DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
2004 Regulatory Plan
Executive Summary: Protecting America's Workers
Since its creation in 1913, the Department of Labor has been guided by
the idea that workers deserve safe and healthy workspaces, as well as
protection of their wages and pensions. Protecting America's workers is a top
priority of the Secretary of Labor. The Department works to enforce laws and
regulations to ensure the health and safety of the American workforce. The vast
majority of employers work hard to keep their employees and workplaces safe and
secure. DOL also strives to provide employers with the knowledge and tools they
need to carry out their legal obligations. The Secretary has made protecting
workers through the coupling of compliance assistance and tough enforcement one
of her top priorities. Her compliance assistance initiative is based on the
proven success that comes when government, employers, unions and employees work
together.
Compliance assistance works to prevent injuries. Educating and
encouraging employers helps workers far more than enforcement alone, since no
enforcement process can possibly identify every violation of the law, and fines
and penalties can never fully redress losses of life, health, and economic
well-being.
The Department is committed to aggressively enforcing the laws that
protect employees, including the rights of workers returning to their jobs
after military service. Workers also need information about protection of their
health insurance and pension benefits. In addition, DOL has responsibilities
beyond worker protection. The Department recognizes that workers need constant
updating of skills to compete in a changing marketplace. DOL helps employers
and workers bridge the gap between the requirements of new high-technology jobs
and the skills of the workers who are needed to fill them.
The Secretary of Labor's Regulatory Plan for Accomplishing These
Objectives
In general, DOL tries to help employees and employers meet their needs
in a cooperative fashion. DOL will maintain health and safety standards and
protect employees by working with the regulated community.
DOL considers the following proposals to be proactive, common sense
approaches to the issues most clearly needing regulatory attention.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
DOL has identified 16 high priority items for regulatory action. Six
items address health and safety issues, which are central to DOL's mission and
which represent a major focus of the Secretary. Two agencies, the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), are responsible for these initiatives.
MSHA administers the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act). The agency is committed to ensuring safer and healthier workplaces for
the nation's miners in a number of ways, and will continue to concentrate on
improving existing health standards and addressing emerging health hazards in
mining.
MSHA is considering lowering the existing permissible exposure limit
(PEL) for asbestos at metal and nonmetal and coal mines, to reduce the risk of
asbestos-related death and disease among miners. MSHA also is considering
specifying criteria for the method used for sample analysis (RIN 1219-AB24).
MSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and conducted a
series of public meetings in 2002 to allow early participation by interested
parties in the rulemaking. MSHA is preparing a proposed rule that fully
considers comments received in response to the ANPRM, testimony at the public
meeting, current scientific evidence, and the experience of other agencies.
MSHA also continues its rulemaking on Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure
of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners (RIN 1219-AB29). A proposed rule was
published in August 2003. MSHA will address several provisions in the final
standard, including changing the diesel particulate matter surrogate from total
carbon to elemental carbon for the interim and limit changing the interim limit
concentration-based limit to a personal exposure limit (PEL) establishing the
hierarchy of controls that MSHA applies to metal and nonmetal mines pursuant to
its enforcement policy for exposure-based health standards, allowing Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE), and addressing the diesel particulate matter
control plan.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees a wide range
of measures in the public and private sectors. OSHA is committed to
establishing clear and sensible priorities, and to continuing to reduce
occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses.
OSHA's high-priority initiatives address health standards. The first, a
revision to the Respiratory Protection Standard, will address Assigned
Protection Factors for different types of respirators (RIN 1218-AA05). This
action will improve respiratory protection for employees required to wear
respirators and will make it easier for employers to choose the appropriate
respirator for a given task. OSHA published an NPRM on June 6, 2003, and
informal public hearings were held on January 28-30, 2004.
OSHA's second initiative in the area of health standards addresses
worker exposures to crystalline silica (RIN 1218-AB70). This substance is one
of the most widely found in workplaces and data indicate that exposure to it
may cause silicosis, a debilitating respiratory disease, and perhaps cancer as
well. OSHA has obtained input from small businesses about regulatory approaches
through a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel,
and the Panel report was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA on
December 19, 2003. OSHA is currently preparing a risk assessment and plans to
complete an external peer review of a draft assessment by February 2005. This
rule was discussed in the 2002 OMB Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits
of Regulations.
OSHA's third health initiative addresses worker exposure to hexavalent
chromium (RIN 1218-AB45). Approximately 380,000 workers are exposed to this
substance in general industry, maritime, construction and agriculture. Exposure
to hexavalent chromium is associated with lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA has
obtained input from small businesses about regulatory approaches through a
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel, and the
Panel report was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA on April 20,
2004. The proposed rule was published on October 4, 2004. This standard was
discussed in OMB's 2002 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Regulation.
The fourth health initiative, OSHA's Standards Improvement Project, will
streamline a number of health standards by removing language that is outdated,
duplicative, unnecessary or inconsistent (RIN 1218-AB81). These changes will
reduce the time and effort needed to [[Page 72782]] understand and comply with
these standards. An NPRM was published October 31, 2002. A hearing was held in
July 2003, and a final rule has been prepared.
Protection of pension and health benefits continues to be a priority of
the Secretary of Labor. Consistent with the Secretary's priorities for FY 2005,
the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) will focus on compliance
assistance for pension and group health plans through issuance of guidance.
Specific initiatives for group health plans include guidance on the application
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) access,
portability and renewability provisions (RIN 1210-AA54); and the HIPAA
nondiscrimination provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) (RIN 1210-AA77). With respect to pension plans, the Department will
focus on establishing a safe harbor under which employers will be treated as
having made timely deposits of participant contributions in their 401(k) plan
(RIN 1210-AB02). The Department also will focus on the development of guidance
that will facilitate the payment of benefits from 401(k) and other defined
contribution plans that have been abandoned by their sponsors (RIN 1210-AA97).
ERISA's requirements affect an estimated 730,000 private sector employee
pension benefit plans (covering approximately 99 million participants); an
estimated 2.5 million group health benefit plans (covering 131 million
participants and dependents); and 3.4 million other welfare benefits plans
(covering approximately 190 million participants).
The Secretary's emphasis on meeting the needs of the 21st century
workforce is reflected in the plan of the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) to issue regulations reflecting recent changes to the
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, as enacted in the Trade Act of 2002.
The regulations will be issued in two parts: regulations covering TAA program
benefits (RIN 1205-AB32), and regulations covering petition filing,
investigations and the new Alternative TAA Program for Older Workers (RIN
1205-AB40). The proposed rules would address the many new features of the TAA
program: consolidation of the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs; rapid response
services for workers to facilitate more rapid reemployment; expanded
eligibility; increased benefits, including health care insurance assistance;
and Alternative TAA for Older Workers program. The new regulations will be
written in plain English, making them easier to read and use.
In its second initiative, ETA proposes to re-engineer the permanent
labor certification process (RIN 1205-AA66). ETA's goals are to make
fundamental changes that will streamline the process, save resources, improve
the effectiveness of the program, and better serve the Department of Labor's
customers. This rule was discussed in the 2002 OMB Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Regulations.
The Employment Standards Administration (ESA) has set forth two priority
regulatory initiatives. ESA's first initiative updates the child labor rules
issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to address changes in the
nature of the workplace and situations in which minors may operate certain
kinds of machinery (RIN 1215-AA09). While young workers need employment
experiences that will help them gain the skills needed to find and hold good
jobs later in life, they also need to focus on obtaining a high-quality
education, and the assurance that their work hours are reasonable will help
them in doing so.
ESA's second initiative pertains to regulations issued under the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that were also discussed in OMB's 2001 and 2002
Reports to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations. Revisions will be
proposed to the FMLA's implementing regulations to address issues raised by the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.,
122 S. Ct. 1155 (2002), and the decisions of other courts.
Finally, the Secretary 's commitment to protecting the employment rights
of service members as they return to the civilian workforce is reflected by the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service's (VETS) initiative to promulgate
regulations implementing the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). USERRA provides employment and reemployment
protections for members of the uniformed services, including veterans and
members of the Reserve and National Guard. The Department has not previously
issued implementing regulations under USERRA. Authoritative written guidance
interpreting USERRA will ensure that our service members serve secure in the
knowledge that they will be able to return to their jobs with the same pay,
benefits, and status they would have attained had they not been away on
military duty.
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
88. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993; CONFORM TO THE SUPREME
COURT'S RAGSDALE DECISION Priority:
Priority:
Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 2654
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 825
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 122
S. Ct. 1155 (2002), invalidated regulatory provisions issued under the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) pertaining to the effects of an employer's failure
to timely designate leave that is taken by an employee as being covered by the
FMLA. The Department intends to propose revisions to the FMLA regulations to
address issues raised by this and other judicial decisions.
Statement of Need:
The FMLA requires covered employers to grant eligible employees up to 12
workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave a year for specified family and
medical reasons, and to maintain group health benefits during the leave as if
the employees continued to work instead of taking leave. When an eligible
employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must restore the employee to the
same or an equivalent job with equivalent pay, benefits, and other conditions
of employment. FMLA makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with,
restrain, or deny the exercise of any right provided by the FMLA.
The FMLA regulations require employers to designate if an employee's use
of leave is counting against the employee's FMLA leave entitlement, and to
notify the employee of that designation (29 CFR section 825.208). Section
825.700(a) of the regulations provides that if an employee takes paid or unpaid
leave and the employer does not designate the leave as FMLA leave, the leave
taken does not count against the employee's 12 weeks of FMLA leave
entitlement.
On March 19, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 122 S. Ct. 1155 (2002). In that
decision, the Court invalidated regulatory provisions pertaining to the effects
of an employer's failure to timely designate leave that is taken by an employee
as being covered by the FMLA. The Court ruled that 29 CFR section 825.700(a)
was invalid absent evidence that the employer's failure to designate the leave
as FMLA leave interfered with the employee's exercise of FMLA rights. This
proposed rule is being prepared to address issues raised by this and other
judicial decisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rule is issued pursuant to section 404 of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2654.
Alternatives:
After completing a review and analysis of the Supreme Court's decision
in Ragsdale and other judicial decisions, regulatory alternatives will be
developed for notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The costs and benefits of this rulemaking action are not expected to
exceed $100 million per year or otherwise trigger economic significance under
Executive Order 12866.
Risks:
This rulemaking action does not directly affect risks to public health,
safety, or the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
NPRM |
03/00/05 |
|
NPRM Comment Period End |
05/00/05 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Alfred B. Robinson Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration 200
Constitution Avenue NW. FP Building Room S3502 Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051 Fax: 202 693-1302 RIN: 1215-AB35
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
89. CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION
(ESA/W-H)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
29 USC 203(l)
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 570
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act requires the Secretary of
Labor to issue regulations with respect to minors between 14 and 16 years of
age ensuring that the periods and conditions of their employment do not
interfere with their schooling, health, or well- being. The Secretary is also
directed to designate occupations that are particularly hazardous for minors 16
and 17 years of age. Child Labor Regulation No. 3 sets forth the permissible
industries and occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and
specifies the number of hours in a day and in a week, and time periods within a
day, that such minors may be employed. The Department has invited public
comment in considering whether changes in technology in the workplace and job
content over the years require new hazardous occupation orders, and whether
changes are needed in some of the applicable hazardous occupation orders.
Comment has also been solicited on whether revisions should be considered in
the permissible hours and time-of-day standards for 14- and 15-year-olds.
Comment has been sought on appropriate changes required to implement
school-to-work transition programs. Additionally, Congress enacted Public Law
104-174 (August 6, 1996), which amended FLSA section 13(c) and requires changes
in the regulations under Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12 regarding power-
driven paper balers and compactors, to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to load, but
not operate or unload, machines meeting applicable American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) safety standards and certain other conditions. Congress also
passed the Drive for Teen Employment Act, Public Law 105-334 (October 31,
1998), which prohibits minors under age 17 from driving automobiles and trucks
on public roads on the job and sets criteria for 17-year-olds to drive such
vehicles on public roads on the job.
Statement of Need:
Because of changes in the workplace and the introduction of new
processes and technologies, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive
review of the regulatory criteria applicable to child labor. Other factors
necessitating a review of the child labor regulations are changes in places
where young workers find employment opportunities, the existence of differing
Federal and State standards, and the divergent views on how best to correlate
school and work experiences.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Secretary of Labor is directed
to provide by regulation or by order for the employment of youth between 14 and
16 years of age under periods and conditions which will not interfere with
their schooling, health and well-being. The Secretary is also directed to
designate occupations that are particularly hazardous for youth between the
ages of 16 and 18 years or detrimental to their health or well-being. The
Secretary has done so by specifying, in regulations, the permissible industries
and occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and the number
of hours per day and week and the time periods within a day in which they may
be employed. In addition, these regulations designate the occupations declared
particularly hazardous for minors between 16 and 18 years of age or detrimental
to their health or well-being.
Public comment has been invited in considering whether changes in
technology in the workplace and job content over the years require new
hazardous occupation orders or necessitate revision to some of the existing
hazardous orders. Comment has also been invited on whether revisions should be
considered in the permissible hours and time-of-day standards for the
employment of 14- and 15-year-olds, and whether revisions should be considered
to facilitate school-to-work transition programs. When issuing the regulatory
proposals (after review of public comments on the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking), the Department's focus was on assuring healthy, safe and fair
workplaces for young workers, and at the same time promoting job opportunities
for young people and making regulatory standards less burdensome to the
regulated community.
The Department will also be considering what additional revisions to the
hazardous occupation orders will be undertaken to address recommendations of
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in its May 2002
report to the Department.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These regulations are issued under sections 3(l), 11, 12, and 13 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 203(l), 211, 212, and 213 which
require the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations prescribing permissible
time periods and conditions of employment for minors between 14 and 16 years
old so as not to interfere with their schooling, health, or well-being, and to
designate occupations that are particularly hazardous or detrimental to the
health or well-being of minors under 18 years old.
Alternatives:
Regulatory alternatives developed based on recent legislation and the
public comments responding to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking
included specific proposed additions or modifications to the paper baler, teen
driving, explosive materials, and roofing hazardous occupation orders, and
proposed changes to the permissible cooking activities that 14- and
15-year-olds may perform in retail establishments.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this
regulatory action indicated that the rule was not economically significant.
Benefits will include safer working environments and the avoidance of injuries
with respect to young workers.
Risks:
The child labor regulations, by ensuring that permissible job
opportunities for working youth are safe and healthy and not detrimental to
their education as required by the statute, produce positive benefits by
reducing health and productivity costs employers may otherwise incur from
higher accident and injury rates to young and inexperienced workers. Given the
limited nature of the changes in the proposed rule, a detailed assessment of
the magnitude of risk was not prepared.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
Final Rule |
11/20/91 |
56 FR 58626 |
Final Rule Effective |
12/20/91 |
|
NPRM |
05/13/94 |
59 FR 25167 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
08/11/94 |
59 FR 40318 |
NPRM |
11/30/99 |
64 FR 67130 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
01/31/00 |
|
Final Action |
12/00/04 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Alfred B. Robinson Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration 200
Constitution Avenue NW. FP Building Room S3502 Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051 Fax: 202 693-1302 RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
90. REVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BENEFIT REGULATIONS FOR TRADE
ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS UNDER THE TRADE ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order No. 3-81, 46 FR 31117
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 90; 20 CFR 617; 20 CFR 618; 20 CFR 665; 20 CFR 671; . . .
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted on August 6,
2002, contains provisions amending title 2, chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974,
entitled Adjustment Assistance for Workers. The amendments, effective 90 days
from enactment (November 4, 2002), make additions to where and by whom a
petition may be filed, expand eligibility to workers whose production has been
shifted to certain foreign countries and to worker groups secondarily affected,
and make substantive changes regarding trade adjustment assistance (TAA)
program benefits.
It is the agency's intention to create a new 20 CFR part 618 to
incorporate the amendments and write it in plain English, while amending the
WIA regulations at 20 CFR parts 665 and 671 regarding Rapid Response and
National Emergency Grants as they relate to the TAA program.
The proposed part 618 consists of nine subparts: subpart A - General;
subpart B--Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to Apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (and Alternative TAA); subpart C---Delivery of Services
throughout the One-Stop Delivery System; subpart D--Job Search Allowances;
subpart E--Relocation Allowances; subpart F-- Training Services; subpart
G--Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA); subpart H--Administration by Applicable
State Agencies; and subpart I-- Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance for
Older Workers. Because of the complexity of the subject matter and the States'
needs for definitive instructions on providing TAA benefits, the rulemaking for
part 618 is divided into two parts. This notice of proposed rulemaking covers
the general provisions (subpart A) and TAA benefits portions (subpart C through
subpart H) of the regulations. A separate notice of proposed rulemaking will
cover the two remaining subparts (subpart B and subpart I).
Statement of Need:
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted August 6,
2002, repeals the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment
Assistance provisions for workers affected by the NAFTA Implementation Act and
adds significant amendments to worker benefits under Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Workers, as provided for in the Trade Act of 1974.
The 2002 Trade Act amends where and by whom a petition may be filed.
Program benefits for TAA eligible recipients are expanded to include for the
first time a health care tax credit, and eligible recipients now include
secondarily affected workers impacted by foreign trade. Income support is
extended by 26 weeks and by up to one year under certain conditions. Waivers of
training requirements in order to receive income support are explicitly
defined. Job search and relocation benefit amounts are increased. Within one
year of enactment, the amendments offer an Alternative TAA for Older Workers
program that targets older worker groups who are certified as TAA eligible and
provides the option of a wage supplement instead of training, job search, and
income support.
The Department is mandated to implement the amendments within 90 days
from enactment (November 4, 2002), and it issued operating instructions in a
guidance letter on October 10, 2002, and later published in the Federal
Register (67 FR 69029-41). State agencies rely on the regulations to make
determinations as to individual eligibility for TAA program benefits. TAA
program regulations as written have been described as complicated to interpret.
With the new TAA program benefit amendments contained in the Trade Act of 2002,
it is imperative that the regulations be in an easy-to-read and understandable
format.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These regulations are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2320 due to the amendments
to the Trade Act of 1974 by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the
TAA program changes when the Department publishes the proposed rule in the
Federal Register.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at a later
date.
Risks:
This action does not affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
NPRM |
|
04/00/05 |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Agency Contact:
Timothy F. Sullivan Director, Trade Adjustment
Assistance Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW. FP Building Room C5311 Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3708 Email: sullivan.timothy@dol.gov RIN:
1205-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL-- (ETA)
91. REVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REGULATIONS FOR PETITIONS AND
DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
WORKERS AND ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE TAA Priority:
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
19 USC 2320; Secretary's Order No. 3-81, 46 FR 31117
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 90; 20 CFR 617; 20 CFR 618; 20 CFR 665; 20 CFR 671; . . .
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted on August 6,
2002, contains provisions amending title 2, chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974,
entitled Adjustment Assistance for Workers. The amendments, effective 90 days
from enactment (November 4, 2002), make additions to where and by whom a
petition may be filed, expand eligibility to workers whose production has been
shifted to certain foreign countries and to worker groups secondarily affected,
and make substantive changes regarding trade adjustment assistance (TAA)
program benefits.
It is the agency's intention to create a new 20 CFR part 618 to
incorporate the amendments and write it in plain English, while amending the
WIA regulations at 20 CFR parts 665 and 671 regarding Rapid Response and
National Emergency Grants as they relate to the TAA program.
The proposed part 618 consists of nine subparts: subpart A--General;
subpart B--Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility to Apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (and Alternative TAA); subpart C--Delivery of Services
throughout the One-Stop Delivery System; subpart D--Job Search Allowances;
subpart E--Relocation Allowances; subpart F-- Training Services; subpart
G--Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA); subpart H--Administration by Applicable
State Agencies; and subpart I-- Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
for Older Workers. Because of the complexity of the subject matter and the
States' needs for definitive instructions on providing TAA benefits, the
rulemaking for part 618 is divided into two parts. This notice of proposed
rulemaking covers the petitions and determinations (subpart B) and ATAA
(subpart I) of the regulations. A separate notice of proposed rulemaking will
cover the remaining subparts (subpart A and subparts C through H).
Statement of Need:
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, enacted August 6,
2002, repeals the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment
Assistance provisions for workers affected by the NAFTA Implementation Act and
adds significant amendments to worker benefits under Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Workers, as provided for in the Trade Act of 1974.
The 2002 Trade Act amends where and by whom a petition may be filed.
Program benefits for TAA eligible recipients are expanded to include for the
first time a health care tax credit, and eligible recipients now include
secondarily affected workers impacted by foreign trade. Income support is
extended by 26 weeks and by up to one year under certain conditions. Waivers of
training requirements in order to receive income support are explicitly
defined. Job search and relocation benefit amounts are increased. Within one
year of enactment, the amendments offer an Alternative TAA for Older Workers
program that targets older worker groups who are certified as TAA eligible and
provides the option of a wage supplement instead of training, job search, and
income support.
The Department is mandated to implement the amendments within 90 days
from enactment (November 4, 2002), and it issued operating instructions in a
guidance letter on October 10, 2002, and later published in the Federal
Register (67 FR 69029-41). State agencies rely on the regulations to make
determinations as to individual eligibility for TAA program benefits. TAA
program regulations as written have been described as complicated to interpret.
With the new TAA program benefit amendments contained in the Trade Act of 2002,
it is imperative that the regulations be in an easy-to-read and understandable
format.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These regulations are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2320 due to the
amendments to the Trade Act of 1974 by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
The public will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the
TAA program changes when the Department publishes the proposed rule in the
Federal Register.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at a later
date.
Risks:
This action does not affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
NPRM |
04/00/04 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Agency Contact:
Timothy F. Sullivan Director, Trade Adjustment
Assistance Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW. FP Building Room C5311 Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3708 Email: sullivan.timothy@dol.gov RIN:
1205-AB40
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
92. LABOR CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR THE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT OF
ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
29 USC 49 et seq; 8 USC 1182(a)(5)(A), 1189(p)(1)
CFR Citation:
20 CFR 656
Legal Deadline:
None Abstract: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is in
the process of reengineering the permanent labor certification process. ETA's
goals are to make fundamental changes and refinements that will streamline the
process, save resources, improve the effectiveness of the program and better
serve the Department of Labor's (DOL) customer.
Statement of Need:
The labor certification process has been described as being complicated,
costly and time consuming. Due to the increases in the volume of applications
received and a lack of adequate resources, it can take up to 2 years or more to
complete processing an application. The process also requires substantial State
and Federal resources to administer and is reportedly costly and burdensome to
employers as well. Cuts in Federal funding for both the permanent labor
certification program and the U.S. Employment Service have made it difficult
for State and Federal administrators to keep up with the process. ETA,
therefore, is taking steps to improve effectiveness of the various regulatory
requirements and the application processing procedures, with a view to
achieving savings in resources both for the Government and employers, without
diminishing protections now afforded U.S. workers by the current regulatory and
administrative requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by section 212(a)(5)(A)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Alternatives:
Regulatory alternatives are now being developed by the Department. The
public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Department's plans for
streamlining the permanent labor certification process in a notice of proposed
rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2002.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits have not
been determined at this time. Preliminary estimates will be developed after a
decision is made as to what regulatory amendments are necessary and after the
implementing forms and automated systems to support a streamlined permanent
labor certification process have been developed.
Risks:
This action does not affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
NPRM |
|
05/06/02 |
|
67 FR 30465 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
|
07/05/02 |
|
|
Final Action |
|
12/00/04 |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Agency Contact:
William L. Carlson Chief, Division of Foreign Labor
Certification Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. FP Building, Room N5306
Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-3010 Fax: 202 693-2768 Email:
carlson.william@dol.gov RIN:1205-AA66
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
93. RULEMAKING RELATING TO TERMINATION OF ABANDONED INDIVIDUAL
ACCOUNT PLANS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1002(16)(A)
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 2591
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will establish a procedure and standards for
distributing the benefits of individual account plans that have been abandoned
by their sponsoring employers or plan administrators.
Statement of Need:
Thousands of individual account plans have, for a variety of reasons,
been abandoned by their sponsors, creating problems for plan participants,
administrators, financial institutions (e.g., banks, insurance companies,
mutual funds), the courts and the Federal Government. At present, the potential
liability and costs attendant to terminating such plans and distributing the
assets inhibits financial institutions and others from taking on this
responsibility. Due to ongoing administrative costs and other factors, the
continued maintenance of such plans is often not in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries. This rulemaking will establish a procedure for
a financial institution that holds the assets of such a plan to terminate the
plan and distribute its assets to the participants and beneficiaries. The
rulemaking will also include standards for determining when plans may be
terminated pursuant to this procedure and for carrying out the functions
necessary to distribute benefits and shut down plan operations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as the Secretary finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the
provisions of title I of the Act. Section 403(d)(1) provides that, upon
termination of such a plan, the assets shall be distributed generally in
accordance with the provisions that apply to defined benefit plans, ``except as
otherwise provided in regulations of the Secretary.'' ERISA section 3(16)(A)
permits the Secretary to issue regulations designating an administrator for a
plan where the plan document makes no designation and the plan sponsor cannot
be identified.
Alternatives:
Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the alternatives
to be considered.
Risks:
Failure to provide guidance in this area will leave the retirement
benefits of participants and beneficiaries in abandoned plans at risk of being
significantly diminished by ongoing plan administrative expenses, rather than
distributed to participants and beneficiaries in connection with a timely and
orderly termination of the plan.
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
NPRM |
|
01/00/05 |
|
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Turner Senior Pension Law Specialist Department of
Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration N 5669 200
Constitution Avenue NW Room N5669 FP Building Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-8500 RIN: 1210-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
94. AMENDMENT OF REGULATION RELATING TO DEFINITION OF PLAN
ASSETS--PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTIONS Priority:
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 1135
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 2510.3-102
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will amend the regulation that defines when participant
monies paid to or withheld by an employer for contribution to an employee
benefit plan constitute ``plan assets'' for purposes of title I of ERISA and
the related prohibited transaction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The
regulation contains an amendment to the current regulation that will establish
a safe harbor period of a specified number of business days during which
certain monies that a participant pays to, or has withheld by, an employer for
contribution to a plan would not constitute ``plan assets.''
Statement of Need:
This amendment of the participant contribution regulation would, upon
adoption, establish a ``safe harbor'' period of a specified number of days
during which certain monies that a participant pays to, or has withheld from
wages, by an employer for contribution to an employee benefit plan, would
constitute plan assets for purposes of title I of ERISA and the related
prohibited transaction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment
is needed to provide greater certainty to employers, participants and
beneficiaries, service providers and others concerning when participant
contributions to a plan constitute plan assets.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 505 of ERISA provides that the Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as she finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions
of title I of the Act. Regulation 29 CFR 2510.3-102 provides that the assets of
an employee benefit plan covered by title I of ERISA includes amounts (other
than union dues) that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or has
withheld from wages by an employer, for contribution to the plan as of the
earliest date on which such contributions can reasonably be segregated from the
employer's general assets; the regulation also specifies the maximum time
period for deposit of such contributions by the employer.
Alternatives:
Alternatives will be considered following a determination of the scope
and nature of the regulatory guidance needed by the public.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits will be
developed, as appropriate, following a determination regarding the alternatives
to be considered.
Risks:
Failure to provide the safe harbor that would be afforded by the
proposed amendment with regard to monies contributed to employee benefit plans
would deprive employers, other plan fiduciaries, and service providers of the
certainty they need to optimize compliance with the law. Also, any risk of loss
or lost earnings resulting from permitting employers who would otherwise
transmit contributions to the plan sooner than the time specified in the safe
harbor should be minimal, while the benefits attendant to encouraging employers
to review and modify their systems or practices to take advantage of the safe
harbor may be significant.
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
NPRM |
|
12/00/04 |
|
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Agency Contact: Louis J. Campagna Chief, Division of Fiduciary
Interpretations, Office of Regulations and Interpretations Department
of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration 200 Constitution
Avenue NW Rm N5669 FP Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202
693-8512 Fax: 202 219-7291 RIN: 1210-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
95. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HEALTH CARE ACCESS, PORTABILITY, AND
RENEWABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT OF 1996
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1171; 29 USC 1172; 29 USC
1191c
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 2590
Legal Deadline:
Other, Statutory, April 1, 1997, Interim Final Rule.
Abstract:
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
amended title I of ERISA by adding a new part 7, designed to improve health
care access, portability and renewability. This rulemaking will provide
regulatory guidance to implement these provisions.
Statement of Need:
In general, the health care portability provisions in part 7 of ERISA
provide for increased portability and availability of group health coverage
through limitations on the imposition of any preexisting condition exclusion
and special enrollment rights in group health plans after loss of other health
coverage or a life event. Plan sponsors, administrators and participants need
guidance from the Department with regard to how they can fulfill their
respective obligations under these statutory provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Part 7 of ERISA specifies the portability and other requirements for
group health plans and health insurance issuers. Section 734 of ERISA provides
that the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out the provisions of part 7 of ERISA. In addition,
section 505 of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations clarifying
the provisions of title I of ERISA.
Risks:
Failure to provide guidance concerning part 7 of ERISA may impede
compliance with the law.
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
Interim Final Rule |
|
04/08/97 |
|
62 FR 16894 |
Interim Final Rule Effective |
|
06/07/97 |
|
|
Interim Final Rule |
|
07/07/97 |
|
|
Comment Period End |
|
|
|
|
Request for Information |
|
10/25/99 |
|
64 FR 57520 |
Comment Period End |
|
01/25/00 |
|
|
Final Rule |
|
02/00/04 |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Amy Turner Pension Law Specialist Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration Room N5677 200
Constitution Avenue NW FP Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202
693-8335 RIN: 1210-AA54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--EBSA
96. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARTICIPANTS AND
BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1182; 29 USC 1191c; 29
USC 1194
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 2590.702
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Section 702 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
amended by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), establishes that a group health plan or a health insurance issuer may
not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any
individual to enroll under the terms of the plan based on any health
status-related factor. These provisions are also contained in the Internal
Revenue Code under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury, and the
Public Health Service Act under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health
and Human Services.
On April 8, 1997, the Department, in conjunction with the Departments of
the Treasury and Health and Human Services (collectively, the Departments)
published interim final regulations implementing the nondiscrimination
provisions of HIPAA. These regulations can be found at 26 CFR 54.9802-1
(Treasury), 29 CFR 2590.702 (Labor), and 45 CFR 146.121 (HHS). That notice of
rulemaking also solicited comments on the nondiscrimination provisions and
indicated that the Departments intend to issue further regulations on the
nondiscrimination rules. This rulemaking contains additional regulatory interim
guidance under HIPAA's nondiscrimination provisions. In addition, the
rulemaking contains proposed guidance on bona fide wellness programs.
Statement of Need:
Part 7 of ERISA provides that group health plans and health insurance
issuers may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued
eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan based on
any health status-related factor. Plan sponsors, administrators, and
participants need additional guidance from the Department with regard to how
they can fulfill their respective obligations under these statutory
provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 702 of ERISA specifies the respective nondiscrimination
requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers. Section 734
of ERISA provides that the Secretary may promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of part 7 ERISA. In
addition, section 505 of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations
clarifying the provisions of title I of ERISA.
Risks:
Failure to provide guidance concerning part 7 of ERISA may impede
compliance with the law.
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
Interim Final Rule |
|
04/08/97 |
|
62 FR 16894 |
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End |
|
07/07/97 |
|
|
NPRM |
|
010801 |
|
66 FR 1421 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
|
04/09/01 |
|
|
Second Interim Final Rule |
|
01/08/01 |
|
66 FR 1378 |
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End |
|
04/09/01 |
|
|
Final Rule |
|
03/00/05 |
|
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
This item has been split off from RIN 1210-AA54.
Agency Contact:
Amy Turner Pension Law Specialist Department of Labor
Employee Benefits Security Administration Room N5677 200
Constitution Avenue NW FP Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202
693-8335 RIN: 1210-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
----------------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
----------------
97. ASBESTOS EXPOSURE LIMIT
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811; 30 USC 813
CFR Citation:
30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 71
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
MSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos applies to surface
(30 CFR part 56) and underground (30 CFR part 57) metal and nonmetal mines and
to surface coal mines and surface areas of underground coal mines (30 CFR part
71) and is over 20 years old. MSHA is considering rulemaking to lower the PEL
in order to reduce the risk of miners developing asbestos-induced occupational
disease. A report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommended that
MSHA lower its existing permissible exposure limit for asbestos to a more
protective level, and address take-home contamination from asbestos. It also
recommended that MSHA use Transmission Electron Microscopy to analyze fiber
samples that may contain asbestos.
Statement of Need:
Current scientific data indicate that the existing asbestos PEL is not
sufficiently protective of miners' health. MSHA's asbestos regulations date to
1967 and are based on the Bureau of Mines (MSHA's predecessor) standard of 5
mppcf (million particles per cubic foot of air). In 1969, the Bureau proposed a
2 mppcf and 12 fibers/ml standard. This standard was promulgated in 1969. In
1970, the Bureau proposed to lower the standard to 5 fibers/ml, which was
promulgated in 1974. MSHA issued its current standard of 2 fibers/ml in 1976
for coal mining (41 FR 10223) and 1978 for metal and nonmetal mining (43 FR
54064). During inspections, MSHA routinely takes samples, which are analyzed
for compliance with its standard.
Other Federal agencies have addressed this issue by lowering their PEL
for asbestos. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
working in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, enacted a
revised asbestos standard in 1994 that lowered the permissible exposure limit
to an 8-hour time-weighted average limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of
air and the excursion limit to 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc)
as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30) minutes. These lowered limits
reflected increased asbestos-related disease risk to asbestosexposed workers.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by section 101 of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Alternatives:
The Agency has increased sampling efforts in an attempt to determine
current miners' exposure levels to asbestos, including taking samples at all
existing vermiculite, taconite, talc, and other mines to determine whether
asbestos is present and at what levels. In early 2000, MSHA began an intensive
sampling effort at operations with potential asbestos exposure. These efforts
continue. While sampling, MSHA staff discussed with miners and mine operators
the potential hazards of asbestos and the types of preventive measures that
could be implemented to reduce exposures. The course of action MSHA takes in
addressing asbestos hazards to miners will, in part, be based on these sampling
results.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA will develop a preliminary regulatory economic analysis to
accompany any proposed rule that may be developed.
Risks:
Miners could be exposed to the hazards of asbestos during mine
operations where the ore body contains asbestos. There is also potential for
exposure at facilities in which installed asbestoscontaining material is
present. Overexposure to asbestos causes asbestosis, mesothelioma, and other
forms of cancers.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
ANPRM |
03/29/02 |
67 FR 15134 |
Notice of Public Meetings |
03/29/02 |
|
Notice of Change to Public Meetings |
04/18/02 |
67 FR 19140 |
ANPRM Comment Period End |
06/27/02 |
|
NPRM |
03/00/05 |
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
The Office of the Inspector General's ``Evaluation of MSHA's Handling of
Inspections at the W.R. Grace & Company Mine in Libby, Montana,'' was
issued in March 2001.
Agency Contact:
Marvin W. Nichols Jr. Director, Office of Standards Department of
Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration Room 2352 1100 Wilson
Boulevard Room 2350 Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 202 693-9440 Fax:
202 693-9441 Email: nichols-marvin@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
98. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND METAL AND
NONMETAL MINERS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
30 USC 811; 30 USC 813
CFR Citation:
30 CFR 57
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On January 19, 2001, MSHA published a final rule addressing diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exposure of underground metal and nonmetal miners (66
FR 5706). The final rule established new health standards for underground metal
and nonmetal mines that use equipment powered by diesel engines. The rule
establishes an interim concentration limit of 400 micrograms of total carbon
per cubic meter of air that became applicable July 20, 2002, and a final
concentration limit of 160 micrograms to become applicable after January 19,
2006. Industry challenged the rule and organized labor intervened in the
litigation. Settlement negotiations with the litigants have resulted in further
regulatory actions on several requirements of the rule. One final rule has been
published (67 FR 9180). This new rulemaking will address many of the remaining
issues. MSHA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on
September 25, 2002 (67 FR 60199) to obtain additional information and published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in August 2003.
Statement of Need:
As a result of the first partial settlement with the litigants, MSHA
published two documents in the Federal Register on July 5, 2001. One document
delayed the effective date of 57.5066(b) regarding the tagging provisions of
the maintenance standard; clarified the effective dates of certain provisions
of the final rule; and gave correction amendments (66 FR 35518).
The second document was a proposed rule to clarify 57.5066(b)(1) and
(b)(2) of the maintenance standards and to add a new paragraph (b)(3) to
57.5067 regarding the transfer of existing diesel equipment from one
underground mine to another underground mine. The final rule on these issues
was published February 27, 2002, and became effective March 29, 2002.
As a result of the second partial settlement agreement, MSHA proposed
specific changes to the 2001 DPM final rule. On September 25, 2002, MSHA
published an ANPRM. In response to commenters, MSHA proposed changes only to
the interim DPM standard of 400 micrograms per cubic meter of air. In a
separate rulemaking, the Agency will propose a rule to revise the final
concentration limit of 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The scope of both
rulemakings is limited to the settlement agreement. The current rulemaking
addresses the following provisions:
57.5060(a) - Whether to change the existing DPM surrogate for the
interim limit from total carbon to elemental carbon; and change the
concentration limit to a comparable permissible exposure limit.
57.5060(c) - Whether to adapt to the interim limit the existing
provision that allows mine operators to apply to the Secretary for additional
time to come into compliance with the final concentration limit. MSHA also
agreed to propose to include consideration of economic feasibility, and to
allow for annual renewals of such special extensions.
57.5060(d) -- Whether to remove the existing provision permitting miners
to engage in certain activities in concentrations exceeding the interim and
final limits upon application and approval from the Secretary, since the Agency
agreed to propose the current hierarchy of controls that MSHA applies in its
existing metal and nonmetal exposure based health standards for abating
violations.
57.5060(e) -- Whether to remove the existing prohibition on the use of
personal protective equipment.
57.5060(f) - Whether to remove the prohibition on the use of
administrative controls.
57.5061(a) -- Whether to change the reference from ``concentration'' to
PEL.
57.5061(b) -- Whether to change the reference from ``total carbon'' to
``elemental carbon.''
57.5061(c) - Whether to delete the references to ``area'' and
``occupational'' sampling for compliance.
57.5062 -- Whether to revise the existing diesel control plan.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by sections 101 and 103
of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Alternatives:
This rulemaking would amend and improve health protection from that
afforded by the existing standard.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
MSHA's preliminary economic analysis indicates that making the changes
under consideration would result in a cost savings to the mining industry.
Risks:
Several epidemiological studies have found that exposure to diesel
exhaust presents potential health risks to miners. These potential adverse
health effects range from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and
cancer. In the confined space of the underground mining environment,
occupational exposure to diesel exhaust may present a greater hazard due to
ventilation limitations and the presence of other airborne contaminants, such
as toxic mine dusts or mine gases. We believe that the health evidence forms a
reasonable basis for reducing miners' exposure to diesel particulate matter.
Proceeding with rulemaking on the provisions discussed above will more
effectively reduce miners' exposure to DPM.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
ANPRM |
09/25/02 |
67 FR 60199 |
ANPRM Comment Period End |
11/25/02 |
|
NPRM |
08/14/03 |
68 FR 48668 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
10/14/03 |
|
Limited Reopening of the Comment Period |
2/20/04 |
69 FR 78810 |
Limited Reopening of the Comment Period End |
04/05/04 |
69 FR 7881 |
Final Action |
03/00/05 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Marvin W. Nichols Jr. Director, Office of Standards Department
of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration 1100 Wilson
Boulevard, Room 2350 Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 202 693-9440 Fax:
202 693-9441 Email: nichols-marvin@dol.gov
RIN: 1219-AB29
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
99. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Crystalline silica is a significant component of the earth's crust, and
many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to it, usually in the
form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis
is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from exposure of employees over
long periods of time (10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable
crystalline silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are
ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general
industry is based on a formula recommended by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1971 (PEL=10mg/cubic meter/(%
silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL for construction and maritime
(derived from ACGIH's 1962 Threshold Limit Value) is based on particle counting
technology, which is considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend a 50ug/m3
exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica.
Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive
standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring,
medical surveillance, and worker training. The American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) has published a recommended standard for addressing the
hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of
the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard.
These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure
monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.
Statement of Need:
Over two million workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust in
general industry, construction and maritime industries. Industries that could
be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline silica include:
foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting operations, paint
manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, brick making, china and
pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing fixtures, and many construction
activities including highway repair, masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and
tuckpointing. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica
exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that
continue to occur; between 1990 and 1996, 200 to 300 deaths per year are known
to have occurred where silicosis was identified on death certificates as an
underlying or contributing cause of death. It is likely that many more cases
have occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated crystalline silica as a
known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline silica has also been associated
with an increased risk of developing tuberculosis and other nonmalignant
respiratory diseases, as well as, renal and autoimmune respiratory diseases.
Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement data indicate that some workers continue
to be exposed to levels of crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure
limits. Congress has included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal
nuclear testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the Agency to
modernize its exposure limits for construction and maritime, and to address
some specific issues that will need to be resolved to propose a comprehensive
standard.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination
that workers are exposed to a significant risk of silicosis and other serious
disease and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk. In
addition, the proposed rule will recognize that the PELs for construction and
maritime are outdated and need to be revised to reflect current sampling and
analytical technologies.
Alternatives:
Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted to address this
problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, including initiation of
a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 1997, sponsorship with NIOSH
and MSHA of the National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis, and dissemination
of guidance information on its Web site. OSHA has determined that rulemaking is
a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of
crystalline silica. The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the
scope of the rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The scope of the proposed rulemaking and estimates of the costs and
benefits are still under development.
Risks:
A detailed risk analysis is under way.
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
Completed SBREFA Report |
12/19/03 |
|
Complete Peer Review of Risk Assessment |
02/00/05 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Steven F. Witt Director, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N-3718 FP
Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202
693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
100. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING
OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1910
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Judicial, October 4, 2004.
Abstract:
In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the
permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent
chromium (CrVI). The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Unions
(OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to
promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for CrVI compounds to 0.5 micrograms per
cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eighthour, time-weighted average (TWA). The
current PEL in general industry is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as
CrVI and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of CrVI in the
anhydride compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. The ceiling limit applies to
all forms of CrVI, including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and
zinc chromate. The current PEL of CrVI in the construction industry is 100
ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. After reviewing
the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section
6(b)(5) rulemaking.
OSHA began collecting data and performing preliminary analyses relevant
to occupational exposure to CrVI. However, in 1997, OSHA was sued by HRG OCAW
for unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. The 3rd Circuit, U.S.
Court of Appeals ruled in OSHA's favor and the Agency continued its data
collection and analytic efforts on CrVI. In 2002, OSHA was sued again by HRG
and Paper, Allied-International, Chemical and Energy Workers Ineternational
Union (PACE) for continued unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard.
In August, 2002 OSHA published a Request for Information on CrVI to solicit
additional information on key issues related to controlling exposures to CrVI
and on December 4, 2002, OSHA announced its intent to proceed with developing a
proposed standard. On December 24, 2002, the 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of HRG and ordered the Agency to proceed expeditiously with a
CrVI standard.
Statement of Need:
Approximately 380,000 workers are exposed to CrVI in general industry,
maritime, construction, and agriculture. Industries or work processes that
could be particularly affected by a standard for CrVI include: Electroplating,
welding, painting, chromate production, chromate pigment production,
ferrochromium production, iron and steel production, chromium catalyst
production, and chromium dioxide and sulfate production.
Exposure to CrVI has been shown to produce lung cancer, an often fatal
disease, among workers exposed to CrVI compounds. The International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies CrVI compounds as a Group 1 Carcinogen:
Agents considered to be carcinogenic in humans. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) have also designated CrVI compounds as known and confirmed human
carcinogens, respectively. Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers CrVI compounds to be potential occupational
carcinogens. OSHA's current standards for CrVI compounds, adopted in 1971, were
established to protect against nasal irritation. Therefore, there is a need to
revise the current standard to protect workers from lung cancer.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination
that workers are exposed to a significant risk of lung cancer and dermatoses
and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk.
Alternatives:
OSHA had considered non-regulatory approaches, including the
dissemination of guidance on its web site. However, OSHA has determined that
rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the
hazards of CrVI and the Agency has been ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals to
move forward with a final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed rulemaking includes estimates of the costs and benefits are
being developed.
Risks:
A detailed risk analysis is included in the NPRM.
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
Request for Information |
|
08/22/02 |
|
67 FR 54389 |
Comment Period End |
|
11/20/02 |
|
|
Initiate SBREFA Process |
|
|
|
|
SBREFA Report |
|
04/20/04 |
|
|
NPRM |
|
10/04/04 |
|
69 FR 59305 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
|
01/03/05 |
|
|
Public Hearings |
|
02/00/05 |
|
|
Final Rule |
|
01/00/06 |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Steven F. Witt Director, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N-3718, FP
Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB45
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
101. ASSIGNED PROTECTION FACTORS: AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL RULE ON
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1910.134
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection
standard (29 CFR 1910.134), except for reserved provisions on assigned
protection factors (APFs) and maximum use concentrations (MUCs). APFs are
numbers that describe the effectiveness of the various classes of respirators
in reducing employee exposure to airborne contaminants (including particulates,
gases, vapors, biological agents, etc.). Employers, employees, and safety and
health professionals use APFs to determine the type of respirator to protect
the health of employees in various hazardous environments. Maximum use
concentrations establish the maximum airborne concentration of a contaminant in
which a respirator with a given APF may be used.
Currently, OSHA relies on the APFs developed by NIOSH in the 1980s
unless OSHA has assigned a different APF in a substance-specific health
standard. However, many employers follow the more recent APFs published in the
industry consensus standard, ANSI Z88.2-1992. For some classes of respirators,
the NIOSH and ANSI APFs vary greatly.
This rulemaking action will complete the 1998 standard, reduce
compliance confusion among employers, and provide employees with consistent and
appropriate respiratory protection. On June 6, 2003, OSHA published an NPRM on
Assigned Protection Factors in the Federal Register at 68 FR 34036 containing a
proposed APF table, and requesting public comment. The extended comment period
ended October 2, 2003, and an informal public hearing was held January 28-30,
2004.
Statement of Need:
About five million employees wear respirators as part of their regular
job duties. Due to inconsistencies between the APFs found in the current
industry consensus standard (ANSI Z88.2-1992) and in the NIOSH Respirator
Decision Logic, employers, employees, and safety and health professionals are
often uncertain about what respirator to select to provide protection against
hazardous air contaminants.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this proposed rule is the determination that
assigned protection factors and maximum use concentrations are necessary to
complete the final Respiratory Protection standard and provide the full
protection under that standard.
Alternatives:
OSHA has considered allowing the current situation to continue.
Accordingly, OSHA generally enforces NIOSH APFs, but many employers follow the
more recent consensus standard APFs. However, allowing the situation to
continue results in inconsistent enforcement, lack of guidance for employers,
and the potential for inadequate employee protection.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The estimated compliance costs for OSHA's proposed APF rule are $4.6
million. The APFs proposed in this rulemaking help to ensure that the benefits
attributed to proper respiratory protection under 29 CFR 1910.134 are achieved,
as well as provide an additional degree of protection.
Risks:
The preamble to the final Respiratory Protection rule (63 FR 1270, Jan.
8, 1998) discusses the significance of the risks potentially associated with
the use of respiratory protection. No independent finding of significant risk
has been made for the APF rulemaking since it only addresses a single provision
of the larger rule.
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
|
Date |
|
FR Cite |
ANPRM |
|
05/14/82 |
|
47 FR 20803 |
ANPRM Comment Period End |
|
09/13/82 |
|
|
NPRM |
|
11/15/94 |
|
59 FR 58884 |
Final Rule |
|
01/08/98 |
|
63 FR 1152 |
NPRM |
|
10/04/04 |
|
69 FR 59305 |
Final Rule Effective |
|
04/08/98 |
|
|
NPRM |
|
06/06/03 |
|
68 FR 34036 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
|
09/04/03 |
|
|
NPRM Comment Period Extended |
|
10/02/03 |
|
68 FR 53311 |
Public Hearing on 01/28/2004 |
|
11/12/03 |
|
68 FR 64036 |
Final Rule: Revocation of Rerspiratory |
|
12/31/03 |
|
68 FR 75767 |
Post-Hearing Comment and Brief Period Extended |
|
03/30/04 |
|
69 FR 16510 |
Post-Hearing Comment Period End |
|
04/29/04 |
|
|
Post-Hearing Briefs End |
|
05/29/04 |
|
|
Final Action |
|
01/00/05 |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Steven F. Witt Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N-3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AA05
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
102. STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) FOR GENERAL
INDUSTRY, MARINE TERMINALS, AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (PHASE II)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
29 USC 655(b)
CFR Citation:
29 CFR 1910, subpart Z; 29 CFR 1910.1001 to 1910.1052; 29 CFR
1910.142; 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1910.219; 29 CFR 1910.261; 29 CFR
1910.265; 29 CFR 1910.410; 29 CFR 1917.92; 29 CFR 1926.1101; 29 CFR
1926.1127; 29 CFR 1926.1129; 29 CFR 1926.60; 29 CFR 1926.62
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed to
remove or revise provisions in its health standards that are out of date,
duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. Where appropriate, the Agency is
primarily changing that provision to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated
community by these requirements. In this document, substantive changes
standards will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary
regulatory requirements without diminishing employee protections. Phase I of
this Standards Improvement process was completed in June 1998 (63 FR 33450).
OSHA plans to initiate Phase III of this project at a future date to address
problems in various safety and health standards.
Statement of Need:
Some parts of OSHA's standards are out of date, duplicative,
unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency needs to periodically review its
standards and make needed corrections. This effort results in standards that
are easier for employers and employees to follow and comply with, and thus
enhances compliance and worker protection.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding that the
OSHA standards need to be updated to bring them up to date, reduce
inconsistency, and remove unneeded provisions.
Alternatives:
OSHA has considered updating each standard as problems are discovered,
but has determined that it is better to make such changes to groups of
standards so it is easier for the public to comment on like standards. OSHA has
also considered the inclusion of safety standards that need to be updated.
However, the Agency has decided to pursue a separate rulemaking for safety
issues because the standards to be updated are of interest to different
stakeholders.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This revision of OSHA's standards is a deregulatory action. It will
reduce employers' compliance obligations.
Risks:
The project does not address specific risks, but is intended to improve
OSHA's standards by bringing them up to date and deleting unneeded provisions.
The anticipated changes will have no negative effects on worker safety and
health.
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
NPRM |
10/31/02 |
67 FR 66493 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
12/20/02 |
|
NPRM Comment Period End |
01/08/03 |
68 FR 1023 |
Second NPRM Comment Period End |
01/30/03 |
|
Public Hearing |
07/08/03 |
|
Final Action |
12/00/04 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Steven F. Witt Director, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room N-3718, FP
Building Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-1950 Fax: 202
693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB81
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and
Training (ASVET)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
103. UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT
REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant Legal Authority: 38 USC 4331(a)
CFR Citation:
20 CFR 1002
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Secretary's commitment to protecting the employment rights of
servicemembers as they return to the civilian work force is reflected by the
initiative to promulgate regulations implementing the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) with regard to States,
local governments and private employers. USERRA provides employment and
reemployment protections for members of the uniformed services, including
veterans and members of the Reserve and National Guard. The Department has not
previously issued implementing regulations under USERRA, although the law dates
back to 1994.
Statement of Need:
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301-4333, provides employment and reemployment rights for
members of the uniformed services, including veterans and members of the
Reserve and National Guard. Under USERRA, eligible service members who leave
their civilian jobs for military service are entitled to return to reemployment
with their previous employers with the seniority, status and rate of pay they
would have attained had they not been away on duty. USERRA also assures that
they will not suffer discrimination in employment because of their military
service or obligations.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the President authorized a
major mobilization of National Guard and Reserve forces that has continued into
2004. In the past three years, the Department has experienced a tremendous
increase in the number of inquiries about USERRA from employers and members of
the Guard and Reserve. The high volume of requests for technical assistance
indicates that there is a significant need for consistent and authoritative
USERRA guidance. USERRA regulations will provide the Department's
interpretations of the law and procedures for enforcing the law.
Summary of Legal Basis:
USERRA authorizes the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to issue regulations implementing USERRA with regard to
States, local governments and private employers. 38 U.S.C. 4331(a).
Alternatives:
In lieu of regulations, the Department could choose to continue its
compliance assistance efforts, and could issue interpretations of USERRA in the
form of a USERRA Handbook, policy memoranda or other less formal means. These
would not benefit from broad-based public input, nor would they receive the
same level of deference as regulations. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533
U.S. 218, 230 (2001).
_______________________________________________________________________
Timetable:
Action |
Date |
FR Cite |
NPRM |
09/20/04 |
69 FR 56266 |
NPRM Comment Period End |
11/19/04 |
|
Final Action |
06/00/05 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
Robert Wilson Chief, Investigation and Compliance
Division Department of Labor Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Veterans' Employment and Training 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Room
S-1316 Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-4719 Fax: 202
693-4755
RIN: 1293-AA09
BILLING CODE 4510-23-S
|