21274 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

of NNA’s recognition to testing and 

certification of products for 

demonstration of conformance to the 

test standard listed below in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—APPROPRIATE TEST STANDARD FOR INCLUSION IN NNA’S NRTL 

SCOPE OF RECOGNITION

Test 

standard Test standard title 

UL 508A .. Industrial Control Panels. 

OSHA’s recognition of any NRTL for 

a particular test standard is limited to 

equipment or materials for which OSHA 

standards require third-party testing and 

certification before using them in the 

workplace. Consequently, if a test 

standard also covers any products for 

which OSHA does not require such 

testing and certification, a NRTL’s scope 

of recognition does not include these 

products. 

A. Conditions 

Recognition is contingent on 

continued compliance with 29 CFR 

1910.7, including, but not limited to, 

abiding by the following conditions of 

the recognition: 

1. NNA must inform OSHA as soon as 

possible, in writing, of any change of 

ownership, facilities, or key personnel, 

and of any major change in its 

operations as a NRTL, and provide 

details of the change(s); 

2. NNA must meet all the terms of its 

recognition and comply with all OSHA 

policies pertaining to this recognition; 

and 

3. NNA must continue to meet the 

requirements for recognition, including 

all previously published conditions on 

NNA’s scope of recognition, in all areas 

for which it has recognition. 

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 

1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope 

of recognition of NNA as a NRTL, 

subject to the limitations and conditions 

specified above. 

III. Authority and Signature 

James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, authorized the 

preparation of this notice. Accordingly, 

the agency is issuing this notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8–2020 

(85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 

CFR 1910.7. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

James S. Frederick, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2024–06516 Filed 3–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2024–0003] 

Ballard Marine Construction Lower 

Olentangy Tunnel Project; Application 

for Permanent Variance and Interim 

Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request 

for Comments 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA 

announces the application of Ballard 

Marine Construction for a permanent 

variance and interim order from 

provisions of the standard that regulates 

construction work in compressed air 

environments, presents the agency’s 

preliminary finding on Ballard’s 

application, and announces the granting 

of an interim order. OSHA invites the 

public to submit comments on the 

variance application to assist the agency 

in determining whether to grant the 

applicant a permanent variance based 

on the conditions specified in this 

application. 

DATES: Submit comments, information, 

documents in response to this notice, 

and request for a hearing on or before 

April 26, 2024. The interim order 

described in this notice will become 

effective on March 27, 2024, and shall 

remain in effect until the completion of 

the Lower Olentangy Tunnel 

Conveyance Project in Columbus, Ohio, 

the interim order is modified or 

revoked, or OSHA publishes a decision 

on the permanent variance application. 

ADDRESSES: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments, including attachments, 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for making 

electronic submissions. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency’s name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2024–0003). All 

comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions commenters about submitting 

information they do not want made 

available to the public, or submitting 

materials that contain personal 

information (either about themselves or 

others), such as Social Security numbers 

and birthdates. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Documents in the 

docket (including this Federal Register 

notice) are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through the website. 

All submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

through the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 

693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–5627) for 

assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

Extension of comment period: Submit 

requests for an extension of the 

comment period on or before April 26, 

2024 to the Office of Technical 

Programs and Coordination Activities, 

Directorate of Technical Support and 

Emergency Management, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Room N–3653, 

Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to 

(202) 693–1644. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding this notice is 

available from the following sources: 

Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank 

Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications, U.S. Department of 

Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1999; 

email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director, 

Office of Technical Programs and 

Coordination Activities, Directorate of 

Technical Support and Emergency 

Management, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, U.S. Department 

of Labor; telephone: (202) 693–1911; 

email: robinson.kevin@dol.gov. 

Copies of this Federal Register 

notice. Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice are available at http://

www.regulations.gov. This Federal 

Register notice, as well as news releases 

and other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

Hearing Requests. According to 29 

CFR 1905.15, hearing requests must 

include: (1) a concise statement of facts 

detailing how the permanent variance 

would affect the requesting party; (2) a 

specification of any statement or 

representation in the variance 

application that the commenter denies, 

and a concise summary of the evidence 

offered in support of each denial; and 

(3) any views or arguments on any issue 

of fact or law presented in the variance 

application. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 21275 

1The decompression tables in Appendix A of 

subpart S express the working pressures as pounds 

per square inch gauge (p.s.i.g.). Therefore, 

throughout this notice, OSHA expresses the p.s.i. 

value specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5) as p.s.i.g., 

consistent with the terminology in appendix A, 

Table 1 of subpart S. 

I. Notice of Application 

On April 11, 2023, Ballard Marine 

Construction (Ballard or the applicant), 

submitted under Section 6(d) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 655, and 29 

CFR 1905.11 (variances and other relief 

under Section 6(d)) an application for a 

permanent variance from several 

provisions of the OSHA standard that 

regulates work in compressed air, 

1926.803 of 1926 Subpart S— 

Underground Construction, Caissons, 

Cofferdams, and Compressed Air, and 

an interim order allowing it to proceed 

while OSHA considers the request for a 

permanent variance (OSHA–2024– 

0003–0002). This notice addresses 

Ballard’s application for a permanent 

variance and interim order for 

construction of the Lower Olentangy 

Tunnel Project in Columbus, Ohio only 

and is not applicable to future Ballard 

tunneling projects. 

Specifically, this notice addresses 

Ballard’s application for a permanent 

variance and interim order from the 

provisions of the standard that: (1) 

require the use of the decompression 

values specified in decompression 

tables in appendix A of subpart S (29 

CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and (2) require the 

use of automated operational controls 

and a special decompression chamber 

(29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and (xvii), 

respectively). 

OSHA has previously approved 

nearly identical provisions when 

granting several other very similar 

variances, as discussed in more detail in 

Section II. OSHA preliminarily 

concludes that the proposed variance is 

appropriate, grants an interim order 

temporarily allowing the proposed 

activity, and seeks comment on the 

proposed variance. 

Background 

The applicant is a contractor that 

works on complex tunnel projects using 

innovations in tunnel-excavation 

methods. The applicant’s workers 

engage in the construction of tunnels 

using advanced shielded mechanical 

excavation techniques in conjunction 

with an earth pressure balanced microtunnel boring machine (TBM). Using 

shielded mechanical excavation 

techniques, in conjunction with precast 

concrete tunnel liners and backfill 

grout, TBMs provide methods to achieve 

the face pressures required to maintain 

a stabilized tunnel face through various 

geologies and isolate that pressure to the 

forward section (the excavation working 

chamber) of the TBM. 

Ballard asserts that it bores tunnels 

using TBM at levels below the water 

table through soft soils consisting of 

clay, silt and sand. TBMs are capable of 

maintaining pressure at the tunnel face 

and stabilizing existing geological 

conditions through the controlled use of 

a mechanically driven cutter head, 

bulkheads within the shield, groundtreatment foam, and a screw conveyor 

that moves excavated material from the 

working chamber. The forward-most 

portion of the TBM is the working 

chamber, and this chamber is the only 

pressurized segment of the TBM. Within 

the shield, the working chamber 

consists of two sections: the forward 

working chamber and the staging 

chamber. The forward working chamber 

is immediately behind the cutter head 

and tunnel face. The staging chamber is 

behind the forward working chamber 

and between the man-lock door and the 

entry door to the forward working 

chamber. 

The TBM has twin man-locks located 

between the pressurized working 

chamber and the non-pressurized 

portion of the machine. Each man-lock 

has two compartments. This 

configuration allows workers to access 

the man-locks for compression and 

decompression, and medical personnel 

to access the man-locks if required in an 

emergency. 

Ballard’s Hyperbaric Operations 

Manual (HOM) for the Lower Olentangy 

Conveyance Tunnel Project (OSHA– 

2024–0003–0003) indicates that the 

maximum pressure to which it is likely 

to expose workers during project 

interventions for the three tunnel drives 

is 27 pounds per square inch gauge 

(p.s.i.g). The applicant will pressurize 

the working chamber to the level 

required to maintain a stable tunnel 

face, which for this project Ballard 

estimates will be up to a pressure not 

exceeding 27 p.s.i.g., which does not 

exceed the maximum pressure specified 

by the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.803(e)(5). 1 Ballard is not seeking a 

variance from this provision of the 

compressed-air standard. 

Ballard employs specially trained 

personnel for the construction of the 

tunnel. To keep the machinery working 

effectively, Ballard asserts that these 

workers must periodically enter the 

excavation working chamber of the TBM 

to perform hyperbaric interventions 

during which workers would be 

exposed to air pressures up to 27 p.s.i.g. 

These interventions consist of 

conducting inspections or maintenance 

work on the cutter-head structure and 

cutting tools of the TBM, such as 

changing replaceable cutting tools and 

disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases, 

repairing structural damage to the cutter 

head. These interventions are the only 

time that workers are exposed to 

compressed air. Interventions in the 

excavation working chamber (the 

pressurized portion of the TBM) take 

place only after halting tunnel 

excavation and preparing the machine 

and crew for an intervention. 

During interventions, workers enter 

the working chamber through one of the 

twin man-locks that open into the 

staging chamber. To reach the forward 

part of the working chamber, workers 

pass through a door in a bulkhead that 

separates the staging chamber from the 

forward working chamber. The manlocks and the excavation working 

chamber are designed to accommodate 

three people, which is the maximum 

crew size allowed under the proposed 

variance (Ballard only plans to employ 

a crew of two people for these 

activities). When the required 

decompression times are greater than 

work times, the twin man-locks allow 

for crew rotation. During crew rotation, 

one crew can be compressing or 

decompressing while the second crew is 

working. Therefore, the working crew 

always has an unoccupied man-lock at 

its disposal. 

Ballard asserts that these innovations 

in tunnel excavation have greatly 

reduced worker exposure to hazards of 

pressurized air work because they have 

eliminated the need to pressurize the 

entire tunnel for the project and thereby 

reduce the number of workers exposed, 

as well as the total duration of exposure, 

to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel 

construction. These advances in 

technology substantially modified the 

methods used by the construction 

industry to excavate subaqueous tunnels 

compared to the caisson work regulated 

by the OSHA compressed-air standard 

for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803. 

In addition to the reduced exposures 

resulting from the innovations in 

tunnel-excavation methods, Ballard 

asserts that innovations in hyperbaric 

medicine and technology improve the 

safety of decompression from 

hyperbaric exposures. These 

procedures, however, would deviate 

from the decompression process that 

OSHA requires for construction in 29 

CFR 1926.803(f)(1) and the 

decompression tables in Appendix A of 

29 CFR part 1926, subpart S. 

Nevertheless, according to Ballard, their 

use of decompression protocols 

incorporating oxygen is more efficient, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
21276 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

2See the definition of ‘‘Affected employee or 

worker’’ in section VI. D. 

3Most of the other subaqueous tunnel 

construction variances allowed further deviation 

from OSHA standards by permitting employee 

exposures above 50 p.s.i.g. based on the 

composition of the soil and the amount of water 

above the tunnel for various sections of those 

projects. The current proposed variance includes 

substantively the same safeguards as the variances 

that OSHA granted previously, even though 

employees will only be exposed to pressures up to 

27 p.s.i.g. 

4 In 1992, the French Ministry of Labour replaced 

the 1974 French Decompression Tables with the 

1992 French Decompression Tables, which differ 

from OSHA’s decompression tables in Appendix A 

by using: (1) staged decompression as opposed to 

continuous (linear) decompression; (2) 

decompression tables based on air or both air and 

pure oxygen; and (3) emergency tables when 

unexpected exposure times occur (up to 30 minutes 

above the maximum allowed working time). 

effective, and safer for tunnel workers 

than compliance with the 

decompression tables specified by the 

existing OSHA standard. 

Ballard therefore believes its workers 

will be at least as safe under its 

proposed alternatives as they would be 

under OSHA’s standard because of the 

reduction in number of workers and 

duration of hyperbaric exposures, better 

application of hyperbaric medicine, and 

the development of a project-specific 

HOM that requires specialized medical 

support and hyperbaric supervision to 

provide assistance to a team of specially 

trained man-lock attendants and 

hyperbaric or compressed-air workers 

(CAWs). 

Based on an initial review of Ballard’s 

application for a permanent variance 

and interim order for the construction of 

the Lower Olentangy Tunnel Project in 

Columbus, Ohio, OSHA has 

preliminarily determined that Ballard 

has proposed an alternative that would 

provide a workplace at least as safe and 

healthful as that provided by the 

standard. 

II. The Variance Application 

Pursuant to the requirements of 

OSHA’s variance regulations (29 CFR 

part 1905), the applicant has certified 

that it notified its workers 2 of the 

variance application and request for 

interim order by posting, at prominent 

locations where it normally posts 

workplace notices, a summary of the 

application and information specifying 

where the workers can examine a copy 

of the application. In addition, the 

applicant informed its workers and their 

representatives of their rights to petition 

the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health for a 

hearing on the variance application. 

A. OSHA History of Approval of Nearly 

Identical Variance Requests 

OSHA previously approved several 

nearly identical variances involving the 

same types of tunneling equipment used 

for similar projects. OSHA notes that it 

granted several subaqueous tunnel 

construction permanent variances from 

the same provisions of OSHA’s 

compressed-air standard (29 CFR 

1926.803(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

(g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the 

present application: (1) Impregilo, 

Healy, Parsons, Joint Venture (IHP JV) 

for the completion of the Anacostia 

River Tunnel in Washington, DC (80 FR 

50652 (August 20, 2015)); (2) Traylor JV 

for the completion of the Blue Plains 

Tunnel in Washington, DC (80 FR 

16440, March 27, 2015)); (3) Tully/OHL 

USA Joint Venture for the completion of 

the New York Economic Development 

Corporation’s New York Siphon Tunnel 

project (79 FR 29809, May 23, 2014)); (4) 

Salini-Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture for 

the completion of the Northeast 

Boundary Tunnel in Washington, DC 

(85 FR 27767, May 11, 2020); (5) 

Traylor-Shea Joint Venture for the 

completion of the Alexandria 

RiverRenew Tunnel Project in 

Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, 

DC (87 FR 54536, September 6, 2022); 

(6) McNally/Kiewit Joint Venture for the 

completion of the Shoreline Storage 

Tunnel Project in Cleveland, Ohio (87 

FR 58379, September 25, 2022) and (7) 

Traylor-Sundt Joint Venture for the 

Integrated Pipeline Tunnel Project in 

Dallas Texas, (88 FR 26600, May 1, 

2023). OSHA also granted two interim 

orders to Ballard Marine Construction 

for the Suffolk County Outfall Tunnel 

Project in West Babylon, New York (86 

FR 5253, January 19, 2021) and Ballard 

Marine Construction for the Bay Park 

Conveyance Tunnel Project in Nassau, 

New York (88 FR 51862; August 4, 

2023). The proposed alternate 

conditions in this notice are nearly 

identical to the alternate conditions of 

the previous permanent variances and 

interim orders.3 OSHA is not aware of 

any injuries or other safety issues that 

arose from work performed under these 

conditions in accordance with the 

previous variances and interim orders. 

B. Variance From Paragraph (f)(1) of 29 

CFR 1926.803, Requirement To Use 

OSHA Decompression Tables 

OSHA’s compressed-air standard for 

construction requires decompression 

according to the decompression tables 

in Appendix A of 29 CFR part 1926, 

subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). 

As an alternative to the OSHA 

decompression tables, the applicant 

proposes to use newer decompression 

schedules (the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables), which rely on 

staged decompression, and to 

supplement breathing air used during 

decompression with air or oxygen (as 

appropriate).4 The applicant asserts 

decompression protocols using the 1992 

French Decompression Tables for air or 

oxygen as specified by the Lower 

Olentangy Conveyance Tunnel Project 

HOM are safer for tunnel workers than 

the decompression protocols specified 

in appendix A of 29 CFR part 1926, 

subpart S. Accordingly, the applicant 

would commit to following the 

decompression procedures described in 

its HOM, which would require it to 

follow the 1992 French Decompression 

Tables to decompress compressed-air 

workers (CAWs) after they exit the 

hyperbaric conditions in the excavation 

working chamber. 

Depending on the maximum working 

pressure and exposure times, the 1992 

French Decompression Tables provide 

for air decompression with or without 

oxygen. Ballard asserts that oxygen 

decompression has many benefits, 

including (1) keeping the partial 

pressure of nitrogen in the lungs as low 

as possible; (2) maintaining appropriate 

levels of external pressure to reduce the 

formation of bubbles in the blood; (3) 

removing nitrogen from the lungs and 

arterial blood and increasing the rate of 

nitrogen elimination; (4) improving the 

quality of breathing during 

decompression stops to diminish 

worker fatigue and to prevent bone 

necrosis; (5) reducing decompression 

time by about 33 percent as compared 

to air decompression; and (6) reducing 

inflammation. 

In addition, the project-specific HOM 

requires a physician certified in 

hyperbaric medicine, to manage the 

medical condition of CAWs during 

hyperbaric exposures and 

decompression. A trained and 

experienced man-lock attendant is also 

required to be present during hyperbaric 

exposures and decompression. This 

man-lock attendant is to operate the 

hyperbaric system to ensure compliance 

with the specified decompression table. 

A hyperbaric supervisor, who is trained 

in hyperbaric operations, procedures, 

and safety, directly oversees all 

hyperbaric interventions and ensures 

that staff follow the procedures 

delineated in the HOM or by the 

attending physician. 

C. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of 

29 CFR 1926.803, Automatically 

Regulated Continuous Decompression 

The applicant is applying for a 

permanent variance from the OSHA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 21277 

5See, e.g., Eric Kindwall, Compressed Air 

Tunneling and Caisson Work Decompression 

Procedures: Development, Problems, and Solutions, 

24(4) Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine 337, 337– 

45 (1997). This article reported 60 treated cases of 

DCI among 4,168 exposures between 19 and 31 

p.s.i.g. over a 51-week contract period, for a DCI 

incidence of 1.44% for the decompression tables 

specified by the OSHA standard. Dr. Kindwall notes 

that the use of automatically regulated continuous 

decompression in the Washington State safety 

standards for compressed-air work (from which 

OSHA derived its decompression tables) was at the 

insistence of contractors and the union, and against 

the advice of the expert who calculated the 

decompression table and recommended using 

staged decompression. Dr. Kindwall then states, 

‘‘Continuous decompression is inefficient and 

wasteful. For example, if the last stage from 4 

p.s.i.g. . . . to the surface took 1h, at least half the 

time is spent at pressures less than 2 p.s.i.g. . . . ., 

which provides less and less meaningful bubble 

suppression . . . .’’ In addition, Dr. Kindwall 

addresses the continuous-decompression protocol 

in the OSHA compressed-air standard for 

construction, noting that ‘‘[a]side from the tables for 

saturation diving to deep depths, no other widely 

used or officially approved diving decompression 

tables use straight line, continuous decompressions 

at varying rates. Stage decompression is usually the 

rule, since it is simpler to control.’’ 

standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), 

which requires automatic controls to 

regulate decompression. As noted 

above, the applicant is committed to 

conducting the staged decompression 

according to the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables under the direct 

control of the trained man-lock 

attendant and under the oversight of the 

hyperbaric supervisor. 

Breathing air under hyperbaric 

conditions increases the amount of 

nitrogen gas dissolved in a CAW’s 

tissues. The greater the hyperbaric 

pressure under these conditions and the 

more time spent under the increased 

pressure, the greater the amount of 

nitrogen gas dissolved in the tissues. 

When the pressure decreases during 

decompression, tissues release the 

dissolved nitrogen gas into the blood 

system, which then carries the nitrogen 

gas to the lungs for elimination through 

exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric 

pressure too rapidly during 

decompression can increase the size of 

the bubbles formed by nitrogen gas in 

the blood system, resulting in 

decompression illness (DCI), commonly 

referred to as ‘‘the bends.’’ This 

description of the etiology of DCI is 

consistent with current scientific theory 

and research on the issue. 

The 1992 French Decompression 

Tables proposed for use by the applicant 

provide for stops during worker 

decompression (i.e., staged 

decompression) to control the release of 

nitrogen gas from tissues into the blood 

system. Studies show that staged 

decompression, in combination with 

other features of the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables such as the use 

of oxygen, result in a lower incidence of 

DCI than the use of automatically 

regulated continuous decompression.5

In addition, the applicant asserts that 

staged decompression administered in 

accordance with its HOM is at least as 

effective as an automatic controller in 

regulating the decompression process 

because the HOM includes an 

intervention supervisor (a competent 

person experienced and trained in 

hyperbaric operations, procedures, and 

safety) who directly supervises all 

hyperbaric interventions and ensures 

that the man-lock attendant, who is a 

competent person in the manual control 

of hyperbaric systems, follows the 

schedule specified in the 

decompression tables, including stops. 

D. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(xvii) 

of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement of 

Special Decompression Chamber 

The OSHA compressed-air standard 

for construction requires employers to 

use a special decompression chamber of 

sufficient size to accommodate all 

CAWs being decompressed at the end of 

the shift when total decompression time 

exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Use of the special 

decompression chamber enables CAWs 

to move about and flex their joints to 

prevent neuromuscular problems during 

decompression. 

Space limitations in the TBM do not 

allow for the installation and use of an 

additional special decompression lock 

or chamber. The applicant proposes that 

it be permitted to rely on the man-locks 

and staging chamber in lieu of adding a 

separate, special decompression 

chamber. Because only a few workers 

out of the entire crew are exposed to 

hyperbaric pressure, the man-locks 

(which, as noted earlier, connect 

directly to the working chamber) and 

the staging chamber are of sufficient size 

to accommodate all of the exposed 

workers during decompression. The 

applicant uses the existing man-locks, 

each of which adequately 

accommodates a three-member crew for 

this purpose when decompression lasts 

up to 75 minutes. When decompression 

exceeds 75 minutes, crews can open the 

door connecting the two compartments 

in each man-lock (during 

decompression stops) or exit the manlock and move into the staging chamber 

where additional space is available. The 

applicant asserts that this alternative 

arrangement is as effective as a special 

decompression chamber in that it has 

sufficient space for all the CAWs at the 

end of a shift and enables the CAWs to 

move about and flex their joints to 

prevent neuromuscular problems. 

III. Agency Preliminary Determinations 

After reviewing the proposed 

alternatives, OSHA has preliminarily 

determined that the applicant’s 

proposed alternatives on the whole, 

subject to the conditions in the request 

and imposed by this interim order, 

provide measures that are as safe and 

healthful as those required by the cited 

OSHA standard addressed in section II 

of this document. 

In addition, OSHA has preliminarily 

determined that each of the following 

alternatives are at least as effective as 

the specified OSHA requirements: 

29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) 

Ballard has proposed to implement 

equally effective alternative measures to 

the requirement in 29 CFR 

1926.803(f)(1) for compliance with 

OSHA’s decompression tables. The 

project-specific HOM specifies the 

procedures and personnel qualifications 

for performing work safely during the 

compression and decompression phases 

of interventions. The HOM also 

specifies the decompression tables the 

applicant proposes to use (the 1992 

French Decompression Tables). 

Depending on the maximum working 

pressure and exposure times during the 

interventions, these tables provide for 

decompression using air, pure oxygen, 

or a combination of air and oxygen. The 

decompression tables also include 

delays or stops for various time intervals 

at different pressure levels during the 

transition to atmospheric pressure (i.e., 

staged decompression). In all cases, a 

physician certified in hyperbaric 

medicine will manage the medical 

condition of CAWs during 

decompression. In addition, a trained 

and experienced man-lock attendant, 

experienced in recognizing 

decompression sickness or illnesses and 

injuries, will be present. Of key 

importance, a hyperbaric supervisor 

(competent person), trained in 

hyperbaric operations, procedures, and 

safety, will directly supervise all 

hyperbaric operations to ensure 

compliance with the procedures 

delineated in the project-specific HOM 

or by the attending physician. 

Prior to granting the several previous 

permanent variances to IHP JV, Traylor 

JV, Tully JV, Salini-Impregilo Joint 

Venture, Traylor-Shea JV and McNally/ 

Kiewit JV, Traylor-Sundt JV, Ballard 

Suffolk (Interim Order, January 19, 

2021), and Ballard Bay Park (Interim 

Order, August 4, 2023), OSHA 

conducted a review of the scientific 

literature and concluded that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
21278 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

6Anderson H.L. (2002). Decompression sickness 

during construction of the Great Belt tunnel, 

Denmark. Undersea and Hyberbaric Medicine, 

29(3), pp. 172–188. 7 J.C. Le Pe ́chon, P. Barre, J.P. Baud, F. Ollivier, 

Compressed Air Work—French Tables 1992— 

Operational Results, JCLP Hyperbarie Paris, Centre 

Medical Subaquatique Interentreprise, Marseille: 

Communication a l’EUBS, pp. 1–5 (September 

1996) (see Ex. OSHA–2012–0036–0005). 

8Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress 

expressly provides that States and U.S. territories 

may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the 

development and enforcement of occupational 

safety and health standards. OSHA refers to such 

States and territories as ‘‘State Plans.’’ Occupational 

safety and health standards developed by State 

Plans must be at least as effective in providing safe 

and healthful employment and places of 

employment as the Federal standards. See 29 U.S.C. 

667. 

9These state variances are available in the docket 

for the 2015 Traylor JV variance: Exs. OSHA–2012– 

0035–0006 (Nevada), OSHA–2012–0035–0005 

(Oregon), and OSHA–2012–0035–0004 

(Washington). 

alternative decompression method (i.e., 

the 1992 French Decompression Tables) 

Ballard proposed would be at least as 

safe as the decompression tables 

specified by OSHA when applied by 

trained medical personnel under the 

conditions that would be imposed by 

the proposed variance. 

Some of the literature indicates that 

the alternative decompression method 

may be safer, concluding that 

decompression performed in accordance 

with these tables resulted in a lower 

occurrence of DCI than decompression 

conducted in accordance with the 

decompression tables specified by the 

standard. For example, H. L. Anderson 

studied the occurrence of DCI at 

maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging 

from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g. during 

construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in 

Denmark (1992–1996).6 This project 

used the 1992 French Decompression 

Tables to decompress the workers 

during part of the construction. 

Anderson observed 6 DCI cases out of 

7,220 decompression events and 

reported that switching to the 1992 

French Decompression tables reduced 

the DCI incidence to 0.08% compared to 

a previous incidence rate of 0.14%. The 

DCI incidence in the study by H. L. 

Anderson is substantially less than the 

DCI incidence reported for the 

decompression tables specified in 

appendix A. 

OSHA found no studies in which the 

DCI incidence reported for the 1992 

French Decompression Tables were 

higher than the DCI incidence reported 

for the OSHA decompression tables.7

OSHA’s experience with the previous 

several variances, which all 

incorporated nearly identical 

decompression plans and did not result 

in safety issues, also provides evidence 

that the alternative procedure as a 

whole is at least as effective for this type 

of tunneling project as compliance with 

OSHA’s decompression tables. The 

experience of State Plans 8 that either 

granted variances (Nevada, Oregon and 

Washington) 9 for hyperbaric exposures 

occurring during similar subaqueous 

tunnel-construction work, provide 

additional evidence of the effectiveness 

of this alternative procedure. 

29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) 

Ballard developed, and proposed to 

implement, an equally effective 

alternative to 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), 

which requires the use of automatic 

controllers that continuously decrease 

pressure to achieve decompression in 

accordance with the tables specified by 

the standard. The applicant’s alternative 

includes using the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables for guiding 

staged decompression to achieve lower 

occurrences of DCI, using a trained and 

competent attendant for implementing 

appropriate hyperbaric entry and exit 

procedures, and providing a competent 

hyperbaric supervisor and attending 

physician certified in hyperbaric 

medicine, to oversee all hyperbaric 

operations. 

In reaching this preliminary 

conclusion, OSHA again notes the 

experience of previous, nearly identical 

approved tunneling variances, the 

experiences of State Plans, and a review 

of the literature and other information 

noted earlier. 

29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii) 

Ballard developed, and proposed to 

implement, an effective alternative to 

the use of the special decompression 

chamber required by 29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(xvii). The TBM’s manlock and working chamber appear to 

satisfy all of the conditions of the 

special decompression chamber, 

including that they provide sufficient 

space for the maximum crew of three 

CAWs to stand up and move around, 

and safely accommodate decompression 

times up to 360 minutes. Therefore, 

again noting OSHA’s previous 

experience with nearly identical 

variances including the same 

alternative, OSHA preliminarily 

determined that the TBM’s man-lock 

and working chamber function as 

effectively as the special decompression 

chamber required by the standard. 

Pursuant to section 6(d) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), and based on the 

record discussed above, the agency 

preliminarily finds that when the 

employer complies with the conditions 

of the proposed variance, the working 

conditions of the employer’s workers 

would be at least as safe and healthful 

as if the employer complied with the 

working conditions specified by 

paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

(g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803. 

IV. Grant of Interim Order, Proposal for 

Permanent Variance, and Request for 

Comment 

OSHA hereby announces the 

preliminary decision to grant an interim 

order allowing Ballard’s CAWs to 

perform interventions in hyperbaric 

conditions not exceeding 27 p.s.i.g. 

during the Lower Olentangy Tunnel 

Project, subject to the conditions that 

follow in this document. This interim 

order will remain in effect until 

completion of the Lower Olentangy 

Tunnel Project or until the agency 

modifies or revokes the interim order or 

makes a decision on Ballard’s 

application for a permanent variance. 

During the period starting with the 

publication of this notice until 

completion of the Lower Olentangy 

Tunnel Project, or until the agency 

modifies or revokes the interim order or 

makes a decision on its application for 

a permanent variance, the applicant is 

required to comply fully with the 

conditions of the interim order as an 

alternative to complying with the 

following requirements of 29 CFR 

1926.803 (‘‘the standard’’) that: 

1. Require the use of decompression 

values specified by the decompression 

tables in Appendix A of the 

compressed-air standard (29 CFR 

1926.803(f)(1)); 

2. Require the use of automated 

operational controls (29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(iii)); and 

3. Require the use of a special 

decompression chamber (29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). 

In order to avail itself of the interim 

order, Ballard must: (1) comply with the 

conditions listed in the interim order for 

the period starting with the grant of the 

interim order and ending with Ballard’s 

completion of the Lower Olentangy 

Tunnel Project (or until the agency 

modifies or revokes the interim order or 

makes a decision on its application for 

a permanent variance); (2) comply fully 

with all other applicable provisions of 

29 CFR part 1926; and (3) provide a 

copy of this Federal Register notice to 

all employees affected by the proposed 

conditions, including the affected 

employees of other employers, using the 

same means it used to inform these 

employees of its application for a 

permanent variance. 

OSHA is also proposing that the same 

requirements (see above section III,) 

would apply to a permanent variance if 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 21279 

10A class or group of employers (such as 

members of a trade alliance or association) may 

apply jointly for a Variance provided an authorized 

representative for each employer signs the 

application and the application identifies each 

employer’s affected facilities. 

OSHA ultimately issues one for this 

project. OSHA requests comment on 

those conditions as well as OSHA’s 

preliminary determination that the 

specified alternatives and conditions 

would provide a workplace as safe and 

healthful as those required by the 

standard from which a variance is 

sought. After reviewing comments, 

OSHA will publish in the Federal 

Register the agency’s final decision 

approving or rejecting the request for a 

permanent variance. 

V. Description of the Specified 

Conditions of the Interim Order and the 

Application for a Permanent Variance 

This section describes the alternative 

means of compliance with 29 CFR 

1926.803(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) 

and provides additional detail regarding 

the proposed conditions that form the 

basis of Ballard’s application for an 

Interim Order and for a Permanent 

Variance. The conditions are listed 

below. For brevity, the discussion that 

follows refers only to the permanent 

variance, but the same conditions apply 

to the Interim Order. 

Proposed Condition A: Scope 

The scope of the proposed permanent 

variance would limit coverage to the 

work situations specified. Clearly 

defining the scope of the proposed 

permanent variance provides Ballard, 

Ballard’s employees, potential future 

applicants, other stakeholders, the 

public, and OSHA with necessary 

information regarding the work 

situations in which the proposed 

permanent variance would apply. To 

the extent that Ballard exceeds the 

defined scope of this variance, it would 

be required to comply with OSHA’s 

standards. 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 1905.11, an 

employer (or class or group of 

employers) 10 may request a permanent 

variance for a specific workplace or 

workplaces. If OSHA approves a 

permanent variance, it would apply 

only to the specific employer(s) that 

submitted the application and only to 

the specific workplace or workplaces 

designated as part of the project. In this 

instance, if OSHA were to grant a 

permanent variance, it would apply to 

only the applicant, Ballard Marine 

Construction, and only to the Lower 

Olentangy Tunnel Project. As a result, it 

is important to understand that if OSHA 

were to grant Ballard a Permanent 

Variance, it would not apply to any 

other employers, or to projects the 

applicant may undertake in the future. 

Proposed Condition B: Duration 

The interim order is only intended as 

a temporary measure pending OSHA’s 

decision on the permanent variance, so 

this condition specifies the duration of 

the Order. If OSHA approves a 

permanent variance, it would specify 

the duration of the permanent variance 

as the remainder of the Lower 

Olentangy Tunnel Project. 

Proposed Condition C: List of 

Abbreviations 

Proposed condition C defines a 

number of abbreviations used in the 

proposed permanent variance. OSHA 

believes that defining these 

abbreviations serves to clarify and 

standardize their usage, thereby 

enhancing the applicant’s and its 

employees’ understanding of the 

conditions specified by the proposed 

permanent variance. 

Proposed Condition D: Definitions 

The proposed condition defines a 

series of terms, mostly technical terms, 

used in the proposed permanent 

variance to standardize and clarify their 

meaning. OSHA believes that defining 

these terms serves to enhance the 

applicant’s and its employees’ 

understanding of the conditions 

specified by the proposed permanent 

variance. 

Proposed Condition E: Safety and 

Health Practices 

This proposed condition requires the 

applicant to develop and submit to 

OSHA an HOM specific to the Lower 

Olentangy Tunnel Project at least six 

months before using the TBM for 

tunneling operations. The applicant 

must also submit, at least six months 

before using the TBM, proof that the 

TBM’s hyperbaric chambers have been 

designed, fabricated, inspected, tested, 

marked, and stamped in accordance 

with the requirements of ASME PVHO– 

1.2019 (or the most recent edition of 

Safety Standards for Pressure Vessels 

for Human Occupancy). These 

requirements ensure that the applicant 

develops hyperbaric safety and health 

procedures suitable for the project. 

The submission of the HOM to OSHA, 

which Ballard has already completed, 

enables OSHA to determine whether the 

safety and health instructions and 

measures Ballard specifies are 

appropriate to the field conditions of the 

tunnel (including expected geological 

conditions), conform to the conditions 

of the variance, and adequately protect 

the safety and health of the CAWs. It 

also facilitates OSHA’s ability to ensure 

that the applicant is complying with 

these instructions and measures. The 

requirement for proof of compliance 

with ASME PVHO–1.2019 is intended 

to ensure that the equipment is 

structurally sound and capable of 

performing to protect the safety of the 

employees exposed to hyperbaric 

pressure. 

Additionally, the proposed condition 

includes a series of related hazard 

prevention and control requirements 

and methods (e.g., decompression 

tables, job hazard analyses (JHA), 

operations and inspections checklists, 

incident investigation, and recording 

and notification to OSHA of recordable 

hyperbaric injuries and illnesses) 

designed to ensure the continued 

effective functioning of the hyperbaric 

equipment and operating system. 

Proposed Condition F: Communication 

This proposed condition requires the 

applicant to develop and implement an 

effective system of information sharing 

and communication. Effective 

information sharing and communication 

are intended to ensure that affected 

workers receive updated information 

regarding any safety-related hazards and 

incidents, and corrective actions taken, 

prior to the start of each shift. The 

proposed condition also requires the 

applicant to ensure that reliable means 

of emergency communications are 

available and maintained for affected 

workers and support personnel during 

hyperbaric operations. Availability of 

such reliable means of communications 

would enable affected workers and 

support personnel to respond quickly 

and effectively to hazardous conditions 

or emergencies that may develop during 

TBM operations. 

Proposed Condition G: Worker 

Qualification and Training 

This proposed condition requires the 

applicant to develop and implement an 

effective qualification and training 

program for affected workers. The 

proposed condition specifies the factors 

that an affected worker must know to 

perform safely during hyperbaric 

operations, including how to enter, 

work in, and exit from hyperbaric 

conditions under both normal and 

emergency conditions. Having welltrained and qualified workers 

performing hyperbaric intervention 

work is intended to ensure that they 

recognize, and respond appropriately to, 

hyperbaric safety and health hazards. 

These qualification and training 

requirements enable affected workers to 

cope effectively with emergencies, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
21280 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

11See 29 CFR 1904 Recording and Reporting 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (http://

www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_

document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9631); 

recordkeeping forms and instructions https://

www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/forms. 

well as the discomfort and physiological 

effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby 

preventing worker injury, illness, and 

fatalities. 

Paragraph (2)(e) of this proposed 

condition requires the applicant to 

provide affected workers with 

information they can use to contact the 

appropriate healthcare professionals if 

the workers believe they are developing 

hyperbaric-related health effects. This 

requirement provides for early 

intervention and treatment of DCI and 

other health effects resulting from 

hyperbaric exposure, thereby reducing 

the potential severity of these effects. 

Proposed Condition H: Inspections, 

Tests, and Accident Prevention 

Proposed Condition H requires the 

applicant to develop, implement, and 

operate a program of frequent and 

regular inspections of the TBM’s 

hyperbaric equipment and support 

systems, and associated work areas. 

This condition would help to ensure the 

safe operation and physical integrity of 

the equipment and work areas necessary 

to conduct hyperbaric operations. The 

condition would also enhance worker 

safety by reducing the risk of 

hyperbaric-related emergencies. 

Paragraph (3) of this proposed 

condition requires the applicant to 

document tests, inspections, corrective 

actions, and repairs involving the TBM, 

and maintain these documents at the 

jobsite for the duration of the job. This 

requirement would provide the 

applicant with information needed to 

schedule tests and inspections to ensure 

the continued safe operation of the 

equipment and systems, and to 

determine that the actions taken to 

correct defects in hyperbaric equipment 

and systems were appropriate, prior to 

returning them to service. 

Proposed Condition I: Compression and 

Decompression 

This proposed condition would 

require the applicant to consult with the 

designated medical advisor regarding 

special compression or decompression 

procedures appropriate for any 

unacclimated CAW and then implement 

the procedures recommended by the 

medical consultant. This proposed 

provision would ensure that the 

applicant consults with the medical 

advisor, and involves the medical 

advisor in the evaluation, development, 

and implementation of compression or 

decompression protocols appropriate for 

any CAW requiring acclimation to the 

hyperbaric conditions encountered 

during TBM operations. Accordingly, 

CAWs requiring acclimation would 

have an opportunity to acclimate prior 

to exposure to these hyperbaric 

conditions. OSHA believes this 

condition would prevent or reduce 

adverse reactions among CAWs to the 

effects of compression or decompression 

associated with the intervention work 

they perform in the TBM. 

Proposed Condition J: Recordkeeping 

Under OSHA’s existing recordkeeping 

requirements in 29 CFR part 1904 

regarding Recording and Reporting 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, the 

employer must maintain a record of any 

recordable injury, illness, or fatality (as 

defined by 29 CFR part 1904) resulting 

from exposure of an employee to 

hyperbaric conditions by completing the 

OSHA’s Form 301 Injury and Illness 

Incident Report and OSHA’s Form 300 

Log of Work-Related Injuries and 

Illnesses. The applicant did not seek a 

variance from this standard, and 

therefore Ballard must comply fully 

with those requirements. 

Examples of important information to 

include on the OSHA’s Form 301 Injury 

and Illness Incident Report (along with 

the corresponding question on the form) 

are: 

Q14 

• the task performed; 

• the composition of the gas mixture 

(e.g., air or oxygen); 

• an estimate of the CAW’s workload; 

• the maximum working pressure; 

• temperature in the work and 

decompression environments; and 

• unusual occurrences, if any, during 

the task or decompression. 

Q15 

• time of symptom onset; and 

• duration between decompression 

and onset of symptoms. 

Q16 

• type and duration of symptoms; and 

• a medical summary of the illness or 

injury. 

Q17 

• duration of the hyperbaric 

intervention; 

• possible contributing factors; and 

• the number of prior interventions 

completed by the injured or ill CAW; 

and the pressure to which the CAW was 

exposed during those interventions.11

Proposed Condition J would add 

additional reporting responsibilities, 

beyond those already required by the 

OSHA standard. The applicant would 

be required to maintain records of 

specific factors associated with each 

hyperbaric intervention. The 

information gathered and recorded 

under this provision, in concert with the 

information provided under proposed 

Condition K (using OSHA’s Form 301 

Injury and Illness Incident Report to 

investigate and record hyperbaric 

recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 

1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8–.12), would 

enable the applicant and OSHA to 

assess the effectiveness of the 

Permanent Variance in preventing DCI 

and other hyperbaric-related effects. 

Proposed Condition K: Notifications 

Under the proposed condition, the 

applicant is required, within specified 

periods of time, to: (1) notify OSHA of 

any recordable injury, illness, in-patient 

hospitalization, amputation, loss of an 

eye, or fatality that occurs as a result of 

hyperbaric exposures during TBM 

operations; (2) provide OSHA a copy of 

the hyperbaric exposures incident 

investigation report (using OSHA’s 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report) of these events within 24 hours 

of the incident; (3) include on OSHA’s 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report information on the hyperbaric 

conditions associated with the 

recordable injury or illness, the rootcause determination, and preventive 

and corrective actions identified and 

implemented; (4) provide the 

certification that affected workers were 

informed of the incident and the results 

of the incident investigation; (5) notify 

OSHA’s Office of Technical Programs 

and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) 

and the Columbus Ohio OSHA Area 

Office (COAO) within 15 working days 

should the applicant need to revise the 

HOM to accommodate changes in its 

compressed-air operations that affect 

Ballard’s ability to comply with the 

conditions of the proposed Permanent 

Variance; and (6) provide OTPCA and 

the COAO, at the end of the project, 

with a report evaluating the 

effectiveness of the decompression 

tables. 

It should be noted that the 

requirement for completing and 

submitting the hyperbaric exposurerelated (recordable) incident 

investigation report (OSHA’s Form 301 

Injury and Illness Incident Report) is 

more restrictive than the existing 

recordkeeping requirement of 

completing OSHA’s Form 301 Injury 

and Illness Incident Report within 7 

calendar days of the incident 

(1904.29(b)(3)). This modified, more 

stringent incident investigation and 

reporting requirement is restricted to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 21281 

12 In these conditions, OSHA is using the future 

conditional form of the verb (e.g., ‘‘would’’), which 

pertains to the application for a Permanent Variance 

(designated as ‘‘Permanent Variance’’) but the 

conditions are mandatory for purposes of the 

Interim Order. 13Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(f). 

intervention-related hyperbaric 

(recordable) incidents only. Providing 

rapid notification to OSHA is essential 

because time is a critical element in 

OSHA’s ability to determine the 

continued effectiveness of the variance 

conditions in preventing hyperbaric 

incidents, and the applicant’s 

identification and implementation of 

appropriate corrective and preventive 

actions. 

Further, these notification 

requirements also enable the applicant, 

its employees, and OSHA to assess the 

effectiveness of the permanent variance 

in providing the requisite level of safety 

to the applicant’s workers and, based on 

this assessment, whether to revise or 

revoke the conditions of the proposed 

permanent variance. Timely notification 

permits OSHA to take whatever action 

may be necessary and appropriate to 

prevent possible further injuries and 

illnesses. Providing notification to 

employees informs them of the 

precautions taken by the applicant to 

prevent similar incidents in the future. 

Additionally, this proposed condition 

requires the applicant to notify OSHA if 

it ceases to do business, has a new 

address or location for the main office, 

or transfers the operations covered by 

the proposed permanent variance to a 

successor company. In addition, the 

condition specifies that the transfer of 

the permanent variance to a successor 

company must be approved by OSHA. 

These requirements allow OSHA to 

communicate effectively with the 

applicant regarding the status of the 

proposed permanent variance, and 

expedite the agency’s administration 

and enforcement of the permanent 

variance. Stipulating that an applicant is 

required to have OSHA’s approval to 

transfer a variance to a successor 

company provides assurance that the 

successor company has knowledge of, 

and will comply with, the conditions 

specified by proposed permanent 

variance, thereby ensuring the safety of 

workers involved in performing the 

operations covered by the proposed 

permanent variance. 

VI. Specific Conditions of the Interim 

Order and the Proposed Permanent 

Variance 

The following conditions apply to the 

interim order OSHA is granting to 

Ballard for the Lower Olentangy Tunnel 

Project. These conditions specify the 

alternative means of compliance with 

the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 

1926.803(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). 

In addition, these conditions are 

specific to the alternative means of 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1), 

(g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) that OSHA is 

proposing for Ballard’s permanent 

variance. To simplify the presentation of 

the conditions, OSHA generally refers 

only to the conditions of the proposed 

permanent variance, but the same 

conditions apply to the interim order 

except where otherwise noted.12

The conditions would apply with 

respect to all employees of Ballard 

exposed to hyperbaric conditions. These 

conditions are outlined in this Section: 

A. Scope 

The interim order applies, and the 

permanent variance would apply, only 

when Ballard stops the tunnel-boring 

work, pressurizes the working chamber, 

and the CAWs either enter the working 

chamber to perform an intervention (i.e., 

inspect, maintain, or repair the 

mechanical-excavation components), or 

exit the working chamber after 

performing interventions. 

The interim order and proposed 

permanent variance apply only to work: 

1. That occurs in conjunction with 

construction of the Lower Olentangy 

Tunnel Project, a tunnel constructed 

using advanced shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques and involving 

operation of an TBM; 

2. In the TBM’s forward section (the 

excavation working chamber) and 

associated hyperbaric chambers used to 

pressurize and decompress employees 

entering and exiting the working 

chamber; and 

3. Performed in compliance with all 

applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 

1926 except for the requirements 

specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1), 

(g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). 

B. Duration 

The interim order granted to Ballard 

will remain in effect until OSHA 

modifies or revokes this interim order or 

grants Ballard’s request for a permanent 

variance in accordance with 29 CFR 

1905.13. The proposed permanent 

variance, if granted, would remain in 

effect until the completion of Ballard’s 

Lower Olentangy Tunnel Project. 

C. List of Abbreviations 

Abbreviations used throughout this 

proposed permanent variance would 

include the following: 

1. CAW—Compressed-air worker 

2. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

3. COAO—Columbus Ohio Area Office 

4. DCI—Decompression illness 

5. DMT—Diver medical technician 

6. TBM—Earth pressure balanced microtunnel boring machine 

7. HOM—Hyperbaric operations manual 

8. JHA—Job hazard analysis 

9. OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

10. OTPCA—Office of Technical Programs 

and Coordination Activities 

D. Definitions 

The following definitions would 

apply to this proposed permanent 

variance. These definitions would 

supplement the definitions in Ballard’s 

project-specific HOM. 

1. Affected employee or worker—an 

employee or worker who is affected by 

the conditions of this proposed 

permanent variance, or any one of his or 

her authorized representatives. The term 

‘‘employee’’ has the meaning defined 

and used under the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 

et seq.). 

2. Atmospheric pressure—the 

pressure of air at sea level, generally 

14.7 pounds per square inch absolute 

(p.s.i.a)., 1 atmosphere absolute, or 0 

p.s.i.g. 

3. Compressed-air worker—an 

individual who is specially trained and 

medically qualified to perform work in 

a pressurized environment while 

breathing air at pressures not exceeding 

27 p.s.i.g. 

4. Competent person—an individual 

who is capable of identifying existing 

and predictable hazards in the 

surroundings or working conditions that 

are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous 

to employees, and who has 

authorization to take prompt corrective 

measures to eliminate them.13

5. Decompression illness—an illness 

(also called decompression sickness or 

‘‘the bends’’) caused by gas bubbles 

appearing in body compartments due to 

a reduction in ambient pressure. 

Examples of symptoms of 

decompression illness include, but are 

not limited to: joint pain (also known as 

the ‘‘bends’’ for agonizing pain or the 

‘‘niggles’’ for slight pain); areas of bone 

destruction (termed dysbaric 

osteonecrosis); skin disorders (such as 

cutis marmorata, which causes a 

marbling of the skin, which appears 

pinkish in color in lighter skin and lacy 

dark brown or purplish color in darker 

skin); spinal cord and brain disorders 

(such as stroke, paralysis, paresthesia, 

and bladder dysfunction); 

cardiopulmonary disorders, such as 

shortness of breath; and arterial gas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
21282 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

14See Appendix 10 of ‘‘A Guide to the Work in 

Compressed-Air Regulations 1996,’’ published by 

the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive 

available from NIOSH at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ 

docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-254/compReg1996.pdf. 

15Also see 29 CFR 1926.1202 for examples of hot 

work. 16Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(m). 

17See ANSI/AIHA Z10–2012, American National 

Standard for Occupational Health and Safety 

Management Systems, for reference. 

embolism (gas bubbles in the arteries 

that block blood flow).14

Note: Health effects associated with 

hyperbaric intervention, but not considered 

symptoms of DCI, can include: barotrauma 

(direct damage to air-containing cavities in 

the body such as ears, sinuses, and lungs); 

nitrogen narcosis (reversible alteration in 

consciousness that may occur in hyperbaric 

environments and is caused by the anesthetic 

effect of certain gases at high pressure); and 

oxygen toxicity (a central nervous system 

condition resulting from the harmful effects 

of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at 

elevated partial pressures). 

6. Diver Medical Technician— 

Member of the dive team who is 

experienced in first aid. 

7. Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel 

Boring Machine—the machinery used to 

excavate a tunnel. 

8. Hot work—any activity performed 

in a hazardous location that may 

introduce an ignition source into a 

potentially flammable atmosphere.15

9. Hyperbaric—at a higher pressure 

than atmospheric pressure. 

10. Hyperbaric intervention—a term 

that describes the process of stopping 

the TBM and preparing and executing 

work under hyperbaric pressure in the 

working chamber for the purpose of 

inspecting, replacing, or repairing 

cutting tools and/or the cutterhead 

structure. 

11. Hyperbaric Operations Manual—a 

detailed, project-specific health and 

safety plan developed and implemented 

by Ballard for working in compressed 

air during the Lower Olentangy Tunnel 

Project. 

12. Job hazard analysis—an 

evaluation of tasks or operations to 

identify potential hazards and to 

determine the necessary controls. 

13. Man-lock—an enclosed space 

capable of pressurization, and used for 

compressing or decompressing any 

employee or material when either is 

passing into, or out of, a working 

chamber. 

14. Medical Advisor—medical 

professional experienced in the physical 

requirements of compressed air work 

and the treatment of decompression 

illness. 

15. Pressure—a force acting on a unit 

area. Usually expressed as pounds per 

square inch (p.s.i.). 

16. p.s.i.a.—pounds per square inch 

absolute, or absolute pressure, is the 

sum of the atmospheric pressure and 

gauge pressure. At sea-level, 

atmospheric pressure is approximately 

14.7 p.s.i.a. Adding 14.7 to a pressure 

expressed in units of p.s.i.g. will yield 

the absolute pressure, expressed as 

p.s.i.a. 

17. p.s.i.g.—pounds per square inch 

gauge, a common unit of pressure; 

pressure expressed as p.s.i.g. 

corresponds to pressure relative to 

atmospheric pressure. At sea-level, 

atmospheric pressure is approximately 

14.7 p.s.i.a. Subtracting 14.7 from a 

pressure expressed in units of p.s.i.a. 

yields the gauge pressure, expressed as 

p.s.i.g. At sea level the gauge pressure 

is 0 psig. 

18. Qualified person—an individual 

who, by possession of a recognized 

degree, certificate, or professional 

standing, or who, by extensive 

knowledge, training, and experience, 

successfully demonstrates an ability to 

solve or resolve problems relating to the 

subject matter, the work, or the 

project.16

19. Working chamber—an enclosed 

space in the TBM in which CAWs 

perform interventions, and which is 

accessible only through a man-lock. 

E. Safety and Health Practices 

1. Ballard would have to adhere to the 

project-specific HOM submitted to 

OSHA as part of the application (see 

OSHA–2024–0003–0003). The HOM 

provides the minimum requirements 

regarding protections from expected 

safety and health hazards (including 

anticipated geological conditions) and 

hyperbaric exposures during the tunnelconstruction project. 

2. Ballard would have to demonstrate 

that the TBM on the project is designed, 

fabricated, inspected, tested, marked, 

and stamped in accordance with the 

requirements of ASME PVHO–1.2019 

(or most recent edition of Safety 

Standards for Pressure Vessels for 

Human Occupancy) for the TBM’s 

hyperbaric chambers. 

3. Ballard would have to implement 

the safety and health instructions 

included in the manufacturer’s 

operations manuals for the TBM, and 

the safety and health instructions 

provided by the manufacturer for the 

operation of decompression equipment. 

4. Ballard would have to ensure that 

there are no exposures to pressures 

greater than 27 p.s.i.g. 

5. Ballard would have to ensure that 

air or oxygen is the only breathing gas 

in the working chamber. 

6. Ballard would have to follow the 

1992 French Decompression Tables for 

air or oxygen decompression as 

specified in the HOM; specifically, the 

extracted portions of the 1992 French 

Decompression tables titled, ‘‘French 

Regulation Air Standard Tables.’’ 

7. Ballard would have to equip manlocks used by employees with an air or 

oxygen delivery system, as specified by 

the HOM, for the project. Ballard would 

be required not to store in the tunnel 

any oxygen or other compressed gases 

used in conjunction with hyperbaric 

work. 

8. Workers performing hot work 

under hyperbaric conditions would 

have to use flame-retardant personal 

protective equipment and clothing. 

9. In hyperbaric work areas, Ballard 

would have to maintain an adequate 

fire-suppression system approved for 

hyperbaric work areas. 

10. Ballard would have to develop 

and implement one or more JHA(s) for 

work in the hyperbaric work areas, and 

review, periodically and as necessary 

(e.g., after making changes to a planned 

intervention that affects its operation), 

the contents of the JHAs with affected 

employees. The JHAs would have to 

include all the job functions that the 

risk assessment 17 indicates are essential 

to prevent injury or illness. 

11. Ballard would have to develop a 

set of checklists to guide compressed-air 

work and ensure that employees follow 

the procedures required by the proposed 

Permanent Variance and this Interim 

Order (including all procedures 

required by the HOM approved by 

OSHA for the project, which this 

proposed Permanent Variance would 

incorporate by reference). The checklists 

would have to include all steps and 

equipment functions that the risk 

assessment indicates are essential to 

prevent injury or illness during 

compressed-air work. 

12. Ballard would have to ensure that 

the safety and health provisions of this 

project-specific HOM adequately protect 

the workers of all contractors and 

subcontractors involved in hyperbaric 

operations for the project to which the 

HOM applies. 

F. Communication 

Ballard would have to: 

1. Prior to beginning a shift, 

implement a system that informs 

workers exposed to hyperbaric 

conditions of any hazardous 

occurrences or conditions that might 

affect their safety, including hyperbaric 

incidents, gas releases, equipment 

failures, earth or rock slides, cave-ins, 

flooding, fires, or explosions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 21283 

2. Provide a power-assisted means of 

communication among affected workers 

and support personnel in hyperbaric 

conditions where unassisted voice 

communication is inadequate. 

(a) Use an independent power supply 

for powered communication systems, 

and these systems would have to 

operate such that use or disruption of 

any one phone or signal location will 

not disrupt the operation of the system 

from any other location. 

(b) Test communication systems at the 

start of each shift and as necessary 

thereafter during each shift to ensure 

proper operation. 

G. Worker Qualifications and Training 

Ballard would have to: 

1. Ensure that each affected worker 

receives effective training on how to 

safely enter, work in, exit from, and 

undertake emergency evacuation or 

rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and 

document this training. 

2. Provide effective instruction on 

hyperbaric conditions, before beginning 

hyperbaric operations, to each worker 

who performs work, or controls the 

exposure of others, and document this 

instruction. The instruction would need 

to include: 

(a) The physics and physiology of 

hyperbaric work; 

(b) Recognition of pressure-related 

injuries; 

(c) Information on the causes and 

recognition of the signs and symptoms 

associated with decompression illness, 

and other hyperbaric interventionrelated health effects (e.g., barotrauma, 

nitrogen narcosis, and oxygen toxicity); 

(d) How to avoid discomfort during 

compression and decompression; 

(e) Information the workers can use to 

contact the appropriate healthcare 

professionals should the workers have 

concerns that they may be experiencing 

adverse health effects from hyperbaric 

exposure; and 

(f) Procedures and requirements 

applicable to the employee in the 

project-specific HOM. 

3. Repeat the instruction specified in 

paragraph (G)(2) of this proposed 

condition periodically and as necessary 

(e.g., after making changes to its 

hyperbaric operations). 

4. When conducting training for its 

hyperbaric workers, make this training 

available to OSHA personnel and notify 

the OTPCA at OSHA’s national office 

and OSHA’s nearest affected Area Office 

before the training takes place. 

H. Inspections, Tests, and Accident 

Prevention 

1. Ballard would have to initiate and 

maintain a program of frequent and 

regular inspections of the TBM’s 

hyperbaric equipment and support 

systems (such as temperature control, 

illumination, ventilation, and fireprevention and fire-suppression 

systems), and hyperbaric work areas, as 

required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2), 

including: 

(a) Developing a set of checklists to be 

used by a competent person in 

conducting weekly inspections of 

hyperbaric equipment and work areas; 

and 

(b) Ensuring that a competent person 

conducts daily visual checks and 

weekly inspections of the TBM. 

2. Remove any equipment that is 

found to constitute a safety hazard from 

service until Ballard corrects the 

hazardous condition and has the 

correction approved by a qualified 

person. 

3. Ballard would have to maintain 

records of all tests and inspections of 

the TBM, as well as associated 

corrective actions and repairs, at the job 

site for the duration of the job. 

I. Compression and Decompression 

Ballard would have to consult with its 

attending physician concerning the 

need for special compression or 

decompression exposures appropriate 

for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric 

exposure. 

J. Recordkeeping 

In addition to completing OSHA’s 

Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident 

Report and OSHA’s Form 300 Log of 

Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, 

Ballard would have to maintain records 

of: 

1. The date, times (e.g., time 

compression started, time spent 

compressing, time performing 

intervention, time spent 

decompressing), and pressure for each 

hyperbaric intervention. 

2. The names of all supervisors and 

DMTs involved for each intervention. 

3. The name of each individual 

worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure 

and the decompression protocols and 

results for each worker. 

4. The total number of interventions 

and the amount of hyperbaric work time 

at each pressure. 

5. The results of the post-intervention 

physical assessment of each CAW for 

signs and symptoms of decompression 

illness, barotrauma, nitrogen narcosis, 

oxygen toxicity, or other health effects 

associated with work in compressed air 

for each hyperbaric intervention. 

K. Notifications 

1. To assist OSHA in administering 

the conditions specified herein, Ballard 

would have to: 

(a) Notify the OTPCA and the COAO 

of any recordable injury, illness or 

fatality (by submitting the completed 

OSHA Form 301 Injuries and Illness 

Incident Report) resulting from 

exposure of an employee to hyperbaric 

conditions, including those that do not 

require recompression treatment (e.g., 

nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxicity, 

barotrauma), but still meet the 

recordable injury or illness criteria of 29 

CFR 1904. The notification would have 

to be made within 8 hours of the 

incident or 8 hours after becoming 

aware of a recordable injury, illness, or 

fatality; a copy of the incident 

investigation (OSHA Form 301 Injuries 

and Illness Incident Report) must be 

submitted to OSHA within 24 hours of 

the incident or 24 hours after becoming 

aware of a recordable injury, illness, or 

fatality. In addition to the information 

required by OSHA Form 301 Injuries 

and Illness Incident Report, the 

incident-investigation report would 

have to include a root-cause 

determination, and the preventive and 

corrective actions identified and 

implemented. 

(b) Provide certification to the COAO 

within 15 working days of the incident 

that Ballard informed affected workers 

of the incident and the results of the 

incident investigation (including the 

root-cause determination and preventive 

and corrective actions identified and 

implemented). 

(c) Notify the OTPCA and the COAO 

within 15 working days and in writing, 

of any change in the compressed-air 

operations that affects Ballard’s ability 

to comply with the proposed conditions 

specified herein. 

(d) Upon completion of the Lower 

Olentangy Tunnel Project, evaluate the 

effectiveness of the decompression 

tables used throughout the project, and 

provide a written report of this 

evaluation to the OTPCA and the COAO 

within 90 days. 

Note: The evaluation report would have to 

contain summaries of: (1) The number, dates, 

durations, and pressures of the hyperbaric 

interventions completed; (2) decompression 

protocols implemented (including 

composition of gas mixtures (air and/or 

oxygen), and the results achieved; (3) the 

total number of interventions and the number 

of hyperbaric incidents (decompression 

illnesses and/or health effects associated 

with hyperbaric interventions as recorded on 

OSHA Form 301 Injuries and Illness Incident 

Report and OSHA Form 300 Log of WorkRelated Injuries and Illnesses, and relevant 

medical diagnoses, and treating physicians’ 

opinions); and (4) root causes of any 

hyperbaric incidents, and preventive and 

corrective actions identified and 

implemented. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
21284 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 27, 2024 / Notices 

(e) To assist OSHA in administering 

the proposed conditions specified 

herein, inform the OTPCA and the 

COAO as soon as possible, but no later 

than seven (7) days, after it has 

knowledge that it will: 

(i) Cease doing business; 

(ii) Change the location and address of 

the main office for managing the 

tunneling operations specified herein; 

or 

(iii) Transfer the operations specified 

herein to a successor company. 

(f) Notify all affected employees of 

this permanent variance by the same 

means required to inform them of its 

application for the permanent variance. 

OSHA would have to approve the 

transfer of the permanent variance to a 

successor company through a new 

application for a modified variance. 

VII. Authority and Signature 

Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210, authorized the 

preparation of this notice. The agency is 

issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

8–2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), 

and 29 CFR 1905.14(b). 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2024–06532 Filed 3–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0039] 

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: 

Application for Expansion of 

Recognition 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA 

announces the application of Intertek 

Testing Services NA, Inc., for expansion 

of the recognition as a Nationally 

Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) 

and presents the agency’s preliminary 

finding to grant the application. 

DATES: Submit comments, information, 

and documents in response to this 

notice, or requests for an extension of 

time to make a submission, on or before 

April 11, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronically: Submit comments and 

attachments electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for making 

electronic submissions. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov 

or the OSHA Docket Office. All 

documents in the docket (including this 

Federal Register notice) are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index; 

however, some information (e.g., 

copyrighted material) is not publicly 

available to read or download through 

the website. All submissions, including 

copyrighted material, are available for 

inspection through the OSHA Docket 

Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office 

at (202) 693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–5627) 

for assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and the OSHA 

docket number (OSHA–2007–0039). 

OSHA places comments and other 

materials, including any personal 

information, in the public docket 

without revision, and these materials 

will be available online at http://

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the 

agency cautions commenters about 

submitting statements they do not want 

made available to the public, or 

submitting comments that contain 

personal information (either about 

themselves or others) such as Social 

Security numbers, birth dates, and 

medical data. 

Extension of comment period: Submit 

requests for an extension of the 

comment period on or before April 11, 

2024 to the Office of Technical 

Programs and Coordination Activities, 

Directorate of Technical Support and 

Emergency Management, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Room N–3653, 

Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to 

(202) 693–1644. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding this notice is 

available from the following sources: 

Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank 

Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications, phone: (202) 693– 

1999 or email: meilinger.francis2@

dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director, 

Office of Technical Programs and 

Coordination Activities, Directorate of 

Technical Support and Emergency 

Management, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, phone: (202) 

693–1911 or email: robinson.kevin@

dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Notice of the Application for 

Expansion 

OSHA is providing notice that 

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. 

(ITSNA), is applying for expansion of 

the current recognition as a NRTL. 

ITSNA requests the addition of four test 

standards to the NRTL scope of 

recognition. 

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies 

that the organization meets the 

requirements specified in 29 CFR 

1910.7. Recognition is an 

acknowledgment that the organization 

can perform independent safety testing 

and certification of the specific products 

covered within the scope of recognition. 

Each NRTL’s scope of recognition 

includes: (1) the type of products the 

NRTL may test, with each type specified 

by the applicable test standard; and (2) 

the recognized site(s) that has/have the 

technical capability to perform the 

product-testing and productcertification activities for test standards 

within the NRTL’s scope. Recognition is 

not a delegation or grant of government 

authority; however, recognition enables 

employers to use products approved by 

the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that 

require product testing and certification. 

The agency processes applications by 

a NRTL for initial recognition and for an 

expansion or renewal of this 

recognition, following requirements in 

Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This 

appendix requires that the agency 

publish two notices in the Federal 

Register in processing an application. In 

the first notice, OSHA announces the 

application and provides a preliminary 

finding. In the second notice, the agency 

provides a final decision on the 

application. These notices set forth the 

NRTL’s scope of recognition or 

modifications of that scope. OSHA 

maintains an informational web page for 

each NRTL, including ITSNA, which 

details the NRTL’s scope of recognition. 

These pages are available from the 

OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/ 

dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html. 

ITSNA currently has thirty-five 

facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for 

product testing and certification, with 

the headquarters located at: Intertek 

Testing Services NA, Inc., 545 East 

Algonquin Road, Suite F, Arlington 

Heights, Illinois 60005. A complete list 

of ITSNA’s scope of recognition is 

available at https://www.osha.gov/ 

nationally-recognized-testinglaboratory-program/its. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES