Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24509 

1 62 FR 1497, January 10, 1997. 

2 62 FR 1494. 

3Regulatory Impact Analysis (Methylene 

Chloride) ES–2, January 7, 1996. 

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 

http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

submissions are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

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: 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s Web page at: 

http://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] 

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 http://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 http://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

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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. 

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 (http:// 

www.epa.gov and http://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 

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 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1