Notices. Request for comments

4,555 words·~21 min read·/register/2007/07/10/07-3366·

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

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0024] RIN 1218-AC 23 Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the Methylene Chloride Standard AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)is conducting a review of its Methylene Chloride Standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. In 1997, OSHA promulgated the Standard to protect workers from occupational exposure to methylene chloride. The purpose of this review is to determine whether there are ways to modify this Standard to reduce regulatory burden on small business and to improve its effectiveness. Written comments on these and other relevant issues are welcomed. DATES: Written comments to OSHA must be sent or postmarked by October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions. Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger and courier service:* You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0024, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., Eastern Time. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking, (OSHA-2007-0024). Submissions are placed in the public docket without change and may be available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, do not include private materials such as social security numbers. *Docket:* To read or download submissions or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone

(202)693-1939, Fax

(202)693-1641. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background OSHA adopted the first Methylene Chloride

(MC)Standard in 1971 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the OSHA Act, 29 U.S.C. 655, from an existing Walsh-Healy Federal Standard. The original MC Standard was intended to protect workers from injury to the neurological system and from irritation. It required employers to ensure that employee exposure did not exceed 500 parts per million

(ppm)as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA), 1,000 ppm as a ceiling concentration, and 2,000 ppm as a maximum peak for a person not to exceed five minutes in any two hours (29 CFR 2920.1000, Table Z-2). In February 1985, the National Toxicology Program reported the results of animal testing studies indicating that MC is a potential cancer causing agent. In July 1985, several unions petitioned OSHA to reduce worker exposure to MC. In response, OSHA agreed to commence development of a permanent standard, issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 24, 1986 (51 FR 42257). Based on its review of human and animal data, OSHA determined that the existing permissible exposure limit

(PEL)for MC did not adequately protect employee health, and on November 7, 1991, OSHA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)to address the significant risk of MC induced health effects (56 FR 57036). OSHA also presented the proposal to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). Based on input from ACCSH, OSHA issued a supplemental notice (57 FR 36964, August 17, 1992) which raised the MC use, exposure, and control issues specific to the construction industry. OSHA conducted informal public hearings in 1992, reopened the record in 1994 for comments to address engineering controls and carcinogenicity issues, and reopened the record again in 1995 to request public input on the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance studies addressing the use of animal data to estimate human cancer risk from MC. On January 10, 1997, OSHA promulgated the Methylene Chloride

(MC)Standard as 29 CFR 1910.1052 (62 FR 1494). OSHA concluded that MC exposure created a significant risk of cancer and that 25 ppm was the lowest feasible level. There is extensive discussion of these issues and risk assessment issues in the final preamble. The Standard covers occupational exposures to MC in all workplaces in general industry, shipyard employment, and construction. Employers are required to ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of MC in excess of 25 ppm as an 8-hour TWA, or short-term exposure limit

(STEL)in excess of 125 ppm during a sampling period of 15 minutes. The action level for a concentration of airborne MC is 12.5 ppm calculated as an 8-hour TWA. Reaching or exceeding the action level signals that the employer must begin compliance activities, such as exposure monitoring and medical surveillance. The Standard also requires the establishment of a regulated area and procedures for determining employee exposure to MC. The employer is required to notify employees of monitoring results and to allow employees or their designated representative to observe monitoring. Employers also must establish a medical surveillance program for employees exposed to MC. The Standard provides specific requirements depending on the nature of the exposure and health status of the employee. If a medical professional determines that exposure to MC may aggravate or contribute to an employee's existing skin, heart, liver, or neurological disease, the Standard provides for temporary medical removal and protection of benefits during removal. The Standard provides that employers must control exposures to MC to the PEL or below using engineering controls and work practices as the primary methods, unless the employer can demonstrate that these controls are infeasible. In these cases, respirators are permitted in combination with engineering controls and work practices. The Standard also provides minimum requirements for respiratory protection. However, air filtration respirators are not very effective for MC. Finally, the Standard includes requirements for protective clothing and equipment, maintaining records of exposure measurements and medical surveillance, providing information and training to employees, and providing facilities for washing MC off of persons or clothing. The Standard had phased-in start-up dates commencing on April 10, 1997. In response to petitions, OSHA delayed until August 31, 1998 the requirement to use respirators to achieve the PEL and to December 10, 1998 the requirement to achieve the PEL and STEL through engineering controls. Methylene chloride is a powerful solvent with a number of uses. Major uses include metal degreasing and aircraft paint removal. It is used to strip finishes from furniture prior to refinishing, a use carried out by very small businesses. MC is used in the manufacturing of some plastics, adhesives, inks, and ink solvents. It also is used as the expansion agent in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam, and to manufacture polycarbonates. Another major, but diminishing, use is in the manufacture of film base. Other uses of MC are as an aerosol in spray cans, as a cleaning agent for semiconductors, and in the manufacture of some pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Regulatory Review OSHA is reviewing the MC Standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct 4, 1993). The purpose of a review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act: “(S)hall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.” “[T]he agency shall consider the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the rule;

(2)The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;

(3)The complexity of the rule;

(4)The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and

(5)The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.” The review requirements of Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 require agencies: “To reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, their families, their communities, their state, local and tribal governments, and their industries; to determine whether regulations promulgated by the [Agency] have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances; to confirm that regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate; to ensure that all regulations are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive Order, within applicable law; and to otherwise improve the effectiveness of existing regulations.” Requests for Comments An important step in the review process involves the gathering and analysis of information from affected persons about their experience with the rule and any material changes in circumstances since issuance of the rule. This notice requests written comments on the continuing need for the MC Standard, its small business impacts, its effectiveness in protecting workers and all other issues raised by Section 610 of the Act and Section 5 of the Executive Order. It would be particularly helpful for commenters to suggest how the applicability or requirements could be changed or tailored to reduce the burden on employers while maintaining employee protection. Comments concerning the following subjects also would assist the Agency in determining whether to retain the Standard unchanged, to initiate rulemaking for purposes of revision or rescission, and/or to develop improved compliance assistance. New Developments and Compliance 1. Do any provisions of the MC Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1052, such as medical surveillance or respiratory protection, need to be updated as a result of recent technological or scientific developments? 2. In cases where firms fail to comply with the MC Standard, is non-compliance more commonly the result of

(1)a lack of information (e.g. about the dangers or the requirements),

(2)inadequate supervision,

(3)cost pressures, or

(4)other factors? How could OSHA encourage improved compliance? 3. Are OSHA's MC requirements known to all firms that use MC, including small firms and firms that use MC only occasionally? How could awareness be increased for such firms? 4. Have better respirator filters been developed for MC? Are there actions OSHA or NIOSH could take to encourage the development of better filters? 5. Have safer alternatives been developed for high exposure uses such as foam blowing? 6. Have small furniture refinishers implemented the low cost engineering controls developed by NIOSH? Are there ways OSHA could improve outreach to these small businesses? 7. Have new studies been completed since 1996 on the health effects of MC? Costs and Impacts 8. How many employees are exposed to MC, generally, or in your business; what are current exposures, and how much have they been reduced since 1996? Please provide data. 9. Does any part of the MC Standard impose an unnecessary or disproportionate burden to small businesses, or to industry in general? How might OSHA modify the MC requirements to reduce costs without jeopardizing protections to workers? 10. How much does it cost annually to comply with specific provisions of the MC Standard (e.g., exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, etc.)? Provide data if possible. 11. How have changes in technology, the economy, or other factors affected the amount of MC used, the use of substitutes, and compliance costs associated with the MC Standard since 1997? Clarity/Duplication 12. Are any provisions of the MC Standard unclear, needlessly complex, or duplicative? 13. Have standards relating to MC issued by OSHA, EPA, other Federal agencies, or States caused overlap problems. If so, how could these issues be addressed to reduce the burden on industry without reducing worker protection? Comments must be submitted by October 9, 2007. Comments should be submitted to the addresses and in the manner specified at the beginning of the notice. Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. It is issued under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4 1993). Signed at Washington, DC on July 2, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-13208 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P 72 131 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 3, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(FSIS)has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act

(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq* ). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS is requiring that official establishments that produce certain ready-to-eat

(RTE)meat and poultry products to take measures to prevent product adulteration by the pathogenic environmental contaminant *Listeria monocytogenes.* The regulations (9 CFR 430.4) particularly affect establishments that produce RTE meat and poultry products that are exposed to the environment after lethality treatments and that support the growth of *Listeria monocytogenes.* Establishments must employ one of four distinct methods found in the regulations. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSIS will information from establishment's information on the production volume of RTE products affected by the regulations and the control measures used by the establishments. The establishment must also provide an estimate of production volume by product type and regulatory control method used for the upcoming year. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 3,590. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 30,173. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13317 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 3, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service *Title:* Health Certificate/Export Certificate—Animal Products. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0256. *Summary of Collection:* The export of agricultural commodities, including animals and animal products, is a major business in the United States and contributes to a favorable balance of trade. To facilitate the export of U.S. animals and products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services maintains information regarding the import health requirements of other countries for animals and animal products exported from the United States. Many countries that import animal products from the United States require a certification from APHIS that the United States is free of certain diseases. These countries may also require that our certification statement contain additional declarations regarding the U.S. animal products being exported. Form VS-16-4, Health Certificate-Export Certificate—Animal Products, is used to meet theses requirements. Regulations pertaining to export certification of animals and animal products are contained in 9 CFR parts 91. *Need and Use of the Information:* Form VS 16-4 serves as the official certification that the United States is free of rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, swine vesicular disease, African swine fever, bovine fever, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and contagious bovine pleuropneuomia. APHIS will collect the exporter's name, address, the name and address of the consignee, the quantity, unit of measure, type of product being exported, the exporter's identification, and type of conveyance (ship, train, truck) that will transport the products. Without the information, many countries would not accept animal products from the United States, creating a serious trade imbalance and adversely affecting U.S. exporters. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other-for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 33,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 66,000. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13319 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 3, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Outreach/Ethnicity Questionnaires. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection* : Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally assisted or direct programs of the Federal Government. Section 703 in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in actions affecting employees or applicants for employment. The Forest Service requires outreach and recruitment of diverse candidates as a strategy to create a diverse and multicultural workforce within the agency. The Forest Service will do two questionnaires collecting information regarding ethnicity and race, which program the respondent is currently participating, and information from students attending local college and university career fairs about the effectiveness of information provided by personnel regarding career opportunities in the Forest Service. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information will be used to evaluate effectiveness of the Civil Rights Outreach Programs conducted by the Northern Research Station, as well as the Forest Service's Youth Conservation Corps, Hosted programs, Job Corps, and Volunteer programs. This information will assist in the compilation of the Senior Youth and Volunteer Programs Report shared with Congress and other Federal agencies. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 77,500. *Frequency of Reponses:* Reporting: Yearly. *Total Burden Hours:* 6,458. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13320 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008 AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payment rates for meals and supplements served in child care centers, outside-school-hours care centers, at-risk afterschool care centers, and adult day care centers; the food service payment rates for meals and supplements served in day care homes; and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The adjustments contained in this notice are made on an annual basis each July, as required by the statutes and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DATES: These rates are effective from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Churchill, Section Chief, Child and Adult Care and Summer Programs Section, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Alexandria, Virginia 22302,

(703)305-2590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Definitions The terms used in this notice shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the regulations governing the CACFP (7 CFR Part 226). Background Pursuant to sections 4, 11 and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act

(NSLA)(42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966

(CNA)(42 U.S.C. 1773) and §§ 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the regulations governing the CACFP (7 CFR Part 226), notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in CACFP. These rates shall be in effect during the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. As provided for under the NSLA and the CNA, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually on July 1 to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)for the most recent 12-month period. In accordance with this mandate, the Department last published the adjusted national average payment rates for centers, the food service payment rates for day care homes, and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsors of day care homes on July 11, 2006, at 71 FR 39050 (for the period July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007). BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN10JY07.006 BILLING CODE 3410-30-C The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 3.27 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2006 to May 2007, (from 198.7 in May 2006 to 205.2 in May 2007) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers. The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 4.37 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2006 to May 2007, (from 191.9 in May 2006 to 200.3 in May 2007) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers. The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 2.66 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2006 to May 2007, (from 202.5 in May 2006 to 207.9 in May 2007) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. The total amount of payments available to each State agency for distribution to institutions participating in the program is based on the rates contained in this notice. This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866. This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.) This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518). Authority: Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)). Dated: July 3, 2007. Roberto Salazar, Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-3366 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code