Finding of Emergency Section 5204 , Occupational Exposures to Respirable Crystalline Silica Business Meeting : December 14 , 2023 Page 23 of 36 employer anticipates that employees might or might not be exposed above the AL , each of which give employers the ability to avoid implementing certain workplace protections under the existing language of section 5204 .
• The proposed emergency regulation would add a new sentence to subsection ( d )( 2 ), which prohibits employers from using the performance option set out in subsection ( d )( 2 ) for high-exposure trigger tasks . This exemption is necessary because the full complement of workplace protections required under the proposed changes to section 5204 must be implemented when employees are engaged in high-exposure trigger tasks , as defined , irrespective of monitoring data obtained by the employer , or “ objective data ” claimed by the employer , or feasibility considerations , all of which give employers the ability to avoid implementing certain workplace protections under the existing language of section 5204 .
• The proposed emergency regulation would add the phrase at subsection ( d )( 3 )( A ) “… on the same material …” This addition is necessary because the silica content can vary greatly between different materials handled by employees covered by this section . This subsection pertains to exposure monitoring conducted by the employer to determine whether ongoing monitoring is needed . This addition helps ensure the veracity of these assessments .
• The proposed emergency regulation would add a new sentence within subsection ( d )( 3 )( B ) which requires the employer to continue conducting exposure monitoring every 12 months when employees are engaged in high-exposure trigger tasks . The effect of this proposed addition is to prevent employers from discontinuing monitoring when employees are engaged in high-exposure trigger tasks . This will ensure that the employer conducts air monitoring to determine if the protections required during highexposure trigger tasks are actually maintaining exposure levels below the AL . This addition is also needed because monitoring results can vary based on minor changes in work practices , tools and materials , so more frequent monitoring helps improve the reliability of the results .
• The proposed emergency regulation would add a new sentence to subsection ( d )( 3 )( E ), which requires the employer to continue conducting exposure monitoring every 12 months , or more frequently , whenever employees engage in high-exposure trigger tasks , regardless of the findings of the employer ’ s exposure monitoring . The effect of this proposed addition is to prevent employers from discontinuing monitoring when employees are engaged in high-exposure trigger tasks . This will ensure that the employer conducts air monitoring to determine if the protections required during highexposure trigger tasks are actually maintaining exposure levels below the AL . This addition is also needed because monitoring results can vary based on minor changes in