[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 70468]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4039-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4039-DR), dated October 14,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 14, 2011, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Jersey resulting from the Remnants of Tropical Storm Lee
during the period of September 6-11, 2011, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Jersey.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Hunterdon, Mercer, Passaic, Sussex, and Warren Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-29227 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 68440-68442]
[DOCID:fr24de09-38]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61179; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-89]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending Rules
312- and 321-NYSE Amex Equities and Adopt New Rules 2262- and 2269-NYSE
Amex Equities Filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc.

December 16, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 14, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 312- and 321-NYSE Amex
Equities and adopt new Rules 2262- and 2269-NYSE Amex Equities to
correspond with rule changes filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to amend Rules 312-NYSE
Amex Equities (Changes Within Member Organizations) and 321-NYSE Amex
Equities (Formation or Acquisition of Subsidiaries) and adopt new Rules
2262-NYSE Amex Equities (Disclosure of Control Relationship with
Issuer) and 2269-NYSE Amex Equities (Disclosure of Participation or
Interest in Primary or Secondary Distribution) to correspond with rule
changes filed by FINRA and approved by the Commission.
    Background. On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE
Regulation, Inc. (``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation
operations into a combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),
the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSER and FINRA entered
into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce regulatory duplication
for their members by allocating to FINRA certain regulatory
responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule interpretations
(``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules''). The Exchange became a party to the
Agreement effective December 15, 2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement);
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-
054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as
``Common Rules''); and 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6,
2009) (order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding
NYSE Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets
forth procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE
Amex to the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE and NYSE Amex of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of
reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in
order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE, while the consolidated
FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more information about
the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see FINRA Information
Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Conforming Amendments to NYSE Rules. FINRA adopted NASD
Rules 2240 (Disclosure of Control Relationship with Issuer) and 2250
(Disclosure of Participation or Interest in Primary or Secondary
Distribution) as consolidated FINRA Rules 2262 and 2269,
respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In its filing, FINRA also adopted NASD Rule 3340
(Prohibition on Transactions, Publication of Quotations, or
Publication of Indications of Interest During Trading Halts) as
consolidated FINRA Rule 5260. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 60659 (September 11, 2009), 74 FR 48117 (September 21, 2009).
NYSE Amex is not adopting this FINRA Rule as it is not applicable to
trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the protection provided by the new FINRA Rules, as well as
existing or proposed FINRA Rules and SEC Rules,\7\ is generally broader
than that provided by FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules 312(f) and 321.24,
FINRA deleted those rules. Specifically, FINRA noted that, unlike FINRA
Incorporated NYSE Rule 312(f)(2), consolidated FINRA Rules 2262 and
2269 would operate to protect customers without regard as to whether or
not a member or member organization makes a recommendation on a
security to a customer. In addition, FINRA noted that the requirements
of FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules 312(f)(1) and (3) are sufficiently
addressed by consolidated FINRA Rules 2262 and 2269 and other rules.
FINRA also noted that, unlike FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 321.24,
consolidated FINRA Rules 2262 and 2269 require disclosure in
transactions involving securities beyond those issued

by a subsidiary of the member organization.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to FINRA, the requirements of consolidated FINRA
Rules 2262 and 2269 are almost identical to SEA Rules 15c1-5 and
15c1-6, respectively. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60659
(September 11, 2009), 74 FR 48117 (September 21, 2009) (footnotes 4-
6).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60659 (September 11,
2009), 74 FR 48117 (September 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To harmonize the NYSE Amex Equities Rules with the approved FINRA
Rules, the Exchange correspondingly proposes to delete Rules 312(f)-
and 321.24-NYSE Amex Equities and replace them with proposed Rules
2262- and 2269-NYSE Amex Equities, which are substantially similar to
the new FINRA Rules.\9\ As proposed, Rules 2262- and 2269-NYSE Amex
Equities adopt the same language as FINRA Rules 2262 and 2269, except
for substituting for or adding to, as needed, the term ``member
organization'' for the term ``member'', and making corresponding
technical changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NYSE has submitted a companion rule filing amending its
rules in accordance with FINRA's rule changes. See SR-NYSE-2009-125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that
they are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule changes also support the principles
of Section 11A(a)(1) \12\ of the Act in that they seek to ensure the
economically efficient execution of securities transactions and fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes support the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between NYSE
Amex Equities Rules and FINRA Rules of similar purpose, resulting in
less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for joint
members. To the extent the Exchange has proposed changes that differ
from the FINRA version of the Rules, such changes are technical in
nature and do not change the substance of the proposed NYSE Amex
Equities Rules.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is based upon the rules of another self-
regulatory organization, and as such is not in any way novel or
controversial. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver will bring uniformity to the
Exchange's and FINRA's rules. Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants
the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-89 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-89. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\19\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference

Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE
Amex's principal office and on its Internet Web site at http://
www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2009-89 and should be submitted on or before January 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30544 Filed 12-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13746-000; Project No. 13750-000; Project No. 13776-000;
Project No. 13782-000]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL; FFP Missouri 4, LLC; Allegheny 4
Hydro, LLC; Three Rivers Hydro, LLC; Notice Announcing Filing Priority
for Preliminary Permit Applications

January 28, 2011.
    On January 27, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority between four competing preliminary permit applications with
identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that
none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to
develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water
resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this
drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order
of priority is as follows:

1. Three Rivers Hydro, LLC--Project No. 13782-000
2. FFP Missouri 4, LLC--Project No. 13750-000
3. Allegheny 4 Hydro, LLC--Project No. 13776-000
4. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL--Project No. 13746-000

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2621 Filed 2-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9040-9041]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0083; Notice 2]

Spartan Motors, Inc. on Behalf of Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Spartan Motors, Inc. on behalf of Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.
(Spartan) has determined that certain model year 2008 through 2013
Spartan Gladiator and MetroStar chassis cabs do not fully comply with
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Spartan has filed an appropriate report
dated April 19, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact James
Jones, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Spartan's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Spartan has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 25, 2013 in the Federal Register
(78 FR 59089). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0083.''

II. Chassis Cabs Involved

    Affected are approximately 26 model year 2008 through 2013 Spartan
Gladiator and MetroStar chassis cabs manufactured between April 9, 2008
and January 14, 2013.

III. Noncompliance

    Spartan explains that it has determined that certain emergency
rescue chassis cabs built between April 9, 2009 and January 14, 2013
may not meet the brake actuation time for trucks as identified in Sec.
5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121.

IV. Rule Text

    Section S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121 specifically states:

    S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. Each service brake system shall
meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> (a) and (b).
    S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) With an initial service reservoir system air
pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall,
when measured from the first movement of the service brake control,
reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 second in the case of trucks and
buses * * *

V. Summary of Spartan's Analyses

    Spartan stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:

    Section <IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 121 defines the amount of pressure
(60 psi) for, in this case, the front brake chambers. Further, it
also defines a ``not to exceed'' time (0.45 seconds) in which that
pressure at the brake chamber must be achieved. This is not
interpreted to mean brakes are to be applied at 60 psi but rather a
certain pressure at the brake chamber will be achieved. Brakes will
be applied nearly instantaneously after actuation of the treadle
valve.

    Spartan conducted three tests on a sample of three chassis cabs of
similar brake system configurations. Detailed results from the testing
are shown in Spartan's petition. The reported average was used to
determine the actual results in comparison to the requirements. By
rounding the average of the three tests for each sample, Spartan
Chassis identified it exceeds the requirements by 0.01 second.
    The measurement of time, in this case, is for when air pressure at
the chamber reaches 60 psi. As stated, the brakes are still being
applied irrespective of achieving the 60 psi pressure at the front
brake chambers. The impact of being 0.006 to 0.01 seconds above the
requirement of 0.45 seconds would have very little impact
(approximately 1 ft @ 60 mph) to stopping distance of the vehicle and
would not impede the capability of the vehicle being able to stop.
    According to Driver's License Manual, stopping distance is impacted
by driver perception distance and reaction distance. Other factors
include speed and gross weight of the vehicle. These attributes would
appear to have a more significant impact to overall stopping distance
than 0.01 second timing for air pressure to reach 60 psi at the front
brake chambers.
    From a speed of 60 mph, vehicles affected by this condition are
required to achieve a complete stop in 310 ft. At this speed, it would
take approximately 3.52 seconds for vehicles to stop at this rate of
speed. Vehicles affected by the condition that has resulted in the
identified non-compliance are capable of stopping within the distance
of 310 ft as prescribed by FMVSS No. 121 and would still be able to
stop within the required stopping distance.
    Spartan has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the

noncompliance so that all future production Gladiator and MetroStar
chassis cabs will comply with FMVSS No. 121.
    In summation, Spartan believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject chassis cabs is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

VI. NHTSA Decision

    Spartan's argument in support of the petition is reasonable. NHTSA
agrees that the braking performance of subject noncompliant vehicles is
not adversely affected as a result of longer pneumatic brake actuation
times of 0.006 to 0.01 seconds. The theoretical calculations performed
by Spartan indicate an increase of approximately one foot in stopping
distance at 60 mph for noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant
vehicles. This minimal increase in stopping distance does not affect
the noncompliant vehicle's conformance with the 60 mph stopping
distance requirement of 310 feet. Therefore, the very small number of
affected noncompliant vehicles does not appear to pose an undue safety
risk in braking performance in comparison to compliant vehicles.
    NHTSA is also not aware of any customer complaints or field reports
relating to this issue, and Spartan has stated that it has corrected
the problem that caused the noncompliance so that it will not be
repeated in future production.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Spartan
has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 121 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Spartan's
petition is hereby granted and Spartan is exempted from the obligation
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant chassis cabs that Spartan no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant chassis cabs under their control after
Spartan notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-03211 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40651-40659]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0003]
RIN 1218-AC98

Mechanical Power Presses Update

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

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to the
mechanical power presses standard. The standard was issued in 1971
based upon the 1971 American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
industry consensus standard for mechanical power presses. This ANSI
standard has been updated a number of times since 1971. OSHA is seeking
information regarding whether it should update the mechanical power
presses standard and, if so, how closely the standard should follow the
current ANSI standard for mechanical power presses. It is also seeking
information on the types of presses that should be covered, the use and
certification of equipment, and other topics such as presence-sensing
device initiation (PSDI) systems, and requirements for press
modifications, training, and injury reporting. OSHA will use the
information received in response to this RFI to determine what action,
if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining
worker safety.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 26, 2021. All submissions
must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    OSHA will place comments and requests for a hearing, including
personal information, in the public docket, which will be available
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting
personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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.
    References and Exhibits: Documents referenced by OSHA in this RFI,
other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket
No. OSHA-2007-0003 (Mechanical Power Presses Update). 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. Most exhibits are available at http://www.regulations.gov; some
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download
from that web page. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses
Standard
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Hazards and Incidents
    D. Consensus Standards
    E. Training and Certification
    F. Economic Impacts
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
    A. Hazards and Incidents
    B. Power Presses Standard
    C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards
    D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses
    E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation
    F. Existing Presses
    G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of
Maintenance
    H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts
    J. Other Issues

I. Background

A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses Standard

    A mechanical power press is a mechanically powered machine that
shears, punches, forms, or assembles metal or other material by means
of cutting, shaping, or use of combination dies. A mechanical power
press is a two-part system: The first part is a movable upper part,
called the ram; and the second part is a stationary bed or anvil. A die
or punch is placed on the ram and the ram descends into a die block
attached to the anvil. The punch and die block are known as the die
set. A mechanical power press can be either full-revolution or part
revolution. A full-revolution press cannot be stopped once the cycle
begins. A part-revolution press has a brake that can stop the press
mid-cycle.
    In 1971, OSHA published the standard for mechanical power presses,
Sec.  1910.217, based on the 1971 edition of ANSI B11.1, the industry
consensus standard on mechanical power presses.\1\ The OSHA standard
includes requirements for inspecting, maintaining, and modifying
mechanical power presses to ensure that they are operating safely and
includes a special reporting requirement for injuries to employees
operating mechanical power presses. The standard also includes
requirements for safeguarding the point of operation. OSHA's standard
does not cover press brakes, hydraulic and pneumatic power presses,
bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal presses, forging presses
and hammers, riveting machines, or similar types of fastener
applicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 36 FR 10466, 10643 (May 29, 1971), reprinted at 39 FR
23502 (June 27, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are numerous ways to guard mechanical power presses,
including point of operation guards, die enclosures, fixed barrier
guards, movable barrier guards, presence sensing devices (PSDs), and
presence sensing device initiation (PSDI) systems. PSDs are electronic
units designed to automatically stop the machine from cycling when an
intrusion is detected in the danger zone (point of operation) between
the fixed bed of a press and the ram. PSDs are in wide use and are
permitted under the OSHA standard as a safeguard to prevent operation
of the press when an employee's hands or other part of the body are at
the point of operation. PSDI is a system that permits the PSD to
initiate the stroke of the press when it senses that all parts of the
body are clear of the point of operation. The ability to stop the press
mid-cycle is considered essential for the safe operation of a press in
PSDI mode; when something enters the point of operation while the ram
is in motion, the PSDI system stops the press. Full-revolution power
presses cannot use PSDI because these machines cannot be stopped mid-
cycle.
    As initially adopted in 1971, the OSHA standard did not permit
PSDI, but instead required that an operator physically initiate the
stroke of a power press by using hand controls or a foot pedal. In
1976, OSHA granted an experimental variance to Interlake Stamping
Company of Willoughby, Ohio, to allow the company to use PSDI on
mechanical power presses. In granting the variance, OSHA stated that
the PSDI system reduced worker fatigue, a recognized cause of
accidents.\2\ After using PSDIs for five years, Interlake Stamping
found that a PSDI improved press productivity by 30 percent.\3\ During
the 26 years of using PSDI, no Interlake Stamping workers were injured
while using the PSDI system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 41 FR 36702 (August 31, 1976).
    \3\ See 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).
    \4\ See https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to Sec.  1910.217 to allow the
use of PSDI on part-revolution mechanical power presses.\5\ Among other
requirements, OSHA required that OSHA-approved third parties validate
the PSDI systems upon installation and at least annually thereafter.\6\
OSHA believed that national testing laboratories and industry
organizations would conduct the third-party validation. To date,
however, no third party has sought OSHA approval to conduct third-party
validation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 53 FR 8322 (March 14, 1988).
    \6\ See Sec.  1910.217(h)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, Interlake applied for a permanent variance for relief from
the third party validation requirements. OSHA responded with additional
conditions for alternative means to provide additional protection to
employees operating in PSDI mode. This included descriptions of the
power press and light curtains in use; equipment guarding means and
worker training; and inspection, testing and maintenance procedures.
Due to cost concerns, Interlake withdrew its request for the permanent
variance and then removed its PSDI system in 2013.\7\ OSHA is not aware
of any remaining facility that operates mechanical power presses in
PSDI mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Interlake Stamping Corp.; Revocation of an Experimental
Variance and Interim Order, 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory History

OSHA's Section 610 Review of the PSDI Requirements
    OSHA is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610,
to conduct periodic reviews of its safety and health standards
(``Section 610 Reviews''). The purpose of these reviews is to determine
whether OSHA should change, amend, or rescind standards consistent with
the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant
economic impact of the standards on a substantial number of small
entities. OSHA conducted a Section 610 Review of the PSDI section of
the mechanical power press standard (29 CFR 1910.217(h)) to

determine why PSDI had not been implemented and to identify how the
standard could be changed to facilitate PSDI use in a manner that
protects worker safety.\8\ In the Federal Register notice (67 FR 55181,
August 28, 2002) informing the public about the Section 610 Review and
soliciting comments, OSHA sought comments on four options for revising
the standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The review also included a review under Section 5 of
Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Option 1--Update all of Sec.  1910.217 to make it consistent with
ANSI B11.1-2001 or something similar.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ At the time OSHA initiated its Section 610 Review in 2002,
ANSI B11.1-2001 was the most recent version of the consensus
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Option 2--Revise the third-party validation requirements.
    Option 3--Eliminate all requirements for third-party validation and
possibly replace them with a self-certification requirement and leave
the other PSDI requirements intact.
    Option 4--Replace OSHA's current PSDI requirements with the PSDI
requirements in ANSI B11.1-2001.
Responses to the Section 610 Review
    Based on analyses and information obtained during the Section 610
Review, OSHA concluded it should pursue Option 1, to update all of
Sec.  1910.217 to make it consistent with ANSI B11.1-2001 or something
similar (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0002). 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Request for Data, Information, and Comments.
    In 2007, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on mechanical power presses.\10\ The ANPRM discussed
a broad range of issues concerning the possible update of the
mechanical power presses standard. The issues to be considered went
beyond those of the current mechanical power presses standard and
included broadening the scope of the standard to include other types of
presses, equipment, and processes not previously addressed. OSHA
invited comments on 37 questions, which were organized into the
following six topic categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 72 FR 30729 (June 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The Scope of the Mechanical Power Presses Standard,
    2. Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses,
    3. Technical Issues,
    4. Cost Issues,
    5. Training Requirements, and
    6. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
    Commenters were encouraged to address any aspect of power presses,
including pneumatic, hydraulic, and other presses, and provide
information that would assist the agency in its consideration of what
actions were appropriate. The agency was particularly interested in
ways to incorporate flexibility into the standard to make it more
protective, and to make compliance more straightforward.
The Scope of the Power Presses Standard
    OSHA's first broad area of questioning in the 2007 ANPRM was on
whether to broaden the scope of the mechanical power press standard
including questions related to whether to:
     Include other types of presses, such as hydraulic and
pneumatic power presses;
     regulate all power presses under one standard or under
multiple standards; and
     ensure general machine guarding requirements in Sec.
1910.212 adequately protect employees using non-mechanical power
presses.
    Respondents agreed that the existing mechanical power presses
requirements in Sec.  1910.217 were outdated. However, they varied in
their comments regarding how to regulate various types of power
presses. Suggestions included the following:
     Updating the standard based on the ANSI B11.1 standard;
     Developing an OSHA specific standard for each type of
press;
     Considering adopting ANSI standards for other types of
presses; and
     Expanding Sec.  1910.212 to cover other types of presses
beyond mechanical.
Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses
    The agency also sought comment on whether the revised OSHA standard
should include information from the appendices or the explanatory
information columns contained in the ANSI B11.1 standard. Commenters
did not agree on exactly what information an OSHA standard should
contain. Some commenters suggested that explanatory material should be
non-mandatory. Others suggested that some explanatory material could be
included as regulatory text.
Technical Issues
    In response to questions regarding technical issues, commenters
stated the following:
     Mechanical power presses are in decline;
     OSHA should consider the role of automation on safety and
production;
     ANSI B11.1 permits modification and reconstruction of
presses; and
     PSDI validation is useful, but third-party validation may
not be necessary.
Training Requirements
    Commenters expressed widespread support for strengthened training
requirements. Many respondents stated that OSHA should require
semiannual or annual training. Commenters were split on whether OSHA
should change its existing performance-oriented approach with specific
training provisions.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    OSHA requested comment on whether to eliminate the requirement in
Sec.  1910.217(g) that employers report point-of-operation injuries to
OSHA within 30 days. One commenter questioned why OSHA singled out
injuries involving mechanical power presses and required a special
procedure for reporting injuries when there is already a general
recordkeeping and reporting standard. Other comments, including an
industry trade group, stated that OSHA should retain the requirement,
and that employers find this injury data useful.

C. Hazards and Incidents

    OSHA looked at several sources of data to understand the hazards
that led to injuries involving mechanical power presses. These include
injury reports required by Sec.  1910.217(g), Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) injury data, and OSHA severe injury reporting data.
29 CFR 1910.217(g) Injury Reports
    OSHA's standard (29 CFR 1910.217(g)) requires employers to report,
within 30 days of an occurrence, all point-of-operation injuries to
operators or other employees. These reports must contain, among other
things, the injury sustained (amputations, lacerations, crushes, etc.),
the task being performed (operation, set-up, maintenance, or other),
the type of safeguard being used, and the cause of the accident.
Although OSHA has collected this data, it has not been subject to any
verification for accuracy or completeness. As explained further below,
OSHA believes these reports may undercount the number of incidents.
    OSHA received 204 reports of incidents related to mechanical power
presses from 2007 through 2015--an average of about 23 per year. These
incidents resulted in a reported 388 injuries (an average of 43 per
year) with finger amputations being the most

prevalent injury-accounting for 39 percent of all injuries over that
period.

                                            Table 1--Mechanical Power Press Incidents and Injuries, 2007-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent
                                    2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015      Total    of  total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crush..........................         17          5          6         14         12         10          6          9          6         85         22
Finger Amputation..............         29         10         16         19         26         24          9         10         10        153         39
Fingertip Amputation...........         18          6          8         11          1          6          7          8          1         66         17
Fracture.......................          3          3          8          0          1          2          5          3          1         26          7
Laceration.....................         10          6          7          0          6          2          4          3          4         42         11
Other/Unspecified..............          4          0          2          1          2          2          3          0          2         16          4
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Injuries.............         81         30         47         45         48         46         34         33         24        388  .........
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Incidents............         37         15         20         27         26         24         20         21         14        204  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple injuries can result from a single incident. For example, a worker that suffered a single finger amputation would be considered to have
  one injury as a result of one incident. However, if a worker suffered amputation of five fingers, that would be considered five injuries as a result
  of one incident.

BLS Injury Data
    Using BLS data, OSHA estimated the number of injuries that result
from accidents involving mechanical power presses. BLS publishes data
on all press injuries involving days away from work, but such data do
not differentiate between mechanical or other types of power presses.
BLS reports injury data by type of press including unspecified presses,
assembly presses, brake presses, punch presses, and presses not
elsewhere classified. According to BLS, from 2011 through 2016, there
were 7,030 nonfatal occupational injuries involving days away from work
due to presses--an average of 1,172 annually. Unfortunately, BLS'
classification scheme does not allow OSHA to identify which injuries
occur during the use of mechanical power presses versus other types of
presses. OSHA believes it is possible that some occupational injuries
reported in the BLS data may be attributable to mechanical power press
operations but are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing
standard at 29 CFR 1910.217(g).
OSHA Severe Injury Reporting Program
    On September 18, 2014, OSHA issued a final rule that implemented a
Severe Injury Reporting Program (SIR), which requires, among other
things, that employers report all amputations resulting from a work-
related incident to OSHA within 24 hours of the employer becoming aware
of the incident (79 FR 56130). From 2015 to 2017, OSHA received about
8,200 reports of amputations under the SIR program. In 2015, OSHA
received 246 reports of amputations in the fabricated metal product
manufacturing industry (NAICS 332), 109 reports in primary metal
manufacturing (NAICS 331), 123 reports in machinery manufacturing
(NAICS 333), and 134 reports in transportation equipment manufacturing
(NAICS 334). There is no further breakdown of the data into how many
amputations occurred on power presses, much less mechanical power
presses; however, research from the late 1980s suggested that about 10
percent of all reported amputations occur among power press operators
(Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power
Presses; https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/) (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-
0025).
    OSHA research from the late 1980s suggested that about 49 percent
of injuries on mechanical power presses resulted in an amputation
causing about 557 injuries to power press operators on average each
year (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/). Based on estimates in
the Section 610 Review of the PSDI standard, OSHA estimates that large
mechanical power presses account for 9.5 percent of power presses used
in the United States (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that these manufacturing industries
are likely to include power press operators and that it is possible
that some amputations attributable to mechanical power press operations
are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing standard at 29 CFR
1910.217(g).

D. Consensus Standards

    The American Engineering Standards Committee, a predecessor of
ANSI, released its first consensus standard for mechanical power
presses in 1922. The standard has been updated periodically. The most
recent ANSI consensus standard for mechanical power presses is ANSI
B11.1-2009 (R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0026). Hydraulic and pneumatic power
presses are both covered under a different consensus standard, ANSI
B11.2, which was originally released in 1982. The most recent consensus
standard for hydraulic and pneumatic power presses is ANSI B11.2-2013
(R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Hydraulic and Pneumatic Power
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0027).

E. Training and Certification

    The OSHA mechanical power presses standard spells out training
requirements in several sections. Section 1910.217(e)(3) requires
training of maintenance personnel, and provides that it is the
responsibility of the employer to ensure the original and continuing
competence of personnel caring for, inspecting, and maintaining power
presses. Section 1910.217(f)(2) requires the employer to train and
instruct the operator in the safe method of work before starting work
on any operation covered by this section, and to ensure by adequate
supervision that correct operating procedures are being followed.
Section 1910.217(h)(13) requires that training for operators using
presses in PSDI mode must be provided before the employee initially
operates the press and as needed to maintain competence, but not less
than annually thereafter. Such training must also include certain
enumerated instructions specific to presses used in PSDI mode. In
addition, OSHA requires that employers certify employee training in the
use of the PSDI mode.
    The training provisions in ANSI B11.1-2009 require the employer to
meet the following:
     Train personnel associated with press production systems
in safe working procedures and ensure they are qualified to perform the
functions to which they are assigned;
     instruct all operators in the operation of the press
production system including the proper method of operation for each
production set-up before the press production system is

placed into production and that all operators demonstrate their
knowledge of the press production system;
     instruct all die setters in the proper procedures for
selecting, inspecting, and installing dies appropriate to the
operations;
     ensure that maintenance personnel are trained in safe
working procedures for inspecting and maintaining press production
systems;
     ensure that supervisors are trained in safe working
procedures for set-up, operation, and maintenance of press production
systems; and
     train personnel, as required by assigned functions, in the
safe working procedures for lockout/tagout of hazardous energy sources
in accordance with ANSI Z244.1.
    ANSI also requires a trained designated supervisor to continually
supervise the press production system operation to ensure that the
proper point-of-operation safeguarding is installed, activated, and
operational for each job set-up and prior to release for production by
the operator. The designated supervisor must also ensure that operators
follow the correct operating procedures and use the press production
system as intended within the rated capacities of the press and
associated system components.

F. Economic Impacts

    In addition to the specific questions posed in other parts of this
RFI, OSHA is requesting data and information on the potential economic
impacts should OSHA decide to make changes to the mechanical power
presses standard. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA
requests, whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential
economic impacts in terms of the following:
    1. Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities,
and property damage);
    2. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and
    3. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for
maintenance and repairs).
    OSHA also invites comments on any unintended consequences and
consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory
programs that might result if OSHA revises the mechanical power presses
standard.
    OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss
economic impacts in specific detail, if possible. For example, if a
provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee
training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the
following:
    1. The training courses necessary;
    2. the topics training would cover;
    3. the types of employees who would need training and what percent
(if any) of those employees currently receive the training;
    4. the length and frequency of training;
    5. any retraining necessary; and
    6. the training costs, whether conducted by a third-party vendor or
by an in-house trainer.
    For discussion of equipment related costs, OSHA is interested in
all relevant factors:
    1. The prevalence of current use of the equipment;
    2. the purchase price;
    3. the cost of installation and training;
    4. the cost of equipment maintenance and upgrades; and
    5. the expected life of the equipment.
    The agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise
required if OSHA were to implement the potential changes this RFI
discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.

II. Request for Data, Information, and Comment

A. Hazards and Incidents

    OSHA seeks comments on hazards associated with the operation of
mechanical power presses and presses other than mechanical power
presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. CDC last studied
Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power
Presses in the late 1980s and this study was specific to Mechanical
Power Presses. OSHA requests additional studies or data on workplace
injuries or fatalities related to mechanical power presses and presses
other than mechanical power presses, particularly recent studies or
data. (1) Is there more recent information about the risks and hazards
associated with the operation of power presses? (2) Based on a review
of accident and injury data (see Table 1), OSHA has identified finger
and fingertip amputations, crush injuries, lacerations, and fractures
as the main types of injuries caused by mechanical power presses.
Please supply any additional information on these and other injuries
associated with power presses? (3) How frequently are workers using
power presses injured? How frequently are workers using power presses
severely injured? How frequently are workers using power presses
fatally injured? (4) Do injury rates and severity vary based on the
type of press used or other factors? (5) Have injury rates associated
with the use of power presses increased or declined over time? If so,
why?

B. Power Presses Standard

    OSHA seeks comment on how it should update the mechanical power
presses standard. (6) Should OSHA use ANSI B11.1 as the basis for a
standard update? (7) Are there provisions in the ANSI standard not in
the OSHA standard that are important for providing worker protection?
(8) If the agency bases a revised standard on ANSI B11.1, should OSHA
add explanatory material in the form of non-mandatory appendices? (9)
Would employers find a non-mandatory appendix useful if it addressed
similar subjects as the explanatory text in the latest ANSI standard?
(10) What material, if any, should be in the appendices?
    The current OSHA mechanical power presses standard specifically
excludes press brakes, bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal
presses, forging presses and hammers, riveting machines, and similar
types of fastener applicators. The ANSI B11.1-2009 standard excludes
these as well; however, it also excludes cold headers and formers,
eyelet machines, high-energy-rate presses, iron workers and detail
punches, metal shears, powdered metal presses, press welders, turret
and plate-punching machines, wire termination machines, and welding
machines. (11) If OSHA updates the standard to be consistent with the
provisions of ANSI B11.1-2009 or its equivalent, should OSHA exclude
all of the machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 excludes? (12) If so, why?
(13) Alternatively, should OSHA continue to exclude only the machines
currently excluded by the OSHA standard? (14) Should OSHA exclude any
other machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 does not specifically excluded?
(15) What are these other machines and why should OSHA exclude them?
    (16) Is your firm currently complying with the ANSI B11.1 standard?
(17) Is compliance with any of the provisions in the ANSI standard
prohibitively costly? If so, please specify which provisions are
prohibitively costly. (18) Do you believe it would be less costly for
your firm to comply with the ANSI standard as opposed to OSHA's
existing standard? (19) If so, in what areas do you anticipate savings,
including reduced compliance costs and/or improved efficiency?

C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards

    In the 2007 ANPRM, OSHA asked whether there are other consensus
standards, international standards, or other references that OSHA
should

consider in updating the mechanical power presses standard. The
majority of commenters discussed the B11.1 standard however, they also
suggested considering standards from the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as well as
other European standards. In this RFI, OSHA again seeks comment on
these standards and whether OSHA should consider them as a basis for an
updated OSHA's standard on power presses.

D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses

    In this RFI, OSHA seeks comment on whether it should regulate other
types of presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. (20) Should
these presses be covered under a new standard written in the fashion of
the existing mechanical power presses standard, Sec.  1910.217? (21)
Should OSHA base any new requirements for hydraulic and pneumatic
presses on ANSI B11.2-2013 (R2020), Safety Requirements for Hydraulic
and Pneumatic Power Presses? (22) Does compliance with the ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) consensus standard provide adequate protection for workers
using hydraulic and pneumatic presses? (23) Are there any ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) provisions or other protections critical to protecting
workers that OSHA should include if the agency decides to propose a
rule addressing non-mechanical power presses? (24) If so, which ones?
    (25) Do you currently follow other ANSI consensus standards
corresponding to any other types of presses (for example, ANSI B11.4,
Safety Requirements for Shears)? (26) Are any provisions in this ANSI
standard especially costly or difficult to comply with? (27) If so,
which ones?
    OSHA also seeks data and information about the proportion of
pneumatic and hydraulic presses among all presses in use today.

E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation

    Both the ANSI B11.1-2009 standard and the existing OSHA mechanical
power presses standard, Sec.  1910.217, contain requirements for PSDI.
However, unlike the ANSI standard, OSHA's standard requires third-party
validation for PSDI. As previously noted, no third party has stepped
forward to issue such certification.
    (28) Should OSHA revise or eliminate its requirements regarding the
use of PSDI systems? (29) Should OSHA base its PSDI requirements on the
PSDI requirements in ANSI B11.1-2009? (30) Are there any types of
operations that should not allow PSDI? (31) If so, which operations and
why? (32) Should OSHA consider an option that includes regulating other
types of power presses? (33) Are there any types of power presses that
should not allow PSDI? (34) If so, which ones and why? (35) Should OSHA
eliminate the third-party validation requirement? OSHA also seeks
comment on whether it should continue to include mandatory and/or non-
mandatory appendices with additional requirements for PSDI.
    (36) If OSHA were to eliminate the existing requirements for PSDI
systems, would you incorporate this technology on your existing power
presses? (37) What would it cost to incorporate PSDI technology into
your presses? OSHA previously estimated that the average cost to
convert to PSDI technology would cost between $1,650 and $6,600 per
press in 1988 dollars (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that simply inflating that price to
2020 dollars would not adequately reflect the estimated cost of
converting to PSDI technology today because the cost of this technology
has not increased at the same rate as the cost of other goods.
    The agency believes that continuing to allow employers to use PSDI
systems will increase productivity. The economic analysis accompanying
the 1985 proposed rule for mechanical power presses estimated that
allowing PSDI systems would result in productivity improvements ranging
between 10 and 50 percent depending on the type of press (50 FR 12700,
Mar. 29, 1985) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0168). The analysis of the 1988 final rule estimated that allowing
employers to convert existing presses to PSDI systems would increase
the productivity of each press by an average of about 24 percent (53 FR
8322) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0173). (38) Do you agree that PSDI devices would improve productivity?
(39) If so, to what extent? OSHA welcomes any studies or information on
the productivity effects of using PSDI systems.

F. Existing Presses

    OSHA seeks comment on the number of power presses in use today
including information on their characteristics. (40) How many power
presses do you use at your facility? (41) What type of presses are they
(mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic), and, if any are mechanical, how
many do you use and what percentage of those mechanical power presses
have part-revolution clutches? The agency seeks comment on the service
life of mechanical power presses. (42) What type of press would you
purchase to replace a mechanical power press? (43) What proportion of
those mechanical power presses would you replace with presses equipped
with part-revolution clutches?
    (44) If OSHA based a new standard on ANSI B11.1-2009 (R2020), how
many presses currently in use would be out of compliance? (45) Would
you upgrade any of your presses to meet the ANSI B11.1 consensus
standard, or would you replace the presses? (46) What percentage of
your presses would you upgrade versus replace?
    OSHA welcomes all data, studies, inventories, or information on the
number of power presses of all types in use and/or the relative
proportion of each type of press.

G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of Maintenance

    The current OSHA standard permits any person to reconstruct or
modify a mechanical power press as long as the reconstruction or
modification is performed in accordance with Sec.  1910.217(b).
    OSHA seeks comment regarding the modification and repair of power
presses. (47) Should OSHA require that only competent persons perform
these tasks? (48) If so, how should OSHA define the term ``competent
person'' with respect to mechanical power presses? OSHA also seeks
comment on how to handle documentation of maintenance on power presses.
(49) Should OSHA require documentation and, if so, should OSHA require
document retention and access? (50) Who should maintain the
documentation: The manufacturer, the owner, or a third party?

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    OSHA requires that employers keep separate records and submit
reports for injuries to employees operating mechanical power presses.
These records are specific to OSHA's mechanical power presses standard
and were put in its standard to allow OSHA to track the effectiveness
of its mechanical power presses standard. (51) Are employers aware of
these specific reporting requirements, and that they are additional to
BLS occupational injury data collections and OSHA SIR reporting? (52)
Should OSHA retain these requirements? (53) Should OSHA modify these
requirements and, if so, how?

I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts

    OSHA believes that all power press workers fall into the BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) aggregate Standard
Occupational Code (SOC) Metal and Plastic Workers (occupational code
51-4000), and specifically into the four occupations denoted in Table
2. OSHA assumes that all workers in these occupations, in most
industries, are using power presses of all kinds.

 Table 2--Occupations of Power Press Operators by Standard Occupational
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                SOC                           Occupation title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51-4022...........................  Forging Machine Setters, Operators,
                                     and Tenders, Metal and Plastic.
51-4031...........................  Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine
                                     Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
                                     Metal and Plastic.
51-4041...........................  Machinists.
51-4199...........................  Metal Workers and Plastic Workers,
                                     All Other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics.

    For this RFI, OSHA identified affected industries as those
employing workers in the Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic (SOC 51-4022) occupation; the Cutting,
Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic (SOC 51-4031) occupation; and the All Other Metal Workers and
Plastic Workers (SOC 51-4199) occupation. Although the BLS data show
workers in these SOC categories employed in retail and wholesale trade,
rental and leasing companies, and various service industries, OSHA
believes these workers are likely performing tasks that do not utilize
mechanical power presses and therefore OSHA did not include them in the
universe of affected industries. The agency welcomes comment on whether
these industries should be included. OSHA included Machinists (OES 51-
4041) in the sum of power press employees (but only in industries that
employed one of the three other occupations) and included all workers
in the above SOC categories in temporary employment agencies and repair
and maintenance industries. These industries and affected employees
appear in Table 3.
    Overall, OSHA estimates there are about 550,000 workers working
with power presses. This is probably an overestimation because each of
the selected occupations likely include workers who do not use power
presses.
    Based on data from OSHA's 2004 Section 610 Review, the agency
determined that, between 1996 and 2002, large mechanical power presses
(which included all new, part-revolution, mechanical power presses)
represented 9.5 percent of total press production (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA has assumed that
this share of press production is roughly equal to the share of power
press workers using mechanical power presses. Therefore, of the
estimated 565,000 power press workers, OSHA estimates that about 53,600
of them operate mechanical power presses.
    OSHA acknowledges that this is an imprecise estimate that makes a
number of assumptions, including that large mechanical power presses
are replaced at the same rate as all other power presses and that
workers are evenly distributed among all press types. The agency's
affected mechanical power press employment calculation is an
overestimate if, for example, large mechanical power presses last
longer than other power presses, large mechanical power presses are
increasingly being replaced by other types of presses (non-mechanical),
or if it takes more employees to operate a large mechanical power press
than it does any other press. The agency is also aware that mechanical
power presses are being used less frequently than in the past, and
therefore, OSHA's estimate, which applies an estimation methodology
developed as part of OSHA's Section 610 Review in 2004 to current
employment and establishment data, may not accurately reflect current
mechanical power press employment numbers.
    OSHA seeks comments on what occupations employ power press workers.
(54) Do the job titles listed above encompass all power press workers?
(55) If not, what job categories or job titles should OSHA include?
(56) What are the job titles of workers who use power presses at your
facility? (57) Would you classify your facility's power press workers
in one of the occupations listed above or is there a more appropriate
occupational category for them? (58) How many total workers are at your
establishment and how many of those workers use power presses as part
of their job? (59) What types of power presses do they use (mechanical,
pneumatic, hydraulic, or other)? (60) If those employees work on
mechanical power presses, how many (or what percentage) of those
presses have part-revolution clutches?
    Table 3 shows total employment and total establishments in the
affected industries.

       Table 3--Selected Characteristics of Industries That Employ Mechanical Power Press (MPP) Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total power      Affected                           Total
         NAICS               NAICS--title           press        (large MPP)        Total        establishments
                                                employees \1\     employees    employment \2\         \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236000.................  Construction of                  260              25       1,391,532            222,751
                          Buildings.
237100.................  Utility System                   340              32         607,919             19,156
                          Construction.
238000.................  Specialty Trade                2,280             217       4,423,714            472,803
                          Contractors.
311400.................  Fruit and Vegetable                0               0         159,258              1,924
                          Preserving and
                          Specialty Food
                          Manufacturing \3\.
316900.................  Other Leather and                160              15          11,256                770
                          Allied Product
                          Manufacturing.
321000.................  Wood Product                   1,540             146         415,151             14,463
                          Manufacturing.
322000.................  Paper Manufacturing.           2,350             223         344,537              3,999
323000.................  Printing and Related             840              80         438,516             24,809
                          Support Activities.
325000.................  Chemical                       2,730             259         798,028             13,615
                          Manufacturing.
326000.................  Plastics and Rubber           27,070           2,572         785,794             12,065
                          Products
                          Manufacturing.

327000.................  Nonmetallic Mineral            2,990             284         399,572             15,076
                          Product
                          Manufacturing.
331000.................  Primary Metal                 26,450           2,513         374,837              4,112
                          Manufacturing.
332000.................  Fabricated Metal             209,230          19,877       1,437,086             55,020
                          Product
                          Manufacturing.
333000.................  Machinery                     93,600           8,892       1,057,407             23,060
                          Manufacturing.
334100.................  Computer and                     560              53          40,392                916
                          Peripheral
                          Equipment
                          Manufacturing.
334200.................  Communications                   970              92          82,857              1,260
                          Equipment
                          Manufacturing.
334400.................  Semiconductor and              6,070             577         257,700              3,789
                          Other Electronic
                          Component
                          Manufacturing.
334500.................  Navigational,                  8,170             776         383,979              5,201
                          Measuring,
                          Electromedical, and
                          Control Instruments
                          Manufacturing.
335000.................  Electrical                    15,640           1,486         345,470              5,549
                          Equipment,
                          Appliance, and
                          Component
                          Manufacturing.
336000.................  Transportation                89,580           8,510       1,585,194             11,567
                          Equipment
                          Manufacturing.
337000.................  Furniture and                  4,340             412         372,286             14,581
                          Related Product
                          Manufacturing.
339000.................  Miscellaneous                 19,810           1,882         550,598             25,811
                          Manufacturing.
493000.................  Warehousing and                  310              29         967,386             16,919
                          Storage.
561300.................  Employment Services.          40,160           3,815       6,771,435             53,657
561900.................  Other Support                    460              44         296,453             20,123
                          Services.
811000.................  Repair and                     8,140             773       1,303,518            217,830
                          Maintenance.
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.............  ....................         564,050          53,585      25,601,875          1,260,826
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis 2020.
\1\ BLS Occupational Employment Survey 2019.
\2\ County Business Patterns, U.S. Census, 2018.
\3\ OSHA seeks comment regarding possible MPP use in this industry.

    OSHA seeks comment on the industries that employ mechanical power
press workers, and, if possible, those that use mechanical power
presses with part-revolution clutches. (61) Are there any affected
industries that the agency has not included in Table 3? (62) If so,
which ones and how are those industries using mechanical power presses?
    Estimates based on earlier years of OES data indicated that
mechanical power presses are used in NAICS 311400, Fruit and Vegetable
Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing, while estimates based on
more recent data suggest that there are no mechanical power presses in
use in that industry. Since OSHA derives its estimates from more
aggregate data, the agency recognizes that the updated estimates may be
inadvertently eliminating an industry that should be included in the
scope of an updated mechanical power presses rulemaking. OSHA seeks
comment on the current use of mechanical power presses in the NAICS
311400 industry.
    As mentioned earlier, part of OSHA's estimate of large mechanical
power presses depends on information about the service life of
mechanical power presses, and the rate of mechanical power press
replacement relative to other types of presses. To further refine this
estimate, the agency seeks comment on the service life of mechanical
power presses. (63) What type of press do you typically purchase to
replace a mechanical power press? (64) What proportion of those
replacement mechanical power presses are replaced with presses equipped
with part-revolution clutches?
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires
OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small
entities. OSHA requests small entities to comment on the expected
impacts of a revision to the mechanical power presses standard based on
current consensus standards, including ANSI, CSA, or ISO standards.
Please give specific examples of resource requirements in terms of
additional staffing or time commitments (per job category), costs for
purchase or rental of equipment or materials (dollar cost per unit),
and costs for energy usage and any other additional expenses. (65)
Would small entities face economic or technological feasibility
concerns in complying with a revised standard that references current
consensus standards? (66) If OSHA promulgated standards similar to the
mechanical power presses standard for hydraulic and pneumatic presses,
would this raise any economic or technological feasibility concerns
specific to small businesses? (67) If you identify as a small entity in
your industry, what is the basis for that identification (for example,
reliance on Small Business Administration size standards; https://www.sba.gov/)? If you are uncertain as to your qualifications as a
small entity, please provide details on your establishment size in
terms of number of employees and categories of employee occupations;
industry identification (by North American Industrial Classification
System 6-digit code if available); and the primary types of goods or
services produced by your company. Please describe in detail the
technical or financial concerns that you or other small employers may
encounter when implementing consensus standards addressing mechanical
or other power presses.

J. Other Issues

    (68) Are there any other issues related to mechanical, hydraulic,
or pneumatic power presses that OSHA should address? Include issues
remaining from, or not sufficiently addressed in, the 2007 ANPRM.
    OSHA encourages comments from manufacturers, owners, and operators
of presses, labor organizations, worker centers, government safety
agencies, standards organizations, and other interested parties. Those
who responded to the original 2007 ANPRM are especially encouraged to
comment, either to confirm their original opinions or to tell us how
those opinions have changed. OSHA invites those who did not respond to
the original 2007

ANPRM to examine the relevant files at www.regulations.gov.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary's Order 08-
2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-15995 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Date: June 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM
TO:			Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542
SUBJECT:	Meeting with Colombian Delegation

      On June 27, 2012, EPA met with a Colombian delegation of government and industry representatives.  The delegation argued that palm oil grown in Colombia should have special distinction because Colombia has sustainability standards that meet the criteria in the RFS program.

      The discussion also covered the comments submitted by Colombia's Minister of Mining and Energy and the Colombian National Biofuels Federation (Fedepalma).  EPA requested additional information about a study that was included with the comments from the Minister of Mining and Energy.  The comments included the Executive Summary and Introduction chapters of the study, but there appeared to be other chapters missing.  EPA also requested any additional supporting materials, such as accompanying spreadsheets and GIS maps.  The Colombian delegation said they would provide the three remaining study chapters after they are translated into English.  EPA agreed that this additional information would help the Agency in its consideration of Colombia's comments.

      The meeting participants agreed to continue exchanging data and information for EPA to consider in its science-based assessment process.

Delegation from Colombia:
1. Jens Mesa Dishington, Executive President, Fedepalma, National Federation of Oil Palm Growers
2. Christie Daza, Technical Director, Colombia National Biofuels Federation
3. Jorge Bendeck, Executive President, Colombia National Biofuels Federation
4. Claudia Candela, Director, Colombia Government Trade Bureau
5. Johan Martinez Ruiz, Director of Economics, Asocana
6. Hans Moreno, Director, Biofuels Department, EcoPetrol
7. Tito Eduardo Salcedo Diaz, General Manager, Bio D S.A.
8. Jose Manual Zambrano Eder, Manuelita Corportiva SAS
9. Hernando Vergara Gomez Caceres, Biocombustibles Sostenibles del Carbe S.A.
10. Luis Romero, Biocombustibles Sostenibles del Caribe S.A.
11. Denisse Yanovich, Embassy of Colombia Washington, DC
12. Fabio Ferero, Embassy of Colombia Washington, DC

EPA Participants:
1. Paul Argyropolous, Senior Advisor, OTAQ
2. Sharyn Lie, Director, OTAQ/TCD/CEMC
3. Karen Laughlin, Advisor, OTAQ/TCD
4. Aaron Levy, Program Analyst, OTAQ/TCD/CEMC


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14358]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5767]

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

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: ER10-1257-001; ER10-1258-001.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., Wabash Valley
Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Filing Information
of Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1188-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: J035 GIA Termination to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1189-000.
    Applicants: DeWind Novus, LLC.
    Description: Initial MBR Tariff Application to be effective 4/30/
2012.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1190-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: J033 GIA Termination to be effective 5/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1191-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position U3-031; Original Service Agreement No.
3240 to be effective 1/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1192-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company Notice of Termination
of Rate Schedule No. 111.
    Filed Date: 3/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20120301-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/12.

    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
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: March 8, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5767 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 22174]
[DOCID:fr12my09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0335]

National Boating Safety Advisory Council; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC). NBSAC advises the
Coast Guard on matters related to recreational boating safety.

DATES: Application forms should reach us on or before July 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: This notice and the application form are available on the
Internet at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC. You may request an
application form by writing to Commandant, Boating Safety Division (CG-
54221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001; by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please
send your application in written form to the street address listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Executive Secretary
of NBSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Boating Safety Advisory Council
(NBSAC) is a Federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (codified at 5 U.S.C. App.). NBSAC advises the Coast
Guard regarding regulations and other major boating safety matters.
NBSAC has 21 members: Seven State officials responsible for State
boating safety programs, seven recreational boat and associated
equipment manufacturers, and seven national recreational boating
organizations and the general public. Members are appointed by the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
    NBSAC normally meets twice each year at a location selected by the
Coast Guard. When attending NBSAC meetings, members are provided travel
expenses and per diem.
    We will consider applications received in response to this notice
for the following seven positions that expire or become vacant in
December 2009:
     Two representatives of State officials responsible for
State boating safety programs,
     Two representatives of recreational boat and associated
equipment manufacturers, and
     Three representatives of the general public or national
recreational boating organizations.
    Applicants are considered for membership on the basis of their
particular expertise, knowledge, and experience in recreational boating
safety. Prior applicants should submit an updated application to ensure
consideration for the vacancies announced in this notice. Each member
serves for a term of up to three years. Members may serve consecutive
terms. In support of the policy of the U. S. Coast Guard on gender and
ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority
groups to apply.
    If you are selected as a non-representative member, or as a member
who represents the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a
special Government employee (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title
18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a SGE,
applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report (OGE Form 450). A completed OGE Form 450 is not releasable to
the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as
otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a).
Only the Designated Agency Ethics Official or his or her designate may
release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
J.A. Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
 [FR Doc. E9-11055 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P