[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6652-6656]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02302]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

[Docket ID. OSHA 2014-0019]
RIN 1218-AC92

Arizona State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.

ACTION: Rejection of State initiated plan change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA's) decision to reject Arizona's standard for
fall protection in residential construction. OSHA is deferring decision
on the simultaneously proposed action of reconsidering the Arizona
State Plan's final approval status, pending Arizona's expected repeal
of the rejected standard, by operation of law, and subsequent
enforcement of a standard that is at least as effective as OSHA's
standard on fall protection in residential construction.

DATES: Effective February 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room

N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski,
Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-
3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington
DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Arizona State Plan

    Arizona administers an OSHA-approved State Plan to develop and
enforce occupational safety and health standards for private sector and
state and local government employers, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18 of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667) (``the Act''). The Arizona State Plan received
initial OSHA approval on November 5, 1974 (39 FR 39037), and the
Arizona Occupational Safety and Health Division (ADOSH) of the
Industrial Commission of Arizona is designated as the state agency
responsible for administering the State Plan. Pursuant to Section 18(e)
of the Act, OSHA granted Arizona ``final approval'' effective June 20,
1985 (50 FR 25561). Final approval under Section 18(e) requires, among
other things, a finding by the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health (``Assistant Secretary'') that the plan, in actual
operation, provides worker protection ``at least as effective as'' that
provided by OSHA.

OSHA's Residential Construction Fall Protection Standard

    OSHA issued its current federal construction fall protection
standard on August 9, 1994 (29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, 59 FR 40672).
In general, subpart M requires that an employee exposed to a fall
hazard at a height of six feet or more (hereinafter referred to as a
``trigger height'') be protected by conventional fall protection,
specifically a guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall
arrest system. Subpart M creates an exception allowing a residential
construction employer who can demonstrate that it is infeasible or
creates a greater hazard to use these systems, to develop and implement
a fall protection plan instead. OSHA's standard requires that fall
protection plans conform to specific criteria, including that they be
site-specific and specify the alternative measures that will be taken
to eliminate or reduce the possibility of a fall. (29 CFR
1926.502(k)(1). As set forth in subpart M, there is a presumption that
use of conventional fall protection is feasible and implementation will
not create a greater hazard, and the employer has the burden of proving
otherwise. It should be noted that OSHA rarely encounters real-world
situations where conventional fall protection is truly infeasible.
    In response to questions raised by the residential construction
industry about the feasibility of subpart M, on December 8, 1995, OSHA
issued interim fall protection procedures (STD 3.1) for residential
construction employers that differ from those in subpart M. OSHA
instruction STD 03-00-001 (a plain language rewrite and renumbering of
STD 3.1) set out an interim compliance policy that permitted employers
engaged in certain residential construction activities to use specified
alternative procedures instead of conventional fall protection. OSHA
never intended STD 03-00-001 to be a permanent policy; in issuing the
Instruction, OSHA stated that the guidance provided therein would
remain in effect until further notice or until completion of a new
rulemaking effort addressing these concerns.
    On July 14, 1999, OSHA initiated the evaluation of STD 03-00-001 by
publishing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (64 FR
38078) seeking comments and data to support claims that fall protection
requirements for certain construction activities were infeasible. In
the ANPR, OSHA stated that the conventional fall protection
requirements and six foot trigger height set forth in subpart M were
established as reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect workers,
and as technologically and economically feasible for employers. OSHA
noted that since the promulgation of subpart M, there had been
additional advances in the types and capability of commercially
available fall protection equipment and, therefore, OSHA intended to
rescind STD 03-00-001 unless persuasive evidence of infeasibility or
significant safety hazard was presented.
    After considering all comments submitted on the record, OSHA
concluded that, overall, there was no persuasive evidence to show that
employers in residential construction would be unable to find a safe
and feasible means of protecting workers from falls in accordance with
subpart M (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)). Therefore, on December 16, 2010,
OSHA's Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction (STD 03-11-002)
canceled OSHA's interim enforcement policy (STD 03-00-001) on fall
protection for certain residential construction activities, and
required employers engaged in residential construction to fully comply
with 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13). This new guidance informed State Plans
that, in accordance with the Act, they must each have a compliance
directive on fall protection in residential construction that, in
combination with applicable State Plan standards, resulted in an
enforcement program that is at least as effective as OSHA's program (75
FR 80315, Dec. 22, 2010).

Arizona's Residential Construction Fall Protection Standard

    On June 16, 2011, ADOSH adopted STD 03-11-002, but on June 17,
2011, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) immediately stayed the
enforcement of this directive. Then on November 30, 2011, the ICA
lifted the stay, effective January 1, 2012. On March 27, 2012, a new
bill, SB 1441, was signed into legislation, requiring conventional fall
protection in residential construction whenever an employee is working
at a height of 15 feet or more or whenever a roof slope is steeper than
7:12, and creating an exception where implementation of conventional
fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard. SB 1441 was
codified as Arizona Revised Statute, Title 23, Ch. 2, Art 13 (A.R.S.
23-492), which sets forth fall protection requirements for residential
construction work in the state. ADOSH then adopted the requirements of
A.R.S. 23-492 as a state standard (Ariz. Admin. Code R20-5-601.01). In
most instances, state standards are adopted by the designated state
occupational safety and health agency, and are forwarded to OSHA as
supplements to the State Plan (29 CFR 1953.4). However, in this
instance the legislature itself provided the standard (Ariz. Admin.
Code R20-5-601.01). Accordingly, the State Plan supplement at issue in
this Federal Register document is referred to as the ``state statute''
rather than ``standard'' or ``supplement,'' the terms used in OSHA's
procedural regulations.
    After a series of discussions with the state, on March 19, 2014,
OSHA sent Arizona a letter to show cause why a proceeding to reject the
state statute and reconsider the state's final approval status should
not be commenced. OSHA's main point of contention was the 15-foot
trigger height for the use of conventional fall protection. On May 1,
2014, Arizona submitted its response, pointing to the passage of SB
1307, a new bill signed on April 22, 2014,

which makes certain revisions to A.R.S. 23-492. This revised version of
the state statute makes some relatively minor changes to its fall
protection requirements, but does not alter the 15-foot trigger height
for conventional fall protection. The revisions in SB 1307 do mandate
fall protection for heights above six feet, but in most situations,
allow this protection to be in the form of a fall protection plan and
do not require conventional fall protection. Further, Arizona's
requirements for a fall protection plan allow employers to ``develop a
single fall protection plan covering all construction operations,'' but
require that a qualified person develop a supplement to the general
plan for additional fall hazards at specific sites, not already
included in the plan. (A.R.S. 23-492.07(A)(1)), (SB 1307 Secs. 5(A)(1),
(5)). The Arizona state statute requires that the plan ``reduces or
eliminates hazards,'' but does not provide specific guidance on what
measures are enough to meet this threshold, and allows for only a
safety monitoring system in most situations. (A.R.S. 23-492.07(A)(8)).
Finally, SB 1307 also contains a conditional repeal provision stating
that if OSHA does reject the state statute, and publishes that decision
in the Federal Register pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23, then A.R.S. 23-492
is repealed by operation of law (SB 1307 Sec. 7).

Comparison of OSHA Standards and Arizona's Residential Construction
Fall Protection Statute

    The OSH Act requires that State Plans develop and enforce standards
that are at least as effective as OSHA's standards (29 U.S.C.
667(c)(2)). OSHA's standard for fall protection in residential
construction (subpart M, 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)) generally requires
conventional fall protection (fall arrest systems, safety nets, or
guardrails) any time employees are working at heights of six feet or
greater. In contrast, Arizona's state statute generally requires very
limited, if any, fall protection for employees working between six and
15 feet. The 2014 revision of the Arizona statute includes a mandate
for fall protection for heights above six feet, but in most situations,
allows for that fall protection to be in the form of a fall protection
plan only. As discussed below in response to the comments, OSHA has
found that conventional fall protection is a more effective means of
protecting workers than implementation of a written plan. Arizona and
OSHA's requirements for a fall protection plan differ significantly.
    In the limited circumstances where conventional fall protection is
infeasible or creates a greater hazard, OSHA requires the employer to
implement a written, site-specific fall protection plan that specifies
the alternative measures that will be taken to eliminate or reduce the
possibility of a fall (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13); STD 03-11-002). (1307
Sec. 2(A) and 5(A)). In contrast, the Arizona statute generally
requires that the plan ``reduces or eliminates hazards,'' but does not
provide specific guidance on what measures are enough to meet this
threshold, and allows for only a safety monitoring system in most
situations. (A.R.S. 23-492.07(A)(8)). In addition, the Arizona state
statute allows employers to develop a single fall protection plan that
can cover multiple worksites. In an apparent effort to make the single
fall protection plan more site-specific, the 2014 revision of the
Arizona statute requires that a qualified person develop a supplement
to the general plan for additional fall hazards not already included in
the plan. (SB 1307 Secs. 5(A)(1), (5)). However, the state statute
contains no guidance about the required level of detail of the plan,
which leaves open the possibility that single plans could be general
enough to meet the statutory requirement for almost all situations.
Further, there is no requirement to review the plan at each site to
ensure that it meets the statutory requirement of eliminating or
reducing the possibility of a fall.
    Finally, Arizona's statute contains several exceptions to the
general requirement for conventional fall protection that will result
in many circumstances in which conventional fall protection is not
required, and the use of other alternative methods, e.g. ``eave
barriers'' and parapet walls is allowed. (SB 1307 Secs. 1(6), 3(G)(2),
4(A) and 4(B)).
    After reviewing the provisions of both versions of the state
statute, OSHA has concluded that the Arizona statute is not at least as
effective as OSHA's standard, the most notable problematic differences
being Arizona's 15-foot trigger height for using conventional fall
protection as opposed to OSHA's six-foot trigger height, Arizona's
single fall protection plan for all worksites, and Arizona's exceptions
to the requirement for conventional fall protection. On the basis of
these concerns, OSHA is rejecting Arizona's statute on fall protection
in residential construction.

Initial Federal Register Document and Discussion of Comments

    OSHA published a Federal Register document proposing to reject the
Arizona fall protection statute and reconsider the state's final
approval on August 21, 2014 (79 FR 49465). The agency requested
comments by September 25, 2014. OSHA received a total of ten comments
on both rejection of the state statute and reconsideration of final
approval status. OSHA has reviewed and considered the comments, and the
following discussion summarizes the issues raised and OSHA's responses.
    Comments were received from representatives of the American Society
for Safety of Engineers (ASSE), National Safety Council (NSC), Home
Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA), National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB), Subcontractors Association of Arizona
(ASA),\1\ members of the Arizona State Senate, Greater Phoenix Chamber
of Commerce, Safirst Corporation, Grand Canyon State Electric
Cooperative Association, and the Industrial Commission of Arizona
(ICA). Commenters provided mixed feedback on both the proposed
rejection of the Arizona statute and proposed reconsideration of
Arizona's final approval status. ASSE and NSC supported OSHA in
reconsidering final approval at this time, while the Greater Phoenix
Chamber of Commerce, Safirst Corporation, HBACA, NAHB, ICA, ASA,
members of the Arizona State Senate, and Grand Canyon State Electric
Cooperative Association all opposed reconsideration of final approval.
Most of the arguments against reconsideration included a request to
delay the action in order to allow the conditional repeal within SB
1307 to take effect upon rejection of the statute. OSHA has agreed to
defer its decision on reconsideration of final approval status and will
monitor Arizona's response to the rejection of the state statute and
subsequent implementation and enforcement of residential fall
protection requirements. Further discussion of the comments on
reconsideration can be tabled until such time that OSHA decides whether
or not to move forward on that action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Late comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In respect to the comments on the proposed rejection of Arizona's
statute, ASSE and NSC both generally supported rejection, focusing on
the discrepancy in trigger heights and supporting the argument that a
law requiring a plan for avoiding hazards does not ensure the same
level of safety as a law requiring personal protective equipment when
exposure to a hazard does occur. The HBACA, NAHB, ASA, members of the
Arizona State Senate, and ICA all generally opposed rejection of the
state's statute, with many overlapping arguments. One common

contention was that the Arizona statute is ``at least as effective'' as
OSHA's standard because Arizona has a holistic approach to fall
protection, emphasizing fall prevention rather than simply focusing on
fall protection once a fall has occurred above certain trigger heights.
Commenters argued that Arizona has a more effective fall protection
program by requiring the extensive use of written fall protection plans
to implement work practices that reduce exposure to fall hazards. OSHA
agrees that preventing falls is preferable to arresting them. For
example, STD 03-11-002 notes that use of guardrails, where feasible, is
preferable to personal fall arrest systems or safety nets. However,
OSHA finds that a requirement to have a written fall protection plan in
place is not a substitute for the proactive protection provided by
guardrails, personal fall arrest systems or safety nets. In general,
OSHA has found that conventional fall protection is a more effective
means of protecting workers than a written plan to reduce or eliminate
fall hazards. OSHA agrees that planning plays an important part in
preventing falls and acknowledges that a written fall protection plan
contributes to ensuring safety at a workplace, but only if it is
combined with the implementation of conventional fall protection. If a
worker is exposed to a fall hazard despite the implementation of a
plan, that worker must be protected. Moreover, the protection afforded
needs to be at least as effective as what would be required under
OSHA's standard. Further, as discussed above, OSHA has concerns about
Arizona's fall protection plan requirements, on its face. In sum, the
state statute lacks specific guidance on the required contents of the
plan, essentially allows for a fall protection plan to be a single plan
for all sites, and does not require review of the plan at each site.
    Commenters also argued that the exceptions to Arizona's general
requirement for conventional fall protection were greatly narrowed by
SB 1307 and do not undermine the statute. OSHA acknowledges that SB
1307 did limit the exceptions; however, in addition to only requiring a
fall protection plan between six and 15 feet in height, there are also
other exceptions above 15 feet in which conventional fall protection is
not required by the Arizona statute, but would be required under OSHA's
standard.
    Another common thread among the comments opposing rejection is that
differing trigger heights is not conclusive evidence that the state's
standard is not ``at least as effective'' as OSHA's standard. OSHA's
rulemaking on subpart M concluded that a six foot rule was reasonably
necessary and appropriate to protect workers and technologically and
economically feasible for employers, including employers in residential
construction. OSHA recognizes Congressional intent in allowing State
Plans to promulgate different standards and to be more effective than
OSHA. State Plans are not necessarily required to adopt an identical
fall protection standard as long as workers are afforded ``at least as
effective'' protection under the state standard as they would have
under OSHA's standard.
    Several commenters objected to OSHA making a determination of
effectiveness absent a publicized definition of effectiveness and known
process for making the determination. The OSH Act requires a State Plan
to develop and enforce safety and health standards that are ``at least
as effective'' in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as provided by OSHA's standards. At least one commenter
asserted that OSHA should rely on outcome performance measures or
injury and illness rates as evidence that a State Plan is at least as
effective as OSHA. However, OSHA regulations establish that
effectiveness is evaluated by comparing state standards to OSHA's
standards on a provision by provision basis. OSHA's regulations require
that State Plans provide standards with respect to specific issues
which will be at least as effective as the standards promulgated by
OSHA relating to the same issues. (29 CFR 1902.4(b)(2)). OSHA's indices
of effectiveness require that State Plan standards are at least as
effective in containing specific provisions for the protection of
employees from exposure to hazards. As such, State Plan standards must
include appropriate provisions requiring use of suitable protective
equipment and control or technological procedures to protect against
such hazards. See 29 CFR 1902(b)(2)(vii). As explained above, OSHA's
main point of contention with the Arizona statute is that Arizona
employers are not required to provide conventional fall protection to
workers in residential construction working at heights between six and
15 feet on slopes with a pitch that is less than 7:12, as they would be
required to provide if operating in a state covered by OSHA, and the
Arizona statute fails to impose any additional or different
requirements or administrative controls that entirely eliminate the
fall hazard at those heights.
    Three other collateral issues raised by the commenters included a
call for action with the other State Plans that have differing
standards for fall protection in residential construction; a request
for a response to NAHB's previous petition for OSHA to reopen the
rulemaking on the fall protection standard; and a concern about lack of
outreach to subcontractors during OSHA's discussions with Arizona. In
respect to the first issue, OSHA is currently engaged in a dialogue
with the other State Plans that have different fall protection trigger
heights, just as OSHA engaged in dialogue with Arizona prior to
beginning this formal process to reject the state statute. (See 79 FR
49465). OSHA expects these states to take steps in the near future to
move forward towards ensuring they are ``at least as effective'' as
OSHA. In respect to the second issue, on September 19, 2014, OSHA
released an official denial in response to NAHB's petition to reopen
rulemaking on the fall protection standard. In denying the petition,
OSHA stated, in part:

    OSHA believes that rescinding the interim directive, and
enforcing compliance with 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13), has been effective
in reducing the incidence of fatal falls among residential
construction workers. OSHA believes this policy change has led to
increasing numbers of residential construction employers using
conventional fall protection, and expects that residential
construction worksites will become even safer as more employers
implement these fall protection methods.

    In respect to the third issue, OSHA values stakeholder input, and
if OSHA's discussions with other states about their fall protection in
residential construction standards lead to meetings with industry
representatives, OSHA will seek to welcome the involvement of
subcontractors, their representatives, and other interested parties. In
this proceeding, OSHA outlined its efforts to work with Arizona and
other stakeholders in the initial Federal Register document (See 79 FR
49465), and OSHA has meet all the procedural requirements for this
action. (See 29 CFR 1953.6(e)).
    The public comments and questions submitted on the docket have all
been addressed in this document and there are no substantial issues
raised that necessitate a public hearing. Arizona specifically waived a
hearing on the rejection of the state statute, and no other commenter
requested a hearing. Arizona also waived the tentative decision by the
Assistant Secretary that is provided in the regulations on rejection
proceedings. (29 CFR 1902.21) The regulations further provide that

when the state waives the tentative decision, the Assistant Secretary
``shall issue a final decision.'' (29 CFR 1902.21(b)).

Decision on Rejecting the State's Statute

    Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1953.6(e) and
1902.22-23, the Assistant Secretary has made a final decision to reject
the Arizona State Plan's statute for fall protection in residential
construction. Thus, the Assistant Secretary rejects the changes to
Arizona's State Plan prescribed by Title 23, chapter 2, article 13,
section 01, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 23-492.01) under 29 CFR
1953.6(e) and 1902.22, and now publishes that decision in the Federal
Register pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23. This rejection excludes the
changes prescribed by A.R.S. 23-492.01 from the Arizona State Plan. The
Assistant Secretary is deferring decision on the simultaneously
proposed action of reconsidering the State Plan's final approval. This
deferral is pending Arizona's expected repeal of the rejected statute
and subsequent enforcement of a standard at least as effective as
OSHA's standard. The Assistant Secretary's decision to reject the state
statute is based upon the facts determined by OSHA in monitoring the
Arizona State Plan and a comparative review of Arizona's statute and
OSHA's standard, and was reached after opportunity for public comment.

Effect of the Decision

    SB 1307 contains a conditional repeal provision stating that if
OSHA does reject the state statute, and publishes that decision in the
Federal Register pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23, then A.R.S. 23-492 is
repealed by operation of law (SB 1307 Sec. 7). Therefore, the expected
effect of the Assistant Secretary's decision to reject Arizona's
statute covering fall protection in residential construction is that
ADOSH will revert to enforcing 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M. The
Assistant Secretary will defer the decision on reconsideration to allow
the state time to implement and begin enforcement of STD 03-11-002.
OSHA will continue to monitor the State Plan, specifically enforcement
activities in residential construction, to confirm that ADOSH is
implementing and enforcing subpart M, or an at least as effective
alternative, in an at least as effective manner. The lack of any such
implementation or enforcement would leave a gap in the State's
enforcement program for construction, but if the State Plan retained
its final approval, neither the State Plan nor OSHA could cover that
gap. Any such gap in the State Plan's enforcement program would serve
as the basis for the Assistant Secretary's reconsideration of 18(e)
final approval status. At this time, the Assistant Secretary is
deferring the decision on reconsideration pending the state's
enforcement of subpart M.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this document. OSHA is issuing this document under the authority
specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912), and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1953.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-02302 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53303-53305]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21623]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0224; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-210-AD;
Amendment 39-16772; AD 2011-17-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to the products listed above. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

* * * * *
    The airworthiness limitations applicable to Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently given in
Airbus A330 ALI Document reference AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, which is
approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and
referenced in Airbus Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2.
    The issue 17 of Airbus A330 ALI Document introduces more
restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations.
Failure to comply with this issue constitutes an unsafe condition.
    This [EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2009-0102 [and retains the
requirements therein], and requires the implementation of the new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations
as specified in Airbus A330 ALI Document issue 17.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in
certain structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes September 30, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
30, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June
7, 2006 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76
FR 15867), and proposed to supersede AD 2006-09-07, Amendment 39-14577
(71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations are distributed in the Airbus A330
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).
    The airworthiness limitations applicable to Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently given in
Airbus A330 ALI Document reference AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, which is
approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and
referenced in Airbus Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2.
    The issue 17 of Airbus A330 ALI Document introduces more
restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations.
Failure to comply with this issue constitutes an unsafe condition.
    This [EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2009-0102 [and retains the
requirements therein], and requires the implementation of the new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations
as specified in Airbus A330 ALI Document issue 17.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in
certain structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 54 products of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-09-07, Amendment 39-14577
(71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006), and retained in this AD, take about 1 work-
hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions
is $85 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with

the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $4,590, or $85 per product.

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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14577 (71 FR
25919, May 3, 2006) and adding the following new AD:

2011-17-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-16772. Docket No. FAA-2011-0224;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-210-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 30, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-09-07, Amendment 39-14577 (71 FR
25919, May 3, 2006).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-223F, -243, and -243F airplanes, and Model A330-301, -302, -303, -
321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; certificated in any
category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
* * * * *
    The airworthiness limitations applicable to Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently given in
Airbus A330 ALI Document reference AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, which is
approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and
referenced in Airbus Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2.
    The issue 17 of Airbus A330 ALI Document introduces more
restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations.
Failure to comply with this issue constitutes an unsafe condition.
    This [EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2009-0102 [and retains the
requirements therein], and requires the implementation of the new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements/airworthiness limitations
as specified in Airbus A330 ALI Document issue 17.
    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion
in certain structure, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of Paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2006-09-07,
Amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006)

Airworthiness Limitations Revision

    (g) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -
303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes: Within 3
months after June 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-09-07,
Amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006)), revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Airbus
Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation
Items,'' Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003, as specified in Section
9-2 of the Airbus A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), into the
ALS.

New Requirements of This AD

Revise the Maintenance Program

    (h) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the maintenance program by incorporating Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/
95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17,
dated May 28, 2010. At the times specified in Airbus Document AI/SE-
M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17,
dated May 28, 2010, comply with all applicable maintenance
requirements and associated airworthiness limitations included in
Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010. Accomplishing the
revision in this paragraph ends the requirements in paragraph (g) of
this AD.

Alternative Intervals or Limits

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, after
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternatives to the maintenance tasks, intervals, or limitations
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD may be used.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be e-mailed to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0174, dated August 17,
2010; Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003; and Airbus
Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness Limitation
Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28, 2010; and
Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, ``A330 Airworthiness
Limitation Items,'' Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003; as applicable;
to do the actions required by this AD; unless the AD specifies
otherwise. The issue number of Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97,
``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28,
2010, is indicated only on the title page of this document.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97,
``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 17, dated May 28,
2010, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97,
``A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,'' Issue 12, dated November 1,
2003, on June 7, 2006 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-21623 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55949-55950]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23055]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0060]

Methylene Chloride Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Methylene Chloride
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0060,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2011-0060) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    As required by the PRA-95, OSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register on March 16, 2011 (76 FR 14432, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0060)
requesting public comment on its proposed extension of the information
collection requirements contained in the existing Standard on Methylene
Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052, ``the Standard''). The notice was part of a
preclearance consultation program intended to provide those interested
parties the opportunity to comment on OSHA's request for an extension
by OMB of a previous approval of the information collection
requirements in the Standard. No public comments were received.
    However, as a result of the Standards Improvement Project-Phase III
final rule (76 FR 33590), published on June 8, 2011, the ``transfer of
records'' requirement contained in the Standard (former 29 CFR
1910.1052(m)(5)) was revoked. In accordance with PRA-95, prior to
issuance of the final rule, on May 27, 2011, OSHA submitted a revised
ICR to OMB requesting approval to remove this requirement and the
associated burden hours and costs. On August 11, 2011, OMB issued a
Notice of Action (NOA) indicating approval of the request.
    In addition, the NOA instructed the Department of Labor to publish
a second notice in the Federal Register to solicit comments on its
proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's approval of
the information collection requirements. In response, this notice
fulfills the NOA instructions. The Agency will respond to any comments
submitted in response to this notice and submit the final ICR to OMB.
    The Standard protects workers from the adverse health effects that
may result from their exposure to methylene chloride (MC). The
requirements in the Standard include worker exposure monitoring,
notifying workers of their MC exposures, administering medical
examinations to workers, providing examining physicians with specific
program and worker information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of
their medical examination results, training workers on the hazards of
MC, maintaining workers' exposure monitoring and medical examination
records for specific periods, and providing access to these records by
OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the
affected workers, and their authorized representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease in burden hours from
67,361 to 63,560 (a total decrease of 3,801 hours). The adjustment is
primarily due to a decrease in covered workers.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052).
    OMB Number: 1218-0179.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 90,596.
    Frequency of Response: Annually; semi-annually, quarterly; on
occasion.
    Total Responses: 250,924.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 1 hour for administering a
medical examination to 5 minutes to maintain a worker's medical or
exposure record.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 63,560.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $19,214,570.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0060). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010
(75 FR 55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 2, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-23055 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P