[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20185-20189]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR 1910, 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018]
RIN 1218-AC90

Communication Tower Safety

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

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is aware of employee safety risks in communication tower
construction and maintenance activities and is requesting information
from the public on these risks. This RFI requests information that will
assist the Agency in determining what steps, if any, it can take to
prevent injuries and fatalities during tower work.

DATES: Comments and other information must be submitted (postmarked,
sent, or received) by June 15, 2015. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018, using any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Facsimile: Commenters may fax submissions, including attachments,
that are no longer than 10 pages in length to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents.
Commenters must submit lengthy attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), by the applicable
deadline, to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-
2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must clearly identify the
commenter's name, the date of submission, the title of this RFI
(Communication Tower Safety), and the docket number (OSHA-2014-0018) so
the Agency can attach them to the appropriate facsimile submission.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, or
messenger service: Submit a copy of comments and any additional
material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2014-0018, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Note that
security procedures may significantly delay the Agency's receipt of
comments and other written materials sent by regular mail. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning
delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, or messenger
service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15
a.m.--4:45 p.m., E.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name
(OSHA), the title of this RFI (Communication Tower Safety), and the
docket number (OSHA-2014-0018). The Agency places all submissions,
including any personal information provided, in the public docket
without change; this information will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about
submitting materials that they do not want made available to the public
or that contain personal information (either about themselves or
others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. While the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov lists documents in the docket, some information
(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or
download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this Request for
Information is available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    General and technical information: Contact Erin Patterson or
Jessica Douma, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance, OSHA
Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; emails:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone: (202) 693-
2020; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Exhibits Referenced in This RFI
II. Background
    A. Introduction
    B. Hazards and Incidents
    C. Training and Certification
    D. Applicable OSHA Standards
    E. Consensus Standards and State Standards
III. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
IV. Authority and Signature

I. Exhibits Referenced in This RFI

    Documents referenced by OSHA in this request for information, other
than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket No.
OSHA-2014-0018 (Communication Tower Safety). The docket is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. For
additional information on submitting items to, or accessing items in,
the docket, please refer to the Addresses section of this RFI.

II. Background

A. Introduction

    Communication towers are tall structures that carry antennas for
wireless, cellular, radio, or broadcast television communications.
There are three common types of communication towers: free-standing or
lattice towers, guyed towers, and monopole towers.

Communication towers can range from 100 to over 1000 feet tall.
    Increasingly, antennas are being installed on structures other than
communication towers, e.g., on water towers, on electrical and
telephone poles, and on the roofs of buildings. These alternative
structures are often used in more densely populated areas where the
construction of large communication towers is impractical or
impossible, e.g., due to zoning restrictions.
    The construction and maintenance of communication towers is highly
specialized work. This work often involves workers climbing the towers
via ladders or being hoisted to workstations on the towers via base-
mounted drum hoists. To erect new towers, workers lift tower sections
or structural parts using a base-mounted drum hoist, with or without a
gin pole. Workers can also use cranes to raise tower sections. Towers
are constructed piece by piece; workers bolt each section or piece into
place before raising the next section. Non-erection construction
activities can include reinforcing the structure, upgrading antennas,
and installing new antennas on existing towers (referred to as
colocation). Workers also climb towers to perform maintenance
activities such as painting structural steel members, changing light
bulbs, and troubleshooting malfunctioning equipment. During the
performance of work activities involving communication towers, workers
are exposed to a variety of serious hazards, including fall hazards,
hazards associated with structural collapses, struck-by hazards,
hazards associated with worker fatigue, radio frequency hazards,
hazards associated with inclement weather (including extreme heat and
cold), electrical hazards, and cut and laceration hazards due to the
use of sharp, heavy tools and materials.
    Work on communication towers often involves complex business
relationships among multiple companies. Many communication towers are
owned by dedicated tower companies, rather than broadcast or cell phone
companies (carriers). The tower companies then lease space on the
towers to wireless carriers. When a carrier needs to undertake a large-
scale installation or upgrade project, it will contract with a
construction management company (called a ``turfing vendor''). The
turfing vendor typically hires specialized subcontractors to perform
specific elements of the project, and those subcontractors may further
contract with other companies to perform some of the work. It is not
uncommon to have as many as six or seven layers of subcontractors
between the carrier and the company that employs the workers who
actually perform the work (or certain parts of the work). This business
structure poses challenges to setting and enforcing safety rules and
ensuring the well-being of employees.
    In this RFI, OSHA is seeking information about the causes of the
employee injuries and fatalities that are occurring among employees
working on communication towers. The Agency is also seeking comments on
safe work practices for communication tower activities, training and
certification practices for communication tower workers, and potential
approaches the Agency might take to address the hazards associated with
work on communication towers.

B. Hazards and Incidents

    A search of OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS)
database for both fatal and non-fatal incidents involving communication
towers revealed 107 incidents from 2003 through 2013 (Docket ID OSHA-
2014-0018-01).\1\ These incidents resulted in 91 fatalities and 17
injuries. Most of the fatalities (79) were due to falls. Structural
collapses killed an additional eight people. Three fatalities involved
electrocutions, and the last fatality was due to an employee being
struck by a load while working on the tower. According to the IMIS
data, falls were also the leading cause of injuries among communication
tower workers, with 13 of 17 injuries resulting from falls (Docket ID
OSHA-2014-0018-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This data includes incidents that occurred as a direct
result of working on or with a communication tower. Incidents at
communication tower worksites resulting from unrelated factors, such
as a crane tipping over due to bad ground conditions, are not
included. Moreover, these figures probably do not include all
incidents that occurred in the relevant time period, as they are
derived solely from OSHA investigation data. The IMIS database, for
example, will not include incidents that involve individuals not
covered by OSHA, e.g., the self-employed. The current IMIS database
generally includes incidents only when they involve at least one
fatality or three or more hospitalizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2013 was the deadliest year for communication tower workers since
2006. According to 2013 OSHA incident investigation reports, there were
a total of 15 incidents resulting in 13 fatalities (as well as 3
injuries that required hospitalization). Of the 15 incidents identified
in the 2013 reports, 11 involved falls, and of those falls, 9 were
fatal. Structural collapses accounted for two fatalities, and two
fatalities were the result of employees being struck by suspended
materials while working on a tower (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-01).
    The leadership of the Department of Labor, OSHA, and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) recently organized and participated in
a workshop on communication tower work for industry stakeholders and
government agencies. The event, held on October 14, 2014, included two
panel discussions with representatives from tower climber advocacy
organizations, the owner of a tower erection company, media
representatives, carrier representatives, a tower owner representative,
and a government relations liaison for a wireless infrastructure
industry group. The first panel focused on the causes of tower climber
fatalities and ways employers can prevent such fatalities. The second
panel focused on industry-wide solutions that can be implemented by
carriers, tower owners, and turfing vendors. Chairman Thomas Wheeler of
the FCC and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez spoke at the event and
called for the agencies and industry stakeholders to collaborate in an
effort to identify best practices and steps that the industry can take
to address the hazards faced by communication tower workers. A video
recording of the event can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/events/workshop-tower-climber-safety-and-injury-protection.

C. Training and Certification

    Given the highly specialized and dangerous nature of the work that
tower workers perform, employee training and preparation are critical.
Many companies provide training to tower climbers. These training
courses typically last two to five days and consist of a classroom
component and a practical training component, with a final assessment
of skills and knowledge. Topics covered during these courses typically
include: fall protection procedures, climbing safety and planning,
hazard assessments, and basic emergency and rescue protocols. Upon
successful completion of these courses, participants receive a
certification card from the company that provided the training.
Although there is no standard threshold for certification, most
companies that issue certification cards assert that their
certifications meet standards in the National Association of Tower
Erectors (NATE) Tower Climber Fall Protection Training Standard as well
as other applicable standards from OSHA, the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE).

    Recently, there have been some developments in employee training
and preparation resulting from government and industry collaboration.
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
has developed a registered apprenticeship program for tower climbers in
collaboration with a board of stakeholders. The goal of the Tower
Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP) is to provide an
industry-wide standard of training and employee development. The
founding documents for TIRAP were signed on October 14, 2014.

D. Applicable OSHA Standards

    At present, OSHA standards do not provide comprehensive coverage of
communication tower construction activities. OSHA's standards for fall
protection in construction (29 CFR 1926, subpart M), which generally
require the use of fall protection at heights of six feet and greater,
will apply in some situations, although those standards do not cover
the erection of new communication towers (see 29 CFR
1926.500(a)(2)(v)). Fall protection requirements for the construction
of new communication towers can be found in 29 CFR 1926.105, which
requires the use of safety nets when workplaces are more than 25 feet
above the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where the use of
ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, or
safety belts is impractical (see 29 CFR 1926.105(a)). Additionally,
communication tower construction activities are exempt from OSHA's
requirements for steel erection activities (29 CFR 1926, subpart R);
subpart R does not cover electrical transmission towers, communication
and broadcast towers, or tanks (29 CFR 1926.750(a)).
    Maintenance work on communication towers is governed by OSHA's
general industry standards at 29 CFR part 1910. There are a number of
general industry standards that apply to communication tower
maintenance activities. Most specifically, the telecommunications
standard at 29 CFR 1910.268 applies to the work conditions, practices,
means, methods, operations, installations and processes performed at
telecommunications field installations, such as communication towers
(see 29 CFR 1910.268(a)(1)). A key provision in the telecommunications
standard is Sec.  1910.268(c), which addresses training. That provision
requires employers to provide training in the various precautions and
safe practices described in Sec.  1910.268 and insure that employees do
not engage in the activities to which Sec.  1910.268 applies until such
employees have received proper training. The telecommunications
standard also contains requirements for fall protection (see 29 CFR
1910.268(g)). Paragraph (g) of Sec.  1910.268 generally requires
employers to provide, and ensure the use of, safety belts and straps
when work is performed at positions more than 4 feet above ground, on
poles, and on towers (see 29 CFR 1910.268(g)(1)).
    When existing standards do not apply to a particular hazard at a
communication tower worksite, employers still have a duty to protect
employees under the General Duty Clause (section 5(a)(1)) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)), which
requires each employer 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.'' OSHA has used the General Duty Clause in some cases
involving accidents on communication towers. For example, in March of
2014 OSHA issued a General Duty Clause citation in a case involving a
double fatality caused by improper rigging on a communication tower.
OSHA found that the employer was aware of, but failed to follow,
industry standards and practices for safely rigging the jump line block
for the gin pole.

E. Consensus Standards and State Standards

    There are several consensus standards that address hazards in the
erection, construction, and maintenance of communication towers. The
Telecommunications Industry Association standard TIA-222-G, Structural
Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas (Docket ID
OSHA-2014-0018-04), addresses the structural design elements associated
with the fabrication of new, and the modification of existing, antenna-
supporting structures. The TIA-1019-A standard, Standard for
Installation, Alteration and Maintenance of Antenna Supporting
Structures and Antennas (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-05), addresses the
loading of communication towers under construction and the use of
specialized equipment, including gin poles, hoists, and temporary guys.
There is an ANSI standard currently under development, ANSI A10.48,
which will address safety practices for the construction and
maintenance of communication towers. This standard may be approved
within the next two years.
    Two states have dedicated standards governing communication tower
construction and maintenance. These states, North Carolina and
Michigan, promulgated communication tower standards following multi-
fatality incidents. North Carolina's standard (Docket ID OSHA-2014-
0018-03), which became effective in 2005, covers the construction,
alteration, repair, operation, inspection and maintenance of
communication towers (see 13 NCAC 07F.0600 et seq.). It includes
provisions for employer responsibilities, fall protection and fall
protection systems, non-ionizing radiation, hoists and gin poles, and
employee training. The Michigan standard (Docket ID OSHA-2014-0018-02),
promulgated in 2009, governs construction, alteration, repair,
operation, inspections, maintenance, and demolition activities on
communication towers (see Michigan Administrative Code R 408.42901 et
seq.). It contains provisions on fall protection, emergency response
protocols, training, training certification, hazard identification,
hoists, hoisting personnel, gin poles, catheads, and capstans.
Washington State is planning to update its telecommunications standard
and held stakeholder meetings on the subject in July, 2014.

III. Request for Data, Information, and Comments

    OSHA is seeking information to aid it in evaluating the hazards
that workers face on communication towers. The Agency seeks information
on: the types of hazards that communication tower workers encounter;
the types of incidents (both fatal and non-fatal) that occur as a
result of exposure to those hazards; and the best methods employers can
use to address those hazards. The Agency identifies specific issues on
which it is seeking comment later in this section of this RFI.
    OSHA requests comments from wireless carriers and all parties
involved in the contracting chain, including turfing vendors,
engineering firms, tower owners, tower construction and maintenance
companies, and field staff, e.g., tower technicians who perform work on
the towers. Based on its review of the information provided by the
public in response to this RFI--and other OSHA research activities--the
Agency will determine what additional actions, if any, to take to
address hazards associated with work on communication towers.
Commenters should identify the role they play with respect to the
performance of work on communication towers and be as detailed as
possible in their comments.

Also, to the extent possible, commenters should identify the specific
question(s) they are addressing (e.g., by referring to the questions
being answered using the numbers provided in the list below).

Questions for Tower Climbers \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While the questions under this heading are specific to tower
climbers, OSHA strongly encourages tower climbers to consider and
respond to all questions in this Request for Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. As a tower climber, what are the most significant hazards that
you encounter on the job? What circumstances or conditions create or
contribute to these hazards?
    2. What steps do you take, at this time, to complete your work
safely? What safety-related work practices do you think should be in
place?
    3. What safety rules and work practices are provided to you, and
who provides you with that information?
    4. Who assigns and oversees your work? Who provides your training
and checks your equipment? When at a jobsite, to whom would you report
a potential safety issue?
    5. What specific steps do you think employers can take to make
tower work safer?
    6. How, and to what extent, does the design or configuration of
towers, and equipment installed on towers, affect your ability to
complete your work safely?

Training and Certification

    7. Tower hands/climbers, please describe the training and
certification required for your job. Employers, please describe the
types of training and certification you require for your employees.
    8. What commercial training programs are currently available? What
are the topics covered by the programs? Are the programs adequate to
prepare employees to work safely on communication towers?
    9. Is there a need for a standardized, industry-wide training or
certification program?
    10. From your perspective given your role in the contracting chain,
what does a tower climber need to know to do his or her job safely?
    11. How do employers evaluate employees to ensure that they have
been adequately trained, especially when employees receive their
training or certification elsewhere? How do companies determine if
employees are proficient in the topics covered by the training or if
re-training is necessary? Do employers offer site-specific training
that addresses specific types of towers and equipment?
    12. For employers who contract out work (e. g., carriers, turfing
vendors), what contract language or oversight mechanisms do you use to
ensure that work is done by trained and/or certified workers?

Suitability for Work

    13. Are employees directly engaged in tower work assessed for
physical fitness? If so, how? Are physical fitness requirements and
assessments addressed in contracting agreements?
    14. What physical limitations should employers be aware of when
assigning an employee communication tower work? What hazards might be
associated with such limitations, and how could those hazards be
mitigated?

Hazards and Incidents

    15. Falls: Falls are currently the leading cause of fatalities
among communication tower workers. OSHA believes that many falls result
from the improper use of fall protection equipment or the failure to
use any fall protection equipment at all.
    a. How are employers addressing fall hazards?
    b. Are employers providing appropriate fall protection equipment to
employees? Is it maintained and replaced when necessary?
    c. What factors contribute to employees failing to use fall
protection while climbing or working?
    d. Are there situations in which conventional fall protection
(safety nets or personal fall arrest systems) is infeasible? What
alternatives can employees use for fall protection in those situations?
    e. What are the ways in which fall protection systems or anchorage
points on communication towers can fail? How can these failures be
prevented?
    f. Should OSHA require built-in fall protection measures on new
towers? Existing towers? Would such a requirement enhance worker
safety?
    16. Structural issues: When new equipment is added to communication
towers, the additional loading of the tower has the potential to
overload or destabilize the structure. Older towers may need additional
reinforcements to maintain their structural integrity as new equipment
is added to them. Communication tower collapses have resulted in
numerous fatalities in the past two years. Which contractual party
bears responsibility for ensuring that any structural work on the
tower--such as modification or demolition--is done safely from a
structural perspective? What steps are employers currently taking to
prevent collapses?
    17. Hoisting materials and personnel: Base-mounted drum hoists are
often used to hoist materials and personnel to working heights on
communication towers. Hazards arise if hoists that are not rated for
lifting personnel are used for that purpose. OSHA is aware of incidents
in which hoists have failed under such conditions. Also, overloading
material hoists and improper rigging procedures can result in loads
striking the tower structure or workers located on the tower. OSHA
knows of several deaths in the past two years that have resulted from
these types of incidents.
    a. When are personnel hoists used?
    b. What types of hazards are associated with personnel and material
hoists? What are the best practices for safely managing those hazards?
    c. How are capstan hoists used in tower work? In what types of
operations can they be used safely?
    d. What are the most common types of rigging hazards that occur on
communication tower worksites? What can employers do to eliminate or
minimize those hazards?
    e. Are there methods, other than the use of a hoist or a crane,
that can be used to lift material and personnel at a communication
tower? Which methods and procedures are the safest?
    f. What are the roles of different levels of the contracting chain
in managing rigging and hoisting activities?
    18. Radio Frequency Hazards: Much research has been done on the
health effects of overexposure to radio frequencies. General health
effects reviews have found that high levels of exposure to radio
frequencies may result in burns. In addition, the link between exposure
to radio frequencies and cancer, reproductive diseases, and
neurological effects has not been thoroughly explored.
    a. What methods are employers using to protect workers from
overexposure to radio frequency?
    b. Is there a need for employers to institute comprehensive radio
frequency monitoring programs on communication tower worksites? What
would a good program look like?
    19. Weather: Communication tower workers work outside during all
seasons, and in all climates. They can be exposed to heat, cold, wind,
snow, and ice. Storm conditions can quickly arise when workers are at
elevation, and it can be difficult to descend the tower quickly.
    a. What are the specific weather-related hazards to which
communication tower workers are exposed?

    b. How does a crew monitor and respond to changing weather
conditions, including storms?
    20. Fatigue: OSHA believes that fatigue can affect communication
tower workers in several ways. Climbing a communication tower is
physically demanding, and OSHA is concerned that fatigue due to
exertion can be hazardous for tower workers. Accelerated work timelines
can also result in tower workers working very long hours. And OSHA
understands that communication tower workers may travel long distances
to reach remote worksites, which can result in workers being fatigued
before they even begin work.
    a. What hazards are faced by a worker who finds it physically
challenging to perform expected tasks, such as climbing a tower or
performing a self-rescue? What impact can this have on other crew
members?
    b. What are the common causes of worker fatigue at communication
tower worksites?
    c. What are the effects of fatigue on tower worker safety, and what
types of incidents occur as a result of worker fatigue?
    21. Other common hazards:
    a. What other hazards are present in communication tower work, and
what types of incidents are resulting from those hazards? What can be
done to protect employees from those hazards?
    b. What are some health and safety considerations involved in
working with communications equipment installed on non-dedicated tower
structures, such as water towers, buildings, silos, electrical
transmission towers, etc.?

Contracting and Work Oversight

    22. Describe your role in the contract chain and the key safety-
related provisions typically included in your contracts. How do
contracting parties oversee or enforce those provisions? What are the
consequences if a party fails to fulfill those contractual
requirements?
    23. What characteristics of past safety performance does your
company use in selecting potential contractors and subcontractors? What
safety-related criteria does your company use in this selection
process?
    24. Are safety-related factors considered in determining whether to
remove a contractor/subcontractor from an ongoing project or from
future selection processes? If so, what specific factors are
considered?
    25. What are the ways in which the multi-leveled contracting
environment (i.e., where entities such as the carrier, tower owner,
turfing vendor, subcontractor, and contractors hired by the
subcontractor all have some role in the project) impacts employee
safety at communication tower worksites?
    26. What practices might companies in the contracting chain adopt
to encourage communication and coordination among employers at tower
work sites? What obstacles stand in the way of communication and
coordination between different parties in the contracting chain?

Economic Issues

    27. The Agency seeks information on the number and size of firms
that are engaged in communication tower work and on the number of
employees employed by those firms.
    28. The Agency seeks information about wage and turnover rates for
employees who work on communication towers. The Agency is also
interested in information about the experience possessed by workers
currently doing communication tower work. Are they usually experienced
in this type of work? Are there many new or inexperienced employees
working on communication towers?
    29. What types of equipment are used in tower work and how often is
this equipment repaired and/or replaced?
    30. The Agency seeks information from all employers in the
contracting chain about the extent to which employees directly engaged
in tower work are covered by workers' compensation and/or an employer
liability insurance policy.

Tower Design

    31. Can towers be designed and built with elevators for lifting
personnel or materials? Can towers be built with booms or davits aloft
to aid in hoisting materials?
    32. How would elevators or davits affect productivity/efficiency,
e.g., the amount of time spent on the tower? How would elevators or
davits address or cause any safety hazards at the site? For example,
would elevators or davits address hazards related to employee fatigue?
    33. What are the industry standards for providing fall protection
anchor points on new towers?

Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Approaches

    34. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of an OSHA
standard that covers both construction and maintenance activities on
communication towers?
    35. What effects have the North Carolina and Michigan regulatory
approaches had on work practices and climber safety in those states?
    36. Should an OSHA standard be limited to work performed on
communication towers, or should it also cover towers used for other
purposes?
    37. If OSHA does not initiate a dedicated rulemaking for work on
communication towers, what other types of regulatory actions might be
necessary and appropriate?
    38. What non-regulatory approaches could OSHA take to address
hazards faced by employees working on communication towers?

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
3704 et seq., Public Law 107-217, 116 STAT. 1062 (40 U.S.C. 3704 et
seq.); sections 4, 6, and 8, Public Law 91-596, 84 STAT. 1590 (29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 29 CFR part 1911; and Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-08633 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32981-32982]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0014; OMB No. 1660-0020]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Write Your Own (WYO) Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning private
sector insurance companies' authorization to offer flood insurance to
eligible property owners under the FEMA National Flood Insurance
Program and to meet the requirements of the WYO Transaction Record
Reporting and Processing Plan.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2011-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket
ID FEMA-2011-0014 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Montgomery, Financial Management
Analyst, Federal Insurance & Mitigation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>
for additional information. You may contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Write Your Own (WYO) Program, FEMA
regulation 44 CFR 62.23 authorizes the Federal Insurance Administrator
to enter into arrangements with individual private sector insurance
companies that are licensed to engage in the business of property
insurance. These companies may offer flood insurance coverage to
eligible property owners utilizing their customary business practices.
To facilitate the marketing of flood insurance, the Federal Government
will be a grantor of flood insurance coverage for WYO Company policies
issued under the WYO arrangement. To ensure that any policyholders'
monies are accounted for and appropriately expended, the Federal
Insurance Administrator implemented a Financial Control Plan (FCP)
under FEMA regulation 44 CFR 62.23(f). This plan requires that each WYO
Company submit financial data on a monthly basis into the National
Flood Insurance Program's Transaction Record Reporting and Processing
Plan (TRRPP) system, as referenced in 44 CFR 62.23(h)(4). The
regulation explains the operational and financial control procedures
governing the issuance of flood insurance coverage under the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by private sector property insurance
companies under the WYO Program.

Collection of Information

    Title: Write Your Own (WYO) Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0020.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 129-1, National Flood Insurance
Program's Transaction Record Reporting and Processing Plan (TRRPP).
    Abstract: FEMA enter into arrangements with individual private
sector insurance companies that are licensed to engage in the business
of property insurance. These companies may offer flood insurance
coverage to eligible property owners utilizing their

customary business practices. WYO Companies are expected to meet the
recording and reporting requirements of the WYO Transaction Record
Reporting and Processing Plan.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 88.
    Number of Responses: 1059.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 623.04.
    Estimated Cost: There is no annual start-up or capital costs.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-13140 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


MEMORANDUM

TO: 		EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0195

FROM: 	Nathan Topham, Environmental Engineer
      U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MICG (D243-02)

DATE: 	July 10, 2020

SUBJECT: 	Summary of June 15, 2020 Meeting with PFI on April 2, 2020 Final Amendments to Residential Wood Heater New Source Performance Standards

Attendees
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI)
American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC)
Summary
Representatives for PFI and ALSC requested a meeting to discuss changes to regulatory language related to 3[rd] party certification of pellet fuel requirements and prohibited fuels that were finalized on April 2, 2020 (85 FR 18448).
PFI stated that their accreditation and testing partners have expressed some concerns that under certain interpretations of the word `certification', satisfying the requirement may be difficult or commercially impracticable.
PFI asked whether the word "certification" in the regulatory text was intended to mean that every bag of pellets or every individual pellet must be examined and tested for prohibited materials. PFI stated that such a requirement would be impractical and asked whether EPA meant for the language to be interpreted in this manner or whether a QA program to prevent systematic intentional introduction of prohibited materials was what EPA intended in the final rule. OAQPS staff informed PFI that sampling from every pellet was not the Agency's intention. EPA requested that PFI provide documentation in writing exactly what regulatory provisions PFI felt were unclear and any information available regarding the type of QA program that PFI thinks would be sufficient to certify pellets. PFI said they would provide the information requested by EPA.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38527-38528]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-017.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-395-001.
    Applicants: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.
    Description: Safe Harbor Updated Market Power Analysis, Order No.
697-A Compl, Chg of Status to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1608-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Public Service Electric and Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 35: PSE&G submits compliance filing per 5/27/2014 Order in
Docket No. ER14-1608 to be effective 5/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1711-003.
    Applicants: TC Ravenswood, LLC.

    Description: Clarification of 6/24/14 amendment to restart 60 day
clock effective 5/1/14 to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2259-001; ER11-4026-003.
    Applicants: Desert View Power LLC, Eel River Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Greenleaf MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2273-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-06-26 SA 2426 Montana Dakota-Thunder Spirit 2nd
Amend GIA (G752) to be effective 6/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2274-000.
    Applicants: Aesir Power, LLC.
    Description: Petition of Aesir Power LLC MBR Tariff Application to
be effective 8/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2275-000.
    Applicants: Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership.
    Description: Grays Ferry NE Triennial & 784 to be effective 6/27/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2276-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-06-26 SA 2467 MDU-MDU Amended GIA (J200) to be
effective 6/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2277-000.
    Applicants: Mojave Solar LLC.
    Description: Mojave Solar LLC submits tariff filing per 35: Notice
of Succession Revisions to MBR Tariff to be effective 6/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2278-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revised Rate Schedule 188--Colstrip 1 and 2
Transmission Agreement to be effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2279-000.
    Applicants: Spinning Spur Wind LLC.
    Description: Spinning Spur Wind LLC submits tariff filing per
35.15: Notice of Cancellation of Spinning Spur Wind Rate Schedules FERC
Nos. 1 and 2 to be effective 6/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/26/14.
    Accession Number: 20140626-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15845 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8248]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2157-167]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington
City of Everett, WA; Notice Dismissing Motion To Intervene

February 17, 2009.
    On December 1, 2005, in Project No. 2157-167, Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington (Snohomish PUD) and the
City of Everett (Everett) filed a Notice of Intent to File a License
Application and a Pre-Application Document (PAD) under the Commission's
integrated licensing process (ILP) for the Henry M. Jackson Project. On
February 6, 2009, Snohomish County filed a motion to intervene in this
proceeding.
    Pursuant to Rule 214(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure, any person may seek to intervene and become a party in a
proceeding by filing a motion to intervene that complies with the
content requirements of Rule 214(b).\1\ However, a motion to intervene
in the ILP at the pre-application stage is not appropriate. Because
Snohomish PUD and Everett have not yet filed a license application,
there is no proceeding in which to intervene, and consequently the
motion to intervene in Project No. 2157-167 is dismissed as premature.
Should Snohomish PUD and Everett file a license application, the
Commission will then provide an opportunity for intervention.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.214 (2008).
    \2\ 18 CFR 5.1 et seq. (2008). To receive all filings in a
docket, interested parties are encouraged to utilize the
Commission's e-Subscription service, which can be accessed at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
of this notice may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of
this notice, pursuant to Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 385.713 (2008).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3855 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27295-27297]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: May 15, 2014 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: OPEN.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * NOTE--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 1005TH--Meeting
                                   [Regular meeting, May 15, 2014, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD02-1-000......................  Agency Business Matters.
A-2.....................  AD02-7-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
A-3.....................  AD05-9-000......................  Energy Market and Reliability Assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  ER13-107-003....................  South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
                          ER13-107-005....................
E-2.....................  ER13-187-002....................  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
                                                             Inc. and the MISO Transmission Owners.
                          ER13-187-003 ER13-187-004.......
                          ER13-186-001....................
                          ER13-89-001.....................  MidAmerican Energy Company and Midwest Independent
                                                             Transmission System Operator, Inc.
                          ER13-89-002.....................
                          ER13-101-002....................  American Transmission Company LLC and Midwest
                                                             Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
                          ER13-101-003....................
                          ER13-84-001.....................  Cleco Power LLC.
                          ER13-95-001.....................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
E-3.....................  ER13-198-001....................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
                          ER13-198-002....................
                          ER13-195-001....................  Indicated PJM Transmission Owners.
                          ER13-90-001.....................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Public Service
                                                             Electric and Gas Company.
                          ER13-90-002.....................
E-4.....................  ER13-85-001.....................  Maine Public Service Company.
                          ER13-85-002.....................
                          ER13-1909-000...................
E-5.....................  ER11-2127-003...................  Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC.
                          ER11-2127-004...................
                          EL11-37-001.....................
                          EL10-29-003.....................  Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, TGP Dixie Development
                                                             Company, LLC and New York Canyon, LLC.
                          EL10-36-003.....................  Green Borders Geothermal, LLC v. Terra-Gen Dixie
                                                             Valley, LLC.
E-6.....................  RM14-11-000.....................  Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection
                                                             Customer's Interconnection Facilities.
E-7.....................  TX11-1-001......................  Southern Cross Transmission LLC and Pattern Power
                                                             Marketing LLC.
E-8.....................  EL14-9-000......................  Gregory and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power
                                                             Cooperative.
                          QF11-424-002....................
                          EL14-18-000.....................  Gregory and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power
                                                             Cooperative and Central Iowa Power Cooperative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1.....................  RM01-5-001......................  Electronic Tariff Filings.
M-2.....................  IN13-15-000.....................  BP America Inc.
                          BP Corporation North America
                           Inc..
                          BP America Production Company...
                          BP Energy Company...............
G-1.....................  OR14-21-000.....................  North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC.
G-2.....................  RP14-393-000....................  Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
G-3.....................  RP12-514-002....................  Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
                          RP11-1566-014...................
                          RP11-2066-003...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  P-6618-007......................  Christopher M. Anthony.
H-2.....................  OMITTED.........................
H-3.....................  P-1290-013......................  Appalachian Power Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  CP13-83-000.....................  Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: May 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2014-11011 Filed 5-9-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25242-25243]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10176]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0981; FRL 9806-2]

Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the States of
Arizona, California, and Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve updates to the Code of Federal
Regulations delegation tables to reflect the current delegation status
of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in Arizona, California,
and Nevada.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0981, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While
all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrianne Borgia at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal will update the delegation
tables in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation Parts 60 and 61, to allow
easier access by the public to the status of NSPS and NESHAP
delegations in Arizona, California, and Nevada. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are updating these
delegations tables in a direct final action without prior proposal
because we believe these delegations are not

controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish
a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments
in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Deborah Jordan,
Director, Air Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-10176 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43943]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-16290]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0119; FRL-9912-19-Region-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Latham Pool Adjusted Standard

Correction

    In rule document 2014-16290 appearing on pages 40673 through 40675
in the issue of Monday, July 14, 2014, make the following correction:
    1. On page 40673, in the second column, in the ``DATES'' section,
the effective date listed on line two ``August 13, 2014'' should read
``September 12, 2014''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-16290 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-05-D