Hazard Communication; Correction, 57278-57280 [E9-26579]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57278
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 213 / Thursday, November 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules
This proposed AD would require the
checking of the transmissible torque
between the LP pump impeller and the
HP pump shaft within 550 engine flight
hours from the effective date of the
proposed AD.
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket.
Costs of Compliance
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Based on the service information, we
estimate that this proposed AD would
affect about 414 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it would take about 2.5
work-hours per engine to comply with
this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Replacement
HMUs would cost about $12,000 per
engine. Based on these figures, if all of
the HMUs were to fail the check, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $5,050,800.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:37 Nov 04, 2009
Jkt 220001
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Turbomeca: Docket No. FAA–2009–0889;
Directorate Identifier 2009–NE–35–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by
December 7, 2009.
Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 2B
and 2B1 turboshaft engines that have not
incorporated Modification TU 147. These
engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Eurocopter AS 350 B3 and EC 130 B4, and
Chaughe Z11, helicopters.
Reason
(d) This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. We are
issuing this AD to prevent forced
autorotation landing, or an accident.
Actions and Compliance
(e) Unless already done, do the following
actions.
(1) Within 550 engine flight hours from the
effective date of this AD, check the
transmissible torque between the lowpressure (LP) pump impeller and the highpressure (HP) pump shaft of the HP/LP pump
metering unit (HMU). Use paragraph 2 of the
Instructions to be Incorporated of Turbomeca
Alert Service Bulletin No. A292 73 2830,
Version B, dated July 10, 2009, to do the
check.
(2) If the check is compliant, apply the
nominal tightening torque to the screw of the
LP pump impeller.
(3) If the check is not compliant, replace
the HP/LP pump metering unit with a unit
that has not incorporated Modification TU
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
147 but has passed the check, or with a unit
that has incorporated Modification TU 147.
FAA AD Differences
(f) This AD differs from the MCAI and/or
service information as follows:
(1) The MCAI requires the checking of the
transmissible torque between the LP pump
impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550
engine flight hours from the effective date of
the AD, but no later than June 30, 2010.
(2) This AD requires the checking of the
transmissible torque between the LP pump
impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550
engine flight hours from the effective date of
this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g) The Manager, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2009–
0184, dated August 14, 2009, and Turbomeca
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 73
2830, Version B, dated July 10, 2009, for
related information. Contact Turbomeca,
40220 Tarnos, France; telephone (33) 05 59
74 40 00, fax (33) 05 59 74 45 15, for a copy
of this service information.
(i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov;
telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238–
7199, for more information about this AD.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
October 27, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–26730 Filed 11–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910, 1915 and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA–H022K–2006–0062
(formerly Docket No. H022K)]
RIN 1218–AC20
Hazard Communication; Correction
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Proposed rule: correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects the
OSHA Hazard Communication standard
proposed rule and request for comment,
published in the Federal Register of
September 30, 2009. This notice corrects
eight errors, four in the preamble and
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 213 / Thursday, November 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules
four that appear in Appendix A: Table
A.1.1, Table A.1.2, Table A.2.3, and
Table A7.1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information and press inquiries,
contact Jennifer Ashley, Office of
Communications, Room N–3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999.
For technical information, contact
Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N–3718,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1950.
Correction
1. In the preamble of OSHA’s Hazard
Communication standard, published in
the Federal Register of September 30,
2009, (74 FR 50279) on page 50280, in
the first column, correct the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
read as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information and press
inquiries, contact Jennifer Ashley,
Office of Communications, Room N–
3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–1999. For technical information,
contact Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N–3718,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1950.
2. On page 50335, in column one, in
the fifth full paragraph from the top of
57279
the page, in the third line from the
bottom of that paragraph, the dollar
amount of ‘‘$500 million’’ is corrected
to read ‘‘$700 million’’.
3. On page 50372, in column two, in
the second full paragraph under Item 4,
in the fifth line from the bottom of that
paragraph, the quantity ‘‘4,215,404’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘3,877,457’’.
4. On page 50378, in column one, in
the last line of text in that column above
footnote 17, the dollar amount of ‘‘$610
million’’ is corrected to read ‘‘$621
million’’.
5. In Appendix A to § 1910.1200 on
page 50445, correct Table A.1.1: Acute
toxicity hazard categories and acute
toxicity estimate (ATE) values defining
the respective categories, to read as
follows:
Exposure route
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight) See: Notes (a), (b)
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight) See: Notes (a),
(b).
Inhalation—Gases (ppmV) See: Note (a),
Note (b), Note (c).
Inhalation—Vapors (mg/l) See: Note (a),
Note (b), Note (c), Note (d).
Inhalation—Dusts and Mists (mg/l) See: Note
(a), Note (b), Note (c).
≤ 5 ..............................
≤ 50 ............................
> 5 and ≤ 50 ..............
> 50 and ≤ 200 ..........
> 50 and ≤ 300 ..........
> 200 and ≤ 1000 ......
> 300 and ≤ 2000.
> 1000 and ≤ 2000.
≤ 100 ..........................
> 100 and ≤ 500 ........
> 500 and ≤ 2500 ......
> 2500 and ≤ 20000.
≤ 0.5 ...........................
> 0.5 and ≤ 2.0 ..........
> 2.0 and ≤ 10.0 ........
> 10.0 and ≤ 20.0.
≤ 0.05 .........................
> 0.05 and ≤ 0.5 ........
> 0.5 and ≤ 1.0 ..........
> 1.0 and ≤ 5.0.
Note: Gases concentration are expressed in parts per million per volume (ppmV).
Notes to Table A.1.1:
(a) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance is derived using the LD50/LC50 where available ;
(b) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance or ingredient in a mixture is derived using:
(i) the LD50/LC50 where available. Otherwise,
(ii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to the results of a range test, or
(iii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to a classification category;
(c) Inhalation cut-off values in the table are based on 4 hour testing exposures. Conversion of existing inhalation toxicity data which has been
generated according to 1 hour exposure is achieved by dividing by a factor of 2 for gases and vapors and 4 for dusts and mists;
(d) For some chemicals the test atmosphere may consist of a vapor which is near the gaseous phase. In these cases, classification is based
on ppmV as follows: Category 1 (100 ppmV), Category 2 (500 ppmV), Category 3 (2500 ppmV), Category 4 (20000 ppmV).
The terms ‘‘dust,’’ ‘‘mist,’’ and ‘‘vapor’’ are defined as follows:
(i) Dust: solid particles of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air);
(ii) Mist: liquid droplets of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air);
(iii) Vapor: the gaseous form of a substance or mixture released from its liquid or solid state.
6. In Appendix A on page 50447,
correct Table A.1.2: Conversion from
experimentally obtained acute toxicity
range values (or acute toxicity hazard
categories) to acute toxicity point
estimates for use in the formulas for the
classification of mixtures, to read as
follows:
Exposure routes
Classification category or experimentally obtained acute
toxicity range estimate
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight ) ...........................................................
0 < Category 1 ≤ 5 .....................................................................
5 < Category 2 ≤ 50 ...................................................................
50 < Category 3 ≤ 300 ...............................................................
300 < Category 4 ≤ 2000 ...........................................................
0 < Category 1 ≤ 50 ...................................................................
50 < Category 2 ≤ 200 ...............................................................
200 < Category 3 ≤ 1000 ...........................................................
1000 < Category 4 ≤ 2000 .........................................................
0 < Category 1 ≤ 100 .................................................................
100 < Category 2 ≤ 500 .............................................................
500 < Category 3 ≤ 2500 ...........................................................
2500 < Category 4 ≤ 20000 .......................................................
0 < Category 1 ≤ 0.5 ..................................................................
0.5 < Category 2 ≤ 2.0 ...............................................................
2.0 < Category 3 ≤ 10.0 .............................................................
10.0 < Category 4 ≤ 20.0 ...........................................................
0 < Category 1 ≤ 0.5 ..................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight) ........................................................
Gases (ppmV) .............................................................................
Vapors (mg/l) ..............................................................................
Dust/mist (mg/l) ...........................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:05 Nov 04, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Converted
acute toxicity
point estimate
0.5
5
100
500
5
50
300
1100
10
100
700
4500
0.05
0.5
3
11
0.005
57280
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 213 / Thursday, November 5, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Classification category or experimentally obtained acute
toxicity range estimate
Exposure routes
Converted
acute toxicity
point estimate
0.05 < Category 2 ≤ 2.0 .............................................................
0.5 < Category 3 ≤ 10.0 .............................................................
1.0 < Category 4 ≤ 20.0 .............................................................
0.05
0.5
1.5
Note: Gases concentration are expressed in parts per million per volume (ppmV).
7. In Appendix A on page 50450,
correct Table A.2.3: Concentration of
ingredients of a mixture classified as
skin Category 1 or 2 that would trigger
classification of the mixture as
hazardous to skin (Category 1 or 2), to
read as follows:
Concentration triggering classification of a mixture as:
Sum of ingredients classified as:
Skin corrosive
Category 1
Skin Category 1 .......................................................................................
Skin Category 2 .......................................................................................
(10 × Skin Category 1) + Skin Category 2 .............................................
≥ 5% ..............................................
........................................................
........................................................
8. In Appendix A, on page 50467,
correct Table A.7.1: Cut-off values/
concentration limits of ingredients of a
mixture classified as reproductive
toxicants or for effects on or via
Skin irritant
Category 2
≥ 1% but < 5%.
≥10%.
≥10%.
lactation that trigger classification of the
mixture, to read as follows:
Cut-off values/concentration limits triggering
classification of a mixture as:
Ingredients classified as:
Category 1
reproductive
toxicant
Category 2
reproductive
toxicant
Additional
category for
effects on or
via lactation
Category 1 reproductive toxicant .................................................................................................
Category 2 reproductive toxicant .................................................................................................
Additional category for effects on or via lactation .......................................................................
≥ 0.1%
........................
........................
........................
≥ 0.1%
........................
........................
........................
≥ 0.1%
Authority
This document was prepared under
the direction of Jordan Barab, Acting
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
October 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9–26579 Filed 11–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3050
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
[Docket No. RM2010–4; Order No. 327]
Periodic Reporting Rules
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule; availability of
rulemaking petition.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Under a new law, the Postal
Service must file an annual compliance
report on costs, revenues, rates, and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:37 Nov 04, 2009
Jkt 220001
quality of service associated with its
products. It recently filed documents
with the Commission to change some of
the methods it uses to compile the fiscal
year 2008 report. In the Commission’s
view, these documents constitute a
rulemaking petition. Therefore, this
document provides notice of the Postal
Service’s filing and an opportunity for
public comment.
DATES: 1. Initial comments on Proposals
Twenty-Three through Twenty-Five are
due November 16, 2009. 2. Initial
comments on Proposal Twenty-Two are
due November 30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot
submit their views electronically should
contact the person identified in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
telephone for advice on alternatives to
electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 or
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regulatory History, 74 FR 55504
(October 2, 2009).
On October 23, 2009, the Postal
Service filed a petition to initiate an
informal rulemaking proceeding to
consider changes in the analytical
methods approved for use in periodic
reporting.1 Proposal Twenty-Two
proposes to calculate incremental costs
for competitive products using the
incremental cost model developed by
witness Bradley and implemented by
witness Kay in Docket No. R2000–1. In
the attachment addressing Proposal
Twenty-Two that accompanies the
Petition, the Postal Service explains this
methodology and how it applies to the
current product structure.
Proposal Twenty-Three would remove
an inconsistency between domestic and
international mail with respect to the
treatment of window service costs.
Proposal Twenty-Four would change
the format, but not the methodology,
used to prepare the unit cost detail chart
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service
Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytic Principles (Proposals
Twenty-two–Twenty-five), October 23, 2009
(Petition).
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 213 (Thursday, November 5, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57278-57280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26579]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910, 1915 and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-H022K-2006-0062 (formerly Docket No. H022K)]
RIN 1218-AC20
Hazard Communication; Correction
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Proposed rule: correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects the OSHA Hazard Communication standard
proposed rule and request for comment, published in the Federal
Register of September 30, 2009. This notice corrects eight errors, four
in the preamble and
[[Page 57279]]
four that appear in Appendix A: Table A.1.1, Table A.1.2, Table A.2.3,
and Table A7.1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical
information, contact Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1950.
Correction
1. In the preamble of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard,
published in the Federal Register of September 30, 2009, (74 FR 50279)
on page 50280, in the first column, correct the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to read as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical
information, contact Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1950.
2. On page 50335, in column one, in the fifth full paragraph from
the top of the page, in the third line from the bottom of that
paragraph, the dollar amount of ``$500 million'' is corrected to read
``$700 million''.
3. On page 50372, in column two, in the second full paragraph under
Item 4, in the fifth line from the bottom of that paragraph, the
quantity ``4,215,404'' is corrected to read ``3,877,457''.
4. On page 50378, in column one, in the last line of text in that
column above footnote 17, the dollar amount of ``$610 million'' is
corrected to read ``$621 million''.
5. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1200 on page 50445, correct Table
A.1.1: Acute toxicity hazard categories and acute toxicity estimate
(ATE) values defining the respective categories, to read as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure route Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight) See: <= 5.............. > 5 and <= 50..... > 50 and <= 300... > 300 and <= 2000.
Notes (a), (b).
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight) See: <= 50............. > 50 and <= 200... > 200 and <= 1000. > 1000 and <=
Notes (a), (b). 2000.
Inhalation--Gases (ppmV) See: <= 100............ > 100 and <= 500.. > 500 and <= 2500. > 2500 and <=
Note (a), Note (b), Note (c). 20000.
Inhalation--Vapors (mg/l) See: <= 0.5............ > 0.5 and <= 2.0.. > 2.0 and <= 10.0. > 10.0 and <=
Note (a), Note (b), Note (c), 20.0.
Note (d).
Inhalation--Dusts and Mists (mg/ <= 0.05........... > 0.05 and <= 0.5. > 0.5 and <= 1.0.. > 1.0 and <= 5.0.
l) See: Note (a), Note (b),
Note (c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Gases concentration are expressed in parts per million per volume (ppmV).
Notes to Table A.1.1:
(a) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance is derived using the LD50/LC50 where
available ;
(b) The acute toxicity estimate (ATE) for the classification of a substance or ingredient in a mixture is
derived using:
(i) the LD50/LC50 where available. Otherwise,
(ii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to the results of a range test, or
(iii) the appropriate conversion value from Table 1.2 that relates to a classification category;
(c) Inhalation cut-off values in the table are based on 4 hour testing exposures. Conversion of existing
inhalation toxicity data which has been generated according to 1 hour exposure is achieved by dividing by a
factor of 2 for gases and vapors and 4 for dusts and mists;
(d) For some chemicals the test atmosphere may consist of a vapor which is near the gaseous phase. In these
cases, classification is based on ppmV as follows: Category 1 (100 ppmV), Category 2 (500 ppmV), Category 3
(2500 ppmV), Category 4 (20000 ppmV).
The terms ``dust,'' ``mist,'' and ``vapor'' are defined as follows:
(i) Dust: solid particles of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air);
(ii) Mist: liquid droplets of a substance or mixture suspended in a gas (usually air);
(iii) Vapor: the gaseous form of a substance or mixture released from its liquid or solid state.
6. In Appendix A on page 50447, correct Table A.1.2: Conversion
from experimentally obtained acute toxicity range values (or acute
toxicity hazard categories) to acute toxicity point estimates for use
in the formulas for the classification of mixtures, to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification category
or experimentally Converted
Exposure routes obtained acute acute toxicity
toxicity range estimate point estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral (mg/kg bodyweight )....... 0 < Category 1 <= 5.... 0.5
5 < Category 2 <= 50... 5
50 < Category 3 <= 300. 100
300 < Category 4 <= 500
2000.
Dermal (mg/kg bodyweight)...... 0 < Category 1 <= 50... 5
50 < Category 2 <= 200. 50
200 < Category 3 <= 300
1000.
1000 < Category 4 <= 1100
2000.
Gases (ppmV)................... 0 < Category 1 <= 100.. 10
100 < Category 2 <= 500 100
500 < Category 3 <= 700
2500.
2500 < Category 4 <= 4500
20000.
Vapors (mg/l).................. 0 < Category 1 <= 0.5.. 0.05
0.5 < Category 2 <= 2.0 0.5
2.0 < Category 3 <= 3
10.0.
10.0 < Category 4 <= 11
20.0.
Dust/mist (mg/l)............... 0 < Category 1 <= 0.5.. 0.005
[[Page 57280]]
0.05 < Category 2 <= 0.05
2.0.
0.5 < Category 3 <= 0.5
10.0.
1.0 < Category 4 <= 1.5
20.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Gases concentration are expressed in parts per million per volume
(ppmV).
7. In Appendix A on page 50450, correct Table A.2.3: Concentration
of ingredients of a mixture classified as skin Category 1 or 2 that
would trigger classification of the mixture as hazardous to skin
(Category 1 or 2), to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration triggering
classification of a mixture as:
Sum of ingredients classified ---------------------------------------
as: Skin corrosive Skin irritant
Category 1 Category 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skin Category 1................. >= 5%............. >= 1% but < 5%.
Skin Category 2................. .................. >=10%.
(10 x Skin Category 1) + Skin .................. >=10%.
Category 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In Appendix A, on page 50467, correct Table A.7.1: Cut-off
values/concentration limits of ingredients of a mixture classified as
reproductive toxicants or for effects on or via lactation that trigger
classification of the mixture, to read as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-off values/concentration limits triggering
classification of a mixture as:
-----------------------------------------------
Ingredients classified as: Additional
Category 1 Category 2 category for
reproductive reproductive effects on or
toxicant toxicant via lactation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1 reproductive toxicant................................ >= 0.1% .............. ..............
Category 2 reproductive toxicant................................ .............. >= 0.1% ..............
Additional category for effects on or via lactation............. .............. .............. >= 0.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of October 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-26579 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
