Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-09-12 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Notices

Notices. Final rule

20,953 words·~95 min read·/register/2006/09/12/06-7584·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 060606149-6234-02; I.D. 052506A] RIN 0648-AT95 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Omnibus Amendment for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries, Crustacean Fisheries, and Precious Coral Fisheries AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to amend three fishery management plans
(FMPs)to include fisheries and waters around the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI)and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). These amendments affect United States domestic fisheries that offload or operate in Federal waters around the CNMI and the PRIA. These amendments establish new permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting bottomfish species around the PRIA to improve understanding of the ecology of these species and the activities and harvests of the vessel operators that target them. They also establish new permitting and reporting requirements for vessel operators targeting crustacean species and precious corals around the CNMI and PRIA. DATES: This final rule is effective October 12, 2006, except for amendments to §§ 665.14, 665.41, and 665.61, which require approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). When OMB approval is received, the effective date will be announced in the **Federal Register.** ADDRESSES: Copies of the FMP amendments and Environmental Assessment
(EA)may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, or from the web site *www.wpcouncil.org* . Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814, or to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to 202-395-7285. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is also accessible via the Internet at the web site of the Office of the Federal Register: *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Background The NMFS Pacific Islands Region encompasses Federal waters, i.e., the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), around the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and the PRIA. The EEZ extends from the inner boundary of the EEZ, i.e., the seaward limit of each coastal state, commonwealth, territory, and possession, to 200 nautical miles
(nm)offshore. For the CNMI and PRIA, the inner boundary of the EEZ is the shoreline, and for Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii, the inner boundary of the EEZ is 3 nm from the shoreline. The Federal waters surrounding the CNMI are currently not included in the Fishery Management Plans for the Bottomfish, Crustaceans, or Precious Corals Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP, Crustaceans FMP, and Precious Corals FMP). Similarly, Federal waters surrounding the PRIA are not included in the Bottomfish or Crustaceans FMPs. Vessels have been known to fish for bottomfish and crustaceans in the Federal waters around the CNMI and PRIA, although on a small scale. While there are currently no known fisheries operating in the PRIA, and no precious corals fisheries operating in the CNMI, interest may arise in the future. This rule amends the FMPs to include fisheries operating in these areas under the FMPs. This rule is designed to establish monitoring systems and management mechanisms to implement specific regulatory controls should the need arise; specific management measures (such as time and area closures, or effort and landing limits) are not included. Additional background information on this final rule may be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 36049) published on June 23, 2005, and is not repeated here. Comments and Responses On June 7, 2006, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** a notice of availability of the subject FMP amendments (71 FR 32911), and on June 23, 2006, NMFS published the proposed rule that would implement the amendments (71 FR 36049). The public comment period ended on August 7, 2006. NMFS received one comment on the proposed rule, as follows: *Comment.* The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended the addition of regulatory text to clarify the management authority over commercial fisheries in refuge waters within the PRIA. *Response.* The preamble to the proposed rule states that the USFWS governs fishing activities within refuges, including those in the western Pacific, pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and other authorities. Refuge waters are closed to all uses until they are specifically opened for such uses, and that the USFWS determines whether to open refuge waters for any use that is compatible with the refuges' primary purpose(s) and mission. While commercial fishing is generally prohibited in refuge waters, specific regulations are absent. Including refuge areas under the Bottomfish, Crustaceans, and Precious Corals FMPs will add specific regulations to these areas, but these regulations will not supersede any valid existing Federal regulations that are more restrictive to fishing operations. NMFS believes that the preamble language recognizes the authority of the USFWS, and adequately addresses the USFWS comments. Changes to the Proposed Rule In the proposed rule, instruction 5 would have added at § 665.42 a paragraph to make it unlawful for any person to refuse to make available, to an authorized officer or employee of NMFS designated by the Regional Administrator for inspection and copying, any records that must be made available in accordance with § 665.14(f)(2). This proposed addition would have duplicated an existing prohibition at § 665.15(e), and was deemed unnecessary. Accordingly, that instruction was removed from the final rule. In the proposed rule, instruction 7 would have revised § 665.69, paragraph (b), to define the inner boundary of each new fishery management area. Although the inner boundary of the PRIA was described in the preamble to the proposed rule as being the shoreline, this definition was inadvertently omitted in the regulatory instructions. Accordingly, instruction 7 was edited to include the inner boundary of the PRIA in § 665.69(b). Classification The Assistant Administrator, NMFS, determined that the three FMP amendments are necessary for the conservation and management of the affected fisheries, and that the amendments are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, or on the economic impact of the rule. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared. This final rule contains amendments to collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA under OMB control numbers 0648-0214 and 0648-0490. The amendments to these collection of information requirements have not yet been approved by OMB, but OMB approval is expected no later than November 13, 2006. NMFS will publish a notice when these requirements are cleared by OMB and are, therefore, effective (see DATES ). The public reporting burden for the permit application process is 30 min per application. In the crustaceans fishery, it is estimated that two permit applications will be submitted annually for the permit area, resulting in a paperwork burden of 1 hr/yr. In the bottomfish fishery, it is estimated that no more than five permit applications will be received annually for the permit area, resulting in a paperwork burden of 2.5 hr/yr. In the precious corals fishery, it is estimated that one permit will be applied for annually for the permit area, resulting in 30 min/yr in paperwork burden. Therefore, the total paperwork burden of these collections of information will be no more than four hours annually. The public burden for the proposed reporting requirements is 5 min per daily logsheet. It is estimated that up to eight vessels will be subject to the reporting requirement at any given time, and that each vessel will fish, on average, no more than 50 days/yr, resulting in a total paperwork burden of approximately 35 hr/yr. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to William L. Robinson, NMFS PIR (see ADDRESSES ), or by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or fax to 202-395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 7, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is amended as follows: PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 665.12, the definitions for “Crustaceans management area”, “Crustaceans permit area 3”, and “Crustaceans receiving vessel” are revised, the definitions of “Crustaceans permit area 4”, “Pacific Remote Island Areas bottomfish fishing permit”, and “Pacific Remote Island Areas crustacean fishing permit” are added, and under the definition of “Precious coral permit area” paragraph (4)(v) is added to read as follows: § 665.12 Definitions. *Crustaceans management area* means the EEZ waters around American Samoa, the CNMI, Guam, Hawaii, and the PRIA. *Crustaceans Permit Area 3 (Permit Area 3)* means the EEZ around Guam and American Samoa, and the EEZ seaward of points 3 nautical miles from the shoreline of the CNMI. *Crustaceans Permit Area 4 (Permit Area 4)* means the EEZ around the PRIA, with the exception of EEZ waters around Midway Atoll. *Crustaceans receiving vessel* means a vessel of the United States to which lobsters taken in the crustaceans management area are transferred from another vessel. *Pacific Remote Island Areas
(PRIA)bottomfish fishing permit* means the permit required by § 665.61 to use a vessel to fish for bottomfish management unit species
(MUS)in the EEZ around the PRIA, or to land bottomfish MUS shoreward of the outer boundary of the EEZ around the PRIA, with the exception of EEZ waters around Midway Atoll. *Pacific Remote Island Areas
(PRIA)crustacean fishing permit* means the permit required by § 665.41 to use a vessel to fish for crustacean management unit species
(MUS)in the EEZ around the PRIA, or to land crustacean MUS shoreward of the outer boundary of the EEZ around the PRIA, with the exception of EEZ waters around Midway Atoll. *Precious coral permit area* * * *
(4)* * *
(v)Permit Area X-P-CNMI includes all coral beds, other than established beds, conditional beds, or refugia, in the EEZ seaward of points 3 nautical miles from the shoreline of the CNMI. 3. In § 665.14, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 665.14 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a)*Fishing record forms.* The operator of any fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.21, 665.41, 665.81, or 665.602 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on report forms provided by the Regional Administrator. All information specified on the forms must be recorded on the forms within 24 hr after the completion of each fishing day. Each form must be signed and dated by the fishing vessel operator. For the fisheries managed under § 665.21, 665.41, and 665.81, the original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 72 hr of each landing of MUS, unless the fishing was authorized under a PRIA troll and handline permit, a PRIA crustaceans fishing permit, or a PRIA precious corals fishing permit, in which case the original logbook form for each day of fishing within the PRIA EEZ waters must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of MUS. For fisheries managed under § 665.602, the original logbook form for each day of the fishing trip must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of each landing of MUS. 4. In § 665.41, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows: § 665.41 Permits.
(a)* * *
(2)The owner of any vessel used to fish for lobster in Permit Area 2, Permit Area 3, or Permit Area 4, must have a permit issued for that vessel. 5. In § 665.61, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows: § 665.61 Permits.
(a)* * *
(1)The owner of any vessel used to fish for bottomfish management unit species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Subarea or Pacific Remote Island Areas Subarea must have a permit issued under this section and the permit must be registered for use with that vessel. 6. In § 665.62 paragraph
(b)is revised, and paragraph
(f)is added to read as follows: § 665.62 Prohibitions.
(b)Fish for, or retain on board a vessel, bottomfish management unit species in the Ho'omalu Zone, the Mau Zone, or the Pacific Remote Island Areas without the appropriate permit registered for use with that vessel issued under § 665.13.
(f)Falsify or fail to make or file all reports of bottomfish management unit species landings taken in the Pacific Remote Island Areas, containing all data in the exact manner, as specified in § 665.14(a). 7. In § 665.69, paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (b), and
(c)are revised, and paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8) are added, to read as follows: § 665.69 Management subareas.
(a)The bottomfish fishery management area is divided into eight subareas with the following designations and boundaries:
(6)CNMI Inshore Area means that portion of the EEZ shoreward of 3 nautical miles of the shoreline of the CNMI.
(7)CNMI Offshore Area means that portion of the EEZ seaward of 3 nautical miles from the shoreline of the CNMI.
(8)Pacific Remote Island Areas means that portion of the EEZ seaward of the Pacific Remote Island Areas, with the exception of Midway Atoll.
(b)The inner boundary of each fishery management area is a line coterminous with the seaward boundaries of the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the CNMI, and the PRIA.
(c)The outer boundary of each fishery management area is a line drawn in such a manner that each point on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, or is coterminous with adjacent international maritime boundaries. The boundary between the fishery management areas of Guam and the CNMI extends to those points which are equidistant between Guam and the island of Rota in the CNMI. [FR Doc. E6-15066 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 176 Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket Number 2006-0027] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions AGENCY: Office of Security, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is concurrently establishing a new system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the Office of Security entitled the “Office of Security File System.” This system of records will support the administration of a program that provides security for the Department by safeguarding and protecting the Department's personnel, property, facilities and information. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2006-0027, by one of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Fax:*
(202)401-4514 (not a toll-free number). *Mail:* Marc E. Frey, Senior Advisor, Office of Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Building 410, Washington, DC 20528; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, 601 S. 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc E. Frey, Senior Advisor, Office of Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Building 410, Washington, DC 20528 by telephone
(202)772-5096 or facsimile
(202)401-4514; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, 601 S. 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220 by telephone
(571)227-3813 or facsimile
(571)227-4171. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Elsewhere in the **Federal Register** , the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)is publishing a Privacy Act system of records notice describing records in the file system of its Office of Security. DHS established the Office of Security to protect and safeguard the Department's personnel, property, facilities, and information. The Office of Security develops, coordinates, implements, and oversees the Department's security policies, programs, and standards; delivers security training and education to DHS personnel; and provides security support to DHS components when necessary. In addition, the Office of Security coordinates and collaborates with the Intelligence Community on security issues and the protection of information. The Office of Security works to integrate security into every aspect of the Department's operations. The Office of Security File System consists of records relating to the management and operation of the DHS personnel security and suitability program, including but not limited to, completed standard form questionnaires issued by the Office of Personnel Management and other information related to an individual's eligibility for access to classified or sensitive information. This system contains records pertaining to numerous categories of individuals including DHS personnel who may be a subject of a counter-terrorism, or counter-espionage, or law enforcement investigation; senders of unsolicited communications that raise a security concern to the Department or its personnel; state and local government personnel and private-sector individuals who serve on an advisory committee and board sponsored by DHS; and state and local government personnel and private-sector individuals who are authorized by DHS to access sensitive or classified homeland security information, classified facilities, communications security equipment, and information technology systems that process national or homeland security classified information. The information in this system also relates to official Security investigations and law enforcement activities. Accordingly, DHS proposes to exempt this system, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act and to add that exemption to Appendix C to Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. The DHS Office of Security needs this exemption in order to protect information relating to Security investigations from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who could interfere with the Office of Security's investigatory and law enforcement activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigative process; to avoid disclosure of investigative techniques; protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and of law enforcement personnel; ensure the Office of Security's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; protect the privacy of third parties; and safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension. In addition, because the Office of Security investigations arise out of DHS programs and activities, information in this system of records may pertain to national security and related law enforcement matters. In such cases, allowing access to such information could alert subjects of the Office of Security investigations into actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violations, and could reveal in an untimely manner, the Office of Security's and other agencies' investigative interests in law enforcement efforts to preserve national security. The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Classified information, Privacy, Freedom of information. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, add the following new paragraph: Appendix C to part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 4. DHS-OS-001, Office of Security File System. This system and its records are used in the management and implementation of Office of Security programs and activities that safeguard and support the protection of the Department's personnel, property, facilities, and information. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), this system is exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in those subsections: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(I)and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a)From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation into an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the investigation, which in some cases may be classified, and which could reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or the Office of Security. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, tamper with witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b)From subsection
(d)(Access to and Amendment of Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation, which in some cases may be classified, and prematurely reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, tamper with witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c)From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of national security or information breaches, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement and for the protection of national security, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d)From subsections (e)(4)(G),
(H)and
(I)(Agency Requirements), and
(f)(Agency Rules) because portions of this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(e)From subsection
(g)to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Dated: September 1, 2006. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15046 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25272; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-16-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce plc) Dart 528, 529, 532, 535, 542, and 552 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (formerly Rolls-Royce plc)
(RRD)Dart 528, 529, 532, 535, 542, and 552 series turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of high pressure turbine
(HPT)blade platforms and shrouds, and reworking the engines if the inspections reveal excessive gaps between blade shrouds. This proposed AD results from reports of HPT disk rim failures. We are proposing this AD to prevent HPT disk rim failures resulting in the release of portions of the HPT disk, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, D-15827 Dahlewitz, Germany; telephone 49
(0)33-7086-1768; fax 49
(0)33-7086-3356 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7747; fax
(781)238-7199). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25272; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-16-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on RRD Dart 528, 529, 532, 535, 542, and 552 turbofan engines. The LBA advises that they received reports of HPT disk rim failures, some of which resulted in release of portions of the HPT disk. These failures resulted from high stress levels in the HPT disk bucket groove due to blade vibration. Excessive gaps between the blade shroud and platform induced the damaging HPT blade vibration. The gaps can increase if wear occurs between the blade shroud and platform abutment faces. We are proposing this AD to prevent HPT disk rim failures resulting in the release of portions of the HPT disk, an uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of RRD DART Service Bulletin
(SB)Da72-543, dated July 11, 2003, and RRD Repair Instruction, “Restoration of HPT Blade Platform and Shroud, DRS 611,” dated January 20, 2005, that describe procedures for a dimensional inspection and rework, if necessary, of the HPT blade platform and shroud. The LBA classified this SB as mandatory and issued airworthiness directive 2003-217, dated August 7, 2003, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these engines in Germany. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Manufacturer's Service Information This proposed AD shortens the initial inspection of the HPT blade platform and shroud to no more than 1,500 flight hours from the date of issue of this AD, if the engine has not been inspected or reworked to the DRS 611 standard. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These engines, manufactured in the United Kingdom and transferred to Germany, are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. In keeping with this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the LBA's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. We are proposing this AD, that would require repetitive inspections of HPT blade platforms and shrouds, and reworking the engines if the inspections reveal excessive gaps between blade shrouds. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 30 RRD Dart 528, 529, 532, 535, 542, and 552 series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 22 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. No parts are required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $52,800. 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. Regulatory Findings We have 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 that the 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration 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 airworthiness directive: **Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (formerly Rolls-Royce plc):** Docket No. FAA-2006-25272; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-16-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by November 13, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD)Dart 528, 529, 532, 535, 542, and 552 series turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Hawker Siddeley, Argosy AW.650, Fairchild Hiller F-27, F-27A, F-27B, F-27F, F-27G, F-27J, FH-227, FH-227B, FH-227C, FH-227D, FH-227E, Fokker F.27 all marks; British Aircraft Corporation Viscount 744, 745D and 810; and Gulfstream G-159 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of high pressure turbine
(HPT)disk rim failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent HPT disk rim failures resulting in the release of portions of the HPT disk, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f)Using RRD DART Service Bulletin
(SB)Da72-543, dated July 11, 2003, and the scheme detailed in RRD Repair Instruction, “Restoration of HPT Blade Platform and Shroud, DRS 611,” dated January 20, 2005, inspect and repair HPT blade platforms and shroud abutment faces by weld build-up:
(1)After no more than 1,500 flight hours from the date of issue of this AD, if the engine has not been previously inspected or reworked to the DRS 611 standard;
(2)Each time new blades are installed; and
(3)Before exceeding 7,400 hours since last HPT blade rework. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(g)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(h)LBA airworthiness directive 2003-217, dated August 7, 2003, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 6, 2006. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-15049 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 63] RIN 1513-AB20 Proposed Establishment of the Swan Creek Viticultural Area (2005R-414P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to establish the 96,000-acre Swan Creek viticultural area in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed addition to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, *Attn:* Notice No. 63, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville Street, No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographic features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Swan Creek Petition Raffaldini Vineyards submitted a petition to establish the 96,000-acre “Swan Creek” viticultural area on behalf of the Vineyards of Swan Creek, a trade association representing a group of vineyards and wineries in northwest North Carolina. Within the boundary of the proposed viticulture area are 3 wineries and 75 acres of vineyards. The boundary of the proposed viticultural area incorporates portions of Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties and includes a portion of the established Yadkin Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.174). We summarize below the evidence submitted in support of the petition. Name and Boundary Evidence The petitioner explains that the geographical name “Swan Creek” refers to a village in the approximate center of the proposed viticultural area, as well as two streams located near the village, East Swan Creek and West Swan Creek, which are depicted in the southwest portion of the 1:100,000-scale USGS Winston-Salem, North Carolina topographic map. The USGS map shows Swan Creek village in the Brushy Mountains, with the two creeks running north from the mountain elevations to the Yadkin River. Also, an undated State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources document lists Swan Creek, West Swan Creek, and East Swan Creek as streams in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The DeLorme North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer identifies the village as “Swancreek,” with East Swan Creek and West Swan Creek to its northwest. The petitioner explains that both names, “Swan Creek” and “Swancreek,” reference the proposed viticultural area region. However, the two-word spelling is the more common usage for businesses, roads, creeks, and historical documents, which led the petitioner to identify the proposed viticultural area as “Swan Creek.” The local Wilkes Telephone Membership Corp. telephone book, which covers the region that includes the proposed viticultural area, lists an airport, church, and three businesses using “Swan Creek” in their names. A search of the North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State's Web site ( *http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/ThePage.aspx* ) lists eight businesses currently operating with “Swan Creek” in their names. As further evidence of the significance of the “Swan Creek” name within the proposed area, the September 7, 2004, minutes of a Yadkin County Commission meeting includes a reference to the Swan Creek area and improvements to Swan Creek Road. Additionally, a National Weather Service bulletin from January 13, 2005, warns of the possibility of a tornado in the Swan Creek area. The name is also repeatedly used in the “Vineyards of Swan Creek Wine Trail” Web site ( *http://www.swancreekvineyards.com* ). The petitioner relies on geographical and man-made elements identifiable on the supplied USGS maps to define and draw the boundary for the proposed viticultural area. Climate data and historic evidence that documents the breadth of the “Swan Creek” name also legitimize the proposed boundary line, according to the petitioner. From the regional history of the Yadkin Valley, the petitioner connects the “Swan Creek” name to stories of Revolutionary War soldiers traveling along the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area northern boundary line at the Yadkin River, en route to the pivotal battle at King's Mountain in South Carolina. Also, during the Civil War, Union Major General George Stoneman led troops eastward through Swan Creek to Virginia. Historic manuscripts also maintain that frontiersman Daniel Boone homesteaded in the Swan Creek region in the 1750's. After the Civil War, the Swan Creek area turned to farming, which continues to characterize this rural region despite the urban development in other portions of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. Today, agriculture in the Swan Creek region includes viticulture, with 75 acres within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area currently dedicated to grape growing, according to the petition. The geology of the Swan Creek region, along with its minor climatic variation, also creates distinguishing viticultural features upon which to base boundary distinctions. The entire proposed Swan Creek viticultural area lies within the Yadkin River Basin. The general uniformity in the Swan Creek region's soils is attributable to the natural weathering process of the Brushy Mountains and the Brevard Shear Zone, a major fault system that also defines the Blue Ridge Escarpment in the area. The homogeneous soil within the proposed viticultural area is unlike the varied soils and rock types found in other parts of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area boundary overlaps the established Yadkin Valley viticultural area as shown in the table below. Viticultural areas Total acres Overlapping acres Percent overlapping Yadkin Valley 1,416,000 57,600 4 Swan Creek (Proposed) 96,000 57,600 60 The northern 60 percent of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area sits within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, with the remaining 40 percent south of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area boundary line, according to the petition maps. The discussion below includes further substantive evidence on the differences between the Yadkin Valley viticultural area and the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, which, according to the petitioner, justifies the proposed boundary line. Distinguishing Features Situated in the moderate elevations of the Brushy Mountains, and bordering the Yadkin River, the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's geographical location is responsible for the area's temperate climate and homogenous soil as compared to surrounding areas, according to the petitioner. Topography The Brushy Mountains run through the center of the Swan Creek region, with elevations in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area varying between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet, according to the USGS maps submitted with the petition. The Brushy Mountains, within the proposed viticultural area, have elevations lower than the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west but higher than the other surrounding areas, according to the USGS maps. The Blue Ridge Mountain region to the immediate west of the proposed boundary line rises to elevations of from 3,000 feet to 5,000 feet. To the east and south of the proposed viticultural area, the elevation drops to between 500 feet and 1,000 feet. Climate Both the Yadkin River running adjacent to the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area's northern boundary line and the Brushy Mountains that lie within the proposed viticultural area boundary serve as climatically moderating influences. The Swan Creek region has an average annual high temperature of 68.9 °F and an average annual low temperature of 42.8 °F. The table below shows the contrasting temperatures in the regions beyond the proposed boundary line, as collected by the Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC) of the National Climatic Data Center. Region Average annual maximum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Average annual minimum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Swan Creek 68.9 42.8 West and northwest 59.8 40.4 South and east 70.6 46.6 Yadkin Valley 69.5 44.8 The SERCC data shows that the Swan Creek area is generally warmer than the regions to the west and northwest, cooler than the regions to the south and east, and slightly cooler than the Yadkin Valley as a whole. Also, average January temperatures of 20 °F to 25 °F make the Swan Creek region less prone to Pierce's Disease, which adversely affects vineyards, than the majority of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 3,576 degree days of heat accumulation annually, which puts it in climatic region IV, according to temperature data collected by the SERCC. (As a measure of heat accumulation, each degree that a day's mean temperature is above 50 °47 F, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth, is counted as one degree day; see “General Viticulture,” Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1975.) The surrounding areas, based on Amerine and Winkler heat summation definitions, include climatic regions IV and V to the east, region V to the south, and region I to the west-northwest. The frost-free season of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area extends on average from April 19 to October 17 annually, according to the “Average Last Spring Frost Dates for Selected North Carolina Locations,” horticulture information leaflets (published December 1996 and revised December 1998), by Katharine Perry, North Carolina State University. According to the petition, this frost-free season is nearly identical to Surry County, which is part of the Yadkin Valley viticultural area located immediately northeast of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. However, southeast of the proposed viticultural area, but also within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, the Davidson County frost-free season averages from March 31 to October 31, resulting in a month less frost than in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. The frost-free season in counties outside the Yadkin Valley viticultural area and the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area varies, extending three weeks longer to the east, but lasting four to six weeks less in regions to the west and northwest. In addition, the growing season of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 170 to 190 days annually, according to Perry's “Average Growing Seasons for Selected North Carolina Locations,” horticulture information leaflets (published December 1996 and revised December 1998). Again, this growing season is almost identical to the county immediately northeast, located within the Yadkin Valley viticultural area. However, according to Perry's data, Davidson County averages a 214-day growing season annually, or between 24 and 44 more growing days than the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. Similarly, the petition shows that Guilford County to the east has an annual growing season of between 199 and 210 days. Counties to the west and northwest of the Swan Creek region have a significantly shorter growing season, lasting an average of 139 to 162 days. Precipitation The petitioner attributes the moderate rainfall within the proposed viticultural area to the protective influence of the Brushy Mountains. Rainfall within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 48.6 inches annually, based on SERCC data, with the local grape growers surveyed by the petitioner recording less rainfall at their own weather stations. The areas to the west and northwest of the proposed viticultural area average 57 inches each year, while regions to the south and east average 44.4 inches of rain annually. Furthermore, snowfall within the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area averages 6.3 inches annually, based on SERCC records, which is far less than the data recorded at weather stations in surrounding areas. Geology The geology of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, with documentation and evidence provided for the petition by Matthew Mayberry of the Mayberry Land Company, Elkin, North Carolina, is shaped by plate tectonics and a spectrum of uplift and erosion for the entire Appalachian Mountains building cycle. The Swan Creek region is part of the larger Appalachian Mountain Range area that has gone through at least three cycles of uplift and erosion, with each cycle lasting around 300 million years. Also, the weathering and erosion cycles created the resulting Piedmont and Blue Ridge surfaces found in the proposed viticultural area today. Mr. Mayberry explains that the four predominant rock types in the proposed viticultural area are Henderson Gneiss, Granite, Biotite Gneiss and Biotite Amphibolite Gneiss, and Sillimanite Mica Schist. These types make up more than 90 percent of the Swan Creek area, with the latter three composing about 80 percent of the southern part of the area. Along the proposed north boundary line at the Yadkin River the predominant rock types include Ashe Formation, Utramafics, and Granitic Rocks of the Crossnore Group. Soil The soil information in the Swan Creek viticultural area petition is compiled from the published soil surveys of Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties in North Carolina. Roy Mathis, Soil Specialist for Correlations, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, provided the soil information included in the petition. The areas surrounding the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area have soils with differing characteristics, Mr. Mathis explains. The areas to the south and east have high shrink-swell clayey soils, which are less desirable for agriculture. To the west and north are the mountainous rocks and soils of the encroaching Blue Ridge Mountains. Also, the Yadkin Valley viticultural area, which surrounds the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area to the west, north, and east, has a greater variety of soil types and temperature regimes. The proposed Swan Creek viticultural area mesic temperature regime has soil temperatures of 47 °F to 59 °F at the depth of 20 inches, according to Mr. Mathis. In comparison, the Yadkin Valley viticultural area is in both the mesic and thermic temperature regimes, with soil temperatures much warmer at 59 °F to 72 °F at the same soil depth. Mr. Mathis explains that the soils in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area are primarily saprolite, a soft, clay-rich soil derived from weathered felsic (acidic) metamorphic rocks of the Inner Piedmont Belt such as granites, schists, and gneisses. The region includes a small area of Sauratown Belt with the rocks being primarily metagraywacke. In contrast, the surrounding west and north areas include residuum (saprolite) weathered from felsic metamorphic rocks such as gneisses, schists, and phyllites of the Blue Ridge Geologic Belt and Smith River Allochothon. The saprolite in the surrounding area to the east is composed of weathered igneous intrusive rocks like granites, gabbros, and diorites, as well as some gneisses and schists of the Charlotte Belt. Evard and Cowee soils, which have moderate permeability and are well-drained with a loamy surface and sub-soil layer, predominate in the Brushy Mountains. Yet the dominant ridge top soils of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area include the Fairview and Clifford series. These soils have sandy clay loam or clay loam surface layers with red clayey sub-soils, and are well-drained with moderate permeability. Rhodhiss series is the dominant soil on the steep side slopes within the proposed viticultural area boundary. This well-drained soil has a loamy surface and moderate permeability at the sub-soil level. Mr. Mathis notes that Fairview, Clifford, and Rhodhiss soils all have bedrock deeper than 60 inches. The Yadkin River, at the northern boundary of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area, has alluvial soil diversity with textures and drainage. In general, most of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area soils are acidic and low in natural fertility. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below in the proposed regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Swan Creek,” will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. The text of the new regulation would clarify this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Swan Creek” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe that any single part of the proposed viticultural area name standing alone would have viticultural significance if the new area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full “Swan Creek” name as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other term as an appellation of origin and that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Swan Creek” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Swan Creek viticultural area. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. *See* 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area on brand labels that include the words “Swan Creek” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, we are particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any negative economic impact that approval of the proposed viticultural area will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. We are also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid any conflicts, for example by adopting a modified or different name for the viticultural area. Although TTB believes that only the full “Swan Creek” name should be considered to have viticultural significance upon establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also invite comments from those who believe that “Swan” standing alone would have viticultural significance upon establishment of the area. Comments in this regard should include documentation or other information supporting the conclusion that use of the word “Swan” on a wine label could cause consumers and vintners to attribute to the wine in question the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the proposed Swan Creek viticultural area. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • *Mail:* You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • *Facsimile:* You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—
(1)Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2)Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3)Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • *E-mail:* You may e-mail comments to *nprm@ttb.gov.* Comments transmitted by electronic mail must—
(1)Contain your e-mail address;
(2)Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3)Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • *Online form:* We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • *Federal e-rulemaking portal:* To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information submitted with the comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copies of this notice and the submitted comments, visit *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.___ to read as follows: § 9.__ Swan Creek.
(a)*Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Swan Creek”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Swan Creek” is a term of viticultural significance.
(b)*Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Swan Creek viticultural area are three United States Geological Survey, 1:100,000 scale, topographic maps. They are titled:
(1)Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 1984, photoinspected 1982;
(2)Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee, 1985; and
(3)Salisbury, North Carolina, 1985, photoinspected 1983.
(c)*Boundary.* The Swan Creek viticultural area is located in Wilkes, Yadkin, and Iredell Counties, North Carolina. The boundary of the Swan Creek viticultural area is described below:
(1)The beginning point is on the Winston-Salem, North Carolina map at the intersection of the Yadkin River and U.S. Highway 21, along the Surry-Yadkin county line, between Elkin and Jonesville;
(2)From the beginning point, proceed 24.6 miles generally south on U.S. Highway 21, crossing onto the Salisbury, North Carolina map, to the intersection of U.S. Highway 21 with Rocky Creek at Turnersburg;
(3)Proceed 12.3 miles generally north and west along Rocky Creek, returning to the Winston-Salem map, to the intersection of Rocky Creek with State Highway 115 at New Hope in the southwest corner of the map;
(4)Proceed 15.5 miles generally northwest along State Highway 115, crossing onto the Boone, North Carolina-Tennessee map, to the intersection of State Highway 115 and the Yadkin River, at North Wilkesboro; and
(5)Proceed 16.7 miles generally east-northeast along the Yadkin River, crossing onto the Winston-Salem map, to the beginning point. Signed: August 1, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-14918 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926 [Docket No. H-022K] RIN 1218-AC20 Hazard Communication AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: OSHA, other Federal agencies, and stakeholder representatives have participated in long-term international negotiations to develop a Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The GHS has been adopted by the United Nations, and there is an international goal for as many countries as possible to implement the GHS by 2008. The GHS includes harmonized provisions for classification of chemicals for their health, physical, and environmental effects, as well as for labels on containers and safety data sheets (SDS). Adoption of the GHS by OSHA would require modifications to the Agency's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). For example, an order of information would be established for safety data sheets. In this notice, OSHA is providing further information about the GHS, the benefits of adopting it, and its potential impact on the HCS. OSHA is seeking input from the public on a number of issues related to implementation of the GHS. The Agency is simultaneously announcing the availability of a new guide on its Web site at *http://www.osha.gov* that describes the GHS. DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates: *Hard copy:* Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by November 13, 2006. *Facsimile and electronic transmission:* Your comments must be sent by November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. H-022K, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* Follow the instructions below for submitting comments. Agency Web Site: *http://ecomments.osha.gov* Follow the instructions on the OSHA web page for submitting comments. FAX: If your comments, including any attachments, are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-022K, Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number (H-022K). Comments received will be posted without change on OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov* , including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read comments or background documents received, go to OSHA's Web page. Comments and submissions are also available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1999. General and technical information: Maureen O'Donnell, Industrial Hygienist, or David O'Connor, Health Scientist, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1950. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. History of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard B. OSHA's Involvement in Development of the GHS C. Other OSHA Activities Related to the GHS D. Benefits of the GHS E. State Plan States II. Provisions of OSHA's HCS and the GHS A. Scope of the GHS B. Definitions of Hazards Covered C. Health Hazards D. Physical Hazards E. Labels F. Safety Data Sheets III. Public Resources for Further Information on the GHS IV. Request for Input V. Public Participation VI. Authority and Signature I. Background A. History of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard
(HCS)(29 CFR 1910.1200; 1915.1200; 1917.28; 1918.90; and 1926.59) was first adopted in 1983 for the manufacturing sector of industry (48 FR 53280; November 25, 1983). Later, the Agency expanded the scope of coverage to all industries where employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987). The HCS requires chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import. The rule provides definitions of health and physical hazards to use as the criteria for determining hazards in the evaluation process. The information about the hazards and protective measures is then required to be conveyed to downstream employers and employees by putting labels on containers and preparing and distributing safety data sheets. All employers with hazardous chemicals in their workplaces are required to have a hazard communication program, including container labels, safety data sheets, and employee training. ( **Note:** The HCS uses the term “material safety data sheet” or MSDS, while the GHS uses safety data sheet or SDS. For convenience, safety data sheet or SDS is being used throughout this document.) OSHA has updated estimates in the standard's regulatory impact analysis, and found that the HCS now covers over 7 million workplaces, more than 100 million employees, and some 945,000 hazardous chemical products. Ensuring that hazard and protective measure information is available in workplaces through hazard communication programs helps employers design and implement appropriate controls for chemical exposures, and gives employees the right-to-know the hazards and identities of the chemicals, as well as allowing them to participate actively in the successful control of exposures. Together, these actions of employers and employees reduce the potential for adverse effects to occur. The information transmitted under the HCS requirements provides the foundation upon which a chemical safety and health program can be built in the workplace. The HCS is performance-oriented, i.e., it establishes requirements for labels and safety data sheets but does not provide the specific language to convey the information or a format in which to provide it. B. OSHA Involvement in the Development of the GHS OSHA's HCS is designed to disseminate information on chemicals to users to precipitate changes in handling methods and thus protect those exposed to the chemical from experiencing adverse effects. Since the United States (U.S.) is both a major importer and exporter of chemicals, the manner in which the U.S. and other countries choose to regulate information dissemination on hazardous chemicals not only has an impact on the protection of employees in the U.S. but also may pose potential barriers to international trade in chemicals. To protect employees and members of the public who are potentially exposed to chemicals during their production, transportation, use, and disposal, a number of countries have developed laws that require information about those chemicals to be prepared and transmitted to affected parties. These laws vary with regard to the scope of chemicals covered, definitions of hazards, the specificity of requirements (e.g., specification of a format for safety data sheets), and the use of symbols and pictograms. The inconsistencies between the various laws are substantial enough that different labels and safety data sheets must often be developed for the same product when it is marketed in different nations. For example, Canada has established requirements for labels under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). WHMIS requires that labels include specified symbols within a defined circle. U.S. chemical manufacturers must label chemicals accordingly for marketing in Canada. Within the U.S., several regulatory authorities exercise jurisdiction over chemical hazard communication. In addition to OSHA's HCS, the Department of Transportation
(DOT)regulates chemicals in transport, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC)regulates consumer products, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)regulates pesticides, as well as having other authority over labeling under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Each of these regulatory authorities operates under different statutory mandates, and have adopted varying approaches to hazard communication requirements. The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard information effectively. For example, labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of information that important statements are not easily recognized. Given the differences in hazard classification criteria, labels may also be incorrect when used in other countries. This is particularly true with regard to workplace hazard communication in the U.S. Since the U.S. OSHA system is performance-oriented, labels meeting the specification requirements of other countries are often seen in the U.S. workplace. While there are no format requirements in the U.S. that are violated by these differing formats, the underlying hazard criteria from another country may be different and that could make the information on the labels out of compliance with the U.S. HCS. Development of multiple sets of labels and safety data sheets for each product when shipped to different countries is a major compliance burden for chemical manufacturers, distributors, and transporters involved in international trade. Small businesses may have particular difficulty in coping with the complexities and costs involved. When the HCS was first issued in 1983, the preamble included a commitment by OSHA to review the standard regularly to address international harmonization of hazard communication requirements. OSHA was asked to include this commitment in the final rule in recognition of an interagency trade policy that supported the U.S. pursuing international harmonization of requirements for chemical classification and labeling. The potential benefits of harmonization were noted in the preamble: * * * [O]SHA acknowledges the long-term benefit of maximum recognition of hazard warnings, especially in the case of containers leaving the workplace which go into interstate and international commerce. The development of internationally agreed standards would make possible the broadest recognition of the identified hazards while avoiding the creation of technical barriers to trade and reducing the costs of dissemination of hazard information by elimination of duplicative requirements which could otherwise apply to a chemical in commerce. As noted previously, these regulations will be reviewed on a regular basis with regard to similar requirements which may be evolving in the United States and in foreign countries. (48 FR 53287; November 25, 1983) OSHA was the only Federal agency that had a public commitment to pursue harmonization. We have actively participated in a number of such efforts in the years since that commitment was made, including participation in trade-related discussions on the need for harmonization with major U.S. trading partners. The Agency also issued a Request for Information
(RFI)in the **Federal Register** in January 1990, to obtain input regarding international harmonization efforts, and on work being done at that time to develop a convention and recommendation on safety in the use of chemicals at work in the International Labor Organization (55 FR 2166). Little progress was made regarding international harmonization until June 1992, when a mandate from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Chapter 19 of Agenda 21), supported by the U.S., called for development of a globally harmonized chemical classification and labeling system: A globally harmonized hazard classification and compatible labelling system, including material safety data sheets and easily understandable symbols, should be available, if feasible, by the year 2000. UNCED further noted that an internationally harmonized system for transport of dangerous goods was already available. However: * * * [G]lobally harmonized hazard classification and labelling systems are not yet available to promote the safe use of chemicals, *inter alia,* at the workplace or in the home. Classification of chemicals can be made for different purposes and is a particularly important tool in establishing labelling systems. There is a need to develop harmonized hazard classification and labelling systems, building on ongoing work. This international mandate initiated an extensive effort to develop the GHS. It involved numerous international organizations, many countries, and extensive stakeholder representation. The work was managed by the Coordinating Group on the Harmonization of Chemical Classification Systems, under the umbrella of the Interorganization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals. OSHA chaired the international coordinating group that managed the harmonization work. The technical work was divided among several international organizations. Development of criteria for health and environmental hazards, as well as mixture classification for chemicals having these hazards, was done under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Criteria for physical hazards were based on the already harmonized criteria for transportation, and developed by the United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the International Labor Organization. The overall management of the process, as well as the work on aspects of the system for communicating hazards on labels and safety data sheets, were done by the International Labor Organization. OSHA participated in all of this work, and took the U.S. lead on classification of mixtures and hazard communication. The negotiations were extensive and spanned a number of years. The primary approach involved identifying the relevant provisions in each of the major existing systems, developing background documents that compared, contrasted, and explained the rationale for such provisions, and undertaking negotiations to find an agreed approach that addressed the needs of the countries and stakeholders involved. The major existing systems were those of the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and the United Nations Recommendations for the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Principles to guide the work were established, including an agreement that protections of the existing systems were not to be reduced as a result of harmonization. Thus countries could be assured that the existing protections of their longstanding systems would be maintained or enhanced in the resulting harmonized approach. In the U.S., an interagency committee under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State coordinated the various agencies involved. In addition to the four core agencies that have requirements that are potentially impacted by the GHS, there were a number of other agencies involved that had interests related to trade or other aspects of the GHS process. Different agencies had the lead in various parts of the discussions. Positions for the U.S. in these negotiations were coordinated through the interagency committee. Interested stakeholders were kept informed through e-mail dissemination of information, as well as periodic public meetings. The U.S. Department of State also published a notice in the **Federal Register** that described the harmonization activities, the agencies involved, the principles of harmonization, and other information, as well as invited public comment on these issues (62 FR 15951; April 3, 1997). Stakeholders also actively participated themselves in the discussions in the international organizations and were able to present their views directly in the negotiating process. The product resulting from this effort, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), was formally adopted by the new United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in December 2002. In 2003, the adoption was endorsed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. While the GHS has been adopted, it is considered to be a living document that will be updated as necessary to reflect new technology and scientific developments, or provide additional explanatory text. OSHA expects to propose adoption of the 2005 version, Revision 1. Modifications to the GHS that are made after the GHS is adopted in the U.S. would require additional rulemaking. It should be noted that the GHS document consists of non-mandatory recommendations and explanatory text. It is not a model regulation or a standard that is to be adopted verbatim. Countries like the U.S., and agencies such as OSHA, will propose converting the recommendations into appropriate regulatory text consistent with national requirements while ensuring that the specific provisions are consistent with the GHS and thus harmonized. OSHA expects to propose modifying the HCS to address the changes in hazard criteria, adopt the specific labeling requirements, and adopt the SDS order of information. Other parts of the framework of the HCS (such as the coverage of articles, trade secrets, and scope) would likely remain the same. While the GHS text is available to everyone on the UN Web site, it will be the proposed rule to adopt the GHS that OSHA plans to issue rather than the detailed GHS document that will be of primary interest to U.S. stakeholders. To help those who are not familiar with the approach in the GHS, OSHA has prepared a guide that summarizes the GHS requirements, and it is available on our Web site (click on the Hazard Communication button on *http://www.osha.gov* ). In addition, the Agency also has a detailed comparison of the HCS to the GHS available on the Web site so that interested parties can review the types of changes that would need to be made for the current U.S. workplace requirements to be harmonized with the international approach. A review of these differences reveals that the primary impact of revising the HCS to adopt the GHS would be on compliance obligations for producers of hazardous chemicals. The modifications to the HCS would involve a review of the classifications of these chemicals, as well as preparation and distribution of new labels and revised safety data sheets. Employers who use chemicals, and exposed employees, would benefit from receiving the revised labels and safety data sheets prepared in a consistent format. The information should be easier to comprehend and access in the new approach, allowing it to be used more effectively for the protection of employees. The primary change in workplaces where chemicals are used but not produced will be to integrate the new approach into the workplace hazard communication program, including assuring that both the employers and employees understand the pictograms and other information provided on the chemicals. The GHS is now available for worldwide implementation, and countries have been encouraged to implement the GHS as soon as possible, with the goal of a fully operational system by 2008. This goal was adopted by countries in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety, as well as endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development. In addition, countries involved in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation have endorsed a goal of 2006. The U.S. participates in all of these international groups, and has agreed to working toward achieving these goals. The U.S. is also a member of both the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, as well as the Subcommittee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. These permanent UN bodies have international responsibility for maintaining, updating as necessary, and overseeing the implementation of the GHS. OSHA and other affected Federal agencies actively participate in these UN groups. In addition, OSHA, EPA and the U.S. State Department also participate in the GHS Programme Advisory Group that functions under the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). UNITAR is responsible internationally for helping countries implement the GHS, and has ongoing programs to prepare guidance documents, conduct regional workshops, and implement pilot projects in a number of interested nations. C. Other OSHA Activities Related to the GHS OSHA and the other three core agencies continue interagency discussions related to coordination of domestic implementation of the GHS, in addition to ongoing discussions and coordination related to international work to implement and maintain the GHS. OSHA also has ongoing activities related to the GHS under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) discussions on handling of hazardous substances, and in discussions with the European Union on issues related to the global management of chemicals. In addition, a number of organizations with whom OSHA has Alliances have expressed an interest in hazard communication, and in working together with each other on the subject. The Alliance program is a cooperative program that enables organizations committed to occupational safety and health to work with OSHA to prevent injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the workplace (click on the Alliances button on OSHA's home page for an explanation of the program and a list of participants). One of the issues they have identified to work together on is related to the GHS, and making the business case for GHS adoption, particularly for small businesses. OSHA has conducted a roundtable of Alliances interested in this topic, and will continue these meetings to get their input and work with them on products they identify as appropriate for development. Products under consideration include a document addressing frequently asked questions and the corresponding answers, as well as a document that addresses why the GHS is needed. D. Benefits of the GHS Development of this system required extensive work by a great number of people, and resources from many countries and organizations. The reason it received such support is that there is a widespread belief that there are significant benefits associated with implementation of a globally harmonized approach to hazard communication. Countries, international organizations, chemical producers and users of chemicals will all benefit. First and foremost, implementation of the GHS will enhance protection of people potentially exposed to chemicals and the environment. While some countries such as ours already have the benefits of protection under existing systems, the majority of countries do not have such comprehensive approaches. Thus implementation of the GHS will provide these countries with the important protections that result from dissemination of information about chemical hazards and protective measures. In our country, we expect that adoption of the GHS would improve and build on protections we already have. Refinement of the information provided would help improve comprehensibility and thus make it more likely that the information will result in workplace changes to protect employees. As has already been noted, the majority of affected employers and employees should benefit from adoption of the GHS through receipt of better, more standardized, and consistent information about chemicals in their workplaces. Secondly, implementation of such an approach would facilitate international trade in chemicals. It will reduce the burdens caused by having to comply with differing requirements for the same product, and allow companies that have not had the resources to deal with those burdens to be involved in international trade. This is particularly important for small producers who may be precluded currently from international trade because of the compliance resources required to address the extensive regulatory requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals. Third, one of the initial reasons this system was pursued internationally involved concerns about animal welfare and the proliferation of requirements for animal testing and evaluation. Where existing systems have different definitions of hazards, it often results in duplicative testing to produce data related to the varying levels of toxicity or cut-offs used to define the hazards in the different systems. Having one agreed definition will reduce this duplicative testing. It should be noted that OSHA has no testing requirements. The HCS is based on collecting and evaluating the best available evidence on the hazards of each chemical. Information transmittal systems provide the underlying infrastructure for the sound management of chemicals in a country. Those countries that do not have the resources to develop and maintain such a system can use the GHS to build their chemical safety and health programs. Unlike some other safety and health issues, a country's approach to the sound management of chemicals definitely affects other countries. In some cases, bordering countries may experience pollution and other effects of uncontrolled chemical exposures. In all countries, there is a need to acquire sufficient information to properly handle the chemical when it is imported from other countries. Thus having a coordinated and harmonized approach to the development and dissemination of information about chemicals will be mutually beneficial to both importing and exporting countries. In the U.S., the four primary regulatory agencies (OSHA, EPA, CPSC, and DOT) that would be responsible for GHS implementation are not domestically harmonized in terms of definitions of hazards and other requirements related to classification and labeling of chemicals. Thus, if all four agencies adopt the GHS, the U.S. would have the additional benefit of harmonizing the overall U.S. approach to classification and labeling. Since most chemicals are produced in a workplace and shipped elsewhere, every manufacturer deals with at least two of the U.S. systems. Thus every producer is likely to experience some benefits from domestic harmonization, in addition to the benefits that will accrue to producers involved in international trade. OSHA believes that adoption of the GHS could also address some of the issues that have been discussed in the U.S. regarding the HCS and its implementation, such as improving labels and SDS comprehensibility through implementation of a standardized approach. The current regulatory system includes a performance-oriented approach to labels and SDSs, allowing the producers to use whatever language or format they choose to provide the necessary information. This often results in a lack of consistency that makes it difficult for some users of chemicals to properly identify the hazards and the protective measures, particularly when purchasing the same product from multiple suppliers. Having the information provided in the same words and pictograms on labels, as well as having a standardized order of information on SDSs, would help all users identify the critical information necessary to protect employees. E. State Plan States If Federal OSHA promulgates a final rule amending its HCS in response to the GHS, the 26 States and U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans would be required to revise their standards to reflect the new amendment within six months of Federal promulgation. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). A revised State hazard communication standard must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local government employees) sectors. Some States may have statutory provisions that would require amendment in order to conform to a revised Federal HCS. Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act requires that State standards applicable to products distributed or used in interstate commerce, if not identical to the Federal standard, must be required by compelling local conditions and must not unduly burden interstate commerce, in addition to being “at least as effective” as the Federal standard. The amended HCS, like the original standard, would be ‘applicable to products’ in the sense that it would permit the distribution and use of hazardous chemicals in commerce only if they are in labeled containers accompanied by safety data sheets[.]” 48 FR 53280, 53323, November 25, 1983. In order to assure that State standards do not pose an undue burden on interstate commerce, and to advance the goals of the GHS, OSHA would expect to closely scrutinize resultant State standards to assure not only equal or greater effectiveness, but also that any different or additional requirements do not conflict with, or adversely affect, the effectiveness of the national application of OSHA's standard. II. Provisions of OSHA's HCS and the GHS A. Scope of the GHS The GHS covers chemicals in various stages of their life cycle, from production to disposal. It is based primarily on the hazards of chemicals. The GHS is designed to allow regulatory authorities to choose provisions that are appropriate to their particular scope of regulation. This is referred to as the “building block approach.” The GHS includes all of the building blocks or possible regulatory components that might be needed for classification and labeling requirements in the workplace as well as for regulation of classification and labeling of pesticides, chemicals in transport, and consumer products. Therefore, regulatory authorities such as OSHA would choose the provisions of the GHS that are necessary for the protection of employees, but would not adopt others that address other types of protection. For example, the GHS includes harmonized criteria for classifying chemicals for aquatic toxicity. Since OSHA does not have the regulatory authority to address environmental concerns, OSHA would not adopt the GHS criteria for aquatic toxicity. It is expected that other U.S. agencies that regulate environmental issues will consider adopting this definition. Similarly, the GHS safety data sheet format includes a section that addresses environmental information. OSHA would not require inclusion of environmental information for SDSs used in workplaces. The building block approach may also be applied in other ways when deciding which parts of the system to adopt. For example, the GHS includes classification criteria, labels, and SDSs. While workplace authorities such as OSHA are likely to adopt all of these elements, it is expected that consumer product authorities will not have SDS requirements, nor will transport authorities. The building block approach may also be applied to the criteria for defining hazards. For example, the acute toxicity criteria are much broader than those we currently have in the HCS for workplace exposures. This is to allow consumer product authorities the tools they need to address the protection of children who might accidentally be exposed. OSHA would not need to adopt all of the categories of acute toxicity in order to protect employees from the types of exposures they may have. In addition to the building block approach, the GHS also contains a number of areas that are left to the competent authority to determine how to apply the provision. Where OSHA is the competent authority, i.e., in terms of workplace protections in the U.S., the Agency expects to maintain its current approaches in terms of interpretations and accommodations regarding application. These approaches are based on the rulemaking record, as well as implementation experiences in the U.S., and have been determined to be an appropriate application. For example, the scope and application provisions in the GHS address the interface of the OSHA requirements to requirements in other agencies that address the same products. These scope interpretations are expected to be the same if OSHA adopts the GHS. Overall, the scope of the GHS with regard to chemicals covered, as well as types of chemicals and workplaces that are covered, is very similar to the HCS. The HCS has a very broad scope of coverage, ensuring that information is provided on all potential hazards in American workplaces. Adoption of the GHS should maintain this broad coverage of hazards and chemicals. It should be noted that the GHS, like the HCS, does not require any new testing of chemicals. Evaluations of chemical hazards are to be based on the best available evidence. As has been described above, the HCS consists of requirements for defining health and physical hazards, preparing a written hazard communication program, preparing and distributing labels on containers that are shipped as well as containers in the workplace, preparing and distributing safety data sheets for all hazardous chemicals, and employee training. The GHS addresses classification of health and physical hazards, and preparation and distribution of labels and safety data sheets. It does not include requirements for a written hazard communication program or for employee training. Training is noted in the GHS as an important adjunct to label and safety data sheet requirements, but the harmonization process did not include such provisions. Countries are thus free to determine what training will be applicable in their own regulatory approach. OSHA believes that training is critical to ensuring the effectiveness of hazard communication, and anticipates maintaining current HCS requirements that training be part of a hazard communication program. OSHA also expects to propose some additional training to ensure understanding of the new approach regarding labels and SDSs in the GHS. B. Definitions of Hazards Covered The HCS covers a broad range of both health and physical hazards. The standard is performance-oriented, providing definitions of hazards and parameters for evaluating the best available evidence to determine whether a chemical has a hazardous effect under the standard. In particular, with regard to health hazards, one toxicological study, conducted according to established scientific principles and reporting a statistically significant adverse health effect, is sufficient for a finding of hazard under the rule. The principle behind the standard is that it is to address dissemination of information, and thus complete information about all of the potential hazards should be disseminated to ensure that employers and employees can make appropriate decisions about the level of protection required in their particular workplaces. Hazard information, in combination with information about the exposures occurring in each workplace, allows decisions to be made by employers regarding the appropriate risk management to implement based on the specific conditions in their workplace. Chemical manufacturers and importers do not have information about the exposures to their products in each workplace where their product may be used, so they must prepare their labels and safety data sheets based on the hazards of the chemicals. C. Health Hazards The HCS thus covers every type of health effect that may occur, including both acute and chronic effects. The standard describes different systems of the body and indicates that target organ effects are to be considered in the hazard evaluation. The definitions provided are indicative of the wide range of coverage, but are not exclusive. Any type of adverse health effect that is reported and substantiated by a scientific study is covered. The standard specifically includes the following in the definition of “health hazard”: Carcinogens Toxic or highly toxic agents (all routes of entry) Reproductive toxins Irritants Corrosives Sensitizers Hepatotoxins Nephrotoxins Neurotoxins Agents which act on the hematopoietic system Agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes The GHS also has a very broad approach to the range of health effects covered: Acute toxicity (any route of entry) Skin corrosion/irritation Serious eye damage/eye irritation Respiratory or skin sensitizer Germ cell mutagenicity Carcinogenicity Reproductive toxicity Specific target organ systemic toxicity—single exposure Specific target organ systemic toxicity—repeated use Aspiration hazard Under the GHS, each hazard or endpoint as listed above is considered to be a hazard class. The classes are generally sub-divided into categories of hazard. The definitions of hazards are much more specific and detailed than what is in the HCS. For example, under the HCS, a chemical is either a potential carcinogen or it is not. The evaluation is a yes or no response. Under the GHS, there are two categories of carcinogenicity, based on the weight of the evidence involved. The hazard communication consequences of this classification also vary as a result for each category in a hazard class. The hazard communication elements allocated to each category reflect the degree of severity of the hazard. There are advantages to this more specific and delineated approach. First, the detailed criteria for classification should lead to more accurate hazard determinations and more consistency among multiple classifiers. There is less likely to be room for different interpretations of the same data. This addresses some of the concerns that have been raised about the HCS. In addition, introducing categories gives an indication of the degree of severity of the hazard. This is helpful to employers and employees determining what the appropriate course of action should be when exposures to the chemical occur. There may be some changes in what the hazard of certain chemicals is determined to be based on a consideration of the data available on a chemical in light of these new criteria. It is expected that chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to re-evaluate their chemicals according to the GHS criteria. But given the current broad nature of the HCS, it is not expected that the number of chemicals covered would change in any significant way. The most likely difference would be that the chemical may be characterized in categories for certain hazards based on the weight of the evidence. With regard to mixtures of chemicals, the HCS requires the evaluation of mixtures to be based either on data for the mixture as a whole, or, where that is not available, the mixture's health hazards are to be based on the presence of ingredients with health hazards over a specified percentage. That percentage is 0.1% for carcinogens, and 1.0% for all other types of health effects. The HCS also recognizes that risk may remain below these cut-offs, and where there is evidence that is the case, the mixtures are still covered. The GHS has what has been described as a tiered approach to mixture evaluation. The first step is consideration of data on the mixture as a whole, similar to the HCS. The second step allows the use of “bridging principles” to estimate the hazards of the mixture based on information about its components. For example, if a chemical is considered to be acutely toxic, but it is diluted with something that is not toxic, the GHS allows the employer to take the dilution into consideration when evaluating the hazards of the product rather than simply basing it on a percentage cut-off approach like the HCS. This extrapolation of data will mean that fewer mixtures will be evaluated on the basis of the presence of a chemical above a specific cut-off. The third part of the tiered approach does involve cut-offs, but they vary by the type of effect. In particular, for acute effects, there is a formula for determining whether the mixture is considered to be toxic. The formula is based to some extent on one that is currently used in transport. Overall, the approach is generally consistent with the current HCS requirements, but provides more detail and specification and allows more extrapolation of data available on the components of a mixture—particularly for acute effects. It is thus more complicated than the approach in the HCS, and it is likely that additional guidance, particularly electronic tools, may need to be made available to assist with compliance. As a result of these differences in health hazard criteria and the accompanying approaches to classifying mixtures, another provision of the standard that is potentially impacted by adoption of the GHS is the process of hazard determination. Under the current rule, this process is performance-oriented, allowing for a significant degree of professional judgment on the part of the hazard evaluator. No specific procedures are provided, but there are certain parameters established. The scientific literature must be reviewed, and if there is at least one toxicological study, conducted according to established scientific principles, and providing statistically significant results indicating an adverse health effect, this hazard must be disclosed under the HCS. The HCS also includes references to sources of information that were identified in the rulemaking record as one basis for making an initial determination of hazard. Among these listed sources are OSHA's substance-specific standards (those chemicals for which OSHA has promulgated a permissible exposure limit
(PEL)in Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC)monographs, and the National Toxicology Program
(NTP)list of carcinogens. These sources provide employers a list of hazardous chemicals. However, manufacturers and importers are still required to review the available information to determine specifically what the hazards of these chemicals are, and to disclose them on labels and safety data sheets. The GHS provides much more specific criteria for defining health hazards than the HCS does. If OSHA adopts the GHS, these more specific criteria will be part of the HCS. This will eliminate the need for a specific listing of hazardous chemicals as part of the hazard determination procedures. Chemical manufacturers and importers are much more likely to make consistent hazard determination evaluations following the specific criteria in the GHS, thus addressing the concerns that led to the inclusion of lists in the original Hazard Communication Standard. References to the chemicals for which there are ACGIH TLVs, and those chemicals addressed in IARC Monographs and the NTP lists, would no longer be specifically addressed in the HCS. Chemical manufacturers and importers would retain the responsibility for evaluating all relevant data on the chemicals they produce or import. Similarly, the provisions for disclosing the hazardous ingredients of mixtures under the GHS are much more detailed than the HCS. The simple across-the-board cut-offs for all types of hazards would no longer be part of the rule if it is changed to adopt the GHS. Modifying the HCS to align with the GHS would also eliminate the current references to ACGIH TLVs as part of the mixture provisions. D. Physical Hazards With regard to physical hazards, the current definitions in the HCS are drawn from other standards we have that address such chemicals ( *e.g.* , flammable chemicals), or from what were the DOT criteria for physical hazards at the time OSHA promulgated the HCS. OSHA includes definitions for the following physical hazards in the HCS: Combustible liquid Compressed gas Explosive Flammable (aerosol, gas, liquid, solid) Organic peroxide Oxidizer Pyrophoric Unstable (reactive) Water-reactive The GHS includes criteria for the following physical hazards: Explosives Flammable (aerosol, gas, liquid (including combustible liquid), solid) Oxidizing (liquids, solids, gases) Gases under pressure Self-reactive substances and mixtures Pyrophoric (liquid, solid) Self-heating substances and mixtures Substances and mixtures which in contact with water emit flammable gases Organic peroxide Corrosive to metals DOT subsequently changed their criteria to be consistent with the international transport requirements. The international transport requirements for classification of physical hazards have now been incorporated into the GHS. While DOT must make a few changes to be consistent with the GHS, their requirements are mostly already the same. OSHA is not harmonized with current DOT requirements. Changing the HCS to adopt the GHS criteria would also ensure that DOT and OSHA requirements are consistent. This is an important improvement in the current situation where the outside of a truck may be placarded with a different hazard than the workplace labels convey on the containers inside the truck. Again, chemical manufacturers and importers would have to re-evaluate their chemicals according to the new criteria in order to ensure they are classified appropriately. However, if they are chemicals that are transported, *i.e.* , not produced and used in the same workplace, this classification should largely be done already for purposes of complying with DOT's existing transport provisions. This should minimize the additional work required to review the physical hazard classifications to be consistent with the GHS for purposes of workplace classification and labeling. One issue of concern is whether OSHA should also propose to change the physical hazard definitions in other standards when it proposes to change the HCS criteria to be consistent with the GHS. For example, if the HCS definitions are changed with regard to the definition of flammable liquids, there is a concern as to whether definitions in the flammable liquids standard need to be changed as well, and what the impact of this would be beyond classification and labeling. This is one of the areas that needs to be further explored in terms of impact and possible consequences. E. Labels The HCS requirements for labels simply indicate the minimal information required to be on them. At the time the standard was promulgated, OSHA reviewed the current industry consensus standards for labels, and basically focused on requiring information that was not generally present on most labels in use by industry. The additional information included an identity that could be traced to more detailed information, and specific information about both the health and physical hazards. In particular, OSHA did not consider a label statement indicating possible harm but no specific health effect to be a sufficient hazard communication. Other types of information such as precautionary statements were not included in the requirements. This performance-oriented approach was strongly supported by the chemical industry at the time the standard was adopted. Taking such an approach allowed existing labels to continue to be used in many situations, thus minimizing the impact on a number of producers. However, it also has resulted in labels that are not consistent, and may not communicate adequately to users. While some producers follow voluntary industry consensus standards, others do not. Many large companies have developed their own libraries of phrases to be used on labels and safety data sheets, and undertaken translation of them into multiple languages. This is a considerable burden for a company to develop and maintain. Other major existing systems considered in the harmonization process included specific label phrases to convey hazards and other information. Symbols and pictograms were also part of these systems. For purposes of developing an agreed harmonized approach, it was thus necessary to consider including such elements in the GHS. For each class and category of hazard under the GHS that OSHA is considering adopting, there is a harmonized hazard statement, a signal word, and a pictogram specified. This is referred to as the core information for a chemical. Thus once an employer classifies a chemical, the GHS provides the specific core information to convey to users on that chemical. There are provisions to allow supplementary information as well so the chemical manufacturer is not limited to the specified core information. This should address product liability concerns for U.S. employers and ensure they can include other information they consider to be necessary for that purpose. Precautionary statements are also provided as examples in the GHS, but they have not yet been agreed and harmonized. This is expected to occur in the future as work on the system continues. Figure 1 is an example of how the core labeling elements (harmonized hazard statement, signal word, and pictogram) are assigned in one hazard class covered under the GHS. These labeling provisions will likely be the biggest difference between the HCS and the GHS. There are benefits to this standardized approach. First, employers and employees will be given the same information on a chemical regardless of the supplier. This consistency will improve communication of the hazards. It may also improve communication for those who are not functionally literate, or who are not literate in the language written on the label. Literacy of both types is a significant concern in American workplaces. Secondly, having the core information developed already, translated into multiple languages, and readily available to whomever wishes to access it, will eliminate the burden of chemical manufacturers and importers developing and maintaining their own such systems. Thus the specification approach should be beneficial both to the producers and the users of chemicals. EP12SE06.019 United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, First Revised Edition, 2005, Annex I. Diamond frames for pictograms in the top row are red. The use of symbols and pictograms will require some training and familiarization to be effective. One of the issues OSHA is considering is whether generic training on this aspect of the GHS can be developed and made available to employers and employees. There is another significant benefit that will be achieved by adopting a system that has harmonized hazard statements in it. “Control banding,” a guidance approach to recommending control measures for chemical exposures, is attracting significant attention around the world. The approach uses information that is readily available to small and medium-sized employers with chemicals in their workplaces to provide them with workplace-specific control recommendations. Basically, the system uses such information to estimate the degree of severity of the hazard and the amount of chemical present, and relates that to the degree of control needed. The control banding approach relies on harmonized hazard statements to allow the system to estimate the degree of severity of the hazard. Initially based on the European hazard classification system, it has now been converted to the GHS phrases. The use of control banding to provide guidance for chemical safety and health approaches in U.S. workplaces cannot be accomplished until harmonized hazard statements are readily available. Adoption of the GHS and its phrases would open up the possibility that control banding guidance can be used in the U.S. to help small and medium-sized employers select and implement appropriate control measures. In addition, the possibility of addressing control banding recommendations in GHS SDSs in the section on controls is also being explored. For more information on control banding, please see *http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/.* F. Safety Data Sheets Under the HCS, the SDS is the detailed reference source on the chemical. While labels provide a quick snapshot to remind employers and employees of the hazards of the chemical, the SDS addresses all aspects of hazard information as well as methods for handling and use. The HCS specifies what information must be included on the SDS, but does not specify a format or order of information. Again, this approach was supported by producers to minimize the impact of the standard for those who already developed and disseminated SDSs. Currently, safety data sheets under the HCS are required to include: Identification of the chemical or hazardous ingredients of a mixture Physical and chemical characteristics Health hazards, including signs, symptoms, and medical conditions that could be aggravated by exposure The primary routes of entry The OSHA permissible exposure limit, ACGIH Threshold Limit Value, and any other recommended exposure limits Whether the chemical is considered to be a carcinogen by OSHA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or the National Toxicology Program Precautions for safe handling and use Control measures Emergency and first aid procedures Date of preparation of the safety data sheet Contact information for the responsible party Users of chemicals have always preferred a standardized approach. Many believe that having the information in the same place on every data sheet allows them to access it more effectively. OSHA published a request for information regarding ways to improve the information provided under the HCS (55 FR 20580; May 17, 1990), and received around 600 comments in response. The majority of them were in favor of a standardized format or order of information. As a result of the users' expressed preferences, chemical manufacturers in the U.S. developed a voluntary industry consensus standard that included an order of information for safety data sheets (ANSI Z400.1). This approach was later adopted into international voluntary industry consensus standards as well. The HCS allows any format to be used, so many producers have been following the consensus standard order of information for some years. In negotiating the GHS, it was decided that this format should be adopted there as well. One change was made, reversing the order of sections 2 and 3 so the hazard information appeared earlier in the sheet than information on chemical composition. Both the national and international industry consensus standards are being changed to be consistent with this approach. The GHS data sheet is to include the following in this order: Identification Hazard identification Composition/information on ingredients First aid measures Firefighting measures Accidental release measures Handling and storage Exposure controls/personal protection Physical and chemical properties Stability and reactivity Toxicological information Ecological information Disposal considerations Transport information Regulatory information Other information Having a standardized order of information should improve comprehensibility, which has been a continuing issue with regard to safety data sheets. It should also make it easier for chemical producers to comply by providing them with a template to follow. Using the industry consensus standards should also minimize the burden of preparing new safety data sheets since many chemical producers already use the format specified. While the GHS safety data sheet does not address exposure limits in the titles of the sections, guidance on what should be included indicates that occupational exposure limits would be addressed under the “exposure controls” section. Countries may choose what to require in these sections in terms of occupational exposure limits, but it is anticipated that OSHA would require the PELs to be included. Under the auspices of the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a series of over 1300 international chemical safety cards has been developed and translated into 14 languages. These cards are developed and peer reviewed by participating institutions in a number of countries, including the U.S. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is undertaking this work. The cards are similar to SDSs in terms of the information provided, but they are in a concise format of two pages. The cards are going to be updated to reflect the GHS criteria and hazard information. They may be found on NIOSH's Web page at: *http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcs/nicstart.html* OSHA also has a link to them on our hazard communication page. These cards are an excellent resource for many of the most common chemicals found in the workplace. When updated to be GHS-consistent, they will also be a useful resource for GHS compliance and for implementation of control banding. As mentioned earlier, there is information required on a GHS SDS that is outside OSHA's jurisdiction to regulate. This includes environmental and transport information. We do not intend to propose requiring it on safety data sheets, but will provide information about the provisions so chemical producers can include it if they wish to be completely consistent with the GHS. OSHA does not preclude such information being on a safety data sheet, but will not review or enforce such provisions. III. Public Resources for Further Information on the GHS OSHA has a safety and health topic page on hazard communication available as part of our Web site. There is a hazard communication button on the Agency's home page ( *http://www.osha.gov* ) that leads to a portal page on the topic, including a box on the GHS. There is a page devoted to the GHS that is reached through clicking on this box. It gives additional background information, and has links to the GHS official text, Web pages of other U.S. agencies, international organizations, and countries involved in GHS implementation. As noted earlier, a substantive guide to the GHS is available on this page to describe the system in more detail for those who are interested. There is also a detailed comparison of the HCS to the GHS that notes the areas of difference that would have to be addressed in adopting the GHS. IV. Request for Input In order to prepare for rulemaking proposing adoption of the GHS and modification of the HCS to accomplish that, OSHA is seeking input from the public on a number of issues related to implementation. This information will be used by OSHA to prepare cost analyses and other documents required to support the rulemaking. These requests are divided into several categories of information below. Please provide comments, evidence, data, and other input for those categories that affect you or for which you have relevant information. The details for submitting this information are specified in Section V. *Current situation* . Modifying the HCS to adopt the GHS would have the greatest impact on chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers who produce or distribute hazardous chemicals as currently covered under the HCS. In order to be harmonized, the hazard classifications of each product will need to be reviewed according to the classification criteria of the GHS, and new labels and safety data sheets will have to be prepared. 1. How many hazardous chemicals as defined by the HCS do you produce, import or distribute? How many hazardous chemicals do you export? How many different labels or data sheets do you need to prepare for each chemical you export? 2. Who is responsible for reviewing the data on chemicals and preparing appropriate labels and safety data sheets? What is their professional background? Do you make independent determinations or rely largely on labels or data sheets developed by others (suppliers, materials available on the Internet, etc.)? 3. How long does it take on average for each hazardous chemical to complete the review and prepare new labels and safety data sheets? How much does it cost for each chemical product? Please break down the cost for the classification, preparation of a new label, and revision of a safety data sheet. 4. Would the time required to prepare a GHS SDS be more, less, or about the same as currently required for preparing an SDS? What time and costs would be required to convert existing SDSs to the GHS format? Would the costs depend on the amount of time allowed for the conversion process? 5. Please describe any electronic tools you have to assist with this process, such as systems that classify chemicals or prepare labels or safety data sheets. How long would it take to update those systems to make them GHS-consistent? 6. How many of your employees receive hazard communication training? How many hours of training at what frequency (on hire, annually, as needed, etc.)? How long would it take to teach employees to recognize GHS pictograms? Would more standardized labels and SDSs make it easier to use the available hazard communication information? 7. What savings will you incur when you only have to classify a chemical once instead of multiple times depending on how many agencies and countries are involved? What other benefits do you anticipate? *Timing* . As has been noted, the international goal is for as many countries as possible to adopt the GHS by 2008. Since OSHA has longstanding requirements for labels and safety data sheets, the Agency expects to allow a significant phase-in period for compliance in order to give people sufficient time to review their classifications and amend them as necessary, and subsequently revise labels and safety data sheets to reflect the new requirements. It seems probable at this point that the revised requirements could potentially be in place by 2008, but the phase-in period for compliance may have to extend beyond that time period. 8. What is a reasonable time period for phasing in the modifications? Should the phasing be done by size of business? Are there any other factors that should be considered to differentiate the phasing? 9. What is the normal cycle for updating labels and safety data sheets? 10. Do you have stockpiles of product that are already labeled? How long will those stockpiles last? 11. Do you have any other information or data that would help OSHA determine the appropriate phasing in of the new requirements or other issues related to timing? *Technical issues* . As discussed, the scope of hazards covered by the GHS is similar to that of the HCS. OSHA anticipates adopting all of the health and physical hazard criteria in the GHS. Definitions in the HCS will need to be the same as the GHS in order to be harmonized. However, there are some determinations that are left to countries to decide in terms of whether all categories and all hazards are adopted. 12. Are there any health or physical hazards that are currently covered by the HCS that you think are not adequately addressed in the GHS criteria? What are they and why do you think they are not adequately addressed? Are there any health or physical hazards that aren't covered in either the HCS or the GHS that should be added? 13. In addition to references to hazardous chemicals with OSHA PELs, should OSHA propose to include any other listing of hazardous chemicals when aligning the hazard determination provisions of the HCS to the GHS? Should OSHA propose that the mixture provisions only reference exceeding the OSHA PEL when revised to adopt the GHS? Should OSHA propose deleting the requirement that the ACGIH TLV be included on the SDS when the requirements are changed to be consistent with the GHS? Should other recommended exposure limits be included on the SDS? 14. Within the health hazard criteria, are there any categories of hazard that should not be adopted in the HCS? For example, should OSHA adopt all of the categories addressed in the acute toxicity criteria? If not, what categories would be appropriate to address anticipated workplace exposures? 15. If OSHA changes the HCS to adopt the physical hazard criteria, how will that impact other OSHA standards that use the same criteria as the HCS? Does OSHA need to change those criteria at the same time the HCS is changed? Storage and handling requirements for flammable liquids are one example that has been identified as a potential problem if different definitions apply, and information on a safety data sheet is linked to the definition in the HCS but not consistent with other definitions. 16. Are there any other technical issues that need to be considered in adopting the GHS? Please explain. *Compliance Assistance and Outreach* . OSHA is interested in getting input on the types of materials or products that would assist employers in understanding whatever modifications OSHA makes to the HCS to adopt the GHS, and to help them achieve compliance. To this end, we would like to get input now on the types of outreach that would be most helpful. As has been noted, there are some explanatory documents that are already available on OSHA's Web site. 17. What products would be most useful to employers? Employees? Do you prefer paper publications? Electronic tools? 18. What subjects would be of most interest? Classification criteria and procedures for substances and mixtures? Labels? Safety data sheets? 19. What is the best way to distribute the materials to reach affected employers and employees? 20. Are there any types of materials that would be especially appropriate for small businesses? Most small businesses would be users of chemicals, rather than producers, so they will be receiving labels and safety data sheets prepared according to the new approach. Are there training materials that would be helpful to learn or teach about the new approach? In particular, would training on symbols or pictograms be of use? V. Public Participation You may submit comments in response to this document by
(1)hard copy,
(2)fax transmission (facsimile), or
(3)electronically through the OSHA Web page or the Federal Rulemaking Portal. Because of security-related problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service. All comments and submissions are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are available at *http://www.osha.gov* (click on “Dockets & E-Comments”). OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birth dates. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available on OSHA's Web page. VI. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary's Order 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Issued at Washington, DC, this 6th day of September 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 06-7584 Filed 9-7-06; 9:37 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
8 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 665
  • 6 CFR 5
  • Pub. L. 107-296
  • 116 Stat. 2135
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 27 CFR 9
  • 27 CFR 4
  • 29 CFR 1911
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 1801
U.S.C.§ 101
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 552a
C.F.R.§ 21.29
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
Cite50 CFR 665
Cite6 CFR 5
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-296
Cites 26 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.