[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17562-17564]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[USCG-2009-0765]

Port Access Route Study: In the Approaches to Los
Angeles[dash]Long Beach and in the Santa Barbara Channel

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to evaluate the continued applicability of and the need for
modifications to current vessel routing in the approaches to Los
Angeles[dash]Long Beach and in the Santa Barbara Channel. The goal of
the study is to help reduce the risk of marine casualties and increase
the efficiency of vessel traffic in the study area. The recommendations
of the study may lead to future rulemaking action or appropriate
international agreements.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before June 7, 2010
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0765 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of study, call or e-mail Lieutenant Morgan Barbieri, Project Officer,
Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or George Detweiler, Office of Waterways
Management, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee K. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    A. Submitting comments: If you submit comments, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2009-0765), indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your
name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in
the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Notices'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0576'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    B. Viewing the comments and documents: To view comments and
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2009-0765'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140

on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
    C. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

II. Definitions

    The following definitions (except ``Regulated Navigation Area'')
are from the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) publication
``Ships' Routeing'' and should help you review this notice:
    Area to be avoided (ATBA) means a routing measure comprising an
area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly
hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and
which should be avoided by all vessels, or certain classes of vessels.
    Deep-water route means a route within defined limits, which has
been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged
obstacles as indicated on nautical charts.
    Inshore traffic zone means a routing measure comprising a
designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation
scheme and the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS).
    Precautionary area means a routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits where vessels must navigate with particular
caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be
recommended.
    Recommended route means a route of undefined width, for the
convenience of vessels in transit, which is often marked by centerline
buoys.
    Recommended track is a route which has been specially examined to
ensure so far as possible that it is free of dangers and along which
vessels are advised to navigate.
    Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) means a water area within a defined
boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area
have been established under 33 CFR part 165.
    Roundabout means a routing measure comprising a separation point or
circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined
limits. Traffic within the roundabout is separated by moving in a
counterclockwise direction around the separation point or zone.
    Separation Zone or separation line means a zone or line separating
the traffic lanes which vessels are proceeding in opposite or nearly
opposite directions; or from the adjacent sea area; or separating
traffic lanes designated for particular classes of vessels proceeding
in the same direction.
    Traffic lane means an area within defined limits in which one-way
traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming
separation zones, may constitute a boundary.
    Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) means a routing measure aimed at
the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and
by the establishment of traffic lanes.
    Two-way route means a route within defined limits inside which two-
way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships
through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous.
    Vessel routing system means any system of one or more routes or
routing measure aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes
traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas
to be avoided, no anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts,
precautionary areas, and deep-water routes.

III. Background and Purpose

    A. Requirement for port access route studies: Under the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(C)), the Commandant of the
Coast Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation
schemes (TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to
and from United States ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs
recognizes the paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the
designated areas.
    The PWSA requires the Coast Guard to conduct a study of potential
traffic density and the need for safe access routes for vessels before
establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the study process,
we must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign State agencies (as
appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. A primary purpose of this coordination is, to the extent
practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with other
reasonable waterway uses.
    B. Previous port access route studies: From 1993 through 1996, the
Coast Guard conducted a port access route study to analyze vessel
routing measures in the approaches to California ports. We published
the study results in the Federal Register on October 25, 1996 (61 FR
55248). The study recommended shifting the southern approach lanes of
the existing TSS off San Francisco westward (seaward) and extending the
existing TSS in the Santa Barbara Channel from Point Conception to
Point Arguello. The study concluded that no changes to the TSS in the
approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach were necessary at that time.
    In 1995, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach initiated major
port improvement projects. These projects are completed and included
the following:
    Lengthening of the Los Angeles Approach Channel to extend
approximately 3.5 nautical miles beyond the Los Angeles breakwater.
    Deepening of the Los Angeles Approach Channel to a project depth of
81 feet.
    A slight shift of the Long Beach Approach to a 355 deg. True
inbound course.
    Deepening of the Long Beach Approach Channel to a project depth of
69 feet.
    The Coast Guard published a notice of study in the Federal Register
(64 FR 12139, March 11, 1999) which announced that we would conduct a
PARS for the approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach. The Coast Guard
published a notice of study results in the Federal Register on May 19,
2000 (65 FR 31856). The PARS evaluated the potential effects of the
port improvement projects on navigational safety and vessel traffic
management efficiency. It concluded that modifications to the TSS in
the approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach and the Precautionary Area
were necessary for the safety of the maritime community utilizing the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
    C. Necessity for a new port access route study: The Coast Guard is
always seeking ways to enhance the safety of life at sea. Increased
vessel traffic has been observed bypassing the Santa Barbara Channel
TSS and opting for routes south of San Miguel, Santa Rosa and Santa
Cruz Islands approaching the San Pedro Channel. Vessels, which have
traditionally utilized the established TSS in the Santa Barbara Channel
to access ports in Los Angeles-Long Beach, have recently shifted to
transit in the

area south of San Miguel, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands.
    The Coast Guard has identified a potential safety enhancement by
increasing predictability of vessel traffic patterns in this area with
an established vessel routing system. When vessels follow predictable
and charted routing measures such as a TSS, congestion may be reduced,
and mariners may be better able to predict where vessel interactions
may occur and act accordingly.
    This study will assess whether the creation of a vessel routing
system is necessary to increase the predictability of vessel movements,
which may decrease the potential for collisions, oil spills, and other
events that could threaten the marine environment.

IV. Timeline, Study Area, and Process of This PARS

    The Eleventh Coast Guard District will conduct this PARS. The study
will begin upon publication of this notice and should take 6 to 12
months to complete.
    The study area will be the area with a northern boundary at
34[deg]30[min] N; a western boundary 121[deg]00[min] W; a southern
boundary at 33[deg]15[min] N; and an eastern boundary along the
shoreline. This area encompasses the TSSs in the Santa Barbara Channel
and in the approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach and the approach to the
San Pedro Channel from the Pacific Ocean, particularly the area south
of San Miguel, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands and north of San
Nicholas, Santa Barbara, and Santa Catalina Islands where an increase
in vessel traffic has been identified.
    As part of this study, we will analyze vessel traffic density,
agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management,
navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather. We encourage you to
participate in the study process by submitting comments in response to
this notice.
    We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate existing vessel routing
measures and conclude that no changes are necessary. It is also
possible that the study may recommend one or more changes to enhance
navigational safety and the efficiency of vessel traffic management.
The recommendations may lead to future rulemakings or appropriate
international agreements.

Possible Scope of the Recommendations

    We are attempting to determine the scope of any safety problems
associated with vessel transits in the study area. We expect that
information gathered during the study will help us identify any
problems and appropriate solutions. The study may recommend that we--
     Maintain the current vessel routing measures,
     Modify the existing traffic separations schemes;
     Create one or more precautionary areas;
     Create one or more inshore traffic zones;
     Establish area(s) to be avoided;
     Create deep-draft routes;
     Establish a regulated navigation Area (RNA) with specific
vessel operating requirements to ensure safe navigation near shallow
water; and
     Identify any other appropriate ships' routing measures.

Questions

    To help us conduct the port access route study, we request
information that will help answer the following questions, although
comments on other issues addressed in this notice are also welcome. In
responding to a question, please explain your reasons for each answer
and follow the instructions under ``Public Participation and Request
for Comments'' above.
    1. What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the study area
face? Please describe.
    2. Are there strains on the current vessel routing system, such as
increasing traffic density? Please describe.
    3. Are modifications to existing vessel routing measures needed to
improve traffic management efficiency in the study area? If so, please
describe.
    4. What costs and benefits are associated with the potential study
recommendations listed above? What measures do you think are most cost-
effective?
    5. What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to
existing vessel routing measures or establishing new routing measures
have on the study area?
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: March 11, 2010.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-7815 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37669-37670]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-473-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of
Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on June 4, 2012, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (CEGT), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana
71151, filed in Docket No. CP12-473-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). CEGT seeks authorization
to abandon in place certain segments of its Line H, a low pressure
delivery lateral in Union County, Arkansas, and Union Parish,
Louisiana. CEGT proposes to perform these activities under its blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-384-000 [20 FERC ] 62,408 (1982)]
and amended in Docket No. CP82-384-001[22 FERC ] 61,148 (1983)], all as

more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to B.
Michelle Willis, Manager, Regulatory & Compliance, CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, LLC, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana,
71151, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER>
(fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15256 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24835-24844]
[DOCID:fr06my10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0003]
RIN No. 1218-AC46

Infectious Diseases

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on occupational exposure
to infectious agents in settings where healthcare is provided, (e.g.,
hospitals, outpatient clinics, clinics in schools and correctional
facilities), and healthcare-related settings (e.g., laboratories that
handle potentially infectious biological materials, medical examiner
offices and mortuaries). OSHA is interested in strategies that are
being used in such healthcare and other healthcare-related work
settings to mitigate the risk of occupationally-acquired infectious
diseases. As such, OSHA would like to collect information and data on
the facilities and the tasks potentially exposing workers to this risk;
successful employee infection control programs; control methodologies
being utilized (including engineering, work practice, and
administrative controls and personal protective equipment); medical
surveillance programs; and training. OSHA will use the information
received in response to this request to determine what action, if any,
the Agency may take to further limit the spread of occupationally-
acquired infectious diseases in these types of settings.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following date:
    Hard copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
August 4, 2010.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be sent
by August 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and additional materials by any of
the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for making
electronic submissions:
    Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648; or
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0003, U.S. Department of
Labor, 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.-4:45 p.m., EST.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0003). Submissions, 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.
    Docket: To read or download submissions 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 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 at the OSHA Docket
Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press Inquiries: Jennifer Ashley, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    General and Technical Information: Andrew Levinson, Director,
Office of Biological Hazards, OSHA Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Introduction
    B. History of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
Addressing Protection of Workers From Infectious Diseases
    C. Summary
II. Request for Data, Information and Comments
    A. General
    B. Infection Prevention and Control Plan
    C. Methods of Control
    D. Vaccination and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis
    E. Communication of Hazards
    F. Recordkeeping
    G. Economic Impacts and Benefits
    H. Impacts on Small Entities
III. Public Participation

I. Background

A. Introduction

    In 2007, the healthcare and social assistance sector as a whole had
16.5 million employees.\1\ Healthcare workplaces can range from small
private practices of physicians to hospitals that employ thousands of
workers. In addition, healthcare is increasingly being provided in
other settings such as nursing homes, free-standing surgical and
outpatient centers, emergency care clinics, patients' homes, and pre-
hospitalization emergency care settings. Over the last 10 years, the
number of healthcare workers (HCWs) (defined as healthcare
professionals, technicians, and healthcare support workers, including
those not directly providing patient care such as maintenance or
laundry workers) has increased from 8.4 million in 1998, to
approximately 11 million in 2008. In 1998, of the 8.4 million HCWs, 3.0
million were employed in hospitals and 5.4 million were employed
outside of hospitals. In 2008, 3.6 million HCWs were employed in
hospitals and 7.3 million outside of hospitals. Of the 7.3 million
workers employed outside of hospitals, 2.1 million were employed by
establishments not defined as part of the healthcare sector.\2\ The
increasing number of HCWs outside of hospital settings who are exposed
to occupational injuries and illnesses likely has implications for risk
management.
    Depending on the setting and the job tasks, HCWs may be exposed to
a number of occupational hazards including: Exposure to infectious
agents, radiation and chemicals. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reports that for 2008, the incidence of all occupational injury and
illness (including musculo-skeletal disorders from slips and falls and
lifting patients and equipment) in the healthcare sector as a whole was
5.6 cases per 100 full-time workers, in contrast to an average of 4.2
cases per 100 full-time workers for private industry overall.\3\ Higher
rates have been documented in hospitals, with an incidence rate for all
injuries and illnesses of 7.6 per 100 full-time workers, and nursing
homes, with an incidence rate for all injuries and illnesses of 8.4 per
100 full-time workers.
    In addition to settings where healthcare is provided, there are
other work settings where workers might be at increased risk for
occupational exposure to infectious agents. Occupational exposure to
infectious agents may occur in settings where healthcare is provided
(e.g., hospitals, clinics, some emergency response settings; clinics in
schools or correctional facilities); and healthcare-related settings
where there is increased potential for exposure to infectious agents
due to the populations being served or the materials being handled
(e.g., drug treatment programs; laboratories that handle potentially
infectious biological materials; medical examiners' and coroners'
offices; and mortuaries). The purpose of this Request for Information
(RFI) is to gather additional information on occupational exposure to
infectious agents, how occupational exposure is being mitigated, and
other types of work settings where there may be an increased risk of
exposure. It should be noted that bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HIV,
hepatitis B), are already covered by OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens
standard (Sec.  1910.1030) and are not included in this RFI.
    The primary routes of infectious disease transmission in US
healthcare settings are contact, droplet, and airborne. Contact
transmission can be sub-divided into direct and indirect contact.\4\
Direct contact transmission involves physical contact between an
infected person and another person, and the physical transfer of
microorganisms (e.g., direct skin-to-skin contact). Indirect contact
transmission occurs in situations where the physical transfer of
microorganisms to a person comes from contact with a contaminated
surface (e.g., contaminated environmental surfaces, such as a door
knob, inadequately cleaned patient-care instruments or equipment, such
as an examination table or patient bed).
    Droplets containing microorganisms are generated when an infected
person coughs, sneezes, or talks, or during certain medical procedures,
such as suctioning or endotracheal intubation. Transmission occurs when
droplets generated in this way come into direct contact with the
mucosal surfaces of the eyes, nose, or mouth of a susceptible
individual.\5\ Droplets are too large to be airborne for long periods
of time, and droplet transmission does not occur through the air over
long distances. However, some of the droplets expelled by the infected
patient will desiccate (dry out) very quickly (less than 1-2 seconds)
and form what are called droplet nuclei (residue from evaporated
droplets). These small particles can remain suspended in air for long
periods of time and travel significantly longer distances.
    Airborne transmission occurs when infectious droplet nuclei or
particles containing infectious agents that remain suspended in air,
are inhaled, enter the respiratory tract and cause infection.\6\ Since
air currents can disperse these droplet nuclei or particles over long
distances, airborne transmission does not require face-to-face contact
with an infected individual. Airborne transmission only applies to
those organisms that are capable of surviving and retaining infectivity
for relatively long periods of time in airborne droplet nuclei or
particles. Only a limited number of diseases are transmissible via the
airborne route.
    The major goal of infection control (IC) is to prevent transmission
of infectious diseases to patients and HCWs. This fundamental approach
is set forth in the guidelines of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), a
Federal advisory committee to CDC on the practice of health care
infection control in U.S. healthcare facilities. The HICPAC guidelines
include:

Identification and isolation of infectious cases; immunizations for
vaccine-preventable diseases; standard and transmission-based
precautions; training; personal protective equipment (PPE); management
of HCWs' risk of exposure to infected persons, including post-exposure
prophylaxis; and work restrictions for exposed or infected healthcare
personnel.\7\
    These recommendations have been endorsed by professional
associations such as the Association for Professionals in Infection
Control and Epidemiology (APIC),\8\ the Society for Healthcare
Epidemiology of America (SHEA),\9\ and the Association of periOperative
Registered Nurses (AORN).\10\ OSHA is soliciting comment through this
RFI on any other strategies that might be applied within healthcare or
healthcare-related work settings to mitigate the risk of occupationally
transmitted infectious diseases.
    While the CDC/HICPAC guidelines present the recommended practices
for reducing the risk of infectious disease transmission to patients
and HCWs, the guidelines are non-mandatory. However, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that in order for
hospitals and other providers to receive certification and
reimbursement through Medicare or Medicaid, the ``facility must
establish and maintain an Infection Control Program designed to provide
a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the
development and transmission of disease and infection.'' \11\
Similarly, the Joint Commission (formerly called the Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations), a private not-for-profit
organization that evaluates and accredits more than 17,000 healthcare
organizations and programs in the United States, requires an effective
Infection Prevention and Control Plan for accreditation.\12\
    CDC/HICPAC has stated that ``adherence to recommended infection
control practices decreases transmission of infectious agents in
healthcare settings.'' \13\ While the infection control guidelines and
requirements are widely recognized, day-to-day compliance, surveillance
and oversight is left to each individual employer. Due to the continued
prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), particularly
among patients,\14\ and the emergence of new infectious diseases that
affect both patients and HCWs [e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS), 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza], compliance with routine
infection control procedures is an increasingly important issue.
    The lack of adherence to voluntary infection control procedures is
of particular interest to OSHA. CDC/HICPAC states that ``several
observational studies have shown limited adherence to recommended
practices by healthcare personnel.'' \15\ It should be noted that these
were small case studies which were not designed to be representative of
healthcare settings in general. CDC/HICPAC has also noted that HCWs
generally reported greater self-adherence to infection control
practices than was actually reported in observational studies. Observed
adherence to universal precautions (now part of standard precautions)
ranged from 43% to 89%, with even greater variability reported for
certain recommended infection control practices (e.g., glove use).\16\
    The World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the lack of
compliance with hand hygiene and launched the First Global Patient
Safety Challenge to achieve improvement in hand hygiene worldwide. In
2009, WHO issued hand hygiene guidelines that were based upon a
thorough review of hundreds of manuscripts that dealt with the negative
impact of non-compliance with hand hygiene on the transmission of
infectious diseases in healthcare settings.\17\ A second review that
examined the results of 20 hospital-based studies published between
1977 and 2008, concluded that despite study limitations, most studies
showed a temporal relation between improved hand hygiene practices and
reduced infection and cross-contamination rates.\18\
    A study of adherence to CDC recommended respiratory infection
control practices examined 653 healthcare workers in primary care
clinics and emergency departments of five medical centers and found
significant gaps in compliance. There were shortcomings in overall
personal and institutional use of CDC recommended practices, including
deficiencies in posted alerts, patient masking and separation, hand
hygiene, PPE use, staff training, and written procedures.\19\ Another
study, published in 2009, surveyed nurses and doctors from five medical
facilities and documented the lack of compliance with both hand hygiene
and respiratory protection guidelines. Although not necessarily
representative of, or generalizable to, the healthcare industry, it is
of interest that of those doctors that responded to the survey, only 8%
of 177 reported using recommended respiratory protection and only 33%
of 156 reported practicing recommended hand hygiene. In addition, of
those nurses that responded to the survey, only 25% of 249 reported
practicing appropriate respiratory precautions and only 43% of 266
reported practicing recommended hand hygiene measures.\20\
    In another recent study 292 HCWs were surveyed about their use of
PPE for protection against influenza. These HCWs consisted of internal
medicine house-staff, pulmonary/critical care fellows, faculty,
respiratory therapists and nurses working in four ICU's in two large
hospitals. The study found that only 63% of the HCWs surveyed were able
to correctly identify appropriate PPE for influenza. The study's
authors stated that of the respondents ``nearly 40% of HCWs reported
poor adherence with influenza PPE, and 53% reported that their
colleagues often forget to use appropriate PPE.'' \21\ The CDC
initiated a similar investigation of possible occupationally-acquired
2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, which was published in the April-May 2009
MMWR. In response to a solicitation from CDC, State health departments
reported 48 cases of confirmed or probable cases of H1N1 infection in
HCWs. Of the 48 cases, information on PPE use was available for 11 of
the HCWs who were deemed to have probable or possible acquisition from
a patient. Of these 11 HCWs who were infected, only 3 reported always
using either a surgical mask or an N95 respirator when appropriate and
none reported always following standard precautions (e.g., use of
gloves, gown, facemask) and airborne precautions (e.g., use of a
respirator).\22\
    In its revised 2007 guidelines, CDC/HICPAC noted that ``a recent
review of the literature concluded that variations in organizational
factors (e.g., safety culture, policies and procedures, education and
training) and individual factors (e.g., knowledge, perceptions of risk,
past experience) were determinants of adherence to infection control
guidelines for protection against SARS and other respiratory
pathogens.'' \23\
    Several studies have found organizational factors to be the most
significant predictor of safe work behaviors. A study by Gershon et al.
of 1716 hospital-based HCWs, at three regional hospitals, found that
those who perceived that their institution had a strong commitment to
safety were almost three times more likely to be compliant with
standard precautions than those who did not.\24\ Similar results were
found when a group of 350 HCWs from 28 State correctional facilities
were surveyed.\25\ In addition, a series of studies demonstrated that
interventions targeted at improving

organizational support for worker safety and health, resulted in
enhanced compliance with standard precautions. These studies were: a
survey of 789 hospital-based HCWs at a large regional research medical
center; a survey of 452 nurses employed at one large medical center; a
review of behavioral interventions to improve infection control
practices; a survey of 1135 HCWs at one large teaching hospital; and
finally, a survey of 742 nurses at a 900-bed urban teaching
hospital.26 27 28 29 30 A study by Nichol et al sent 400
surveys to nurses in nine nursing units from two urban hospitals. Of
these surveys, 177 were returned with responses. The study found that
nurses used recommended facial protection (e.g., respirators, surgical
masks, and eye/face protection) when they felt that management made
health and safety a high priority, took all reasonable steps to
minimize hazards, encouraged employees' involvement in health and
safety issues, and actively worked to protect employees.\31\ Other
studies in industrial settings have shown that safety culture has an
important influence on implementation of training skills and
knowledge.32 33
    The lack of compliance with recommended infection control practices
is also noted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a Congressionally-
chartered independent, nonprofit organization that provides unbiased
and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public. In 2009,
the IOM issued a report entitled, Respiratory protection for healthcare
workers in the workplace against novel H1N1 influenza A: A letter
report. The report was requested by both CDC and OSHA, and concluded
that:

    * * * although workers are aware of expert guidance and the risk
they face, they often do not wear PPE when faced with conditions
requiring its use. Such noncompliance is also seen in low rates of
hand hygiene and use of gloves, respirators, and eye protection. To
improve the compliance rates and thereby improve worker protection,
a ``culture of safety'' for workers must be established in all
healthcare organizations evidenced by senior leadership
commitment.'' \34\

    The relationship between safety culture and compliance with
recommended infection control guidance in some portions of the
healthcare sector is not a newly recognized issue. A 1999 IOM report on
medical errors in the healthcare sector emphasized the pivotal role of
system failures and the benefits of a strong safety culture in the
prevention of such errors. The report notes that a safety culture is
created through: (1) The actions management takes to improve both
patient and worker safety; (2) worker participation in safety planning;
(3) the availability of appropriate protective equipment; (4) the
influence of group norms regarding acceptable safety practices; and (5)
the organization's socialization process for new personnel.\35\
Similarly, CDC/HICPAC has noted that ``several hospital-based studies
have linked measures of safety culture with both employee adherence to
safe practices and reduced exposures to blood and body fluids.'' \36\
This evidence was cited by CDC/HICPAC as one of the primary reasons for
updating its guidance in 2007.\37\ CDC/HICPAC noted that organizational
characteristics, including safety culture, influence healthcare
personnel adherence to recommended infection control practices and,
therefore, are important factors in preventing transmission of
infectious agents. CDC/HICPAC further emphasized the need for
administrative involvement in the development and support of IC
programs.
    Noncompliance with recommended infection control practices (e.g.,
hand hygiene, and proper use of gloves, facemasks, and respirators)
increases the risk of transmission of infectious diseases among
patients and workers.19 31 38 HHS notes that HAIs are among
the leading causes of death in the United States, accounting for an
estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 associated deaths in
2002.\39\ The 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines note that infectious agents
are also transmitted from HCWs to patients.\40\
    More specifically, poor infection control practices have been
implicated in both acquisition and transmission of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by healthcare personnel.\41\
Other studies have documented the nosocomial (hospital-acquired)
transmission of adenovirus from patients to HCWs 42 43;
invasive Group A Strep (GAS) from a patient to an HCW \44\; Clostridium
difficile infection from a patient to a nurse in an oncology ward \45\;
and a norovirus outbreak in HCWs in a hospital.\46\ Additionally, CDC/
HICPAC has documented the occupational transmission of influenza in
hospitals and nursing homes.\47\ OSHA previously documented
occupational exposure to tuberculosis (TB) in its notice ``Occupational
Exposure to Tuberculosis; Proposed Rule'' (62 FR 54160-54308; October
17, 1997). Additionally, an investigation of the 2003 SARS outbreak in
Toronto, Canada, described the nosocomial transmission of SARS at a
hospital. The investigation found that 42.5% of the cases occurred
among hospital employees.\48\
    Although HCW infections have been documented, published data on the
prevalence of these infections is limited. Recently, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noted that a lack
of occupational data in existing healthcare surveillance systems made
tracking illnesses among HCWs difficult.\49\ The healthcare sector puts
forth substantial effort to track patient infections, but does not
appear to match that effort with a systematic means for tracking
occupationally acquired worker infections. A weak culture of worker
safety in this sector may be a contributing factor to this issue.

B. History of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Addressing
Protection of Workers From Infectious Diseases

    OSHA's past efforts to protect workers against occupationally
acquired infectious diseases include the Bloodborne Pathogens standard
(Sec.  1910.1030), promulgated in 1991. That standard requires a
comprehensive programmatic approach to controlling transmission of
bloodborne diseases. Following its promulgation, the incidence of
Hepatitis B in HCWs dropped from more than 100 cases per 100,000 HCWs
in 1991 to only 9.1 cases per 100,000 HCWs in 1995.\50\ The standard
was revised in 2001 in response to the Needlestick Safety and
Prevention Act, Pub. L. 106-430. In general, the revisions require
employers to evaluate and use safer medical devices (e.g., needleless
devices, sharps with engineered sharps injury protections), and to
establish and maintain a sharps injury log for recording percutaneous
injuries from contaminated sharps.
    As a result of a marked increase in tuberculosis (TB) during the
early 1990s, which included worker infections, OSHA initiated action to
address occupational exposure to TB. A standard was proposed, but was
later withdrawn. In part, the proposal was withdrawn because of
healthcare facilities' increased adherence to CDC's TB guidelines and
the subsequent decline in TB infection rates.\51\ To assure continued
protection of workers, OSHA addresses occupational exposure to TB
through its TB compliance directive.\52\ The directive utilizes the CDC
guidelines as the recognized means for controlling TB exposure. When
OSHA determines that a TB hazard exists in a facility, exposure control
deficiencies may be cited under existing OSHA standards [e.g., the
Respiratory

Protection standard (Sec.  1910.134)] and the General Duty Clause
[Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
Pub. L. 91-596 (OSH Act)]. The General Duty Clause requires employers
to ``* * * furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.''
    California-OSHA (Cal-OSHA) recently promulgated an Aerosol
Transmissible Diseases (ATD) Standard \53\ to protect workers from
exposure to infectious agents transmitted via the droplet or airborne
routes. Following Federal OSHA's withdrawal of the TB proposal, Cal-
OSHA developed its standard in response to concerns about TB, the 2003
SARS epidemic, and a potential influenza pandemic. The standard
significantly expands protection of California workers against aerosol
transmissible diseases (this term, as defined by Cal-OSHA, encompasses
those diseases that can be transmitted by the droplet or airborne
routes). It should be noted that the standard does not deal with
occupational exposure to infectious agents that are transmitted
primarily via the contact route (e.g., MRSA, Group A strep, and
noroviruses).
    Existing OSHA standards that may be applicable to controlling
occupational exposure to infectious agents, other than the bloodborne
pathogens standard, include: The Respiratory Protection standard (Sec.
1910.134); the Personal Protective Equipment standard (Sec.  1910.132);
and the Specifications for Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard
(Sec.  1910.145). OSHA is seeking information through this RFI on
whether or not its existing standards and the voluntary guidelines
issued by other organizations are effectively protecting workers from
occupational exposure to infectious agents. If not, OSHA seeks comment
on what measures might be appropriate for the Agency to take to protect
workers against infectious diseases (e.g., development of a proposed
standard, issuance of guidelines, or other alternatives).

C. Summary

    In summary, as a result of several factors raised in the preceding
discussion, OSHA is seeking additional information to more fully
evaluate worker exposures to infectious agents in healthcare and
healthcare-related settings. We are particularly interested in
additional data regarding indications in some studies that transmission
of infectious diseases to both patients and HCWs may be occurring as a
result of incomplete adherence to voluntary infection control measures
in traditional healthcare facilities. Another concern is the movement
of healthcare delivery from the traditional hospital setting, with its
greater infrastructure and resources to effectively implement infection
control measures, into more diverse and smaller workplace settings with
less infrastructure and fewer resources, but with an expanding worker
population.
    Consequently, the Agency is seeking information to assist in its
deliberation on these issues. OSHA is interested in more accurately
characterizing the nature and extent of occupationally-acquired
infectious diseases and the strategies that are currently being used to
mitigate the risk of occupational exposure to infectious agents in
healthcare and healthcare-related settings, including patient and non-
patient settings and sites where healthcare is embedded within non-
healthcare settings such as clinics in schools and correctional
facilities. The information being sought includes: the types of
facilities and workers incurring this risk; successful employer
infection control programs; control methodologies being utilized
(including engineering, administrative, and work practice controls, and
the use of appropriate personal protective equipment); medical
surveillance programs; and training programs. The information received
in response to this notice will be carefully reviewed and will assist
OSHA in determining the effectiveness of approaches currently being
used to eliminate and minimize occupational exposure to infectious
agents. Based upon its analysis of this information, OSHA will
determine what action, if any, the Agency may take to address these
issues.

II. Request for Data, Information and Comments

A. General

    The following general information will assist OSHA in more fully
understanding each commenter's submissions and the possible differences
in their approaches to infection control. The answers to the questions
will also help OSHA understand the risk of workers contracting various
infectious diseases in different types of workplaces.

    Note: Diseases spread through bloodborne pathogens are not
encompassed by this RFI since a specific OSHA standard (Bloodborne
Pathogens, Sec.  1910.1030) addresses those diseases. OSHA
encourages those with experience in non-traditional or non-
healthcare work settings to respond to these questions.

    1. Since healthcare is provided in a wide variety of settings (as
previously described), OSHA is interested in being able to sort the
responses received by the characteristics of the workplace about which
each responding entity is providing information. As such, please
describe the characteristics of the workplace to which you are
referring. For example: type of workplace (e.g., hospital, long-term
care, physician/dentist office, emergency medical services); size
(e.g., number of hospital beds, number of residents, average number of
patients/clients); total number of employees (both direct care and
administrative support).
    2. While OSHA is primarily concerned about worker exposure to
infectious agents in traditional healthcare settings, the Agency
recognizes that there are other settings where healthcare may be
provided and where occupational exposure to infectious agents may be a
significant concern (e.g., drug treatment facilities, home health
services, prison clinics, school clinics, and laboratories that handle
potentially infectious biological materials). Please describe any other
work settings with an increased risk for occupational exposure to
infectious agents that OSHA should consider, including why they should
be considered. Please describe the nature and extent to which
occupational exposure to infectious agents is a significant concern.
For example, to which infectious agents are workers in these settings
exposed and how often are they exposed? Please describe any infection
control measures that can be or are being used in these settings.
    3. One of the most important steps in determining how to
effectively protect workers from infectious diseases is identifying who
is at risk of exposure. What recommendations do you have for how to
determine which employees are potentially exposed to contact, droplet,
and airborne transmissible diseases in the type of workplace about
which you are responding? How many of your total workers have a risk of
exposure to such diseases during the performance of their job duties?
What proportion of your workforce does this represent? What are the job
titles or classification(s) of these workers? What are the job duties
of these workers? To which diseases are they exposed?
    4. Workplaces vary in the types of infectious diseases and the
number of infected individuals encountered. OSHA is interested in the
types of diseases that your workplace encounters and how often they are
encountered. Please describe your workplace's experience with
infectious diseases over

the past ten years (e.g., which diseases, how often).
    5. OSHA is interested in data and information that will further
assist in characterizing workers' occupational exposure to contact,
droplet, and airborne transmissible infectious diseases.
    (a) OSHA encourages the submission of your workplace or your
industry's experience with these diseases and the impact of infectious
diseases on your workers (e.g., type and number of exposure incidents,
occupationally-acquired infectious diseases, days of work missed, and
fatalities).
    (b) Please provide information about any database that collects and
aggregates data on occupationally-acquired infectious diseases (e.g.,
Federal, State, provider network, or academic).
    (c) Please provide any additional information, including peer-
reviewed studies, which addresses occupational exposure to infectious
agents that you think OSHA should consider.
    6. Infection control (IC) programs are currently the primary means
of controlling occupational exposure to infectious agents. However,
these programs are largely voluntary. OSHA is particularly interested
in case studies that highlight experience in the implementation and
effectiveness of IC programs in protecting workers against infectious
diseases (e.g., the extent to which employers are fully implementing
and consistently following their written IC programs). For example, has
your workplace had instances where a significant increase in infections
(among either patients or workers) required more rigorous
implementation of your IC program? If so, please describe any factors
that contributed to the increase and what steps your workplace took to
address the situation. Please provide any studies that demonstrate the
difference in infection rates between situations where the IC program
had lapsed and situations where rigorous implementation of control
measures was instituted.
    7. While OSHA has a Bloodborne Pathogens standard (Sec.
1910.1030), the Agency does not have a comprehensive standard that
addresses occupational exposure to contact, droplet, and airborne
transmissible diseases. The Agency has other standards [(e.g.,
Respiratory Protection (Sec.  1910.134) and General Personal Protective
Equipment (Sec.  1910.132)] that may apply and, in some situations,
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act (the General Duty Clause) would apply.
OSHA is interested in commenters' insights regarding the adequacy of
existing OSHA requirements to protect workers against occupational
exposure to infectious agents.
    8. California OSHA recently issued a standard for occupational
exposure to ``Aerosol'' Transmissible Diseases that covers infectious
diseases transmitted through the airborne and droplet routes. IC
programs that are established in most healthcare settings address
exposure to contact, droplet, and airborne transmissible diseases.
Please explain whether the Agency's deliberations on occupational
exposure to infectious diseases should focus on only droplet and
airborne transmission or if contact transmissible diseases should also
be included.
    9. If the Agency pursues rulemaking and promulgates a standard,
jurisdictions with OSHA-approved State plans will be required to cover
workers who OSHA determines are at occupational risk for exposure to
infectious agents, including public employees. State and local
governments are defined very broadly, and would typically include such
entities as a university hospital associated with a State university as
well as public hospitals and health clinics. What public sector
healthcare or healthcare-related workers are at increased risk for
occupational exposure to infectious agents? Please describe conditions
unique to any of these occupations that are not seen in the private
sector. Please describe any other issues specific to OSHA-approved
State plans that the Agency should consider.

B. Infection Prevention and Control Plan

    10. CDC/HICPAC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions:
Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings
recommends an IC program for addressing the transmission of airborne
and other infectious diseases. In certain settings, the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Joint Commission require
that healthcare facilities have such programs.
    (a) If you are subject to the CMS or Joint Commission requirements
or otherwise have an IC program, please provide information on the
elements of this program (e.g., early identification of infectious
patients, implementation of transmission-based control measures, HCW
training) and how the program works.
    (b) If you are not subject to these requirements and do not have an
IC program, how does your workplace address preventing contact, droplet
and airborne transmissible infectious diseases?
    11. In most cases, an IC program is managed by an infection control
preventionist or other designated person. For example, the CDC/HICPAC
guidelines recommend that the IC program be managed by individuals with
training in infection control. Who manages your program? What
percentage of this individual's time is spent managing the IC program?
    12. For the IC program(s) established in your workplace, please
describe, in detail, the resource requirements and associated costs, if
available, expended to initiate the program(s) and conduct the
program(s) annually. Please estimate, in percentage terms where
possible, the extent to which the components or elements in your
program(s) are typical of those practiced throughout your industry.
    13. In your industry, for the IC programs established in your
workplace or for IC programs in other workplaces of which you are
aware, are there any components or features that may present economic
difficulties to small businesses? Please describe and characterize in
detail these components and why they might present difficulties for
small businesses.
    14. Periodic evaluation of IC program effectiveness is recommended
by CDC/HICPAC and required by the Joint Commission and CMS for most
types of facilities under their jurisdiction. Please describe how your
workplace or industry evaluates the effectiveness of its IC program,
including the methods and criteria used. How often does your workplace
evaluate its program? Please describe the results your program has
achieved (e.g., if there has been a decrease in patient and/or worker
infections). Please describe any specific problems and/or successes
that have been encountered in the implementation and operation of the
program.
    15. Most peer-reviewed literature evaluating IC programs focuses on
protecting patients from contracting HAIs. While this body of evidence
can be an indicator of worker exposure, OSHA is seeking data that more
specifically address the occupational risk to workers. If your
workplace has a system for tracking worker exposures or infections that
may have been occupationally acquired, please share with us the
following information:
    (a) A description of the tracking system and how it works;
    (b) The types of infection diseases encountered in your workplace
and the number of exposures and/or infections tracked;
    (c) Exposure/infection rates; and
    (d) Any trend data.

C. Methods of Control

    16. If your workplace has a process for early identification of
patients or clients who may have an infectious disease, please explain
how your workplace conveys information to workers about individuals who
are confirmed or suspected of being infectious, so that proper
precautions can be implemented. Please describe the degree of success
with these procedures and whether you think that such procedures are
likely to be effective in other healthcare or healthcare-related
settings.
    17. CDC/HICPAC, CMS, and the Joint Commission provide a variety of
approaches that employers can implement to reduce or eliminate workers'
exposure to infectious agents. For example, a well-structured IC
program can include: immunizations for vaccine-preventable diseases,
isolation precautions to prevent exposures to infectious agents,
training, personal protective equipment, management of workers' risk of
exposure to infected persons, including post exposure prophylaxis, and
work restrictions for exposed or infected personnel. Please describe
the types of problems/obstacles your workplace or industry encountered
with implementing specific control measures. Please include a
discussion of each control measure, the problem/obstacle encountered,
the affected worker group, and any particularly effective solutions
your workplace or industry has implemented to address the obstacle/
problem.
    18. When developing and implementing infection control measures in
your workplace, are there any recommended controls that you have found
to be ineffective or unnecessary in controlling infectious diseases? If
so, please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.
    19. Airborne infection isolation rooms (AIIRs) are recommended as
one aspect of controlling certain airborne transmitted diseases (e.g.,
TB, SARS). OSHA recognizes that most workplaces outside of hospitals do
not have an AIIR and will transfer persons requiring airborne
precautions to a facility with the necessary capabilities. If your
workplace provides healthcare or other services to individuals
requiring airborne precautions, how many of these patients/individuals
has your workplace encountered in each of the last ten years? If
individuals requiring airborne precautions must be transferred to
another facility, please describe how your workplace identifies and
isolates them while they are awaiting transfer. If your workplace
provides extended care to these individuals (e.g., a hospital), does it
have sufficient AIIRs to isolate the number of infected individuals
your workplace has handled at any one time? If not, how does your
facility provide alternate means of isolation and how many additional
AIIRs would be necessary to fully accommodate your normal patient load?
Please describe how your workplace plans to address surge capacity in
the event of an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic. Please provide any
additional information, including peer-reviewed studies, which
addresses issues relevant to the use of AIIRs in your workplace or
industry.
    20. CDC/HICPAC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions:
Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings
addresses the need for a safety culture and its role in improving a
workplace's IC program (e.g., worker adherence to safe work practices).
Please describe the policies and actions undertaken in your workplace
or industry to develop and maintain a culture of worker safety. Please
describe any means that have been particularly effective in fostering a
safety culture and any problems or obstacles that have been encountered
in developing and/or maintaining the safety culture.
    21. Poor adherence to infection control measures (e.g., failure to
use necessary PPE or to follow recommended hand hygiene practices) can
be one indicator of the breakdown of an IC program. Please describe
what actions have been undertaken in your workplace or industry to
assess and enforce adherence to infection control measures. What
obstacles has your workplace encountered in maintaining adherence and
are there any particularly successful ways you have found to maintain
adherence (e.g., training initiatives, worker incentives)? Please
discuss any underlying factors that you feel may affect non-compliance
with current infection control guidelines and standards in your
facility.
    22. The use of proper PPE is an essential component of an effective
IC program. For example, CDC/HICPAC recommends that facemasks (e.g.,
surgical masks) be worn by workers when droplet precautions are
implemented and respirators be worn under certain circumstances when
airborne precautions are in place. Please describe how your workplace
determines when a facemask (e.g., surgical mask) is used for worker
protection and when a respirator is used for worker protection. How
does your workplace determine which employees use a facemask and which
use a respirator? If your workplace uses different types of
respirators, please describe what types and when they are used.
    23. NIOSH regulates the testing and certification of respiratory
protective equipment, has established minimum performance standards,
and conducts independent testing and verification of all respirators
prior to certification. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval
process for facemasks does not have established minimum performance
standards and allows manufacturer submitted data. As noted in a 2009
IOM report,\54\ a 2008 study that examined the filter performance of
nine different types of facemasks using the sodium chloride NIOSH
challenge test, found wide variation in penetration (4 percent to 90
percent) of smaller aerosol particles.\55\ Therefore, the protective
properties of different manufacturers' facemasks may vary. Is there a
need for a more rigorous certification/approval process for facemasks
and additional independent verification of the personal protective
properties of these devices?
    24. Some HCWs have medical conditions or are receiving treatments
that impair their ability to resist infection. These HCWs may be unable
to develop protective immune responses after vaccination. What is your
workplace or industry doing to educate its workers about these
conditions? What approaches are being used or should be used to address
the special needs of HCWs with these conditions?

D. Vaccination and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

    25. In the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (Sec.  1910.1030), OSHA
requires that hepatitis B vaccinations be made available to employees
occupationally exposed to blood or other body fluids. It should be
noted that while employers are required to offer the vaccine, employees
are permitted to decline it. CDC/ACIP recommends a number of other
vaccines for various groups of HCWs including: influenza (both seasonal
and the 2009 H1N1); measles, mumps, rubella (MMR); varicella; tetanus,
diphtheria, pertussis (Td/Tdap); and meningococcal vaccines. What
vaccinations, other than hepatitis B, do you consider to be necessary
to protect workers from occupational exposure to infectious agents? Who
should receive these vaccinations, and why? Does your workplace offer
vaccines other than the hepatitis B vaccine to workers and how do you
determine who is offered these vaccines?
    26. The Bloodborne Pathogens standard (Sec.  1910.1030) requires
that employers follow certain administrative and recordkeeping
procedures (e.g., signing a declination statement; placing

an employee's vaccination status in his/her medical record). Does your
workplace or industry use similar administrative and recordkeeping
procedures for vaccines other than hepatitis B? If not, please describe
what administrative and recordkeeping procedures are or should be used.
    27. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and evaluation for bloodborne
pathogen exposures, such as hepatitis B and HIV, are addressed in the
Bloodborne Pathogens standard [Sec.  1910.1030(f)]. OSHA is interested
in post-exposure evaluation and PEP for other infectious diseases.
Please describe the current PEP and evaluation practices in your
workplace. For what infectious agent exposures should workers be
provided with PEP and/or evaluation? Please describe the disease, its
associated PEP, and the PEP efficacy.
    28. In some instances, a vaccine may be available for a disease but
a worker may decline vaccination. Please describe procedures in your
workplace that ensure workers who have declined vaccination have access
to necessary PEP.
    29. In order to appropriately evaluate the health status of a
worker, some basic health information is needed. CDC/HICPAC recommends
a personnel health service program for infection control that includes
a number of components including: pre-placement evaluations, evaluation
and treatment of exposure-related illnesses, and work restriction or
work-exclusion policies for exposed HCWs. OSHA is interested in the
prevalence, content and efficacy of such personnel health service
programs.
    (a) What should be included in a pre-placement medical evaluation
for a worker who will be exposed to infectious agents? Please describe
the possible components of the medical history and physical exam and
specific tests (e.g., TB skin test, spirometry, blood tests). How are
pre-placement medical evaluations of workers addressed in your
workplace? What do these evaluations include? If pre-placement medical
evaluations are used in your workplace, have they been effective, and
what metrics are used to evaluate effectiveness? Give the rationale,
including references if available.
    (b) What type of ongoing medical surveillance or periodic medical
evaluations should be provided for exposed workers? Please describe the
possible components of such surveillance or evaluations. How often
should periodic medical evaluations be conducted? In what situations
should medical evaluations or surveillance be performed (e.g., return-
to-work, fitness for duty)? How are periodic medical evaluations
addressed in your workplace?
    (c) In your State, are there State laws that apply to pre-placement
and periodic medical evaluations of exposed workers? If so, what are
they?
    (d) Please describe the administrative procedures used by your
workplace to evaluate and treat workers who have been occupationally
exposed and/or infected (e.g., who do they notify of the exposure/
infection). How are the costs for treatment and follow-up (e.g., visits
to physician, lab tests) handled in your workplace? If a worker is put
on restrictions or excluded from work due to a work-related infectious
exposure or illness, how are the worker's salary, benefits, and
seniority handled by your workplace?

E. Communication of Hazards

    30. Training is generally considered a necessary component of an
effective IC program in order to assure that workers understand the
hazards they are exposed to and the proper methods of protection.
Please describe how your workplace assures that workers are adequately
trained in the use of infection control measures, including how your
workplace assesses if a worker has been adequately trained. Please
describe the contribution of training and education to improving
adherence to your IC program. Please describe the format used by your
workplace to conduct training (e.g., computer-based, written material,
interactive classes, hands-on practice, other) and whether you have
found some more effective than others. Please describe what role, if
any, knowledge and/or competency assessment plays in your workplace
training program.
    31. Both initial and periodic worker training are recognized as
important components of an effective IC program. Initial training
provides information that workers need to protect themselves against
exposures to hazards while periodic training refreshes worker
knowledge, reinforces the importance of the IC program and provides a
means of introducing new information and procedures.
    (a) What information should be included in initial training for
workers who may be exposed to infectious agents? What is the best
format for providing initial training to these workers (e.g.,
specifying a minimum number of hours of training, specifying training
content based on job tasks, specifying that training be adequate to
demonstrate specified competencies, by a combination of these methods
or by some other method)?
    (b) How frequently does your workplace provide workers with
refresher training on its IC program? What information should be
included in periodic refresher training for workers who may be exposed
to infectious agents? What is the best format for providing periodic
training to these workers (e.g., specifying a minimum number of hours
of training, specifying training content based on job tasks, specifying
that training be adequate to demonstrate specified competencies, by a
combination of these methods or by some other method)? Should refresher
training be provided based on lack of competency, or be provided at
regular time intervals regardless of demonstrated competency?

F. Recordkeeping

    32. Please describe the worker health surveillance system used in
your workplace. Does the system include tracking of occupational
exposures to infectious agents and/or occupationally-acquired
infectious diseases? Please describe the procedures used by your
workplace to determine whether an infectious disease is considered to
have been occupationally-acquired. How is the worker health
surveillance information collected under the system used in your IC
program? Please describe the factors that affect the successful
implementation of such surveillance systems.
    33. The OSHA requirements for recording and reporting occupational
injuries and illnesses contain an exemption for the common cold and flu
(Sec.  1904.5(b)(2)(viii)). However, the Agency has determined that, if
certain criteria are met, occupationally-acquired 2009 H1N1 pandemic
influenza is recordable (OSHA Directive CPL-02-02-075). As OSHA more
broadly considers the issue of occupational exposure to infectious
agents, what are the implications, if any, for the Agency's existing
recording and reporting requirements under Sec.  1904?

G. Economic Impacts and Benefits

    As part of the Agency's consideration of occupational exposure to
infectious agents, OSHA is interested in the costs, economic impacts,
and benefits of related practices to prevent such exposure. OSHA is
also interested in the benefits of such practices in terms of reduced
deaths, illnesses, and compromised operations (i.e., infirm personnel,
quarantined or disabled units, unexpected reallocation of resources).
The following questions will

provide OSHA with needed economic impact and benefits information.
    34. As the Agency considers possible actions to address the
prevention and control of infectious diseases (e.g., prospective
standards or guidelines), what are the potential economic impacts
associated with the promulgation of a standard specific to the hazards
of infectious diseases? Describe these impacts in terms of benefits
from the reduction of incidents and illnesses; effects on revenue and
profit; and any other relevant impact measure. If you have any
estimates of the costs of controlling infectious disease hazards,
please provide them.
    35. What changes, if any, in market conditions would reasonably be
expected to result from issuing a comprehensive infectious diseases
standard? Describe any changes in market structure or concentration,
and any effects on services, that would reasonably be expected from
issuing such a standard.
    36. What are the potential benefits of more widespread compliance
with infection control guidelines? How can OSHA best assure such
compliance takes place?

H. Impacts on Small Entities

    As part of the Agency's consideration of occupational exposure to
infectious agents, OSHA is concerned whether its actions will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If the Agency pursues development of a standard and the standard has
such impacts, OSHA is required to develop a regulatory flexibility
analysis and assemble a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA) Panel prior to publishing a proposal. Regardless of the
significance of the impacts, OSHA seeks ways of minimizing the burdens
on small businesses consistent with OSHA's statutory and regulatory
requirements and objectives.
    37. How many, and what type of small firms, or other small
entities, have infectious disease hazards, and what percentage of their
industry (NAICS code) do these entities comprise? Please specify the
types of infectious diseases encountered.
    38. How, and to what extent, would small entities in your industry
be affected by a potential comprehensive OSHA infectious diseases
standard regulating occupational exposure to infectious agents? Do
special circumstances exist that make controlling infectious diseases
more difficult or more costly for small entities than for large
entities? Describe these circumstances.

III. Public Participation

    You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard
copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through
the Federal Rulemaking Portal. Because of security-related problems,
there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular
mail. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> for information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by
express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.
    All comments and submissions are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and
submissions are also available at http://www.regulations.gov . OSHA
cautions you about submitting personal information such as social
security numbers and birth dates. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-2350 for information about accessing materials in the docket.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web
page: http://www.osha.gov/index.html.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels,
Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor. It is issued pursuant to sections 4,
6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), 29 CFR 1911, and Secretary's Order 5-2007 (72 FR
31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Footnotes:

    \1\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
Statistics. 2007. (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oes/2007/
may/naics3_622000.htm).
    \2\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
Statistics. 1998. (http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm).
    \3\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment
Statistics. 2008. (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_
622000.htm).
    \4\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007
Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Page 15. (http://
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \5\ Ibid. Page 17.
    \6\ Ibid.
    \7\ Bolyard EA et al. and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for Infection Control in
Health Care Personnel, 1998. Page 292. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dhqp/pdf/guidelines/InfectControl98.pdf).
    \8\ Smith PW, et al. SHEA/APIC Guideline: Infection prevention
and control in the long-term care facility. Am J Infect Control
2008, 36:504-535.
    \9\ Ibid.
    \10\ Tarrac SE. Application of the updated CDC isolation
guidelines for health care facilities. AORN Journal. 2008. 87:534-
542.
    \11\ CMS Manual System. State Operations Provider Certification.
Transmittal 51. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Publication 100-07. July 20,
2009. (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/downloads/R51SOMA.pdf).
    \12\ The Joint Commission: Infection Control Prevention and
Control. 2009.
    \13\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007
Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \14\ Klevens RM et al, Estimating health care-associated
infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals in 2002. Public Health Rep.
2007, 122:160-166.
    \15\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007
Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \16\ Ibid.
    \17\ WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: A Summary.
First Global Patient Safety Challenge: Clean Care is Safer Care.
2009. World Health Organization, Switzerland. (http://
whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597906_eng.pdf).
    \18\ Allegranzi B and Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in
healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009.
73:305-315.
    \19\ Turnberg W, et al. Appraisal of recommended respiratory
infection control practices in primary care and emergency department
settings. Am J Infect Control. 2008. 36:268-275.
    \20\ Turnberg W, et al. Personal healthcare worker (HCW) and
work-site characteristics that affect HCWs' use of respiratory
infection control measures in Ambulatory Healthcare Settings,
Infect. Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009. 30:47-52.
    \21\ Daugherty EL, et al. Use of personal protective equipment
for control of influenza among critical care clinicians: A survey
study. Crit Care Med. 2009. 37:1210-1216.
    \22\ Harriman K, et al. 2009 Novel influenza A (H1N1) virus
infections among health-care personnel--United States, April-May.
MMWR. 2009. 58:641-645. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
mm5823a2.htm).
    \23\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007

Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Page 46. (http://
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \24\ Gershon RR, et al. Compliance with universal precautions
among health care at three regional hospitals. Am J Infect Control.
1995. 23:225-236.
    \25\ Gershon RR, et al. Compliance with universal precautions in
correctional health care facilities. J Occup Environ Med. 1999.
41:181-9.
    \26\ Gershon RR, et al. Hospital safety climate and its
relationship with safe work practices and workplace exposure
incidents. Am J Infect Control. 2000. 28:211-221.
    \27\ DeJoy DM, Murphy LR, Gershon RM. The influence of employee,
job/task, and organizational factors on adherence to universal
precautions among nurses. Int J Ind Ergonomics. 1995. 16:43-55.
    \28\ Kretzer EK, Larson E. Behavioral intentions to improve
infection control practices. Am J Infect Control. 1998. 26:245-253.
    \29\ McGovern PM, et al. Factors affecting universal precautions
compliance. J Business Psychol. 2000. 15:149-161.
    \30\ Rivers D, et al. Predictors of nurses' acceptance of an
intravenous catheter safety device. Nurs Res. 2003. 52:249-255.
    \31\ Nichol K, et al. The individual, environmental, and
organizational factors that influence nurses' use of facial
protection to prevent occupational transmission of communicable
respiratory illness in acute care hospitals. Am J Infect Control.
2008. 36:481-487.
    \32\ Ford J, Fisher S. The transfer of safety training in work
organizations: a systems perspective to continuous learning. J Occup
Med. 1994. 9:241-259.
    \33\ Goldstein I. Training in work organizations. In: Dunnette
M, Hough L, editors. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. 1991. pp. 506-619. Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo
Alto, CA.
    \34\ IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Respiratory protection
for healthcare workers in the workplace against novel H1N1 influenza
A: A letter report. Page 19. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12748.html).
    \35\ IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1999. To Err is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html).
    \36\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007
Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \37\ Pittet D. Infection control and quality health care in the
new millennium. Am J Infect Control. 2005. 33:258-267.
    \38\ Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-
associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009. 73:305-315.
    \39\ HHS Action Plan to prevent Healthcare Associated
Infections. Background on Healthcare-Associated Infections (http://
www.hhs.gov/ophs/initiatives/hai/exsummary.html).
    \40\ Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007
Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. (http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf).
    \41\ Albrich W, Harbarth S. Health care worker: source, vector
or victim of MRSA, The Lancet Infect Dis. 2008. 8:289-301.
    \42\ Lessa F, et al. Healthcare transmission of a newly emergent
adenovirus serotype in health care personnel at a military hospital
in Texas, 2007. J Infect Dis. 2009. 200:1759-1765.
    \43\ Henquell C, et al. Fatal adenovirus infection in a neonate
and transmission to healthcare worker. J Clin Virol. 2009. 45:345-
348.
    \44\ Lacy M, Horn K. Nosocomial transmission of invasive Group A
Streptococcus from patient to health care worker. Clin Infect Dis.
2009. 49:354-357.
    \45\ Hell M et al. Clostridium difficle infection in a health
care worker. Clin Infect Dis. 2009. 48:1329.
    \46\ Johnston CP, et al. Outbreak management and implications of
a nosocomial norovirus outbreak. Clin Infect Dis. 2007. 45:1585-
1595.
    \47\ Pearson ML, Bridges CB, Harper SA; Healthcare Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC); Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). Influenza vaccination of health-care
personnel: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006. 55(RR-2):1-16.
    \48\ Ofner-Agostini M, et al. Investigation of the second wave
(phase 2) of severe respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Toronto, Canada:
What happened? Can Commun Dis Rep. 2008. 34:1-11.
    \49\ NIOSH Statement: Risk of Serious Illness among Healthcare
Personnel Associated with 2009 H1N1 Influenza: What is NIOSH
Learning? NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: Occupational Health Issues
Associated with H1N1 Influenza Virus (Swine Flu). October 16, 2009.
(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/H1N1flu/healthcare-risk.html).
    \50\ Mahoney FJ, et al. Progress toward the elimination of
Hepatitis B virus transmission among health care workers in the
United States. Arch Intern Med. 1997. 157:2601-2605.
    \51\ OSHA. Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis; Proposed Rule;
Termination of Rulemaking--(FR 68:75767-75775, December 31, 2003).
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-12-31/pdf/03-31845.pdf).
    \52\ OSHA. Directive CPL 02-00-106--CPL 2.106--Enforcement
Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis.
(http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18050).
    \53\ California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5199.
Aerosol Transmissible Diseases. (http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/
5199.html).
    \54\ Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2009. Respiratory Protection
for Healthcare Workers in the Workplace Against Novel H1N1 Influenza
A: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12748.html).
    \55\ Oberg MS and Brosseau LM. Surgical mask filter and fit
performance. Am J Infect Control. 2008. 36:276-282.

[FR Doc. 2010-10694 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3955-3956]
[DOCID:fr23ja08-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0051; FRL-8518-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and
Roofing Manufacture (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0661.09 OMB Control
Number 2060-0002

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 22,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2007-0051, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0051 which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 0661.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0002.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Asphalt
Processing and Roofing Manufacture (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU), were
proposed on November 18, 1980 and promulgated on May 26, 1981. These
standards apply to each saturator and each asphalt storage facility at
asphalt roofing plants; and to each asphalt storage tank and each
blowing still at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries, and
asphalt roofing plants. New facilities include those that commenced
construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of
proposal. This information will then be used by enforcement agencies to

verify that sources subject to the standard are meeting the emission
reductions mandated by the Clean Air Act.
    Owners/operators of asphalt processing and roofing manufacture are
required to submit one-time only notification of construction/
reconstruction, actual startup, initial performance test, physical or
operational changes, and demonstration of a continuous monitoring
system. Records must be maintained of the occurrence and duration of
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources
subject to NSPS.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
UU, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that have been determined to be private.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 113
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Asphalt processing and roofing
manufacture.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 144.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 33,912.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $8,714,925, which includes $200,000
annualized Capital Startup costs, $5,040,000 annualized Operating and
Maintenance (O&M) costs, and $3,474,925 annualized Labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
total estimated burden hours as currently identified in the OMB
inventory of burdens because the previous tables did not represent all
of the reporting requirements. The decrease in the number of sources
was caused by buy-outs and/or consolidation which the industry has been
experiencing for the last several years. The decrease in the capital
startup and O&M costs estimates as compared with the previous ICR is
attributed solely to the decrease in the number of sources. This ICR
corrects the deficiencies.

    Dated: January 16, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-1097 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P