[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15589-15597]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-8050-9]
RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 20 for Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of acceptability.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice of Acceptability expands the list of acceptable
substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. The substitutes are for use in the following
sectors: refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire
suppression and explosion protection. The determinations concern new
substitutes.

DATES: This notice of acceptability is effective on March 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All
electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Although listed in the index, some information is

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy

at the EPA Air Docket (No. A-91-42), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evelyn Swain by telephone at (202)
343-9956, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office
location at 1310 L Street, NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005.
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as
well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone,
are available at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ including the SNAP portion at http://www.epa.gov/

ozone/snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes
    A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    B. Foam Blowing
    C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
II. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
Appendix A--Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

    This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing
decisions for substitutes in the following industrial sectors:
refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire suppression
and explosion protection. For copies of the full list of ODS
substitutes in all industrial sectors, visit EPA's Ozone Depletion Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html.

    The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail.
Appendix A contains a table summarizing today's listing decisions for
new substitutes. The statements in the ``Further Information'' column
in the table provide additional information, but are not legally
binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, the
``further information'' may not be a comprehensive list of other legal
obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although
you are not required to follow recommendations in the ``further
information'' column of the table to use a substitute, EPA strongly
encourages you to apply the information when using these substitutes.
In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating
practices in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus,
many of these statements, if adopted, would not require significant
changes to existing operating practices.
    Submissions to EPA for the use of the substitutes listed in this
document may be found under category VI-D of EPA air docket A-91-42 at
the address described above under ADDRESSES. You can find other
materials supporting the decisions in this action under category IX-B
of EPA docket A-91-42 and in e-docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at http://www.regulations.gov
.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. ICOR AT-22
    EPA's decision: ICOR AT-22 [R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5)] is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a
substitute for HCFC-22 in:

 Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating)
 Industrial process refrigeration
 Industrial process air conditioning
 Retail food refrigeration
 Cold storage warehouses
 Refrigerated transport
 Commercial ice machines
 Ice skating rinks
 Household refrigerators and freezers
 Vending machines
 Water coolers
 Residential dehumidifiers
 Non-mechanical heat transfer
 Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps
 Very low temperature refrigeration

    ICOR AT-22 is a blend of 55.0% by weight HFC-125
(pentafluoroethane, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS) ID
354-33-6), 1.0% by weight R-290 (propane, CAS ID 74-
98-6), 42.5% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID
811-97-2), and 1.5% by weight isobutane (2-methyl propane, CAS
ID 75-28-5). You may find the submission under EPA Air Docket
A-91-42, item VI-D-310.
    Environmental information: The ozone depletion potential (ODP) of
ICOR AT-22 is zero. The global warming potentials (GWPs) of HFC-125 and
HFC-134a are 3450 and 1320, respectively (relative to carbon dioxide,
using a 100-year time horizon (United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)) and World Meteorological Organization ((WMO) Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002). The atmospheric lifetimes of
these constituents are 29 and 14 years, respectively.
    HFC-125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of volatile
organic compound (VOC) under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR
51.100(s)) addressing the development of State implementation plans
(SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards.
    EPA is concerned with the relatively high GWP of this substitute.
The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under
section 608 (c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart
F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations

prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or class II
ozone ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require
proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these
substances.
    Flammability information: While two of the blend components,
isobutane and propane, are flammable, the blend as formulated and under
worst case fractionated formulation scenarios is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: HFC-125 and HFC-134a have 8 hour/day,
40 hour/week workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1000
ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).
Isobutane and propane have an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week threshold limit
value (TLV) established by the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) of 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm, respectively.
EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and recommendations
specified in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and
the individual components and other safety precautions common in the
refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that
users of ICOR AT-22 adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV.
    Comparison to other refrigerants: ICOR AT-22 is not an ozone
depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone depletion than HCFC-22,
the ozone-depleting substance (ODS) it replaces. ICOR AT-22 has a GWP
of about 2500, slightly higher than other substitutes for HCFC-22. For
example, the GWP of R-407C is about 1700 and the GWP of R-410A is about
2000. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above.
Thus, we find that ICOR AT-22 is acceptable because it does not pose a
greater overall risk to public health and the environment in the end
uses and applications listed above.
2. ICOR XLT1 (R-422C)
    EPA's decision: ICOR XLT1 [R-125/134a/600a (82/15/3)] is acceptable
for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22, R-
502, R-402A, R-402B, and R-408A in:
 Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating)
 Industrial process refrigeration
 Industrial process air conditioning
 Retail food refrigeration
 Cold storage warehouses
 Refrigerated transport
 Commercial ice machines
 Ice skating rinks
 Household refrigerators and freezers
 Vending machines
 Water coolers
 Residential dehumidifiers
 Non-mechanical heat transfer
 Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps
 Very low temperature refrigeration

    ICOR XLT1 is a blend of 82% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane,
CAS ID  354-33-6), 15% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), and 3% by weight
isobutane (2-methyl propane, CAS ID 75-28-5). The American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) Standard 34 has designated this blend as R-422C. You may find
the submission under EPA Air Docket A-91-42, item VI-D-313.
    Environmental information: The ODP of ICOR XLT1 is zero. For
environmental information on the components of this blend see the
section on environmental information above for ICOR AT-22.
    HFC-125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of volatile
organic compound (VOC) under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR
51.100(s)) addressing the development of State implementation plans
(SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards.
    EPA is concerned with the relatively high GWP of this substitute.
The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
minimized through the implementation of the venting prohibition under
section 608 (c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart
F). This section and EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ozone ODSs used in
refrigeration and air conditioning and require proper handling, such as
recycling or recovery, and disposal of these substances.
    Flammability information: While one component of the blend,
isobutane, is flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst case
fractionated formulation scenarios is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: For information on the workplace
exposure limits for the components of this blend see the section
toxicity and exposure data above for ICOR AT-22. EPA recommends that
users follow all requirements and recommendations specified in the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and the individual
components and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and
air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that users of ICOR XLT1
adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV.
    Comparison to other refrigerants: ICOR-XLT1 is not an ozone
depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone depletion than the ODSs
it replaces. ICOR XLT1 has a GWP of about 3000, comparable to other
substitutes for the ODSs listed above. For example, the GWP of R-407C
is about 1700, the GWP of R-410A is about 2000, and the GWP of R-404A
and R-507 are about 3900. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as
discussed above. Thus, we find that ICOR XLT1 is acceptable because
there are no other substitutes that are currently or potentially
available and that provide a substantially reduced risk to public
health and the environment in the end uses listed.
3. ICOR XAC1 (R-422B)
    EPA's decision: ICOR XAC1 [R-125/134a/600a (55/42/3)] is acceptable
for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22 in:

 Chillers (centrifugal, screw, reciprocating)
 Industrial process refrigeration
 Industrial process air conditioning
 Retail food refrigeration
 Cold storage warehouses
 Refrigerated transport
 Commercial ice machines
 Ice skating rinks
 Household refrigerators and freezers
 Vending machines
 Water coolers
 Residential dehumidifiers
 Non-mechanical heat transfer
 Household and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps
 Very low temperature refrigeration
 Motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains
only)

    ICOR XAC1 is a blend of 55% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane,
CAS ID  354-33-6), 42% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), and 3% by weight
isobutane (2-methyl propane, CAS ID 75-28-5). ASHRAE Standard
34 has designated this blend as R-422B. You may find the submission
under EPA Air Docket A-91-42, item VI-D-312.
    Environmental information: The ODP of ICOR XAC1 is zero. For
environmental information on the components of this blend see the
section on environmental information above for ICOR AT-22.
    HFC-125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of volatile
organic compound (VOC) under Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
regulations addressing the development of State implementation plans
(SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards.
    EPA is concerned with the relatively high GWP of this substitute.
The contribution of this blend to greenhouse

gas emissions will be minimized through the implementation of the
venting prohibition under section 608 (c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (see
40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and EPA's implementing
regulations prohibit venting or release of substitutes for class I or
class II ODSs used in refrigeration and air conditioning and require
proper handling, such as recycling or recovery, and disposal of these
substances.
    Flammability information: While one component of the blend,
isobutane, is flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst case
fractionated formulation scenarios is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: For information on the workplace
exposure limits for the components of this blend see the section
toxicity and exposure data above for ICOR AT-22. EPA recommends that
users follow all recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and the individual components and other
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning
industry. EPA also recommends that users of ICOR XAC1 adhere to the
AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLV.
    Comparison to other refrigerants: ICOR XAC1 is not an ozone
depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone depletion than HCFC-22,
the ODS it replaces. ICOR XAC1 has a GWP of about 2500, slightly higher
than other substitutes for HCFC-22. For example, the GWP of R-407C is
about 1700 and the GWP of R-410A is about 2000. Flammability and
toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that ICOR
XAC1 is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to
public health and the environment in the end uses listed.
4. R-417A
    EPA's decision: R-417A [R-125/134a/600 (46.6/50.0/3.4)] is
acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for R-
22 in:

 Motor vehicle air conditioning (busses and passenger trains
only)

    R-417A is a blend of 46.6 percent HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS
ID 354-33-6), 50.0 percent HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), and 3.4 percent n-butane
(CAS ID 106-97-8). You can find the most recent submission in
EPA Air Docket A-91-42, item VI-D-286.
    In SNAP Notice of Acceptability 16 (March 22, 2002; 67 FR
13272), EPA noted that the composition of NU-22 was changed to match
that of ISCEON 59, also known as R-417A, and that EPA previously found
ISCEON 59 acceptable as a substitute for R-22 in a number of end uses
in SNAP Notice of Acceptability 11 (December 6, 1999; 64 FR
68039). R-417A is sold under the trade names NU-22 and ISCEON 59. In
SNAP Notice of Acceptability 17 (December 20, 2002; 67 FR
77927), EPA found R-417A acceptable as a substitute for R-502 in
several end uses. Today's decision adds this refrigerant to the
acceptable list for HCFC-22 in bus and passenger train motor vehicle
air conditioners.
    Environmental information: For environmental information on HFC-125
and HFC-134a, see above in section I.A.1. for ICOR AT-22. The ozone
depletion potential (ODP) of R-417A is zero. The GWP of butane is less
than 10 (relative to carbon dioxide, using a 100-year time horizon).
Butane is a VOC under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
concerning the development of SIPs.
    Flammability information: While butane, one component of the blend,
is flammable, the blend is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: HFC-125 and HFC-134a have guidance
level WEELs of 1000 ppm established by the AIHA. Butane has a threshold
limit value (TLV) of 800 ppm established by the American Conference of
Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). EPA recommends that users
follow all recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for the blend and the individual components and other safety
precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
EPA also recommends that users of R-417A will adhere to the AIHA's
WEELs and the ACGIH's TLVs.
    Comparison to other refrigerants: R-417A is not an ozone depleter;
thus, it reduces risk from ozone depletion compared to R-22, the ODS it
replaces. R-417A has a comparable or lower GWP than the other
substitutes for R-22. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as
discussed above. Thus, we find that R-417A is acceptable because it
does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the
environment in the end uses listed.
5. HFC-245fa (Genetron[supreg] 245fa)
    EPA's decision: HFC-245fa[Genetron[supreg] 245fa] is acceptable for
use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-113,
CFC-114, HCFC-21, HCFC-123, and HCFC-141b in:

 Low pressure centrifugal chillers
 Non-mechanical heat transfer
 Very low temperature refrigeration
 Industrial process air conditioning
 And industrial process refrigeration

    Refer to the table in Appendix A for specific information as to
which ODS HFC-245fa substitutes for in each end use. HFC-245fa is sold
under the trade name of Genetron[supreg] 245fa. HFC-245fa is also known
as 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry
Number (CAS ID ) 460-73-1. You may find the submission under
EPA Air Docket A-91-42, item VI-D-316.
    Environmental information: ODP of HFC-245fa is zero. The GWP of
HFC-245fa is 950. The atmospheric lifetime of HFC-245fa is 7.2 years.
    HFC-245fa is excluded from the definition of a VOC under Clean Air
Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of
SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards.
    Flammability information: HFC-245fa is nonflammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: EPA recommends that users follow all
requirements and recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and the individual components and other
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning
industry. EPA also recommends that users of HFC-245fa adhere to the
AIHA's WEEL of 300 ppm (time weighted average for 8 hour/day, 40 hour/
week).
    Comparison to other refrigerants: HFC-245fa is not an ozone
depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone depletion than the ODSs
it replaces. HFC-245fa has a lower GWP than the CFC refrigerants it
replaces. HFC-245fa is non-flammable. HFC-245fa exhibits moderate to
low toxicity and guidance is available from the AIHA and the ACGIH on
its use in the workplace. Thus, we find that HFC-245fa is acceptable
because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and
the environment in the end uses listed.
6. R-420A
    EPA's decision: R-420A is acceptable for use, subject to use
conditions, in retrofit equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor
vehicle air conditioning.
    R-420A is a blend of 88% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), and 12% by weight HCFC-
142b (1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane, CAS ID 75-68-3). Note that
HCFC-142b is an ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Regulations regarding
recycling and prohibiting venting issued under section 609 of the Clean
Air Act apply to this blend. A common trade name for this refrigerant
blend is Choice refrigerant. You may find the submission under EPA Air
Docket A-

91-42, item VI-D-302 (or see e-docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118). R-420A was
previously approved as a substitute refrigerant in other refrigeration
and air conditioning end-uses in SNAP Notice 19 (69 FR 58905, October
4, 2004).
    Conditions for use in motor vehicle air conditioning systems: On
October 16, 1996 (61 FR 54029), EPA promulgated a final rule that
prospectively applied certain conditions on the use of any refrigerant
used as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (Appendix D of subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). That rule provided
that EPA would list new refrigerants in future notices of
acceptability. Therefore, the use of R-420A as a CFC-12 substitute in
motor vehicle air conditioning systems must follow the standard
conditions imposed on previous refrigerants, including:

 The use of unique fittings designed by the refrigerant
manufacturer,
 The application of a detailed label,
 The removal of the original refrigerant prior to charging with
R-420A, and
 The installation of a high-pressure compressor cutoff switch
on systems equipped with pressure relief devices.

    The October 16, 1996 rule gives full details on these use
conditions.
    You must use the following fittings to use R-420A in motor vehicle
air conditioning systems:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Diameter      Thread pitch
                 Fitting type                     (inches)     (threads/inch)          Thread  direction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-side service port........................    .5625 (9/16)              18  Left.
High-side service port.......................    .5625 (9/16)              18  Right.
Large containers (>20 lb.)...................    .5625 (9/16)              18  Left.
Small Cans...................................    .5625 (9/16)              18  Right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The labels will have a dark green background (PMS 347) and
white text.
    Environmental information: The ODP of HCFC-142b is 0.065 and HFC-
134a has an ODP of zero. The GWPs of HCFC-142b and HFC-134a are 2400
and 1320, respectively. The atmospheric lifetimes of these constituents
are 17.9 and 14.0 years, respectively.
    Because R-420A contains an ODS, regulations on its use apply,
including the requirements for technician certification, mandatory
recovery of refrigerant during service of equipment containing R-420A,
a requirement that sales of the refrigerants be made only to EPA-
certified technicians, and the statutory prohibition under section
608(c) of the Clean Air Act against knowingly venting refrigerants.
Production and/or import of HCFC-142b is currently restricted to
persons holding production and/or consumption allowances under 40 CFR
part 82 subpart A. Hence, manufacturers and importers of R-420A may
have difficulty obtaining adequate supply of the HCFC-142b component
necessary to formulate the blend. HCFC-142b will be subject to further
control beginning in 2010 when the next major milestone in the HCFC
phaseout occurs and supplies may be further limited. As of January 1,
2010, production and import of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b will be limited to
the purposes of use in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2010,
transformation or destruction of the HCFC, or for export in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 82 Subpart A. Thus, blends containing HCFC-142b such
as R-420A are only transitional substitutes. EPA has proposed a rule
prohibiting the use of HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 as ODS substitutes for
foam blowing (70 FR 67120), and is considering similar action
restricting HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 in other industrial sectors.
    HCFC-142b and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of VOC
under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards.
    Flammability information: Although the component HCFC-142b is
moderately flammable, the blend is not flammable as formulated or under
worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios.
    Toxicity and exposure data: HCFC-142b and HFC-134a have 8 hour/day,
40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm established by the AIHA. EPA recommends
that users follow all recommendations specified in the MSDS for the
blend and the individual components and other safety precautions common
in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends
that users of R-420A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs.
    Comparison to other refrigerants: R-420A has a lower ODP than that
of the Class I ODS it replaces, CFC-12, and lower than that of other
blends containing Class II ODS in this end use. R-420A has a comparable
GWP to that of most other substitutes for CFC-12. Flammability and
toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that R-420A
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in the end use listed.
    Although this substitute has an ozone depleting potential, the
contribution of this blend to ozone depletion will be minimized through
the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608 (c) of
the Clean Air Act (see 40 CFR, part 82, subpart F). This section and
EPA's implementing regulations prohibit venting or release of
substitutes for class I or class II ozone ODS used in refrigeration and
air conditioning and require proper handling, such as recycling or
recovery, and disposal of these substances.

B. Foam Blowing

1. TranscendTM Technologies
    EPA's decision: Transcend(TM) Technologies is
acceptable, as an additive to other SNAP-approved foam blowing agents,
in blends making up to 5% by weight of the total foam formulation, as a
substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in the following end-uses:

 Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
 Rigid polyurethane appliance;
 Rigid polyurethane, spray, commercial refrigeration, and
sandwich
 Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams;
 Polyurethane integral skin foam;
 Polyurethane: extruded sheet

    For the spray foam application within the rigid polyurethane,
spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich end use,
TranscendTM Technologies may only be used with other blowing
agents that are SNAP-approved specifically for spray foam. It is not
acceptable to use TranscendTM Technologies for saturated
light hydrocarbons or for other blowing agents that are not SNAP-
approved specifically for use in spray foam. The blowing agent blended
with TranscendTM Technologies must be SNAP-approved for that
specific end use.
    The submitter, Arkema Inc, claims that the composition of
TranscendTM Technologies is confidential business
information (see docket A-91-42, item VI-D-311).

    Environmental information: TranscendTM Technologies has
no ODP and very low or zero GWP. Users should be aware that
TranscendTM Technologies is considered a VOC under Clean Air
Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of
State implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards. For more information refer to the
manufacturer of TranscendTM Technologies, EPA regulations at
40 CFR part 51, and your state or local air quality agency.
    Flammability information: TranscendTM Technologies is
flammable and should be handled with proper precautions. Use of
TranscendTM Technologies will require safe handling and
shipping as prescribed by OSHA and DOT (for example, using personal
safety equipment and following requirements for shipping hazardous
materials at 49 CFR parts 170 through 173). However, when blended with
fire retardant and/or other SNAP-approved alternatives, the
flammability of TranscendTM Technologies can be reduced to
make a formulation that is either combustible or non-flammable (contact
the manufacturer of TranscendTM Technologies for more
information). For example, in blowing-agent blends of 50%
TranscendTM Technologies and 50% HFC-134a, or in blends of
less than 97% TranscendTM Technologies and 3% or more HFC-
245fa, the resultant formulation is nonflammable.
    For information on the safety training requirements for use of
flammable blowing agents in spray foam, refer to SNAP Notice of
Acceptability 11 (64 FR 68039, December 6, 1999) or contact the EPA
SNAP program.
    Toxicity and exposure data: TranscendTM Technologies
should be handled with proper precautions. EPA recommends that users
follow all recommendations specified in the MSDS for
TranscendTM Technologies. OSHA has established a permissible
exposure limit for the main component of TranscendTM
Technologies of 200 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour
work shift.
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents: TranscendTM
Technologies is not an ozone depleter; thus, it reduces risk overall
compared to the ODSs it replaces. TranscendTM Technologies
has a comparable or lower GWP than the other substitutes for CFCs and
HCFCs in these end uses. Thus, we find that TranscendTM
Technologies is acceptable because it reduces overall risk to public
health and the environment in the end uses listed.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Uni-light Advanced Fire Fighting Foam 1% (Uni-light AFFF 1%)
    EPA's decision: Uni-light AFFF 1% is acceptable for use as a
substitute for halon 1301 in the total flooding end use in both
normally occupied and unoccupied spaces.
    Uni-light AFFF 1% is a water mist system with 1 percent (by mass)
foam enhancement mixed with water. It is intended for use in machinery
spaces onboard ships and off-shore installations. You may find the
submission under Docket A-91-42, item VI-D-315 (or see e-docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0118-116).
    EPA previously found water mist systems with potable water or
natural sea water acceptable in total flooding (July 28, 1995; 60 FR
38729). In the same listing, EPA required that water mist systems
containing additives different than those in potable water, and water
mist systems comprised of mixtures in solution must be submitted to EPA
for SNAP review on a case-by-case basis. With regard to a water mist
and foam system, any changes to the foam mixture may constitute a new
formulation and is, therefore, subject to SNAP review.
    Environmental information: All of the components of Uni-light AFFF
1% have an ozone depletion potential of zero. Its components have a
negligible atmospheric lifetime and global warming potential.
    One component of Uni-light's foam mixture, 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol (also called diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or DGBE, CAS
ID 112-34-5), is defined as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
under the Clean Air Act.
    The component DGBE is also regulated as a controlled substance by
the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Therefore, all materials used
to clean spaces after an accidental should be handled and disposed of
as hazardous waste in accordance with federal, state, or local
requirements.
    Flammability: The blend is non-flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data: The most toxic component of the foam
blend, DGBE, has an occupational exposure limit, 8-hour time-weighted
average, of 100 mg/m\3\ as a Maximum Concentration Value in the
Workplace set by the Federal Republic of Germany. All but two
components of the foam blend are classified as ``generally recognized
as safe'' by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    As with other fire suppressants, EPA recommends that users minimize
exposure to this agent. In order to keep exposure levels as low as
possible, EPA recommends the following for establishments installing
and maintaining total flooding systems:

     Make self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) available
in normally occupied areas;
     Wear proper personal protection equipment (impervious
butyl gloves, eye protection, and SCBA);
     Clean up all spills immediately in accordance with good
industrial hygiene practices; and
     Provide training for safe handling procedures to all
employees that would be likely to handle the containers of foam
additive.
    Use of this agent should conform to relevant Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, including 29 CFR part
1910, subpart L, Sec. 1910.160 for fixed fire extinguishing systems,
Sec. 1910.163 for water spray and foam systems and Sec. 1910.165 for
predischarge employee alarms. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear
(SCBA) should be available in the event of a discharge.
    Comparison to other fire suppressants: Uni-light AFFF 1% has no
ODP; thus, its use will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the
continued use of halon 1301. The components of Uni-light AFFF 1% have a
GWP comparable with or lower than that of many other acceptable
substitutes for halon 1301. Thus, we find that Uni-light AFFF 1%
acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to human
health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes in the end
uses and applications listed above.

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. We
refer to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
     Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate
rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1)

reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2)
is currently or potentially available.
     Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list
of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
     Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from
the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has
90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the
petition, it must publish the revised lists within an additional six
months.
     90-day Notification--Section 612(e) directs EPA to require
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance
to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
     Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying
and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key
commercial applications.
     Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available
for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the final rulemaking (59 FR 13044)
which described the process for administering the SNAP program. In the
same notice, we issued the first acceptability lists for substitutes in
the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include:
     Refrigeration and air conditioning;
     Foam blowing;
     Solvents cleaning;
     Fire suppression and explosion protection;
     Sterilants;
     Aerosols;
     Adhesives, coatings and inks; and
     Tobacco expansion.

These sectors compose the principal industrial sectors that
historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.
    As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, EPA does
not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list
alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not
impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substance. Therefore, by this notice we are adding substances to the
list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings.
    However, we do believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is
required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes,
to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to
list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a
substance from the lists of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. We
publish updates to these lists as separate notices of rulemaking in the
Federal Register.
    The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II
substance. Anyone who produces a substitute must provide EPA with
health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. This requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but
may include importers, formulators, or end-users, when they are
responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.
    You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate Federal Register citations from the SNAP section of EPA's
Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.
 This information is also available from the Air Docket (see

ADDRESSES section above for contact information).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 17, 2006.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.

Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable Decisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                        Substitute                Decision           Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle air conditioning         R-420A as a substitute   Acceptable Subject to    Must be used with
 (retrofit).                            for CFC-12.              Use Conditions.          fittings and labels
                                                                                specified above.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new    ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
 and retrofit) (busses and passenger    substitute for HCFC-22.
 trains only).
                                       R-417A as a substitute   Acceptable.............
                                        for HCFC-22.
Industrial process refrigeration       ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 (retrofit and new).                    substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for CFC-114.
Industrial process air conditioning    ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 (retrofit and new).                    substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.

                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for CFC-114.
Ice skating rinks (retrofit and new).  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Cold storage warehouses (retrofit and  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 new).                                  substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Refrigerated transport (retrofit and   ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 new).                                  substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Retail food refrigeration (retrofit    ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 and new).                              substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Vending machines (retrofit and new)..  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Water coolers (retrofit and new).....  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Commercial ice machines (retrofit and  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 new).                                  substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Household refrigerators and freezers   ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 (retrofit and new).                    substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Centrifugal chillers (retrofit and     ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 new).                                  substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for CFC-114
                                        and HCFC-123.
Centrifugal chillers (new)...........  HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for CFC-11.
Reciprocating chillers (retrofit and   ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 new).                                  substitute for HCFC-22.

                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Screw chillers (retrofit and new)....  ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Residential dehumidifiers (retrofit    ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 and new).                              substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Non-mechanical heat transfer           ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 (retrofit and new).                    substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for CFC-11,
                                        CFC-113, HCFC-21, and
                                        HCFC-141b.
Very low temperature refrigeration     ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 (retrofit and new).                    substitute for HCFC-22.
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
Very low temperature refrigeration     HFC-245fa as a           Acceptable.............
 (new).                                 substitute for CFC-11,
                                        CFC-114, and HCFC-141b.
Household and light commercial air     ICOR AT-22 as a          Acceptable.............
 conditioning and heat pumps            substitute for HCFC-22.
 (retrofit and new).
                                       ICOR XLT1 (R-422C) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-
                                        22, R-502, R-402A, R-
                                        402B, and R-408A.
                                       ICOR XAC1 (R-422B) as a  Acceptable.............
                                        substitute for HCFC-22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Foam Blowing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid polyurethane and                 TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
 polyisocyanurate laminated             Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
 boardstock.                            additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.
Rigid polyurethane appliance.........  TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
                                        Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.
Rigid polyurethane, spray............  TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
                                        Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for                            Follow manufacturers'
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.                                   safety guidance for
                                                                                any flammable
                                                                                components in the
                                                                                blend.
Rigid polyurethane, commercial         TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
 refrigeration and sandwich.            Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.

Rigid polyurethane slabstock and       TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
 other foams.                           Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.
Polyurethane integral skin foam......  TranscendTM              Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
                                        Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.
Polyurethane: extruded sheet.........  Transcend\TM\            Acceptable.............  Decision only applies
                                        Technologies as an                                where the foam blowing
                                        additive to other SNAP-                           blend makes up to 5%
                                        approved foam blowing                             by weight of the total
                                        agents for this end                               foam formulation.
                                        use as substitutes for
                                        CFCs and HCFCs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding.......................  Uni-light AFFF 1% as a   Acceptable.............  This agent is intended
                                        substitute for Halon                              for use onboard ships
                                        1301.                                             and in off-shore
                                                                                installations.
                                                                                Appropriate personal
                                                                                protective equipment
                                                                                should be worn during
                                                                                manufacture or in the
                                                                                event of a release.
                                                                                Personal protective
                                                                                equipment should
                                                                                include safety
                                                                                goggles, protective
                                                                                gloves, and a self-
                                                                                contained breathing
                                                                                apparatus.
                                                                                Supply bottles for the
                                                                                foam should be clearly
                                                                                labeled with the
                                                                                potential hazards
                                                                                associated with the
                                                                                use of the chemicals
                                                                                in the foam, as well
                                                                                as handling procedures
                                                                                to reduce risk
                                                                                resulting from these
                                                                                hazards.
                                                                                Use should conform with
                                                                                relevant OSHA
                                                                                requirements,
                                                                                including 29 CFR part
                                                                                1910, subpart L, Sec.
                                                                                Sec.   1910.160 and
                                                                                1910.163.
                                                                                EPA has no intention of
                                                                                duplicating or
                                                                                displacing OSHA
                                                                                coverage related to
                                                                                the use of personal
                                                                                protection equipment
                                                                                (e.g., respiratory
                                                                                protection), fire
                                                                                protection, hazard
                                                                                communication, worker
                                                                                training or any other
                                                                                occupational safety
                                                                                and health standard
                                                                                with respect to halon
                                                                                substitutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-3030 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47605-47610]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1904 and 1952

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023]
RIN 1218-AC49

Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On November 08, 2013, OSHA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to amend the agency's regulation on the annual OSHA injury
and illness reporting requirements to add three new electronic
reporting obligations. At a public meeting on the proposal, many
stakeholders expressed concern that the proposal could motivate
employers to under-record their employees' injuries and illnesses. They
expressed concern that the proposal could promote an increase in
workplace policies and procedures that deter or discourage employees
from reporting work related injuries and illnesses. These include
adopting unreasonable requirements for reporting injuries and illnesses
and retaliating against employees who report injuries and illnesses. In
order to protect the integrity of the injury and illness data, OSHA is
considering adding provisions that will make it a violation for an
employer to discourage employee reporting in these ways. To facilitate
further evaluation of this issue, OSHA is extending the comment period
for 60 days for public comment on this issue. In promulgating a final
rule, OSHA will consider the comments already received as well as the
information it receives in response to this notice.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published November 8,
2013 (78 FR 67254) is extended. Comments must be submitted by October
14, 2014.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the federal e-rulemaking portal. Follow
the

instructions on the Web site for making electronic submissions;
    Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10
pages, you may fax it to the OSHA docket office at<PHONE_NUMBER>;
    Mail, Hand Delivery, Express Mail, Messenger, or Courier Service:
You may submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket Number OSHA-2013-0023, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2350 (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (hand, express
mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor's and docket office's normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.-4:45 p.m.
    Instructions for Submitting Comments: All submissions must include
the docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023) or the RIN (RIN 1218-
AC49) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures,
submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please
contact the OSHA docket office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery,
and messenger or courier service.
    All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register document, go to docket number OSHA-2013-0023, at http://regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the http://regulations.gov index. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA docket office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web site at
http://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger,
OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general and technical information on the proposed rule: Miriam
Schoenbaum, OSHA Office of Statistical Analysis, Room N-3507, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice published November 08, 2013, OSHA
proposed to amend its recordkeeping regulations to add requirements for
the electronic submission of injury and illness information that
employers are already required to keep. (78 FR 67254). The proposal
would require certain establishments that are already required to keep
injury and illness records under OSHA's regulations for recording and
reporting occupational injuries and illnesses to electronically submit
information from these records to OSHA. OSHA plans to post the
establishment-specific injury and illness data on its Web site.
    On January 09-10, 2014, OSHA held a public meeting on the proposal.
A prevalent concern expressed by many meeting participants was that the
proposal might create motivations for employers to under-record
injuries and illnesses, since each covered establishment's injury and
illness data would become publically available on OSHA's Web site. Some
participants also commented that some employers already discourage
employees from making injury and illness reports by disciplining or
taking other adverse action against employees who file injury and
illness reports. These participants expressed concern that the
increased visibility of establishment injury and illness data under the
proposal would lead to an increase in the number of employers who adopt
practices that have the effect of discouraging employees from reporting
recordable injuries and illnesses. OSHA is concerned that the accuracy
of the data collected under the new proposal could be compromised if
employers adopt these practices. In addition, OSHA wants to ensure that
employers, employees, and the public have access to the most accurate
data about injuries and illnesses in their workplaces so that they can
take the most appropriate steps to protect worker safety and health.
    Therefore, the Agency is seeking comment on whether to amend the
proposed rule to (1) require that employers inform their employees of
their right to report injuries and illnesses; (2) require that any
injury and illness reporting requirements established by the employer
be reasonable and not unduly burdensome; and (3) prohibit employers
from taking adverse action against employees for reporting injuries and
illnesses.
    OSHA is particularly interested in the answers to the following
questions:
    (1) What are the costs and benefits of OSHA using this rulemaking
to address the issue of employers who discourage employees from
reporting injuries and illnesses?
    (2) Are the cost estimates in this document accurate?
    (3) What other actions can OSHA take to address the issue of
employers who discourage employees from reporting injuries and
illnesses?
    (4) How should OSHA clarify the requirement that injury and illness
reporting requirements established by the employer are reasonable and
not unduly burdensome?

I. Legal Authority

    OSHA is issuing this proposal pursuant to authority expressly
granted by sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(the ``OSH Act'' or ``Act'') (29 U.S.C. 657, 673). Section 8(c)(2) of
the Act directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations ``requiring
employers to maintain accurate records of . . . work-related deaths,
injuries and illnesses,'' (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(2)), and section 8(g)(2)
broadly empowers the Secretary to ``prescribe such rules and
regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out [his]
responsibilities under this Act'' (29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)). Similarly,
section 24 requires the Secretary to ``develop and maintain an
effective program of collection, compilation, and analysis of
occupational safety and health statistics'' and to ``compile accurate
statistics on work injuries and illnesses which shall include all
disabling, serious, or significant injuries and illnesses . . .'' (29
U.S.C. 673(a)).
    Rules that prohibit employers from discouraging employee reports of
injury and illness fit comfortably within these various statutory
grants of authority. If employers may not discipline or take adverse
action against workers for reporting injuries and illnesses, workers
will feel less hesitant to report their injuries and illnesses, and
their employers' records and reports will be more ``accurate'', as
required by sections 8 and 24 of the Act. Further, given testimony that
some employers already engage in such practices, and the possibility
that the proposed rule could provide additional motivation for
employers to do so, prohibiting employers from taking adverse actions
against their employees for reporting injuries and illnesses in this
rulemaking is ``necessary to carry out'' the

recordkeeping requirements of the Act. (See 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2).).
    Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any person from discharging or
discriminating against any employee because that employee has exercised
any right under the Act. (29 U.S.C. 660(c)(1).) Under this provision,
an employee who believes he or she has been discriminated against may
file a complaint with OSHA, and if, after investigation, the Secretary
determines that Section 11(c) has been violated, then the Secretary can
file suit against the employer in U.S. District Court seeking ``all
appropriate relief'' including reinstatement and back pay. (29 U.S.C.
660(c)(2).) Taking adverse action against an employee who reports a
fatality, injury, or illness is a violation of 11(c), (see 29 CFR
1904.36); therefore, much of the primary conduct that would be
prohibited by the new provision is likely already proscribed by 11(c).
    The advantage of this provision is that it would provide OSHA with
additional enforcement tools to promote the accuracy and integrity of
the injury and illness records employers are required to keep under
Part 1904. For example, under 11(c), OSHA may not act against an
employer unless an employee files a complaint. Under the additions to
the proposed rule under consideration, OSHA would be able to cite an
employer for taking adverse action against an employee for reporting an
injury or illness, even if the employee did not file a complaint.
Moreover, an abatement order can be a more efficient tool to correct
employer policies and practices than the injunctions authorized under
11(c).
    The fact that Section 11(c) already provides a remedy for
retaliation does not preclude the Secretary from implementing
alternative remedies under the OSH Act. Where retaliation threatens to
undermine a program that Congress required the Secretary to adopt, the
Secretary may proscribe that retaliation through a regulatory provision
unrelated to 11(c). For example, under the medical removal protection
(MRP) provision of the lead standard, employers are required to pay the
salaries of workers who cannot work due to high blood lead levels. 29
CFR 1910.1025(k); see United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 647
F.2d 1189, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1980). And it is well established that OSHRC
may order employers to pay back pay as abatement for violations of the
MRP requirements. See United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO v. St. Joe
Resources, 916 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir. 1990); Dole v. East Penn
Manufacturing Co., 894 F.2d 640, 646 (3d Cir. 1990). If the reason that
an employer decided not to pay MRP benefits was to retaliate for an
employee's exercise of some right under the Act, OSHA can still cite
the employer and seek the benefits as abatement, because payment of the
benefits is important to vindicate the health interests underlying MRP.
The mere fact that that the employer might have a retaliatory motive
does not require that OSHA treat the matter as an 11(c) case. See St.
Joe Resources, 916 F.2d at 298 (stating that that 11(c) was not an
exclusive remedy, because otherwise the remedial purposes of MRP would
be undermined). This would also be the case here. If employers reduce
the accuracy of their injury and illness records by retaliating against
employees who report an injury or illness, then OSHA may use its
authority to collect accurate injury and illness records to proscribe
such conduct even if the conduct would also be covered by 11(c).

II. Questions for Comment and Provisions under Consideration

    In light of the comments and the testimony at the public meeting,
OSHA is concerned that, in at least some workplaces, injury reporting
may be inaccurate because employers adopt practices or policies that
discourage employees from reporting their injuries. OSHA seeks any
information stakeholders might have about such practices and policies,
and their effect on injury and illness records, including answers to
the following questions:
    1. Are you aware of situations where employers have discouraged the
reporting of injuries and illnesses? If so, describe any techniques,
practices, or procedures used by employers that you are aware of. If
such techniques, practices, or procedures are in writing, please
provide a copy.
    2. Will the fact that employer injury and illness statistics will
be publically available on the internet cause some employers to
discourage their employees from reporting injuries and illnesses? Why
or why not? If so, what practices or policies do you expect such
employers to adopt?
    3. Are you aware of any studies or reports on practices that
discourage injury and illness reporting? If so, please provide them.
    Under 29 CFR 1904.35(a)(1) and (b)(1), employers are already
required to set up a way for employees to report work-related injuries
and illnesses to the employer promptly and to inform each employee how
to report work-related injuries and illnesses to the employer. OSHA is
considering adding three provisions to this section: (1) A requirement
that employers inform their employees of their right to report injuries
and illnesses free from discrimination or retaliation; (2) a provision
requiring that any injury and illness reporting requirements
established by the employer be reasonable and not unduly burdensome;
and (3) a prohibition against disciplining employees for reporting
injuries and illnesses. Each of these three provisions under
consideration is discussed below. OSHA seeks comment information, data,
and studies that shed light on the appropriateness of each provision as
a way to improve the accuracy of injury and illness records by
prohibiting employers from taking adverse actions against employees for
reporting injuries and illnesses. OSHA also seeks comment on ways to
improve each of the three possible provisions discussed below, as well
as any additional information on employer practices that may discourage
employees from reporting injuries or and illnesses. Requiring employers
to inform their employees that the employees have a right to report
injuries and illnesses. Several participants at the public meeting
described situations where workers did not report injuries or illnesses
for fear of retaliation from their employers. (Day 1 Tr. 200, 203; Day
2 Tr. 124-25.) If employees do not know that the OSH Act protects their
right to report an injury or illness, they might be less likely to
report an injury or illness to their employer. OSHA is therefore
considering amending 29 CFR 1904.35 to require employers to inform each
employee that employees have a right to report injuries and illnesses,
and that it is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against
an employee for reporting an injury or illness. This requirement would
have the additional benefit of reminding the employer that such adverse
actions are illegal, which should also reduce the incidence of such
retaliation. OSHA seeks comment on this provision, including answers to
the following questions:
    4. Do you or does your employer currently inform employees of their
right to report injuries and illnesses? If so, please describe how and
when this information is provided.
    5. Are there any difficulties or barriers an employer might face in
trying to provide such information to its employees? If so, please
describe them.
    6. How might an employer best provide this information: orally to
the employee, through a written notice, posting, or in some other
manner?
    Requiring the injury and illness reporting procedures established
by the employer under 29 CFR 1904.35(a)(1)

and (b)(1) to be reasonable and not unduly burdensome. 29 CFR
1904.35(b)(1) requires employers to provide a way for employees to
report injuries and illnesses promptly. However, if employers adopt
reporting procedures that are unreasonably burdensome, they may
discourage reporting. For example, an employee might be discouraged
from reporting an injury or illness if the employer required the
employee to report in person at a location distant from the employee's
workplace, or if the employer penalized employees for failing to report
an injury within a specific time period (e.g., within 24 hours of an
incident), even if the employees did not realize that they were injured
or made ill until after that time. One participant at the public
meeting, for example, said that he knew of health care facilities where
employees often did not report incidents of workplace violence, even
though those incidents happened routinely, because the reporting
procedures were too cumbersome (Day 2 Tr. 91-92.) While OSHA believes
that onerous and unreasonable reporting requirements are already in
effect prohibited by the regulation (i.e. one has not created a ``way
to report'' injuries if the ``way'' is too difficult to use), this
proposal would add additional text to communicate that point more
clearly. OSHA seeks comment on this provision, including answers to the
following questions:
    7. What procedures do you or does your employer have about the time
and manner of reporting injuries and illnesses? How do these procedures
assist in the collection and maintenance of accurate records? May an
employee be disciplined for failing to observe these procedures? If so,
what kind of discipline may be imposed?
    8. Are you aware of any examples of reporting requirements that you
consider to be unreasonably burdensome and could discourage reporting?
What are they?
    9. How should OSHA clarify the requirement that reporting
requirements are ``reasonable and not unduly burdensome''?
    Prohibiting employers from disciplining employees for reporting
injuries and illnesses. If an employer disciplines or takes adverse
action against an employee for reporting an injury or illness, this may
discourage employees from reporting injuries and illnesses. These
adverse actions could include termination, reduction in pay,
reassignment to a less desirable position, or any other action that
might dissuade a reasonable employee from reporting an injury. See
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68
(2006). Adverse actions mentioned by participants in the public meeting
included requiring employees who reported an injury to wear fluorescent
orange vests, disqualifying employees who reported two injuries or
illnesses from their current job, requiring an employee who reported an
injury to undergo drug testing where there was no reason to suspect
drug use, automatically disciplining those who seek medical attention,
and enrolling employees who report an injury in an ``Accident Repeater
Program'' that included mandatory counseling on workplace safety and
progressively more serious sanctions for additional reports, ending in
termination. (See Day 1 Tr. 36, 39-40, 203; Day 2 Tr. 58, 126-27, 142-
143.) Likewise, an employer rule to take adverse action against all
employees who are injured or made ill, regardless of fault, would
discourage reporting and would be prohibited by this rulemaking.
    Also falling under this prohibition would be pre-textual
disciplinary actions--that is, where an employer disciplines an
employee for violating a safety rule, but the real reason for the
action is the employee's injury or illness report. This can be the case
when the safety rule is only enforced against workers who report, or
enforced more severely against those employees. Public meeting
participants noted particular situations where employers selectively
enforced vague rules, such as maintain ``situational awareness'' and
``work carefully,'' only against employees who reported injuries or
illnesses (See Day 2 Tr. 143-44, 150-151.)
    As noted above, these retaliatory actions would likely be
actionable under 11(c), as well as under the provisions that OSHA is
considering as amendments to 1904.35. The remedy, however, would be
different. Under this provision, OSHA could issue citations to
employers under Section 9 of the OSH Act for violating the provision,
and the employer could challenge the citations before the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission. The citations would carry civil
penalties in accordance with Section 17 of the OSH Act, as well as a
requirement to abate the violation; the abatement could include
reinstatement and back pay. See United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
v. St. Joe Resources, 916 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that
the Commission has authority to issue an abatement order mandating the
payment of back pay required under the lead standard's medical removal
protection (MRP) requirement); Dole v. East Penn Manufacturing Co., 894
F.2d 640, 646 (3d Cir. 1990) (ordering employer to abate MRP violation
by paying owed overtime pay). A further discussion of the legal
interplay between 11(c) and this provision is covered in the Legal
Authority section above. OSHA seeks comment on this provision,
including responses to the following questions:
    10. Are you aware of employer practices or policies to take adverse
action against persons who report injuries or illnesses? Please
describe them.
    11. Are you aware of any particular situations where an employee
decided not to report an injury or illness to his or her employer
because of a fear that the employer would take adverse action against
the employee? If so, please describe the situation, including the
nature of the injury or illness and the reasons the employee had for
believing he or she would be retaliated against.
    12. What kinds of adverse actions might lead an employee to decide
not to report an injury or illness? Are there other employer actions
that would not dissuade a reasonable employee from reporting an injury
or illness?
    13. OSHA encourages employers to enforce safety rules as part of a
well-functioning workplace safety program. Are there any employer
practices that OSHA should explicitly exclude under this provision to
ensure that employers are able to run an effective workplace safety
program?
    14. What other actions can OSHA take to address the issue of
employers who discourage employees from reporting injuries and
illnesses?

Economic Issues

    This reopening is for the purpose of discussing a modification of
the recordkeeping rules to provide several clarifications of OSHA's
current recordkeeping rules with respect to the rights of employees to
report injuries and illnesses without discrimination. These provisions
do not require employers to provide any new or additional records not
already required in existing standards. (When the existing standards
were promulgated, OSHA estimated the costs to employers of the records
that would be required.) These provisions add no new rights to
employees, but are instead designed to assure that employers recognize
the existing right of employees to report work-related injuries and
illnesses. OSHA considered that such a reinforcement of the importance
of these rights might be valuable because of concerns that providing
public access to a wider range of injury and illness information from a
greater number of employers might cause some employers

to put greater pressure on employees to not report injuries and
illnesses. These provisions represent a clarification of the existing
rule, add minor additional expenses, and may generate cost savings. To
show this, OSHA will examine the possible additions on a provision by
provision basis.
    OSHA is considering a potential provision to require employers to
inform their employees that the employees have a right to report
injuries and illnesses. Under 1905.35(a) employers are already required
to inform each employee about how he or she is to report an injury or
illness to the employer. For new and future employees, this possible
new requirement to inform employees of their right to report injuries
and illnesses could be met at no additional cost by informing employees
of their rights at the same time that they are informed of how to
report. Employers who meet this requirement through annual training, or
the posting of procedures, or as part of an employee handbook might
incur a small one-time cost to change these materials. If employers use
materials that cannot be inexpensively changed or updated, or if
employers who meet the existing requirement to provide information on
reporting procedures do so solely by informing new employees of their
procedures, those employers would need to incur a small one-time cost
to inform all existing employees of their rights. This could be done
through a sign. OSHA estimates that posting a sign would typically
require 3 to 5 minutes of time. OSHA believes that many employers
already have in place programs and systems (such as illness and injury
prevention programs or IIPPs) for either encouraging or requiring
employees to report all workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA welcomes
comment on the possible costs of this potential requirement.
    15. Is the fact that retaliation for reporting workplace injuries
and illnesses is illegal communicated in your workplace? How? What
costs are associated with communicating this information?
    OSHA is also considering a potential provision to require that the
injury and illness reporting procedures established by the employer
under 29 CFR 1904.35(a)(1), and (b)(1), be reasonable and not unduly
burdensome. OSHA is concerned both about unusually burdensome methods
and also about reporting requirements that may punish employees for
failure to report at the exact time and place required by procedures.
This provision could be considered a clarification of the existing
requirements in 1904.35 that employers provide a way for employees to
report work-related injuries and illnesses promptly and in 1904.36 that
employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees for
reporting. It is possible that this clarification may cause some
employers to incur costs to change their reporting policies and
announce the change to their employees. Given that even for remote
workers there are many ways of facilitating the reporting of injuries
and illnesses that are not burdensome to either the employer or the
employee, such as permitting telephonic reporting, the provision could
be cost-saving in the aggregate in terms of reduced employee time for
reporting injuries and illnesses. Indeed the one strong piece of
evidence that a reporting procedure is unreasonable would be that it
causes costs to the employee in excess of any cost savings for the
employer. For example, a procedure requiring in person rather than
telephonic reporting at a location an hour from the employee's typical
workplace would save an hour of employee time at no measurable expense
to the employer. OSHA welcomes comment on the costs and benefits
associated with this provision.
    16. What kinds of existing reporting procedures might be prohibited
by this requirement? What costs or other detrimental effects might
employers incur if they are prevented from requiring these procedures?
    Finally, OSHA is considering a potential provision prohibiting
employers from disciplining employees for reporting injuries and
illnesses. This provision would simply make more explicit the existing
requirement in 1904.36 that states that ``Section 11(c) of the Act
prohibits you from discriminating against an employee for reporting a
work-related fatality, injury or illness. That provision of the Act
also protects the employee who files a safety and health complaint,
asks for access to the Part 1904 records, or otherwise exercises any
rights afforded by the OSH Act.'' There is no new requirement here. The
additional explicitness is necessary because many stakeholders were
concerned that the new requirements to publicize recordkeeping data
might provide employers new motivation for disciplining employees for
reporting. This provision may help counter such motivation. This
provision would be enforced as the existing 1904 requirements are
enforced, which would also allow OSHA and employers a way to resolve
these issues without either the lengthy delays or the high costs
associated with enforcement under Section 11(c) of the Act.
    17. Do you anticipate any additional costs associated with the
enforcement of the prohibition against discrimination through the
citation and penalty provisions of the OSH Act that would not be
incurred if OSHA instead used its authority under section 11(c) of the
Act? If so, please describe them.
    OSHA also expects that, because these three potential provisions
will only clarify existing requirements, there are also no new economic
benefits. The provisions will at most serve to counter the additional
motivations for employers to discriminate against employees attempting
to report injuries and illnesses.
    OSHA believes these potential provisions are technologically
feasible because they do not require employers to do anything not
already implicitly or explicitly required in existing standards. OSHA
also believes that these potential requirements would be economically
feasible, since they require no more than posting a sign, and in some
cases, reviewing and changing procedures.
    18. OSHA welcomes any information you have on the costs, benefits,
and feasibility of the three provisions discussed in this supplemental
notice. What are the costs and benefits of using this rulemaking to
address the issue of employers who discourage employees from reporting
injuries and illnesses? Are the cost estimates in this document
accurate?

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    OSHA also examined the regulatory requirements of these potential
requirements to determine if they could have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, the
maximum indicated costs to any firm of these potential requirements is
an additional three to five minutes of time to post a sign. There may
be some circumstances where the clarification would make it easier to
assess fines, but the costs of any fines can easily be avoided by
meeting the relatively low costs of compliance with the record keeping
rule.

Environmental Impact Assessment

    OSHA has also reviewed these potential requirement 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 on
Environmental Quality (40 U.S.C. 1500), and the Department of Labor's
NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). The Agency finds that the revisions
included

in the proposal would have no major negative impact on air, water or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of
the environment.
    Finally, OSHA has reviewed these potential requirements in
accordance with E.O. 13132 regarding Federalism. E.O. 13132 requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State
policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that
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. Additionally, E.O. 13132 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 OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 667, expresses Congress' clear
intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA
has promulgated occupational safety and health standards. A state can
avoid preemption by obtaining Federal approval of a State plan for the
development of such standards and their enforcement. Occupational
safety and health standards developed by such State 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.
    The Agency concludes that these potential requirements comply with
E.O. 13132. In States without State Plans, Congress has expressly
provided for Federal preemption on issues addressed by an occupational
safety and health standard. The final rule would preempt State law in
the same manner as any OSHA standard. States with State Plans are free
to develop their own policy options on the issues addressed by this
proposed rule, provided their standards are at least as effective as
the final rule. State comments are invited on this proposal and will be
fully considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels,
Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health. It is issued under Sections 8 and 24 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 657, 673), Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 41-
2012 (77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 6, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-19083 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P