50906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0123; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–056–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8–11, DC–8–12, 

DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–

33, DC–8–41, DC–8–42, and DC–8–43 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–51, DC–8–52, 

DC–8–53, and DC–8–55 Airplanes; 

Model DC–8F–54 and DC–8F–55 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–61, DC–8–62, 

and DC–8–63 Airplanes; Model DC–8–

61F, DC–8–62F, and DC–8–63F 

Airplanes; Model DC–8–71, DC–8–72, 

and DC–8–73 Airplanes; and Model 

DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8 airplanes. The 

original NPRM would have superseded 

an existing AD that currently requires, 

among other things, revision of an 

existing program of structural 

inspections. The original NPRM 

proposed to require implementation of a 

revised program of structural 

inspections of baseline structure to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking in 

order to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these airplanes as they 

approach the manufacturer’s original 

fatigue design life goal. The original 

NPRM resulted from a significant 

number of these airplanes approaching 

or exceeding the design service goal on 

which the initial type certification 

approval was predicated. This new 

action revises the original NPRM by 

reducing the inspection threshold for 

certain principal structural elements. 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking that could compromise the 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by September 

23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024). 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dara 

Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5222; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0123; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–056–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the 

‘‘original NPRM’’) to supersede AD 93–

01–15, amendment 39–8469 (58 FR 

5576, January 22, 1993). The original 

NPRM applied to all McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8 airplanes. The 

original NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on February 5, 2008 

(73 FR 6622). The original NPRM 

proposed to retain certain requirements 

of AD 93–01–15. The original NPRM 

also proposed to require a revision of 

the FAA-approved maintenance 

program. In addition, the original NPRM 

proposed to require implementation of a 

revised structural inspection program of 

baseline structure to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking in order to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of airplanes as 

they approach the manufacturer’s 

original fatigue design life goal. 

Actions Since Original NPRM Was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM, 

we have reviewed Boeing Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 7, dated 

March 2008 (hereafter ‘‘Revision 7’’). 

The procedures specified in Revision 7 

are identical to those specified in 

Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All 

Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 6, 

dated July 2005 (referred to in the 

NPRM as the appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

certain required actions). Revision 7 

revises the inspection threshold for 

certain principal structural elements 

from landings to flight hours, which 

reduces the inspection threshold. 

Therefore, we have revised the 

supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 

7 as the appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing certain 

proposed actions. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

The change discussed above expands 

the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 194 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

The following table provides the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50907 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour Cost per operator 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Revision of maintenance inspection program (required 

by AD 93–01–15).

544 per operator (17 U.S. 

operators).

$80 $43,520, per operator ........... 131 $739,840 

Revision of maintenance program and inspections (new 

proposed actions).

250 per operator (17 U.S. 

operators).

80 $20,000 ................................. 131 340,000 

The number of inspection work hours, 

as indicated above, is presented as if the 

accomplishment of the actions in this 

proposed AD is to be conducted as 

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in 

actual practice, these actions for the 

most part will be done coincidentally or 

in combination with normally 

scheduled airplane inspections and 

other maintenance program tasks. 

Therefore, the actual number of 

necessary additional inspection work 

hours will be minimal in many 

instances. Additionally, any costs 

associated with special airplane 

scheduling will be minimal. 

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. Will 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 supplemental NPRM and placed it 

in the AD docket. 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 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–8469 (58 

FR 5576, January 22, 1993) and adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2008–

0123; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–

056–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 23, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 93–01–15. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all McDonnell 

Douglas airplanes identified in Table 1 of this 

AD, certificated in any category. 

TABLE 1—APPLICABILITY

Model 

(1) DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8– 

31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC–8–41, 

DC–8–42, and DC–8–43 airplanes. 

(2) DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC–8–53, and DC– 

8–55 airplanes. 

(3) DC–8F–54 and DC–8F–55 airplanes. 

(4) DC–8–61, DC–8–62, and DC–8–63 airplanes. 

(5) DC–8–61F, DC–8–62F, and DC–8–63F 

airplanes. 

(6) DC–8–71, DC–8–72, and DC–8–73 airplanes. 

(7) DC–8–71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F 

airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a significant 

number of these airplanes approaching or 

exceeding the design service goal on which 

the initial type certification approval was 

predicated. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking that could 

compromise the structural integrity of these 

airplanes. 

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. 

Certain Requirements of AD 93–01–15: 

Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance 

Inspection Program 

(f) Within 6 months after February 26, 1993 

(the effective date of AD 93–01–15), 

incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved 

maintenance inspection program that 

provides no less than the required inspection 

of the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) 

defined in Sections 2 and 3 of Volume I of 

McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26–011, 

‘‘DC–8 Supplemental Inspection Document 

(SID),’’ dated March 1991, in accordance 

with Section 2 of Volume III–91, dated April 

1991, of that document. The non-destructive 

inspection techniques set forth in Sections 2 

and 3 of Volume II, dated March 1991, of that 

SID provide acceptable methods for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
50908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

accomplishing the inspections required by 

this AD. All inspection results, negative or 

positive, must be reported to McDonnell 

Douglas, in accordance with the instructions 

of Section 2 of Volume III–91 of the SID. 

Information collection requirements 

contained in this regulation have been 

approved by the OMB under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 

OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

Corrective Action 

(g) Cracked structure detected during the 

inspections required by paragraph (f) of this 

AD must be repaired before further flight, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate. 

New Requirements of this AD 

Revision of the Maintenance Inspection 

Program 

(h) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, incorporate a revision of the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program that provides for inspection(s) of the 

PSEs, in accordance with Boeing Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, 

Revision 7, dated March 2008. Incorporation 

of this revision ends the requirements of 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD. 

Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs) 

(i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of 

Boeing Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’

Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008, 

perform an NDI for fatigue cracking of each 

PSE, in accordance with the NDI procedures 

specified in Section 2 of McDonnell Douglas 

Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume II, 

Revision 8, dated January 2005, at the times 

specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of 

this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have less than three 

quarters of the fatigue life threshold (3⁄4NTH) 

as of the effective date of this AD: Perform 

the NDI for fatigue cracking at the times 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) 

of this AD. After reaching the threshold 

(NTH), repeat the inspection for that PSE at 

intervals not to exceed DNDI/2. 

(i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than 

one-half of the threshold (1⁄2NTH) but before 

reaching three-quarters of the threshold 

(3⁄4NTH), or within 60 months after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later. 

(ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than 3⁄4NTH

but before reaching the threshold (NTH), or 

within 18 months after the inspection 

required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

Note 1: The DC–8 SID and this AD refer to 

the repetitive inspection interval as DNDI/2. 

However, the headings of the tables in 

Section 4 of Volume I of the DC–8 SID refer 

to the repetitive inspection interval of NDI/ 

2. The values listed under NDI/2 in the tables 

in Section 4 of Volume I of the DC–8 SID are 

the repetitive inspection intervals, DNDI/2. 

(2) For airplanes that have reached or 

exceeded three-quarters of the fatigue life 

threshold (3⁄4NTH), but less than the threshold 

(NTH), as of the effective date of this AD: 

Perform an NDI before reaching the threshold 

(NTH), or within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Thereafter, after passing the threshold (NTH), 

repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals 

not to exceed DNDI/2. 

(3) For airplanes that have reached or 

exceeded the fatigue life threshold (NTH) as 

of the effective date of this AD: Perform an 

NDI within 18 months after the effective date 

of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection 

for that PSE at intervals not to exceed DNDI/ 

2. 

Discrepant Findings 

(j) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on 

the airplane from the NDI reference standard, 

such as PSEs that cannot be inspected as 

specified in McDonnell Douglas Report No. 

L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID),’’ Volume II, Revision 8, 

dated January 2005, or do not match rework, 

repair, or modification descriptions in Boeing 

Report No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series 

Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),’’ 

Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008) is 

detected during any inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD, do the action 

specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this 

AD, as applicable. 

(1) If a discrepancy is detected during any 

inspection done before 3⁄4NTH or NTH: The 

area of the PSE affected by the discrepancy 

must be inspected before NTH or within 18 

months after the discovery of the 

discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles ACO. 

(2) If a discrepancy is detected during any 

inspection done after NTH: The area of the 

PSE affected by the discrepancy must be 

inspected before the accumulation of an 

additional DNDI/2 or within 18 months after 

the discovery of the discrepancy, whichever 

occurs later, in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. 

Reporting Requirements 

(k) All negative or positive findings of the 

inspections done in accordance with 

paragraph (i) of this AD must be reported to 

Boeing at the times specified in, and in 

accordance with, the instructions contained 

in Section 4 of Boeing Report No. L26–011, 

‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID),’’ Volume I, Revision 7, 

dated March 2008. Information collection 

requirements contained in this regulation 

have been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056. 

Corrective Actions 

(l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected 

during any inspection required by paragraph 

(i) of this AD must be repaired before further 

flight using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (p) of this AD. Accomplish the 

actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), 

and (l)(3) of this AD, at the times specified. 

(1) Within 18 months after repair, do a 

damage tolerance assessment (DTA) that 

defines the threshold for inspection of the 

repair and submit the assessment for 

approval. 

(2) Before reaching 75% of the repair 

threshold as determined in paragraph (l)(1) of 

this AD, submit the inspection methods and 

repetitive inspection intervals for the repair 

for approval. 

(3) Before the repair threshold, as 

determined in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, 

incorporate the inspection method and 

repetitive inspection intervals into the FAAapproved structural maintenance or 

inspection program for the airplane. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, we 

anticipate that submissions of the DTA of the 

repair, if acceptable, should be approved 

within 6 months after submission. 

Note 3: FAA Order 8110.54, ‘‘Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness,’’ dated July 1, 

2005, provides additional guidance about the 

approval of repairs to PSEs. 

Inspection for Transferred Airplanes 

(m) Before any airplane that has exceeded 

the fatigue life threshold (NTH) can be added 

to an air carrier’s operations specifications, a 

program for the accomplishment of the 

inspections required by this AD must be 

established as specified in paragraph (m)(1) 

or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have been inspected 

in accordance with this AD: The inspection 

of each PSE must be done by the new 

operator in accordance with the previous 

operator’s schedule and inspection method, 

or the new operator’s schedule and 

inspection method, at whichever time would 

result in the earlier accomplishment date for 

that PSE inspection. The compliance time for 

accomplishing this inspection must be 

measured from the last inspection done by 

the previous operator. After each inspection 

has been done once, each subsequent 

inspection must be done in accordance with 

the new operator’s schedule and inspection 

method. 

(2) For airplanes that have not been 

inspected in accordance with this AD: The 

inspection of each PSE required by this AD 

must be done either before adding the 

airplane to the air carrier’s operations 

specification, or in accordance with a 

schedule and an inspection method approved 

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After each 

inspection has been done once, each 

subsequent inspection must be done in 

accordance with the new operator’s schedule. 

Acceptable for Compliance 

(n) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 

91K0262, ‘‘DC–8 Aging Aircraft Repair 

Assessment Program Document,’’ Revision 1, 

dated October 2000, provides inspection/ 

replacement programs for certain repairs to 

the fuselage pressure shell. Accomplishing 

these repairs and inspection/replacement 

programs before the effective date of this AD 

is considered acceptable for compliance with 

the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of 

this AD for repairs subject to that document. 

(o) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Boeing Report 

No. L26–011, ‘‘DC–8 All Series Supplemental 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 169 / Friday, August 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50909 

1Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk 

Assessment and Risk Management, Framework for 

Environmental Health Risk Management, 2 Final 

Report 131–36 (1997). 

2http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2005/ 

011405_peer.pdf. 

3U.S. Dept. of Labor, Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by the 

Department of Labor (2002) (Appendix II), available 

at http://www.dol.gov/informationquality.htm. 

4OMB/OSTP Memorandum for the Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies, Updated 

Principles for Risk Analysis (2007) M–07–24, 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

memoranda/fy2007/m07-24.pdf. 

5 29 U.S.C. 655 (2000). 

6 30 U.S.C. 811 (2000). 

7 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5) (2000), 30 U.S.C. 811(a)(6) 

(2000). 

8 Id. 

Inspection Document (SID),’’ Volume I, 

Revision 6, dated July 2005, are acceptable 

for compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 

FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone 

(562) 627–5222; fax (562) 627–5210; has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 93–01–15 are approved 

as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions 

of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

21, 2008. 

Kevin Hull, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20085 Filed 8–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

29 CFR Part 2 

RIN 1290–AA23 

Requirements for DOL Agencies’

Assessment of Occupational Health 

Risks 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Office of the 

Secretary, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Secretary of 

Labor’s authority at 5 U.S.C. section 

301, the Department of Labor 

(Department or DOL) is proposing to 

compile its existing best practices 

related to risk assessment into a single, 

easy to reference regulation, and to 

include two requirements to establish 

consistent procedures for conducting 

risk assessments that promote greater 

public input and awareness of the 

Department’s health rulemakings. DOL 

proposes to issue an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public 

information on relevant data when 

developing risk assessments for health 

standards regulating occupational 

exposure to toxic substances and 

hazardous chemicals, and to 

electronically post rulemaking 

documents and underlying studies used 

in a risk assessment. The proposed 

regulation implements 

recommendations of the 1997 

Presidential/Congressional Commission 

on Risk Assessment and Risk 

Management Report,1 and is consistent 

with Government-wide Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

Information Quality Guidelines,2

current internal DOL Information 

Quality Guidelines,3 and the OMB/ 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

2007 Memorandum on Updated 

Principles for Risk Analysis.4

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Submit comments to Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., S–2312, 

Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Risk 

Assessment Policy. Because of securityrelated concerns, there may be a 

significant delay in the receipt of 

submissions by United States Mail. You 

must take this into consideration when 

preparing to meet the deadline for 

submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking. Comments received 

will be posted without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and 

available for public inspection in the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

S–2312, Washington, DC 20210, 

including any personal information 

provided. Persons submitting comments 

electronically are encouraged not to 

submit paper copies. 

Docket: All comments will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

by contacting OASP at (202) 693–5959 

(VOICE) (this is not a toll free number) 

or 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD). You 

may also contact OASP at the address 

listed above. As noted above, the 

Department also will post all comments 

it receives on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Copies of the proposed rule are 

available in alternative formats of large 

print and electronic file on computer 

disk, which may be obtained at the 

above-stated address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Franks, Office of Regulatory 

and Programmatic Policy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. 

Department of Labor, (202) 693–5959. 

This is not a toll-free number. 

Individuals with hearing or speech 

impairments may access the telephone 

number above via TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Information Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Department’s Mission Under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 

and Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 

The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is 

charged with ensuring safe and 

healthful working conditions for every 

working man and woman in the Nation. 

To that end, the Secretary has broad 

authority to promulgate health 

standards. In Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (OSH Act) 5 and Section 101(a)(6) 

(A) of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act),6

Congress required the Secretary to set 

health standards ‘‘on the basis of the 

best available evidence.’’ 7 The Acts also 

state that, ‘‘in addition to the attainment 

of the highest degree of health and 

safety protection for the employee, other 

considerations shall be the latest 

available scientific data in the field.’’ 8

In sum, the OSH Act and Mine Act 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS