[Federal Register: November 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 57354-57357]
[DOCID:fr05no09-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28988]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

October 30, 2009.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
October, 2009. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each application will be
issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 20, 2009, and should be accompanied by
proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the
issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may
request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

DWS Equity Partners Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8886]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On November 17, 2008, applicant transferred
its assets to a corresponding series of DWS Value Series, Inc., based
on net asset value. Expenses of $172,000 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by Deutsche Investment Management
Americas, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

DWS U.S. Treasury Money Fund [File No. 811-3043]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On May 21, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of Investors Cash Trust, based on net
asset value. Expenses of $135,099 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by Deutsche Investment Management Americas,
Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

DWS Value Builder Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-6600]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 20, 2009, applicant transferred its
assets to DWS Balanced Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$107,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

DWS Tax Free Money Fund [File No. 811-2959]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 19, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to

a corresponding series of Cash Account Trust, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $135,215 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc., applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

DWS Funds Trust [File No. 811-3229]; Investors Municipal Cash Fund
[File No. 811-6108]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On April 23, 2007 and March 22, 2007,
respectively, each applicant transferred its assets to corresponding
series of DWS Advisor Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$48,401 and $88,598, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by Deutsche Investment Management Americas,
Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

EquiTrust Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3121]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On August 31, 2009, applicant transferred its
assets to EquiTrust Series Fund, Inc., based on net asset value.
Expenses of $94,500 incurred in connection with the reorganization were
paid by EquiTrust Investment Management Services, Inc., applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 13, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 5400 University Ave., West Des Moines, IA
50266.

BlackRock World Investment Trust [File No. 811-21800]; BlackRock Global
Equity Income Trust [File No. 811-22006]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July
27, 2009, each applicant transferred its assets to BlackRock Global
Opportunities Equity Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $385,000 and $342,900, respectively, incurred in
connection with the reorganizations were paid by each applicant.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on October 9, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809.

DWS Cash Investment Trust [File No. 811-2613]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 12, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of DWS Money Funds, based on net asset
value. Expenses of $67,583 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by Deutsche Investment Management Americas,
Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 15, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154.

Bond Fund Series [File No. 811-4576]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On August 8, 2009, applicant transferred its
assets to Oppenheimer Capital Income Fund, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $138,750 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.

Rock Canyon Funds [File No. 811-21256]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 15, 2009, applicant transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of Quaker Investment Trust, based on
net asset value. Expenses of $19,150 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by Rock Canyon Advisory Group, Inc.,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 2989 West Maple Loop, Suite 210, Lehi, UT
84043.

ING Large Company Value Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-865]; ING Growth
Opportunities Fund [File No. 811-4431]; ING SmallCap Opportunities Fund
[File No. 811-4434]; ING Financial Services Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
4504]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On September 21, 2002, each applicant
transferred its assets to corresponding series of ING Equity Trust,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $58,511, $112,884,
$112,054 and $122,515, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by applicants and ING Investments, LLC,
applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on September 22, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Scottsdale, AZ
85258-2034.

Keystone State Tax Free Fund [File No. 811-6181]; Keystone State Tax
Free Fund Series II [File No. 811-8254]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. By January 24, 1998, each applicant had
transferred its assets to corresponding series of Evergreen Municipal
Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred in connection with
the reorganizations were paid by applicants.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on September 22, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

AIG Strategic Hedge Fund of Funds [File No. 811-21590]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. From February
13, 2009 to March 31, 2009, applicant made liquidating distributions to
its shareholders, based on net asset value. On March 31, 2009,
applicant contributed its remaining assets and liabilities to a
liquidating trust for the benefit of applicant's four shareholders.
Expenses of $384,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
or will be paid by applicant and the liquidating trust.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 23, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 277 Park Ave., New York, NY 10172.

ING Precious Metals Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-2881]; ING Russia Fund,
Inc. [File No. 811-7587]; ING International Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
8172]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On September 21, 2002, each applicant
transferred its assets to corresponding series of ING Mutual Funds,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $18,456, $19,734
and $13,320, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by applicant and ING Investments, LLC,
applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on September 22, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Scottsdale, AZ
85258-2034.

UBS Enso Fund [File No. 811-22171]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 22,
2009 and September 25, 2009, applicant made liquidating distributions
to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $21,000
incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 25, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: c/o UBS Financial Services Inc., 1285 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10019.

ING GNMA Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-2401]; ING Lexington Money
Market Trust [File No. 811-2701]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On September 21, 2002, each applicant
transferred its assets to corresponding series of ING Funds Trust,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $190,103 and
$17,225, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations
were paid by applicants and ING Investments, LLC, applicants'
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on September 22, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Scottsdale, AZ
85258-2034.

Tortoise Gas and Oil Corporation [File No. 811-22097]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September
14, 2009, applicant transferred its assets to Tortoise North American
Energy Corporation, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$115,770 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant, the acquiring fund and Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C.,
each fund's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 30, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 11550 Ash St., Suite 300, Leawood, KS 66211.

GE LifeStyle Funds [File No. 811-7701]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Between May 15, 2009 and June 29, 2009, the
shareholders of each of applicant's series redeemed their shares at net
asset value. Expenses of $3,700 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by GE Asset Management Incorporated, applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 30, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 3001 Summer St., Stamford, CT 06905.

BACAP Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund, LLC [File No. 811-21252]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 1,
2009, applicant transferred its assets to Excelsior Directional Hedge
Fund of Funds (TI), LLC, based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $804,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by Banc of America Investment Advisors, Inc., applicant's
investment adviser, and U.S. Trust Hedge Fund Management, Inc., the
manager of the acquiring fund. A cash escrow account of $2,000 has been
set up for the benefit of two remaining shareholders, subsidiaries of
the parent of applicant's investment adviser, who remain shareholders
for the sole purpose of facilitating applicant's preparation of its
final tax return. On or about December 31, 2009, applicant will return
to each remaining shareholder its cash contribution of $1,000 plus
interested earned in the escrow account.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 23, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: One Bryant Park, New York, NY 10036.

Activa Mutual Fund Trust [File No. 811-2168]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On August 31, 2009, applicant transferred its
assets to Activa Value Fund, a series of Financial Investors Trust,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $103,898 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by applicant and ALPS Advisors, Inc.,
investment adviser to the acquiring fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 3, 2009, and
amended on October 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 2905 Lucerne SE., Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI
49546.

WT Mutual Fund II [File No. 811-10439]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 1, 2009, and
amended on October 22, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 1100 North Market St., Wilmington, DE 19890.

Gateway Trust [File No. 811-2773]

    Summary: Applicant, an Ohio business trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February
15, 2008, applicant transferred its assets to Gateway Trust, organized
in a different state than applicant, based on net asset value. Expenses
of $1,189,130 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid
by Gateway Investment Advisers, L.P., applicant's investment adviser,
and Natixis Global Asset Management, L.P., which acquired all of the
assets and liabilities of Gateway Investment Advisers, L.P. on February
15, 2008.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 17, 2009, and
amended on October 21, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: Rookwood Tower, Suite 600, 3805 Edwards Rd.,
Cincinnati, OH 45209.

Monarch Funds [File No. 811-6742]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 27, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $10,234 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 2, 2009, and
amended on October 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 3435 Stelzer Rd., Columbus, OH 43219.

Centennial New York Tax-Exempt Trust [File No. 811-5584]; Centennial
California Tax-Exempt Trust [File No. 811-5871]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. By February 13, 2009, all shareholders of
each applicant had redeemed or exchanged their shares of each
applicant, based on net asset value. Applicants incurred no expenses in
connection with the liquidations.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on September 3, 2009, and
amended on September 9, 2009 and October 19, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.

Centennial Tax-Exempt Trust [File No. 811-3104]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an

investment company. By February 13, 2009, all shareholders of applicant
had redeemed or exchanged their shares of applicant, based on net asset
value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the
liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 3, 2009, and
amended on September 9, 2009 and October 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.

    MetLife of CT Fund ABD II for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-
7463]; MetLife of CT Separate Account Thirteen for Variable
Annuities [File No. 811-21263]; MetLife of CT Separate Account PF
for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8313]; MetLife of CT Separate
Account Eight for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8907]; MetLife of
CT Fund BD for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8242]; MetLife of CT
Separate Account TM for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8477];
MetLife of CT Fund BD III for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-
8225]; MetLife of CT Fund BD IV for Variable Annuities [File No.
811-8223]; MetLife of CT Separate Account QP for Variable Annuities
[File No. 811-7487]; MetLife of CT Separate Account Nine for
Variable Annuities [File No. 811-9411]; MetLife of CT Fund ABD for
Variable Annuities [File No. 811-7465]; MetLife of CT Separate
Account Fourteen for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-21267];
MetLife of CT Separate Account Six for Variable Annuities [File No.
811-8869]; MetLife of CT Fund U for Variable Annuities [File No.
811-3575]; MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut Variable Annuity
Separate Account 2002 [File No. 811-21220]; MetLife of CT Separate
Account TM II for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8479]; MetLife of
CT Separate Account Five for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8867];
MetLife and Annuity Company of Connecticut Variable Annuity Separate
Account 2002 [File No. 811-21221]; MetLife of CT Separate Account
Seven for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8909]; MetLife of CT
Separate Account Twelve for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-21266];
MetLife of CT Fund BD II for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-7259];
MetLife of CT Separate Account Ten for Variable Annuities [File No.
811-9413]; MetLife of CT Separate Account PF II for Variable
Annuities [File No. 811-8317]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. The board of directors of the applicants'
depositor, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (``MICC''),
approved the merger of each applicant into MetLife of CT Separate
Account Eleven for Variable Annuities on March 24, 2008. The mergers
were effected on December 8, 2008. MICC bore all expenses relating to
the mergers.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on August 24, 2009 and
amended and restated on October 14, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 1300 Hall Boulevard, Bloomfield, CT 06002-
2910.

    MetLife of CT Variable Life Insurance Separate Account Two [File
No. 811-7891]; MetLife of CT Variable Life Insurance Separate
Account Three [File No. 811-8950]; MetLife of CT Fund UL II for
Variable Life Insurance [File No. 811-7411]; MetLife of CT Variable
Life Insurance Separate Account One [File No. 811-8952]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. The board of directors of the applicants'
depositor, MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut (``MICC''),
approved the merger of each applicant into MetLife of CT Fund UL for
Variable Life Insurance on March 24, 2008. The mergers were effected on
December 8, 2008. MICC bore all expenses relating to the mergers.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on August 24, 2009 and
amended and restated on October 14, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 1300 Hall Boulevard, Bloomfield, CT 06002-
2910.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26660 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1429-1430]
[FR Doc No: 2012-244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1247; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-24]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Springfield
Municipal Airport, Springfield, CO. Decommissioning of the Tobe
Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN) has made this action necessary
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
1247; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-24, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-1247 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-24) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-1247 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-24''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Springfield Municipal
Airport, Springfield, CO. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to
the decommissioning of the Tobe TACAN. This action would enhance the
safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Springfield Municipal Airport,
Springfield, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO, E5 Springfield, CO [Amended]

Springfield Municipal Airport, CO
    (Lat. 37[deg]27'31'' N., long. 102[deg]37'05'' W.)
Tobe VOR/DME
    (Lat. 37[deg]15'31'' N., long. 103[deg]36'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Springfield Municipal Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
beginning at Tobe VOR/DME, thence north along V-169 to lat.
38[deg]34'00'' N.; to lat. 38[deg]34'00'' N., long. 102[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 36[deg]30'00'' N., long. 102[deg]00'00'' W.; thence west
on lat. 36[deg]30'00'' N., to V-81; thence northwest along V-81 to
the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 29, 2011.
William Buck,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-244 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The Panel recommends that OSHA consider alternatives that would alleviate the need for monitoring in operations with exposures far below the PEL. The Panel also recommends that OSHA consider explaining more clearly how employers may use "objective data" to estimate exposures. Although the draft proposal contains a provision allowing employers to initially estimate exposures using "objective data" (e.g., data showing that the action level is unlikely to be exceeded for the kinds of process or operations an employer has), the SERs did not appear to have fully understood how this alternative may be used.
OSHA has removed the initial exposure monitoring requirement for workers likely to be exposed to beryllium by skin or eye contact through routine handling of beryllium powders or dusts or contact with contaminated surfaces.
The periodic monitoring requirement presented in the SBAR Panel report required monitoring every 6 months for airborne levels at or above the action level but below the PEL, and every 3 months for exposures at or above the PEL. The proposed standard requires annual exposure monitoring for levels at or above the action level and at or below the PEL.
By reducing the frequency of periodic monitoring from every 6 months (version submitted to the SBAR panel) to annually where exposure levels are at or below the PEL (the proposed standard), the Agency has lessened the need for monitoring in small business operations with exposures at or below the PEL.
In the preamble to the proposed standard, OSHA has clarified the circumstances under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu of initial monitoring.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response

OSHA is also considering whether to create a guidance product on the use of objective data.  These issues are discussed in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (d): Exposure Monitoring.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider providing some type of guidance to describe how to use objective data to estimate exposures in lieu of conducting personal sampling.
Using objective data could provide significant regulatory relief to several industries where airborne exposures are currently reported by SERs to be well below even the lowest PEL option. In particular, since several ancillary provisions, which may have significant costs for small entities may be triggered by the PEL or an action level, OSHA should consider encouraging and simplifying the development of objective data from a variety of sources.
In the preamble to the proposed standard, OSHA has clarified the circumstances under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu of initial monitoring.  OSHA is also considering whether to create a guidance product on the use of objective data to satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule.
These issues are discussed in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (d): Exposure Monitoring.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA revisit its analysis of the costs of regulated areas if a very low PEL is proposed.  Drop or limit the provision for regulated areas: SERs with very low exposure levels or only occasional work with beryllium questioned the need for separating areas of work by exposure level.  Segregating machines or operations, SERs said, would affect productivity and flexibility.  Until the health risks of beryllium are known in their industries, SERs challenged the need for regulated areas.
SERs with very low exposure levels or only occasional work with beryllium will not be required to have regulated areas unless exposures are above the proposed PEL of 0.2 μg/m3 .
The proposed standard requires the employer to establish and maintain a regulated area wherever employees are, or can be expected to be exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above a PEL of 0.2 μg/m3 .

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA revisit its cost model for hygiene areas to reflect SERs' comments that estimated costs are too low and more carefully consider the opportunity costs of using space for hygiene areas where SERs report they have no unused space in their physical plant for them. The Panel also recommends that OSHA consider more clearly defining the triggers (skin exposure and contaminated surfaces) for the hygiene areas provisions. In addition, the Panel recommends that OSHA consider alternative requirements for hygiene areas dependent on airborne exposure levels or types of processes. Such alternatives might include, for example, hand washing facilities in lieu of showers in particular cases or different hygiene area triggers where exposure levels are very low.
 The Agency has removed skin exposure as a trigger for the hygiene provision. The requirement for washing facilities applies to each employee working in a beryllium work area.  A beryllium work area means any work area where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.  OSHA has preliminarily concluded that all affected employers currently have hand-washing facilities.
OSHA has also preliminarily concluded that no affected employers will be required to install showers.
Change rooms have only been costed for regulated areas or where employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the PEL.  The Agency has determined that the long-term rental of modular units was representative of costs for a range of reasonable approaches to comply with the change room part of the provision.  Alternatively, employers could renovate and rearrange their work areas in order to meet the requirements of this provision.  OSHA requests comment on the cost estimates for these facilities.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider clearly explaining the purpose of the housekeeping provision and describing what affected employers must do to achieve it.
For example, OSHA should consider explaining more specifically what surfaces need to be cleaned and how frequently they need to be cleaned. The Panel recommends that the Agency consider providing guidance in some form so that employers understand what they must do. The Panel also recommends that once the requirements are clarified that the Agency re-analyze its cost estimates.
The Panel also recommends that OSHA reconsider whether the risk and cost of all parts of the medical surveillance provisions are appropriate where exposure levels are very low. In that context, the Panel recommends that OSHA should also consider the special problems and costs to small
In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA has clarified the purpose of the housekeeping provision.  However, due to the variety of work settings in which beryllium is used, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that a highly specific directive on what surfaces need to be cleaned, and how frequently, would not provide effective guidance to businesses.  Instead, at the suggestion of industry and union stakeholders (Materion and USW, 2012), OSHA's proposed standard includes a more flexible requirement for employers to develop a written exposure control plan specific to their facilities.  The written exposure control plan must include documentation of operations and jobs with beryllium exposure and housekeeping procedures, including surface cleaning and beryllium migration control. OSHA requests suggestions for examples of specific guidance that could be helpful to employers preparing written exposure control plans.
These issues are discussed in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (f) Methods of Compliance and (j) Housekeeping.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
businesses that up until now may not have had to provide or manage the various parts of an occupational health standard or program.
Regulatory Alternative #20 would reduce the frequency of physical examinations from annual to biennial, matching the frequency of BeLPT testing in the proposed rule.
These alternatives for medical surveillance are discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider that small entities may lack the flexibility and resources to provide alternative jobs to employees who test positive for the BeLPT, and whether MRP achieves its intended purpose given the course of beryllium disease.  The Panel also recommends that if MRP is implemented, that its effects on the viability of very small firms with a sensitized employee be considered carefully.
Under the proposed standard, employees are only eligible for medical removal if they are sensitized or have been diagnosed with CBD; skin exposure is not a trigger for medical removal (unlike the version submitted by the SBAR Panel).  After becoming eligible for medical removal an employee may choose to remain in a job with exposure at or above the action level, provided that the employee wears a respirator in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134).  If the employee chooses removal, the employer is only required to place the employee in comparable work with exposure below the action level if such work is available; if such work is not available, the employer may place the employee on paid leave for six months or until such work becomes available.
OSHA discusses the basis of the provision and requests comments on it in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (l) Medical Removal Protection.  OSHA provides an analysis of costs and economic impacts of the provision in this PEA in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider more clearly defining the trigger mechanisms for medical surveillance and also consider additional or alternative triggers--such as limiting the BeLPT to a narrower range of exposure scenarios and reducing the frequency of BeLPT tests and physical exams.   The Panel also recommends that OSHA reconsider whether the risk and cost of all parts of the medical surveillance provisions are appropriate where exposure levels are very low.  In that context, the Panel recommends that OSHA should also consider the special problems and costs to small businesses that up until now may not have had to provide or manage the various parts of an occupational health standard or program.

As stated above, the triggers for medical surveillance in the proposed standard have changed from those presented to the SBAR Panel.  Whereas the draft standard presented at the SBAR Panel required medical surveillance for employees with skin contact-- potentially applying to employees with any level of airborne exposure -- the proposed standard ties medical surveillance to exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.2 μg/m[3] (or signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects, or emergency exposure). Thus, small businesses with exposures below the proposed PEL would not need to provide or manage medical surveillance for their employees unless employees develop signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects or are exposed in emergencies.
These issues are discussed in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that the Agency, in evaluating the economic feasibility of a potential regulation, consider not only the impacts of estimated costs on affected establishments, but also the effects of the possible outcomes cited by SERs: loss of market demand, the loss of market to foreign competitors, and of U.S. production being moved abroad by U.S. firms. The Panel also recommends that OSHA consider the potential burdens on small businesses of dealing with employees who have a positive test from the BeLPT. OSHA may wish to address this issue by examining the experience of small businesses that currently provide the BeLPT test.
OSHA has reviewed the possible effects of the proposed regulation on market demand and/or foreign production, in addition to the Agency's usual measures of economic impact (costs as a fraction of revenues and profits). This discussion can be found in Chapter VI of the PEA (entitled Economic Feasibility Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Determination).

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider seeking ways of minimizing costs for small businesses where the exposure levels may be very low. Clarifying the use of objective data, in particular, may allow industries and establishments with very low exposures to reduce their costs and involvement with many provisions of a standard. The Panel also recommends that the Agency consider tiering the application of ancillary provisions of the standard according to exposure levels and consider a more limited or narrowed scope of industries.
The provisions in the standard presented in the SBAR panel report applied to all employees, whereas the proposed standard's ancillary provisions are only applied to employees in work areas who are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.  In addition, the scope of the proposed standard includes several limitations.  Whereas the standard presented in the SBAR panel report covered beryllium in all forms and compounds in general industry, construction, and maritime, the scope of the proposed standard (1) applies only to general industry; (2) does not apply to beryllium-containing articles that the employer does not process; and (3) does not apply to materials that contain less than 0.1% beryllium by weight.
In the preamble to the proposed standard, OSHA has clarified the circumstances under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu of initial monitoring

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response

(Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (d) Exposure Monitoring).  OSHA is also considering whether to create a guidance product on the use of objective data to comply with the requirements of the proposed standard.
OSHA is considering two Regulatory Alternatives that would reduce the impact of ancillary alternatives on employers, including small businesses.  Regulatory Alternative #7, a PEL-only standard, would drop all ancillary provisions from the standard.  Regulatory Alternative #8 would limit the application of several ancillary provisions, including Exposure Monitoring, the written exposure control plan section of Method of Compliance, PPE, Housekeeping, and Medical Surveillance, to operations or employees with exposure levels exceeding the TWA PEL or STEL.
These alternatives are discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section I, Issues and Alternatives.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide an explanation and analysis for all health outcomes (and their scientific basis) upon which it is regulating employee exposure to beryllium. The Panel also recommends that OSHA consider to what extent a very low PEL (and lower action level) may result in increased costs of ancillary provisions to small entities (without affecting airborne employee exposures). Since in the draft proposal the PEL and action level are critical triggers, the Panel recommends that OSHA consider alternate action levels, including an action level set at the PEL, if a very low PEL is proposed.
The explanation and analysis for all health outcomes (and their scientific basis) are discussed in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section V, Health Effects, and Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment.  They are also reviewed in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section VIII, Significance of Risk, and the Benefits Chapter of this PEA.  OSHA requests comment on these health outcomes.
As discussed above, OSHA is considering Regulatory Alternatives #7 and #8, which would eliminate or reduce the impact of ancillary provisions on employers, respectively.  These alternatives are discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter of this PEA and in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section I, Issues and Alternatives.  OSHA seeks comment on other ways to avoid costs of ancillary provisions when they are not necessary to protect employees from exposure to beryllium.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider more clearly and thoroughly defining the triggers for ancillary provisions, particularly the skin exposure trigger. In addition, the Panel recommends that OSHA clearly explain the basis and need for small entities to comply with ancillary provisions. The Panel also recommends that OSHA consider narrowing the trigger related to skin and contamination to capture only those situations where surfaces and surface dust may contain beryllium in a concentration that is significant enough to pose any risk -- or limiting the application of the trigger for some ancillary provisions.
OSHA has removed skin exposure as a trigger for several ancillary provisions in the proposed standard, including Exposure Monitoring, Hygiene Areas and Practices, and Medical Surveillance.  In addition, the language of the proposed standard regarding skin exposure has changed: for some ancillary provisions, including PPE and Housekeeping, the requirements are triggered by visible contamination with beryllium or dermal contact with soluble beryllium compounds. These requirements are discussed in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.  The Agency has also explained the basis and need for compliance with ancillary provisions in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
Several SERs said that OSHA should first assume the burden of describing the exposure level in each industry rather than employers doing so. Others said that the Agency should accept exposure determinations made on an industry-wide basis, especially where exposures were far below the PEL options under consideration.
As noted above, the Panel recommends that OSHA consider alternatives that would alleviate the need for monitoring in operations or processes with exposures far below the PEL. The use of objective data is a principal method for industries with low exposures to satisfy compliance with a proposed standard. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider providing some guidance to small entities in the use of objective data.
In the Technological Feasibility Analysis presented in this PEA, OSHA has described the exposure level in each industry or application group.
In the preamble to the proposed standard, OSHA has clarified the circumstances under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu of initial monitoring (section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (d) Exposure Monitoring).  Industry-wide data may be used as objective data to support an employer's case that exposures at its facilities are far below the PEL.  OSHA is also considering whether to create a guidance product on the use of objective data to comply with requirements in the proposed standard.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider more fully evaluating whether the BeLPT is suitable as a test for beryllium sensitization in an OSHA standard and respond to the points raised by the SERs about its efficacy. In addition, the Agency should consider the availability of other tests under development for detecting beryllium sensitization and not limit either employers' choices or new science and technology in this area. Finally, the Panel recommends that OSHA re-consider the trigger for medical surveillance where exposures are low and consider if there are appropriate alternatives.
OSHA has provided discussion of the BeLPT in Appendix A to the regulatory text; in the preamble to the proposed rule at section V, Health Effects; and in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.  In the regulatory text, OSHA has clarified that a test for beryllium sensitization other than the BeLPT may be used in lieu of the BeLPT if a more reliable and accurate diagnostic test is developed.  In the preamble at Section I, Issues and Alternatives, the Agency requests comments on the BeLPT and on the reliability and accuracy of alternate tests.
As stated above, the triggers for medical surveillance in the proposed standard have changed from those presented to the SBAR Panel.  Whereas the draft standard presented during the SBREFA process required medical surveillance for employees with skin contact--potentially applying to employees with any level of airborne exposure--

Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

the proposed standard ties medical surveillance to exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.2 μg/m[3] (or signs or symptoms of beryllium-related health effects, or emergency exposure).  The triggers for medical surveillance are discussed in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.
OSHA is considering Regulatory Alternative #16, which would eliminate BeLPT testing requirements from the proposed standard. This alternative is discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
Seeking ways of minimizing costs to low risk processes and operations: OSHA should consider alternatives for minimizing costs to industries, operations, or processes that have low exposures. Such alternatives may include, but not be limited to: encouraging the use of objective data by such mechanisms as providing guidance for objective data; assuring that triggers for skin exposure and surface contamination are clear and do not pull in low risk operations; providing guidance on least-cost ways for low risk facilities to determine what provisions of the standard they need to comply with; and considering ways to limit the scope of the standard if it can be ascertained that certain processes do not represent a significant risk.
The standard presented in the SBAR panel report had skin exposure as a trigger.  The only skin exposure trigger in the proposed standard is the requirement for PPE when employees' skin is potentially exposed to soluble beryllium compounds.  OSHA uses an exposure profile to determine which workers will be affected by the standard. As a result, the proposed standard establishes regulated work areas and exposure monitoring only with respect to employees who are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
 In addition, the scope of the proposed standard includes several limitations.  Whereas the standard presented in the SBAR panel report covered beryllium in all forms and compounds in general industry, construction, and maritime, the scope of the proposed standard (1) applies only to general industry; (2) does not apply to beryllium-containing articles that the employer does not process; and (3) does not apply to materials that contain less than 0.1% beryllium by weight.
In the preamble to the proposed standard,

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response

OSHA has clarified the circumstances under which an employer may use historical and objective data in lieu of initial monitoring (Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (d) Exposure Monitoring).  OSHA is also considering whether to create a guidance product on the use of objective data.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
PEL-only standard: One SER recommended a PEL-only standard. This would protect employees from airborne exposure risks while relieving the beryllium industry of the cost of the ancillary provisions. The Panel recommends that OSHA, consistent with its statutory obligations, analyze this alternative.
OSHA is considering Regulatory Alternative #7, a PEL-only standard. This alternative is discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section I, Issues and Alternatives.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
Alternative triggers for ancillary provisions: The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify and consider eliminating or narrowing the triggers for ancillary provisions associated with skin exposure or contamination. In addition, the Panel recommends that OSHA should consider trying ancillary provisions dependent on exposure rather than have these provisions all take effect with the same trigger. If OSHA does rely on a trigger related to skin exposure, OSHA should thoroughly explain and justify this approach based on an analysis of the scientific or research literature that shows a risk of sensitization via exposure to skin. If OSHA adopts a relatively low PEL, OSHA should consider the effects of alternative airborne action levels in pulling in many low risk facilities that may be unlikely to exceed the PEL--and consider using only the PEL as a trigger at very low levels.
OSHA has removed skin exposure as a trigger for several ancillary provisions in the proposed standard, including Exposure Monitoring, Hygiene Areas and Practices, and Medical Surveillance.  In addition, the language of the proposed standard regarding skin exposure has changed: for some ancillary provisions, including PPE and Housekeeping, the requirements are triggered by visible contamination with beryllium or skin contact with soluble beryllium compounds. These requirements are discussed in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.
OSHA has explained the scientific basis for minimizing skin exposure to beryllium in the preamble to the proposed rule at Section V, Health Effects, and explains the basis for specific ancillary provisions related to skin exposure in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response

In the proposed standard, the application of ancillary provisions is dependent on exposure, and not all provisions take effect with the same trigger. A number of requirements are triggered by exposures (or a reasonable expectation of exposures) above the PEL or action level (AL).  As discussed above, OSHA is considering Regulatory Alternatives #7 and #8, which would eliminate or reduce the impact of ancillary provisions on employers, respectively.  These alternatives are discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter of this PEA and in the preamble to the proposed standard at Section I, Issues and Alternatives.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
Revise the medical surveillance provisions, including eliminating the BeLPT: The BeLPT was the most common complaint from SERs. The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully examine the value of the BeLPT and consider whether it should be a requirement of a medical surveillance program. The Panel recommends that OSHA present the scientific evidence that supports the use of the BeLPT as several SERs were doubtful of its reliability. The Panel recommends that OSHA also consider reducing the frequency of physicals and the BeLPT, if these provisions are included in a proposal. The Panel recommends that OSHA also consider a performance-based medical surveillance program, permitting employers in consultation with physicians and health experts to develop appropriate tests and their frequency.
Responding to comments from SERs, OSHA has revised the medical surveillance provision and removed the skin exposure trigger for medical surveillance.  As a result, OSHA estimates that the number of small-business employees requiring a BELPT will be substantially reduced.
OSHA has provided discussion of the BeLPT in Appendix A to the regulatory text; in the preamble to the proposed rule at section V, Health Effects; and in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.  In the regulatory text, OSHA has clarified that a test for beryllium sensitization other than the BeLPT may be used in lieu of the BeLPT if a more reliable and accurate diagnostic test is developed.  In the preamble at Section I, Issues and Alternatives, the Agency requests comments on the BeLPT and on the reliability and accuracy of alternate tests.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response

The frequency of periodic BeLPT testing in the proposed standard is biennial, whereas annual testing was included in the draft standard presented to the SBAR Panel.
Regulatory Alternative #20 would reduce the frequency of physical examinations from annual to biennial, matching the frequency of BeLPT testing in the proposed rule.
In response to the suggestion to allow performance-based medical surveillance, OSHA is considering two regulatory alternatives that would provide greater flexibility in the program of tests provided as part of an employer's medical surveillance program. Regulatory Alternative #16 would eliminate BeLPT testing requirements from the proposed standard.  Regulatory Alternative #18 would eliminate the CT scan requirement from the proposed standard.  These alternatives are discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (k) Medical Surveillance.

Panel Recommendation
OSHA Response
No medical removal protection (MRP): OSHA's draft proposed standard did not include any provision for medical removal protection, but OSHA did ask the SERs to comment on MRP as a possibility. Based on the SER comments, the Panel recommends that if OSHA includes an MRP provision, the agency provide a thorough analysis of why such a provision is needed, what it might accomplish, and what its full costs and economic impacts on those small businesses that need to use it might be.

The proposed standard includes an MRP provision.  OSHA discusses the basis of the provision and requests comments on it in the preamble at Section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (l) Medical Removal Protection.  OSHA provides an analysis of costs and economic impacts of the provision in this PEA in Chapter V and Chapter VI, respectively.
The Agency is considering Alternative #22, which would eliminate the MRP requirement from the standard. This alternative is discussed in the Regulatory Alternatives Chapter and in in the preamble at section XVIII, Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, (l) Medical Removal Protection.

                                  References
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2010. Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2010.
Cummings, K.J., D.C. Duebner, G. A. Day, P.K. Henneberger, M.M. Kitt, M.S. Kent, K. Kreiss, and C.R. Schuler, 2007. "Enhanced preventive programme at a beryllium oxide ceramics facility reduces beryllium sensitisation among new workers," Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 64(2): 134-140.

DOE/HSS, 2006. "Beryllium Current Worker Health Surveillance Through 2005," Publication ORISE 05-1711, https://www3.orau.gov/BAWR/pdf/beregistryrpt_2-13-2007.pdf.

Henneberger, P.K., D. Cumro, D.D. Deubner, M.S. Kent, M. McCawley and K. Kreiss, 2001. "Beryllium sensitization and disease among long-term and short-term workers in a beryllium ceramics plant," Int. Arch Occup Environ Health, 74:167-176.

Kelleher, P.C., J.W. Martyny, M.M. Mroz, L.A. Maier, A.J. Ruttenber, D.A. Young, and L.S. Newman, 2001. "Beryllium Particulate Exposure and Disease Relations in a Beryllium Machining Plant," Journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, 43:238-249.

Kent, M.S., T.G. Robins, and A.K. Madl, 2001. "Is Total Mass or Mass of Alveolar-Deposited Airborne Particles of Beryllium a Better Predictor of the Prevalence of Disease? A Preliminary Study of a Beryllium Processing Facility," Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 16(5): 539-558.

Kolanz, M., 2001.  Brush Wellman Customer Data Summary.  OSHA Presentation, July 2, 2001. Washington, DC.
Kreiss, K,. Mroz, M. M., Zhen, B., Wiedemann, H., Barna, B., 1997.  Risk of beryllium disease related to work processes of a metal, alloy, and oxide production plant, Occupational Environmental Medicine, 54-605-612.

Kreiss, K., M.M. Mroz, B. Zhen, J.W. Martyny, and L.S. Newman, 1996. "Machining Risk of Beryllium Disease and Sensitization with Median Exposures Below 2ug/m[3]," American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 30: 16-25.

Levy, P.S., H.D. Roth, P.M.T. Hwang, and T.E. Powers, 2002.  "Beryllium and Lung Cancer: A Reanalysis of a NIOSH Cohort Mortality Study," Inhalation Toxicology, 14:1003-1015.

Madl, A.K., K. Unice, J.L. Brown, M.E. Kolanz, and M.S. Kent, 2007. "Exposure-Response Analysis for Beryllium Sensitization and Chronic Beryllium Disease Among Workers in a Beryllium Metal Machining Plant," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 4(6), 448-466.

Materion and United Steelworkers, 2012.  Industry and Labor Joint Submission to OSHA of a Recommended Standard for Beryllium. February, 2012.
McCawley, M.A., M.S. Kent, and M.T. Berakis, 2001. "Ultrafine Beryllium Number Concentration as a Possible Metric for Chronic Beryllium Disease Risk," Applied Occupation and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 16(5): 631-638.

National Jewish Health, 2013. webpage on Chronic Beryllium Disease: Work Environment Management, from http://www.nationaljewish.org/healthinfo/conditions/beryllium-disease/environment-management/, accessed May 2013.
Newman, L. S., M.M. Mroz, R. Balkissoon, and L.A. Maier, 2005. "Beryllium Sensitization Progresses to Chronic Beryllium Disease," Am J Respir Crit Care Med, Volume 171, pp 54-60.

Newman, L.S., M.M. Mroz, L.A. Maier, E.M., Daniloff and R. Balkissoon, 2001.  "Efficacy of Serial Medical Surveillance for Chronic Beryllium Disease in a Beryllium Machining Plant," JOEM, Volume 43:(3).

OSHA, 2007.  Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Preliminary Draft Standard for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium, September 17.  OSHA Beryllium Docket Document ID Number: OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0338.

Rosenman, K., V. Hertzberg, C. Rice, M. J. Reilly, J. Aronchick, J.E. Parker, J. Regovich, and M. Rossman, 2005. "Chronic beryllium disease and sensitization at a beryllium processing facility," Environ Health Perspectives, Volume 113(10):1366-72.

Rossman, M.D., 2001. "Chronic beryllium disease: a hypersensitivity disorder," Appl Occup Environ Hyg., 16:615 - 618.

SBAR, 2008.  Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on the OSHA Draft Proposed Standard for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium. Small Business Advisory Review Panel Report with Appendices A, B, C, and D.  Final version, January 15, 2008.  OSHA Beryllium Docket Document ID Number: OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-0345.
Schuler, C.R., M.S. Kent, D.C. Deubner, M.T. Berakis, M. McCawley,  P.K. Henneberger, M.D. Rossman, and K. Kreiss, 2005.  "Process-Related Risk of Beryllium Sensitization and Disease in a Copper-Beryllium Alloy Facility," American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 47:195-205.

Stange, A., F.J. Furman, and D.E. Hilmas, 2004. "The Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test: Relevant Issues in Beryllium Health Surveillance," American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46:453-462.

Stange A.W., D.E. Hilmas, F.J. Furman, and T.R. Gatliffe, 2001. "Beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium disease at a former nuclear weapons facility," Applied  Occupational Environmnetal Hygienist,16:405 - 417.

Tinkle, S.S., J.M. Anthonini, B.A. Rich, J.R. Roberts, R. Salmen, K. DePree, and E. J. Adkins , 2003. "Skin as a Route of Exposure and Sensitization in Chronic Beryllium Disease," Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111(9): July.

Viet, S.M., J. Torma-Krajewski, and J. Rogers, 2000. "Chronic beryllium disease and beryllium sensitization at Rocky Flats: a case-control study," American Industrial Hygenist  Association Journal. 61(2):244-254

Ward E., A. Okun, A. Ruder, M. Fingerhut, K. Steenland, 1992. "A mortality study of workers at seven beryllium processing plants," American Journal of
      Industrial Medicine 22:885-904.


Health Impact Alternate Scenario 19 months Overview

Scenario
Hospitalizations
Fatalities
Main Estimate
277,736
6,830
19-Month Baseline
144,720
3,559

This alternative 19-month baseline scenario uses an entirely different methodology to derive its estimates of hospitalizations and fatalities than the methodology used in the main analysis and the other alternative scenarios. While OSHA believes its main analysis is more relevant at this time, the alternative 19-month baseline methodology is much more closely aligned with the methodology that OSHA used in its Healthcare ETS published in June 2021, which relies on a historic average over roughly the same time period.

The two main differences in the overall approach between the main 6-month analysis and this alternative 19-month analysis are summarized in the table below:

Comparison of key differences in baseline data between main and alternative estimates

Baseline number
Duration
Main Estimate
CDC # of cases and fatalities for unvaccinated persons (14 States)
April 1, 2021 to September 4,, 2021
19-Month Baseline
CDC # of cases and fatalities for all persons (General Population)
March 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021

Additional differences in methodology flow necessarily from the reliance on these different baselines.  Both analyses require adjustments to focus the estimates on people within the working ages group of 18-64 and rely on essentially the same reductions to account for infections that might not be prevented by the ETS.

Methodology for Alternate Scenario 19 months
The description below is intended to provide a broad overview of the different steps necessary to arrive at the alternative estimates of the number of cases and fatalities prevented by this ETS.  The full calculations are contained in OSHA's Analytical Spreadsheets Supporting the Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS (OSHA, October 28, 2021).

Step 1:  Estimate the number of cases and fatalities among the general population, aged 18 to 64 years old, over 19 months (March 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021)
Starting point:  CDC data on expected number of COVID - 19 infections, hospitalizations, and fatalities prevented by the ETS is to identify the expected number of the respective health outcomes in the absence of the standard. OSHA adjusted the number of fatalities and cases upward to account for cases and fatalities where age was not identified.
Summary:  - Number of cases (adjusted) over 19 months, Ages 18-64 = 31,534,961
Number of fatalities (adjusted) over 19 months, Ages 18-64 = 151,219

Step 2:  Estimate the number of employees who will be vaccinated under the ETS.
This step, and its calculations, are identical to the first step in the main Health Impacts analysis.  As in that analysis, OSHA relied on the Cost Analysis Profile as starting point, which estimates that 20,822,580 employees will likely be vaccinated as a result of this ETS for Cost Purposes, and reduced that number to 18,914,528 for Impacts purposes.  Compared to the Cost Profile, this step removed from Impacts analysis the portion of the estimated 1.76 million Federal Contractors already required to be vaccinated by the Federal Contractor Guidance, as well as the portion of the population outside the 18-64 age group, who work for covered employers (those with 100 or more employees).  A reduction for health care workers covered by § 1910.502 is also accounted for in these calculations (see main analysis for details).

Step 3:  Estimate infections avoided because of vaccinations under the ETS, ages 18-64, over 19 months
OSHA calculated and then applied an infection rate for the general population over the 19 month baseline period (31,534,961 cases (Step 1)/196,957,000 (working population aged 18-64 (CPS, 2020)) = 16 percent), and then applied that rate to the number of workers likely to be vaccinated because of the ETS for Health Impacts purposes (Step 2).  This focuses the analysis only on those covered employees where vaccination under the ETS would be likely to prevent infection during the 19 month baseline period: 0.16 x 18,914,528 = 3,028,422 infections.

Step 4:  Estimate fatalities avoided because of vaccinations under the ETS, ages 18-64, over 6 months
OSHA estimated a Case-Fatality Ratio (151,219 fatalities (Step 1) / 31,534,961 cases (Step 1) = 0.005 fatalities per case), applied it to the infections avoided because of vaccinations under the ETS over 19 months (3,028,422 cases, Step 3), and, from that number, derived the fatalities avoided because of vaccinations under the ETS over 6 months.  OSHA also adjusted that number downward to account for 97% vaccine effectiveness, based on an Andrews study, as adjusted slightly upward to account for the removal of results from people in the age range of 65-74 (see Step 2).  OSHA also further adjusted that number downward to account for "community acquired infections" that would not have been prevented by this ETS by applying the same 20% percentage reduction as in Step 3A ("Derive adjusted cases") in the main Health Impacts analysis.  Finally OSHA adjusts for the time period of six months:  ((3,028,422 x 0.005 x 0.97 x 0.8)/19) x 6 = 3,559 fatalities.

Step 5:  Estimate hospitalizations avoided because of vaccinations under the ETS, ages 18-64, in 6 months
To determine the number of hospitalizations, OSHA uses the same hospitalization rate formula as used in Step 4 of the main analysis (but using the number of fatalities in this analysis to generate the number of hospitalizations:  (3,559 fatalities / 0.024 ratio)  -  3,559 hospitalized fatalities = 144,720 hospitalizations.  For more information on this calculation and sources, see the main analysis.

References

Andrews et al. (2021, September 21). Vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax against mild and severe COVID-19 in the UK. medRxiv preprint. doi:10.1101/2<IP_ADDRESS>63583. (Andrews et al., September 21, 2021)
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2021, October 28) COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State over Time. https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-State-o/9mfq-cb36. (CDC, October 28, 2021)
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2021, September 30). CDC's Cases and Deaths, Daily and Total Trends, found on the CDC COVID Data Tracker website (CDC Data Tracker) https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-State-o/9mfq-cb36. (CDC, September 30, 2021)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2021, October 28a). Analytical Spreadsheets Supporting the Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS. (OSHA, October 28, 2021a)