80734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 850 

[Docket No. HS–RM–10–CBDPP] 

RIN 1992–AA39 

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Health, Safety and 

Security, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or the Department) requests 

information and comments on issues 

related to its current chronic beryllium 

disease prevention program. The 

Department solicits comment and 

information on the permissible exposure 

level, establishing surface action levels, 

the use of warning labels to release 

items that are free of removable surface 

levels of beryllium to other DOE 

facilities for non-beryllium use or to 

general members of the public, medical 

restrictions for beryllium workers, and 

other pertinent subjects. The 

information received in response to this 

request will assist DOE in determining 

the appropriate course of action 

regarding its chronic beryllium disease 

prevention program. 

DATES: All comments on the issues 

presented in this document must be 

received by the Department by February 

22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments in response to 

this document may be submitted by 

hardcopy or electronically through email. Hardcopies (2 copies) sent by 

regular mailing should be addressed to: 

Jacqueline D. Rogers, Office of Worker 

Safety and Health Policy, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Docket No. HS– 

RM–10–CBDPP, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. 

Electronic submissions may be sent to 

jackie.rogers@hq.doe.gov. If you have 

additional information, such as studies 

or journal articles, and cannot attach 

them to your electronic submission, 

please send 2 copies to the address 

above. The additional material must 

clearly identify your electronic 

comments by name, date, subject, and 

Docket No. HS–RM–10–CBDPP. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and 

Security, Office of Worker Safety and 

Health Policy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

202–586–4714, or 

jackie.rogers@hq.doe.gov. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice, as well as other relevant 

DOE documents concerning this issue, 

will be available on a Web page at: 

http://www.hss.energy.gov/ 

HealthSafety/WSHP/BE/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DOE has a long history of beryllium 

use because of the element’s broad 

application to many nuclear operations 

and processes. Beryllium metal and 

ceramics are used in nuclear weapons as 

nuclear reactor moderators or reflectors 

and as nuclear reactor fuel element 

cladding. At DOE, beryllium operations 

have historically included foundry 

(melting and molding), grinding, and 

machine tooling of parts. 

Inhalation of beryllium particles may 

cause chronic beryllium disease (CBD) 

and beryllium sensitization. CBD is a 

chronic, often debilitating, and 

sometimes fatal lung condition. 

Beryllium sensitization is a condition in 

which a person’s immune system 

becomes highly responsive (allergic) to 

the presence of beryllium in the body. 

There has long been scientific 

consensus that exposure to airborne 

beryllium is the only cause of CBD. 

On December 3, 1998, DOE published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to establish a Chronic Beryllium Disease 

Prevention Program (CBDPP) (63 FR 

66940). After considering the comments 

received, DOE published its final rule 

establishing CBDPP on December 8, 

1999 (64 FR 68854). At that time, DOE 

sought to reduce the number of workers 

exposed to beryllium in the course of 

their work at DOE facilities managed by 

DOE or its contractors; to minimize the 

levels of, and potential for, exposure to 

beryllium; and to establish medical 

surveillance requirements to ensure 

early detection of the disease. DOE now 

has nearly 10 years of job, exposure, and 

health data, as well as experience 

implementing the rule, since CBDPP 

was fully implemented in January 2002. 

In addition, new research related to CBD 

has been published in the years since 

1999. 

Currently, the Department is 

considering establishing new 

requirements in several sections of the 

CBDPP rule (10 CFR part 850). DOE is 

gathering data, views, and other relevant 

information to develop a revised 

standard for CBDPP at its facilities. The 

Department urges those individuals 

interested in this issue to provide 

responses to the questions provided in 

this document. 

II. Questions for Comment 

DOE would like to have more data 

and information to decide whether its 

current CBDPP can be improved, and if 

so, how it can be improved. When 

answering specific numbered questions 

below, key your response to the number 

of the question and, if possible, include 

the mission and cost impacts implied by 

the question and by your answer. 

1. DOE currently defers to the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) for establishing 

the permissible exposure limits (PEL) 

and uses an action level as the 

administrative level to assure that 

controls are implemented to prevent 

exposures from exceeding the 

permissible exposure limits. Should the 

Department continue to use the OSHA 

PEL? Please explain your answer and 

provide evidence to support your 

answer. 

2. Should the Department use the 

2010 ACGIH threshold limit value (TLV) 

of 0.05 μg/m3 (8-hour time-weighted 

average of 0.05 microgram of beryllium, 

in inhalable particulate matter, per 

cubic meter of air), for its allowable 

exposure limit? Please explain your 

answer and provide evidence to support 

your answer. 

3. Should an airborne action level that 

is different from the 2010 ACGIH TLV 

for beryllium (8-hour time-weighted 

average of 0.05 microgram of beryllium, 

in inhalable particulate matter, per 

cubic meter of air) be established? If so, 

what should be the level? Please explain 

each of your answers and provide 

evidence to support your answers. 

4. In the past DOE encouraged, but 

did not require, the use of wet wipes 

rather than dry wipes for surface 

monitoring. DOE’s experience with 

wipe testing leads the Department to 

consider requiring the use of wet wipes, 

unless the employer demonstrates that 

using wet wipes may cause an 

undesirable alteration of the surface, in 

order to achieve greater comparability of 

results across the DOE complex and in 

response to studies demonstrating that 

wet wipes capture more of the surface 

contamination than do dry wipes. 

Should the Department require the use 

of wet wipes? Please explain your 

answer and provide evidence to support 

your answer. 

5. Since the use of wipe sampling is 

not a common occupational safety and 

health requirement, how do current 

wipe sampling protocols aid exposure 

assessments and the protection of 

beryllium workers? How reliable and 

accurate are current sampling and 

analytical methods for beryllium wipe 

samples? Please explain your answers 

and provide evidence to support your 

answers. 

6. What is the best method for 

sampling and analyzing inhalable 

beryllium? Please explain your answers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80735 

and provide evidence to support your 

answers. 

7. How should total fraction exposure 

data be compared to inhalable fraction 

exposure measurements? Please explain 

your answer and provide evidence to 

support your answer. 

8. Should surface area action levels be 

established, or should DOE consider 

controlling the health risk of surface 

levels by establishing a low airborne 

action level that precludes beryllium 

settling out on surfaces, and 

administrative controls that prevent the 

buildup of beryllium on surfaces? If 

surface area action levels are 

established, what should be the DOE 

surface area action levels? If a low 

airborne action level should be 

established in lieu of the surface area 

action level, what should that airborne 

action level be? What, if any, additional 

administrative controls to prevent the 

buildup on surfaces should be 

established? Please explain each of your 

answers and provide evidence to 

support your answers. 

9. Should warning labels be required 

for the transfer, to either another DOE 

entity or to an entity to whom this rule 

does not apply, of items with surface 

areas that are free of removable surface 

levels of beryllium but which may 

contain surface contamination that is 

inaccessible or has been sealed with 

hard-to-remove substances, e.g., paint? 

Please explain your answer and provide 

evidence to support your answer. 

10. Should the Department establish 

both surface level and aggressive air 

sampling criteria (modeled after the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

aggressive air sampling criteria to clear 

an area after asbestos abatement) for 

releasing areas in a facility, or should 

the Department consider establishing 

only the aggressive air sampling 

criteria? Please explain your answers 

and provide evidence to support your 

answers. 

11. Currently, after the site 

occupational medicine director has 

determined that a beryllium worker 

should be medically removed from 

exposure to beryllium, the worker must 

consent to the removal. Should the 

Department continue to require the 

worker’s consent for medical removal, 

or require mandatory medical removal? 

Please explain your answers. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

20, 2010. 

Glenn S. Podonsky, 

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32258 Filed 12–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM438 Special Conditions No. 

25–10–03–SC] 

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model 

GVI Airplane; High Incidence 

Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Gulfstream GVI 

airplane. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes associated with the use of high 

incidence protection. The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for these design features. These 

proposed special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by February 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM438, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356. You may deliver two 

copies to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

NM438. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane & Flightcrew 

Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport 

Standards Staff, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington, 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2011; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

You can inspect the docket before and 

after the comment closing date. If you 

wish to review the docket in person, go 

to the address in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. If 

you want us to acknowledge receipt of 

your comments on this proposal, 

include with your comments a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

you have written the docket number. 

We will stamp the date on the postcard 

and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On March 29, 2005, Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Gulfstream’’) applied for 

an FAA type certificate for its new 

Gulfstream Model GVI passenger 

airplane. Gulfstream later applied for, 

and was granted, an extension of time 

for the type certificate, which changed 

the effective application date to 

September 28, 2006. The Gulfstream 

Model GVI airplane will be an all-new, 

two-engine jet transport airplane with 

an executive cabin interior. The 

maximum takeoff weight will be 99,600 

pounds, with a maximum passenger 

count of 19 passengers. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under provisions of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, 

Gulfstream must show that the 

Gulfstream Model GVI airplane 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the GVI’’) meets 

the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 

25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 

through 25–119, 25–122, and 25–124. If 

the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the GVI because of a novel or 

unusual design feature, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of § 21.16. 

In addition to complying with the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

and special conditions, the GVI must 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS