54432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Item name Testing frequency, allowable leakage rates, and other requirements 

(ii) USVs .................................................. Tested quarterly, not to exceed 120 days. If the device does not function properly, or if a liquid leakage rate > 400 cubic centimeters per minute or a gas leakage rate > 15 cubic feet per minute is 

observed, the valve must be removed, repaired and reinstalled, or replaced. 

(iii) BSDVs ............................................... Tested monthly, not to exceed 6 weeks. Valves must be tested for both operation and leakage. You 

must test according to API RP 14H for SSVs (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198). 

If a BSDV does not operate properly or if any fluid flow is observed during the leakage test, the 

valve must be immediately repaired or replaced. 

(iv) Electronic ESD logic .......................... Tested monthly, not to exceed 6 weeks. 

(v) Electronic ESD function ..................... Tested quarterly, not to exceed 120 days. Shut-in at least one well during the ESD function test. If 

multiple wells are tied back to the same platform, a different well should be shut-in with each quarterly test. 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–19861 Filed 9–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 84 

[Docket No. CDC–2013–0017; NIOSH–250] 

Development of Inward Leakage 

Standards for Half-Mask Air-Purifying 

Particulate Respirators 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Request for comment and notice 

of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

announces a public meeting concerning 

inward leakage performance 

requirements for the class of NIOSHcertified non-powered air-purifying 

particulate respirators approved as halffacepiece respirators for protection from 

particulate-only hazards. The purpose of 

this meeting is to share information and 

to seek stakeholder feedback, in 

identified topic areas, concerning the 

development of inward leakage 

performance standards. Questions 

concerning the identified topics of 

specific interest are included in this 

document. Attendance at the public 

meeting is not required to submit 

written responses to the questions in 

this notice. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

September 17, 2013, 1:00 p.m.–5:00 

p.m. ET, or after the last public 

commenter has spoken. Stakeholder 

comments to the questions included in 

this document must be received by 

11:59 p.m. ET on October 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Meeting location: Bruceton 

Research Center, NIOSH National 

Personal Protective Technology 

Laboratory (NPPTL), 626 Cochrans Mill 

Road, Building 140, Multi-purpose 

Room, Pittsburgh, PA 15236. This 

meeting will also be available by remote 

access. 

Written Comments: You may submit 

comments by either of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert 

A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 

45226. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name (Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, 

HHS) and docket number (CDC–2013– 

0017; NIOSH–250). All relevant 

comments, including any personal 

information provided, will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents and 

submitted comments, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen Miller, NIOSH National 

Personal Protective Technology 

Laboratory (NPPTL), 626 Cochrans Mill 

Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236 (412) 386– 

4956 or (412) 386–5200 (these are not 

toll free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Testing, quality control, and other 

requirements under 42 CFR Part 84 are 

intended to ensure that respirators 

supplied to U.S. workers provide 

effective protection when properly 

employed within a complete respiratory 

protection program, as specified under 

MSHA and OSHA regulations. NIOSH 

requirements governing approval of 

half-mask air-purifying particulate 

respirators, those defined in this notice, 

are principally specified in Part 84, 

under Subpart K—Non-Powered AirPurifying Particulate Respirators. The 

performance of the respirator’s 

facepiece-to-face seal and other 

potential sources of inward leakage for 

this type of respirator are important to 

determine how much unfiltered 

contaminated air the worker might 

inhale. The facepiece-to-face seal 

leakage can be substantial in the case of 

a poorly fitting respirator. Effective fit 

testing technology and procedures exist 

to ensure that half-mask respirators 

approved by NIOSH under Subpart K of 

Part 84 have adequately performing 

facepiece-to-face seals. The purpose of 

this notice is to solicit stakeholder 

feedback regarding standards for inward 

leakage testing. 

NIOSH believes that the employee is 

more likely to achieve a good fit from 

a respirator design that has been 

demonstrated to achieve a specified 

minimum level of performance during 

certification testing. Accordingly, 

NIOSH initiated rulemaking activities to 

establish inward leakage performance 

requirements for NIOSH-approved 

particulate filtering respirators by 

publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on October 30, 2009 [74 FR 

56141]. The public comment period for 

the rulemaking closed originally on 

December 28, 2009 but was 

subsequently extended upon request by 

stakeholders to September 30, 2010. 

Public meetings were held on December 

3, 2009 and July 29, 2010 to allow 

stakeholders to share feedback on the 

proposed rule, including preliminary 

results of their independently 

completed or ongoing research. NIOSH 

reviewed all comments submitted by 

stakeholders and is considering them in 

the development of a revised inward 

leakage standard. 

II. Test Panel History 

Although NIOSH requires adequate 

facepiece-to-face seals for other types of 

respirators under Part 84, such 

requirements have not been applied to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 54433 

1Zhuang Z, Bradtmiller B, and Shaffer R.E. New 

Respirator Fit Test Panels Representing the Current 

U.S. Civilian Workforce. Journal of Occupational 

and Environmental Hygiene 2007;4:647–659. 

2NIOSH. Total Inward Leakage Test for Halfmask Air-purifying Particulate Respirators. 

Procedure No. RCT–APR–STP–0068. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/

NIOSH-137/0137-081209-DraftTIL.pdf. 

3Presentation slides for both webinars are found 

in the dockets for this action. 

4Use of the LANL panels is established in 

Procedure No. TEB–APR–STP–0005–05a–06, 

Determination of Qualitative Isoamyl Acetate (IAA) 

Facepiece Fit, Air-Purifying Respirators. Available 

at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/stps/pdfs/TEBAPR-STP-0005-05a-06.pdf. 

the half-mask air-purifying particulate 

respirators approved under subpart K. A 

new test panel, based on the bivariate 

distribution of face width and face 

length, was developed by NIOSH in 

2007, based on research completed in 

2003.1 The bivariate panel was 

developed following an anthropometric 

survey of 3,997 respirator users to better 

represent the U.S. civilian workforce by 

weighting subjects to match the age and 

race distribution of the U.S. population 

as determined from the 2000 census. In 

the rulemaking published in October 

2009, NIOSH proposed to incorporate 

the bivariate panel into the standard 

testing procedures for inward leakage 

testing of these respirators.2

In response to stakeholder comments, 

specifically those addressing concerns 

about the potential for inter-panel 

variability when comparing panels 

comprising different test subjects, 

NIOSH researchers developed a peerreviewed protocol to investigate the 

inter-panel variability. The study began 

in July 2012 and was recently 

completed. Data analysis is ongoing and 

public webinars to share preliminary 

results were held on July 23, 2013 and 

August 20, 2013.3

During the inter-panel variability 

study, potential issues with the 

implementation of the proposed 

performance requirement were carefully 

considered by NIOSH leadership, 

researchers, standard and policy 

developers, and the technical experts 

responsible for NIOSH certification 

testing. This Federal Register notice 

includes questions for stakeholders to 

better understand and resolve potential 

implementation issues. 

III. Public Meeting 

NIOSH will hold a public meeting on 

September 17, 2013 to discuss the 

development of inward leakage 

performance standards for the class of 

NIOSH-certified, non-powered halffacepiece respirators approved under 

the provisions of Subpart K of 42 CFR 

Part 84. The format of the meeting will 

be informal to encourage stakeholders to 

share information and responses 

regarding the information presented by 

NIOSH, the questions included in this 

notice, and any questions that may be 

identified during the meeting. 

This meeting will also be using 

Audio/LiveMeeting Conferencing 

remote access capabilities so that 

interested parties may listen in and 

view the presentations simultaneously 

over the Internet. Parties remotely 

accessing the meeting will have the 

opportunity to comment during the 

open comment period. 

Registration is required for both inperson and video conferencing 

participation. Because this meeting is 

being held at a Federal site, 

preregistration is required on or before 

September 10, 2013 and a governmentissued photo ID will be required to 

obtain entrance to the facility. Non-U.S. 

citizens must register on or before 

August 30, 2013 to allow sufficient time 

for mandatory facility security clearance 

procedures to be completed. Non-U.S. 

citizens registered for another meeting 

at the site on September 17, 2013, will 

be considered to be registered for this 

meeting. NIOSH encourages all others to 

attend remotely. 

An email confirming registration will 

be sent from NIOSH for both in-person 

participation and video conferencing 

participation. Information regarding 

participation via the video conferencing 

will be provided in a separate email. 

This option will be available to 

participants on a first come, first served 

basis. 

Registration information is available 

on the NIOSH NPPTL Web site at http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/resources/ 

pressrel/letters/lttr-09172013.html. 

IV. Questions for Stakeholders 

A. Inward Leakage Performance 

Standard Test Method 

1. Which of the following test 

method(s) would you recommend 

including in the standard test procedure 

for an inward leakage performance 

standard test method: Condensation 

nuclei counter (CNC) with differential 

mobility analyzer with supplemental 

aerosol, as needed; or general aerosol in 

a chamber with a quantitative detection 

method? Please provide your rationale 

and information that supports your 

recommendation including experiences, 

data, analyses, studies, published 

articles, and standard professional 

practices. 

2. In light of published data indicating 

that particle penetration through the 

filter media is negligible, in your 

opinion, if the CNC method is used: 

(a) Is the differential analyzer needed? 

Explain why or why not, providing your 

rationale and any supporting data or 

information, including references or 

sources of technical expert opinion. 

(b) What other detection method for 

ambient aerosol could be used? Provide 

any supporting documents, references, 

or data. 

(c) Is corn oil an acceptable method 

for evaluating N-series respirators (those 

restricted to use in workplaces free of 

oil aerosols) for certification purposes? 

Why or why not? Are there issues 

associated with corn oil degradation of 

the media during the time required to 

complete a typical OSHA fit test 

protocol? Please explain your answer. 

Would your concerns regarding the 

effects of corn oil be eliminated if the 

number of exposures to corn oil (i.e., 

repeated donnings) is limited? Please 

explain your answer. 

(d) What additional information or 

issues should NIOSH consider regarding 

the use of corn oil as an aerosol 

challenge during performance testing for 

filtering facepiece respirators? Please 

include specific information that 

supports your recommendation 

including experiences, data, analyses, 

studies, published articles, and standard 

professional practices. 

3. Should NIOSH allow the option of 

multiple inward leakage test methods? 

4. Should NIOSH define and establish 

inward leakage standards for quartermasks? If you represent a respirator 

manufacturer, do you currently market 

quarter-mask respirators? If you are a 

purchaser, do you currently use quartermask respirators? Please include a 

description of the occupational use of 

the quarter-mask respirators you are 

manufacturing or using. 

B. Subject Test Panels 

1. What are the advantages and/or 

disadvantages of using the NIOSH 

bivariate panel in assessing the 

facepiece-to-face seal as a regulatory 

requirement for respirators? 

(a) What are key implementation 

issues you foresee and how do you 

recommend addressing these issues? 

(b) Would you support the use of 

another panel, if so, which one (e.g., Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 

full-facepiece panel, LANL halffacepiece panel 4)? Please explain your 

answer. 

2. Which panel(s) is your company 

currently using to develop new 

respirator models or to modify existing 

respirators? Please identify or define the 

panel (e.g., LANL full-facepiece, LANL 

half-facepiece, NIOSH bivariate, or 

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the number of test subjects generally 

used, the distribution of the subjects 

within the panel cells, the sizing basis, 

and the representation of male and 

female test subjects. What pass/fail 

criteria are you currently using to 

approve proto-types for further 

development or production? 

(a) As a manufacturer, do you use 

facepiece-to-face seal criteria to qualify 

a design for production? Please include 

details about the criteria in your answer. 

(b) As a purchaser, what are the 

attributes you use to determine which 

brand(s) or model(s) of respirators to 

buy (e.g., price point, size, supplier, 

availability)? 

3. Does your company use a panel or 

portion of a panel to develop respirators 

for a defined user group (e.g., users with 

smaller facial features, users with larger 

facial features)? If so, please define the 

user group, the panel used, the cells 

included, and the number of subjects 

generally needed. 

(a) Could the LANL half-facepiece 

panel be used to test respirators for 

defined user groups? Please explain 

why or why not and include related 

implementation issues. 

(b) What issues do you foresee in the 

implementation of fit testing standards 

for defined user groups? 

4. Does your company use a panel or 

a portion of a panel to ensure the quality 

of a manufactured product line? If so, 

what test method and panel are used? 

How many subjects are included? Please 

explain how you maintain your pool of 

subjects. 

5. NIOSH currently uses the LANL 

half-facepiece panel (lip length, which 

is actually the lip width, and face 

length) for categorizing human subjects 

to evaluate those half-mask respirators 

evaluated for fit. What are the 

advantages and/or disadvantages of 

using the LANL half-facepiece panel for 

an inward leakage requirement for halfmask air-purifying particulate 

respirators, approved under subpart K, 

which are currently not evaluated for 

fit? 

6. What panel size would be sufficient 

for conducting a facepiece-to-face seal 

certification test? 

(a) Given the recommended number 

of test subjects, should the pass/fail 

criteria be specific and include a 

minimum of one pass per member cell? 

More than one per cell? 

(b) Given the recommended number 

of test subjects, should the pass/fail 

criteria be panel based (e.g., 20/25, 28/ 

35) and not specific to panel cells? 

(c) Should the pass/fail criteria 

require an overall high pass rate and 

allow for a percentage of failures or a 

lower fit factor pass criteria and a 100 

percent pass rate? 

C. Future Utility of the NIOSH Bivariate 

Panel for All NIOSH-Approved 

Respirators 

1. Based on your experience with the 

NIOSH bivariate panel, what 

implementation issues must NIOSH 

consider in order to use the NIOSH 

bivariate panel for certification testing 

of all classes of respirators? 

2. Should NIOSH develop a second 

NIOSH bivariate panel based on face 

length and lip length? Please explain 

why or why not and any 

implementation concerns or specific 

recommendations concerning future 

implementation of a new panel utilizing 

subject lip length and face length. 

D. Inter-Panel Variability 

1. What is an appropriate pass/fail 

criterion? Assuming the CNC is used, 

should the subject pass with a fit factor 

of 20? 50? 75? 100? 

2. If a corn oil chamber is used, what 

inward leakage pass/fail criteria should 

be used? 

3. What other strategies do you 

suggest to address the inter-panel 

variability? Please provide specific 

information that supports your 

recommendation including experiences, 

data, analyses, studies, published 

articles, and standard professional 

practices. 

Dated: August 27, 2013. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21430 Filed 9–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Parts 300, 315, 335, 410, 537, 

and 900 

RIN 3206–AM77 

Nondiscrimination Provisions 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is proposing to 

update various nondiscrimination 

provisions appearing in title 5, Code of 

Federal Regulations, to provide greater 

consistency and reflect current law. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments 

to U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

Office of Diversity & Inclusion, 1900 E 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20415; 

email to diversityandinclusion@

opm.gov; or fax to (202) 606–6042. 

Comments may also be sent through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. All submissions 

received through the Portal must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or the Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

Please specify the section number for 

each comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Sharon Wong by telephone at 

(202) 606–7140; by TTY at 1–800–877– 

8339; by fax at (202) 606–6042; or by 

email at diversityandinclusion@

opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive 

Order 13563 directs agencies to promote 

‘‘retrospective analysis of rules that may 

be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, 

or excessively burdensome, and to 

modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

them in accordance with what has been 

learned.’’ Pursuant to that direction and 

OPM’s plan for conducting retrospective 

review (see http://www.opm.gov/Open/

Resources/RetrospectiveRegReview.pdf), 

OPM has been reviewing a number of 

existing regulations to determine 

whether they should be changed or 

eliminated. 

Among the regulations OPM has 

decided to review are those that contain 

nondiscrimination provisions. OPM 

chose these regulations for retrospective 

review to further respond to a separate 

instruction issued by President Obama 

in a June 17, 2009, Memorandum on 

Federal Benefits and 

Nondiscrimination. That memorandum 

directed OPM to issue guidance 

‘‘regarding compliance with, and 

implementation of, the civil service 

laws, rules, and regulations, including 5 

U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), which make it 

unlawful to discriminate against Federal 

employees or applicants for Federal 

employment on the basis of factors not 

related to job performance.’’ See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/memorandum-heads-executivedepartments-and-agencies-federalbenefits-and-non-discri. 

Our review revealed that the 

nondiscrimination provisions are 

inconsistently worded and most have 

not been updated to reflect recent legal 

developments, including enactment of 

the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), 

Pub. L. 110–233, which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of genetic 

information. Accordingly, we are 

issuing these proposed regulations to 

update the nondiscrimination 

provisions to reflect current law and to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS