Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73631 

comments received in response to this 

notice, the Department intends to 

submit an ICR to OMB for continuing 

approval. No change to the existing ICR 

is proposed or made at this time. The 

Department notes that an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, an 

information collection unless it displays 

a valid OMB control number. A 

summary of the ICR and the current 

burden estimates follows: 

Agency: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

Title: Coverage of Certain Preventive 

Services Under the Affordable Care Act. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection of 

information. 

OMB Number: 1210–0150. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions. 

Respondents: 61. 

Frequency of Responses: Once. 

Responses: 61. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 51. 

III. Desired Focus of Comments 

The Department of Labor 

(Department) is particularly interested 

in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., by permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the ICR for OMB approval 

of the extension of the information 

collection; they will also become a 

matter of public record. 

Dated: December 5, 2014. 

Phyllis C. Borzi, 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29060 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2012–0035] 

Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint 

Venture; 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 Traylor/

Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture 

(collectively ‘‘Traylor JV’’ or ‘‘the 

applicant’’) for a permanent variance 

and interim order from the provisions of 

OSHA standards that regulate work in 

compressed air environments and 

presents the Agency’s preliminary 

finding to grant the permanent variance. 

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 

January 12, 2015. The interim order 

described in this notice became effective 

on July 11, 2013, and shall remain in 

effect until the completion of the Blue 

Plains tunnel project or the interim 

order is modified or revoked. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of 

the following methods: 

1. 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. 

2. Facsimile: If submissions, 

including attachments, are not longer 

than 10 pages, commenters may fax 

them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 

693–1648. 

3. Regular or express mail, hand 

delivery, or messenger (courier) service: 

Submit comments, requests, and any 

attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, 

Docket No. OSHA–2012–0035, 

Technical Data Center, U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Room N–2625, Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–2350 (TTY 

number: (877) 889–5627). Note that 

security procedures may result in 

significant delays in receiving 

comments and other written materials 

by regular mail. Contact the OSHA 

Docket Office for information about 

security procedures concerning delivery 

of materials by express delivery, hand 

delivery, or messenger service. The 

hours of operation for the OSHA Docket 

Office are 8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

4. Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the OSHA 

docket number (OSHA–2012–0035). 

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. 

5. Docket: To read or download 

submissions or other material in the 

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

or the OSHA Docket Office at the 

address above. All documents in the 

docket 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 Web site. 

All submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office for 

assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

6. Extension of comment period: 

Submit requests for an extension of the 

comment period on or before January 

12, 2015 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–3655, 

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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Room N–3647, Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–1999; email: 

Meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Contact Mr. David W. Johnson, 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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

73632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 

1See Section III discussion of proposed condition 

A Scope. 

2The decompression tables in Appendix A of 

subpart S express the maximum working pressures 

as pounds per square inch gauge (p.s.i.g.), with a 

maximum working pressure of 50 p.s.i.g. Therefore, 

throughout this notice, OSHA expresses the 50 p.s.i. 

value specified by § 1926.803(e)(5) as 50 p.s.i.g., 

consistent with the terminology in Appendix A, 

Table 1 of subpart S. 

Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210; 

phone: (202) 693–2110 or email: 

johnson.david.w@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 short and plain statement 

detailing how the proposed 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 

adduced in support of each denial; and 

(3) any views or arguments on any issue 

of fact or law presented in the variance 

application. 

I. Notice of Application 

On April 26, 2012, Traylor Bros., Inc., 

835 N. Congress Ave., Evansville, IN 

47715, and Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee 

Joint Venture, Blue Plains Tunnel, 5000 

Overlook SW., Washington, DC 20032, 

submitted under Section 6(d) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (‘‘OSH 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 at 29 CFR 1926.803. 

OSHA is addressing this request as two 

separate applications: (1) Traylor Bros., 

Inc. (‘‘Traylor’’) request for a permanent 

variance for future tunneling projects; 

and (2) Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint 

Venture, Blue Plains Tunnel (‘‘Traylor 

JV’’ or ‘‘the applicant’’). This notice only 

addresses the Traylor JV application for 

an interim order and permanent 

variance for the Blue Plains project.1

This notice does not address the Traylor 

application for a permanent variance for 

future projects. That request will be 

addressed separately. 

Traylor JV also requested an interim 

order pending OSHA’s decision on the 

application for a variance (Ex. OSHA– 

2012–0035–0002). Specifically, this 

notice addresses the application 

submitted by Traylor JV (for the Blue 

Plains Tunnel project) in which the 

applicant seeks a permanent variance 

and interim order from the provisions of 

the standard that: (1) Prohibit 

compressed-air worker exposure to 

pressures exceeding 50 pounds per 

square inch (p.s.i.) except in an 

emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)); 2 (2) 

require the use of the decompression 

values specified in decompression 

tables in Appendix A of the 

compressed-air standard for 

construction (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); 

and (3) require the use of automated 

operational controls and a special 

decompression chamber (29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), 

respectively). 

The applicant is a contractor that 

works on complex tunnel projects using 

recently developed equipment and 

procedures for soft-ground tunneling. 

The applicant’s workers engage in the 

construction of tunnels using advanced 

shielded mechanical excavation 

techniques in conjunction with an earth 

pressure balanced tunnel boring 

machine (EPBTBM). 

According to its application, Traylor 

is currently the managing partner of 

Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture 

(‘‘Traylor JV’’), the general contractor for 

the DC Water and Sewer Authority’s 

project to construct the Blue Plains 

tunnel. Traylor JV asserts that generally, 

it bores tunnels (i.e., Blue Plains tunnel) 

below the water table through soft soils 

consisting of clay, silt, and sand. Traylor 

JV employs specially trained personnel 

for the construction of the tunnel, and 

states that this construction will use 

shielded mechanical-excavation 

techniques. Traylor JV asserts that its 

workers perform hyperbaric 

interventions at pressures greater than 

50 p.s.i.g. in the excavation chamber of 

the EPBTBM; these interventions 

consist of conducting inspections and 

maintenance work on the cutter-head 

structure and cutting tools of the 

EPBTBM. 

Traylor JV asserts that innovations in 

tunnel excavation, specifically with 

EPBTBMs, have, in most cases, 

eliminated the need to pressurize the 

entire tunnel. This technology negates 

the requirement that all members of a 

tunnel-excavation crew work in 

compressed air while excavating the 

tunnel. These advances in technology 

modified substantially the methods 

used by the construction industry to 

excavate subaqueous tunnels compared 

to the caisson work regulated by the 

current OSHA compressed-air standard 

for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803. 

Such advances reduce the number of 

workers exposed, and the total duration 

of exposure, to hyperbaric pressure 

during tunnel construction. 

Using shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques, in conjunction 

with precast concrete tunnel liners and 

backfill grout, EPBTBMs 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 working chamber) of the 

EPBTBM. Interventions in the working 

chamber (the pressurized portion of the 

EPBTBM) take place only after halting 

tunnel excavation and preparing the 

machine and crew for an intervention. 

Interventions occur to inspect or 

maintain the mechanical-excavation 

components located in the working 

chamber. Maintenance conducted in the 

working chamber includes changing 

replaceable cutting tools and disposable 

wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairing 

structural damage to the cutter head. 

In addition to innovations in tunnelexcavation methods, Traylor JV asserts 

that innovations in hyperbaric medicine 

and technology improve the safety of 

decompression from hyperbaric 

exposures. According to Traylor JV, the 

use of decompression protocols 

incorporating oxygen is at least as 

effective for tunnel workers as 

compliance with the decompression 

tables specified by the existing OSHA 

standard (29 CFR 1926, subpart S, 

Appendix A decompression tables). 

These hyperbaric exposures are possible 

due to advances in technology, a better 

understanding of hyperbaric medicine, 

and the development of a projectspecific Hyperbaric Operations Manual 

(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. 

OSHA initiated a technical review of 

the Traylor JV’s variance application 

and developed a set of follow-up 

questions that it sent to Traylor JV on 

September 17, 2012 (Ex. OSHA–2012– 

0035–0010). On October 26, 2012, 

Traylor JV submitted its response and a 

request for an interim order for the Blue 

Plains Tunnel Project (Ex. OSHA–2012– 

0035–0008). In its response to OSHA’s 

follow-up questions, Traylor JV 

indicated that the maximum pressure to 

which it is likely to expose workers 

during interventions for the Blue Plains 

tunnel project is 52 p.s.i.g. and would 

not involve the use of trimix breathing 

gas (composed of a mixture of oxygen, 

nitrogen, and helium in varying 

concentrations used for breathing by 

compressed air workers for compression 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73633 

3See the definition of ‘‘Affected employee or 

worker’’ in section V.D. 

and decompression when working at 

pressures exceeding 73 p.s.i.g.). 

Therefore, to work effectively on this 

project, Traylor JV must perform 

hyperbaric interventions in compressed 

air at pressures higher than the 

maximum pressure specified by the 

existing OSHA standard, 29 CFR 

1926.803(e)(5), which states: ‘‘No 

employee shall be subjected to pressure 

exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in 

emergency’’ (see footnote 2). 

OSHA considered Traylor JV’s 

application for a permanent variance 

and interim order for the Blue Plains 

tunnel project. OSHA determined that 

Traylor JV proposed an alternative that 

will provide a workplace as safe and 

healthful as that provided by the 

standard. On July 11, 2013, OSHA 

granted Traylor JV a project-specific 

interim order for the completion of the 

Blue Plains tunnel (Ex. OSHA–2012– 

0035–0007) in order to permit the 

applicant to begin work while OSHA 

continued to consider its application for 

a permanent variance. 

II. The Variance Application 

A. Background 

Traylor JV asserts that the advances in 

tunnel excavation technology described 

in Section I of this notice modified 

significantly the equipment and 

methods used by contractors to 

construct subaqueous tunnels, thereby 

making several provisions of OSHA’s 

compressed-air standard for 

construction at 29 CFR 1926.803 

inappropriate for this type of work. 

These advances reduce both the number 

of workers exposed, and the total 

duration of exposure, to the hyperbaric 

conditions associated with tunnel 

construction. 

Using shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques, in conjunction 

with pre-cast concrete tunnel liners and 

backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide 

methods to achieve the face pressures 

required to maintain a stabilized tunnel 

face, through various geologies, while 

isolating that pressure to the forward 

section (working or excavation chamber) 

of the EPBTBM. 

Interventions involving the working 

chamber (the pressurized chamber at the 

head of the EPBTBM) take place only 

after the applicant halts tunnel 

excavation and prepares the machine 

and crew for an intervention. 

Interventions occur to inspect or 

maintain the mechanical-excavation 

components located in the forward 

portion of the working chamber. 

Maintenance conducted in the forward 

portion of the working chamber 

includes changing replaceable cutting 

tools, disposable wear bars, and, in rare 

cases, repairs to the cutter head due to 

structural damage. 

In addition to innovations in tunnelexcavation methods, research conducted 

after OSHA published its compressedair standard for construction in 1971, 

resulted in advances in hyperbaric 

medicine. In this regard, the applicant 

asserts that the use of decompression 

protocols incorporating oxygen is more 

efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel 

workers than compliance with the 

existing OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926, 

subpart S, Appendix A decompression 

tables). According to the applicant, 

contractors routinely and safely expose 

employees performing interventions in 

the working chamber of EPBTBMs to 

hyperbaric pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g., 

which is 50% higher than maximum 

pressure specified by the existing OSHA 

standard (see 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)). 

The applicant contends that the 

alternative safety measures included in 

its application provide its workers with 

a place of employment that is at least as 

safe and healthful as they would obtain 

under the existing provisions of OSHA’s 

compressed-air standard for 

construction. The applicant certifies 

that it provided employee 

representatives of affected workers with 

a copy of the variance application.3 The 

applicant also certifies that it notified its 

workers of the variance application 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. 

B. Variance From Paragraph (e)(5) of 29 

CFR 1926.803, Prohibition of Exposure 

to Pressure Greater Than 50 p.s.i.g. (See 

Footnote 1) 

The applicant states that it may 

perform hyperbaric interventions at 

pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the 

working chamber of the EPBTBM; this 

pressure exceeds the pressure limit of 

50 p.s.i.g. specified for nonemergency 

purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The 

EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each 

man lock having 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. 

EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining 

pressure at the tunnel face, and 

stabilizing existing geological 

conditions, through the controlled use 

of propel cylinders, a mechanically 

driven cutter head, bulkheads within 

the shield, ground-treatment foam, and 

a screw conveyor that moves excavated 

material from the working chamber. As 

noted earlier, the forward-most portion 

of the EPBTBM is the working chamber, 

and this chamber is the only pressurized 

segment of the EPBTBM. Within the 

shield, the working chamber consists of 

two sections: The staging chamber and 

the forward working chamber. The 

staging chamber is the section of the 

working chamber between the man-lock 

door and the entry door to the forward 

working chamber. The forward working 

chamber is immediately behind the 

cutter head and tunnel face. 

The applicant will pressurize the 

working chamber to the level required 

to maintain a stable tunnel face. 

Pressure in the staging chamber ranges 

from atmospheric (no increased 

pressure) to a maximum pressure equal 

to the pressure in the working chamber. 

The applicant asserts that most of the 

hyperbaric interventions will be around 

14.7 p.s.i.g. However, the applicant 

maintains that they may have to perform 

interventions at pressures up to 52 

p.s.i.g. 

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 

maximum crew size allowed in the 

forward working chamber is three. At 

certain hyperbaric pressures (i.e., when 

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. 

The applicant developed a projectspecific HOM for the Blue Plains tunnel 

(Ex. OSHA–2012–0035–0003) that 

describes in detail the hyperbaric 

procedures and required medical 

examinations used during the tunnelconstruction project. The HOM 

discusses standard operating procedures 

and emergency and contingency 

procedures. The procedures include 

using experienced and knowledgeable 

man-lock attendants who have the 

training and experience necessary to 

recognize and treat decompression 

illnesses and injuries. The attendants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

73634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 

4 In the study cited in footnote 10, starting at page 

338, Dr. Eric 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 psig 

. . . to the surface took 1 h, at least half the time 

is spent at pressures less than 2 psig . . ., which 

provides less and less meaningful bubble 

suppression. . . .’’ In addition, the report 

referenced in footnote 5 under the section titled, 

‘‘Background on the Need for Interim 

Decompression Tables’’ addresses the continuousdecompression protocol in the OSHA compressedair 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.’’ 

are under the direct supervision of the 

hyperbaric supervisor and attending 

physician. In addition, procedures 

include medical screening and review of 

prospective compressed-air workers 

(CAWs). The purpose of this screening 

procedure is to vet prospective CAWs 

with medical conditions (e.g., deep vein 

thrombosis, poor vascular circulation, 

and muscle cramping) that could be 

aggravated by sitting in a cramped space 

(e.g., a man lock) for extended periods 

or by exposure to elevated pressures and 

compressed gas mixtures. A 

transportable recompression chamber 

(shuttle) is available to extract workers 

from the hyperbaric working chamber 

for emergency evacuation and medical 

treatment; the shuttle attaches to the 

topside medical lock, which is a large 

recompression chamber. The applicant 

believes that the procedures included in 

the HOM provide safe work conditions 

when interventions are necessary, 

including interventions above 50 p.s.i.g. 

C. 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 in 

accordance with the decompression 

tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR 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 that supplement breathing air 

used during decompression with pure 

oxygen. The applicant asserts that these 

decompression protocols are safer for 

tunnel workers than the decompression 

protocols specified in Appendix A of 29 

CFR 1926, subpart S. 

Accordingly, the applicant proposes 

to use the 1992 French Decompression 

Tables to decompress CAWs after they 

exit the hyperbaric conditions in the 

working chamber. Depending on the 

maximum working pressure and 

exposure times, the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables provide for air 

decompression with or without oxygen. 

Traylor JV asserts that oxygen 

decompression has many benefits, 

including (1) keeping the partial 

pressure of nitrogen in the lungs as low 

as possible; (2) keeping external 

pressure as low as possible to reduce the 

formation of bubbles in the blood; (3) 

removing nitrogen from the lungs and 

arterial blood and increasing the rate of 

elimination of nitrogen; (4) improving 

the quality of breathing during 

decompression stops so that workers are 

less tired and to prevent bone necrosis; 

(5) reducing decompression time by 

about 33 percent as compared to air 

decompression; and (6) reducing 

inflammation. As described in Section 

IV of this notice, OSHA’s review of the 

use of oxygen in several major tunneling 

projects completed in the past indicates 

that it contributed significantly to the 

reduction of decompression illness 

(DCI) and other associated adverse 

effects observed and reported among 

CAWs. 

In addition, the 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 also will be present during 

hyperbaric exposures and 

decompression. This man-lock 

attendant will operate the hyperbaric 

system to ensure compliance with the 

specified decompression table. A 

hyperbaric supervisor (competent 

person), 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. 

The applicant asserts that at higher 

hyperbaric pressures, decompression 

times exceed 75 minutes. The HOM 

establishes protocols and procedures 

that provide the basis for alternate 

means of protection for CAWs under 

these conditions. Accordingly, based on 

these protocols and procedures, the 

applicant requests to use the 1992 

French Decompression Tables for 

hyperbaric interventions up to 52 p.s.i.g. 

for completion of the Blue Plains tunnel 

project. The applicant is committed to 

follow the decompression procedures 

described in the Blue Plains tunnel 

project-specific HOM during these 

interventions. 

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

29 CFR 1926.803, Automatically 

Regulated Continuous Decompression 

According to the applicant, 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 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 (see 

footnote 12 in this notice discussing a 

1985 NIOSH report on DCI). 

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 OSHA decompression 

requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803, 

which specify the use of automatically 

regulated continuous decompression 

(see footnotes 9 through 14 in this 

notice for references to these studies).4

In addition, the applicant asserts that 

staged decompression is at least as 

effective as an automatic controller in 

regulating the decompression process 

because: 

1. A hyperbaric supervisor (a 

competent person experienced and 

trained in hyperbaric operations, 

procedures, and safety) 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; and 

2. The use of the 1992 French 

Decompression Tables for staged 

decompression offers an equal or better 

level of management and control over 

the decompression process than an 

automatic controller and results in 

lower occurrences of DCI. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73635 

5Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, New 

Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands) limit their 

occupational safety and health authority to state 

and local employers only. State Plans that exercise 

their occupational safety and health authority over 

both public- and private-sector employers are: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 

New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. 

6See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 

Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at 

http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html. 

7The contractual completion date of the Blue 

Plains tunnel is November 10, 2015. 

8A 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. 

Accordingly, the applicant is applying 

for a permanent variance from the 

OSHA standard at 29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires 

automatic controls to regulate 

decompression. As noted above, the 

applicant is committed to conduct 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. 

E. 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 

when total decompression time exceeds 

75 minutes (see 29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Another provision 

of OSHA’s compressed-air standard 

calls for locating the special 

decompression chamber adjacent to the 

man lock on the atmospheric pressure 

side of the tunnel bulkhead (see 29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(2)(vii)). However, since 

only the working chamber of the 

EPBTBM is under pressure, and 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) are of 

sufficient size to accommodate the 

exposed workers. In addition, available 

space in the EPBTBM does not allow for 

an additional special decompression 

lock. Again, the applicant uses the 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 man lock and move 

into the staging chamber where 

additional space is available. This 

alternative enables CAWs to move about 

and flex their joints to prevent 

neuromuscular problems during 

decompression. 

F. Previous Tunnel Construction 

Variance 

OSHA notes that on May 23, 2014, it 

granted a sub-aqueous tunnel 

construction permanent variance to 

Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR 

29809) from the same provisions of the 

standard that regulates work in 

compressed air (at 29 CFR 

1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

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

present application. Generally, the 

proposed alternate conditions in this 

notice are based on and very similar to 

the alternate conditions of the previous 

permanent variance. 

G. Multi-State Variance 

As stated earlier in this notice, 

Traylor JV applied for an interim order 

for its Blue Plains Tunnel project only. 

On July 11, 2013, OSHA granted an 

interim order to cover only the Blue 

Plains tunnel project, which is located 

entirely in the District of Columbia and 

thus under Federal OSHA’s exclusive 

jurisdiction. 

Additionally, twenty-seven state 

safety and health plans have been 

approved by OSHA under section 18 of 

the (OSH) Act.5 As part of the 

permanent variance process, the 

Directorate of Cooperative and State 

Programs will notify the State Plans of 

Traylor JV’s variance application and 

grant of the Blue Plains interim order. 

In considering Traylor JV’s application 

for a permanent variance and interim 

order, OSHA noted that four states have 

previously granted sub-aqueous tunnel 

construction variances and imposed 

different or additional requirements and 

conditions (California, Nevada, Oregon, 

and Washington). California also 

promulgated a new standard (e.g., 

California 6) for similar sub-aqueous 

tunnel construction work. 

Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, 

New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin 

Islands) cover only public-sector 

workers and have no authority over the 

private-sector workers addressed in this 

variance application (i.e., that authority 

continues to reside with Federal OSHA). 

III. Description of the Conditions 

Specified by the Application for a 

Permanent Variance 

As indicated in Section I of this 

notice, on July 11, 2013, OSHA granted 

Traylor JV a project specific interim 

order for the completion of the Blue 

Plains tunnel in order to permit the 

applicant to begin work. The projectspecific interim order is to remain in 

effect until completion of the Blue 

Plains tunnel project 7 or until the 

Agency modifies or revokes the interim 

order or makes a decision on Traylor 

JV’s application for a permanent 

variance. The substantive terms of the 

interim order are identical to the terms 

of the proposed permanent variance 

discussed further below. 

This section describes the alternative 

means of compliance with 29 CFR 

1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

(g)(1)(xvii) and provides additional 

detail regarding the proposed conditions 

that form the basis of Traylor JV’s 

application for a permanent variance. 

Proposed Condition A: Scope 

The scope of the proposed permanent 

variance limits coverage to the work 

situations specified under this proposed 

condition. Clearly defining the scope of 

the proposed permanent variance 

provides Traylor JV, Traylor JV’s 

employees, other stakeholders, the 

public, and OSHA with necessary 

information regarding the work 

situations in which the proposed 

permanent variance would apply. 

According to 29 CFR 1905.11, an 

employer or class or group of 

employers 8 may request a permanent 

variance for a specific workplace or 

workplaces. If granted, the variance 

would apply to the specific employer(s) 

that submitted the application. In this 

instance, if OSHA were to grant a 

permanent variance, it would apply to 

the applicant, Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee 

Joint Venture at the Blue Plains Tunnel 

project only. As a result, it is important 

to understand that the interim order and 

proposed variance does not apply to any 

other employers. 

Proposed Condition B: Application 

This proposed condition specifies the 

circumstances under which the 

proposed permanent variance would be 

in effect, notably only for hyperbaric 

work performed during interventions. 

The proposed condition places clear 

limits on the circumstances under 

which the applicant can expose its 

employees to hyperbaric pressure. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

73636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 

9 Grant of the July 11, 2013, project-specific 

interim order constitutes interim acknowledgement 

by OSHA of the acceptability of the HOM provided 

by Traylor JV for the Blue Plains tunnel project. 

10See 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 (http://

www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/RKform300pkgfillable-enabled.pdf); and OSHA Recordkeeping 

Handbook (http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/

handbook/index.html). 

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. 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 Blue 

Plains project at least six months before 

using the EPBTBM for tunneling 

operations. 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, recording and notification 

to OSHA of recordable hyperbaric 

injuries and illnesses, etc.) designed to 

ensure the continued effective 

functioning of the hyperbaric equipment 

and operating system. 

Review of the HOM enables OSHA to: 

(1) Determine that the safety and health 

instructions and measures it specifies 

would be appropriate and would 

adequately protect the safety and health 

of the CAWs; and (2) request the 

applicant to revise or modify the HOM 

if it finds that the hyperbaric safety and 

health procedures are not suitable for 

the specific project and would not 

adequately protect the safety and health 

of the CAWs. Once approved, the 

project specific HOM becomes part of 

the variance, thus enabling OSHA to 

enforce its safety and health procedures 

and measures.9

Proposed Condition F: Communication 

Proposed condition F would require 

the applicant to develop and implement 

an effective system of information 

sharing and communication. Effective 

information sharing and communication 

ensures 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 EPBTBM 

operations. 

Proposed Condition G: Worker 

Qualification and Training 

This proposed condition would 

require 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 ensures 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 well as 

the discomfort and physiological effects 

of hyperbaric exposure, thereby 

preventing worker injury, illness, and 

fatalities. 

Paragraph (2)(e) of this proposed 

condition also would require the 

applicant to provide affected workers 

with information they can use to contact 

the appropriate healthcare professionals 

if they 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 would require 

the applicant to develop, implement, 

and operate a program of frequent and 

regular inspections of the EPBTBM’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 would require the applicant 

to document tests, inspections, 

corrective actions, and repairs involving 

the EPBTBM, and maintain these 

documents at the job site 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 its 

designated medical advisor regarding 

special compression or decompression 

procedures appropriate for any 

unacclimated CAW. 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 EPBTBM 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 EPBTBM. 

Proposed Condition J: Recordkeeping 

Proposed condition J would require 

the applicant 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 the OSHA 301 

Incident Report form to investigate and 

record hyperbaric recordable injuries as 

defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 

1904.8 through 1904.12), would enable 

the applicant and OSHA to determine 

the effectiveness of the permanent 

variance in preventing DCI and other 

hyperbaric-related effects.10

Proposed Condition K: Notifications 

Under this proposed condition, the 

applicant would be required, within 

specified periods to: (1) Notify OSHA of 

any recordable injuries, illnesses, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73637 

fatalities that occur as a result of 

hyperbaric exposures during EPBTBM 

operations; (2) provide OSHA with a 

copy of the incident investigation report 

(using OSHA 301 form) of these events; 

(3) include on the 301 form information 

on the hyperbaric conditions associated 

with the recordable injury or illness, the 

root-cause determination, and 

preventive and corrective actions 

identified and implemented; (4) provide 

its certification that it informed affected 

workers of the incident and the results 

of the incident investigation; (5) notify 

the Office of Technical Programs and 

Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and 

the Baltimore/Washington DC Area 

Office within 15 working days should 

the applicant need to revise its HOM to 

accommodate changes in its 

compressed-air operations that affect its 

ability to comply with the conditions of 

the proposed permanent variance; and 

(6) provide OTPCA and the Baltimore/ 

Washington DC Area Office, at the end 

of the project, with a report evaluating 

the effectiveness of the decompression 

tables. 

These notification requirements 

would enable the applicant, its 

employees, and OSHA to determine the 

effectiveness of the permanent variance 

in providing the requisite level of safety 

to the applicant’s workers and, based on 

this determination, whether to revise or 

revoke the conditions of the proposed 

permanent variance. Timely notification 

would permit OSHA to take whatever 

action may be necessary and 

appropriate to prevent further injuries 

and illnesses. Providing notification to 

employees would inform them of the 

precautions taken by the applicant to 

prevent similar incidents in the future. 

This proposed condition would also 

require the applicant to notify OSHA if 

it ceases to do business, has a new 

address or location for its main office, 

or transfers the operations covered by 

the proposed permanent variance to a 

successor company. In addition, the 

condition specifies that OSHA must 

approve the transfer of the permanent 

variance to a successor company. These 

requirements would 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 

would be required to have OSHA’s 

approval to transfer a variance to a 

successor company would provide 

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. 

IV. Grant of Interim Order 

As noted earlier, on July 11, 2013, 

OSHA granted Traylor JV an interim 

order to remain in effect until 

completion of the Blue Plains tunnel 

project or until the Agency modifies or 

revokes the interim order or makes a 

decision on its application for a 

permanent variance. (Ex. OSHA–2012– 

0035–0007.) Based on Traylor JV’s 

assertions in its application, the interim 

order addresses CAWs performing 

interventions in hyperbaric conditions 

up to 52 p.s.i.g. that do not involve the 

use of trimix. OSHA affirms the Blue 

Plains tunnel project-specific interim 

order. During the period starting with 

the publication of this notice until 

completion of the Blue Plains tunnel or 

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 

requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803 

(hereafter, ‘‘the standard’’) that: 

A. Prohibit employers using 

compressed air under hyperbaric 

conditions from subjecting workers to 

pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g., except in 

emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)); 

B. 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)); and 

C. Require the use of automated 

operational controls and a special 

decompression chamber (29 CFR 

1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), 

respectively). 

After reviewing the proposed 

alternatives OSHA preliminarily 

determined that: 

A. Traylor JV developed, and 

proposed to implement, effective 

alternative measures to the prohibition 

of using compressed air under 

hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50 

p.s.i.g. The alternative measures include 

use of engineering and administrative 

controls of the hazards associated with 

work performed in compressed-air 

conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. while 

engaged in the construction of a 

subaqueous tunnel using advanced 

shielded mechanical-excavation 

techniques in conjunction with an 

EPBTBM. Prior to conducting 

interventions in the EPBTBM’s 

pressurized working chamber, the 

applicant halts tunnel excavation and 

prepares the machine and crew to 

conduct the interventions. Interventions 

involve inspection, maintenance, or 

repair of the mechanical-excavation 

components located in the working 

chamber. 

B. Traylor JV developed, and 

proposed to implement, safe hyperbaric 

work procedures, emergency and 

contingency procedures, and medical 

examinations for the Blue Plains 

tunneling project’s CAWs. The 

applicant compiled these standard 

operating procedures into a projectspecific HOM (Ex. OSHA–2012–0035– 

007). The HOM discusses 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. Depending 

on the maximum working pressure and 

exposure times during the interventions, 

the 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. 

C. Traylor JV developed, and 

proposed to implement, a training 

program to instruct affected workers in 

the hazards associated with conducting 

hyperbaric operations. 

D. Traylor JV developed, and 

proposed to implement, an effective 

alternative to the use of automatic 

controllers that continuously decrease 

pressure to achieve decompression in 

accordance with the tables specified by 

the standard. The 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

73638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 

11 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). 

12 Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed air tunneling 

and caisson work decompression procedures: 

Development, problems, and solutions. Undersea 

and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), pp. 337–345. 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. 

13Sealey, JL (1969). Safe exit from the hyperbaric 

environment: Medical experience with pressurized 

tunnel operations. Journal of Occupational 

Medicine, 11(5), pp. 273–275. This article reported 

210 treated cases of DCI among 38,600 hyperbaric 

exposures between 13 and 34 p.s.i.g. over a 32- 

month period, for an incidence of 0.54% for the 

decompression tables specified by the Washington 

State safety standards for compressed-air work, 

which are similar to the tables in the OSHA 

standard. Moreover, the article reported 51 treated 

cases of DCI for 3,000 exposures between 30 and 34 

p.s.i.g., for an incidence of 1.7% for the Washington 

State tables. 

14 In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report 

entitled ‘‘Criteria for Interim Decompression Tables 

for Caisson and Tunnel Workers’’; this report 

reviewed studies of DCI and other hyperbaricrelated injuries resulting from use of OSHA’s tables. 

This report is available on NIOSH’s Web site: http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/

default.html. 

15Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness 

during construction of the Great Belt tunnel, 

Denmark. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 

29(3), pp. 172–188. 

16Le Pe ́chon JC, Barre P, Baud JP, Ollivier F 

(September 1996). Compressed air work—French 

Tables 1992—operational results. JCLP Hyperbarie 

Paris, Centre Medical Subaquatique Interentreprise, 

Marseille: Communication a l’EUBS, pp. 1–5 (see 

Ex. OSHA–2012–0036–0005). 

17See 79 FR 29816, footnote 12. 

18See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 

Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at 

http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html. 

E. Traylor JV developed, and 

proposed to implement, an effective 

alternative to the use of the special 

decompression chamber required by the 

standard. EPBTBM technology permits 

the tunnel’s work areas to be at 

atmospheric pressure, with only the face 

of the EPBTBM (i.e., the working 

chamber) at elevated pressure during 

interventions. The applicant would 

limit interventions conducted in the 

working chamber to performing 

required inspection, maintenance, and 

repair of the cutting tools on the face of 

the EPBTBM. The EPBTBM’s man lock 

and working chamber 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, 

OSHA preliminarily determined that the 

EPBTBM’s man lock and working 

chamber function as effectively as the 

special decompression chamber 

required by the standard. 

OSHA conducted a review of the 

scientific literature regarding 

decompression to determine whether 

the alternative decompression method 

(i.e., the 1992 French Decompression 

Tables) Traylor JV proposed would 

provide a workplace as safe and 

healthful as that provided by the 

standard. Based on this review, OSHA 

determined that tunneling operations 

performed with these tables 11 resulted 

in a lower occurrence of DCI than the 

decompression tables specified by the 

standard.12 13 14

The review conducted by OSHA 

found several research studies 

supporting the determination that the 

1992 French Decompression Tables 

resulted in a lower rate of DCI than 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); 15 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%. The DCI 

incidence in the study by H. L. 

Andersen 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.16 Therefore, OSHA preliminarily 

concludes that the proposed use of the 

1992 French Decompression Tables 

would protect workers at least as 

effectively as the OSHA decompression 

tables. 

Based on a review of available 

evidence, the experience of State Plans 

that either granted variances (Nevada, 

Oregon and Washington) 17 or 

promulgated a new standard 

(California) 18 for hyperbaric exposures 

occurring during similar subaqueous 

tunnel-construction work, and the 

information provided in the applicant’s 

variance application, OSHA is 

proposing the grant of the permanent 

variance. 

Under section 6(d) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), the Agency finds 

that when the employer complies with 

the conditions of the previously granted 

interim order, or 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 (e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

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

Therefore, Traylor JV will: (1) Comply 

with the conditions listed in the Blue 

Plains tunnel project interim order 

granted on July 11, 2013, for the period 

between the grant of the interim order 

and Traylor’s completion of the Blue 

Plains 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 the specific 

conditions of the variance, if granted; (3) 

comply fully with all other applicable 

provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and (4) 

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. 

V. Specific Conditions of the Proposed 

Permanent Variance 

OSHA affirms the previously granted 

Blue Plains tunnel project specific 

interim order authorizing Traylor/

Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture (‘‘Traylor 

JV’’) to comply with said conditions 

instead of complying with the 

requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 

1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and 

(g)(1)(xvii). In addition, the proposed 

conditions included in this notice 

specify the alternative means of 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), 

(g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) that Traylor JV 

is proposing for its permanent variance. 

The proposed conditions would apply 

to all employees of Traylor JV exposed 

to hyperbaric conditions. These 

proposed conditions would be: 

A. Scope 

The permanent variance would apply 

only to work: 

1. That occurs in conjunction with 

construction of the Blue Plains tunnel 

project, a tunnel constructed using 

advanced shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques and involving 

operation of an EPBTBM; 

2. Performed under compressed-air 

and hyperbaric conditions up to 52 

p.s.i.g; 

3. In the EPBTBM’s forward section 

(the working chamber) and associated 

hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73639 

19Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(f). 

20See 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. 

21Also see 29 CFR 1910.146(b). 

22Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(m). 

23See footnote 9. 

and decompress employees entering and 

exiting the working chamber; 

4. Except for the requirements 

specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), 

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

JV would be required to comply fully 

with all other applicable provisions of 

29 CFR part 1926; and 

B. Application 

The permanent variance would apply 

only when Traylor JV stops the tunnelboring work, pressurizes the working 

chamber, and the CAWs either enter the 

working chamber to perform 

interventions (i.e., inspect, maintain, or 

repair the mechanical-excavation 

components), or exit the working 

chamber after performing interventions. 

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. DCI—Decompression Illness 

4. EPBTBM—Earth Pressure Balanced 

Tunnel Boring Machine 

5. HOM—Hyperbaric Operations and 

Safety Manual 

6. JHA—Job hazard analysis 

7. OSHA—Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration 

8. 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 Traylor 

JV’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 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 up to 52 

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.19

5. Decompression illness (also called 

decompression sickness or the bends)— 

an illness 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 pink 

marbling of the skin); spinal cord and 

brain disorders (such as stroke, 

paralysis, paresthesia, and bladder 

dysfunction); cardiopulmonary 

disorders, such as shortness of breath; 

and arterial gas embolism (gas bubbles 

in the arteries that block blood flow).20

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. Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel 

Boring Machine—the machinery used to 

excavate the tunnel. 

7. Hot work—any activity performed 

in a hazardous location that may 

introduce an ignition source into a 

potentially flammable atmosphere.21

8. Hyperbaric—at a higher pressure 

than atmospheric pressure. 

9. Hyperbaric intervention—a term 

that describes the process of stopping 

the EPBTBM 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. 

10. Hyperbaric Operations Manual—a 

detailed, project-specific health and 

safety plan developed and implemented 

by Traylor JV for working in compressed 

air during the Blue Plains’ tunnel 

project. 

11. Job hazard analysis—an 

evaluation of tasks or operations to 

identify potential hazards and to 

determine the necessary controls. 

12. 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. 

13. Pressure—a force acting on a unit 

area. Usually expressed as pounds per 

square inch (p.s.i.). 

14. p.s.i.—pounds per square inch, a 

common unit of measurement of 

pressure; a pressure given in p.s.i. 

corresponds to absolute pressure. 

15. 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. 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. 

16. 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. Subtracting 14.7 from a 

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

yields the gauge pressure, expressed as 

p.s.i.g. 

17. 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.22

18. Working chamber—an enclosed 

space in the EPBTBM in which CAWs 

perform interventions, and which is 

accessible only through a man lock. 

E. Safety and Health Practices 

1. Traylor JV would have to develop 

and implement an HOM specific to the 

Blue Plains project, and submit the 

HOM to OSHA at least six months 

before using the EPBTBM. Traylor JV 

would have to receive a written 

acknowledgement from OSHA regarding 

the acceptability of the HOM.23 The 

HOM would provide the governing 

safety and health requirements 

regarding hyperbaric exposures during 

the tunnel-construction project. 

2. Traylor JV would have to 

implement the safety and health 

instructions included in the 

manufacturer’s operations manuals for 

the EPBTBM, and the safety and health 

instructions provided by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

73640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 

24See ANSI/AIHA Z10–2012, American National 

Standard for Occupational Health and Safety 

Management Systems, for reference. 

25See ANSI/ASSE A10.33–2011, American 

National Standard for Construction and Demolition 

Operations—Safety and Health Program 

Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects, for 

reference. 

manufacturer for the operation of 

decompression equipment. 

3. Traylor JV would have to use air as 

the only breathing gas in the working 

chamber. 

4. Traylor JV would have to use the 

1992 French Decompression Tables for 

air, air-oxygen, and oxygen 

decompression specified in the HOM, 

specifically the extracted portions of the 

1992 French Decompression tables 

titled ‘‘French Regulation Air Standard 

Tables.’’ 

5. Traylor JV would have to equip 

man-locks used by its employees with 

an oxygen-delivery system as specified 

by the HOM. Traylor JV would be 

required to not store oxygen or other 

compressed gases used in conjunction 

with hyperbaric work in the tunnel. 

6. Workers performing hot work 

under hyperbaric conditions would 

have to use flame-retardant personal 

protective equipment and clothing. 

7. In hyperbaric work areas, Traylor 

JV would have to maintain an adequate 

fire-suppression system approved for 

hyperbaric work areas. 

8. Traylor JV would have to develop 

and implement one or more JHAs 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 24 indicates are essential 

to prevent injury or illness. 

9. Traylor JV would have to develop 

a set of checklists to guide compressedair work and ensure that employees 

follow the procedures required by this 

proposed permanent variance 

(including all procedures required by 

the HOM, which this proposed 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. 

10. Traylor JV would have to ensure 

that the safety and health provisions of 

the HOM adequately protect the workers 

of all contractors and subcontractors 

involved in hyperbaric operations.25

F. Communication 

1. Prior to beginning a shift, Traylor 

JV would have to 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. 

2. Traylor JV would have to provide 

a power-assisted means of 

communication among affected workers 

and support personnel in hyperbaric 

conditions where unassisted voice 

communication is inadequate. 

(a) Traylor JV would have to 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) Traylor JV would have to test 

communication systems at the start of 

each shift and as necessary thereafter to 

ensure proper operation. 

G. Worker Qualifications and Training 

Traylor JV 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, before 

beginning hyperbaric operations, to 

each worker who performs work, or 

controls the exposure of others, in 

hyperbaric conditions, and document 

this instruction. The instruction would 

have to include topics such as: 

(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; and 

(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. 

3. Repeat the instruction specified in 

paragraph (b) 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. Traylor JV would have to initiate 

and maintain a program of frequent and 

regular inspections of the EPBTBM’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) by: 

(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 EPBTBM. 

2. If the competent person determines 

that the equipment constitutes a safety 

hazard, Traylor JV would have to 

remove the equipment from service 

until it corrects the hazardous condition 

and has the correction approved by a 

qualified person. 

3. Traylor JV would have to maintain 

records of all tests and inspections of 

the EPBTBM, as well as associated 

corrective actions and repairs, at the job 

site for the duration of the job. 

I. Compression and Decompression 

Traylor JV 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 

Traylor JV would have to maintain a 

record of any recordable injury, illness, 

or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 

1904 Recording and Reporting 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), 

resulting from exposure of an employee 

to hyperbaric conditions by completing 

the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and 

OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries 

and Illnesses. 

Note: Examples of important information 

to include on the OSHA 301 Incident Report 

form (along with the corresponding question 

on the form) are: The task performed 

(Question (Q) 14); an estimate of the CAW’s 

workload (Q 14); the composition of the gas 

mixture (e.g., air or oxygen (Q 14)); the 

maximum working pressure (Q 14); 

temperature in the work and decompression 

environments (Q 14); unusual occurrences, if 

any, during the task or decompression (Q 14); 

time of symptom onset (Q 15); duration 

between decompression and onset of 

symptoms (Q 15); type and duration of 

symptoms (Q 16); a medical summary of the 

illness or injury (Q 16); duration of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Notices 73641 

26See footnote 10. 

hyperbaric intervention (Q 17); possible 

contributing factors (Q 17); the number of 

prior interventions completed by the injured 

or ill CAW (Q 17); the number of prior 

interventions completed by the injured or ill 

CAW at this working pressure (Q 17); contact 

information for the treating healthcare 

provider (Q 17); and date and time of last 

hyperbaric exposure for this CAW. 

In addition to completing the OSHA 

301 Incident Report form and OSHA 

300 Log of Work Related Injuries and 

Illnesses, Traylor JV would have to 

maintain records of: 

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

compression, time spent compressing, 

time performing intervention, time 

spent decompressing), and pressure for 

each hyperbaric intervention. 

2. The name of each individual 

worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure 

and the decompression protocols and 

results for each worker. 

3. The total number of interventions 

and the amount of hyperbaric work time 

at each pressure. 

4. 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, Traylor 

JV would have to: 

(a) Notify the OTPCA and the 

Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office 

of any recordable injury, illness, or 

fatality (by submitting the completed 

OSHA 301 Incident Report form 26) 

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, and submit a copy of 

the incident investigation (OSHA form 

301) 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 

the OSHA form 301, the incidentinvestigation report would have to 

include a root-cause determination, and 

the preventive and corrective actions 

identified and implemented. 

(b) Provide certification within 15 

working days of the incident that 

Traylor JV 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 

Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office 

within 15 working days and in writing, 

of any change in the compressed-air 

operations that affects Traylor JV’s 

ability to comply with the proposed 

conditions specified herein. 

(d) Upon completion of the Blue 

Plains 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 

Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office. 

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 301 and 300 forms, and relevant 

medical diagnoses and treating physicians’ 

opinions); and (4) root causes of any 

hyperbaric incidents, and preventive and 

corrective actions identified and 

implemented. 

(e) To assist OSHA in administering 

the proposed conditions specified 

herein, inform the OTPCA and the 

Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office 

as soon as possible after it has 

knowledge that it will: 

(i) Cease to do 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 proposed permanent variance by 

the same means required to inform them 

of its application for a variance. 

2. OSHA would have to approve the 

transfer of the proposed permanent 

variance to a successor company. 

VI. Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, authorized the preparation of 

this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is 

issuing this notice pursuant to Section 

29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 

2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on December 5, 

2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28994 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 52–024; NRC–2008–0233] 

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Combined 

License Application for Grand Gulf, 

Unit 3 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Exemption. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing an 

exemption in response to a July 18, 

2014, request from Entergy Operations, 

Inc. (EOI), which requested an 

exemption from addressing 

enhancements to the Emergency 

Preparedness (EP) rules in their 

Combined License (COL) application. 

The NRC staff reviewed this request and 

determined that it is appropriate to 

grant the exemption but stipulated that 

the revised application must be 

submitted the earlier of either the NRC’s 

resumption of EOI’s application review 

or by December 31, 2015. 

DATES: December 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2008–0233 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this action by the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2008–0233. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may access publicly 

available documents online in the NRC 

Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, 

select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and 

then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES