[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11274-11275]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-90-000.
    Applicants: Cool Springs Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Cool Springs Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210217-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1163-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NEET submits Revisions to
PJM Tariff Att. H-33B re ADIT Calculation to be effective 10/29/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210217-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1164-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-02-17 Filing to
Expedite Effectiveness of and Modify Tariff Provision to be effective
2/17/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210217-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1165-000.
    Applicants: Purge Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tariffs and Agreements to be
effective 2/18/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1166-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5694; Queue No. AF1-022 to be effective 6/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1167-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1977R15 Nemaha-Marshall
Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1168-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 5956; Queue
No. AB2-172/AE1-087 to be effective 1/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1169-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-02-18_SA 3482 ATC-Paris
Solar Energy Center 1st Rev GIA (J878) to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES21-32-000.
    Applicants: Horizon West Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities for Horizon West Transmission,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210218-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03811 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 42432-42433]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-82-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company, Southern Natural Gas Company,
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC, and Enterprise Field Services, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Matagorda Offshore
Pipeline System Abandonment Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

July 14, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Matagorda Offshore Pipeline
System Abandonment Project (Project) which would include the
abandonment of facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company, Southern
Natural Gas Company, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, and Enterprise Field
Services, LLC, collectively referred to as the Applicants, in Refugio
County and offshore Texas. This EA will be used by the Commission in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on August 13, 2010. Further details on
how to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation
section of this notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Applicants propose to abandon in place certain facilities known
as the Matagorda Offshore Pipeline System (MOPS) located both onshore
in Refugio County, Texas, and in State and federal waters offshore
Texas. These facilities would include about 86.9 miles of various
diameter pipeline, a dehydration plant, and various interconnects
located in Texas. The 86.9 miles of pipeline to be abandoned include
about 60.3 miles of offshore pipeline and 26.6 miles of onshore
pipeline.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Since the Applicants propose abandoning these facilities in place,
there would be no new land use requirements. The project would be,
therefore, entirely within the existing offshore and onshore rights-of-
way. However, there would be some ground disturbance associated with
offshore disconnects within federal waters.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the proposed abandonment project under these general headings:
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Endangered and threatened species; and

     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, including abandonment by removal of
the pipeline and aboveground facilities, and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 4.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations, we are using this notice to solicit the views
of the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\3\ We will document our findings on the impacts on cultural
resources and summarize the status of consultations under section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act in our EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before August 13,
2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP10-82-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) whose property may be used temporarily for project
purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground
facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-82-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
text of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17732 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18431-18436]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08310]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-9977-05-OAR]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notification of Guidance and a
Stakeholder Meeting Concerning the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of guidance and stakeholder meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
this document to dispel confusion and provide regulatory certainty for
stakeholders affected by EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy
program final rule issued on July 20, 2015, and the decision of the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of
Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA. The 2015 Rule changed the listings for
certain hydrofluorocarbons in various end-uses in the aerosols,
refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. It also
changed the listings for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased
out of production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer and section 605 of the Clean Air Act. The court
vacated the 2015 Rule ``to the extent it requires manufacturers to
replace HFCs with a substitute substance'' and remanded the rule to EPA
for further proceedings. This document provides guidance to
stakeholders that, based on the court's partial vacatur, in the near-
term EPA will not apply the HFC listings in the 2015 Rule, pending a
rulemaking. This document also provides the Agency's plan to begin a
notice-and-comment rulemaking process to address the remand of the 2015
Rule. The Agency is also providing notice of a stakeholder meeting as
part of the rulemaking process.

DATES: EPA will hold a stakeholder meeting on May 4, 2018 to enable
stakeholders to provide input as the Agency prepares to engage in
rulemaking to address the court's remand of the 2015 Rule. The meeting
will be held at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET on Friday, May 4, 2018 at
EPA, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1153, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Information concerning
this meeting will be available on the EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/snap. Please RSVP for this meeting by contacting Chenise Farquharson at
[email protected] by April 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, (6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7768; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This document provides information related to the EPA's Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program final rule (2015 Rule) issued on
July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), and the decision of the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Mexichem Fluor,
Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The 2015 Rule changed the
listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in various end-uses in
the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing
sectors. The listings were changed from acceptable, or acceptable
subject to use conditions, to unacceptable, or acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits (i.e., acceptable only for limited uses for a
specified period of time). The 2015 Rule also changed the listings for
certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) being phased out of production
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) and section 605 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
court vacated the 2015 Rule ``to the extent it requires manufacturers
to replace HFCs with a substitute substance'' and remanded the rule to
EPA for further proceedings.
    Through this document, EPA is taking three actions in response to
the court's decision: (1) Providing guidance to stakeholders on how EPA
will implement the court's partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule in the near
term, pending a rulemaking; (2) providing information on the Agency's
plan to address the court's remand of the 2015 Rule through rulemaking;
and (3) providing notice of a stakeholder meeting to help inform the
Agency as it begins developing a

proposed rule in response to the court's remand. EPA is issuing
guidance to dispel confusion and provide regulatory certainty in the
near term for users in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam
blowing and aerosol end-uses affected by the HFC listing changes in the
2015 Rule; thus, this document may be of interest to the following:

     TABLE 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      NAICS code            Description of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................................          238220  Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning
                                                                Contractors.
Industry.....................................          324191  Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease
                                                                Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325199  All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325412  Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325510  Paint and Coating Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325612  Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods.
Industry.....................................          325620  Toilet Preparation Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325998  All Other Misscellaneous Chemical Product and
                                                                Preparation Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          326140  Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          326150  Urethane and Other Foam Product (except
                                                                Polystyrene) Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          333415  Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment
                                                                and Commerial and Industrial Refrigeration
                                                                Equipment Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          336211  Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          336611  Ship Building and Repairing.
Industry.....................................          336612  Boat Building.
Industry.....................................          339113  Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing.
Retail.......................................          423620  Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and
                                                                Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers.
Retail.......................................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant
                                                                Wholesalers.
Retail.......................................           44511  Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except
                                                                Convenience) Stores.
Retail.......................................          445110  Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except
                                                                Convenience) Stores.
Retail.......................................          445120  Convenience Stores.
Retail.......................................           44521  Meat Markets.
Retail.......................................           44522  Fish and Seafood Markets.
Retail.......................................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable Markets.
Retail.......................................          445291  Baked Goods Stores.
Retail.......................................          445292  Confectionary and Nut Stores.
Retail.......................................          445299  All Other Specialty Foods Stores.
Retail.......................................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liqour Stores.
Retail.......................................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug Stores.
Retail.......................................           44711  Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores.
Retail.......................................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters.
Retail.......................................          452990  All Other General Merchandise Stores.
Services.....................................           72111  Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels.
Services.....................................           72112  Casino Hotels.
Retail.......................................           72241  Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages).
Retail.......................................          722513  Limited-Service Restaurants.
Retail.......................................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets.
Retail.......................................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this
document.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related material?

    1. Docket. EPA has not established a new docket for this document.
Publicly available information on the related 2015 Rule can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically from the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at FDSys (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

II. How is EPA responding to the court's decision on the July 2015 SNAP
final rule?

    Through this document, EPA is taking three actions in response to
the court's decision: (1) Providing guidance to stakeholders on how EPA
will implement the court's partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule in the near
term, pending a rulemaking; (2) providing information on the Agency's
plan to address the court's remand of the 2015 Rule through rulemaking;
and (3) providing notice of a stakeholder meeting to help inform the
Agency as it begins developing a proposed rule in response to the
court's remand. As previously mentioned, EPA is issuing this guidance
to dispel confusion and provide regulatory certainty in the near term
for users in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing and
aerosol end-uses affected by the HFC listing changes in the 2015 Rule.
Specifically, until EPA completes a rulemaking addressing the remand,
EPA will not apply the HFC listings in the 2015 Rule. While this
guidance is intended to provide a clear statement of EPA's
understanding of the

court's vacatur in Mexichem, it is not intended to represent a
definitive or final statement by the Agency on the court's decision as
a whole. In fact, EPA anticipates that its actions in response to the
decision will be informed by input from stakeholders and the notice-
and-comment rulemaking process that will address the court's remand.

A. Background

    The SNAP program implements section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
Several major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II (HCFC)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses.
3. Petition Process
    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with section 612(c).
4. 90-Day Notification
    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
    In 1994, EPA published a rule setting forth the framework for
administering the SNAP program (``1994 Framework Rule'') (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994). Among other things, that rule established prohibitions
on use of substitutes inconsistent with the SNAP listings, including a
prohibition stating that ``[n]o person may use a substitute after the
effective date of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of
unacceptable substitutes.'' 40 CFR 82.174. The 1994 Framework Rule
defined ``use'' broadly as ``any use of a substitute for a Class 1 or
Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in
a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or
in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other
subsequent uses.'' 40 CFR 82.172. Thus, for example, use encompasses
not only the manufacture of equipment with a substitute, such as the
manufacture of a foam-blowing system; it also includes the use of that
foam system to blow the foam into another product, such as foam
cushions, or to blow the foam as insulation in a building. EPA issued
its initial listing decisions as part of the 1994 Framework Rule and
has continued to list substitutes. The lists of fully acceptable
substitutes are not included in the CFR but instead are available at
https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-substitutes-sector. All other listing
decisions (i.e., unacceptable or with restrictions on use) are
contained in tables provided in appendices to EPA's SNAP regulations
(40 CFR part 82 subpart G). There are separate tables for each of the
major industrial use sectors, including adhesives, coatings and inks;
aerosols; cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion protection;
foam blowing agents; refrigeration and air conditioning; and
sterilants, as well as separate tables for each type of listing:
acceptable with use conditions, acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits or unacceptable.
    The 1994 Framework Rule, as implemented by EPA, has applied to all
users (e.g., product manufacturers, intermediate users, end-users)
within a regulated end-use without making distinctions between product
manufacturers and other users or between those who were using ozone-
depleting substances (ODS) at the time a substitute was listed as
unacceptable and those who were not. The 2015 Rule, like all other
actions EPA has taken implementing the 1994 Framework Rule over the
last quarter-century, also made no such distinctions. It simply changed
the listings for various previously listed substitutes.

B. How is EPA implementing the court's partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule
in the near term, pending rulemaking?

    In Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, the court ``vacate[d] the 2015 Rule to
the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute
substance.'' 866 F.3d at 464. For the reasons explained below, EPA will
not apply the HFC use restrictions or unacceptability listings in the
2015 Rule for any purpose prior to completion of rulemaking. EPA's
implementation of the court's vacatur pending rulemaking is intended to
dispel confusion and provide regulatory certainty in the near term for
users in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing and
aerosol end-uses affected by the HFC listing changes in the 2015 Rule.
    Two chemical suppliers, Arkema and Mexichem (Petitioners),
challenged the portion of the 2015 Rule that removed the listings of
certain HFCs as acceptable, or acceptable subject to use conditions in
certain end-uses, and listed those HFCs as unacceptable, or acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits, in the same end-uses. The Petitioners
raised two central arguments. First, they claimed that EPA did not have
the authority to require that users of HFCs switch to another
alternative. Second, they challenged the various listing decisions as
``arbitrary and capricious.'' The court rejected the Petitioners'
arbitrary and capricious challenges but ruled that EPA did not have
authority to ``require manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute
substance.'' Id. at 464. The court determined that the word ``replace''
as used in CAA section 612(c) applies only to the immediate replacement
of an ODS, stating that ``manufacturers `replace' an ozone-depleting
substance when they transition to making the same product with a
substitute substance. After that transition has occurred, the
replacement has been effectuated, and the manufacturer no longer makes
a product that uses an ozone-depleting substance.'' Id. at 459.
Although the court's decision mainly discusses manufacturers, footnote
1 of the court's opinion indicates that ``[the court's] interpretation
of Section 612 applies to any regulated parties that must replace
ozone-depleting substances within the timelines specified by Title
VI.'' \1\ Id. at 457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 612(c) provides that ``the Administrator shall
promulgate rules under this section providing that it shall be
unlawful to replace any class I or class II substance with any
substitute substance'' where the Administrator determines that a
safer alternative is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The language of the vacatur refers to ``manufacturers'' and to the
replacement of HFCs. The opinion appears to use the term
``manufacturers'' in the sense of ``product manufacturers.'' See Id. at
460.\2\ However, nothing in the

regulatory language promulgated as part of the challenged 2015 Rule
draws a distinction between product manufacturers and other users of
substitutes.\3\ Nor does the 2015 Rule draw a distinction between
persons using HFCs and those using an ODS. The regulatory text included
in the 2015 Rule is comprised solely of tables listing EPA's decision
on certain substitutes for specific end-uses. Similarly, the 1994
Framework Rule distinguishes neither between product manufacturers and
other users nor between someone using an HFC and someone using an ODS.
For each specified end-use, the 2015 Rule, as issued, in conjunction
with the 1994 Framework Rule, would prohibit any user from using a
substitute listed as unacceptable--or from using, without adhering to
narrowed use limits, a substitute listed as acceptable subject to such
limits--after the relevant date. Thus, the SNAP regulations as
currently written do not provide the distinctions that would be
necessary to accommodate the letter of the court's vacatur. The
narrower language used by the court does not exist in either the 2015
Rule or the 1994 Framework Rule; nor do the distinctions discussed
above emerge when those two rules are read together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While ``product'' is not defined in the SNAP regulations,
other portions of EPA's stratospheric protection regulations
distinguish between ``products'' and ``substances.'' See, e.g, the
definition of ``controlled substance'' at 40 CFR 82.3; the
definitions of ``product containing'' and ``manufactured with a
controlled substance'' at 40 CFR 82.106,
    \3\ Under the 1994 Framework Rule, EPA defined manufacturer as
``any person engaged in the direct manufacture of a substitute.'' 40
CFR 82.172. SNAP listing decisions, such as those at issue in the
2015 Rule, do not apply to manufacturers of the substitute but
rather to the subsequent use of that substitute in a product or
process or other use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory tables, which are the only regulatory text
promulgated in the 2015 Rule, are comprised of individual listing
decisions. Each listing of a substitute is comprised of at least four
columns of information. The first column lists the regulated end-use,
such as ``Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems) (new)'' or
``Rigid Polyurethane [Foam]: Appliance.'' The second column lists the
substitute or substitutes to which the listing decision applies. The
third column identifies the ``decision'' (``Unacceptable'' or
``Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits'') and also identifies the
date on which the listing decision will apply. The final column
provides ``Further information.'' Each listing of a substitute as
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits contains an additional column
identifying the ``Narrowed use limits.'' This column identifies the
limited uses for which the substitute remains acceptable for use (e.g.,
``military or space- and aeronautics-related applications'' and the
time period for which use remains acceptable (e.g., ``Acceptable from
January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022''). Thus, for each listing
decision there is no language that could be understood as being removed
or struck out by the court so that some portion of the listing decision
would remain in effect pending EPA's action on remand.
    While EPA could, on remand, rewrite the individual listings to
create sub-listings for different types of users--e.g., separating out
manufacturers, or separating out those still using ODS--such additions
to the 2015 Rule would require notice-and-comment rulemaking. This
situation contrasts with those where a court decision affects specific
regulatory language, striking some of that language while leaving the
remainder untouched. Here, there is simply no regulatory language that
can be parsed in that manner. Nor is waiting to address the court's
vacatur until the agency can complete notice-and-comment rulemaking a
satisfactory solution. The court clearly intended to vacate the 2015
Rule to some ``extent.'' The mandate has issued; accordingly, the
court's decision is now in effect.
    In addition, EPA is aware that regulated entities are experiencing
substantial confusion and uncertainty regarding the meaning of the
vacatur in a variety of specific situations. Since the court mandate
issued, EPA has received a significant number of inquiries from
equipment manufacturers, refrigerant producers, and various other
users. Some have asked general questions regarding the effect of the
partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule, while others have asked more specific
questions about compliance both for those end-uses for which the
compliance dates have passed and for those for which there is a future
compliance date. For those end-uses with future compliance dates, these
users are seeking guidance to help them make plans for future
operations; if these users of HFCs would not be able to continue such
use, they may need to take steps well in advance of the compliance
date, such as researching and developing revised foam formulations;
retooling manufacturing facilities; testing updated equipment or
products to be certified to industry standards; and achieving
compliance with fire codes. Other stakeholders have expressed confusion
in understanding how the partial vacatur affects particular types of
equipment that might fall under multiple end-uses, such as a stand-
alone commercial refrigerator with foam insulation. Deferring answers
to stakeholder questions until the completion of rulemaking would
ignore the practical realities faced by the business community.
    In addition, attempting to draw the distinctions made by the court
would present practical difficulties for implementation in advance of
rulemaking. First, the SNAP regulations do not address what constitutes
product manufacture. EPA went through a full notice-and-comment
rulemaking to address that issue with respect to appliances for the
purpose of regulations implementing the HCFC phaseout under section 605
of the Clean Air Act. See, e.g., ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production,
Import, and Export,'' 74 FR 66439-66441 (Dec. 15, 2009). In that
rulemaking, EPA recognized that while some appliances are shipped fully
assembled and charged, others are assembled or charged in the field.
With respect to the latter, there was ambiguity as to the point of
manufacture and the identity of the manufacturer. EPA provided a
definition to resolve that ambiguity in the context of those
regulations. Without a clear definition of product manufacture in the
SNAP context, there may be considerable ambiguity about who is the
``manufacturer'' for certain products--for example, supermarket
refrigeration systems--and resulting confusion about the impacts of the
court's decision.
    Moreover, in footnote 1 of the decision, the court indicates that
the interpretation it adopts in the decision ``applies to any regulated
parties that must replace ozone-depleting substances.'' This appears to
extend the court's holding to apply to any user subject to the HFC
listing changes, and not simply manufacturers. 866 F.3d at 457
(emphasis added). Implementing the vacatur more narrowly in the near
term would not only raise practical implementation difficulties but
likely would be inconsistent with the court's language in footnote 1.
    Second, neither the 1994 Framework Rule nor the 2015 Rule addresses
the date by which a manufacturer must have switched to an HFC in order
to avoid being subject to the 2015 Rule listing decisions. Possible
dates could include the effective date of the 2015 Rule; the
applicability date of the specific listing change; or the date on which
the court's mandate issued. This lack of clarity could result in
confusion about whether or not the listings in the 2015 Rule apply to
individual manufacturers. Even if there were a clear date that would
govern, there are currently no requirements for manufacturers to
document the date of

a change to an HFC; this lack of documentation would hinder the
agency's ability to implement the rule as envisioned in the court's
opinion, because it would not know whether or on what date
manufacturers had made the switch.
    Third, because neither the 1994 Framework Rule nor the 2015 Rule
creates a distinction between users using ODS and those using
substitutes, neither rule addresses more complex situations in which
both types of substances may be in use. Specifically, many
manufacturers own multiple facilities, have multiple production lines
at a single facility, make multiple different products or product
models, or make products that can operate with either an ODS or a
substitute. For example, a manufacturer of supermarket refrigeration
equipment currently produces new equipment designed to operate with HFC
blends or other non-ODS refrigerants and may assist its customers with
retrofitting or replacing parts of existing supermarket systems using
HCFC-22 or HCFC blends. Future rulemaking could address the numerous
questions raised by these more complex situations--e.g., has a
manufacturer switched to an HFC if one of multiple facilities is using
an HFC or if one of multiple product lines is using an HFC?
Alternatively, can the same manufacturer be considered to not yet have
switched to HFCs if it still uses ODS in some of its facilities or
product lines? Because the rules as written do not resolve these
issues, there is no practical way to address these questions at this
time.
    EPA recognizes that the court vacated the 2015 Rule ``to the extent
that'' it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs. Based on its
expertise in administering the SNAP regulations, and its understanding
of the 2015 Rule, EPA concludes that the vacatur cannot be implemented
by treating specific language in the HFC listings as struck by the
court. Rather, the listing of HFC's as unacceptable, or acceptable
subject to use restrictions, is the means by which the 2015 Rule
``require[d] manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute
substance.'' Vacating the 2015 Rule ``to the extent'' that it imposed
that requirement means vacating the listings. To apply the court's
holding otherwise would be to drastically rewrite the 2015 Rule, and
EPA believes that it would not be appropriate to undertake such a
rewrite without undergoing notice and comment rulemaking. As explained
above, those entities that have historically been regulated under the
SNAP program are uncertain about what the court's decision means and
which actions remain subject to regulation and which do not; the agency
cannot remain silent on the implications of the court's vacatur until
such time as the agency can complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking
because of the considerable confusion and need for certainty that
currently exist. Each HFC listing, as a unit, ``requires manufacturers
to replace HFCs with a substitute substance.'' EPA therefore will
implement the vacatur as affecting each HFC listing change in its
entirety pending rulemaking to address the remand. Thus, EPA will not
apply the HFC use restrictions or unacceptability listings in the 2015
Rule for any purpose prior to completion of rulemaking. Although EPA
will implement the court's vacatur by treating it as striking the HFC
listing changes in the 2015 Rule in their entirety, EPA recognizes that
the court rejected the arbitrary and capricious challenges to the HFC
listing changes. On remand, EPA intends to consider the appropriate way
to address HFC listings under the SNAP program in light of the court's
opinion.
    The 2015 Rule also contains HCFC listings that were not challenged
by the Petitioners and that were not addressed by the court in
Mexichem. Because those provisions were not challenged and were not
addressed by the court, and because those listing decisions are
severable from the HFC listings, we are choosing in the near term to
continue upholding these provisions as remaining in effect. Each of the
HCFC listings is a distinct unit, just as each of the HFC listings is a
distinct unit. Indeed, the severability of the specific listings from
each other contrasts with the non-severability of the particular
effects of the rule on manufacturers singled out by the court in the
narrower phrasing of its holding--another reason why EPA believes that
footnote 1 of the opinion extends that holding to all users, in keeping
with the structure of the regulations.

C. What are EPA's plans for a rulemaking to address the court's remand?

    In Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, the court remanded the 2015 Rule to the
Agency for further proceedings. While in this document EPA provides
guidance on the effect of the vacatur on the 2015 Rule to address the
immediate uncertainty, the larger implications of the court's opinion
remanding the rule to the agency require further consideration. To
address the court's remand, EPA will move forward with a notice-and-
comment rulemaking and will seek input from interested stakeholders
prior to developing a proposed rule.
    The court's interpretation of CAA section 612 raises potentially
complex and difficult implementation questions for the SNAP program.
EPA may consider the following as it prepares to undertake notice-and-
comment rulemaking:
     On remand, whether EPA should revisit specific provisions
of the 1994 Framework Rule, such as those noted below, to establish
distinctions between users still using ODS and those who have already
replaced ODS:
    [cir] The regulatory prohibitions (40 CFR 82.174) on use and
introduction into interstate commerce
    [cir] the notification requirements in the applicability section
(40 CFR 82.176)
    [cir] specific definitions, for example, the definitions of
``substitute'' and ``use'' (40 CFR 82.172). The current definition of
``substitute'' is ``. . . any chemical, product substitute, or
alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended
for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.'' The current
definition of ``use'' is ``. . . any use of a substitute for a Class I
or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use
in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user,
or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other
subsequent uses.''
     Whether EPA should revisit its practice of listing
substitutes as acceptable subject to use conditions. Such listings
allow the substitutes to be used only if certain conditions are met to
ensure risks to human health and the environment are not significantly
greater than for other available substitutes. For example, EPA has
established use conditions for certain refrigerants to address
flammability concerns across the same refrigeration end-uses. If use
conditions would only apply to users switching from an ODS, EPA may
consider whether to continue to list substitutes as acceptable subject
to use conditions, given that some users would not be required to abide
by the use conditions.
     Whether EPA should distinguish between product
manufacturers and other users, and if so, how EPA should address
ambiguity about who is the manufacturer of certain products, such as
those that are field-assembled or field-charged.
     Whether EPA should revisit the regulations' applicability
to certain end users. Historically, the SNAP program has applied to all
users within an end-use, whether a product manufacturer, a servicing
technician, or an end user of

a substitute. For many end-uses, the end users have been able to rely
on product manufacturers' compliance with the SNAP listings. EPA may
consider how it should address the heavier burden that might fall on
end users, who in some cases may be less familiar with EPA's
regulations, in cases where product manufacturers may be making some
products that an end user still using an ODS may not be able to
purchase and use. EPA may also consider whether that heavier burden
means that EPA should not apply the regulations to those end users.
     Whether EPA should clarify when the replacement of an ODS
occurs: e.g., on a facility-by-facility basis, or on a product-by-
product basis. EPA may also consider whether to propose recordkeeping
and reporting requirements to document when a user has transitioned to
using a non-ODS.
    This list of considerations is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides an indication of the areas of initial thinking. The
court also mentioned other possible approaches to regulation that the
Agency could consider on remand. These include whether EPA may be able
to use ``retroactive disapproval'' to revise an earlier determination
where faced with new developments or in light of reconsideration of the
relevant facts. In addition, the court mentioned other authorities EPA
could consider to regulate substitutes for class I and class II ODS,
such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and a number of CAA
authorities, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) program, the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program, the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, and emission
standards for motor vehicles. EPA would be interested in any thoughts
stakeholders may have on the viability and desirability of these
approaches.
    EPA appreciates there is interest from a wide variety of
stakeholders in the development of a rule to address the court's
decision on remand. Therefore, as an initial step, and as provided in
more detail in the section below, EPA is providing notice of a
stakeholder meeting. The purpose of sharing the Agency's preliminary
considerations at this time is to provide a more specific roadmap to
facilitate and focus the further input of our individual stakeholders.
By laying out considerations raised by the court remand and its near-
term plans, EPA seeks to work with stakeholders to continue to gather
and exchange information that can assist the Agency as it begins to
develop a proposed rule to address the court's remand of the 2015 Rule.

D. What are EPA's plans for a stakeholder meeting?

    As indicated in the above DATES section, EPA will hold a
stakeholder meeting on Friday, May 4, 2018, in Washington, DC from 9:30
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to allow interested parties to provide input on what
the Agency should consider as it begins developing a proposed rule in
response to the court's remand of the 2015 Rule. Please follow the
instructions provided to RSVP for this meeting as specified above in
the DATES section of this document. Additional information concerning
this stakeholder meeting will be available on the EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/snap.

    Dated: April 13, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-08310 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1630-1632]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2017-0012]

National Fall Safety Stand-Down To Prevent Falls in Construction;
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information
collection requirements specified in the National Fall Safety Stand-
Down to Prevent Falls in Construction.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2017-0012,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier services) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2017-0012) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without

change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Charles McCormick,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Falls are a leading cause of death for employees. According to 2015
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, falls accounted for 350 of the
937 construction fatalities, and 648 of the 4,836 fatalities in all
recorded industries. The National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent
Falls in Construction raises fall hazard awareness across the country
in an effort to stop fall fatalities and injuries. The Stand-Down is
the biggest safety outreach event ever conducted by the Agency. OSHA
has collaborated with countless industry leaders and employers over the
last four years to reach over 7.5 million workers during Stand-Downs.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB approve the information collection
requirements contained in the National Fall Safety Stand-Down to
Prevent Falls in Construction (29 U.S.C. 669). OSHA is proposing a
burden hour estimate of seven hundred sixty-five (765) hours. The
Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice
and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: New.
    Title: National Fall Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in
Construction.
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0NEW.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 4,500.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually.
    Average Time Per Response: OSHA estimates an employer will take 10
minutes to complete the survey.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 765.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $37,118.

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

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax) at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (3) by
hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other materials must identify
the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No.
OSHA-2017-0012). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials
in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-00394 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P