Notice of Availability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the Methylene Chloride Standard, 24509-24510 [2010-10107]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, OSHA cautions individuals
about submitting personal information
such as social security numbers and
birthdates. Exhibits referenced in this
Federal Register document are posted at
https://www.regulations.gov. Although
submissions are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov indexes, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material)
is not publicly available to read or
download through that Web page. All
comments are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using https://
www.regulations.gov to submit
comments and access dockets is
available on the Web page. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information
about materials not available through
the Web page and for assistance in using
the Internet to locate docket
submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal
Register document are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov. This
document, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA’s Web page at:
https://www.osha.gov.
V. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under
the direction of David Michaels, PhD,
MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 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 5–2007 (72 FR 31160).
Signed at Washington, DC, on April 26,
2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010–10163 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
Docket No. OSHA–2007–0024]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
RIN 1218–AC23
Notice of Availability of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act Review of the Methylene
Chloride Standard
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Availability of completed
regulatory review.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 May 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) has
completed a review of the Methylene
Chloride (MC) Standard (29 CFR
1910.1052) pursuant to section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on
Regulatory Planning and Review. The
purpose of this review was to determine
whether the MC Standard has
functioned as intended, whether it
could be simplified or improved to
reduce the regulatory burden on small
businesses, or whether it is no longer
needed and should be rescinded.
DATES: As of May 5, 2010 the report is
available to the public, (see ADDRESSES
section to obtain copies).
ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report
may be obtained from the OSHA
Publications Office, Room N–3101, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1888;
fax (202) 693–2498. All documents and
comments received relevant to the
review and documents discussed in this
report are available at the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA–2007–0024,
Technical Data Center, Room N–2625,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210, Telephone (202) 693–2350.
The main text of the report, this Federal
Register Notice and any news releases
will become available at the OSHA
Webpage at https://www.OSHA.gov.
Electronic copies of this Federal
Register Document, the full text of the
report, comments and referenced
documents are or will become available
at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information: Joanna Dizikes
Friedrich, OSHA Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Room N–3641,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC, 20210; telephone (202) 693–1939.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
MC (also known as methylene
dichloride or dichloromethane [DCM or
MC]) is a common industrial solvent
used in a number of different
applications, including paint stripping,
metal cleaning and the manufacture of
plastics and adhesives. Without proper
ventilation or respiratory protection,
short-term exposure to large amounts of
MC can cause respiratory or central
nervous system failure. In 1985, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
determined that MC was a probable
human carcinogen and posed a long
term danger to human health.1 EPA
promulgated rules governing the use of
MC in several industries during 1994–
1995. On January 10, 1997, OSHA
published its final MC Standard to
protect workers from occupational
exposure to MC.2 It reduced the
permissible exposure limit from an 8hour-time-weighted-average (TWA) of
500 parts per million (ppm) to 25 ppm.3
Regulatory Review
The purpose of this lookback study
was to review the current MC Standard,
in accordance with section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5
of Executive Order 12866, to determine
whether the rule has functioned as
intended, whether it could be simplified
or improved, or whether it is no longer
needed and should be rescinded. The
purpose of a review under section 610
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is:
‘‘to determine whether such rule should be
continued without change, or should be
rescinded, or amended consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes to
minimize any significant impact of the rules
on a substantial number of small entities.’’
In conducting a section 610 review,
the Agency must 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 EO 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.’’
To carry out its lookback review of the
MC Standard under these provisions,
OSHA requested public comment, on
July 10, 2007, on: the impacts of the rule
2 62
FR 1494.
Impact Analysis (Methylene
Chloride) ES–2, January 7, 1996.
3 Regulatory
1 62
PO 00000
FR 1497, January 10, 1997.
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24509
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
24510
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules
on small businesses; the benefits and
utility of the rule in its current form
and, if amended, in its amended form;
the continued need for the rule; the
complexity of the rule; and whether,
and to what extent, the rule overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other
Federal, State, and local government
rules. OSHA also asked for comments
on new developments in technology,
economic conditions, or other factors
affecting the ability of covered firms to
comply with the standard. Furthermore,
OSHA asked for comments on
alternatives to the rule that would
minimize significant impacts on small
businesses while achieving the
objectives of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Conclusions and Recommendations
OSHA’s Section 610 review of the MC
Standard finds the following:
• There is a continued need for the
Standard.
• The Standard does not impose an
unnecessary or disproportionate burden
on small businesses or on industry in
general.
• Although the Standard does impose
costs, these costs are essential to
protecting worker health.
• This lookback review did not
identify any industries in which the
Standard diminished the industries’
viability.
• There is no indication that
employers are unable to comply due to
the complexity of the Standard.
• The Standard does not overlap,
duplicate, or conflict with other state or
federal rules.
• Economic and technological trends
have not reduced the need for the
Standard.
• No public commenter felt the MC
Standard should be rescinded. Several
of the comments underscored the
hazards associated with exposure to MC
and that it is feasible to comply with the
Standard. Other comments contained
specific suggestions for how compliance
with the Standard could be improved
through compliance assistance, and how
worker health could be improved
through information on the toxicity of
substitutes for MC use.
OSHA’s review of the MC Standard
under EO 12866 finds the following:
• The Standard remains justified and
necessary in light of ongoing hazards
and fatalities.
• In general, the Standard is
compatible and not duplicative with
other state or federal rules.
• The Standard remains consistent
with E.O. 12866 because it has
produced the intended benefits (i.e.,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 May 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
protecting workers’ health), and has not
been unduly burdensome.
OSHA concludes that the MC
Standard has protected workers from
adverse health effects resulting from
exposure to MC in the workplace. In
terms of economic impacts, the MC
Standard does not impose an
unnecessary or disproportionate burden
on small businesses or on industry in
general. Although the Standard does
impose costs, these costs are essential to
protecting worker health. This lookback
review did not identify any industries in
which the MC Standard diminished the
industries’ viability.
OSHA recommends the following:
• The MC Standard should continue
without change.
• According to public comments, lack
of information and training are the most
common barriers in the construction
industry for compliance with the MC
Standard. Therefore, OSHA
recommends reviewing its compliance
assistance materials to determine the
need for updates. OSHA also
recommends reviewing the adequacy of
how these materials are disseminated
and additional means for reaching
affected populations.
• The use of substitutes for MC has
increased in certain industries. These
substitutes may pose their own health
hazards. Therefore, based on public
comments, OSHA will consider putting
out guidance recommending that, before
a substitute for MC is used, the toxicity
of that substitute should be checked on
the EPA and NIOSH Web sites (https://
www.epa.gov and https://www.niosh.gov,
respectively).
Authority: This document was prepared
under the direction of David Michaels, PhD,
MPH, 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 April 26,
2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010–10107 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 1
RIN 2900–AN42
Drug and Drug-Related Supply
Promotion by Pharmaceutical
Company Sales Representatives at VA
Facilities
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
regulations regarding access to VA
facilities to control the promotion of
drugs and drug-related supplies at VA
facilities and the business relationships
between VA staff and sales
representatives promoting drugs and
drug-related supplies. The purposes of
the proposed rule are to reduce or
eliminate any potential for disruption in
the patient care environment, manage
activities and promotions at VA
facilities, and provide sales
representatives with a consistent
standard of permissible business
practice at VA facilities. It would also
facilitate mutually beneficial
relationships between VA and such
sales representatives.
DATES: Comments must be received by
VA on or before July 6, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Louis E. Cobuzzi, PBM Services (119),
Veterans Health Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20420; (202) 461–7362. (This is not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38
U.S.C. 303, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs is responsible for ‘‘the proper
execution and administration of all laws
administered by the Department and for
the control, direction, and management
of the Department.’’ The Secretary has
authority to prescribe all rules necessary
to carry out the laws administered by
the Department, such as section 303
regarding control and management of
the Department. See 38 U.S.C. 501(a).
VA has implemented this authority, as
it pertains to management of VA
facilities, in 38 CFR part 1.
VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 1
to regulate access to VA medical
facilities by sales representatives
(including account managers and
clinical liaisons) promoting drugs and
drug-related supplies. Currently, many
policies regarding access to VA facilities
are established and maintained at the
local level, either by Veterans Integrated
Service Network (VISN) leaders or by
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24509-24510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0024]
RIN 1218-AC23
Notice of Availability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Review
of the Methylene Chloride Standard
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Availability of completed regulatory review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
completed a review of the Methylene Chloride (MC) Standard (29 CFR
1910.1052) pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and
Review. The purpose of this review was to determine whether the MC
Standard has functioned as intended, whether it could be simplified or
improved to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, or
whether it is no longer needed and should be rescinded.
DATES: As of May 5, 2010 the report is available to the public, (see
ADDRESSES section to obtain copies).
ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report may be obtained from the OSHA
Publications Office, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1888; fax (202) 693-2498. All
documents and comments received relevant to the review and documents
discussed in this report are available at the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0024, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, Telephone (202) 693-2350. The main text of the report, this
Federal Register Notice and any news releases will become available at
the OSHA Webpage at https://www.OSHA.gov. Electronic copies of this
Federal Register Document, the full text of the report, comments and
referenced documents are or will become available at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information: Joanna Dizikes
Friedrich, OSHA Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Room N-3641,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
20210; telephone (202) 693-1939.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
MC (also known as methylene dichloride or dichloromethane [DCM or
MC]) is a common industrial solvent used in a number of different
applications, including paint stripping, metal cleaning and the
manufacture of plastics and adhesives. Without proper ventilation or
respiratory protection, short-term exposure to large amounts of MC can
cause respiratory or central nervous system failure. In 1985, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that MC was a probable
human carcinogen and posed a long term danger to human health.\1\ EPA
promulgated rules governing the use of MC in several industries during
1994-1995. On January 10, 1997, OSHA published its final MC Standard to
protect workers from occupational exposure to MC.\2\ It reduced the
permissible exposure limit from an 8-hour-time-weighted-average (TWA)
of 500 parts per million (ppm) to 25 ppm.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 1497, January 10, 1997.
\2\ 62 FR 1494.
\3\ Regulatory Impact Analysis (Methylene Chloride) ES-2,
January 7, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Review
The purpose of this lookback study was to review the current MC
Standard, in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866, to determine whether the
rule has functioned as intended, whether it could be simplified or
improved, or whether it is no longer needed and should be rescinded.
The purpose of a review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act is:
``to determine whether such rule should be continued without change,
or should be rescinded, or amended consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes to minimize any significant impact
of the rules on a substantial number of small entities.''
In conducting a section 610 review, the Agency must 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 EO 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.''
To carry out its lookback review of the MC Standard under these
provisions, OSHA requested public comment, on July 10, 2007, on: the
impacts of the rule
[[Page 24510]]
on small businesses; the benefits and utility of the rule in its
current form and, if amended, in its amended form; the continued need
for the rule; the complexity of the rule; and whether, and to what
extent, the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal,
State, and local government rules. OSHA also asked for comments on new
developments in technology, economic conditions, or other factors
affecting the ability of covered firms to comply with the standard.
Furthermore, OSHA asked for comments on alternatives to the rule that
would minimize significant impacts on small businesses while achieving
the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Conclusions and Recommendations
OSHA's Section 610 review of the MC Standard finds the following:
There is a continued need for the Standard.
The Standard does not impose an unnecessary or
disproportionate burden on small businesses or on industry in general.
Although the Standard does impose costs, these costs are
essential to protecting worker health.
This lookback review did not identify any industries in
which the Standard diminished the industries' viability.
There is no indication that employers are unable to comply
due to the complexity of the Standard.
The Standard does not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
other state or federal rules.
Economic and technological trends have not reduced the
need for the Standard.
No public commenter felt the MC Standard should be
rescinded. Several of the comments underscored the hazards associated
with exposure to MC and that it is feasible to comply with the
Standard. Other comments contained specific suggestions for how
compliance with the Standard could be improved through compliance
assistance, and how worker health could be improved through information
on the toxicity of substitutes for MC use.
OSHA's review of the MC Standard under EO 12866 finds the
following:
The Standard remains justified and necessary in light of
ongoing hazards and fatalities.
In general, the Standard is compatible and not duplicative
with other state or federal rules.
The Standard remains consistent with E.O. 12866 because it
has produced the intended benefits (i.e., protecting workers' health),
and has not been unduly burdensome.
OSHA concludes that the MC Standard has protected workers from
adverse health effects resulting from exposure to MC in the workplace.
In terms of economic impacts, the MC Standard does not impose an
unnecessary or disproportionate burden on small businesses or on
industry in general. Although the Standard does impose costs, these
costs are essential to protecting worker health. This lookback review
did not identify any industries in which the MC Standard diminished the
industries' viability.
OSHA recommends the following:
The MC Standard should continue without change.
According to public comments, lack of information and
training are the most common barriers in the construction industry for
compliance with the MC Standard. Therefore, OSHA recommends reviewing
its compliance assistance materials to determine the need for updates.
OSHA also recommends reviewing the adequacy of how these materials are
disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations.
The use of substitutes for MC has increased in certain
industries. These substitutes may pose their own health hazards.
Therefore, based on public comments, OSHA will consider putting out
guidance recommending that, before a substitute for MC is used, the
toxicity of that substitute should be checked on the EPA and NIOSH Web
sites (https://www.epa.gov and https://www.niosh.gov, respectively).
Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, 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 April 26, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-10107 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P