    elastomeric facepieces. The dual intent of this provision was to assure 
    that wearer acceptability plays a role in respirator selection, and 
    that the respirators chosen maintain their fit over the period of use.
        OSHA continues to believe that these goals for respirator selection 
    are appropriate. However, OSHA was persuaded by this record that 
    specifying the number of sizes, models and brands that an employer must 
    provide is unnecessary. Therefore, the final provision deletes the 
    specification language for the number of sizes, models and brands that 
    must constitute the selection pool. Since this provision of the final 
    standard applies to all respirators, the proposal's application only to 
    ``elastomeric'' facepieces has been dropped.
        Most participants (Exs. 54-1, 54-5, 54-75, 54-80, 54-91, 54-161, 
    54-208, 54-214, 54-237, 54-238, 54-246, 54-263, 54-273, 54-280, 54-291, 
    54-287, 54-350, 54-363, 54-389) endorsed the inclusion in the final 
    rule of a performance-based provision addressing the selection of 
    comfortably fitting respirators. Thus, most comment on this issue 
    recognized that a sufficient assortment of respirators must be provided 
    so that employees will obtain acceptable fits, but that more 
    flexibility should be provided in the final rule. Commenters also 
    stated that, in some cases, a single manufacturer has a variety of 
    respirator models sufficient to
    
    [[Page 1201]]
    
    provide acceptable fit for their employees (Exs. 54-389, 54-150, 54-
    161), although others provided only one or two sizes of a particular 
    model (Exs. 54-139, 54-38, 54-22, 54-163, 54-196). Some rulemaking 
    commenters stated that mandating that respirators from two 
    manufacturers be available would be costly and burdensome for small 
    employers (Exs. 54-161, 54-295), would not provide any tangible 
    improvement in the respirator program (Ex. 54-154), and would 
    complicate training and inventory functions (Ex. 54-156).
        In the case of SCBAs, participants pointed out that buying and 
    storing two brands for fitting would be extremely costly, would create 
    congested storage areas, and would pose the risk that parts could 
    inadvertently be interchanged (Exs. 54-208, 54-209, 54-214, 54-250, 54-
    300, 54-233, 54-331, 54-348, 54-45, 54-458). Even the AFL-CIO, which 
    generally supported the requirement that employers have respirators 
    from different manufacturers available, stated that requiring a multi-
    manufacturer assortment was not feasible for SCBAs (Ex. 54-428).
        OSHA concludes that providing a wide selection of sizes and models 
    of respirators will improve both fit and acceptability, and most 
    commenters agreed. In light of the comments, however, OSHA is making 
    the final rule's provision more performance-oriented, and is not 
    requiring a specific number of types and sizes. As ANSI noted, larger 
    employers are more likely to need a larger variety of respirators to 
    fit their employee population (Tr. 1426). Concomitantly, this change 
    will reduce the burden on smaller employers who will not need to 
    maintain such a wide array of respirator choices. OSHA believes 
    therefore that employers are in the best position to determine whether 
    their employee population is so diverse as to require the availability 
    of respirators from more than one manufacturer. OSHA encourages 
    employers to offer employees as wide a choice as practical when 
    performing fit tests.
        In addition to the general requirement of assuring that employers 
    consider employee acceptability, some commenters requested that OSHA 
    require employers to offer PAPRs to employees ``who wear respirators 
    for long periods of time.'' These commenters stated that PAPRs are 
    cooler, more comfortable, and offer less breathing resistance than 
    negative pressure respirators (Exs. 54-387, 54-23). OSHA has included 
    such provisions in various substance-specific standards based on 
    evidence in those records that proper respirator use is likely to be 
    increased if more comfortable respirators are available (See, e.g., Ex. 
    330 in Docket H-033C, Asbestos in Construction standard, discussed at 
    51 FR 22719, June 20, 1986). For example, OSHA stated in the preamble 
    to the Lead standard (43 FR at 52933, Nov. 14, 1978) that ``PAPRs 
    provide greater protection to individuals, especially those who cannot 
    obtain a good face fit on a negative pressure respirator, and will 
    provide greater comfort when a respirator needs to be worn for long 
    periods of time. OSHA believes employees will have a greater incentive 
    to wear respirators if discomfort is minimized.''
        OSHA continues to believe that under some circumstances PAPRs 
    provide superior acceptability. These include situations where 
    employees wear respirators for full shifts, where employees frequently 
    readjust their negative pressure respirators to achieve what they 
    consider a more comfortable or tighter fit, and where the air flow 
    provided by a PAPR reduces the employee's psychological and 
    physiological discomfort. However, where ambient temperatures are 
    extremely high or low, PAPRs are often unacceptable because of the 
    temperature of the airstream in the facepiece (See preamble to Coke 
    Oven standard, 41 FR at 46774).
        OSHA's experience in enforcing standards that contain a provision 
    requiring PAPRs to be supplied is that the provision is rarely invoked 
    by employees, and even less rarely cited. The Agency continues to 
    believe that it is good industrial hygiene practice to provide a 
    respirator that the employee considers acceptable. Fit testing 
    protocols require that employees have an opportunity to reject 
    respirator facepieces that they consider unacceptable (See Appendix A).
        However, this record does not provide a sufficient basis for the 
    Agency to require PAPRs upon employee request in all situations where 
    the standard applies. For example, Popendorf et al. (Ex. 64-513) 
    reported results from a survey of respirator users in indoor swine 
    production, poultry production, and grain handling facilities. 
    ``Acceptability among four classes of respirators (disposable, quarter-
    mask, half-mask and powered air-purifying helmets), varied among the 
    three user groups. * * * Powered helmets were rated best for breathing 
    ease, communication ease, skin comfort and in-mask temperature and 
    humidity, while disposables were rated best for weight and 
    convenience.'' OSHA emphasizes, however, that if the medical evaluation 
    required by this standard finds that an employee's health may be 
    impaired by using a negative pressure respirator, the employer must 
    provide a PAPR (See paragraph (e)(6)(ii)).
    Paragraph (d)(2)--Respirators for IDLH Atmospheres
        Paragraph (d)(2) covers respirators for use in atmospheres that are 
    immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH). The comparable 
    provision in the proposal was paragraph (d)(10), which several 
    commenters stated was not clearly written (Exs. 54-38, 54-167, 54-213, 
    54-280, 54-297, 54-309, 54-455). OSHA has rewritten and reorganized the 
    provision so that paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule covers all IDLH 
    atmospheres, and paragraph (d)(3) covers all non-IDLH atmospheres.
        The standard requires that the most protective and reliable 
    respirators be used for ILDH atmospheres: either a full facepiece 
    pressure demand SCBA certified for a minimum service life of thirty 
    minutes, or a combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air 
    respirator with an auxiliary self-contained air supply (paragraph 
    (d)(2)(i)). The proposal would have imposed the same requirement, 
    except for the addition of the requirement for a minimum service life 
    in the final rule.
        OSHA has determined, as have most respirator authorities, that IDLH 
    atmospheres require the highest level of respiratory protection and 
    reliability. These atmospheres, by definition, are the most dangerous 
    environments in which respirators may be used. As OSHA explains in the 
    summary and explanation for the definition of ``IDLH,'' the term 
    includes atmospheres that pose an immediate threat to life or health, 
    would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an 
    employee's ability to escape. In these atmospheres there is no 
    tolerance for respirator failure. This record supported OSHA's preamble 
    statement that IDLH atmospheres ``require the most protective types of 
    respirators for workers'' (59 FR 58896). Commenters and authorities, 
    including NIOSH, ANSI, and both labor and management, agree that, for 
    these atmospheres, the most highly protective respirators, with escape 
    capability, should be required (See the NIOSH Respirator Decision 
    Logic, pg. 10; ANSI Z88.2-1992, clause 7.3.2; Ex. 54-38).
        Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires employers to select respirators that 
    are to be used exclusively for escape from IDLH atmospheres from those 
    certified by NIOSH for escape from the atmosphere in which they will be 
    used.
    
    [[Page 1202]]
    
    This provision addresses the selection of escape-only respirators from 
    IDLH atmospheres involving different substances and situations. For 
    example, under current 29 CFR 1910.1050, the standard covering exposure 
    to methylenedianiline (MDA), escape respirators may be any full 
    facepiece air-purifying respirator equipped with HEPA cartridges, or 
    any positive pressure or continuous flow self-contained breathing 
    apparatus with full facepiece or hood; for formaldehyde exposure, 
    escape respirators may be a full facepiece with chin style, front, or 
    back-mounted industrial canister approved against formaldehyde (29 CFR 
    1910.1048).
        Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires employers to consider all oxygen-
    deficient atmospheres to be IDLH atmospheres. An oxygen-deficient 
    atmosphere is defined in paragraph (b) of the standard as one that 
    contains less than 19.5 percent oxygen. Below this level, employers are 
    required to use the same respirators as are required for IDLH 
    atmospheres, i.e., a full facepiece pressure-demand supplied-air 
    respirator with auxiliary SCBA or pressure-demand SCBA. This paragraph 
    contains an exception to permit employers to use any supplied-air 
    respirator, provided that the employer demonstrates that oxygen levels 
    in the work area can be maintained within the ranges specified in Table 
    II of the final rule, i.e., between 19.5 percent and a lower value that 
    corresponds to an altitude-adjusted oxygen partial pressure equivalent 
    to 16 percent oxygen by volume at sea level. The language of paragraph 
    (d)(2)(iii), along with the exception, reflects the same requirement as 
    that proposed, but avoids the potential confusion associated with 
    having separate definitions and requirements for oxygen-deficient, and 
    oxygen-deficient IDLH, atmospheres, as originally proposed. The 
    language used in the final rule also reinforces OSHA's belief that all 
    atmospheres containing less than 19.5 oxygen must be considered IDLH 
    unless the employer has good information that oxygen levels cannot fall 
    to dangerously low levels; in atmospheres below this level but falling 
    within the ranges showin in Table II, a SAR must be provided.
        In the preamble discussion for paragraph (b), OSHA provided several 
    reasons for the selection of the 19.5 percent cutoff to define oxygen 
    deficiency. First, OSHA believes that consistency with the Agency's 
    confined space standard is essential because most oxygen-deficient 
    atmospheres will be associated with work in confined spaces. In the 
    preamble to the permit-required confined space standard, 29 CFR 
    1910.146(b), OSHA used the term ``asphyxiating atmosphere'' when 
    referring to an atmosphere containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen (58 
    FR 4466, January 14, 1993). In the confined space standard itself, OSHA 
    included ``atmospheric oxygen concentrations [of] less than 19.5 
    percent'' within the standard's definition of ``hazardous atmosphere.'' 
    Using the same 19.5 percent cutoff point for defining an IDLH oxygen-
    deficient atmosphere in this respiratory protection standard will 
    reduce the potential for confusion. In addition, OSHA's use of a 19.5 
    percent cutoff is consistent with the requirement that Grade D 
    breathing air contain a minimum of 19.5 percent oxygen (See paragraph 
    (i)).
        OSHA believes that employers will only rarely have occasion to 
    avail themselves of the exception in paragraph (d)(2)(iii), which 
    allows the use of any supplied-air respirator (SAR) if oxygen levels 
    can be maintained within the ranges shown in Table II. Except for 
    confined spaces, there were no examples in the record of work 
    operations being routinely conducted in well-controlled atmospheres 
    where oxygen levels are below 19.5 percent. Most atmospheres with 
    oxygen content between 16 and 19.5 percent are not well-controlled, and 
    a drop in oxygen content could have severe consequences. OSHA's review 
    of enforcement data also confirms that, except for confined spaces, 
    such atmospheres are uncommon, although they occasionally occur when 
    work is conducted in basements, open pits, and other enclosed spaces. 
    If an employer can meet the difficult evidentiary burden of showing 
    that the oxygen content can be controlled reliably enough to remain 
    within the ranges specified in Table II, the atmosphere is not 
    considered IDLH under this standard, and the employer may provide any 
    SAR.
        The low end of the ranges of oxygen concentrations in Table II are 
    the same as those used to define oxygen-deficient IDLH atmospheres in 
    the proposal: 16 percent oxygen by volume for altitudes from sea level 
    to 3,000, and 19.5% oxygen content for altitudes above 8,001 feet. For 
    altitudes from 3,001 to 8,000 feet, the listed oxygen concentrations 
    correspond to an oxygen partial pressure of 100 mm mercury (Hg). OSHA 
    explained in the proposal (59 FR at 58906) that these values are 
    consistent with those in ANSI's Z88.2-1980 standard and with ANSI's 
    definition of ``oxygen deficiency--immediately dangerous to life or 
    health'' as a partial pressure of 100 mm Hg at sea level.
        ANSI's more recent 1992 standard permits lower oxygen 
    concentrations before classifying an atmosphere as IDLH, provided that 
    the employer has determined that the source of the oxygen reduction is 
    understood and controlled. OSHA noted in the proposal that IDLH oxygen 
    deficiency is now defined by ANSI as an oxygen content at sea level 
    that is equivalent to less than 12.5% oxygen (i.e., an atmosphere with 
    an oxygen partial pressure of 95 mm Hg or less). However, there is 
    general agreement that employees could be seriously and rapidly 
    debilitated if their supplied-air respirators should fail in a 12.5% 
    oxygen atmosphere. OSHA stated in the proposal that that level 
    represents the ``bare minimum safety factor.'' By choosing such a low 
    oxygen partial pressure as the ``floor'' for oxygen-deficient IDLH 
    atmospheres, the ANSI standard effectively removes any safety margin 
    (59 FR 58905). ANSI representatives (Tr. 1289) agreed with OSHA during 
    the hearing that OSHA's proposal offered a greater safety buffer than 
    the 1992 ANSI standard. In addition, ANSI itself acknowledged in Table 
    A-1 of its Z88.2-1992 standard (pg. 22, Ex. 54-50) that an oxygen level 
    of 12.5% at sea level would produce effects such as ``Very poor 
    judgment and coordination * * * impaired respiration that may cause 
    permanent heart damage * * * nausea and vomiting.'' OSHA considers 
    these effects unacceptable and intends this standard to prevent their 
    occurrence. The ANSI table also states that a 16% oxygen level would 
    produce effects such as ``Increased pulse and breathing rates * * * 
    impaired thinking and attention * * * reduced coordination,'' and at an 
    oxygen level of 14% effects would include ``Abnormal fatigue upon 
    exertion * * * emotional upset * * * faulty coordination * * * poor 
    judgment.'' All of these effects are potentially incompatible with the 
    safe performance of duties.
        The ANSI table shows that the adverse health effects of oxygen 
    deficiency become significant at the 16% oxygen level, and that these 
    effects increase in severity as the oxygen level decreases. ANSI chose 
    the 12.5% level because that level represents the point below which 
    significant reductions in blood oxygen levels occur. As ANSI stated in 
    clause A.5.2 of the Z88.2-1992 standard ``[t]his rapid rate of change 
    then can present an unforgiving situation to an unprotected worker 
    where debilitating physiological symptoms can appear suddenly, without 
    warning, after only relatively
    
    [[Page 1203]]
    
    small changes in ambient oxygen levels.''
        The ANSI standard anticipates that all atmospheres with reduced 
    oxygen levels would be treated as IDLH unless the source of the oxygen 
    reduction is understood and controlled (Clause 7.3.1 ANSI Z88.2-1992). 
    OSHA found that situations with controlled reduced-oxygen atmospheres 
    (below 16% oxygen by volume) are rare and are already treated as an 
    IDLH atmosphere by employers. Outside of confined spaces, such as in a 
    pit or a basement, a reduced-oxygen atmosphere is rarely stable. 
    Reduced-oxygen atmosphere situations may result as a byproduct of 
    dynamic processes such as oxygen-consuming operations caused by the 
    combustion of fuels or the digestion of organic matter. OSHA considers 
    all confined spaces with atmospheric concentrations of less than 19.5% 
    oxygen hazardous, and does not permit an oxygen level below 19.5% for 
    occupied confined spaces (See 29 CFR 1910.146(b)), because it is 
    difficult to ensure that, in a confined space, oxygen levels will not 
    drop precipitously with little or no warning. The work being performed 
    can itself reduce the oxygen levels, due to displacement of air by 
    asphyxiants or through consumption of oxygen by work processes or by 
    employees performing the work. Such sources of variability in oxygen 
    content, even in workplaces where employers are attempting to stabilize 
    the atmospheric oxygen content, can cause oxygen levels to drop to a 
    lower level, placing workers at risk. Furthermore, the accurate 
    monitoring of oxygen levels can be difficult, since sampling 
    instruments test a limited number of areas, and pockets of lower oxygen 
    content can exist inside a confined space or in a basement that can 
    cause a worker to be overcome. Thus, OSHA has chosen an oxygen level of 
    16% by volume as the level at which SCBA or an airline respirator with 
    auxiliary air supply must be used because that is the level below which 
    severe symptoms from oxygen deprivation first appear, because 
    maintenance of oxygen levels below 16% is difficult, and because 
    employees who are not protected risk their lives if an employer 
    mistakenly believes oxygen content can be controlled.
        OSHA's determination that, at altitudes of up to 3,000 feet, 
    atmospheres containing less than 16% oxygen must be considered IDLH was 
    based on evidence that NIOSH submitted to the preproposal docket (See 
    59 FR at 58905). NIOSH showed that in an oxygen concentration of less 
    than 16% at sea level, employees may experience impaired attention, 
    thinking and coordination. The American Thoracic Society (Ex. 54-92) 
    questioned whether allowing work to be performed in an atmosphere with 
    as little as 16% oxygen, with no supplemental oxygen supply, at 
    altitudes below 3000 feet is sufficiently protective and suggested that 
    mandatory medical examinations might be necessary in such circumstances 
    to avoid pulmonary or cardiac disease complications. OSHA believes that 
    this comment reflects some of the confusion among rulemaking 
    participants concerning the proposed language covering oxygen 
    deficiency. OSHA wishes to make clear that, in both the proposed and 
    the final rules, employees are not permitted to work in atmospheres 
    containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen without the use of a supplied-
    air respirator. In the majority of these cases, employers will be 
    obligated to provide highly protective respirators that can be used in 
    IDLH conditions. In a few cases, employers may be able to justify use 
    of any supplied-air respirator. In either case, employees will be 
    provided a supplemental source of breathing air when working in oxygen-
    deficient atmospheres.
        OSHA has not adopted NIOSH's recommendations that the IDLH 
    concentration of oxygen be increased to a concentration above 19.5% for 
    work above 8,001 feet. OSHA's experience confirms the record evidence 
    that most work at higher altitudes is performed by fully acclimated 
    workers (Exs. 54-6, 54-208). These provisions will allow acclimated 
    workers to continue to perform their work without oxygen-supplying 
    respirators, at any altitude up to 14,000 feet altitude, as long as the 
    ambient oxygen content remains above 19.5% and the employee has no 
    medical condition that would require the use of supplemental oxygen.
        As noted above, oxygen deficiency frequently occurs in atmospheres 
    that are not well controlled, and OSHA's decision to consider all 
    oxygen-deficient atmospheres as IDLH except under certain strict 
    conditions is appropriate for work conducted in such dangerous 
    conditions. The requirement to use the most protective and reliable 
    respirators for IDLH atmospheres is proper to protect workers from the 
    dire consequences of exposure to these atmospheres.
    Paragraph (d)(3)--Respirators for Atmospheres That Are Not IDLH
        Paragraph (d)(3) sets out criteria and requirements for choosing 
    respirators for all non-IDLH atmospheres. These provisions supplement 
    the general requirements in paragraph (d)(1). This paragraph has been 
    reordered from the parallel paragraph of the proposed standard.
        Paragraph (d)(3)(i) requires the employer to provide a respirator 
    that is adequate to reduce the exposure of the respirator wearer under 
    all conditions of use, including in reasonably foreseeable emergencies. 
    Employers must also provide respirators that will ensure compliance 
    with all other statutory and regulatory requirements, such as the 
    permissible exposure limits (PELs) for substances in 29 CFR 1910.1000, 
    substance-specific standards, and other OSHA standards. For example, 29 
    CFR 1910.120 (g)(2) of OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 
    Response standard has additional exposure limits that apply to 
    hazardous waste sites and emergency response operations. In addition, 
    the general duty clause (Sec. 5(a)(1)) of the OSH Act may require 
    employers to protect their employees from substances that are not 
    regulated but that are known to be hazardous at the exposure levels 
    encountered in the workplace. However, as was discussed at length in 
    the ``Definitions'' section of this summary and explanation, the final 
    standard does not use the term ``hazardous exposure levels,'' in part 
    because the proposal was widely misunderstood to require compliance 
    with ACGIH's TLVs or NIOSH's RELs in the absence of an OSHA standard. 
    Moreover, as also noted above, this rulemaking does not address the 
    hierarchy of exposure controls in paragraph (a)(1). Thus, employers may 
    not rely on respirators to control exposures when feasible engineering 
    controls are available and are sufficient to reduce exposures.
        As explained earlier, OSHA intends to address the issue of assigned 
    protection factors (APFs) and their impact on respirator selection in a 
    subsequent phase of this rulemaking. OSHA noted in the proposal (59 FR 
    58901) that APFs are ``a recognition of the fact that different types 
    of equipment provide different degrees of protection, and equipment 
    limitations must be considered in selecting respirators.'' A respirator 
    with a higher APF will provide more protection than a respirator with a 
    lower APF. Considerable information on APFs has developed since OSHA 
    adopted its existing standard in 1971. OSHA intends to promulgate APF 
    provisions in the future. Accordingly, paragraphs (d)(3)(i) (A) and (B) 
    are reserved at this time and will be addressed in the next phase of 
    this rulemaking. In the interim, OSHA expects employers to take the 
    best available information into account
    
    [[Page 1204]]
    
    in selecting respirators. As it did under the previous standard, OSHA 
    itself will continue to refer to the NIOSH APFs in cases where it has 
    not made a different determination in a substance-specific standard. In 
    addition, where OSHA has specific compliance interpretations for 
    certain respirators, e.g., respirators used for abrasive blasting (such 
    as for lead), these should be followed.
        Based on the Agency's enforcement experience with the previous 
    standard, OSHA does not believe that differences in the APFs set by 
    NIOSH and ANSI will have a serious impact on respirator selection, 
    because the major differences in NIOSH and ANSI APFs occur with 
    respirators having APFs of 25 or greater, and most overexposures 
    involve exposures at relatively small multiples of the PELs. An 
    analysis of OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) data 
    showed that only 2 percent of the measurements taken by OSHA exceeded 
    the PEL by more than 10 times.
        Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of the final standard provides that the 
    respirators selected must protect employees against the physical state 
    and chemical form of the particular contaminant or contaminants present 
    in the workplace. For air-purifying respirator selection, the form of 
    the contaminant is a critical factor. Different types of air filtration 
    respirators are needed for dusts and gases, for example, and, among 
    gases, different types are needed for acid gases and for carbon 
    monoxide. If the respirator is not equipped with a filter suitable for 
    the form of the contaminant to which a worker is exposed, then the 
    worker has no protection against that contaminant. No commenter opposed 
    this requirement. ANSI's standard acknowledges that this information is 
    critical to appropriate respirator selection (ANSI Z 88.2-1992, clause 
    4.5.4.(b)).
        Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) covers respirator selection for protection 
    against gases and vapors. OSHA's primary intent in this paragraph is to 
    ensure that air-purifying respirators are not used in situations where 
    a chemical cartridge or canister becomes saturated such that the gas or 
    vapor contaminant can ``break through'' the filter's sorbent element 
    and enter the respirator and the worker's breathing zone. If this 
    happens, even correctly fitting, well-maintained respirators provide no 
    protection to their users. This breakthrough problem is avoided 
    entirely by the use of atmosphere-supplying respirators. Such 
    respirators do not rely on filter sorbents and instead deliver clean 
    outside air to the wearer's respirator.
        This paragraph establishes the requirements for selecting 
    respirators for protection against gas and vapor contaminants. 
    Paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(A) allows the use of atmosphere-supplying 
    respirators against any gas or vapor, and paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B) 
    specifies the conditions under which air-purifying respirators may be 
    used. These conditions protect users against the gas or vapor 
    contaminant breaking through the canister/cartridge filter. Thus, this 
    paragraph allows an air-purifying respirator to be used if it is 
    equipped with a NIOSH-approved end-of-service life indicator (ESLI) 
    (paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1)) or if the employer enforces a sorbent 
    change schedule based on reliable information and data on the service 
    life of cartridges and canisters used by the employer (paragraph 
    (d)(3)(iii)(B)(2)).
        These provisions differ significantly from those in the proposal. 
    In proposed paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9), OSHA would have allowed air-
    purifying respirator use for gases and vapors with ``adequate warning 
    properties,'' such as odor or irritation, and would not have imposed 
    additional conditions on their use. A substance would have been 
    considered to have adequate warning properties if the threshold for 
    detection was no higher than three times the hazardous exposure level. 
    For contaminants having poor warning properties, the standard as 
    proposed would have required employers to use an ESLI or develop a 
    cartridge/canister change schedule that would ensure replacement of the 
    sorbent element before 80 percent of its useful service life had 
    expired.
        Commenters expressed significant dissatisfaction with the proposed 
    provisions, and some asked OSHA to reevaluate them in major respects 
    (Exs. 54-414, 54-249, 54-374). Many rulemaking participants urged OSHA 
    to rely much more heavily on end-of-service-life indicators (ESLIs) or 
    appropriate cartridge or canister change schedules for air-purifying 
    respirators, and some suggested that OSHA require NIOSH-certified ESLIs 
    on these respirators (Exs. 54-387, 54-443). Other commenters opposed 
    limiting the use of air-purifying respirators equipped with ESLIs or 
    reliable change out schedules to situations where the odor/irritation 
    threshold was less than three times the PEL. However, the Occidental 
    Chemical Corporation (Ex. 54-346) stated that adopting this restriction 
    would prohibit the use of air-purifying respirators for benzene 
    exposures in excess of 3 ppm unnecessarily, and ``counter 10 years of 
    effective employee protection that industry has provided.''
        Many other participants criticized the proposal's reliance on 
    sensory thresholds such as odor and irritation to indicate when a 
    respirator's filtering capacity is exhausted, stating that there is too 
    much variation between individuals, that there is no good screening 
    mechanism to identify persons with sensory receptor problems, and that 
    the proposal would have allowed employees to be overexposed to 
    hazardous air contaminants (Exs. 54-151, 54-153, 54-165, 54-202, 54-
    206, 54-214, 54-414, 54-280, 54-386, 54-410, 54-427). Still other 
    commenters suggested that the kind of respirator required should depend 
    on the severity of the harm resulting from overexposure, with exposure 
    to more serious hazards requiring supplied-air respirators (Exs. 54-
    202, 54-212, 54-347). Finally, some commenters interpreted the proposed 
    provision as prohibiting the use of air-purifying respirators against 
    particulates ``without adequate warning properties'' (Ex. 54-309). 
    This, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors (Ex. 54-
    309), would require, for example, a ``pipefitter who is torch cutting 
    metal with a galvanized coating to use an air-supplied respirator or 
    SCBA--even when working outdoors * * * [and] could add one more item to 
    the array of electrical power cords, pneumatic lines, and fall-
    protection devices already attached to or trailing many construction 
    workers.''
        ORC testified (Tr. 2164-65) that in general, the experience of most 
    of its member companies is that most toxic substances do not have 
    appropriate sensory warning properties. Indeed, in the preamble to its 
    proposed Glycol Ethers standard, OSHA noted that reported values for 
    the odor threshold of any substance vary widely, both because of 
    differences between individuals' ability to perceive a particular odor 
    and because of the methodology employed in conducting the odor 
    threshold determination (58 FR 15526).
        NIOSH's ``Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection--Appendix C'' 
    reports that on average, 95% of a population will have a personal odor 
    threshold that lies within the range from about one-sixteenth to 
    sixteen times the reported mean odor threshold for a substance. As 
    stated by Amoore and Hautala(1983):
    
    [t]he interpretation of these data * * * will depend markedly on the 
    individual circumstances. The threshold data * * * are based on 
    averages for samples of the population, presumably in good health. 
    Individuals can differ quite markedly from the population average in 
    their smell sensitivity, due to any of a variety of innate,
    
    [[Page 1205]]
    
    chronic, or acute physiological conditions * * * Continuing exposure 
    to an odor usually results in a gradual diminution or even 
    disappearance of the smell sensation. This phenomenon is known as 
    olfactory adaption or smell fatigue. If the adaption has not been 
    too severe or too prolonged, sensitivity can often be restored by 
    stepping aside for a few moments to an uncontaminated atmosphere, if 
    available. Unfortunately, workers chronically exposed to a strong 
    odor can develop a desensitization which persists up to two weeks or 
    more after their departure from the contaminated atmosphere * * * 
    Hydrogen sulfide and perhaps other dangerous gases can very quickly 
    lose their characteristic odor at high concentrations * * * Certain 
    commercial diffusible odor masking or suppressing agents may reduce 
    the perceptibility of odors, without removing the chemical source.
    
        Other commenters agreed that odor threshold levels are so variable 
    that it is ``virtually impossible'' to set general rules for uniform 
    application (Moldex-Metric, Ex. 54-153; See also Phillips Petroleum, 
    Ex. 54-165 and Ex. 54-151). OSHA notes that NIOSH, in its 1987 
    Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 9 at pg. 3) stated that ``[w]hen warning 
    properties must be relied on as part of a respiratory protection 
    program, the employer should accurately, validly, and reliably screen 
    each prospective wearer for the ability to detect the warning 
    properties of the hazardous substance(s) at exposure levels that are 
    less than the exposure limits for the substance(s).''
        In light of this evidence, OSHA has reconsidered the conditions 
    under which air-purifying respirators may be used. The final standard 
    requires the use of ESLIs where they are available and appropriate for 
    the employer's workplace, whether or not warning properties exist for a 
    contaminant. If there is no ESLI available, the employer is required to 
    develop a cartridge/canister change schedule based on available 
    information and data that describe the service life of the sorbent 
    elements against the contaminant present in the employer's workplace 
    and that will ensure that sorbent elements are replaced before they are 
    exhausted. Reliance on odor thresholds and other warning properties is 
    no longer explicitly permitted in the final rule as the sole basis for 
    determining that an air-purifying respirator will afford adequate 
    protection against exposure to gas and vapor contaminants.
        To date, only five contaminant-specific ESLIs have been granted the 
    NIOSH approval necessary to allow them to be used. To the extent that 
    NIOSH certified end-of-service life indicators are available, OSHA 
    finds that there are considerable benefits to their use. As a 
    representative of the Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA) testified 
    (Tr. 821), ``ESLIs * * * simplify administration of the respirator 
    program. The idea of trying to administer control on the change out 
    schedule for these cartridges leads to human error or could lead to 
    human error. Where the end-of-service-life indicator is a more active 
    indicator for the actual respirator user that his cartridge needs 
    replacement, it takes the guesswork out of the respirator program and 
    change out schedule.''
        NIOSH has established rigorous testing criteria for end-of-service 
    life indicators. An applicant must supply NIOSH with data 
    ``demonstrating that the ESLI is a reliable indicator of sorbent 
    depletion (equal to or less than 90% of service life). These shall 
    include a flow-temperature study at low and high temperatures, 
    humidities, and contaminant concentrations which are representative of 
    actual workplace conditions where a given respirator will be used * * 
    *. Additional data concerning desorption of impregnating agents used in 
    the indicator, on the effects of industrial interferences commonly 
    found, on reaction products, and which predict the storage life of the 
    indicator'' are also required (NIOSH 1987, Ex. 9 at 45-46). Other 
    criteria cover the durability of an ESLI, and whether it interferes 
    with respirator performance or otherwise constitutes a health or safety 
    hazard to the wearer.
        OSHA finds that these rigorous testing requirements will ensure 
    that employers who can rely on ESLIs can be confident that their 
    employees are adequately protected while using air-purifying 
    respirators against gas and vapor contaminants, and is therefore 
    requiring their use in the final rule. One commenter pointed out that 
    the use of cartridges with moisture-dependent end-of-service life 
    indicators will allow dangerously high exposures in dry atmospheres 
    (Ex. 54-455). However, the final rule requires the use of cartridges 
    and canisters equipped with an ESLI only if its use is appropriate for 
    the conditions of the employer's workplace. Thus, employers would not 
    be required to rely on an ESLI if the employer could demonstrate that 
    its use presents a hazard to employees.
        There was much agreement in the record that it would not be 
    possible or feasible to require replacement of cartridges and canisters 
    before 80 percent of the useful service life of the sorbent element had 
    expired, primarily due to the lack of data available to employers to 
    make this determination (Exs. 54-6, 54-48, 54-165, 54-178, 54-181, 54-
    226, 54-231, 54-289, 54-374). To implement this requirement as it was 
    proposed, the employer would need quantitative information that 
    describes how long a cartridge or canister would last when challenged 
    with a specific concentration of a gas or vapor. Such studies are 
    called ``breakthrough studies'' and require the use of elaborate 
    instrumentation and rigid test protocols. Several published 
    breakthrough studies of a few dozen commonly used industrial chemicals 
    are available in the literature (See, for example, Exs. 21-5, 21-7, 21-
    8, 21-10, 38-13, 38-14, 38-15). OSHA recently used breakthrough data to 
    develop a general cartridge and canister change schedule for air-
    purifying respirators used against 1,3-butadiene (61 FR 56817). Under 
    Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA's Office of 
    Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) requires manufacturers and 
    importers of new chemicals to conduct breakthrough studies and develop 
    cartridge/canister change schedules based on this service life testing.
        As described above, however, comments to the record indicate that 
    breakthrough test data are not likely to be available for many 
    hazardous gases or vapors encountered in American workplaces. For 
    example, one commenter agreed that, although there is a need to protect 
    employees against contaminant breakthrough, it disagreed with relying 
    on employer-devised schedules because there has not been enough 
    breakthrough testing (Laidlaw Environmental Services, Ex. 54-178). The 
    American Electric Power Service Corporation asked OSHA to provide 
    needed guidance on how to assess the useful life of gas and vapor 
    cartridges under widely varying conditions (Ex. 54-181).
        The record shows clearly that respirator manufacturers, chemical 
    manufacturers, and even NIOSH must provide more information about how 
    long respirator cartridges and canisters can be expected to provide 
    protection for employees, as well as additional tools to assess whether 
    the cartridges are still functioning. NIOSH's certification process 
    does not require respirator manufacturers to provide information on the 
    maximum or expected life span for gas and vapor cartridges. Nor do 
    chemical manufacturers written specifications routinely include this 
    information. The certification process tests only for minimum service 
    life, which for most cartridges is 25 to 50 minutes, and for most 
    canisters is 12 minutes (42 CFR part 84, Tables 6, 11). Also, as stated 
    by Cohen and Garrison of the University of Michigan (Ex. 64-
    
    [[Page 1206]]
    
     207, at 486), ``(c)urrent certification by NIOSH involves testing 
    respirator cartridges containing activated carbon against carbon 
    tetrachloride in the presence of water vapor. Testing cartridges with 
    carbon tetrachloride cannot predict how other organic vapors will be 
    adsorbed.''
        Alternatives to OSHA's proposal that were suggested by rulemaking 
    participants included adopting the ANSI requirement to develop and 
    implement a cartridge change schedule based on cartridge service data 
    (which would require the use of breakthrough test data) and information 
    on expected exposure and respirator use patterns (Ex. 54-273), or 
    following manufacturers' recommendations for cartridge and canister use 
    (Ex. 54-6). Therefore, in the final rule, OSHA is not retaining the 
    proposed requirement for employers to ensure that chemical cartridges 
    and canisters be replaced before 80 percent of their useful life. 
    Instead, OSHA is requiring that employers develop cartridge/canister 
    change schedules based on available data or information that can be 
    relied upon to ensure that cartridges and canisters are changed before 
    the end of their useful service life. Such information may include 
    either information based on breakthrough test data or reliable use 
    recommendations from the employer's respirator and/or chemical 
    suppliers.
        Unlike the proposal, the requirement in the final rule would not 
    require the employer to search for and analyze breakthrough test data, 
    but instead permits the employer to obtain information from other 
    sources who have the expertise and knowledge to be able to assist the 
    employer to develop change schedules. OSHA has revised the final rule 
    from the proposal in this manner to recognize that there may be 
    instances in which specific breakthrough test data are not available 
    for a particular contaminant, but manufacturers and suppliers may 
    nevertheless still be able to provide guidance to an employer to 
    develop an adequate change schedule. If the employer is unable to 
    obtain such data, information, or recommendations to support the use of 
    air-purifying respirators against the gases or vapors encountered in 
    the employer's workplace, the final rule requires the employer to rely 
    on atmosphere-supplied respirators because the employer can have no 
    assurance that air-purifying respirators will provide adequate 
    protection.
        Ideally, change schedules should be based on tests of cartridge/
    canister breakthrough that were conducted under worst-case conditions 
    of contaminant concentration, humidity, temperature and air flow rate 
    through the filter element. One such protocol is described in the EPA 
    Interim Recommendations for Determining Organic Vapor Cartridge Service 
    Life for NIOSH Approved Respirators (dated May 1, 1991), as revised in 
    May 1994. This protocol requires breakthrough testing at three 
    different concentrations at 80 and 20 percent relative humidity. 
    Additional testing is required if it is determined that the substance 
    may be used in workplaces where there are elevated temperatures, or 
    where breakthrough is evident at lower humidity. The protocol also 
    requires manufacturers to develop change schedules that incorporate a 
    safety factor of 60 percent of the measured service life.
        OSHA emphasizes that a conservative approach is recommended when 
    evaluating service life testing data. Temperature, humidity, air flow 
    through the filter, the work rate, and the presence of other potential 
    interfering chemicals in the workplace all can have a serious effect on 
    the service life of an air-purifying cartridge or canister. High 
    temperature and humidity directly impact the performance of the 
    activated carbon in air-purifying filters. OSHA believes that, in 
    establishing a schedule for filter replacement, it is important to base 
    the schedule on worst-case conditions found in the workplace, since 
    this will provide the greatest margin for safety in using air-purifying 
    respirators with gases and vapors. Thus, to the extent that change 
    schedules are based on test data that were not obtained under similar 
    worst-case conditions, OSHA recommends that employers provide an 
    additional margin of safety to ensure that breakthrough is not likely 
    to occur during respirator use. OSHA encourages respirator and chemical 
    manufacturers to perform their own tests to provide appropriate 
    breakthrough test data to employers, particularly to small companies 
    with limited resources, for those situations where the data are not 
    already publicly available.
        If breakthrough data are not available, the employer may seek other 
    information on which to base a reliable cartridge/canister change 
    schedule. OSHA believes that the most readily available alternative is 
    for employers to rely on recommendations of their respirator and/or 
    chemical suppliers. To be reliable, such recommendations should 
    consider workplace-specific factors that are likely to affect 
    cartridge/canister service life, such as concentrations of contaminants 
    in the workplace air, patterns of respirator use (i.e., whether use is 
    intermittent or continuous throughout the shift), and environmental 
    factors including temperature and humidity. Such recommendations must 
    be viewed by the employer in light of the employer's own past 
    experience with respirator use. For example, reports by employees that 
    they can detect the odor of vapors while respirators are being used 
    suggest that cartridges or canisters should be changed more frequently.
        Another potential approach involves the use of mathematical models 
    that have been developed to describe the physical and chemical 
    interactions between the contaminant and sorbent material. Theoretical 
    modeling has been conducted to determine the effect of contaminant 
    concentration on breakthrough time and other similar relationships. It 
    is generally agreed, however, that the relationships between 
    contaminant concentrations, exposure durations, breathing rates, and 
    breakthrough times are complex and heavily dependent upon assumptions 
    concerning several factors, including environmental conditions (See 
    references 1-8 in Ex. 64-331). As a result, predictive models are 
    probably not likely to present an acceptable alternative for most 
    employers, and their use would require that a considerable margin of 
    safety be incorporated into any change schedule developed from such 
    estimation techniques.
        Research is also underway to develop a field method for evaluating 
    the service lives of organic vapor cartridges using a small carbon-
    filled tube to sample air from the work environment. The principal 
    investigator for this research stated in 1991 that ``(a) field 
    evaluation of the method is currently underway. It is expected to be 
    the final step in evaluating and validating the method for predicting 
    the service lives of organic vapor respirator cartridges in workplace 
    environments' (Ex. 64-208 at 42). Although OSHA cannot at this time 
    evaluate the utility of this method because results of the field 
    testing of this device have not been reported, the development of such 
    tools to assist employers to better estimate cartridge/canister service 
    times is encouraged, and their use would be permitted under the 
    standard providing that the reliability of such a method had been 
    appropriately demonstrated.
        Representatives of CMA testified in favor of requiring the employer 
    to provide some written documentation for determining service life or a 
    change out schedule (Tr. 1736-1737). OSHA agrees that it is important 
    for the employer to
    
    [[Page 1207]]
    
    document the basis for establishing the change schedule and has 
    included in paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B)(2) a requirement for the employer 
    to do so as part of his or her written respiratory protection program. 
    The written respirator program is the proper place for employers to 
    document change schedules, since the written program is the place where 
    employers give specific directions on workplace-related operations and 
    procedures for their employees to follow. The written program also 
    documents the exposure measurements or reasonable estimates that were 
    made, which form the basis of the calculations used to make the filter 
    change schedules. Developing a filter change schedule involves a number 
    of decisions. The employer must evaluate the hazardous exposure level, 
    the performance capacity of the filters being used, and the duration of 
    employee use of the respirator, which impact on the service life 
    calculations. OSHA believes that including the basis for the change 
    schedule in the written program will cause employers to better evaluate 
    the quality and reliability of the underlying information, and will 
    prompt the employer to obtain additional information, ask additional 
    questions of their suppliers, or seek competent professional help to 
    develop a change schedule that will ensure adequate performance of 
    cartridges and canisters used in the employer's workplace.
        OSHA proposed in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) that, as part of the required 
    selection evaluation, the employer evaluate the physical properties of 
    the relevant contaminant and, in the preamble, listed ``the particle 
    size for dusts'' as a factor affecting respirator selection (59 FR 
    58900). ANSI recommended in its 1992 standard particle size/filter 
    selection criteria as follows: if the contaminant is an aerosol, with 
    an unknown particle size or a size less than 2 m, use a high 
    efficiency filter; if the contaminant is a fume, use a filter approved 
    for fumes or a high efficiency filter; and if the contaminant is an 
    aerosol, with a particle size greater than 2 m, use any filter 
    type (ANSI Z88.2-1992, clause 7.2.2.2.j, k, and l).
        NIOSH agreed with ANSI's recommendations insofar as particulate 
    filtering respirators certified under former 30 CFR 11 are concerned. 
    However, NIOSH expressed particular concern about very small particles: 
    ``Laboratory research beginning in the early 1970s, and continuing into 
    the 1990s, demonstrated that some, but not all, members of the Dust 
    Mist (DM) and Dust Fume Mist (DFM) filter classes allow significant 
    penetration of submicron-sized particles. Additionally submicron 
    particulates present special medical concerns because they can diffuse 
    throughout the respiratory system * * *'' In NIOSH's new 42 CFR part 
    84, classes of particulate filters now certified as filter series N, R, 
    and P may be used against any size particulate in the workplace (Ex. 
    54-437).
        Based on this evidence, OSHA has determined that where employees 
    are exposed to submicron particles of a respiratory hazard, OSHA will 
    enforce paragraph (d)(3)(iv) as limiting the use of DM and DFM filters 
    certified under former 30 CFR 11 to employers who can demonstrate that 
    exposure in their workplace is limited to particulates that have a mass 
    median aerodynamic diameter of 2 m or larger. OSHA notes that 
    employers have alternative choices to using HEPA filters where the 
    sizes of particles are unknown or are less than 2 m. The new 
    filter media certified by NIOSH under new 42 CFR part 84 as series N, R 
    and P, may be used for any size particulate; however, where another 
    OSHA standard requires the use of HEPA-filtered respirators, the 
    employer may only use HEPA filters defined under 30 CFR 11 or N100, 
    R100, or P100 filters defined under 42 CFR part 84.
    
    Paragraph (e)--Medical Evaluation
    
        Medical evaluation to determine whether an employee is able to use 
    a given respirator is an important element of an effective respiratory 
    protection program and is necessary to prevent injuries, illnesses, and 
    even, in rare cases, death from the physiological burden imposed by 
    respirator use. The previous standard stated, at 29 CFR 
    1910.134(b)(10), that employees should not be assigned to tasks 
    requiring the use of respirators unless it has been determined that 
    they are physically able to perform the work while using the 
    respiratory equipment. That standard also provided that ``the local 
    physician shall determine what health and physical conditions are 
    pertinent,'' but listed no specific medical or workplace conditions to 
    consider when making such a determination. The previous standard also 
    stated that regular reviews of the medical status of respirator users 
    should be undertaken, and suggested that a once yearly evaluation would 
    be appropriate. Employers are thus aware of the need for medical 
    evaluations of respirator users and have been conducting such 
    evaluations as part of their respiratory protection programs for years.
        OSHA believes that, to ensure employee protection, medical 
    evaluations for respirator use must be conducted before initial 
    respirator use, and that such evaluations must consist of effective 
    procedures and methods. Accordingly, the final standard's medical 
    evaluation requirements for respirator use identify who is to be 
    evaluated, and address the frequency and content of these evaluations. 
    It authorizes licensed health care professionals, both physicians and 
    nonphysicians, to evaluate employees for respirator use to the extent 
    authorized by the scope of their state licensure, and to conduct 
    follow-up medical evaluations based on specific indicators of need.
        In the proposal, OSHA described three alternative approaches to 
    medical evaluation for respirator users. The first proposed alternative 
    in the regulatory text would have required employers annually to obtain 
    a physician's written opinion for every employee using a respirator for 
    more than five hours in any work week. The physician's opinion was to 
    inform the employer whether or not a medical examination of the 
    employee was necessary and, if so, was to specify the content of the 
    medical examination.
        The second proposed alternative required a mandatory medical 
    history and examination, using questions and procedures similar to 
    those contained in the ANSI standard on physical qualifications for 
    respirator use, ANSI Z88.6-1984 (Ex. 38-4). This alternative would have 
    applied only to employees using a respirator for more than five hours 
    during any work week. Medical evaluation was to be performed annually 
    and whenever an employee experienced breathing difficulty while being 
    fitted for, or using, a respirator. The medical evaluation was to be 
    conducted by a physician or a health care professional supervised by a 
    physician, who, in arriving at a decision regarding the employee's 
    medical ability for respirator use, was to consider a number of 
    respirator and workplace conditions (e.g., type of respirator used, 
    duration and frequency of respirator use, substances to which the 
    employee is exposed, work effort and type of work, need for protective 
    clothing, and special environmental conditions (e.g., heat, confined 
    spaces)) that could affect the health and safety of respirator users. 
    The resulting medical opinion, which was to be written by a physician, 
    was to recommend any medical limitation on respirator use, and was to 
    be provided to both the employer and employee. This proposed 
    alternative contained an exemption for employees who had received a 
    comparable medical history and examination within the previous year for 
    the same respirator and conditions of respirator use. OSHA proposed a 
    nonmandatory Appendix C
    
    [[Page 1208]]
    
    with this alternative that specified the elements of the medical 
    evaluation.
        The third proposed alternative would have required that a medical 
    questionnaire be administered to every respirator user, regardless of 
    the duration of respirator use. The medical questionnaires could be 
    administered by health professionals or other personnel who had been 
    trained in medical administration by a physician. If the answers to the 
    medical questionnaire showed that a medical examination was needed, the 
    employee had to be provided such an examination (see 59 FR 58911). 
    Medical examinations were to be mandatory for employees who would be 
    required to use SCBAs when assigned to emergency or rescue operations. 
    Medical examinations were to be conducted by physicians or physician-
    supervised health care professionals. The medical opinion was to be 
    written by a physician; consider the same respirator and workplace 
    conditions specified for the second alternative; specify any medical 
    limitations on respirator use; and be provided to both the employer and 
    employee.
        In addition to proposing three medical evaluation alternatives, the 
    proposal requested comments on medical removal protection, including 
    the need to provide alternative respirators or job assignments to 
    employees found to be medically unable to use the required respirator.
    Overview of the Final Rule's Provisions
        The provisions of paragraph (e) in the final Respiratory Protection 
    standard are based on an extensive review of the comments received on 
    the proposal, especially comments regarding the three proposed medical 
    evaluation alternatives. Final paragraph (e)(1) specifies that every 
    employee must be medically evaluated prior to fit testing and initial 
    use of a respirator. Paragraph (e)(2) states that employers must select 
    a physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) to 
    conduct the medical evaluation, which must consist either of the 
    administration of a medical questionnaire or an initial medical 
    examination. Mandatory Appendix C contains the medical questionnaire to 
    be administered to employees if the medical questionnaire approach is 
    taken.
        Paragraph (e)(3) requires the employer to provide a follow-up 
    medical examination to an employee who answers ``yes'' to any question 
    among questions 1 through 8 in Section 2, Part A of the medical 
    questionnaire in Appendix C. The follow-up medical examination is to 
    consist of any tests, consultations, or diagnostic procedures that the 
    PLHCP deems necessary.
        Paragraph (e)(4) specifies that the medical questionnaire and 
    examinations shall be administered confidentially and at a time and 
    place, during working hours, that is convenient to the employee, and 
    that the employee understands the content of the questionnaire.
        Paragraph (e)(5) requires the employer to provide the PLHCP with 
    specific information needed to make an informed decision about whether 
    the employee is able to use a respirator. The information includes 
    descriptions of the respirator to be used and workplace conditions that 
    may impose physiological burdens on respirator users, or that may 
    interact with an existing medical condition to increase the risk that 
    respirator use will adversely affect the employee's health.
        Final paragraph (e)(6) requires the employer to obtain a written 
    recommendation from the PLHCP on whether or not the employee is 
    medically able to use a respirator. The recommendation must identify 
    any limitations on the employee's use of the respirator, as well as the 
    need for follow-up medical evaluations to assist the PLHCP in 
    determining the effects of respirator use on the employee's health. The 
    employee must receive a copy of the PLHCP's written recommendation. The 
    last provision of paragraph (e)(6) requires that a powered air-
    purifying respirator (PAPR) be provided to an employee when information 
    from the medical evaluation shows that the employee can use a PAPR but 
    not a negative pressure respirator. If the PLHCP determines at a 
    subsequent time that the employee is able to use a negative pressure 
    respirator, the employer is no longer required to provide a PAPR to 
    that employee.
        Paragraph (e)(7) specifies circumstances that require the employer 
    to provide additional medical evaluations to respirator users. Medical 
    reevaluations must be provided under the following conditions: when the 
    employee reports signs or symptoms that are relevant to the employee's 
    ability to use a respirator; when a PLHCP, supervisor, or respirator 
    program administrator informs the employer that an employee needs to be 
    reevaluated; when information from the respirator program, including 
    observations made during fit testing or program evaluation, indicates a 
    need for employee reevaluation; or if a change in workplace conditions 
    occurs that may result in a substantial increase in the physiological 
    burden that respirator use places on the employee. The following 
    paragraphs describe the comments received in connection with each 
    medical evaluation requirement, and discuss OSHA's reasons for 
    including each requirement in the final rule.
    Introduction
        OSHA is including an introduction to the regulatory text that 
    provides a brief rationale for requiring employers to implement a 
    medical evaluation program as part of their overall respiratory 
    protection program. The introduction is provided for informational 
    purposes, and does not impose regulatory obligations on employers.
        The purpose of a medical evaluation program is to ensure that any 
    employee required to use a respirator can tolerate the physiological 
    burden associated with such use, including the burden imposed by the 
    respirator itself (e.g., its weight and breathing resistance during 
    both normal operation and under conditions of filter, canister, or 
    cartridge overload); musculoskeletal stress (e.g., when the respirator 
    to be worn is an SCBA); limitations on auditory, visual, and odor 
    sensations; and isolation from the workplace environment (Exs. 113, 22-
    1, 64-427). Certain job and workplace conditions in which a respirator 
    is used can also impose a physiological load on the user; factors to be 
    considered include the duration and frequency of respirator use, the 
    level of physical work effort, the use of protective clothing, and the 
    presence of temperature extremes or high humidity. Job- and workplace-
    related stressors may interact with respirator characteristics to 
    increase the physiological stress experienced by employees (Exs. 113, 
    64-363). For example, being required to wear protective clothing while 
    performing work that imposes a heavy workload can be highly stressful.
        Specific medical conditions can compromise an employee's ability to 
    tolerate the physiological burdens imposed by respirator use, thereby 
    placing the employee at increased risk of illness, injury, and even 
    death (Exs. 64-363, 64-427). These medical conditions include 
    cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (e.g., a history of high blood 
    pressure, angina, heart attack, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, asthma, 
    chronic bronchitis, emphysema), reduced pulmonary function caused by 
    other factors (e.g., smoking or prior exposure to respiratory hazards), 
    neurological or musculoskeletal disorders (e.g., ringing in the ears, 
    epilepsy, lower back pain), and impaired sensory function (e.g., a 
    perforated ear drum, reduced olfactory
    
    [[Page 1209]]
    
    function). Psychological conditions, such as claustrophobia, can also 
    impair the effective use of respirators by employees and may also 
    cause, independent of physiological burdens, significant elevations in 
    heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate that can jeopardize 
    the health of employees who are at high risk for cardiopulmonary 
    disease (Ex. 22-14). One commenter (Ex. 54-429) emphasized the 
    importance of evaluating claustrophobia and severe anxiety, noting that 
    these conditions are often detected during respirator training.
        The introduction states that the medical evaluation requirements in 
    paragraph (e) of the final rule are minimal requirements that OSHA 
    believes are necessary to protect the health of respirator users.
    Paragraph (e)(1)--General
        This paragraph requires that employees required to wear a 
    respirator, or those voluntarily wearing a negative pressure air 
    purifying respirator, be medically evaluated, and that a determination 
    be made that they are able to use the respirators selected by the 
    employer. A medical evaluation must be performed on every employee 
    required to use a respirator, regardless of the duration and frequency 
    of respirator use. In addition, as discussed above in connection with 
    paragraph (c)(2), employers must provide a medical evaluation to any 
    employee who elects to use a respirator that may place a physiological 
    burden on the user, e.g., a negative pressure air-purifying respirator. 
    By medically evaluating employees prior to respirator use, employers 
    will avoid exposing employees to the physiological stresses associated 
    with such use. Paragraph (e)(1) is similar to a provision in the 
    American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standard Z88.2-
    1992 (``American National Standard for Respiratory Protection) that 
    states: ``any medical conditions [of an employee] that would preclude 
    the use of respirators shall be determined.''
        Commenters (Exs. 54-21, 54-307, 54-361, 54-419, 54-420, 54-421, 54-
    441) generally agreed that medical evaluation should precede initial 
    respirator use, i.e., should take place before fit testing and first 
    time use of the respirator in the workplace. For example, the 
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Ex. 54-441) stated, 
    ``The physical fitness of respirator users must be known prior to them 
    donning a respirator, not after they become injured.'' Three other 
    commenters (Exs. 54-419, 54-420, 54-421) agreed, without elaboration, 
    that medical evaluations should be performed before respirator use. One 
    commenter (Ex. 54-21) recommended that employees receive medical 
    evaluations after fit testing but before actual use so that 
    difficulties with respirator use during fit testing could be reported 
    to the PLHCP, and two other commenters (Exs. 54-307, 54-361) also 
    suggested that the medical evaluation be conducted prior to fit 
    testing.
        OSHA believes that the initial medical evaluation must be conducted 
    prior to fit testing to identify those employees who have medical 
    conditions that contraindicate even the limited amount of respirator 
    use associated with fit testing. If medical problems are observed 
    during fit testing, the employee must be medically reevaluated (see 
    final paragraph (e)(7)).
        Final paragraph (e)(1) requires the medical evaluation of employees 
    who use respirators, regardless of duration of use. This final 
    requirement differs from proposed alternatives 1 and 2, which would 
    have exempted from medical evaluation those employees who used a 
    respirator for five or fewer hours during any work week. The 
    overwhelming majority of commenters stated that the exemption should be 
    eliminated entirely or be limited only to those employees who are 
    exposed to minimal physiological stresses or workplace hazards. These 
    comments can be grouped, and are summarized, as follows:
        (1) If the five-hours-per-week threshold were used, employers would 
    avoid the proposed medical evaluation requirement by rotating employees 
    who use respirators into jobs not requiring respirators just short of 
    the five-hour limit (Exs. 54-5, 54-165, 54-178, 54-419);
        (2) Employees who use respirators frequently for periods of less 
    than five hours per work week, or who use respirators for more than 
    five hours per work week but do so infrequently, are still at risk of 
    the adverse health effects potentially associated with respirator use 
    and, therefore, they should also be medically evaluated (Exs. 54-163, 
    54-178, 54-308, 54-345);
        (3) The five-hour exemption should not apply to respirator use that 
    is known to be physiologically burdensome (e.g., use of SCBAs by 
    emergency responders) or to use under the job or working conditions 
    (including hazardous exposures) that impose a significant physiological 
    burden on employees (Exs. 54-5, 54-68, 54-92, 54-107, 54-137, 54-153, 
    54-158, 54-159, 54-187, 54-194, 54-195, 54-206, 54-208, 54-213, 54-224, 
    54-247, 54-264, 54-265, 54-275, 54-283, 54-290, 54-327, 54-342, 54-348, 
    54-363, 54-395, 54-415, 54-427, 54-429, 54-453);
        (4) The five-hour exemption would be too difficult for OSHA to 
    enforce or could not be administered effectively and efficiently by 
    employers (Exs. 54-70, 54-136, 54-167, 54-196, 54-244, 54-250, 54-267, 
    54-327, 54-348, 54-443);
        (5) The health of employees with preexisting medical problems would 
    be endangered because these problems may go undetected until the five-
    hour limit is reached (and, in some cases, may never be detected if 
    employees ``self-select'' into jobs with little respirator use because 
    of their medical problems) (Exs. 54-92, 54-159, 54-247, 54-415, 54-441, 
    54-455); and
        (6) The five-hour exemption is not appropriate because every 
    employee who uses a respirator should have a medical evaluation (Exs. 
    54-6, 54-46, 54-79, 54-196, 54-202, 54-208, 54-214, 54-218, 54-233, 54-
    272, 54-275, 54-287, 54-289, 54-295, 54-357, 54-394, 54-420, 54-424, 
    54-430, 54-434, 54-453), or the exemption is arbitrary, has no 
    scientific basis, or would increase an employer's risk of liability 
    (Exs. 54-188, 54-434).
        Several commenters recommended that medical evaluation not be 
    required for SCBA users (Exs. 54-68, 54-320, 54-331, 54-353); that 
    medical evaluations for emergency responders be contingent on 
    respirator use exceeding five hours per year (Ex. 54-429); or that 
    emergency responders be exempted from medical evaluation requirements 
    that are unique to employees who use airline respirators or SCBAs (Ex. 
    54-420).
        Some commenters recommended adopting the five hours per week 
    exemption (Exs. 54-14, 54-80, 54-91, 54-182, 54-220, 54-223, 54-224, 
    54-252, 54-283, 54-319) to achieve cost savings and improve the 
    efficiency of the respiratory protection program. Two commenters (Exs. 
    54-177, 54-402) stated that the five-hour limit represented the point 
    at which the effects of job-related physical stress should be medically 
    evaluated. Although generally endorsing the provision, several 
    commenters (Exs. 54-168, 54-206, 54-209, 54-295, 54-357, 54-366) found 
    the phrase ``during any work week'' to be vague, confusing, or in need 
    of being defined.
        Several commenters wanted the five hours per week limit revised 
    upwards. One commenter (Ex. 54-300) recommended that the limit be 
    raised to 10 hours per week, while another commenter (Ex. 54-249) 
    endorsed a limit of 30 days per year. A third commenter (Ex. 54-116) 
    stated that the limit could be increased, without
    
    [[Page 1210]]
    
    danger, to 10 hours per week for firefighters who use SCBAs, but 
    presented no data to support this position, while three other 
    commenters (Exs. 54-209, 54-254, 54-454) stated that a 10 or 15-hour 
    per week limit could be tolerated without stress by most employees who 
    use respirators. One commenter (Ex. 54-435) believed that the exemption 
    should be broadened to cover seasonal employees because medical 
    evaluations are too difficult to administer to these employees. Another 
    commenter (Ex. 54-263) opposed any requirement for the medical 
    evaluation of employees who use respirators.
        One commenter recommended that medical evaluations not be required 
    for employees who use disposable half-mask or dust mask respirators, 
    regardless of workplace exposure conditions (Ex. 54-329). A number of 
    commenters suggested eliminating medical evaluations if employers 
    choose to provide respirators to their employees (i.e., if they are not 
    required by OSHA to provide such respirators) (Exs. 54-69, 54-91, 54-
    265, 54-287, 54-295, 54-320, 54-327, 54-339, 54-346, 54-421); two of 
    these commenters (Exs. 54-69, 54-339) expressed the concern that 
    employers may stop offering respirators to their employees if medical 
    evaluation is required in these cases.
        The final standard, as noted above, provides an exception from the 
    requirement that employees who use dust masks on a voluntary-use basis, 
    as defined in paragraph (c), must be medically evaluated. OSHA based 
    the decision to require medical evaluation for all employees required 
    to use respirators, and for those employees voluntarily using negative 
    pressure respirators, on a number of scientific studies, discussed 
    below, which demonstrated that adverse health effects can result, in 
    some cases, even from short duration use of respirators. Several 
    experimental studies in the record show that even healthy individuals 
    using what is generally believed to be a ``low risk'' respirator for 
    short periods can experience adverse physiological and psychomotor 
    effects. In one experiment (Ex. 64-388), 12 individuals using low 
    resistance, disposable half-mask respirators under heavy workloads 
    (using a treadmill apparatus) for only five minutes experienced 
    statistically significant elevations in heart and respiratory rates, 
    systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body temperatures compared 
    with these measures in the same individuals under control (i.e., no 
    respirator use) conditions. Some of these effects were observed while 
    the study participants were working at light and moderate workloads. 
    For two of these individuals, the study's author classified blood 
    pressure changes at heavy workload levels as ``clinically important.'' 
    These results suggest that in an individual with cardiac insufficiency, 
    such physiological stress could cause fatal arrhythmia.
        In another study (Ex. 64-444), 15 individuals used a full facepiece 
    respirator while performing light, moderate, and heavy workloads on a 
    bicycle ergometer for 15 minutes. Immediately following the 15 minute 
    exercise period, the ability of the individuals to maintain their 
    equilibrium (i.e., postural stability) was assessed using a special 
    platform designed for this purpose. Under every workload condition, 
    respirator use resulted in significantly increased heart rates and 
    impaired equilibrium compared to conditions when the individuals did 
    not use respirators.
        A third study (Ex. 64-490) involved 12 individuals, each of whom 
    exercised for 30 minutes on a bicycle ergometer at a light-to-moderate 
    workload while using one of three types of respirators, i.e., 
    disposable half-mask, negative pressure half-mask, and full facepiece 
    airline respirators. After taking a 10 minute rest, the study 
    participants repeated the procedure until each respirator type had been 
    tested. Compared to the control condition in which the subjects 
    exercised without respirators, the individuals were found to consume 
    more oxygen while exercising with the negative pressure half-mask and 
    full facepiece airline respirators, and to have higher systolic and 
    diastolic blood pressures while using the full facepiece airline 
    respirator. Under the test conditions of this study, therefore, 
    negative pressure half-mask and full facepiece airline respirators 
    imposed significant physiological stress on the respirator users.
        Louhevaara (Ex. 164, Attachment D), after reviewing the available 
    research literature on respirator physiology, concluded that the major 
    physiological effects of negative pressure respirators and supplied-air 
    respirators, as well as SCBAs, are ``alterations in breathing patterns, 
    hypoventilation, retention of carbon dioxide, and [an] increase in the 
    work of breathing,'' and that these effects are worse under conditions 
    of increased filter resistance, poor respirator maintenance, and heavy 
    physical work. Sulotto et al. (Ex. 164, Attachment D) found that 
    negative pressure respirators resulted in higher breathing resistances 
    as physical workload on a bicycle ergometer increased, leading to 
    substantially reduced breathing frequency, ventilation rate, oxygen 
    uptake, and carbon dioxide production.
        One study (Ex. 164, Attachment D, Beckett) that reviewed the 
    scientific literature on the medical effects of respirator-imposed 
    breathing resistance among healthy young men noted that ``[t]hese and 
    other studies indicate no clinically significant impairment of normal 
    respiratory function at submaximal workloads with the loads imposed by 
    currently approved, properly maintained, negative pressure respiratory 
    protective devices.'' This reviewer stated further, however, that 
    ``[r]elatively less is known about the use of respirators by those with 
    abnormal physiology (for example, obstructive or restrictive pulmonary 
    diseases) and about the use of respirators whose resistance 
    characteristics are altered by excessively long use, such that 
    inspiratory resistance is increased by the deposition of matter within 
    the filter or absorptive elements of the canister.''
        The Agency finds that these studies demonstrate the potential for 
    adverse health effects resulting from respirator use, even for healthy 
    employees using respirators designed for low breathing resistance and 
    used for short durations. The Agency believes, therefore, that 
    respirator use would impose a substantial risk of material impairment 
    to the health of employees who have preexisting respiratory and 
    cardiovascular impairments. As the earlier discussion of final 
    paragraph (e)(1) indicates, the record contains overwhelming support 
    for requiring medical evaluation of respirator users; many employers 
    who provided comments to the record have established medical evaluation 
    programs for all employees who use respirators (see, e.g., comments by 
    Organization Resources Counselors, Inc., Ex. 54-424). Consequently, 
    OSHA finds, consistent with the results of these studies and the entire 
    record, that the use of any respirator requires a prior medical 
    evaluation to determine fitness.
        Other considerations that have caused OSHA to make this decision 
    are the potential impairment of health that may occur among employees 
    with preexisting medical problems if these problems are not detected 
    before respirator use; the need to identify medical problems that can 
    arise even from short term use of respirators of the types known to 
    impose severe physical stress on employees (e.g., SCBAs); and the 
    administrative difficulties and inefficiencies that employers would 
    experience if OSHA adopted a provision that required medical 
    evaluations only of some respirator users, i.e., those using certain 
    types of respirators or those
    
    [[Page 1211]]
    
    using them for a specified number of hours per week.
        OSHA specifically disagrees with those commenters who stated that 
    no medical evaluations are needed for employees who only occasionally 
    use SCBAs. SCBAs create the highest cardiovascular stress of any type 
    of respirator because of their weight, and they are often used in high 
    physical stress situations, such as fires and other emergencies. This 
    combination of stressors makes medical evaluation necessary to avoid 
    myocardial infarction in susceptible individuals; at least 40 million 
    people in the United States have some form of heart disease (Levy, in 
    54 FR 2541).
        One commenter (Ex. 54-284) recommended that the required medical 
    evaluations should be discontinued after an employee stops using 
    respirators. OSHA agrees with this recommendation, and has revised 
    final paragraph (e)(1) accordingly.
    Paragraph (e)(2)--Medical Evaluation Procedures
        Paragraph (e)(2)(i). This final paragraph requires the employer to 
    identify a physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) 
    to perform medical evaluations using a medical questionnaire or medical 
    examination. Two major issues were raised in the rulemaking record: (1) 
    What must be done to evaluate employees, and (2) who must perform the 
    evaluation. Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(3) would have required 
    physician involvement in the medical evaluation process, with 
    nonphysician health care professionals permitted to review the 
    employee's medical status only under the supervision of a licensed 
    physician. The final rule allows the evaluation to be performed either 
    by a physician or other licensed health care professional (e.g., nurse 
    practitioners, physician assistants, occupational health nurses), 
    provided that their license permits them to perform such evaluations.
        Many commenters, representing labor, management, occupational 
    nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, recommended that 
    OSHA permit the use of nonphysician health care professionals (usually 
    nurse practitioners, physician assistants, occupational health nurses, 
    or registered nurses) to take medical histories, conduct physical 
    examinations (including pulmonary function tests), and administer and 
    review employee responses to medical questionnaires, provided that they 
    do so under the supervision of a licensed physician (Exs.54-6, 54-7, 
    54-21, 54-134, 54-153, 54-157, 54-171, 54-176, 54-185, 54-187, 54-205, 
    54-239, 54-240, 54-244, 54-245, 54-251, 54-267, 54-273, 54-304, 54-357, 
    54-363, 54-381, 54-387, 54-389, 54-396, 54-424, 54-432, 54-443, 54-
    453). Some commenters stated that nonphysician health care 
    professionals are competent to conduct medical assessments, while 
    physician supervision or involvement would guarantee that quality 
    control was maintained over the assessment process (Exs. 54-273, 54-
    363, 54-381, 54-443, 54-453). Two of these commenters (Exs. 54-278, 54-
    430) noted that any health care professional could review medical 
    questionnaires without physician supervision, but that physicians 
    should conduct or supervise any medical examinations conducted on the 
    basis of answers to the medical questionnaires.
        Many other commenters, representing labor, management, and 
    physicians, preferred that only physicians be involved in medical 
    evaluation programs (Exs. 54-14, 54-46, 54-70, 54-101, 54-107, 54-150, 
    54-151, 54-165, 54-175, 54-180, 54-186, 54-189, 54-199, 54-217, 54-219, 
    54-220, 54-249, 54-271, 54-295, 54-313, 54-352, 54-455). This 
    preference was usually based on the prior or current practices of these 
    commenters. For example, the American College of Occupational and 
    Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) (Ex. 54-453) stated that the health 
    status of employees in a respiratory protection program should be 
    reviewed by physicians with specific training and experience in 
    occupational medicine because these medical specialists have knowledge 
    of the physical demands of respirator use needed to make valid 
    decisions regarding an employee's medical ability for the program. A 
    similar recommendation was made by the Service Employees International 
    Union (Ex. 54-455).
        Some commenters recommended that the employee's medical ability to 
    use a respirator be evaluated solely by nonphysician health care 
    professionals (Exs. 54-16, 54-19, 54-25, 54-32, 54-79, 54-159, 54-184, 
    54-213, 54-222, 54-226, 54-253, 54-265, 54-272, 54-278, 54-397). Most 
    of these commenters cited their favorable experiences with nonphysician 
    health care professionals, and pointed to the cost savings of using 
    nonphysicians (Exs. 54-19, 54-79, 54-184, 54-226, 54-253). Several of 
    these commenters provided additional justifications. For example, one 
    commenter (Ex. 54-184) stated that ``physician assistants, by 
    education, training, and state regulation, are well qualified and 
    legally able to perform all aspects of a medical evaluation,'' and 
    argued that the scope of practice with regard to medical evaluations 
    should remain the prerogative of state licensing boards.
        Another commenter (Ex. 54-213) noted that ``many physicians are not 
    familiar with occupational health risks as they relate to respiratory 
    exposures, types of respiratory protection available, and work 
    requirements.'' This commenter stated further that ``nurse[s] or other 
    qualified health care professional[s], operating within their licensed 
    scope of practice, [have] clinical expertise and knowledge of the work 
    environment and can best evaluate the physical requirements placed on 
    the user of respiratory protective equipment'' and that ``[u]se of 
    qualified health care professionals other than physicians is cost-
    beneficial to employers, particularly [in] small business settings'' 
    (Ex. 54-213).
        The American Thoracic Society (Ex. 54-92), which recommended the 
    use of medical questionnaires rather than medical examinations, stated 
    that ``there is no demonstration that [physician-based] examinations 
    actually predict who will develop difficulties with respirator use'' 
    because ``[v]ery few physicians have in-depth knowledge of respiratory 
    protection and workplace hazards sufficient to render a fully reasoned 
    view.''
        None of the commenters, including those who used nonphysician 
    health care professionals to conduct medical evaluations as part of 
    their respiratory protection programs, cited any data or experience 
    showing that the type of PLHCP qualification and licensure, or the 
    manner in which PLHCPs are involved in the medical evaluation process, 
    had compromised the medical evaluation process or had resulted in 
    faulty medical evaluations.
        After reviewing the entire record, OSHA decided to allow any PLHCP 
    to evaluate an employee's medical ability to use a respirator, 
    providing that the PLHCP is authorized to do so by his or her state 
    license, certification, or registration. Although OSHA agrees that 
    physicians with training and experience in occupational medicine are 
    highly qualified to conduct medical evaluations for respirator use, an 
    insufficient number (slightly more than 2,000 nationally) of these 
    specialists are available for this purpose (personal communication, 
    American Board of Medical Specialties, to Vanessa Holland, M.D., 5/29/
    97). In addition, in circumstances where questions arise as to the 
    employee's physical condition and capability, OSHA believes that the 
    PLHCP can be relied on to consult with an appropriate specialist or 
    physician.
    
    [[Page 1212]]
    
        After a review of the licensing provisions of the 50 states and 
    Puerto Rico, OSHA concludes that state licensing laws often require 
    some physician involvement in conducting the medical evaluations 
    required by the final standard. For example, the majority of states 
    require that nurse practitioners perform their medical functions under 
    a formal written agreement with a physician. Only six states (i.e., 
    Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and 
    Puerto Rico allow licensed nurse practitioners to function 
    independently of physician supervision. Even these jurisdictions, 
    however, require licensed nurse practitioners to refer patients to a 
    physician for further evaluation and treatment when a medical problem 
    beyond the nurse practitioner's level of expertise arises. OSHA 
    believes that the states are best suited to judge the medical 
    competencies of those PLHCPs who practice within their jurisdictions, 
    and to regulate the scope of practice of these individuals.
        To summarize, the final rule allows any PLHCP to administer the 
    medical questionnaire or to conduct the medical examination if doing so 
    is within the scope of the PLHCP's license. The basis for this decision 
    includes the following:
        (1) The record (Exs. 54-19, 54-79, 54-92, 54-184, 54-253) generally 
    supports the position that properly qualified PLHCPs, regardless of the 
    type of health care specialization, are competent to assess the medical 
    ability of employees to use respirators using accepted medical 
    questionnaires or medical examinations;
        (2) Evidence in the record that employers who operate respiratory 
    protection programs have successfully used PLHCPS, including 
    nonphysicians, to conduct medical evaluations and to make medical 
    ability recommendations, shows that nonphysicians have done so safely 
    and efficaciously (Exs. 54-213, 54-240, 54-389);
        (3) Providing employers with ready access, at reasonable cost, to 
    the basic medical assessment skills required to perform at least the 
    initial phases of employee medical evaluation for respirator use 
    contributes to the efficient and effective allocation health care 
    resources; and
        (4) The lack of record support for a requirement allowing medical 
    evaluations to be performed only by physicians. The record (Exs. 54-6, 
    54-7, 54-21, 54-134, 54-153, 54-157, 54-171, 54-176, 54-185, 54-187, 
    54-205, 54-239, 54-240, 54-244, 54-245, 54-251, 54-267, 54-273, 54-304, 
    54-357, 54-363, 54-381, 54-387, 54-389, 54-396, 54-424, 54-432, 54-443, 
    54-453) indicates that medical evaluations performed independently by 
    nonphysician health care professionals, as defined by this section, are 
    effective for at least the initial phases of an employer's medical 
    evaluation program (i.e., evaluating the medical questionnaire or 
    conducting an initial medical examination), and protect employee health 
    as well as medical evaluations conducted only by physicians or with 
    physician oversight. Employers are free, however, to select any PLHCP 
    they wish to satisfy this requirement, provided that the PLHCP is 
    qualified by license to do so. In some cases, the medical condition of 
    the employee or the conditions of respirator use may warrant physician 
    involvement, and OSHA is confident that LHCPs faced with such 
    situations will seek such medical advice.
        Paragraph (e)(2)(ii). Paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires employers to 
    identify a PLHCP to perform the medical evaluations required by the 
    final rule. It also specifies that employers may choose to use the 
    medical questionnaire in Appendix C to conduct the initial medical 
    evaluation or provide a medical examination that obtains the same 
    information as the medical questionnaire. Employers are free to provide 
    respirator users with a medical examination in lieu of the medical 
    questionnaire if they choose to do so, but they are not required by the 
    standard to administer a medical examination unless the employee gives 
    a positive response to any question among questions 1 through 8 in 
    Section 2, Part A of Appendix C (see paragraph (e)(3)).
        The approach taken in the final rule thus resembles the third 
    alternative proposed by OSHA in the NPRM: reliance on a medical 
    questionnaire (with medical examination follow-up if positive responses 
    are given to selected questions on the medical questionnaire). Those 
    commenters (Exs. 54-3, 54-14, 54-46, 54-67, 54-107, 54-151, 54-168, 54-
    175, 54-180, 54-218, 54-220, 54-224, 54-226, 54-227, 54-240, 54-244, 
    54-264, 54-292, 54-294, 54-295, 54-324, 54-326, 54-327, 54-339, 54-346, 
    54-352, 54-366, 54-370, 54-210, 54-432, 54-434, 54-443, 54-445, 54-453) 
    who preferred the other alternatives (i.e., medical history and medical 
    examination for all respirator users, or medical examination and 
    written opinion) supported their views with a variety of opinions.
        A number of the commenters who recommended the medical history and 
    examination alternative (Exs. 54-153, 54-165, 54-218, 54-226, 54-227, 
    54-263, 54-264, 54-294, 54-326, 54-327, 54-363, 54-443) favored this 
    approach only in those cases when employees would be using SCBAs, while 
    others (Exs. 54-16, 54-220) stated that medical questionnaires should 
    be used only for employees who use dust masks, and that other 
    respirator users should receive a medical history and examination 
    regardless of the duration of respirator use. Another commenter (Ex. 
    54-101) recommended that medical questionnaires be administered to 
    employees who use dust masks for fewer than five hours per week, while 
    other employees should receive a medical history and examination. One 
    commenter favored medical questionnaires only for respirator users who 
    perform ``isolated operations,'' while recommending that respirator use 
    in other employment settings require a medical history and/or 
    examination (Ex. 54-46). Another commenter stated that employees using 
    respirators under workplace exposure conditions exceeding an OSHA PEL 
    should receive a medical history and examination, while respirator 
    users exposed to other workplace atmospheres should only be required to 
    complete a medical questionnaire (Ex. 54-339).
        Those commenters (Exs. 54-7, 54-16, 54-21, 54-25, 54-32, 54-69, 54-
    91, 54-92, 54-101, 54-134, 54-142, 54-153, 54-154, 54-157, 54-158, 54-
    165, 54-170, 54-171, 54-172, 54-173, 54-176, 54-187, 54-190, 54-192, 
    54-154, 54-197, 54-205, 54-206, 54-208, 54-209, 54-213, 54-14, 54-219, 
    54-222, 54-223, 54-234, 54-239, 54-241, 54-242, 54-245, 54-251, 54-252, 
    54-253, 54-254, 54-262, 54-263, 54-265, 54-267, 54-269, 54-272, 54-273, 
    54-275, 54-278, 54-284, 54-286, 54-289, 54-296, 54-304, 54-309, 54-319, 
    54-320, 54-325, 54-330, 54-332, 54-334, 54-342, 54-350, 54-357, 54-361, 
    54-363, 54-381, 54-389, 54-396, 54-401, 54-421, 54-424, 54-426, 54-428, 
    54-429, 54-430, 54-441, 54-453, 54-455) recommending medical 
    questionnaires (proposed alternative 3) objected to the medical 
    examination and written opinion approaches because, in their view, 
    medical examinations and opinions are difficult to obtain, have poor 
    predictive value, and are expensive, especially for workplaces that 
    have high employee turnover. Regarding costs, the American Iron and 
    Steel Institute (Ex. 175) stated that the medical opinion required by 
    alternative 1 would cost their industry $195 per employee, including 
    $150 for the medical examination and opinion, and $45 in lost work time 
    for the employee.
        The record does not demonstrate that any of the three alternatives 
    were
    
    [[Page 1213]]
    
    superior in detecting medical conditions that could potentially limit 
    employee use of respirators. Testimony at the hearing by the United 
    Steel Workers of America (USWA) (Tr. 1059 and following) in support of 
    alternative 2 (medical history and examination) provided information on 
    the ability of different medical assessment procedures to detect 
    disqualifying medical conditions. This information showed that, among 
    126 employees, 16 were disqualified for respirator use because of 
    various medical conditions. Medical histories identified six of the 
    employees with these conditions, while a medical examination conducted 
    by a physician identified the remaining 10 employees. The USWA 
    attributed the reduced effectiveness of the medical histories in this 
    instance to the lack of awareness among employees of the medical 
    conditions that could potentially limit such use.
        The United Steel Worker's testimony (Tr. 1059 and following) also 
    described a study in which physician-administered medical examinations 
    were found to be about 95 percent accurate and medical questionnaires 
    were found to be 60 to 70 percent accurate in identifying specific 
    medical problems. The final rule is designed to overcome this problem 
    to some extent by requiring that employees be trained to recognize the 
    medical signs and symptoms associated with the physiological burden 
    imposed by respirator use; see paragraph (k)(1)(vi).
        A number of commenters supported the medical questionnaire option 
    on the grounds that this approach is more efficient and effective. The 
    United States Air Force (Ex. 54-443G) stated, ``After working under the 
    provisions of [proposed] alternative 2 for several years and comparing 
    the Air Force's occupational health and cost savings by reducing 
    unnecessary medical evaluations and freeing physician time under 
    [proposed] alternative 3, the Air Force supports [proposed] alternative 
    3.'' Similarly, the CITGO Petroleum Corporation (Ex. 54-251) endorsed 
    medical questionnaires as more cost-effective than medical 
    examinations. CITGO administered medical examinations to a sample of 
    1634 employees in 1994 to detect respiratory disorders, a major medical 
    concern for respiratory protection programs, and identified only one 
    abnormal case that was confirmed after referral for follow-up medical 
    examination.
        An additional study involving validation of medical questionnaires 
    was described by Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) (Ex. 54-
    424). One of ORC's member companies, a large, diversified manufacturing 
    organization, recently reviewed approximately 700 records of employee 
    respirator medical examinations to determine the effectiveness of using 
    a medical questionnaire as a screening tool. This company currently 
    gives all respirator users a full medical examination in addition to 
    having them fill out a medical questionnaire. The records review 
    revealed that, out of 700 examinations, only 10 (less than 2%) required 
    medical limitations on respirator use. These limitations were due to 
    claustrophobia, asthma, and heavy smoking. All of these limitations 
    would have been identified, in the company's view, by a medical 
    questionnaire. The employees identified through the medical 
    questionnaire could then have been given a complete medical 
    examination. By using the medical questionnaire as a screening tool, 
    this company believes it could have eliminated unnecessary examinations 
    for 98% of its worker population.
        A private physician and three management groups (Exs. 54-32, 54-
    424, 55-29, 155) submitted medical questionnaires to the record and 
    expressed satisfaction with these medical questionnaires, in terms of 
    both the medical conditions that were detected and the administrative 
    efficiency of the process; these commenters, however, recommended that 
    physicians be involved in reviewing the medical questionnaires. Several 
    commenters (Exs. 54-70, 54-159, 54-215) endorsed the medical evaluation 
    procedures specified in the American National Standard Institute's 
    (ANSI) consensus standard Z88.6-1984, titled ``American National 
    Standard for Respiratory Protection--Respirator Use--Physical 
    Qualifications for Personnel.'' This ANSI standard recommends that a 
    medical history questionnaire be administered to employees who are 
    enrolled in respiratory protection programs, and that a physician 
    review each employee's responses to the medical questionnaire to 
    determine if additional medical examinations are required.
        OSHA concludes that information in the record supports the use of 
    medical questionnaires for detecting medical conditions that may 
    disqualify employees from, or limit employee participation in, 
    respiratory protection programs. OSHA believes that the ORC study (Ex. 
    54-424) provides support for the conclusion that medical questionnaires 
    are an efficient and effective means of screening employees for 
    subsequent medical examination. OSHA also believes that the training 
    required by paragraph (k)(1) of the final rule, which requires that 
    employees understand the limitations of respirator use and recognize 
    the signs and symptoms of medical problems associated with respirator 
    use, will increase employee awareness and overcome the problems that 
    the USWA (Tr. 1059 and following) noted in its testimony. A number of 
    commenters (Exs. 54-107, 54-151, 54-153, 54-165, 54-190, 54-218, 54-
    251, 54-253, 54-272, 54-339, 54-361, 54-401) stated that medical 
    questionnaires had several advantages over the other alternatives, 
    including simplicity and efficiency of use, completeness and accuracy 
    of the medical information obtained, and adaptability (i.e., easily 
    revised to accommodate new or different medical problems, different 
    employee groups, and changing job, workplace, and respirator 
    conditions). An additional advantage of medical questionnaires is lower 
    cost, most notably in terms of development, administration, and 
    analysis.
        Employers are free to use medical examinations instead of medical 
    questionnaires, but are not required by the standard to do so (see 
    paragraph (e)(2) of the final standard). OSHA also recognizes that 
    medical examinations are necessary in some cases, e.g., where the 
    employee's responses to the medical questionnaire indicate the presence 
    of a medical condition that could increase the risk of adverse health 
    effects if a respirator is used. Examples of such cases are employees 
    who report a history of smoking, pulmonary or cardiovascular symptoms 
    or problems, eye irritation, nose, throat, or skin problems, vision or 
    hearing problems (for employees who use full facepiece respirators), 
    and musculoskeletal problems (for employees who use SCBAs). In 
    addition, certain workplace conditions or job requirements, such as 
    SCBA use, being an emergency responder or a member of a HAZMAT team, 
    working in an IDLH atmosphere, wearing heavy protective clothing, or 
    performing heavy physical work, may warrant a medical examination. In 
    the future, however, OSHA may, on a case-by-case basis, require medical 
    examinations to detect respirator-related conditions in its substance-
    specific standards, depending on the particular circumstances and 
    physiological effects of the toxic substance being regulated.
        The medical questionnaire in Appendix C of the final standard is 
    based on the medical history questionnaire contained in ANSI Z88.6-
    1984, as well as medical questionnaires submitted to the record by 
    commenters
    
    [[Page 1214]]
    
    (Exs. 54-32, 54-424, 55-29). The medical questionnaire is designed to 
    identify general medical conditions that place employees who use 
    respirators at risk of serious medical consequences, and includes 
    questions addressing these conditions. These medical conditions include 
    seizures, diabetes, respiratory disorders and chronic lung disease, and 
    cardiovascular problems. As the discussion of the Introduction and 
    paragraphs (e)(1) and (5) in this Summary and Explanation demonstrate, 
    these conditions have been found to increase the risk of material 
    impairment among employees who use respirators. A question asking about 
    fear of tight or enclosed spaces was included in the medical 
    questionnaire because claustrophobia and anxiety associated with such 
    spaces were mentioned by a commenter as the most frequent medical 
    problem detected during respirator training (Ex. 54-429); additionally, 
    research submitted to the record (Ex. 164, Attachment D, Morgan) 
    indicates that more than 10 per cent of ``normal'' young men experience 
    dizziness, claustrophobia, or anxiety attacks while exercising during 
    respirator use.
        Questions 10 through 15 of the medical questionnaire in Appendix C 
    must be answered only by employees who use a full facepiece respirator 
    or SCBA. These questions ask about hearing and vision impairments, as 
    well as back and other musculoskeletal problems. Employees who use full 
    facepiece respirators, for example, must be asked about eye and hearing 
    problems because the configuration of these respirators (e.g., helmets, 
    hoods) can add to the limitations associated with existing visual and 
    auditory impairments, resulting in an elevated risk of injury to 
    employees with such impairments, as well as to other employees who may 
    rely on the impaired employee to warn them of emergencies (Ex. 164, 
    Attachment D, Beckett). The heavy weight and range-of-motion 
    limitations of SCBAs may prevent employees who have existing problems 
    in the lower back or upper or lower extremities from using these 
    respirators.
        A physician (Ex. 54-16) commented that an employee's medical 
    history should be considered by the PLHCP in making a recommendation 
    about the employee's ability to use respirators. This commenter 
    specified a number of prior medical conditions, including those 
    involving cardiovascular and respiratory health, psychological 
    variables, neurological and sensory organ status, endocrine function, 
    and the use of medications that would be useful to PLHCPs in arriving 
    at a medical ability recommendation. OSHA believes that these 
    variables, especially cardiovascular and respiratory fitness, are 
    important determinants of respiratory fitness, and, therefore, included 
    items specific to these medical conditions in the medical 
    questionnaire. OSHA concludes that the employee's answers to the 
    medical questionnaire will provide an adequate medical history for the 
    PLHCP.
        Two commenters (Exs. 54-222, 54-251) requested that OSHA define 
    medical evaluation procedures and provided sample definitions. OSHA 
    believes that the regulatory text of the final rule, which has been 
    clarified and simplified since the proposal, provides clear guidance 
    and that these definitions are, therefore, not necessary. As used in 
    the final rule, ``medical evaluation'' means the use of subjective 
    (e.g., medical questionnaires) or objective methods (e.g., medical 
    examinations), as well as other available medical, occupational, and 
    respirator information, to make a determination or recommendation about 
    an employee's medical ability to use respirators; ``medical 
    examination'' means the use of objective methods (i.e., manipulative, 
    physiological, biochemical, or psychological devices, techniques, or 
    procedures) to directly assess the employee's physical and mental 
    status for the purpose of making a recommendation regarding the 
    employee's medical ability to use the respirator.
    Paragraph (e)(3)--Follow-up Medical Examination
        Paragraph (e)(3) addresses follow-up medical examinations and 
    states that the employer must provide such examinations to any employee 
    who gives a positive response to any question among questions 1 through 
    8 in Section 2, part A in Appendix C. The PLHCP is free to include any 
    medical tests, consultations, or diagnostic procedures that he or she 
    determines to be necessary to assist him or her in making a final 
    determination of the employee's ability to use a respirator. OSHA 
    expects that the number of cases where PLHCPs will have to provide 
    follow-up examinations will be small, because it is generally possible 
    to recommend against respirator use, or determine the limitations to 
    place on an employee's use of respirators, on the basis of responses to 
    the medical questionnaire. However, where difficult medical issues are 
    involved, such as the need to make a differential diagnosis or to 
    assess an employee's ability to handle the physical stress imposed by 
    an extra-hazardous job, a medical examination and involvement of a 
    physician may be needed. Many commenters (Exs. 54-92, 54-101, 54-134, 
    54-171, 54-223, 54-278, 54-304, 54-363, 54-389) endorsed this 
    requirement. Two commenters (Exs. 54-151, 54-189) stated that medical 
    examinations should not be limited to answers on the medical 
    questionnaire that indicate a need for medical examinations. A few 
    commenters (Exs. 54-153, 54-176, 54-218) recommended that a mandatory 
    medical examination requirement based on the employee's responses to 
    the medical questionnaire is wasteful and unnecessary.
        OSHA agrees that PLHCPs should be permitted to obtain any medical 
    information they believe would be useful in arriving at a final medical 
    recommendation, and they should not be limited to investigating 
    problems associated only with answers on the medical questionnaire. 
    Information from medical examinations may also be needed to validate an 
    answer that a PLHCP believes is incorrect. Also, as recommended by ORC 
    (Ex. 54-424), a PLHCP should be free to investigate through medical 
    examination any medical conditions related to respirator use that may 
    not have been addressed by the medical questionnaire or may not have 
    been obtained from other sources.
    Paragraph (e)(4)--Administration of the Medical Questionnaire and 
    Examinations
        Paragraph (e)(4)(i). This paragraph sets out the procedures 
    employers must follow when administering the medical questionnaire or 
    examinations required by paragraph (e)(2). Paragraph (e)(4)(i) requires 
    employers to administer the required medical questionnaire or 
    examinations in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the 
    employee being evaluated. In addition, the evaluation must be 
    administered during normal work hours or at a time and place convenient 
    to the employee, and in a manner that ensures that the employee 
    understands the questions on the medical questionnaire. Although this 
    requirement was not specifically proposed, it is consistent with OSHA 
    policy and with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act. OSHA has included similar 
    requirements in a number of substance-specific health standards (see, 
    e.g., the Cadmium standard, 29 CFR 1910.1027, the Lead standard, 29 CFR 
    1910.1025, and the Benzene standard, 29 CFR 1910.1043). If an employee 
    must travel off-site for medical evaluation, travel arrangements must 
    be made, and costs incurred paid or reimbursed, by the employer.
        The final standard differs from the proposal in that it does not 
    specify who
    
    [[Page 1215]]
    
    must supervise the administration of the medical questionnaire. 
    Alternative 3 in the proposal would have required that the medical 
    questionnaires be administered by ``a health professional or a person 
    trained in administering the questionnaire by a physician.'' (See 59 FR 
    58911.) Commenters (Exs. 54-25, 54-69, 54-153, 54-165, 54-190, 54-218, 
    54-251, 54-253, 54-272, 54-339, 54-361, 54-401) recommended that 
    persons performing this function have various qualifications, e.g., be 
    a trained designee of the employer, a safety or health professional, a 
    physician, or a nonphysician health care professional operating under 
    the supervision of a physician. Some commenters (Exs. 54-25, 54-101, 
    54-214, 54-389, 54-421) recommended that a PLHCP be present during 
    administration of the medical questionnaire to ensure the accuracy and 
    validity of the employee's answers. Others (Exs. 54-69, 54-361) stated 
    that the medical questionnaire should be designed so as to be easily 
    comprehended by the employee and simple to administer, thereby 
    requiring only minimal involvement by an employer. OSHA agrees with 
    those commenters (Exs. 54-69, 54-361) who urged that the medical 
    questionnaire be easy to understand, and has developed the medical 
    questionnaire in Appendix C accordingly. OSHA does not believe that 
    oversight is necessary because the standard requires that the medical 
    questionnaire be understandable to the employee and that the employee 
    be given an opportunity to ask questions of the PLHCP administering the 
    questionnaire.
        Although the OSHA medical questionnaire is designed to be easily 
    comprehended by employees, paragraph (e)(4)(i) of the final standard 
    specifically requires that employers ensure that employees understand 
    the medical questionnaire. For employees who are not able to complete 
    the medical questionnaire because of reading difficulty, or who speak a 
    foreign language, OSHA requires that the employer take action to ensure 
    that the employee understands the questions on the medical 
    questionnaire. Language and comprehension deficits could invalidate the 
    answers of such employees and result in inaccurate determinations. 
    Under these circumstances, the PLHCP may assist the employee in 
    completing the medical questionnaire (perhaps with the aid of an 
    employer-supplied interpreter). The employer also may have the medical 
    questionnaire translated into the employee's language or administer a 
    physical examination that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of 
    the final standard. In fulfilling this requirement, OSHA is not 
    requiring employers to hire professional interpreters. Instead, 
    employers may use an English-speaking employee who can translate the 
    medical questionnaire into the questionnaire taker's native language, 
    or other nonprofessional translators who can perform the same function 
    (for example, a friend or family member of the test taker).
        Paragraph (e)(4)(ii). This paragraph requires the employer to 
    permit the employee to discuss the medical questionnaire results with a 
    PLHCP. Employees who are uncertain of the significance of the questions 
    asked will thus be able to obtain clarification. One commenter, Dr. 
    Ross H. Ronish, Site Medical Director for the Hanford Environmental 
    Health Foundation (Ex. 54-151), agreed that the opportunity for 
    discussion between the PLHCP and the employee would improve the 
    usefulness of the medical questionnaire. The standard does not require 
    the employer to follow a specific procedure in providing employees with 
    the opportunity to discuss the medical questionnaire with a PLHCP. 
    Employers must, however, at least inform employees that a PLHCP is 
    available to discuss the medical questionnaire with them and notify the 
    employees how to contact the PLHCP. For example, the employer could 
    post the PLHCP's name and telephone number in a conspicuous location, 
    or include this information on a separate sheet with the medical 
    questionnaire.
    Paragraph (e)(5)--Supplemental Information for the PLHCP
        Paragraph (e)(5)(i). The first requirement in this paragraph 
    requires employers to provide the PLHCP with specific information for 
    use in making a recommendation regarding the employee's ability to use 
    a respirator. OSHA had proposed a similar requirement, stating that 
    ``[i]n advance of the medical examination the employer shall provide 
    the examining professional with [supplemental] information * * *'' OSHA 
    received four comments (Exs. 54-181, 54-234, 54-330, 54-445) on this 
    proposed requirement. These commenters stated that only supplemental 
    information requested by the PLHCP should be provided because PLHCPs 
    can best determine what information they need to make medical-ability 
    recommendations; additionally, limiting the requirement to information 
    requested by the PLHCP would lower the associated paperwork burden. The 
    Boeing Company (Ex. 54-445), for example, stated, ``The employer should 
    not be required to provide additional information unless requested to 
    do so by the examining physician.'' Another commenter (Ex. 54-434) 
    stated that the proposed supplemental information might not be 
    meaningful to every PLHCP.
        OSHA believes that the supplemental information specified is 
    important to the PLHCP in making a recommendation regarding the 
    employee's medical ability to use the respirator. However, as indicated 
    in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of the final standard, this information need 
    only be provided once to the PLHCP unless the information differs from 
    what was provided to the PLHCP previously, or a new PLHCP is conducting 
    the medical evaluation.
        With few exceptions, the supplemental information that must be 
    provided by the employer to the PLHCP is the same information listed in 
    the proposed regulatory language for alternative 3 (59 FR 58911, 
    paragraphs (e)(vi) (A) to (G)). Three commenters (Exs. 54-160, 54-191, 
    54-287) endorsed the entire list of supplemental information items in 
    the proposal. Most of the commenters who took exception to the proposed 
    list disagreed with the item requiring that information be provided to 
    the PLHCP on the substances to which the employee will be exposed 
    (i.e., paragraph (e)(vi)(B) of proposed alternative 3); two commenters 
    (Exs. 54-352, 54-453), however, believed it was important to specify 
    these substances so that the PLHCP would be aware of the hazards in the 
    workplace. One commenter (Ex. 54-339) stated that information on 
    substance exposure would be useful to the program administrator for fit 
    testing, but was not needed by the PLHCP. Another commenter (Ex. 54-
    208) stated that information about these substances was unnecessary 
    because OSHA intended to propose a separate rule for medical 
    surveillance, and one commenter (Ex. 54-273) wanted this item to be 
    deleted and replaced by an item informing the PLHCP about the 
    employee's use of impervious clothing because such clothing, if worn, 
    may impose serious heat stress on the employee.
        The record also contains an article by Dr. William S. Beckett 
    advising occupational health professionals on medical evaluations for 
    respirator use (Ex. 164, Attachment D). The article addressed the need 
    to provide these professionals with exposure information: ``An 
    employer's inability to provide this basic information [regarding 
    employee exposure levels] on which a respirator choice has been
    
    [[Page 1216]]
    
    made should throw the adequacy of the respiratory protection program 
    into serious doubt.'' Dr. Beckett explained that such information was 
    necessary because preexisting lung impairments make some employees 
    ``more sensitive to the effects of some occupational agents and [these 
    employees] may thus suffer further impairment at exposure 
    concentrations that would not affect a normal worker.'' In explaining 
    these effects, Dr. Beckett stated that employees who have become 
    ``sensitized immunologically to a workplace substance may not be able 
    to attain protection factors using usual respirator precautions even 
    though the same respirator might be adequate for individuals not 
    sensitized to the substance.'' Dr. Beckett noted that ``the worker 
    sensitized to toluene di-isocyanate (TDI) * * * will experience 
    alterations in pulmonary function at an air concentration of 0.001 ppm 
    TDI while normal individuals will not experience symptoms at 20 times 
    this concentration.''
        In response to these comments, OSHA has modified the proposed 
    requirement specifically requiring employers to inform PLHCPs of the 
    substances to which employees may be exposed. Under paragraph 
    (e)(5)(iii) of the final rule, employers must provide the PLHCP with a 
    copy of the written respiratory protection program. As required by 
    paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the final rule, the written program must specify 
    the procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace; 
    accordingly, these procedures must describe the workplace exposure 
    conditions that require respirator use. OSHA believes these 
    descriptions will provide the necessary information, while imposing 
    little additional burden on employers.
        These requirement are necessary, the Agency concludes, because 
    employees can have medical conditions that predispose them to respond 
    adversely to the workplace substances to which they are exposed, and 
    the resulting effects can impair an employee's ability to use some 
    types of respirators. Consequently, providing PLHCPs with information 
    about the workplace substances to which employees are exposed will 
    assist the PLHCPs in determining if these substances may interact with 
    preexisting medical conditions to impair an employee's ability to use 
    the respirator. In addition, the Agency believes that knowledge about 
    the substances to which employees are exposed will provide an indirect 
    means of determining the effectiveness of the overall respiratory 
    protection program. If employees experience signs and symptoms 
    typically associated with exposure to the workplace substances 
    documented in the written respiratory protection program, the PLHCP can 
    alert the employer to these effects, and corrective action can be 
    taken.
        In response to the commenter who urged OSHA to include information 
    on impervious clothing, OSHA notes that the final standard requires 
    employers to provide information on other protective clothing and 
    equipment to be worn by the employee. This item will provide 
    information on impervious clothing, and, therefore, addresses the 
    commenter's concerns regarding the heat stress imposed on employees by 
    such clothing.
        One commenter (Ex. 54-214) stated that descriptions of the type of 
    work performed and physical work effort should be dropped from the 
    list, while another commenter (Ex. 54-445) believed that information 
    about the type of respirator would not be useful to the PLHCP. As noted 
    in the discussion of final paragraph (e)(1) in this Summary and 
    Explanation, cardiovascular and respiratory fitness are important 
    variables in determining the ability of an employee to use a 
    respirator. The physical work effort required by the employee's job, in 
    combination with the characteristics of the respirator (e.g., weight, 
    breathing resistance, interference with range of motion), are variables 
    that must be considered by a PLHCP in making a recommendation regarding 
    the employee's fitness to use the respirator.
        A study conducted by NIOSH (Ex. 64-469) found that tolerance to 
    work conditions, heart rate, and skin temperature were affected by 
    three variables: the type of personal protective clothing worn, the 
    weight of the respirator, and the level of physical work effort. In the 
    NIOSH study, nine healthy young men who had prior experience with 
    respirators and personal protective clothing (most of them were 
    firefighters), exercised on a treadmill at low and high physical 
    workloads under each of the following conditions: wearing light work 
    clothing and using a low-resistance disposable half-mask respirator (LT 
    condition); wearing light work clothing and using an SCBA (SCBA 
    condition); wearing firefighter turnout gear and using an SCBA (FF 
    condition); and wearing chemical protective clothing and using an SCBA 
    (CBC condition). While exercising at low physical workloads under the 
    LT, SCBA, FF, and CBC conditions, the study participants tolerated 
    these work conditions for 167, 130, 26, and 73 minutes, respectively; 
    at high physical workloads, the four protective clothing conditions 
    were tolerated for 91, 23, 4, and 13 minutes. Heart rates and skin 
    temperatures rose as tolerance diminished. At the high workload level, 
    testing under the SCBA, FF, and CBC conditions had to be terminated 
    early because the heart rates of the study participants reached 
    critically high levels (i.e., 90% of the predicted maximal heart rate). 
    At low physical workloads, heart rate rose progressively under the SCBA 
    conditions (about 15 beats per minute) compared to the LT condition, 
    then remained steady. Under high physical workloads, heart rates rose 
    sharply and never reached a steady level until after the testing was 
    terminated.
        The authors of the NIOSH study noted that the work tolerance, heart 
    rate, and skin temperature effects found in the study would be more 
    severe among individuals who were not as healthy or experienced as the 
    study participants. They attributed these effects both to the weight of 
    the respirator and to the poor evaporative cooling properties of the 
    personal protective clothing (i.e., the capacity to remove body heat 
    under the humid conditions generated inside the protective clothing as 
    a result of physical work). Based on these findings, the authors 
    concluded that ``[the study participants] wearing protective clothing 
    and respirators during exercise exhibited a significant degree of 
    cardiorespiratory and thermoregulatory stress * * *''
        The conclusion reached by the NIOSH study is supported by other 
    researchers who have tested the physiological effects of personal 
    protective clothing combined with SCBA use among healthy men performing 
    exercise or simulated work tasks under light to moderate levels of 
    physical exertion. (See Ex. 164, Attachment D, Smolander et al. (1984), 
    and Smolander et al. (1985).) These researchers found that personal 
    protective clothing substantially increased oxygen consumption and 
    carbon dioxide production, and recommended careful evaluation of the 
    cardiovascular health and heat tolerance of workers who must wear 
    personal protective clothing.
        In another study (Ex. 64-445), healthy young men (average age: 29 
    years), older men (average age: 47 years), and women (average age: 29 
    years) used air-purifying respirators while performing the following 
    simulated, low physical workload, mining task: lifting a shovel 
    weighing 3.1 lbs. (6.8 kg.) from the floor to the top of a table (a 
    distance of 3 feet (90 cm)), releasing the shovel's grip, then lifting 
    the shovel from the table back to the floor and releasing the grip 
    again. The task was performed at a rate
    
    [[Page 1217]]
    
    of 10 cycles per minute for 20 minutes at temperatures of 73 deg. F 
    (23 deg. C) and 104 deg. F (40 deg. C). The study participants wore 
    appropriate mining clothing (i.e., pants, heavy shirt, gloves, leather 
    apron, and safety helmet) while performing the task. The results showed 
    that respirator use and heat combined to raise the heart rate 
    substantially more than either variable alone, and that this effect was 
    especially pronounced for the women.
        This study, and the NIOSH study described earlier, demonstrated 
    that information regarding such physiological stressors as physical 
    work effort, respirator type and weight, personal protective clothing, 
    and temperature and humidity conditions must be provided to PLHCPs who 
    are responsible for medically evaluating employees for respirator use. 
    The studies found that these stressors, especially respirator weight, 
    impose physiological burdens that result in substantial impairment to 
    functional capacity, even among healthy respirator users. OSHA 
    believes, therefore, that information on respirator type and weight, 
    personal protective clothing, and temperature and humidity must be 
    provided to, and be considered by, PLHCPs to ensure that only employees 
    who can endure these stressors without adverse medical consequences are 
    recommended for the respiratory protection program; consequently, these 
    items were included in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of the final standard.
        The United Steelworkers (Tr. 1057) stated that ``[PLHCPs should be] 
    mandated to have knowledge of the workplace, and possibly to have 
    visited it at some point in time.'' OSHA agrees that familiarity with 
    the workplace is important, and believes that many employers will make 
    such visits a requirement. OSHA believes, however, that making such 
    visits a requirement is unnecessary because the information required to 
    be given to the PLHCP by the standard will be sufficient for the PLHCP 
    to make a valid recommendation regarding the employee's ability to use 
    the respirator.
        Other revisions made to the proposed paragraph include a 
    requirement that the weight of the respirator be provided to the PLHCP, 
    principally to inform the PLHCP of the physical stress that a heavy 
    respirator may impose on an employee's cardiovascular and respiratory 
    systems. This revision was made in response to the number of commenters 
    (Exs. 54-153, 54-165, 54-218, 54-226, 54-227, 54-263, 54-264, 54-294, 
    54-326, 54-327, 54-363, 54-443) who recommended that employees using 
    SCBAs and other heavy respirators be administered medical examinations, 
    largely because of the additional workload associated with using these 
    respirators. A physician (Tr. 398) testified that SCBAs in particular 
    increased an employee's workload by 20 percent. The studies just 
    discussed also demonstrate that respirator weight plays a significant 
    role in the increased burden that a respirator places on the user. In 
    addition, scientific evidence obtained by Louhevaara et al. (Ex. 164, 
    Attachment D) demonstrates that use of SCBAs by experienced 
    firefighters performing light to moderate exercise on a treadmill 
    substantially reduces tidal volume and increases heart rate, oxygen 
    consumption, and ventilation rate. These physiological effects led 
    Kilbom (Ex. 164, Attachment D) to recommend that no firefighter over 
    the age of 50 be assigned tasks that require SCBA use.
        In the NPRM, OSHA asked whether information on the duration and 
    frequency of respirator use should be provided to the PLHCP. No 
    comments were received on this subject. The research studies described 
    earlier in this Summary and Explanation show that duration and 
    frequency of respirator use interact with other respirator use 
    conditions (e.g., respirator weight, protective clothing, temperature 
    and humidity) in imposing pulmonary and cardiovascular stress on 
    respirator users. OSHA believes that information about the duration and 
    frequency of respirator use will be important to PLHCPs in making 
    medical ability recommendations, and concludes that this information 
    must be included in the information required to be provided to the 
    PLHCP.
        Paragraph (e)(5)(ii). As noted above, OSHA received recommendations 
    from several commenters (Exs. 54-181, 54-234, 54-330, 54-445) to reduce 
    the amount of information required to be submitted to the PLHCP. In 
    responding to this recommendation, OSHA first reduced the number of 
    items required. Second, OSHA revised the requirement so that employers 
    only need to provide the supplemental information once to the PLHCP, 
    unless the information differs from the information provided to the 
    PLHCP previously or a new PLHCP is conducting the medical evaluations. 
    Under the revised provision, therefore, the employer must ensure that: 
    the PLHCP retains the supplemental information that is provided by the 
    employer; the supplemental information is updated appropriately and in 
    a timely fashion; and a new PLHCP is provided with the required 
    supplemental information. The requirement to provide the new PLHCP with 
    the appropriate information does not mean that the new PLHCP must 
    medically reevaluate employees, only that the new PLHCP obtains the 
    information required under this paragraph. The employer can meet this 
    requirement by either providing the relevant documents to the new PLHCP 
    or ensuring that the documents are transferred from the former PLHCP to 
    the new PLHCP.
        Paragraph (e)(5)(iii). OSHA believes that the requirement for 
    employers to provide a copy of the final standard and a copy of the 
    written respiratory program to the PLHCP, although not included in the 
    proposed standard, is needed to assure that PLHCPs have a thorough 
    understanding of their duties and responsibilities in the medical 
    evaluation process, thereby enhancing their ability to make a sound 
    medical recommendation on an employee's ability to use the respirator. 
    The written program is site-specific, and will inform the PLHCP of the 
    working conditions the employee will encounter during respirator use. 
    This information is critical if the PLHCP is to make a thorough and 
    accurate evaluation of the employee's ability to use the assigned 
    respirator. The PLHCP's ability to conduct appropriate medical 
    evaluation will also be aided by knowledge of the standard, which sets 
    forth the requirements of the medical evaluation program, as well as 
    other requirements that affect the employee's respirator use. 
    Consequently, this requirement will help ensure that medical 
    evaluations conducted by PLHCPs are thorough and accurate; 
    recommendations regarding an employee's medical ability to use the 
    respirator are valid; employees are informed of these recommendations; 
    and the privacy and confidentiality of employees are maintained. OSHA 
    believes that this requirement is necessary to ensure that the 
    objectives and other requirements of final paragraph (e) are fulfilled.
        As noted in the previous discussion of paragraph (e)(5)(ii), this 
    information must be provided to the PLHCP only once for all employees 
    who are involved in the employer's respiratory protection program. This 
    information does not have to be provided again to the same PLHCP unless 
    the standard or the employer's respiratory protection program is 
    substantially revised. For example, the information does not have to be 
    provided again when only minor revisions have been made to either the 
    standard or the respiratory protection program. When the employer hires 
    a different PLHCP to conduct medical evaluations, the employer must 
    ensure that the new PLHCP has this information, by either providing the 
    new PLHCP with the appropriate documents or ensuring that the
    
    [[Page 1218]]
    
    documents are transferred from the former PLHCP to the new PLHCP.
    Paragraph (e)(6)--Medical Determination
        Paragraph (e)(1) of the NPRM proposed that the employer be 
    responsible for making the final determination regarding the employee's 
    ability to use the respirator. The proposed regulatory language 
    required the physician (now a PLHCP) to deliver a medical opinion 
    regarding the employee's medical ability to use the respirator, 
    including any recommended limitations on this use, to the employer. 
    OSHA proposed, consistent with its substance-specific standards, to 
    make the employer responsible for the final determination regarding an 
    employee's ability to use the respirator. This determination was to be 
    based on all of the information available to the employer, including 
    the physician's opinion and recommendations. The final standard follows 
    this approach, although the final rule's requirements have been revised 
    to reflect the record.
        Paragraph (e)(6)(i). This provision states that the ``employer 
    shall obtain a written recommendation regarding the employee's ability 
    to use the respirator from the PLHCP * * * `` Because the PLHCP's 
    recommendation is an important element in the employer's determination 
    as to whether it is hazardous for an employee to use a respirator, the 
    recommendation needs to be clear and in writing.
        Final paragraph (e)(6)(i) requires that the PLHCP's recommendation 
    be restricted to the three elements listed in paragraphs (e)(6)(i)(A) 
    through (C) (i.e., ``[t]he recommendation shall provide only the 
    following information'') [emphasis added]. This requirement is similar 
    to the proposed regulatory language for paragraph (e)(1) and paragraph 
    (e)(1)(v) of proposed alternative 3. The purpose of this limitation is 
    to protect employee privacy with regard to medical conditions not 
    relevant to respirator use.
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-92, 54-455) supported the need for 
    privacy but recommended further that the basis of the PLHCP's medical 
    recommendation not be disclosed to employers because such information 
    could be used by an employer to remove an employee from the workforce. 
    The AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428) stated that ``[medical] reports to employers 
    should contain only a statement of approval or disapproval for 
    employees who are tested.'' The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
    Employees (BMWE) (Ex. 122) supported limiting the medical information 
    provided to the employer to whether or not the employee can perform the 
    required work while using the respirator, and whether or not 
    restrictions need to be applied to the employee's respirator use. The 
    BMWE stated further that no information should be provided on the 
    specific medical conditions detected during the medical evaluation.
        OSHA believes that protection of employee privacy and 
    confidentiality is important to obtain accurate and candid responses 
    from employees about their medical conditions. OSHA has retained this 
    requirement in the final standard and believes that, as worded, it 
    strikes the proper balance between the need to provide sufficient 
    information to the employer to make a decision on respirator use and 
    the need to protect employee privacy.
        Paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A) in the final standard also specifies the 
    information the PLHCP is to include in the recommendation to the 
    employer: ``Any limitations on respirator use related to the medical 
    condition of the employee, or relating to the workplace conditions in 
    which the respirator will be used, including whether or not the 
    employee is medically eligible to use the respirator.'' OSHA's 
    experience in enforcing standards with similarly worded provisions 
    indicates that this language is appropriate; also, OSHA believes a 
    statement regarding the employee's medical ability to use the 
    respirator will assist both the employer and employee in determining 
    the final medical disposition of the employee.
        Paragraph (e)(6)(i)(B) of the final standard specifies that the 
    PLHCP must state whether there is a need for follow-up medical 
    evaluations. This provision was added to the final standard for several 
    reasons. First, the initial medical evaluation may indicate that there 
    is a possibility that the employee's health may change in a way which 
    would reduce the employee's ability to use a respirator. In these 
    circumstances, the PLHCP is required to specify appropriate follow-up 
    medical evaluations. Second, the final standard does not provide for 
    periodic (such as annual) evaluations, as most other OSHA health 
    standards do. It is therefore important that the PLHCP specify whether 
    an employee requires follow-up medical evaluation so that the 
    employee's ability to use a respirator can be carefully monitored by 
    the PLHCP. This requirement will ensure that employees are using 
    respirators that will not adversely affect their health.
        Paragraph (e)(6)(i)(C) requires that the employee be provided with 
    a copy of the PLHCP's written recommendation. No comments were received 
    by the Agency on this proposed requirement. OSHA believes that a copy 
    of the PLHCP's written recommendation will provide employees with 
    information necessary to ensure that they are using respirators that 
    will not adversely affect their health.
        The employer may either transmit the PLHCP's written recommendation 
    to the employee or arrange for the PLHCP to do so. The employer shall 
    allow the employee, consistent with paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of the final 
    standard, to discuss the recommendation with the PLHCP. During the 
    discussion, the PLHCP may inform the employee of the basis of the 
    recommendation, as well as other medical conditions that are indicated 
    by the results of the medical evaluation but that are not directly 
    related to the employee's medical ability to use the respirator. OSHA 
    believes that the additional information provided to the employee by 
    the PLHCP should be determined by the legal, professional, and ethical 
    standards that govern the PLHCP's practice and, therefore, should not 
    be regulated by the final standard.
        Paragraph (e)(6)(ii). If the PLHCP's medical evaluation finds that 
    use of a negative pressure respirator would place the employee at 
    increased risk of adverse health effects, but that the employee is able 
    to use a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), this paragraph 
    requires employers to provide the employee with a PAPR. The rationale 
    for this provision was discussed in the proposal (59 FR 58906). 
    Negative pressure respirators can result in sufficient cardiovascular 
    and respiratory stress to make employees medically unable to use this 
    class of respirators. The use of PAPRs involves lower cardiovascular 
    and respiratory stress, and PAPRs can often be tolerated by employees 
    when negative pressure respirators cannot. Consequently, OSHA believes 
    that this requirement is consistent with the requirements of paragraph 
    (a)(2) of the final standard, which states that ``employers [must] 
    provide the respirators which are applicable and suitable for the 
    purpose intended.''
        Several commenters endorsed this provision (Exs. 54-101, 54-363, 
    54-455). ISEA (Ex. 54-363) recommended that ``employers ensure that all 
    alternative types [of respirators] be considered and made available'' 
    to employees found to be medically unable to use the respirator 
    selected initially by the employer. The proposal was consistent with 
    this recommendation in requiring that alternative respirators be 
    selected from among existing positive pressure respirators, including 
    supplied-air respirators. OSHA has
    
    [[Page 1219]]
    
    determined, however, that supplied-air respirators should not be listed 
    as alternative respirators in the final standard because, as noted 
    earlier in this Summary and Explanation, these respirators impose many 
    of the same pulmonary and cardiovascular burdens on employees as 
    negative pressure respirators. The Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way 
    Employees (BMWE) (Ex. 126) found that PAPRs would be an effective 
    substitute for negative pressure respirators, and endorsed issuing 
    PAPRs to employees who were found to be medically unable to use 
    negative pressure respirators. In making this endorsement, the BMWE 
    estimated that less than 1 percent of its membership would require such 
    an upgrade. Consequently, OSHA removed the requirement for supplied-air 
    respirators from the final standard, and now requires only that 
    employers provide PAPRs to employees who are medically unable to use 
    negative pressure respirators but who are able to use PAPRs. In 
    addition, paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of the final standard specifies that if 
    a subsequent medical evaluation finds that the employee is able to use 
    a negative pressure respirator, then the employer is no longer required 
    to provide that employee with a PAPR.
    Paragraph (e)(7)--Additional Medical Evaluations
        Paragraph (e)(7) of the standard requires the employer to provide 
    additional medical evaluations whenever there is any indication that a 
    reevaluation is appropriate. At a minimum, this would occur: if the 
    employee reports any signs or symptoms that are related to the ability 
    to use a respirator; if the PLHCP, program administrator or supervisor 
    determines that a reevaluation is necessary; if information from the 
    respiratory protection program indicates a need for reevaluation; or if 
    a change in workplace conditions could affect the physiological burden 
    placed on the employee. This is a significant change from the proposal, 
    which in alternatives 2 and 3 would have required reevaluation on an 
    annual basis of employees subject to medical evaluation. Although this 
    would not necessarily have required a medical examination, proposed 
    paragraph (e)(3) and alternative 3 would have required a written 
    medical opinion. The provision in the final standard is similar to the 
    requirement in several of OSHA's substance-specific standards that 
    employees be medically reevaluated if they experience breathing 
    difficulties during fit testing or under other respirator use 
    conditions (see, e.g., the Cadmium standard at 29 CFR 
    1910.1027(l)(6)(iii)).
        OSHA also made a specific request for comments on the 
    appropriateness of requiring medical evaluations at the age-related 
    intervals used by ANSI or NIOSH. ANSI and NIOSH recommend that older 
    employees should be screened more frequently than younger employees 
    because of the heightened risk of cardiovascular and respiratory 
    disease associated with age. The ANSI Z88.6-1984 consensus standard 
    recommends medical evaluations at the following age intervals: every 
    five years below age 35, every two years for employees aged 35 to 45, 
    and annually thereafter. NIOSH's Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 9) 
    calls for medical evaluations at similar intervals, except that 
    employees over 45 years old should be evaluated every one to two years. 
    One commenter (Ex. 54-394) stated that age-based medical evaluations 
    are important because the American workforce is aging.
        The proposed requirement that medical reevaluation be conducted 
    annually resulted in numerous comments, most of which recommended that 
    the requirement be revised. Eight commenters (Exs. 54-219, 54-224, 54-
    253, 54-264, 54-348, 54-421, 54-441, 54-455) endorsed the proposed 
    requirement without revision. Three commenters (Exs. 54-70, 54-326, 54-
    357) stated that cost concerns and the administrative burden should 
    limit annual medical evaluations to employees who use SCBAs. Other 
    commenters (Exs. 54-70, 54-185, 54-206, 54-326, 54-357, 54-429) 
    recommended that annual medical evaluations be administered to 
    employees who use non-SCBA respirators only if such use is on a daily 
    basis, for more than 50 per cent of the work week, or at least five 
    hours per work week. A few commenters (Exs. 54-220, 54-244, 54-327, 54-
    424, 54-429) recommended annual medical evaluations if the evaluations 
    consisted entirely of a medical questionnaire.
        The Boeing Company (Ex. 54-445) was one of the commenters 
    recommending that OSHA reconsider the requirement for annual medical 
    examinations. Boeing stated:
    
        [Our] experience with annual review has been that approximately 
    1-2% of [our] employees reviewed per year are restricted from 
    respirator use. Very rarely to never are these restrictions due to a 
    medical condition that would make respirator use dangerous for an 
    employee. Rather, the restrictions are related to other aspects of 
    an employee's job or to administrative reasons, such as failure to 
    undergo the review or employee preference.
    
        The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (Ex. 175) also 
    provided limited evidence that regular (e.g., annual) medical 
    examinations are ineffective. AISI cited an industry study in which 
    2,195 medical examinations were administered to 1,816 employees 
    subsequent to their initial medical examination; the elapsed interval, 
    however, was unspecified. The medical reevaluations found only two 
    employees who had unknown (to the employees) medical conditions; one of 
    the employees had claustrophobia, and the other employee had reduced 
    pulmonary function and an abnormal chest x-ray. AISI recommended that 
    the frequency of medical reevaluation be ``determined by a licensed 
    medical provider or to verify a suspected functional disability that 
    might affect the ability to wear a respirator.''
        The statements and recommendations made by commenters who believed 
    that the requirement should be revised or eliminated are summarized as 
    follows:
        (1) An annual interval is arbitrary or unnecessary (Exs. 54-234, 
    54-263, 54-267);
        (2) A biannual interval should be used (Exs. 54-191, 54-278, 54-
    326);
        (3) The intervals should be age-based, using either the ANSI or 
    NIOSH age intervals (Exs. 54-66, 54-172, 54-215, 54-245, 54-250, 54-
    273, 54-318, 54-374, 54-381, 54-388, 54-426, 54-441, 54-450, 54-451, 
    54-452, 54-453), the age intervals recommended by the National Fire 
    Protection Association (NFPA) under NFPA standard 1582 (Ex. 54-155), or 
    unspecified age intervals (Exs. 54-67, 54-218, 54-240, 54-271, 54-326, 
    54-327, 54-342, 54-346, 54-361, 54-363, 54-429, 54-445, 54-454);
        (4) Medical reevaluation should be conducted only at the request of 
    the PLHCP (Exs. 54-70, 54-150, 54-180, 54-217, 54-224, 54-313, 54-348, 
    54-350, 54-361, 54-432, 54-448, 54-449, 54-450, 54-451, 54-452), 
    employers (Ex. 54-251), employees (Ex. 54-157), or employees trained to 
    recognize respirator-induced medical effects (Exs. 54-181, 54-219, 54-
    242);
        (5) Medical reevaluation should be event-driven, with the events 
    specified as a combination of age, physical condition or medical 
    symptoms (including breathing difficulty), job conditions, respirator 
    type, frequency of respirator use, medical history, or type of exposure 
    (Exs. 54-79, 54-187, 54-189, 54-217, 54-218, 54-219, 54-220, 54-242, 
    54-253, 54-265, 54-275, 54-278, 54-318, 54-319, 54-342, 54-357, 54-381, 
    54-395, 54-439), or when job conditions or the type of respirator used 
    by the employee increase the risk of
    
    [[Page 1220]]
    
    adverse effects on the employee's health (Exs. 54-151, 54-153).
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-38, 54-191, 54-388) stated that medical 
    reevaluation should not be conducted when employees experience 
    breathing difficulties during respirator use because these effects 
    usually occur as a result of canister or filter overloading rather than 
    an employee's medical condition.
        The commenters who endorsed the proposed requirement for an annual 
    medical evaluation stated that annual medical evaluations would 
    identify or prevent medical problems that may arise as a result of less 
    frequent or event-driven medical evaluations. After carefully reviewing 
    the entire record, OSHA decided to revise the proposed requirement and 
    to make medical reevaluation contingent on specific events that may 
    occur during respirator use, regardless of the duration of respirator 
    use. OSHA also has determined that a rigid approach to medical 
    reevaluation based on age may ignore serious medical conditions among 
    younger employees that could be aggravated by continued respirator use. 
    As noted by Dr. Ross H. Ronish, Site Medical Director for the Hanford 
    Environmental Health Foundation (Ex. 54-151), ``[m]edical conditions 
    which can affect the ability of an individual to use various types of 
    respirator occur even in young people.''
        This approach is appropriate because medical problems requiring 
    evaluation by a PLHCP can occur after any period of respirator use and 
    in workers of any age, and the requirement for medical reevaluation 
    must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate this variability. In 
    addition, the employee, supervisor, and program administrator are in a 
    position to note conditions, such as breathing difficulty, which would 
    trigger the need for a medical reevaluation.
        The events described in paragraph (e)(7) of the final standard 
    include significant medical, occupational, and respirator use 
    conditions that warrant medical reevaluation because these conditions 
    are known to impose additional physiological stress on employees, or 
    are recognized indicators of medical problems associated with 
    respirator use. This paragraph, therefore, will provide for flexible 
    and prompt detection of medical problems among employees who use 
    respirators.
        The specific events OSHA has listed in paragraphs (e)(7)(i), (ii), 
    (iii) and (iv) that trigger medical reevaluation are based on OSHA's 
    experience with substance-specific standards and the record of this 
    rulemaking. OSHA believes that these events cover most situations in 
    which employees are at risk of experiencing adverse health effects 
    because of respirator use and in which the employee's underlying 
    medical conditions or workplace conditions have changed sufficiently to 
    make the initial medical evaluation obsolete. As noted earlier in the 
    discussion of this paragraph, these variables were considered by many 
    commenters to be important in determining the frequency with which 
    employees should be medically reevaluated.
    Medical Removal Protection
        The proposed rule did not include a provision for medical removal 
    protection (MRP). Such a provision requires employers to provide 
    employees who are unable to use respirators with alternative jobs at no 
    loss of pay and other benefits. In the notice of proposed rulemaking 
    (59 FR 58912), the Agency noted that MRP provisions had been included 
    in some earlier substance-specific standards, but stated that 
    insufficient information had been provided in response to the ANPR to 
    include in the proposed rule an MRP provision that would be applicable 
    to all workplaces in which respirators are used. To enable it to 
    evaluate whether an MRP provision might be appropriate for this generic 
    respirator standard, OSHA asked for comments and information about 
    cases in which employees were found to be unable to use respirators in 
    their jobs. The Agency specifically requested information about the 
    frequency of cases in which employees were found to be unable to use 
    respirators and the details of such cases, including how the 
    determination of an employee's inability to use a respirator affected 
    the worker's job responsibilities.
        Numerous comments were received on this issue. Most of the 
    commenters who addressed the issue (Exs. 54-92, 54-206, 54-220, 54-240, 
    54-250, 54-267, 54-273, 54-286, 54-295, 54-342, 54-381, 54-435, 54-443) 
    suggested that a provision requiring employers to provide alternative 
    jobs as a consequence of medical removal be excluded from the final 
    standard, although some (Exs. 54-213, 54-387, 54-427, 54-428, 54-455) 
    endorsed such a provision. The commenters who opposed the provision 
    argued that: employees already receive adequate protection against 
    medically related job displacement and unemployment through existing 
    federal, state, and local law (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities 
    Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); the requirement exceeded 
    OSHA's statutory authority; and OSHA failed to justify the provision 
    adequately in the proposal. Commenters who favored MRP believed that 
    such a provision was needed for medical evaluation to be effective. 
    They stated that employees will refuse necessary medical evaluation if 
    they believe their jobs might be placed in jeopardy. The Brotherhood of 
    Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) (Ex. 126) endorsed MRP, claiming 
    that in most cases such protection is feasible on both a temporary and 
    permanent basis for the railroad industry; infeasible or inconvenient 
    cases could be resolved, according to this commenter, under their 
    collective bargaining agreement. The BMWE also recommended that 
    employees who have been determined by employers to be unable to use 
    respirators be allowed to seek a second medical opinion (i.e., to have 
    multiple physician review) ``unencumbered by ulterior motives on the 
    part of the employer.''
        As noted above, OSHA has included MRP in some of its existing 
    substance-specific standards for employees who are unable to use 
    respirators. In the Cotton Dust standard, for example, OSHA provided 
    that if a physician determines that an employee is unable to use any 
    type of respirator, the employee must be given the opportunity to 
    transfer to an available position in which respirator use is not 
    required, with no loss of wages or benefits (50 FR 51154-56). OSHA 
    specifically found, based on the evidence in the Cotton Dust rulemaking 
    record, that some employees would be reluctant to reveal information 
    necessary for proper health care if the employee feared that the 
    information might result in transfer to lower paying jobs. Similar MRP 
    provisions for employees unable to use respirators have been included 
    in OSHA's Asbestos and Cadmium standards. However, MRP provisions for 
    workers unable to use respirators have not been included in most of 
    OSHA's substance-specific standards, even though all such standards 
    require that employees who use respirators undergo medical evaluation 
    to determine their ability to do so (e.g., the 1,3-Butadiene, 
    Formaldehyde, Ethylene Oxide, Acrylonitrile, Benzene, and Lead 
    standards).
        OSHA believes that a number of provisions of the final standard 
    will effectively avoid any disincentive on the part of employees to 
    cooperate with medical evaluation. Paragraph (e)(1) requires the 
    employer to provide medical evaluation to an employee before the 
    employee uses a respirator in the workplace. Therefore, employees
    
    [[Page 1221]]
    
    cannot refuse to undergo medical evaluation and continue in a job that 
    requires respirator use. All employees who use SCBAs, the type of 
    respirator that imposes the greatest physiological burden on the user, 
    must receive medical examinations, and the PLHCP who conducts the 
    examination has discretion to determine the tests, consultations, and 
    diagnostic procedures to be included in the examination. Given this 
    discretion on the part of the PLHCP, and the PLHCP's awareness of the 
    considerable physiological burden that SCBA use places on the user, 
    OSHA believes that the PLHCP will be able to evaluate the employee's 
    ability to use an SCBA even if the employee is reluctant to cooperate 
    fully with the examination.
        Moreover, paragraph (e)(7) requires the employer to medically 
    reevaluate an employee when a PLHCP, supervisor, or program 
    administrator observes that the employee is having a medical problem 
    during respirator use and they inform the employer of their 
    observation. Many of the jobs in which SCBA use is required are 
    strenuous, and any undue physiological burden the respirator places on 
    an employee will often be readily observable by the employer, PLHCP, 
    supervisors, or program administrator. Paragraph (e)(7), therefore, 
    will help ensure that an employee who is medically unable to use a 
    respirator, whether a SCBA or another type of respirator, cannot avoid 
    medical evaluation by refusing to cooperate.
        The final standard also encourages cooperation in medical 
    evaluation by employees who are assigned to use negative pressure 
    respirators. Some employees will be unable to use negative pressure 
    respirators because of breathing resistance caused by medical 
    conditions such as asthma and bronchitis. The final standard provides 
    these employees with a strong incentive to cooperate with medical 
    evaluation by requiring the employer to provide them with a powered 
    air-purifying respirator (PAPR) when the PLHCP who conducts the 
    evaluation determines that the employees cannot use a negative pressure 
    respirator but can use a PAPR. OSHA believes that many workers who are 
    medically unable to use a negative pressure respirator will be able to 
    use a PAPR, which offers considerably less breathing resistance than a 
    negative pressure respirator. Therefore, those employees who are 
    concerned about their medical ability to use a respirator will have a 
    strong incentive to cooperate fully with the medical evaluation because 
    they are likely to be provided with a less physiologically burdensome 
    respirator that will enable them to continue in their jobs.
    
    Paragraph (f)--Fit Testing
    
    Introduction
        The final rule requires that, before an employee is required to use 
    any respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting 
    facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, 
    style and size of respirator that will be used. The ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    respiratory protection standard also recommends such testing before 
    respirator use. Employers who allow employees to voluntarily use 
    respirators need not provide fit testing for those employees, although 
    OSHA encourages them to do so.
        It is axiomatic that respirators must fit properly to provide 
    protection. If a tight seal is not maintained between the facepiece and 
    the employee's face, contaminated air will be drawn into the facepiece 
    and be breathed by the employee. The fit testing requirement of 
    paragraph (f) seeks to protect the employee against breathing 
    contaminated ambient air and is one of the core provisions of the 
    respirator program required by this standard.
        In the years since OSHA adopted the previous respirator standard, a 
    number of new fit testing protocols have been developed and tested 
    (Exs. 2, 8, 24-2, 24-12, 24-20, 46, 49). During the same period 
    manufacturers have developed multiple sizes and models of respirator 
    facepieces in order to provide better fits for the variety of facial 
    sizes and shapes found among respirator users. Incorporation of these 
    advances into the standard is particularly important because facepiece 
    leakage is a major source of in-mask contamination.
        Studies show that lack of fit testing results in reduced 
    protection. In a health hazard evaluation (HHE) conducted by NIOSH at a 
    medical center (Ex. 64-56), NIOSH found that workers using disposable 
    respirators were not getting adequate protection because the 
    respirators had not been fit tested. Other HHEs conducted by NIOSH show 
    that workers who used respirators where there was no fit testing 
    suffered adverse health effects resulting from overexposure to airborne 
    contaminants (See HETAs 81-283-1224 and 83-075-1559).
        Based on the record evidence, OSHA concludes that poorly fitting 
    facepieces expose workers to contaminants and that the use of an 
    effective fit testing protocol is the best way of determining which 
    respirator facepiece is most appropriate for each employee. Indeed, the 
    need to include fit testing requirements in the standard, and to 
    specify the proper method of accomplishing such testing, were among the 
    major reasons OSHA proposed to revise the existing respirator standard.
        Fit testing may be either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative 
    fit testing (QLFT) involves the introduction of a gas, vapor, or 
    aerosol test agent into an area around the head of the respirator user. 
    If the respirator user can detect the presence of the test agent 
    through subjective means, such as odor, taste, or irritation, the 
    respirator fit is inadequate. In a quantitative respirator fit test 
    (QNFT), the adequacy of respirator fit is assessed by measuring the 
    amount of leakage into the respirator, either by generating a test 
    aerosol as a test atmosphere, using ambient aerosol as the test agent, 
    or using controlled negative pressure to measure the volumetric leak 
    rate. Appropriate instrumentation is required to quantify respirator 
    fit in QNFT.
        OSHA's prior respirator standard required training that provided 
    opportunities for each user to have the respirator ``fitted properly'' 
    and to wear it in a test atmosphere. However, it did not specify the 
    test protocols to be used. The previous standard also required that 
    employees be trained to check the fit each time the respirator is put 
    on, although without specifying how the fit check was to be performed 
    or the types of fit checks that were acceptable. OSHA's own compliance 
    experience, and the experience gained from respirator research over the 
    past 25 years, demonstrates that the existing standard's limited fit 
    testing requirements do not provide employers with adequate guidance to 
    perform appropriate fit testing.
        The substance-specific standards that have been issued over the 
    past 20 years show the evolution of OSHA's recognition of the need for 
    fit testing guidance. The early standards, such as the 1978 
    Acrylonitrile standard (29 CFR 1910.1045) and the 1978 Lead standard 
    (29 CFR 1910.1025), required quantitative fit tests but did not provide 
    specific protocols. Subsequently, in 1982, the lead standard was 
    amended to allow qualitative fit testing for half mask negative 
    pressure respirators, provided that one of three specified protocols 
    was followed (47 FR 51110). These specified qualitative fit testing 
    (QLFT) protocols use isoamyl acetate, irritant smoke, or saccharin as 
    the test agents. They have been used in all subsequent standards (e.g., 
    Cadmium, Sec. 1910.1027; 1-3 Butadiene, Sec. 1910.1051; Methylene 
    Chloride, Sec. 1910.1052) with fit testing requirements.
    
    [[Page 1222]]
    
        One of the major changes from requirements in the previous standard 
    made by this final standard is its requirement that fit testing be 
    conducted according to specific protocols and at specific intervals or 
    on the occurrence of defined triggering events. Paragraphs (f)(1) and 
    (f)(2) of the standard require employers to ensure that each employee 
    using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passes an appropriate fit 
    test before using such a respirator for the first time and whenever a 
    different respirator facepiece is used, as well as at least annually 
    thereafter. Paragraph (f)(3) requires the employer to provide an 
    additional fit test whenever the employee reports, or the employer, 
    PLHCP, supervisor, or program administrator observes, changes in the 
    employee's physical condition that could affect respirator fit. 
    Examples of conditions causing such changes could be the wearing of new 
    dentures, cosmetic surgery, or major weight loss or gain. Paragraph 
    (f)(4) specifies that if an employee who has passed a fit test 
    subsequently notifies the employer, program administrator, supervisor, 
    or PLHCP that the fit of the respirator is unacceptable, the employee 
    must be given a reasonable opportunity to select a different respirator 
    facepiece and to be retested. Paragraph (f)(5) requires that the fit 
    test be administered according to one of the protocols included in 
    mandatory Appendix A.
        Paragraph (f)(6) limits qualitative fit testing to situations where 
    the user of a negative pressure air-purifying respirator must achieve a 
    minimum fit factor of 100 or less. Paragraph (f)(7) explains that a 
    quantitative fit test has been passed when the fit factor, as 
    determined through an OSHA accepted protocol, is at least 100 for 
    tight-fitting half masks or 500 for tight-fitting full facepiece 
    respirators.
        Paragraph (f)(8) requires that all QLFT or QNFT fit testing of 
    tight-fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators and tight-fitting 
    powered air-purifying respirators be performed with respirators in the 
    negative pressure mode, even if they are to be used in positive 
    pressure mode in the workplace, and contains additional requirements 
    for measuring fit testing results. It also requires that all facepieces 
    modified to perform a fit test be restored to their NIOSH-approved 
    configuration before being used in the workplace.
        Detailed discussions of each of the paragraphs related to fit 
    testing follow.
    Fit Testing--Paragraph (f)(1)
        Paragraph (f)(1) of the final standard requires that all tight-
    fitting respirators be fit tested in accordance with the requirements 
    of the final standard. The ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard has a similar fit 
    testing requirement, as did proposed paragraph (f)(3). The need to fit 
    test ``negative pressure'' respirators was widely supported (Exs. 54-5, 
    54-38, 54-67, 54-153, 54-158, 54-167, 54-172, 54-173, 54-185, 54-208, 
    54-219, 54-263, 54-273, 54-278, 54-313, 54-330, 54-424). No comments 
    opposing this requirement were received.
        However, the record contains comments both supporting and opposing 
    the need to require the same type and frequency of fit testing for 
    ``positive pressure'' respirators, which are defined in the final 
    standard as respirators ``in which the pressure inside the respiratory 
    inlet covering exceeds the ambient air pressure outside the 
    respirator.'' A number of commenters stated that positive pressure 
    atmosphere-supplying respirator users should not be required to pass a 
    fit test (Exs. 54-271, 54-280, 54-290, 54-297, 54-314, 54-324, 54-330, 
    54-339, 54-346, 54-350, 54-352, 54-361, 54-424). These commenters 
    believed that fit testing of such respirators was not needed because 
    the positive pressure inside the facepiece would prevent contaminated 
    ambient air from leaking from the outside atmosphere to the area inside 
    the facepiece.
        For example, the Southern California Edison Company (Ex. 54-316) 
    stated that there was no need to fit test tight-fitting positive 
    pressure respirators because ``[t]he chances of these type of 
    respirators becoming negative pressure under normal use conditions are 
    very slim and generally occur only when there has been a restriction or 
    failure of the air supply system.'' The Alabama Power Company (Ex. 54-
    217) similarly stated that there was no need to fit test tight-fitting 
    supplied air respirators (SARs) or powered air-purifying respirators 
    (PAPRs) because the chance was slight that a negative pressure 
    condition would occur during normal use. The Reynolds Metals Company 
    (Ex. 54-222) stated that, with positive pressure respirators, gross 
    leaks were unlikely to occur if the user was trained. Beaumont & 
    Associates (Ex. 54-246) stated that a well trained user of pressure 
    demand or continuous flow respirators would quickly be aware of any 
    gross leakage. Eric Jaycock, CIH, (Ex. 54-419) questioned whether 
    requiring the fit testing of positive pressure respirators would cause 
    employers to choose other, less protective, respirators. The County of 
    Rockland Fire Training Center (Ex. 54-155) stated that positive 
    pressure SCBAs may, theoretically, leak around the seal, but that, in 
    its experience, this was unlikely to happen in normal working 
    situations. It recommended that positive pressure SCBAs be exempted 
    from the fit test requirement if the user passes a negative pressure 
    fit check upon donning to ensure an effective seal.
        Other evidence in the record, however, demonstrates that, even with 
    positive pressure respirators, facepiece leakage can occur when the 
    high inhalation rates associated with increased workloads cause the 
    facepiece pressure to become negative in relation to the outside 
    atmosphere. An evaluation of the performance of powered air-purifying 
    respirators equipped with tight-fitting half masks by the Lawrence 
    Livermore National Laboratory (Ex. 64-94) demonstrated what its authors 
    called the ``Myth of Positive Pressure.'' The study found that, at the 
    NIOSH-required flow rate of 4 cubic feet/minute (cfm), a half mask PAPR 
    tested at an 80% work rate had a negative facepiece pressure during 
    inhalation for all subjects. The authors concluded that the respirator 
    protection that the device can provide is dependent in large part on 
    the tightness of the seal to the face of the wearer.
        Dahlback and Novak (Ex. 24-22) also found negative pressure inside 
    the facepieces of pressure-demand respirators when workers engaged in 
    heavy work and had inhalation peak flow rates of 300 liters a minute. 
    Workers in this study who had not been fit tested developed negative 
    pressure inside their masks much more frequently than those who had 
    been fit tested.
        Some commenters (Exs. 54-214, 54-217, 54-222, 54-232, 54-234, 54-
    245, 54-251, 54-278, 54-330, 54-424) stated that any negative pressure 
    due to leaks on inhalation can be countered by the increased air flow 
    of a positive pressure respirator. While increased air flow can reduce 
    the number of negative pressure episodes (Ex. 64-94), OSHA does not 
    believe that the realities of respirator usage allow exclusive reliance 
    on this mechanism to substitute for fit testing. Moreover, the air 
    pressure that positive pressure respirators provide inside the 
    facepiece is intended to overcome the momentary leakage that may occur 
    even with a properly fitting facepiece. This positive airflow alone is 
    not an adequate substitute for a properly fitting facepiece, and cannot 
    be relied upon to overcome the leakage that can occur into poorly 
    fitting facepieces.
    
    [[Page 1223]]
    
        Requiring fit tests for positive pressure respirators is also 
    necessary because the consequences of facepiece leakage into positive 
    pressure respirators can be extremely serious. Positive pressure 
    respirators are usually worn in more hazardous situations than those in 
    which negative pressure respirators are worn. For example, only 
    positive pressure respirators can be worn in IDLH atmospheres. By 
    definition, there is little tolerance for facepiece leakage in such 
    atmospheres. Positive pressure respirators also are used when the 
    concentration of the toxic substance is many times greater than the 
    permissible exposure limit. Even where positive pressure respirators 
    are worn in lower risk situations, they are often selected because the 
    hazardous gas or vapor in the atmosphere lacks adequate sensory warning 
    properties, clearly a factor calling for the minimum amount of 
    facepiece leakage. Employees also may believe that they can afford to 
    use less care in using a respirator that appears to be highly 
    protective; they may ignore seal checks and strap tensioning because 
    they are relying on air flow to overcome any leaks. Fit testing 
    demonstrates to employees that positive pressure respirators can leak, 
    and offers an opportunity for the employee to see, via quantification, 
    what actions (e.g., bending at the waist, jerking the head, talking) 
    relating to fit will decrease protection.
        Similarly, although a negative or positive pressure user seal check 
    is important to ensure proper donning and adjustment of the respirator 
    each time it is put on, it is not a substitute for the selection of an 
    adequately fitting respirator through fit testing. Most respirator fit 
    testing is preceded by a user seal check, but experience with 
    respirator fit testing has shown that some individuals who pass this 
    user seal check with what they think is an adequately fitting facepiece 
    subsequently fail their fit test due to poor respirator fit. As John 
    Hale of Respirator Support Services (Ex. 54-5) stated, ``Yes, there is 
    some information to be obtained about gross facepiece-to-face leakage 
    by performing these checks. But, there are no performance criteria, 
    there is no known correlation between the result of this check and 
    respirator fit or performance * * * .''
        A number of experts and consensus organizations supported the 
    proposal's requirement for fit testing of all tight-fitting 
    respirators. The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 
    (Ex. 54-173), the Aluminum Company of America (Ex. 54-317) and the 
    United Auto Workers (Ex. 54-387) endorsed fit testing for positive 
    pressure respirators because these respirators do not always maintain 
    positive pressure due to overbreathing or physical exertion. The 
    Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA)(Ex. 54-363) supported 
    OSHA's proposal for fit testing of all tight-fitting respirators, 
    stating that it was consistent with the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard's 
    requirements. Fit testing for all tight-fitting respirators is found in 
    clause 9.1.2 of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 respirator standard (Ex. 81), which 
    requires that positive pressure respirators with tight-fitting 
    facepieces be qualitatively or quantitatively fit tested in the 
    negative pressure mode. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
    standards 1500 and 1404 also require that firefighters using SCBAs pass 
    a fit test (Tr. 479). The American Industrial Hygiene Association (Ex. 
    54-208) also supported the fit testing of all tight-fitting 
    respirators. Moreover, workplace protection factor studies conducted by 
    respirator manufacturers, NIOSH, national laboratories and others 
    always fit test subjects to reduce the effect of facepiece leakage that 
    is unrelated to design and construction (See, e.g., Exs. 64-14, 64-36, 
    64-94).
        This record has convinced OSHA that it is necessary to require the 
    fit testing of both positive and negative pressure tight-fitting 
    respirators. Even positive pressure respirators do not always maintain 
    positive pressure inside the facepiece, particularly when facepiece fit 
    is poor, strenuous work is being performed, and overbreathing of the 
    respirator occurs (Exs. 64-94, 64-101). Leakage must be minimized so 
    that users consistently achieve the high levels of protection they 
    need. Most workplace use of positive pressure atmosphere-supplying 
    respirators occurs in high hazard atmospheres (e.g., emergencies, 
    spills, IDLH conditions, very high exposures, abrasive blasting), where 
    a high degree of certainty is required that the respirator is maximally 
    effective. Positive pressure respirators, like negative pressure 
    respirators, come in a variety of sizes and models, each with its own 
    unique fit characteristics. The only reliable way to choose an 
    adequately fitting facepiece for an individual user from among the 
    different sizes available is by fit testing. The problem of leakage due 
    to poor facepiece fit can be minimized by choosing good fitting 
    facepieces through fit testing for positive pressure respirator users. 
    OSHA concludes that the requirement to fit test tight-fitting positive 
    pressure respirators is appropriate to reduce leakage into facepieces, 
    and to improve the protection that all kinds of tight-fitting 
    respirators provide in the workplace.
    Frequency of Fit Testing--Paragraph (f)(2)
        Final paragraph (f)(2), like the proposal, requires that fit 
    testing be performed prior to an employee's initial use of a respirator 
    in the workplace; whenever a different model, size, make, or style of 
    respirator facepiece is used; and at least annually thereafter. Only 
    the requirement to conduct fit testing annually was disputed in the 
    rulemaking. Commenters generally agreed that some additional fit 
    testing beyond an initial test was necessary, but opinions varied 
    widely on the appropriate intervals at which such tests should be 
    performed. A few participants, including the UAW (Ex. 54-387), urged 
    that fit testing be required every six months, since changes in weight, 
    facial hair and scarring, dental work, and cosmetic surgery may alter 
    respirator fit. The UAW also stated that visual observation was not a 
    reliable way to identify the presence of these changes.
        A number of commenters suggested that longer intervals, generally 
    two to three years, would be appropriate. For example, Allied Signal 
    (Ex. 54-175) recommended ``periodic'' or ``every two-years'' as the fit 
    testing interval. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Ex. 54-196) 
    stated that a ``two year time frame strikes a good balance between 
    safety concerns and practicality.'' The Texas Chemical Council (Ex. 54-
    232) stated that, in its members' experience, ``* * * virtually no 
    individuals fail fit tests a year after initial testing for a given 
    chemical exposure using the same manufacturer's respirator.'' The Exxon 
    Company (Ex. 183), in response to questions asked at the June hearings, 
    reported that of the 230 employees at their Baton Rouge refinery given 
    an annual QNFT in 1995, a year after their initial respirator selection 
    in 1994, less than one percent (two employees) changed their respirator 
    size because of failing the annual QNFT. Exxon stated that few 
    employees change the size of their respirator from year to year, and 
    that ``the data suggest that annual quantitative fit-testing should not 
    be necessary and such testing may be done on a less frequent basis than 
    once per year.'' The Peco Energy Company (Ex. 54-292) stated that its 
    experience showed that a three year interval is sufficient to ensure a 
    proper fit, provided that mandatory refitting is conducted if there are 
    changes in the respirator user's physical condition. The Eastman 
    Chemical Co. (Ex. 54-245) recommended that the time limit be not
    
    [[Page 1224]]
    
    less than two years. The International Paper Co. (Ex. 54-290) stated 
    that ``bi-annual (sic) [every two years] fit-testing with proper 
    training should be adequate'' and that proper training would require 
    that employees report to the employer facial feature changes that have 
    occurred or failure to get an adequate seal during the positive/
    negative pressure seal check.
        Other participants believed that fit testing beyond initial fit 
    testing should be required only when an employee switches to a 
    different respirator, or when a significant change occurs in an 
    employee's physical condition that may interfere with obtaining an 
    adequate facepiece seal (Exs. 54-177, 54-187, 54-190, 54-193, 54-197, 
    54-214, 54-286, 54-297, 54-396, 54-397, 54-435, 54-323, 54-422, Ex. 
    123). The American Iron and Steel Institute (Ex. 54-307, Ex. 175) 
    stated that annual fit testing was unnecessary, and that the steel 
    industry experience shows that once a wearer has been fit tested and 
    has an acceptable fit, subsequent fit tests demonstrate consistent fit 
    factors. Mallinckrodt Chemical (Ex. 54-289) questioned the need for 
    annual fit testing for those employees who may use a respirator 
    infrequently, such as once or twice a year.
        However, a large number of rulemaking participants supported OSHA's 
    proposal to require the testing of respirator fit on an annual basis 
    (Exs. 54-5, 54-6, 54-20, 54-153, 54-167, 54-172, 54-179, 54-219, 54-
    273, 54-289, 54-293, 54-309, 54-348, 54-363, 54-410, 54-428, 54-455, 
    Ex. 177; Tr. 1573, 1610, 1653, 1674). The comments of these 
    participants and other evidence in the rulemaking record convince OSHA 
    that the annual testing requirement is appropriate to protect employee 
    health.
        Annual retesting of respirator fit detects those respirator users 
    whose respirators no longer fit them properly. The Lord Corporation, 
    which already performs annual fit tests, reported that of its 154 
    employees who wear respirators, one to three (2 percent or less) are 
    identified each year as needing changes in model or size of mask (Ex. 
    54-156). Hoffman-LaRoche only performs fit tests at two-year intervals, 
    and it reported a much higher incidence of fit test failures. Sixteen 
    of the 233 people tested in a recent two year cycle of fit testing 
    (6.86%) needed a change in their assigned respirators (Ex. 54-106).
        The Lord experience (Ex. 54-156) indicates that annual retesting of 
    facepiece fit detects poorly fitting facepieces, while the Hoffman-
    LaRoche evidence demonstrates that waiting two years for retesting can 
    result in the discovery that quite a high percentage of workers have 
    been relying on poorly fitting respirators. Extending the retest 
    interval to more than one year would allow those individuals with poor 
    fits that could have been detected by annual fit testing to wear their 
    respirator for a second year before the poor fit is detected.
        This evidence also supports OSHA's view that triggering the 
    requirement to retest only by certain events, such as a change in the 
    worker's condition, and not including a required retest interval, would 
    allow poor fits to continue. Changes in a worker's physical condition, 
    such as significant weight gain or loss, new dentures or other 
    conditions, can cause alterations in facial structure and thus 
    respirator fit. Physiological changes that affect facepiece fit can 
    occur gradually over time and are easily overlooked by observers, and 
    by the users themselves. Individuals with poorly fitting respirators 
    were often detected only through fit testing, and not by other methods 
    such as observation of changes in facepiece fit, failure to pass a user 
    seal check, or an employee reporting problems with the fit of the 
    respirator. Retesting facepiece fit solely on the basis of physical 
    changes in individual respirator users would not be a reliable 
    substitute for fit testing on an annual basis. These changes in an 
    individual's physical condition do, however, indicate the need for 
    retesting that individual's facepiece, and paragraph (f)(3) requires 
    additional fit testing whenever any of these changes is detected.
        Moreover, fit testing not only determines whether a facepiece seal 
    is adequate; it also provides an opportunity to check that fit is 
    acceptable, permits the employee to reduce unnecessary discomfort and 
    irritation by selecting a more comfortable respirator, and reinforces 
    respirator training by providing users with a hands-on review of the 
    proper methods of donning and wearing the respirator. Therefore, as 
    well as providing the opportunity to detect poorly fitting respirator 
    facepieces, the annual fit testing requirement complements OSHA's 
    requirement for, and may partially fulfill, annual training under final 
    paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(3) and (k)(5). For the reasons presented above, 
    and based on a thorough review of the record, OSHA has included an 
    annual fit test requirement in the final rule.
    Refitting Due to Facial Changes--Paragraph (f)(3)
        Paragraph (f)(7) in the proposal addressed the need to refit 
    respirators when changes in the employee's physical condition occur. 
    The proposal identified facial scarring, cosmetic surgery, or an 
    obvious change in body weight as conditions requiring refitting. Some 
    commenters (Exs. 54-280, 54-428, 54-455) suggested that dental work 
    affecting facial shape should also trigger refitting. The International 
    Chemical Workers Union (ICWU) suggested that a change of five percent 
    in body weight or twenty pounds should be regarded as an obvious change 
    in body weight that requires refitting (Ex. 54-427). One commenter 
    opposed requiring the employer to determine whether an employee's 
    physical change should trigger refitting, stating that the 
    responsibility for reporting physical changes should rest with the 
    employee (Ex. 54-357).
        The language of the proposed paragraph has been revised in the 
    final rule to provide greater clarity and to account for these 
    comments. Because weight loss or gain affects the facial configuration 
    of different individuals differently, OSHA does not believe it possible 
    to stipulate a given weight change ``trigger'' for requiring a new fit 
    test. The final standard thus retains the proposed language regarding 
    an obvious change in body weight. In response to the comments that 
    dental work can affect facial shape and respirator fit, the language in 
    final paragraph (f)(3) has been revised to add dental changes as 
    another item that can trigger a new fit test requirement. The provision 
    has been modified to trigger retests based on employee reports of 
    facial changes, in addition to changes observed by the employer, 
    supervisor, program administrator, or PLHCP that may affect facepiece 
    fit. Employer observations of potential problems with fit, along with 
    self-reported problems with facepiece fit or changes in facial 
    configuration, would trigger a respirator fit retest under final 
    paragraph (f)(3).
        Paragraph (f)(3) requires employers to conduct an additional fit 
    test whenever an employee reports changes, or there are observations of 
    changes, in the employee's physical condition that could affect 
    respirator fit. This provision addresses the rare situation in which an 
    employee's facial features change to the extent that a respirator that 
    once fit properly may no longer fit. The conditions listed in the 
    standard that may cause such changes in facial features--facial 
    scarring, dental changes, cosmetic surgery, or an obvious change in 
    body weight--will generally be observable by the employer. If the 
    employee reports facial changes that are not readily observable, the 
    employer may require verification of
    
    [[Page 1225]]
    
    the changes before offering an additional fit test.
    Retesting for Unacceptability--Paragraph (f)(4)
        Paragraph (f)(4) of the final standard requires retesting whenever 
    the respirator becomes ``unacceptable'' to the employee. An employee 
    who notifies the employer, the program administrator, supervisor, or 
    the PLHCP that the fit of the respirator is unacceptable must be given 
    a reasonable opportunity to be retested and to select a different 
    respirator facepiece. This requirement was derived from paragraph 
    (f)(8) in the proposal, which required refitting within the first two 
    weeks of respirator use for masks that become ``unacceptably 
    uncomfortable.''
        Although some commenters wanted to delete this provision on the 
    grounds that a properly fitted and trained worker should have no reason 
    to exchange the respirator (Exs. 54-6, 54-20, 54-156, 54-209, 54-215), 
    others urged that the employee be allowed to request a refit at any 
    time a respirator becomes unacceptable. These commenters saw no reason 
    to limit this period to two weeks (Exs. 54-154, 54-165). The utility of 
    the two week period was specifically questioned for situations where 
    respirators are not routinely used for long periods of time (Ex. 54-
    66), or are used only occasionally (Ex. 54-220). Exxon (Ex. 54-266) 
    stated that the two week provision was too restrictive, and that 
    employees should be allowed to select another respirator or facepiece 
    as necessary . Dow (Ex. 54-278) also suggested dropping the two week 
    limitation. The American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-330) recommended 
    revised performance language for this provision. The Occidental 
    Chemical Company (Ex. 54-346) saw no reason to specify a two week 
    period, and stated that employees should be permitted to select a new 
    respirator facepiece at any time because of unacceptable discomfort.
        In the final rule, OSHA has deleted the two week limitation on the 
    time in which an employee may have a respirator retested. In addition, 
    the term ``unacceptable'' has been substituted for the term 
    ``uncomfortable,'' which was used in the proposal and was objected to 
    by several commenters (Exs. 54-154, 54-266, 54-278, 54-330). A 
    respirator may be unacceptable if it causes irritation or pain to an 
    employee or if, because of discomfort, the employee is unable to wear 
    the respirator for the time required.
    Fit Testing Protocols--Paragraph (f)(5)
        Paragraph (f)(5) in the final standard, which is substantively the 
    same as proposed paragraph (f)(3), requires that the employer use an 
    OSHA-accepted QLFT or QNFT protocol for fit testing. These protocols 
    are described in mandatory Appendix A. Appendix A also describes the 
    methods OSHA will use to determine whether to approve additional fit 
    test methods. The provisions in proposed paragraphs (f)(3), (f)(4), and 
    (f)(5) that referenced alternative fit test procedures therefore have 
    been removed from the final rule.
        For qualitative fit testing (QLFT), Part I of Appendix A contains 
    the OSHA-accepted qualitative fit testing protocols for the isoamyl 
    acetate QLFT protocol; the saccharin QLFT protocol; and the irritant 
    smoke QLFT protocol, which were first adopted in the Lead standard (29 
    CFR 1910.1025). In addition, Appendix A contains an OSHA-accepted 
    protocol for the BitrexTM (Denatonium benzoate) QLFT method, 
    which was submitted to the rulemaking record and commented on during 
    this rulemaking.
        Appendix A also lists three protocols for the QNFT methods that are 
    OSHA-accepted. The first is the traditional generated aerosol QNFT 
    method in which a test atmosphere (corn oil, DEHS, or salt) is 
    generated inside a test enclosure and the concentration inside and 
    outside the mask is measured. The second method is the ambient aerosol 
    QNFT method, commonly called the PortacountTM method, which 
    uses a condensation nuclei counter to measure the ambient aerosol 
    concentrations inside and outside the mask. The third method that has 
    been added is the controlled negative pressure (CNP) QNFT method 
    (Dynatech Nevada FitTester 3000TM), which was the subject of 
    comments during this rulemaking. These OSHA-accepted QLFT and QNFT 
    methods are described further in the discussion of Appendix A that 
    follows.
        The only fit test method that generated any controversy during the 
    rulemaking proceeding was the irritant smoke QLFT protocol. OSHA is 
    continuing to accept the irritant smoke QLFT protocol for use under 
    this standard because the method is valuable when used properly and is 
    often used by small employers because it is relatively inexpensive. 
    Moreover, it is also the only QLFT method where facepiece leakage 
    elicits an involuntary response, which can eliminate the possibility 
    that a wearer could pretend to pass the fit test in order to be 
    eligible for a job requiring respirator use.
        Nevertheless, OSHA is aware that high levels of irritant smoke can 
    be produced during a fit test and that these concentrations can be 
    dangerous. Employees exposed to excessive concentrations of irritant 
    smoke have suffered severe reactions (Ex. 54-437; Tr. 390). For this 
    reason, it is particularly important that employers using the irritant 
    smoke protocol ensure that test operators are well trained in this 
    method and comply with all the steps in the OSHA protocol. To ensure 
    that any leakage will be as minimal as possible, the test must not be 
    performed until the employee has passed a user seal check. In 
    performing the sensitivity check necessary to determine that the 
    particular user is sensitive to irritant smoke, it is extremely 
    important to assure that the employee is exposed to the least amount of 
    irritant smoke necessary to trigger a response. Appendix A is a 
    mandatory appendix, and failure to comply completely with its protocols 
    will constitute a violation of this standard.
    QLFT Limits--Paragraph (f)(6)
        Paragraph (f)(6) of the final standard limits qualitative fit 
    testing to situations where the user of a negative pressure air-
    purifying respirators must achieve a minimum fit factor of 100 or less. 
    A similar limitation was contained in the proposal (paragraph 
    (f)(6)(i)(A)). This limitation is based on the fact that the existing 
    evidence only validates the use of qualitative fit testing to identify 
    users who pass the QLFT with a respirator that achieves a minimum fit 
    factor of 100. Dividing the fit factor of 100 by a standard safety 
    factor of 10 means that a negative pressure air-purifying respirator 
    fit tested by QLFT cannot be relied upon to reduce exposures by more 
    than a protection factor of 10. The safety factor of 10 is used because 
    protection factors in the workplace tend to be much lower than the fit 
    factors achieved during fit testing; the use of a safety factor is a 
    standard practice supported by most experts to offset this limitation. 
    For example, the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard states, in clause 9.1.1, ``If 
    a quantitative fit test is used, a fit factor that is at least 10 times 
    greater than the assigned protection factor (table 1) of a negative-
    pressure respirator shall be obtained before that respirator is 
    assigned to an individual. If a qualitative test is used, only 
    validated protocols are acceptable. The test shall be designed to 
    assess fit factors 10 times greater than the assigned protection 
    factor.''
        The only objection to this limitation was expressed by a few 
    commenters (Exs. 54-153, 54-178) who noted that in
    
    [[Page 1226]]
    
    the future, new QLFT protocols may be developed allowing the 
    measurement of higher fit factors. If new methods are developed that 
    permit QLFT use for higher fit factors, OSHA will, as part of the 
    acceptance process for these new methods, adjust this requirement 
    appropriately.
    QNFT Minimum Fit Factors--Paragraph (f)(7)
        Paragraph (f)(7) of the final standard lists the minimum fit 
    factors required to be achieved during quantitative fit testing. These 
    minimum fit factors were listed in paragraphs (f)(6)(i)(B) and 
    (f)(6)(ii)(B) of the proposal. Half masks are required to achieve a 
    minimum fit factor of 100 during QNFT, and full facepiece respirators 
    must achieve a minimum fit factor of 500. Paragraph (f)(7) in the final 
    standard consolidates the minimum QNFT fit factors for half mask and 
    full facepiece respirators into one provision. The safety factor of ten 
    used for full facepiece respirators is the same as that for half masks.
        The minimum fit factors in the final standard for QNFT are the same 
    as those that were proposed, and are identical to the minimum fit 
    factors required in OSHA substance-specific standards that require QNFT 
    (See e.g., Asbestos, 29 CFR 1910.1001; Cadmium, 29 CFR 1910.1027; 
    Benzene, 29 CFR 1910.1028; Formaldehyde, 29 CFR 1910.1048; 1,3-
    Butadiene, 29 CFR 1910.1051).
        Most participants who commented on the issue agreed with these 
    minimum fit factors. A few participants argued for higher minimum fit 
    factors (Exs. 67, 54-405). For example, Robert da Roza, citing his 
    study on the reproducibility of QNFT (Ex. 24-9), stated in his 
    testimony at the OSHA hearings on minimum fit factors that ``What I 
    feel confident in is that you do need something higher than a ten. It 
    may be as high as 800. I'm suggesting that some statistician look at 
    this a little more rigorously and come up with some better number.'' 
    (Tr. 102)
        TSI, Inc. (Ex. 54-405), in discussing the pass/fail levels for 
    QNFT, recommended the following:
    
        The proposed requirement that a successful QNFT achieve a fit 
    factor of at least 100 for a half mask and 500 for a full-face mask 
    should be raised. The proposed values allow employers to accept what 
    in reality is a very poor fit compared to what can be achieved with 
    proper employee training * * * We feel that a fit factor of at least 
    1000 for half masks and at least 2000 for full face respirators is 
    justifiable and readily achievable with minimal extra effort by the 
    employer.
    
        However, empirical data or statistical analyses that supported the 
    need to increase the minimum fit factors proposed were not presented. 
    Although fit factors substantially higher than the minimum values are 
    frequently achieved, OSHA's experience enforcing the substance-specific 
    standards that have similar requirements to the minimum fit factors 
    contained in the final respiratory protection standard shows that these 
    factors are adequate to distinguish well fitting respirators from those 
    that fit poorly, which is the purpose of fit testing. Accordingly, OSHA 
    is retaining the proposed fit factors in the final standard.
    Testing Positive Pressure Respirators--Paragraph (f)(8)
        Paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B) in the proposal required that fit testing 
    of positive pressure respirators be conducted without any of the air-
    supplying equipment or attachments that produce a positive pressure 
    inside the facepiece during respirator use. Thus, the proposal required 
    positive pressure respirators to be tested under negative pressure. 
    Final paragraph (f)(8) similarly requires that positive pressure tight-
    fitting respirators be fit tested in the negative pressure mode. Fit 
    testing seeks to measure the tightness of the facepiece seal. If the 
    air pressure inside the facepiece is higher than that outside, the 
    pressure differential reduces the amount of ambient air leaking into 
    the facepiece, and the measurements obtained during the fit test do not 
    represent the tightness of the seal between the face and the facepiece. 
    Many tight-fitting respirator facepieces are available in both air-
    purifying models and atmosphere-supplying units. For these, fit testing 
    can be performed using an identical negative pressure air-purifying 
    respirator facepiece, with the same sealing surfaces, as a surrogate 
    for the atmosphere-supplying facepiece the employee will actually be 
    using. Where an identical negative pressure facepiece is unavailable, 
    the employer may convert the facepiece of the employee's unit to allow 
    for qualitative or quantitative fit testing. Many SCBA manufacturers 
    (e.g., MSA, Interspiro and Survivair) sell fit testing adaptors for 
    this purpose that allow for fit testing of their SCBA facepieces.
        Final paragraphs (f)(8)(i) and (f)(8)(ii) describe the specific 
    ways in which these alternatives apply for performing QLFT and QNFT 
    measurements, respectively. If the respirator facepiece has been 
    modified for fit testing, final paragraph (f)(8)(iii) requires that the 
    modifications must be completely removed and the respirator restored to 
    its NIOSH-approved configuration before it is used in the workplace. 
    These requirements replace the similar provisions in proposed paragraph 
    (f)(6), and should clearly inform employers of the requirements for fit 
    testing tight-fitting atmosphere-supplying or powered air-purifying 
    respirators. These provisions are designed so that the testing reflects 
    the conditions of respirator use as accurately as possible. There were 
    no significant objections to this provision in the record.
    Proposed Paragraph (f)(9)--Interim Use of QLFT
        The final standard deletes proposed paragraph (f)(9), which would 
    have allowed an employer initially to perform a qualitative fit test to 
    fit the respirator user where an assigned protection factor greater 
    than 10 is required if the employer had an outside party conduct 
    quantitative fit testing within 30 days. OSHA proposed this provision 
    to address those few instances when contractors were not available to 
    test employees who had been hired after the annual fit testing for a 
    given establishment had been conducted. There was considerable 
    opposition to this provision. John Hale of Respirator Support Services 
    (Ex. 54-5) recommended that this provision be eliminated because the 
    provision could be abused. The Exxon Company (Ex. 54-266) also 
    recommended that the provision be deleted, suggesting that full 
    facepiece respirators fit tested using a QLFT be limited to use in 
    atmospheres containing 10 times the exposure limit of a hazardous 
    substance until an adequate QNFT is performed. Other commenters stated 
    that retaining the provision could result in overexposure of the 
    employee to workplace contaminants (Exs. 54-280, 54-303, 54-408). The 
    Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ex. 54-420) criticized the provision on 
    the basis that it is the employer's responsibility to provide 
    appropriate fit testing prior to assigning employees to work where 
    respirators are required. The U.S. Army (Ex. 54-443D) stated that if 
    employers have a functioning respirator program and know of the 
    requirement for annual testing, then they should be able to schedule 
    fit testing appropriately, with no need for an extra 30 days.
        Some participants who supported the proposed requirement stated 
    that QNFT has not been shown to be a better predictor of workplace 
    protection than QLFT, and recommended that QNFT be an optional, rather 
    than a required method, when fit factors greater than 10 are needed. 
    Moldex Metric Inc. (Ex. 54-153) recommended that the provision be 
    broadened to allow the employer some
    
    [[Page 1227]]
    
    latitude in selecting which fit testing methods must be used. Bayer 
    Corporation (Ex. 54-210) recommended the period be extended to 90 days, 
    and that the provision be broadened to include repair and/or 
    calibration of fit testing instruments; other participants also 
    recommended a 60 or 90 day period (Exs. 54-222, 54-278, 54-330, 54-361, 
    54-424, Ex. 54-430).
        OSHA has concluded that the rulemaking record demonstrates that 
    proposed paragraph (f)(9) is unnecessary. Contractors who perform QNFT 
    services are located throughout the country, and an employer can 
    arrange a schedule to ensure that fit testing will be available when 
    required. QNFT instruments are also available for rent and can be used 
    by employers themselves after appropriate training if no contractor is 
    available. Several different types of reasonably priced QNFT 
    instruments are manufactured, and OSHA believes many employers can 
    readily purchase one to perform their own QNFT. The instruments are 
    highly portable and can be readily shipped to where they are needed. As 
    the Army points out (Ex. 54-433D), an employer with a respirator 
    program that requires annual fit testing can readily schedule fit 
    testing appropriately.
        In addition, the comments OSHA received urging that the provision 
    be expanded increase OSHA's concern that leaving the option in the 
    standard could expose employees unnecessarily to excessive 
    concentrations of hazardous substances. The QNFT exemption as proposed 
    was intended to be narrow in scope and to apply only when contractors 
    were not readily available to test new employees who were hired after 
    the annual fit testing session. The reasons advanced for extending this 
    QNFT exemption were not convincing. OSHA believes that there are other 
    ways to address the concerns raised by commenters in support of this 
    QNFT exemption. For example, employers can schedule QNFT instrument 
    calibration during times when fit testing is not scheduled and can 
    obtain a substitute QNFT instrument when their own unit needs repair. 
    OSHA concludes that this provision is not appropriately included in the 
    final standard.
    Appendix A--Mandatory Fit Test Protocols
        Appendix A contains the fit test protocols that employers must 
    follow in performing qualitative and quantitative fit testing for 
    tight-fitting respirators. The Appendix also contains procedures OSHA 
    will use to evaluate ``new'' fit testing methods. Proposed Appendix A 
    addressed the same subjects. Employers who have in the past performed 
    fit tests pursuant to a substance-specific standard must now follow the 
    protocols for OSHA-accepted fit tests that are set out in Appendix A. 
    OSHA has removed the fit testing protocols in the substance-specific 
    standards to eliminate duplication and consolidate all fit testing 
    protocols in Appendix A.
        Appendix A has been reorganized from its proposed format to improve 
    clarity and usefulness. The provisions dealing with administering OSHA-
    accepted fit testing protocols have been moved to part I.
        Section A of part I contains general provisions and test exercises 
    that apply to both QLFT and QNFT.
        Section B contains the OSHA-accepted QLFT protocols for isoamyl 
    acetate, saccharin, Bitrex, and irritant smoke fit tests.
        Section C contains the OSHA-accepted QNFT protocols for generated 
    aerosol, ambient aerosol (CNC), and controlled negative pressure (CNP) 
    fit tests.
        Part II addresses the methodology OSHA will use to evaluate new fit 
    test methods and technology.
        Appendix A provides general instructions for performing fit testing 
    which have been simplified and clarified by combining the common 
    elements for both QLFT and QNFT and presenting them in Section A of 
    Part I. This includes directions for such procedures as selecting a 
    respirator for fit testing and performing the required test exercises. 
    By combining common elements and eliminating the duplication of fit 
    test protocols in the substance-specific standards, OSHA has reduced 
    the number of pages in its regulations dedicated to fit testing. The 
    purpose of the OSHA fit testing protocols is to tell fit test operators 
    how to perform fit testing to ensure that an adequately fitting 
    facepiece is selected. The protocols reflect the fit test elements 
    (i.e., equipment and basic procedures) that were performed during the 
    validation testing that initially led to their acceptance by OSHA. The 
    protocols do not contain specific instructions on operating any 
    particular fit test instrument because each instrument has specific 
    manufacturer's operating instructions that must be followed to obtain 
    valid results.
        The fit testing procedures and specific requirements in the QLFT 
    and QNFT protocols in Sections B and C of part I reflect both the 
    experience that has been gained in performing fit testing and the 
    validation testing that was done initially in order for each method to 
    be accepted by OSHA. The OSHA-accepted methods were evaluated by 
    comparing their performance with that of another accepted fit test to 
    demonstrate that each new method would reliably identify adequately 
    fitting facepieces. The OSHA-accepted protocols reflect the specific 
    procedures and equipment that were used in validation testing, and they 
    must be followed to ensure minimum reproducibility. These elements in 
    the OSHA protocols are not written in performance-oriented language, 
    since any significant variation from the required protocols would 
    invalidate the reliability testing that was performed initially to gain 
    OSHA acceptance and would add uncertainty to the validity of fit test 
    results.
    Fit Testing Procedures--General Requirements
        The general requirements for fit testing contained in Appendix A, 
    part I.A apply to all OSHA-accepted fit test methods, both QLFT and 
    QNFT. These provisions contain general requirements and instructions 
    for both the person being fit tested, and the person conducting the fit 
    testing. The provisions have been modified slightly from the proposal.
        Provision A.1 requires that the test subject be afforded a 
    selection of respirators of various sizes and models from which to pick 
    the most acceptable. The revised language of this provision reflects 
    the substitution of the term ``acceptable'' for ``comfortable'' in 
    paragraph (d)(1)(iv). Provision A.2 is identical to that proposed. The 
    test operator shows the person being fit tested how to don the 
    respirator properly. This instruction may complement the training 
    required by paragraph (k) of this standard. Provisions A.3 to A.7 
    contain instructions for selecting the most acceptable respirator for 
    fit testing.
        Provision A.8 requires the subject to perform a ``user seal check'' 
    before the fit test is performed. The language in this provision has 
    been modified to reflect the use of the new definition for ``user seal 
    check.'' Provision A.9 restates that fit testing shall not be conducted 
    if there is any hair growth between the skin and sealing surface of the 
    respirator. If the test subject exhibits breathing difficulty during 
    fit testing, provision A.10 requires that he or she be referred to a 
    PLHCP. Minor revisions to this provision reflect changes made to 
    paragraph (e) of the standard on medical evaluation. Provision A.11 
    requires retesting whenever the employee finds the fit unacceptable. 
    Provision A.12 of Appendix A, Part II of the proposal regarding fit 
    testing records has been moved to paragraph (m) of the final
    
    [[Page 1228]]
    
    standard to consolidate all recordkeeping provisions.
        Provisions A.12 through A.14 of this final standard describe the 
    specific exercises to be performed under all qualitative and 
    quantitative fit tests protocols. The exercises are mostly the same; 
    however, the grimace exercise is not performed for QLFT protocols. In 
    addition, a separate test regimen is prescribed in Section C for the 
    CNP quantitative fit test. Except for minor modifications, the 
    exercises are identical to those in the proposal and to those in OSHA's 
    substance-specific health standards. Participant comments focussed on a 
    few issues: the number and duration of fit test exercises (Exs. 54-158, 
    54-187, 54-206, 54-218, 54-219, 54-261, 54-271, 54-273, 54-350, 54-325, 
    155), and the need for the grimace, bending over/jogging-in-place, and 
    talking exercises (54-153, 54-173, 54-175, 54-179, 54-208, 54-218, 54-
    219, 54-261, 54-273, 54-317, 54-363, 54-408, 54-420, 54-424). These 
    comments are addressed below.
        Provision A.14 requires the employee being fit-tested to perform 
    eight exercises. Seven of the exercises must be performed for one 
    minute, while the grimace exercise lasts for only 15 seconds. The test 
    exercises and exercise sequence are: normal breathing; deep breathing; 
    turning the head side to side; moving the head up and down; talking; 
    grimacing; bending over (or jogging in place if the test unit is not 
    large enough for the test subject to bend at the waist); and normal 
    breathing.
        Some participants complained that the number and length of the 
    exercises required to be performed were excessive. For example, the 3M 
    Company stated that OSHA has made numerous changes to accepted 
    protocols without verifying the effect of the changes on test 
    performance (Ex. 54-218). According to 3M, OSHA arbitrarily altered the 
    fit tests by requiring the test exercises to be performed for one 
    minute, rather than 30 seconds, and by including the grimace and the 
    bending over/jogging-in-place exercises, and that this alteration 
    violates the original validation of the fit test protocols. In fact, 
    the protocols in this standard are virtually identical to those in 
    other OSHA health standards that have been promulgated over the past 
    fifteen years. The isoamyl acetate (IAA) QLFT test that was evaluated 
    and adopted in the lead standard in 1982 has six exercises. Five of the 
    exercises must be performed for one minute, and the talking exercise is 
    performed for ``several'' minutes. Thus, the total test time for the 
    six exercises is seven to eight minutes, compared to the seven minutes 
    and 15 seconds that completion of the exercises in this standard will 
    take. Since the length of the two test protocols is similar, OSHA 
    concludes that the IAA concentration at the end of the fit test under 
    this standard would be the same as if the fit test was performed under 
    the IAA QLFT protocol contained in the lead standard.
        The grimace exercise drew a number of comments. The test is 
    intended to simulate the type of normal facial movements that could 
    break a respirator seal. It was developed in the asbestos standard in 
    1986 and has been incorporated into subsequent OSHA standards. 
    Participants questioned the need for the grimace exercise, particularly 
    with QLFT, where a break in the facepiece seal could cause sensory 
    fatigue (Exs. 54-153, 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-263, 54-273, 54-363, 
    54-408, 54-424). Several commenters (Exs. 54-173, 54-179, 54-261, 54-
    317) stated that the grimace exercise cannot be described so that its 
    effects are standardized and reproducible. DuPont (Ex. 54-350) 
    recommended that the standard incorporate only six exercises, deleting 
    both the grimace and bending/jogging exercises. DuPont stated that if 
    the grimace remained in the fit test protocol, it should be performed 
    last, with the results excluded from the calculations. Allied Signal 
    (Ex. 54-175) also recommended that the grimace exercise be deleted; 
    however, if retained, it should be performed at the completion of the 
    other test exercises. In contrast, the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
    (Ex. 54-420), which originated fit testing protocols, stated that their 
    researchers included the grimace exercise as part of the test exercises 
    for full facepieces in the early 1970s. Los Alamos stated that an 
    exercise that simulates a worker's normal facial movements should not 
    be excluded from the test exercises, and recommended that it be 
    retained.
        These comments have persuaded OSHA to delete the grimace exercise 
    as one of the required fit testing exercises for QLFT, but to retain it 
    for QNFT. A break in the facepiece seal during a QLFT could cause 
    sensory fatigue that would invalidate the results of the grimace test 
    and any remaining fit test exercises. Performing the exercise as the 
    final element of the qualitative fit test would not address this 
    concern because one purpose of the test is to determine whether the 
    respirator reseals after the seal has been broken, and performing the 
    grimace test after all the others have been completed will not allow a 
    determination of whether the respirator has resealed effectively after 
    the test.
        The concern about sensory fatigue does not exist with quantitative 
    fit tests, however, and OSHA believes the grimace exercise is a 
    valuable aspect of these tests. Because the exercise stresses the 
    facepiece seal, it allows the test to determine whether the facepiece 
    reseats itself during subsequent exercises. The results from the 
    grimace exercise are not to be used in calculating the fit factor for 
    QNFT (provision C(2)(h)(1)), since breaking of the seal would 
    necessarily produce a low fit factor for the grimace exercise. However, 
    if the respirator facepiece fails to reseat itself, the fit factors 
    measured for the subsequent exercises would reflect this failure, 
    causing the employee to fail the fit test. Therefore the grimace 
    exercise has been retained as one of the required QNFT fit testing 
    exercises.
        The Air Conditioning Contractors of America (Ex. 54-248) questioned 
    the need to require employees to read from a text, such as the Rainbow 
    Passage. Members of the association stated that their technicians had 
    their own methods of determining fit. As stated above, however, OSHA 
    believes that standardized fit testing protocols provide important 
    safety benefits to employees. To the extent that employers develop 
    other valid fit test methods, Part II of Appendix A provides a 
    procedure through which they can seek OSHA approval of those fit test 
    protocols. The talking exercise requirement is also not onerous. To 
    perform this exercise, the employee must either read from a prepared 
    text such as the Rainbow Passage, count backward from 100, or recite a 
    memorized poem or song. These alternatives provide employers and 
    employees with some flexibility when performing this exercise.
    Qualitative Fit Test (QLFT) Protocols--Appendix A, Paragraph B
        B.1. General. Provision B.1.(a) of Part I of Appendix A on 
    qualitative fit test protocols contains two general provisions relating 
    to QLFT. The provisions are substantively the same as in the proposal. 
    The term ``assure'' has been replaced by ``ensure,'' reflecting a 
    change that has been made throughout the regulatory text.
        Provision B.1.(a) requires the employer to ensure that the person 
    administering QLFT be able to perform tests correctly, to recognize 
    invalid tests, and to ensure that the test equipment is in proper 
    working order. This applies regardless of whether the tester works 
    directly for the employer or for an outside contractor. When QLFT is 
    performed by the employer's own personnel, the testers must be properly
    
    [[Page 1229]]
    
    trained in the performance of the particular QLFT protocol that will be 
    used. If outside contractors are used to provide fit testing support, 
    the employer must ensure that the test operators performing the fit 
    testing protocols are trained, and can competently administer the QLFT 
    according to the OSHA protocols. This provision is performance 
    oriented, since it lists the abilities the test operator needs, but 
    does not describe a specific training program. The type of QLFT 
    operator training needed is specific to the QLFT method selected, and 
    new methods may be developed in the future that require additional 
    training.
        The second provision, B.1.(b), requires that the QLFT equipment be 
    kept clean and well maintained so it operates within its designed 
    parameters. For example, the nebulizers used for the saccharin and 
    Bitrex QLFT protocols can clog when not properly cleaned and 
    maintained, resulting in invalid tests. The test operator must maintain 
    the equipment used for fit testing to ensure proper performance. The 
    requirement is again performance oriented, since the QLFT equipment 
    used will vary with the type of QLFT selected.
        There are four qualitative fit test protocols approved in this 
    Appendix. The isoamyl acetate (IAA) test determines whether a 
    respirator is protecting a user by questioning whether the user can 
    smell the distinctive odor of IAA. Both the saccharin and Bitrex tests 
    involve substances with distinctive tastes, which should not be 
    detected through an effective respirator. The irritant smoke test 
    involves a substance that elicits an involuntary irritation response in 
    those exposed to it.
        B.2--Isoamyl acetate protocol. The IAA test protocol included in 
    the final standard evolved out of the IAA protocol OSHA originally 
    adopted for the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025). It requires that an 
    employee first be tested to determine if the employee can detect the 
    odor of IAA, often called banana oil because it gives off a distinctive 
    banana-like smell. The fit test is only to be conducted on employees 
    who can detect this odor. An employee passes the fit test with a 
    particular respirator if he/she cannot detect the IAA odor while 
    wearing the respirator. The primary drawback of the test is the strong 
    ability of IAA to induce ``odor fatigue,'' so that an individual 
    quickly loses the ability to detect the odor if exposed to it for any 
    period of time. Odor sensitivity is the key to the IAA fit test, and 
    any decrease in the employee's odor sensitivity due to background 
    levels of IAA could invalidate IAA fit testing. For this reason several 
    provisions of the protocol are intended to minimize the possibility of 
    background exposure to IAA that could impair the test subject's ability 
    to detect the odor in the fit test.
        IAA vapor easily penetrates a particulate filter, and the IAA 
    protocol therefore cannot be used to fit test particulate respirators 
    unless the respirator is equipped with an organic vapor filter. The 
    protocol requires that separate rooms be used for the odor screening 
    and fit tests, and that the rooms be ventilated sufficiently to ensure 
    that there is no detectable odor of IAA prior to a test being 
    conducted. In prior standards, OSHA has required that separate 
    ventilation systems, in addition to separate rooms, be used for these 
    functions (e.g., Lead [47 FR 51114]). OSHA proposed to do the same in 
    this standard. However, OSHA has been convinced by the comment of Mobil 
    Oil Corporation (Ex. 54-234) that this elaborate precaution against 
    odor fatigue and general background contamination is burdensome and 
    unnecessary. OSHA agrees with Mobil that the ventilation simply needs 
    to be adequate to prevent IAA odor from becoming evident in the rooms 
    where odor sensitivity testing and respirator selection and donning 
    take place, and that the need to have separate ventilation systems for 
    IAA fit testing will make it unnecessarily difficult to find an 
    acceptable building in which to perform fit testing. OSHA is therefore 
    removing the requirements that the odor threshold screening test and 
    fit test rooms not be connected to the same ventilation system. 
    Instead, the ventilation requirement is stated in performance language 
    in the final standard: the testing rooms must be sufficiently 
    ventilated to prevent the odor of IAA from becoming evident to the 
    employee to be tested. OSHA believes that this performance-based 
    language will be sufficient to alert employers to the requirement to 
    prevent olfactory fatigue among workers being fit tested by preventing 
    a buildup of IAA in the general room air.
        The proposed IAA protocol required that the test atmosphere be 
    generated by wetting a paper towel or other absorbent material with 
    0.75 cc of pure IAA and suspending the towel from a hook at the tip 
    center of the test chamber. Two commenters stated that the standard 
    should also allow the test atmosphere to be generated by the use of 
    commercially prepared test swabs or IAA ampules as long as these 
    methods generate the required airborne concentrations of IAA (Mobil Oil 
    (Ex. 54-234); Bath Iron Works (Ex. 54-340)).
        OSHA agrees that alternative methods of generating the IAA test 
    atmosphere should be permitted as long as those methods have been shown 
    to reproducibly generate the minimum concentration of IAA needed for a 
    successful fit test. The National Bureau of Standards (Ex. 64-182), in 
    its report on fit testing of half mask respirators using the IAA 
    protocol in the OSHA lead standard, found that the minimum IAA 
    concentration inside the test chamber was 100 ppm during fit testing. 
    Accordingly, the IAA protocol in Appendix A of the final standard has 
    been modified to permit the use of test swabs or ampules as long as 
    these have been shown to generate a test atmosphere concentration 
    comparable to that generated by the towel-saturation method in the 
    proposed standard. An employer who wishes to use test swabs or ampules 
    would need to demonstrate that the swabs or ampules generate an 
    acceptable test atmosphere. For this purpose, the employer may rely on 
    data obtained from the manufacturer of the swabs or ampules as long as 
    the employer uses the products in a way that reproduces the 
    concentrations obtained by the manufacturer under the manufacturer's 
    test conditions.
        OSHA has also added a provision recommended by the American 
    Industrial Hygiene Association (Ex. 54-208) to reduce the possibility 
    of test area contamination from used paper towels. AIHA recommended 
    that B.2.(b)(10) be revised to ensure that the used towels are stored 
    in self-sealing bags to prevent test area contamination. OSHA adopted 
    the language changes the AIHA proposed; the final standard requires 
    that used IAA towels be removed from the test chamber to avoid test 
    area contamination.
        AIHA (Ex. 54-208) also recommended that OSHA remove the language in 
    B.2.(b)(2) of the IAA fit test protocol requiring that organic vapor 
    cartridges be changed at least weekly. AIHA stated that a fit test 
    operator who is competent to implement an adequate QLFT program will be 
    able to determine an adequate cartridge change schedule. OSHA agrees, 
    and has removed the language requiring weekly filter changes, because 
    weekly changes may overstate or understate appropriate frequencies. 
    However, the program administrator or the fit test operator must 
    replace the cartridges as appropriate to ensure their proper function.
        After the close of the NPRM comment period and the hearings, during 
    the post-hearing comment period, the ISEA (Ex. 54-363B) submitted a 
    report on fit testing for full facepiece respirators
    
    [[Page 1230]]
    
    using an IAA QLFT protocol for which the test concentration of IAA was 
    raised to 10 times the concentration used in the OSHA-accepted IAA 
    protocol. ISEA reported that the pass/fail cutoff for the modified IAA 
    QLFT was a required fit factor of 1000, and that this increased IAA 
    concentration fit test could therefore be used to test full facepiece 
    respirators for use where ambient exposures were 100 times the PEL. 
    ISEA stated that the validation data that it submitted for this new IAA 
    fit test meet the validation requirements of the September 17, 1989 
    ANSI Z88.10 draft standard entitled ``Respirator Fit Test Methods.'' 
    OSHA notes, however, that all draft provisions of the draft ANSI fit 
    testing standard are still subject to change until published as part of 
    the final ANSI Z88.10 standard. Further, ISEA did not indicate that the 
    test met the validation criteria proposed by OSHA. In addition, no 
    comments were received from the regulated community on this modified 
    IAA protocol. Since the proposed, ISEA-modified, IAA qualitative fit 
    test was submitted as a post-hearing comment, an opportunity did not 
    exist for the regulated community to comment on it as part of this 
    rulemaking record. The revised IAA fit test, therefore, has not 
    received the review and public comment to which the other new fit tests 
    (i.e., Portacount, CNP, Bitrex) were subjected during this rulemaking. 
    Accordingly, OSHA is not adding the modified IAA fit test for full 
    facepieces to the final standard's fit test protocols. This Appendix 
    establishes procedures for OSHA acceptance of new fit test protocols, 
    and a proponent of the modified IAA fit test may submit it for review 
    under those procedures.
        B.3 and B.4--Saccharin Solution and BitrexTM (Denatonium 
    benzoate) Solution Aerosol Protocols. The protocols for the saccharin 
    and Bitrex solution aerosol fit test methods are similar. Both involve 
    test agents that a test subject will taste if his or her respirator is 
    not functioning effectively. Saccharin is a sugar substitute with a 
    sweet taste, and Bitrex is a bitter taste-aversion agent. In both 
    cases, the subjects are first tested to ascertain that they are in fact 
    able to taste the test agent being used, and then are tested with a 
    respirator. During the fit test the subjects are instructed to breathe 
    with their mouths slightly open and their tongues extended. If they can 
    taste the test agent during the fit test, the test has failed.
        The proposal included the saccharin protocol but not the Bitrex 
    protocol, which was not validated until after the proposal was issued. 
    The saccharin protocol was identical to that contained in the Lead 
    standard (29 CFR 1910.1025, Appendix D II; 29 CFR 1910.1027 (Cadmium); 
    29 CFR 1910.1028 (Benzene); 29 CFR 1910.1048 (Formaldehyde); 29 CFR 
    1910.1050 (Methylenedianaline); 29 CFR 1910.1051 (1-3 Butadiene)). 
    Several commenters (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-219, 54-363) recommended 
    minor revisions to the language of the protocol to correct specific 
    problems, and to clarify the procedures. In response to these comments, 
    the formula for preparing the threshold check solution has been revised 
    to remove an error in dilution contained in the lead standard protocol. 
    OSHA has also changed the requirement that employees being tested open 
    their mouths wide to a requirement that they open their mouths 
    slightly, since opening the mouth wide could distort normal facepiece 
    fit and invalidate the test results. Opening the mouth slightly is 
    sufficient to allow the employee to detect leakage of the test agent 
    into the respirator when testing for facepiece seal leakage.
        The final standard also does not restrict employers to using a 
    DeVilbiss Model 40 nebulizer but also allows them to use an equivalent 
    test nebulizer. Allowing the use of alternative nebulizers that can 
    produce an acceptable test atmosphere is a change from the lead 
    standard protocol, which allowed only the use of the DeVilbiss 
    nebulizer. Finally, the protocol now states clearly that, to elicit a 
    taste response, a minimum of ten nebulizer squeezes is required during 
    the threshold screening. This matches the minimum number of squeezes of 
    the fit test nebulizer required by the protocol.
        NIOSH (Ex. 54-437) was the only participant to object to the 
    saccharin aerosol protocol. NIOSH is concerned that saccharin is a 
    potential carcinogen, and it believes that Bitrex is an acceptable 
    alternative test agent. Although saccharin is suspected of being a 
    carcinogen when ingested in large quantities over long periods of time, 
    it is not a substance that OSHA has regulated, and even NIOSH does not 
    have a Recommended Exposure Limit for it. A test subject would be 
    exposed to saccharin only for a brief time during the pre-test 
    sensitivity check, and again either upon failing the test or during the 
    post-test sensitivity check. Either exposure would likely occur only 
    once a year. These exposures would be very low, at or near the 
    threshold of detectability, and it is extremely unlikely that they pose 
    a significant risk to the health of employees or that they would exceed 
    any realistic exposure limit that may be established.
        Moreover, although the Bitrex fit test protocol is an acceptable 
    alternative for situations in which the saccharin protocol is used, 
    Bitrex is not as widely available as saccharin, and the test is not as 
    widely accepted. The Bitrex QLFT protocol was developed by 3M (Ex. 54-
    218). The test protocol is essentially the same as that for the 
    saccharin QLFT, with changes made in preparing the threshold check 
    solution and the fit test solution to account for the non-linear taste 
    sensitivity of Bitrex. A recent paper by Mullins, Danisch, and Johnston 
    (Ex. 178) in the November 1995 AIHA journal describes the development 
    of the Bitrex QLFT method. Validation testing consisted of 150 paired 
    qualitative and quantitative fit tests, with test volunteers using half 
    mask respirators. The Bitrex fit test was evaluated against the 
    saccharin fit test and found to have a test sensitivity of 0.98 and a 
    predictive value for passing of 0.98 at a fit factor of 100. The 
    overall test results were identical for the Bitrex and saccharin fit 
    test methods.
        Only one rulemaking participant objected to the possibility that 
    OSHA would approve the Bitrex test. Robert daRoza of the Lawrence 
    Livermore Laboratory (personal communication with John Steelnack, OSHA, 
    6/4/97) stated that this method has not been adequately tested by 
    multiple facilities, and that the ratio of the concentrations specified 
    does not follow the same logic used in the saccharin method. Until the 
    method is validated by multiple facilities and the logic of the 
    specified concentrations determined, Mr. daRoza believes that the test 
    should not be incorporated into the final standard.
        In contrast, NIOSH has recommended Bitrex as an acceptable 
    alternative test agent for saccharin (Ex. 54-437). OSHA has reviewed 
    the validation studies (Ex. 178) in depth, and believes that they 
    establish the Bitrex protocol as an appropriate fit test method. 
    Therefore, OSHA is approving this protocol.
    Irritant Smoke (Stannic Chloride) Protocol
        The irritant smoke protocol (also called irritant fume) uses 
    stannic chloride smoke tubes to produce a smoke containing hydrochloric 
    acid. Exposure to this test agent causes irritation resulting in 
    coughing. Because the response to irritant smoke is involuntary, the 
    irritant smoke fit test is the only QLFT method that does not rely on 
    the subjective response of the employee being tested (Exs. 54-325, 54-
    424). The protocol contains a number of provisions intended to minimize 
    employee exposure to the irritant
    
    [[Page 1231]]
    
    smoke, which can be harmful to some individuals at high exposure 
    levels.
        Irritant smoke is the oldest method of fit testing still in use. It 
    was developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory more than fifty 
    years ago (Ex. 25-4). OSHA has approved the protocol in all of its 
    health standards that allow QLFT (See 29 CFR 1910.1025 (Lead); 29 CFR 
    1910.1027 (Cadmium); 29 CFR 1910.1028 (Benzene); 29 CFR 1910.1048 
    (Formaldehyde)).
        The irritant smoke protocol also has the drawback, however, that 
    excessive exposure to irritant smoke can cause severe irritation and, 
    in some cases, permanent harm. For this reason, NIOSH (Ex. 54-437) 
    recommended against the continued use of irritant smoke for qualitative 
    fit testing. NIOSH has conducted the only study known to OSHA that 
    assessed the concentrations of hydrogen chloride produced from irritant 
    smoke tubes. When smoke tubes were attached to an aspirator bulb, NIOSH 
    measured concentrations of hydrochloric acid that ranged from 100 ppm 
    (measured at a distance of six inches from the end of the smoke tube) 
    to 11,900 ppm (measured at a distance of two inches). The use of a low-
    flow pump produced hydrogen chloride concentrations ranging from 1500 
    ppm to more than 2000 ppm within 10 seconds of turning on the pump. 
    NIOSH did not measure the amount of irritant smoke inside any 
    respirator facepieces (Tr. 411). The OSHA PEL for hydrogen chloride is 
    a ceiling limit of 5 ppm, which may not be exceeded at any time (29 CFR 
    1910.1000(a)). NIOSH has established an IDLH value of 50 ppm and notes 
    that a concentration of 309 ppm has been reported as the level of 
    hydrogen chloride causing a severe toxic endpoint in laboratory 
    animals. NIOSH also cited a recommendation by a National Academy of 
    Sciences committee to limit emergency exposure to 20 ppm (Ex. 54-437R 
    at p. 6).
        NIOSH performed these measurements after evaluating irritant smoke 
    testing at the request of the Anchorage Alaska Fire Department (Ex. 54-
    437R) because four firefighters had reported experiencing either skin 
    or eye irritation during irritant smoke fit testing inside a test 
    enclosure. NIOSH additionally described a telephone report it had 
    received of vocal chord damage caused by exposure to hydrochloric acid 
    during an irritant smoke fit test. OSHA notes, however, that this fit 
    test was performed inside a test enclosure and that the test subject 
    failed four consecutive fit tests using this challenge agent (Tr. 411).
        TSI, Inc. (Ex. 54-303), the manufacturer of the Portacount QNFT 
    system, also recommended that the irritant smoke QLFT protocol be 
    deleted from the final standard. Like NIOSH, TSI was concerned that 
    employees being fit tested may be exposed to hydrochloric acid in 
    excess of the PEL and, sometimes, in excess of the IDLH level. TSI also 
    stated that the proposed protocol did not contain a threshold test to 
    measure the employee's sensitivity to irritant smoke, and does not 
    provide a means for generating a stable test-agent concentration. The 
    3M Company (Ex. 137), citing the NIOSH recommendation that irritant 
    smoke not be used for fit testing, also recommended against its use. In 
    addition, 3M stated that ``the irritant smoke test has not yet been 
    completely validated. Neither the level of smoke necessary to evoke a 
    response nor the challenge concentration during the fit test have been 
    measured and shown to be reproducible.''
        In contrast, OSHA received comments urging that it continue to 
    approve the irritant smoke protocol. The Organization Resources 
    Counselors, Inc. (ORC) (Ex. 54-424) noted that the irritant smoke 
    protocol is generally considered to be one of the easiest, cheapest, 
    quickest, and most effective QLFT methods available, although ORC 
    recognized that precautions must be taken to minimize exposures. For 
    example, ORC pointed out that irritant smoke fit testing should not be 
    performed in a small chamber, such as an inverted plastic bag or hood, 
    since this could allow the accumulation of high concentrations of 
    hydrogen chloride. SEIU (Ex. 54-455) supported the use of irritant 
    smoke QLFT because of the benefits of its involuntary response. The 
    SEIU stated:
    
        SEIU objects to the use of non-irritant challenge agents 
    (isoamly acetate and saccharine). We have found that many of our 
    members are pressured to complete fit tests quickly and get back to 
    work, and hence will not acknowledge when a respirator has leaked 
    during a fit test. The reaction to an irritant fume is very 
    difficult to disguise.
    
        Willson Safety Products (Ex. 54-86) also supported the use of the 
    irritant smaoke fit test, citing ``the thousands of businesses who now 
    use the irritant smoke fit test procedure with a 50 ml squeeze bulb. 
    They find the irritant fume protocol the least complicated and most 
    easily performed of the QLFT protocols.''
        All of the comments urging OSHA not to approve the irritant smoke 
    protocol were based on the possibility that the test could expose 
    employees to high levels of hydrogen chloride. The irritant smoke 
    protocol in Appendix A has been carefully designed to minimize such 
    exposures. The initial and post fit-test sensitivity checks must be 
    performed with ``a small amount'' of ``a weak concentration'' of 
    irritant smoke, with care being taken to use ``only the minimum amount 
    of smoke necessary to elicit a response.'' (See provisions I.B.5(a)(4); 
    and 5(b)(3)). Test subjects are to be instructed to close their eyes to 
    prevent eye irritation during the test. The test must be performed in a 
    well-ventilated area to prevent any build-up of irritant smoke in the 
    general atmosphere (provision I.B.5(a)(5)). Unlike other QLFT methods, 
    the irritant smoke test may not be performed inside a test enclosure or 
    hood (provision I.B.5(a)(3)).
        Persons being fit tested must pass a user seal check before the fit 
    testing begins (See provision I.A.8). The irritant smoke fit test 
    starts with a small amount of the irritant smoke being produced from a 
    smoke tube, and the person being tested wafting a small portion of the 
    smoke toward his or her breathing zone to determine if any gross 
    facepiece leakage occurs. Only after determining that the initial fit 
    is adequate does the operator direct smoke at the facepiece seal area, 
    starting at least 12 inches away from the head and working around the 
    seal area and gradually approaching the test subject's face. Because 
    the test is performed in an open area, the person being tested can step 
    back into clean air any time irritant smoke is detected within the 
    mask. This limits the maximum exposure to as little as one breath of 
    irritant smoke.
        Following this protocol would have avoided both of the adverse 
    reaction incidents NIOSH described. In the Anchorage case, positive 
    pressure SCBAs were fit tested by placing the users inside a test 
    enclosure and pumping it full of irritant smoke. The users were 
    apparently not warned to close their eyes during the fit test. The use 
    of a test enclosure is expressly prohibited in the OSHA protocol, as is 
    exposing test subjects to more than the minimum amount of smoke 
    necessary to elicit a response. And test subjects must be instructed to 
    close their eyes during testing. The test subject in the second 
    incident who suffered damage to her vocal cords was also tested inside 
    a test enclosure; in addition, she failed four consecutive fit tests 
    involving this agent. Repeated testing of a subject who fails the test 
    not once, but four consecutive times, inside a test enclosure filled 
    with irritant smoke is prohibited by the OSHA protocol. Following the 
    OSHA-accepted protocol would have reduced to substantially lower levels 
    the exposures received by these employees.
    
    [[Page 1232]]
    
        In approving this fit test protocol, OSHA is not discounting the 
    evidence that irritant smoke can cause adverse reactions in test 
    subjects. All of the cases OSHA is aware of, however, involve tests 
    that were not done in a way that OSHA considers acceptable, and 
    consequently exposed the test subjects to excessive concentrations of 
    irritant smoke. OSHA emphasizes the critical importance of following 
    its approved protocol, including all of the safeguards against 
    excessive exposure, when this test is used. Indeed, paragraph (f)(5) 
    requires that employers follow these protocols and failure to do so 
    constitutes a violation of the standard.
        Participants also made a number of suggestions about specific 
    aspects of the protocol. The proposed irritant smoke protocol, which 
    was derived from protocols promulgated in other standards (29 CFR 
    1910.1025 and subsequent health standards), required the use of a low-
    flow air pump set to deliver 200 milliliters of irritant smoke per 
    minute. Several participants commented that an aspirator bulb should be 
    acceptable for generating an irritant smoke test agent, and that 
    further justification was needed for requiring a low-flow air pump 
    (Exs. 54-38, 54-86, 54-135, 54-309, 54-316, 54-324, 54-363, 54-424). 
    The Coastal Corporation (Ex. 54-272) said that requiring only the low-
    flow air pump would impose an unnecessary financial burden, and 
    recommended that OSHA allow for alternative methods, such as an orifice 
    adapter on a compressed air system, for delivering a uniform stream of 
    irritant smoke. The ISEA (Ex. 54-363) stated that its members were not 
    aware of a commercially available low-flow air pump, and also 
    recommended that an aspirator bulb, which it said was now used by many 
    fit test operators, be allowed instead.
        In response to these comments, the requirement that only a low-flow 
    pump may be used to generate the irritant smoke has been changed in the 
    final standard. In addition to the low-flow pump, an aspirator squeeze 
    bulb may be used to generate the irritant smoke for fit testing. 
    However, care must be taken by the fit test operator to ensure that the 
    aspirator bulb produces irritant smoke at the required flow rate of 200 
    ml/minute. Since aspirator bulbs vary in size, the person performing 
    the fit test must know the volume of the aspirator bulb being used to 
    push air through the smoke tube. The number of bulb squeezes per minute 
    will vary depending on bulb volume. For example, a large 50 ml bulb 
    would need four squeezes per minute to produce the required volume of 
    irritant smoke, while a smaller 25 ml bulb would need eight squeezes 
    per minute. The squeezes should be uniform, and evenly spaced out 
    through each minute to maintain a relatively constant flow of irritant 
    smoke. The use of an aspirator bulb to deliver the test agent at a 
    stable, constant rate requires some skill on the part of the test 
    operator, since each squeeze can be different, and care must be taken 
    by the fit test operator to produce a steady stream of irritant smoke. 
    An aspirator bulb can produce a large amount of irritant smoke during a 
    single squeeze. However, the squeeze bulb method when properly 
    performed can be an effective fit test for determining facepiece fit. 
    Willson Safety Products (Exs. 54-86) submitted a March 4, 1991 letter 
    of interpretation it had received from Thomas Shepich of the OSHA 
    Directorate of Technical Support regarding the use of a squeeze bulb 
    for performing the irritant smoke QLFT under the asbestos, lead, 
    benzene and formaldehyde standards. Mr. Shepich stated:
    
        In your letter you indicated that a majority of your customers 
    use a 50 ml rubber squeeze bulb that is capable of delivering a flow 
    of 200 ml of air per minute if used correctly. You also express 
    concern over the need to spend $500.00 or more to use a mechanical 
    pump since the rubber squeeze bulb can adequately meet the intent of 
    the OSHA standard.
        The QLFT method is a pass/fail test. Since a rubber squeeze bulb 
    generated challenge agent can be as effective as a mechanically 
    aspirated one, the intent of the standards has been met. The 
    training of individuals administering QLFT by the rubber squeeze 
    bulb method must include techniques on the proper number of 
    compressions per minute necessary to generate an appropriate air 
    flow.
    
        A few other modifications to the protocol have also been made. As 
    the ISEA (Ex. 54-363) recommended, the term ``irritating properties'' 
    has been substituted for ``characteristic odor'' in the irritant smoke 
    protocol in Appendix A, since the term better describes what the 
    employee experiences. Based on ORC recommendations (Ex. 54-424), the 
    reference to the MSA smoke tube has been removed, and language has been 
    added requiring that the end of the smoke tube be covered with a short 
    length of tubing to prevent injury from any jagged glass where the tube 
    has been opened. As the AIHA (Ex. 54-298) recommended, the description 
    ``involuntary cough'' has been added to the description of the response 
    to irritant smoke. A clear statement that no form of test enclosure or 
    hood is to be used with irritant smoke has been added, as supported by 
    ORC (Ex. 54-424), and in response to the problems described by NIOSH 
    and TSI (Exs. 54-303; 54-437R).
    Quantitative Fit Test (QNFT)
        Appendix A includes three quantitative fit test protocols, the 
    generated aerosol protocol, the Portacount TM protocol that 
    uses ambient aerosol as the test agent and a condensation nuclei 
    counter (CNC) as the test instrumentation, and the controlled negative 
    pressure (CNP) protocol (i.e., the Dynatech FitTester 3000 
    TM). Only the generated aerosol protocol was included in the 
    proposal. Each QNFT method is described in a separate section of 
    Appendix A.
        Part I of section C contains general requirements for QNFT. The 
    employer is to ensure that the individuals who perform the QNFT, 
    whether employees or contractors, are able to calibrate equipment and 
    perform tests properly, recognize invalid tests, calculate fit factors 
    properly and ensure that test equipment is in proper working order. The 
    employer is also responsible for ensuring that the QNFT equipment is 
    cleaned, maintained, and calibrated according to the manufacturer's 
    instructions so that it will operate as designed.
        Respirators used for QNFT must be in proper working condition. 
    Respirators are to be rejected if leakage is detected from exhalation 
    valves that fail to reseat adequately, near the probe or hose 
    connections, or if the respirator is missing gaskets. The requirement 
    in paragraphs (h)(1)(iv) and (h)(3)(i)(A) that all respirators used in 
    non-emergency situations be inspected for defects before each use and 
    cleaned after each use also apply to fit testing. The test operator 
    must inspect the test respirator for: cracking, holes, or tears in the 
    rubber body of the facepiece; cracks or tears in valve material and in 
    the inhalation and exhalation valve assemblies; foreign material 
    between the valve and valve seats; proper installation of the valve 
    body in the facepiece; and warped or wrinkled valves. Respirators with 
    any of these defects cannot be used for fit testing.
        A user seal check must be conducted prior to starting QNFT to 
    ensure that the respirator facepiece is properly adjusted. The use of 
    an abbreviated, or screening, QLFT before QNFT fit testing to identify 
    poorly fitting respirators is optional.
    Paragraph 2--Generated Aerosol QNFT
        The procedures for conducting the generated aerosol quantitative 
    fit test are widely recognized and accepted by the industrial hygiene 
    community. The test is performed inside a test unit such as
    
    [[Page 1233]]
    
    a hood, portable booth, or chamber. An aerosol of a test agent is 
    generated inside the enclosure. A stable ambient test agent 
    concentration must be achieved prior to beginning the test exercise 
    regimen. The test unit must be large enough to permit the employee 
    being tested to freely perform the QNFT exercise regimen without 
    disturbing the test agent concentration, and the unit must effectively 
    contain the test agent in a uniform concentration.
        During the test, the respirators are fitted with filters, such as 
    high efficiency HEPA, or P100 filters, that offer 99.97% efficiency 
    against 0.3 micron aerosols as defined by NIOSH in 30 CFR part 11 or 42 
    CFR part 84. Therefore, virtually any measurable leakage should be the 
    result of leaks between the respirator sealing surface and the 
    respirator user's face. If test agents other than particulates are 
    used, the sorbent/filters must offer a similar degree of collection 
    efficiency against the test agent. The concentration of the test agent 
    is measured both inside and outside the respirator. Commonly used 
    detection methods include forward light-scattering photometry or flame 
    photometry.
        Three methods were proposed for using the results of these 
    measurements to calculate fit factors: the average peak penetration 
    method; the maximum peak penetration method; and the use of an 
    integrator to calculate the area under the individual peak for each 
    exercise (59 FR 58919). OSHA proposed that the fit factor derived from 
    QNFT using test agents be calculated by dividing the average test agent 
    concentration inside the chamber (i.e., the ambient concentration) by 
    the average test agent concentration inside the respirator for each 
    test exercise (excluding the grimace exercise). The average ambient 
    concentration is derived from the measurement of the test agent 
    concentration in the test chamber (i.e., outside the respirator) at the 
    beginning and end of the test. TSI, Inc. (Ex. 54-8) stated that while 
    the language proposed for determining the average test chamber 
    concentration was correct, better accuracy could be obtained by 
    averaging the chamber concentration before and after each exercise, and 
    by allowing for continuous chamber concentration measurements. OSHA 
    agrees that the standard should allow for these other methods of 
    measuring average test chamber concentration, and has adopted the 
    revised language submitted by TSI.
        In the proposal, the average test agent concentration inside the 
    respirator was to be determined from the aerosol penetration during 
    each test exercise using one of three approved methods for calculating 
    the overall fit factor. TSI, Inc. (Ex. 54-8) noted that the intuitive, 
    but algebraically incorrect, method of computing the arithmetic average 
    of the fit factors for all exercises (i.e., for instruments that report 
    their exercise results as fit factors instead of peak penetrations) 
    would result in an overestimation of the overall fit factor. This 
    commenter suggested that OSHA adopt the equation from the draft ANSI 
    Z88.10 fit testing standard that correctly states how to perform the 
    fit factor calculation for instruments that report results as exercise 
    fit factors instead of peak penetration values. OSHA agrees and has 
    added this equation to Appendix A in the final standard.
        The test aerosol penetration measured for the grimace exercise is 
    not to be used in calculating the average test agent concentration 
    inside the respirator (See provision I.C.2(b)(8)(i)). The purpose of 
    the grimace exercise is to determine whether the respirator being fit 
    tested will reseat itself on the face after the respirator seal is 
    stressed during the exercise. With a properly fitting respirator, the 
    test instrumentation should record a rise in test agent concentration 
    inside the mask during the grimace exercise, and a drop in test agent 
    concentration when the respirator reseats itself. If the respirator 
    fails to reseat itself following the grimace exercise, the subsequent 
    normal breathing exercise will show excessive leakage into the mask and 
    result in a failed fit test. Since even a properly fitting respirator 
    may show increased test agent penetration during part of the grimace 
    exercise, the penetration value measured during the grimace exercise is 
    not to be used in calculating the overall fit factor.
        A clear association is required between an event taking place 
    during testing and the record of the event. This requirement is 
    critical for the proper calculation of aerosol penetration for specific 
    test exercises. Short duration leaks (displayed as peaks on the 
    recording instrument) can occur during, and as a result of, each fit 
    test exercise, and these leaks indicate poor respirator fit. These 
    penetration peaks are used to determine the fit factor. An inability to 
    measure these penetration peaks could result in the fit factor being 
    overestimated, since averaging all the test exercise penetration peaks 
    may obscure the high penetration levels that occur during a test 
    exercise. An inability to clearly associate the exercise event with the 
    recording makes correct calculation of the fit factor impossible.
        Several factors can affect the time interval between an exercise 
    event occurring during QNFT and the recording of the event, such as the 
    diameter of the sampling line, sampling rate, and the length of the 
    sampling line. Response time will increase with an increase in the 
    length and/or diameter of the sampling line. Therefore, the length and 
    inside diameter of the sampling line should be as small as possible. 
    The line used for sampling the test chamber test agent concentration, 
    and the line used for testing the test agent concentration inside the 
    respirator, must have the same length and inside diameter so that 
    aerosol loss caused by aerosol deposition in each sample line is 
    equivalent for the two lines.
        To minimize both contamination of the general room atmosphere and 
    test operator exposure to the test agent, the generated aerosol 
    protocol requires that air exhausted from the test unit must pass 
    through a high-efficiency filter (or sorbent).
        Since the relative humidity in the test chamber may affect the 
    particle size of sodium chloride aerosols, the protocol further 
    requires that the relative humidity of the test unit be kept below 50 
    percent. This requirement is consistent with manufacturer's 
    instructions for sodium chloride units.
        Prior to beginning the generated aerosol QNFT, a stable test agent 
    concentration must be achieved inside the test unit. The concentration 
    inside small test booths or waist-length hoods may be diluted 
    significantly when the employee enters the booth. Normally, the test 
    agent concentration will stabilize within two to five minutes.
        Adjustments to the respirator must not be made during the QNFT. Any 
    facepiece fit adjustments must be made by the employee before starting 
    the exercise regimen. This requirement will prevent manipulation of the 
    respirator during fit testing to achieve higher fit factors. The fit 
    test is to be terminated whenever any single peak penetration exceeds 
    two percent for half masks and quarter facepiece respirators, and one 
    percent for full facepiece respirators. Such leaks correspond to fit 
    factors below 100 for half masks and 500 for full facepiece 
    respirators, and indicate an unacceptable respirator fit. In such 
    cases, the respirator may be refitted or adjusted, and the employee 
    retested. If a subsequent QNFT test performed after the respirator has 
    been refitted or adjusted is terminated because of excessive 
    penetration, then the respirator fit for that individual must be 
    considered unacceptable, and a different respirator must be selected 
    and tested.
        OSHA had proposed that an employee successfully complete three 
    separate fit
    
    [[Page 1234]]
    
    tests with the same respirator using a QNFT protocol. The proposed 
    requirement was derived from the fit testing protocols in OSHA's 
    substance-specific standards, e.g., the Benzene standard (29 CFR 
    1910.1028). This proposed provision received more than 150 comments. 
    Many commenters stated that only a single QNFT was needed, and that the 
    additional tests would only increase the cost of fit testing without a 
    corresponding improvement in attaining a successful fit (Exs. 54-11, 
    54-26, 54-35, 54-37, 54-41, 54-44, 54-63, 54-83, 54-114, 54-124, 54-
    139, 54-208, 54-289, 54-316, 54-359, 54-363). Some said that requiring 
    three tests for QNFT would discourage employers from adopting QNFT (Ex. 
    54-164), or would force employers to use the less protective QLFT, 
    which requires only one fit test (Exs. 54-316, 54-359, 54-363, 54-434). 
    One commenter stated that three fit tests for QNFT would only be needed 
    if OSHA allows higher APFs based on the results (Ex. 54-84). (OSHA 
    notes that the concept of increasing the APF based on repeated fit 
    testing, originally contained in the ANSI Z88.2-1980 respirator 
    standard, was subsequently removed from the Z88.2-1992 revision of that 
    standard (Ex. 54-443)). The Bath Iron Works (Ex. 54-340) stated that 
    the variation between separate fit tests is significant, and 
    recommended that this problem could be resolved by increasing the 
    safety factor beyond 10. Other commenters suggested that increasing the 
    fit factor required for passing a single QNFT was an alternative to 
    requiring three fit tests (Exs. 54-139, 54-154, 54-173, 54-340).
        The final standard does not include the requirement to perform 
    three successful QNFTs because performing three tests has not been 
    shown in this record to better detect poor respirator fit. Increasing 
    the safety factor of 10, thereby raising the minimum fit factor 
    required to pass a QNFT, also has not been adopted by OSHA because 
    experience indicates a safety factor of ten is sufficient. While many 
    employers have, on their own, decided to require higher fit factors 
    during fit testing, data in the record do not support the suggestion 
    that increasing the safety factor beyond 10 is appropriate. Using a 
    safety factor of 10 is current practice in fit testing, and is used to 
    account for the variability in fit testing procedures, as well as other 
    variables (e.g., differences in respirator fit between the workplace 
    and during fit testing).
        The results of the fit test must be at or above the minimum fit 
    factor required for that class of tight-fitting air-purifying 
    respirator. The required fit factors are established by applying a 
    safety factor of 10 to the APFs for that class of respirator. For 
    example, quarter and half mask air-purifying respirators with an APF of 
    10 must achieve at least a fit factor of 100, and full facepiece air-
    purifying respirators with an APF of 50 require a minimum fit factor of 
    500.
    Paragraph 3--Condensation Nuclei Counter (CNC) QNFT
        A protocol for the ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter 
    (CNC) quantitative fit testing protocol (i.e., TSI, Inc. Portacount 
    TM) has been added to the final standard as an accepted QNFT 
    method. Many commenters pointed to the need for a CNC QNFT protocol. 
    Commenters, (Exs. 54-216, 54-326, 54-359) noted that the Portacount is 
    the most commonly used method, and that sufficient data have been 
    developed over the past several years to validate its effectiveness. 
    The use of the Portacount has been allowed by OSHA under a compliance 
    interpretation published in 1988. Commenters urged that the ambient 
    aerosol CNC method be included in the list of accepted QNFT methods in 
    the final standard (Exs. 54-216, 54-326, 54-359). OSHA agrees with 
    these comments. The written instructions for performing the fit test in 
    Appendix A are essentially the same as the instructions provided by the 
    manufacturer.
    Paragraph 4--Controlled Negative Pressure (CNP) QNFT
        The protocol for the controlled negative pressure (CNP) 
    quantitative fit test method (Dynatech Nevada FitTester 3000 
    TM) has also been added to the list of accepted QNFT 
    methods. This fit test method involves the use of a fit test instrument 
    to generate a controlled negative pressure inside the facepiece of the 
    respirator to measure the resulting leak rate.
        This fit test protocol is the same protocol allowed by OSHA under a 
    compliance interpretation letter issued in 1994 and based on various 
    studies on the performance of the CNP method conducted by its 
    developer, Dr. Cliff Crutchfield (Exs. 71, 54-436). These studies 
    reported results that were validated by comparing them to results from 
    the existing aerosol fit test systems. The data showed that the fit 
    factors measured with CNP are always lower than the fit factors 
    measured with an aerosol QNFT. OSHA had reviewed these studies before 
    issuing its compliance letter. OSHA believes that the CNP method, based 
    on Dr. Crutchfield's validation data, constitutes adequate support for 
    the method's reliability in rejecting bad fits. Although no body of 
    data is available that describes employer experience using the CNP 
    method in the workplace, OSHA is confident that the extensive 
    validation data showing consistently conservative results using CNP 
    means that this method will identify bad fits at least at the same rate 
    as other accepted fit test protocols.
        Several commenters urged OSHA to provide a protocol for the CNP 
    method and to list it as approved (See, e.g., Exs. 54-167, 54-216). In 
    addition, NIOSH in its comments and testimony stated that ``NIOSH 
    recommends that OSHA recognize * * * the following fit test procedures 
    as acceptable * * * Quantitative fit tests using controlled negative 
    pressure and appropriate instrumentation to measure the volumetric leak 
    rate of a facepiece to quantify the respirator fit'' (Tr. 359, Ex. 54-
    437). NIOSH further stated in its comment (Ex. 54-437) that ``[o]nly 
    the controlled negative pressure fit test system, which has been 
    excluded in the OSHA proposal, has been subjected to limited 
    validation'' (Decker and Crutchfield, 1993). The State of Washington 
    Department of Labor and Industries (Ex. 54-173) requested that OSHA 
    provide performance criteria so that methods such as ``Dynatech test 
    equipment'' described as ``proven'' and ``accepted'' may more easily be 
    used.
        Penelec/Genco reported favorable experience using the CNP method 
    (Ex. 54-167). As stated in its comment:
    
        Penelec/Genco recently quantitatively fit tested approximately 
    1500 employees on both half and full face respirator facepieces 
    using the Dynatech/Nevada FitTester 3000. For the past 10 years we 
    have performed fit tests using particle counting equipment. We are 
    most pleased with the results provided by the FitTester 3000 * * * 
    We believe that the science is sound, the equipment is reliable, and 
    the results are valid. When used as part of a complete respiratory 
    protection program, we believe controlled negative pressure fit 
    testing is an effective way of matching each person with the best-
    fitting, most comfortable facepiece respirator.
        All the peer-reviewed studies consistently show that controlled 
    negative pressure equipment and protocols always produce more 
    conservative fit test results than particle counting equipment and 
    protocols. Our experience totally supports this.
        We find the Dynatech/Nevada FitTester 3000 to be durable, 
    reliable and easy to use. Results are always reproducible, with 
    minimum variation. Employee acceptance is excellent, especially 
    because they get a direct perception of fit (leaks or lack of) which 
    corresponds well to the machine's fit results.
        Using the FitTester 3000 we are able to select more comfortable, 
    better fitting respirators for our employees. We believe that 
    certain respirator brands are far superior to others in terms of fit 
    and comfort. As a result, we have switched brands. Our
    
    [[Page 1235]]
    
    employees are far more satisfied with the fit and comfort of their 
    new respirators * * * (Ex. 54-167)
    
        TSI, Inc. (Exs. 54-229, 54-302) stated that OSHA should reject the 
    CNP method as a valid QNFT, since employees who are tested using this 
    method must hold their breath and remain motionless during the 
    measurement, i.e., they cannot perform the required exercises 
    simultaneously with the measurement. According to TSI (Ex. 171), 
    dynamic exercises are necessary to simulate the face seal stresses 
    imposed by workplace conditions. Dr. Crutchfield, in his post-hearing 
    submission (Ex. 134), responded to statements made by Jeff Weed of TSI 
    at the hearing and in TSI's submissions to the record regarding the CNP 
    fit test method. He discussed the ability of aerosol-based fit test 
    methods to measure transient leaks, stated that leakage occurs with 
    inhalation, and that the CNP method measured more respirator leakage 
    than aerosol-based systems, and further, that CNP fit factors ``tend to 
    align more closely with workplace protection factors than do aerosol-
    based fit factors.'' Dr. Crutchfield stressed the importance of being 
    able to effectively measure fundamental leakage into the respirator, 
    stating that ``most dynamic exercises do not seem to have a 
    statistically significant effect on measured fit factors.''
        OSHA recognizes the need to perform fit testing exercises to stress 
    the facepiece seal, and has included a full range of exercises in the 
    CNP protocol in Appendix A. They differ from the exercises for the CNC 
    method, since test results are not taken while the test exercise is 
    being performed, but are taken after the exercise is completed. 
    However, since the CNP method cannot distinguish changes in facepiece 
    volume that are related to movement during an exercise from leakage 
    into the facepiece caused by poor respirator fit, the CNP protocol 
    requires that the employee remain motionless during the short sampling 
    period that is required after each exercise. OSHA believes that any 
    changes in fundamental fit caused by the test exercises should, 
    consequently, be measured by the CNP method during the 10-second 
    sampling period following each exercise, and that this does not affect 
    the test's ability to detect poor fits when the seal is stressed.
        In addition to the OSHA-accepted CNP fit test protocol, Dr. 
    Crutchfield (Tr. 254) testified about a new fit test protocol for the 
    CNP method. This new protocol is substantially different from the OSHA-
    accepted protocol, which requires the performance of test exercises 
    followed by CNP measurements. The new protocol was also described in 
    detail in a letter from Senator John McCain of Arizona on behalf of Dr. 
    Crutchfield (Ex. 54-460). The new protocol submitted after the close of 
    the post-hearing comment period is described as consisting of three 
    exercises and two redonnings. The first exercise measured ``fundamental 
    respirator fit'' with the head facing forward. The second exercise was 
    a bending exercise, with the respirator parallel to the floor. The 
    third exercise consisted of vigorously shaking the head from side-to-
    side for three seconds, followed by a ``fundamental fit'' measurement. 
    The respirator user then is required to remove and redon the respirator 
    twice, with ``fundamental fit'' measured after each redonning. This 
    protocol results in five CNP measurements, from which a harmonic mean 
    fit factor is calculated and used to make a pass-fail determination for 
    the fit test.
        The information on the new protocol was not submitted to the 
    rulemaking docket in time to allow an opportunity for public comment. 
    OSHA, therefore, cannot include it in this final standard. Appendix A, 
    Part II establishes procedures by which OSHA will approve new fit 
    testing protocols after allowing opportunity for public comment. A 
    proponent of the revised CNP fit test protocol may submit it for 
    approval in accordance with Appendix A, Part II.
        Proposed part (II)(A)(12) of Appendix A required that the employer 
    maintain a record of the qualitative or quantitative fit test 
    administered to an employee. This requirement has been moved to 
    paragraph (m)(2) in the final standard to consolidate the standard's 
    recordkeeping requirements. The fit test record must include the date 
    and type of fit test performed, employee information, and type of 
    respirator. When a QNFT is administered, a record of the test (e.g., 
    strip charts, computer integration) must be retained. The fit test 
    records are to be maintained until the next fit test is administered. A 
    record is necessary for OSHA to determine compliance by verifying that: 
    the employee has been fit tested, both prior to starting respirator use 
    and at least annually thereafter; the tested employee passed the 
    qualitative fit test or achieved a sufficiently high fit factor to pass 
    the quantitative fit test for the required assigned protection factor; 
    the quantitative fit test was correctly performed, and the fit factor 
    calculated properly; and the model and size of the respirator used 
    during fit testing are the same as the model and size of the respirator 
    used by the employee in the workplace.
    New Fit Test Protocols
        Paragraph (f)(3) of the proposed rule stated that OSHA would 
    evaluate new fit test protocols under criteria specified in Section I 
    of Appendix A and would initiate rulemaking under section 6(b)(7) of 
    the OSH Act if the proponent of a new fit test method submitted the 
    method and validation testing data to OSHA for evaluation. The section 
    listed detailed criteria OSHA would apply in determining whether to 
    approve the new protocol.
        Some commenters recommended alternative approaches for approving 
    new fit test protocols. Mobil Oil (54-234) and the American Petroleum 
    Institute (Ex. 54-330) suggested that NIOSH should be the reviewer of 
    alternative fit test methods. Exxon (Ex. 54-266) questioned the role 
    OSHA would have in the approval of new fit test protocols, stating that 
    NIOSH or other agencies or laboratories could better review new fit 
    test methods. The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses 
    (Ex. 54-213) supported the use of other new fit test methods, provided 
    that they have been demonstrated to be statistically equivalent to the 
    existing OSHA-accepted methods, but stated that the administrative 
    rulemaking procedure OSHA had proposed would result in delays and 
    paperwork that would discourage the development of new methods. The 
    Composites Fabricators Association (Ex. 54-295) also stated that 
    subjecting new fit test methods to rulemaking would discourage an 
    employer from developing or adopting any fit test method not already 
    approved by OSHA. The Society of the Plastics Industry (Ex. 54-310) 
    stated that rulemaking on new methods was unnecessary, and that OSHA 
    should publish criteria for fit tests and allow employers to adopt new 
    methods without cumbersome rulemaking. The National Association of 
    Manufacturers (Ex. 54-313) proposed that publication of a new fit test 
    method in a peer-reviewed journal should be prima facie evidence that 
    the method had been validated.
        OSHA cannot accept the suggestion by some commenters that it should 
    accept new fit test protocols without following the OSH Act's 
    rulemaking procedures. Appendix A was adopted under the OSH Act's 
    rulemaking procedures and, under section 6(b) of the Act, can only be 
    modified through the same rulemaking procedures. Modifications to 
    Appendix A to add new fit test protocols would therefore
    
    [[Page 1236]]
    
    have to undergo the same type of rulemaking scrutiny, including the 
    opportunity for public comment, that the approved protocols have 
    received.
        In response to comments received, OSHA has modified Appendix A from 
    the version contained in the proposal. These changes streamline the 
    process of approving new fit test protocols by assuring that any new 
    method proposed is supported by data of high quality. As modified, 
    Appendix A also takes a more performance-oriented approach to the 
    approval process than did the proposal. Rather than listing the 
    detailed criteria a new fit test protocol must satisfy, final Appendix 
    A requires that a proposed new protocol be supported either by test 
    results obtained by an independent government research laboratory or by 
    publication in a peer-reviewed industrial hygiene journal.
        Both of these options will assure that any new fit test protocol 
    proposed will have a sound scientific basis before being submitted to 
    OSHA. Government research laboratories such as Los Alamos National 
    Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have considerable 
    expertise in reviewing new fit test protocols to determine whether they 
    are safe, accurate, and statistically valid. A favorable recommendation 
    by such a laboratory, along with the supporting data gathered by the 
    laboratory, will provide a solid basis on which OSHA can base its 
    evaluation. Moreover, because the laboratory's report and 
    recommendation will be in the public record when the OSHA rulemaking 
    proceeding begins, the public will have the opportunity to examine the 
    data supporting the proposed new method and to provide any additional 
    data either in support of or in opposition to the proposed method.
        An application for a new test protocol that has been published in a 
    peer-reviewed industrial hygiene journal will similarly provide a sound 
    basis for rulemaking on the new method. Like review by a national 
    research laboratory, the peer-review process assures that the data 
    supporting the method has been scrutinized and found acceptable by a 
    neutral party with expertise in evaluating fit test methods. The 
    published article would be available to the public when the rulemaking 
    commences, and interested members of the public would therefore be 
    apprised of all relevant aspects of the proposed method and would be 
    well-positioned to comment on the method.
        OSHA believes that the final rule's approach will streamline the 
    process of accepting new fit test protocols and avoid discouraging the 
    development of new methods. A rulemaking on a new protocol would thus 
    only begin after the protocol's proponent has established a solid basis 
    for seeking the Agency's approval. At the time the rulemaking begins, 
    interested members of the public would know the scientific basis on 
    which approval is sought and would be able to afford OSHA the benefit 
    of their views. The rulemaking process should therefore be able to 
    proceed more quickly than if OSHA were to evaluate data that had not 
    previously been scrutinized by an expert body and were to base the 
    approval process on the detailed criteria contained in Appendix A of 
    the proposed rule. And because the rulemaking process can be expected 
    to proceed expeditiously once a qualifying application has been 
    submitted, parties interested in developing new protocols should not be 
    discouraged from doing so.
        New fit test methods are to undergo notice and comment rulemaking. 
    This decision reflects OSHA's long experience in evaluating fit test 
    methods, which includes, in this rulemaking, such fit test methods as 
    the ``condensation nuclei counter'' (CNC) method and the ``controlled 
    negative pressure'' (CNP) method and, in past rulemakings, the 
    ``saccharin QLFT'' method and the ``isoamyl acetate QLFT'' method. In 
    the past 20 years there have only been a few new methods, but each has 
    required the evaluation of supporting data, and each new method has 
    generated wide public interest and comment. New fit test methods, 
    particularly those that involve new scientific principles and new 
    techniques for evaluating respirator performance, require full 
    consideration and public discussion of the issues by the regulated 
    community, competitive interests, respirator experts, and labor groups. 
    The notice and comment rulemaking process will ensure that OSHA 
    receives the necessary public input, as well as data required for open 
    evaluation, and that all interested parties have a chance to comment 
    publicly on any new method. Publishing a new fit test method in the 
    Federal Register should: elicit public comment and debate over the 
    merits of the method; notify the regulated community of the possible 
    availability of a new method; and solicit any additional information 
    that would be relevant for consideration before OSHA makes its final 
    decision. OSHA does not intend the rulemaking process to be cumbersome 
    or involved, but such a process will ensure that all information and 
    comments are available to the public, and that any known problems with 
    the new method are addressed before final acceptance.
        Adopting an approach that allows for the acceptance of new fit test 
    methods is a fundamental change to this standard. Fit test methods 
    directly impact a worker's health, since fit tests are designed to 
    identify poorly fitting respirators. Without the careful evaluation 
    that a new fit test method will receive during the rulemaking process, 
    OSHA cannot be sure that a flawed fit test method would not be 
    developed and marketed to respirator users. If used to select 
    respirators, a flawed method would lead to unnecessary worker exposure 
    to hazardous substances, since poorly fitting respirators would not be 
    detected by the method. Determining the reliability of new fit test 
    methods requires more evaluation, for example, than do new respirator 
    cleaning methods or new user seal check methods, which can be developed 
    by the respirator manufacturer (See Appendix B). New cleaning methods 
    and user seal checks need not undergo rulemaking to become accepted 
    methods. The more rigorous evaluation through notice and comment is 
    required only for new fit testing methods, where OSHA experience has 
    shown the need for a public review of performance.
        Moldex (Ex. 54-153) Mobil Oil (Ex. 54-234), Exxon (Ex. 54-266), and 
    the American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-330), recommended that OSHA 
    allow interested parties other than employers to submit new fit test 
    methods for OSHA acceptance. In the past, OSHA has allowed other 
    interested parties, such as the developers of new fit test equipment, 
    to submit new test protocols and methods for OSHA approval, and will 
    continue to do so. To make this explicit, the final rule states that a 
    proposed new protocol may be submitted by any person.
    
    Paragraph (g)--Use of Respirators
    
        The final rule requires employers to establish and implement 
    procedures for the proper use of respirators. Paragraph (g)(1) contains 
    specific requirements for ensuring an adequate facepiece seal each time 
    a respirator is used. Paragraph (g)(2) requires employers to reevaluate 
    respirator effectiveness when there are changes in environmental or 
    user conditions, as well as requiring that employees leave the 
    respirator use area if they detect any signs that respirator 
    effectiveness has been compromised or to perform any adjustments. 
    Paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) address procedures for the use of 
    respirators in IDLH atmospheres and in interior structural fire 
    fighting, respectively.
    
    [[Page 1237]]
    
        Paragraph (g) of the proposal addressed the same issues in the 
    context of requiring employers to develop and implement written 
    standard operating procedures. As suggested by a number of commenters, 
    OSHA has deleted the requirement for written procedures in light of the 
    fact that paragraph (c) already requires a written respiratory 
    protection program (Exs. 54-38, 54-163, 54-226, 54-428). In addition, 
    OSHA has moved to paragraph (d), governing respirator selection, the 
    proposed paragraph (g) requirement that employers ensure that SCBAs are 
    certified for a minimum service life of 30 minutes if they are to be 
    used in IDLH atmospheres, for emergency entry, or for fire fighting. 
    Final paragraph (g) thus contains only those requirements necessary for 
    the appropriate use of respirators in non-IDLH, IDLH, and interior 
    structural fire fighting atmospheres.
    Paragraph (g)(1)--Facepiece Seal Protection
        Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) are intended to ensure that 
    facial hair, other conditions potentially interfering with the 
    facepiece seal or valve function, and eyewear or other personal 
    protective equipment does not interfere with the effective functioning 
    of the respirator. Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) requires employees to perform 
    a user seal check each time they put on a respirator for use in the 
    workplace.
        Paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) prohibits an employer from allowing 
    respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who 
    have ``facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the 
    facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function.'' 
    Paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) prohibits tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by 
    employees who have any condition that interferes with the face-to-
    facepiece seal or with valve function. The prior standard prohibited 
    the wearing of respirators ``when conditions prevent a good face seal. 
    Such conditions may be a growth of beard [or] sideburns * * *.'' The 
    proposed requirement would similarly have prohibited employers from 
    allowing tight-fitting respirator facepieces to be worn by employees 
    ``with conditions that prevent such fits.'' ``Facial hair that 
    interferes with the facepiece seal'' was listed as one example of such 
    a condition. The final rule thus clarifies the language of the NPRM.
        OSHA's final standard affords employers more flexibility than the 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard, Section 7.5.1, which prohibits the use of any 
    respirator equipped with a facepiece, whether tight or loose-fitting, 
    if the user has facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of 
    the facepiece and the face. Although some commenters recommended that 
    OSHA adopt the language of the ANSI standard (Exs. 54-218, 54-219), 
    OSHA has determined that it is only necessary to apply the facial hair 
    prohibition to tight-fitting respirators.
        The rulemaking record (Exs. 15-11, 15-26, 15-28, 15-27A, 15-30, 15-
    33, 15-35, 15-36, 15-41, 15-52, 15-58, 15-62, 15-73, 15-77) also 
    contains strong evidence that facial hair can interfere with tight-
    fitting facepiece seals. According to the study by Hyatt and Pritchard, 
    discussed further below, facial hair includes stubble (Ex. 23-5). A 
    number of studies and comments that were submitted to the record (Exs. 
    23-5, 36-49, 36-31, 36-45, 36-47, 54-443D, 54-408) addressed the effect 
    of facial hair on respirator performance. McGee and Oestenstad (Ex. 23-
    2) tested eight volunteers on a closed-circuit, pressure-demand, self-
    contained breathing apparatus. The volunteers were clean-shaven at the 
    beginning of the study. They underwent quantitative fit tests at two-
    week intervals over an eight-week beard growth period. Beard growth had 
    a profound, negative effect on the observed fit factors. Most of the 
    volunteers started with fit factors of 20,000 when first fit tested; 
    after eight weeks, these same workers achieved fit factors ranging only 
    from 14 to 1067.
        In another study, E.C. Hyatt, J.A. Pritchard and others (Ex. 23-5) 
    investigated the effect of facial hair on the performance of half-mask 
    and full-facepiece respirators. Quantitative fit tests were performed 
    on test volunteers with varying amounts of facial hair, including 
    stubble, sideburns, and beards. The results showed that facial hair can 
    have a range of effects on respirator performance, depending on factors 
    such as the degree to which the hair interferes with the sealing 
    surface of the respirator, the physical characteristics of the hair, 
    the type of respirator, and facial characteristics. In general, the 
    presence of beards and wide sideburns had a detrimental effect on the 
    performance of the respirators. The authors concluded that:
         Individuals with excessive facial hair, including stubble 
    and wide sideburns, that interfere with the seal cannot expect to 
    obtain as high a degree of respirator performance as clean shaven 
    individuals.
         The degree of interference depends on many factors (e.g., 
    the length, texture, and density of facial hair) and the extent to 
    which those factors interfere with the respirator's sealing surface.
         Short of testing a bearded worker for fit daily, the only 
    prudent approaches are to require that facial hair not interfere with 
    the respirator seal surface (e.g., shave where the seal touches the 
    face) or to prohibit the employee from working in areas requiring 
    respiratory protection.
        Other fit testing studies also show that non-bearded workers have 
    significantly higher fit factors than bearded workers. Skretvedt and 
    Loschiavo (Ex. 23-3) tested both half-mask and full facepiece 
    respirators on 370 male employees who were fit tested both 
    qualitatively and quantitatively; 67 of the employees had full beards. 
    The bearded workers consistently failed qualitative fit testing. 
    Bearded employees using half-masks had a median fit factor of 12, while 
    clean-shaven employees had a median fit factor of 2950. For full 
    facepiece respirators, bearded workers had a median fit factor of 30 
    and clean-shaven employees had a fit factor of greater than 10,000.
        Only one study found no significant difference in respirator 
    performance for employees with or without beards. Fergin (Ex. 23-1) 
    studied workplace protection factors, but not fit factors, for three 
    different types of disposable respirators used by carbon setters during 
    carbon setting and ore bucket filling operations. The study, which 
    involved a total of 75 samples collected from 38 non-bearded and 22 
    bearded workers, compared ambient concentrations with ``in-mask'' 
    concentrations. Beard types were classified as light, medium, heavy, 
    fine, soft, coarse, and curly. Results showed no clear relationship 
    between type of beard and respirator protection factor. The authors 
    recommended that, ``* * * where acceptable protection factors can be 
    demonstrated for subjects with facial hair, the no-beard rule should be 
    waived.''
        OSHA does not find this study a persuasive basis for changing its 
    position on facial hair. The fact that an acceptable protection factor 
    can be obtained for a bearded respirator wearer in a workplace 
    protection factor study does not mean that the worker can achieve the 
    same protection level each time the respirator is used. First, 
    protection factor studies are designed to minimize program defects and 
    are often conducted under very tight supervision, which is generally 
    not typical of conditions in real workplaces. Second, beards grow and 
    change daily, resulting in variability of protection from one day to 
    the next.
        Fergin based his conclusion that respirator performance is similar 
    for
    
    [[Page 1238]]
    
    bearded and non-bearded workers on a statistical comparison of 
    geometric means, calculated separately for each type of respirator for 
    bearded and non-bearded workers. OSHA is more concerned about the wide 
    range of values than the geometric mean values. The protection factors 
    observed by Fergin varied greatly and ranged from 1-1041 (no beards) 
    and 4-332 (beards) for a 3M-9910 respirator; 12-36 (no beards) and 7-30 
    (beards) for a 3M-8706 respirator; and 5-1006 (no beards) and 42-391 
    (beards) for a 3M-9906 respirator. OSHA notes that the protection 
    factors of 5 and lower that Fergin achieved for both bearded and clean-
    shaven workers are below the NIOSH recommended protection factors for 
    disposable respirators of the types tested by Fergin (NIOSH Respirator 
    Decision Logic, 1987, Ex. 9).
        There are several other weaknesses in this study that undermine its 
    use as a counterweight to so much other evidence and expert opinion. 
    The study did not account for particle size or the differences between 
    protection factors obtained when the respirators were used in high as 
    compared to low ambient concentrations. Moreover, two of the three 
    respirators involved lacked adjustable face straps, which makes any 
    sort of tightening impossible. Finally, the author himself cautioned 
    that facial hair can significantly impair respirator seal effectiveness 
    in atmospheres that are highly toxic or IDLH.
        In fact, most rulemaking participants (Exs. 3, 13, 15-50, 23-2, 23-
    3, 23-5) agreed that facial hair can be a problem for respirator users, 
    although they suggested different approaches to address this issue. A 
    few commenters recommended that OSHA simply prohibit the use of 
    respirators by bearded workers, based on the ANSI rationale that beards 
    interfere with the functioning of all respirators (Exs. 54-443, 54-
    408). In general, these commenters were opposed to any requirement in 
    the standard that would have required employers to provide bearded 
    workers with loose-fitting respirators to accommodate their beards. 
    Other commenters stated that OSHA should require employers to provide 
    loose-fitting respirators (e.g., supplied-air hoods, helmets, or suits) 
    for use by employees with beards (Exs. 15-14, 15-31, 15-34, 15-46, 15-
    47, 15-48, 15-54, 15-55, 15-79, 15-81, 54-427, 54-387, 54-363). For 
    example, NIOSH recommended that, when the situation permits, employers 
    should be allowed to accommodate bearded workers by providing 
    respirators that will not be affected by facial hair (Ex. 54-437). 
    Daniel Shipp of the Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) also 
    stated that, in situations where employers do not intend to enforce 
    policies against facial hair, the ISEA would recommend that employers 
    provide respirators that do not rely on a tight facepiece fit (Ex. 54-
    363).
        Richard Uhlar and Michael Sprinker of the International Chemical 
    Workers Union (ICWU) stated that there should be some provision in the 
    standard to notify employees that respirators other than tight-fitting 
    respirators can be used by bearded workers (Ex. 54-427). This comment 
    is in basic agreement with NIOSH's recommendation that there should be 
    some provision in the standard to notify employees that other 
    respirators that can be worn with beards exist (Ex. 54-437).
        In contrast, other commenters (Exs. 54-408, 54-443) recommended 
    that OSHA prohibit the wearing of beards by employees who use 
    respirators on the grounds that employers should not have to supply 
    loose-fitting respirators because an employee is unwilling to shave off 
    his beard. More specifically, George Thomas of Duquesne Light Company 
    (Ex. 54-408) stated that his company does not support a requirement 
    that employers should provide workers with loose-fitting respirators 
    when employees have facial hair. According to Mike Rush of the 
    Association of American Railroads, requiring employers to provide 
    respirators other than tight-fitting air-purifying respirators would be 
    cost-prohibitive, because PAPRs cost 50 times as much as half masks 
    (Ex. 54-286). A. Gayle Jordan of Norfolk Southern Corporation quoted 
    the cost of a PAPR as $700 (Ex. 54-267).
        This standard does not interfere directly with employer policies 
    regarding facial hair. Instead, it requires employers to take the 
    presence or absence of facial hair into consideration in developing 
    policies for a given workplace; different policies may affect the range 
    of choices available. However, OSHA notes that several respiratory 
    protection alternatives, such as loose-fitting hoods or helmets, are 
    available to accommodate facial hair.
        Some commenters focused on the specific language in the proposal. 
    One commenter said that the term ``any hair growth'' should be 
    substituted for ``facial hair'' (Ex. 54-69). Another urged OSHA to 
    specify what acceptable facial hair growth was (Ex. 54-138). OSHA 
    believes that the term ``facial hair'' is appropriate because the 
    record shows that any facial hair, including beard stubble, can 
    interfere with facepiece seal (Exs. 23-5, 54-69). By prohibiting hair 
    that ``comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the 
    face,'' as well as hair that ``interferes with valve function,'' OSHA 
    believes it is being as precise as possible. OSHA believes that the 
    second phrase is necessary because employees with large beards may 
    shave the skin area where the facepiece of the respirator seals to the 
    face but the fullness or length of the beard could still block the 
    valve or cause the valve to malfunction.
        In a standard that will apply as broadly as this one will, it is 
    not possible for OSHA to specify every condition under which respirator 
    use may be affected by an employee's facial hair. Workplace situations 
    are variable, as is hair growth. OSHA has instead written the standard 
    in performance-oriented terms, stressing the importance of the face-to-
    facepiece seal and conditions that might interfere with that seal. The 
    thrust of the entire standard is on making sure that the fit and the 
    performance of the respirator are not compromised. Employers, 
    therefore, must ensure that respirators fit and perform properly.
        Paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B) prohibits an employer from allowing 
    respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who 
    have any condition that interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal or 
    valve function. Examples of these conditions include, but are not 
    limited to, missing dentures, the presence of facial scars, the wearing 
    of jewelry, or the use of headgear that projects under the facepiece 
    seal. As with the facial hair requirements, the intent of this 
    provision is to prevent an employee from wearing a respirator if there 
    is any factor that could prevent an adequate facepiece-to-face seal. 
    Therefore, conditions such as missing dentures or facial scars will not 
    prevent an employee from using a respirator where it can be 
    demonstrated that those conditions do not prevent an adequate seal.
        Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) requires employers to ensure that corrective 
    glasses or goggles or other personal protective equipment is worn in a 
    manner that does not interfere with the seal of the facepiece to the 
    face of the user. The proposal contained a similar provision that 
    addressed only eyewear. The prior standard contained a similar 
    provision, but also prohibited the use of contact lenses with 
    respirators. Final paragraph (g)(1)(ii) is consistent with the 1992 
    ANSI standard, which allows the use of corrective lenses, spectacles, 
    and face protection devices, providing that these items do not 
    interfere with the seal of the respirator; ANSI also allows the use of 
    contact lenses where the wearer has successfully worn such lenses 
    before
    
    [[Page 1239]]
    
    and practices wearing them with the respirator.
        Most comments supported the proposed provision (Exs. 54-68, 54-266, 
    54-286, 54-150, 54-155, 54-177, 54-189, 54-196, 54-209, 54-214, 54-219, 
    54-222, 54-346, 54-402, 54-408, 54-267, 54-286, 54-361, 54-232, 54-234, 
    54-244, 54-245, 54-263, 54-265). Some commenters, however, addressed 
    specific pieces of corrective eyewear. For example, Barbara Price of 
    the Phillips Petroleum Company recommended, based on the company's 
    experience with successful quantitative fit testing of employees while 
    wearing sports goggles, that prescription sports goggles be permitted 
    with full facepiece respirators (Ex. 54-165). Darrell Mattheis of the 
    Organization Resources Counselors (ORC) also supported the use of 
    prescription sports goggles, such as the mask-adaptable goggles (MAG-1) 
    by Criss Optical, with a full facepiece respirator, based on ORC 
    companies' successful quantitative fit testing experience (Ex. 54-424).
        Again, the standard is written in performance terms so that any 
    particular piece of equipment may be used as long as it does not 
    interfere with the facepiece seal. This has consistently been OSHA's 
    position under the prior standard as well. For example, in a compliance 
    interpretation letter dated April 7, 1987, OSHA addressed the use of 
    eyeglass inserts or spectacle kits inside full facepiece respirators. 
    OSHA stated that eyeglass inserts or spectacle kits are acceptable if 
    the devices: (1) Do not interfere with the facepiece seal; (2) do not 
    cause any distortion of vision; and (3) do not cause any physical harm 
    to the wearer during use (Ex. 64-519).
        OSHA again addressed the appropriateness of using the MAG-1 goggles 
    with full facepiece respirators and SCBAs in a September 20, 1995, 
    letter to the Excelsior Fire Department. By 1995, OSHA had the benefit 
    of four quantitative fit testing studies of MAG-1 goggles, two funded 
    by the goggle manufacturer and the other two funded by OSHA itself. The 
    letter to Excelsior stated that since the MAG-1 straps project under 
    the facepiece, use of the MAG-1 could in some cases violate paragraph 
    (e)(5)(i) of the previous standard. The letter concluded that obtaining 
    a fit with these goggles is quite complex because the respirator user 
    may be able in some cases to control the factors determining whether a 
    seal can be obtained. (For a full discussion, see letter, 9/20/95, Ex. 
    64-520, Docket H-049a.) In a post hearing comment submitted by the 
    Exxon Company, Steve Killiany commented about Criss Optical Mag 
    Spectacles with thin rubber straps (Ex. 183). Mr. Killiany stated that 
    the spectacles can safely be worn with full facepiece respirators as 
    long as users are fit tested with the spectacles in place during fit 
    tests. In its program, Exxon prohibits eyeglasses with temple pieces 
    for users of full facepiece respirators. Exxon also prohibits hard 
    contact lenses, but users are allowed to wear soft contact lenses.
        The NPRM contained a lengthy explanation of OSHA's proposal not to 
    include a prohibition against the use of contact lenses with 
    respirators in the final rule (59 FR 58921, 11/15/94). Although a few 
    participants requested that OSHA retain the prohibition, or at least 
    prohibit contact lenses in certain situations (Exs. 54-334, 54-387, 54-
    437), most of the commenters agreed with OSHA's conclusion that contact 
    lenses can be used safely with respirators (Exs. 54-68, 54-266, 54-286, 
    54-150, 54-155, 54-177, 54-189, 54-196, 54-209, 54-214, 54-219, 54-222, 
    54-232, 54-234, 54-244, 54-245, 54-263, 54-265, 54-346, 54-402, 54-408, 
    54-267, 54-286, 54-361). For example, NIOSH specifically recommended 
    that OSHA allow respirator users to wear contact lenses (Ex. 54-437). 
    Larry DeCook, President of the American Optometric Association, stated 
    that the Association was not aware of any reports of injury because of 
    the use of contact lenses with respirators (Ex. 54-235). Similarly, a 
    study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory showed that far 
    fewer firefighters who wore contact lenses with their SCBAs had 
    problems that necessitated the removal of their facepieces than did 
    firefighters wearing glasses (Ex. 38-9). Finally, OSHA's review of the 
    record identified no evidence that the use of contact lenses with 
    respirators increases safety hazards.
        OSHA notes that employers of employees who wear corrective eyewear 
    must be sure that the respirator selected does not interfere with the 
    eyewear, make it uncomfortable, or force the employee to remove the 
    eyewear altogether. Employers should use the respirator selection 
    process to make accommodations to ensure that their respirator-wearing 
    employees can see properly when wearing these devices.
        In this final rule, OSHA has also expanded the requirements of 
    paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to cover personal protective equipment other than 
    goggles and glasses. Other forms of personal protective equipment are 
    required by OSHA under specific circumstances (See, e.g., Subpart I--
    Personal Protective Equipment, and Section 1910.133--Eye and face 
    protection). Like eyewear, this equipment may interfere with the fit of 
    respiratory protection equipment. The generic phrase ``other personal 
    protective equipment'' applies to faceshields, protective clothing, and 
    helmets, as well as to any other form of personal protective equipment 
    that an employee may wear that could interfere with safe respirator 
    use.
        Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) requires employers to ensure that their 
    employees perform user seal checks each time they put on a tight-
    fitting respirator, using the ``user seal check'' procedures in 
    Appendix B-1 or equally effective procedures recommended by the 
    respirator manufacturer. The proposal would also have given employers 
    the option of using either the Appendix B-1 procedures or those 
    recommended by the manufacturer, which is also the approach recommended 
    by the ANSI standard. Although the prior standard also required a fit 
    check each time the worker used a respirator, it mandated that the 
    manufacturer's instructions be followed when performing the check.
        OSHA's prior respirator standard referred to respirators being 
    ``fit * * * checked.'' The NPRM used the phrase ``facepiece seal 
    check,'' and this has been changed in the final standard to ``user seal 
    check.'' The three phrases are synonymous, and all three were used 
    interchangeably by rulemaking participants (e.g., Exs. 54-218, 54-219, 
    who recommended that the term ``fit check'' be used to be consistent 
    with the ANSI Z88.2-1992 definition). Other commenters (Exs. 54-5, 54-
    408) used the term ``seal check'' or ``facepiece seal check.'' The 
    final standard uses the term ``user seal check'' because OSHA believes 
    that this phrase best describes the actual procedure to be performed by 
    the respirator wearer. Also, commenters stated that the similarity 
    between the terms ``fit check'' and ``fit test'' might lead to 
    confusion, causing employers erroneously to conclude either that 
    complete fit testing must be done each time an employee puts on a 
    respirator or that the fit check can be substituted for a fit test.
        In general, commenters (Exs. 54-221, 54-185, 54-321, 54-427, 54-
    414, 64-521) agreed with OSHA that user seal checks are necessary. 
    Although these checks are not as objective a measure of facepiece 
    leakage as a fit test, they do provide a quick and easy means of 
    determining that a respirator is seated properly. If a user seal check 
    cannot be performed on a tight-fitting respirator, the final rule 
    prohibits that respirator from being used. Appendix B-1, which derives 
    from the 1992 ANSI standard, contains procedures for user seal checking 
    of negative pressure and
    
    [[Page 1240]]
    
    positive pressure devices. It states that a check is to be performed 
    every time the respirator is donned or adjusted to ensure proper 
    seating of the respirator to the face.
        Participants expressed diverse views on whether the negative/
    positive fit check procedures in Appendix B-1 should be the exclusive 
    means of compliance with this requirement or whether procedures 
    recommended by respirator manufacturers should also be allowed. John 
    Hale of Respirator Support Services stated that the only way to perform 
    a fit check is to use the negative/positive fit check methods in 
    Appendix B-1 (Ex. 54-5). George Notarianni of Logan Associates also 
    recommended that reference to manufacturers' procedures for fit 
    checking be deleted, because he was unaware of any effective fit check 
    methods other than those described in Appendix B (Ex. 54-152). Richard 
    Miller of the E.D. Bullard Company, however, stated that the manner in 
    which fit checks are conducted should be left up to the manufacturer 
    (Ex. 54-221).
        The positive/negative user seal checks described in Appendix B-1 
    cannot be performed on all tight-fitting respirators. William Lambert 
    of the Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA) (Ex. 54-414) stated that 
    respirators for which negative or positive pressure tests cannot be 
    performed should not be used. He also recommended that OSHA work 
    cooperatively with NIOSH to develop a testing protocol that would 
    preclude approval of respirators that cannot be easily checked using a 
    positive/negative fit check.
        The rulemaking record, however, contains evidence that effective 
    user seal checks can be performed in several ways. OSHA reviewed a 
    study by Myers (1995) in which the authors described several ANSI fit 
    check methods, an AIHA/ACGIH negative/positive pressure check, and 
    manufacturer-recommended check methods (See Myers et al., 
    ``Effectiveness of Fit Check Methods on Half Mask Respirators,'' in 
    Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene, Vol. 10(11), November 1995) 
    (Ex. 64-521). In addition, the authors briefly explained that 
    manufacturers of disposable, filtering facepieces recommended covering 
    the mask with both hands, exhaling, and checking for air flow between 
    the face and the sealing surface of the respirator. Since it was not 
    the intent of the authors to evaluate different fit check methods, they 
    did not present any comparison data; however, they did conclude that 
    employing the manufacturer's recommended fit check procedure will help 
    detect and prevent poor respirator donning practices. OSHA is also 
    aware that some manufacturers make a fit check cup that can be used to 
    perform a user seal check even with valveless respirators. The final 
    rule thus allows for the use of the methods in Appendix B-1 as well as 
    manufacturers' recommended procedures for user seal checks where these 
    are equivalently effective. This means that respirator manufacturers' 
    recommended procedures may be used for user seal checking if the 
    employer demonstrates that the manufacturer's procedures are as 
    effective as those in Appendix B-1. The intent of the ``equally 
    effective'' phrase is to ensure that the procedures used have been 
    demonstrated to be effective in identifying respirators that fit poorly 
    when donned or adjusted. OSHA believes that the use of performance 
    language will provide incentives to respirator manufacturers to develop 
    new user seal check methods and to develop respirators for which user 
    seal checks can be performed.
        There are also respirators for which no user seal checks can be 
    conducted. A number of rulemaking participants argued that the 
    inability to seal check a respirator should disqualify these 
    respirators from use (See, e.g., Exs. 54-152, 54-408, 54-427, 54-321). 
    For example, William Lambert of MSA (Ex. 54-414) pointed out that, 
    since respirators are not put on and taken off the same way each time, 
    the seal check is essential to verify that the user has correctly 
    donned the respirator.
        OSHA agrees with those commenters who stated that OSHA should not 
    allow the use of respirators that cannot be fit checked. Without the 
    ability to perform user seal checks, employees may be overexposed to 
    respiratory hazards as a result of the respirator leakage caused by 
    multiple redonnings and adjustments. OSHA believes that user seal 
    checks are important in assuring that respirators are functioning 
    properly. If no method exists to check how well a respirator performs 
    during multiple redonnings under actual workplace conditions, OSHA does 
    not consider the respirator acceptable for use.
        Richard Olson of the Dow Chemical Company raised another issue 
    about paragraph (g)(1)(iii). He stated that use of the word ``ensure'' 
    was inappropriate in this instance, because employers cannot ``ensure'' 
    that user seal checks are performed:
    
        This is impossible for the employer to do in all cases because 
    the employer is not there. Supervision is not at the work site at 
    all times, sometimes the employee is the only person in the 
    facility. The employee can be trained to do this however the 
    employer can not personally be there to observe and ensure every 
    time the employee wears a respirator (Ex. 54-278).
    
        OSHA has stated consistently, in connection with the use of the 
    word ``ensure'' in other standards, that it is not OSHA's intent that 
    each employee be continually monitored. Further, OSHA case law has held 
    that employers are required by the use of the word ``ensure'' to take 
    actions that will result in appropriate employee behavior. These 
    actions consist of: rules with sanctions, training employees in 
    behaviors required, and exercising diligence in monitoring the safety 
    behavior of their employees. The past enforcement history of the use of 
    the word ``ensure'' in other OSHA standards, including the respirator 
    provisions in substance specific standards, shows that employers who 
    demonstrate this level of responsibility are in compliance with 
    provisions that use the term ``ensure.''
    Paragraph (g)(2)--Continuing Respirator Effectiveness
        Paragraph (g)(2) contains three sub-paragraphs. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) 
    requires employers to be aware of conditions in work areas where 
    employees are using respirators. Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) requires 
    employers to ensure that their employees leave the respirator use area 
    to perform any activity that involves removing or adjusting a 
    respirator facepiece or if there is any indication that a respirator 
    may not be fully effective. Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) requires employers to 
    replace, repair, or discard respirators if there is any indication that 
    they are not functioning properly.
        The prior standard did not contain any of these provisions; 
    however, OSHA proposed them after including similar requirements in a 
    number of OSHA substance-specific health standards. OSHA believes that 
    these provisions are important because the effectiveness of even the 
    best respirator program is diminished if employers do not have 
    procedures in place to ensure that respirators continue to provide 
    appropriate protection.
        Final paragraph (g)(2)(i), which states, ``Appropriate surveillance 
    shall be maintained of work area conditions, and degree of employee 
    exposure or stress,'' reiterates paragraph (b)(8) of the prior 
    standard. This means that employers are required to evaluate workplace 
    conditions routinely so that they can provide additional respiratory 
    protection or different respiratory protection, when necessary. By 
    observing respirator use under actual workplace conditions, employers 
    can
    
    [[Page 1241]]
    
    note problems such as changes in the fit of a respirator due to 
    protective equipment or conditions leading to skin irritation. The 
    employer can then make adjustments to ensure that employees continue to 
    receive appropriate respiratory protection.
        Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) requires employers to ensure that employees 
    are allowed to leave the respirator use area in several circumstances. 
    The intent of this requirement is to ensure that employees leave the 
    area when necessary. The final standard stipulates that, in these 
    cases, employees are to leave the ``respirator use'' area, not the work 
    area or workplace. This language is intended to give employers the 
    flexibility to establish safe areas in their workplaces that will 
    minimize interruptions in work flow and production while ensuring that 
    the area where respirators are removed is free of respiratory hazards 
    or contamination.
        Paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) requires employers to ensure that their 
    employees leave the respirator use area to wash their faces and 
    respirator facepieces as necessary to prevent eye or skin irritation; 
    such irritation occurs frequently with the wearing of tight-fitting 
    respirators. Many of OSHA's substance specific-standards, such as the 
    cadmium (29 CFR 1910.1027) and arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018) standards, as 
    well as the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard, contain provisions allowing 
    employees to leave the respirator use area to wash their faces and 
    respirator facepieces to prevent the skin irritation that is often 
    associated with the use of respirators. Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) is thus 
    consistent with these requirements of the Agency's substance-specific 
    standards, as well as with the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard.
        A number of participants (Exs. 54-6, 36-47, 54-362) questioned the 
    need for this provision, however. For example, Christopher Seniuk of 
    Lovell Safety Management Company stated that allowing employees to 
    leave the area to wash their faces is counterproductive because 
    allowing frequent breaks increases the chance of contamination while 
    putting on and removing the respirator (Ex. 54-6). Richard Boggs of ORC 
    (Ex. 36-47) also recommended that this requirement be dropped, on the 
    grounds that the frequency with which employees leave their work areas 
    is a ``labor relations'' issue. Kevin Hayes of ABB Ceno Fuel Operations 
    (Ex. 54-362) expressed a similar concern; he suggested that employees 
    be allowed to leave the work area periodically, rather than on an ``as 
    necessary'' basis, and asked that OSHA quantify the extent of skin 
    irritation that needed to be present for employees to leave the area 
    for washing and cleaning. Mr. Hayes was concerned that disgruntled 
    employees could use this requirement to ``establish a revolving door 
    from the work area.''
        Dr. Franklin Mirer, director of safety and health for the United 
    Auto Workers, supported this provision, however; he stated that 
    allowing employees to leave the area to wash would lead to fewer 
    hygiene problems (Ex. 54-387). OSHA agrees with Dr. Mirer: if employees 
    are allowed to wash their faces and respirators, the amount of 
    contamination will be reduced, employees' hands and respirators will be 
    cleaner, and employees will be donning cleaner respirators. OSHA 
    believes that, to protect employee health, employees must be able to 
    wash their faces and facepieces as often as necessary. The skin 
    irritation caused by dirty respirators can interfere with effective 
    respirator use (Ex. 64-65). Clearly, any skin irritation that causes 
    the wearer to move the respirator in a way that breaks the facepiece-
    to-face seal is sufficient to warrant an employee leaving the 
    respirator use area to wash. Whenever eye or skin problems interfere 
    with respirator performance, the wearer should be able to leave the use 
    area.
        Paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) require the employer to ensure 
    that employees leave the respirator use area if they detect vapor or 
    gas breakthrough, changes in breathing resistance, or leakage of the 
    facepiece, and to replace the respirator or the filter, cartridge, or 
    canister elements when these have been exhausted. These requirements 
    are consistent with the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (Ex. 9, page 
    8), which states that workers who suspect respirator failure should be 
    instructed to leave the contaminated area immediately to assess and 
    correct the problem. In addition, employees may need to leave the 
    respirator use area to change the cartridge or canister when the end-
    of-service-life indicator (ESLI) or change schedule demands a change in 
    canister or cartridge. (See the Summary and Explanation for paragraphs 
    (c) and (d).) The requirements in paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) are essential 
    to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the protection provided to 
    the wearer by the respirator. If, for example, the wearer can detect 
    the odor or taste of a vapor or gas, the cartridge or canister is 
    clearly no longer providing protection. Similarly, if a filter element 
    is so loaded with particulates that it increases the work-of-breathing, 
    it clearly must be changed to continue to be effective. The leakage of 
    air through the facepiece also requires immediate attention, because it 
    is a sign that the facepiece-to-face seal has been broken and that the 
    wearer is breathing contaminated air.
        Paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) requires employers to ensure that 
    respirator wearers leave the use area when the filter element, 
    cartridge, or canister must be changed in order for it to continue to 
    provide the necessary protection. In the proposal, the term ``filter 
    elements'' was used instead of the more specific language ``cartridge'' 
    and ``canister,'' and the proposed language generated several comments 
    requesting the Agency to clarify this terminology (See, e.g., Ex. 54-
    173). A representative from Monsanto Company suggested that OSHA should 
    change the language from ``filter'' to ``cartridge'' or ``canister'' 
    (Ex. 54-219) because filters apply only to particulates, not vapors and 
    gases. Larry Zobel, Medical Director of 3M, made a similar comment (Ex. 
    54-218). OSHA has amended the language in final paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) 
    to make it more precise, and the final rule uses the terms 
    ``cartridge,'' ``canister,'' and ``filter'' as these specifically 
    apply.
        Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) requires the employer to replace, repair, or 
    discard a respirator that is not functioning properly. This requirement 
    applies in addition to the provisions in paragraphs (d) and (h) of this 
    section that address the routine replacement of respirators and 
    respirator parts. The language of this paragraph has been changed from 
    the proposal to emphasize that a malfunctioning or otherwise defective 
    respirator must be replaced or repaired before the user returns to the 
    work area.
        Rulemaking participants agreed that respirators should not be used 
    if they are defective in any way (See, e.g., Ex. 54-362, Kevin Hayes of 
    ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations). However, one commenter, 
    Peter Hernandez of the American Iron and Steel Institute, objected to 
    the proposal's requirement that defective respirators be repaired 
    ``immediately.'' Mr. Hernandez stated that it is necessary immediately 
    to replace, but not immediately to repair or discard, a defective 
    respirator (Ex. 54-307). OSHA agrees that employers can delay repairing 
    or discarding respirators so long as the affected employees have been 
    issued proper replacement respirators. This was the intent of paragraph 
    (g)(8) in the NPRM, and this point has been clarified in the final 
    regulation by placing the word ``replace'' first and deleting the word 
    ``immediately.'' The intent of final paragraph (g)(2)(iii) is to ensure 
    that employees receive the necessary protection whenever they are in a 
    respirator use area. This paragraph
    
    [[Page 1242]]
    
    means that employers must ensure that employees in the respirator use 
    area are wearing respirators that are in good working order.
        The proposed rule would have required disposables to be discarded 
    at the end of the task or workshift, whichever came first (See 
    paragraph (g)(9) of the NPRM). A number of commenters (See, e.g., Exs. 
    54-309, 54-307, 54-442) discussed the use of, and the criteria for 
    discarding, disposable respirators. OSHA has deleted specific 
    references to the term ``disposable'' in the final rule and has instead 
    required, in paragraph (g)(2)(iii), that employers replace, repair, or 
    discard respirators if employees detect vapor or gas breakthrough, a 
    change in breathing resistance, or leakage of the facepiece, or 
    identify any other respirator defect, before allowing the employee to 
    return to the work area. This requirement thus focuses on the need for 
    respirators to function properly to provide protection to employees 
    rather than on a time schedule for discarding particular respirators.
        Some commenters stated that disposable respirators should be 
    allowed to be used until the physical integrity of the respirator is 
    compromised, which may take longer than one work shift (Exs. 54-190, 
    54-193, 54-197, 54-205, 54-214, 54-222, 54-241, 54-253, 54-268, 54-271, 
    54-307, 54-357, 54-171). For example, Peter Hernandez, representing the 
    American Iron and Steel Institute, stated that employees may perform 20 
    different tasks in a work day (Ex. 54-307). The implication of Mr. 
    Hernandez' comment is that workers who perform short duration tasks 
    would have been required by the proposed requirement to use many 
    disposable respirators in the course of such a day, which would be 
    unnecessarily expensive. Suey Howe, representing the Associated 
    Builders and Contractors, recommended that employees be allowed to keep 
    their disposable respirators in clean containers on days when the same 
    task may be performed intermittently (Ex. 54-309). Homer Cole of 
    Reynolds Metals Company stated that some workplace situations exist 
    where the environment is clean enough for disposable respirators to be 
    reused (Ex. 54-222). Randy Sheppard, Battalion Chief of Palm Beach 
    County Fire-Rescue (Ex. 54-442), stated that disposing of HEPA 
    disposable respirators after each use would be extremely costly for 
    large fire departments that respond to many emergency calls. He noted 
    that these respirators should be discarded, however, when they are no 
    longer in their original working condition, whether this condition 
    results from contamination, structural defects, or wear. In a post 
    hearing comment submitted by the North American Insulation 
    Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), Kenneth Mentzer, Executive Vice 
    President, and others stated that OSHA should make it clear that NIOSH-
    approved disposable respirators may be used when they provide adequate 
    protection factors for the exposures encountered. The authors of this 
    submission also stated that NIOSH-approved disposable respirators 
    provide protection and have some advantages over reusable respirators 
    (Ex. 176).
        Richard Niemeier of NIOSH (Ex. 54-437) recommended that dust-mist 
    and dust-mist-fume disposable respirators not be reused, on the grounds 
    that many of these models degrade in oil mist and humid environments. 
    He also recommended that only filters approved under 42 CFR Part 84 be 
    considered for use beyond one shift.
        OSHA has considered all of these comments in revising the language 
    in final paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to reflect a more performance-oriented 
    approach to the replacement, repair, or discarding of respirators. 
    Nonetheless, employers still have the responsibility, in paragraph 
    (a)(2), to ensure that respirators are suitable for each use to which 
    they are put. [See also discussion in NPRM, 59 FR 58922.]
    Paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4)--Procedures for IDLH Atmospheres and 
    Interior Structural Fire Fighting
        Paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of the final rule contain requirements 
    for respirator use in IDLH atmospheres. Paragraph (g)(3) addresses all 
    IDLH atmospheres, and paragraph (g)(4) contains three additional 
    requirements applicable only to the extra-hazardous environments 
    encountered during interior structural fire fighting. These two 
    paragraphs, which deal with requirements for standby personnel outside 
    the IDLH atmosphere and communication between those standby personnel 
    and the respirator users inside the atmosphere, are intended to ensure 
    that adequate rescue capability exists in case of respirator failure or 
    some other emergency inside the IDLH environment.
        Paragraphs (g)(3) (i), (ii), and (iii) require that at least one 
    employee who is trained and equipped to provide effective emergency 
    rescue be located outside the IDLH respirator use area, and that this 
    employee maintain communication with the respirator user(s) inside the 
    area. Paragraphs (g)(3) (iv) and (v) require, respectively, that the 
    employer or authorized designee be notified before the standby 
    personnel undertake rescue activity and that the employer or designee 
    then provide appropriate assistance for the particular situation. 
    Paragraph (g)(3)(vi) addresses emergency equipment needed by the 
    standby personnel so that they can perform their duties effectively.
        The prior standard, Sec. 1910.134(e), did not distinguish between 
    types of IDLH atmospheres. Instead, it distinguished between IDLH and 
    potentially IDLH atmospheres. It stated that only one standby person 
    was necessary when a respirator failure ``could'' cause its wearer to 
    be overcome, but that standby ``men'' (plural) with suitable rescue 
    equipment were required when employees must enter known IDLH 
    atmospheres wearing SCBA. Under this provision, at least two standby 
    personnel were required for known IDLH atmospheres (See, e.g., May 1, 
    1995 memo from James Stanley, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to Regional 
    Administrators and state-plan designees). In IDLH atmospheres where 
    airline respirators are used, the prior standard required that users be 
    equipped with safety harnesses and safety lines to lift or remove them 
    from the hazardous atmosphere and that ``a standby man or men,'' 
    equipped with suitable SCBA, be available for emergency rescue.
        The proposal would have required that, for all IDLH atmospheres, at 
    least one standby person, able to provide emergency assistance, be 
    located outside any IDLH atmosphere, and that this person must maintain 
    communication with the employee(s) in the IDLH atmosphere.
        The need for standby personnel when workers use respirators in IDLH 
    atmospheres is clear. The margin for error in IDLH atmospheres is 
    slight or nonexistent because an equipment malfunction or employee 
    mistake can, without warning, expose the employee to an atmosphere 
    incapable of supporting human life. Such exposure may disable the 
    employee from exiting the atmosphere without help and require an 
    immediate rescue if the employee's life is to be saved. Accordingly, 
    the standard requires that, whenever employees work in an IDLH 
    atmosphere, at least one standby person must remain outside the 
    atmosphere in communication with the employee(s) inside the atmosphere. 
    It also requires that the standby personnel be trained and equipped to 
    provide effective emergency assistance.
        A number of reports from OSHA's investigative files demonstrate the 
    types of failures that can give rise to the need for immediate rescues 
    of workers in
    
    [[Page 1243]]
    
    IDLH atmospheres. These cases illustrate that the absence of properly 
    equipped standby personnel greatly increases the risk to the employees 
    who enter the IDLH atmosphere. For example, a fire in a cold-rolling 
    mill triggered a carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system and created 
    an oxygen deficient atmosphere in the mill's basement. Two security 
    guards descended a stairway into the basement to reset the system. 
    Although the employees had been provided SCBAs, they left those 
    respiratory devices in their vehicle and took only a single self-
    rescuer with them. The workers collapsed upon reaching the bottom of 
    the stairway. No standby personnel were present and, as a result, the 
    workers were not discovered until 30 minutes had elapsed. Attempts to 
    revive them failed. This case illustrates that the suddenness with 
    which workers can be disabled in an IDLH atmosphere can prevent the 
    workers from leaving the atmosphere under their own power and 
    underlines the need for employers to provide standby personnel whenever 
    workers enter such atmospheres. If a properly trained and equipped 
    standby person had been present, that person could have notified the 
    employer that help was needed when the two workers collapsed and could 
    have initiated rescue efforts immediately.
        In another case, two mechanics entered a corn starch reactor to 
    perform routine maintenance and repair. Employee No. 1 detected the 
    odor of propylene oxide and then observed the chemical running out of 
    an open vent. Employee No. 1 managed to escape, but employee No. 2 was 
    overcome and died. A standby person equipped with proper rescue 
    equipment would have been able to provide immediate, effective 
    assistance once employee No. 2 was overcome and might have saved that 
    employee's life.
        Some cases from OSHA's investigative files involve fatalities that 
    occurred when standby personnel were present but were unable to prevent 
    the fatalities from occurring. These cases illustrate both the types of 
    failures that can give rise to the need for immediate rescue efforts in 
    IDLH atmospheres and the importance of standby personnel being trained 
    and equipped to provide effective rescue capability.
        In one case, an employee (No. 1) was working in a confined space 
    while wearing an SCBA. A standby person (No. 2) advised employee No. 1 
    that the respirator's air supply was low and that he should leave the 
    confined space. However, employee No. 1 collapsed and died before he 
    could exit. Employee No. 2 had no equipment with which to extricate 
    employee No. 1 from the confined space. This example illustrates, 
    first, that even an employee who is properly equipped when entering an 
    IDLH atmosphere may need to be rescued as a result of human error and/
    or equipment failure. It also illustrates the need for the standby 
    person to be equipped to be able to provide effective emergency rescue.
        In yet another case, an employee (No. 1) was sandblasting inside a 
    rail car wearing an airline respirator with an abrasive blasting hood. 
    A standby person (No. 2) was stationed outside the car. During the 
    operation, employee No. 1 swallowed a dental appliance and lost 
    consciousness. Employee No. 2 had not maintained constant communication 
    with employee No. 1 and only discovered that employee No. 1 had been 
    overcome too late to save his life. This case shows that the demanding 
    work often required by a worker constrained by respiratory equipment in 
    an IDLH atmosphere may lead to accidents that can disable the worker 
    and require immediate rescue efforts. It also illustrates that the need 
    for emergency assistance can arise at any time and without warning, and 
    that standby personnel must therefore maintain constant communication 
    with the worker(s) inside the IDLH atmosphere.
        Standby personnel must also be adequately trained and equipped to 
    protect themselves against the IDLH atmosphere if an emergency arises. 
    In a recent case, two employees (Nos. 1 and 2) were installing a blind 
    flange in a pipeline used to transfer hydrogen sulfide. As the flange 
    was opened, the hydrogen sulfide alarm sounded. Employee No. 1 tried to 
    remove his full-facepiece respirator, was overcome, and died. Employee 
    No. 2 had previously loosened the straps on his respirator to test for 
    the smell of hydrogen sulfide and was also overcome. A standby person 
    (No. 3) equipped with an SCBA was on the ground outside the area and 
    attempted an immediate rescue. Unfortunately, his respirator caught on 
    an obstruction and tore as he attempted to enter the atmosphere and he, 
    along with employee No. 2, was overcome and required hospitalization. 
    The case is another example of the type of human and equipment failures 
    that can endanger employees who must work in IDLH atmospheres. Although 
    the rescue effort in this case faltered, the presence of a standby 
    person equipped with an SCBA increased the chance that the employees in 
    the IDLH atmosphere could have been rescued before they were killed or 
    seriously injured, and the availability of appropriate respiratory 
    equipment reduced the risk to the standby person who attempted the 
    rescue. It illustrates the benefit of having standby personnel who can 
    undertake immediate rescue efforts and the need for such personnel to 
    be trained and equipped properly for their own protection as well as 
    the protection of the workers in the IDLH atmosphere.
        The proposed provision would have required only a single standby 
    person in most IDLH situations. However, firefighter representatives 
    urged OSHA (Ex. 75, Tr. 468-469) to retain the prior standard's 
    requirement for two standby personnel and to expand the provision to 
    cover all IDLH atmospheres. OSHA has determined, however, that outside 
    of the fire fighting and emergency response situations, which are 
    discussed in connection with paragraph (g)(4), environments containing 
    IDLH atmospheres are frequently well-enough characterized and 
    controlled that a single standby person is adequate. In most fixed 
    workplaces, the atmosphere is known, i.e., has been well characterized 
    either through analysis of monitoring results or through a process 
    hazard analysis. For example, employers in chemical plants have 
    conducted comprehensive process hazard analyses as required by OSHA's 
    Process Safety Management standard, 29 CFR 1910.119, to determine which 
    of their process units pose potential IDLH hazards. In such situations, 
    effective communication systems and rescue capabilities have been 
    established. In addition, in many industrial IDLH situations, only one 
    respirator user is exposed to the IDLH atmosphere at a time, which 
    means that a single standby person can easily monitor that employee's 
    status. Even in situations where more than one respirator user is 
    inside an IDLH atmosphere, a single standby person can often provide 
    adequate communication and support. For example, in a small pump room 
    or shed, even though two or three employees may be inside an IDLH 
    atmosphere performing routine maintenance activities such as changing 
    pump seals, one standby person can observe and communicate with all of 
    them. In this type of situation, one standby person is adequate and 
    appropriate.
        In other cases, however, more than one standby person may be 
    needed; paragraph (g)(3)(i) of the final standard therefore states the 
    requirement for standby personnel in performance language: ``one 
    employee or, when needed, more than one employee * * * [shall be] 
    located outside the IDLH atmosphere.'' For example, to clean and paint 
    the inside of a multi-level, multi-
    
    [[Page 1244]]
    
     portal water tower, a process that often generates a deadly atmosphere 
    as a result of cleaning solution and paint solvent vapors, employees 
    often enter the tower through different portals to work on different 
    levels. In such a situation, there will be a need for good 
    communications at each entry portal, and more than one standby person 
    would be needed to maintain adequate communication and accessibility.
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-6, 54-38, and 54-266) requested 
    clarification of the proposed requirements that employers ensure that 
    communication is maintained between the employee(s) in the IDLH 
    atmosphere and the standby personnel located outside the IDLH 
    environment. For example, Exxon (Ex. 54-266) requested that OSHA make 
    clear that, in addition to voice communication, visual contact and hand 
    signals may be used. In response, paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of the final 
    rule clarifies that visual, voice, or signal line communication must be 
    maintained between the employee(s) in the IDLH atmosphere and the 
    employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere.
        Under final paragraph (g)(3)(iv), employers must ensure that before 
    entering an IDLH environment to provide emergency rescue, standby 
    personnel notify the employer, or a designee authorized by the employer 
    to provide necessary assistance, that they are about to enter the IDLH 
    area. The employer will have determined, in advance, as part of the 
    written respirator program's worksite-specific procedures, the 
    procedures standby personnel will follow and whom they must notify in 
    rescue situations. The employer's emergency response team may provide 
    the necessary support, or other arrangements may have been made with 
    local firefighting and emergency rescue personnel. The language used 
    requires that the employer be notified, which provides the employer 
    great flexibility in determining who will respond to such emergency 
    rescue situations.
        Paragraph (g)(3)(iv) responds to concerns expressed by several 
    participants (Exs. 54-6, 54-266, 54-307, 54-330) about the obligation 
    of standby personnel to provide effective emergency rescue. A number of 
    comments emphasized that standby personnel should not attempt any 
    rescue activities without making sure that their own whereabouts are 
    known and monitored. According to Exxon (Ex. 54 266), ``the ``stand-
    by'' person should be able to summon effective emergency assistance and 
    only then provide the assistance.'' Christopher Seniuk of Lovell Safety 
    Management Company also stated that a standby employee should have a 
    telephone or radio to summon help and should not be expected to enter 
    an IDLH environment for rescue until additional help arrives (Ex. 54-
    6). The American Iron and Steel Institute (Ex. 54-307) agreed, stating 
    that the standby person should be in communication with the employee(s) 
    in the IDLH atmosphere and be ``able to assist in providing or 
    obtaining effective emergency assistance.'' The American Petroleum 
    Institute (Ex. 54-330) also stated that when the employee wears a 
    respirator in an IDLH atmosphere, the employer must ensure that 
    adequate provisions have been made for rescue.
        OSHA agrees that standby personnel should contact the employer or 
    employer's designee before undertaking any rescue activities in an IDLH 
    atmosphere. Accordingly, final paragraph (g)(3)(iv) includes an 
    employer or designee notification requirement. Although this 
    requirement was not contained in the NPRM, a similar requirement has 
    been included in other OSHA standards, e.g., the Permit Required 
    Confined Spaces standard, 29 CFR 1910.146, and the Hazardous Waste 
    Operations and Emergency Response standard, 29 CFR 1910.120. By 
    including this requirement, OSHA is pointing to the need for the 
    employer or authorized designee to take responsibility for ensuring 
    that rescue operations are carried out appropriately, that rescuers are 
    provided with proper respiratory equipment, and that employees are 
    adequately prepared to facilitate rescue attempts.
        On the other hand, the notification provision is not intended to 
    suggest that standby employees should wait indefinitely for their 
    employer or designee to respond to notification before entering the 
    IDLH atmosphere when employees inside are in danger of succumbing and 
    standby personnel are appropriately trained and equipped to provide 
    assistance. OSHA is aware that this practice is followed in fire 
    fighting situations (See paragraph 6-4.4, NFPA 1500 standard, 1997.) In 
    the majority of cases, however, rescuers should not enter the IDLH 
    environment until receiving some response to the notification that 
    rescue is necessary, i.e., the employer or designee should know that 
    the rescuers are entering, and emergency response units should be on 
    their way to the incident. OSHA believes that these requirements are 
    consistent with current industry practice (Exs. 54-266, 54-307, 54-6) 
    and with other OSHA standards (e.g., the permit-required confined 
    spaces standard).
        This practice is consistent with OSHA's interpretations of other 
    standards. (See letter of interpretation of the Hazardous Waste and 
    Emergency Response Standard 29 CFR 1910.120 regarding the number of 
    standby personnel present when there is a potential emergency); ``* * * 
    process operators who have (1) informed the incident command * * * of 
    the emergency * * * (2) [have] adequate PPE (3) [have] adequate 
    training * * * and (4) employed the buddy system, may take limited 
    action * * * once the emergency response team arrives, these employees 
    would be restricted to the action that their training level allows * * 
    * this has been OSHA's long standing policy for operators responding to 
    emergencies * * *'' McCully to Olson; July 11, 1996.
        Failure to follow such practices can result in employee death. For 
    example, recently, one employee (No. 1) was working inside a reactor 
    vessel, attempting to obtain a sample of catalyst. He was wearing a 
    supplied air respirator with an escape bottle. The standby 
    ``attendant'' informed the employee inside that it was time to exit to 
    change the air supply cylinder; witnesses said the inside employee (No. 
    1) did not appear to hear this instruction. When the air supply became 
    critical, other workers outside ``yelled'' to the inside employee to 
    hurry outside; by then, the inside employee was moving slowly and then 
    fell. The attendant tried to check the air pressure while another 
    employee, a bystander welder (No. 2), entered the vessel without a 
    breathing apparatus and tried to help the inside employee (No. 1). The 
    welder also fell down. Other bystanders were partially overcome by the 
    nitrogen coming out of the vessel. The air hose on the respirator on 
    the inside employee (No. 1) was disconnected. Neither the first 
    employee inside (No. 1) nor the welder (No. 2) was wearing a harness or 
    lifeline. The inside employee later died. [OSHA citation text abstracts 
    for unscheduled investigations of accidents involving fatalities (one 
    or more) and catastrophic injuries during calendar years 1994 and 
    1995].
        Once the employer or designee has been notified, paragraph 
    (g)(3)(v) requires the employer or designee to provide the necessary 
    assistance appropriate to the situation. Such assistance does not 
    always require that additional standby personnel enter the hazardous 
    atmosphere; in some cases, the appropriate assistance could be, for 
    example, the provision of emergency medical treatment. If standby 
    employees do need to enter the hazardous environment to perform rescue
    
    [[Page 1245]]
    
    operations, however, the employer must ensure that those rescuers are 
    fully protected.
        Final paragraphs (g)(3)(vi) (A), (B), and (C) require that standby 
    personnel have appropriate equipment to minimize the danger to these 
    personnel during rescue efforts. They stipulate that standby employees 
    be equipped with pressure demand or other positive pressure SCBA, or a 
    pressure demand or other positive pressure supplied-air respirator with 
    auxiliary SCBA, according to final paragraph (g)(3)(vi)(A). This 
    requirement was contained in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of the proposal, and 
    was not objected to by any participants. It is also consistent with 
    requirements in clause 7.3.2 of ANSI Z88.2--1992.
        The requirements that address appropriate retrieval equipment and 
    means of rescue in paragraphs (g)(3)(vi)(B)-(C) are written in 
    performance-based language. Established rescue procedures are well 
    known, and retrieval equipment is readily available. OSHA therefore 
    believes that it is necessary merely to state that this equipment must 
    be used unless its use would increase the overall risk associated with 
    entry into or rescue from the IDLH environment. OSHA acknowledged in 
    the Permit-Required Confined Space standard, 58 FR 4530, that 
    situations exist in which retrieval lines (harnesses, wristlets, 
    anklets) may pose an entanglement problem, especially in areas in which 
    air lines or electrical cords are present in the work areas in which 
    the IDLH atmosphere occurs. Most of the time, however, rescue with 
    retrieval equipment is effective, and much safer for the rescuers (Ex. 
    54-428).
        Paragraph (g)(4) applies only to respirator use in the ultra-
    hazardous context of interior structural fire fighting; the 
    requirements in this paragraph apply in addition to those in paragraph 
    (g)(3). OSHA has included this provision in its standard in response to 
    the record evidence about the extreme hazards of this activity. 
    Paragraph (g)(4)(i) requires that workers engaged in interior 
    structural fire fighting work in a buddy system: at least two workers 
    must enter the building together, so that they can monitor each other's 
    whereabouts as well as the work environment. In addition, for interior 
    structural firefighting, paragraph (g)(4)(ii) retains the requirement 
    that there be at least two standby personnel outside the IDLH 
    respirator use area, i.e., outside the fire area. Paragraph (g)(4)(iii) 
    requires that all personnel engaged in interior structural fire 
    fighting use SCBA respirators. Finally, the notes to paragraph (g)(4) 
    clarify that these requirements are not intended to interfere with 
    necessary rescue operations, and the extent to which the standby 
    personnel can perform other functions.
        Paragraph (g)(4) of this Federal standard applies to private sector 
    workers engaged in firefighting through industrial fire brigades, 
    private incorporated fire companies, Federal employees through Section 
    19 of the OSH Act, and other firefighters. It should be noted that 
    Federal OSHA's jurisdiction does not extend to employees of state and 
    local governments; therefore, public sector firefighters are covered 
    only in the 25 states which operate their own OSHA-approved 
    occupational safety and health state programs and are required to 
    extend the provisions of their state standards to these workers. These 
    states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, 
    Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 
    New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South 
    Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, 
    Washington, and Wyoming . Eighteen (18) of these states under certain 
    circumstances also consider ``volunteers'' to be employees and thus may 
    provide protection to private or public sector volunteer firefighters, 
    subject to specific interpretation of state law. State and local 
    government employees, including firefighters, in States which do not 
    operate OSHA-approved state plans, are not covered by these 
    requirements, unless voluntarily adopted for local applicability.
        Although the proposed rule did not distinguish between interior 
    structural fire fighting and other IDLH situations, OSHA decided to 
    include separate requirements for the former activity in the final 
    standard in response to evidence in the record that safeguards that may 
    be adequate for well-controlled and well-characterized IDLH situations 
    are not adequate in the uncontrolled and unpredictable situation 
    presented by a burning building. The firefighting community already 
    recognizes that one person alone cannot be sent safely into a structure 
    to fight a fire that is beyond the incipient stage. The final rule's 
    staffing requirements for fire fighting are consistent with OSHA's 
    current enforcement practice for employers subject to federal OSHA 
    enforcement, and assure that firefighters will not be subject to any 
    diminution in protection as a result of the more flexible requirements 
    for IDLH respirator use included in other paragraphs of the final rule.
        OSHA has previously recognized that emergency situations analogous 
    to interior structural fire fighting require additional safeguards for 
    employees involved in emergency response activities. For example, the 
    Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard, 
    at 29 CFR 1910.120(q), requires the use of a ``buddy system'' in 
    responding to IDLH atmospheres. This means that employees involved in 
    such operations are to be organized into workgroups in such a manner 
    that each employee of the work group is designated to be observed 
    continuously by at least one other employee in the work group. 
    Paragraph (q)(3)(v) of Sec. 1910.120 requires operations in hazardous 
    areas to be performed using the buddy system in groups of two or more; 
    paragraph (q)(3)(vi) of that standard specifies that back-up personnel 
    shall stand by with equipment ready to provide assistance or rescue. 
    OSHA has made clear that these provisions require more than one standby 
    person to be present.
        The final standard is also consistent with relevant National Fire 
    Protection Association (NFPA) standards. The NFPA is recognized 
    internationally as a clearinghouse for information on fire prevention, 
    fire fighting procedures, and fire protection. A number of NFPA 
    standards require firefighters using SCBA to operate in a buddy system. 
    NFPA 1404, ``Fire Department Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 
    Program,'' states, in paragraph 3-1.6, that members using SCBA are to 
    operate in teams of two or more, must be able to communicate with each 
    other through visual, audible, physical, safety guide rope, electronic, 
    or other means to coordinate their activities, and are to remain in 
    close proximity to each other to provide emergency assistance.
        The NFPA 600 standard addressing industrial fire brigades requires 
    in paragraph 5.3.5 that firefighters using SCBA ``operate in teams of 
    two or more who are in communication with each other * * * and are in 
    close proximity to each other to provide assistance in case of an 
    emergency.'' Although this standard, which applies only to industrial 
    fire brigades where firefighters are working in fixed locations that 
    are well characterized and have established communications and rescue 
    systems, requires only one standby person outside the fire area, 
    another standard, NFPA 1500, ``Standard on Fire Department Occupational 
    Safety and Health Programs,'' which addresses fire department safety 
    and health programs
    
    [[Page 1246]]
    
    in the general sense, requires at least two standby personnel. This 
    provision first appeared in 1992, as a Tentative Interim Amendment to 
    NFPA 1500 requiring, in paragraph 6-4.1.1, that ``[a]t least four 
    members shall be assembled before initiating interior fire fighting 
    operations at a working structural fire.'' In 1997, NFPA finalized the 
    Amendment. Paragraph 6-4 of the current NFPA 1500 standard, ``Members 
    Operating at Emergency Incidents,'' addresses the number of persons 
    required to be present, and requires at least four individuals, 
    consisting of two persons in the hazard area and two individuals 
    outside the hazard area, for assistance or rescue (paragraph 6-4.4). 
    One standby member is permitted to perform other duties, but those 
    other duties are not allowed to interfere with the member's ability to 
    provide assistance or rescue to the firefighters working at the 
    incident (paragraph 6-4.2).
        In addition, a 1994 CDC/NIOSH Alert, titled ``Request for 
    Assistance in Preventing Injuries and Death of Firefighters,'' also 
    recommends the use of a buddy system whenever firefighters wear SCBAs. 
    The recommendation states:
    
        Two firefighters should work together and remain in contact with 
    each other at all times. Two additional firefighters should form a 
    rescue team that is stationed outside the hazardous area. The rescue 
    team should be trained and equipped to begin a rescue immediately if 
    any of the firefighters in the hazardous area require assistance.
    
    Similarly, in testimony on H.R. 1783 before the Subcommittee on 
    Economic and Educational Opportunities, House of Representatives, 104th 
    Congress (July 11, 1995, Chairman: Cass Ballenger), Harold A. 
    Schaitberger, Executive Assistant to the General President of the 
    International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), stated that ``* * * 
    our organization understood from the outset that the regulation [29 CFR 
    1910.134(e)] required firefighters wearing self-contained breathing 
    apparatus and involved in interior structural fire operations to 
    operate in a `buddy system,' with two firefighters entering a burning 
    building and two firefighters stationed outside the endangered area for 
    assistance or rescue, and for accountability purposes * * * The two-in/
    two-out rule has been the industry standard in the fire service for 
    over 25 years.''
        The record in this rulemaking provides strong support for including 
    this requirement in the final standard. Richard Duffy, Director of 
    Occupational Health and Safety for the International Association of 
    Fire Fighters (IAFF), argued strongly for provisions similar to those 
    in the HAZWOPER standard for SCBA users working in IDLH situations. In 
    his written testimony (Ex. 75), Mr. Duffy stated that the proposed 
    requirements in paragraph (g)(2)(ii), which would not have required the 
    buddy system or that two standby personnel be available outside the 
    IDLH atmosphere, would place workers using respiratory protection in 
    IDLH situations at considerable risk.
        The IAFF recommended that a minimum of 4 individuals be present any 
    time employees are using SCBA in an IDLH atmosphere: two individuals to 
    work as a team inside the IDLH atmosphere and two identically trained 
    and equipped employees to remain outside to account for, and be 
    available to assist or rescue, the team members working inside the IDLH 
    atmosphere (Tr. 468-469). The inside employees would use a buddy system 
    and maintain direct voice or visual contact or be tethered with a 
    signal line (Tr. 468-469).
        According to Mr. Duffy, these changes were necessary:
    
    to save workers'--specifically firefighters'--lives. Since 1970 * * 
    * 1,416 members of [IAFF] have died in the line of duty. Prohibiting 
    employers from allowing employees to work alone while working in 
    IDLH, potentially IDLH or unknown atmospheres * * * would have saved 
    many of these firefighters' lives * * * [I]f there was a team in 
    place that accounted for employees while they were working in IDLH * 
    * * many more firefighters would have been saved and [be] alive 
    today (Ex. 75).
    
    Mr. Duffy described several incidents in which firefighters had been 
    injured or killed because of inadequate safety practices, and 
    particularly the failure to have specific individuals assigned to keep 
    track of employees in IDLH atmospheres. For example, he referred to a 
    recent occurrence (Tr. 470) in which three firefighters died inside an 
    IDLH atmosphere. In this incident, although many firefighters were on 
    the scene, no one could account for the three firefighters who had been 
    overcome by the IDLH atmosphere. Their bodies were later discovered 
    inside the burned building. It appears that more stringent precautions, 
    such as a buddy system and standby personnel specifically assigned to 
    keep track of the firefighters' condition, could have prevented these 
    deaths.
        In addition, the Oklahoma Department of Labor submitted comments 
    stating that it supports a two-in/two-out rule, especially for 
    firefighters. Specifically, it stated that ``Although we are not a 
    state plan state, we operate a fully functional OSHA safety and health 
    program in the public sector * * * it would be unfortunate if the new 
    respiratory protection standard's interpretation of the `buddy system' 
    * * * confused this issue (two-out for firefighters) [Ex. 187].'' 
    However, some firefighter services and organizations urged OSHA to 
    abandon its existing requirement for at least two standby personnel. 
    For example, Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District in Nevada (Ex. 
    384) stated that:
    
    there are circumstances where a three person * * * company can 
    safely and efficiently respond and aggressively attack a fire. 
    Similarly, there are occasions where additional personnel and 
    resources may be required before initiating an attack * * * the 
    emphasis must be practically placed upon assessment of the risk at 
    the time of arrival and throughout the incident to determine the 
    resources and precautions needed. The overriding concern should be * 
    * * safe egress or recovery of personnel should conditions change, 
    regardless of the standby crew assembled.
    
    A similar opinion was expressed by the fire chief of Sparks, Nevada 
    (Ex. 54-129).
        Even a comment from the County of Rockland Fire Training Center, 
    Pomona, New York (Ex. 54-155) recommending removing the requirement for 
    standby personnel from the final rule, noted that ``in operations 
    during a fire or emergency, it is a standard practice to utilize the 
    team approach.'' The comment went on to state, however, that ``removing 
    the restriction of having persons outside the IDLH * * * and allowing 
    the incident commander the flexibility of moving personnel around as he 
    or she sees fit at any given situation * * * would actually enhance the 
    safety of our forces operating at the scene of a fire or emergency.'' 
    As discussed below, OSHA believes that the requirements in the final 
    standard allow enough flexibility to maximize safety.
        OSHA concludes that, for interior structural fire fighting, a buddy 
    system for workers inside the IDLH atmosphere and at least two standby 
    personnel outside that atmosphere are necessary. In fact, as noted 
    above, OSHA has previously explained that under the prior standard and 
    the OSH Act's general duty clause, there must be more than one person 
    present outside and at least two firefighters inside when conducting an 
    interior attack on an interior structural fire. Accordingly, special 
    provisions have been included in this revised respiratory protection 
    standard to clarify that firefighters may not enter an IDLH atmosphere 
    alone during interior structural firefighting, and that two standby 
    personnel are
    
    [[Page 1247]]
    
    required for all interior structural fire fighting.
        As discussed above, however, OSHA does not believe that similar 
    practices are necessary in better controlled and characterized IDLH 
    situations, such as those potentially arising in industrial 
    environments. In those cases, where standby personnel can more easily 
    track the precise movements of the respirator users and communication 
    mechanisms are in place, OSHA believes that one standby person will 
    often be sufficient, although paragraph (g)(3)(i) clearly recognizes 
    that some nonfirefighting IDLH situations will require multiple standby 
    personnel.
        These additional requirements are necessary because fire fighting 
    ranks among the most hazardous of all occupations, and interior 
    structural fire fighting is one of the most dangerous fire fighting 
    jobs (See, e.g., Jankovic et al. 1991). As the International 
    Association of Fire Chiefs (Ex. 54-328) pointed out, ``[t]he fire 
    fighter is usually operating in a hostile environment where normal 
    systems, facilities, processes and equipment to ensure safety have 
    already failed.'' A very basic difference between firefighters--
    particularly those involved in fighting interior structural fires--and 
    employees in other occupations is that the work site is always new and 
    unknown. Firefighters do not report to a fixed location or work in a 
    familiar environment. Heat stress also affects firefighters differently 
    than other workers. Petrochemical workers and those in other high heat-
    stress occupations, such as highway workers, can deal with issues such 
    as heat stress through other options, including acclimatization periods 
    for new employees, scheduling high exertion work at night, and allowing 
    frequent breaks (Smith 1996). Firefighters do not have these options.
        Fire fighting is also extremely stressful mentally because of the 
    sense of personal danger and urgency inherent in search and rescue 
    operations. A firefighter regularly steps into situations that others 
    are fleeing, accepting a level of personal risk that would be 
    unacceptable to workers in most other occupations. Psychological stress 
    is caused by the firefighter's need to focus on the protection of lives 
    and property, as well as the need to maximize his or her own personal 
    safety and that of his/her coworkers. Tenants and others in the process 
    of being rescued have also been known to panic and attack firefighters 
    to obtain air from the firefighter's respirator in an attempt to save 
    their own lives (1994 NIOSH Alert).
        Fire fighting is a high-risk occupation with a very narrow window 
    of survivability for those who lose their orientation or become 
    disabled on the job. The terrible toll among firefighters is recorded 
    in many different national data bases. For example, for the period 
    1980-1989, the NIOSH National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities (NTOF) 
    Surveillance System reported 278 deaths among firefighters caused just 
    by work-related traumatic injuries; NIOSH recognizes that this number 
    is an underestimate because of the collection and reporting methods 
    used by NTOF, which limit the kinds of events recorded. Data collected 
    by the IAFF for the period 1970-1994 report 1,369 firefighter deaths, 
    and data collected by the NFPA for the period 1990-1992 indicate that 
    280 firefighters died in this 2-year period alone (1994 NIOSH Alert). 
    OSHA believes that the requirements of this respirator standard may 
    prevent a significant number of these deaths and injuries. For example, 
    in a recent incident, a team of two firefighters was operating inside a 
    structural fire. Rapidly deteriorating conditions occurred in which 
    there was dense smoke. Confusion ensued and the team lost contact, 
    resulting in one firefighter death. (Incident number 2; OSHA 
    Investigations of Firefighter Fatalities; 10/1/91-3/17/97; IMIS) In 
    this situation, the need for additional accountability and monitoring 
    of firefighters during interior structural fire fighting is clear. 
    Multiple standby personnel and two-person teams inside an IDLH 
    atmosphere are therefore necessary to check for signs of heat stress, 
    other illnesses, disorientation, malfunctioning of respiratory and 
    other protective equipment, and to assist in exit or rescue when needed 
    (Smith, 1996).
        OSHA emphasizes that the requirement for standby personnel does not 
    preclude the incident commander from relying on his/her professional 
    judgment to make assignments during a fire emergency. Although the 
    standard requires at least two standby persons during the attack on an 
    interior fire, there are obviously situations where more than two 
    persons will be required both inside and outside the interior 
    structure, a decision ultimately to be made by the incident commander. 
    In addition, as is the case under the previous respiratory protection 
    standard, one of the standby personnel may have other duties and may 
    even serve as the incident commander. According to OSHA's letter to 
    Chief Ewell, IFC, Oakland, CA, (J. Dear; 2/27/96), ``* * * one of the 
    two individuals outside the hazard area may be assigned more than one 
    role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or the 
    safety officer. However, the assignment of standby personnel of other 
    roles such as the incident commander, safety officer, or operator of 
    fire apparatus will not be permitted if by abandoning their critical 
    task(s) to assist in, or if necessary, perform a rescue clearly 
    jeopardizes the safety and health of any firefighter working at the 
    incident.'' OSHA has included specific guidance regarding other duties 
    of standby personnel under paragraph (g)(4). These duties are 
    consistent with OSHA's past enforcement policy and NFPA recommendations 
    (NFPA 1500, 1977 Edition; Section 6-4.4.2).
        It is important to have at least two standby people available so 
    that in the event of an emergency in which both members of the interior 
    team need rescue or other assistance, adequate personnel are available 
    for rescue. As Harold A. Schaitberger testified, ``* * * The two-in/
    two-out rule has been the industry standard in the fire service for 
    over 25 years. It is also based on common sense. If there are two 
    firefighters inside a burning building when a roof caves in, at least 
    two firefighters are required to assist and/or rescue them (Testimony 
    on H.R. 1783 before the Subcommittee on Economic and Educational 
    Opportunities, House of Representatives, 104th Congress (July 11, 1995, 
    Chairman: Cass Ballenger).'' Whenever possible, the use of the buddy 
    system should also be maintained during rescue operations.
        Moreover, the ``two-in/two-out'' requirement does not take effect 
    until firefighters begin to perform interior structural fire fighting. 
    While the fire is in the incipient stage, the incident commander or 
    other person in charge may conduct an investigation or ``size up'' the 
    situation to determine whether the fire has progressed beyond the 
    incipient stage. During this investigative phase, the standard does not 
    require two-member teams inside and outside the structure. Similarly, 
    nothing in this rule is meant to preclude firefighters from performing 
    rescue activities before an entire team has assembled. If there are 
    fewer than four team members available, and an individual inside the 
    burning structure must be rescued immediately, this rule does not 
    prevent the rescue from occurring, as the Note to the regulatory text 
    makes clear. However, once firefighters begin the interior attack on an 
    interior structural fire, the atmosphere is assumed to be IDLH and 
    paragraph (g)(4) applies.
        OSHA's requirement in no way is intended to establish staffing
    
    [[Page 1248]]
    
    requirements with regard to, for example, the number of persons on a 
    fire truck or the size of a fire company. Rather, the 2 in / 2 out 
    provision specifies only the number of firefighters who must be present 
    before the interior attack on an interior structural fire is initiated. 
    Firefighters may be assembled from multiple companies, or arrive at the 
    scene at various times. All that is intended is that an interior attack 
    should not be undertaken until sufficient staff are assembled to allow 
    for both buddy and standby teams.
        These requirements are consistent with OSHA's past enforcement 
    policy. OSHA has relied on the NFPA recommendations as a basis for 
    determining an appropriate standard of care in fire fighting situations 
    under the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1). In 
    its interpretative memoranda addressing requirements that are 
    applicable to firefighters, OSHA noted that occupational exposure to 
    fire is a well-recognized hazard, and that firefighters using SCBA in 
    hazardous atmospheres should be operating in a buddy system of two or 
    more personnel. The Agency explained that even under OSHA's previous 
    respiratory protection standard, a minimum of four personnel should be 
    used, with two members inside the hazardous area and two members 
    outside the hazardous area who are available to enter the area to 
    provide emergency assistance or rescue if needed. One memorandum also 
    pointed out that there was no prohibition against the outside standby 
    personnel having other duties, such as functioning as incident 
    commander or safety officer, as long as it would not jeopardize the 
    safety and health of any firefighter working at the incident if the 
    standby personnel left those duties to perform emergency assistance and 
    rescue operations.
        OSHA notes that the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) apply in 
    addition to the requirements of OSHA's specific fire protection 
    standards, subpart L of 29 CFR 1910. OSHA intends to begin negotiated 
    rulemaking on those fire protection standards in the near future.
    Paragraph (h)--Maintenance and Care of Respirators
        This final standard for respiratory protection, in paragraph (h), 
    addresses the elements of respirator maintenance and care that OSHA 
    believes are essential to the proper functioning of respirators for the 
    continuing protection of employees. As OSHA stated in the preamble to 
    the NPRM (59 FR 58923), ``a lax attitude toward this part of the 
    respiratory protection program will negate successful selection and fit 
    because the devices will not deliver the assumed protection unless they 
    are kept in good working order.'' The maintenance and care provisions, 
    which are divided into cleaning and disinfecting, storage, inspection, 
    and repair, are essentially unchanged (with the exception of the 
    cleaning and disinfecting provisions) from paragraph (f) of OSHA's 
    prior respiratory protection standard. Some rearrangement and 
    consolidation of the regulatory text and minor language changes have 
    been made to this paragraph to simplify and clarify the requirements as 
    a result of comments and concerns that were raised in response to the 
    proposed rule.
        Paragraph (h)(1) of the final standard requires that employers 
    provide each respirator wearer with a respirator that is clean, 
    sanitary, and in good working order. It further requires that employers 
    use the procedures for cleaning and disinfecting respirators described 
    in mandatory Appendix B-2 or, alternatively, procedures recommended by 
    the respirator manufacturer, provided such procedures are as effective 
    as those in Appendix B-2. The prior respiratory protection standard 
    required that employers clean and disinfect respirators in accordance 
    with the maintenance and care provision of paragraph (f), but offered 
    no specific guidance on how to perform these procedures. Mandatory 
    Appendix B-2 presents a method employers may use to comply with the 
    cleaning and disinfecting requirements of final paragraph (h)(1). The 
    procedures listed in Appendix B-2 were compiled from several sources, 
    including publications of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 (clause A.4, Annex A), and NIOSH. Other methods may be 
    used, including those recommended by the respirator manufacturer, as 
    long as they are equivalent in effectiveness to the method in Appendix 
    B-2. Equivalent effectiveness simply means that the procedures used 
    must accomplish the objectives set forth in Appendix B-2, i.e., must 
    ensure that the respirator is properly cleaned and disinfected in a 
    manner that prevents damage to the respirator and does not cause harm 
    to the user.
        Several commenters (Exs. 54-267, 54-300, 54-307) supported the 
    cleaning and disinfecting provisions in general and the inclusion of 
    manufacturers' instructions in particular. The American Iron and Steel 
    Institute (AISI), for example, suggested the following language: 
    ``Respirators must be cleaned and maintained in a sanitary condition. 
    The cleaning procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer or 
    in Appendix B, or a recognized standard-setting organization should be 
    followed'' (Ex. 54-307).
        The need for appropriate cleaning and disinfecting procedures was 
    also supported during the hearings. For example, James Johnson of 
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories testified:
    
        [P]rocedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, 
    inspecting, repairing, or otherwise maintaining respirators * * * 
    are elements of the respiratory protection program which are 
    important and are addressed in the rule * * *. I did some personal 
    evaluation on the disinfecting procedures recommended by several 
    U.S. respirator manufacturers. I found that they vary significantly. 
    If you look in Appendix B of the proposed rule, the hypochlorite or 
    bleach recommendation and the other disinfectants outlined there are 
    certainly what is typically recommended and used (Tr. 184).
    
        The Appendix B-2 procedures can be used both with manual and semi-
    automated cleaning methods, such as those using specially adapted 
    domestic dishwashers and washing machines. As with most effective 
    cleaning procedures, Appendix B-2 divides the cleaning process into 
    disassembly of components, cleaning and disinfecting, rinsing, drying, 
    reassembly and testing. Recommended temperatures for washing and 
    rinsing are given in Appendix B-2, as are instructions for preparing 
    effective disinfectants.
        OSHA has made minor changes to the contents of Appendix B-2 in the 
    final standard. For example, the cleaning procedures listed in the 
    final rule are more consistent with the procedures suggested in Clause 
    A.4, Annex A of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard than those proposed, 
    particularly with regard to the temperatures recommended to prevent 
    damage to the respirator. Additionally, automated cleaning, which is 
    now being used by many larger companies, is allowed as long as 
    effective cleaning and disinfecting solutions are used and recommended 
    temperatures, which are designed to prevent damage to respirator 
    components, are not exceeded.
        Commenters (Exs. 54-91, 54-187, 54-330, 54-389, 54-309, Tr. 695) 
    generally supported the need for a respirator maintenance program but 
    took differing approaches to the provisions proposed in paragraph 
    (h)(1) (i)-(iii) dealing with the frequency of cleaning and 
    disinfecting respirators. One commenter (Ex. 54-187) agreed with the 
    provisions as proposed. Others (Exs. 54-208, 54-67, 54-91, 54-408) 
    recommended a more performance-oriented approach.
    
    [[Page 1249]]
    
    For example, Darell Bevis of Bevis Associates International objected to 
    the proposed requirement that respirators that are issued for the 
    exclusive use of an employee be cleaned and disinfected daily by 
    stating:
    
        [D]iffering workplace conditions will require that cleaning and 
    disinfection may be required more frequently or even less frequently 
    than daily. A requirement for daily cleaning when unnecessary 
    results in considerable additional respirator program costs with no 
    benefit. A more realistic and still enforceable requirement would be 
    routinely used respirators issued for the exclusive use of an 
    employee shall be cleaned and disinfected as frequently as necessary 
    to ensure that the user has a clean, sanitary, properly functioning 
    respirator at all times (Tr. 695).
    
        Other commenters (Exs. 54-67, 54-91, 54-234, 54-271, 54-278, 54-
    286, 54-289, 54-293, 54-334, 54-350, 54-374, 54-424, 54-435, Ex. 163) 
    also objected to cleaning and disinfecting respirators at the end of 
    each day's use if the respirator is issued for the exclusive use of a 
    single employee. These comments were in general agreement with the 
    American Industrial Hygiene Association's statement:
    
        The performance-oriented language of the existing standard is 
    more reasonable [than the proposed language]. Cleaning and 
    disinfecting of individually assigned respirators should be done 
    ``as needed'' to assure proper respirator performance and to 
    preclude skin irritation or toxicity hazards from accumulation of 
    materials. Disinfecting an individually issued respirator is 
    probably not necessary at all unless the ``contaminant'' is 
    biological in nature (Ex. 54-208).
    
        Several other commenters (See, e.g., Exs. 54-330, 54-389, 309) were 
    in favor of cleaning individually assigned respirators at the end of 
    each day's use, but recommended disinfecting or sanitizing only after 
    longer periods or when necessary. Michael Laford, Manager of Industrial 
    Hygiene and Safety at Cambrex, commented as follows:
    
        It is important to clean all personal protective equipment, 
    preferably after each use as needed, and not just once a day. 
    However, is the additional requirement for daily disinfection * * * 
    where respirators are individually assigned, supported with valid 
    studies or data? In the absence of data that supports a real benefit 
    of this requirement, the language should revert to ``periodic'' 
    disinfecting of respirators (Ex. 54-389).
    
        The need for flexibility with respect to maintaining clean and 
    sanitary respirators was also discussed during the hearings. For 
    example, in response to a question asked by a member of the OSHA panel 
    regarding how often a respirator mask should be cleaned, James Centner, 
    Safety and Health Specialist with the United Steel Workers of America 
    (USWA), replied that it depended on the length of time the respirator 
    is worn and the workplace conditions. He stated, ``If you're working in 
    a smelter where it's hot and dirty and dusty, workers probably need to 
    take that respirator off about every 30 minutes and do a good, thorough 
    job of washing the grit and dirt off their face and . . . do a quick 
    maintenance clean-up job on the sealing surface of the respirator so it 
    maintains an adequate fit'' (Tr. 1068). Darell Bevis of Bevis 
    Associates International (Tr. 747-748) responded similarly when asked 
    this question; he contrasted dusty workplaces, such as fossil fuel 
    power generation plants where respirators become filthy with hazardous 
    particulates, to workplaces involving exposure only to gases and vapors 
    where respirators may remain clean for long periods.
        OSHA agrees with these commenters that the necessary frequency for 
    cleaning a respirator can range from several times a day to less than 
    daily. Therefore, OSHA has restated paragraph (h)(1)(i) in performance-
    based language, which will provide employers with flexibility in 
    maintaining clean and sanitary respirators when the respirator is used 
    exclusively by a single employee. Final paragraph (h)(1)(i) now reads 
    as follows: ``Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee 
    shall be cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to be maintained 
    in a sanitary condition.'' Final paragraph (h)(1)(i) is complemented by 
    the respirator use provision in final paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A), which 
    requires that employers ensure that workers leave the respirator use 
    area to wash their faces as necessary to prevent eye or skin 
    irritation. OSHA believes that compliance with final paragraphs 
    (h)(1)(i) and (g)(2)(ii)(A), as well as the training provisions in 
    paragraph (k) regarding maintenance of the respirator, will provide 
    effective employee protection against hazardous substances that 
    accumulate on the respirator, interfere with facepiece seal, and cause 
    irritation of the user's skin.
        Proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)-(iii) specified that respirators 
    used by more than one employee or respirators issued for emergency use 
    be cleaned and disinfected after each use and were the subject of a 
    number of comments (See, e.g., Exs. 54-67, 54-234, 54-361, 54-408, 54-
    424 and Tr. 695). For example, the Service Employees International 
    Union (Ex. 54-455) suggested that OSHA replace the phrase ``after each 
    use'' with ``before they are worn by another user.'' OSHA agrees with 
    this suggestion as it applies to the shared use of respirators in non-
    emergency situations, and has revised final paragraph (h)(1)(ii) to 
    require cleaning and disinfecting of respirators prior to their use by 
    other individuals. OSHA believes that this modification provides 
    flexibility in those areas where respirators are assigned to more than 
    one employee. This requirement is also consistent with the parallel 
    provision of ANSI Z88.2-1992. However, if the respirator is to be used 
    in an emergency situation, it should be in a clean and sanitary 
    condition and immediately ready for use at all times. Emergency 
    personnel cannot waste time cleaning and sanitizing the respirator 
    prior to responding to an emergency. Thus, if the respirator is one 
    that is maintained for emergency use, the final standard in paragraph 
    (h)(1)(iii) retains the requirement to clean and disinfect the 
    respirator after each use.
        Final paragraph (h)(1)(iv) requires the cleaning and disinfecting 
    of respirators used in fit testing and training exercises. This 
    provision was added in response to a recommendation made by the Public 
    Service Company of Colorado (Ex. 54-179) that respirators be cleaned 
    and disinfected after each fit test. Additionally, representatives of 
    Electronic and Information Technologies (Ex. 54-161) pointed out that, 
    although the proposal addressed cleaning and disinfecting procedures 
    for respirators worn during routine and emergency use, it did not 
    specify how respirators should be cleaned/disinfected during fit 
    testing or training activities. Since these conditions involve shared 
    use, OSHA has emphasized in final paragraph (h)(1)(iv) the need to 
    properly clean and disinfect or sanitize respirators used for training 
    and fit testing after each use.
        OSHA noted in the proposal that it was not stating who should do 
    the cleaning and disinfecting, only that it be done (59 FR 58924). 
    However, as with all other provisions of the standard, the employer is 
    responsible for satisfying the cleaning and disinfecting requirements. 
    The final standard requires that the employer ensure that cleaning is 
    done properly, and that only properly cleaned and disinfected 
    respirators are used. The employer is allowed to choose the cleaning 
    and disinfecting program that best meets the requirements of the 
    standard and the particular circumstances of the workplace. Richard 
    Uhlar, an industrial hygienist for the International Chemical Workers 
    Union (ICWU), commented that workers should be given paid time to 
    clean, disinfect, and inspect respirators; otherwise, in the view of
    
    [[Page 1250]]
    
    this commenter, respirators will not be taken care of properly (Ex. 54-
    427). OSHA notes that if the employer elects to have employees clean 
    their own respirators, the employer must provide the cleaning and 
    disinfecting equipment, supplies, and facilities, as well as time for 
    the job to be done.
        Commenting on a preproposal draft of the standard, the United 
    Steelworkers of America (USWA) (Ex. 36-46) recommended that OSHA 
    require the employer to clean and repair respirators. The USWA stated 
    that programs in which employers require employees to return their 
    respirators at the end of each shift to a central facility for 
    inspection, cleaning, and repairs by trained personnel are more 
    effective than programs in which employees are responsible for cleaning 
    their own respirators. OSHA agrees that such a centralized cleaning and 
    repair operation can ensure that properly cleaned and disinfected 
    respirators are available for use, but this approach is not the only 
    way to fulfill this requirement. For example, central facilities may be 
    inappropriate in workplaces where respirator use is infrequent, or 
    where the number of respirators in use is small.
        Final paragraph (h)(2), which establishes storage requirements for 
    respirators, does not differ substantively from the corresponding 
    requirements in the proposal. However, some of the proposed provisions 
    have been consolidated to simplify understanding and interpretation of 
    the requirements. Final paragraph (h)(2)(i) sets forth the storage 
    requirements for all respirators, while final paragraph (h)(2)(ii) 
    addresses additional requirements for the storage of emergency 
    respirators. Specifically, final paragraph (h)(2)(i) requires that all 
    respirators be stored in a manner that protects them from damage, 
    contamination, harmful environmental conditions and damaging chemicals, 
    and prevents deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve. 
    Respirators maintained for emergency use also must be stored in 
    accordance with the requirements of final paragraph (h)(2)(i) and, in 
    addition, must be kept accessible to the work area, be stored in 
    compartments or covers that are clearly marked as containing emergency 
    respirators, and be stored in accordance with any applicable 
    manufacturer's instructions (paragraph (h)(2)(ii)).
        There was general support in the record for the performance 
    approach that OSHA took in the proposal with regard to storage 
    requirements. For example, the Industrial Safety Equipment Association 
    (ISEA) commented: ``[B]ecause the degree of severity of an 
    environmental condition that would cause deterioration would be related 
    to the tolerance of the particular equipment in question and would thus 
    vary from model to model, there is no need to specify conditions of 
    storage in more detail'' (Ex. 54-363). The comment submitted by the 
    Mobil Oil Corporation (Ex. 54-234) agreed with OSHA's proposed approach 
    on respirator storage, but went further to state that ``[t]o place 
    storage requirements in specific language may actually contradict 
    specific recommendations of the manufacturer.'' Other commenters also 
    supported OSHA's provisions as proposed (See Exs. 54-172, 54-250, 54-
    273, 54-408, 54-424, and 54-455).
        There were, however, some suggested changes that commenters 
    believed would clarify final paragraph (h)(2). One commenter (Ex. 54-
    32) suggested that, in addition to requirements for accessibility and 
    maintenance of emergency respirators, there should be a requirement for 
    specific `` awareness training'' to remind employees of the location of 
    such respirators. OSHA agrees that such knowledge is vital. The 
    training specified in paragraph (k), especially the provisions on how 
    to use a respirator in emergency situations (final paragraph 
    (k)(1)(iii)) and procedures for the maintenance and storage of 
    respirators (final paragraph (k)(1)(v)), are designed to do this. In 
    addition, paragraph (k) requires that employers retrain employees where 
    it appears necessary to do so to ensure safe respirator use.
        Two commenters recommended that employees, rather than employers, 
    be held responsible for cleaning, sanitizing, and storing their 
    respirators. The Grain Elevator and Processing Society (Ex. 54-226) 
    recommended that, for most operations, the maintenance and care of 
    respirators should be the responsibility of the employee once the 
    employee has been trained. In another comment specific to the storage 
    provision, the American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-330) pointed out 
    that employers generally do not store respirators; instead, respirator 
    storage is the responsibility of the employee. In response, OSHA notes 
    that section 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act and case law interpreting that 
    provision have specifically placed the burden of complying with safety 
    and health standards on the employer because the employer controls 
    conditions in the workplace. The employer is, therefore, responsible 
    for the results of actions taken by others at the direction of the 
    employer. For example, although an employee may physically store a 
    respirator, a contractor may perform a fit test, or a physician may 
    examine an employee at the employer's direction, the employer is 
    ultimately responsible for ensuring that these actions are taken to 
    comply with the standard.
        Proposed paragraph (h)(2)(ii) would have required that compartments 
    be built to protect respirators that are stored in locations where 
    weathering, contamination, or deterioration could occur. The 
    Westminster, Maryland Fire Department (Ex. 54-68) raised the following 
    concern about this proposed provision:
    
        This requirement may be appropriate for manufacturing but is not 
    practical given the operations of the fire service. * * * As OSHA is 
    aware the fire service maintains its breathing apparatus in a ready 
    posture on the apparatus. To require the apparatus to be placed in a 
    compartment would eliminate the precious time saved by donning the 
    apparatus enroute to the emergency. This operation has been the 
    backbone of our efficiency at rescue and suppression operations.
    
    Similar concerns were raised by the National Volunteer Fire Council 
    (Tr. 499) and the Connecticut Fire Chiefs' Association, Inc. (Ex. 180). 
    In response to these concerns, OSHA has crafted language that the 
    Agency believes fulfills the purpose of this provision and maintains 
    the efficiency of emergency response workers such as firefighters. 
    Instead of requiring emergency respirators to be stored only in 
    compartments, final paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) permits them alternatively 
    to be stored in covers that are clearly marked as containing emergency 
    respirators. Walk-out brackets with covers that are mounted on a wall 
    or to a stable surface (e.g., on a fire truck) may be used so long as 
    the respirator is covered to prevent damage when not in use. Because a 
    cover can be removed in seconds, OSHA believes that this change 
    addresses the needs of firefighters and other emergency responders. It 
    is important that the walk-out brackets are mounted within the vehicle. 
    For example, they can be mounted directly to the fire truck to enable 
    firefighters to rapidly don the respiratory equipment when needed. 
    However, any means of storage used must be secure. If walk-out brackets 
    are not mounted, there is a danger that the unsecured respirators could 
    become damaged as a result of vehicle motion.
        Final paragraph (h)(3) requires regular inspections to ensure the 
    continued reliability of respiratory equipment. The frequency of 
    inspection and the procedures to be followed depend on whether the 
    respirator is intended for non-emergency, emergency, or escape-only 
    use.
    
    [[Page 1251]]
    
        Final paragraph (h)(3)(i)(A) requires respirators for use in non-
    emergency situations to be inspected before each use and during 
    cleaning. For respirators designated for use in an emergency situation, 
    final paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) requires that they be inspected at least 
    monthly and in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. In 
    addition, emergency respirators must be examined to ensure that they 
    are working properly before and after each use. Examining respirator 
    performance before and after each use is not intended to be as 
    extensive and thorough a process as respirator inspection. A basic 
    examination conducted prior to each use will provide assurance to the 
    wearer that the respirator which he/she is about to don in an emergency 
    situation will work properly, e.g., that the cylinders on the SCBA are 
    charged, that air is available and flowing. This examination can be 
    done fairly quickly, and OSHA believes that this added measure of 
    employee protection is both necessary and appropriate.
        Respirators used for escape only are to be inspected prior to being 
    carried into the workplace (paragraph (h)(3)(i)(C)). The Dow Chemical 
    Company (Ex. 54-278) addressed the inspection of emergency escape 
    respirators, stating, ``Emergency escape respirators such as mouthbit 
    respirators, usually stored in the box or bag they come in, do not need 
    to be inspected monthly.'' OSHA agrees with this statement. Mouthbit or 
    other emergency escape respirators are carried by an individual worker 
    into the workplace for personal use in an emergency, and must be 
    inspected for proper condition prior to being carried into the 
    workplace. Additional monthly inspections of emergency escape 
    respirators that are stored for future use are unnecessary, since they 
    will be inspected prior to being carried into the workplace. Final 
    paragraph (h)(3)(i)(C) therefore specifies that ``escape-only'' 
    respirators need only be inspected before being carried into the 
    workplace.
        Although no commenters were opposed to the inspection requirements, 
    some participants raised the issues that are discussed below with 
    respect to inspection frequency and procedures. When respirators are 
    inspected, the final rule (paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A)) requires that the 
    inspection include an examination to ensure that respirators are 
    working properly, including an examination of the tightness of 
    connections and the condition of the various components. Two comments 
    were made with respect to respirator inspection procedures. John Clarke 
    of Electronic and Information Technologies (Ex. 54-162) stated that 
    checking for proper function (examination to ensure that respirators 
    work properly) presents a dilemma if use is to include sanitizing the 
    facepiece. He pointed out that SCBAs reserved for use by multiple 
    persons presents a special problem. Likewise, John O'Green of American 
    Electric Power (Ex. 54-181) asked that ``functional check'' be better 
    defined and clarified. He stated that requiring the actual activation 
    of the respirator, including the flow of air to the facepiece, could be 
    time consuming for all the emergency respirators in their facilities. 
    OSHA does not intend that the respirator be physically placed on the 
    employee to examine the respirator to ensure that it is working 
    properly. Visual inspection can detect factors that would interfere 
    with proper performance, e.g., distortion in shape (often the result of 
    improper storage), missing or loose components, blockage, and improper 
    connections. Alarms can also be examined without actually putting the 
    respirator on the employee. In addition, examining elastomer parts for 
    pliability and signs of deterioration, as required by final paragraph 
    (h)(3)(ii)(B), can be performed without wearing the respirator.
        Under paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of the final rule, SCBAs must be 
    inspected monthly. The employer must ensure that the cylinders are 
    fully charged. Recharging is required when the pressure falls below 90 
    percent of the manufacturer's recommended pressure level. The 
    Westminster, Maryland Fire Department (Ex. 54-68) strongly recommended 
    that the apparatus be inspected at the beginning of each shift or 
    workday rather than monthly. OSHA notes that the final rule specifies 
    only the minimum requirements for an effective respiratory protection 
    program. Employers, however, are encouraged to exceed these minimum 
    criteria if, by doing so, employee protection and operating efficiency 
    are enhanced.
        The final provision for recharging air and oxygen cylinders for 
    SCBAs in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) is unchanged from proposed paragraph 
    (h)(3)(i)(C). Although no commenters disagreed with this provision as 
    proposed, a few commenters (Exs. 54-6, 54-220) asked OSHA to clarify 
    the requirement that SCBA equipment be maintained in a fully charged 
    state and recharged when the pressure falls to 90% or less of the 
    manufacturer's recommended pressure level. By way of example, OSHA 
    notes that if the manufacturer states that the cylinder is fully 
    charged at 100 psi, the cylinder must be recharged when the pressure 
    falls to 90 psi (i.e., 90% of the fully charged level). The 90 percent 
    level was selected to ensure that sufficient air remains in the 
    cylinder to allow emergency responders to perform their required duties 
    in a contaminated or oxygen-deficient atmosphere and still have 
    sufficient air available to escape from these conditions. The 90 
    percent level, and the requirement that cylinders be recharged once the 
    pressure falls below 90 percent, was also recommended by the American 
    Industrial Hygiene Association (Ex. 54-208).
        In two separate submissions to the record (Exs. 54-121 and 54-135), 
    Consolidated Engineering Services asked what type of training is 
    required for employees who inspect respirators used for emergency 
    response. OSHA notes that, under final paragraph (k), the specifics of 
    an appropriate training program are left to the discretion of the 
    employer. Regarding respirators for emergency use, final paragraph 
    (k)(1)(iii) requires that employees be trained in how to use the 
    respirator effectively in emergency situations, while final paragraph 
    (k)(1)(iv) requires training on how to inspect the respirator. As these 
    paragraphs make clear, OSHA requires the employer to develop 
    appropriate training programs for employees who inspect emergency 
    respirators.
        As part of the inspection process for respirators that are 
    maintained for use in emergencies, paragraph (h)(3)(iv) of the final 
    standard requires certification of the inspection. Documentation of 
    certification includes the date of inspection, the name or signature of 
    the inspector, the findings of the inspection, any required remedial 
    action, and a serial number or other means of identifying the inspected 
    respirator. This information must be tagged to the respirator or its 
    storage compartment, or otherwise stored in the form of inspection 
    reports (i.e., paper or electronic), and be maintained until replaced 
    following a subsequent certification.
        This requirement was included in the proposal, and several comments 
    addressed it. Dow Chemical (Ex. 54-278) stated that it supports the 
    proposed requirement. The American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-330) 
    recommended that OSHA require ``identification of the person that made 
    the inspection'' in lieu of a signature. However, OSHA believes that 
    the inspector's name or signature is a clear and precise 
    identification, and therefore has retained this requirement in the 
    final rule as proposed.
        The final provision of paragraph (h) deals with respirator repairs 
    and adjustments. Final paragraph (h)(4) provides that respirators that 
    fail
    
    [[Page 1252]]
    
    inspections, or are otherwise defective, are to be removed from service 
    and discarded, repaired, or adjusted according to the specified 
    procedures. In addition, the employer shall ensure that repairs or 
    adjustments to respirators are made only by persons appropriately 
    trained to do so, and that they use only the respirator manufacturer's 
    NIOSH-approved parts that are designed for the particular respirator. 
    The repairs also must be made in accordance with the manufacturer's 
    recommendations and specifications. Because components such as reducing 
    and admission valves, regulators, and alarms are complex and essential 
    to the safe functioning of the respirator, they are required to be 
    adjusted and repaired only by the manufacturer or a technician trained 
    by the manufacturer.
        Several comments were submitted to the record regarding this 
    particular provision. Consolidated Engineering Services (Exs. 54-121 
    and 54-135) and the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 
    (Ex. 54-79) asked what type of training is required for employees who 
    repair and adjust respirators. Motorola (Ex. 54-187) also addressed 
    this point, but added that specialized training for most respirator 
    repair work was not necessary, and that the training program required 
    by the standard should provide employees with sufficient expertise to 
    perform the necessary repair work, or at least to recognize when repair 
    is beyond their ability. Another commenter (Ex. 54-293) asserted that, 
    depending on the manufacturer's recommendation, a trained person may or 
    may not be necessary to make repairs; for example, no training is 
    required to replace a broken respirator strap.
        In response to these concerns, OSHA does not believe that it is 
    necessary or appropriate to specify in detail in the final rule the 
    type of training that is required to qualify a person to repair and 
    adjust respirators. However, because of the important health-related 
    functions of respirators, the person making the repair needs to be 
    properly trained. OSHA expects that such repair will often be performed 
    by the manufacturer, particularly if special expertise is required. 
    Where this is not the case, the employer must ensure that the employee 
    or person repairing the respirator has the skills necessary to conduct 
    the appropriate repair and adjustment functions. The use of the term 
    ``appropriately trained'' refers to an individual who has received 
    training from the respirator manufacturer or otherwise has demonstrated 
    that he/she has the skills to return the respirator to its original 
    state of effectiveness.
        The AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428) and Service Employees International Union 
    (SEIU) (Ex. 54-455) recommended that OSHA require employers to tag as 
    ``out of service'' those respirators that fail inspections. OSHA agrees 
    that some means must be available for ensuring that only properly 
    functioning respirators are introduced into the workplace. However, 
    OSHA believes that the decision on how to handle respirators that fail 
    inspection is most appropriately addressed in the employer's respirator 
    protection program, as required under final paragraph (c). 
    Specifically, final paragraph (c)(1)(v) would allow such procedures to 
    be tailored to satisfy the needs of a particular workplace.
        The SEIU (Ex. 54-455) recommended that OSHA require employers to 
    keep an adequate supply of cartridges and other routine replacement 
    parts in stock and readily accessible to employees so that they can 
    replace needed parts. OSHA does not believe it is necessary to specify 
    that employers must maintain an adequate number of spare parts. Final 
    paragraph (h)(4) requires that defective respirators be removed from 
    service unless they are repaired or adjusted, and an employer who does 
    not keep on hand sufficient parts to allow respirators to be repaired 
    will need to remove those respirators from service until suitable 
    repairs can be made. Thus, an employer who does not maintain an 
    adequate inventory of parts will either need to keep extra respirators 
    on hand or cease operations that require respirator use until parts can 
    be obtained or installed.
    Paragraph (i)--Breathing Air Quality and Use
        This paragraph of the respiratory protection standard requires that 
    breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators be of high purity, 
    meet quality levels for content, and not exceed certain contaminant 
    levels and moisture requirements. The paragraph sets performance 
    standards for the operation and maintenance of breathing air 
    compressors and cylinders, establishes methods for ensuring breathing 
    air quality, and sets requirements for the quality of purchased 
    breathing air.
        Paragraph (i)(1) of the final standard applies to atmosphere-
    supplying respirators that are being used to protect employees, and 
    requires that breathing air supplied to these respirators be of high 
    purity. This same requirement for breathing air quality was included in 
    proposed paragraph (i)(1). Both the prior and final rules refer to a 
    number of standard references that establish parameters for breathing 
    air quality. For example, under (i)(1)(i), the final rule requires the 
    employer to ensure that oxygen used for breathing purposes meets the 
    requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) for medical or 
    breathing oxygen. This provision is the same as the requirement in 
    OSHA's prior respiratory protection standard at paragraph (d)(1). The 
    ANSI Z88.2-1992 respirator standard, in Clause 10.5.1, also requires 
    that air be of high purity and that oxygen meet the USP requirements. 
    Inclusion of this requirement in the final rule was strongly supported 
    by the AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428), which stated that the employer must ensure 
    that ``compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air, and liquid oxygen 
    used for respiration is of high purity and in accordance with the 
    specifications listed in [proposed paragraph] (i)(1).''
        Under paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of the final standard, breathing air 
    must meet at least the requirements for Type I--Grade D breathing air, 
    as described in the ANSI/CGA G-7.1-1989 standard, which is the latest 
    revision of that reference standard and the one currently used by OSHA 
    when determining breathing air quality. Final paragraph (i)(1)(ii) 
    identifies the specifications for the contents of Grade D breathing 
    air: oxygen content (volume/volume) of 19.5 to 23.5 percent; 
    hydrocarbon (condensed) concentration of five milligrams or less per 
    cubic meter of air; carbon monoxide level of 10 ppm or less; carbon 
    dioxide level of 1,000 ppm or less; and a lack of noticeable odor.
        The OSHA respiratory protection standard adopted in 1971 referenced 
    the then-current CGA G-7.1-1966 breathing air quality standard. In 
    1973, and again in 1989, the CGA, in conjunction with ANSI, revised the 
    G-7.1 standard. The Grade D specification was changed as part of the 
    1989 ANSI revision, at which time the carbon monoxide level was reduced 
    from 20 ppm to 10 ppm. The OSHA Directorate of Compliance Programs 
    subsequently issued letters of interpretation in 1991 and 1992 that 
    required employers to use the updated Grade D specifications for 
    breathing air quality.
        The proposal requested comments on whether acceptable respirator 
    breathing air quality should continue to meet the specifications for 
    Grade D breathing air described in the ANSI/CGA G 7.1-1989 standard. 
    Commenters supported inclusion of a requirement for use of the 1989 
    Grade D breathing air values in the final rule (Exs. 54-141, 54-189, 
    54-267, 54-286, 54-408, 54-443). For example, the Tennessee Valley 
    Authority (Ex. 54-189) and Norfolk Southern (Ex. 54-267)
    
    [[Page 1253]]
    
    supported the Grade D breathing air requirement, stating that, in their 
    experience, the Grade D air they have been using is fully adequate and 
    safe, and that OSHA should not adopt more stringent requirements across 
    the board.
        Modern Safety Techniques, Inc. (Ex. 54-141) supported maintaining 
    the Grade D breathing air quality requirement but recommended that the 
    OSHA rule not specify the year of the ANSI/CGA standard, because, for 
    example, employers were confused when the CGA revised the ANSI/CGA G-
    7.1 standard in 1989 and the OSHA standard referred to an earlier 
    version of that standard. However, the regulations governing the 
    incorporation of documents by reference (1 CFR 51) require that the 
    revision date of incorporated references be specified when they are 
    included in any new or revised standard. Where incorporated references 
    are used in final paragraph (i), therefore, the latest revision dates 
    for these references have been used.
        The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) (Ex. 36-52) recommended 
    that Grade E air rather than Grade D air be used since most air that 
    passes the Grade D requirements will also pass Grade E requirements. 
    The Grade E specifications narrow the range of permitted oxygen content 
    from 19.5-23.5 percent to 20 to 22 percent oxygen and lower the 
    allowable carbon dioxide level from 1000 ppm to 500 ppm. LANL gave no 
    specific safety or health reason for OSHA to adopt this more stringent 
    recommendation. The Service Employees International Union (Ex. 54-455), 
    however, points out that Grade E air of reliable quality may be 
    difficult for employers to obtain. In addition, OSHA is not aware of 
    any problems that have occurred as a result of breathing Grade D air, 
    and believes that the Grade D specifications will fully protect 
    employees who use atmosphere-supplying respirators. Therefore, OSHA is 
    not convinced a higher grade of air is required, and the final rule 
    specifies Grade D air.
        OSHA has been informed that NIOSH has been working with the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on a new ``liquid 
    air SCBA'' that may be submitted for NIOSH certification in the future. 
    In its revision of the 42 CFR 84 respirator certification standard, 
    NIOSH incorporated the CGA Commodity Specification for Air in the CGA's 
    G-7.1-1966 standard to maintain the quality verification category for 
    Type II liquid compressed air, which had been removed from the updated 
    ANSI/CGA G-7.1-1989 standard. NIOSH included this specification because 
    a liquid compressed air quality category is needed for future 
    evaluations of atmosphere-supplying respirators that use liquefied 
    compressed air. NIOSH continues to recommend the use of the ANSI/CGA G-
    7.1-1989 standard for breathing air quality for currently issued 
    respirator certifications.
        Under paragraph (i)(2) of the final standard, employers are 
    prohibited from using compressed oxygen in atmosphere-supplying 
    respirators, including open-circuit SCBAs, that have previously used 
    compressed air. This prohibition was proposed in the NPRM, and is 
    intended to prevent the fires and explosions that could result if high 
    pressure oxygen comes into contact with oil or grease that has been 
    introduced to the respirator or the air lines during compressed air 
    operations. Comments to the record (Exs. 10, 54-165, 54-208, 54-218) 
    support this provision. Additionally, the prohibition is consistent 
    with Clause 10.5.2 of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard.
        Proposed paragraph (i)(3) would have prohibited the use of oxygen 
    with supplied air respirators. This provision was intended to avoid the 
    possibility of fires and explosions that can result when oxygen is used 
    in high concentrations. However, some respiratory equipment is 
    specifically designed to avoid fire and explosion hazards when used 
    with oxygen in concentrations greater than 23.5%. Therefore, paragraph 
    (i)(3) of the final standard specifies that oxygen in concentrations 
    greater than 23.5% is to be used only with equipment designed 
    specifically for oxygen service or distribution. Several commenters 
    pointed out the need to specify a maximum oxygen concentration (Exs. 
    54-165, 54-208, 54-218, 54-219). Clause 10.5.2 of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 
    standard (Ex. 81) also states, ``Oxygen concentrations greater than 
    23.5% shall be used only in equipment designed for oxygen service or 
    distribution.'' OSHA agrees with the recommendations made by the AIHA 
    (Ex. 54-208), 3M (Ex. 54-218), and Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) that the final 
    rule adopt the maximum oxygen concentration language from the ANSI 
    standard, and the final rule reflects this recommendation.
        Final paragraph (i)(4) requires that breathing air for respirators 
    provided from cylinders or air compressors meet certain minimum 
    standards. Under final paragraph (i)(4)(i), cylinders must be tested 
    and maintained as prescribed in the Shipping Container Specification 
    Regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (49 CFR parts 173 
    and 178); these DOT regulations are also required for NIOSH respirator 
    certification. The DOT regulations in parts 173 and 178 cover the 
    construction, maintenance, and testing of these compressed air 
    cylinders, and are necessary to prevent the explosions that can result 
    if high pressure breathing air cylinders rupture. The proposal 
    referenced only 49 CFR part 178, but the AIHA (Ex. 54-208) recommended 
    that the DOT requirements found in 49 CFR part 173 also be specified in 
    the final rule because they apply to breathing air cylinders. Final 
    paragraph (i)(4)(i) therefore includes a reference to part 173 in 
    addition to part 178.
        Paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of the final standard includes a provision 
    requiring employers to ensure that cylinders of purchased breathing air 
    are accompanied by a certificate from the supplier stating that the air 
    meets the requirements for Type 1-Grade D breathing air contained in 
    paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of the final standard. Employers must obtain a 
    certificate of analysis of purchased breathing air from the supplier to 
    ensure that its content and quality meet the requirements for Grade D 
    breathing air. This will allow the employer to have assurance that the 
    purchased breathing air being used by employees is safe. The proposal 
    did not include a requirement for the certification of the quality of 
    purchased breathing air. There was, however, support in the record 
    (Exs. 54-234, 54-266, 54-273, 54-330, 54-408) for adding this 
    requirement. For example, the American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-330) 
    and Duquesne Light Company (Ex. 54-408) recommended that additional 
    guidance, similar to that in ANSI Z88.2-1992, be provided to ensure the 
    quality of purchased breathing air. Exxon (Ex. 54-266) stated that OSHA 
    should not allow the direct blending of compressed nitrogen and oxygen 
    gases by the employer to produce Grade D air, citing the ``extreme 
    consequences of having too little oxygen in a cylinder.'' Exxon further 
    recommended that 100% of the cylinders be tested for oxygen content for 
    all nitrogen/oxygen mixed cylinders (Ex. 54-266). The requirement that 
    the employer obtain a certificate of analysis of purchased breathing 
    air means that every cylinder will have been analyzed for oxygen 
    content by the supplier and, therefore, the situation feared by Exxon 
    will not arise.
        Final paragraph (i)(4)(iii) requires that the moisture content of 
    compressed air in air cylinders not exceed a dew point of -50 deg. F 
    (-45.6 deg. C) at one atmosphere of pressure. This requirement will 
    prevent respirator valves from freezing, which can occur when excess 
    moisture accumulates on the valves. This provision has been revised 
    from the proposed requirement to be consistent
    
    [[Page 1254]]
    
    with the latest versions of the standard references for moisture 
    content of compressed breathing air, the ANSI Z88.2-1992 and ANSI/CGA 
    G-7.1-1989 standards. Consistency between the required value and the 
    standard references will avoid confusion in measuring moisture content 
    and, consequently, will enhance employee protection. This dew point 
    value, as the AIHA (Ex. 54-208) recommended, has been taken from the 
    ANSI/CGA G-7.1-1989 specifications for Grade D air and replaces the 27 
    ml/m3 value for moisture content specified in the proposal.
        Final paragraph (i)(5)(i) requires that compressors that supply 
    breathing air are to be constructed and situated so that contaminated 
    air cannot enter the air supply system. This provision from the prior 
    standard is retained and also reflects the intent of the proposed 
    requirement. The purity of the air entering the compressor intake is a 
    major factor in the purity of air delivered to the respirator user. The 
    location of the intake is most important, and must be in an 
    uncontaminated area where exhaust gases from nearby vehicles, the 
    internal combustion motor that is powering the compressor itself (if 
    applicable), or other exhaust gases being ventilated from the plant 
    will not be picked up by the compressor air intake. Contaminated air or 
    exhaust gases from internal combustion engines that are taken into the 
    compressor are major hazards to the purity of breathing air from 
    compressors, and these hazards occur with all compressors, not just 
    oil-lubricated ones. Respirator users have died or been injured when 
    the air intake was not properly located to avoid contaminants. Final 
    paragraph (i)(5)(i), therefore, requires that air intakes for all 
    compressors be located in a way that avoids entry of any contaminated 
    air into the compressor.
        Support for this requirement can be found in the Distler air 
    compressor study (Ex. 32-1). This study recommended that engine exhaust 
    gases should be piped upward or downwind from the compressor air 
    intake, particularly where exhaust gases are not reliably dispersed, 
    such as in partially enclosed spaces or in turbulent wind areas. The 
    compressor exhaust piping used in the Distler study had to be 
    repositioned several times to find a location where the exhaust gases 
    would not be picked up by the compressor air intake. All of these 
    findings reinforce the importance of locating the compressor's air 
    intake in an area that ensures that only high-quality air can be taken 
    in. No comments were received on the proposed requirement for the 
    location of compressor air intakes.
        Final paragraph (i)(5)(ii) has been slightly modified from proposed 
    requirement (i)(4)(ii) to require that the moisture content of 
    compressed air be minimized so that the dew point at one atmosphere of 
    pressure is 10 degrees Fahrenheit (5.56 degrees Celsius) below the 
    ambient temperature to prevent water freezing in valves and connections 
    of the air supply system. Such freezing can block air lines, fittings, 
    and pressure regulators. This final requirement is similar to the 
    parallel provision of the previous standard, which required that 
    breathing air meet the requirements of CGA G-7.1-1966. Two commenters 
    (Exs. 54-208, 54-218) pointed out that the proposal specified a dew 
    point of 10 degrees Celsius instead of the 10 degrees Fahrenheit 
    specified in the ANSI/CGA G-7.1-1989 standard. The value in final 
    paragraph (i)(5)(ii) has been revised to match the 10 deg. F provision 
    in the G-7.1-1989 standard for Grade D air, with an equivalent value of 
    5.56 deg. C added to comply with a Federal government requirement (P.L. 
    100-418 and E.O. 12770) that scientific and technical measures are 
    expressed as metric units.
        Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the prior standard required air compressors 
    to have a receiver of sufficient capacity to permit the respirator user 
    to escape from a hazardous atmosphere in the event of compressor 
    failure. However, under paragraph (d)(2) of the final standard, the 
    only respirators that can now be used in IDLH atmospheres are either 
    SCBAs or supplied-air respirators with an auxiliary self-contained air 
    supply for escape. Consequently, a requirement for an air receiver to 
    permit escape from IDLH atmospheres is no longer needed in the final 
    rule. Also, the prior respiratory protection standard, in paragraph 
    (d)(2)(ii), required compressors to have alarms to indicate compressor 
    failure and overheating; this requirement was part of the same 
    provision that specified that a receiver for escape from a contaminated 
    atmosphere in the event of compressor failure be available. This alarm 
    requirement was deleted from the proposal and is not part of the final 
    standard. An alarm to indicate compressor failure or overheating is 
    unnecessary in non-IDLH atmospheres since, as OSHA stated in the 
    proposal, the respirator user can readily exit the hazardous area if 
    the respirator fails.
        The deletion from the final standard of the prior standard's 
    requirement for compressors to be equipped with receivers if they were 
    to be used in hazardous atmospheres will clarify an enforcement issue 
    that has arisen in connection with ambient air movers. Ambient air 
    movers have been developed to provide air to supplied-air respirators. 
    These units are small electric compressors that are not oil-lubricated 
    and have no air receiver. Such compressors are used in non-IDLH 
    atmospheres. The use of ambient air movers has been allowed under an 
    existing OSHA compliance directive even though such devices do not have 
    the air receiver required for air compressors by the prior respiratory 
    protection standard. However, the final standard removes the air 
    receiver requirement for compressors, and ambient air movers will 
    therefore be treated like any other air compressor used in non-IDLH 
    atmospheres.
        Under final paragraph (i)(5)(iii), compressors must be equipped 
    with suitable in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and filters to further 
    assure breathing air purity. The Associated Builders and Contractors, 
    Inc. (Ex. 54-309) recommended that the corresponding provision in the 
    proposal be revised to add the requirement that employers change air-
    purifying sorbent bed and filters in accordance with the manufacturer's 
    instructions. Also, clause 10.5.4.2 of the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard 
    recommends that maintenance and replacement or refurbishment of the 
    air-purifying and filter media be performed periodically by trained 
    personnel and in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and 
    instructions. OSHA agrees with the Associated Builders and Contractors 
    that sorbent beds and filters must be maintained properly, and has 
    added language to paragraph (i)(5)(iii) that is similar to that in ANSI 
    Z88.2-1992, and requires sorbent beds and filters to be maintained and 
    replaced or refurbished periodically in accordance with the 
    manufacturer's recommendations. The Associated Builders and Contractors 
    also recommended that sorbent bed and filter changes be documented, 
    that such documentation be retained for one year, and that it be made 
    available to OSHA on request. However, OSHA is not generally requiring 
    that records of respirator maintenance performed under this standard be 
    kept and does not believe such a requirement is necessary here. 
    Instead, OSHA is requiring in paragraph (i)(5)(iv) that a tag 
    containing the most recent date of sorbent bed replacement or 
    refurbishing, along with the signature of the person performing the 
    change, be kept at the compressor. This tagging requirement is also 
    consistent with OSHA's efforts, as required by the Paperwork Reduction
    
    [[Page 1255]]
    
    Act of 1995, to reduce paperwork to the extent consistent with employee 
    safety and health.
        Paragraphs (I)(6) and (i)(7) address the control of carbon monoxide 
    levels in breathing air. Paragraph (i)(6) requires that, for 
    compressors that are not oil lubricated, the CO levels in the breathing 
    air may not exceed 10ppm. Paragraph (i)(7) requires monitoring of CO 
    levels for oil lubricated compressors. OSHA stated in the NPRM that one 
    method to prevent contaminated air from reaching the breathing air 
    supply was to require carbon monoxide filters with continuous alarms 
    for all breathing air compressors. The agency requested comments on the 
    use of carbon monoxide alarms, high-temperature alarms, and shutoff 
    devices in the workplace (59 FR 58926). A number of comments were 
    received that addressed the issue of carbon monoxide monitors and 
    alarms.
        Modern Safety Techniques, Inc. (MST) (Ex. 54-141) noted that in 
    many workplaces it may be impossible or cost prohibitive to relocate 
    the air intake to an area that would reduce the likelihood of carbon 
    monoxide entering the system. In these cases, MST recommended 
    continuous monitoring as the only method that would ensure breathing 
    air quality. MST stated that the use of a carbon monoxide alarm or 
    measuring device is necessary to tell whether carbon monoxide purifiers 
    (e.g., Hopcalite filters) are functioning properly. MST stated, 
    ``Unless continuous monitoring is being conducted on the breathing air 
    supply, ``frequent'' monitoring, or proper placement of the breathing 
    air supply, only assures that the requirements are met at that 
    particular instance in time.'' [Emphasis in original.] Eugene Satrun, 
    an industrial hygienist who runs a respirator program in Illinois (Ex. 
    54-261), supported the need for continuous carbon monoxide monitors, 
    noting that automatic compressors can be operated with a vehicle 
    running nearby and may consequently pull significant levels of carbon 
    monoxide into the intake.
        Several commenters were opposed to OSHA adopting a requirement for 
    continuous carbon monoxide monitoring and alarms (Exs. 54-234, 54-250, 
    54-408). They stated that the requirements for sorbent bed filtration, 
    proper air inlet location, and Grade D air quality, confirmed by 
    periodic sampling, would be sufficient to control the carbon monoxide 
    hazard. Kodak (Ex. 54-265) stated that it has assessed the purity of 
    compressed air for breathing use over a period of 18 years at its 
    plants, collecting and analyzing more than 1200 samples, and that no 
    incidents of carbon monoxide production involving oil-lubricated 
    compressors have been reported. Carbon monoxide production, Kodak 
    stated, is best prevented by adequate procedures, awareness, and 
    certification. Kodak did not provide specific procedures for 
    determining air system compliance, nor further clarification of what is 
    meant by awareness or certification. The Duquesne Light Company (Ex. 
    54-408) stated that continuous monitoring was unnecessary, and that 
    requiring filtration or purification of the air supply, proper location 
    of the air intake, and Grade D air purity should be sufficient to 
    ensure a safe breathing air supply. Meridian Oil (Ex. 54-206) opposed 
    continuous monitors because these devices can generate false alarms.
        Other commenters proposed alternatives to continuous monitoring. 
    Niagara Mohawk Power (Ex. 54-177), in comments opposing carbon monoxide 
    alarms, stated that carbon monoxide filters with color-change 
    indicators are an appropriate method to monitor carbon monoxide. 
    Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) stated that OSHA should not require all 
    compressors to have carbon monoxide filters and alarms. Monsanto stated 
    that high-temperature alarms or automatic compressor shut downs would 
    only be needed when there was a reasonable possibility of carbon 
    monoxide production in the compressor due to equipment problems. TU 
    Electric (Ex. 54-250) stated that carbon monoxide filters or continuous 
    monitoring alarms should not be required for all breathing air 
    compressors, but that regular testing of breathing air prior to use, 
    and testing in specific locations on a regular basis during compressor 
    use, should be required. This commenter also recommended against a 
    requirement for carbon monoxide filters or monitors for oil-free 
    compressors.
        Other commenters (Exs. 54-206, 54-234, 54-250) supported testing 
    ambient air near the intake on a regular basis, but did not recommend a 
    testing frequency. General guidance for periodic sampling of air 
    quality for compressors is specified in Clause 10.5.4.3 and Table 4 of 
    the ANSI Z88.2-1992 standard. The ANSI procedure was recommended by 
    several commenters (Exs. 54-234, 54-250, 54-263, 54-273, 54-363). ANSI 
    Z88.2-1992 recommends acceptance testing prior to initial use and 
    representative sampling at distribution supply points on a periodic 
    basis to ensure ``a continued high-quality air supply.'' Norfolk 
    Southern (Ex. 54-267) stated that OSHA should not require the use of 
    carbon monoxide filters with compressor-supplied air, and that the 
    employer should have the option of using a carbon monoxide detector. 
    This commenter stated also that installing a carbon monoxide filter is 
    not reasonable for those systems that already have a carbon monoxide 
    detector and high-temperature alarm. St. Lawrence Gas (Ex. 54-402) 
    commented that carbon monoxide alarms should not be required and noted 
    that it has found the use of carbon monoxide-to-carbon dioxide 
    converters (with color-change indicators) sufficient for detecting the 
    presence of carbon monoxide. ORC (Ex. 54-424) stated that carbon 
    monoxide alarms or high-temperature alarms are not needed for all 
    compressors. ORC recommended that adequate procedures, awareness, and 
    certification for installation are the best means to ensure that 
    contaminated air does not enter the compressor. This language is 
    similar to that used by Kodak (Ex. 54-265), and, like Kodak, ORC (Ex. 
    54-424) did not provide any elaboration of the phrase ``adequate 
    procedures, awareness, and certification for installation.''
        A carbon monoxide monitor with an alarm can be used to continuously 
    measure the breathing air and warn respirator users when carbon 
    monoxide levels exceed the 10 ppm limit set for Grade D breathing air. 
    However, these alarms need to be properly maintained to function 
    effectively. MST (Ex. 54-141) stated that the electrochemical type of 
    sensors used today are specific for carbon monoxide, are relatively 
    stable during temperature and humidity changes, and are accurate enough 
    to meet the CGA G-7.1-1989 requirements. These sensors have replaced 
    the older metal oxide sensors that had problems with false alarms. 
    However, the electrochemical sensors must be calibrated periodically 
    (usually on a monthly basis) to perform accurately. The Service 
    Employees International Union (Ex. 54-455) also recommended that the 
    final standard address regular replacement of alarm sensors and filter 
    media.
        Carbon monoxide filters with color-change indicators are used to 
    convert carbon monoxide in breathing air to carbon dioxide, which is 
    less likely to pose a hazard to the respirator user. The source of the 
    carbon monoxide can be from contamination of the intake air or from 
    carbon monoxide generated by the compressor. However, the color change 
    in the indicator results from moisture in the breathing air that is 
    trapped in the filter element. The color-change indicator, therefore, 
    does not indicate the presence of carbon monoxide, but instead signals 
    only the presence of moisture, which can render the sorbent filters 
    ineffective. Consequently, the
    
    [[Page 1256]]
    
    color-change indicator cannot be used directly to detect carbon 
    monoxide. In addition, these carbon monoxide filters, like carbon 
    monoxide alarms, need periodic maintenance to ensure their continued 
    effectiveness.
        In summary, strong arguments favor a requirement for continuous 
    carbon monoxide monitoring of compressor-generated breathing air. This 
    is the case because preventing carbon monoxide contamination by 
    locating the air intake for compressors in an area that is free of 
    carbon monoxide contamination is difficult in many cases and impossible 
    in others. Automatic compressors with poorly located air intakes may 
    operate when a running vehicle is in the immediate area, thereby 
    contaminating the air supply with carbon monoxide from the vehicle's 
    exhaust. In addition, older compressors, which may still be operational 
    after hundreds, if not thousands of operating hours, may allow 
    increased oil blow-by due to piston ring and cylinder wear, which 
    increases the possibility of carbon monoxide contamination.
        The most convincing evidence against a requirement for continuous 
    carbon monoxide monitoring comes from the 18-year collection of 
    sampling results taken by Kodak (Ex. 54-265). OSHA notes, however, that 
    Kodak's results are likely to be due to the company's careful 
    observance of operating procedures, such as procedures ensuring the 
    proper location of air intakes and regular and thorough maintenance and 
    repair of all compressors. OSHA notes that Clause 10.5.4.3 of the ANSI 
    Z88.2-1992 standard calls for periodic, rather than continuous, 
    sampling of breathing air from the air supply.
        The arguments for and against carbon monoxide alarms are less well 
    defined than the case for carbon monoxide monitoring devices. Several 
    commenters specifically recommended the use of carbon monoxide alarms 
    whenever compressed air is being used as breathing air (Exs. 54-337, 
    54-428, 54-455). The AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428) recommended the use of carbon 
    monoxide alarms or monitors on all air supply systems that service 
    respirators with Grade D breathing air. Both of these recommendations 
    would assure an air supply uncontaminated by carbon monoxide. The 
    proponents of carbon monoxide alarms (Exs. 54-141, 54-261, 54-337, 54-
    428, 54-455) state that they are needed to alert personnel that 
    equipment is malfunctioning; the Exxon Company (Ex. 54-266) stated that 
    gasoline- and diesel-powered compressors should be required to have 
    carbon monoxide alarms to detect exhaust gases that enter the air 
    supply, as well as compressor failure and high-temperature alarms; 
    other commenters (Exs. 54-337, 54-428) would require the use of carbon 
    monoxide alarms to prevent accidental carbon monoxide contamination 
    whenever compressed air is being used as breathing air.
        The opponents (Exs. 54-177, 54-206, 54-219, 54-234, 54-250, 54-265, 
    54-402) of carbon monoxide alarms cite the availability of alternate 
    equipment and procedures that they claim are as effective as alarms in 
    protecting the purity of breathing air. Examples of these alternatives 
    are filters with color-change indicators, carbon monoxide-to-carbon 
    dioxide converters, oil-free compressors, proper air intake placement, 
    certification of air compressor systems, and periodic monitoring (Exs. 
    54-177, 54-206, 54-219, 54-250, 54-265, 54-330, 54-402, 54-408, 54-
    424).
        OSHA believes that it is essential for the employer to ensure that 
    excessive carbon monoxide is not in the compressed breathing air 
    supplied to respirators. Final paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(7), therefore, 
    require that the employer prevent carbon monoxide levels in the 
    breathing air from exceeding 10 ppm. For compressors that are not oil-
    lubricated, this requirement can be met by several different methods, 
    including the use of continuous carbon monoxide alarms, carbon monoxide 
    filters, proper air intake location in an area free of contaminants, 
    frequent monitoring of air quality, or the use of high-temperature 
    alarms and automatic shutoff devices, as appropriate. No single method 
    will be appropriate in all situations, and several methods may need to 
    be combined, e.g., the use of carbon monoxide alarms with carbon 
    monoxide filters where conditions are such that a reliable carbon 
    monoxide-free area for compressor air intakes cannot be found. As the 
    comments to the record show, there was no agreement on the most 
    appropriate method for ensuring that carbon monoxide would not 
    contaminate the breathing air coming from compressors. OSHA has decided 
    that a performance-based requirement ensuring that carbon monoxide does 
    not contaminate breathing air will give employers flexibility in 
    selecting the method(s) most appropriate for conditions in their 
    workplace.
        Oil-lubricated compressors can produce carbon monoxide if the oil 
    enters the combustion chamber and is ignited. This can be a 
    particularly severe problem in older compressors whose piston rings and 
    cylinders are worn. Final paragraph (i)(7) requires that such 
    compressors have a high-temperature or carbon monoxide alarm, or both. 
    If only a high-temperature alarm is used, the air from the oil-
    lubricated compressor must be monitored at intervals sufficient to 
    prevent carbon monoxide in the breathing air from exceeding 10 ppm. The 
    latter requirement ensures that carbon monoxide that enters a poorly 
    located compressor air intake, as well as carbon monoxide generated by 
    the compressor itself, is detected.
        Final paragraph (i)(7) is similar to a provision in the previous 
    standard. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to delete the requirement from the 
    previous respirator standard that oil-lubricated compressors be 
    equipped with carbon monoxide alarms and high-temperature shutoff 
    devices. However, a number of commenters (Exs. 54-144, 54-219, 54-266) 
    stated that precautions against excessive carbon monoxide were needed 
    when oil-lubricated compressors were used. Modern Safety Techniques 
    (Ex. 54-144) stated that oil-lubricated compressors used by industry to 
    supply breathing air often have hundreds of hours of use, allowing 
    greater oil blow-by and therefore greater potential for carbon monoxide 
    production, was reported in the Distler study. That study found that 
    properly functioning air compressors are unlikely to reach temperatures 
    at which carbon monoxide production occurs. Exxon (Ex. 54-266) 
    encouraged OSHA to include a requirement for in-line carbon monoxide 
    alarms for diesel- or gasoline-powered compressors, since its 
    experience indicates that the use of these compressors increases the 
    risk of carbon monoxide contamination from the compressor's exhaust. 
    Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) stated that high-temperature alarms or automatic 
    compressor shutoffs would be needed when there was a reasonable 
    possibility of carbon monoxide production in the compressor due to 
    equipment problems. The Service Employees International Union (Ex. 54-
    455) argued that the requirements specifying Grade D breathing air 
    purity and location of the compressor air intake in an uncontaminated 
    atmosphere were not sufficient to ensure that carbon monoxide is not 
    entrained in the system.
        An incident of carbon monoxide production by an oil-lubricated 
    compressor was described in a MSHA Accident Investigation Report issued 
    in January 1985 (Ex. 38-12). An oil-cooled, diesel-powered, two-stage, 
    rotary air compressor overheated during a sandblasting operation at a 
    limestone quarry. The air compressor thermo-bypass valve, which should 
    have directed the oil through a cooling
    
    [[Page 1257]]
    
    radiator once the oil had reached a temperature of 185 deg.F, failed, 
    which allowed the temperature of the cooling oil to rise above its 
    flashpoint of 420 deg.F. The oil ignited, producing carbon monoxide. 
    The compressor was equipped with a high-temperature shutoff switch set 
    for 235 deg.F, but it had been disconnected for at least 30 days prior 
    to the incident. The compressor was not equipped with a carbon monoxide 
    filter or alarm. The sandblaster collapsed from carbon monoxide 
    poisoning. Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) stated that this incident resulted 
    from a failure to follow the provision in the previous standard 
    requiring that oil-lubricated compressors have a functional high-
    temperature or carbon monoxide alarm, or both. OSHA believes that this 
    incident, as well as the comments described above, supports carrying 
    the previous standard's requirement forward in the final rule.
        Final paragraph (i)(8) requires that air line couplings be 
    incompatible with outlets for non-respirable worksite air or other gas 
    systems to prevent the inadvertent provision of nonrespirable gases to 
    airline respirators. Breathing air couplings, therefore, are to be made 
    incompatible with outlets from nonrespirable plant air and other gas 
    systems. This requirement is similar to the provision in paragraph 
    (d)(3) of the previous respiratory protection standard and proposed 
    paragraph (i)(5) of the NPRM. Martin Marietta (Ex. 54-410) stated that 
    there have been documented cases in which cross-connections have 
    introduced hazardous contaminants into breathing air lines. To avoid 
    this problem, Martin Marietta recommended that OSHA add a provision to 
    the final standard that prohibits connecting breathing air lines to any 
    nonrespirable gas source or process. Consistent with this 
    recommendation, OSHA has added a sentence to paragraph (i)(8) requiring 
    that no asphyxiating substance be introduced into breathing air lines. 
    This requirement will cover not only the contamination of the breathing 
    air system from cross-connections, but will also cover other potential 
    contaminating conditions, e.g., using nitrogen to blow out worksite air 
    lines where the worksite air source is also used for breathing air.
        The final standard also requires that the employer prevent utility 
    oxygen, i.e., oxygen supplied to meet other manufacturing needs, from 
    entering the respirator air supply system. As discussed above, the 
    standard permits oxygen to be used in respirators designed for oxygen 
    service. The final standard prohibits the introduction of utility 
    oxygen into breathing air systems that supply respirators that are not 
    designed for oxygen service; this provision is needed to prevent the 
    fires and explosions that could result if high-pressure oxygen comes 
    into contact with oil or grease that has been introduced to the 
    respirator or the air lines during compressed air operations.
        Final rule paragraph (i)(9) requires employers to use breathing gas 
    containers marked in accordance with the NIOSH respirator certification 
    standard at 42 CFR part 84. This requirement differs from proposed 
    paragraph (i)(6), which listed several additional standards for 
    breathing gas containers. These additional standards have been 
    incorporated into 42 CFR part 84, making reference to them in the final 
    rule unnecessary.
    Paragraph (j)--Identification of Filters, Cartridges, and Canisters
        The final rule provides that the employer only use filter 
    cartridges and canisters that are labeled and color coded with the 
    NIOSH approval label and that the label not be removed or made 
    illegible. This is similar to the parallel requirement in the proposal, 
    which was supported by commenters (Exs. 54-361, 54-428, 54-455). OSHA 
    has modified the proposed language in certain respects to add 
    compliance flexibility while retaining the original objective, i.e., 
    assurance that these elements meet NIOSH's stringent requirements. 
    These comments and modifications are discussed below.
        OSHA proposed to eliminate from the previous respiratory protection 
    standard the language in paragraphs (g)(1) to (g)(6), which described 
    labeling requirements, and Table I-1, which listed color codes assigned 
    to canisters and cartridges. These requirements were adopted from the 
    original national consensus standard (i.e., ANSI K13.1, ``Standard for 
    Identification of Air-Purifying Respirator Canisters and Cartridges'') 
    adopted by OSHA in 1971. In place of these requirements, proposed 
    paragraph (j)(1) would have required employers to ensure that all 
    filters, cartridges, and canisters bear a NIOSH approval label before 
    being placed into service.
        Proposed paragraph (j)(2) specified that the label not be removed, 
    obscured, or defaced while the filter, cartridge, or canister was in 
    service to ensure that the label provided information to the employee 
    about the protection being afforded by the respirator. In the final 
    standard, OSHA has combined proposed paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) into 
    a single paragraph (j). The changes from the previous standard 
    recognize that employers who use respirators should be able to rely on 
    labeling and color coding by respirator manufacturers for assurance 
    that the respirators meet NIOSH requirements.
        This position is consistent with that taken by many commenters, who 
    noted that the labeling and color coding of filters are the 
    responsibility of the respirator manufacturer (Exs. 54-208, 54-218, 54-
    219, 54-278, 54-289) and are required by NIOSH for certification. OSHA 
    agrees that color coding and the attachment of NIOSH approval labels to 
    respirators are the responsibility of the manufacturer. However, it is 
    still the employer's responsibility to use only components bearing a 
    NIOSH approval label, and to ensure that the NIOSH approval labels are 
    not removed from the filters, cartridges, and canisters that are used 
    in the workplace and remain legible.
        The NIOSH label serves several purposes. It ensures selection of 
    appropriate filters for the contaminants encountered in the workplace 
    and permits the employee using the respirator to check and confirm that 
    the respirator has the appropriate filters before the respirator is 
    used. David Lee, a CIH, CSP, and respirator consultant (Ex. 54-304), 
    commented that, once a filter selection is made and the respirator is 
    donned, the label becomes meaningless. However, the employee is not the 
    only one who uses the color coding and label. Color coding and labeling 
    also allow fellow employees, supervisors, and the respirator program 
    administrator to readily determine that the appropriate filters are 
    being used by the employee. Cartridges that are appropriate for one 
    operation may be inappropriate for another, and color coding and 
    labeling allow respirator users with inappropriate filters to be 
    identified in the workplace and potential respiratory hazards to be 
    avoided.
        Proposed paragraph (j)(2) required that the NIOSH approval label 
    not be ``removed, obscured or defaced'' while respirators are being 
    used. 3M (Ex. 54-218) and Monsanto (Ex. 54-219) urged OSHA to add the 
    word ``intentionally'' before ``removed, obscured or defaced,'' since 
    they believe that an employer would be in violation of this provision 
    if, for example, a label is covered with paint overspray during use. 
    Monsanto also stated that some OSHA substance-specific standards 
    require that cartridges be dated by the employee to indicate when they 
    were first put into service and that some employers could use this 
    dating method to control cartridge use even when not required by OSHA. 
    Accordingly, Monsanto urged OSHA to add the phrase ``except if it is to 
    record
    
    [[Page 1258]]
    
    initial use information'' to paragraph (j)(2) to clarify that adding a 
    date to the NIOSH label is allowed and will not be regarded as defacing 
    the label. David Lee (Ex. 54-304) was concerned that dirt, dust, and 
    debris can easily obscure the label once the respirator is in use and 
    that employees would be required by the proposed provision to leave the 
    area to clean the label to make it legible. Dow (Ex. 54-278) stated 
    that, because of the small size of the label on some cartridges, the 
    employer cannot date the cartridges without obscuring some of the 
    information on the label. To resolve this problem, Dow suggested that 
    the words ``pertinent information'' be added before ``obscured.''
        OSHA has not added the term ``intentional'' to final paragraph (j) 
    because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the 
    removal or obscuring of a NIOSH label was accidental or intentional. 
    Also, the final provision does not include an exemption for documenting 
    the initial use date on cartridge and canister labels, since OSHA 
    already permits this practice. OSHA's experience indicates that the 
    initial use date can easily be added to a filter, cartridge, or 
    canister without obscuring the label, and this procedure has not proven 
    to be a problem in the substance-specific standards that require such 
    dating. The term ``pertinent information'' has not been included in 
    final paragraph (j) because OSHA believes that all of the information 
    on the NIOSH approval label is pertinent. The degree of cleanliness 
    required of the label while the respirator is in service should not be 
    an issue because the label only needs to be legible and reasonably 
    clean to provide the required information. Any dust, dirt, paint 
    overspray, or other substance that completely obscures the label would 
    also affect respirator cleanliness and the service life of the filter, 
    resulting in replacement of the filter with new filters that have 
    unobscured labels, as required by paragraph (g).
        In summary, final paragraph (j) combines into a single provision 
    the proposed requirements that employers ensure that the manufacturer's 
    NIOSH approval label is on the cartridge, filter, or canister, and that 
    employers maintain the labels in legible condition while the cartridge, 
    filter, or canister is in service. As with the proposed paragraphs, 
    this provision is a performance-based requirement that permits 
    employers to adopt whatever procedures are appropriate to ensure that 
    the label remains on the filter and is not removed, defaced, or 
    obscured during respirator use.
    Paragraph (k)--Training and Information
        Paragraphs (k)(1)-(3) of the final standard require employers to 
    provide effective training for employees required by the employer to 
    wear respirators. Employees must be trained sufficiently to be able to 
    demonstrate a knowledge of why the respirator is necessary; how 
    improper fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective 
    effect of the respirator; the limitations and capabilities of the 
    selected respirator; how to deal with emergency situations involving 
    the use of respirators or with respirator malfunction; how to inspect, 
    don and remove, and check the seal of the respirator; procedures for 
    maintenance and storage of the respirator; the medical symptoms and 
    signs that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators; and 
    the general requirements of this standard.
        Paragraph (k)(4) allows for the ``portability'' of previous 
    respirator training, and paragraph (k)(5) specifies the requirement for 
    at least annual retraining. Also, as discussed earlier under the 
    Summary and Explanation for paragraph (c), Respiratory Protection 
    Program, final paragraph (k)(6) requires employers to provide the basic 
    advisory information presented in Appendix D of this section to 
    employees who voluntarily use respirators in their workplace.
        The final standard requires that training be understandable and be 
    given to the employee prior to using a respirator in the workplace, and 
    annually thereafter. Additionally, if the employer has reason to 
    believe that any employee who has already been trained does not have 
    sufficient understanding and skill to use the respirator, the employer 
    must retrain the employee in those areas in which his or her knowledge 
    or skill is deficient. Retraining is also required when changes in the 
    workplace or in the type of respirator used render previous training 
    obsolete.
        Section 1910.134(e)(5) of the previous standard required training 
    in the selection, use, and maintenance of respirators and required 
    respirator wearers to be provided an opportunity to handle the 
    respirator, have it fitted properly, test its facepiece seal, and wear 
    it in normal air for a familiarity period. The final training paragraph 
    retains many of these provisions. However, the format of the final 
    training provisions is different, and specific provisions for annual 
    training and retraining are included in the final standard. Although 
    the previous standard's requirement for a familiarity period has not 
    specifically been retained, the final standard requires the respirator 
    wearer to be trained sufficiently to demonstrate the ability to use the 
    respirator properly, which may or may not necessitate wearing the 
    respirator in normal air ``for a long familiarity period.''
        The record shows widespread agreement that employee training is a 
    critical part of a successful respiratory protection program and is 
    essential for correct respirator use (Exs. 15-13, 15-18, 15-19, 15-22, 
    15-30, 15-33, 15-41, 15-45, 15-50, 15-53, 15-54, 15-67, 15-79, 54-5, 
    54-68, 54-91, 54-92, 54-165, 54-172, 54-208, 54-219, 54-278, 54-361, 
    54-387, 54-428, 54-455, Tr. 186, 387, 595, 1011, 1063, 1083, 1103, 
    1226).
        For example, James Johnson of the Lawrence Livermore National 
    Laboratory testified:
    
        The training element of the respiratory protection program is 
    one of the most important elements to assure the respirator is 
    properly used and is performing as intended * * *. This is the only 
    time that the worker has a chance to interact with a trained 
    professional who can properly instruct that person on the correct 
    use of the respirator, the employee can see what is right, what 
    doesn't work, and can understand this item that is given to him to 
    wear throughout a year to help protect his health * * * (Tr. 186)
        Dan Faulkner of the United Steelworkers of America concurred, 
    commenting that: Training must be seen as a critical component of 
    respiratory protection. This is an area that is grossly ignored 
    under the current regulation * * *. The very first step in the 
    education process must be to empower workers to identify the 
    hazardous substances involved and at what levels they are exposed. 
    In order for the workers to have confidence that his/her respirator 
    is providing the necessary protection from the hostile work 
    environment they must have a thorough knowledge of this entire 
    process. Once this is understood, the worker can make an informed 
    decision on what type of respirator to wear. (Tr. 1062)
    
    ASARCO, Inc. (ASARCO) agrees about the importance of training and 
    reports that its company Respiratory Protection Program Manual states: 
    ``For the safe use of any respirator, it is essential that the user be 
    properly instructed in the respirator's purpose, selection, fitting, 
    use, and limitations' (Ex. 163).
        OSHA agrees with the many commenters who urged OSHA to mandate a 
    program that is performance oriented and can be presented informally 
    (Exs. 15-13, 15-18, 15-22, 15-30, 15-41, 15-47, 15-62, 15-73, 15-75, 
    54-213, 54-265, 54-275, 54-455). The final standard does not specify 
    how the training is to be performed nor the format to be used by the 
    employer. As suggested by commenters (Ex. 15-53, Tr. 837, Tr. 1087), 
    the employer can use
    
    [[Page 1259]]
    
    whatever training method is effective for the particular worksite, 
    provided that the method addresses the required topics. Employers can 
    use prepared materials such as audio-visual and slide presentations, 
    formal classroom instruction, informal discussions during safety 
    meetings, training programs developed or conducted by unions or outside 
    sources such as respirator manufacturers, or a combination of these 
    methods.
        As in the proposal, several categories of training information must 
    be addressed in the final rule. The final provisions have been 
    simplified since the proposal, but the information to be covered is 
    essentially the same as that proposed.
        Paragraph (k)(1) requires the employer to ensure that before the 
    employee uses the respirator in the workplace, the employee 
    demonstrates that he/she has learned the information communicated under 
    the training program. The employer can comply with this provision by 
    reviewing with the employee, either in writing or orally, the 
    informational part of the training program and by reviewing the 
    employee's hands-on use of respirators.
        OSHA's personal protective equipment standard (Sec. 1910.132(f)(2)) 
    also requires that employees demonstrate effectiveness in using PPE 
    before workplace use. When that standard was adopted in 1994, OSHA 
    stated that ``in order for training to be successful, clear and 
    measurable objectives must be set, and employees must demonstrate that 
    the training objectives have been reached by showing that they 
    understand the information provided and that they can use the PPE 
    properly'' (59 FR 16339). This reasoning applies equally to respiratory 
    protection. In the NPRM for the respiratory protection standard 
    (proposed paragraph (k)(1)(iii)), OSHA proposed a similar requirement, 
    which stated that the training itself was to include ``sufficient 
    practice to enable the employee to become * * * effective in performing 
    tasks [relating to inspection, donning and removal, checking the fit 
    and seals, and in wearing the respirator.]''
        The final standard's requirement that employees ``demonstrate'' 
    competence in using respiratory equipment is supported by the 
    recommendation of commenters that the PPE standard's similar 
    requirement replace the less direct provision in the respiratory 
    protection proposal (Exs. 54-213, 54-319). OSHA's enforcement of the 
    PPE standard has reinforced the Agency's belief that training 
    effectiveness must be evaluated by demonstrating how well employees use 
    equipment on-the-job. OSHA believes that adopting a provision in the 
    respirator standard that is worded similarly to the corresponding 
    requirement in the PPE standard will promote compliance with both 
    standards and uniformity of interpretations and enforcement actions. 
    Moreover, measuring the adequacy of training by evaluating the 
    employee's knowledge gained from the training is consistent with the 
    performance orientation of the final standard and with the absence of 
    specific hourly training requirements in the final standard.
        The first category of information to be included in the training 
    program, specified in final paragraph (k)(1)(i), is a discussion of why 
    the use of the respirator is necessary. Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(i) 
    specifically set forth that this discussion was to include information 
    on the nature, extent, and effects of the respiratory hazards to which 
    the employee may be exposed while using the respirator. The language of 
    final paragraph (k)(1)(i) has been simplified; OSHA believes that 
    training in why the respirator is necessary will include information on 
    the nature, extent, and effects of the respiratory hazards. For 
    example, such training would address the identification of the 
    hazardous chemicals involved, the extent of employee exposures to those 
    chemicals, and the potential health effects of such exposure. Much of 
    this information will be available on the Material Safety Data Sheets 
    that chemical manufacturers provide to employers under the Hazard 
    Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). Employee training on the 
    health effects of hazardous chemicals is also required under the Hazard 
    Communication standard, and the same training could help satisfy this 
    respirator training requirement. Many commenters agreed that hazard 
    information is an essential element of training (Exs. 15-10, 15-14, 15-
    18, 15-19, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-53, 15-62, 15-73, 54-5, 54-68, 54-
    91, 54-165, 54-172, 54-208, 54-278, 54-361, 54-428, 54-455).
        Information regarding the consequences of improper fit, usage or 
    maintenance on respirator effectiveness must also be provided to 
    employees under final paragraph (k)(1)(i). Improper attention to any of 
    these program elements would obviously defeat the effectiveness of the 
    respirator. Employees must understand that proper fit, usage and 
    maintenance of respirators is critical to ensure that they can perform 
    their protective function.
        Under final paragraph (k)(1)(ii), employers are to explain the 
    limitations and capabilities of the respirator selected for employee 
    use. A discussion of the limitations and capabilities of the respirator 
    must address how the respirator operates. This training would include, 
    for example, an explanation of how the respirator provides protection 
    by either filtering the air, absorbing the vapor or gas, or providing 
    clean air from an uncontaminated source. Where appropriate, it also 
    should include limitations on the use of the equipment, such as 
    prohibitions against using an air-purifying respirator in IDLH 
    atmospheres and an explanation of why such a respirator should not be 
    used in such situations.
        Paragraph (k)(1)(iii) requires that employees be provided with 
    information on respirator use in emergency situations, including those 
    in which the respirator malfunctions. This training requirement was 
    included in proposed paragraph (k)(1)(v). Respirators malfunction on 
    occasion, work routines change, and emergency situations occur that 
    require a different respirator. The training program must discuss these 
    possibilities and the procedures the employer has established to deal 
    with them. Commenters concurred that comprehensive training is 
    necessary where respirators are to be used in IDLH situations, 
    including oxygen-deficient atmospheres, such as those that occur in 
    firefighting, rescue operations and confined area entry (Exs. 15-18, 
    15-19, 15-26, 15-31, 15-33, 15-37, 15-41, 15-48, 15-50, 15-54, 15-55, 
    15-56, 15-59, 15-70).
        The employee should be able to thoroughly understand the operation 
    of the respirator as a result of this training and demonstrate the 
    ability to properly use the respirator selected. Numerous commenters 
    supported the elements in the training program provided for under final 
    paragraphs (k)(1) (ii) and (iii) (Exs. 61-3, 15-14, 15-18, 15-27A, 15-
    41, 15-46, 15-53, 15-62, 15-73, 54-5, 54-68, 54-91, 54-172, 54-208, 54-
    361, 54-428, 54-455). For example, Michael P. Rehfeld, Safety Officer, 
    Westminster Fire Department, stated that:
    
        In section (k) of the NPRM dealing with training, I strongly 
    believe OSHA should put the strongest emphasis. It has been my 
    experience that the stronger the employer training program the less 
    likely that an employee would become injured or dies from a 
    respiratory protection failure. OSHA has historically put a strong 
    emphasis on training (1910.120, 1910.1200, 1910.138, 1910.146). The 
    same emphasis should appear in this rule (Ex. 54-68).
    
    
    [[Page 1260]]
    
    
        Final paragraph (k)(1)(iv) requires the employer to provide 
    specific instruction on how respirators are inspected, donned, removed, 
    positive/negative pressure checked, and worn. Although the employer is 
    required to ensure that respirator inspections are performed, employees 
    using the equipment may frequently be responsible for inspecting the 
    respirators assigned to them. In this case it is necessary that 
    respirator users have this process explained and demonstrated to them 
    so that they are capable of recognizing any problems that may diminish 
    the protective capability of the respirator. The training must include 
    the steps employees are to follow if they discover any problems during 
    inspection, such as to whom problems should be reported and where 
    replacement equipment can be obtained if needed. If, however, the 
    employer routinely has extensive inspections done by separate 
    personnel, individual respirator wearers are not required to be trained 
    in how to perform full inspections. Training only in those parts of the 
    inspection process that may be their responsibility would be 
    sufficient.
        The training under this paragraph must also include the procedures 
    for donning and removing the respirator, checking the fit and seals, 
    and using the respirator. Respirator fit in the workplace must be as 
    close as possible to the fit obtained during fit testing; therefore, 
    employees must know how to follow procedures that will improve fit in 
    the workplace. The fit testing procedures can also help in training 
    employees. For example, employers can use quantitative fit testing 
    procedures to demonstrate to employees the dramatic improvement in 
    measured fit when the respirator is adjusted properly (See the 
    discussion above of paragraph (f) and Ex. 15-44, Tr. 1083).
        Final paragraph (k)(1)(iv) requires training in how to check the 
    respirator seal. Appendix B-1 describes methods for checking the seal 
    of positive and negative pressure facepieces. Employees must be trained 
    in the methods set forth in Appendix B-1 or in alternative methods that 
    are equally effective. The training requirements set forth in paragraph 
    (k)(1)(iv) were widely supported in the record (Exs. 15-10, 15-14, 15-
    22, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-50, 15-62, 15-73, 54-5, 54-68, 54-91, 54-
    165, 54-172, 54-208, 54-219, 54-278, 54-361, 54-428, 54-455).
        Final paragraph (k)(1)(v), like proposed paragraph (k)(1)(iv), 
    requires the employer to explain the procedures for maintenance and 
    storage of respirators. The extent of training required under this 
    provision may vary according to workplace conditions. In some cases, 
    where employees are responsible for performing some or all respirator 
    maintenance and for storing respirators while not in use, detailed 
    training in maintenance and storage procedures may be necessary. In 
    other facilities where specific personnel or central repair facilities 
    are assigned to perform these activities, employees may need only to be 
    informed of the maintenance and storage procedures without having to 
    learn significant technical maintenance information. The importance of 
    providing some knowledge to all employees regarding maintenance and 
    storage of respirators was recognized by a number of commenters. Those 
    commenters stated that employees must be able to identify respirator 
    deficiencies that can result from improper maintenance and storage of 
    respirators so that they will not use improperly functioning 
    respirators (Exs. 61-3, 61-8, 15-10, 15-14, 15-27A, 15-41, 15-46, 15-
    50, 15-62, Tr. 1063).
        Final paragraph (k)(1)(vi) requires that employees be instructed in 
    ways to recognize the medical signs and symptoms that may limit or 
    prevent the effective use of respirators. This provision was not 
    included in the proposed standard. However, the Agency agrees with the 
    AFL-CIO (Ex. 54-428) that employee knowledge of this information is 
    important to ensure implementation of a successful respirator program. 
    An employee's knowledge of the medical problems that may preclude the 
    employee from using some types of respirators or from wearing a 
    respirator under certain workplace conditions helps assure that the 
    employee receives the protection intended by the standard. Examples of 
    medical conditions and signs and symptoms that may affect an employee's 
    ability to use a respirator are provided in mandatory Appendix C of the 
    final standard. Training in these signs and symptoms need not be 
    medically sophisticated or burdensome. Employees must be provided only 
    with medical information sufficient for them to recognize the signs or 
    symptoms of medical conditions (e.g., shortness of breath, dizziness) 
    that may affect their use of respirators. This information will also 
    enable employees to understand the purpose of the medical assessment 
    procedures required under paragraph (e) of the final standard, will 
    improve the ability of employees to recognize and report medical signs 
    and symptoms, and will give them the knowledge they need to initiate 
    the follow-up medical evaluations required under paragraph (e) of this 
    section, if necessary.
        Final paragraph (k)(1)(vii) requires the employer to inform 
    employees of the general requirements of this section. OSHA agrees with 
    Organization Resources Counselors (Ex. 54-424) that ``general 
    requirements'' better describes the substantive purpose of this 
    provision than did the word ``contents,'' which was used in proposed 
    paragraph (k)(1)(vi). OSHA believes it is necessary to ensure that 
    employees know, in general, the employer's obligations under the 
    standard with respect to employee protection. This discussion need not 
    focus on the details of the standard's provisions but could, for 
    example, simply inform employees that employers are obligated to 
    develop a written program, properly select respirators, evaluate 
    respirator use, correct deficiencies in respirator use, conduct medical 
    evaluations, provide for the maintenance, storage, and cleaning of 
    respirators, and retain and provide access to specific records.
        Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(vi) would have required that employees be 
    provided with information on the written respiratory protection 
    program, as well as the location and availability of the written 
    program and the standard. These elements are omitted from final 
    paragraph (k)(1)(vii) because they are addressed in other provisions of 
    the final standard. For example, employee access to the standard and 
    written program is required under final paragraph (m)(4), and employee 
    knowledge about the written respirator program will be imparted to 
    employees under the training required by final paragraph (k)(1), which 
    specifies the elements to be included in the written respirator 
    program.
        All of the training elements are important. They are presented in 
    performance language to give the employer flexibility to adapt the 
    training to specific workplace conditions and to the respirators used. 
    Unless the training information is presented in a way that employees 
    can understand, the training will not be effective. Therefore, final 
    paragraph (k)(2) requires that training be conducted in a way that is 
    understandable to employees. Employers should develop training programs 
    based upon their employees' educational level and language background. 
    This will ensure that all employees will receive training that will 
    enable them to maximize the effectiveness of the respirators they use. 
    Inclusion of a provision addressing training comprehension was 
    supported in the record (Tr. 166) and is consistent with similar 
    requirements in other recent OSHA rulemakings (Cadmium, 29 CFR 
    1910.1027; Bloodborne
    
    [[Page 1261]]
    
    pathogens, 29 CFR 1910.1030; Formaldehyde, 29 CFR 1910.1048).
        Final paragraph (k)(3) requires the employer to provide training 
    before the employee uses a respirator in the workplace. This provision 
    was included under proposed paragraph (k)(2) and was widely supported 
    by rulemaking participants (Tr. 1011, Tr. 1986; Exs. 54-91, 54-165, 54-
    196, 54-234, 54-267, 54-278, 54-298, 54-319, 54-334, 54-361, 54-387, 
    54-428, 54-455). No comments opposing this requirement were received.
        Final paragraph (k)(4) provides that an employer who can 
    demonstrate that a new employee has received training within the last 
    12 months that addressed the elements specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) 
    through (vii) is not required to repeat such training provided that, as 
    required by paragraph (k)(1), the employee can demonstrate knowledge of 
    the element(s). Employers availing themselves of this provision must, 
    however, provide subsequent training no later than 12 months from the 
    date of the previous training, as required by final paragraph (k)(4).
        An employee who has been trained in the use of respirators who 
    moves to another job that involves the use of respirators may not need 
    to take all of the initial training prescribed in paragraph (k)(4). 
    Prior training in the topics required by the standard may remain 
    relevant in the new work setting. Thus, OSHA is permitting limited 
    ``portability'' of training, as noted in the standard. Training in the 
    elements listed in paragraph (k)(1) that has been provided in the past 
    12 months by a previous employer may be taken into account by the new 
    employer when evaluating the training needs of that new employee.
        The employer must demonstrate that the employee has received the 
    prior training and retained the necessary knowledge before the prior 
    training can be accepted as meeting the requirements of paragraph (k). 
    Discussions with the employee and with the previous employer may be 
    used to determine whether the previous training has been sufficient to 
    enable the employee to wear, use, and care for the respirator 
    successfully. If the employer cannot demonstrate that the new employee 
    has been trained in the required elements of the program, and 
    understands these elements, the new employer is obligated to train the 
    employee. In cases where training in some elements is lacking or 
    inadequate, the employer is required by paragraph (k)(4) to provide 
    training in those elements.
        Final paragraph (k)(5) requires retraining annually and when 
    certain situations occur. The requirement for annual training was 
    strongly supported by management, labor, and other rulemaking 
    participants as being necessary to ensure the continuing effectiveness 
    of the respirator program (Exs. 15-10, 15-18, 15-19, 15-20, 15-37, 15-
    44, 15-47, 15-48, 15-50, 15-54, 15-55, 15-71, 54-91, 54-157, 54-165, 
    54-173, 54-208, 54-222, 54-245, 54-265, 54-292, 54-319, 54-332, 54-361, 
    54-363, 54-387, 54-424, 54-427, 54-428, 54-442, 54-455, 122, 166; Tr. 
    187, 443, 547, 614, 1011, 1022, 1226, 1768). For example, the Railway 
    Labor Executive Association testified:
    
        The training requirements as proposed should be mandated on an 
    annual basis . . . Such a training schedule will assure continuous 
    familiarization with the equipment and will serve to negate the 
    inevitable effects of complacency on the part of both the employer 
    and the employee. (Tr. 443)
    
        Exxon stated that ``Annual training is good so the employee will 
    feel comfortable with the respirator they will be using in the future'' 
    (Tr. 547). James Johnson of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
    testified that annual training is ``. . . necessary to ensure a 
    reasonable amount of recall and performance . . . `` (Tr. 187). Eastman 
    Chemical Company (Ex. 54-245) commented that ``Eastman supports [the] 
    annual training requirement . . . our Company believes this is 
    necessary to adequately train employees.'' ASARCO and U.S. Steel 
    require that their employees who wear respirators undergo annual 
    training, and ASARCO states in its Respiratory Protection Manual that:
    
        All respirator wearing employees shall be given annual training 
    on routine respirator use. . . . Applicable individuals will also be 
    thoroughly instructed and trained annually in the use of respiratory 
    protection and necessary procedures for non-routine or emergency 
    situations. (Ex. 163)
    
        The Respirator Protection Program training manual for U.S. Steel, 
    submitted by AISI, requires that: ``Each respirator wearer should be 
    retrained at least annually. Where necessary, more frequent training 
    should be performed. The required use of respirators should be 
    specified in routine training aids such as Safe Job Procedures.'' (Ex. 
    142)
        A number of commenters recommended that training should be required 
    less frequently than annually (Exs. 15-41, 54-316, 54-324) or should be 
    required only in response to a change in the respirator program (Exs. 
    54-168, 54-172, 54-178, 54-187, 54-213, 54-234, 54-267, 54-273, 54-275, 
    54-278, 54-297, 54-307, 54-316, 54-324, 54-334, 54-352, 54-389, 54-408, 
    54-434). Other commenters recommended more frequent (than annual) 
    training for employees required to use SCBAs, or for employees who may 
    be required to use respirators in emergency situations (Exs. 54-210, 
    54-290, 54-363, 54-410, 54-424).
        OSHA believes that annual training is necessary and appropriate to 
    ensure that employees know about the respiratory protection program and 
    that they cooperate and actively participate in the program. Further, 
    as specifically noted by several witnesses at the hearing, annual 
    training is necessary so that employees will be confident when using 
    respirators (Tr. 547, Tr. 595). Annual training will also eliminate 
    complacency on the part of both the employer and employees with respect 
    to respirator use (Tr. 443), and annual training will ensure a 
    reasonable amount of recall and performance on the part of the 
    respirator user (Tr. 187). In addition, periodic training provides an 
    opportunity for the employee to interact with trained professionals who 
    can provide instruction and understanding in the correct use of the 
    respirator (Tr. 186), which will serve to overcome employee resistance 
    to proper respirator use (Tr. 1021). OSHA also believes that employee 
    interaction with respirator instructors on at least an annual basis 
    will reinforce employee knowledge about the correct use of respirators 
    and other pertinent elements of the respiratory protection program.
        Commenters requesting that training be required less frequently 
    than annually provided no substantive data demonstrating that training 
    every two years, for example, would be sufficient for respirator users 
    to retain information critical to the successful use of respirators on 
    a continuing basis (Exs. 54-316, 54-324). Less frequent periodic 
    training would tend to diminish employee attention to proper respirator 
    use and may result in a long period of poor respirator practice before 
    problems are identified and corrected. OSHA notes that both the ANSI 
    Z88.2-1980 and Z88.2-1992 respiratory protection standards provide for 
    annual retraining. Further, annual periodic training of workers with 
    respect to the use of respirators is required in other OSHA standards 
    (i.e., 29 CFR 1910.1001, Asbestos; 29 CFR 1910.1017, Vinyl chloride; 29 
    CFR 1910.1018, Arsenic; 29 CFR 1910.1025, Lead; 29 CFR 1910.1029, Coke 
    oven emissions; 29 CFR 1910.1043, Cotton dust; 29 CFR 1910.1044, 
    Dibromochloropropane (DBCP); 29 CFR 1910.1045, Acrylonitrile; 29 CFR 
    1910.1047, Ethylene oxide; and 29 CFR 1910.1048, Formaldehyde). In 
    addition, OSHA's
    
    [[Page 1262]]
    
    compliance experience has demonstrated that inadequate respirator 
    training is a common problem (Ex. 33-5), and is often associated with 
    respirator program deficiencies that could lead to employee exposures 
    to workplace contaminants. Adherence to annual training will minimize 
    respirator misuse. Thus, the Agency's experience under other 
    rulemakings, as well as its compliance experience with the previous 
    respiratory protection standard, serve, in part, as the basis for 
    concluding that annual training for respirator users under this final 
    standard is reasonable and appropriate.
        As noted above, a number of commenters argued that training should 
    be required only to inform employees about changes in the respirator 
    program. This view suggests that regular, periodic training in the use 
    of respirators is not necessary to ensure the success of a respirator 
    program. However, as discussed above, evidence provided by management, 
    labor, and other participants in this and other rulemaking records 
    demonstrates the importance of reinforcing an employee's knowledge with 
    respect to the use of respirators on a regular basis to ensure the 
    successful use of respirators. Accordingly, the final standard in 
    paragraph (k)(5) includes the requirement for annual training for 
    respirator users. This provision ensures the successful implementation 
    of the respiratory protection program by keeping employees thoroughly 
    and accurately informed on a regular basis regarding the current status 
    of the program.
        Several commenters recommended that training be provided more 
    frequently than annually to users of SCBAs and to employees who are 
    required to use respirators during emergency situations (Exs. 54-210, 
    54-290, 54-363, 54-410, 54-424). OSHA agrees that retraining more 
    frequently than annually may be appropriate for some users of SCBAs and 
    emergency responders. This concern is addressed in final paragraph 
    (k)(5), which contemplates such additional training in circumstances in 
    which the employer has reason to believe that a previously trained 
    employee does not have the understanding and skill required to use the 
    respirator properly on a continuing basis. Although this provision is 
    performance oriented, it requires that more frequent (than annual) 
    periodic training be provided if necessary (e.g., because of the 
    complexity of the respirator or exposure conditions). If respirator 
    users must be trained more frequently than annually to retain the 
    knowledge necessary to ensure proper use of the respirator, then the 
    employer must provide the additional training.
        Final paragraphs (k)(5)(i)-(iii) require additional training when 
    changes in the workplace (process change, increase in exposure, new 
    hazards) or in the type of respirator used by the employee render 
    previous training obsolete, when the employee has not retained the 
    requisite understanding or skill to use the respirator properly, or 
    when any other situation arises in which retraining appears necessary. 
    These provisions recognize circumstances that require supplemental 
    training in addition to full annual training. For example, retraining 
    with respect to the nature of the hazard may be necessary because of an 
    increase in the workplace level of a hazardous substance. Retraining 
    would also be required when an employee does not sufficiently 
    understand any program element (Ex. 54-387). OSHA believes that the 
    regulatory burden imposed on employers by final paragraph (k)(5) will 
    be minimal because this paragraph only requires element-specific 
    retraining on an as-needed basis to supplement annual training.
        Final paragraph (k)(6) provides very basic protection for employees 
    who use respirators voluntarily. As discussed, in connection with 
    paragraph (c)(2), such employees are only covered by those provisions 
    of this standard that are necessary to ensure that respirator use does 
    not present a health hazard to these employees. Respirator use can 
    create health and safety problems. For example, an employee who has 
    chronic obstructive lung disease and who is given a negative pressure 
    air-purifying respirator to wear may be at risk of hypertension, 
    overexertion, and dizziness. Employees who voluntarily use some types 
    of respirators (e.g., air-purifying respirators) are potentially 
    exposed to the hazards associated with respirator use. Consequently, in 
    paragraph (k)(6), OSHA requires employers to provide employees who 
    voluntarily use some types of respirators (e.g., air purifying 
    respirators) with the informational material in Appendix D so that the 
    employee will be familiar with basic respirator use procedures.
    Paragraph (l)--Program Evaluation
        Paragraph (l) requires employers to perform evaluations to 
    determine whether the respiratory protection program is functioning 
    effectively. Problems with protection, irritation, breathing 
    resistance, comfort, and other respirator-related factors occasionally 
    arise in most respiratory protection programs. Although it is not 
    possible to eliminate all problems associated with respirator use, the 
    employer must eliminate as many problems as possible to improve 
    respiratory protection and encourage employee acceptance and safe use 
    of respirators. Eliminating problems is accomplished most effectively 
    when the respiratory protection program is evaluated thoroughly and 
    revised as necessary. Although the previous respiratory protection 
    standard requires that the employer perform regular checks of the 
    effectiveness of the respiratory protection program, it provided little 
    guidance regarding how these evaluations are to be done. The final 
    rule, like the proposal, describes the required program evaluation with 
    greater specificity than OSHA's previous respiratory protection 
    standard did.
        Final paragraph (c) of the respirator standard requires the 
    employer to establish a written respiratory protection program. The 
    program must include procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the 
    respirator program and must designate a program administrator who is to 
    monitor conditions in the workplace on a regular basis to ensure that 
    the provisions of the written respiratory protection program are being 
    properly implemented. Final paragraph (l) specifies certain steps the 
    employer must take as part of his/her regular evaluation of the 
    respiratory protection program.
        Paragraph (l) requires the employer to consult employees who use 
    respirators to ascertain whether they perceive any problems with the 
    equipment and to obtain their views on program effectiveness. This 
    assessment must evaluate such factors as difficulty breathing or 
    fatigue during respirator use, whether the respirator interferes with 
    hearing and vision, communication, or job performance or restricts 
    movement, whether the respirator causes discomfort, and whether the 
    employee has confidence in the respirator's effectiveness. The employer 
    must correct any problems that are revealed by the evaluation.
        The record supports the need to review and evaluate workplace 
    respirator use to ensure the continuous effectiveness of the respirator 
    program (Exs. 54-91, 54-153, 54-181, 54-213, 54-219, 54-234, 54-244, 
    54-252, 54-263, 54-265, 54-54-286, 54-297, 54-330, 54-352, 54-387, 54-
    424, 54-428, 54-455, Tr. 387, 1012, 1714, 1733, 1998). Based on the 
    record, however, the final program evaluation provisions were modified, 
    as discussed below, from those proposed.
        Final paragraph (l)(1) requires the employer to conduct regular 
    evaluations of the workplace to ensure that the
    
    [[Page 1263]]
    
    provisions of the written program are being properly implemented for 
    all employees required to use respirators, and to ensure the continued 
    effectiveness of the program. Proposed paragraph (l)(1) required the 
    employer to review the written respiratory protection program at least 
    annually and to conduct frequent random inspections of the workplace to 
    ensure that the provisions of the program are being properly 
    implemented for all employees. The review of the written program was to 
    include an assessment of each written program element specified under 
    proposed paragraph (c)(1) of the standard.
        The final standard under paragraph (l) has deleted the proposed 
    provisions for annual written program review of each element and 
    ``frequent random'' workplace evaluations in favor of more performance-
    oriented requirements. Although a number of commenters supported annual 
    written program review (Exs. 54-91, 54-153, 54-181, 54-213, 54-244, 54-
    265, 54-361, 54-387, 54-424, 54-428), others asserted that program 
    review was necessary but should only be required on an as-needed, 
    rather than annual, basis as necessitated by workplace or user 
    conditions or characteristics (Exs. 54-177, 54-234, 54-263, 54-286, 54-
    297, 54-330, 54-352, 54-402, Tr. 1733). The Chemical Manufacturers 
    Association (CMA) (Ex. 54-263), for example, stated:
    
        For simple programs such as a single air purifying respirator in 
    use with a single contaminant, assessments might be necessary once 
    every 3-5 years. For programs with numerous hazards that change 
    repeatedly such as batch processes, reviews may be needed more 
    frequently.
    
        The CMA (Ex. 54-263) and Mobil Corporation (Ex. 54-234) support 
    adoption of the ANSI Z88.2 (1992) recommendation that reads ``The 
    program shall be periodically audited to ensure that it is implemented 
    and reflects the written procedures.'' Consumer Power (Ex. 54-297) 
    argued that program review and revision should be required ``as 
    necessary to reflect changes in respirator used, training, fit test 
    methods, and storage or maintenance of the respirator in use at the 
    facility.''
        OSHA agrees with commenters that a more performance-oriented 
    approach with respect to written program review is appropriate in lieu 
    of an annual requirement. The Agency believes that the final standard 
    will ensure the maintenance of an up-to-date written respirator program 
    without imposing an arbitrary review schedule. Final paragraph (c)(1) 
    states, in part, that the program shall be updated as necessary to 
    reflect changes in workplace conditions and respirator use. This 
    provision requires employers to review the written program and to 
    revise, as necessary, the written program elements specified in 
    paragraph (c)(1) when workplace conditions affecting the use of 
    respirators change.
        Accordingly, the final standard does not contain the proposed 
    requirement for an annual written program review but instead requires 
    program review and revision as necessary based on workplace changes. 
    Evaluation frequency to ensure the continued effectiveness of the 
    program is to be based on program complexity and on factors such as the 
    nature and extent of workplace hazards, types of respirators in use, 
    variability of workplace processes and operations, number of respirator 
    users, and worker experience in the use of respirators. In other words, 
    the employer must audit respirator use in the workplace with sufficient 
    frequency to ensure that continuous, successful implementation of all 
    written respirator program elements prescribed under paragraph (c) is 
    being achieved.
        As noted previously, the proposed requirement for ``frequent 
    random'' workplace evaluations has been deleted in favor of a 
    requirement for evaluations conducted on an as-necessary basis. OSHA 
    agrees with commenters' assertions that the meaning of the term 
    ``frequent random'' was unclear (Exs. 54-181, 54-334), especially with 
    respect to conditions of infrequent or brief respirator use (Exs. 54-
    166, 54-177). In such instances, the commenters indicated that 
    evaluations would have to be scheduled based on when respirators are 
    used. The Agency believes that the final standard's evaluation 
    procedures incorporate a flexible and reasonable approach that will 
    meet the needs of different workplaces while ensuring continued, 
    effective implementation of the respirator program. OSHA emphasizes 
    that the change in language in the final standard is not intended to 
    deemphasize the importance of conducting evaluations.
        Final paragraph (l)(2) requires the employer to consult regularly 
    with employees who wear respirators to obtain their views on the 
    effectiveness of the program and to correct any problems that are 
    identified. This assessment must determine if the respirators are 
    properly fitted. It must also evaluate whether employees are able to 
    wear the respirators without interfering with effective workplace 
    performance, whether respirators are correctly selected for the hazards 
    encountered, whether respirators are being worn when necessary, and 
    whether respirators are being maintained properly. Many commenters 
    (Exs. 54-91, 54-153, 54-181, 54-213, 54-265, 54-361, 54-387, 54-424, 
    54-488) supported the proposed requirement for the employer 
    periodically to consult with employees.
        This requirement is essentially unchanged from the proposed 
    provision. Some commenters (Exs. 54-187, 54-278) argued that the 
    employer's obligations to consult with employees should be limited to 
    those employees required by OSHA to wear respirators. However, as 
    explained in detail in the Summary and Explanation for paragraphs (a) 
    and (c), OSHA believes that all employees who are required to wear 
    respirators should be covered by the program, regardless of whether 
    their respirator use is required by OSHA or their employer.
        Thus, final paragraph (l)(2) requires the employer to consult with 
    employees who wear respirators when auditing the effectiveness of the 
    respirator program. As discussed above in connection with paragraph 
    (c), OSHA has consistently required employers who provide their 
    employees with respirators to ensure that those respirators do not pose 
    a health hazard (e.g., do not increase the work-of-breathing in a way 
    that threatens health, do not impair vision or hearing). In general, 
    assessments conducted to comply with paragraph (l) will involve a 
    technical evaluation of whether respirators are being used properly. If 
    respirators are not being used properly, the employer is required to 
    correct any problems found during the assessment. The areas to be 
    reevaluated include whether the respirator program is providing 
    employees with properly fitting respirators and whether the appropriate 
    respirators are being selected, used, and maintained properly.
        Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(i), which would have required the 
    employer to assess whether the program was ``preventing the occurrence 
    of illness,'' has been deleted from the final rule. Commenters noted 
    that the individual performing the program evaluation under this 
    paragraph is not likely to be a health care professional with 
    sufficient expertise to identify illnesses caused by improper 
    respirator use, other than skin/eye irritation, which can readily be 
    observed by the program administrator, supervisor, employer, or 
    employee. Commenters argued that medical determinations and evaluations 
    are part of the review of an employee's medical status required by 
    paragraph (e) of this section (Exs. 54-187, 54-237). OSHA agrees and, 
    accordingly, has
    
    [[Page 1264]]
    
    omitted this proposed requirement from final paragraph (l)(2). However, 
    identification of respirator-related medical conditions, such as skin 
    irritation, would properly be part of the program evaluation. Employees 
    identified during the evaluation as having skin irritation can either 
    be referred to the PLHCP or be advised by the program administrator 
    about the need to leave the respirator use area as necessary to wash 
    the face and facepiece, as permitted by paragraph (g). It should be 
    noted that final paragraph (e)(7)(iii) requires medical evaluation if 
    observations made during the program evaluation indicate that such 
    evaluation is necessary.
    Paragraph (m)--Recordkeeping
        The final standard requires the employer to establish and retain 
    written information regarding medical evaluations, fit testing, and the 
    respirator program. The final provisions addressing these records 
    differ in some respects from the proposed requirements. In the proposed 
    rule, paragraph (c) contained recordkeeping provisions for the written 
    respiratory program, paragraph (m) required retention of medical 
    evaluation records, and fit testing records were required to be 
    maintained under Appendix A. In the final rule, however, all 
    recordkeeping requirements have been consolidated in paragraph (m), in 
    response to those commenters who suggested that placing all 
    recordkeeping provisions in one paragraph will improve understanding of 
    the rule's recordkeeping obligations (Exs. 54-267, 54-286).
        Paragraph (m)(1) of the final standard requires the employer to 
    retain a medical evaluation record for each employee subject to medical 
    evaluation under final paragraph (e). Such records are to be kept and 
    made available as required by 29 CFR 1910.1020, OSHA's Access to 
    Employee Exposure and Medical Records rule. The record is to include 
    the result of the medical questionnaire and, if applicable, a copy of 
    the PLHCP's written opinion and recommendations, including the results 
    of relevant medical examinations and tests. It is standard medical 
    practice to make and retain written records of medical examinations and 
    evaluations. Retention of such records will enable PLHCPs in subsequent 
    evaluations to determine whether the employee's health has 
    deteriorated, and will enable employees to obtain copies for their 
    personal physician or other licensed health care professional to review 
    as necessary.
        Although the format of final paragraph (m)(1) has been simplified 
    from that of the proposed rule, the substance of the medical evaluation 
    records to be retained is similar. Several proposed paragraphs referred 
    specifically to provisions in 29 CFR 1910.1020 that address the 
    maintenance, availability, and transfer of the medical evaluation 
    records. As recommended by several commenters, however, only one 
    reference to 29 CFR 1910.1020 is needed for this purpose, and the final 
    respiratory protection rule has been revised accordingly (Exs. 54-220, 
    54-350, 54-362, 54-455, Tr. 1054).
        Final paragraph (m)(2) addresses the retention of respirator fit-
    testing records. The provisions of this paragraph remain basically 
    unchanged from the requirements of Appendix A, section II. 12 of the 
    proposal. The records specified in final paragraphs (m)(2)(i)(A)--(E) 
    consist of the name or identification of the person tested; the type of 
    fit test performed (QLFT, QNFT--irritant smoke, saccharin, etc.); the 
    make, model, and size of the respirator fitted; the date of the fit 
    test; pass/fail results if a QLFT is used; or the fit factor and strip 
    chart recording or other record of the test results if quantitative fit 
    testing was performed.
        Under final paragraph (m)(2)(ii), the fit test record must be 
    maintained until the next fit test is administered. If the employee's 
    use of a respirator is discontinued (e.g., because of a change of 
    duties or successful implementation of engineering controls), fit test 
    records need not be retained for the employee. Fit test records must be 
    maintained to determine whether annual fit testing has been done, and 
    whether the employee who was tested passed the QLFT or passed the QNFT 
    with a fit factor that was appropriate for the type of respirator being 
    used. OSHA agrees with commenters (Exs. 36-6, 36-17, 36-34, 36-46, 54-
    165, 54-210) who stated that fit testing records must be maintained to 
    ensure that all respirator users have received a fit test, the 
    respirator selected by fit testing is being used, and retesting is 
    being performed annually.
        Some commenters argued that the employer should only be required to 
    certify that fit testing has been completed, and that retaining the 
    other proposed information would provide little additional benefit 
    (Exs. 54-222, 54-310). OSHA disagrees with this position. The Agency 
    believes it is essential that fit test records identify the respirator 
    and employee being fit tested. As noted in the preceding paragraph, 
    other commenters stated that the information in this record would be 
    the only means of determining whether the appropriate respirator was 
    being used by the employee. OSHA believes that the effectiveness of the 
    respiratory protection program will be substantially improved if these 
    records are kept. Similar recordkeeping requirements are found in many 
    OSHA standards: 29 CFR 1910.1027, Cadmium; 29 CFR 1910.1028, Benzene; 
    29 CFR 1910.1048, Formaldehyde; 29 CFR 1910.1050, Methylenedianiline.
        Final paragraph (m)(3) specifically requires employers to maintain 
    a written copy of the current respiratory protection program prescribed 
    by final paragraph (c). As discussed under paragraph (c), a written 
    program is necessary to assure the appropriate use of respirators and 
    the on-going effectiveness of the program.
        Final paragraph (m)(4) provides that written materials required to 
    be maintained under final paragraph (m) must be made available, upon 
    request, to employees and to the Assistant Secretary for examination 
    and copying. This final paragraph replaces, but is consistent with, the 
    record availability requirement of proposed paragraph (m)(2). Employee 
    access to these records is necessary to ensure that employees can 
    assess and verify information describing their exposure to respiratory 
    hazards in the workplace and the effectiveness of the respirator 
    program in protecting them from those hazards. Access to these records 
    by the Assistant Secretary or his or her designees is necessary to 
    allow OSHA to monitor compliance with the standard and its 
    effectiveness.
        The access provisions in final paragraph (m)(4) are consistent with 
    provisions found in other OSHA standards: 29 CFR 1910.1001, Asbestos; 
    29 CFR 1910.1027, Cadmium; 29 CFR 1910.1028, Benzene; 29 CFR 1910.1047, 
    Ethylene Oxide; 29 CFR 1910.1048, Formaldehyde; and 20 CFR 1910.1050, 
    Methylenedianiline.
    Paragraph (n)--Dates
        The final Respiratory Protection standard will become effective on 
    April 8, 1998. For most requirements of the standard, however, 
    compliance need not be achieved until the start-up dates specified in 
    paragraph (n) of the final rule. Unless a different start-up date is 
    specified for a particular requirement, compliance must be achieved by 
    the effective date.
        The proposal would have required compliance with all provisions of 
    the standard 90 days after publication of the final standard in the 
    Federal Register. The Air Conditioning Contractors of America (Ex. 54-
    248) stated that a 90-day compliance period should be
    
    [[Page 1265]]
    
    sufficient if OSHA plans to disseminate information to employers in a 
    ``user-friendly'' format, but that additional time would be required if 
    industry organizations had to analyze and distribute information on the 
    final standard by themselves. Several commenters recommended a 6-12 
    month effective date for implementing the final standard (Exs. 54-248, 
    54-271, 54-283, 54-293, 54-309). The U.S. Enrichment Corporation (Ex. 
    54-283) wanted the standard phased in over a 12-month period to allow 
    additional time for the employer to obtain respiratory protection 
    equipment from manufacturers and to perform fit testing. The American 
    Subcontractors Association (Ex. 54-293) stated that small contractors 
    rely on their organization and others for education and training 
    regarding new standards, and that a 90-day period is too short a period 
    for transition to a new program. They specifically mentioned training, 
    updating written programs, changing written standard operating 
    procedures (SOPs), and medical examinations as provisions in the 
    standard that may be difficult to comply with in a short time period. 
    The Associated Building Contractors (Ex. 54-309) also wanted the final 
    standard to be phased in over 12 months to allow for revising written 
    SOPs and programs, training, and medical evaluation of respirator 
    users. Exxon (Ex. 54-266) and the American Petroleum Institute (Ex. 54-
    330) stated that employers could not fit test every employee within the 
    specified 90-day effective date and recommended that employees be fit 
    tested within one year of the effective date of the standard.
        Based on many of these comments, OSHA concludes that additional 
    time is required for employers to comply with certain provisions of the 
    final standard. The Agency has therefore included extended start-up 
    dates for some of the program elements. OSHA does intend, however, to 
    disseminate information on this standard in a ``user friendly'' format.
        Within 150 days of the effective date of the standard, employers 
    must determine whether respirator use is required under paragraph (a). 
    This period will afford employers sufficient time to become familiar 
    with the final standard and to evaluate whether respirator use is 
    required in their workplaces.
        Employers must comply with all the remaining requirements of the 
    respirator standard no later than 180 days after the effective date of 
    the standard. OSHA concludes that with the start-up dates provided, all 
    employers will have adequate time to comply. Paragraph (n)(3) states 
    that if there is an administrative or judicial delay of the standard, 
    the respiratory protection provisions of the previous standards (i.e., 
    29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 CFR 1926.103) will remain in effect and will be 
    enforced until the issues have been resolved. Many employers already 
    have an established respiratory protection program that includes 
    specific program elements (e.g., fit testing, annual training, medical 
    evaluations of respirator users, and program evaluation) that comply 
    with the requirements of the Agency's prior respirator standards. 
    Program elements that were implemented to meet the prior respirator 
    standards' requirements may also meet the requirements of this final 
    respiratory protection standard. Paragraph (n)(4) states that if, in 
    the 12 month period preceding the effective date of the revised 
    standard, the employer has conducted annual respirator training, fit 
    testing, respirator program evaluation, or medical evaluations, the 
    employer may use the results of these activities to comply with the 
    corresponding provisions of this section, provided that these 
    activities were conducted in a manner that meets the requirements of 
    the revised standard. For example, if the employer has an existing fit 
    testing program in place on the effective date of the final standard, 
    the employer may continue that fit testing program if it meets the fit 
    testing requirements of the final standard. In such cases, employees 
    would be retested within one year of their last fit test date. 
    Employers, therefore, can incorporate annual fit testing, training, and 
    program evaluation into their existing respiratory protection programs 
    if the appropriate program elements comply with the provisions of the 
    final standard. This approach should help reduce the impact of the 
    final rule on employers with effective existing respirator programs.
    Paragraph (o)--Appendices
        The final paragraph of the standard identifies four appendices that 
    supplement the requirements specified in the regulatory text. 
    Appendices A (Fit Testing Procedures), B-1 (User Seal Check 
    Procedures), B-2 (Cleaning Procedures), and C (Medical Questionnaire) 
    are mandatory, and contain requirements for performing fit testing, 
    user seal checks, cleaning, and medical evaluations that supplement the 
    regulatory requirements in paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) of the 
    final standard.
        Appendix D (Information for Employees Using Respirators When Not 
    Required Under The Standard) is nonmandatory.
        The four appendices are discussed in detail under the Summary and 
    Explanation sections of the corresponding paragraphs of the final 
    standard: Appendix A in paragraph (f), ``Fit Testing''; Appendix B-1 in 
    paragraph (g), ``Use of respirators''; Appendix B-2 in paragraph (h), 
    ``Maintenance and care of respirators''; Appendix C in paragraph (e), 
    ``Medical evaluation''; Appendix D in paragraph (c), ``Written 
    program'' and paragraph (a), ``Permissible practice.''
    Paragraph (p)--Revisions to Specific OSHA Standards
        A number of OSHA standards regulating exposure to toxic substance 
    and harmful physical agents incorporate certain provisions of 29 CFR 
    1910.134. OSHA proposed to revise these provisions to simplify 
    compliance for employers by consolidating many of the Agency's 
    respirator requirements, removing inconsistencies, and deleting 
    duplicative requirements. The purpose of revising the respirator-
    related provisions of OSHA's existing standards was to conform these 
    standards, to the extent possible, to each other and to revised 29 CFR 
    1910.134 in general. These standards will be improved by this process, 
    because they will now refer to the revised respiratory protection 
    standard, which is based on current respirator use and technology. For 
    example, revising the respirator-approval references in these standards 
    from MSHA/NIOSH, Bureau of Mines, and ANSI Z88.2-1969 to the recently 
    published NIOSH regulation at 42 CFR Part 84 updates these respiratory 
    protection provisions. The Agency concludes, therefore, that updating 
    these standards is consistent with the proposed goal of bringing 
    uniformity to OSHA's respiratory protection requirements. OSHA believes 
    that regulatory consistency will improve compliance with the 
    respiratory protection provisions, reduce the compliance burden on the 
    regulated community, and, consequently, enhance the protection provided 
    to employees who use respirators. OSHA's review of the rulemaking 
    record shows that no commenters objected to updating the provisions of 
    these standards to conform with the requirements of revised 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
        The Agency also notes that revised 29 CFR 1910.134 is intended to 
    serve as a ``building block'' standard with respect to future standards 
    that may contain respiratory protection requirements. To the extent 
    possible, therefore, future standards that regulate respirator use in
    
    [[Page 1266]]
    
    controlling employee exposure to toxic substances and harmful physical 
    agents will refer to provisions of the final respiratory protection 
    standard at 29 CFR 1910.134 instead of containing their own respirator 
    requirements. (However, these standards will continue to have any 
    respirator requirements, e.g., canister/cartridge change schedules, 
    that are specific to the substance or agent being regulated.)
        In developing the final revision, OSHA also revised the wording 
    and/or location of some paragraphs to improve the comprehensibility and 
    uniformity of the requirements; however, the substantive requirements 
    of the standards addressing respirators have not been revised. 
    Additionally, the tables in the substance-specific standards specifying 
    parameters for respirator selection have not been republished because 
    these tables will remain unchanged and, thus, will continue to be part 
    of the substance-specific standards until resolution of the reserved 
    portions of this final standard.
        OSHA found that the existing substance-specific standards were 
    especially in need of revision. Except for a limited number of 
    respirator provisions unique to each substance-specific standard, the 
    remaining regulatory text on respirators now reads virtually the same 
    for each of these standards. For example, all provisions addressing 
    respirator use, selection, and fit testing were deleted from the 
    substance-specific standards, making these standards consistent with 
    the final respiratory protection standard with respect to these 
    requirements. The Agency believes that revisions to 29 CFR 1910.134 are 
    sufficiently comprehensive to allow deletion of those provisions in the 
    substance-specific standards that duplicated provisions of revised 29 
    CFR 1910.134. A provision was retained only when it addressed 
    conditions (for example, medical evaluation) that were unique and/or 
    integral to the substance-specific standard. The Agency concludes, 
    therefore, that deletion of duplicative provisions from the substance-
    specific standards will reduce confusion among members of the regulated 
    community and decrease the burden of compliance. It will thereby 
    enhance compliance with the respiratory protection requirements and, 
    consequently, improve the protection afforded to employees who use 
    respirators to control exposure to the toxic substances and harmful 
    physical agents regulated by these standards. The proposed revisions to 
    the substance-specific standards were widely supported by rulemaking 
    participants (Exs. 54-187, 54-208, 54-219, 54-220, 54-233, 54-234, 54-
    261, 54-263, 54-266, 54-267, 54-273, 54-283, 54-289, 54-327, 54-333, 
    54-363, 54-424.)
        In general, for the substance-specific standards, the incorporated 
    provisions of revised 29 CFR 1910.134 cover the following requirements: 
    definitions (paragraph (b)); respiratory protection program (paragraph 
    (c)); selection of respirators (paragraph (d)); fit testing (paragraph 
    (f)); use of respirators (paragraph (g)); maintenance and care of 
    respirators (paragraph (h)); breathing air quality and use (paragraph 
    (i)); identification of filters, cartridges, and canisters (paragraph 
    (j)); training and information (paragraph (k)); program evaluation 
    (paragraph (l)); and recordkeeping (paragraph (m)). Each of these 
    requirements was addressed by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of 
    the prior respiratory protection standard.
        OSHA did not propose to conform the respirator provisions of its 
    Cadmium, Benzene, Formaldehyde, 1,3-Butadiene, and Methylene chloride 
    standards with the corresponding requirements of revised 29 CFR 
    1910.134. Rulemaking participants recommended that the respirator 
    provisions of the existing Cadmium, Benzene, and Formaldehyde standards 
    be revised to conform with those provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 to 
    improve regulatory consistency and uniformity (Exs. 54-194, 54-195, 54-
    208, 54-218, 54-275, 54-294, 54-337, 54-350, 54-387, 54-434). In view 
    of these comments, the Agency assumes that a consensus exists among the 
    regulated community to bring these standards (as well as the 1,3-
    Butadiene and Methylene chloride standards, which were issued after the 
    close of the comment period for the respirator rulemaking) into 
    conformity with the revised respiratory protection standard. 
    Accordingly, these standards have been revised in the same manner as 
    the other substance-specific standards for which OSHA proposed 
    revisions.
        In revising the fit-testing provisions (paragraph (f)) of the 
    substance-specific standards, the frequency of respirator fit testing 
    was revised from semiannually to annually for the Asbestos (29 CFR 
    1910.1001 and 1926.1101), Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018), Lead (29 CFR 
    1910.1025 and 1926.62) and Acrylonitrile (29 CFR 1910.1045) standards. 
    The Agency believes that this revision will not diminish the 
    effectiveness of respiratory protection provided by these standards. 
    OSHA's experience in recent rulemakings (Cadmium, 1992; 
    Methylenedianiline, 1992; Formaldehyde, 1992; Methylene chloride, 1997) 
    has led the Agency to conclude that annual respirator fit testing, 
    which is provided for in the recent standards, protects employees 
    appropriately, and that semi-annual fit testing is not necessary for 
    employee protection. The basis for adopting a semiannual fit-testing 
    requirement is not discussed in the preambles to any of the standards 
    that contain that requirement. For example, there is no discussion in 
    the preambles of those standards that semiannual fit testing was 
    adopted because of the toxic properties of the regulated substances or 
    the particular characteristics of the respirators to be used.
        Recent rulemakings, including proposed revisions to the respiratory 
    protection standard, have provided the Agency with much more scientific 
    and experiential information on fit testing than was available when the 
    affected standards were adopted. A number of commenters in the current 
    rulemaking asserted that provisions for semiannual fit testing in the 
    existing Asbestos, Arsenic, Lead, and Acrylonitrile standards should be 
    revised to conform to the annual fit testing requirements of the 
    recently-adopted standards (Exs. 54-5, 54-179, 54-186, 54-208, 54-218, 
    54-219, 54-222, 54-242, 54-289, 54-326, 54-330, 54-348, 54-410, 54-424, 
    54-439, 54-443.) The Agency, therefore, concludes that it is reasonable 
    and appropriate, for the purpose of regulatory consistency and 
    uniformity, to require only annual respirator fit testing in its 
    substance-specific standards.
        While the proposal did not incorporate revised paragraph (m) 
    (recordkeeping) into the existing substance-specific standards, OSHA 
    incorporated this paragraph in the final rulemaking in the belief that 
    such action: (1) Will make recordkeeping requirements consistent and 
    uniform for employers who use respirators to control employee exposures 
    to the airborne contaminants regulated by the substance-specific 
    standards; (2) will reduce the regulatory burden on employers because 
    they are currently required under 29 CFR 1910.1020 to maintain exposure 
    and medical records; and, (3) it is a prevailing business and 
    industrial-hygiene practice to retain fit-testing records to 
    demonstrate that protection was provided to exposed employees.
        For the 13 carcinogens addressed by existing 29 CFR 1910.1003 (the 
    ``13 Carcinogens standard''), the provision requiring employers to 
    ensure that employees use respirators ``in accordance with 29 CFR 
    1910.134'' was amended to require compliance with paragraphs (b), (c), 
    (d) (except (d)(1) (iii), (iv), and (d)(3)), and (e)-(m) of the
    
    [[Page 1267]]
    
    final standard. While the proposal did not incorporate revised 
    paragraph (e) (medical evaluation) into the 13 Carcinogens standard, 
    OSHA did so in the final rulemaking because such incorporation is 
    consistent with the requirements of existing 29 CFR 1910.134, conforms 
    to accepted industry practice, and improves comprehension of, and 
    compliance with, the respiratory protection requirements of the 13 
    Carcinogens standard.
        Unlike 29 CFR 1910.1003, each of the existing substance-specific 
    OSHA standards includes unique medical-evaluation requirements for 
    employees who use respirators. OSHA believes that the medical-
    evaluation requirements for respirator use established under its 
    existing substance-specific standards provide a high degree of medical 
    protection to employees who are required to use respirators to control 
    their exposures to the airborne substances regulated by the substance-
    specific standards. In addition, the medical-evaluation requirements 
    for respirator use in the substance-specific standards are part of a 
    comprehensive, integrated medical-surveillance program designed to 
    evaluate employees for conditions and risks associated with exposure to 
    the regulated substances; consequently, OSHA believes that any revision 
    to the frequency or content of medical evaluations for respirator use 
    would unnecessarily disrupt ongoing medical-surveillance programs and, 
    therefore, jeopardize the health of employees who must use respirators 
    to prevent exposure to hazardous workplace substances.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the revised respiratory protection 
    standard, which requires employers to estimate exposure levels in 
    selecting appropriate respirators, has not been incorporated into 
    OSHA's substance-specific standards in the final rulemaking. The 
    existing substance-specific standards, except the 13 Carcinogens 
    standard, already include exposure assessment provisions that are more 
    specific than the general exposure-assessment requirement in the final 
    respiratory protection standard. With respect to the 13 Carcinogens 
    standard, no PELs or other exposure criteria are specified in that 
    standard that would be relevant to respirator selection. In the 13 
    Carcinogens standard, exposure estimates for the substances regulated 
    by the standard are not necessary for respirator selection because 
    appropriate respirators have been identified for specific work 
    activities that occur during employee exposure to each of the 13 
    carcinogenic substances.
        OSHA excepted substance-specific standards that already contain 
    requirements for cartridge- and canister-change schedules (Vinyl 
    chloride, Benzene, Acrylonitrile, Formaldehyde, and 1,3-Butadiene) from 
    paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(B) (1) and (2) of the revised respiratory 
    protection standard, which also addresses change schedules, to preclude 
    regulatory conflict. The Agency finds that information obtained during 
    the rulemakings for these substance-specific standards resulted in the 
    development of change schedules that were especially tailored to the 
    chemistry of the specific substance, documented the exposure conditions 
    requiring these schedules, and determined the types of respirators 
    required for employee protection. Consequently, the Agency concludes 
    that the change schedules adopted during these rulemakings must not be 
    replaced by the generic change-schedule requirements of revised 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
        As proposed, the Agency also removed a number of appendices from 
    the substance-specific standards that addressed fit-testing 
    requirements, replacing them with references to Appendix A of revised 
    29 CFR 1910.134. In this regard, the Agency proposed to update Section 
    IV of Appendix B of 29 CFR 1910.1025 (the Lead standard) by citing 
    Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.134 as the reference for fit-testing 
    procedures; the proposed revision has been made in the final 
    rulemaking. While not proposed, the Agency revised the same information 
    in Appendix B of 29 CFR 1926.62 (the Lead standard for Construction), 
    removed the sixth paragraph from Section IV of Appendix B of 29 CFR 
    1910.1025 and 1926.62 as being outdated, and revised references for 
    respirator approval in Section IV of Appendix B of 29 CFR 1910.1025, 
    Section IV of Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1045 (the Acrylonitrile 
    standard), Section IV of Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1047 (the Ethylene 
    Oxide standard), Section III of Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1050 (the 4, 
    4'-Methylenedianiline standard), and Section IV of Appendix B to 29 CFR 
    1926.62, Lead in Construction. The Agency believes that these revisions 
    will conform the affected standards with the provisions of the revised 
    respiratory protection standard; the resulting consistency will, 
    therefore, reduce confusion and ease compliance.
        The following provisions, addressing fit-testing, respirator 
    selection, and respirator use, have been deleted from OSHA's substance-
    specific standards because they duplicate requirements specified in 
    revised 29 CFR 1910.134:
    (1) Fit Testing
        This requirement is specified in paragraph (f) of the revised 
    respiratory protection standard, allowing for the removal of the 
    following paragraphs:
    
    (a) 29 CFR 1910.1001 Asbestos.
        (g)(4) and Appendix C
    (b) 29 CFR 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.
        (h)(3) (i), (ii), and (iii)
    (c) 29 CFR 1910.1025 Lead.
        (f)(3) (i) and (ii), and Appendix D; Section IV of Appendix B 
    revised in part
    (d) 29 CFR 1910.1027 Cadmium.
        (g)(4) and Appendix C
    (e) 29 CFR 1910.1028 Benzene.
        (g)(5) and Appendix E
    (f) 29 CFR 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile.
        (h)(3)(iii)
    (g) 1910.1048 Formaldehyde.
        (g)(3)(ii) and Appendix E
    (h) 29 CFR 1910.1050 Methylenedianiline.
        (h)(5) and Appendix E
    (i) 29 CFR 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene.
        (h)(5) and Appendix E
    (j) 29 CFR 1910.1052 Methylene chloride.
        (g)(7)
    (k) 29 CFR 1926.60 Methylenedianiline. (i)(5) and Appendix E
    (l) 29 CFR 1926.62 Lead.
        (f)(3) (i) and (ii), and Appendix D; Section IV of Appendix B 
    revised in part
    (m) 29 CFR 1926.1101 Asbestos.
        (h)(4) and Appendix C
    (n) 29 CFR 1926.1127 Cadmium.
        (g)(4) and Appendix C
    (2) Respirator-Approval Requirements that Reference MSHA or NIOSH 30 
    CFR Part 11
        The requirement to select respirators approved by NIOSH in 42 CFR 
    part 84 is specified in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of the revised respiratory 
    protection standard. This requirement updates the existing respirator-
    approval requirement in the substance-specific standards to select 
    respirators approved by MSHA or NIOSH under 30 CFR part 11, allowing 
    for removal of the following paragraphs:
    
    (a) 29 CFR 1910.1001 Asbestos.
        (g)(2)(i) [part]
    (b) 29 CFR 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride.
        (g)(2)
    (c) 29 CFR 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.
        (h)(2)(iii)
    (d) 29 CFR 1910.1025 Lead.
        (f)(2)(iii); Section IV of Appendix B revised in part
    (e) 29 CFR 1910.1027 Cadmium.
        (g)(2)(i) [part]
    (f) 29 CFR 1910.1028 Benzene
    
    [[Page 1268]]
    
        (g)(2)(ii)
    (g) 29 CFR 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.
        (g)(2)(iii)
    (h) 29 CFR 1910.1044 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.
        (h)(2)(ii)
    (i) 29 CFR 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile.
        (h)(2)(ii); Section IV of Appendix A revised in part
    (j) 29 CFR 1910.1047 Ethylene oxide.
        (g)(2)(ii); Section IV of Appendix A revised in part
    (k) 29 CFR 1910.1048  Formaldehyde.
        (g)(2)(i) [part]
    (l) 29 CFR 1910.1050  Methylenedianiline.
        (h)(2)(ii); Section III of Appendix A revised in part
    (m) 29 CFR 1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.
        (h)(2)(ii) [part]
    (n) 29 CFR 1910.1052  Methylene chloride.
        (g)(3) [part]
    (o) 29 CFR 1926.60  Methylenedianiline.
        (i)(2)(ii)
    (p) 29 CFR 1926.62  Lead.
        (f)(2)(iii); Section IV of Appendix B revised in part
    (q) 29 CFR 1926.1101  Asbestos.
        (h)(2)(ii)
    (r) 29 CFR 1926.1127  Cadmium.
        (g)(2)(i) [part]
    (3) Respirator Use
        Paragraph (g) of the revised respiratory protection standard 
    addresses, in part, facepiece seal protection (paragraph (g)(1)), and 
    employees leaving the work area to wash their faces and respirator 
    facepieces (paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A)) and to change filter elements 
    (paragraph (g)(2)(ii) (B) and (C)), allowing removal of the following 
    paragraphs:
    
    (a) 29 CFR 1910.1001  Asbestos.
        (g)(3) (ii) and (iii)
    (b) 29 CFR 1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.
        (h)(4) (ii) and (iii)
    (c) 29 CFR 1910.1025  Lead.
        (f)(4) (ii) and (iii)
    (d) 29 CFR 1910.1027  Cadmium.
        (g)(3) (ii) and (iii)
    (e) 29 CFR 1910.1028  Benzene.
        (g)(4)(iii)
    (f) 29 CFR 1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.
        (g)(4)
    (g) 29 CFR 1910.1043  Cotton dust.
        (f)(4)
    (h) 29 CFR 1910.1044  1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.
        (h)(3)(ii)
    (i) 29 CFR 1910.1045  Acrylonitrile.
        (h)(3)(iv)
    (j) 29 CFR 1910.1048  Formaldehyde.
        (g)(3)(v)
    (k) 29 CFR 1910.1050  Methylenedianiline.
        (h)(4)(ii)
    (l) 29 CFR 1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.
        (h)(4)(v)
    (m) 29 CFR 1910.1052  Methylene chloride.
        (g)(5)
    (n) 29 CFR 1926.60  Methylenedianiline. (i)(4)(ii)
    (o) 29 CFR 1926.62  Lead.
        (f)(4) (ii) and (iii)
    (p) 1926.1101  Asbestos.
        (h)(3) (ii) and (iii)
    (q) 29 CFR 19126.1127  Cadmium.
        (g)(3) (ii) and (iii)
    
        The full text, after deletions and revisions, of the paragraphs 
    dealing with respirators that remain in each of OSHA's existing 
    substance specific standards has been published in Section XI of this 
    preamble.
        The provisions of the respiratory protection standard found in 29 
    CFR part 1926 (Construction), specifically 29 CFR 1926.103, are now 
    identical to the new 29 CFR 1910.134. Following its policy of not 
    repeating identical health provisions in order to reduce paperwork 
    burden and to avoid regulatory confusion, OSHA is deleting the 
    duplicate text in 29 CFR 1926.103 and cross-referencing the text in 29 
    CFR 1910.134. To implement this action, the title of this section 
    remains, but a Note is added to read: ``Note: The requirements 
    applicable to construction work under this section are identical to 
    those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of this chapter.'' For the 
    convenience of the Construction industry, OSHA makes available an 
    indexed manual that includes the full text of all regulations 
    applicable to construction, including OSHA's respirator requirements.
        OSHA is also revising or removing a number of provisions in 
    addition to safety and health standards, other than the substance-
    specific standards, that duplicate provisions now found in the revised 
    respiratory protection standard. These standards and their revisions 
    include:
        (1) 29 CFR 1910.94 Ventilation.
        (a)(1)(i)--Removed the phrase ``continuous flow'' from the 
    definition of abrasive-blasting respirator consistent with the proposed 
    requirement to select respirators in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
        (a)(5)(i)--Revised the reference from ``30 CFR part 11'' to ``42 
    CFR Part 84.''
        (a)(5)(iii)--Provided the reference ``42 CFR Part 84.''
        (a)(5)(iv)--Revised the reference from ``Sec. 1910.134 (a) and 
    (b)'' to ``Sec. 1910.134.''
        (a)(6)--Revised the air-requirement reference for abrasive-blasting 
    respirators from ``ANSI Z9.2-1960'' to ``29 CFR 1910.134(i).''
        (c)(6)(iii)(a)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH/ANSI Z-
    88.2-1969'' to ``NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (d)(9)(vi)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH'' to ``NIOSH 
    under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (2) 29 CFR 1910.111 Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia.
        (a)(2)(x)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA'' to ``the National 
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR Part 
    84.''
        (b)(10)(ii)--Revised the reference from ``Bureau of Mines'' to 
    ``NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (3) 29 CFR 1910.156  Fire brigades.
        (f)(1)(i) and (v)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH'' to 
    ``NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (4) 29 CFR 1910.252  General requirements.
        (c)(4)(ii) and (iii), (c)(7)(iii), (c)(9)(i), and (c)(10)--Revised 
    the references from ``MSHA/NIOSH'' to ``National Institute for 
    Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR Part 84'' and 
    ``NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (5) 29 CFR 1910.261  Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.
        (b)(2) and (g)(10--Revised the reference from ``ANSI Z88.2-1969'' 
    to ``29 CFR 1910.134.''
        (h)(2)(iii) and (iv)--Revised the reference from ``ANSI Z-88.2-1969 
    and K-13.1-1967'' to ``29 CFR 1910.134.''
        (6) 29 CFR 1926.57  Ventilation.
        (f)(1)(ii)--Removed the phrase ``continuous flow'' from the 
    definition of abrasive-blasting respirator consistent with the proposed 
    requirement to select respirators in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
        (f)(5)(i)--Revised the reference from ``30 CFR Part 11'' to ``42 
    CFR Part 84.''
        (f)(5)(iii)--Provided the reference ``42 CFR Part 84.''
        (f)(6)--Revised the air-requirement reference for abrasive-blasting 
    respirators from ``ANSI Z9.2-1960'' to ``29 CFR 1910.134(i).''
        (h)(6)(iii)(A)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH/ANSI Z-
    88.2-1969'' to ``NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (i)(9)(vi)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH'' to ``NIOSH 
    under 42 CFR Part 84.''
        (7) 29 CFR 1926.103  Respiratory protection.
        Removed paragraphs (a) through (i) and replaced them with a note to 
    read as follows:
    
        Note: The requirements applicable to construction work under 
    this section are identical to those set forth at Sec. 1910.134 of 
    this chapter.
    
    
    [[Page 1269]]
    
    
        (8) 29 CFR 1926.800  Underground construction.
        (g)(2)--Revised the reference from ``MSHA/NIOSH'' to ``the National 
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under 42 CFR Part 84,'' 
    and from ``Sec. 1926.103 (b) and (c)'' to ``29 CFR 1926.103.''
    Appendices
        The four appendices are discussed in detail under the Summary and 
    Explanation sections for the following paragraphs of the final 
    standard: Appendix A in paragraph (f), ``Fit Testing''; Appendix B-1 in 
    paragraph (g), ``Use of respirators''; Appendix B-2 in paragraph (h), 
    ``Maintenance and care of respirators'; Appendix C in paragraph (e), 
    ``Medical evaluation''; Appendix D in paragraphs (c), ``Written 
    program'' and paragraph (a), ``Permissible practice.''
    
    VIII. Authority and Signature
    
        This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. 
    Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
    Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
    Washington, DC 20210.
        Pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Sec. 107 of 
    the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (the Construction 
    Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, the Longshore and Harbor Worker's 
    Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 
    (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 
    9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911; 29 CFR 
    parts 1910 and 1926 are amended as set forth below.
    
    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
    
        Health, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements.
    
        Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December, 1997.
    Charles N. Jeffress,
    Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    
    IX. Amended Standards
    
        Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hearby 
    amended as follows:
    
    PART 1910--[AMENDED]
    
    Subpart G--[Amended]
    
        1. The authority citation for Subpart G of Part 1910 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    part 1911.
    
        2. Section 1910.94 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
    (a)(5)(i), (a)(5)(iii) introductory text, (a)(5)(iv), (a)(6), 
    (c)(6)(iii)(a), and (d)(9)(vi) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.94  Ventilation.
    
        (a) * * *
        (1) * * *
        (ii) Abrasive-blasting respirator. A respirator constructed so that 
    it covers the wearer's head, neck, and shoulders to protect the wearer 
    from rebounding abrasive.
    * * * * *
        (5) Personal protective equipment. (i) Employers must use only 
    respirators approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
    and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84 to protect employees from dusts 
    produced during abrasive-blasting operations.
    * * * * *
        (iii) Properly fitted particulate-filter respirators, commonly 
    referred to as dust-filter respirators, may be used for short, 
    intermittent, or occasional dust exposures such as cleanup, dumping of 
    dust collectors, or unloading shipments of sand at a receiving point 
    when it is not feasible to control the dust by enclosure, exhaust 
    ventilation, or other means. The respirators used must be approved by 
    NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 for protection against the specific type of 
    dust encountered.
    * * * * *
        (iv) For employees who use respirators required by this section, 
    the employer must implement a respiratory protection program in 
    accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.
    * * * * *
        (6) Air supply and air compressors. Air for abrasive-blasting 
    respirators must be free of harmful quantities of dusts, mists, or 
    noxious gases, and must meet the requirements for supplied-air quality 
    and use specified in 29 CFR 1910.134(i).
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (6) * * *
        (iii) (a) When an operator is in a booth downstream from the object 
    being sprayed, an air-supplied respirator or other type of respirator 
    must be used by employees that has been approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR 
    part 84 for the material being sprayed.
    * * * * *
        (d) * * *
        (9) * * *
        (vi) During the emergencies specified in paragraph (d)(11)(v) of 
    this section, if employees must be in areas where the concentrations of 
    air contaminants are greater than the limits set by paragraph 
    (d)(2)(iii) of this section or the oxygen concentration is less than 
    19.5 percent, they must use respirators that reduce their exposure to a 
    level below these limits or that provide adequate oxygen. Such 
    respirators must also be provided in marked, quickly-accessible storage 
    compartments built for this purpose when the possibility exists that 
    hazardous concentrations of air contaminants could be released 
    accidentally. The respirators must be approved by the NIOSH under 42 
    CFR part 84, selected by a competent industrial hygienist or other 
    technically-qualified source, and used in accordance with 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
    * * * * *
    
    Subpart H--[Amended]
    
        3. The authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    part 1911.
    
        4. Section 1910.111 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(x) and 
    (b)(10)(ii) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.111  Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia.
    
        (a) * * *
        (2) * * *
        (x) Gas masks.  Gas masks must be approved by the National 
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 
    84 for use with anhydrous ammonia.
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (10) * * *
        (ii) Stationary storage installations must have at least two 
    suitable gas masks in readily-accessible locations. Full-face masks 
    with ammonia canisters that have been approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR 
    part 84 are suitable for emergency action involving most anhydrous 
    ammonia leaks, particularly leaks that occur outdoors. For respiratory 
    protection in concentrated ammonia atmospheres, a self-contained 
    breathing apparatus is required.
    * * * * *
    
    [[Page 1270]]
    
    Subpart I--[Amended]
    
        5. The authority citation for Subpart I of Part 1910 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
    Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
    No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
    (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable.
        Sections 1910.132, 1910.134, and 1910.138 also issued under 29 
    CFR part 1911.
        Sections 1910.133, 1910.135, and 1910.136 also issued under 29 
    CFR part 1911 and 5 U.S.C. 553.
    
        6. Section 1910.134 is redesignated as Sec. 1910.139 in subpart I 
    and amended by revising its title and adding introductory text to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.139  Respiratory protection for M. tuberculosis.
    
        This section applies only to respiratory protection against M. 
    tuberculosis and applies in lieu of Sec. 1910.134.
    * * * * *
        7. A new section 1910.134 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.134  Respiratory protection.
    
        This section applies to General Industry (part 1910), Shipyards 
    (part 1915), Marine Terminals (part 1917), Longshoring (part 1918), and 
    Construction (part 1926).
        (a) Permissible practice. (1) In the control of those occupational 
    diseases caused by breathing air contaminated with harmful dusts, fogs, 
    fumes, mists, gases, smokes, sprays, or vapors, the primary objective 
    shall be to prevent atmospheric contamination. This shall be 
    accomplished as far as feasible by accepted engineering control 
    measures (for example, enclosure or confinement of the operation, 
    general and local ventilation, and substitution of less toxic 
    materials). When effective engineering controls are not feasible, or 
    while they are being instituted, appropriate respirators shall be used 
    pursuant to this section.
        (2) Respirators shall be provided by the employer when such 
    equipment is necessary to protect the health of the employee. The 
    employer shall provide the respirators which are applicable and 
    suitable for the purpose intended. The employer shall be responsible 
    for the establishment and maintenance of a respiratory protection 
    program which shall include the requirements outlined in paragraph (c) 
    of this section.
        (b) Definitions. The following definitions are important terms used 
    in the respiratory protection standard in this section.
        Air-purifying respirator means a respirator with an air-purifying 
    filter, cartridge, or canister that removes specific air contaminants 
    by passing ambient air through the air-purifying element.
        Assigned protection factor (APF) [Reserved]
        Atmosphere-supplying respirator means a respirator that supplies 
    the respirator user with breathing air from a source independent of the 
    ambient atmosphere, and includes supplied-air respirators (SARs) and 
    self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) units.
        Canister or cartridge means a container with a filter, sorbent, or 
    catalyst, or combination of these items, which removes specific 
    contaminants from the air passed through the container.
        Demand respirator means an atmosphere-supplying respirator that 
    admits breathing air to the facepiece only when a negative pressure is 
    created inside the facepiece by inhalation.
        Emergency situation means any occurrence such as, but not limited 
    to, equipment failure, rupture of containers, or failure of control 
    equipment that may or does result in an uncontrolled significant 
    release of an airborne contaminant.
        Employee exposure means exposure to a concentration of an airborne 
    contaminant that would occur if the employee were not using respiratory 
    protection.
        End-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) means a system that warns the 
    respirator user of the approach of the end of adequate respiratory 
    protection, for example, that the sorbent is approaching saturation or 
    is no longer effective.
        Escape-only respirator means a respirator intended to be used only 
    for emergency exit.
        Filter or air purifying element means a component used in 
    respirators to remove solid or liquid aerosols from the inspired air.
        Filtering facepiece (dust mask) means a negative pressure 
    particulate respirator with a filter as an integral part of the 
    facepiece or with the entire facepiece composed of the filtering 
    medium.
        Fit factor means a quantitative estimate of the fit of a particular 
    respirator to a specific individual, and typically estimates the ratio 
    of the concentration of a substance in ambient air to its concentration 
    inside the respirator when worn.
        Fit test means the use of a protocol to qualitatively or 
    quantitatively evaluate the fit of a respirator on an individual. (See 
    also Qualitative fit test QLFT and Quantitative fit test QNFT.)
        Helmet means a rigid respiratory inlet covering that also provides 
    head protection against impact and penetration.
        High efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a filter that 
    is at least 99.97% efficient in removing monodisperse particles of 0.3 
    micrometers in diameter. The equivalent NIOSH 42 CFR 84 particulate 
    filters are the N100, R100, and P100 filters.
        Hood means a respiratory inlet covering that completely covers the 
    head and neck and may also cover portions of the shoulders and torso.
        Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) means an atmosphere 
    that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible 
    adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to 
    escape from a dangerous atmosphere.
        Interior structural firefighting means the physical activity of 
    fire suppression, rescue or both, inside of buildings or enclosed 
    structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient 
    stage. (See 29 CFR 1910.155)
        Loose-fitting facepiece means a respiratory inlet covering that is 
    designed to form a partial seal with the face.
        Maximum use concentration (MUC) [Reserved].
        Negative pressure respirator (tight fitting) means a respirator in 
    which the air pressure inside the facepiece is negative during 
    inhalation with respect to the ambient air pressure outside the 
    respirator.
        Oxygen deficient atmosphere means an atmosphere with an oxygen 
    content below 19.5% by volume.
        Physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) means 
    an individual whose legally permitted scope of practice (i.e., license, 
    registration, or certification) allows him or her to independently 
    provide, or be delegated the responsibility to provide, some or all of 
    the health care services required by paragraph (e) of this section.
        Positive pressure respirator means a respirator in which the 
    pressure inside the respiratory inlet covering exceeds the ambient air 
    pressure outside the respirator.
        Powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) means an air-purifying 
    respirator that uses a blower to force the ambient air through air-
    purifying elements to the inlet covering.
        Pressure demand respirator means a positive pressure atmosphere-
    supplying respirator that admits breathing air to the facepiece when 
    the positive pressure
    
    [[Page 1271]]
    
    is reduced inside the facepiece by inhalation.
        Qualitative fit test (QLFT) means a pass/fail fit test to assess 
    the adequacy of respirator fit that relies on the individual's response 
    to the test agent.
        Quantitative fit test (QNFT) means an assessment of the adequacy of 
    respirator fit by numerically measuring the amount of leakage into the 
    respirator.
        Respiratory inlet covering means that portion of a respirator that 
    forms the protective barrier between the user's respiratory tract and 
    an air-purifying device or breathing air source, or both. It may be a 
    facepiece, helmet, hood, suit, or a mouthpiece respirator with nose 
    clamp.
        Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) means an atmosphere-
    supplying respirator for which the breathing air source is designed to 
    be carried by the user.
        Service life means the period of time that a respirator, filter or 
    sorbent, or other respiratory equipment provides adequate protection to 
    the wearer.
        Supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline respirator means an 
    atmosphere-supplying respirator for which the source of breathing air 
    is not designed to be carried by the user.
        This section means this respiratory protection standard.
        Tight-fitting facepiece means a respiratory inlet covering that 
    forms a complete seal with the face.
        User seal check means an action conducted by the respirator user to 
    determine if the respirator is properly seated to the face.
        (c) Respiratory protection program. This paragraph requires the 
    employer to develop and implement a written respiratory protection 
    program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements for 
    required respirator use. The program must be administered by a suitably 
    trained program administrator. In addition, certain program elements 
    may be required for voluntary use to prevent potential hazards 
    associated with the use of the respirator. The Small Entity Compliance 
    Guide contains criteria for the selection of a program administrator 
    and a sample program that meets the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Copies of the Small Entity Compliance Guide will be available on or 
    about April 8, 1998 from the Occupational Safety and Health 
    Administration's Office of Publications, Room N 3101, 200 Constitution 
    Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20210 (202-219-4667).
        (1) In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the 
    health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the 
    employer, the employer shall establish and implement a written 
    respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures. The 
    program shall be updated as necessary to reflect those changes in 
    workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The employer shall 
    include in the program the following provisions of this section, as 
    applicable:
        (i) Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;
        (ii) Medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators;
        (iii) Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators;
        (iv) Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and 
    reasonably foreseeable emergency situations;
        (v) Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, 
    inspecting, repairing, discarding, and otherwise maintaining 
    respirators;
        (vi) Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and flow 
    of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators;
        (vii) Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which 
    they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations;
        (viii) Training of employees in the proper use of respirators, 
    including putting on and removing them, any limitations on their use, 
    and their maintenance; and
        (ix) Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the 
    program.
        (2) Where respirator use is not required:
        (i) An employer may provide respirators at the request of employees 
    or permit employees to use their own respirators, if the employer 
    determines that such respirator use will not in itself create a hazard. 
    If the employer determines that any voluntary respirator use is 
    permissible, the employer shall provide the respirator users with the 
    information contained in Appendix D to this section (``Information for 
    Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard''); 
    and
        (ii) In addition, the employer must establish and implement those 
    elements of a written respiratory protection program necessary to 
    ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily is medically 
    able to use that respirator, and that the respirator is cleaned, 
    stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard 
    to the user. Exception: Employers are not required to include in a 
    written respiratory protection program those employees whose only use 
    of respirators involves the voluntary use of filtering facepieces (dust 
    masks).
        (3) The employer shall designate a program administrator who is 
    qualified by appropriate training or experience that is commensurate 
    with the complexity of the program to administer or oversee the 
    respiratory protection program and conduct the required evaluations of 
    program effectiveness.
        (4) The employer shall provide respirators, training, and medical 
    evaluations at no cost to the employee.
        (d) Selection of respirators. This paragraph requires the employer 
    to evaluate respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace, identify relevant 
    workplace and user factors, and base respirator selection on these 
    factors. The paragraph also specifies appropriately protective 
    respirators for use in IDLH atmospheres, and limits the selection and 
    use of air-purifying respirators.
        (1) General requirements. (i) The employer shall select and provide 
    an appropriate respirator based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which 
    the worker is exposed and workplace and user factors that affect 
    respirator performance and reliability.
        (ii) The employer shall select a NIOSH-certified respirator. The 
    respirator shall be used in compliance with the conditions of its 
    certification.
        (iii) The employer shall identify and evaluate the respiratory 
    hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation shall include a reasonable 
    estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an 
    identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. 
    Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee 
    exposure, the employer shall consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.
        (iv) The employer shall select respirators from a sufficient number 
    of respirator models and sizes so that the respirator is acceptable to, 
    and correctly fits, the user.
        (2) Respirators for IDLH atmospheres. (i) The employer shall 
    provide the following respirators for employee use in IDLH atmospheres:
        (A) A full facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a 
    minimum service life of thirty minutes, or
        (B) A combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air 
    respirator (SAR) with auxiliary self-contained air supply.
        (ii) Respirators provided only for escape from IDLH atmospheres 
    shall be NIOSH-certified for escape from the atmosphere in which they 
    will be used.
        (iii) All oxygen-deficient atmospheres shall be considered IDLH. 
    Exception: If the employer demonstrates that, under all foreseeable 
    conditions, the oxygen concentration can be maintained within
    
    [[Page 1272]]
    
    the ranges specified in Table II of this section (i.e., for the 
    altitudes set out in the table), then any atmosphere-supplying 
    respirator may be used.
        (3) Respirators for atmospheres that are not IDLH. (i) The employer 
    shall provide a respirator that is adequate to protect the health of 
    the employee and ensure compliance with all other OSHA statutory and 
    regulatory requirements, under routine and reasonably foreseeable 
    emergency situations.
        (A) Assigned Protection Factors (APFs) [Reserved]
        (B) Maximum Use Concentration (MUC) [Reserved]
        (ii) The respirator selected shall be appropriate for the chemical 
    state and physical form of the contaminant.
        (iii) For protection against gases and vapors, the employer shall 
    provide:
        (A) An atmosphere-supplying respirator, or
        (B) An air-purifying respirator, provided that:
        (1) The respirator is equipped with an end-of-service-life 
    indicator (ESLI) certified by NIOSH for the contaminant; or
        (2) If there is no ESLI appropriate for conditions in the 
    employer's workplace, the employer implements a change schedule for 
    canisters and cartridges that is based on objective information or data 
    that will ensure that canisters and cartridges are changed before the 
    end of their service life. The employer shall describe in the 
    respirator program the information and data relied upon and the basis 
    for the canister and cartridge change schedule and the basis for 
    reliance on the data.
        (iv) For protection against particulates, the employer shall 
    provide:
        (A) An atmosphere-supplying respirator; or
        (B) An air-purifying respirator equipped with a filter certified by 
    NIOSH under 30 CFR part 11 as a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 
    filter, or an air-purifying respirator equipped with a filter certified 
    for particulates by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84; or
        (C) For contaminants consisting primarily of particles with mass 
    median aerodynamic diameters (MMAD) of at least 2 micrometers, an air-
    purifying respirator equipped with any filter certified for 
    particulates by NIOSH.
    
                Table I.--Assigned Protection Factors [Reserved]            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
    
    
                                    Table II                                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Oxygen  
                                                                  deficient 
                                                                 Atmospheres
                                                                  (% 02) for
                                                                  which the 
                           Altitude (ft.)                          employer 
                                                                 may rely on
                                                                 atmosphere-
                                                                  supplying 
                                                                 respirators
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less than 3,001............................................    16.0-19.5
    3,001-4,000................................................    16.4-19.5
    4,001-5,000................................................    17.1-19.5
    5,001-6,000................................................    17.8-19.5
    6,001-7,000................................................    18.5-19.5
    7,001-8,000\1\.............................................  19.3-19.5. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Above 8,000 feet the exception does not apply. Oxygen-enriched      
      breathing air must be supplied above 14,000 feet.                     
    
        (e) Medical evaluation. Using a respirator may place a 
    physiological burden on employees that varies with the type of 
    respirator worn, the job and workplace conditions in which the 
    respirator is used, and the medical status of the employee. 
    Accordingly, this paragraph specifies the minimum requirements for 
    medical evaluation that employers must implement to determine the 
    employee's ability to use a respirator.
        (1) General. The employer shall provide a medical evaluation to 
    determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the 
    employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the 
    workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical 
    evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a 
    respirator.
        (2) Medical evaluation procedures. (i) The employer shall identify 
    a physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) to 
    perform medical evaluations using a medical questionnaire or an initial 
    medical examination that obtains the same information as the medical 
    questionnaire.
        (ii) The medical evaluation shall obtain the information requested 
    by the questionnaire in Sections 1 and 2, Part A of Appendix C of this 
    section.
        (3) Follow-up medical examination. (i) The employer shall ensure 
    that a follow-up medical examination is provided for an employee who 
    gives a positive response to any question among questions 1 through 8 
    in Section 2, Part A of Appendix C or whose initial medical examination 
    demonstrates the need for a follow-up medical examination.
        (ii) The follow-up medical examination shall include any medical 
    tests, consultations, or diagnostic procedures that the PLHCP deems 
    necessary to make a final determination.
        (4) Administration of the medical questionnaire and examinations. 
    (i) The medical questionnaire and examinations shall be administered 
    confidentially during the employee's normal working hours or at a time 
    and place convenient to the employee. The medical questionnaire shall 
    be administered in a manner that ensures that the employee understands 
    its content.
        (ii) The employer shall provide the employee with an opportunity to 
    discuss the questionnaire and examination results with the PLHCP.
        (5) Supplemental information for the PLHCP. (i) The following 
    information must be provided to the PLHCP before the PLHCP makes a 
    recommendation concerning an employee's ability to use a respirator:
        (A) The type and weight of the respirator to be used by the 
    employee;
        (B) The duration and frequency of respirator use (including use for 
    rescue and escape);
        (C) The expected physical work effort;
        (D) Additional protective clothing and equipment to be worn; and
        (E) Temperature and humidity extremes that may be encountered.
        (ii) Any supplemental information provided previously to the PLHCP 
    regarding an employee need not be provided for a subsequent medical 
    evaluation if the information and the PLHCP remain the same.
        (iii) The employer shall provide the PLHCP with a copy of the 
    written respiratory protection program and a copy of this section.
    
        Note to Paragraph (e)(5)(iii): When the employer replaces a 
    PLHCP, the employer must ensure that the new PLHCP obtains this 
    information, either by providing the documents directly to the PLHCP 
    or having the documents transferred from the former PLHCP to the new 
    PLHCP. However, OSHA does not expect employers to have employees 
    medically reevaluated solely because a new PLHCP has been selected.
    
        (6) Medical determination. In determining the employee's ability to 
    use a respirator, the employer shall:
        (i) Obtain a written recommendation regarding the employee's 
    ability to use the respirator from the PLHCP. The recommendation shall 
    provide only the following information:
        (A) Any limitations on respirator use related to the medical 
    condition of the employee, or relating to the workplace conditions in 
    which the respirator will be used, including whether or not the 
    employee is medically able to use the respirator;
        (B) The need, if any, for follow-up medical evaluations; and
        (C) A statement that the PLHCP has provided the employee with a 
    copy of the PLHCP's written recommendation.
    
    [[Page 1273]]
    
        (ii) If the respirator is a negative pressure respirator and the 
    PLHCP finds a medical condition that may place the employee's health at 
    increased risk if the respirator is used, the employer shall provide a 
    PAPR if the PLHCP's medical evaluation finds that the employee can use 
    such a respirator; if a subsequent medical evaluation finds that the 
    employee is medically able to use a negative pressure respirator, then 
    the employer is no longer required to provide a PAPR.
        (7) Additional medical evaluations. At a minimum, the employer 
    shall provide additional medical evaluations that comply with the 
    requirements of this section if:
        (i) An employee reports medical signs or symptoms that are related 
    to ability to use a respirator;
        (ii) A PLHCP, supervisor, or the respirator program administrator 
    informs the employer that an employee needs to be reevaluated;
        (iii) Information from the respiratory protection program, 
    including observations made during fit testing and program evaluation, 
    indicates a need for employee reevaluation; or
        (iv) A change occurs in workplace conditions (e.g., physical work 
    effort, protective clothing, temperature) that may result in a 
    substantial increase in the physiological burden placed on an employee.
        (f) Fit testing. This paragraph requires that, before an employee 
    may be required to use any respirator with a negative or positive 
    pressure tight-fitting facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with 
    the same make, model, style, and size of respirator that will be used. 
    This paragraph specifies the kinds of fit tests allowed, the procedures 
    for conducting them, and how the results of the fit tests must be used.
        (1) The employer shall ensure that employees using a tight-fitting 
    facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or 
    quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph.
        (2) The employer shall ensure that an employee using a tight-
    fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the 
    respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, 
    model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter.
        (3) The employer shall conduct an additional fit test whenever the 
    employee reports, or the employer, PLHCP, supervisor, or program 
    administrator makes visual observations of, changes in the employee's 
    physical condition that could affect respirator fit. Such conditions 
    include, but are not limited to, facial scarring, dental changes, 
    cosmetic surgery, or an obvious change in body weight.
        (4) If after passing a QLFT or QNFT, the employee subsequently 
    notifies the employer, program administrator, supervisor, or PLHCP that 
    the fit of the respirator is unacceptable, the employee shall be given 
    a reasonable opportunity to select a different respirator facepiece and 
    to be retested.
        (5) The fit test shall be administered using an OSHA-accepted QLFT 
    or QNFT protocol. The OSHA-accepted QLFT and QNFT protocols and 
    procedures are contained in Appendix A of this section.
        (6) QLFT may only be used to fit test negative pressure air-
    purifying respirators that must achieve a fit factor of 100 or less.
        (7) If the fit factor, as determined through an OSHA-accepted QNFT 
    protocol, is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half 
    facepieces, or equal to or greater than 500 for tight-fitting full 
    facepieces, the QNFT has been passed with that respirator.
        (8) Fit testing of tight-fitting atmosphere-supplying respirators 
    and tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirators shall be 
    accomplished by performing quantitative or qualitative fit testing in 
    the negative pressure mode, regardless of the mode of operation 
    (negative or positive pressure) that is used for respiratory 
    protection.
        (i) Qualitative fit testing of these respirators shall be 
    accomplished by temporarily converting the respirator user's actual 
    facepiece into a negative pressure respirator with appropriate filters, 
    or by using an identical negative pressure air-purifying respirator 
    facepiece with the same sealing surfaces as a surrogate for the 
    atmosphere-supplying or powered air-purifying respirator facepiece.
        (ii) Quantitative fit testing of these respirators shall be 
    accomplished by modifying the facepiece to allow sampling inside the 
    facepiece in the breathing zone of the user, midway between the nose 
    and mouth. This requirement shall be accomplished by installing a 
    permanent sampling probe onto a surrogate facepiece, or by using a 
    sampling adapter designed to temporarily provide a means of sampling 
    air from inside the facepiece.
        (iii) Any modifications to the respirator facepiece for fit testing 
    shall be completely removed, and the facepiece restored to NIOSH-
    approved configuration, before that facepiece can be used in the 
    workplace.
        (g) Use of respirators. This paragraph requires employers to 
    establish and implement procedures for the proper use of respirators. 
    These requirements include prohibiting conditions that may result in 
    facepiece seal leakage, preventing employees from removing respirators 
    in hazardous environments, taking actions to ensure continued effective 
    respirator operation throughout the work shift, and establishing 
    procedures for the use of respirators in IDLH atmospheres or in 
    interior structural firefighting situations.
        (1) Facepiece seal protection. (i) The employer shall not permit 
    respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who 
    have:
        (A) Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the 
    facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function; or
        (B) Any condition that interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal 
    or valve function.
        (ii) If an employee wears corrective glasses or goggles or other 
    personal protective equipment, the employer shall ensure that such 
    equipment is worn in a manner that does not interfere with the seal of 
    the facepiece to the face of the user.
        (iii) For all tight-fitting respirators, the employer shall ensure 
    that employees perform a user seal check each time they put on the 
    respirator using the procedures in Appendix B-1 or procedures 
    recommended by the respirator manufacturer that the employer 
    demonstrates are as effective as those in Appendix B-1 of this section.
        (2) Continuing respirator effectiveness. (i) Appropriate 
    surveillance shall be maintained of work area conditions and degree of 
    employee exposure or stress. When there is a change in work area 
    conditions or degree of employee exposure or stress that may affect 
    respirator effectiveness, the employer shall reevaluate the continued 
    effectiveness of the respirator.
        (ii) The employer shall ensure that employees leave the respirator 
    use area:
        (A) To wash their faces and respirator facepieces as necessary to 
    prevent eye or skin irritation associated with respirator use; or
        (B) If they detect vapor or gas breakthrough, changes in breathing 
    resistance, or leakage of the facepiece; or
        (C) To replace the respirator or the filter, cartridge, or canister 
    elements.
        (iii) If the employee detects vapor or gas breakthrough, changes in 
    breathing resistance, or leakage of the facepiece, the employer must 
    replace or repair the respirator before allowing the employee to return 
    to the work area.
        (3) Procedures for IDLH atmospheres. For all IDLH atmospheres, the 
    employer shall ensure that:
    
    [[Page 1274]]
    
        (i) One employee or, when needed, more than one employee is located 
    outside the IDLH atmosphere;
        (ii) Visual, voice, or signal line communication is maintained 
    between the employee(s) in the IDLH atmosphere and the employee(s) 
    located outside the IDLH atmosphere;
        (iii) The employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere are 
    trained and equipped to provide effective emergency rescue;
        (iv) The employer or designee is notified before the employee(s) 
    located outside the IDLH atmosphere enter the IDLH atmosphere to 
    provide emergency rescue;
        (v) The employer or designee authorized to do so by the employer, 
    once notified, provides necessary assistance appropriate to the 
    situation;
        (vi) Employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmospheres are equipped 
    with:
        (A) Pressure demand or other positive pressure SCBAs, or a pressure 
    demand or other positive pressure supplied-air respirator with 
    auxiliary SCBA; and either
        (B) Appropriate retrieval equipment for removing the employee(s) 
    who enter(s) these hazardous atmospheres where retrieval equipment 
    would contribute to the rescue of the employee(s) and would not 
    increase the overall risk resulting from entry; or
        (C) Equivalent means for rescue where retrieval equipment is not 
    required under paragraph (g)(3)(vi)(B).
        (4) Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to 
    the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior 
    structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:
        (i) At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in 
    visual or voice contact with one another at all times;
        (ii) At least two employees are located outside the IDLH 
    atmosphere; and
        (iii) All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use 
    SCBAs.
    
        Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located 
    outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, 
    such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety 
    officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or 
    rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any 
    firefighter working at the incident.
        Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to 
    preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities 
    before an entire team has assembled.
    
        (h) Maintenance and care of respirators. This paragraph requires 
    the employer to provide for the cleaning and disinfecting, storage, 
    inspection, and repair of respirators used by employees.
        (1) Cleaning and disinfecting. The employer shall provide each 
    respirator user with a respirator that is clean, sanitary, and in good 
    working order. The employer shall ensure that respirators are cleaned 
    and disinfected using the procedures in Appendix B-2 of this section, 
    or procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer, provided that 
    such procedures are of equivalent effectiveness. The respirators shall 
    be cleaned and disinfected at the following intervals:
        (i) Respirators issued for the exclusive use of an employee shall 
    be cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to be maintained in a 
    sanitary condition;
        (ii) Respirators issued to more than one employee shall be cleaned 
    and disinfected before being worn by different individuals;
        (iii) Respirators maintained for emergency use shall be cleaned and 
    disinfected after each use; and
        (iv) Respirators used in fit testing and training shall be cleaned 
    and disinfected after each use.
        (2) Storage. The employer shall ensure that respirators are stored 
    as follows:
        (i) All respirators shall be stored to protect them from damage, 
    contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive 
    moisture, and damaging chemicals, and they shall be packed or stored to 
    prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve.
        (ii) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this 
    section, emergency respirators shall be:
        (A) Kept accessible to the work area;
        (B) Stored in compartments or in covers that are clearly marked as 
    containing emergency respirators; and
        (C) Stored in accordance with any applicable manufacturer 
    instructions.
        (3) Inspection. (i) The employer shall ensure that respirators are 
    inspected as follows:
        (A) All respirators used in routine situations shall be inspected 
    before each use and during cleaning;
        (B) All respirators maintained for use in emergency situations 
    shall be inspected at least monthly and in accordance with the 
    manufacturer's recommendations, and shall be checked for proper 
    function before and after each use; and
        (C) Emergency escape-only respirators shall be inspected before 
    being carried into the workplace for use.
        (ii) The employer shall ensure that respirator inspections include 
    the following:
        (A) A check of respirator function, tightness of connections, and 
    the condition of the various parts including, but not limited to, the 
    facepiece, head straps, valves, connecting tube, and cartridges, 
    canisters or filters; and
        (B) A check of elastomeric parts for pliability and signs of 
    deterioration.
        (iii) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and 
    (ii) of this section, self-contained breathing apparatus shall be 
    inspected monthly. Air and oxygen cylinders shall be maintained in a 
    fully charged state and shall be recharged when the pressure falls to 
    90% of the manufacturer's recommended pressure level. The employer 
    shall determine that the regulator and warning devices function 
    properly.
        (iv) For respirators maintained for emergency use, the employer 
    shall:
        (A) Certify the respirator by documenting the date the inspection 
    was performed, the name (or signature) of the person who made the 
    inspection, the findings, required remedial action, and a serial number 
    or other means of identifying the inspected respirator; and
        (B) Provide this information on a tag or label that is attached to 
    the storage compartment for the respirator, is kept with the 
    respirator, or is included in inspection reports stored as paper or 
    electronic files. This information shall be maintained until replaced 
    following a subsequent certification.
        (4) Repairs. The employer shall ensure that respirators that fail 
    an inspection or are otherwise found to be defective are removed from 
    service, and are discarded or repaired or adjusted in accordance with 
    the following procedures:
        (i) Repairs or adjustments to respirators are to be made only by 
    persons appropriately trained to perform such operations and shall use 
    only the respirator manufacturer's NIOSH-approved parts designed for 
    the respirator;
        (ii) Repairs shall be made according to the manufacturer's 
    recommendations and specifications for the type and extent of repairs 
    to be performed; and
        (iii) Reducing and admission valves, regulators, and alarms shall 
    be adjusted or repaired only by the manufacturer or a technician 
    trained by the manufacturer.
        (i) Breathing air quality and use. This paragraph requires the 
    employer to provide employees using atmosphere-supplying respirators 
    (supplied-air and SCBA) with breathing gases of high purity.
        (1) The employer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed 
    oxygen, liquid air, and liquid oxygen used for respiration accords with 
    the following specifications:
    
    [[Page 1275]]
    
        (i) Compressed and liquid oxygen shall meet the United States 
    Pharmacopoeia requirements for medical or breathing oxygen; and
        (ii) Compressed breathing air shall meet at least the requirements 
    for Type 1-Grade D breathing air described in ANSI/Compressed Gas 
    Association Commodity Specification for Air, G-7.1-1989, to include:
        (A) Oxygen content (v/v) of 19.5-23.5%;
        (B) Hydrocarbon (condensed) content of 5 milligrams per cubic meter 
    of air or less;
        (C) Carbon monoxide (CO) content of 10 ppm or less;
        (D) Carbon dioxide content of 1,000 ppm or less; and
        (E) Lack of noticeable odor.
        (2) The employer shall ensure that compressed oxygen is not used in 
    atmosphere-supplying respirators that have previously used compressed 
    air.
        (3) The employer shall ensure that oxygen concentrations greater 
    than  23.5% are used only in equipment designed for oxygen service or 
    distribution.
        (4) The employer shall ensure that cylinders used to supply 
    breathing air to respirators meet the following requirements:
        (i) Cylinders are tested and maintained as prescribed in the 
    Shipping Container Specification Regulations of the Department of 
    Transportation (49 CFR part 173 and part 178);
        (ii) Cylinders of purchased breathing air have a certificate of 
    analysis from the supplier that the breathing air meets the 
    requirements for Type 1--Grade D breathing air; and
        (iii) The moisture content in the cylinder does not exceed a dew 
    point of -50  deg.F (-45.6  deg.C) at 1 atmosphere pressure.
        (5) The employer shall ensure that compressors used to supply 
    breathing air to respirators are constructed and situated so as to:
        (i) Prevent entry of contaminated air into the air-supply system;
        (ii) Minimize moisture content so that the dew point at 1 
    atmosphere pressure is 10 degrees F (5.56  deg.C) below the ambient 
    temperature;
        (iii) Have suitable in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and filters 
    to further ensure breathing air quality. Sorbent beds and filters shall 
    be maintained and replaced or refurbished periodically following the 
    manufacturer's instructions.
        (iv) Have a tag containing the most recent change date and the 
    signature of the person authorized by the employer to perform the 
    change. The tag shall be maintained at the compressor.
        (6) For compressors that are not oil-lubricated, the employer shall 
    ensure that carbon monoxide levels in the breathing air do not exceed 
    10 ppm.
        (7) For oil-lubricated compressors, the employer shall use a high-
    temperature or carbon monoxide alarm, or both, to monitor carbon 
    monoxide levels. If only high-temperature alarms are used, the air 
    supply shall be monitored at intervals sufficient to prevent carbon 
    monoxide in the breathing air from exceeding 10 ppm.
        (8) The employer shall ensure that breathing air couplings are 
    incompatible with outlets for nonrespirable worksite air or other gas 
    systems. No asphyxiating substance shall be introduced into breathing 
    air lines.
        (9) The employer shall use breathing gas containers marked in 
    accordance with the NIOSH respirator certification standard, 42 CFR 
    part 84.
        (j) Identification of filters, cartridges, and canisters. The 
    employer shall ensure that all filters, cartridges and canisters used 
    in the workplace are labeled and color coded with the NIOSH approval 
    label and that the label is not removed and remains legible.
        (k) Training and information. This paragraph requires the employer 
    to provide effective training to employees who are required to use 
    respirators. The training must be comprehensive, understandable, and 
    recur annually, and more often if necessary. This paragraph also 
    requires the employer to provide the basic information on respirators 
    in Appendix D of this section to employees who wear respirators when 
    not required by this section or by the employer to do so.
        (1) The employer shall ensure that each employee can demonstrate 
    knowledge of at least the following:
        (i) Why the respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or 
    maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator;
        (ii) What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are;
        (iii) How to use the respirator effectively in emergency 
    situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions;
        (iv) How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of 
    the respirator;
        (v) What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the 
    respirator;
        (vi) How to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or 
    prevent the effective use of respirators; and
        (vii) The general requirements of this section.
        (2) The training shall be conducted in a manner that is 
    understandable to the employee.
        (3) The employer shall provide the training prior to requiring the 
    employee to use a respirator in the workplace.
        (4) An employer who is able to demonstrate that a new employee has 
    received training within the last 12 months that addresses the elements 
    specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) through (vii) is not required to 
    repeat such training provided that, as required by paragraph (k)(1), 
    the employee can demonstrate knowledge of those element(s). Previous 
    training not repeated initially by the employer must be provided no 
    later than 12 months from the date of the previous training.
        (5) Retraining shall be administered annually, and when the 
    following situations occur:
        (i) Changes in the workplace or the type of respirator render 
    previous training obsolete;
        (ii) Inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the 
    respirator indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite 
    understanding or skill; or
        (iii) Any other situation arises in which retraining appears 
    necessary to ensure safe respirator use.
        (6) The basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in 
    Appendix D of this section, shall be provided by the employer in any 
    written or oral format, to employees who wear respirators when such use 
    is not required by this section or by the employer.
        (l) Program evaluation. This section requires the employer to 
    conduct evaluations of the workplace to ensure that the written 
    respiratory protection program is being properly implemented, and to 
    consult employees to ensure that they are using the respirators 
    properly.
        (1) The employer shall conduct evaluations of the workplace as 
    necessary to ensure that the provisions of the current written program 
    are being effectively implemented and that it continues to be 
    effective.
        (2) The employer shall regularly consult employees required to use 
    respirators to assess the employees' views on program effectiveness and 
    to identify any problems. Any problems that are identified during this 
    assessment shall be corrected. Factors to be assessed include, but are 
    not limited to:
        (i) Respirator fit (including the ability to use the respirator 
    without interfering with effective workplace performance);
        (ii) Appropriate respirator selection for the hazards to which the 
    employee is exposed;
    
    [[Page 1276]]
    
        (iii) Proper respirator use under the workplace conditions the 
    employee encounters; and
        (iv) Proper respirator maintenance.
        (m) Recordkeeping. This section requires the employer to establish 
    and retain written information regarding medical evaluations, fit 
    testing, and the respirator program. This information will facilitate 
    employee involvement in the respirator program, assist the employer in 
    auditing the adequacy of the program, and provide a record for 
    compliance determinations by OSHA.
        (1) Medical evaluation. Records of medical evaluations required by 
    this section must be retained and made available in accordance with 29 
    CFR 1910.1020.
        (2) Fit testing. (i) The employer shall establish a record of the 
    qualitative and quantitative fit tests administered to an employee 
    including:
        (A) The name or identification of the employee tested;
        (B) Type of fit test performed;
        (C) Specific make, model, style, and size of respirator tested;
        (D) Date of test; and
        (E) The pass/fail results for QLFTs or the fit factor and strip 
    chart recording or other recording of the test results for QNFTs.
        (ii) Fit test records shall be retained for respirator users until 
    the next fit test is administered.
        (3) A written copy of the current respirator program shall be 
    retained by the employer.
        (4) Written materials required to be retained under this paragraph 
    shall be made available upon request to affected employees and to the 
    Assistant Secretary or designee for examination and copying.
        (n) Dates. (1) Effective date. This section is effective April 8, 
    1998. The obligations imposed by this section commence on the effective 
    date unless otherwise noted in this paragraph. Compliance with 
    obligations that do not commence on the effective date shall occur no 
    later than the applicable start-up date.
        (2) Compliance dates. All obligations of this section commence on 
    the effective date except as follows:
        (i) The determination that respirator use is required (paragraph 
    (a)) shall be completed no later than September 8, 1998.
        (ii) Compliance with provisions of this section for all other 
    provisions shall be completed no later than October 5, 1998.
        (3) The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 CFR 1926.103, 
    contained in the 29 CFR parts 1900 to 1910.99 and the 29 CFR part 1926 
    editions, revised as of July 1, 1997, are in effect and enforceable 
    until April 8, 1998, or during any administrative or judicial stay of 
    the provisions of this section.
        (4) Existing Respiratory Protection Programs. If, in the 12 month 
    period preceding April 8, 1998, the employer has conducted annual 
    respirator training, fit testing, respirator program evaluation, or 
    medical evaluations, the employer may use the results of those 
    activities to comply with the corresponding provisions of this section, 
    providing that these activities were conducted in a manner that meets 
    the requirements of this section.
        (o) Appendices. (1) Compliance with Appendix A, Appendix B-1, 
    Appendix B-2, and Appendix C of this section is mandatory.
        (2) Appendix D of this section is non-mandatory and is not intended 
    to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or to 
    detract from any existing obligations.
    
    Appendix A to Sec. 1910.134: Fit Testing Procedures (Mandatory)
    
    Part I. OSHA-Accepted Fit Test Protocols
    
    A. Fit Testing Procedures--General Requirements
    
        The employer shall conduct fit testing using the following 
    procedures. The requirements in this appendix apply to all OSHA-
    accepted fit test methods, both QLFT and QNFT.
        1. The test subject shall be allowed to pick the most acceptable 
    respirator from a sufficient number of respirator models and sizes 
    so that the respirator is acceptable to, and correctly fits, the 
    user.
        2. Prior to the selection process, the test subject shall be 
    shown how to put on a respirator, how it should be positioned on the 
    face, how to set strap tension and how to determine an acceptable 
    fit. A mirror shall be available to assist the subject in evaluating 
    the fit and positioning of the respirator. This instruction may not 
    constitute the subject's formal training on respirator use, because 
    it is only a review.
        3. The test subject shall be informed that he/she is being asked 
    to select the respirator that provides the most acceptable fit. Each 
    respirator represents a different size and shape, and if fitted and 
    used properly, will provide adequate protection.
        4. The test subject shall be instructed to hold each chosen 
    facepiece up to the face and eliminate those that obviously do not 
    give an acceptable fit.
        5. The more acceptable facepieces are noted in case the one 
    selected proves unacceptable; the most comfortable mask is donned 
    and worn at least five minutes to assess comfort. Assistance in 
    assessing comfort can be given by discussing the points in the 
    following item A.6. If the test subject is not familiar with using a 
    particular respirator, the test subject shall be directed to don the 
    mask several times and to adjust the straps each time to become 
    adept at setting proper tension on the straps.
        6. Assessment of comfort shall include a review of the following 
    points with the test subject and allowing the test subject adequate 
    time to determine the comfort of the respirator:
        (a) Position of the mask on the nose
        (b) Room for eye protection
        (c) Room to talk
        (d) Position of mask on face and cheeks
        7. The following criteria shall be used to help determine the 
    adequacy of the respirator fit:
        (a) Chin properly placed;
        (b) Adequate strap tension, not overly tightened;
        (c) Fit across nose bridge;
        (d) Respirator of proper size to span distance from nose to 
    chin;
        (e) Tendency of respirator to slip;
        (f) Self-observation in mirror to evaluate fit and respirator 
    position.
        8. The test subject shall conduct a user seal check, either the 
    negative and positive pressure seal checks described in Appendix B-1 
    of this section or those recommended by the respirator manufacturer 
    which provide equivalent protection to the procedures in Appendix B-
    1. Before conducting the negative and positive pressure checks, the 
    subject shall be told to seat the mask on the face by moving the 
    head from side-to-side and up and down slowly while taking in a few 
    slow deep breaths. Another facepiece shall be selected and retested 
    if the test subject fails the user seal check tests.
        9. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
    between the skin and the facepiece sealing surface, such as stubble 
    beard growth, beard, mustache or sideburns which cross the 
    respirator sealing surface. Any type of apparel which interferes 
    with a satisfactory fit shall be altered or removed.
        10. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during 
    the tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician or other 
    licensed health care professional, as appropriate, to determine 
    whether the test subject can wear a respirator while performing her 
    or his duties.
        11. If the employee finds the fit of the respirator 
    unacceptable, the test subject shall be given the opportunity to 
    select a different respirator and to be retested.
        12. Exercise regimen. Prior to the commencement of the fit test, 
    the test subject shall be given a description of the fit test and 
    the test subject's responsibilities during the test procedure. The 
    description of the process shall include a description of the test 
    exercises that the subject will be performing. The respirator to be 
    tested shall be worn for at least 5 minutes before the start of the 
    fit test.
        13. The fit test shall be performed while the test subject is 
    wearing any applicable safety equipment that may be worn during 
    actual respirator use which could interfere with respirator fit.
        14. Test Exercises. (a) The following test exercises are to be 
    performed for all fit testing methods prescribed in this appendix, 
    except for the CNP method. A separate fit testing exercise regimen 
    is contained in the CNP protocol. The test subject shall perform 
    exercises, in the test environment, in the following manner:
    
    [[Page 1277]]
    
        (1) Normal breathing. In a normal standing position, without 
    talking, the subject shall breathe normally.
        (2) Deep breathing. In a normal standing position, the subject 
    shall breathe slowly and deeply, taking caution so as not to 
    hyperventilate.
        (3) Turning head side to side. Standing in place, the subject 
    shall slowly turn his/her head from side to side between the extreme 
    positions on each side. The head shall be held at each extreme 
    momentarily so the subject can inhale at each side.
        (4) Moving head up and down. Standing in place, the subject 
    shall slowly move his/her head up and down. The subject shall be 
    instructed to inhale in the up position (i.e., when looking toward 
    the ceiling).
        (5) Talking. The subject shall talk out loud slowly and loud 
    enough so as to be heard clearly by the test conductor. The subject 
    can read from a prepared text such as the Rainbow Passage, count 
    backward from 100, or recite a memorized poem or song.
    
    Rainbow Passage
    
        When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a 
    prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light 
    into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round 
    arch, with its path high above, and its two ends apparently beyond 
    the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at 
    one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for 
    something beyond reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot of 
    gold at the end of the rainbow.
        (6) Grimace. The test subject shall grimace by smiling or 
    frowning. (This applies only to QNFT testing; it is not performed 
    for QLFT)
        (7) Bending over. The test subject shall bend at the waist as if 
    he/she were to touch his/her toes. Jogging in place shall be 
    substituted for this exercise in those test environments such as 
    shroud type QNFT or QLFT units that do not permit bending over at 
    the waist.
        (8) Normal breathing. Same as exercise (1).
        (b) Each test exercise shall be performed for one minute except 
    for the grimace exercise which shall be performed for 15 seconds. 
    The test subject shall be questioned by the test conductor regarding 
    the comfort of the respirator upon completion of the protocol. If it 
    has become unacceptable, another model of respirator shall be tried. 
    The respirator shall not be adjusted once the fit test exercises 
    begin. Any adjustment voids the test, and the fit test must be 
    repeated.
    
    B. Qualitative Fit Test (QLFT) Protocols
    
    1. General
    
        (a) The employer shall ensure that persons administering QLFT 
    are able to prepare test solutions, calibrate equipment and perform 
    tests properly, recognize invalid tests, and ensure that test 
    equipment is in proper working order.
        (b) The employer shall ensure that QLFT equipment is kept clean 
    and well maintained so as to operate within the parameters for which 
    it was designed.
    
    2. Isoamyl Acetate Protocol
    
        Note: This protocol is not appropriate to use for the fit 
    testing of particulate respirators. If used to fit test particulate 
    respirators, the respirator must be equipped with an organic vapor 
    filter.
    
    (a) Odor Threshold Screening
    
        Odor threshold screening, performed without wearing a 
    respirator, is intended to determine if the individual tested can 
    detect the odor of isoamyl acetate at low levels.
        (1) Three 1 liter glass jars with metal lids are required.
        (2) Odor-free water (e.g., distilled or spring water) at 
    approximately 25 deg. C (77 deg. F) shall be used for the solutions.
        (3) The isoamyl acetate (IAA) (also known at isopentyl acetate) 
    stock solution is prepared by adding 1 ml of pure IAA to 800 ml of 
    odor-free water in a 1 liter jar, closing the lid and shaking for 30 
    seconds. A new solution shall be prepared at least weekly.
        (4) The screening test shall be conducted in a room separate 
    from the room used for actual fit testing. The two rooms shall be 
    well-ventilated to prevent the odor of IAA from becoming evident in 
    the general room air where testing takes place.
        (5) The odor test solution is prepared in a second jar by 
    placing 0.4 ml of the stock solution into 500 ml of odor-free water 
    using a clean dropper or pipette. The solution shall be shaken for 
    30 seconds and allowed to stand for two to three minutes so that the 
    IAA concentration above the liquid may reach equilibrium. This 
    solution shall be used for only one day.
        (6) A test blank shall be prepared in a third jar by adding 500 
    cc of odor-free water.
        (7) The odor test and test blank jar lids shall be labeled 
    (e.g., 1 and 2) for jar identification. Labels shall be placed on 
    the lids so that they can be peeled off periodically and switched to 
    maintain the integrity of the test.
        (8) The following instruction shall be typed on a card and 
    placed on the table in front of the two test jars (i.e., 1 and 2): 
    ``The purpose of this test is to determine if you can smell banana 
    oil at a low concentration. The two bottles in front of you contain 
    water. One of these bottles also contains a small amount of banana 
    oil. Be sure the covers are on tight, then shake each bottle for two 
    seconds. Unscrew the lid of each bottle, one at a time, and sniff at 
    the mouth of the bottle. Indicate to the test conductor which bottle 
    contains banana oil.''
        (9) The mixtures used in the IAA odor detection test shall be 
    prepared in an area separate from where the test is performed, in 
    order to prevent olfactory fatigue in the subject.
        (10) If the test subject is unable to correctly identify the jar 
    containing the odor test solution, the IAA qualitative fit test 
    shall not be performed.
        (11) If the test subject correctly identifies the jar containing 
    the odor test solution, the test subject may proceed to respirator 
    selection and fit testing.
    
    (b) Isoamyl Acetate Fit Test
    
        (1) The fit test chamber shall be a clear 55-gallon drum liner 
    suspended inverted over a 2-foot diameter frame so that the top of 
    the chamber is about 6 inches above the test subject's head. If no 
    drum liner is available, a similar chamber shall be constructed 
    using plastic sheeting. The inside top center of the chamber shall 
    have a small hook attached.
        (2) Each respirator used for the fitting and fit testing shall 
    be equipped with organic vapor cartridges or offer protection 
    against organic vapors.
        (3) After selecting, donning, and properly adjusting a 
    respirator, the test subject shall wear it to the fit testing room. 
    This room shall be separate from the room used for odor threshold 
    screening and respirator selection, and shall be well-ventilated, as 
    by an exhaust fan or lab hood, to prevent general room 
    contamination.
        (4) A copy of the test exercises and any prepared text from 
    which the subject is to read shall be taped to the inside of the 
    test chamber.
        (5) Upon entering the test chamber, the test subject shall be 
    given a 6-inch by 5-inch piece of paper towel, or other porous, 
    absorbent, single-ply material, folded in half and wetted with 0.75 
    ml of pure IAA. The test subject shall hang the wet towel on the 
    hook at the top of the chamber. An IAA test swab or ampule may be 
    substituted for the IAA wetted paper towel provided it has been 
    demonstrated that the alternative IAA source will generate an IAA 
    test atmosphere with a concentration equivalent to that generated by 
    the paper towel method.
        (6) Allow two minutes for the IAA test concentration to 
    stabilize before starting the fit test exercises. This would be an 
    appropriate time to talk with the test subject; to explain the fit 
    test, the importance of his/her cooperation, and the purpose for the 
    test exercises; or to demonstrate some of the exercises.
        (7) If at any time during the test, the subject detects the 
    banana-like odor of IAA, the test is failed. The subject shall 
    quickly exit from the test chamber and leave the test area to avoid 
    olfactory fatigue.
        (8) If the test is failed, the subject shall return to the 
    selection room and remove the respirator. The test subject shall 
    repeat the odor sensitivity test, select and put on another 
    respirator, return to the test area and again begin the fit test 
    procedure described in (b) (1) through (7) above. The process 
    continues until a respirator that fits well has been found. Should 
    the odor sensitivity test be failed, the subject shall wait at least 
    5 minutes before retesting. Odor sensitivity will usually have 
    returned by this time.
        (9) If the subject passes the test, the efficiency of the test 
    procedure shall be demonstrated by having the subject break the 
    respirator face seal and take a breath before exiting the chamber.
        (10) When the test subject leaves the chamber, the subject shall 
    remove the saturated towel and return it to the person conducting 
    the test, so that there is no significant IAA concentration buildup 
    in the chamber during subsequent tests. The used towels shall be 
    kept in a self-sealing plastic bag to keep the test area from being 
    contaminated.
    
    3. Saccharin Solution Aerosol Protocol
    
        The entire screening and testing procedure shall be explained to 
    the test subject prior to the conduct of the screening test.
        (a) Taste threshold screening. The saccharin taste threshold 
    screening,
    
    [[Page 1278]]
    
    performed without wearing a respirator, is intended to determine 
    whether the individual being tested can detect the taste of 
    saccharin.
        (1) During threshold screening as well as during fit testing, 
    subjects shall wear an enclosure about the head and shoulders that 
    is approximately 12 inches in diameter by 14 inches tall with at 
    least the front portion clear and that allows free movements of the 
    head when a respirator is worn. An enclosure substantially similar 
    to the 3M hood assembly, parts # FT 14 and # FT 15 combined, is 
    adequate.
        (2) The test enclosure shall have a \3/4\-inch (1.9 cm) hole in 
    front of the test subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the 
    nebulizer nozzle.
        (3) The test subject shall don the test enclosure. Throughout 
    the threshold screening test, the test subject shall breathe through 
    his/her slightly open mouth with tongue extended. The subject is 
    instructed to report when he/she detects a sweet taste.
        (4) Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
    or equivalent, the test conductor shall spray the threshold check 
    solution into the enclosure. The nozzle is directed away from the 
    nose and mouth of the person. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked 
    to distinguish it from the fit test solution nebulizer.
        (5) The threshold check solution is prepared by dissolving 0.83 
    gram of sodium saccharin USP in 100 ml of warm water. It can be 
    prepared by putting 1 ml of the fit test solution (see (b)(5) below) 
    in 100 ml of distilled water.
        (6) To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly 
    squeezed so that it collapses completely, then released and allowed 
    to fully expand.
        (7) Ten squeezes are repeated rapidly and then the test subject 
    is asked whether the saccharin can be tasted. If the test subject 
    reports tasting the sweet taste during the ten squeezes, the 
    screening test is completed. The taste threshold is noted as ten 
    regardless of the number of squeezes actually completed.
        (8) If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
    repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
    saccharin is tasted. If the test subject reports tasting the sweet 
    taste during the second ten squeezes, the screening test is 
    completed. The taste threshold is noted as twenty regardless of the 
    number of squeezes actually completed.
        (9) If the second response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
    repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
    saccharin is tasted. If the test subject reports tasting the sweet 
    taste during the third set of ten squeezes, the screening test is 
    completed. The taste threshold is noted as thirty regardless of the 
    number of squeezes actually completed.
        (10) The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes 
    required to solicit a taste response.
        (11) If the saccharin is not tasted after 30 squeezes (step 10), 
    the test subject is unable to taste saccharin and may not perform 
    the saccharin fit test.
    
        Note to paragraph 3. (a): If the test subject eats or drinks 
    something sweet before the screening test, he/she may be unable to 
    taste the weak saccharin solution.
    
        (12) If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be 
    asked to take note of the taste for reference in the fit test.
        (13) Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 ml 
    of liquid is used at a time in the nebulizer body.
        (14) The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken 
    dry, and refilled at least each morning and afternoon or at least 
    every four hours.
        (b) Saccharin solution aerosol fit test procedure.
        (1) The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), 
    smoke, or chew gum for 15 minutes before the test.
        (2) The fit test uses the same enclosure described in 3. (a) 
    above.
        (3) The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the 
    respirator selected in section I. A. of this appendix. The 
    respirator shall be properly adjusted and equipped with a 
    particulate filter(s).
        (4) A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
    or equivalent is used to spray the fit test solution into the 
    enclosure. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it 
    from the screening test solution nebulizer.
        (5) The fit test solution is prepared by adding 83 grams of 
    sodium saccharin to 100 ml of warm water.
        (6) As before, the test subject shall breathe through the 
    slightly open mouth with tongue extended, and report if he/she 
    tastes the sweet taste of saccharin.
        (7) The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the 
    enclosure and an initial concentration of saccharin fit test 
    solution is sprayed into the enclosure using the same number of 
    squeezes (either 10, 20 or 30 squeezes) based on the number of 
    squeezes required to elicit a taste response as noted during the 
    screening test. A minimum of 10 squeezes is required.
        (8) After generating the aerosol, the test subject shall be 
    instructed to perform the exercises in section I. A. 14. of this 
    appendix.
        (9) Every 30 seconds the aerosol concentration shall be 
    replenished using one half the original number of squeezes used 
    initially (e.g., 5, 10 or 15).
        (10) The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at 
    any time during the fit test the taste of saccharin is detected. If 
    the test subject does not report tasting the saccharin, the test is 
    passed.
        (11) If the taste of saccharin is detected, the fit is deemed 
    unsatisfactory and the test is failed. A different respirator shall 
    be tried and the entire test procedure is repeated (taste threshold 
    screening and fit testing).
        (12) Since the nebulizer has a tendency to clog during use, the 
    test operator must make periodic checks of the nebulizer to ensure 
    that it is not clogged. If clogging is found at the end of the test 
    session, the test is invalid.
    
    4. BitrexTM (Denatonium Benzoate) Solution Aerosol 
    Qualitative Fit Test Protocol
    
        The BitrexTM (Denatonium benzoate) solution aerosol 
    QLFT protocol uses the published saccharin test protocol because 
    that protocol is widely accepted. Bitrex is routinely used as a 
    taste aversion agent in household liquids which children should not 
    be drinking and is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the 
    National Safety Council, and the American Association of Poison 
    Control Centers. The entire screening and testing procedure shall be 
    explained to the test subject prior to the conduct of the screening 
    test.
        (a) Taste Threshold Screening.
        The Bitrex taste threshold screening, performed without wearing 
    a respirator, is intended to determine whether the individual being 
    tested can detect the taste of Bitrex.
        (1) During threshold screening as well as during fit testing, 
    subjects shall wear an enclosure about the head and shoulders that 
    is approximately 12 inches (30.5 cm) in diameter by 14 inches (35.6 
    cm) tall. The front portion of the enclosure shall be clear from the 
    respirator and allow free movement of the head when a respirator is 
    worn. An enclosure substantially similar to the 3M hood assembly, 
    parts #14 and #15 combined, is adequate.
        (2) The test enclosure shall have a \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) hole in 
    front of the test subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the 
    nebulizer nozzle.
        (3) The test subject shall don the test enclosure. Throughout 
    the threshold screening test, the test subject shall breathe through 
    his or her slightly open mouth with tongue extended. The subject is 
    instructed to report when he/she detects a bitter taste.
        (4) Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
    or equivalent, the test conductor shall spray the Threshold Check 
    Solution into the enclosure. This Nebulizer shall be clearly marked 
    to distinguish it from the fit test solution nebulizer.
        (5) The Threshold Check Solution is prepared by adding 13.5 
    milligrams of Bitrex to 100 ml of 5% salt (NaCl) solution in 
    distilled water.
        (6) To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly 
    squeezed so that the bulb collapses completely, and is then released 
    and allowed to fully expand.
        (7) An initial ten squeezes are repeated rapidly and then the 
    test subject is asked whether the Bitrex can be tasted. If the test 
    subject reports tasting the bitter taste during the ten squeezes, 
    the screening test is completed. The taste threshold is noted as ten 
    regardless of the number of squeezes actually completed.
        (8) If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
    repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
    Bitrex is tasted. If the test subject reports tasting the bitter 
    taste during the second ten squeezes, the screening test is 
    completed. The taste threshold is noted as twenty regardless of the 
    number of squeezes actually completed.
        (9) If the second response is negative, ten more squeezes are 
    repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
    Bitrex is tasted. If the test subject reports tasting the bitter 
    taste during the third set of ten squeezes, the screening test is 
    completed. The taste threshold is noted as thirty regardless of the 
    number of squeezes actually completed.
        (10) The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes 
    required to solicit a taste response.
    
    [[Page 1279]]
    
        (11) If the Bitrex is not tasted after 30 squeezes (step 10), 
    the test subject is unable to taste Bitrex and may not perform the 
    Bitrex fit test.
        (12) If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be 
    asked to take note of the taste for reference in the fit test.
        (13) Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 ml 
    of liquid is used at a time in the nebulizer body.
        (14) The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken 
    to dry, and refilled at least each morning and afternoon or at least 
    every four hours.
        (b) Bitrex Solution Aerosol Fit Test Procedure.
        (1) The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), 
    smoke, or chew gum for 15 minutes before the test.
        (2) The fit test uses the same enclosure as that described in 4. 
    (a) above.
        (3) The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the 
    respirator selected according to section I. A. of this appendix. The 
    respirator shall be properly adjusted and equipped with any type 
    particulate filter(s).
        (4) A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
    or equivalent is used to spray the fit test solution into the 
    enclosure. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it 
    from the screening test solution nebulizer.
        (5) The fit test solution is prepared by adding 337.5 mg of 
    Bitrex to 200 ml of a 5% salt (NaCl) solution in warm water.
        (6) As before, the test subject shall breathe through his or her 
    slightly open mouth with tongue extended, and be instructed to 
    report if he/she tastes the bitter taste of Bitrex..
        (7) The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the 
    enclosure and an initial concentration of the fit test solution is 
    sprayed into the enclosure using the same number of squeezes (either 
    10, 20 or 30 squeezes) based on the number of squeezes required to 
    elicit a taste response as noted during the screening test.
        (8) After generating the aerosol, the test subject shall be 
    instructed to perform the exercises in section I. A. 14. of this 
    appendix.
        (9) Every 30 seconds the aerosol concentration shall be 
    replenished using one half the number of squeezes used initially 
    (e.g., 5, 10 or 15).
        (10) The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at 
    any time during the fit test the taste of Bitrex is detected. If the 
    test subject does not report tasting the Bitrex, the test is passed.
        (11) If the taste of Bitrex is detected, the fit is deemed 
    unsatisfactory and the test is failed. A different respirator shall 
    be tried and the entire test procedure is repeated (taste threshold 
    screening and fit testing).
    
    5. Irritant Smoke (Stannic Chloride) Protocol
    
        This qualitative fit test uses a person's response to the 
    irritating chemicals released in the ``smoke'' produced by a stannic 
    chloride ventilation smoke tube to detect leakage into the 
    respirator.
    
    (a) General Requirements and Precautions
    
        (1) The respirator to be tested shall be equipped with high 
    efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or P100 series filter(s).
        (2) Only stannic chloride smoke tubes shall be used for this 
    protocol.
        (3) No form of test enclosure or hood for the test subject shall 
    be used.
        (4) The smoke can be irritating to the eyes, lungs, and nasal 
    passages. The test conductor shall take precautions to minimize the 
    test subject's exposure to irritant smoke. Sensitivity varies, and 
    certain individuals may respond to a greater degree to irritant 
    smoke. Care shall be taken when performing the sensitivity screening 
    checks that determine whether the test subject can detect irritant 
    smoke to use only the minimum amount of smoke necessary to elicit a 
    response from the test subject.
        (5) The fit test shall be performed in an area with adequate 
    ventilation to prevent exposure of the person conducting the fit 
    test or the build-up of irritant smoke in the general atmosphere.
    
    (b) Sensitivity Screening Check
    
        The person to be tested must demonstrate his or her ability to 
    detect a weak concentration of the irritant smoke.
        (1) The test operator shall break both ends of a ventilation 
    smoke tube containing stannic chloride, and attach one end of the 
    smoke tube to a low flow air pump set to deliver 200 milliliters per 
    minute, or an aspirator squeeze bulb. The test operator shall cover 
    the other end of the smoke tube with a short piece of tubing to 
    prevent potential injury from the jagged end of the smoke tube.
        (2) The test operator shall advise the test subject that the 
    smoke can be irritating to the eyes, lungs, and nasal passages and 
    instruct the subject to keep his/her eyes closed while the test is 
    performed.
        (3) The test subject shall be allowed to smell a weak 
    concentration of the irritant smoke before the respirator is donned 
    to become familiar with its irritating properties and to determine 
    if he/she can detect the irritating properties of the smoke. The 
    test operator shall carefully direct a small amount of the irritant 
    smoke in the test subject's direction to determine that he/she can 
    detect it.
    
    (c) Irritant Smoke Fit Test Procedure
    
        (1) The person being fit tested shall don the respirator without 
    assistance, and perform the required user seal check(s).
        (2) The test subject shall be instructed to keep his/her eyes 
    closed.
        (3) The test operator shall direct the stream of irritant smoke 
    from the smoke tube toward the faceseal area of the test subject, 
    using the low flow pump or the squeeze bulb. The test operator shall 
    begin at least 12 inches from the facepiece and move the smoke 
    stream around the whole perimeter of the mask. The operator shall 
    gradually make two more passes around the perimeter of the mask, 
    moving to within six inches of the respirator.
        (4) If the person being tested has not had an involuntary 
    response and/or detected the irritant smoke, proceed with the test 
    exercises.
        (5) The exercises identified in section I.A. 14. of this 
    appendix shall be performed by the test subject while the respirator 
    seal is being continually challenged by the smoke, directed around 
    the perimeter of the respirator at a distance of six inches.
        (6) If the person being fit tested reports detecting the 
    irritant smoke at any time, the test is failed. The person being 
    retested must repeat the entire sensitivity check and fit test 
    procedure.
        (7) Each test subject passing the irritant smoke test without 
    evidence of a response (involuntary cough, irritation) shall be 
    given a second sensitivity screening check, with the smoke from the 
    same smoke tube used during the fit test, once the respirator has 
    been removed, to determine whether he/she still reacts to the smoke. 
    Failure to evoke a response shall void the fit test.
        (8) If a response is produced during this second sensitivity 
    check, then the fit test is passed.
    
    C. Quantitative Fit Test (QNFT) Protocols
    
        The following quantitative fit testing procedures have been 
    demonstrated to be acceptable: Quantitative fit testing using a non-
    hazardous test aerosol (such as corn oil, polyethylene glycol 400 
    [PEG 400], di-2-ethyl hexyl sebacate [DEHS], or sodium chloride) 
    generated in a test chamber, and employing instrumentation to 
    quantify the fit of the respirator; Quantitative fit testing using 
    ambient aerosol as the test agent and appropriate instrumentation 
    (condensation nuclei counter) to quantify the respirator fit; 
    Quantitative fit testing using controlled negative pressure and 
    appropriate instrumentation to measure the volumetric leak rate of a 
    facepiece to quantify the respirator fit.
    
    1. General
    
        (a) The employer shall ensure that persons administering QNFT 
    are able to calibrate equipment and perform tests properly, 
    recognize invalid tests, calculate fit factors properly and ensure 
    that test equipment is in proper working order.
        (b) The employer shall ensure that QNFT equipment is kept clean, 
    and is maintained and calibrated according to the manufacturer's 
    instructions so as to operate at the parameters for which it was 
    designed.
    
    2. Generated Aerosol Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol
    
        (a) Apparatus.
        (1) Instrumentation. Aerosol generation, dilution, and 
    measurement systems using particulates (corn oil, polyethylene 
    glycol 400 [PEG 400], di-2-ethyl hexyl sebacate [DEHS] or sodium 
    chloride) as test aerosols shall be used for quantitative fit 
    testing.
        (2) Test chamber. The test chamber shall be large enough to 
    permit all test subjects to perform freely all required exercises 
    without disturbing the test agent concentration or the measurement 
    apparatus. The test chamber shall be equipped and constructed so 
    that the test agent is effectively isolated from the ambient air, 
    yet uniform in concentration throughout the chamber.
        (3) When testing air-purifying respirators, the normal filter or 
    cartridge element shall be replaced with a high efficiency 
    particulate air (HEPA) or P100 series filter supplied by the same 
    manufacturer.
        (4) The sampling instrument shall be selected so that a computer 
    record or strip chart record may be made of the test showing the 
    rise and fall of the test agent concentration with each inspiration 
    and expiration at fit factors of at least 2,000.
    
    [[Page 1280]]
    
    Integrators or computers that integrate the amount of test agent 
    penetration leakage into the respirator for each exercise may be 
    used provided a record of the readings is made.
        (5) The combination of substitute air-purifying elements, test 
    agent and test agent concentration shall be such that the test 
    subject is not exposed in excess of an established exposure limit 
    for the test agent at any time during the testing process, based 
    upon the length of the exposure and the exposure limit duration.
        (6) The sampling port on the test specimen respirator shall be 
    placed and constructed so that no leakage occurs around the port 
    (e.g., where the respirator is probed), a free air flow is allowed 
    into the sampling line at all times, and there is no interference 
    with the fit or performance of the respirator. The in-mask sampling 
    device (probe) shall be designed and used so that the air sample is 
    drawn from the breathing zone of the test subject, midway between 
    the nose and mouth and with the probe extending into the facepiece 
    cavity at least 1/4 inch.
        (7) The test setup shall permit the person administering the 
    test to observe the test subject inside the chamber during the test.
        (8) The equipment generating the test atmosphere shall maintain 
    the concentration of test agent constant to within a 10 percent 
    variation for the duration of the test.
        (9) The time lag (interval between an event and the recording of 
    the event on the strip chart or computer or integrator) shall be 
    kept to a minimum. There shall be a clear association between the 
    occurrence of an event and its being recorded.
        (10) The sampling line tubing for the test chamber atmosphere 
    and for the respirator sampling port shall be of equal diameter and 
    of the same material. The length of the two lines shall be equal.
        (11) The exhaust flow from the test chamber shall pass through 
    an appropriate filter (i.e., high efficiency particulate or P100 
    series filter) before release.
        (12) When sodium chloride aerosol is used, the relative humidity 
    inside the test chamber shall not exceed 50 percent.
        (13) The limitations of instrument detection shall be taken into 
    account when determining the fit factor.
        (14) Test respirators shall be maintained in proper working 
    order and be inspected regularly for deficiencies such as cracks or 
    missing valves and gaskets.
        (b) Procedural Requirements.
        (1) When performing the initial user seal check using a positive 
    or negative pressure check, the sampling line shall be crimped 
    closed in order to avoid air pressure leakage during either of these 
    pressure checks.
        (2) The use of an abbreviated screening QLFT test is optional. 
    Such a test may be utilized in order to quickly identify poor 
    fitting respirators that passed the positive and/or negative 
    pressure test and reduce the amount of QNFT time. The use of the CNC 
    QNFT instrument in the count mode is another optional method to 
    obtain a quick estimate of fit and eliminate poor fitting 
    respirators before going on to perform a full QNFT.
        (3) A reasonably stable test agent concentration shall be 
    measured in the test chamber prior to testing. For canopy or shower 
    curtain types of test units, the determination of the test agent's 
    stability may be established after the test subject has entered the 
    test environment.
        (4) Immediately after the subject enters the test chamber, the 
    test agent concentration inside the respirator shall be measured to 
    ensure that the peak penetration does not exceed 5 percent for a 
    half mask or 1 percent for a full facepiece respirator.
        (5) A stable test agent concentration shall be obtained prior to 
    the actual start of testing.
        (6) Respirator restraining straps shall not be over-tightened 
    for testing. The straps shall be adjusted by the wearer without 
    assistance from other persons to give a reasonably comfortable fit 
    typical of normal use. The respirator shall not be adjusted once the 
    fit test exercises begin.
        (7) The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak 
    penetration exceeds 5 percent for half masks and 1 percent for full 
    facepiece respirators. The test subject shall be refitted and 
    retested.
        (8) Calculation of fit factors.
        (i) The fit factor shall be determined for the quantitative fit 
    test by taking the ratio of the average chamber concentration to the 
    concentration measured inside the respirator for each test exercise 
    except the grimace exercise.
        (ii) The average test chamber concentration shall be calculated 
    as the arithmetic average of the concentration measured before and 
    after each test (i.e., 7 exercises) or the arithmetic average of the 
    concentration measured before and after each exercise or the true 
    average measured continuously during the respirator sample.
        (iii) The concentration of the challenge agent inside the 
    respirator shall be determined by one of the following methods:
        (A) Average peak penetration method means the method of 
    determining test agent penetration into the respirator utilizing a 
    strip chart recorder, integrator, or computer. The agent penetration 
    is determined by an average of the peak heights on the graph or by 
    computer integration, for each exercise except the grimace exercise. 
    Integrators or computers that calculate the actual test agent 
    penetration into the respirator for each exercise will also be 
    considered to meet the requirements of the average peak penetration 
    method.
        (B) Maximum peak penetration method means the method of 
    determining test agent penetration in the respirator as determined 
    by strip chart recordings of the test. The highest peak penetration 
    for a given exercise is taken to be representative of average 
    penetration into the respirator for that exercise.
        (C) Integration by calculation of the area under the individual 
    peak for each exercise except the grimace exercise. This includes 
    computerized integration.
        (D) The calculation of the overall fit factor using individual 
    exercise fit factors involves first converting the exercise fit 
    factors to penetration values, determining the average, and then 
    converting that result back to a fit factor. This procedure is 
    described in the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA98.006
    
    Where ff1, ff2, ff3, etc. are the 
    fit factors for exercises 1, 2, 3, etc.
    
        (9) The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half mask 
    or quarter facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit factor of 100 
    is obtained, or a full facepiece respirator unless a minimum fit 
    factor of 500 is obtained.
        (10) Filters used for quantitative fit testing shall be replaced 
    whenever increased breathing resistance is encountered, or when the 
    test agent has altered the integrity of the filter media.
        3. Ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter (CNC) 
    quantitative fit testing protocol.
        The ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter (CNC) 
    quantitative fit testing (Portacount TM ) protocol 
    quantitatively fit tests respirators with the use of a probe. The 
    probed respirator is only used for quantitative fit tests. A probed 
    respirator has a special sampling device, installed on the 
    respirator, that allows the probe to sample the air from inside the 
    mask. A probed respirator is required for each make, style, model, 
    and size that the employer uses and can be obtained from the 
    respirator manufacturer or distributor. The CNC instrument 
    manufacturer, TSI Inc., also provides probe attachments (TSI 
    sampling adapters) that permit fit testing in an employee's own 
    respirator. A minimum fit factor pass level of at least 100 is 
    necessary for a half-mask respirator and a minimum fit factor pass 
    level of at least 500 is required for a full facepiece negative 
    pressure respirator. The entire screening and testing procedure 
    shall be explained to the test subject prior to the conduct of the 
    screening test.
        (a) Portacount Fit Test Requirements.
        (1) Check the respirator to make sure the respirator is fitted 
    with a high-efficiency filter and that the sampling probe and line 
    are properly attached to the facepiece.
        (2) Instruct the person to be tested to don the respirator for 
    five minutes before the fit test starts. This purges the ambient 
    particles trapped inside the respirator and permits the wearer to 
    make certain the respirator is comfortable. This individual shall 
    already have been trained on how to wear the respirator properly.
    
    [[Page 1281]]
    
        (3) Check the following conditions for the adequacy of the 
    respirator fit: Chin properly placed; Adequate strap tension, not 
    overly tightened; Fit across nose bridge; Respirator of proper size 
    to span distance from nose to chin; Tendency of the respirator to 
    slip; Self-observation in a mirror to evaluate fit and respirator 
    position.
        (4) Have the person wearing the respirator do a user seal check. 
    If leakage is detected, determine the cause. If leakage is from a 
    poorly fitting facepiece, try another size of the same model 
    respirator, or another model of respirator.
        (5) Follow the manufacturer's instructions for operating the 
    Portacount and proceed with the test.
        (6) The test subject shall be instructed to perform the 
    exercises in section I. A. 14. of this appendix.
        (7) After the test exercises, the test subject shall be 
    questioned by the test conductor regarding the comfort of the 
    respirator upon completion of the protocol. If it has become 
    unacceptable, another model of respirator shall be tried.
        (b) Portacount Test Instrument.
        (1) The Portacount will automatically stop and calculate the 
    overall fit factor for the entire set of exercises. The overall fit 
    factor is what counts. The Pass or Fail message will indicate 
    whether or not the test was successful. If the test was a Pass, the 
    fit test is over.
        (2) Since the pass or fail criterion of the Portacount is user 
    programmable, the test operator shall ensure that the pass or fail 
    criterion meet the requirements for minimum respirator performance 
    in this Appendix.
        (3) A record of the test needs to be kept on file, assuming the 
    fit test was successful. The record must contain the test subject's 
    name; overall fit factor; make, model, style, and size of respirator 
    used; and date tested.
        4. Controlled negative pressure (CNP) quantitative fit testing 
    protocol.
        The CNP protocol provides an alternative to aerosol fit test 
    methods. The CNP fit test method technology is based on exhausting 
    air from a temporarily sealed respirator facepiece to generate and 
    then maintain a constant negative pressure inside the facepiece. The 
    rate of air exhaust is controlled so that a constant negative 
    pressure is maintained in the respirator during the fit test. The 
    level of pressure is selected to replicate the mean inspiratory 
    pressure that causes leakage into the respirator under normal use 
    conditions. With pressure held constant, air flow out of the 
    respirator is equal to air flow into the respirator. Therefore, 
    measurement of the exhaust stream that is required to hold the 
    pressure in the temporarily sealed respirator constant yields a 
    direct measure of leakage air flow into the respirator. The CNP fit 
    test method measures leak rates through the facepiece as a method 
    for determining the facepiece fit for negative pressure respirators. 
    The CNP instrument manufacturer Dynatech Nevada also provides 
    attachments (sampling manifolds) that replace the filter cartridges 
    to permit fit testing in an employee's own respirator. To perform 
    the test, the test subject closes his or her mouth and holds his/her 
    breath, after which an air pump removes air from the respirator 
    facepiece at a pre-selected constant pressure. The facepiece fit is 
    expressed as the leak rate through the facepiece, expressed as 
    milliliters per minute. The quality and validity of the CNP fit 
    tests are determined by the degree to which the in-mask pressure 
    tracks the test pressure during the system measurement time of 
    approximately five seconds. Instantaneous feedback in the form of a 
    real-time pressure trace of the in-mask pressure is provided and 
    used to determine test validity and quality. A minimum fit factor 
    pass level of 100 is necessary for a half-mask respirator and a 
    minimum fit factor of at least 500 is required for a full facepiece 
    respirator. The entire screening and testing procedure shall be 
    explained to the test subject prior to the conduct of the screening 
    test.
        (a) CNP Fit Test Requirements.
        (1) The instrument shall have a non-adjustable test pressure of 
    15.0 mm water pressure.
        (2) The CNP system defaults selected for test pressure shall be 
    set at--1.5 mm of water (-0.58 inches of water) and the modeled 
    inspiratory flow rate shall be 53.8 liters per minute for performing 
    fit tests.
    
    (Note: CNP systems have built-in capability to conduct fit testing 
    that is specific to unique work rate, mask, and gender situations 
    that might apply in a specific workplace. Use of system default 
    values, which were selected to represent respirator wear with medium 
    cartridge resistance at a low-moderate work rate, will allow inter-
    test comparison of the respirator fit.)
    
        (3) The individual who conducts the CNP fit testing shall be 
    thoroughly trained to perform the test.
        (4) The respirator filter or cartridge needs to be replaced with 
    the CNP test manifold. The inhalation valve downstream from the 
    manifold either needs to be temporarily removed or propped open.
        (5) The test subject shall be trained to hold his or her breath 
    for at least 20 seconds.
        (6) The test subject shall don the test respirator without any 
    assistance from the individual who conducts the CNP fit test.
        (7) The QNFT protocol shall be followed according to section I. 
    C. 1. of this appendix with an exception for the CNP test exercises.
        (b) CNP Test Exercises.
        (1) Normal breathing. In a normal standing position, without 
    talking, the subject shall breathe normally for 1 minute. After the 
    normal breathing exercise, the subject needs to hold head straight 
    ahead and hold his or her breath for 10 seconds during the test 
    measurement.
        (2) Deep breathing. In a normal standing position, the subject 
    shall breathe slowly and deeply for 1 minute, being careful not to 
    hyperventilate. After the deep breathing exercise, the subject shall 
    hold his or her head straight ahead and hold his or her breath for 
    10 seconds during test measurement.
        (3) Turning head side to side. Standing in place, the subject 
    shall slowly turn his or her head from side to side between the 
    extreme positions on each side for 1 minute. The head shall be held 
    at each extreme momentarily so the subject can inhale at each side. 
    After the turning head side to side exercise, the subject needs to 
    hold head full left and hold his or her breath for 10 seconds during 
    test measurement. Next, the subject needs to hold head full right 
    and hold his or her breath for 10 seconds during test measurement.
        (4) Moving head up and down. Standing in place, the subject 
    shall slowly move his or her head up and down for 1 minute. The 
    subject shall be instructed to inhale in the up position (i.e., when 
    looking toward the ceiling). After the moving head up and down 
    exercise, the subject shall hold his or her head full up and hold 
    his or her breath for 10 seconds during test measurement. Next, the 
    subject shall hold his or her head full down and hold his or her 
    breath for 10 seconds during test measurement.
        (5) Talking. The subject shall talk out loud slowly and loud 
    enough so as to be heard clearly by the test conductor. The subject 
    can read from a prepared text such as the Rainbow Passage, count 
    backward from 100, or recite a memorized poem or song for 1 minute. 
    After the talking exercise, the subject shall hold his or her head 
    straight ahead and hold his or her breath for 10 seconds during the 
    test measurement.
        (6) Grimace. The test subject shall grimace by smiling or 
    frowning for 15 seconds.
        (7) Bending Over. The test subject shall bend at the waist as if 
    he or she were to touch his or her toes for 1 minute. Jogging in 
    place shall be substituted for this exercise in those test 
    environments such as shroud-type QNFT units that prohibit bending at 
    the waist. After the bending over exercise, the subject shall hold 
    his or her head straight ahead and hold his or her breath for 10 
    seconds during the test measurement.
        (8) Normal Breathing. The test subject shall remove and re-don 
    the respirator within a one-minute period. Then, in a normal 
    standing position, without talking, the subject shall breathe 
    normally for 1 minute. After the normal breathing exercise, the 
    subject shall hold his or her head straight ahead and hold his or 
    her breath for 10 seconds during the test measurement. After the 
    test exercises, the test subject shall be questioned by the test 
    conductor regarding the comfort of the respirator upon completion of 
    the protocol. If it has become unacceptable, another model of a 
    respirator shall be tried.
        (c) CNP Test Instrument.
        (1) The test instrument shall have an effective audio warning 
    device when the test subject fails to hold his or her breath during 
    the test. The test shall be terminated whenever the test subject 
    failed to hold his or her breath. The test subject may be refitted 
    and retested.
        (2) A record of the test shall be kept on file, assuming the fit 
    test was successful. The record must contain the test subject's 
    name; overall fit factor; make, model, style and size of respirator 
    used; and date tested.
    
    Part II. New Fit Test Protocols
    
        A. Any person may submit to OSHA an application for approval of 
    a new fit test protocol. If the application meets the following 
    criteria, OSHA will initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section 
    6(b)(7) of the OSH Act to determine whether to list
    
    [[Page 1282]]
    
    the new protocol as an approved protocol in this Appendix A.
        B. The application must include a detailed description of the 
    proposed new fit test protocol. This application must be supported 
    by either:
        1. A test report prepared by an independent government research 
    laboratory (e.g., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos 
    National Laboratory, the National Institute for Standards and 
    Technology) stating that the laboratory has tested the protocol and 
    had found it to be accurate and reliable; or
        2. An article that has been published in a peer-reviewed 
    industrial hygiene journal describing the protocol and explaining 
    how test data support the protocol's accuracy and reliability.
        C. If OSHA determines that additional information is required 
    before the Agency commences a rulemaking proceeding under this 
    section, OSHA will so notify the applicant and afford the applicant 
    the opportunity to submit the supplemental information. Initiation 
    of a rulemaking proceeding will be deferred until OSHA has received 
    and evaluated the supplemental information.
    
    Appendix B-1 to Sec. 1910.134: User Seal Check Procedures (Mandatory)
    
        The individual who uses a tight-fitting respirator is to perform 
    a user seal check to ensure that an adequate seal is achieved each 
    time the respirator is put on. Either the positive and negative 
    pressure checks listed in this appendix, or the respirator 
    manufacturer's recommended user seal check method shall be used. 
    User seal checks are not substitutes for qualitative or quantitative 
    fit tests.
    
    I. Facepiece Positive and/or Negative Pressure Checks
    
        A. Positive pressure check. Close off the exhalation valve and 
    exhale gently into the facepiece. The face fit is considered 
    satisfactory if a slight positive pressure can be built up inside 
    the facepiece without any evidence of outward leakage of air at the 
    seal. For most respirators this method of leak testing requires the 
    wearer to first remove the exhalation valve cover before closing off 
    the exhalation valve and then carefully replacing it after the test.
        B. Negative pressure check. Close off the inlet opening of the 
    canister or cartridge(s) by covering with the palm of the hand(s) or 
    by replacing the filter seal(s), inhale gently so that the facepiece 
    collapses slightly, and hold the breath for ten seconds. The design 
    of the inlet opening of some cartridges cannot be effectively 
    covered with the palm of the hand. The test can be performed by 
    covering the inlet opening of the cartridge with a thin latex or 
    nitrile glove. If the facepiece remains in its slightly collapsed 
    condition and no inward leakage of air is detected, the tightness of 
    the respirator is considered satisfactory.
    
    II. Manufacturer's Recommended User Seal Check Procedures
    
        The respirator manufacturer's recommended procedures for 
    performing a user seal check may be used instead of the positive 
    and/or negative pressure check procedures provided that the employer 
    demonstrates that the manufacturer's procedures are equally 
    effective.
    
    Appendix B-2 to Sec. 1910.134: Respirator Cleaning Procedures 
    (Mandatory)
    
        These procedures are provided for employer use when cleaning 
    respirators. They are general in nature, and the employer as an 
    alternative may use the cleaning recommendations provided by the 
    manufacturer of the respirators used by their employees, provided 
    such procedures are as effective as those listed here in Appendix B-
    2. Equivalent effectiveness simply means that the procedures used 
    must accomplish the objectives set forth in Appendix B-2, i.e., must 
    ensure that the respirator is properly cleaned and disinfected in a 
    manner that prevents damage to the respirator and does not cause 
    harm to the user.
    
    I. Procedures for Cleaning Respirators
    
        A. Remove filters, cartridges, or canisters. Disassemble 
    facepieces by removing speaking diaphragms, demand and pressure-
    demand valve assemblies, hoses, or any components recommended by the 
    manufacturer. Discard or repair any defective parts.
        B. Wash components in warm (43 deg. C [110 deg. F] maximum) 
    water with a mild detergent or with a cleaner recommended by the 
    manufacturer. A stiff bristle (not wire) brush may be used to 
    facilitate the removal of dirt.
        C. Rinse components thoroughly in clean, warm (43 deg. C 
    [110 deg. F] maximum), preferably running water. Drain.
        D. When the cleaner used does not contain a disinfecting agent, 
    respirator components should be immersed for two minutes in one of 
    the following:
        1. Hypochlorite solution (50 ppm of chlorine) made by adding 
    approximately one milliliter of laundry bleach to one liter of water 
    at 43 deg. C (110 deg. F); or,
        2. Aqueous solution of iodine (50 ppm iodine) made by adding 
    approximately 0.8 milliliters of tincture of iodine (6-8 grams 
    ammonium and/or potassium iodide/100 cc of 45% alcohol) to one liter 
    of water at 43 deg. C (110 deg. F); or,
        3. Other commercially available cleansers of equivalent 
    disinfectant quality when used as directed, if their use is 
    recommended or approved by the respirator manufacturer.
        E. Rinse components thoroughly in clean, warm (43 deg. C 
    [110 deg. F] maximum), preferably running water. Drain. The 
    importance of thorough rinsing cannot be overemphasized. Detergents 
    or disinfectants that dry on facepieces may result in dermatitis. In 
    addition, some disinfectants may cause deterioration of rubber or 
    corrosion of metal parts if not completely removed.
        F. Components should be hand-dried with a clean lint-free cloth 
    or air-dried.
        G. Reassemble facepiece, replacing filters, cartridges, and 
    canisters where necessary.
        H. Test the respirator to ensure that all components work 
    properly.
    
    Appendix C to Sec. 1910.134: OSHA Respirator Medical Evaluation 
    Questionnaire (Mandatory)
    
        To the employer: Answers to questions in Section 1, and to 
    question 9 in Section 2 of Part A, do not require a medical 
    examination.
        To the employee:
    
    Can you read (circle one): Yes/No
    
        Your employer must allow you to answer this questionnaire during 
    normal working hours, or at a time and place that is convenient to 
    you. To maintain your confidentiality, your employer or supervisor 
    must not look at or review your answers, and your employer must tell 
    you how to deliver or send this questionnaire to the health care 
    professional who will review it.
        Part A. Section 1. (Mandatory) The following information must be 
    provided by every employee who has been selected to use any type of 
    respirator (please print).
    
    1. Today's date:-------------------------------------------------------
    
    2. Your name:----------------------------------------------------------
    
    3. Your age (to nearest year):-----------------------------------------
    
    4. Sex (circle one): Male/Female
    
    5. Your height: __________ ft. __________ in.
    
    6. Your weight: ____________ lbs.
    
    7. Your job title:-----------------------------------------------------
    8. A phone number where you can be reached by the health care 
    professional who reviews this questionnaire (include the Area Code): 
    ____________________
    
    9. The best time to phone you at this number: ________________
    10. Has your employer told you how to contact the health care 
    professional who will review this questionnaire (circle one): Yes/No
    11. Check the type of respirator you will use (you can check more 
    than one category):
    
        a. ______ N, R, or P disposable respirator (filter-mask, non-
    cartridge type only).
        b. ______ Other type (for example, half- or full-facepiece type, 
    powered-air purifying, supplied-air, self-contained breathing 
    apparatus).
    
    12. Have you worn a respirator (circle one): Yes/No
    
      If ``yes,'' what type(s):--------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Part A. Section 2. (Mandatory) Questions 1 through 9 below must 
    be answered by every employee who has been selected to use any type 
    of respirator (please circle ``yes'' or ``no'').
    
    1. Do you currently smoke tobacco, or have you smoked tobacco in the 
    last month: Yes/No
    2. Have you ever had any of the following conditions?
        a. Seizures (fits): Yes/No
        b. Diabetes (sugar disease): Yes/No
        c. Allergic reactions that interfere with your breathing: Yes/No
        d. Claustrophobia (fear of closed-in places): Yes/No
        e. Trouble smelling odors: Yes/No
    3. Have you ever had any of the following pulmonary or lung 
    problems?
        a. Asbestosis: Yes/No
        b. Asthma: Yes/No
    
    [[Page 1283]]
    
        c. Chronic bronchitis: Yes/No
        d. Emphysema: Yes/No
        e. Pneumonia: Yes/No
        f. Tuberculosis: Yes/No
        g. Silicosis: Yes/No
        h. Pneumothorax (collapsed lung): Yes/No
        i. Lung cancer: Yes/No
        j. Broken ribs: Yes/No
        k. Any chest injuries or surgeries: Yes/No
        l. Any other lung problem that you've been told about: Yes/No
    4. Do you currently have any of the following symptoms of pulmonary 
    or lung illness?
        a. Shortness of breath: Yes/No
        b. Shortness of breath when walking fast on level ground or 
    walking up a slight hill or incline: Yes/No
        c. Shortness of breath when walking with other people at an 
    ordinary pace on level ground: Yes/No
        d. Have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on 
    level ground: Yes/No
        e. Shortness of breath when washing or dressing yourself: Yes/No
        f. Shortness of breath that interferes with your job: Yes/No
        g. Coughing that produces phlegm (thick sputum): Yes/No
        h. Coughing that wakes you early in the morning: Yes/No
        i. Coughing that occurs mostly when you are lying down: Yes/No
        j. Coughing up blood in the last month: Yes/No
        k. Wheezing: Yes/No
        l. Wheezing that interferes with your job: Yes/No
        m. Chest pain when you breathe deeply: Yes/No
        n. Any other symptoms that you think may be related to lung 
    problems: Yes/No
    5. Have you ever had any of the following cardiovascular or heart 
    problems?
        a. Heart attack: Yes/No
        b. Stroke: Yes/No
        c. Angina: Yes/No
        d. Heart failure: Yes/No
        e. Swelling in your legs or feet (not caused by walking): Yes/No
        f. Heart arrhythmia (heart beating irregularly): Yes/No
        g. High blood pressure: Yes/No
        h. Any other heart problem that you've been told about: Yes/No
    6. Have you ever had any of the following cardiovascular or heart 
    symptoms?
        a. Frequent pain or tightness in your chest: Yes/No
        b. Pain or tightness in your chest during physical activity: 
    Yes/No
        c. Pain or tightness in your chest that interferes with your 
    job: Yes/No
        d. In the past two years, have you noticed your heart skipping 
    or missing a beat: Yes/No
        e. Heartburn or indigestion that is not related to eating: Yes/
    No
        f. Any other symptoms that you think may be related to heart or 
    circulation problems: Yes/No
    7. Do you currently take medication for any of the following 
    problems?
        a. Breathing or lung problems: Yes/No
        b. Heart trouble: Yes/No
        c. Blood pressure: Yes/No
        d. Seizures (fits): Yes/No
    8. If you've used a respirator, have you ever had any of the 
    following problems? (If you've never used a respirator, check the 
    following space and go to question 9:)
        a. Eye irritation: Yes/No
        b. Skin allergies or rashes: Yes/No
        c. Anxiety: Yes/No
        d. General weakness or fatigue: Yes/No
        e. Any other problem that interferes with your use of a 
    respirator: Yes/No
    9. Would you like to talk to the health care professional who will 
    review this questionnaire about your answers to this questionnaire: 
    Yes/No
    
        Questions 10 to 15 below must be answered by every employee who 
    has been selected to use either a full-facepiece respirator or a 
    self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). For employees who have 
    been selected to use other types of respirators, answering these 
    questions is voluntary.
    
    10. Have you ever lost vision in either eye (temporarily or 
    permanently): Yes/No
    11. Do you currently have any of the following vision problems?
        a. Wear contact lenses: Yes/No
        b. Wear glasses: Yes/No
        c. Color blind: Yes/No
        e. Any other eye or vision problem: Yes/No
    12. Have you ever had an injury to your ears, including a broken ear 
    drum: Yes/No
    13. Do you currently have any of the following hearing problems?
        a. Difficulty hearing: Yes/No
        b. Wear a hearing aid: Yes/No
        c. Any other hearing or ear problem: Yes/No
    14. Have you ever had a back injury: Yes/No
    15. Do you currently have any of the following musculoskeletal 
    problems?
        a. Weakness in any of your arms, hands, legs, or feet: Yes/No
        b. Back pain: Yes/No
        c. Difficulty fully moving your arms and legs: Yes/No
        d. Pain or stiffness when you lean forward or backward at the 
    waist: Yes/No
        e. Difficulty fully moving your head up or down: Yes/No
        f. Difficulty fully moving your head side to side: Yes/No
        g. Difficulty bending at your knees: Yes/No
        h. Difficulty squatting to the ground: Yes/No
        i. Climbing a flight of stairs or a ladder carrying more than 25 
    lbs: Yes/No
        j. Any other muscle or skeletal problem that interferes with 
    using a respirator: Yes/No
    
        Part B  Any of the following questions, and other questions not 
    listed, may be added to the questionnaire at the discretion of the 
    health care professional who will review the questionnaire.
    
    1. In your present job, are you working at high altitudes (over 
    5,000 feet) or in a place that has lower than normal amounts of 
    oxygen: Yes/No
        If ``yes,'' do you have feelings of dizziness, shortness of 
    breath, pounding in your chest, or other symptoms when you're 
    working under these conditions: Yes/No
    2. At work or at home, have you ever been exposed to hazardous 
    solvents, hazardous airborne chemicals (e.g., gases, fumes, or 
    dust), or have you come into skin contact with hazardous chemicals: 
    Yes/No
    
      If ``yes,'' name the chemicals if you know them:---------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    3. Have you ever worked with any of the materials, or under any of 
    the conditions, listed below:
        a. Asbestos: Yes/No
        b. Silica (e.g., in sandblasting): Yes/No
        c. Tungsten/cobalt (e.g., grinding or welding this material): 
    Yes/No
        d. Beryllium: Yes/No
        e. Aluminum: Yes/No
        f. Coal (for example, mining): Yes/No
        g. Iron: Yes/No
        h. Tin: Yes/No
        i. Dusty environments: Yes/No
        j. Any other hazardous exposures: Yes/No
    
      If ``yes,'' describe these exposures:--------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    4. List any second jobs or side businesses you have:-------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    5. List your previous occupations:-------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    6. List your current and previous hobbies:-----------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    7. Have you been in the military services? Yes/No
        If ``yes,'' were you exposed to biological or chemical agents 
    (either in training or combat): Yes/No
    8. Have you ever worked on a HAZMAT team? Yes/No
    9. Other than medications for breathing and lung problems, heart 
    trouble, blood pressure, and seizures mentioned earlier in this 
    questionnaire, are you taking any other medications for any reason 
    (including over-the-counter medications): Yes/No
    
      If ``yes,'' name the medications if you know them:-------------------
    
    10. Will you be using any of the following items with your 
    respirator(s)?
        a. HEPA Filters: Yes/No
        b. Canisters (for example, gas masks): Yes/No
        c. Cartridges: Yes/No
    11. How often are you expected to use the respirator(s) (circle 
    ``yes'' or ``no'' for all answers that apply to you)?:
        a. Escape only (no rescue): Yes/No
        b. Emergency rescue only: Yes/No
        c. Less than 5 hours per week: Yes/No
        d. Less than 2 hours per day: Yes/No
        e. 2 to 4 hours per day: Yes/No
    
    [[Page 1284]]
    
        f. Over 4 hours per day: Yes/No
    12. During the period you are using the respirator(s), is your work 
    effort:
        a. Light (less than 200 kcal per hour): Yes/No
    
    If ``yes,'' how long does this period last during the average 
    shift:____________hrs.____________mins.
    
        Examples of a light work effort are sitting while writing, 
    typing, drafting, or performing light assembly work; or standing 
    while operating a drill press (1-3 lbs.) or controlling machines.
    
        b. Moderate (200 to 350 kcal per hour): Yes/No
    
        If ``yes,'' how long does this period last during the average 
    shift:____________hrs.____________mins.
    
        Examples of moderate work effort are sitting while nailing or 
    filing; driving a truck or bus in urban traffic; standing while 
    drilling, nailing, performing assembly work, or transferring a 
    moderate load (about 35 lbs.) at trunk level; walking on a level 
    surface about 2 mph or down a 5-degree grade about 3 mph; or pushing 
    a wheelbarrow with a heavy load (about 100 lbs.) on a level surface.
    
        c. Heavy (above 350 kcal per hour): Yes/No
    
        If ``yes,'' how long does this period last during the average 
    shift:____________hrs.____________mins.
    
        Examples of heavy work are lifting a heavy load (about 50 lbs.) 
    from the floor to your waist or shoulder; working on a loading dock; 
    shoveling; standing while bricklaying or chipping castings; walking 
    up an 8-degree grade about 2 mph; climbing stairs with a heavy load 
    (about 50 lbs.).
    
    13. Will you be wearing protective clothing and/or equipment (other 
    than the respirator) when you're using your respirator: Yes/No
      If ``yes,'' describe this protective clothing and/or equipment:------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    14. Will you be working under hot conditions (temperature exceeding 
    77 deg. F): Yes/No
    15. Will you be working under humid conditions: Yes/No
    16. Describe the work you'll be doing while you're using your 
    respirator(s):
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    17. Describe any special or hazardous conditions you might encounter 
    when you're using your respirator(s) (for example, confined spaces, 
    life-threatening gases):
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    18. Provide the following information, if you know it, for each 
    toxic substance that you'll be exposed to when you're using your 
    respirator(s):
    
      Name of the first toxic substance:-----------------------------------
    
      Estimated maximum exposure level per shift:--------------------------
    
      Duration of exposure per shift---------------------------------------
    
      Name of the second toxic substance:----------------------------------
    
      Estimated maximum exposure level per shift:--------------------------
    
      Duration of exposure per shift:--------------------------------------
    
      Name of the third toxic substance:-----------------------------------
    
      Estimated maximum exposure level per shift:--------------------------
    
      Duration of exposure per shift:--------------------------------------
    
        The name of any other toxic substances that you'll be exposed to 
    while using your respirator:
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    19. Describe any special responsibilities you'll have while using 
    your respirator(s) that may affect the safety and well-being of 
    others (for example, rescue, security):
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Appendix D to Sec. 1910.134 (Non-Mandatory) Information for Employees 
    Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard
    
        Respirators are an effective method of protection against 
    designated hazards when properly selected and worn. Respirator use 
    is encouraged, even when exposures are below the exposure limit, to 
    provide an additional level of comfort and protection for workers. 
    However, if a respirator is used improperly or not kept clean, the 
    respirator itself can become a hazard to the worker. Sometimes, 
    workers may wear respirators to avoid exposures to hazards, even if 
    the amount of hazardous substance does not exceed the limits set by 
    OSHA standards. If your employer provides respirators for your 
    voluntary use, of if you provide your own respirator, you need to 
    take certain precautions to be sure that the respirator itself does 
    not present a hazard.
        You should do the following:
        1. Read and heed all instructions provided by the manufacturer 
    on use, maintenance, cleaning and care, and warnings regarding the 
    respirators limitations.
        2. Choose respirators certified for use to protect against the 
    contaminant of concern. NIOSH, the National Institute for 
    Occupational Safety and Health of the U.S. Department of Health and 
    Human Services, certifies respirators. A label or statement of 
    certification should appear on the respirator or respirator 
    packaging. It will tell you what the respirator is designed for and 
    how much it will protect you.
        3. Do not wear your respirator into atmospheres containing 
    contaminants for which your respirator is not designed to protect 
    against. For example, a respirator designed to filter dust particles 
    will not protect you against gases, vapors, or very small solid 
    particles of fumes or smoke.
        4. Keep track of your respirator so that you do not mistakenly 
    use someone else's respirator.
    
    Subpart L--[Amended]
    
        8. The authority citation for Subpart L of Part 1910 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable.
    
        9. Section 1910.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and 
    (f)(1)(v) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.156  Fire brigades.
    
    * * * * *
        (f) Respiratory protection. (1) General. (i) The employer must 
    ensure that respirators are provided to, and used by, fire brigade 
    members, and that the respirators meet the requirements of 29 CFR 
    1910.134 and this paragraph.
    * * * * *
        (v) Self-contained breathing apparatuses must have a minimum 
    service-life rating of 30 minutes in accordance with the methods and 
    requirements specified by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, except for escape 
    self-contained breathing apparatus (ESCBAs) used only for emergency 
    escape purposes.
    * * * * *
    
    Subpart Q--[Amended]
    
        10. The authority citation for Subpart Q of Part 1910 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    part 1911.
    
        11. Section 1910.252 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(ii), 
    (c)(4)(iii), (c)(7)(iii), (c)(9)(i), and (c)(10) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.252  General requirements.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) *  *  *
        (4) *  *  *
        (ii) Airline respirators. In circumstances for which it is 
    impossible to provide such ventilation, airline respirators or hose 
    masks approved for this purpose by the National Institute for 
    Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84 must be 
    used.
        (iii) Self-contained units. In areas immediately hazardous to life, 
    a full-facepiece, pressure-demand, self-contained breathing apparatus 
    or a combination full-facepiece, pressure-demand supplied-air 
    respirator with an auxiliary, self-contained air supply approved by 
    NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 must be used.
    * * * * *
        (7) * * *
        (iii) Local ventilation. In confined spaces or indoors, welding or 
    cutting operations involving metals containing lead, other than as an 
    impurity, or
    
    [[Page 1285]]
    
    metals coated with lead-bearing materials, including paint, must be 
    done using local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators. Such 
    operations, when done outdoors, must be done using respirators approved 
    for this purpose by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84. In all cases, workers 
    in the immediate vicinity of the cutting operation must be protected by 
    local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators.
    * * * * *
        (9) * * *
        (i) General. In confined spaces or indoors, welding or cutting 
    operations involving cadmium-bearing or cadmium-coated base metals must 
    be done using local exhaust ventilation or airline respirators unless 
    atmospheric tests under the most adverse conditions show that employee 
    exposure is within the acceptable concentrations specified by 29 CFR 
    1910.1000. Such operations, when done outdoors, must be done using 
    respirators, such as fume respirators, approved for this purpose by 
    NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84.
    * * * * *
        (10) Mercury. In confined spaces or indoors, welding or cutting 
    operations involving metals coated with mercury-bearing materials, 
    including paint, must be done using local exhaust ventilation or 
    airline respirators unless atmospheric tests under the most adverse 
    conditions show that employee exposure is within the acceptable 
    concentrations specified by 29 CFR 1910.1000. Such operations, when 
    done outdoors, must be done using respirators approved for this purpose 
    by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84.
    * * * * *
    
    Subpart R--[Amended]
    
        12. The authority citation for Subpart R of Part 1910 is revised as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    part 11.
        Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265 through 1910.269, 
    1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
    
        13. Section 1910.261 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), 
    (g)(10), (h)(2)(iii), and (h)(2)(iv) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.261  Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (2) Personal protective clothing and equipment. Foot protection, 
    shin guards, hard hats, noise-attenuation devices, and other personal 
    protective clothing and equipment must be worn when the extent of the 
    hazard warrants their use. Such equipment must be worn when 
    specifically required by other paragraphs of this section, and must be 
    maintained in accordance with applicable American National Standards 
    Institute standards. Respirators, goggles, protective masks, rubber 
    gloves, rubber boots, and other such equipment must be cleaned and 
    disinfected before being used by another employee. Required eye, head, 
    and ear protection must conform to American National Standards 
    Institute standards Z24.22-1957, Z87.1-1968, and Z89.1-1969. 
    Respiratory protection must conform to the requirements of 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
    * * * * *
        (g) * * *
        (10) Gas masks (digester building). Gas masks must be available, 
    and they must furnish adequate protection against sulfurous acid and 
    chlorine gases and be inspected and repaired in accordance with 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
    * * * * *
        (h) * * *
        (2) * * *
        (iii) Gas masks must be provided for emergency use in accordance 
    with 29 CFR 1910.134.
        (iv) For emergency and rescue operations, the employer must provide 
    employees with self-contained breathing apparatuses or supplied-air 
    respirators, and ensure that employees use these respirators, in 
    accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134.
    * * * * *
    
    Subpart Z--[Amended]
    
        14. The general authority citation for Subpart Z of 29 CFR Part 
    1910 is revised to read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    Part 1911.
    * * * * *
        15. Section 1910.1001 is amended by removing Appendix C and 
    revising paragraph (g), to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1001  Asbestos.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities, 
    for which engineering and work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the TWA and/or excursion limit.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) The employer must provide a tight-fitting, powered, air-
    purifying respirator instead of any negative-pressure respirator 
    specified in Table 1 of this section when an employee chooses to use 
    this type of respirator and the respirator provides adequate protection 
    to the employee.
        (iii) No employee must be assigned to tasks requiring the use of 
    respirators if, based on their most recent medical examination, the 
    examining physician determines that the employee will be unable to 
    function normally using a respirator, or that the safety or health of 
    the employee or other employees will be impaired by the use of a 
    respirator. Such employees must be assigned to another job or given the 
    opportunity to transfer to a different position, the duties of which 
    they can perform. If such a transfer position is available, the 
    position must be with the same employer, in the same geographical area, 
    and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay the employee had 
    just prior to such transfer.
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select and provide the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
              Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Asbestos Fibers          
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
    asbestos or conditions of use             Required respirator           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not in excess of 1 f/cc (10 X  Half-mask air purifying respirator other 
     PEL).                          than a disposable respirator, equipped  
                                    with high efficiency filters.           
    
    [[Page 1286]]
    
                                                                            
    Not in excess of 5 f/cc (50 X  Full facepiece air-purifying respirator  
     PEL).                          equipped with high efficiency filters.  
    Not in excess of 10 f/cc (100  Any powered air-purifying respirator     
     X PEL).                        equipped with high efficiency filters or
                                    any supplied air respirator operated in 
                                    continuous flow mode.                   
    Not in excess of 100 f/cc      Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
     (1,000 X PEL).                 operated in pressure demand mode.       
    Greater than 100 f/cc (1,000   Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
     X PEL) or unknown              operated in pressure demand mode,       
     concentration.                 equipped with an auxiliary positive     
                                    pressure self-contained breathing       
                                    apparatus.                              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may 
      be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is   
      independent of concentration.                                         
    b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97       
      percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers 
      in diameter or larger.                                                
    
    * * * * *
        16. Section 1910.1003 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iv) 
    and (d)(1) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1003 13  Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.).
    
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (4) * * *
        (iv) Employees engaged in handling operations involving the 
    carcinogens addressed by this section must be provided with, and 
    required to wear and use, a half-face filter-type respirator for dusts, 
    mists, and fumes. A respirator affording higher levels of protection 
    than this respirator may be substituted.
    * * * * *
        (d) * * *
        (1) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b), (c), (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii) and (iv), and (d)(3)), and (e) through (m).
    * * * * *
        17. Section 1910.1017 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1017  Vinyl chloride.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii), and (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2)), and (f) through 
    (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) Respirators must be selected from the 
    following table:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Atmospheric concentration of                                           
            vinyl chloride                     Required apparatus           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (i) Unknown, or above 3,600 p/ Open-circuit, self-contained breathing   
     m.                             apparatus, pressure demand type, with   
                                    full facepiece.                         
    (ii) Not over 3,600 p/m......  (A) Combination type C supplied air      
                                    respirator, pressure demand type, with  
                                    full or half facepiece, and auxiliary   
                                    self-contained air supply; or           
    (iii) Not over 1,000 p/m.....  (B) Combination type, supplied air       
                                    respirator continuous flow type, with   
                                    full or half facepiece, and auxiliary   
                                    self-contained air supply. Type C,      
                                    supplied air respirator, continuous flow
                                    type, with full or half facepiece,      
                                    helmet or hood.                         
    (iv) Not over 100 p/m........  (A) Combination type C supplied air      
                                    respirator demand type, with full       
                                    facepiece, and auxiliary self-contained 
                                    air supply; or                          
                                   (B) Open-circuit self-contained breathing
                                    apparatus with full facepiece, in demand
                                    mode; or                                
                                   Type (C) supplied air respirator, demand 
                                    type, with full facepiece.              
    (v) Not over 25 p/m..........  (A) A powered air-purifying respirator   
                                    with hood, helmet, full or half         
                                    facepiece, and a canister which provides
                                    a service life of at least 4 hours for  
                                    concentrations of vinyl chloride up to  
                                    25 p/m, or                              
                                   (B) Gas mask, front- or back-mounted     
                                    canister which provides a service life  
                                    of at least 4 hours for concentrations  
                                    of vinyl chloride up to 25 p/m.         
    (vi) Not over 10 p/m.........  (A) Combination type C supplied-air      
                                    respirator, demand type, with half      
                                    facepiece, and auxiliary self-contained 
                                    air supply; or                          
                                   (B) Type C supplied-air respirator,      
                                    demand type, with half facepiece; or    
                                   (C) Any chemical cartridge respirator    
                                    with an organic vapor cartridge which   
                                    provides a service life of at least 1   
                                    hour for concentrations of vinyl        
                                    chloride up to 10 p/m.                  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (ii) When air-purifying respirators are used:
        (A) Air-purifying canisters or cartridges must be replaced prior to 
    the expiration of their service life or the end of the shift in which 
    they are first used, whichever occurs first.
        (B) A continuous-monitoring and alarm system must be provided when 
    concentrations of vinyl chloride could reasonably exceed the allowable 
    concentrations for the devices in use. Such a system must be used to 
    alert employees when vinyl chloride concentrations exceed the allowable 
    concentrations for the devices in use.
        (iii) Respirators specified for higher concentrations may be used 
    for lower concentrations.
    * * * * *
        18. Section 1910.1018 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1018  Inorganic arsenic.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    or work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities, 
    for which the employer establishes that
    
    [[Page 1287]]
    
    engineering and work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which engineering and work-practice 
    controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or 
    below the permissible exposure limit.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) If an employee exhibits breathing difficulty during fit 
    testing or respirator use, they must be examined by a physician trained 
    in pulmonary medicine to determine whether they can use a respirator 
    while performing the required duty.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must use Table I of this 
    section to select the appropriate respirator or combination of 
    respirators for inorganic arsenic compounds without significant vapor 
    pressure, and Table II of this section to select the appropriate 
    respirator or combination of respirators for inorganic arsenic 
    compounds that have significant vapor pressure.
        (ii) When employee exposures exceed the permissible exposure limit 
    for inorganic arsenic and also exceed the relevant limit for other 
    gases (for example, sulfur dioxide), an air-purifying respirator 
    provided to the employee as specified by this section must have a 
    combination high-efficiency filter with an appropriate gas sorbent. 
    (See footnote in Table 1 of this section.)
        (iii) Employees required to use respirators may choose, and the 
    employer must provide, a powered air-purifying respirator if it will 
    provide proper protection. In addition, the employer must provide a 
    combination dust and acid-gas respirator to employees who are exposed 
    to gases over the relevant exposure limits.
    
       Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Inorganic Arsenic Particulate   
                Except for Those With Significant Vapor Pressure            
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Concentration of inorganic                                            
     arsenic (as As) or condition             Required respirator           
                of use                                                      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (i) Unknown or greater or      (A) Any full facepiece self-contained    
     lesser than 20,000 g/m(3) (20 mg/m(3)) or       pressure mode.                          
     firefighting.                                                          
    (ii) Not greater than 20,000   (A) Supplied air respirator with full    
     g/m(3) (20 mg/m(3)).  facepiece, hood, or helmet or suit and  
                                    operated in positive pressure mode.     
    (iii) Not greater than 10,000  (A) Powered air-purifying respirators in 
     g/m(3) (10 mg/m(3)).  all inlet face coverings with high      
                                    efficiency filters \1\.                 
                                   (B)Half-mask supplied air respirators    
                                    operated in positive pressure mode.     
    (iv) Not greater than 500      (A) Full facepiece air-purifying         
     g/m(3).               respirator equipped with high-efficiency
                                    filter \1\.                             
                                   (B) Any full facepiece supplied air      
                                    respirator.                             
                                   (C) Any full facepiece self-contained    
                                    breathing apparatus.                    
    (v) Not greater than 100       (A) Half-mask air-purifying respirator   
     g/m(3).               equipped with high-efficiency filter    
                                    \1\.                                    
                                   (B) Any half-mask supplied air           
                                    respirator.                             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ High-efficiency filter-99.97 pct efficiency against 0.3 micrometer  
      monodisperse diethyl-hexyl phthalate (DOP) particles.                 
    
    
       Table II.--Respiratory Protection for Inorganic Arsenicals (Such as  
      Arsenic Trichloride \2\ and Arsenic Phosphide) With Significant Vapor 
                                    Pressure                                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Concentration of inorganic                                            
     arsenic (as As) or condition             Required respirator           
                of use                                                      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (i) Unknown or greater or      (A) Any full facepiece self-contained    
     lesser than 20,000 g/m(3) (20 mg/m(3)) or       pressure mode.                          
     firefighting.                                                          
    (ii) Not greater than 20,000   (A) Supplied air respirator with full    
     g/m(3) (20 mg/m(3)).  facepiece, hood, or helmet or suit and  
                                    operated in positive pressure mode.     
    (iii) Not greater than 10,000  (A) Half-mask \2\ supplied air respirator
     g/m(3) (10 mg/m(3)).  operated in positive pressure mode.     
    (iv) Not greater than 500      (A) Front or back mounted gas mask       
     g/m(3).               equipped with high-efficiency filter \1\
                                    and acid gas canister.                  
                                   (B) Any full facepiece supplied air      
                                    respirator.                             
                                   (C) Any full facepiece self-contained    
                                    breathing apparatus.                    
    (v) Not greater than 100       (A) Half-mask air-purifying respirator   
     g/m(3).               equipped with high efficiency filter \1\
                                    and acid gas cartridge.                 
                                   (B) Any half-mask supplied air           
                                    respirator.                             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ High-efficiency filter-99.97 pct efficiency against 0.3 micrometer  
      monodisperse diethyl-hexyl phthalate (DOP) particles.                 
    \2\ Half-mask respirators shall not be used for protection against      
      arsenic trichloride, as it is rapidly absorbed through the skin.      
    
    * * * * *
        19. Section 1910.1025 is amended by revising paragraph (f); 
    revising the second and fourth paragraphs of Section IV to Appendix B; 
    removing the sixth paragraph of Section IV to Appendix B; and removing 
    Appendix D, as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1025  Lead.
    
    * * * * *
        (f) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement engineering or work-
    practice controls, except that no employer can require an employee to 
    use a respirator longer than 4.4 hours per day.
        (ii) Work operations for which engineering and work-practice 
    controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or below 
    the permissible exposure limit.
        (iii) Periods when an employee requests a respirator.
    
    [[Page 1288]]
    
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) If an employee has breathing difficulty during fit testing or 
    respirator use, the employer must provide the employee with a medical 
    examination in accordance with paragraph (j)(3)(i)(C) of this section 
    to determine whether or not the employee can use a respirator while 
    performing the required duty.
    
               Table II.--Respiratory Protection for Lead Aerosols          
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
       lead or condition of use               Required respirator           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not in excess of 0.5 mg/m\3\   Half-mask, air-purifying respirator      
     (10X PEL).                     equipped with high efficiency           
                                    filters.\2\ \3\                         
    Not in excess of 2.5 mg/m\3\   Full facepiece, air-purifying respirator 
     (50X PEL).                     with high efficiency filters.\3\        
    Not in excess of 50 mg/m\3\    (1) Any powered, air-purifying respirator
     (1000X PEL).                   with high efficiency filters\3\; or (2) 
                                    Half-mask supplied-air respirator       
                                    operated in positive-pressure mode.\2\  
    Not in excess of 100 mg/m\3\   Supplied-air respirators with full       
     (2000XPEL).                    facepiece, hood, helmet, or suit,       
                                    operated in positive pressure mode.     
    Greater than 100 mg/m\3\,      Full facepiece, self-contained breathing 
     unknown concentration or       apparatus operated in positive-pressure 
     fire fighting.                 mode.                                   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Respirators specified for high concentrations can be used at lower  
      concentrations of lead.                                               
    \2\ Full facepiece is required if the lead aerosols cause eye or skin   
      irritation at the use concentrations.                                 
    \3\ A high efficiency particulate filter means 99.97 percent efficient  
      against 0.3 micron size particles.                                    
    
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator or combination of respirators from Table II of 
    this section.
        (ii) The employer must provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
    instead of the respirator specified in Table II of this section when an 
    employee chooses to use this type of respirator and such a respirator 
    provides adequate protection to the employee.
    * * * * *
    
    Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1025--Employee Standard Summary
    
    * * * * *
    
    IV. Respiratory Protection--Paragraph (f)
    
    * * * * *
        Your employer is required to select respirators from the seven 
    types listed in Table II of the Respiratory Protection section of 
    the standard (Sec. 1910.1025(f)). Any respirator chosen must be 
    approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
    Health (NIOSH) under the provisions of 42 CFR part 84. This 
    respirator selection table will enable your employer to choose a 
    type of respirator that will give you a proper amount of protection 
    based on your airborne lead exposure. Your employer may select a 
    type of respirator that provides greater protection than that 
    required by the standard; that is, one recommended for a higher 
    concentration of lead than is present in your workplace. For 
    example, a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) is much more 
    protective than a typical negative pressure respirator, and may also 
    be more comfortable to wear. A PAPR has a filter, cartridge, or 
    canister to clean the air, and a power source that continuously 
    blows filtered air into your breathing zone. Your employer might 
    make a PAPR available to you to ease the burden of having to wear a 
    respirator for long periods of time. The standard provides that you 
    can obtain a PAPR upon request.
    * * * * *
        Your employer must ensure that your respirator facepiece fits 
    properly. Proper fit of a respirator facepiece is critical to your 
    protection from airborne lead. Obtaining a proper fit on each 
    employee may require your employer to make available several 
    different types of respirator masks. To ensure that your respirator 
    fits properly and that facepiece leakage is minimal, your employer 
    must give you either a qualitative or quantitative fit test as 
    specified in Appendix A of the Respiratory Protection standard 
    located at 29 CFR 1910.134.
    * * * * *
        20. Section 1910.1027 is amended by removing and reserving Appendix 
    C and revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1027  Cadmium.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls when employee exposure levels exceed the 
    PEL.
        (ii) Maintenance and repair activities, and brief or intermittent 
    operations, for which employee exposures exceed the PEL and engineering 
    and work-practice controls are not feasible or are not required.
        (iii) Activities in regulated areas specified in paragraph (e) of 
    this section.
        (iv) Work operations for which the employer has implemented all 
    feasible engineering and work-practice controls and such controls are 
    not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or below the PEL.
        (v) Work operations for which an employee is exposed to cadmium at 
    or above the action level, and the employee requests a respirator.
        (vi) Work operations for which an employee is exposed to cadmium 
    above the PEL and engineering controls are not required by paragraph 
    (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
        (vii) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) No employees must use a respirator if, based on their most 
    recent medical examination, the examining physician determines that 
    they will be unable to continue to function normally while using a 
    respirator. If the physician determines that the employee must be 
    limited in, or removed from, their current job because of their 
    inability to use a respirator, the limitation or removal must be in 
    accordance with paragraphs (l) (11) and (12) of this section.
        (iii) If an employee has breathing difficulty during fit testing or 
    respirator use, the employer must provide the employee with a medical 
    examination in accordance with paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of this section to 
    determine if the employee can use a respirator while performing the 
    required duties.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 2 of this section.
    
    [[Page 1289]]
    
    
    
                  Table 2.--Respiratory Protection for Cadmium              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration or                                             
          condition of use a               Required respirator type b       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10 X or less.................  A half mask, air-purifying equipped with 
                                    a HEPA c filter.d                       
    25 X or less.................  A powered air-purifying respirator       
                                    (``PAPR'') with a loose-fitting hood or 
                                    helmet equipped with a HEPA filter, or a
                                    supplied-air respirator with a loose-   
                                    fitting hood or helmet facepiece        
                                    operated in the continuous flow mode.   
    50 X or less.................  A full facepiece air-purifying respirator
                                    equipped with a HEPA filter, or a       
                                    powered air-purifying respirator with a 
                                    tight-fitting half mask equipped with a 
                                    HEPA filter, or a supplied-air          
                                    respirator with a tight-fitting half    
                                    mask operated in the continuous flow    
                                    mode.                                   
    250 X or less................  A powered air-purifying respirator with a
                                    tight fitting full facepiece equipped   
                                    with a HEPA filter, or a supplied-air   
                                    respirator with a tight-fitting full    
                                    facepiece operated in the continuous    
                                    flow mode.                              
    1000 X or less...............  A supplied air respirator with half mask 
                                    or full facepiece operated in the       
                                    pressure demand or other positive       
                                    pressure mode.                          
    >1000 X or unknown             A self-contained breathing apparatus with
     concentrations.                a full facepiece operated in the        
                                    pressure demand or other positive       
                                    pressure mode, or a supplied-air        
                                    respirator with a full facepiece        
                                    operated in the pressure demand or other
                                    positive pressure mode and equipped with
                                    an auxiliary escape type self-contained 
                                    breathing apparatus operated in the     
                                    pressure demand mode.                   
    Fire fighting................  A self-contained breathing apparatus with
                                    full facepiece operated in the pressure 
                                    demand or other positive pressure mode. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a Concentrations expressed as multiple of the PEL.                      
    b Respirators assigned for higher environmental concentrations may be   
      used at lower exposure levels. Quantitative fit testing is required   
      for all tight-fitting air purifying respirators where airborne        
      concentration of cadmium exceeds 10 times the TWA PEL (10 X 5 ug/m(3) 
      = 50 ug/m(3)). A full facepiece respirator is required when eye       
      irritation is experienced.                                            
    c HEPA means High-efficiency Particulate Air.                           
    d Fit testing, qualitative or quantitative, is required.                
     SOURCE: Respiratory Decision Logic, NIOSH, 1987.                       
    
        (ii) The employer must provide an employee with a powered air-
    purifying respirator instead of a negative-pressure respirator when an 
    employee who is entitled to a respirator chooses to use this type of 
    respirator and such a respirator provides adequate protection to the 
    employee.
    * * * * *
        21. Section 1910.1028 is amended by removing Appendix E and 
    revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1028  Benzene.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations for which the employer establishes that 
    compliance with either the TWA or STEL through the use of engineering 
    and work-practice controls is not feasible; for example, some 
    maintenance and repair activities, vessel cleaning, or other operations 
    for which engineering and work-practice controls are infeasible because 
    exposures are intermittent and limited in duration.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient, or are not required under 
    paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the PELs.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)(b)(1), and (2)), and (f) 
    through (m).
        (ii) For air-purifying respirators, the employer must replace the 
    air-purifying element at the expiration of its service life or at the 
    beginning of each shift in which such elements are used, whichever 
    comes first.
        (iii) If NIOSH approves an air-purifying element with an end-of-
    service-life indicator for benzene, such an element may be used until 
    the indicator shows no further useful life.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 1 of this section.
        (ii) Any employee who cannot use a negative-pressure respirator 
    must be allowed to use a respirator with less breathing resistance, 
    such as a powered air-purifying respirator or supplied-air respirator.
    
                  Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Benzene              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
     benzene or condition of use                Respirator type             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Less than or equal to 10   (1) Half-mask air-purifying respirator   
     ppm.                           with organic vapor cartridge.           
    (b) Less than or equal to 50   (1) Full facepiece respirator with       
     ppm.                           organic vapor cartridges.               
                                   (1) Full facepiece gas mask with chin    
                                    style canister.1                        
    (c) Less than or equal to 100  (1) Full facepiece powered air-purifying 
     ppm.                           respirator with organic vapor canister.1
    (d) Less than or equal to      (1) Supplied air respirator with full    
     1,000 ppm.                     facepiece in positive-pressure mode.    
    (e) Greater than 1,000 ppm or  (1) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
     unknown concentration.         with full facepiece in positive pressure
                                    mode.                                   
                                   (2) Full facepiece positive-pressure     
                                    supplied-air respirator with auxiliary  
                                    self-contained air supply.              
    (f) Escape...................  (1) Any organic vapor gas mask; or       
                                   (2) Any self-contained breathing         
                                    apparatus with full facepiece.          
    
    [[Page 1290]]
    
                                                                            
    (g) Firefighting.............  (1) Full facepiece self-contained        
                                    breathing apparatus in positive pressure
                                    mode.                                   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Canisters must have a minimum service life of four (4) hours when   
      tested at 150 ppm benzene, at a flow rate of 64 LPM, 25 deg. C, and   
      85% relative humidity for non-powered air purifying respirators. The  
      flow rate shall be 115 LPM and 170 LPM respectively for tight fitting 
      and loose fitting powered air-purifying respirators.                  
    
    * * * * *
        22. Section 1910.1029 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1029  Coke oven emissions.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Compliance with the permissible exposure limit may not be achieved by 
    the use of respirators except during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activity, for 
    which engineering and work-practice controls are technologically not 
    feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the permissible exposure limit.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select appropriate 
    respirators or combination of respirators from Table I of this section.
    
            TABLE I.--Respiratory Protection for Coke Oven Emissions        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
         coke oven emissions                  Required respirator           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Any concentration........  (1) A Type C supplied air respirator     
                                    operated in pressure demand or other    
                                    positive pressure or continuous flow    
                                    mode; or                                
                                   (2) A powered air-purifying particulate  
                                    filter respirator for dust and mist or  
                                   (3) A powered air-purifying particulate  
                                    filter respirator or combination        
                                    chemical cartridge and particulate      
                                    filter respirator for coke oven         
                                    emissions.                              
    (b) Concentrations not         (1) Any particulate filter respirator for
     greater than 1500 ug/m \3\.    dust and mist except single-use         
                                    respirator; or                          
                                   (2) Any particulate filter respirator or 
                                    combination chemical cartridge and      
                                    particulate filter respirator for coke  
                                    oven emissions; or                      
                                   (3) Any respirator listed in paragraph   
                                    (g)(3)(a) of this section.              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * * * * *
        23. Section 1910.1043 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1043  Cotton dust.
    
    * * * * *
        (f) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who are 
    required to use respirators by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Maintenance and repair activities for which engineering and 
    work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the permissible exposure limits.
        (iv) Work operations specified under paragraph (g)(1) of this 
    section.
        (v) Periods for which an employee requests a respirator.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) Whenever a physician determines that an employee who works in 
    an area in which the cotton-dust concentration exceeds the PEL is 
    unable to use a respirator, including a powered air-purifying 
    respirator, the employee must be given the opportunity to transfer to 
    an available position, or to a position that becomes available later, 
    that has a cotton-dust concentration at or below the PEL. The employer 
    must ensure that such employees retain their current wage rate or other 
    benefits as a result of the transfer.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table I of this section.
    
                                     Table I                                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Cotton dust concentration               Required respirator           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not greater than:                                                       
        (a) 5  x  the applicable   A disposable respirator with a           
         permissible exposure       particulate filter.                     
         limit (PEL).                                                       
        (b) 10  x  the applicable  A quarter or half-mask respirator, other 
         PEL.                       than a disposable respirator, equipped  
                                    with particulate filters.               
        (c) 100  x  the            A full facepiece respirator equipped with
         applicable PEL.            high-efficiency particulate filters.    
        (d) Greater than 100  x    A powered air-purifying respirator       
         the applicable PEL.        equipped with high-efficiency           
                                    particulate filters.                    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notes:                                                                  
     1. A disposable respirator means the filter element is an inseparable  
      part of the respirator.                                               
     2. Any respirators permitted at higher environmental concentrations can
      be used at lower concentrations.                                      
    
    [[Page 1291]]
    
                                                                            
     3. Self-contained breathing apparatus are not required respirators but 
      are permitted respirators.                                            
     4. Supplied air respirators are not required but are permitted under   
      the following conditions: Cotton dust concentration not greater than  
      10X the PEL--Any supplied air respirator; not greater than 100X the   
      PEL--Any supplied air respirator with full facepiece, helmet or hood; 
      greater than 100X the PEL--A supplied air respirator operated in      
      positive pressure mode.                                               
    
        (ii) Whenever respirators are required by this section for cotton-
    dust concentrations that do not exceed the applicable permissible 
    exposure limit by a multiple of 100 (100 X), the employer must, when 
    requested by an employee, provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
    with a high-efficiency particulate filter instead of the respirator 
    specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Table I of this section.
    * * * * *
        24. Section 1910.1044 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1044  1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who are 
    required to use respirators by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Maintenance and repair activities for which engineering and 
    work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the permissible exposure limit.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select the appropriate 
    respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
                    Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for DBCP               
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
       DBCP or condition of use                 Respirator type             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Less than or equal to 10   (1) Any supplied-air respirator; or (2)  
     ppb.                           any self-contained breathing apparatus. 
    (b) Less than or equal to 50   (1) Any supplied-air respirator with full
     ppb.                           facepiece, helmet, or hood; or (2) any  
                                    self-contained breathing apparatus with 
                                    full facepiece.                         
    (c) Less than or equal to      (1) A Type C supplied-air respirator     
     1,000 ppb.                     operated in pressure-demand or other    
                                    positive pressure or continuous flow    
                                    mode.                                   
    (d) Less than or equal to      (1) A Type C supplied-air respirator with
     2,000 ppb.                     full facepiece operated in pressure-    
                                    demand or other positive pressure mode, 
                                    or with full facepiece, helmet, or hood 
                                    operated in continuous flow mode.       
    (e) Greater than 2,000 ppb or  (1) A combination respirator which       
     entry and escape from          includes a Type C supplied-air          
     unknown concentrations.        respirator with full facepiece operated 
                                    in pressure-demand or other positive    
                                    pressure or continuous flow mode and an 
                                    auxiliary self-contained breathing      
                                    apparatus operated in pressure-demand or
                                    positive pressure mode; or (2) a self-  
                                    contained breathing apparatus with full 
                                    facepiece operated in pressure-demand or
                                    other positive pressure mode.           
    (f) Firefighting.............  (1) A self-contained breathing apparatus 
                                    with full facepiece operated in pressure-
                                    demand or other positive pressure mode. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * * * * *
        25. Section 1910.1045 is amended by revising paragraph (h) and the 
    first paragraph of Section IV to Appendix A to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1045  Acrylonitrile.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities or 
    reactor cleaning, for which the employer establishes that engineering 
    and work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the permissible exposure limits.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)(b)(1), and (2)), and (f) 
    through (m).
        (ii) If air-purifying respirators (chemical-cartridge or chemical-
    canister types) are used:
        (A) The air-purifying canister or cartridge must be replaced prior 
    to the expiration of its service life or at the completion of each 
    shift, whichever occurs first.
        (B) A label must be attached to the cartridge or canister to 
    indicate the date and time at which it is first installed on the 
    respirator.
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select the appropriate 
    respirator from Table I of this section.
    
             Table I.--Respiratory Protection for Acrylonitrile (AN)        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Concentration of AN or                                              
           condition of use                     Respirator type             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Less than or equal to 20   (1) Chemical cartridge respirator with   
     ppm.                           organic vapor cartridge(s) and half-mask
                                    facepiece; or                           
                                   (2) Supplied air respirator with half-   
                                    mask facepiece.                         
    (b) Less than or equal to 100  (1) Full facepiece respirator with (A)   
     ppm or maximum use             organic vapor cartridges, (B) organic   
     concentration (MUC) of         vapor gas mask chin-style, or (C)       
     cartridges or canisters,       organic vapor gas mask canister, front- 
     whichever is lower.            or back-mounted;                        
    
    [[Page 1292]]
    
                                                                            
                                   (2) Supplied air respirator with full    
                                    facepiece; or                           
                                   (3) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
                                    with full facepiece.                    
    (c) Less than or equal to      (1) Supplied air respirator operated in  
     4,000 ppm.                     the positive pressure mode with full    
                                    facepiece, helmet, suit, or hood.       
    (d) Greater than 4,000 ppm or  (1) Supplied air and auxiliary self-     
     unknown concentration.         contained breathing apparatus with full 
                                    facepiece in positive pressure mode; or 
                                   (2) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
                                    with full facepiece in positive pressure
                                    mode.                                   
    (e) Firefighting.............  Self-contained breathing apparatus with  
                                    full facepiece in positive pressure     
                                    mode.                                   
    (f) Escape...................  (1) Any organic vapor respirator, or     
                                   (2) Any self-contained breathing         
                                    apparatus.                              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * * * * *
    
    Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1045--Substance Safety Data Sheet for 
    Acrylonitrile
    
    * * * * *
    
    IV. Respirators and Protective Clothing
    
        A. Respirators. You may be required to wear a respirator for 
    nonroutine activities, in emergencies, while your employer is in the 
    process of reducing acrylonitrile exposures through engineering 
    controls, and in areas where engineering controls are not feasible. 
    If respirators are worn, they must have a label issued by the 
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under the 
    provisions of 42 CFR part 84 stating that the respirators have been 
    approved for use with organic vapors. For effective protection, 
    respirators must fit your face and head snugly. Respirators must not 
    be loosened or removed in work situations where their use is 
    required.
    * * * * *
        26. Section 1910.1047 is amended by removing table 1 following 
    paragraph (h)(2) and revising paragraph (g) and the first paragraph of 
    Section IV to Appendix A to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1047  Ethylene oxide.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection and personal protective equipment. (1) 
    General. For employees who use respirators required by this section, 
    the employer must provide respirators that comply with the requirements 
    of this paragraph. Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities and 
    vessel cleaning, for which engineering and work-practice controls are 
    not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the TWA.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select the appropriate 
    respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
     Table 1.--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection for Airborne 
                                       EtO                                  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Condition of use or                                                
    concentration of airborne EtO         Minimum required respirator       
                (ppm)                                                       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Equal to or less than 50.....  (a) Full facepiece respirator with EtO   
                                    approved canister, front-or back-       
                                    mounted.                                
    Equal to or less than 2,000..  (a) Positive-pressure supplied air       
                                    respirator, equipped with full          
                                    facepiece, hood, or helmet, or          
                                   (b) Continuous-flow supplied air         
                                    respirator (positive pressure) equipped 
                                    with hood, helmet or suit.              
    Concentration above 2,000 or   (a) Positive-pressure self-contained     
     unknown concentration (such    breathing apparatus (SCBA), equipped    
     as in emergencies).            with full facepiece, or                 
                                   (b) Positive-pressure full facepiece     
                                    supplied air respirator equipped with an
                                    auxiliary positive-pressure self-       
                                    contained breathing apparatus.          
    Firefighting.................  (a) Positive pressure self-contained     
                                    breathing apparatus equipped with full  
                                    facepiece.                              
    Escape.......................  (a) Any respirator described above.      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note. Respirators approved for use in higher concentrations are         
      permitted to be used in lower concentrations.                         
    
        (4) Protective clothing and equipment. When employees could have 
    eye or skin contact with EtO or EtO solutions, the employer must select 
    and provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate protective 
    clothing or other equipment in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.132 and 
    1910.133 to protect any area of the employee's body that may come in 
    contact with the EtO or EtO solution, and must ensure that the employee 
    wears the protective clothing and equipment provided.
    * * * * *
    
    Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1047--Substance Safety Data Sheet for Ethylene 
    Oxide (Non-mandatory)
    
    * * * * *
    
    IV. Respirators and Protective Clothing
    
        A. Respirators. You may be required to wear a respirator for 
    nonroutine activities, in emergencies, while your employer is in the 
    process of reducing EtO exposures through engineering controls, and 
    in areas where engineering controls are not feasible. As of the 
    effective date of this standard, only air-supplied, positive-
    pressure, full-facepiece respirators are approved for protection 
    against EtO. If air-purifying respirators are worn in the future, 
    they must have a label issued by the National Institute for 
    Occupational Safety and Health under the provisions of 42 CFR part 
    84 stating that the respirators have been approved for use with 
    ethylene oxide. For effective protection, respirators must fit your 
    face and head snugly. Respirators must not be loosened or removed in 
    work situations where their use is required.
    * * * * *
        27. Section 1910.1048 is amended by removing Appendix E and 
    revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    
    [[Page 1293]]
    
    Sec. 1910.1048  Formaldehyde.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities or 
    vessel cleaning, for which the employer establishes that engineering 
    and work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the PELs.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)(b)(1), and (2)), and (f) 
    through (m).
        (ii) If air-purifying chemical-cartridge respirators are used, the 
    employer must:
        (A) Replace the cartridge after three (3) hours of use or at the 
    end of the workshift, whichever occurs first, unless the cartridge 
    contains a NIOSH-approved end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) to show 
    when breakthrough occurs.
        (B) Unless the canister contains a NIOSH-approved ESLI to show when 
    breakthrough occurs, replace canisters used in atmospheres up to 7.5 
    ppm (10xPEL) every four (4) hours and industrial-sized canisters used 
    in atmospheres up to 75 ppm (100xPEL) every two (2) hours, or at the 
    end of the workshift, whichever occurs first.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select appropriate 
    respirators from Table 1 in this section.
    
        Table 1.--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection Against   
                                  Formaldehyde                              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Condition of use or                                                
      formaldehyde concentration        Minimum respirator required \1\     
                (ppm)                                                       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Up to 7.5 ppm. (10 x PEL)....  Full facepiece with cartridges or        
                                    canisters specifically approved for     
                                    protection against formaldehyde.\2\     
    Up to 75 ppm. (100 x PEL)....  Full-face mask with chin style or chest  
                                    or back mounted type, with industrial   
                                    size canister specifically approved for 
                                    protection against formaldehyde. Type C 
                                    supplied air respirator, demand type, or
                                    continuous flow type, with full         
                                    facepiece, hood, or helmet.             
    Above 75 ppm or unknown.       Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
     (emergencies). (100 x PEL).    with positive pressure full facepiece.  
                                    Combination supplied-air, full facepiece
                                    positive pressure respirator with       
                                    auxiliary self-contained air supply.    
    Firefighting.................  SCBA with positive pressure in full face-
                                    piece.                                  
    Escape.......................  SCBA in demand or pressure demand mode.  
                                    Full-face mask with chin style or front 
                                    or back mounted type industrial size    
                                    canister specifically approved for      
                                    protection against formaldehyde.        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Respirators specified for use at higher concentrations may be used  
      at lower concentrations.                                              
    \2\ A half-mask respirator with cartridges specifically approved for    
      protection against formaldehyde can be substituted for the full       
      facepiece respirator providing that effective gas-proof goggles are   
      provided and used in combination with the half-mask respirator.       
    
        (ii) The employer must provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
    adequate to protect against formaldehyde exposure to any employee who 
    has difficulty using a negative-pressure respirator.
    * * * * *
        28. Section 1910.1050 is amended by revising paragraph (h) and the 
    first paragraph of Section III to Appendix A to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1050  Methylenedianiline.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations for which the employer establishes that 
    engineering and work-practice controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the PEL.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select, and ensure 
    that employees use, the appropriate respirator from Table 1 in this 
    section.
    
                    Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for MDA                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airborne concentration of MDA                                           
         or condition of use                    Respirator type             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a. Less than or equal to 10    (1) Half-Mask Respirator with HEPA \1\   
     x  PEL.                        Cartridge.\2\                           
    b. Less than or equal to 50    (1) Full facepiece Respirator with HEPA  
     x  PEL.                        \1\ Cartridge or Canister.\2\           
    c. Less than or equal to 1000  (1) Full facepiece powered air-purifying 
      x  PEL.                       respirator with HEPA \1\ cartridges.\2\ 
    d. Greater than 1000  x  PEL   (1) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
     or unknown concentrations.     with full facepiece in positive pressure
                                    mode.                                   
                                   (2) Full facepiece positive pressure     
                                    demand supplied-air respirator with     
                                    auxiliary self-contained air supply.    
    e. Escape....................  (1) Any full facepiece air-purifying     
                                    respirator with HEPA \1\ cartridges; \2\
                                   (2) Any positive pressure or continuous  
                                    flow self-contained breathing apparatus 
                                    with full facepiece or hood.            
    f. Firefighting..............  (1) Full facepiece self-contained        
                                    breathing apparatus in positive pressure
                                    demand mode.                            
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Respirators assigned for higher environmental concentrations may  
      be used at lower concentrations.                                      
    
    [[Page 1294]]
    
                                                                            
    \1\ High Efficiency Particulate in Air filter (HEPA) means a filter that
      is at least 99.97 percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles  
      of 0.3 micrometers or larger.                                         
    \2\ Combination HEPA/Organic Vapor Cartridges shall be used whenever MDA
      in liquid form or a process requiring heat is used.                   
    
        (ii) Any employee who cannot use a negative-pressure respirator 
    must be given the option of using a positive-pressure respirator, or a 
    supplied-air respirator operated in the continuous-flow or pressure-
    demand mode.
    * * * * *
    
    Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1050--Substance Safety Data Sheet for 4,4'-
    Methylenedianiline
    
    * * * * *
    
    III. Protective Clothing and Equipment
    
        A. Respirators. Respirators are required for those operations in 
    which engineering controls or work-practice controls are not 
    adequate or feasible to reduce exposure to the permissible limit. If 
    respirators are worn, they must have a label issued by the National 
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under the provisions of 
    42 CFR part 84 stating that the respirators have been approved for 
    this purpose, and cartridges and canisters must be replaced in 
    accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134. If you 
    experience difficulty breathing while wearing a respirator, you can 
    request a positive-pressure respirator from your employer. You must 
    be thoroughly trained to use the assigned respirator, and the 
    training must be provided by your employer.
    * * * * *
        29. Section 1910.1051 is amended by removing and reserving Appendix 
    E and revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1051  1,3-Butadiene.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Non-routine work operations that are performed infrequently 
    and for which employee exposures are limited in duration.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposures 
    to or below the PELs.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)(B)(1), and (2)), and (f) 
    through (m).
        (ii) If air-purifying respirators are used, the employer must 
    replace the air-purifying filter elements according to the replacement 
    schedule set for the class of respirators listed in Table 1 of this 
    section, and at the beginning of each work shift.
        (iii) Instead of using the replacement schedule listed in Table 1 
    of this section, the employer may replace cartridges or canisters at 
    90% of their expiration service life, provided the employer:
        (A) Demonstrates that employees will be adequately protected by 
    this procedure.
        (B) Uses BD breakthrough data for this purpose that have been 
    derived from tests conducted under worst-case conditions of humidity, 
    temperature, and air-flow rate through the filter element, and the 
    employer also describes the data supporting the cartridge-or canister-
    change schedule, as well as the basis for using the data in the 
    employer's respirator program.
        (iv) A label must be attached to each filter element to indicate 
    the date and time it is first installed on the respirator.
        (v) If NIOSH approves an end-of-service-life indicator (ESLI) for 
    an air-purifying filter element, the element may be used until the ESLI 
    shows no further useful service life or until the element is replaced 
    at the beginning of the next work shift, whichever occurs first.
        (vi) Regardless of the air-purifying element used, if an employee 
    detects the odor of BD, the employer must replace the air-purifying 
    element immediately.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select appropriate 
    respirators from Table 1 of this section.
    
     Table 1.--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection for Airborne 
                                       BD                                   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Concentration of airborne BD                                           
      (ppm) or condition of use           Minimum required respirator       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less than or equal to 5 ppm    (a) Air-purifying half mask or full      
     (5 times PEL).                 facepiece respirator equipped with      
                                    approved BD or organic vapor cartridges 
                                    or canisters. Cartridges or canisters   
                                    shall be replaced every 4 hours.        
    Less than or equal to 10 ppm   (a) Air-purifying half mask or full      
     (10 times PEL).                facepiece respirator equipped with      
                                    approved BD or organic vapor cartridges 
                                    or canisters. Cartridges or canisters   
                                    shall be replaced every 3 hours.        
    Less than or equal to 25 ppm   (a) Air-purifying full facepiece         
     (25 times PEL).                respirator equipped with approved BD or 
                                    organic vapor cartridges or canisters.  
                                    Cartridges or canisters shall be        
                                    replaced every 2 hours.                 
                                   (b) Any powered air-purifying respirator 
                                    equipped with approved BD or organic    
                                    vapor cartridges. PAPR cartridges shall 
                                    be replaced every 2 hours.              
                                   (c) Continuous flow supplied air         
                                    respirator equipped with a hood or      
                                    helmet.                                 
    Less than or equal to 50 ppm   (a) Air-purifying full facepiece         
     (50 times PEL).                respirator equipped with approved BD or 
                                    organic vapor cartridges or canisters.  
                                    Cartridges or canisters shall be        
                                    replaced every (1) hour.                
                                   (b) Powered air-purifying respirator     
                                    equipped with a tight-fitting facepiece 
                                    and an approved BD or organic vapor     
                                    cartridges. PAPR cartridges shall be    
                                    replaced every (1) hour.                
    Less than or equal to 1,000    (a) Supplied air respirator equipped with
     ppm (1,000 times PEL).         a half mask of full facepiece and       
                                    operated in a pressure demand or other  
                                    positive pressure mode.                 
    Greater than 1000 ppm unknown  (a) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
     concentration, or              equipped with a full facepiece and      
     firefighting.                  operated in a pressure demand or other  
                                    positive pressure mode.                 
                                   (b) Any supplied air respirator equipped 
                                    with a full facepiece and operated in a 
                                    pressure demand or other positive       
                                    pressure mode in combination with an    
                                    auxiliary self-contained breathing      
                                    apparatus operated in a pressure demand 
                                    or other positive pressure mode.        
    Escape from IDLH conditions..  (a) Any positive pressure self-contained 
                                    breathing apparatus with an appropriate 
                                    service life.                           
    
    [[Page 1295]]
    
                                                                            
                                   (b) A air-purifying full facepiece       
                                    respirator equipped with a front or back
                                    mounted BD or organic vapor canister.   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notes: Respirators approved for use in higher concentrations are        
      permitted to be used in lower concentrations. Full facepiece is       
      required when eye irritation is anticipated.                          
    
        (ii) Air-purifying respirators must have filter elements approved 
    by NIOSH for organic vapors or BD.
        (iii) When an employee whose job requires the use of a respirator 
    cannot use a negative-pressure respirator, the employer must provide 
    the employee with a respirator that has less breathing resistance than 
    the negative-pressure respirator, such as a powered air-purifying 
    respirator or supplied-air respirator, when the employee is able to use 
    it and if it provides the employee adequate protection.
    * * * * *
        30. Section 1910.1052 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.1052  Methylene chloride.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods when an employee's exposure to MC exceeds the 8-hour 
    TWA, PEL, or STEL (for example, when an employee is using MC in a 
    regulated area).
        (ii) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (iii) A few work operations, such as some maintenance operations 
    and repair activities, for which the employer demonstrates that 
    engineering and work-practice controls are infeasible.
        (iv) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or 
    below the PELs.
        (v) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (m) (except (d)(1)(iii)).
        (ii) Employers who provide employees with gas masks with organic-
    vapor canisters for the purpose of emergency escape must replace the 
    canisters after any emergency use and before the gas masks are returned 
    to service.
        (3) Respirator selection. The employer must select appropriate 
    atmosphere-supplying respirators from Table 2 of this section.
    
     Table 2.--Minimum Requirements for Respiratory Protection for Airborne 
                               Methylene Chloride                           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Methylene chloride airborne                                            
        concentration (ppm) or          Minimum respirator required \1\     
           condition of use                                                 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Up to 625 ppm (25 X PEL).....  (1) Continuous flow supplied-air         
                                    respirator, hood or helmet.             
    Up to 1250 ppm (50 X 8-TWA     (1) Full facepiece supplied-air          
     PEL).                          respirator operated in negative pressure
                                    (demand) mode.                          
                                   (2) Full facepiece self-contained        
                                    breathing apparatus (SCBA) operated in  
                                    negative pressure (demand) mode.        
    Up to 5000 ppm (200 X 8-TWA    (1) Continuous flow supplied-air         
     PEL).                          respirator, full facepiece.             
                                   (2) Pressure demand supplied-air         
                                    respirator, full facepiece.             
                                   (3) Positive pressure full facepiece     
                                    SCBA.                                   
    Unknown concentration, or      (1) Positive pressure full facepiece     
     above 5000 ppm (Greater than   SCBA.                                   
     200 X 8-TWA PEL).                                                      
                                   (2) Full facepiece pressure demand       
                                    supplied-air respirator with an         
                                    auxiliary self-contained air supply.    
    Fire fighting................  Positive pressure full facepiece SCBA.   
    Emergency escape.............  (1) Any continuous flow or pressure      
                                    demand SCBA.                            
                                   (2) Gas mask with organic vapor canister.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Respirators assigned for higher airborne concentrations may be used 
      at lower concentrations.                                              
    
        (4) Medical evaluation. Before having an employee use a supplied-
    air respirator in the negative-pressure mode, or a gas mask with an 
    organic-vapor canister for emergency escape, the employer must:
        (i) Have a physician or other licensed health-care professional 
    (PLHCP) evaluate the employee's ability to use such respiratory 
    protection.
        (ii) Ensure that the PLHCP provides their findings in a written 
    opinion to the employee and the employer.
    * * * * *
    
    PART 1926--[AMENDED]
    
    Subpart D--[Amended]
    
        31. The authority citation for Subpart D of Part 1926 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
    Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of 
    the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
    657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
    25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), 
    as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 11.
        Secs. 1926.58, 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 of 29 CFR, also 
    issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, and 29 CFR Part 1911.
        Sec. 1926.62 of 29 CFR, also issued under sec. 1031 of the 
    Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
        Sec. 1926.65 of 29 CFR, also issued under sec. 126 of the 
    Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as amended (29 
    U.S.C. 655 note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
    
        32. Section 1926.57 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), 
    (f)(5)(i) and (iii), (f)(6), (h)(6)(iii)(A), and (i)(9)(vi) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.57  Ventilation.
    
    * * * * *
    
    [[Page 1296]]
    
        (f) * * *
        (1) * * *
        (ii) Abrasive-blasting respirator. A respirator constructed so that 
    it covers the wearer's head, neck, and shoulders to protect the wearer 
    from rebounding abrasive.
    * * * * *
        (5) Personal protective equipment. (i) Employers must use only 
    respirators approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 for protecting 
    employees from dusts produced during abrasive-blasting operations.
    * * * * *
        (iii) Properly fitted particulate-filter respirators, commonly 
    referred to as dust-filter respirators, may be used for short, 
    intermittent, or occasional dust exposures such as cleanup, dumping of 
    dust collectors, or unloading shipments of sand at a receiving point 
    when it is not feasible to control the dust by enclosure, exhaust 
    ventilation, or other means. The respirators used must be approved by 
    NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 for protection against the specific type of 
    dust encountered.
    * * * * *
        (6) Air supply and air compressors. Air for abrasive-blasting 
    respirators must be free of harmful quantities of dusts, mists, or 
    noxious gases, and must meet the requirements for supplied-air quality 
    and use specified in 29 CFR 1910.134(i).
    * * * * *
        (h) * * *
        (6) * * *
        (iii)(A) When an operator is in a booth downstream of the object 
    being sprayed, an air-supplied respirator or other type of respirator 
    approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84 for the material being sprayed 
    should be used by the operator.
    * * * * *
        (i) * * *
        (9) * * *
        (vi) When, during the emergencies specified in paragraph (i)(11)(v) 
    of this section, employees must be in areas where concentrations of air 
    contaminants are greater than the limits set by paragraph (i)(2)(iii) 
    of this section or oxygen concentrations are less than 19.5 percent, 
    they must use respirators that reduce their exposure to a level below 
    these limits or that provide adequate oxygen. Such respirators must 
    also be provided in marked, quickly-accessible storage compartments 
    built for this purpose when the possibility exists of accidental 
    release of hazardous concentrations of air contaminants. Respirators 
    must be approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, selected by a competent 
    industrial hygienist or other technically-qualified source, and used in 
    accordance with 29 CFR 1926.103.
    * * * * *
        33. Section 1926.60 is amended by removing Appendix E and revising 
    paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.60  Methylenedianiline.
    
    * * * * *
        (i) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls.
        (ii) Work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities and 
    spray-application processes, for which engineering and work-practice 
    controls are not feasible.
        (iii) Work operations for which feasible engineering and work-
    practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce employee exposure to 
    or below the PELs.
        (iv) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. The employer must implement a respiratory 
    protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) through (d) 
    (except (d)(1)(iii), and (f) through (m).
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
                    Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for MDA                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Airborne concentration of MDA                                           
         or condition of use                    Respirator type             
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a. Less than or equal to 10    (1) Half-Mask Respirator with HEPA\1\    
     x  PEL.                        Cartridge.\2\                           
    b. Less than or equal to 50    (1) Full facepiece Respirator with       
     x  PEL.                        HEPA\1\ Cartridge or Canister.\2\       
    c. Less than or equal to 1000  (1) Full facepiece powered air-purifying 
      x  PEL.                       respirator with HEPA\1\ cartridge.\2\   
    d. Greater than 1000  x  PEL   (1) Self-contained breathing apparatus   
     or unknown concentration.      with full facepiece in positive pressure
                                    mode.                                   
                                   (2) Full facepiece positive pressure     
                                    demand supplied-air respirator with     
                                    auxiliary self-contained air supply.    
    e. Escape....................  (1) Any full facepiece air-purifying     
                                    respirator with HEPA\1\ cartridges.\2\  
                                   (2) Any positive pressure or continuous  
                                    flow self-contained breathing apparatus 
                                    with full facepiece or hood.            
    f. Firefighting..............  (1) Full facepiece self-contained        
                                    breathing apparatus in positive pressure
                                    demand mode.                            
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Respirators assigned for higher environmental concentrations may  
      be used at lower concentrations.                                      
    \1\ High Efficiency Particulate in Air filter (HEPA) means a filter that
      is at least 99.97 percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles  
      of 0.3 micrometers or larger.                                         
    \2\ Combination HEPA/Organic Vapor Cartridges shall be used whenever MDA
      in liquid form or a process requiring heat is used.                   
    
        (ii) An employee who cannot use a negative-pressure respirator must 
    be given the option of using a positive-pressure respirator, or a 
    supplied-air respirator operated in the continuous-flow or pressure-
    demand mode.
    * * * * *
        34. Section 1926.62 is amended by revising paragraph (f); revising 
    the second and fourth paragraphs of Section IV to Appendix B; removing 
    the sixth paragraph of Section IV to Appendix B; and removing Appendix 
    D, as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.62   Lead.
    
    * * * * *
        (f) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods when an employee's exposure to lead exceeds the PEL.
        (ii) Work operations for which engineering and work-practice 
    controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or below 
    the PEL.
        (iii) Periods when an employee requests a respirator.
        (iv) Periods when respirators are required to provide interim 
    protection of employees while they perform the
    
    [[Page 1297]]
    
    operations specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) If an employee has breathing difficulty during fit testing or 
    respirator use, the employer must provide the employee with a medical 
    examination in accordance with paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B) of this section 
    to determine whether or not the employee can use a respirator while 
    performing the required duty.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator or combination of respirators from Table I of 
    this section.
        (ii) The employer must provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
    when an employee chooses to use such a respirator and it will provide 
    adequate protection to the employee.
    
               Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Lead Aerosols           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentration of                                             
       lead or condition of use              Required respirator 1          
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not in excess of 500 ug/m3...  \1/2\ mask air purifying respirator with 
                                    high efficiency filters.2 3             
                                   \1/2\ mask supplied air respirator       
                                    operated in demand (negative pressure)  
                                    mode.                                   
    Not in excess of 1,250 ug/m3.  Loose fitting hood or helmet powered air 
                                    purifying respirator with high          
                                    efficiency filters.3                    
                                   Hood or helmet supplied air respirator   
                                    operated in a continuous-flow mode--    
                                    e.g., type CE abrasive blasting         
                                    respirators operated in a continuous-   
                                    flow mode.                              
    Not in excess of 2,500 ug/m3.  Full facepiece air purifying respirator  
                                    with high efficiency filters.3          
                                   Tight fitting powered air purifying      
                                    respirator with high efficiency         
                                    filters.3                               
                                   Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
                                    operated in demand mode.                
                                   \1/2\ mask or full facepiece supplied air
                                    respirator operated in a continuous-flow
                                    mode.                                   
                                   Full facepiece self-contained breathing  
                                    apparatus (SCBA) operated in demand     
                                    mode.                                   
    Not in excess of 50,000 ug/m3  \1/2\ mask supplied air respirator       
                                    operated in pressure demand or other    
                                    positive-pressure mode.                 
    Not in excess of 100,000 ug/   Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
     m3.                            operated in pressure demand or other    
                                    positive-pressure mode--e.g., type CE   
                                    abrasive blasting respirators operated  
                                    in a positive-pressure mode.            
    Greater than 100,000 ug/m3     Full facepiece SCBA operated in pressure 
     unknown concentration, or      demand or other positive-pressure mode. 
     fire fighting.                                                         
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Respirators specified for higher concentrations can be used at lower
      concentrations of lead.                                               
    \2\ Full facepiece is required if the lead aerosols cause eye or skin   
      irritation at the use concentrations.                                 
    \3\ A high efficiency particulate filter (HEPA) means a filter that is a
      99.97 percent efficient against particles of 0.3 micron size or       
      larger.                                                               
    
    * * * * *
    
    Appendix B to Sec. 1926.62--Employee Standard Summary
    
    * * * * *
    
    IV. Respiratory Protection--Paragraph (f)
    
    * * * * *
        Your employer is required to select respirators from the types 
    listed in Table I of the Respiratory Protection section of the standard 
    (Sec. 1926.62 (f)). Any respirator chosen must be approved by the 
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the 
    provisions of 42 CFR part 84. This respirator selection table will 
    enable your employer to choose a type of respirator that will give you 
    a proper amount of protection based on your airborne lead exposure. 
    Your employer may select a type of respirator that provides greater 
    protection than that required by the standard; that is, one recommended 
    for a higher concentration of lead than is present in your workplace. 
    For example, a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) is much more 
    protective than a typical negative pressure respirator, and may also be 
    more comfortable to wear. A PAPR has a filter, cartridge, or canister 
    to clean the air, and a power source that continuously blows filtered 
    air into your breathing zone. Your employer might make a PAPR available 
    to you to ease the burden of having to wear a respirator for long 
    periods of time. The standard provides that you can obtain a PAPR upon 
    request.
    * * * * *
        Your employer must ensure that your respirator facepiece fits 
    properly. Proper fit of a respirator facepiece is critical to your 
    protection from airborne lead. Obtaining a proper fit on each 
    employee may require your employer to make available several 
    different types of respirator masks. To ensure that your respirator 
    fits properly and that facepiece leakage is minimal, your employer 
    must give you either a qualitative or quantitative fit test as 
    specified in Appendix A of the Respiratory Protection standard 
    located at 29 CFR 1910.134.
    * * * * *
    
    Subpart E--[Amended]
    
        35. The authority citation for Subpart E of Part 1926 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
    Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of 
    the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
    657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 
    25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), 
    as applicable; and 29 CFR part 11.
    
        36. Section 1926.103 is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.103  Respiratory protection.
    
        Note: The requirements applicable to construction work under 
    this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.134 of 
    this chapter.
    
    Subpart S--[Amended]
    
        37. The authority citation for Subpart S of Part 1926 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
    Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 
    and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of 
    Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
    35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable.
    
        38. Section 1926.800 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(2) as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.800  Underground construction.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) * * *
        (2) Self-rescuers. The employer must provide self-rescuers approved 
    by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under 42 
    CFR part 84. The respirators must be immediately available to all 
    employees at work stations in underground areas where employees might 
    be trapped by smoke or gas. The selection, issuance, use, and care of 
    respirators must be in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.103.
    * * * * *
    
    [[Page 1298]]
    
    Subpart Z--[Amended]
    
        39. The authority citation for Subpart Z of Part 1926 is revised to 
    read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
    Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 
    1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR 
    part 11.
        Section 1926.1102 of 29 CFR not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 
    CFR part 1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    
        40. Section 1926.1101 is amended by removing and reserving Appendix 
    C and revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.1101  Asbestos.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) Respiratory protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Class I asbestos work.
        (ii) Class II asbestos work when ACM is not removed in a 
    substantially intact state.
        (iii) Class II and III asbestos work that is not performed using 
    wet methods, except for removal of ACM from sloped roofs when a 
    negative-exposure assessment has been conducted and ACM is removed in 
    an intact state.
        (iv) Class II and III asbestos work for which a negative-exposure 
    assessment has not been conducted.
        (v) Class III asbestos work when TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
    being disturbed.
        (vi) Class IV asbestos work performed within regulated areas where 
    employees who are performing other work are required to use 
    respirators.
        (vii) Work operations covered by this section for which employees 
    are exposed above the TWA or excursion limit.
        (viii) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) No employee shall be assigned to asbestos work that requires 
    respirator use if, based on their most recent medical examination, the 
    examining physician determines that the employee will be unable to 
    function normally while using a respirator, or that the safety or 
    health of the employee or other employees will be impaired by the 
    employee's respirator use. Such employees must be assigned to another 
    job or given the opportunity to transfer to a different position that 
    they can perform. If such a transfer position is available, it must be 
    with the same employer, in the same geographical area, and with the 
    same seniority, status, rate of pay, and other job benefits the 
    employee had just prior to such transfer.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
              Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Asbestos Fibers          
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airborne concentrations of                                            
    asbestos or conditions of use             Required respirator           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not in excess of 1 f/cc (10 X  Half-mask air purifying respirator other 
     PEL), or otherwise as          than a disposable respirator, equipped  
     required independent of        with high efficiency filters.           
     exposure pursuant to                                                   
     paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this                                           
     section.                                                               
    Not in excess of 5 f/cc (50 X  Full facepiece air-purifying respirator  
     PEL).                          equipped with high efficiency filters.  
    Not in excess of 10 f/cc (100  Any powered air-purifying respirator     
     X PEL).                        equipped with high efficiency filter or 
                                    any supplied air respirator operated in 
                                    continuous flow mode.                   
    Not in excess of 100 f/cc      Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
     (1,000 X PEL) or unknown       operated in pressure demand mode.       
     concentration.                                                         
    Greater than 100 f/cc (1,000   Full facepiece supplied air respirator   
     X PEL) or unknown              operated in pressure demand mode,       
     concentration.                 equipped with an auxiliary positive     
                                    pressure self-contained breathing       
                                    apparatus.                              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may 
      be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is   
      independent of concentration.                                         
    b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97       
      percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers 
      in diameters in diameter or larger.                                   
    
        (ii) The employer must provide an employee with a tight-fitting, 
    powered air-purifying respirator instead of a negative-pressure 
    respirator from Table 1 when the employee chooses to use this type of 
    respirator and such a respirator will provide adequate protection to 
    the employee.
        (iii) The employer must provide a half-mask air-purifying 
    respirator, other than a disposable respirator, that is equipped with 
    high-efficiency filters when the employee performs:
        (A) Class II and III asbestos work and a negative-exposure 
    assessment has not been conducted by the employer.
        (B) Class III asbestos work when TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
    being disturbed.
        (iv) The employer must provide employees with a full-facepiece 
    supplied-air respirator operated in the pressure-demand mode and 
    equipped with an auxiliary, positive-pressure self-contained breathing 
    apparatus when the employees are in a regulated area where Class I work 
    is being performed and the employer has not conducted a negative-
    exposure assessment.
    * * * * *
        41. Section 1926.1127 is amended by removing and reserving Appendix 
    C and revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1926.1127  Cadmium.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Respirator protection. (1) General. For employees who use 
    respirators required by this section, the employer must provide 
    respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph. 
    Respirators must be used during:
        (i) Periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering 
    and work-practice controls when employee exposures exceed the PEL.
        (ii) Maintenance and repair activities, and brief or intermittent 
    work operations, for which employee exposures exceed the PEL and 
    engineering and work-practice controls are not feasible or are not 
    required.
        (iii) Work operations in the regulated areas specified in paragraph 
    (e) of this section.
        (iv) Work operations for which the employer has implemented all 
    feasible engineering and work-practice controls, and such controls are 
    not sufficient to reduce employee exposures to or below the PEL.
    
    [[Page 1299]]
    
        (v) Work operations for which an employee, who is exposed to 
    cadmium at or above the action level, requests a respirator.
        (vi) Work operations for which engineering controls are not 
    required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section to reduce employee 
    exposures that exceed the PEL.
        (vii) Emergencies.
        (2) Respirator program. (i) The employer must implement a 
    respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (b) 
    through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m).
        (ii) If an employee exhibits breathing difficulty during fit 
    testing or respirator use, the employer must provide the employee with 
    a medical examination in accordance with paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of this 
    section to determine if the employee can use a respirator while 
    performing the required duties.
        (iii) No employee must use a respirator when, based on their most 
    recent medical examination, the examining physician determines that the 
    employee will be unable to continue to function normally while using a 
    respirator. If the physician determines the employee must be limited 
    in, or removed from, their current job because of the employee's 
    inability to use a respirator, the job limitation or removal must be 
    conducted in accordance with paragraphs (l) (11) and (12) of this 
    section.
        (3) Respirator selection. (i) The employer must select the 
    appropriate respirator from Table 1 of this section.
    
                  Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Cadmium              
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required respirator
       Airborne concentration or condition of use a            type b       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10 X or less......................................  A half mask, air-   
                                                         purifying equipped 
                                                         with a HEPA c      
                                                         filter.d           
    25 X or less......................................  A powered air-      
                                                         purifying          
                                                         respirator         
                                                         (``PAPR'') with a  
                                                         loose-fitting hood 
                                                         or helmet equipped 
                                                         with a HEPA filter,
                                                         or a supplied-air  
                                                         respirator with a  
                                                         loose-fitting hood 
                                                         or helmet facepiece
                                                         operated in the    
                                                         continuous flow    
                                                         mode.              
    50 X or less......................................  A full facepiece air-
                                                         purifying          
                                                         respirator equipped
                                                         with a HEPA filter,
                                                         or a powered air-  
                                                         purifying          
                                                         respirator with a  
                                                         tight-fitting half 
                                                         mask equipped with 
                                                         a HEPA filter, or a
                                                         supplied-air       
                                                         respirator with a  
                                                         tight-fitting half 
                                                         mask operated in   
                                                         the continuous flow
                                                         mode.              
    250 X or less.....................................  A powered air-      
                                                         purifying          
                                                         respirator with a  
                                                         tight fitting full 
                                                         facepiece equipped 
                                                         with a HEPA filter,
                                                         or a supplied-air  
                                                         respirator with a  
                                                         tight-fitting full 
                                                         facepiece operated 
                                                         in the continuous  
                                                         flow mode.         
    1000 X or less....................................  A supplied air      
                                                         respirator with    
                                                         half mask or full  
                                                         facepiece operated 
                                                         in the pressure    
                                                         demand or other    
                                                         positive pressure  
                                                         mode.              
    >1000 X or unknown concentrations.................  A self-contained    
                                                         breathing apparatus
                                                         with a full        
                                                         facepiece operated 
                                                         in the pressure    
                                                         demand or other    
                                                         positive pressure  
                                                         mode, or a supplied-
                                                         air respirator with
                                                         a full facepiece   
                                                         operated in the    
                                                         pressure demand or 
                                                         other positive     
                                                         pressure mode and  
                                                         equipped with an   
                                                         auxiliary escape   
                                                         type self-contained
                                                         breathing apparatus
                                                         operated in the    
                                                         pressure demand    
                                                         mode.              
    Firefighting......................................  A self-contained    
                                                         breathing apparatus
                                                         with full facepiece
                                                         operated in the    
                                                         pressure demand or 
                                                         other positive     
                                                         pressure mode.     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a Concentrations expressed as multiple of the PEL.                      
    b Respirators assigned for higher environmental concentrations may be   
      used at lower exposure levels. Quantitative fit testing is required   
      for all tight-fitting air purifying respirators where airborne        
      concentration of cadmium exceeds 10 times the TWA PEL (10 X 5 ug/m(3) 
      = 50 ug/m(3)). A full facepiece respirator is required when eye       
      irritation is experienced.                                            
    c HEPA means High-efficiency Particulate Air.                           
    d Fit testing, qualitative or quantitative, is required.                
    SOURCE: Respiratory Decision Logic, NIOSH, 1987.                        
    
        (ii) The employer must provide a powered air-purifying respirator 
    instead of a negative-pressure respirator when an employee entitled to 
    a respirator chooses to use this type of respirator and such a 
    respirator will provide adequate protection to the employee.
    * * * * *
        Note: The following table will not appear in the Code of Federal 
    Regulations.
    
              Redesignation Table for Actions on Specific Standards         
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Old section                          New section        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1910.94:                                                                
      (a)(1)(ii)..............................  Revised.                    
      (a)(5)(i)...............................  Revised.                    
      (a)(5)(iii).............................  Revised.                    
      (a)(5)(iv)..............................  Revised.                    
      (a)(6)..................................  Revised.                    
      (c)(6)(iii)(a)..........................  Revised.                    
      (d)(9)(vi)..............................  Revised.                    
    1910.111:                                                               
      (a)(2)(x)...............................  Revised.                    
      (b)(10)(ii).............................  Revised.                    
    1910.156:                                                               
      (f)(1)(i)...............................  Revised.                    
      (f)(1)(v)...............................  Revised.                    
    1910.252:                                                               
      (c)(4)(ii)..............................  Revised.                    
      (c)(4)(iii).............................  Revised.                    
      (c)(7)(iii).............................  Revised.                    
      (c)(9)(i)...............................  Revised.                    
      (c)(10).................................  Revised.                    
    1910.261:                                                               
      (b)(2)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(10).................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(iii).............................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(iv)..............................  Revised.                    
    1910.1001:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3).            
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii).        
      (g)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(i).         
      (g)(3)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(iii).       
      (g)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix C..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1003:                                                              
      (c)(4)(iv)..............................  Revised.                    
      (d)(1) [Reserved].......................  Revised.                    
    1910.1017:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)..................................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)..................................  Revised; (g)(2).            
      (g)(4)..................................  Revised; (g)(3)(i).         
      (g)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      (g)(6) (i) and (ii).....................  Revised; (g)(3)(ii).        
      (g)(7)..................................  Revised; (g)(3)(iii).       
    1910.1018:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3)(i).         
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (h)(3)(ii).        
      (h)(2)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii)..............  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (h)(2)(ii).        
      (h)(4)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(2)(i).         
      (h)(4) (ii) and (iii)...................  Removed.                    
      (h)(5) (i) and (ii).....................  Removed.                    
    
    [[Page 1300]]
    
                                                                            
      (h)(5)(iii).............................  Revised; (h)(4)(iii).       
    1910.1025:                                                              
      (f)(1) and (f)(1)(i)....................  Revised.                    
      (f)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(3)(i).         
      (f)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (f)(3)(ii).        
      (f)(2)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (f)(3)(i) and (ii)......................  Removed.                    
      (f)(3)(iii).............................  Revised; (f)(2)(ii).        
      (f)(4)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(2)(i).         
      (f)(4) (ii) and (iii)...................  Removed.                    
      Appendix B, Section IV..................  Revised second and fourth   
                                                 paragraphs; removed sixth  
                                                 paragraph.                 
      Appendix D..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1027:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(3)(i).         
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (f)(3)(ii).        
      (g)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(2)(i).         
      (g)(3) (ii) and (iii)...................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(iii).       
      (g)(3)(v)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii).        
      (g)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
    Appendix C................................  Removed.                    
    1910.1028:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3)(i).         
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (g)(3)(ii).        
      (g)(3)..................................  Revised; (g)(2).            
      (g)(4)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii).        
      (g)(4)(ii)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(iii).       
      (g)(4)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix E..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1029:                                                              
      (g)(1)(i)...............................  Revised.                    
      (g)(1)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3).            
      (g)(2)(ii) and (iii)....................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)..................................  Revised; (g)(2).            
      (g)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
    1910.1043:                                                              
      (f)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (f)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(3)(i).         
      (f)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (f)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (f)(3)(ii).        
      (f)(2)(iv)..............................  Revised; (f)(2)(ii).        
      (f)(3)..................................  Revised; (f)(2)(i).         
      (f)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
    1910.1044:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3).            
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3).            
      (h)(3)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1045:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3).            
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(2)(i).         
      (h)(3)(ii)..............................  Revised; (h)(2)(ii).        
      (h)(3)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(iv)..............................  Removed.                    
      Appendix A, Section IV..................  Revised first paragraph.    
    1910.1047:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3).            
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)..................................  Revised; (g)(2).            
      (g)(4)..................................  Revised; (g)(4).            
      Appendix A, Section IV..................  Revised first paragraph.    
    1910.1048:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3)(i).         
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (g)(3)(ii).        
      (g)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(i).         
      (g)(3)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)(iii).............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii)(A).     
      (g)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii)(B).     
      (g)(3)(v)...............................  Removed.                    
      Appendix E..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1050:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3)(i).         
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (h)(3)(ii).        
      (h)(3)..................................  Revised; (h)(2).            
      (h)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
      (h)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix A, Section III.................  Revised first paragraph.    
      Appendix E..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1051:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3)(i).         
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (h)(3)(ii).        
      (h)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (h)(3)(iii).       
      (h)(3)..................................  Revised; (h)(2)(i).         
      (h)(4)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(2)(ii).        
      (h)(4)(ii)..............................  Revised; (h)(2)(iii).       
      (h)(4)(iii).............................  Revised; (h)(2) (iv) and    
                                                 (vi).                      
      (h)(4)(iv)..............................  Revised; (h)(2) (vi) and    
                                                 (vi).                      
      (h)(4)(v)...............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix E..............................  Removed.                    
    1910.1052:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)..................................  Revised; (g)(4).            
      (g)(3)..................................  Revised; (g)(3).            
      (g)(4)..................................  Revised; (g)(2)(i).         
      (g)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      (g)(6)..................................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii).        
      (g)(7)..................................  Removed.                    
    1926.57:                                                                
      (f)(1)(ii)..............................  Revised.                    
      (f)(5)(i)...............................  Revised.                    
      (f)(5)(iii).............................  Revised.                    
      (f)(6)..................................  Revised.                    
      (f)(6)(i), (ii), and (iii)..............  Removed.                    
      (h)(6)(iii)(A)..........................  Revised.                    
      (i)(9)(vi)..............................  Revised.                    
    1926.60:                                                                
      (i)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (i)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (i)(3)(i).         
      (i)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (i)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (i)(3)(ii).        
      (i)(3)..................................  Revised; (i)(2).            
      (i)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
      (i)(5)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix E..............................  Removed.                    
    1926.62:                                                                
      (f)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (f)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(3)(i).         
      (f)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (f)(3)(ii).        
      (f)(2)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (f)(3)(i)...............................  Removed.                    
      (f)(3)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (f)(3)(iii).............................  Revised; (f)(2)(ii).        
      (f)(4)(i)...............................  Revised; (f)(2)(i).         
      (f)(4) (ii) and (iii)...................  Removed.                    
      Appendix B, Section IV..................  Revised second and fourth   
                                                 paragraphs; removed sixth  
                                                 paragraph.                 
      Appendix D..............................  Removed.                    
    1926.103:                                                               
      All.....................................  Revised to a single         
                                                 provision.                 
    1926.800:                                                               
      (g)(2)..................................  Revised.                    
    1926.1101:                                                              
      (h)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (h)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(3)(i).         
      (h)(2)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(2)(iii).............................  Revised; (h)(3)(ii).        
      (h)(2)(iv)..............................  Revised; (h)(3)(iii).       
      (h)(2)(v)...............................  Revised; (h)(3)(iv).        
      (h)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (h)(2)(i).         
      (h)(3)(ii)..............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(iii).............................  Removed.                    
      (h)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (h)(2)(ii).        
      (h)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix C..............................  Removed.                    
    1926.1127:                                                              
      (g)(1)..................................  Revised.                    
      (g)(2)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(3)(i).         
      (g)(2)(ii)..............................  Revised; (g)(3)(ii).        
      (g)(3)(i)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(i).         
      (g)(3)(ii) and (iii)....................  Removed.                    
      (g)(3)(iv)..............................  Revised; (g)(2)(ii).        
      (g)(3)(v)...............................  Revised; (g)(2)(iii).       
      (g)(4)..................................  Removed.                    
      Appendix C..............................  Removed.                    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    [FR Doc. 97-33843 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
4/8/1998
Published:
01/08/1998
Department:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule; Request for comment on paperwork requirements.
Document Number:
97-33843
Dates:
The final rule becomes effective April 8, 1998.
Pages:
1152-1300 (149 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. H-049
RINs:
1218-AA05: Assigned Protection Factors: Amendments to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1218-AA05/assigned-protection-factors-amendments-to-the-final-rule-on-respiratory-protection
PDF File:
97-33843.pdf
CFR: (31)
29 CFR 1910.261
29 CFR 1910.134
29 CFR 1910.139
29 CFR 1910.156
29 CFR 1910.94
More ...