[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55926-55927]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19471]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1107; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-156 and V-285 in the
Vicinity of Kalamazoo, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways V-156 and V-285. The FAA is proposing this action due
to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Kalamazoo, MI
(AZO), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid
(NAVAID). The Kalamazoo VOR is being decommissioned in support of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-1107; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-1 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of 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 modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

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-2022-1107; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at 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-2022-1107; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-1.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date 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 comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/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 ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Kalamazoo, MI, VOR in April
2023. The Kalamazoo VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for
discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final
policy

statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation Services for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to
Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum
Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register of July 26,
2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Kalamazoo VOR/DME is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support NextGen PBN flight procedure requirements.
    The ATS routes affected by the Kalamazoo VOR decommissioning are
VOR Federal airways V-156 and V-285. With the planned decommissioning
of the Kalamazoo VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the
area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the airways. As such,
modifications to the airways would result in V-156 and V-285 being
shortened. Further, concurrent changes to V-285 have been proposed in a
separate NPRM.
    To overcome the loss of a portion of V-156 and V-285 by this
action, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use portions of
adjacent VOR Federal airways V-55, V-274, and V-277 to circumnavigate
the affected area, or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors
to fly through the affected area. Additionally, IFR pilots equipped
with RNAV capabilities could file and navigate point to point using the
existing fixes and waypoints that would remain in place, or could use
area navigation (RNAV) route T-217 to support continued operations
though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to
navigate via the affected ATS routes could also take advantage of the
adjacent ATS routes or ATC services listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR
Federal airways V-156 and V-285 due to the planned decommissioning of
the VOR portion of the Kalamazoo, MI (AZO), VOR/DME. The proposed
airway actions are described below.
    V-156: V-156 currently extends between the Cedar Rapids, IA, VOR/
DME and the Kalamazoo, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the
airway segment overlying the Kalamazoo VOR/DME between the Gipper, MI,
VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Kalamazoo, MI, VOR/DME.
The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-285: V-285 currently extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC
and the Victory, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Kalamazoo VOR/DME between the Goshen, IN, VORTAC
and the Victory, MI, VOR/DME. Concurrent changes to other portions of
the airway have been proposed in a separate NPRM. The unaffected
portions of the existing route would remain as charted.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-156
description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes
listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO
7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (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 that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-156 [Amended]

    From Cedar Rapids, IA; Moline, IL; Bradford, IL; Peotone, IL;
INT Peotone 098[deg] and Knox, IN, 238[deg] radials; Knox; to
Gipper, MI.
* * * * *

V-285 [Amended]

    From Brickyard, IN; Kokomo, IN; to Goshen, IN.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 1, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-19471 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal
Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart BBBB) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal
Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart BBBB) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1901.04, OMB Control
Number 2060-0424

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 NSPS) for
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste
Combustion (MWC) Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999,
(“Emission Guidelines”), were originally promulgated in December
1995, but were vacated by the Federal Court in March 1997.  The Emission
Guidelines were re-proposed on August 30, 1999, and promulgated on
December 6, 2000 (65 FR76378).  The Emission Guidelines regulate
organics (dioxin/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and
particulate matter), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide,
and nitrogen oxides).

	The Emission Guidelines contain monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements that are to be included in state plans.  This
Information Collection Request (ICR) identifies the burden to
respondents (i.e., small MWCs) that will be imposed by state plans
developed to implement the Emission Guidelines.  Respondents are owners
or operators of existing small MWC units.  Small MWC units are units
with capacities to combust greater than 35 tons per day and less than
250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.

	In general, all Emission Guidelines standards require initial reports,
semiannual reports and annual reports.  Owners or operators are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  Owners or operators subject to the Emission Guidelines are
required to maintain files for at least five years.

Approximately 54 sources located at 23 plants are currently subject to
the Emission Guidelines.  Since the Emission Guidelines only apply to
sources that commenced construction on or before August 30, 1999, no
additional MWC units will become subject to the standard over the next
three years.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the
currently active ICR without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 111(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
as

amended, to:

. . . prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to
that provided by section 110 under which each State shall submit to the
Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for
any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality
criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list
published under section 108(a) . . . but (ii) to which a standard of
performance under this section would apply    if such existing source
were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and
enforcement of such standards of performance.

The EPA is required under section 129 of the Act, to establish
guidelines for existing stationary sources that reflect the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) for achieving continuous emission
reductions:

Section 129(a)(1)(A) states:

The Administrator shall establish performance standards and other
requirements pursuant to section 111 and this section for each category
of solid waste incineration units.  Such standards shall include
emissions limitations and other requirements applicable to new units and
guidelines (under section 111(d) and this section) and other
requirements applicable to existing units.

Section 129(a)(2) states:

Standards applicable to solid waste incineration units promulgated under
section 111 and this section shall reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4)
that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable
for new or existing units in each category.

Section 129(b)(1) states:

Performance standards under this section and section 111 for solid waste
incineration units shall include guidelines promulgated pursuant to
section 111(d) and this section applicable to existing units.  Such
guidelines shall include, as provided in this section, each of the
elements required by subsection (a) (emissions limitations,
notwithstanding any restriction in section 111(d) regarding issuance of
such limitations), subsection (c) (monitoring), subsection (d) (operator
training), subsection (e) (permits), and subsection (h)(4) (residual
risk).

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 requires state plans to include monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions consistent with the emission
guidelines.  In addition, section 114(a)(1) states that:

the Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any
emission source, who manufactures emission control equipment or process
equipment, who the Administrator believes may have information necessary
for the purposes set forth in this subsection, or who is subject to any
requirement of this Act (other than a manufacturer subject to the
provisions of section 206(c) or 208 with respect to a provision of title
II) on a one-time, periodic or continuous basis to -

(A) establish and maintain such records;

(B) make such reports;

(C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such
audit procedures,

or methods;

(D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or
methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods and
in such manner as the Administer shall prescribe);

(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical;

(F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section
114(a)(3); and

(G) provide such other information, as the Administrator may reasonably
require; . . ..

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standards ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standards.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standards at all times.  During the performance test a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standards are used to inform the
Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the
requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then
inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated and the standards are being met.  The
performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify
operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
60, subpart BBBB.

3(a)  Non-duplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (70 FR citation 55368) on
September 21, 2005.  No comments were received on the burden published
in the Federal Register. 3(c)  Consultations

	The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) recently
developed a facility and emissions index for small municipal waste
combustors.  The industry voluntarily submitted data as part of a NSPS
compliance evaluation.  As a result, this information is current.  We
are able to rely on the information from the facility and emissions
index to obtain information on the universe of sources subject to the
standard in order to estimate the burden of the Emission Guidelines on
industry.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the
regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations on
which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not
include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are small municipal waste combustors.  The United States
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and corresponding North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for the
respondents affected by the standards are shown in the table below.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulation	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB	9511 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste
Management	92411 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management

40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB	4953 Refuse System	562213 Solid Waste
Combustors and Incinerators

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that is recorded or reported is required by
NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal
Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR
part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal).

A source must make the following reports:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Reports for Existing Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB)

Construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of completion of each increment of progress	60.1585

Initial report	60.8 (a) & (d), 60.1860, 60.1875

Annual Report	60.1680, 60.1880

Actual startup	60.7(a)(3),

Semiannual reports for any emission or parameter that doesn’t meet
limits	60.1680, 60.1890, 60.1895, 60.1900

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system	60.7(a)(5)

Physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

A source must keep the following records:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Recordkeeping for Existing Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB)

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous
monitoring system is inoperative.	60.7(b)

Emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions.
60.1830, 60.1835, 60.1845

Operator training & certification	60.1830, 60.1835, 60.1840

Record for MWCs using activated carbon	60.1830, 60.1835, 60.1855

Records for continuously monitored pollutants or parameters.	60.1830,
60.1850

Records are required to be retained for 5 Years.  All five years of
records must be retained at the facility.	60.1835

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents, continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

 Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEMS for SO2, N0x, opacity,
CO, CO2 & O2.

Perform initial performance test and reports (PM, dioxin/furans,
opacity, fugitives, HCL, Cd, Pb, Hg), and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Write & submit the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Perform quarterly Appendix F audits of CEMS (SO2, N0x, CO)

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing
information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority could inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by
the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the
emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are
tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check
on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

 The records required by this regulation must be retained by the
owner/operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Some of the small MWC units potentially affected
by the Emission Guidelines are owned by small businesses, non-profit
organizations or governments.  The EPA does not expect the standards to
adversely affect these small entities.  The standards only apply to
units with capacities between 35 tpd and 250 tpd.  Furthermore, the
standards contain provisions for reduced testing.  Owners of small MWC
units where the aggregate plant capacity is less than 250 tpd can skip
annual tests for 2 year periods for certain pollutants if they have
demonstrated compliance for three annual tests in a row.  In addition to
this 3-year testing option, less frequent dioxin/furan testing is
possible if all units at a plant achieve emission levels less than the
emission limit for two consecutive years.  This provision allows plants
to test only one unit per year rather than all units, as normally
required.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements NSPS for Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion
Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBBB) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be
100,854 hours.  These hours are based on Agency studies and background
documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and
experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any
comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$100.99 ($48.09 + 110%)

Technical	$87.97   ($41.89 + 110%)

Clerical	$43.81   ($20.86 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December, 2005, ”Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
”Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standards are both labor costs which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Source (i.e., Affected Facility)	(C)

Number of New Sources 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Source	(F)

Number of Sources with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Load monitors, temperature monitors, and carbon federate monitors
(Sections 60.1315 thru 60.1335)	$200,000	0	$0	$19,200	54	$1,036,800

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.  This is the total
of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are
$1,036,800.  This is the total of column G.

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the
addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and
maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and
operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of
the ICR is estimated to be $1,036,800.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as the examination of records
maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of
emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $108,581.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$57.20  (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6)

		Technical	$42.45  (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.96  (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ”2006
General Schedule“. Details upon which this estimate is based appear
below in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden for the NSPS for Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion
Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBBB).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 23 existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondents will become
subject to this standard over the next three years.  The overall average
number of respondents, as shown in the table below is 23 per year.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	23	0	0	23

2	0	23	0	0	23

3	0	23	0	0	23

Average	0	23	0	0	23

As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year
period of this ICR is 23.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses E=(BxC)+D

Plant Startup (Plant Control Plan, notifications, etc.)	0	5	0	0

Notifications (Performance Test, CEMS Demonstration, etc.)	0	4	0	0

Annual Reports	23	2.35	0	54.05

Semiannual Excess Emission Reports	2.3	2	0	4.6

	Total	59 (Rounded)

The number of Total Annual Responses is 59.

The total annual labor costs are $8,541,926.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements NSPS for Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion
Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBBB) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i) Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $8,541,926.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements NSPS for Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion
Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBBB) (Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 1,709 hours per
response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $1,036,800. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii),
Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 2,748 labor hours at a cost of $108,581.  See below
Table 2: Annual Agency Burden for the NSPS for Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed
on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change to the hours in the total estimated burden currently
identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.  Since there
are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no
significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures used in
the previous ICR are also used in this ICR.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 1,709 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0447, which is available for public viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.        The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
(OECA) Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket.  Use EDOCKET to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select ”search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0447 and OMB Control Number 2060-0424 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1.  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements for the NSPS for Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed
on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal)

Burden Item	(A)

Respondent Hours Per Occurrence	(B)

Number of Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year	(C)

Hours Per Respondent Per Year (C=AxB)	(D)

Number of Respondents Per Year	(E)

Technical Hours Per Year (E=CxD)	(F)

Management Hours Per Year (F=Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical Hours Per Year (G=Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Hours Per Year (H=E+F+G)	(I)

Total Costs Per Year

1	Applications	Not applicable

2	Surveys and Studies	Not applicable

3	Reporting Requirements

 	A.	Read and Understand Rule Requirements	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	B.	Required Activities

 	 	1) Initial performance tests and reports (PM, dioxins/furans,
opacity, fugitives, HCl, Cd, Pb, Hg)	775	1	775	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	2) CEMS demonstration (SO2, NOx, opacity, CO, CO2, O2)

 	 	 	a)  Installation of CEM units	225	1	225	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	 	b)  Initial demonstration	450	1	450	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	3) Annual performance tests and test reports (PM, dioxins/furans,
opacity, fugitives, HCl, Cd, Pb, Hg)	775	1	775	23	17,825	891.25	1,782.50
20,498.75	$1,736,163.91

 	 	4) Quarterly Appendix F audits of CEMS (SO2, NOx, CO)

 	 	 	a)  RATA audit (one per year)	350	2.3	805	23	18,515	925.75
1,851.50	21,292.25	$1,803,370.26

 	 	 	b)  RAA audit (three per year)	130	6.9	897	23	20,631	1031.55
2,063.10	23,725.65	$2,009,469.72

 	 	 	c)  Daily calibration and operation	1	840	840	23	19,320	966
1,932	22,218	$1,881,777.66

 	C.	Create Information	Included in 3.B

 	D.	Gather Information	Included in 3.E

 	E.	Report Preparation	 	 	 	 	0	0	0	0

 	 	1) Plant startup

 	 	 	a)  Plant Control Plan	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	 	b)  Notification of Contract Awards	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	 	c)  Notification of on-site construction start	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0
$0

 	 	 	d)  Notification of construction completion	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	 	e)  Notification of final completion	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	2) Notification of initial performance tests	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	3) Initial compliance reports	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	4) Notification of CEMS demonstration	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	5) Initial CEMS demonstration report	90	1	90	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	6) Annual compliance reports	40	2.3	92	23	2,116	105.8	211.60
2,433.40	$206,099.46

 	 	7) Semiannual excess emission reports	40	2	80	2.3	184	9.2	18.40
211.60	$17,921.69

	Subtotal - Reporting Requirements

90379.65	$7,654,802.70

4	Recordkeeping Requirements

 	A.	Read Instructions	Included in 3.A

 	B.	Plan Activities	Included in 3.B

 	C.	Implement Activities	Included in 3.B

 	D.	Develop Record System	Not applicable

 	E.	Record information

 	 	1) Record startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions	4	47	188	23	4,324
216.2	432.40	4,972.60	$421,159.76

 	 	2) Records of all emission rates, computations, tests	4	47	188	23
4,324	216.2	432.40	4,972.60	$421,159.76

 	 	3) Records of employee review of operations manual	4	1	4	23	92	4.6
9.20	105.80	$8,960.85

 	 	4) Record amount of sorbent used for Hg and dioxin/furan control	4
4	16	23	368	18.4	36.80	423.20	$35,843.38

 	F.	Personnel Training	Not applicable

 	G.	Time for audits	Not applicable

	Subtotal – Recordkeeping Requirements

10474.20	$887,123.75

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST: 	100,854	$8,541,926

 	Rounded	Rounded

TABLE 1 ASSUMPTIONS

Assumes an average of 2.3 affected facilities (i.e., sources or units)
per respondent [53 facilities at 23 plants; 53/23 = 2.3 (Rounded)].

Relative accuracy test audits (RATA) occur once per year for each
affected facility (1 x 2.3 = 2.3).

Relative accuracy audits (RAA) occur three times per year for each
affected facility (3 x 2.3 = 6.9).

Daily calibration and operation data occurs daily [365 x 2.3 = 840
(Rounded)].

No additional facilities will become subject to the standard over the
next three years.

Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $87.97,
management at $100.99, and clerical at $43.81.

RATA are performed for one of the four quarterly audits.  RAA tests are
performed for three of the four quarterly audits.  Audits of the diluent
monitor (O2 or CO2) are not required because tests on SO2 and CO
monitors will incorporate the use of the diluent monitor.

Assumes 47 weeks of operation (90 percent availability) per year per
facility.

Assumes 10 percent of sources (2.3) have affected facilities with excess
emissions and must submit two semiannual reports.

Table 2.  Annual Agency Burden for the NSPS for Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed
on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal)

Burden Item	 (A)

Number of Occurrences Per Year	(B)

EPA Hours Per Occurrence	(C)

Tech Hours Per Year (C=AxB)	(D)

Management Hours Per Year (D=Cx0.05)	(E)

Clerical Hours Per Year (E=Cx0.1)	(F)

Total Hours Per Year (F=C+D+E)	(G)

EPA Cost Per Year

1	Applications	not applicable

2	Read and Understand Rule Requirements	0	40	0	0	0	0	$0

 	A.	Create Information	0	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	B.	Gather Information	0	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	C.	Report Reviews	0	0	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	1) Review preliminary and final material separation plans and
siting analysis	0	8	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	2) Review notification of construction	0	2	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	3) Review notification of startup	0	2	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	4) Review notification of initial performance test	0	8	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	5) Review notification of initial CEMS demonstration	0	4	0	0	0	0
$0

 	 	6) Review initial performance test report	0	40	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	7) Review initial CEMS demonstration report	0	40	0	0	0	0	$0

 	 	8) Review annual compliance report	23	92	2,116	105.80	211.60
2,433.40	$96,110.52

 	 	9) Review semi-annual excess emission report	4.60	16	73.60	3.68
7.36	84.64	$3,365.14

 	D.	Prepare annual summary report	1	200	200	10	20	230	$9,104.96

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST:	 	 	 	 	 	2,748 (Rounded)	$108,581
(Rounded)

TABLE 2 ASSUMPTIONS

Agency estimated labor rates are: technical at $42.45, management at
$57.20, clerical at $22.96.

Assumes 53 affected units at 23 plants.

Assumes submission of semiannual excess emission reports will be
required for 10 percent of units (2.3); (2 x 2.3 = 4.6).

Assumes four hours to review the annual compliance report for each plant
(4 x 23 = 92).

No additional sources will become subject to the standard over the next
three years.

 PAGE

 PAGE  19


                         RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 167 F

               Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters
                               63 FR 28556-28753
                                 May 26, 1998
                   (RCRA Cluster VIII, non-HSWA provisions)

Name of State:	Virginia
State Statutory Authority:	§ 10.1-1402 of the Code of Virginia
Title of Regulations: 	Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, 9VAC20-60
Effective Date:  Amendment 14 effective November 8, 2000 (VA.R., Volume 17, Issue 2, October 9, 2000)
Date Checklist Completed: 	August 17, 2017

                             FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
                             FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
                           ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION
                               STATE ANALOG IS:

                                  EQUIV-ALENT
                                     LESS
                                    STRIN-
                                     GENT
                                  MORE STRIN-
                                     GENT
                              BROAD- ER IN SCOPE

           PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

                              SUBPART A - GENERAL

EXCLUSIONS

add new paragraph; prior to reuse, wood preserving wastewaters and spent wood preserving solutions described in 261.4(a)(9)(i)&(ii), so long as they meet all specified conditions
261.4(a)(9)(iii)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
              Incorporated by Reference (IBR) in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X

261.4(a)(9)(iii)(A)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
IBR in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X

261.4(a)(9)(iii)(B)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
IBR in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X

261.4(a)(9)(iii)(C)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
IBR in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X

261.4(a)(9)(iii)(D)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
IBR in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X

261.4(a)(9)(iii)(E)
                                 9VAC20-60-18.
IBR in 9VAC20-60-261A.
                                       X


Recommendations for Consideration by the U.S. Secretary of Labor on the Adoption and Use of Occupational Exposure Limits by Federal Agencies

Prepared by the

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

(FACOSH)

Executive Summary

Because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) have remained unchanged since their adoption on May 29, 1971, and do not account for 40 years of advances in technology or the latest peer-reviewed published toxicological information, the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) asked its Emerging Issues Subcommittee to analyze Federal agencies’ use of PELs.  The Subcommittee examined how Federal Executive Branch agencies use occupational exposure limits (OELs) published by other agencies, professional organizations, and other foreign or domestic entities.

The Subcommittee considered all aspects of controlling a potential hazardous chemical in the workplace including risk assessment approaches and the hierarchy of controls.  The Subcommittee concluded that FACOSH should recommend that Executive Branch departments and agencies use the most protective, and technologically and economically feasible OELs in Federal workplaces, notwithstanding the existence of a PEL for a given substance of concern; require contractors, subcontractors, recipients, and subrecipients to use the most protective, technologically and economically feasible OEL while working on behalf of the Federal government; and designate a person deemed to be competent by virtue of training and experience to make recommendations regarding acceptable chemical exposure risks, appropriate OELs, and employee exposure controls.

Introduction

Although the current PELs have existed unchanged since their adoption on May 29, 1971, scientific research is continually re-evaluating occupational exposure limits and their effectiveness in protecting workers.  The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) asked its Emerging Issues Subcommittee to evaluate the existing OSHA PELs, based on American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) developed in 1968, and determine which, if any, should have their levels adjusted to be more protective of Federal workers.  In addition, the Council asked the Subcommittee to propose mechanisms for implementing these PEL recommendations in federal agencies.

The Subcommittee examined the current situation with respect to how Federal Executive Branch agencies use OELs for risk management and control.  Given that OSHA sets minimum standards for workplace safety and health and that the Federal government strives to exceed the minimum as a model employer, the Subcommittee determined that current PELs are not always adequate to protect Federal employees, or employees of contractors providing services to the Federal government.

In this paper, an OEL refers generically to one or more accepted exposure limits including the OSHA-regulated PELs, NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs), ACGIH® TLVs®, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs™), or any occupational exposure limits set by other agencies, organizations, and foreign or domestic entities, such as Germany’s Maximale Arbeitsplatz-Konzentration (MAK) limits.  The Subcommittee reviewed a number of significant background documents, including Executive Order (EO) 12196 and other legal authorities, which provided information on workplace safety and health, occupational exposure limits, risk management, hazard assessment, and the requirements for protecting Federal civilian and contract employees.

Background

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) created OSHA and provided the authority for the Agency to set standards regulating occupational safety and health.  Section (6)(a) of the Act allowed the Secretary of Labor to, “…by rule promulgate as an occupational safety and health standard any national consensus standard and any established Federal  standard….”  Under this two-year authority,  OSHA adopted the current PELs, which were based on the ACGIH® TLVs® in effect in 1968.  Since 1972 any changes or additions to PELs require following the formal rulemaking process, which has hindered attempts to add new PELs or update others.

Over time, advances in scientific knowledge have led to a greater understanding of adverse effects, and NIOSH and professional organizations like the ACGIH® and AIHA® have responded by issuing new or modifying existing OELs.  When modified, more OEL values have decreased than have increased.  For example, a comparison of the TLVs® from 1968 to 2011 reveals that over 200 TLVs® have decreased while only a half dozen have increased.  A table comparing OSHA’s PELs to other OELs is included as Appendix IV.

It is unlikely that OSHA will promulgate significant numbers of new PELs.  Federal agencies can address this lack of regulatory progress by applying risk management principles and alternative OELs to occupational exposures.

Process and Standards

As a mechanism to protect Federal employees, Federal agencies should use a risk assessment to determine whether a workplace exposure constitutes a hazard and then evaluate existing OELs to select the appropriate OEL.

Risk Assessment

A risk assessment considers all aspects of the potential hazard and risks in the workplace, including OELs, work procedures, and systems of work.  If an agency’s risk assessment concludes that employees could suffer negative effects from exposure to a given hazard, then the agency should follow a risk management strategy based on the hierarchy of controls to reduce or eliminate the hazard.  The hierarchy of controls includes, in order of preference:

Eliminate the need to use the substance;

Substitute a less hazardous substance;

Implement engineering controls (i.e. local exhaust ventilation, barriers, etc.)

Implement work practice controls and training;

Implement administrative controls (i.e. work restrictions/job or task rotation); and in addition to these control methods, and only as a last resort:

Proper selection, fitting, and use of personal protective equipment.

Consideration of Existing OELs

Once a Federal agency has performed a risk assessment and proceeded through the hierarchy of controls to conclude that a specific substance cannot be eliminated from the workplace, then the agency must select an appropriate workplace OEL.  The OEL selection process begins by examining existing substance-specific OELs.  If an OSHA PEL exists, OSHA regulations require that employee exposures do not exceed that PEL.  If OSHA does not have a PEL, then the examination must expand to other exposure limits such as, but not limited to, RELs or TLVs®.  Of course, even if a PEL exists, other OELs may be more protective.

When examining OELs, the agency should be aware of the background of a given limit and the methods the defining organization used to select that limit.  For protection from radioactive materials, the non-quantitative exposure limit is “ALARA” or As Low as Reasonably Achievable.  For some situations, an ALARA approach would require either substituting a less-hazardous chemical into the existing process or changing the process entirely to eliminate the need for the chemical.

Previously, many NIOSH RELs for carcinogens were set based on the similar non-quantitative concept of Lowest Feasible Concentration (LFC).  Some RELs were assigned values at the limits of detection for the analytical method in use at the time.

Currently, NIOSH bases its RELs on risk evaluations using human or animal health effects data, and on an assessment of what levels can be feasibly achieved by engineering controls and measured by analytical techniques.  For all workplace hazards, including carcinogens, NIOSH tries to specify not only a no-effect exposure, but also exposure levels at which there may be residual risks.

When selecting an appropriate OEL, the agency must consider the potential for mixed exposures, also referred to as cumulative risk.  OSHA’s Air Contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, describes computation formulae for determining cumulative and mixed exposures.  Cumulative exposure refers to different levels of exposure to the same substance while mixed exposure refers to combined exposures to more than one substance.  An expert system known as “Mixie” is a useful tool that can assist in applying the mixture formula for exposure combinations.

Another method for refining exposure strategies applies the generic principles of a control banding or hazard banding approach.  This approach categorizes (“bands”) chemicals according to their toxicological characteristics.  Hazard banding, developed by the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as part of a program known as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials and pioneered in the pharmaceutical industry, can be useful if no OEL exists.  The HSE developed an expert system as part of COSHH Essentials to guide the user through a series of questions leading to an appropriate control strategy.

Current Policies

Some Federal agencies already apply their own standards for OEL selection:

Department of State

Permissible exposure limits (PELs) for occupational exposure to toxic and hazardous materials and hazardous physical energies are those published by the Department of Labor under 29 CFR Part 1910.  An exception is when the threshold limit value (TLV®), established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®), is lower than the OSHA PEL.  In this case, the TLV® becomes the exposure standard for the Department of State.  If neither a PEL nor a TLV® exists, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit (REL) becomes the Departmental exposure standard.

15 FAM 952  EXPOSURE STANDARDS

(CT:OBO-4;   12-21-2005)

(Uniform State/USAID/Commerce/Agriculture)

Department of Energy

§ 851.23 Safety and health standards.

(a)	Contractors must comply with the following safety and health standards that are applicable to the hazards at their covered workplace:

(1)	Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 850, ‘‘Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.’’

(2)	Title 29 CFR, Parts 1904.4 through 1904.11, 1904.29 through 1904.33; 1904.44, and 1904.46, ‘‘Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.’’

(3)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1910, ‘‘Occupational Safety and Health Standards,’’ excluding 29 CFR 1910.1096, ‘‘Ionizing Radiation.’’

(4)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1915, ‘‘Shipyard Employment.’’

(5)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1917, ‘‘Marine Terminals.’’

(6)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1918, ‘‘Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring.’’

(7)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1926, ‘‘Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.’’

(8)	Title 29 CFR, Part 1928, ‘‘Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture.’’

(9)	American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®), ‘‘Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices,’’ (2005) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27) when the ACGIH® Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) are lower (more protective) than permissible exposure limits in 29 CFR 1910. When the ACGIH® TLVs® are used as exposure limits, contractors must nonetheless comply with the other provisions of any applicable expanded health standard found in 29 CFR 1910.

(10)	American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z88.2, ‘‘American National Standard for Respiratory Protection,’’ (1992) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).

(11)	ANSI Z136.1, ‘‘Safe Use of Lasers,’’ (2000) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).

(12)	ANSI Z49.1, ‘‘Safety in Welding, Cutting and Allied Processes,’’ sections 4.3 and E4.3 (1999) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).

(13)	National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, ‘‘National Electrical Code,’’ (2005) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).

(14)	NFPA 70E, ‘‘Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace,’’ (2004) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).

(b)	Nothing in this part must be construed as relieving a contractor from complying with any additional specific safety and health requirement that it determines to be necessary to protect the safety and health of workers.

Department of Defense (by Service):

DoD:  DoD requires compliance with the OSHA PELs as a part of policy requiring compliance with OSHA standards.  The DoD Components (Military Services and Defense Agencies) are authorized to issue more stringent requirements to meet their needs.  DoD policy provides procedures for developing Alternate or Supplemental Standards under 29 CFR 1960.

Army:  Army policy requires use of the most stringent of either OSHA PELs or ACGIH® TLVs® (Department of the Army Pamphlet 40-503, Industrial Hygiene Program,  HYPERLINK "http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p40_503.pdf" http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p40_503.pdf ).

Navy/Marine Corps:  Uses standards in the following order of precedence:

1989 OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) ( HYPERLINK "http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/ih/ihfom.htm" http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/ih/ihfom.htm )

2.	Substance-specific OSHA standards

3.	Navy-developed standards

4.	American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) threshold limit values (TLVs®)

Air Force:  For occupational health assessments, the industrial hygiene office (“Bioenvironmental Engineering”) determines the appropriate Occupational and Environmental Exposure Limit (OEEL) using Air Force standards or the most appropriate exposure limit adopted from established, recognized standards (AIR FORCE MANUAL 48-155, Occupational and Environmental Health Exposure Controls,  HYPERLINK "http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN48-155.pdf" http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN48-155.pdf )

ACGIH® TLVs®

2.	OSHA PELs

3.	Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs)

4.	AIHA Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs™)

5.	Technical Guide 230 (TG-230), Chemical Exposure Guidelines for Deployed Military Personnel

Limitations of Occupational Exposure Limits

An OEL can indicate the level of hazard posed by exposure to a specific substance but, by itself, cannot determine the likelihood of adverse health effects from that exposure.  With regard to using TLVs® and biological exposure indices (BEIs®), ACGIH® notes that, “TLVs® and BEIs® should NOT be adopted as standards without an analysis of other factors necessary to make appropriate risk management decisions.  Any use of a TLV® or BEI® in a regulatory context should include a careful evaluation of the information in the written  HYPERLINK "https://www.acgih.org/store/BrowseProducts.cfm?type=cat&id=16" documentation  and consideration of all other factors as required by the statutes which govern the regulatory process of the governmental body involved.”

OEL Selection

Federal agencies may use more protective exposure limits, beyond the PELs.  However, they should use the full risk assessment process and be aware of the guidelines, considerations, and limitations of various exposure limits.  To assist agencies in determining an appropriate OEL for a given situation, the Subcommittee recommends selecting a “competent person” to use a risk assessment approach.  See Appendix I for a sample decision logic.

Competent Person

Assessing chemical exposures in the workplace, evaluating exposure risk to employees, and making recommendations on acceptable employee chemical exposure levels based on the risk, requires a person who is competent to perform these activities.  A person is deemed to be competent by way of training and/or experience.

A person possessing one of the following qualifications is considered competent for assessing chemical exposure risks, and making recommendations regarding acceptable chemical exposure risks, appropriate OELs, and employee exposure controls:

Certification by an accredited body such as the American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) or the Board of Certified Safety Professionals (BCSP).  A Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH®) or Certified Safety Professional (CSP®) has not only met minimum requirements for education and experience but has also demonstrated a minimum level of knowledge through examination.  These designations are uniquely dedicated to occupational safety and health.

GS-0690-11 or above – by virtue of education, experience, and job complexity defined as such:  Inspections cover the full range of industries, including such large and diverse industries as the automotive, plastic, and rubber industries.  These industries pose a number of complex problems for the industrial hygienist, resulting from the size and diversity of work operations, the use of exotic chemicals, and the combinations of hazardous materials.  The employee must adapt or modify past practices and research trends in the field in order to identify and evaluate a wide variety of occupational health hazards.  Fatality investigation is complicated by the requirement to investigate conditions which existed prior to the accident and may have changed.

Bachelor’s degree in science or engineering (e.g. chemistry, biology, toxicology, public health, chemical/environmental engineering) from an accredited* institution and five years progressively more complex experience covering full spectrum of occupational health hazards (job experience complexity comparable to GS-0690-11).

*Note:	An accredited college/university is one accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Master’s degree in science or engineering from an accredited institution and four years progressively more complex experience covering the full spectrum of occupational health hazards (job experience complexity comparable to GS-0690-11).

Other accredited certifications may also be indicators of competency in this regard.  Some examples of such certifications include, but are not limited to: Professional Engineer (PE), particularly in chemical, environmental, or safety engineering; Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM); Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP); or certification by the American Board of Toxicology (ABT).

Legal Considerations

EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(d); The Act, Section 19(a); and 29 CFR 1960, Subpart C, all require that federal workplaces and working conditions be safe and healthful and free from recognized serious hazards.  They also require agencies to comply with all applicable OSHA standards issued under Section 6 of the Act – or an approved alternate standard.  29 CFR 1960.16, Compliance with OSHA Standards, authorizes agencies to, “… upon prior notification to the Secretary, prescribe and enforce more stringent permissible exposure levels or threshold limit values ….”

According to 29 CFR 1960.18, if there is no OSHA standard that applies to a particular worksite, job, condition, or other workplace exposure, an agency must implement an emergency temporary supplemental standard to protect its employees.  Subsequent to implementing an emergency temporary supplemental standard, the agency must develop and implement a permanent supplemental standard to continue to assure a safe and healthful workplace and adequate employee protection.

Action

Given the requirements of the OSH Act, EO 12196, and 29 CFR Part 1960, and that current PELs are inadequate to protect Federal employees and Federal contractor employees, FACOSH recommends that:

The Secretary of Labor submit to the President a recommendation for an updated Executive Order to amend EO 12196, Occupational Safety and Health Programs for Federal Employees, directing the heads of Executive Branch departments and agencies to require the use of the most protective, and technologically and economically feasible OELs as published by a recognized research or regulating body, in Federal workplaces, notwithstanding the existence of a PEL for a given substance of concern.

The Secretary of Labor include in the recommendation to the President that Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies, in procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, to the extent authorized by applicable statutory authority, require contractors, subcontractors, recipients, and subrecipients to use the most protective, technologically and economically feasible OEL while carrying out work on behalf of the Federal government.  Contractors and grant applicants who propose to use the most protective OELs may be given preference for awards of contracts and grants, respectively.

A person deemed to be competent by virtue of training and experience make recommendations regarding acceptable chemical exposure risks, appropriate OELs, and employee exposure controls.  Recommendations on OELs may be based on factors such as toxicity of the chemical, length and frequency of exposure, analytical limit of detection, and technological and economic feasibility.

Sample language for an updated Executive Order is provided as Appendix II.

Other Issues

In addition to examining the use of OELs in the Federal government, the FACOSH Emerging Issues Subcommittee identified other issues that may be of interest to FACOSH.  They are as follows:

Occupational Exposure to Noise

NIOSH has a recommended exposure limit (REL) for occupational noise exposure of 85 decibels, A-weighted, as an 8-hour time-weighted average (85 dBA as an 8-hr TWA) compared to OSHA’s PEL of 90 dBA as an 8-hr TWA.  Since the measurement of decibels is a logarithmic rather than linear scale, the OSHA PEL is substantially less protective than the NIOSH REL.

OSHA uses a 5-dB exchange rate instead of the 3-dB exchange rate that is supported by scientific evidence for assessing hearing impairment as a function of noise level and duration.  In the Federal sector, DoD, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration use the 3-dB exchange rate, as do nearly all other governments worldwide, including Canada, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

Dispersible Engineered Nanomaterials (DENMs)

OSHA defines nanomaterials as, “materials that have been purposefully manufactured, synthesized, or manipulated to have a size with at least one dimension in the range of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers and that exhibit unique properties determined by their size.”

Published scientific studies have indicated that at least some DENMs are biologically active, have produced toxicological reactions in the lungs of exposed experimental animals, and may readily penetrate intact human skin.  While DENMs are truly an emerging issue and published results are not plentiful, scientists and Federal agencies, such as NIOSH, continue to conduct research to fully understand the potential health effects of exposure.

Currently, both scientists and Federal agencies agree that DENM toxicity depends heavily on the physical and chemical properties of the nanoparticles, such as particle size and size distribution, agglomeration state, shape, crystal structure, chemical composition, surface area, surface chemistry, surface charge, and porosity, and that these properties may differ substantially from those of the same material in macro-scale form.

Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders

According to OSHA, a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is a disorder, “of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage or spinal discs that was not caused by a slip, trip, fall, motor vehicle accident or similar accident such as carpal tunnel and back pain.”  OSHA notes that MSDs are among the most commonly reported work-related injuries.  Conservative estimates of the economic burden resulting from MSDs, as measured by compensation costs, lost wages, and lost productivity, are between $45 and $54 billion annually.

Most Executive Branch agencies report some level of awareness of MSDs, and DoD has issued a policy requiring the implementation of an Ergonomics Program.  However, OSHA does not have a standard that directly addresses the causes of MSDs or the improperly designed or performed jobs or activities in Federal workplaces, such as airports, warehouses, mailrooms, and other environments, that may contribute to MSDs.

Ionizing Radiation

The use of ionizing radiation in the Federal workplace has grown substantially in recent years.  For example, the use of X-ray equipment and gamma-ray imaging devices to inspect luggage, packages, and other items has become widespread.  Ionizing radiation is also used to neutralize harmful biological agents, including anthrax, as well as microorganisms in certain food.

In 1971 OSHA adopted as its Ionizing Radiation standard the radioactive materials exposure limits that the Atomic Energy Commission (which preceded the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)) issued in 1969 (10 CFR Part 20, including Appendix B, Tables I and II).  In general, the OSHA rule, 29 CFR 1910.1096, applies when an individual in a workplace does not fall under regulations provided by NRC or an equivalent Agreement State.  Much like 10 CFR 20, 29 CFR 1910.1096 specifies dose limits and training requirements for individuals who will work in restricted areas, etc.  However, unlike 10 CFR 20, 29 CFR 1910.1096 is still based on limits and models promulgated in 1969.

Working in Extreme Temperatures

	Heat

OSHA reports that every year thousands of workers become sick from heat exposure on the job.  And that workers exposed to hot and humid conditions are at risk of heat illness, especially those doing heavy work tasks or using bulky protective clothing and equipment.  OSHA has instituted the Campaign to Prevent Heat Illness in Outdoor Workers with extensive guidance and other information on preventing heat-related illness.  It has also compiled references to standards and technical procedures for assessing and controlling heat stress.

Although there is no standard for heat stress, OSHA and DoD, and other organizations such as ACGIH® and NIOSH, have provided information and guidance.

Cold

With regard to exposure to cold temperatures, OSHA’s Fact Sheet, Protecting Workers in Cold Environments, states that prolonged exposure to freezing temperatures can result in health problems as serious as trench foot, frostbite, and hypothermia.  And that wind chill, a combination of temperature and velocity, is a crucial factor to evaluate when working outside.

References reviewed indicate no clear standard limiting the amount of cold to which a person would be exposed.  Instead, guidelines are provided for planning worker exposure to cold, including identifying clothing to be worn while working in cold environments.

NIOSH has developed guidance for preventing hypothermia, frostbite, trench foot, and chilblains along with web links to a variety of references from other organizations.

The Army issued TB MED 508, Prevention and Management of Cold-Weather Injuries, with broad guidance directed at the individual military service member, supervisors, commanders, and health staff.  Guidance includes recommended insulating value of clothing to be worn based on air temperature and worker physical activity level.

Appendix I –OEL Decision Logic

(Carcinogen, Mutagen, Teratogen

†Dispersible Engineered Nanomaterial

‡The Lowest Feasible Level concept involves evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of economic, technological, analytical, and environmental data and determining what level can be achieved for most operations most of the time, being cognizant of human health and business enterprise, which involves some risk in expectation of benefit.

Appendix II – Sample Executive Order Language

Executive Order 13###--Occupational safety and health programs for Federal employees – Revision to Executive Order 12196

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12196 of Feb. 26, 1980, appear at 45 FR 12769, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 145, unless otherwise noted.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Section 7902(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code and in accord with Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 U.S.C. 668), it is ordered:

Section 1-201 in E.O. 12196 is hereby modified by inserting new paragraph (e) to read:

1-201.  The head of each agency shall:

(e) with respect to control of exposure to toxic materials, require the use in Federal workplaces of the most protective, technologically and economically feasible occupational exposure limit as published by a recognized research or regulating body, notwithstanding the existence of a permissible exposure limit for a given substance as may have been promulgated under Section 6 of the Act.

Section 1-201 in E.O. 12196 is further modified by reassigning paragraphs letters as follows:

Paragraph (e) becomes (f); (f) becomes (g); (g) becomes (h); (h) becomes (i); (i) becomes (j); (j) becomes (k); (k) becomes (l); (l) becomes (m).

Appendix III: Subcommittee Participants

The following list contains the names of FACOSH members, technical experts, and OSHA staff who actively participated on the Emerging Issues Subcommittee during its analysis of the current PELs.

FACOSH Members

Donald Bathurst, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

William “Chico” McGill, Director, Government Employees Department, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Milagro “Milly” Rodriguez, MPH, Occupational Health and Safety Specialist, American Federation of Government Employees

Special Agency Liaison

Frank Hearl, PE, Chief of Staff, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Technical Experts

John Seibert, CSP, Assistant for Safety, Health & Fire, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), U.S. Department of Defense

Camille Carraway, CIH, Industrial Hygienist, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Jason Capriotti, CIH, CSP, Industrial Hygienist, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

Daniel Marsick, PhD, CIH, CSP, Industrial Hygienist, U.S. Department of Energy

Tony Pierpoint, PhD, CIH, Assistant Director, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Joseph Beres, CIH, CSP, PE, Industrial Hygienist, U.S. Department of State

Azita Mashayekhi, MHS, Staff Industrial Hygienist, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Dennis Phelps, International Representative, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

Jeff Friday, National Counsel, National Treasury Employees Union

James R. Thornton, CIH, CSP, Director, Environmental Health and Safety, Newport News Shipbuilding

OSHA Staff

Francis Yebesi, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Lorree Probert, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Loretta D. Schuman, PhD, MS, DABT, Senior Toxicologist, Office of Chemical Hazards (Nonmetals), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

David Ward, CSP, Safety Specialist, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Appendix IV – Comparison of the OSHA PELs with Other OELs

B

|

ఀ+萏֠萑ﴰ葞֠葠ﴰ摧䐴gఀ+萏ࡰ萑ﴰ葞ࡰ葠ﴰ摧䳡Ôఀ +萏֠萑ﴰ葞֠葠ﴰ摧䳡Ôࠀ+萏ː葞ː摧䳡Ôሊ਀&䘋

␅؁Ĥ萏ː葞ː摧䢏Ê⬋ԀĤ␆ਁ&䘋

摧䐴gለ਀&䘋

␅؁Ĥ摧̫Ö̈਀&䘋

਀&䘋

摧枹´ለ਀&䘋

摧ᐠ)ላԀĤ␆ਁ&䘋

FfÎ

Ff

Ff

Ff

Ff&

Ff

Ff9

8

N

R

V

Z

^

b

6

8

L

N

P

R

T

V

X

Z

\

^

`

b

d

f

h

j

l

n

p

r

t

®

°

Â

Ä

Æ

È

Ê

Ì

Î

Ð

Ò

Ô

Ö

Ø

Ú

Ü

Þ

à

â

ä

æ

è

ê

Tb

f

j

n

r

t

°

Ä

È

Ì

Ð

Ô

Ø

Ü

à

ä

è

ê

&

,

8

$

&

*

,

6

8

:

<

>

@

B

z

|

Š

Œ

Ž

’

”

š

œ

¢

¤

¦

¨

ª

¬

®

°

²

´

¶

¸

º

Ö

Ø

è

ê

ð

ò

ô

ö

ø

ú

T8

<

@

B

|

Œ

”

œ

¤

¨

¬

°

´

¸

º

Ø

ê

ò

ö

ú

þ

ú

ü

þ

Ff

Ff

Ffr

Ff

Ff

Ff

"

$

(

*

.

0

4

6

@

B

D

F

H

J

L

N

P

R

T

ž

²

´

¶

¸

¾

À

Ú

Ü

â

ä

æ

è

ê

ì

î

ð

ò

ô

ö

ø

ú

$

*

0

6

B

F

J

N

R

T

´

¸

À

Ü

ä

è

ì

ð

ô

ø

ø

ú

-

-

H

J

Z

\

^

`

d

f

j

l

p

r

t

v

x

z

|

~

€

‚

„

†

ˆ

Ð

Ò

Ô

Ö

Ü

Þ

à

â

è

ê

ð

ò

ô

ö

ø

ú

ü

þ

T-

J

\

`

f

l

r

v

z

~

‚

†

ˆ

Ò

Ö

Þ

â

ê

ò

ö

ú

þ

	HPV	 	 	 	5 C	 	 		

Terphenyl o-	84-15-1	 	 	 	 	5 C	 	 		

Terphenyl p-	92-94-4	HPV	 	 	 	5 C	 	 		

tert-Amyl methyl ether [TAME]	994-05-8	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

tert-Pentane [Neopentane]	463-82-1	HPV	 	 	 	 	1000	2000 ST		

Tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane [FC-112] 1,1,2,2-	76-12-0	 	500	500	500  	200	400 ST		

Tetrachloro-2,2-difluoroethane [FC-11 2a] 1,1,1,2-	76-11-9	 	500	500 500	 	200	400 ST		

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-	79-34-5	HPV	5	1	1	 	1	2 ST		

Tetrachloroethylene [Perchloroethylene]	127-18-4	HPV	100	25 and 300 C	   	 	 		

Tetrachloronaphthalene	1335-88-2	 	2	2	2	 	 	 		

Tetrachloropyridine 2,3,5,6-	2402-79-1	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tetrachlorosilane	10026-04-7	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tetraethyl lead (as Pb)	78-00-2	HPV	0.075	0.075	0.075	 	0.05	0.1 ST	 

Tetraethylene glycol diacrylate	17831-71-9	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tetrafluoroethane [HFC 134a] 1,1,1,2-	811-97-2	HPV	 	 	 	 	1000	8000 ST		

Tetrafluoroethylene	116-14-3	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tetrahydrofuran	109-99-9	HPV	200	200	200	250 ST	50	100 ST		

Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol	97-99-4	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tetramethyl lead (as Pb)	75-74-1	 	0.075	0.075	0.075	 	0.05	0.1 ST	 

Tetramethyl succinonitrile	3333-52-6	 	0.5	0.5	0.5	 	 	 		

Tetranitromethane	509-14-8	 	1	0.005	1	 	 	 		

Tetrasodium pyrophosphate	7722-88-5	 	 	5	5	 	 	 		

Tetryl	479-45-8	 	1.5	1.5	1.5	 	 	 		

Thallium - Elemental	7440-28-0	 	 	0.1	 	 	 	 		

Thallium - Soluble compounds (as Tl)	7440-28-0	 	0.1	0.1	0.1	 	 	  	

Thimerosal	54-64-8	 	0.1 C	 	 	0.1 C	 	 		

Thiobis(6-tert-butyl-m-cresol) 4,4'-	96-69-5	HPV	5 and 15	5 and 10	5 (resp), 10 (total)	 	 	 		

Thioglycolic acid	68-11-1	HPV	 	1	1	 	 	 		

Thiram	137-26-8	HPV	5	5	5	 	1	2 ST		

Tin - Inorganic compounds (as Sn)	7440-31-6	 	2	0.1	2	 	 	 		

Tin - Metal	7440-31-5	 	2	 	2	 	 	 		

Tin - Organic compounds (as Sn)	7440-31-6	 	0.1	0.1	0.1	 	 	 	 

Tin dioxide (as Sn)	18282-10-5	 	 	 	2	 	 	 		

Titanium tetrachloride	7550-45-0	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Tolidine o-	119-93-7	 	 	 	 	0.02 C (60-min)	 	 		

Toluene	108-88-3	HPV	200	50 and 500C	100	150 ST	50	200 ST		

Toluene-2,4-diamine	95-80-7	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate [2,4-TDI]	584-84-9	HPV	0.02 C	0.005 and 0.02 C  	 	 	 		

Toluenediamine - Mixed isomers	25376-45-8	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Toluenesulfonyl chloride p-	98-59-9	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Toluidine m-	108-44-1	HPV	 	2	 	 	 	 		

Toluidine o-	95-53-4	HPV	5	2	 	 	 	 		

Toluidine p-	106-49-0	HPV	 	2	 	 	 	 		

Tributyl phosphate	126-73-8	HPV	5	0.2	2.5	 	11	44 ST		

Tributyl tin benzoate (as TBTO)	4342-36-3	 	 	 	 	 	0.0021	 	 

Tributyltin fluoride (as TBTO)	1983-10-4	 	 	 	 	 	0.0021	 	 

Tributyltin linoleate (as TBTO)	24124-25-2	 	 	 	 	 	0.0021	 	 

Tributyltin methacrylate (as TBTO)	2155-70-6	 	 	 	 	 	0.0021	  	

Tributyltin naphthenate (as TBTO)	85409-17-2	 	 	 	 	 	0.0021	  	

Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane [FC-113] 1,1,2-	76-13-1	HPV	1000	1000 and 2000 C	1000	1250 ST	500	1000 ST		

Trichloroacetic acid	76-03-9	 	 	1	1	 	 	 		

Trichlorobenzene - All isomers	12002-48-1	 	 	 	 	 	5	10 ST		

Trichlorobenzene 1,2,3-	87-61-6	HPV	 	 	 	 	5	10 ST		

Trichlorobenzene 1,3,5-	108-70-3	 	 	 	 	 	5	10 ST		

Trichloroethane 1,1,2-	79-00-5	HPV	10	10	10	 	10	20 ST		

Trichloroethylene	79-01-6	HPV	100	25 and 300 C	25	2 C (60-min)	 	 	 

Trichlorofluoromethane [FC-11]	75-69-4	HPV	1000	1000 C	 	1000 C	1000 2000 ST		

Trichloronaphthalene	1321-65-9	 	5	5	5	 	 	 		

Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid] 2,4,5-T [2,4,5-]	93-76-5	 	10	10	10	 	10 20 ST		

Trichloropropane 1,2,3-	96-18-4	HPV	50	10	10	 	 	 		

Trichlorosilane	10025-78-2	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Triethanolamine	102-71-6	HPV	 	5	 	 	 	 		

Triethoxysilane	998-30-1	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Triethylamine	121-44-8	HPV	25	1C	 	 	1	2 ST		

Triethylene glycol diacrylate	1680-21-3	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Triethylenetetramine	112-24-3	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Trifluorobromomethane [F-13B1]	75-63-8	HPV	1000	1000	1000	 	1000	8000 ST		

Trifluoroethane 1,1,1-	420-46-2	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Trifluoroethanol 2,2,2-	75-89-8	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Triglycidyl-s-triazinetrione 1,3,5-	2451-62-9	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Trimellitic anhydride	552-30-7	HPV	 	0.005 C	0.04	 	0.04	 		

Trimethoxysilane	2487-90-3	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Trimethyl benzene - Mixed isomers	 	 	 	 	 	 	20	40 ST		

Trimethyl benzene [Mesitylene] 1,3,5-	108-67-8	HPV	 	 	25	 	20	40 ST 	

Trimethyl benzene 1,2,3-	526-73-8	 	 	 	25	 	20	40 ST		

Trimethyl benzene 1,2,4-	95-63-6	HPV	 	 	25	 	20	40 ST		

Trimethyl phosphite	121-45-9	HPV	 	2	2	 	 	 		

Trimethylamine	75-50-3	HPV	 	5	 	 	 	 		

Trimethylchlorosilane	75-77-4	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Trimethylolpropane triacrylate	15625-89-5	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate	3290-92-4	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Tri-n-butyltin chloride (as TBTO)	1461-22-9	HPV	 	 	 	 	0.0021	  	

Tri-n-butyltin)oxide [TBTO] (as TBTO) bis(	56-35-9	HPV	 	 	 	  0.0021	 		

Trinitrotoluene [TNT] 2,4,6-	118-96-7	 	1.5	0.5	0.5	 	 	 		

Triorthocresyl phosphate	78-30-8	 	0.1	0.1	0.1	 	 	 		

Triphenyl amine	603-34-9	 	 	5	5	 	 	 		

Triphenyl phosphate	115-86-6	HPV	3	3	3	 	 	 		

Tungsten - Insoluble compounds (as W)	7440-33-7	 	 	1 and 5	5	10 ST	   		

Tungsten - Metal	7440-33-7	 	 	1 and 5	5	10 ST	 	 		

Tungsten - Soluble compounds (as W)	7440-33-7	 	 	5	1	3 ST	 	 	 

Tungsten carbide - Containing > 0.3% nickel, as Ni	12070-12-1	 	 	  0.015	 	 	 		

Tungsten carbide - Containing > 2% cobalt, as Co	12070-12-1	 	 	  0.05	 	 	 		

Turpentine	8006-64-2	HPV	100	100	100	 	 	 		

Uranium - Compounds (as U)	7440-61-1	 	 	0.05 and 0.2	 	 	 	 	 

Uranium (Natural) - Insoluble compounds (as U)	7440-61-1	 	0.05	0.05 and 0.2	0.2	0.6 ST	0.2	0.4 ST		

Uranium (Natural) - Soluble compounds (as U)	7440-61-1	 	0.25	0.05 and 0.2	0.05	 	 	 		

Urea	57-13-6	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Valeraldehyde n-	110-62-3	HPV	 	50	50	 	 	 		

Vanadium pentoxide - Dust (as V2O5)	1314-62-1	 	0.5 C	0.05	 	 	 	  	

Vanadium pentoxide - Fume (as V2O5)	1314-62-1	 	0.1 C	0.05	 	 	 	  	

Vanadium pentoxide (as V2O5)	1314-62-1	 	 	0.05	 	 	 	 		

Vegetable oil - Mists	 	 	5 and 15	5 and 10	5 and 10	 	 	 		

Vinyl acetate	108-05-4	HPV	 	10	 	4 C (15-min)	 	 		

Vinyl bromide	593-60-2	 	 	5	 	 	 	 		

Vinyl chloride	75-01-4	HPV	1	1	 	 	 	 		

Vinyl cyclohexene 4-	100-40-3	HPV	 	0.1	 	 	 	 		

Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide	106-87-6	 	 	0.1	10	 	 	 		

Vinyl fluoride	75-02-5	HPV	 	 	1	5 C (15-min)	 	 		

Vinyl toluene [Methyl styrene] - Mixed isomers	25013-15-4	HPV	100	50	100  	100	200 ST		

Vinylidene chloride	75-35-4	HPV	 	1	 	 	2	4 ST		

Vinylidene fluoride	75-38-7	HPV	 	 	1	5 C (15-min)	 	 		

Vinyltrichlorosilane	75-94-5	HPV	 	 	 	 	 	 		

Warfarin	81-81-2	 	0.1	0.1	0.1	 	0.02	0.16 ST		

Welding fumes - not otherwise specified	 	 	 	5	 	 	 	 		

Wood dust	 	 	 	 	1	 	 	 		

Wood dust - Beech & oak	 	 	 	 	1	 	 	 		

Wood dust - Birch, mahogany, teak, walnut	 	 	 	 	1	 	 	 		

Wood dust - Hardwood	 	 	 	 	1	 	 	 		

Wood dust - Softwood	 	 	 	 	1	 	 	 		

Wood dust - Western red cedar	 	 	 	2.5	1	 	 	 		

Xylene - Mixed isomers	1330-20-7	HPV	 	100 and 300 C	 	 	100	200 ST 	

Xylene m-	108-38-3	HPV	100	 	100	150 ST	100	200 ST		

Xylene o-	95-47-6	HPV	100	 	100	150 ST	100	200 ST		

Xylene p-	106-42-3	HPV	100	 	100	150 ST	100	200 ST		

Xylidine - Mixed isomers (Vapor & aerosol)	1330-73-8	 	5	 	2	 	 	  	

Yttrium - Compounds (as Y)	7440-65-5	 	1	1	1	 	 	 		

Yttrium - Metal	7440-65-5	 	1	1	1	 	 	 		

Zinc beryllium silicate (as Be)	39413-47-3	 	0.002	 	 	0.005 C	 	  	

Zinc chloride - Fume	7646-85-7	 	1	1	1	2 ST	 	 		

Zinc chromate (as Cr)	13530-65-9	 	0.1 C	0.01	0.001	 	 	 		

Zinc oxide - Dust	1314-13-2	 	5 and 15	5 and 10	5	15 C	 	 		

Zinc oxide - Fume	1314-13-2	 	5	5 and 10	5	10 C	1 (resp)	1 ST (resp) 	

Zinc potassium chromate (as Cr)	11103-86-9	 	0.005	0.005	0.01	 	 	  	

Zinc stearate	557-05-1	HPV	5 and 15	10	5 and 10	 	 	 		

Zinc yellow (as Cr)	37300-23-5	 	 	0.01	 	 	 	 		

Zirconium - Compounds (as Zr)	7440-67-7	 	5	5	5	10 ST	 	 		

Zirconium - Elemental	7440-67-7	 	 	5	 	 	1	 		

Zirconium - Insoluble compounds (as Zr)	7440-67-7	 	 	5	 	 	1	 	 

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_ id=3360" http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_i d=3360

 TLV’s and Other Consensus Standards - Can OSHA enforce them? (AIHA®-ASSE)

 HYPERLINK "http://www.aiha.org/localsections/html/potche/news/AIHA_ASSE_Presentati on_Consensus_Standards%20b.pdf" http://www.aiha.org/localsections/html/potche/news/AIHA_ASSE_Presentatio n_Consensus_Standards%20b.pdf

 AIHA®'s White Paper on Permissible Exposure Limits

(PELs)   HYPERLINK "http://www.aiha.org/news-pubs/govtaffairs/Documents/whitepaper02_PELs.p df" http://www.aiha.org/news-pubs/govtaffairs/Documents/whitepaper02_PELs.pd f

 This policy applies to all workplace hazards, including carcinogens, and is responsive to Section 20(a)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which charges NIOSH to “. . .describe exposure levels that are safe for various periods of employment, including but not limited to the exposure levels at which no employee will suffer impaired health or functional capacities or diminished life expectancy as a result of his work experience.”

 Mixie was developed by the Canadian L'Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST) and is available at:  HYPERLINK "http://www.irsst.qc.ca/en/-tool-mixie-mixtures-of-substances-in-the-wor kplace-computer-based-tool-for-evaluating-the-chemical-risk-calculation- of-the-rm.html" http://www.irsst.qc.ca/en/-tool-mixie-mixtures-of-substances-in-the-work place-computer-based-tool-for-evaluating-the-chemical-risk-calculation-o f-the-rm.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/

  HYPERLINK "http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/essentials/index.htm" http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/essentials/index.htm

 ACGIH® (2011): TLVs® and BEIs® Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio.

 Laszcz-Davis C, Boelter FW, Hearl F, Jayjock M, Perry L, Mclaughlin CF, O’Reilly M, Radcliffe RT, Stenzel M (2011). Human Health Risk Assessment. Chapter 18 in Patty’s Industrial Hygiene, 6th Ed., Rose VE and Cohrssen B, Eds. Wiley, Hoboken NJ.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/1 2196.html" http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12 196.html

 Criteria for a Recommended Standard:  Occupational Noise Exposure (1998), NIOSH. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/pdfs/98-126.pdf

 TABLE 4-4 Worldwide Regulations for Exposures to Hazardous Noise in the Workplace, Technology for a Quieter America, National Academy of Engineering.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12928&page=34

 Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology, 2005, NIOSH.  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf

  HYPERLINK "http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-17/pdf/2011-11965.pdf" \l "page=1" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-17/pdf/2011-11965.pdf#page=1

 Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities (2001) Institute of Medicine (IOM)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/605501p.pdf" http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/605501p.pdf

  HYPERLINK "http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-states.html" http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-states.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillness/edresources.html" http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillness/edresources.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillness/index.html" http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillness/index.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/index.html" http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/index.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_4.html" http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_4.html

 Army TB MED 507, Heat Stress Control and Heat Casualty Management,  HYPERLINK "http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/discond/hipss/Pages/HeatInjuryPreventi on.aspx" http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/discond/hipss/Pages/HeatInjuryPreventio n.aspx

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/86-113.html" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/86-113.html

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FACT_SHEE TS&p_id=186" http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FACT_SHEET S&p_id=186

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/coldstress" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/coldstress

  HYPERLINK "http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/discond/cip/Pages/ColdCasualtiesInjuri es.aspx" http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/discond/cip/Pages/ColdCasualtiesInjurie s.aspx

Page   PAGE  5  of   NUMPAGES   54

 CAS Registry:  HYPERLINK "http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/registry/index.html" http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/registry/index.html

 HPV Chemical Hazard Characterizations:  HYPERLINK "http://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_characterization.get_report?doctyp e=2" http://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_characterization.get_report?doctype =2

 Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances:  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS &p_id=10147" http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS& p_id=10147

 California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5155. Airborne Contaminants. Table AC-1 Permissible Exposure Limits For Chemical Contaminants:  HYPERLINK "http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5155table_ac1.html" http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5155table_ac1.html

 NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards:  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/pgintrod.html" http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/pgintrod.html

 Short Term/Ceiling

 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG), .Maximale Arbeitsplatz-Konzentrationen, MAK-Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, 2010. More information at:  HYPERLINK "https://webmail.osha.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://osha.europa.e u/en/topics/ds/oel/members.stm" \t "_blank" http://osha.europa.eu/en/topics/ds/oel/members.stm

 Millions of particles per cubic foot of air, based on impinger samples counted by light-field techniques