Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices 923 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Immigration Practitioner Complaint 

Form. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form EOIR–44, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, United 

States Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals who wish 

to file a complaint against an 

immigration practitioner authorized to 

appear before the Board of Immigration 

Appeals and the immigration courts. 

Other: None. Abstract: The information 

on this form will be used to determine 

whether or not, assuming the truth of 

the factual allegations, the Office of 

General Counsel of the Executive Office 

for Immigration Review should conduct 

a preliminary disciplinary inquiry, 

request additional information from the 

responding complainant, refer the 

matter to a state bar disciplinary 

authority or other law enforcement 

agency, or take no further action. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: It is estimated that 500 

respondents will complete the form 

annually with an average of thirty 

minutes per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 1000 

total burden hours associated with this 

collection annually. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: January 5, 2009. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. E9–133 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

January 5, 2009. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation, including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 202–693– 

4223 (this is not a toll-free number)/email: DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Department of Labor—ETA, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• 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, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employment Training 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

Title of Collection: Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) 

Monitoring Report and One-Stop Career 

Center Complaint/Referral Record. 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0039. 

Agency Form Numbers: ETA 8429 and 

ETA 5148. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

households and State, Local or Tribal 

Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 2,194. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,566. 

Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden: 

$0. 

Description: These forms are 

necessary as part of Federal regulations 

at 20 CFR Parts 651, 653 and 658. The 

Form ETA 5148 collects data which are 

primarily used to monitor and measure 

the extent and effectiveness of State 

Workforce Agencies’ service delivery to 

migrant and seasonal farm workers 

(MSFWs). The Form ETA 8429, the OneStop Career Center Compliance Referral 

Record, is used to collect and document 

complaints filed by MSFWs and nonMSFWs regarding service delivery. For 

additional information, see related 

notice published at Volume 73 FR 

37499 on July 01, 2008. 

Darrin A. King, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–207 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0053] 

Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratories; Satellite Notification and 

Acceptance Program 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Implementation of the Satellite 

Notification and Acceptance Program. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

OSHA’s implementation of the ninth 

supplemental program under its 

Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory (NRTL) Program. This 

supplemental program is the Satellite 

Notification and Acceptance Program 

(SNAP), and participation by NRTLs in 

the SNAP is voluntary. The SNAP 

Description for this program specifies 

the conditions under which NRTLs may 

use SNAP sites to perform equipment 

testing and certification functions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices 

DATES: The SNAP will become effective 

on May 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of 

Technical Programs and Coordination 

Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N–3655, 

Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202) 

693–2110. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 21, 2008, OSHA published 

in the Federal Register a notice 

proposing the SNAP, and requested 

public comment on the proposal (73 FR 

21378). OSHA made the proposed 

SNAP Description available on its Web 

site at http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/ 

otpca/nrtl/index.html, but did not 

provide this document in the published 

proposal. OSHA received seven 

comments to the proposal, and has 

made a number of revisions to the 

proposed SNAP based on these 

comments. 

The SNAP will become the ninth 

supplemental program available to 

NRTLs under the NRTL Program. In 

general, supplemental programs permit 

an NRTL to use the services of other 

facilities to test and certify products 

used in the workplace. OSHA formally 

established the initial eight 

supplemental programs after publishing 

a description of these programs in the 

Federal Register (60 FR 12980, March 9, 

1995). The current notice sets forth the 

criteria and conditions that an NRTL 

must meet to use the SNAP. 

To use a supplemental program, an 

NRTL must receive approval from 

OSHA and, once approved, the 

supplemental program becomes a part of 

the NRTL’s scope of recognition. In 

general, each NRTL is approved by 

OSHA for a scope of recognition that 

identifies the following three elements: 

(1) The types of products the NRTL may 

approve, (2) the NRTL’s ‘‘recognized 

sites,’’ that are the NRTL’s wholly 

owned sites that can perform the full 

range of product-testing and 

-certification activities necessary in 

approving those products, and (3) 

‘‘supplemental programs,’’ that, unlike 

the other two elements, are optional. 

Through these programs, an NRTL can 

use other resources in performing 

activities necessary for product testing 

and certification. OSHA maintains a 

Web page for each NRTL describing its 

scope of recognition. 

For more information about 

supplemental programs and the NRTL 

Program in general, see the 1995 

Federal Register notice cited above, and 

Chapters 1 and 2 of the NRTL Program 

Directive (hereafter, ‘‘the NRTL 

Directive’’; CPL 01–00–003—CPL 1–0.3 

(‘‘NRTL Program Policies, Procedures, 

and Guidelines’’)), which is available on 

OSHA’s Web site at http:// 

www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ 

index.html. This site also provides a 

listing of the types of products that 

OSHA requires to be approved by 

NRTLs and the regulations of the NRTL 

Program (29 CFR 1910.7) 

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments 

OSHA provided 30 days for the public 

to submit comments on the proposed 

SNAP, with the comment period ending 

on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 21378, April 21, 

2008). We received seven comments— 

six from currently recognized NRTLs, 

and one from an independent 

consultant who is a former staff member 

of OSHA’s NRTL Program. In the 

remainder of this section, we discuss 

the comments made on the key 

conditions described for the proposed 

SNAP. 

A. Limiting use of an NRTL’s mark to 

wholly owned SNAP sites. In the notice 

proposing the SNAP, OSHA stated that 

it ‘‘would allow SNAP sites that are 

wholly owned by the NRTL to authorize 

the use of the NRTL’s mark.’’ (Ex. 

OSHA–2007–0053–0001, p. 21380.) 

OSHA proposed this condition because 

it believes that NRTLs must retain 

control of this final step of their 

product-approval process. This step 

identifies them as the entity that tested 

and approved a product for use in the 

workplace. However, several 

commenters opposed this condition. For 

example, the Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) stated that this 

condition was ‘‘overly restrictive and 

could prevent expansion of SNAP 

internationally.’’ (Ex. OSHA–2007– 

0053–0007.) Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) noted that this condition could 

weaken the approval process because a 

majority-owned SNAP site would lack 

‘‘authority to grant or withdraw use of 

the NRTL[’s] mark.’’ In addition, UL 

noted that the ‘‘[a]uthorization to use 

the mark is an administrative, not 

technical, task that follows the critical 

technical review and decision on 

certification.’’ Thus, if maintained as a 

final and administrative step, allowing a 

majority-owned site to grant the mark 

would not compromise the testing and 

certification process. UL also 

commented that this condition would 

make auditing the entire process 

impractical because ‘‘OSHA must audit 

2 separate sites to review the complete 

certification process.’’ (Ex. OSHA– 

2007–0053–0006.) These comments 

made clear that OSHA does not have to 

limit the authorization function to 

SNAP sites owned solely by an NRTL, 

especially when the decision on 

certification can occur at a majorityowned site. Thus, OSHA removed this 

condition from the SNAP. 

B. Definition of SNAP sites. OSHA 

proposed that NRTLs, or organizations 

in which NRTLs have a majority 

interest, own or lease SNAP sites. 

Several NRTLs stated that this condition 

eliminated the option of using sites 

owned or leased by their parent 

company. (See Exs. OSHA–2007–0053– 

0002 and –0003.) Intertek Testing 

Services NA (ITSNA) also noted that 

current NRTL Program policy 

(paragraph X, Appendix C, NRTL 

Directive) allows NRTLs to either 

wholly own or ‘‘organizationally 

encompass’’ their recognized sites. 

Thus, the policy does not require the 

NRTL to demonstrate ownership of sites 

that are organizationally encompassed. 

(Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0003.) This 

comment indicated that OSHA should 

allow NRTLs to similarly encompass 

their SNAP sites or allow SNAP sites 

that are not majority-owned by the 

NRTL. NSF International (NSF) pointed 

out that the majority-ownership 

condition makes it impossible to have 

SNAP sites in foreign countries that do 

not permit majority ownership by 

outside entities. (OSHA–2007–0053– 

0009.) 

OSHA proposed the majorityownership condition to ensure that 

NRTLs would have administrative and 

operational control over the SNAP site. 

OSHA believes that this condition 

would maintain the same degree of 

control that NRTLs must now exercise 

over their recognized sites. This policy 

specifies that the NRTL must wholly 

own or ‘‘organizationally encompass’’ 

its recognized sites, and ‘‘have 

administrative and operational control 

over these sites.’’ (As explained below, 

the term ‘‘organizationally encompass,’’ 

when used in this context, is equivalent 

to the NRTL completely owning the 

site’s legal entity.) The policy also states 

that ‘‘the NRTL must clearly 

demonstrate control in its operating 

policies and procedures and quality 

assurance program documentation.’’ 

OSHA requires this policy largely to 

ensure that a site that it recognizes as 

part of the NRTL (i.e., a recognized site) 

constitutes the NRTL’s technical 

capabilities, which is necessary to 

determine that the NRTL meets the 

capability requirements under 29 CFR 

1910.7. However, as explained in the 

notice proposing the SNAP, a SNAP 

site’s technical capabilities are not 

considered in making this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices 925 

determination. Thus, majorityownership ensures that NRTLs maintain 

administrative and operational control 

over their SNAP sites, thereby providing 

NRTLs the flexibility under SNAP to 

conduct their certification activities at 

more locations than had been 

previously possible. 

As used in OSHA’s policy on Sites, 

the term ‘‘organizationally encompass’’ 

means that a site is within the NRTL’s 

organizational structure and subject to 

the NRTL’s control. This term covers 

situations in which a state or region of 

a country issues a license to the NRTL 

that identifies its legal name, and allows 

it to establish an office or facility in this 

state or region to conduct business 

without requiring the NRTL to establish 

the office or facility as a subsidiary with 

a headquarters located outside the 

country. Because the site’s legal entity is 

the NRTL, the entity is in effect wholly 

owned by the NRTL. Thus, the NRTL’s 

control over a SNAP site would not 

diminish if OSHA permits an NRTL to 

establish a SNAP site that is 

organizationally encompassed by the 

NRTL. Therefore, the definition of a 

SNAP site in the final SNAP Description 

will provide for this option. 

With respect to the comments 

suggesting that OSHA allow SNAP sites 

that are owned by the NRTL’s parent 

company, ITSNA stated that it has 

‘‘significant experience’’ that 

demonstrates ownership by ‘‘a common 

parent’’ of both the site and the NRTL 

‘‘can provide the same level of control’’ 

as direct ownership of this site by the 

NRTL. (Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0003, 

p. 2.) In reviewing this condition, OSHA 

agrees that the requisite control would 

exist provided that the NRTL’s parent 

company wholly owns or 

organizationally encompasses the site, 

and delegates or otherwise assigns 

responsibility for the site’s SNAP 

functions to the NRTL. This control 

must be demonstrated in the parent’s 

and the NRTL’s policies or procedures, 

as appropriate. Under these 

circumstances, OSHA would be assured 

that NRTLs exercise the same degree of 

control that OSHA now requires by 

NRTLs over their recognized sites. 

Accordingly, OSHA concludes that the 

NRTL has control of a SNAP site wholly 

owned or organizationally encompassed 

by the NRTL’s parent company when 

the parent company delegates to the 

NRTL operational and administrative 

control over the SNAP site or the 

functions performed on behalf of the 

NRTL at the site. 

C. Frequency of SNAP-site audits. 

OSHA specified in the proposal that 

NRTLs must perform an initial audit to 

qualify a site for the SNAP, and then 

perform two program audits and one 

technical audit at the site each year. 

OSHA proposed these conditions to 

ensure that NRTLs timely identified 

nonconforming situations at SNAP sites. 

OSHA plans to audit each SNAP site 

every two years and, therefore, is relying 

on adequate oversight by NRTLs to 

compensate for the reduced frequency 

of OSHA audits. This proposed 

condition seemed to be a reasonable 

safeguard for assuring the NRTLs could 

resolve problems before serious 

consequences arose. Several 

commenters opposed this condition as 

excessive, and unnecessary for proper 

oversight. (See Exs. OSHA–2007–0053– 

0003, –0004, –0009.) In reviewing this 

condition, OSHA concludes that the 

distinction drawn between program and 

technical audits is somewhat artificial, 

and that some of those audits may 

overlap. Thus, OSHA believes that it 

would be adequate for NRTLs to 

perform a minimum of two audits of 

each SNAP site on a yearly (12-month) 

cycle, provided that each audit reviews 

all of the site’s SNAP operations, both 

technical (e.g., staff competence, 

equipment, facilities) and programmatic 

(e.g., quality-control procedures, 

internal audits, control of the 

certification mark). However, if the site 

only performs SNAP product testing 

and no ‘‘SNAP function’’ (both 

described later in this notice), then the 

NRTL must perform a minimum of one 

audit of the SNAP site, provided that 

the audit reviews all of a SNAP sites 

testing activities. This frequency is 

consistent with the current practice 

specified by OSHA for regular internal 

audits by NRTLs of their testing 

processes. 

D. Location of auditors. OSHA 

proposed that the program auditor for 

SNAP sites be located at the SNAP 

headquarters of the NRTL, which would 

need to be located at a recognized site. 

OSHA proposed this condition because 

it believed that the headquarters would 

have experienced and well qualified 

auditors available, and using a 

centralized pool of auditors would 

maintain the continuity and reliability 

of audits. In addition, locating the 

NRTL’s auditors at a central location 

would facilitate access to the NRTL 

auditors and their reports by OSHA 

auditors, especially when OSHA 

auditors conduct annual audits at the 

NRTL’s SNAP headquarters. NSF 

believed that staff located at other sites 

are as qualified to conduct audits as 

auditors from the SNAP headquarters of 

the NRTL. (Ex. OSHA–2007–0053– 

0009.) Several commenters raised 

concerns about the burden imposed on 

auditors having to travel to many distant 

SNAP sites from an NRTL’s 

headquarters. (Exs. OSHA–2007–0053– 

0003 and –0009.) Based on this travel 

burden, ITSNA recommended that 

auditors be located at the NRTLs’ 

regional headquarters. 

After reviewing these comments, 

OSHA believes that locating auditors at 

a recognized site, as well as at the 

NRTL’s SNAP headquarters, will not 

compromise the effectiveness of the 

audits. Accordingly, OSHA finds that an 

NRTL can exercise adequate oversight 

over its SNAP sites when the auditors 

of these sites report their findings to the 

NRTL’s SNAP headquarters, and when 

OSHA annually audits any of these 

locations annually. OSHA also is 

assuring the effectiveness of the audits 

by requiring that auditors be located at 

any recognized site, and by requiring 

the auditors at these sites to forward 

audit records to the SNAP headquarters 

of the NRTL and to keep a copy of the 

audit report at the auditor’s location. 

E. Independence of NRTL’s SNAP 

auditors. OSHA proposed that an 

NRTL’s SNAP auditors must be in an 

organizational unit that is separate from 

the NRTL’s operations, and that the unit 

must report directly to a senior 

executive of the NRTL. OSHA proposed 

this condition to ensure that SNAP 

auditors were independent of an NRTL’s 

operational units, and that auditing 

units had authority to compel 

operational units to conform with the 

prescribed SNAP conditions. Two 

commenters opposed this condition. 

(Exs. OSHA–2007–0053–0007 and 

–0008.). The first commenter believed 

this condition was inappropriate 

because auditing units may report to a 

team of executives instead of one 

executive, while the second commenter 

noted that the executive structure 

envisioned in the proposal may not 

exist in many NRTL organizations. 

OSHA agrees with these comments, and 

revised the condition to specify that 

SNAP auditors cannot be under the 

control or direction of any SNAP site, 

and that auditors must report audit 

results from a SNAP site to the SNAP 

headquarters of the NRTL. 

F. Policies and procedures for SNAP 

operations. Footnote 4 in the proposed 

SNAP Description states: 

For purposes of participating in SNAP and 

complying with the criteria in II.C and II.D 

of this description, any [NRTL may] use 

policies and procedures applicable to other 

aspects of its operations provided they meet 

or are tailored to meet the relevant criteria. 

Under such conditions, the NRTL would not 

need to develop separate policies and 

procedures for its participation in SNAP. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices 

1The NRTL Directive contains information about 

each of these programs. 

2The NRTL Directive contains information about 

each of these programs. 

Thus, OSHA was trying to facilitate 

NRTLs’ participation in the SNAP by 

permitting the NRTLs to adopt alreadydeveloped policies and procedures. In 

its comment, UL recommended revising 

this footnote to allow NRTLs to use 

‘‘alternate policies and procedures (e.g., 

those applicable to other aspects of its 

operations) provided they meet or are 

tailored to meet or exceed (in an 

alternate way) the relevant criteria.’’ 

(Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0007; emphasis 

in original noting revised language.) UL 

explained that the revisions would 

allow NRTLs to use ‘‘individual level 

qualification’’ for SNAP sites instead of 

site-level qualification. However, OSHA 

requires individual qualification under 

the proposed SNAP as a condition for 

qualifying a site. For example, 

paragraph II.C.2 of the proposed SNAP 

Description requires, ‘‘Detailed criteria 

to grant a site’s qualification, addressing 

both its capability to evaluate a product 

with respect to the requirements in a 

standard (i.e., technical capability) and 

its capability to perform any of the 

proposed SNAP functions (i.e., program 

capability).’’ Such qualification must 

ensure that a site has properly qualified 

staff, equipment, and procedures to 

perform technical and program 

functions. OSHA is revising the 

proposed SNAP Description to clarify 

this point, while leaving the footnote in 

its proposed form. 

G. Other topics and issues. CSA (Ex. 

OSHA–2007–0053–0007) noted that the 

proposed SNAP Description did not 

provide sufficient detail regarding the 

qualification and requalification 

requirements to ensure consistent 

application of the requirements. In 

response to this comment, OSHA will 

update the application format 

applicable for SNAP to specify the 

minimum documentation needed to 

apply, and the criteria OSHA will use to 

determine if the application is 

satisfactory. 

ITSNA expressed concern that use of 

the term ‘‘leased’’ in the definition of 

SNAP in the proposed SNAP 

Description could be interpreted to 

exclude subleasing. (Ex. OSHA–2007– 

0053–0003.) To avoid confusion, OSHA 

is clarifying the definition to include 

subleasing and renting. 

UL took exception to a statement in 

the preamble of the proposal that 

appeared to require NRTLs to issue the 

authorization of its mark 

‘‘simultaneously or concurrently with 

the final decision on certification.’’ (Ex. 

OSHA–2007–0053–0007.) In taking 

exception to this statement, UL noted 

that ‘‘there is no realistic way to 

concurrently or simultaneously decide 

and authorize.’’ OSHA believes the 

preamble statement is ambiguous, and 

agrees with UL that authorization must 

follow the decision to certify a product, 

even if, as UL noted, authorization 

occurs immediately after the decision. 

UL also opposed the condition in the 

proposed SNAP Description requiring 

NRTLs to post SNAP-site locations on 

the NRTLs’ Web sites. (Ex. OSHA– 

2007–0053–0007.) In this regard, UL 

stated that the public will have 

difficulty understanding the differences 

between a SNAP site and an NRTL site, 

and that ‘‘competitive issues between 

NRTLs using SNAP may arise regarding 

how their SNAP sites are referenced on 

their respective Internet sites.’’ OSHA 

agrees that the public may not readily 

understand the differences between 

NRTL sites and SNAP sites, and that 

inconsistencies could arise among 

NRTLs in describing SNAP sites on 

their Web sites. Therefore, OSHA will 

remove this condition from the final 

SNAP Description, and will maintain on 

its Web site a list of NRTLs and their 

associated SNAP sites, as well as an 

explanation of how NRTLs and their 

recognized sites differ from SNAP sites. 

Finally, UL noted that the proposed 

SNAP Description allowed SNAP sites 

to perform testing, which UL stated was 

not a SNAP function. (Ex. OSHA–2007– 

0053–0007.) However, OSHA proposed 

the SNAP to allow NRTLs to perform 

testing and certification functions at 

sites in countries that do not permit 

foreign entities to wholly own local 

businesses, provided the NRTL has 

qualified the sites as capable of 

performing specific product testing. 

OSHA revised the proposed SNAP 

Description to make clear that SNAP 

sites can perform testing when qualified 

by an NRTL to do so. 

III. Key Elements of SNAP 

With this Federal Register notice, 

OSHA announces implementation of the 

SNAP. Implementation of the SNAP 

will not change any of the requirements 

for NRTLs found under 29 CFR 1910.7, 

or any of OSHA’s requirements 

governing product approval by NRTLs. 

OSHA will implement the SNAP 

through the NRTL Directive as part of its 

NRTL Program policy. 

The SNAP will allow NRTLs to use 

SNAP sites to perform functions 

necessary for the NRTLs’ testing and 

certification operations. To receive 

approval to participate in the SNAP, 

NRTLs must ensure that the SNAP sites 

meet the conditions specified in the 

SNAP Description. These conditions 

consist of controls and safeguards for 

ensuring the efficacy of the functions 

performed at SNAP sites. Accordingly, 

an NRTL must qualify a prospective 

SNAP site to ensure that the site can 

perform one or more functions or 

activities permitted under the SNAP 

Description. Also, OSHA will audit each 

SNAP site, as well as the NRTL’s 

recognized site that centrally manages 

the NRTL’s SNAP operations. If OSHA 

finds that an NRTL or a SNAP site is not 

in compliance with any condition 

specified in the SNAP Description, it 

may remove the NRTL or the SNAP site 

from the SNAP. 

After reviewing the entire record, 

including the comments described 

above in section II of this notice 

(‘‘Summary and Analysis of 

Comments’’), OSHA determined that 

SNAP sites will be able to perform the 

following SNAP functions (paragraphs 

A to E) and product-testing activity 

(paragraph F): 

A. Qualify under Programs 2 through 

7 and 9.1 Programs 2 through 7 address 

NRTLs’ acceptance and use of testing 

data and product evaluations from other 

facilities that are not part of their 

corporate structure, specifically 

independent laboratories and product 

manufacturers. Under these programs, 

NRTLs must qualify each location (or 

site) that generates testing data or 

product evaluations. In qualifying such 

a facility, an NRTL must ensure that the 

facility meets the NRTL’s internal 

criteria for conducting the tasks 

necessary to collect testing data and 

perform product evaluations. 

Program 9 describes the procedures 

followed by NRTLs when using other 

facilities to perform specified services 

such as equipment calibration and 

follow-up inspections. NRTLs qualify 

each of these facilities to ensure that the 

facilities meet the NRTL’s internal 

criteria for providing the specified 

services. Implementation of the SNAP 

will permit SNAP sites to qualify to 

perform functions described under 

Programs 2 through 7 and 9. 

B. Accept data under Programs 2 

through 8.2 In accepting testing data or 

product evaluations under Programs 2 

through 8, NRTLs must have 

appropriate technical personnel to 

review the adequacy and accuracy of the 

data and evaluations, as well as clear 

procedures for conducting these 

reviews. The SNAP will expand this 

capability from recognized sites to 

SNAP sites. 

C. Provide OSHA with access to 

original product-testing and -evaluation 

records. AN NRTL must maintain, and 

make available to OSHA on request, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices 927 

original records resulting from its 

product testing and evaluation 

functions. These critical documents 

allow NRTLs to exercise quality control 

over product testing and evaluation 

functions, and permit OSHA to perform 

an accurate audit of these NRTL 

functions. SNAP sites must have the 

capability to maintain, and provide 

OSHA with access to, records of 

functions performed on behalf of 

NRTLs. 

D. Perform final technical reviews and 

make decisions on product certification. 

Final technical reviews and subsequent 

decisions regarding product certification 

are the last functions performed in the 

technical process for product 

certification. To provide assurance that 

a product meets the relevant test 

standard(s), only a well qualified 

technical staff can perform these 

functions. As with recognized sites, 

SNAP sites can perform these functions 

only if they have demonstrated the 

capability of doing so. 

E. Authorize use of an NRTL’s mark. 

An NRTL’s mark symbolizes the final 

decision to certify a product, and clearly 

identifies the NRTL as the source 

responsible for testing and certifying the 

product. While the SNAP will permit a 

SNAP site to authorize the mark of the 

NRTL for which it performs producttesting and -certification functions, the 

NRTLs must control the use of their 

marks and ensure that SNAP sites 

authorize this use only after the 

decision to certify a product. 

F. SNAP product-testing activity. 

SNAP sites may perform product testing 

within the scope of recognition of the 

NRTL, provided that the NRTL qualifies 

the site as having the capability for this 

testing. This activity may be the only 

activity performed by a SNAP site, or 

supplement one or more SNAP 

functions. 

IV. Submitting SNAP Applications 

OSHA will begin accepting 

applications from NRTLs for the SNAP 

after its effective date of May 11, 2009. 

At that time, OSHA will invite NRTLs 

and NRTL applicants to apply for 

approval to participate in SNAP and 

establish SNAP sites. Prior to submitting 

a SNAP application, applicants should 

review the SNAP Description, which 

OSHA will make available on its Web 

site for the NRTL Program at http:// 

www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ 

index.html. This Web site will contain 

instructions describing the information 

to submit in a SNAP application and 

will provide an application format that 

may be used for this purpose. 

V. Authority and Signature 

Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, directed the 

preparation of this notice. Accordingly, 

the Agency is issuing this notice 

pursuant to sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary 

of Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), 

and 29 CFR 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on January 5th, 

2009. 

Thomas M. Stohler, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E9–163 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Revisions to the Voluntary Protection 

Programs To Provide Safe and 

Healthful Working Conditions 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of revisions to the 

program. 

SUMMARY: This notice, which sets forth 

the basic philosophy and requirements 

of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s Voluntary Protection 

Programs (VPP), revises VPP’s 

traditional focus on individual fixed 

worksites by adding two new ways to 

participate: Mobile workforce and 

corporate. A significant reorganization 

of the program helps clarify the multiple 

participation options now available. 

Additional changes include: Greater 

flexibility in the VPP Demonstration 

Program; modified provisions 

concerning Star Program Rate Reduction 

Plans and 1-Year Conditional status; 

clarified requirements for Federal 

agency participants performing 

construction activities; and a new 

expectation concerning outreach and 

mentoring activities. 

DATES: The revisions are effective 120 

days from date of publication in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Oliver, Director, Office of 

Partnerships and Recognition, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Room N3700, 200 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–2213. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice, as well as news releases 

and other relevant documents, are 

available at OSHA’s Web site, http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

The Voluntary Protection Programs 

(VPP), adopted by OSHA in Federal 

Register Notice 47 FR 29025, July 2, 

1982, and subsequently revised, have 

established the efficacy of cooperative 

action among government, industry, and 

labor to address worker safety and 

health issues and expand worker 

protection. VPP participation 

requirements center on comprehensive 

management systems with significant 

management leadership and active 

employee involvement to prevent or 

control the safety and health hazards at 

the worksite. Employers who qualify 

generally view OSHA standards as a 

minimum level of safety and health 

performance and set their own more 

stringent standards where necessary for 

effective employee protection. 

Continuous improvement is a wellestablished principle of VPP. 

Participants strive to make ongoing 

gains in performance and protective 

systems, and OSHA strives to improve 

the VPP, its policies and procedures, 

and its impact on workplaces 

throughout the United States. 

The well documented success of VPP, 

the applicability of VPP principles to 

diverse industries and work situations, 

and the presence within its ranks of 

world-class models of safety and health 

excellence have produced a continuing 

stream of applications from small and 

large businesses and Federal agencies, 

both union and non-union. VPP, 

OSHA’s premier recognition program, 

has become a powerful tool for reducing 

workplace injuries and illnesses. 

VPP’s original focus was on 

establishing effective safety and health 

management systems at individual fixed 

worksites where the employer had 

responsibility and authority to control 

safety and health. OSHA’s experience 

with VPP Demonstration Programs and 

other cooperative programs, and the 

public comments on its proposal in the 

Federal Register to establish a VPP for 

Construction, 69 FR 53300, August 31, 

2004, have demonstrated that the basic 

principles of site-based safety and 

health management apply equally well 

to workforces that move from one work 

project and location to another and 

whose employers may not have 

controlling authority for safety and 

health. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES