Virtual Public Listening Sessions on EPA's draft Lead Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in U.S. Communities Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0762 R10 Public Listening Session  Date: February 8, 2022 Start Time: 6:00 PM PT (9 PM ET) Record of Public Comments (To view a recording of the listening session, please visit: https://youtu.be/9d-APChk1cI?t=299)

25:45 [Cindy Carp, Private Citizen] Get the lead out 25:49 ecosystem best management principles and practices for healthy, clean water, air soil food and ocean. 26:03 EPA should be doing a public information to get the lead out of echo system. 26:09 Lead equals death to life on Earth. 26:12 EPA continues to allow contamination by lead uncontrolled. 26:19 In my opinion, because it is a broken system of EPA and government. 26:25 Part of the three systems to protect under us constitution. 26:34 Not allowing lead to be used for something like paint. But at the same time allowing others to pollute with lead ongoing without any justifiable reasons, like commercial and recreational fishing and hunting, because they have more political influence 26:54 to allow pollution. 26:56 With lead and chemicals. 26:59 This is also true for Kimber, and how they handle using chemicals in order, and at least I know more about that 27:14 lead contamination by efficient and by recreational fishing and hunting on private and public lands. 27:24 Also commercial fishing 27:29 contaminates ocean and waterways with lead sinkers crab pots, 27:34 lead, and lead on vessels. 27:38 Also, contamination by lead sinkers and hunting ammunition. 27:48 There are many good solutions. 27:51 Oregon Marine Reserves use local rocks for sinkers for long line fishing for their research. 28:01 I have got one of my nicknames by indigenous people to visiting Oregon Natural Research Center. 28:07 I told them the story about commercial fishing on a 19 foot wooden boat, and how dad asked me to go get the sinkers down in in the hall now and where they sleep. 28:21 Dad belt built a great big nice box to carry them up then I went down there and grab that box and started hollered out the stairs and had to turn the box crooked and I already dad and said, Dad, help me with this it's a little heavy and he looked at me 28:38 and he says Don, his brother. 28:41 Look at what Cindy's doing. 28:43 And they looked at he looked at me and I got very big and said, "Dang Cindy I think you do need some help." 28:50 I had over 300 pounds of lead, lead picked-up, and when I told this to some friends of an indigenous people, they gave me the nickname Cannon Ball Cart. 29:06 That was one of my experience with commercial fishing. 29:10 And you quit a river, and Newport Oregon sorry that's the end of the three minutes, but thank you for sharing your. 29:20 Thank you to my dad, Oregon, to Newport Oregon. 30:50 [Michael Sharp, Janus Corp.] Okay so, um, I think that what we need to be doing is protecting kids from lead, not just lead based paint, one square foot of lead based paint can contaminate 92,000 square feet of floor space that the EPA is hazard level on floors right now. 31:09 1600 parts per million paint allowed from 78 to 2009, one square foot sanded down can contaminate 9200, square feet, at what is considered a hazard by the EPA right now. 31:23 90 parts per million lead, lead paint sanded down one square click can contaminate more than 1200, square feet of floor space at the current hazard level. 31:35 Only regulating pre 1978 homes and properties is a huge mistake in it sometimes the lead is in the soil, not just in a P, even though I've just explained that lead containing paint can be just as hazardous as lead based paint lady and soil can be from 31:52 a lead containing paint can be from lead based paint can be airplane fuel, it can be from car brake pads, it can be from a lead contaminated water us to, to moisten the soil, whether it's watering the grass or whatever. 32:07 So, restricting to pre 1978 properties is a mistake in my opinion, what we're trying to do is protect people from lead, especially children, not controlling construction work by basing whether or not it's abatement on intent of the job. 32:25 It eliminates most construction work from the definition of abatement it. 32:32 I think that's a huge mistake in it lots of construction workers take lead home on them. It's not abatement therefore they figure that they don't need as much training doesn't have to be cleaned as well. 32:44 abatement should not be based on intent, even when you're determining between a basement and Rp. 32:52 It sets up two levels of cleaning and two levels of clean what is considered clean for the exactly the same work and exactly the same properties, and yet why we're doing it, or whether we call it RP or basement determines how well we do it. 33:07 And yet the kids are the same people that are going to be there after the project. We should have one set level that everybody can follow it would eliminate a lot of confusion out there in the real world. 33:18 Increasing enforcement, especially the RRP rule would go a long way region nine has some great enforcement techniques going after people getting jobs that don't even get the jobs but are not RP certified firms that one spreads the, the knowledge out there 33:33 that RRP is being enforced. 33:38 Right in... 33:41 I don't know....the rest of the time, I don't have enough time to make another point there. I just think that more presence, more advertising of what you guys are doing these type of meetings are the way to go. 35:17 [Shawn Wood, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability  -  City of Portland] And I oversee the first in the nation deconstruction ordinance that our city approved. 35:23 The purpose my testimony is to encourage EPA to consider two things for the draft led strategy. Number one, consider adding demolition of pre 1978 buildings as a lead emitting source that generates harmful dust and impacts Aaron soil, and number to consider 35:40 And number two, consider what the City of Portland has done to address lead associated with house demolitions as a potential model for other jurisdictions, building demolitions often occur in neighborhoods with low incomes and higher concentrations of 35:54 people of color, across the country the predominant method of removal is mechanical demolition, which involves smashing a structure with a heavy piece of machinery like an excavator lead us from the mechanical demolition can travel several blocks before 36:08 settling and yards, parks, windowsills or within structures that encourage EPA to consider demolitions and the impacts to nearby families in the same light that renovations and impacts to occupants is considered with current EPA regulation standards and 36:25 education efforts. The term demolition is not mentioned in the current draft strategy document, over the past six years Portland has adopted two unique strategies to reduce lead impacts related to house demolitions 98% of which were constructed before 36:42 1978 first in 2016 we passed a deconstruction ordinance which requires the hand disassembly of a house built in 1940 or earlier, in order to salvage building materials for reuse deconstruction is performed by certified deconstruction contractors that 37:01 have their lead RRP certification deconstruction has the added benefits of generating very little dust compared to mechanical demolition and increase opportunity to identify and safely remove hazardous materials or deconstruction our deconstruction ordinance 37:17 currently covers about two thirds of house demolition permit annually. 37:22 Second, in 2018 Portland implemented Oregon Senate Bill 871, which allows local jurisdictions to adopt regulations for reducing hazardous dust. During mechanical demolition Portland's adopted site control measures include enhanced neighborhood and adjacent 37:40 property notification and removal of all exterior painted siding windows and doors on pre 78 structures, plastic sheeting around the house to capture paint dust or chips during hand removal sufficient watering prior to demo during demo and during debris 37:58 loading, no work is allowed on windy days and multiple inspections are conducted throughout the demo process to confirm compliance. And in conclusion, through our deconstruction ordinance and site control measures for mechanical death and demolition Portland 38:14 is likely the most comprehensive regulations in the country to mitigate lead and we are more than happy to share those outcomes and successes with EPA and other jurisdictions. 40:02 [Dorinne Tye, Private Citizen] I thank you've given me an opportunity to speak. 40:07 I don't see much ignoring my heart much bothered with aviation, in the, in the presentation or even the literature given the widespread distribution and growth of general aviation, and how it continues to garner funds from a new world innumerable agencies 40:21 and tax dollars, yet is granted full exclusion from du greenhouse gas emission reductions requirements and many aviation companies as students are not even trying to be citizens of this country. 40:34 communities in our way. Mostly under, under representative underrepresented communities subjectivity is primarily what I'm commenting on the, he has published many articles and facts about the devastating statistics for environmental exposures and marginalized 40:49 minority populations, and many communities but their houses populations new their airport. They're also funding on the books to set up diversity businesses at these locations, Len noise and vibration or all closely related to an uptick in violence cardiovascular 41:06 respiratory cancers negative psychological and physiological ADHD childhood narrow changes, etc. all can be found on your website CDC, and the FDA, if these populations don't already have a devastating deck stacked against them. 41:19 what must the impacts of being near such unabated daily flows of lead vibration noise, and to a more due to that deck, some larger communities have begun to comprehend the destructive and dangerous nature of general aviation flight schools, charter and 41:32 other forms of extra flights burdensome and damaging to humans wildlife in the environment. The urban communities have necessary numbers of people to be heard and initiate change. 41:43 While this change happens these businesses are relocating to more rural rural areas, easily overwhelming any who might be suffering are complaining. Once someone realizes they are more than in their more than annoyed but also detrimental detrimentally 41:57 physically and mentally affected and retaliated against with more aggressive Lola lights to teach a lesson about complaining isn't really a reasonable solution to take another loss and move so flight schools can save can save aviation. 42:10 Not to mention, profit. While devastating humans, animals environments. So, someone decides moving should be considered how difficult is this while suffering illness and being exposed to more lead noise and vibration. 42:21 Moving sounds logical, but doing so. 42:24 While your broken heart is beating out of your chest with the throttle light, how does one even stick to focusing on getting another place uprooting life, not to mention the struggle of packing and throwing all the hard work done to armed guards landscape 42:35 home, etc. 42:37 I normally have a plethora of chicken is there times, some of these flights I'm overwhelmed with feel and smell and taste all by a week or so I don't see chicken ease is destruction of soil lack of wildlife in humans, convenient byproduct progressive 42:49 acquisition finally given human advancement in technology. 42:54 I can't even believe we're having this conversation is considered a potential lead is considered a potential leading factor in the fall of Rome, so this is not new knowledge. 43:07 And that was about catering to an elite minority. 43:10 I've been. 43:19 hotels to buy stuff products I just can't figure out why an agency in my country, created to identify environmental arms and remove all obstacles, including overstepping politics to mitigate and stormed people wildlife and environments is still asking 43:34 asking for any input on that. I'm stunned here in this meeting, the introductions included words, emergency management and air radiation. It's high time that up live up to its name and purpose, and to partially put Peterson on a different subject to 43:46 being a key form of sharp power deployed by authoritarian states and do away with the strategic use of corruption, to secure geopolitical advantage. And we know that lowers IQ we often hear Earth has overpopulation problem, but a better take might be 44:00 improved health and nourishment of billions of people on my end up with 10 million more geniuses. And one or a few of them will come up with solutions. 44:07 I asked the EPA recognized endangerment findings that read help you and let it fuel, and you will not allow our indoor or, sorry, indoor facility with lead pipes and lead paint to serve students children, young adults and veterans. 44:20 These are large portion of generalizations students in the dropout rate is like 70% 100%, on the screen if you want them feels. 44:29 If you won't be in fields do not endorse or fund the general aviation industry enforce already existing standards regulations and laws. Thank you. 46:52 [Gerry Pollet  -  WA 46[th] District, WA School of Public Health] My name is Gerry Pollet, I am a State Representative from the Washington State, 47:00 46th District State House, and I'm a faculty member at the University of Washington School of Public Health, and thank you for having the listening sessions this evening. 47:14 I've spent several years working on issues involving removal of lead from our school water, including legislation that we adopted last year, setting a much lower. 47:31 And more protective standard for taking action than EPA recommends. And my first and foremost comment is in regard to the need for EPA at the national level to adopt strong protective drinking water standards that are enforceable for lead, instead of 47:55 having a testing based intervention with a percentage of units in every community based health water system that has to exceed a limit before there's a recommended action, people deserve to be able to have drinking water that is indeed safe. 48:21 And so, we need a drinking water standard. That should be at one part per billion as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, certainly no less than five parts per billion set, but it should not be recommended level of action for our schools, 48:41 etc that EPA is used at either 15 or 20 parts per billion. 48:45 Secondly, we need to look at the populations that are most greatly desperately impacted, in terms of our youth and schools, and look at the fact that we are not protecting youth in disparately impacted communities such as around the airport, and many 49:05 other communities where there was, there were orchards, and a great deal of lead arsenic in the soil and the children in those communities are suffering from lead in the playgrounds, and in the schools, as well as at home, and EPA Region 10 should look 49:24 at what we need to be doing to have much stronger enforcement and investigation of our school in those communities. Thank you. 50:11 [Miki Barnes  -  Oregon Aviation Watch] I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to comment. 50:17 And I did read over the draft that strategy today, and I, it's lot of all the attention you're giving to water to soil to housing to paint. 50:29 But I found one paragraph and that was over 30 pages, one paragraph addressing piston engine aircraft. Now we know from EPA data that these aircraft are responsible for 70% of airborne light pollution throughout this country. 50:47 And we now have three compelling studies, demonstrating that children who live in proximity to airports have elevated blood lead levels. The most recent one was done at Reid-Hillview airport in California by the Mountain Data Group and Sammy Zahran, and I'm going 51:06 to read you some quotes. 51:09 One is under the periods under periods of high piston engine aircraft traffic. Children proximate to retail view airport experience an increase in blood lead levels in excess of what the children of Flint experienced during the Flint water crisis. 51:29 Now, during the Flint water crisis, they were so alarmed that they declared an emergency. 51:34 But as Sammy Zahran said at a community meeting the Flint water crisis from start to finish, unfolded in less than a year and a half, by contrast at retail view, the release of lead into the live environment is a continuous nonstop daily unabated flow 51:54 of an undeniably harmful toxic and I remind you that we are talking about more than 1000 pounds of lead released annually on nearby populations. Now that's retail view Hillsborough airport where I live, is rated number eight. 52:15 In, among airports in terms of lead pollution. Reid-Hillview is 34th. There are nine airports I believe in Washington state that release note three that release more lead didn't retail view. 52:34 There are nine in California. 52:37 But to have 20,000 airports spewing lead over people in this community is appalling. It is absolutely appalling. And I listened to Shawn Woods remarks about Portland and the housing, it makes no sense to get lead out of housing. 52:56 If you're going to send pilots out to circle those homes hour after hour, day after day spewing lead on the very soils that are being cleaned up. This needs to be addressed. 53:09 People are being poisoned, day in and day out by FAA aviation policy. It needs to stop. Thank you. 53:40 [Laura Rosenberger  -  Private Citizen] Well one way to reduce pollution is to ban fracking right now because fracking wastewater in California contains an average of 520 parts per billion of lead, which is way above the 15 parts per billion maximum concentration level loud and water. 53:58 Environmental Working Group found this and 43% of those samples are greater than the maximum concentration level, lead. 54:07 And, and then this fracking waste where it shouldn't be allowed to blow around in the wind or pollute irrigation water shouldn't be in ponds on the fracking waste we're also contains corrosive chemicals that can grow pipes, releasing more lead. 54:24 And then this, then the oil when the oil also contains lead when it goes to the refinery, like, a few refiners like patrol. 54:33 Like, like the American refining group in northern Pennsylvania. 54:39 Released 156 pounds of lead off site disposal or other releases and other refineries, have one in Bakersfield and Rosedale highway released 45 pounds of lead chemicals. 54:58 And then another refinery. 55:02 Current oil refining least 19 pounds on site 122 pounds off site lead disposal. 55:11 And 55:14 then some of it leeches from the, from just the garbage dumps, and even leeches from the button will toxic waste facility in California. 55:30 Huge amounts of lead in this toxic waste dump and button well. 55:38 There's also been leakage and leaching. 55:42 Let's see that the Mt. in button will was 55:55 punching 35 pounds of lead on site four pounds and they've been released somewhere and 97 pounds off site disposal. 56:05 I don't know if it's yearly or, but since. 56:09 up to this year, 2020. 56:13 Also, there's a lot of lead coming out of trash incineration to. 57:02 [Rebecca Stevens, Coeur d'Alene Tribe] Hello everybody thank you so much Jean for unmuting me and I can't wait to meet you, Julie. Good to see you all. Good to see you, Carlton Waterhouse and Michelle Pirzadeh, all my colleagues in Region 10, this is Rebecca Stevens from the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 57:15 We will be providing some written comment on the lead strategy for this year and it's going to be specifically under goal one, and reducing community exposures to lead sources. 57:30 With the Objective C, reducing particular blood and soils and there's going to be more of a tribal component, bringing in some traditional ecological knowledge and looking at some of those cultural resources and, and how we can tie that in with your strategy 57:46 so hopefully you'll be open to that. 57:48 And not just the the health effects with the environmental effects which is another source to tribal members. So look forward to seeing those notes and it's just good to see you all taking the time and energy. 58:02 Honestly, our on the East Coast I see a lot of my colleagues that I work with on the debates in the quarterly basis and say you know Terry her would data swift and he do now, I mean, these times are really tough. 58:13 It's so I just want to acknowledge the folks that are on the call that Jeffrey Philip, you know, I mean, we're all working on this together, we have a long way to go, and I appreciate you all out of EPA for taking the time and the late hour for allowing 58:28 us to just say hi, and you'll get comments from us and thank you and take care everybody. 58:36 And you know I have to say I really appreciate everyone who is on the line, no matter what time zone you're in, you know, we have empathy for what time it is for you it's the dinner hour you may be trying to take care of kids are cooking that meal for 58:51 or just have a long work day so we really appreciate the time that all of you have taken to participate tonight so we know what kind of everything that it takes for anybody to get here so we do appreciate that. 59:56 [Cindy Karp, Private Citizen] Yes, this is Cindy Karp again, am I allowed to say anything more? 60:04 Yes, go ahead. 60:07 I would like to stay, that EPA has long as you are getting lead out of ecosystem. 60:17 Mostly lack of funding and such a giant agency is two reasons there are many more. 60:25 I think we need to talk about going back to mandate to protect the people and protect nature, because I think that's one of the things that has been lost. 60:41 The indigenous peoples have suffered. 60:47 I believe the most along with low income children 60:56 communities, many races, and the least amount of pollution 61:05 affects a small percentage of the population of the world. 61:12 I don't know how we're going to come up with solutions to be able to include more people, other government agencies are allowing chat as public record with monitors to eliminate and appropriate conversations. 61:29 Some of them with identification that you will be investigated by the FBI for inappropriate comments. 61:40 That makes it a lot less likely to have people in your chat causing trouble. 61:46 I really really want, and have worked for 27 plus years as a disabled American not able to work and earn money on a disability budget, doing everything I can to help our nation, find a better path. 62:08 I hope to continue doing that. But it's 66 years of age. 62:14 Two and a half of my wife has been to make a difference for best management principles and practices, using echo system methods. 62:29 Nobody told me for 20 plus years that I was speaking incorrectly. Her echo system. 62:39 A good friend of mine said ecosystem. 62:42 To me, ecosystem that goes all around the world, and USA EPA should be setting the standard at a high bar, not the lowest bar, and we need to fix a broken government system and how we do that is involved with people as much as we can. 63:03 And that our goals as mandated to protect the public in nature. Thank you. 63:36 [Diana, Private Citizen] Hi, my name is Diana I am from Los Angeles, and I am a community member and very concerned about lead contamination and people soil, and in just environment in air and other ways that were exposed to it. 63:49 I felt empowered to speak, because, as many people mentioned the US EPA is the government agency that is in charge of making sure that we are not unnecessarily exposed to pollutants that are harming our community members. 64:07 And while we all know that there are some major gaps in terms of policy and legislation, when it comes to corporations and industries in many communities, namely communities of color. 64:21 I think it's really important to urge and remember that there are many people on the ground and community organizations that are doing everything within their power to spread information about lead contamination, to make sure that community members that 64:36 are the most impacted by lead contamination have resources and information available to keep themselves and their children to save specifically pregnant mothers infants, and other vulnerable communities and I think it's really important that the US EPA 64:53 does more to fund community organizers who are spreading information and directly impacting folks lives. So the focus isn't necessarily on policy all the time or isn't prioritize there is a more tangible ability to directly fun community members who are 65:12 being impacted by these industries. And so I urge the EPA to pay more attention to organizations, spreading information and awareness and trying to give resources, because there's a major gap, and the responsibility should not be on the individual to 65:29 do everything in their power to prevent lead contamination, which is pretty impossible without really good regulations. 65:58 [Miki Barnes, Oregon Aviation Watch] Yes, this is Mickey Barnes and I, I want to tell you that I am with an organization Oregon aviation watch and Mr. Carlton 66:17 Waterhouse at the beginning suggest asked for specific suggestions. We could make to address the issue. So, I'm Oregon aviation was very involved in trying to address the negative effects of air traffic including the lead a specific suggestion would be 66:41 to support the endangerment finding for leaded aviation gasoline. This is Earth Justice is is representing that case. 66:52 But an endangerment finding is an important first step toward regulating aviation fuel and to stopping all this lead poisoning by aviation. So that's one recommendation. 67:08 Another is that, that leaded fuel be banned Santa Clara County has banned leaded fuel as of, at the Reid-Hillview airport as of January, 1. But, there is an unleaded alternative UL 94 through swift fuels. 67:27 And I think it's time to just ban the fuel and protect communities from this constant spewing by pilots. 67:39 A third step is the US is foisting the cost of training for in students on to the American people we pay for airport infrastructure we pay for control towers and staffing, and then people come from all over the world, and they will circle for an hour 68:00 to over people's homes and neighborhoods, all the while spewing lead noise and a host of other toxins. This is unacceptable. It really is unacceptable. 68:12 This is our home. This is our refuge. So something needs to be done to rain in the FAA only two and a half percent of the airports in this country are commercial airline passenger airports, 97, and a half percent are general aviation airports that are 68:33 is essentially recreational flyers and flight training schools, it's this small minority one quarter of 1% of the population that is spewing 500 tons of lead or more on to the populations homes and neighborhoods in this country every single year. 68:54 So those are just a few suggestions and you can go to Oregon aviation watch and you can sign on to our letter of support in favor of the endangerment finding and banning let it fuel. 69:07 That's Oregon aviation watch.org. We welcome your support. Thank you.

70:18 [Terry Harwood  -  Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Exec Director] Yeah, I just wanted to add to what Rebecca said she represents a Coeur d'Alene tribe and, which is one of the seven governments in the Coeur d'Alene basin and that makes up the basin and environmental improvement project commission and I'm the Executive Director 70:32 and I just wanted to be sure that our folks that we work with the EPA in the area of CERCLA and Superfund. 70:42 You know, get a chance to to guys work across your cross your areas and he can work with EPA for as long as you guys have existed. 71:00 with something that really would help not only in all the other issues of lead in pipes and lead in water but also, like Rebecca said extensive amount of lead in the soils on, on the Superfund site that we don't work on the base information coordinate 71:15 the activities of seven different governments to stage three counties the federal government and the Coeur d'Alene tribe and then about 20 agencies so you guys talk about small amounts so that we we've got, you know piles of lead that are in the hundreds and 71:29 millions of cubic yards of soil dominated with high amounts of lead, we're talking about massive lead contamination in the base and that's all I want to say so I just want to be sure that the folks at the beer working across lines and whatever we do, 71:45 we do, we coordinate our circle activities. 71:50 That's all. Thanks a lot. 72:10 [Dorinne Tye, Private Citizen] Thank you. I just want to throw out a couple other little things I'm one thank you guys for your hard work. 72:16 And I haven't really seen it though I've looked through your website endlessly. Is there a way that we can help you, help us. So maybe include that in whatever follow up emails you send out. 72:29 Yeah, because it's not just on the EPA it's also on us and how to most effectively help create an indoors policy that helps all of our communities and all of our disadvantage. 72:42 The other thing I kind of along the same lines is within looking at the flight tracks and how other communities are impacted. I did happen to notice that our local aviation community does go do their stuff and train their staff training, really aggressive 72:57 They're really aggressive flying over the tribes. There's a reservation nearby that and I noticed that's where they've set up for their flight path. So it's just kind of an acknowledgement. 73:07 Yet again the disadvantaged populations are getting really the brunt of some, some love, a lot of pollution and a lot of ways and I just think I want to honor you for acknowledging that and making that a goal, a goal. 73:28 Hey that's sorry I didn't have a pre written now, but I just want to acknowledge thank you for looking out for the disadvantage because yeah there's there's so many of us that just don't voice and and get topside with lead and sound half crazy then, So 73:44 it's very difficult to speak up so thank you very much. 73:47 And that's that's all I wanted to say thank you for that


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5627-5628]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63770; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Listing of Options
Series with $1 Strike Prices

January 25, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On November 24, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow the Exchange to modify the operation of
the $1 Strike Price Program. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 13, 2010.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63462 (December 8,
2010), 75 FR 77689 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has proposed to amend Rule 6.4 Commentary .04 to
modify the operation of the $1 Strike Price Program.
    Currently, the $1 Strike Price Program allows the listing of new
series with strikes at $1 intervals only if such series have strike
prices within $5 of the previous day's closing price in the primary
listing market.\4\ The proposal would allow the Exchange also to: (a)
List new series with $1 interval strike prices within $5 of the
official opening price in the primary listing market, and (b) add $1
interval strike prices between the closing price and the opening price,
regardless of whether such strikes are within $5 of the previous day's
closing price or the day's opening price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.4 Commentary .04(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of allowing the listing of $1 interval strike between
the closing and opening prices, the Exchange stated that, on occasion,
the price movement in an underlying security has been so great that
listing series with strikes within $5 of the previous day's closing
price and the day's opening price would leave a gap in the continuity
of strike prices. Thus, if an issue closes at $14 one day, and the next
day opens above $27, the $21 and $22 strikes would be more than $5 from
either benchmark. The Exchange proposed that any such discontinuity be
avoided by allowing the listing of options on all $1 interval strike
prices that fall between the previous day's closing price and the
opening price.
    The Exchange also has proposed to prohibit the listing of $2.50
interval strikes below $50 in all classes chosen for the $1 Strike
Price Program, and in all long-term option series. According to the
Exchange, this change is designed to eliminate discontinuities in
strike prices and a lack of parallel strikes in different expiration
months of the same issue. Currently, Exchange rules provide that the
Exchange may not list series within $1 strike price intervals within
$0.50 of an existing strike price in the same class, unless the class
in question has been selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike
Program.\5\ In addition, Exchange rules currently stipulate that the
Exchange may not list series with $1 strike price intervals for any
long-term options (i.e., options having greater than nine months to
expiration) under the $1 Strike Price Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id.
    \6\ See id. The standard strike interval for Long-Term Equity
Option Series (LEAPs) is $2.50 where the strike price is $25 or
less. See Rule 6.4(f). However, under a separate provision of the
rules, the Exchange may list $1 strike prices up to $5 in LEAPS in
up to 200 option classes on individual stocks, provided the $1
intervals are not within $0.50 of an existing series with a $2.50
strike price. See Rule 6.4 Commentary .04(c). This provision would
not change under the current proposal.

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

    However, as the Exchange noted in its proposal, due to the
prohibition on $1 strike price intervals within $0.50 of an existing
strike price, the existence of series with $2.50 interval strikes for
classes selected for the $1 Strike Price Program could lead to
discontinuities in strike prices and a lack of parallel strikes in
different expiration months of the same issue. For example, if a $12.50
strike series was open in a class selected for the $1 Strike Price
Program, the Exchange would not be able to list series with a $12 or
$13 strike, potentially resulting in sequence of strike prices at
irregular intervals (i.e., $10, $11, $12.50, $14, and $15).
    To replace these now-forbidden $2.50 interval strikes, the Exchange
proposes to allow the listing of one additional series within each
natural $5 interval, as follows. The Exchange proposed to permit the
listing of a series with a strike $2 above the $5-interval strike for
each such $5-interval strike above the price of the underlying security
at the time of listing. Conversely, the Exchange's proposal would
permit the listing of a series with a strike $2 below the $5-interval
strike for each such $5-interval strike below the price of the
underlying security at the time of listing. For example, if the
underlying security was trading at $19, the Exchange could list a $27
strike between the $25 and the $30 strikes, and a $32 strike between
the $30 and $35 strikes; as well as a $13 strike between the $10 and
$15 strikes, and an $8 strike between the $10 and $15 strikes. The
Exchange also notes that each such additional series may be listed only
if such listing is consistent with the Options Listing Procedures Plan
(``OLPP'') Provisions in Rule 6.4A.\7\ The foregoing provisions would
apply to all classes selected for the $1 Strike Price Program, both
with respect to standard and long-term options. In addition, since
series with $1-interval strikes are not permitted for most long-term
options, the proposal would allow the Exchange to list the long-term
strike that is $2 above the $5-interval just below the underlying price
at the time of listing. For example, if the underlying security is
trading at $21.25, this provision would allow the Exchange to add a $22
strike ($2 above the $20 strike) for the long-term option series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 6.4A codifies the limitation on strike price ranges
outlined in the OLPP, which, except in limited circumstances,
prohibits options series with an exercise price more than 100% above
or below the price of the underlying security if that price is $20
or less. If the price of the underlying security is greater than
$20, an exchange may not list new options series with an exercise
price more than 50% above or below the price of the underlying
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange stated that the proposed
rule change seeks to reduce investor confusion resulting from
discontinuous strike prices that has arisen in the operation of the $1
Strike Price Program, by providing a consistent application of strike
price intervals for issues in the $1 Strike Price Program.
    The Exchange further represented that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support the potential increase in new options series that
will result from the proposed changes to the $1 Strike Price Program.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange notes, the proposal is intended to reduce investor
confusion resulting from the operation of the $1 Strike Price Program
by reducing the occurrences of discontinuities in strike prices and
non-parallel strikes in different expiration months of the same issue.
The Commission believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance
between the Exchange's desire to accommodate market participants and
the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of options series and the
corresponding increase in quotes and market fragmentation. The
Commission expects the Exchange to monitor the trading and quotation
volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result
of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market
fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and
vendors' automated systems.
    In approving this proposal, the Commission notes that Exchange has
represented that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the
potential increase in new options series that will result from the
proposed changes to the $1 Strike Price Program.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2010-106) be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2115 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 96 (Thursday, May 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27332-27338]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket ID-OSHA-2020-0009]
RIN 1218-AD28

Walking-Working Surfaces

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing changes to the Walking-Working Surfaces
standards to clarify which handrail and stair rail system requirements
apply to new stair rail systems.

DATES: Submit comments (including comments on the information
collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document), hearing requests, and
other information by July 19, 2021. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the
following section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making
submissions.)

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: Mark Hagemann, Director, Office
of Safety Systems, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Electronic copies of this notice: Go to OSHA's website (http://www.osha.gov), and select ``Federal Register,'' ``Date of
Publication,'' and then ``2021.'' Additional information for submitting
documents. See section XI (``Public Participation'') of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis
V. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plan States
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
XI. Authority and Signature
XII. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Background

    On November 18, 2016, OSHA published a final rule on Walking-
Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection
Systems) in the Federal Register (81 FR 82494). Since that time, OSHA
has received many questions and requests for interpretation of the
requirements for handrails and stair rail systems. From the number of
questions and requests, OSHA believes there is confusion in the
stakeholder community regarding when handrails are required on stairs
as well as what the height requirements are for handrails on stairs and
for stair rail systems, depending on date of installation. With this
notice, OSHA is proposing language that it believes is clearer without
changing the intent of the 2016 final rule. OSHA encourages interested
parties to submit comments regarding the proposed language. Please note
that OSHA is not re-opening for discussion any of the regulatory
decisions made in the 2016 rulemaking. This rulemaking is focused
solely on clarifying the requirements finalized in that rulemaking and
providing flexibility in the transition from OSHA's previous
requirements to the new ones.

II. Legal Authority

    The purpose of the OSH Act is ``to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards (29
U.S.C. 655(b), 657, 658).
    An occupational safety and health standard ``requires conditions,
or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' (29
U.S.C. 652(8)).
    As part of determining that a standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 652(8), OSHA must determine
that the standard is technologically feasible and substantially reduces
a significant risk of harm to workers.
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, available technology can bring these
measures into existence, or there is a reasonable expectation for
developing the technology that can produce these measures. See, e.g.,
Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir.
1991) (per curiam). In the 2016 rulemaking, OSHA determined that the
requirements of the walking-working surfaces standard were
technologically feasible (81 FR 82800). The proposed revisions to that
standard would not require any new equipment, practices, or procedures
not already addressed in the previous technological feasibility
finding, so OSHA preliminarily determines that the proposed rule would
be technologically feasible.
    The final rule for OSHA's 2016 standard contained an extensive
analysis in which the agency concluded that employees face a
significant risk of death or serious injury from stairway falls (81 FR
82496). When, as here, OSHA has previously determined that the standard
substantially reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the
agency to make additional findings on risk for every provision of that
standard. See, e.g., Public Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796
F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA
must ``find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a
significant risk''). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk
finding in support of a standard, the next question is whether a
particular requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the
standard as a whole. (Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d
891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773
F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-
CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). As explained
elsewhere in this preamble, this proposed rule meets this test. OSHA is
proposing revisions to the standard that are intended to give effect to
OSHA's original intent in the 2016 rule with respect to handrails on
open staircases and to clarify it with respect to the height of top-
rail handrails.

III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    OSHA is proposing changes to two provisions of the walking-working
surfaces standard, Subpart D. The first, amending Sec.  1910.28(b),
clarifies that a stair rail system \1\ with a handrail \2\ is required
on the open side of certain stairways. The second, amending Sec.
1910.29(f), eases a restriction on previously-installed stair rail
systems by allowing the top rail of those systems to serve as a
handrail when it is as low as 30 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stair rail or stair rail system means a barrier erected
along the exposed or open side of stairways to prevent employees
from falling to a lower level (as defined in 29 CFR 1910.21).
    \2\ Handrail means a rail used to provide employees with a
handhold for support (as defined in 29 CFR 1910.21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1910.28 Duty To Have Fall Protection and Falling Object
Protection

    Existing Sec.  1910.28(b)(11)(ii) contains requirements for when
handrails and stair rail systems must be present on certain flights of
stairs. The provision refers to existing Table D-2, Stairway Handrail
Requirements, which specifies handrail requirements based on the
variables of stair width and how many sides of the stairway are open.
Existing Table D-2 contains a formatting error that inadvertently omits
several words from the table with two open sides and a width of less
than 44 inches. A cell in the table currently contains the words ``One
stair rail system each open side,'' but OSHA intended the cell to
state: ``One stair rail system with handrail on each open side
(emphasis added).'' OSHA is proposing to correct the cell to reflect
the language that OSHA proposed in 2010 (see table on 75 FR 29141) and
intended to finalize, as discussed in the summary and explanation
section of the 2016 final rule: ``Final paragraph (b)(11)(ii),
consistent with . . . proposed paragraph (b)(11)(ii), requires . . .''
(81 FR 82611). This language means that on new stair rail systems, both
sides would need handrails. OSHA invites comment on this proposed
correction.
    OSHA recognizes that some employers may have already relied on the
inadvertent error in existing Table D-2 when installing stair rail
systems covered by this correction (stair width less than 44 inches,
open on both sides). It is not OSHA's intent for any stair rail system
installed before the effective date of a new final rule to need
modification, so long as that system was in compliance with OSHA
requirements at the time it was installed. OSHA is therefore proposing
two separate provisions for stairs with two open sides

and a width of less than 44 inches: The corrected requirements for new
handrails and stair rail systems (located in Table D-2), and a separate
provision to retain the current requirements for already existing
handrails and stair rail systems. Proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(11)(ii)
would address new stair rail systems through the corrected Table D-2,
Stairway Handrail and Stair Rail System Requirements. OSHA would add
proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(11)(iii) to maintain the existing
requirements for flights of stairs less than 44 inches (1.1 m) wide,
with two open sides, and installed before the effective date of a final
rule that would result from this rulemaking. Those stairways would be
required to have a stair rail system on each open side, but would not
need to include a handrail.
    With the addition of proposed paragraph (b)(11)(iii), existing
paragraph (b)(11)(iii) would be redesignated as (b)(11)(iv) with no
change to the regulatory text.

Section 1910.29 Fall Protection Systems and Falling Object Protection--
Criteria and Practices

    OSHA is proposing to reorganize provisions in Sec.  1910.29(f) to
address confusion in the stakeholder community on the application of
existing Sec.  1910.29(f)(1)(iii)(A). OSHA has received many questions
and requests for letters of interpretation asking when the top rail of
a stair rail system may also serve as a handrail (i.e., ``combination''
top rails). In the 2016 rulemaking, OSHA had allowed the top rail of
stair rail systems to serve as a handrail when two conditions were met:
(1) The height of that stair rail system is not less than 36 inches and
not more than 38 inches, as measured at the leading edge of the stair
tread to the top surface of the top rail; and (2) the stair rail system
was installed before the effective date of the rule (January 17,
2017).\3\ However, installations at those height specifications were
technically precluded by OSHA's previous standard, which mandated the
top rail of a stair rail system to be between 30 and 34 inches. The
2016 final rule did not specifically address combination handrail
requirements for stair rail systems that have a top rail height not
less than 30 inches (the previous minimum height for a stair rail
system) and up to 36 inches. Moreover, OSHA has become aware that
employer confusion over that part of the 2016 rulemaking has led to
some employers relying on the top rail of stair rail systems as a
``combination'' handrail for various heights at 38 inches or below for
installations after January 2017, despite OSHA's new minimum 42-inch
requirement for top stair rails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OSHA effectively foreclosed the use of the top rail as a
handrail for stair rail systems installed after January 17, 2017.
OSHA stated in the 2016 final rule, ``. . . because the final rule
requires that all stair rail systems installed on or after the
effective date, which is January 17, 2017, to be at least 42 inches
in height, final paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A) is only applicable to
stair rail systems installed before the effective date'' (81 FR
82630).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the employer confusion following the 2016 rulemaking
regarding the height requirements for combination top rails, OSHA is
proposing to expand the height range in proposed paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)(A) to state that the top rail of stair rail systems
installed prior to the effective date of a new final rule can serve as
a hand rail if that top rail is 30 to 38 inches in height, and meets
the other handrail requirements of paragraph (f). OSHA is not proposing
to require employers to modify otherwise compliant stair rail systems
installed between January 17, 2017, and the date of any final rule
resulting from this proposal.
    OSHA is also proposing to revise the captions for Figures D-12 and
D-13 to clarify that they are depicting only height requirements for
handrails and combination handrail and stair rail systems installed
before the effective date of a new final rule. They do not depict any
other requirements for handrails and stair rail systems contained in
Sec.  1910.29(f). OSHA is also proposing to add Figure D-13A to further
clarify height requirements for handrails and stair rail systems
installed on or after the effective date of a new final rule.
    OSHA requests comment on these proposed changes.

IV. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net
benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that
OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
    In the 2016 rulemaking, OSHA provided these analyses (81 FR 82670).
Those analyses would not be impacted by this proposed rule. OSHA does
not anticipate any significant effects on the costs or benefits
identified in the 2016 rulemaking from the proposed revisions to Sec.
1910.28 and Sec.  1910.29 addressing handrails and stair rail systems.
This proposal reorganizes the rule in a clearer, more logical manner
and further explains OSHA's intent. Although OSHA proposes to amend
Sec.  1910.28 to correct an inadvertent error in the 2016 rule--
handrails should have been required on the open side of a stairway--
OSHA anticipates that this correction will result in no costs or cost
savings. Because the agency had estimated full current compliance
(i.e., full current industry practice) with that proposed requirement,
costs for that requirement in both the 2016 economic analysis and the
economic analysis of the proposal for that rulemaking were zero.
Moreover, and as discussed above, OSHA anticipates this proposed rule
will not have a significant impact on the benefits of the 2016 standard
because it will generally maintain the same level of safety and health
protections for workers. The agency requests public comment on this
preliminary assessment.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, with respect to Sec.
1910.28(b)(11) Stairways, it is not OSHA's intent for any stair rail
system installed before January 17, 2017, to need modification, so long
as that system was in compliance with OSHA requirements at the time it
was installed. With respect to Sec.  1910.29(f)(1) Handrails and stair
rail systems; Height criteria, OSHA did not intend for any of the
``grandfathered'' stair rail systems that had a top rail height between
30 and 38 inches to need to be modified if the stair rail system was
installed before January 17, 2017, and it complied with the previous
rule. OSHA is therefore proposing to clarify that the top rail of stair
rail systems installed prior to January 17, 2017, can serve as a
handrail if that top rail is 30 to 38 inches in height and meets the
other handrail requirements of paragraph (f). In the economic analysis
of the 2016 rule, OSHA did not identify costs for employers to modify
existing handrails or stair rail systems in any of those scenarios, so
OSHA is not identifying any potential cost savings that might be
attributed to the avoidance of those modifications.
    OSHA recognizes the possibility that employers who installed a
separate handrail on an existing stair rail system incurred compliance
costs associated with the regulatory text for Sec.  1910.29(f)(1)
Handrails and stair rail systems, as published in the 2016 final rule.
OSHA lacks the data to quantify any potential cost savings for
employers who would not need to add additional handrails to stair rail
systems in accordance with the 2016 rulemaking that effectively
precluded combination

stair rails for new installations after January 17, 2017. Therefore,
OSHA characterizes any potential cost savings from this proposed
rulemaking in qualitative terms and not quantitatively, and the agency
requests public comment on this question of potential cost savings from
the proposed clarification of the regulatory language for Sec.
1910.29(f)(1) Handrails and stair rail systems.
    Because this action will impose no new or additional compliance
burden on the affected employers and therefore no new or additional
costs, OSHA has determined that the proposed revisions to the standard
are economically feasible. OSHA requests public comment on this
preliminary assessment.
    This proposed rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, or a ``major rule'' under
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the
benefits nor the costs of this proposed rule would exceed $100 million
in any given year. Furthermore, because the proposed rule would not
impose any costs, OSHA certifies that it would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

V. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``the Act''; 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) requires OSHA to publish ``a
statement of the reasons why the rule as adopted will better effectuate
the purposes of the Act than the national consensus standard.'' OSHA
included that explanation when it adopted new rules in the 2016
rulemaking (81 FR 82807). This proposed rule would modify two of the
provisions adopted in 2016, but does not adopt separate new rules.

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposal to update and revise the requirements for handrails
and stair rail systems in the Walking-Working Surfaces Standards
contains no information collection requirements subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and the implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The PRA defines
``collection of information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or
the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of
form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a federal
agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB
approves it, and the agency displays a valid OMB control number (44
U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512). The information
collections related to walking-working surfaces standards for general
industry--29 CFR 1910.23(b)(10), 29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1)(i) and (ii), and
29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)--have been approved under OMB control number 1218-
0199. The existing currently approved information collections would not
be affected by this proposal and therefore would go forward unchanged.
The Department welcomes any comments on this preliminary determination.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this NPRM in accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any
actions that would restrict state policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of
state law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such
preemption must be limited to the extent possible.
    Under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``OSH Act''; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that
states may adopt, with federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; states that
obtain federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State-Plan
States'' (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.
    OSHA previously concluded that promulgation of subpart D complies
with Executive Order 13132 (81 FR 82975). That analysis applies to this
proposed rule, which would clarify several provisions and expand the
number of existing stair rail systems exempted from modification
requirements; therefore, this proposed rule complies with Executive
Order 13132.

VIII. State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, states and U.S. territories with
their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (``State
Plans'') must either amend their standards to be identical or ``at
least as effective as'' the new standard or amendment, or show that an
existing state standard covering this area is ``at least as effective''
as the new federal standard or amendment (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2); 29 CFR
1953.5(a)). State Plans' adoption must be completed within six months
of the promulgation date of the final federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although OSHA may encourage them
to do so.
    Of the 28 states and territories with OSHA-approved State Plans, 22
cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The
remaining six states and territories cover only state and local
government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New
York, and the Virgin Islands.
    The proposed amendments to Sec.  1910.28(b), clarifying that a
handrail is required on the open side of certain stairways, are
important corrections that are necessary for worker protection. OSHA
has preliminarily determined that within six months of the rule's final
promulgation date, each State Plan would be required to review its
standards and revise their standards to include this handrail
requirement unless the State Plan can demonstrate that such revisions
are not necessary because the existing standards, and the enforcement
of the standards, are already at least as effective.
    The proposed amendments to Sec.  1910.29(f) expand the existing
grandfather provision for previously-installed stair systems, are
permissive, and are clarifying in nature without imposing any new
requirement. OSHA does not view the proposed amendments as more
stringent than the existing standard, so OSHA has preliminarily
determined that State

Plans would not be required to adopt the expanded grandfather
provision. State Plans States may, however, choose to conform their
standards to allow employers this increased flexibility.
    OSHA invites comments on these preliminary determinations.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255). As discussed above in section IV of this
preamble (``Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis''), the agency does not expect the
private-sector employers to incur any new costs not previously
accounted for in the economic analysis of the 2016 rule. While this
proposed rule establishes a federal mandate in the private sector, it
is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of section
202 of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).
    Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some states enforce compliance
with their state standards on public sector entities, and these
agreements specify that these state standards must be equivalent to
OSHA standards. Thus, although OSHA had included compliance costs for
the affected public sector entities in the analysis of the expected
impacts associated with the 2016 rulemaking, neither that rulemaking
nor this proposal would involve any unfunded mandates being imposed on
any state or local government entity. Consequently, this proposed rule
does not meet the definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
(See section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the
purposes of the UMRA, the agency preliminarily certifies that this
proposed rule does not mandate that state, local, and tribal
governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations.

X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and has determined
that it does not have ``tribal implications'' as defined in that order.
The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1910

    Falls, Handrails, Occupational safety and health, Stair rail
systems, Walking-working surfaces.

XI. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of James S.
Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health. This action is taken pursuant to sections 29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012),
and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 13, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XII. Proposed Regulatory Text

    Pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159),
and 29 CFR part 1911, OSHA proposes to amend subpart D of 29 CFR part
1910 as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces

0
1. The authority citation for part 1910, subpart D, is revised to read
as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 08-2020 (85 FR 58393), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.28 by revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1910.28   Duty to have fall protection and falling object
protection.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) Each flight of stairs, having at least 3 treads and at least 4
risers, installed on or after (date 60 days after the publication date
of the final rule) is equipped with stair rail systems and handrails as
follows:

                         Table D-2--Stairway Handrail and Stair Rail System Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                With earth built
           Stair width                 Enclosed          One open side      Two open sides     up on both sides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 44 inches (1.1 m).....  At least one        One stair rail      One stair rail      ..................
                                   handrail.           system with         system with
                                                       handrail on open    handrail on each
                                                       side.               open side.
44 inches (1.1 m) to 88 inches    One handrail on     One stair rail      One stair rail      ..................
 (2.2 m).                          each enclosed       system with         system with
                                   side.               handrail on open    handrail on each
                                                       side and one        open side.
                                                       handrail on
                                                       enclosed side.
Greater than 88 inches (2.2 m)..  One handrail on     One stair rail      One stair rail      ..................
                                   each enclosed       system with         system with
                                   side and one        handrail on open    handrail on each
                                   intermediate        side, one           open side and one
                                   handrail located    handrail on         intermediate
                                   in the middle of    enclosed side,      handrail located
                                   the stair.          and one             in the middle of
                                                       intermediate        the stair.
                                                       handrail located
                                                       in the middle of
                                                       the stair.
Exterior stairs less than 44      ..................  ..................  ..................  One handrail on at
 inches (1.1 m).                                                                               least one side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to table: The width of the stair must be clear of all obstructions except handrails.

    (iii) Each flight of stairs, having at least 3 treads and at least
4 risers, that is less than 44 inches (1.1 m) wide, that has two open
sides, and was installed before (date 60 days after the publication
date of the final rule) must have a stair rail system on each open
side, but a handrail is not required.
    (iv) Each ship stairs and alternating tread type stairs is equipped
with handrails on both sides.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  1910.29 by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.29   Fall protection systems and falling object protection--
criteria and practices.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) For stair rail systems installed before (date 60 days after the
publication date of the final rule):

    (1) The height is not less than 30 inches (76 cm), as measured from
the leading edge of the stair tread to the top surface of the top rail;
and
    (2) The top rail may serve as a handrail only when the height of
the stair rail system is not less than 30 inches (76 cm) and not more
than 38 inches (97 cm), as measured from the leading edge of the stair
tread to the top surface of the top rail (see Figure D-13 of this
section).
    (B) For stair rail systems installed on or after (date 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule), the height is not less
than 42 inches (107 cm), as measured from the leading edge of the stair
tread to the top surface of the top rail (see Figure D-13A of this
section). Stair rail systems installed on or after (date 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule), must have a separate handrail
that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.29(f)(1)(i).
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY21.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY21.003

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-10561 Filed 5-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 44424]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14661]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-564, OMB Control No. 3235-0628]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17g-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-2 (17 CFR 240.17g-2)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17g-2, ``Records to be made and retained by nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations,'' implements the
Commission's recordkeeping rulemaking authority under Section 17(a) of
the Exchange Act.\1\ The rule requires a Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organization (``NRSRO'') to make and retain certain
records relating to its business and to retain certain other business
records, if such records are made. The rule also prescribes the time
periods and manner in which all these records must be retained. There
are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs
under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already established
the record keeping policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-2.
Based on staff experience, NRSROs are estimated to spend a total
industry-wide burden of 2,390 annual hours to make and retain the
appropriate records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C 78q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication. August 11, 2023
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Dave Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 6, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14661 Filed 7-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)] [Notices] [Page 57728] [FR Doc No: C1-2019-21122]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0014; FRL-9999-39]

Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and  Amendments To Terminate Uses

Correction

    In notice document 2019-21122 beginning on page 51561 in the issue  of Monday, September 30, 2019, make the following correction:     On page 51564, in the second column, in the fourth paragraph, in  the fourth line ``September 30, 2019'' should read ``September 30,  2020''.

[FR Doc. C1-2019-21122 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]  BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 709-710]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-700-004.
    Applicants: CPV Towantic, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Towantic, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190115-5316.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1531-003.
    Applicants: CPV Fairview, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Fairview, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190117-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1622-003.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of J. Aron &
Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190117-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-554-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report Carville Energy to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190116-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1473-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report Pioneer Trail Wind Farm to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190116-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-34-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-01-18 Deficiency Response re
Pseudo-Tie Congestion Overlap Phase 2 Filing to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-205-001.
    Applicants: Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-827-000.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession to be
effective 1/18/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190117-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-828-000.
    Applicants: Solomon Forks Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 3/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190117-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-830-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Agreements of Florida Power &
Light Company.
    Filed Date: 1/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190116-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-831-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits one ECSA,
Service Agreement No. 5202 to be effective 3/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-832-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: DEF Notice of Cancellation of
Seven Jurisdictional Agreements to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-833-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-NCMPA No. 1 NITSA (SA
No. 212) Amendment to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-834-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc., Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Affiliate Pricing Rules of MDU
Resources Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/17/19.

    Accession Number: 20190117-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-835-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-French Broad EMC (RS No.
210) Amendment (State ADIT) to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-836-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 315,
EDF PTP to be effective 3/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-837-000.
    Applicants: C.P. Crane LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
1/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC19-2-000.
    Applicants: Ronaver Energy Limited.
    Description: Foreign Utility Company Status of Ronaver Energy
Limited.
    Filed Date: 1/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190118-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/19.

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

     Dated: January 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00521 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P