Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76667

respondents will request the one-lump

sum drawdown of their annual LLEBG

grant funds by completing the no more

than sixty minutes on-line process.

(6) An estimate of the total public

burden (in hours) associated with the

collection: The total hour burden to

complete the application is 3,500.

If additional information is required

contact: Ms. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy

Clearance Officer, United States

Department of Justice, Information

Management and Security Staff, Justice

Management Division, Suite 1220,

National Place Building, 1331

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Brenda E. Dyer,

Department Deputy Clearance Officer, United

States Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 00–31176 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. H–052F]

Occupational Exposure to Cotton

Dust: Notice of the Availability of a

Lookback Review Pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Executive Order 12866

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) has

completed a lookback review of its

Cotton Dust Standard, 29 CFR

1910.1043, pursuant to Sec. 610 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Sec. 5 of

Executive Order 12866. That review,

‘‘Regulatory Review of OSHA’s Cotton

Dust Standard, September 2000,’’

indicates: that the standard has reduced

byssinosis rates from 12% to 1%; that

the standard cost one-quarter to one-half

of various estimates and increased

productivity; that the standard does not

impose a significant impact on small

business; and that public commenters

agree that the standard should remain in

effect. Based on this review, OSHA

concludes that the Cotton Dust Standard

should be continued without change

except that the washed cotton partial

exemption to the standard should be

expanded based on new studies and

recommendations from industry, unions

and government experts. See the Final

Rules section of today’s Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, Directorate of

Policy Rm. N3641, OSHA, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,

telephone (202) 693–1939. Direct

technical inquiries about the Cotton

Dust Standard to Gail Brinkerhoff, Rm.

N3603, telephone (202) 693–2190, or

visit the OSHA Homepage at

www.OSHA.dol.gov. Direct press

inquiries to Bonnie Friedman, Director

of Information and Consumer Affairs,

Rm. N–3647, telephone (202) 693–1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report

may be obtained from the OSHA

Publication Office, Rm. N–3101, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210, tel. (202) 693–1888, Fax (202)

693–2498. The full report, comments,

and referenced documents are available

for review at the OSHA Docket Office,

Docket No. H–052F, Rm. 2625, 200

Constitution Ave., NW. Washington, DC

20210, tel. (202) 693–2119. The main

text of the report will become available

on the OSHA web page at

www.OSHA.dol.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) issued its final

Cotton Dust Standard June 23, 1978 (43

FR 27351) and amended it December 12,

1985 (50 FR 51120). That standard is

codified at 29 CFR 1910.1043.

OSHA has completed a ‘‘Lookback’’

review of the Cotton Dust Standard

titled, ‘‘Regulatory Review of OSHA’s

Cotton Dust Standard, September 2000.’’

This Federal Register notice announces

the availability of that review and

briefly summarizes it.

The purpose of the Cotton Dust

Standard is to greatly reduce the

significant risk of byssinosis (brown

lung disease), a disabling lung disease.

Prior to the standard more than 50,000

cotton textile workers suffered from the

disease at any one time.

The Cotton Dust Standard sets

maximum permissible exposure limits

(PELs) for cotton dust which vary by

operation. It includes requirements for

monitoring, medical surveillance, work

practices and other requirements. It

includes partial exemptions for the

processing of cotton washed according

to various protocols which greatly

reduce the cotton’s biological reactivity.

Certain sections of the industry, such as

knitting, are partially or completely

exempt from the standard because those

sections do not present significant risk

of byssinosis.

In 1998, the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) began a

review of its Cotton Dust Standard

under Section 610 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 610) and

Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866

on Regulatory Planning and Review.

The purpose of a review under

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA):

‘‘(S)hall be 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.’’

‘‘The 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 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 these reviews, on June

23, 1998, OSHA asked the public for

comments on all issues raised by these

provisions (63 FR 34140). Among other

things, OSHA requested comments on:

the benefits and utility of the rule in its

current 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 Cotton

Dust Standard and on alternatives to the

rule that would minimize significant

impacts on small businesses while

achieving the objectives of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act.

OSHA accepted written comments

from June 23, 1998 through August 31,

1998. OSHA also conducted two public

meetings, on July 24 and July 30, 1998,

76668 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington,

DC, respectively. Comments were

received from employers, trade

associations, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, the joint

industry/government/union Task Force

for Byssinosis Prevention, trade unions

and textile workers. OSHA also

considered the many published studies

and reports on relevant issues. All

documents, studies and comments

received relevant to the review,

transcripts of the oral hearings and

documents discussed in this report are

available at the OSHA Docket Office,

Docket No. H–052F, Room N–3625, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210,

telephone: (202) 693–2350.

Conclusions: Based on the comments

and testimony of participants in this

lookback review process and the studies

and other evidence submitted to the

public docket, OSHA concludes as

discussed in depth in ‘‘Regulatory

Review of OSHA’s Cotton Dust

Standard, Sept. 2000,’’ that the Agency’s

standard should be continued without

change (except for an expansion of the

washed cotton exemption discussed

below). The evidence also demonstrates

that the standard does not need to be

rescinded or amended to minimize

significant impacts on a substantial

number of small entities.

OSHA also finds that the Cotton Dust

standard is necessary to protect

employee health, is compatible with

other OSHA standards, is not

duplicative or in conflict with other

Federal, State, or local government

rules, is not inappropriately

burdensome, and is consistent with the

President’s priorities and the principles

of EO 12866. Further, no changes have

occurred in technological, economic, or

other factors that would warrant

revision of the standard at this time.

The major impact of the Cotton Dust

Standard is on firms in the cotton-using

4 digit SIC sectors of the textile

industry. These are firms which open

and process raw cotton, spin that cotton

into cotton and cotton blend yarn and

thread, and turn that yarn and thread

into cotton and cotton blend fabrics.

(The report also discusses other sectors

and operations where the standard has

some impact.)

It is estimated that there are

approximately 466 cotton using

establishments in these textile sectors. It

also can be estimated that between

70,000 and 105,000 employees work in

these establishments.

It is estimated that the prevalence rate

of byssinosis among cotton textile

workers was approximately 20% in the

early 1970’s. The completion of studies

confirming these rates and OSHA’s

announcement of regulatory activities

led some firms to lower exposures

leading to an estimated prevalence rate

of 12% just before OSHA issued the

Cotton Dust Standard in 1978.

The provisions of the Cotton Dust

Standard, lowering workers’ exposure to

cotton dust and requiring medical

surveillance, transfer to lower exposure

areas, work practices, etc., helped

reduce the byssinosis prevalence rate to

approximately 0.68%. The number of

workers with byssinosis has been

reduced to approximately 700 from

approximately 12,000 in 1978 and

50,000 in 1970 (when the number of

exposed workers was higher). The

cotton dust standard has been highly

successful in protecting the health of

cotton textile workers from byssinosis

and achieving the stated objective of the

OSH Act.

OSHA had estimated that the capital

cost of the Cotton Dust Standard would

be $550 million in 1977 dollars, which

was the low end of varying estimates.

The actual cost was $243 million in

1982 dollars or $153 million in 1977

dollars.

The reason for the lower costs was

that the standard encouraged industry to

invest in more productive equipment to

come into compliance. Industry

purchased such things as automated

opening equipment and air-jet looms to

come into compliance rather than

utilizing add-on ventilation.

A further result was that the Cotton

Dust Standard contributed to increasing

industry productivity growth, which

was 2.5% per year in the 1972–79

period and increased to 3.5% per year

in the 1979–1991 period. It is clear that

the technological changes since the

standard was issued have been positive

for the industry and the standard has

encouraged those positive technological

developments.

It is also clear that the rule did not

have any significant negative economic

impact on a substantial number of small

businesses. The large majority of firms

affected are small businesses as defined

by the Small Business Administration

(SBA). Sales in the major cotton-using

SICs increased from $20 billion in 1982,

to $27 billion in 1992 to $38 billion in

1996 to $40 billion in 1998. Sales of

small businesses as defined by the SBA

in those SICs increased from $34 billion

in 1996 to $36.5 billion in 1998. Sales

of the smallest firms in that period

increased from $6 billion to $10 billion.

Further evidence of the health of the

small business sector is the entry of new

small businesses into the cotton using

SICs. The number of establishments

with 1–19 employees increased 21%

from 1977 to 1992, and the number of

firms with 1–19 employees increased

55% from 1990 to 1996. (Different

statistical series were available for the

different periods.)

There is a continuing need for the

Cotton Dust Standard. Without the

exposure limits, medical surveillance,

and other requirements of the standard,

byssinosis prevalence rates would

increase. All commenters supported the

retention of the Cotton Dust Standard,

and there were no criticisms that it was

too complex. The stakeholders

understand the standard, and its more

technical requirements are necessary for

effective medical surveillance and

accurate monitoring.

The Cotton Dust Standard does not

conflict with other Federal or state

rules. Most of the cotton textile industry

is located in states with their own state

OSHA’s. Those states have adopted

cotton dust standards which are

virtually identical to the Federal

standard (they must adopt standards

that are at least as effective as the

Federal standard), and those states

enforce their state standards.

Some commenters recommended

minor technical changes to the Cotton

Dust Standard. Those are discussed and

OSHA conclusions stated in chapter VI.

5 of the full review. OSHA concluded

that some of the suggestions, such as

technical changes to the medical

protocol, were for provisions that are

working effectively and it was not worth

regulatory resources to propose minor

changes. Some of the other

recommended minor changes, such as

on monitoring frequency, were quite

controversial with many opposing such

changes. Consequently OSHA

concluded it was not appropriate to

propose such changes absent

meaningful new evidence which was

not presented.

The ‘‘Reg Flex’’ and Executive Order

reviews did bring convincingly to

OSHA’s attention one change to the

Cotton Dust Standard that appears

strongly justified. Consequently OSHA

is issuing that change by direct final

rule in today’s Federal Register.

Washing cotton according to certain

protocols reduces the bioactivity of that

cotton and its ability to cause

byssinosis. Not all washing processes

reduce the bioactivity, and cotton

washed by certain processes can not be

spun and woven into quality textiles.

The 1985 amendments to the Cotton

Dust Standard give a partial exemption

for processing cotton washed according

to certain protocols based on studies

showing such cotton has greatly

reduced bioactivity.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76669

The industry/government/union Task

Force for Byssinosis Prevention

sponsors research to develop washing

techniques which reduce bioactivity

and create processable cotton. That Task

Force has recommended that OSHA add

an additional washing process, batch

kier processing, to those that receive

partial exemption, because batch kier

processing, according to a specified

protocol, greatly reduces bioactivity.

That recommendation is supported by

studies and recommendations of the

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, industry groups and

unions. Consequently, OSHA is taking

prompt action to implement that

recommendation and increase the

flexibility available to the cotton textile

industry while protecting textile worker

health.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of

October, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 00–31188 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

December 4, 2000.

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Tuesday,

December 12, 2000.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

Commission will consider and act upon

the following:

1. Northern Illinois Steel Supply Co.,

Docket No. LAKE 99–78–RM, etc.

(Issues include whether Northern

Illinois Steel Supply Company is an

‘‘operator’’ under section 3(d) of the

Mine Act).

TIME AND DATE: The Commission

meeting will commence following upon

the conclusion of the Commission

meeting to consider Northern Illinois

Steel Supply Co., Docket No. LAKE 99–

78–RM, etc., which commences at 2

p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2000.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, NW., Washington DC.

STATUS: Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 55b(c)(10)].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was

determined by a majority vote of the

Commission that the Commission

considered and act upon the following

in closed session:

1. Disciplinary Proceeding, Docket

No. D 2000–1.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Wednesday,

December 13, 2000.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

Commission will consider its general

procedures for handling requests to

vacate defaults and requests to reopen

matters that have become final

Commission orders under section 105(a)

of the Mine Act.

Any person attending an open

meeting who requires special

accessibility features and/or auxiliary

aids, such as sign language interpreters,

must inform the Commission in advance

of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR

§§ 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean Ellen (202) 653–5629/(202) 708–

9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339

for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 00–31354 Filed 12–5–00; 3:57 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735–01–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Public Hearing

The National Transportation Safety

Board will convene a public hearing

beginning at 11 a.m., local time on

Wednesday, December 13–15, 2000, in

the Safety Board’s Boardroom and

Conference Center at 429 L’Enfant Plaza

SW, Washington, DC 20594 concerning

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 off the coast

of California near Port Hueneme on

January 31, 2000. For more information,

contact Dick Rodriquez, NTSB Office of

Aviation Safety at (202) 314–6317 or

Terry N. Williams NTSB Office of

Public Affairs at (202) 314–6100.

Individuals requesting specific

accommodation should contact Mrs.

Carolyn Dargan on 202–314–6305 by

Friday December 8, 2000.

Dated: December 4, 2000.

Rhonda Underwood,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–31169 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Notice of Opportunity to Comment on

the Proposed Information Collection

Initiative

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public

comment.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff has prepared a

proposed initiative for the voluntary

submittal of information by external

stakeholders about the impact that

licensing actions and other regulatory

activities have on maintaining safety

and reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden for commercial nuclear power

plants. The purpose of this initiative is

to obtain information to assist the Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

staff in (1) allocating staff resources and

(2) measuring how the work NRR staff

completes contributes to the agency

goals of maintaining safety and reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden. The

staff is requesting comments on this

proposed information collection

initiative.

DATES: The comment period expires

January 22, 2001. Comments received

after this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to ensure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted in person or via U.S. mail.

Submit written comments to: Chief,

Rules and Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, U.S. NRC, Mail

Stop T6–D59, Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on

Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at the NRC’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat

Madden, Mail Stop O8E6, Division of

Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone

301–415–2854, email pmm@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As

applicants submit requests for

regulatory deliverables (e.g., license

amendment approvals, topical report

reviews, rulemaking petitions), they

would voluntarily provide information